Printer Friendly

St. Vincent of Lerins and the development of Christian doctrine.

The term "development of doctrine" inevitably calls to mind the classic work of Blessed John Henry Newman that has exercised so much influence on Christian thought over the past century and a half. (1) But the eminent nineteenth-century historian was not the inventor of this idea. As Newman himself freely acknowledged, the notion of development has its roots deep in the theological work of St. Vincent of Lerins, a fifth-century resident of a monastery on the Mediterranean coast of Gaul. (2) In our own day, the island of Lerins (now called Saint-Honorat after the first abbot in 410) still boasts the presence of a monastery. But, in its earliest years, Lerins was a citadel of profound theological reflection, giving rise to numerous monk-theologians, among whom was the insightful Vincent. (3)

It is my contention that St. Vincent, with his vigorous endorsement of authentic doctrinal development, is an author worthy of retrieval by the contemporary Church. His work can still aid theological and ecumenical advances, even while it shows that the very notion of development is neither a modern idea nor a defensive reaction to the corrosive acids of historical scholarship. On the contrary, the notion of faithful development lies deep within the Church's genetic code.

We know little of St. Vincent outside of the fact that he was a monk of Lerins and was, as Gennadius tells us around a.d. 490, "learned in Holy Scripture and in church doctrine." His magnum opus, the Commonitorium or Reminder, remains an important monument to his theological acumen despite its unusual career. Although written in 434 (for Vincent tells us he is writing three years after the council of Ephesus, convoked in 431), for a full millennium the great book was enveloped by silence, so that from the sixth to the fifteenth century we do not hear a single word about it. The most likely explanation for this neglect is that the manuscript was buried in archives inaccessible to later thinkers. When the volume was finally rediscovered in the sixteenth century, Vincent's book was hailed by both Catholic and Protestant theologians as a contribution of singular importance. The seventeenth-century Catholic theologian St. Robert Bellarmine described it as a golden book, libellus plane aureus, an evaluation confirmed by the fact that over twenty editions of the Commonitorium appeared in the sixteenth century and another thirteen (along with twenty-one translations from the Latin) in the nineteenth. (4)

In recent decades, however, Vincent's reputation has fallen from its prior lofty position, and once again theologians have fallen silent about his work. This neglect has occurred for two principal reasons. First, the monk of Lerins has come to be perceived as a determined opponent of St. Augustine, particularly of the latter's accent on the sovereign priority of grace. Vincent, it is claimed, is a staunch defender of semipelagianism, the idea that man's own disciplined efforts (rather than divine grace) constitute the beginning of salvation. While one needs God's grace to live a virtuous life, a person's first turn to God--the initium fidei--comes about through one's own agency. Even if this allegation is true (and a host of studies debate the issue), the charge does not substantively touch the Commonitorium's orthodoxy, since the precise relationship between grace and free will was a contentious topic in the early Church and received no authoritative clarification until the second council of Orange in 529, long after St. Vincent's death. Further, the grace-free will issue is tangential to Vincent's volume, which is centrally concerned with questions relating to the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.

A second and more substantive reason for Vincent's current eclipse is the alleged unwieldiness of his famous "canon" or rule, the bright line that the monk of Lerins offers for separating salutary orthodoxy from noxious heresy. Vincent asks: How do Christians who are constantly beset with errors and heresies (and Vincent lists a full roster of them) know the truth? His answer is simple: by adhering to that faith "which has been believed always, everywhere, and by everyone" (semper, ubique et ab omnibus). Newman states that by composing this short canon Vincent threw down the gauntlet to subsequent generations of Christians, having offered "a principle infallibly separating, on the whole field of history, authoritative doctrine from opinion." (5)

But just there's the rub. Isn't Vincent's canon the height of historical naivete? After all, which teaching of Christianity has been held always and everywhere and by everyone? Precious few and perhaps none. As Newman himself observed, neither the canon of the New Testament, nor even the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, can stand up to a literal application of Vincent's rule. Contemporary theologians have subsequently confirmed Newman's judgment, dismissing the well-known Vincentian canon as a seductively simple but entirely unsophisticated maxim bespeaking an unpolished author with little awareness of the complexities of history.

But this common critique of the monk of Lerins is deeply mistaken. It is true that St. Vincent is an ardent defender of antiquity. Indeed, his favorite biblical citation is "Guard the deposit, Timothy!" (i Tim 6:20), a phrase he insistently trumpets throughout the Commonitorium. Following close behind are passages from Proverbs, "Do not transgress the landmarks established by your fathers" (Prov 22:28), and St. Paul's ringing counsel to the Galatians, "Even if an angel from heaven should preach another Gospel, let him be anathema!" (Gal 1:8). ForVincent, the faith delivered once and for all to the saints must always be preserved and protected. However, the theologian of Lerins is hardly a cranky and idiosyncratic antiquarian, concerned only with the remote past or with a utopian golden age. While entirely devoted to the apostolic tradition, Vincent has little use for curatorial invocations of the past, particularly if these are unrelated to the Church's ongoing tradition. His canon--that the Church holds only that which has been believed always, everywhere and by everyone--is intended as a living criterion that may be fruitfully invoked in his day or in any day for ensuring the triumph of Christian orthodoxy. In other words, Vincent offers us a principle that is intended to be as effective today as it was in the fifth century. It is important, then, to examine the context of his famous rule, that we may discover its precise meaning.

Development of Doctrine

That Vincent is not a mere archaist is evidenced by an extraordinary passage wherein he combines his profound interest in the preservation of apostolic truth with an equally firm insistence that development must occur over time. In this paragraph, the Lerinian responds to those who think that adhering to the Christian faith means nothing more than maintaining the status quo and repeating the traditional formulas.
   But someone will perhaps say: is there no progress of religion in
   the church of Christ? Certainly there is progress, even exceedingly
   great progress (plane et maximus)! ... Yet, it must be an advance
   (profectus) in the proper sense of the word and not an alteration
   (permutatio) of the faith. For progress means that each thing is
   enlarged within itself, while alteration implies that one thing is
   transformed into something else entirely. It is necessary,
   therefore, that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom should grow
   and advance vigorously in individuals as well as in the community,
   in a single person as well as in the whole Church and this
   gradually in the course of ages and centuries. But the progress
   made must be according to its own type, that is, in accord with the
   same doctrine, the same meaning, and the same judgment" (in eodem
   sensu eademque sententia). (6)


Vincent's words are unmistakable. Of course there is progress in Christ's Church! Understanding, knowledge, and wisdom grow over the course of generations and centuries. Throughout the Commonitorium Vincent freely uses words indicating development and maturation: crescere (to grow), proficere (to advance), evolvere (to unroll),florere (to flourish), maturescere (to ripen), and enucleare (to unfold). At the same time, he states that any progress or growth must always be homogenous and organic in kind.This is the point of insisting on the preservation of the same meaning (idem sensus) throughout all subsequent development. Vincent, then, while affirming that Christians must always "guard the deposit," is not at all shy or embarrassed by the doctrinal maturation and refinement that necessarily occurs over time. He is an ardent defender of the homoousios of Nicea (Jesus is "of the same substance" as the Father), and he rejoices over the council of Ephesus's use of the term Theotokos (Mary as the Mother of God). The theologian of Lerins tacitly acknowledges that these terms are absent from Scripture and the earliest tradition, but he is convinced that the new locutions fully preserve the meaning of biblical faith.

A plethora of heresies roiling the ancient Church forced Vincent to think deeply about continuity and change over time. Why, he asks, are some changes illegitimate--properly called heresies--while other changes, introduced by ecumenical councils, are considered fully orthodox? In other words, given that some development inevitably occurs over time, which kind of change is acceptable to the Church? To answer these questions Vincent distinguishes between change that is authentic, leading to proper growth, and change that is corrosive, pointing toward an adulteration of Christian truth.

In any legitimate development, St. Vincent tells us, something is enlarged according to its own nature, always maintaining its proper substance. In other words, an authentic development preserves the stability and material continuity of the ancient faith with its essential nature remaining intact. In a corruption, however, one thing is transformed into something else entirely, resulting in an alteration of its essence, such as a rosebed becoming mere thorns and thistles (23.12). The progress of religion, Vincent reasons, finds an entirely proper parallel in the growth of bodies, which develop over the years yet remain substantially the same. The rule of trustworthy development is this: Whatever is found in the fully grown adult already existed embryonically in the child (iam in seminis), so that nothing truly new appears in old age (23.6). Christian doctrine, Vincent concludes, follows this same law: "It is consolidated by years, enlarged over time, rendered more sublime by age, but it remains without corruption or adulteration so that it is always complete and perfect in all its dimensions and parts" (23.9). There may be changes in shape, form, and clarity, but "there must remain the same nature according to its fundamental character" (23.ii).

Just as a child possesses all that is needed for the mature adult and a seed all that is needed for the flourishing plant, so the revelation once bestowed in ancient Israel and in Jesus Christ embraces all that is necessary for later growth, released and unfolded in the Church over the course of centuries. For this reason, Vincent tells us that the Church's faith is "enlarged by time" (dilatetur tempore), and the matter "grows within itself" (res amplificetur). Progress, then, certainly occurs, although this maturation, ripening, and development must always be harmonious and organic in kind. Vincent, who was acutely aware of imperial attempts to overthrow the Nicene Creed in the mid-fourth century, insisted that proper growth can never mean the reversal or distortion of fundamental teachings because the same substantial truth must be maintained from age to age. The stability and continuity of the faith that Vincent so relentlessly defends is what Newman (who translated most of the Commonitorium into English as a young man) will later call "identity of type." (7)

This is why Vincent insists, in a memorable phrase, "The same things that you were taught, teach, so that when you speak newly, you do not say new things" (22.7). Councils speak newly for they may, indeed, vary the formulation of the faith, but they can never change its fundamental content or established doctrine. This is why Vincent counsels Christians, "You once received gold, now transmit gold to others" (22.5). The modifications introduced by heretics are illegitimate because they do not harmoniously cultivate and supplement earlier insights; rather, they disturb the Church's prior doctrinal acquisitions. This is why Vincent ceaselessly encourages his readers to "guard the deposit" and "preserve the landmarks" that the Church has authorized, particularly by her conciliar decisions.

Having established the distinction between change that is salutary maturation and change that is pernicious adulteration, Vincent then faces the truly crucial theological issue. How may one accurately distinguish between a legitimate profectus and a disastrous permutatio? For, as everyone knows, one person's proper development of the Christian faith is another person's corruption of it. This was a decisive issue in Vincent's time and remains so today. How does the Church ascertain the difference between change that is authentic progress and change that is nothing more than dangerous corrosion?

Theologians and historians have traditionally responded that Vincent's answer is found in his famous canon: that which has been believed always, everywhere and by everyone is the bright line separating Christian truth from heretical perversion. And, we recall, this rule is often dismissed today on the grounds that, despite its pithy ingenuity, it provides very little light since few if any Christian doctrines can be verified by this principle. It is my contention, however, that Vincent's canon has too often been ripped from its context, leading to contorted interpretations. Reading the rule within the full breadth of his argument, one sees that Vincent offers not a naked and isolated principle but very specific criteria for deciding if some purported development is authentic or pernicious. And the criteria he offers are living warrants, able to be consulted today just as they were consulted in Vincent's time. With insight and elan, the monk of Lerins provides sage guidance for the Church of his day or of any day. St. Paul's forceful counsel, "Guard the deposit, Timothy!" deeply attracted Vincent. From that biblical admonition, he posed the central theological question on which his entire argument turns: "Quis est hodie Timotheus?" (22.2), that is, who is "Timothy" today? Who ensures today that there are no deviations from the faith? Who ensures today that any development is a proper profectus and not a dangerous permutatio? Who ensures today that heresy gains no traction in the Church of God? These are the questions that enthrall Vincent and to which he gives a complex and highly instructive answer.

In the first place, of course, the theologian of Lerins points to the DivineWord of Scripture, the source of all Christian belief. At several junctures Vincent tells us that Christians must strengthen their belief in two ways: first, by the authority of scripture and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church (2.1 ; 29.2). Both theoretically and practically, the Bible stands at the foundation of Vincent's argument and is the primary warrant he invokes for knowing salvific truth. Why, then, is there need to invoke tradition, even secondarily? Vincent himself asks, "Since the canon of scripture is perfect and sufficient of itself for all matters--indeed, more than sufficient-- why is there need for it to be joined to the authority of the Church's interpretation?" (2.2). His response: The Bible is so profound that all do not accept the exact same meaning. Indeed, there are almost as many interpretations of scripture as there are interpreters and Vincent notes that heretics are cagey. One often finds them scurrying through the volumes of Moses and the Prophets, through the Gospels and Epistles. They always have a thousand biblical citations at hand, although they subject them to a new and deceitful method of interpretation (26.7). Just as Satan once quoted the Bible to tempt Jesus, heretics cite scripture to lead Christ's true disciples into error. Therefore, Vincent counsels, we only read the Bible correctly if we understand it in light of tradition, whereby the Church Universal judges some interpretation as entirely congruent with the apostolic faith. But precisely where does one find this sure and certain judgment of the Church?

The Role of Ecumenical Councils

Of foundational importance for the proper interpretation of scripture are the decisions of ecumenical councils. Councils, in fact, are the preeminent and paradigmatic instance of Vincent's canon since in universal synods the official teachers of the Church (everyone) gather from every corner of the globe (everywhere), handing on only the apostolic truth (always) that has been transmitted to them. The councils of Nicea and Ephesus, for example, with their signature words homoousios and Theotokos, impart the ancient faith, although clearly using new terms. In such councils, Vincent insists, the Church theologically sharpens, refines, and polishes Christian beliefs that may have been somewhat shapeless and inchoate in earlier times. Precisely these new, life-giving formulations allow doctrine to be preached with a revived intensity, vigor, and clarity. In praise of ecumenical councils, Vincent states:
   Provoked by the novelties of heretics, the Catholic Church has
   always accomplished this by the decrees of her councils-- this and
   nothing more: what was received from the ancients by means of
   tradition alone has now been consigned to written documents for the
   sake of posterity. The Church has summed up in a few words a great
   quantity of matter-- most frequently, for a clearer
   understanding--and she has designated by new and appropriate words
   some article of faith which, of itself, is traditional. (23.19)


Vincent affirms that in definitive conciliar teachings, one hears the authoritative voice of the Church's interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Here is where the usual understanding of Vincent is mistaken. By his famous canon--"we hold that faith which has been believed always, everywhere and by everyone (semper, ubique et ab omnibus)"--Vincent is not referring to some nebulous golden age when Christian truth was serenely held in all quarters without dispute. No such age has ever existed and Vincent--who outlines heresy after heresy in the Commonitorium--was well aware of it. When Vincent refers to antiquity he is referring, as noted, to the ancient faith of the Church as mediated through her ecumenical councils, the gathering of the official teachers (bishops) who represent their local churches (everyone) from all parts of the world (everywhere) and are transmitting the apostolic tradition (always). At such gatherings, the biblical faith is reformulated and harmoniously extended, but profane innovations and blasphemous reversals are strenuously resisted.

Vincent reasons that when the council of Ephesus in 431 declares Mary to be Theotokos, this title represents the "unfolding (enucleemus) more distinctly and clearly" of the deposit of faith (13.5). While the word Theotokos is new, the term undoubtedly represents the sure judgment of antiquity. The same is true of the homoousios of Nicea. The goal of councils is precisely to sharpen, refine, and organically develop the Christian faith. As Vincent observes, "For what has ever been the goal of councils, than that which was believed in simplicity, the same can now be believed reflectively; that what was previously preached languorously, can now be preached vigorously; that what was before honored neglectfully, can now be attended to with solicitude?" (23.18). Vincent's esteem for conciliar authority is such that he says that at Ephesus, "the rule of divine doctrine was established" (29.10). This is why any attempt to overturn the decrees of ecumenical councils is forcefully anathematized. On those seeking to reverse or distort definitive conciliar judgments, Vincent invokes a biblical punishment: "Who should break through a wall, the serpent will bite" (Eccl 10:8).

The Role of Theologians

While ecumenical councils are uniquely important for Vincent, other bodies in the Church also contribute to answering the pivotal question: Who is the Timothy of today charged with guarding the faith? The monk of Lerins acknowledges that many errors have arisen in the Church that have not been explicitly examined by councils. To whom, then, may one turn for guidance? Vincent encourages Christians to look at the consent existing among holy and learned theological doctors: "Within antiquity itself, to the boldness of the opinions of one or a few, there should be preferred above all else the general decrees of a universal council, although if none exists on a particular matter, then that which is next best, the opinion of numerous and important theological masters" (27.4). Theologians hold unique appointments in the Church of God; indeed, Vincent notes that St. Paul counts doctors (or expositors) in third place after apostles and prophets (1 Cor 12:28). A reliable opinion, however, is not one held by only a few theologians; it must be maintained by all or by most masters and repeated frequently and constantly, as by a "council of doctors." Further, reputable theologians cannot simply be learned teachers. They must be steadfast in their confession of the faith, living in a manner that is holy and wise, worthy to die in Christ or to be happily martyred for him. Sanctity and learning are inseparable in theological masters who can be dependably consulted by the faithful.

But, alas, even great theologians can go astray. Vincent devotes a chapter each to Origen and Tertullian, lamenting that their glittering genius became a grave trial for the Church. He asks: Who wrote more books than Origen? Whose writings offered more examples from Scripture? Who had more illustrious disciples? Indeed, Vincent wistfully concludes, who would not rather be wrong with Origen than right with anyone else? Of Origen's Western counterpart, Tertullian, he exclaims, "Every word was a thought; every sentence a victory!" In the last analysis, however, Tertullian proved to be more eloquent than faithful. Despite their kaleidoscopic brilliance, both Origen and Tertullian led Christians astray with their teachings. But all true Catholics know, Vincent insists, that they should receive the teaching of theological doctors with the Church, but not, with the doctors, abandon the Church's faith (17.2).

Vincent is deeply suspicious of mavericks of any kind, whether they are theologians or bishops. When he discusses Nestorius, the great episcopal heresiarch condemned at Ephesus, he says that his error was to think of himself as "the first and only one to understand Scripture. All the others before him had misunderstood it: all the bishops, all the confessors and all the martyrs" (31.6-7). Prior to Nestorius, the entire Church "had been following ignorant and erroneous teachers." Vincent regards idiosyncratic thinkers as profoundly dangerous, surer of their own talents and insights than of the faith of the Church universal.

It is this suspicion of theological eccentricity that leads the monk of Lerins to place a marked emphasis not only on bishops gathered in council, or on the consentient witness of holy and learned theologians, but also on the agreement of the faithful throughout the world. By their lives, the saints, too, give firm testimony to biblical truth, witnessing against profane innovations. No teaching, then, may introduce novel beliefs that call into question the solemn doctrines received by prior centuries; to do so mocks the faith of those courageous witnesses who preceded us in Christ. "[Such novelties], were they accepted, would necessarily defile the faith of the blessed fathers.... If they were accepted, then it must be stated that the faithful of all ages, all the saints, all the chaste, continent virgins, all the clerical levites and priests, so many thousands of confessors, so great an army of martyrs ... almost the entire world incorporated in Christ the Head through the Catholic faith for so many centuries, would have erred, would have blasphemed, would not have known what to believe" (24.5).

The Role of the Bishop of Rome

Vincent has noted the role of scripture, ecumenical councils, learned and holy theologians, and the faithful generally in preserving Christian truth. He also reserves a significant place for the bishop of Rome. How does the theologian of Lerins envision the pope's role? One instance offering us a clear understanding is Vincent's discussion of the third-century controversy attending the proposed rebaptism of those who had apostatized from the faith during the persecutions undertaken by the Roman Empire. Some bishops insisted that apostates needed to be rebaptized, but Pope Stephen argued that rebaptism would constitute a violation of the apostolic tradition. Vincent remarks that the pope opposed the proposed innovation "with his colleagues, but in the forefront of them, surpassing the others by the devotion of his faith, just as he surpassed them by the authority of his see" (loci auctoritate superabat, 6.5). Vincent further tells us that in his letter to Africa on this matter, Stephen "fixed and decreed" (sanxit) these words: "Let there be no innovation except what has been handed down." Important here is the Latin word sancio with its forceful meaning of "establish inalterably," indicating the authority with which the pope teaches. The same verb is used when describing the council of Ephesus authoritatively laying down the rules of faith. Later in the Commonitorium, Vincent appeals to his contemporaries, Popes Celestine and Sixtus, both of whom vigorously upheld Stephen's dictum that no concession may be made to profane novelty in matters of faith.

For Vincent, the bishop of Rome is a unique witness, both for preserving doctrinal purity and for ensuring proper development. Of the pope's primacy, Vincent has little doubt. Throughout the Commonitorium, he is the only bishop denominated as "pope" and he occupies the only see called "apostolic" even though both these terms were in relatively common use at the time. Indeed, Vincent is entirely deferential to the papal office. But it is equally true that, for Vincent, the pope always exists within the college of bishops and it is the unified judgment of the college that is most important, as is evident in his remark that Pope Stephen was necessarily united with his confreres. Later, when citing the significant witnesses to the truth adduced by the council of Ephesus, Vincent designates Rome as caput orbis (head of the world), but also points out that the Roman bishops are conjoined to their fellow episcopal overseers (30.5). Vincent's understanding of the pope's authority is likely well reflected in an 1865 comment by Newman, "It is to the Pope in Ecumenical Council that we look, as the normal seat of Infallibility." (8)

Consentient agreement is always the most significant interpretative warrant for Vincent, even if the bishop of Rome carries unique weight in husbanding the faith. Ensuring that the Bible is properly interpreted requires a general cohesion of ecumenical councils, theological doctors, the faithful generally, and the bishop of Rome. Vincent's marked accent is on the unity of the entire Church, a unity reflecting the universal presence of the Holy Spirit. It is unsurprising, then, that at those rare times when popes have exercised their infallible magisterium (as in the definitions of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in 1854 and the Assumption in 1950), they have been at pains to adduce all of the theological sources testifying to the Church's faith, insisting that the dogmas are unanimously supported by scripture (typologically understood), by centuries of sustained theological reflection and by the faithful generally.

We may conclude by noting that a careful study of St. Vincent of Lerins's extraordinary work reveals that "development of doctrine" is not a nineteenth-century innovation, a Romantic reaction to the discoveries of Enlightenment historiography. The Commonitorium makes clear that already in the early Church there existed decisive thinking about the growth and refinement of Christian doctrine over time. For Vincent, divine providence is always at work in history, ensuring both the preservation and the cultivation of the Christian faith. The Church's tradition bespeaks a dynamic process, one deeply rooted in scripture, yet allowing for a homogeneous and architectonic unfolding over time. When Newman writes, fourteen hundred years later, that "doctrine cannot but develop as time proceeds and need arises," he comes very close to echoing the monk of Lerins. So, too, does Vatican II--which is deeply Vincentian in letter and spirit-when it states, "This Synod examines the sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church, from which new things are continually brought forth although they are always congruent with the old" (Dignitatis Humanae, no. i).

Saint Vincent asked in his time as we ask in ours: How does the Holy Spirit guide the Church so that harmonious development is possible but without profane innovation and corruption? The Church has continued to develop and refine Vincent's insights, but he remains a remarkably prescient guide to a proper understanding of doctrinal development, with his wisdom providing useful guidance for understanding how firm adherence to the doctrinal tradition is entirely congruent with organic and homogeneous growth over time.

Notes

(1.) John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (London: Longmans, Green, and Co. 1894; original, 1845).

(2.) As Newman says in his Apologia pro Vita Sua (1864), the principle of development "is certainly recognized in the Treatise of Vincent of Lerins." See Apologia pro Vita Sua (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1895), 197. He adds in the Via Media (1877) that development's "principle and defence are found in the Tract of Vincent ... so great an authority in the present controversy." See The Via Media of the Anglican Church, v. I, 3rd ed. (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1901), 72-73, no. 4.

(3.) For an exhaustive treatment of the history of the monastery at Lerins, see A. C. Cooper-Marsdin, The History of the Islands of the Lerins (Cambridge: University Press, 1913). The monastic life at Lerins is also examined by Donato Ogliari, Gratia et Certamen (Leuven: University Press, 2003), iii--18.

(4.) See Adhemar d'Ales, "La fortune du 'Commonitorium,'" Recherches de science religieuse 26 (1936b 3 34-56.

(5.) Newman, Essay on Development, 10.

(6.) Commonitorium, 23, 1-3. All references to the Commonitorium will be by chapter and sentence according to the standard enumeration found in the Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, v. 64, ed. R. Demeulenaere (Turnhout: Brepols, 1985), 127-95. A widely available English translation may be found in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, v. ii, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. C. A. Heurtley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 131-56.

(7.) Newman translated (and commented upon) significant portions of Vincent's Commonitorium in 1834, in a series labeled Records of the Church, which was published along with the better-known Tracts for the Times. Newman's translation may be found in Tractsfor the Times, v. II (New York: AMS Press, 1969), nos. 24-25.

(8.) Newman, Apologia proVita Sua, 256.
COPYRIGHT 2014 Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 
Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Guarino, Thomas G.
Publication:Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture
Article Type:Essay
Geographic Code:4EUUK
Date:Jun 22, 2014
Words:5033
Previous Article:Dinah Morris as second eve: the fall and redemption in Adam Bede.
Next Article:The heart of the matter: Edith Stein on the substance of the soul.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters