A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

S. VINCENTIUS LIRINENSIS.

VINCENTIUS, a Frenchman by Nation, after he had spent some part of his Life among the Troubles, Commotions and Waves of the World * 1.1, through the Impulse of the Holy * 1.2 Spirit, retreated, as he himself says, Into the Haven of Religion; O Happy and Safe Haven for all the World: And having gotten Shelter against the Storms of Pride, and the Vanity of the World, to retire the remaining▪ Part of his Days, and offer to God the continual Sacrifices of Humiliation, that he might avoid the Sufferings of this Life, and the Flames of the Life to come. The Place of his Retreat was the famous Monastery of the Isle of Lerins, so famous for so many Persons eminent for Doctrine and Piety, which it hath produced for the Church: Vinoentius the Priest was none of the least Ornaments of it: S. Eucherius, who tells us, That he was the Brother of Lupus Bishop of Troyes, compares him, for the Fervency of his Devotion, to the brightness of a sparkling Diamond, interno gemmam splendore perspicuam: And in another place commends his Learning and Eloquence. Gennadius assures us, That he was well skilled in the Holy Scriptures, and very well versed in the Discipline of the Church.

He hath composed an excellent Treatise against the Hereticks, in which he hath given very infallible Rules and convincing Principles to distinguish Error from Truth, and the Sects of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Hereticks from the Catholick Church. But his Humility made him conceal his Name, and he published his Treatise under the Title of a * 1.3 Commentary made by Peregrinus against the Hereticks. It was divided into two parts, but the 2d. being lost, he contented himself to make an Abridgment of it.

He proposes to himself, in this Commentary, to gather the Principles of the ancient Fathers against the Hereticks. He tells us, in the Preface, That it was the Usefulness of the Work it self; the time and the place that he lived in, and his Profession, that engaged him to undertake this Work. The time, because all things here below being carried on with such a swiftness, it is reasonable that we should snatch up something that may stand us in stead in another Life, and so much the rather because the terrible expecting of the last Judgment (which he thought ••igh at hand, because that the Barbarians had made so great a Progress into the Empire) ought to stir up the Zeal of the Faithful for Religion, and the Malice of the Hereticks ought to oblige the Orthodox to stand upon their Guard. The place also was very suitable for such a Work, because, being distant from the noise and crowd of the Cities, retired in a pri∣vate Village, and shut up in the Cloysters of a Monastery, he was able, without Distraction, to do that which is said in the Psalm, Attend ye, and see, that I am your God. Lastly, no Em∣ployment can be more agreeable to a religious Life, which he professed. He therefore under∣takes * 1.4 to write rather as an Historian than an Author, what he hath learned from the An∣cients, and they have entrusted to their Posterity. He advertiseth us, That his design was not to collect all, but only to offer to our observation what there is most necessary.

Entring then upon his Matter, he saith, That he hath learned from many Learned and Holy Persons, That the means to avoid Heresie, and adhere stedfastly to the true Faith, is to ground themselves upon two Foundations, 1. Upon the Authority of Holy Scripture. 2. Upon the Tradition of the Catholick Church. But perhaps some will demand, saith he, the Canon of the Holy Books being perfect and sufficient of it self to settle all Religion; why is it ne∣cessary to join the Authority of the Church with it? He answers, 'Tis because Holy Scripture having a sublime sence, is differently explained; one understands it after this manner, and another after that, insomuch, that there are almost as many Opinions about the true meaning of it, as there are Persons. Novatian understands it one way, and Photinus another. It is necessary then altogether upon the account of the subtile Evasions of so many Hereticks of se∣veral sorts, in interpreting Scripture to take the sence of the Catholick Church for our Rule. But yet we must be careful to choose out of those Doctrines, which we find in the Church, such as have always been believed in all places, and by all true Christians; for there is indeed no∣thing truly and properly Catholick, as the Name in its full signification doth denote, but what comprehends all in general. Now it will be so if we follow Antiquity, unanimous Consent and Universality. We shall follow Universality, if we believe no other Doctrine true, but that which is taught in all Churches, dispersed through the whole World. We shall follow Antiquity, if we depart not from the Judgment of our Ancestors and Fathers. Lastly, we shall follow unanimous Consent, if we adhere to the Opinions of all, or of almost all the Ancients. But what shall an Orthodox Christian do if some part of the Church apostatize from the Faith of the whole Body of the Church? There is nothing to be done but to pre∣ferr the Doctrine of the whole Body that is sound, before the Error of a rotten and putrefy'd Member. But what if some new Error is ready to spread it self, I do not say, over a small part, but almost over all the Church? We must then be sure to cleave close to Antiquity, which cannot be corrupted with Novelty. In fine, if among the Ancients we find one or two Persons, or perhaps a City or Province in an Error, we must preferr the Decrees of the ancient and universal Church before the Rashness or Ignorance of some Particulars. But if there arise any Question, to which we cannot find a Parallel Case, we must then consult the Judgments of the Ancients, and compare together what those Authors have said at several times, and in di∣stinct places, who being in the Communion of the Church may be esteemed Teachers worthy of Credit, and not only to rely upon what one or two have said, but what they all have held, written and taught unanimously, clearly, and without contradicting themselves at any time. To these Rules Vincentius Lirinensis had added these Examples. The Example of the Dona∣tists he uses to prove, That we ought to keep to the Universality; that of the Arians, That we must cleave to Antiquity and reject Novelty. The Opinion of S. Cyprian about the Rebap∣tization of Hereticks, he makes use of to shew, That we must not always follow the Senti∣ments of one particular Ancient, but we may be Hereticks in maintaining the Doctrine which one Orthodox Doctor hath taught, wherefore we must depend upon Consent and una∣nimous Agreement.

Photinus, Apollinaris and Nestorius, are also brought for Examples of Hereticks, who were unfortunately mistaken by departing from the Tradition of the Catholick Church. The Fall of Origen and Tertullian may be a Warning to all Christians how they lean upon the Autho∣rity, or Reputation, or Learning of any private Person, and forsake the Doctrine of the Universal Church. Vincentius Lirinensis after he hath enlarged, as much as was possible, upon these Examples, returns to his Principles, and maintains, That we ought to keep our selves to the ancient Rule of Faith, and ought not at any time to seek after or propagate any new Do∣ctrine

in the Church; That they who suffer any new Doctrine, hitherto unknown, to be taught, are Deceivers; That Men may labour to explain and clear the Ancient Faith well, but may not teach any thing new; they may have a way of expressing Matters, but no new Subjects. Cum dicas 〈◊〉〈◊〉, non dic•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉. But may some say, how is it, that the Faith may not be improved or perfected? Certainly it may be, but it cannot be changed. The Church grows in Knowledge, Understanding and Wisdom, but it always ho••••s the same Doctrines, neither taking from them nor adding to them. Things may be made 〈◊〉〈◊〉 evident, receive greater Light, and be better distinguished, but they remain always in the same Fulness, Per∣fection and Nature: Antiquity may be polished or perfected, but we must always keep the s••me Foundation. And truly the Church hath done nothing else in the Councils, but main∣tain'd the ancient Faith against the Innovation of Hereticks. It obliges us to believe more explicitely what we have already believed, and teach that, with more Power, which we have heretofore taught, and defend with greater care, what we have already defended. In fine, it gives us an express definition in writing of that, which it hath received from its Ancestors by Tradition. The Hereticks, on the contrary, have broached new Doctrines, and made use of the Holy Scripture to gain reception of them. Vincentius Lirinensis brings several Examples. In the next place he considers after what manner we ought to consult and compare the Opi∣nions of the Ancient Fathers, and brings for an Example, in the 2d. part of his Commentary, the Proceedings of the Council of Ephesus against Nestorius, but because that part was lost, he contented himself in giving us an Abridgment, making a Summary of the Principles, which he had laid down in his Work. But we must not forget, that Vincentius Lirinensis owns, That there are two occasions, upon which these excellent Rules concerning Tradition are not of so great use. 1. When Questions of very small Consequence, which do not concern the Rule of Faith, are under Debate, or Questions, which serve for the Foundation of Christian Doctrine. 2. When we have to deal with Heresies which are of a long standing; for, saith he, 'tis not convenient to oppose all Heresies by Tradition only, but only such as are newly risen up, as soon as they appear, and before they have corrupted the ancient Records; for when they are once throughly setled and grown old, this Argument becomes weak, because they have had, as I may say, time to cover themselves with an appearance of Antiquity. So that we must content our selves to confute them by Scripture, or avoid them as Sects con∣demned and disproved by the ancient Councils of the Catholick Church.

It is very probable that this Author is the same with him, who propounded the Objections, or rather Questions against S. Austin's Doctrine concerning Grace, which S. Prosper hath an∣swered. There are likewise some places in that little Treatise in which he seems to quarrel with the rigid Scholars of S. Austin. But be that as it will, he was in a Country and in a Monastery, where he did not think himself obliged to addict himself to S. Austin's Opinions, whatsoever esteem he had for him. And perhaps it is for that reason, that he hath laid it down so fir••ly, that we ought not to submit to the Authority of one Father alone, but to the unanimous consent of many. Nevertheless he condemns Pelagius and Julian, and there is no Objection to be made against the Rules, which he gave to discern the Doctrines of Faith from Heresie, Error and Opinion, since they are the same, which the Church hath always observed, the Holy Fathers have laid down in their Writings, and S. Austin himself hath given in many places. Vincentius Lirinensis did no more but collect, enlarge, and put those Rules in order which he found in the Church, and ••e hath done it with much Faithfulness, Clearness and Eloquence. He composed this Treatise 3 years after the Council of Ephesus in 434. He died in the Reign of Theodosius and Valentin•…•…, he is acknowledged for a Saint in the Roman Martyrology, and his Memory is celebrated 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 24th. of May. This little Tract hath been printed in the Bibliotheca Patrum [Tome 7.] and in several Collections of Authors, at Basil in 1528. [at Collen 1569. with Costerius's Notes] at Paris in 1569. and in 1586. which Edi∣tion is reviewed by Peter Pitthaeus. [at Collen it was Reprinted with Costerius's Notes in 1613, Twelves.] Fillesachus hath 〈◊〉〈◊〉 on it, and had it Printed 1619. [in Quarto.] It was Printed at Lyons, with a Controve•…•…l Treatise in 1622. Lastly, M. Balusius published it with Salvian, 1663. [whose Edition was Reprinted at Paris, 1669. in Octavo. It was also Printed at Cambridge in 1687, Twelves.]

Notes

• * 1.1

  [Being a Soldier.]
• * 1.2

  Vincentius Lirinensis.
• * 1.3

  Admoni∣tion, as Gen∣nadius's Commoni∣torium, Voss. Cave.
• * 1.4

  [Vossius in his Hi••••. Pel. prove, him a Semi-Pela∣gian from some places of this Trea∣tise, as also of his Obje∣ctions a∣gainst S. Austin.]