Page:Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature (1911).djvu/1040

 It may safely be asserted that few theological books of such modest bulk, published within our period, have attracted so large a share of attention. It has been included in all the best known collections of the Fathers (e.g. in the Maxima Bibliotheca Patrum, Lugduni, 1677; and in that of Migne), repeatedly published separately in many lands, and not unfrequently translated. A Scottish trans., dedicated to Mary Queen of Scots, was issued by Knox's opponent, Ninian Winzeit, at Antwerp, in 1563; an Engl. one in Schaff and Wace's Post-Nicene Lib. by Dr. Heurtley, and another by Rev. W. B. Flower (Lond. 1866).

The Commonitorium has gathered around itself a literature. How far its leading principles have been accepted, either explicitly or implicitly, in the past; how far they made a line of demarcation between those who accepted or rejected the Reformation; to what extent they are available in the controversies between the various Christian communions, or in the contest between Christianity and unbelief—these questions have all been keenly discussed. To review these controversies would far exceed our limits, but it seems right to call attention to one or two features of the debate which have not received elsewhere the notice which they deserve.

That the Commonitorium lays down a broad line of demarcation between the Protestant and the Roman churches is an obvious overstatement. The Magdeburg Centuriators distinctly pronounced in its favour as a work of learning and acuteness; as a book which revealed and forcibly assailed the frauds of heretics, supplied a remedy and antidote against their poisons, set forth a weighty doctrine and displayed a knowledge of antiquity with skill and clearness in its treatment of Holy Scripture. The praise given by Casaubon to the principles of the English Reformation, the challenge of Jewel, and a large consensus of 17th-cent. divines, all rest, more or less explicitly, upon the famous dictum of Vincent—which, indeed, derives considerable support from certain portions of the Prayer-Book, Articles, and Canons.

It is, of course, equally true that Roman Catholic divines, especially at the epoch of the Reformation and long after, also professed to take their stand upon the principles asserted in the Commonitorium. There is no reason to doubt their sincerity in so acting. They were not in a position to judge the evidence on behalf of this and that portion of medieval doctrine and practice, and they appealed with confidence to such stores of learning as lay open to them. A day came when this confidence was rudely shaken. The Benedictine editions of the works of the Fathers appeared, with honest and discriminating criticism applied to their writings. Not only was it seen that a considerable portion of their works, long accepted as genuine and authentic, was in reality spurious, but also that while distinctively Roman tenets and practices received much support from the sermons and treatises relegated into the appendix of each volume, the case was widely different when reference was made to genuine Patristic remains. A new school of Roman Catholic divines arose, of whom Father Petau (Petavius) may perhaps be considered the earliest, as he is certainly among the greatest. The process of development in the church of Rome has widened the breach between her teaching and the principles of Vincent of Lerins. The church which set forth the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother, not merely as a lawful opinion but as a dogma, has broken with the maxim, "Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus." A new ed. for academical use was ed. by Jülicher, ''Sammlung. . . Quellenschrifter'' (Freiburg i. Br. 1895).

[J.G.C.]

Vitalius (Vitalis), bp. of the Apollinarian congregation at Antioch. Vitalius was a man of high character, brought up in the orthodox faith at Antioch, and ordained presbyter by Meletius (Theod. H. E. v. 4; Soz. H. E. vi. 25). Jealousy of his fellow-presbyter Flavian caused a breach between him and his bishop, deprived of whose guidance Vitalius fell under the influence of Apollinaris and embraced his theological system. Tidings of his unsoundness having reached Rome, Vitalius made a journey thither in 375 to clear himself before pope Damasus, and to be received by him into communion. By the use of equivocal terms he convinced Damasus of his orthodoxy. Damasus did not, however, receive him into communion, but sent Vitalius back to Antioch with a letter to Paulinus, whom, during the Meletian schism, Rome and the West recognized as the orthodox and canonical bishop of that see, remitting the whole matter to his decision. Shortly after Vitalius had left Rome Damasus despatched a second letter to Paulinus, containing a profession of faith, which, without naming Apollinaris, condemned his doctrines, desiring Paulinus to require signature to it as the terms of admission to communion (Labbe, ii. 900 sqq.; Theod. H. E. v. ii). Vitalius refused, and the breach between him and Paulinus became complete. Apollinaris ordained Vitalius bishop of his schismatical church, his holiness of life and pastoral zeal gathering a large number of followers, the successors of whom were still at Antioch under the name of Vitalians when Sozomen wrote (Soz. H. E. vi. 25). The unsoundness of Vitalius on the point on which Apollinaris diverged from the orthodox faith did not prevent his receiving much esteem and affection from leaders on the orthodox side, introduce a new element into the discussion—namely, the authority claimed for the Roman see. The author appears to assume that this authority will always be manifested on the side of his great maxim of the "quod semper, quod ubique, quad ab omnibus," and makes no provision for the possibility of a divergence between the teaching of Rome and that of antiquity. Secondly, while the language concerning Nestorius and his opponent Cyril is clear and emphatic, there does seem to be a certain degree of reticence about some of the opponents of Augustine, e.g. Julian. The name of Augustine is not even mentioned, and though this is equally true of Jerome and Chrysostom, there was no special reason to introduce their names, while the repeated mention of Pelagius would have rendered the introduction of that of his chief opponent only natural.