I. Antecedent History: The first adducible proof

that Picas IX. intended to call an ecumenical coun

cil appeared Dec. 6,1864, at a session of the cardinals

of the Congregation of Rites. He then

r. Prelimi- directed them, and soon extended this

nary Can- order to include all the cardinals resi

vass and dent in Rome, to present their views

Committees. on that project, in the form of written

opinions; and early in Mar., 1865, a

committee of cardinals was appointed to examine

these opinions. The majority of the cardinals agreed

that a council was necessary, though there was not

entire concord as to the matters to be treated. After

that, the convening of a council was no longer an

open question. So during April and May, and by

advice of the college of cardinals, the prefect of the

Propaganda, Cardinal Caterini, addressed to thirty

six bishops of various nations a formal request sub

arctissima secreti lege, to set forth in explicit terms

the matters which seemed to them most worthy of

consideration before the council, with regard to their

diocesan interests. Picas IX, had himself outlined

the list of these confidential advisers; he also made

the first public announcement of the prospective

council, on June 26, 1867, in his address to such

princes of the church as had assembled in Rome

for the jubilee festival. The preparation of the

council devolved upon an extraordinary congrega

tion of the college of cardinals, briefly known as the

" Central Committee." Its members included Car

dinals Patrizi, Reisach, Panebianco, Bizarro, Ca

terini, and, later, Barnabo, Bilio, Capalli, de Luca.

Their preliminary labors in 1865 were occupied with

enlisting distinguished theologians and canonists as

expert advisers of the council. These invitations

were guided by the propositions advanced by the

nuncios and by the various bishops. Only the

ultramontane trend received such marked prefer

ence herein, at the outset, that when the resultant

selections became known, they were sharply con

tested. Besides the central committee there were

accessory committees appointed: (1) on dogmatics,

(2) on church discipline, (3) on religious orders,

(4) on oriental churches and missions, (5) on eccle

siastical polity, and (6) on ceremonies. The labors

of these committees were subject to the central

committee's revision. There were ninety-six ad

visers actively engaged. The question as to who

should be invited to the council at large occasioned

prolonged inquiries and incidental scruples. Ob

jection was raised against inviting the Roman Cath

olic princes. The bull Aterni patris, subscribed by

Picas IX. and the cardinals present in Rome, was

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA vatioan canVatican Council

published on June 29, 1868; and convened the council to meet at Rome on Dec. 8, 1869. As the council was to be ecumenical, the bishops of the churches of oriental rites were also invited; and in a subsequent bull, all Protestants and others outside the Roman Catholic pale were summoned, on occasion of the council, to rejoin the Roman Catholic Church. Howbeit, the Orientals declined the summons, without exception, and on the Protestant side the invitation was disregarded. The papal invitation found some accordant response. within the Anglican church; yet here, too, there was counterbalancing opposition. Thus the Curia's hope of inducing the schismatic orient and the world of Protestant heresy to some recognition of the Curia's contemplated measures came to naught..

The reception accorded to the impending council in Roman Catholic circles was not everywhere alike and underwent great fluctuations. Little could be deduced from the terms of convocation

a. Recep- respecting the problems to be solved, tion of because the sweeping phraseology em- Proposal; braced the entire sphere of Christen- Topics dom's interests. Yet this very lati- Suggested. tude allowed the Curia complete freedom of action. Moreover, because no ecumenical council had assembled in the past three centuries, the present design took on the mists and halo of the extraordinary. Features of this kind at once insured popular favor for the plan of a council, and evoked approval on every side. Nevertheless, an increasingly powerful reac tion set in among liberal Roman Catholics, when once the illusions began to dissolve which at first had enshrouded the motives for convening the council. What especially illumined the horizon in advance, was a now famous article in the Civiltd Cattolica, a review conducted by Jesuits. This arti cle appeared in the form of correspondence by way of France, under date of Feb. 6, 1869, and purported to reflect the views of many Roman Catholics in France that the council would be brief, seeing that its majority stood unanimous. There were named as topics of procedure: confirmation of the Syllabus (q.v.), promulgation of the infallibility of the pope, and dogmatization of the doctrine as to the bodily assumption of Mary. The impression produced by this article was enhanced by the fact that Archbishop Dechamps of Mechlin was warmly praised in a papal brie_, dated June 26, 1869, for his pamphlet on L In faillibilite et le concile genkral (Malines, 1869), where in he requested that doctrine's formal definition. Thenceforth the conviction gained wider currency


[Page 148]


the promulgation of infallibility had been long in preparation in that quarter and that the attainment of this goal was the chief object of the entire council, have been demonstrated by Friedrich (see bibliography). This is a point especially to be noted, since Granderath, in his opposing work, affirms the contrary with great certitude, and since a correct understanding of the course of the convention depends on the detail that the Vatican Council be conceived as the product of ultramontanist growth in the nineteenth century. From the beginning of the council, the question of infallibility stood central in point of general interest, and acted in a segregative way, as touching party tactics. That the majority was resolved to vote in the affirmative is above reasonable doubt; although there was some uncertainty as to whether the opposition would prove aggressive, and to what extent, if considerable. In fact, it was stronger than had been expected, and prevented the council sessions from running that expeditious course which had been so confidently predicted by the Civiltà's article.

1. Rules of Procedure.

The prelates who had already reached Rome were convened in a preliminary synodical assembly in the Sistine Chapel, Dec. 2, 1869. Pius IX. then delivered an address, the names of the officers were announced, and these officers were sworn in. In the next place, copies of the order of business were distributed, with the heading Multiplices inter, dated Nov. 27, 1869. As presidents were named Cardinals de Reisach, de Lucca, Bizarri, Bilio, and Capalli. By this order of business, which he issued without action by the council in the premises, Pius IX. insured for himself a determining influence over the convention. The most important rulings were as follows: In § 2 the pope claimed it as his exclusive right to define the objects of the council's proceedings. The synodical delegates are permitted, of course, to make motions, yet with extreme limitation, since the pope was to decide whether they should be laid before the council; § 3 obligates the members of the council to silence in regard to the proceedings; §§ 7 and 8 touched upon the synodical delegates' assemblings, the congregations general, and the public sessions. In the congregations general, whose directors were named by the pope, the drafts of decrees laid before the council were to be debated and voted upon, but only in a provisory way. At the public sessions, deliberations were no longer in order, but only the final votes. The result of these was certified by the pope, in personal attendance, and was to be proclaimed as his decision, "the holy council approving." The votes were to be phrased placet or non placet. In the event of no working agreement, the contested proviso, together with the proffered objections thereto, were to be referred to standing committees, and these were to be elected by the council on written ballot. § 9 forbade the attending ecclesiastics to quit the council before its termination, except by permission. For council chamber, and this alike for the congregations general and the public sessions, they made use of the right transept of St. Peter's Church, this being shut off by a lofty wooden partition. From the very first day, however, this area proved unfit on account of its defective acoustics.

2. First and Second Sessions.

The first public session took place Wednesday Dec. 8, 1869, with the opening on a festival. Undue precipitation set the second public session for Thursday Jan. 6, 1870. To what extent the question of infallibility dominated the council quite from the start appeared from the election of the various committees. The chief promoters of the quorum actively in favor of the definition at issue met in private conferences, and then agreed on the plan that no one be elected of whom it were known that he opposed the definition of papal infallibility. In the next place, lists of the proposed candidates were prepared and lithographed. And all these propositions found acceptance with the council. The ratified order of business provoked some contradiction directly after the work of the council began; but all motions pre sented before the pope in favor of changing that fixed routine were set aside. The council's debates began only with the fourth congregation general, Dec. 28, and turned on the "schedule of faith." The discussion assumed an unexpectedly prolonged course, for the topic was criticized in many quarters. The premature appointment of the second public session for Jan. 6 occasioned the leaders of the council no small embarrassment. In fact, such a thing as passing upon the "schedule "in the way of a conciliar decree was then and there impossible. So, too, the hope had to be abandoned of seeing the question of infallibility accepted by the council at this session, as though by acclamation and independent of discussion, since Archbishop Darboy of Paris notified Cardinal de Luca, Dec. 27, that in the event of such abruptness, 100 bishops would straightway leave Rome. Accordingly, the second public session, Jan. 6, 1870, had to be occupied by taking the synodical delegates' formal deposition in support of the Council of Trent. The insignificance of this second session is to be explained by the fact that it nowise marks a critical juncture in the council's history. The proceedings extended till Jan. 10. The project under consideration appears to have found unqualified approval with not one of the thirty-five speakers; but rather there prevailed great dissension respecting the degree of requisite amendment in the case. The result of the proceedings in six congregations general was, on Jan. 10, to refer the issue, along with its proffered objections, to the deputation on faith.

3. Prolonged and Resultless Debates.

In the following weeks (till Feb. 22) the council deliberated in nineteen congregations general (numbered 11-29) concerning schedules of discipline and questions of church life. And though these proceedings form simply an episode in the history of the council and led to no practical end, still they afford some insight into the bishops' frames of mind. It appears that many of the synodical delegates entertained a broad conception of the necessity of reforms; while critical utterances were heard to this intent, and in no subdued tone, such as were hardly anticipated by the Curia. During the discussion of the "schedule concerning bishops,


synods, and vicars general," the objection was raised that the proposition touched only upon the duties of bishops, but not on the necessary reform of the college of cardinals and the Curia. The demand was also made, that the papal office be made accessible to others than Italians. In like manner, it was proposed to internationalize the Roman congregations and to decentralize the ecclesiastical administration. There was, furthermore, criticism of the manner of treating impediments to marriage, dispensations, and taxes. When the matter of provincial synods came up, some remarkable conditions were debated before the Curia. There was even a demand expressed in the direction of national synods, and of regularly recurrent ecumenical councils. After these "schedules" had been discussed by thirty-seven speakers, they were referred, at the sixteenth congregation general, Jan. 25, to the deputation on discipline for revision. From Jan. 25 to Feb. 8, thirty-eight speakers discussed the "schedule concerning the life and character of the clergy," including such details as the spiritual exercises, the common life of the priests, celibacy, defects in the Breviary, and the propriety of clerical beards. The proposition was referred to the deputation on discipline. From Feb. 10 to 22 (general congregations 24-29), the council was occupied with the schedule "concerning a small catechism," the pope having expressed his intention of having a small catechism prepared, in order to abate the diversity of instruction regarding the elements of the faith. This catechism was then to be translated into the various national tongues, while the bishops retained the liberty of dispensing catechetical instruction independently thereof. However, while the idea of unifying such instruction had strong indorsement, it also encountered vehement opposition, quite variously prompted. This schedule was also referred to the deputation on discipline.

4. New Rules of Procedure.

A noteworthy landmark in the history of the council is supplied by the publication, during the twenty-ninth congregation general, on Feb. 22, of the papal decree dated Feb. 20; which must be designated a new order of business. The most important of its rulings, which comprised fourteen heads, were the following. Strictures on a "schedule" shall henceforth no longer be made orally, but in writing; and this, too, within a period of time to be determined by the presidents when the given schedule is proposed (§ 1). Such strictures are to be accompanied with suggested amendments (§ 3), and shall be tendered before the secretary of the council, who refers them to the competent deputations (§ 4). Coupled with a summary report on the previously tendered strictures, the schedule, as amended by the committee or deputation in charge, goes to the council for oral discussion (§ 5). Speakers digressing from the question in debate shall be called to order by the presidents (§ 10). In case the subject of debate be exhausted, then the presidents, on written motion of ten synodical delegates, may put the question before the congregation general, as to whether the discussion shall still be protracted; anti the majority decides (§ 11). Majority vote also decides the matter of adopting a proposition (§ 13). The voting is done orally, by placet or non placet, though a conditional placet is also admissible, the given condition being in writing (§ 14). What prompted this change in the order of business was the tedious routine of the council's proceedings, which in the course of three months had brought not a single schedule to formal conclusion. That this new order of business was adapted to expedite the transaction of business proper is evident; yet the advance was only contingent in that the council might have to pay for the abridgment of its proceedings by disadvantages of another kind. Protests were lodged against the altered order of business under the leadership of Archbishop Darboy of Paris, by fifty bishops on Mar. 1, by twenty-two other bishops, led by Cardinal Schwarzenberg, on Mar. 4, and by fourteen bishops, predominantly German, on Mar. 2. However, these protests accomplished nothing, not even a written acknowledgment. Yet the object of altering the order of business was not simply the better dispatch of the council's labors; it especially hinged on the point of carrying the definition of infallibility through the channels of parliamentary resolution, after it was seen that the measure could not be adopted by acclamation.

5. Alinement on Infallibility.

A fortnight after the council opened, there were conferences in progress on the part of a small coterie of those favoring the definition, touching their manner of procedure. Petitions for motion of the definition were subscribed by about 480 bishops. Not until the news of these arrangements transpired did the opponents of definition actively unite. Their deliberations began Jan. 8, and in five counter-addresses, which were subscribed by 136 bishops, the pope was besought to make no proposition to the council on the subject of infallibility. But the committee on motions resolved to commend to the pope the acceptance of definition. Through these memorials for and against the question of definition, the presence of two parties at the council had become altogether patent. What occasioned great surprise was the relative status of the two alinements, broadly surveyed. The process of "ultramontanizing" the Roman Catholic Church had advanced quite too far, and the Ultramontane trend of the council was much too pronounced for any doubt as to the issue of a dogmatic decision on the subject of infallibility. The sensation was the strength of the minority, the impressive gravity of whose opposition stood all the more enhanced by the dignity of not a few personalities on the minority side, as by the partizan grouping along lines of nationality. Among the German bishops there were thirteen opposers of the definition, whereas only four of the German bishops advocated the definition; among the Austro-Hungarian bishops the majority were on the opposing side; in the case of the French bishops, one-third of them sided with the opposition. Several of the bishops from the United States opposed it. Among those members who disclosed special zeal in favoring infallibility, Archbishop Manning of Westminster, and Bishop Senestrey of Regensburg stood forth with prominence. Their strength was in the firm assertion of the necessity


of defining the given doctrine; while the strength of the minority was their theological erudition and intelligence. That was no accident which arrayed the Spanish bishops, without exception, on the side of the majority, and three-fourths of the German episcopate on the minority side; this relative attitude was conditioned by the level of the theological training of the clergy in both countries.

6. Minority's Difficulties; Controversies Aroused.

It was a serious obstacle to the minority, that the pope took aggressive and open stand against that minority's formulated position. Howbeit, the decision of the contest depended upon the question whether or not the minority possessed the inherent strength and sufficient confidence in its cause to assert and carry its will. It was precisely this internal compactness which the minority lacked. All that held their imposing array together was the sheer denial of the question of defining the infallibility of the pope on grounds of expediency, not the disavowal of the doctrine itself, though many of the minority had espoused this extraneous position. Accordingly, the minor ity's platform was one of negation simply. But the sphere of its action was thereby seriously restricted, and it lacked the momentum that produces positive results. It could collectively utilize merely a sectional extract of all that cogent material which scientific scholarship was elaborating in support of the conflict against the doctrine itself. The opposition must needs collapse forthwith when situations occurred wherein considerations of expediency and questions of tact and fitness lost their value, or even contradicted its very existence. Lastly, the minority was handicapped by the lack of a commanding leader.

The drafting and circulation of the memorials with reference to the matter of infallibility was accompanied by extensive discussions in a periodical way, proceeding from members of both parties at the council. Much attention was aroused in France by the controversy on the Honorius question (see HONORIUS I.) between Auguste Joseph Alphonse Gratry, French acamedician and sometime oratorian, and Archbishop Dechamps, and by the pamphlet Ce qui se passe au concile, against which the council deemed it necessary to protest, the more because the article showed expert knowledge of the situation. Still stronger was the agitation in Germany, where the scientific training of the clergy was too advanced for a surrender to the new dogma without resistance. On Jan. 19 Döllinger published his signed article on infallibility in the Augsburger allgemeine Zeitung, and this evoked wide comment.

7. Church and State; Infallibility.

On Jan. 21 there had been distributed among the synodical members the schedule entitled Schema constitutionis dogmaticae de ecclesia Christi. This stated, that the Church is the mystical body of Christ (chap. 1); that in this alone can the Christian religion be duly practised (chap. 2); that the Church is the one perfect society (chap. 3); that corporate bodies detached from the Church can not be designated as part or parcel of the Church (chap, 5); that only through the Church; and consequently, in the Church, can salvation be obtained (chaps. 6, 7); that the Church is imperishable and indefectible (chaps. 9, 10); that the Church possesses a peculiar power and authority (potestas, chap. 10); that in this body Christ has instituted the primacy of the bishop of Rome (chap. 11), which involves the possession of temporal sovereignty (chap. 12); in case of disharmony between Church and State, the State is to blame (chap. 13). The civil rulers, too, are bound to the law of God, and the decision as to how this is to be administered appertains to the supreme teaching function of the Church (chap. 14). The closing chapter claims for the Church the province of instructing the young, freedom in the sphere of training the clergy, and exemption of the clergy from military service, unrestricted franchise for the religious orders, etc. Under the head of canons may be read (No. XX.): "If any one says that the supreme rule of conscience in respect to public and social affairs is vested in the law of the body politic, or in the public opinion of men, or that the judgments of the Church do not reach over the said affairs (by which judgments the Church pronounces concerning what is lawful, or illicit and unlawful), or that something is lawful to be done by force of the civil justice which is unlawful by the divine justice or law of the Church, let him be anathema." When, in spite of the injunction to secrecy, this proviso came to be known by the press of all Europe, the civil governments were admonished to be vigilant, and were urged to defend the civil organism, now menaced by the doctrines of a vanished era. On Feb. 10, the Austrian Count Beust notified the Austrian ambassador to advise the cardinal secretary that the publication of any such ruling, prejudicial to due respect for the law of the land, was forbidden in Austria and would be visited with legal penalties. In a dispatch of Feb. 20, communicated to the other powers, Count Daru, French minister of foreign affairs, repelled the schedule's express encroachments upon the civil jurisdiction, and demanded that before the council proceeded to draft resolutions upon questions relating to civil statecraft, the holy see should give the French government opportunity to convey to the council the French conception herein. Antonelli, however, answered coldly, and nothing was ultimately achieved by these protests, since more active measures were not initiated. The change in the French ministry on Apr. 18, by which Ollivier became minister of foreign affairs, obviated all danger of direct coercion upon the council from a French quarter. And the same political considerations which decided Napoleon III. in favor of great reserve, were of controlling weight with Bismarck, while England also maintained her policy of reserve and self-restraint. In the council's proceedings, the grand stroke fell on Mar. 6, when a supplementary article to chap. 11 of the schedule De ecclesia was addressed to the members of the council. This appendix bore the heading, Romanum pontificem in rebus fidei et morum definiendis errare non posse, "The Roman pontiff can not err in defining matters of faith and morals." The time of the Curia's evasive policy was past, and the council faced a clear situation.


[Page 152]


[Page 153]


[Page 154]


[Page 155]


[Page 156]


[Page 157]


[Page 158]


[Page 159]


[Page 160]


[Page 161]


[Page 162]


[Page 163]


[Page 164]


[Page 165]


[Page 166]


[Page 167]


[Page 168]


[Page 169]


[Page 170]


[Page 171]


[Page 172]


[Page 173]


[Page 174]


[Page 175]


[Page 176]


[Page 177]


[Page 178]


[Page 179]


[Page 180]


[Page 181]


[Page 182]


[Page 183]


[Page 184]


[Page 185]


[Page 186]


[Page 187]


[Page 188]


[Page 189]


[Page 190]


[Page 191]


[Page 192]


[Page 193]


[Page 194]


[Page 195]


[Page 196]


[Page 197]


[Page 198]


his selfishness. Thus man becomes master of himself in proportion as he devotes himself to his fellows, is the more free the more social he is, receives more as he demands less, and is more himself the less he belongs to himself." Thus the individual and society grow in unison, attaining mutual perfection in the fulfilment and the service of duty. Applying this doctrine of individualism to the Church, Vinet became an advocate of the separation of Church and State, the step urged in the only two of his works which do not bear the mark of collected essays. Here he maintained that religion is an affair between God and man alone, while the State should have sole control of social morals, which comprize security of person and property and public decency. In 1831 Vinet was still a true son of the national Church, but by the time of the publication of his Essai sur la manifestation, etc., ut sup. (1842), his attitude had changed. The tenets set forth in his first essay of 1826 are here carried still further, with special attack upon the theory that the State is the entire man. Vinet maintained, on the contrary, that the State is based on identical traits common to all, while the foundation of the Church is human individuality of conscience. Individuality being thus considered a part of the inmost essence of Christianity, Vinet deemed the union of Church and State as heresy, and allowed validity only to a church independent of the State. A theological system he never evolved, though from him proceeded great ideas destined to bring forth fruit both for theology and for the Church. Thus he became a sort of second Pascal, and there is, therefore, little cause for surprise that Vinet's posthumous Études sur Blaise Pascal (Paris, 1848; Eng. transl., Studies on Pascal, Edinburgh, 1859) should be the best study yet written on that philosopher. In his apologetics he laid stress on the way in which the Gospel perfectly answers the needs of the heart. He was firmly convinced, moreover, that the most efficacious apologetic is psychological. But the psychological method of apologetics was the weakness, as well as the strength, of Vinet; for though history does not make faith, the neglect of historical factors leads to the peril of subjectivity and ultimately to rationalism. Vinet has even been termed a rationalist, but, in spite of occasional phrases in his letters and in his conversation, he was no skeptic. Had his attitude toward the Bible been clearer, the charge of rationalism might more easily be refuted. Lack of precision is characteristic of his apologetics and of his theology in general, but the reality which he ascribes, in all his writings, to the fall and to original sin, as well as to the great facts of salvation and the miracles, is alone sufficient to prevent rationalists or modern " liberals " from claiming him as one of their number. The entire character of his works demonstrates with equal clearness that he presupposed as absolutely necessary the facts of revelation. Christianity was for him primarily a history and a fact, which it must have been to gain currency.

The sole works of Vinet on practical theology were posthumous. His Théologie Pastorale (Paris, 1850; Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1852) is especially valuable for its rich utilization of French Roman Catholic literature. Here he denies any priestly character to the clergy, terms preaching a work of love and a mystery, and regards religious instruction as an act of worship. In his Homilétique ou théorie de la prédication (Paris, 1853; Eng. transl., Homiletics, Edinburgh and New York, 1853, new ed. 1880; often republished, since it was long a text-book in theological seminaries in the United States of America), he shows himself relatively indifferent to his text, deciding upon the themes of his sermons before choosing their texts. Both theoretically and practically he regarded almost exclusively the synthetic sermon, and sharply reproved any neglect of artistic embellishment. In citations he especially affected German writers on the theory of homiletics and the French preachers, whose works he had studied exhaustively. The results of these latter studies are embodied in his third work on practical theology, Histoire de la prédication parmi les Réformés de France au dix-septième siècle Paris, 1860), a publication of great value. The strength of Vinet's own sermons lies in their masterly control of the psychological method; their weakness in their neglect of Biblical foundation. Of Vinet's five homiletic volumes only one was based on sermons actually delivered by him, the remainder containing, for the most part, apologetic or ethical studies in rhetorical form, presented to a relatively small circle of students. The inner life of Vinet is clearly mirrored in his poems, a large number of which have justly been incorporated in French Protestant hymnals. In addition to the works already mentioned, Vinet was the author of the following: Chrestomathie française, ou choix de morceaux tirés des meilleurs écrivains français (3 vols., Basel, 1829-30); Études évangeliques (Paris, 1847; Eng. transl., Gospel Studies, Glasgow, 1849); Méditations évangéliques (1849; Eng. transl., Evangelical Meditations, Edinburgh, 1858); Études sur la littérature française au dix-neuvième siècle (3 vols., 1849-51); Nouvelles études évangeliques (1851); Histoire de la littérature française au dix-huitième siècle (2 vols., 1853; Eng. transl., Hist. of French Literature in the 18th Century, Edinburgh, 1854); Liberté religieuse et questions ecclésiastiques (1854); L'Éducation, la famille et la société (1855); Moralistes des seizième et dix-septième siècles (1859); Poètes du siècle de Louis XIV. (1861); Mélanges (1869); and Lettres (2 vols., Lausanne,1880).


BIBLIOGRAPHY: Biographical sketches are by E. Scherer, Paris, 1853; E. Rambert, 3d ed., 2 vols., Lausanne, 1876; Laura M. Lane, New York, 1890; E. de Pressensé, Paris, 1890, cf. his Contemporary Portraits, London, ,1879; H. Lecoultre, Paris, 1892. On Vinet's activities and thought consult: F. J. Stahl, Kirchenverfassung nach Lehre und Recht der Protestanten, pp. 279 sqq:, Erlangen, 1840; F. Chavannes, A. Vinet, notice et mémoires, Paris, 1847; idem, A. Vinet . . . comme apologists et moraliste chrétien, Leyden, 1883; J. F. Astié, Esprit d'A. Vinet, 2 vols., Lausanne, 1861; idem; Le Vinet de la légende et celui de l'hist., ib . 1882; A. F. Langlois, A. Vinet consideré comme predicateur, Strasburg, 1864; J. Widmer, A. Vinet envisagé comme apologists, Lausanne, 1875; J. Cramer, A. Vinet, moralist et apologiste chrétien, Lausanne. 1884; L. Molines, Études sur A. Vinet, Paris, 1890; J. B. Roy, L'Individu et la société d'après les . . . ouvrages d'A. Vinet, Lausanne, 1893; V. Rivet, Étude sur les origines de la pensée religieuse de Vinet, Paris, 1896; E. Combs. Vinet inter-



prEte du N. T., Paris, 1897; A. Rtlegg, A. Vind, Gedanken and Betraehtunpan, Heilbronn, 1897; . A. Schumann, V%net, ae%n leben, seine Gedankenmedt, seine Bedeutunp. Leipsic, 1907.


CCEL home page
This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at
Calvin College. Last modified on 10/03/03. Contact the CCEL.
Calvin seal: My heart I offer you O Lord, promptly and sincerely