« PreviousContinue »
has been thus perplexed, and the that it was printed ftom a manu. new assailant of the Heavenly Wita : script copy in the Vatican, which nesses, with the modicum of learn- had been used by Baronius.” When ing and argument which he has the Bibliotheca Patrum, in its vaso bountifully contributed to it, rious editions, is iuspected, and reduced to the proper level; the Griesbach's account produced, “e question recovers the ground on solo apographo codicis aut codicum which it has been placed by the Vatic. quo Baronius usus fuerat," ablest disputants who have engaged if it does little credit to the accurain the contest. And, as no impres- cy of the preceptor's information, sion has been made on the internal it cannot fail to do justice to the evidence, which confirms the posi- veracity of the pupil's report. When tive testimony of the Latin Church, any edition of the same rare work no defence made to the argument falls in the way of the respondent, deduced from the disciplina arcani, he may be recommended, as a qua-which disposes of the negative tes. lification to fit him for talking about timony of the Greek Church, the Eucherius, to inspect the interprefield necessarily remains in the pos- tation given by that father of the session of the defenders of the first texts, cited in his “ Questions,'' Heavenly Witnesses.
in proof of the Trinity; Gen. i. 1, 2. The main question being thus de. I subjoin his gloss on the first word, termined, the minor considerations which will, I believe, satisfy the cuwhich enter into the dispute may riosity of every reader, respecting be now dispatched with little difti- the remainder; In principio, hoc culty. Having already discussed est, in Filio. This instance, with the subject of Facundus and Eu- out descending to the texts with cherius's testimony seriously and at which it is associated, will probably large, with the principal in this teach the respondent, that there is a controversy, when I am again pres case which is strictly in point, as sed by his pupil and transcriber, perfectly similar to 1 John v.8, howwith arguments, the shallowness of ever unlike it may be to 1 John v. 7. which has been long exposed, no which is really out of the dispute ; course is left me, in renewing the and that by it, the inconsistency is subject, but to make a grave appeal clearly established between the to the infallibility of Travis or Mar. “ Formulæ,” in solely adducing the tin. This process, however ludi- former text, in illustration of the Trierous, would be infinitely less ri- nity, and the “Questions," in wholly sible than that by which I am op. omitting it, in a formal enumeration posed: when led up, after being of the passages by which the mys. forced to swallow a repetition of the tery is proved. dose from the German doctor, di. To fit these observations, as usual, luted as usual with water-gruel, 1 with a corollary, I shall now comam compelled to take his opinion on bine the two general rules, which he the wholesomeness of the prescrip- deduces from the testimony of those tion. One or two observations, fathers, into one, in order to give however, on the testimony of those them some strength; and by the Fathers may not be wholly thrown waste of a single word, paralyze away, as calculated to do justice to their power of doing good or harm, the ways and means employed by in the present dispute. “ Whothe respondent, in his management ever," he sagaciously infers, “er. of controversy.
pounds the eighth verse of the TriIn reference to his instructor, Dr. nity in Unity....or cites it without Griesbach's decision on this subject, the spurious addition, in terra, gives we are informed, that “his account evidence, that the seventh verse was of the only edition of Facundus is, not in his (Greek] copy.” Our REMEMBRANCER, No. 44.
controversy, however, is unhappily ported
ported a falsehood," while he is about Latin copies, for the whole of reduced to the necessity of boasting the Greek are given up. And those an ignorance of the works which he fathers who come within the pro quotes. As some reward to requite scription of the above general rules, the labour of such a search, he is wrote after Eusebius's revisal of the yet to be told, that from the same original, and either habitually refer- chapter a reply to his wise and perred to it, like Augustine, or were tinent questions, may be extracted, engaged in controversy with the unless it is precluded by some inGreeks, like Leo and Facundus. curable, intellectual defect.
For My shoulders being once more he may there find, “ What his opdisengaged from the weary load of ponent means by the heretical term the preceptor and pupil, I am now verbum ?" and, “what heresy there at leisure to contemplate the vital may be, in maintaining the one simimpression, which has been made, ple nature, or substance, of the DIupon the plea which I have put on VINE Word ?” As the shortest me. record. llad I not formerly traced, thod, however, of deciding the con. from the earliest period, and by the troversy, let him dismiss the terms highest authorities, the course of with which Facundus’s words are inthose heresies by which the Catho- geniously or unwittingly interpolics, while contending for the faith, Tated, in this interrogatory; and were pressed, in contrary directions; which hold their place in it, to dethe nature of the authorities, to monstrate his incapacity, to square which the respondent appeals, would them to his own creed, without exempt me from the heavy task of those interpolations which impart following him, from the times of the whole of its orthodoxy to his Auxentius, in his solemn parade, question, in conferring 'both subthrough Latin versious, spurious stance and divinity on the Word : let tracts, and exploded editions. He him then answer, in what other must be again dismissed, to inspect language, the Sabellian, who fell inthe first chapter, at least, of the finitely below the Eutychian, in his respective works which his trusty notion of the Trinity, would have witnesses, Vigilius and Facundus, chosen to describe bis tenets ? When have written expressly on the sub- this task is performed, he may, by a ject under discussion, to qualify further stretch of his sagacity, reach him for forming any opinion on the point really in dispute between the subject which he so “ amply de
amply de- us, and answer bis first question, velopes.” He will be thus brought put with an amendment, What Cato perceive, though not to confess, tholic, in controversy with an Eutythat “the heresy with which the or. chian, ever yielded his assent to the thodox of that age had to contend,” one simple substance of the three was really two-fold : and this mon Persons? For it is of them, and not ster with two heads, having a cross of the Word only, that the conof the Nestorian and Eutychian, he substantiality is asserted, in “hi may be further assured, unless tra. tres unum sunt,” of the disputed vellers report it with their wonted text. veracity, still continues to infest the After this specimen of skill in East. If, after the toil of perusing putting an objection, I am sensible, the first chapter of Facundus, his that I shall expose myself to censure courage supports him in reaching the or ridicule, in bestowing on the fifth, it will instruct bin in the wis- strictures which follow, so much imdom, though not awaken him to the portance, as to deem them worthy shame, of undertaking to " demon- ofa refutation. As the two reasons, strate his antagonist must have re- however, if such they may be tern.
ed, which he assigns for the substi. on this point was there any ground tution of Verbum in the text of St. of cavilling with the Arians, as we John, for Filius in the interpreta- may collect from the passages extions of the African Fathers, may be tracted from the creed of their dispatched in very few words, the founder; their quarrels turning on time may not be wholly lost which the doctrine of one substance, which is mis-spent in such an undertak- the disputed verse was calculated to ing. This change was made, he has aggravate, whatever concession was discovered, in the first place, “ to made them, by the adoption of the avoid some cavils of the Arians and term Word. Eutychians; the term Filius being Again, we are instructed, that generally used for Christ in two na while the term Filius was thus equitures, whereas the term Verbum ex vocal," the term Verbum explained plained itself.”
itself." Another transposition would, What grounds the Arians could I believe, here also bring us a little have found for cavilling at the term nearer to the truth. The term Son, Filius, will best appear from the as implying its correlative Father, consideration of their having given intimated an identity of nature, and a preference to this term, in con a personal diversity between those structing their own confessions. In Beings, and thus contained in itself a creed, drawn up by Arius himself, the force of the entire proposition, which was subscribed by the Bishops added by the Evangelist to define that adopted his tenets, and was the equivocal term Word, “ that it circulated in the East, the language was God, and with God." In this is---Tprístici imorous, IIærhp, vids xy light Fulgentius, to whom the fa. äylor BrūvQ...N Too's á xpówas your brication of the disputed verse, is θείς από το Πατρός....μόνος υπό μόνο το partly attributed, regarded this subIlærpòs imisno (Ap. S. Epiphan. I. ject. In the opening of his Respon733.) In another of the Arian Auxe sio contra Arrianos, he observes, entius, which happens to be pre " Pater ergo et FILIUS relativa served, and which was composed sunt nomina, quæ naturam gignenfor the use of the West, the expres- tis genitique non separant, sed unam sion is even stronger, “Credo.... sine dubitatione significant ;" and in Filium ejus unigenitum,... Deum, shortly after, "generatio personas verum Filium, ex vero Deo, Patre. distinguet.” But when he comes to (Ap. S. Hilar. Col. 1270.)
reason from the term Word, his arBut we are told, “ the term Filius guments are not deduced from its was generally used for Christ in two intrinsic force, that fitted it to ex. natures.” If the terms in this pro. plain itself, but from the explanaposition are transposed, it will bring tory adjuncts, by which it is defined us a little nearer to the mark; the by the Apostle; thus referring to term Christ being almost invariably John i. 1. he observes, “Hinc Saused to designate our Lord in two bellianus vincitur, quia in eo quod natures; the term Son in his divine • Verbuni erat apud Deum,' ostennature alone. From the confession ditur altera Patris, altera Filii esse of St. Peter, to the creed which persona : hinc etiam Arrianus supepasses under the name of Athana- ratur, quia in eo quod • Deus erat sius, the invariable doctrine of the Verbum,' ostenditur una esse Patris Catholic Church is, that “the Son is Filiique natura.” (De Orthod. fid. of the Father alone, neither made, cap. xviii.) On the contrary, it was nor created, but begotten." I should the Sabellian who took his stand on feel ashamed to offer any proof of the force of the term Word; to hini, this position, which might be con as the African Church had been firmed from every page of the works tanght by the founder of her exegeof the Fathers of the Church. Nortical theology, “the tern explained
itself,” as properly meaning, “ vox dent of its possessing no term in et sonus oris, et sicut Grammatici common with the allegorical expotradunt, aër offensus, intelligibilis sition of Augustine, " the blood is auditu"...." ut ipse sit qui protu- the Son;" proves to be the fundalerit, et quid prolatum est.” (Tert. mental text, as we shall soon disAdv. Prax, cap. vii. xi.)
cover by the malice of Vigilius, on In the fate of the preceding con- which the Eutychians justified their jecture, relative to the cause which attachment to Verbum. And that occasioned the substitution of Ver- foul traitor, Facundus, conspiring bum for Filius, that by which it is with Vigilius, to betray the incomfollowed is necessarily involved, petency of their patron to deliver which teaches us, that it was “ to any opinion on this subject, demoavoid the consequence of making lishes his present conjecture, as Cbrist bear witness to himself.” mercilessly as Augustine destroys Allowing the author of this fortu- the preceding. Following this writer, nate guess every benefit arising in allegorising the eighth verse, he from that confusion of terms, which gives up Heb. ii. 14. as the authority takes Filius and Christus as con of the exposition; which contains vertible, and accordingly substi- both the literal “ blood" and the al. tutes the one for the other; the legorical “Sou" of Augustine : “in proposition, abstracting this error sanguine vero Filium significans, in its principle, is so wholly desti- quoniam ipse-communicavit carne tute of the semblance of truth, that et sanguine.” its direct contradictory was
To complete this work of treastantly urged by the Catholics, in chery, l'acundus and Vigilius conpressing John x. 30. in their pro. spire in delivering the following .tracted controversy with the Arians. testimony, from whence we may posThis position, I should again feel sibly form as good a conjecture as ashamed to substantiate, by refer- any with which we have been ence to the works of the Fathers. amused, on the force of the terms An extinguisher is put on the con Filius and Verbum: from it likewise jecture, by Augustine's testimony we may be enabled to judge how alone, in a passage not carefully far a spirit of concession would sought in the wide range of his have induced the African Fathers to works, but subjoined by him to the invent the text of the Heavenly Witallegorical explanation, from whence nesses, and throw in the latter term we are told the disputed text has as a boon to the Eutychians. been deduced by the African Fa “ Christum igitur Filium Dei, thers : “ Tesies vero esse Patrem, et quemadmodum dictum est in duaFilium, et Spiritum sanctum, quis bus prædicamus esse naturis. Nec in Evangelio credit et dubitat, di- dici patimur unam ejus ex Divinicente lilio, Ego sum qui testimo- tate et huminitate compositam esse nium perhibeo de me," &c.
naturam, ne Patri cujus simplex This extract would of itself illus- natura est, consubstantialis non sit, trate the happiness of referring to &c. ... At huic evidentissimæ raAugustine, for a proof of the man- tioni bruta Eutychianorum contentio ner in which the transition has been refragatur, adfirmans Dei Verbi uniinade from Filius to Verbum; if the tatem, immutabiliter simplicem cum selection of his explanation of (John suscepta humanitate, in unam comi. 14.) " the Word became flesh," poni potuisse naturam.” Facund. as the foundation of the change, Defens. Tri. Capit. Lib. 1. cap. v. did not afford proof more convinc “ Quoniam Eutychiana hæresis ing of the learning and ingenuity of ad id impietatis prolapsa est errore, the conjecturer. The text on which ut non solum Verbi et carnis unam be thus happily bluuders, indepen- credat esse naturam, verum etiaia
hanc eandem carnem non sacro corpus de virginis carne sumpsisse." Mariæ virginis corpore adsumptam Vigil
. contr. Eutych. Lib. III. ad sed de cælo dicat (juxta infandum init. Valentini et Marciouis errorem) The substance of these extracts, fuisse deductam; ita pertinaciter and the inferences deducible from
Verbum carnem' adserens • fac- them, were submitted to the reader tun,' ut per virginem ac si aqua at ibe close of my first letter. After per fistulam transisse videatur, non adducing testimonies thus full, ex. tamen ut de virgine aliquid quod plicit, and apposite, I should deem nostri sit generis adsumpsisse cre. it an abuse of time, to waste andatur; optimum duxi hanc impie- other word on a controversy, which tatem veritatis assertione destruere has been uselessly protracted.
.... maxime quod multum ad I have the honour to be, utriusque naturæ confessionis veri
&c. &c. tatem proficiat divinis approbare
FRED. NOLAN. testimoniis, Filium Dei humanum June 18, 1822.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. SKETCHES OF THE ECCLESIAS- country, and upon his refusal, he
TICAL HISTORY OF GREAT was sent forward on his road to BRITAIN.
Rome, with every token of esteem No. VIII.
and friendship. WILFRID's journey to Rome was
Coenwald, an emissary of Archnot deficient in adventures.
bishop Theodore, had reached Rome
Instead of taking the direct road, he before Wilfrid, and Pope Agatho stead of taking the direct road, he had been made acquainted with the went round by Friesland, in order
nature of the dispute. The Pope to avoid the snares which had been laid for him by his enemies; and than fifty bishops and priests, and
assembled a synod containing more into which another traveller of a
said that he wished them to enquire vame nearly similar to his own, into the dissension which had sprung Wulfrid, Bishop of Lichfield, fell.
Two of The Frieslanders had not yet been up in the British Church. converted to Christianity, but Wil- bis bishops observed, that by his
own orders they had already perused frid preached to them withi so much
the accounts transmitted by Theo. success, that nearly all the chief
dore, as well as listened to his mesmen, and many thousands of the common people were baptised. sengers and to Wilfrid, who appealed Theodoric, a king of the Franks, that, according to the strict letter
against his decision. They found offered the Frieslanders a consider; of the Canons *, Wilfrid had not been able of money, if they would send Wilfrid to him, either dead or
convicted of any crime, and therealive. The proposal was rejected fore had not been canonically dewith indignation, and Wilfrid pro- to give evidence of any wickedness
posed: nor were his accusers willing ceded on his journey in the ensuing which merited degradation. On the spring. From Dagobert, another king of the Franks, he experienced
* “ Neqne secundum sanctorum Canovery friendly treatment. The bishop- num subtilitatem convictum de aliquibus rick of Strasbourg was offered to facinoribus, et ideo non canonice dejectum him," if he would continue in that reperimus.” Eddius. XXIX.