has been thus perplexed, and the new assailant of the Heavenly Witnesses, with the modicum of learning and argument which he has so bountifully contributed to it, reduced to the proper level; the question recovers the ground on which it has been placed by the ablest disputants who have engaged in the contest. And, as no impression has been made on the internal evidence, which confirms the positive testimony of the Latin Church, no defence made to the argument deduced from the disciplina arcani, which disposes of the negative testimony of the Greek Church, the field necessarily remains in the possession of the defenders of the Heavenly Witnesses.

The main question being thus determined, the minor considerations which enter into the dispute may be now dispatched with little difficulty. Having already discussed the subject of Facundus and Eucherius's testimony seriously and at large, with the principal in this controversy, when I am again pressed by his pupil and transcriber, with arguments, the shallowness of which has been long exposed, no course is left are, in renewing the subject, but to make a grave appeal to the infallibility of Travis or Martin. This process, however ludicrous, would be infinitely less risible than that by which I am op. posed: when led up, after being forced to swallow a repetition of the dose from the German doctor, diluted as usual with water-gruel, I am compelled to take his opinion on the wholesomeness of the prescription. One or two observations, however, on the testimony of those Fathers may not be wholly thrown away, as calculated to do justice to the ways and means employed by the respondent, in his management of controversy.

In reference to his instructor, Dr. Griesbach's decision on this subject, we are informed, that "his account of the only edition of Facundus is, REMEMBRANCER, No. 44.

that it was printed from a manuscript copy in the Vatican, which had been used by Baronius." When the Bibliotheca Patrum, in its va rious editions, is inspected, and Griesbach's account produced, "e solo apographo codicis aut codicum Vatic. quo Baronius usus fuerat,” if it does little credit to the accuracy of the preceptor's information, it cannot fail to do justice to the veracity of the pupil's report. When any edition of the same rare work falls in the way of the respondent, he may be recommended, as a qualification to fit him for talking about Eucherius, to inspect the interpretation given by that father of the first texts, cited in his "Questions," in proof of the Trinity; Gen. i. 1, 2. I subjoin his gloss on the first word, which will, I believe, satisfy the curiosity of every reader, respecting the remainder; In principio, hoc est, in Filio. This instance, without descending to the texts with which it is associated, will probably teach the respondent, that there is a case which is strictly in point, as perfectly similar to 1 John v. 8, however unlike it may be to 1 John v. 7. which is really out of the dispute; and that by it, the inconsistency is clearly established between between the "Formulæ," in solely adducing the former text, in illustration of the Trinity, and the "Questions," in wholly omitting it, in a formal enumeration of the passages by which the mystery is proved.

To fit these observations, as usual, with a corollary, I shall now combine the two general rules, which he deduces from the testimony of those fathers, into one, in order to give them some strength; and by the waste of a single word, paralyze their power of doing good or harm, in the present dispute. "Whoever," he sagaciously infers, "expounds the eighth verse of the Trinity in Unity....or cites it without the spurious addition, in terra, gives evidence, that the seventh verse was not in his [Greek] copy." Our 30

controversy, however, is unhappily about Latin copies, for the whole of the Greek are given up. And those fathers who come within the proscription of the above general rules, wrote after Eusebius's revisal of the original, and either habitually referred to it, like Augustine, or were engaged in controversy with the Greeks, like Leo and Facundus.

My shoulders being once more disengaged from the weary load of the preceptor and pupil, I am now at leisure to contemplate the vital impression, which has been made, upon the plea which I have put on record. Had I not formerly traced, from the earliest period, and by the highest authorities, the course of those heresies by which the Catholies, while contending for the faith, were pressed, in contrary directions; the nature of the authorities, to which the respondent appeals, would exempt me from the heavy task of following him, from the times of Auxentius, in his solemn parade, through Latin versious, spurious tracts, and exploded editions. He must be again dismissed, to inspect the first chapter, at least, of the respective works which his trusty witnesses, Vigilius and Facundus, have written expressly on the subject under discussion, to qualify him for forming any opinion on the subject which he so "amply developes." He will be thus brought to perceive, though not to confess, that "the heresy with which the orthodox of that age had to contend," was really two-fold: and this monster with two heads, having a cross of the Nestorian and Eutychian, he may be further assured, unless travellers report it with their wonted veracity, still continues to infest the East. If, after the toil of perusing the first chapter of Facundus, his courage supports him in reaching the fifth, it will instruct him in the wisdom, though not awaken him to the shame, of undertaking to "demonstrate his antagonist must have re

ported a falsehood," while he is reduced to the necessity of boasting an ignorance of the works which he quotes. As some reward to requite the labour of such a search, he is yet to be told, that from the same chapter a reply to his wise and pertinent questions, may be extracted, unless it is precluded by some incurable, intellectual defect. For he may there find, "What his opponent means by the heretical term verbum?" and, "what heresy there may be, in maintaining the one simple nature, or substance, of the DIVINE Word?" As the shortest method, however, of deciding the con. troversy, let him dismiss the terms with which Facundus's words are ingeniously or unwittingly interpolated, in this interrogatory; and which hold their place in it, to demonstrate his incapacity, to square them to his own creed, without those interpolations which impart the whole of its orthodoxy to his question, in conferring both substance and divinity on the Word: let him then answer, in what other language, the Sabellian, who fell infinitely below the Eutychian, in his notion of the Trinity, would have chosen to describe his tenets? When this task is performed, he may, by a further stretch of his sagacity, reach the point really in dispute between us, and answer his first question, put with an amendment, What Ca tholic, in controversy with an Eutychian, ever yielded his assent to the one simple substance of the three Persons? For it is of them, and not of the Word only, that the consubstantiality is asserted, in "hi tres unum sunt," of the disputed text.

After this specimen of skill in putting an objection, I am sensible, that I shall expose myself to censure or ridicule, in bestowing on the strictures which follow, so much importance, as to deem them worthy of a refutation. As the two reasons, however, if such they may be term

ed, which he assigns for the substi tution of Verbum in the text of St. John, for Filius in the interpretations of the African Fathers, may be dispatched in very few words, the time may not be wholly lost which is mis-spent in such an undertaking. This change was made, he has discovered, in the first place, "to avoid some cavils of the Arians and Eutychians; the term Filius being generally used for Christ in two natures, whereas the term Verbum explained itself."

What grounds the Arians could have found for cavilling at the term Filius, will best appear from the consideration of their having given a preference to this term, in constructing their own confessions. In a creed, drawn up by Arius himself, which was subscribed by the Bishops that adopted his tenets, and was circulated in the East, the language is-Τρεῖς εἰσιν ὑποστάσεις, Πατὴρ, Υιὸς καὶ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα.....ὁδὲ Υιὸς ἀχρόνως γεννηθεὶς ἀπὸ τὸ Πατρὸς....μόνος ὑπὸ μόνο το Пlarpos visn. (Ap. S. Epiphan. I. 733.) In another of the Arian Auxentius, which happens to be preserved, and which was composed for the use of the West, the expression is even stronger, "Credo.... in Filium ejus unigenitum,... Deum, verum Filium, ex vero Deo, Patre. (Ap. S. Hilar. Col. 1270.)

But we are told, "the term Filius was generally used for Christ in two natures." If the terms in this proposition are transposed, it will bring us a little nearer to the mark; the term Christ being almost invariably used to designate our Lord in two natures; the term Son in his divine nature alone. From the confession of St. Peter, to the creed which passes under the name of Athanasius, the invariable doctrine of the Catholic Church is, that "the Son is of the Father alone, neither made, nor created, but begotten." I should feel ashamed to offer any proof of this position, which might be confirmed from every page of the works of the Fathers of the Church. Nor

on this point was there any ground of cavilling with the Arians, as we may collect from the passages extracted from the creed of their founder; their quarrels turning on the doctrine of one substance, which the disputed verse was calculated to aggravate, whatever concession was made them, by the adoption of the term Word.

Again, we are instructed, that while the term Filius was thus equivocal," the term Verbum explained itself." Another transposition would, I believe, here also bring us a little nearer to the truth. The term Son, as implying its correlative Father, intimated an identity of nature, and a personal diversity between those Beings, and thus contained in itself the force of the entire proposition, added by the Evangelist to define the equivocal term Word, "that it was God, and with God." In this light Fulgentius, to whom the fabrication of the disputed verse, is partly attributed, regarded this subject. In the opening of his Responsio contra Arrianos, he observes, "Pater ergo et FILIUS relativa sunt nomina, quæ naturam gignentis genitique non separant, sed unam sine dubitatione significant ;" and shortly after, "generatio personas distinguet." But when he comes to reason from the term Word, his arguments are not deduced from its intrinsic force, that fitted it to explain itself, but from the explanatory adjuncts, by which it is defined by the Apostle; thus referring to John i. 1. he observes, "Hinc Sabellianus vincitur, quia in eo quod

Verbum erat apud Deum,' ostenditur altera Patris, altera Filii esse persona: hinc etiam Arrianus superatur, quia in eo quod Deus erat Verbum,' ostenditur una esse Patris Filiique natura." (De Orthod. Fid. cap. xviii.) On the contrary, it was the Sabellian who took his stand on the force of the term Word; to him, as the African Church had been tanght by the founder of her exegetical theology, "the term explained

itself," as properly meaning,

et sonus oris, et sicut Grammatici tradunt, aër offensus, intelligibilis auditu"....“ ut ipse sit qui protulerit, et quid prolatum est." (Tert. Adv. Prax. cap, vii. xi.)

In the fate of the preceding conjecture, relative to the cause which occasioned the substitution of Verbum for Filius, that by which it is followed is necessarily involved, which teaches us, that it was "to avoid the consequence of making Christ bear witness to himself." Allowing the author of this fortunate guess every benefit arising from that confusion of terms, which takes Filius and Christus as convertible, and accordingly substitutes the one for the other; the proposition, abstracting this error in its principle, is so wholly destitute of the semblance of truth, that its direct contradictory was constantly urged by the Catholics, in pressing John x. 30. in their protracted controversy with the Arians. This position, I should again feel ashamed to substantiate, by reference to the works of the Fathers. An extinguisher is put on the con jecture, by Augustine's testimony alone, in a passage not carefully sought in the wide range of his works, but subjoined by him to the allegorical explanation, from whence we are told the disputed text has been deduced by the African Fathers: "Testes vero esse Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum sanctum, quis in Evangelio credit et dubitat, dicente Filio, Ego sum qui testimonium perhibeo de me," &c.

This extract would of itself illustrate the happiness of referring to Augustine, for a proof of the manner in which the transition has been made from Filius to Verbum; if the selection of his explanation of (John i. 14.)

"the Word became flesh," as the foundation of the change, did not afford proof more convincing of the learning and ingenuity of the conjecturer. The text on which he thus happily blunders, indepen

dent of its possessing no term in common with the allegorical exposition of Augustine, "the blood is the Son;" proves to be the funda mental text, as we shall soon discover by the malice of Vigilius, on which the Eutychians justified their attachment to Verbum. And that foul traitor, Facundus, conspiring with Vigilius, to betray the incompetency of their patron to deliver any opinion on this subject, demolishes his present conjecture, as mercilessly as Augustine destroys the preceding. Following this writer, in allegorising the eighth verse, he gives up Heb. ii. 14. as the authority of the exposition; which contains both the literal "blood" and the allegorical "Son" of Augustine: “in sanguine vero Filium significans, quoniam ipse-communicavit carne et sanguine."

To complete this work of treachery, Facundus and Vigilius conspire in delivering the following testimony, from whence we may possibly form as good a conjecture as any with which we have been amused, on the force of the terms Filius and Verbum: from it likewise we may be enabled to judge how far a spirit of concession would have induced the African Fathers to invent the text of the Heavenly Witnesses, and throw in the latter term as a boon to the Eutychians.

"Christum igitur Filium Dei, quemadmodum dictum est in duabus prædicamus esse naturis. Nec dici patimur unam ejus ex Divinitate et huminitate compositam esse naturam, ne Patri cujus simplex natura est, consubstantialis non sit, &c. ... At huic evidentissimæ rationi bruta Eutychianorum contentio refragatur, adfirmans Dei Verbi unitatem, immutabiliter simplicem cum suscepta humanitate, in unam componi potuisse naturam.” Facund, Defens. Tri. Capit. Lib. 1. cap. v.

"Quoniam Eutychiana hæresis ad id impietatis prolapsa est errore, ut non solum Verbi et carnis unam credat esse naturam, verum etiam

The substance of these extracts, and the inferences deducible from them, were submitted to the reader at the close of my first letter. After adducing testimonies thus full, explicit, and apposite, I should deem it an abuse of time, to waste another word on a controversy, which has been uselessly protracted.

I have the honour to be,
&c. &c.
FRED. NOLAN.

TICAL HISTORY OF GREAT BRITAIN.

No. VIII.

WILFRID'S journey to Rome was not deficient in adventures. In

stead of taking the direct road, he went round by Friesland, in order to avoid the snares which had been

laid for him by his enemies; and

into which another traveller of a name nearly similar to his own, Wulfrid, Bishop of Lichfield, fell. The Frieslanders had not yet been converted to Christianity, but Wilfrid preached to them with so much success, that nearly all the chief men, and many thousands of the common people were baptised. Theodoric, a king of the Franks,

offered the Frieslanders a considerable sum of money, if they would send Wilfrid to him, either dead or alive. The proposal was rejected with indignation, and Wilfrid proceded on his journey in the ensuing spring. From Dagobert, another king of the Franks, he experienced very friendly treatment. The bishoprick of Strasbourg was offered to him, if he would continue in that

was sent forward on his road to Rome, with every token of esteem and friendship.

Two of

Coenwald, an emissary of Archbishop Theodore, had reached Rome before Wilfrid, and Pope Agatho had been made acquainted with the nature of the dispute. The Pope assembled a synod containing more than fifty bishops and priests, and said that he wished them to enquire into the dissension which had sprung up in the British Church. his bishops observed, that by his own orders they had already perused the accounts transmitted by Theodore, as well as listened to his messengers and to Wilfrid, who appealed against his decision. They found that, according to the strict letter of the Canons*, Wilfrid had not been convicted of any crime, and therefore had not been canonically deposed: nor were his accusers willing to give evidence of any wickedness which merited degradation. On the

"Neque secundum sanctorum Canonum subtilitatem convictum de aliquibus facinoribus, et ideo non canonice dejectum reperimus.” Eddius. xxix.