spare us this parade of authorities, lest it should leave them no room for their own remarks. Dr. Pusey's commentary flows on thus without much interruption or discussion, though there are peculiarities about his style which amount to as specific a mannerism as any that is to be found among Methodist or Evangelical writers, and which may sometimes even puzzle a reader not previously acquainted with his writings.

It is interesting to have the opinion of one so well fitted to judge on the use that has been made of late of the cognate Semitic languages for illustration of the meanings of Hebrew words. Of course, no scholar of Dr. Pusey's eminence would question the value of such illustration: still the principle itself may be pushed too far. It was said not long ago, for instance, that a Hebrew scholar without a knowledge of the cognate languages was no better off than a Greek scholar who had read nothing but Ionic or Doric Greek. But the principle is one thing, and the use made of it another. Let us hear what Dr. Pusey says he is speaking of the translators of the Anglican Bible: "They had most of the helps for understanding Hebrew which we have-the same traditional knowledge from the ancient versions, Jewish commentators, or lexicographers, or grammarians, with the exception of the Jewish-Arabic school only, as well as the study of the Hebrew Scriptures themselves, and they used these aids with more mature and even judgment than has mostly been employed in the subsequent period. Hebrew criticism has now escaped, for the most part, from the arbitrariness which detected a various reading in any variation of a single old version, or in the error of some small fraction of MSS., which disfigured the commentaries of Lowth, Newcome, and Blayney. But the comparison of the cognate dialects opened for the time an unlimited licence of innovation. Every principle of interpretation, every rule of language was violated. The Bible was misinterpreted with a wild recklessness to which no other book was ever subjected. A subordinate meaning of some halfunderstood Arabic word was always at hand to remove whatever any one misliked. Now, the manifoldness of this reign of misrule has subsided. But interpretations as arbitrary as any that have perished still hold their sway, or from time to time emerge; and any revisal of the authorized version of the Old Testament, until the precarious use of the dialects shall be far more settled, would give us chaff for wheat, introducing an indefinite amount of error into the Word of God.”—(Introd. pp. vii. viii.)

Although the method adopted in the commentary itself keeps down to a great extent any display of erudition, the references as well as the introductions to the several Prophets evince immense and conscientious research. Every kind of illustration-historical, physical, geographical, and scientificis at hand. The introductions themselves are extremely valuable. We may notice, in particular, one feature that at the present moment has a peculiar interest of its own: we mean the attention drawn by Dr. Pusey to the fact, that the Prophets he illustrates use in a thousand places language and imagery drawn from the Pentateuch. This fact indubitably proves not only their own every-day use of the earlier portions of the Bible, but that those to whom they prophesied-princes and people, whether in the kingdom of Israel or of Judah-had the contents of the books of Moses "familiar to their ears as household words."

De Prisca Refutatione Hæreseon, Origenis nomine ac Philosophoumenon titulo recens vulgata, Commentarius TORQUATI ARMELLINI, e Societate Jesu. Romæ Typis Civiltatis Cattolicæ.

T

1862.

HIS dissertation proposes to add another name to the list of candidates for the authorship of the celebrated "Philosophoumena." Padre Armellini thinks he can make out a good claim for the schismatic Novatian. No hypothesis hitherto offered has completely satisfied the critical world. Origen at present has few supporters. The warmest advocates for Tertullian allow that grave objections can be alleged against his claim. The more generally received opinion which attributes the work to Hippolytus rests on a number of assumptions, grounded on no sufficient foundation. On the other hand, the merits of the work, the prominent fact of the author's connection with Rome, his own assertion of his high ecclesiastical rank, his antagonism to the Popes, and his schismatical leanings, forbid the abandonment of the inquiry. Does not Novatian unite in his person the several characteristics which we gather from the pages of the "Philosophoumena for the identification of the writer? Or does the work furnish any intrinsic evidence which compels us to exclude his name?

A preliminary difficulty is presented by the chronology. Döllinger and the generality of those who have written on the subject take it for granted that the author of the "Philosophoumena" belongs to the earlier portion of the third century. The history of Novatian cannot be traced with certainty; the dates, such as they are, would oblige us to extend the lifetime of the author beyond the middle of the third century. Padre Armellini remarks that the latest heretic whose name occurs in the "Philosophoumena" is Alcibiades of Apamea in Syria. We meet with the same name in Theodoret, and from him we learn that Origen wrote against Alcibiades ; Eusebius, in his account of Origen's labours, unhesitatingly fixes the date of the revival of the sect of the Helcesaita by Alcibiades in the interval A. D. 246-9. The composition of the "Philosophoumena must therefore be placed after the middle of the third century. The earliest limit can only be guessed at; the heretic Prepo, a disciple of Marcion, is mentioned as writing against Bardesanes "nostris hisce temporibus:" from the fact that Prepo's name nowhere appears in the writings of Rhodo or Tertullian, we infer that Prepo wrote subsequently to the death of Bardesanes, which Theodoret places near the year 180. These dates, Padre Armellini contends, may easily be reconciled with the hypothesis of Novatian being the author of the "Philosophoumena."

Suppose that Novatian was born about the year 180; that he fell ill towards 215; received baptism when in danger of death, and was ordained priest shortly after ;-this will allow of his occupying a position of influence during the reign of Pope Zephyrinus: he may easily survive to become the author of the wretched schism of 251, and even suffer a violent death during the persecution of Valerian, 253-268, assuming the correctness of the suspected account given by Socrates (H. E., 1. iv. c. 28). The "Philosophoumena" will thus fall within the second half of the third century, and

the attitude of its author during the second phase of the Sabellian heresy will become intelligible.

Antiquity can furnish little external evidence for Novatian's claim no work in any way corresponding to the "Philosophoumena" appears in the list of Novatian's writings; neither is there trace of the other treatises which the author of the "Philosophoumena" says he had given to the world. On the other hand, S. Jerome mentions expressly that Novatian wrote "multa alia," in addition to the books the names of which are preserved. His fall from unity would condemn his works to obscurity; and the loss of a treatise on heresies, composed in Greek at Rome, at a time when the knowledge of that language was on the decline, need not excite much surprise: possibly, the work was not published till after the death of Novatian, and then its circulation would naturally have been confined to his own followers. Assuming Novatian's authorship, many valuable arguments may be drawn from the work in support of the hypothesis. The writer displays an erudition such as we find attributed to Novatian; above all, he is familiar with the Gentile philosophy, and Novatian was reproached for the preference he avowed for its study: nay, some of his opponents attributed his rigourism to the principles he had borrowed from the Stoics. The methodical arrangement and the perspicuous style of the "Philosophoumena" also correspond with what we should expect from the schismatical leader. Sympathy with Tertullian, fondness for his writings, the employment of his arguments, points frequently objected to by the Novatians, may be traced in the "Philosophoumena." The use of the Greek language will not appear singular, if we remember that Novatian was deeply imbued with Greek philosophy, and that Latin writers of the same date are known to have composed works in Greek. Tertullian, as we learn from his own testimony, had composed two works in Greek. More serious is the objection drawn from the style of the "Philosophoumena." Novatian wrote in a turgid, grandiose style: it cannot be said of the "Philosophoumena" that they are chargeable with this defect; but the nature of the subject may account for the more subdued tone, the rather as the use of a strange language might be expected to check the flow of a writer's eloquence.

Again, how obviously the condition of the apxepareia, the high priesthood, so pompously claimed by the writer of the "Philosophoumena," finds its fulfilment in Novatian! The work, we have seen, must not be placed before the middle of the third century: Novatian appears as Antipope, most probably in 251. And be it remarked that this very distinctive condition, in one who evidently was outside of the school of Callixtus,-i.e., the Catholic Church, but who never claims his dignity during the reign of Callixtus, cannot with any appearance of probability be explained in the case of the other alleged authors of the "Philosophoumena."

The personal antipathy indulged in against the saintly Callixtus by the writer of the treatise in question admits of a plausible explanation in the case of Novatian. For Novatian, we conjecture, was ordained priest during the reign of Pope Zephyrinus: from the letter of Pope Cornelius to Fabius of Antioch we learn that he was baptized when in danger of death, and that his ordination was opposed by the clergy and the people on the ground of

the irregularity which at that time attached to clinical baptism. Now, Callixtus was archdeacon under Pope Zephyrinus, and the duty of remonstrating against Novatian as a candidate for holy orders would devolve upon him. In a temper like Novatian's that remonstrance could not fail to awake a feeling of deep resentment and personal animosity, which the death of its object was not likely to remove, especially when the dignity of the Papacy had added fuel to the original cause of pique.

The rigourism of the author of the "Philosophoumena," the blame he attaches to Callixtus for extending the benefits of reconciliation to all sinners, his anxiety to refuse this grace to fallen bishops, constitute a further resemblance with Novatian. Indeed, the very arguments attributed in the "Philosophoumena" to Pope Callixtus identically re-appear in the treatises composed by S. Pacian against Novatian. In the ninth book there occurs a doubtful passage, from which, taken in conjunction with the context, we may gather that the writer condemned second marriages. From Theodoret we learn that at first they were not censured by Novatian; but it may be inferred that his ideas became more narrowed as he advanced; and it is beyond doubt that the eighth canon of the Council of Nice required from the Novatian converts to the Church a promise to hold communion with persons who had entered the marriage state a second time.

Of all the writings of Novatian we possess only two letters and a treatise on the Trinity. The author of the "Philosophoumena" states his belief on this mystery at some length, and a comparison of their doctrine and theology regarding the Trinity will always be a crucial test of the soundness of Padre Armellini's theory. At the outset we are met by the avowal of the author that he went to such lengths in opposing Sabellius, that he was reproached by Callixtus as a ditheist: whereas the orthodoxy of Novatian on this point of belief is supposed to have been settled by the labours of Maran and Bull. Padre Armellini, however, contends that the real belief of the writer of the "Philosophoumena" will be placed beyond a doubt if we turn from the language employed against Pope Callixtus-language prompted perhaps by warmth of controversy,-and consider his calmer professions. It is certain that he unreservedly condemns the tritheism of the Peratæ, and declares his belief that God is one; it is certain that he recognizes the consubstantiality of the Son; he acknowledges that "God begotten of the Father" "took flesh in the womb of the Virgin." This doubt regarding the orthodoxy of the writer removed, a striking parallelism is drawn between "Novatian de Trinitate," c. 27, and "Philosophoumena," 1. xvi. c. 3.; "Novatian," cc. 15, 31, and "Philosophoumena,” 1. x. c. 3; and in both treatises a remarkable silence is observed regarding the Holy Ghost-by Novatian throughout, by the author of the "Philosophoumena" where he makes profession of fully stating the true doctrine concerning the Deity. During the Sabellian controversy it was to be expected that less attention would be drawn to the relations of the third Person of the Adorable Trinity: this unexpected coincidence between Novatian and the author of the "Philosophoumena" must be allowed to confirm Padre Armellini's hypothesis.

At first sight, the placing of the Quartodecimans among the heretics would seem to militate against Novatian's claim. But, if it be remembered

that the Novatians adopted the Quartodeciman error only after the death of their leader, during the reign of Valens, and that Socrates expressly bears witness that the Novatians at Rome conformed to the practice of the Universal Church, it will be plain that the objection is only apparent. One more difficult to deal with is to be found in the condemnation of re-baptism by the writer of the "Philosophoumena." The Novatians were reproached by S. Cyprian for baptizing those who joined their schism: the fact is very fully authenticated. Does not this opposition compel us to abandon Novatian's pretensions? Padre Armellini thinks that Novatian might quibble about the name, deny the validity of the first baptism, and assert the Novatian rite to be in fact the first. Unfortunately this was the defence adopted by the African rebaptizantes, who are held up as innovators in the 'Philosophoumena ;" and Padre Armellini himself does not consider the explanation satisfactory. He conjectures that the attack on Aggrippinus may be intended as a cover under which Novatian wishes to revenge the opposition raised by the archdeacon Callixtus to his ordination, on the plea of the irregularity incurred by his baptism at the point of death. Perhaps more weight may be allowed to the known dishonesty of Novatian: the writer of the "Opusculum contra Novatianum" mentions one of his resources to have been to bring against his adversaries the very accusations brought against himself. At least, there is reason for pausing before deciding the question of the authorship of the "Philosophoumena" against Novatian on account of this one apparent divergency regarding second baptism, in which the parallelism between the author of the "Philosophoumena" and Novatian seems to fail.

66

It is not our intention at present to test Padre Armellini's view by a closer comparison with the "Philosophoumena." Our purpose has been to give an outline of his argument. On the whole we think he has assigned sufficient reasons why the claim of Novatian ought to be carefully weighed. The general resemblance between Novatian and the writer of the "Refutation of all Heresies" is very striking: the more prominent objections, as we have seen, may be answered satisfactorily; and we think that little remains but to institute a more minute comparison. At the same time, we would respectfully suggest to Padre Armellini whether it would not be well to clear up the uncertainty in which Novatian's career at present remains, and, if possible, to add further confirmations of the period assigned for the composition of the work. For, after all, the postponement of the composition of the "Philosophoumena" to the second part of the third century is the postulatum which previous writers on this vexed question would be much disposed to deny.