may be found, and afterwards to produce a few specimens of such as receive an additional value by something more than the simple testimony of their agreement with your interpretation.

1. Hilarius Pictavensis. Ad Constantium Augustum. Lib. 2. apud finem.

2. Ejusdem in Psalm 62. p. 155.

3. Lucifer Calaritanus pro S. Athanasio. Lib. ii. p. 144.

4. Ambrosii (rectius Hilarii Diaconi) Expositio ad loc. (Vol. ii. p. 315.)

5. Hieronymi Expositio ad loc. (Vol. iv. p. 431.) And again same vol. p. 424.

6. Ejusdem, vol. v. p. 1103.

7. Ejusdem Commentar. in Isaiam, c. xlii. v. 13. vol. iii. p. 320.

8. Idacius Clarus (s. Vigilius Tapsensis) contra Varimadum Arianum. Lib. ii. c. 1. p. 439. (p. 281.) 9. Ejusdem. Lib. iii. c. 2. p. 456. (p. 290.)

10. Augustini Collatio cum Maximino Arianorum Episcopo. Vol. viii. p. 465.

11. Ejusdem, vol. iii. pars 2. p. 308.
12. Ejusdem, vol. v. Append. p. 272.
13. Ejusdem, vol. v. ibid. p. 343.
14. Ejusdem, vol. x. p. 18.

15. Ejusdem, vol. x. Append. p. 15.

16. Marius Mercator de Incarnatione Verbi, p. 235. 17. Joannes Cassianus de Incarnatione Domini, lib.

c. 4. p. 15.

N 2

18. Faustus

p.

18. Faustus Regiensis Episcopus de Ratione Fidei, 683. ap. Hæreseolog. Basil. 1556.

19. Alcimi Aviti Fragmenta ex libris contra Arianos Sirmond. Op. vol. ii. p. 178.

20. Fulgentius, p. 659. 21. Idem, p. 721.

22. Maxentius contra Nestorianos, lib. ii. p. 81. 23. Facundus Defensio trium Capitul. p. 3.

24. Primasius in loc. p. 466.

25. Anastasius Apocrisiarius, Epistolà ad Theodosium Presbyt. p. 249.

26. Beda in loc. vol. vi. p. 1051.

27. Alcuinus, p. 908.

28. Idem, p. 968.

29. Idem, p. 992.

30. Idem, p. 1431.

31. Concilium Forojuliense, Anno Christi 791. Concil. vol. iv. p. 862,

32. Concilium Francofordiense, Anno Christi 794. Concil. vol. iv. p. 886. contains Jerome's comment on the verse. (See No. 5, above.)

33. Breviarium Fidei adversus Arianos, p. 86.

34. Idem, p. 119.

35. Rabanus Maurus ad loc. p. 528.

36. Lanfrancus ad loc. p. 202.

37. Bruno ad loc.

38. Anselmus Laudunensis ad loc. p. 387. 39. Lombardus ad loc.

40. Thomas Aquinas ad loc. p. 432. And

41. Opus

41. Opus Imperfectum in Matthæum (Chrysostom vol. vi. p. 182 Appendix) the work of an unknown author, but probably about the time of Chrysostom *.

The above may suffice with respect to the Latin writ ers, though the catalogue is, doubtless, far from being a complete one.

Of these, I consider only the numbers 3, 11, 14, 20, 26 and 30, as indeterminate in their signification. The remainder, (with the exceptions which I before alluded to) interpret the words magni Dei invariably of the Son.

56. It may not, however, be improper to transcribe the two following passages, by way of specimen. They are also from writers who were undoubtedly well acquainted with the Greek language.

The first is Jerome, in his commentary on this verse. (Vol. iv. p.431.).

"Ubi est serpens Arius? Ubi Eunomius coluber? Magnus Deus, Jesus Christus Salvator dicitur; non primogenitus omnis creaturæ, non verbum Dei, et sapientia, sed Jesus Christus, quæ vocabula assumti hominis sunt. Neque vero alium Jesum Christum, alium Verbum dicimus, ut nova hæresis calumniatur: sed eundem

* See Cave Hist. Lit. vol. i. p. 312 and p. 317. Mill (Prolegom. sect. 1037) attributes it to a much later age, viz. the tenth century.

et

et ante sæcula, et post sæcula; et ante mundum; et post Mariam; imo ex Maria, magnum Deum appellamus, Salvatorem nostrum Jesum Christum, qui dedit semetipsum pro nobis, ut pretioso, &c."

57. The other is from Cassian (No. 17).

He adds, after having quoted the passage, "Vidit profecto ille divinæ sapientiæ doctor ad insidiosas calliditates diabolicæ captionis, simplicem tantummodo non sufficere doctrinam, nisi sanctam fidei prædicationem munimine cautionis armasset, Et ideo cum superius nomen Dei salvatorisque posuisset," (he means at the beginning of verse 11, where he seems to have read, του Θεου και σωτήρος, or του Θεού του σωτηρος, and not του Θεου ἡ σωτήριος, the common reading) "hic addidit Jesu Christi: scilicet ne ad significandum Dominum Jesum Christum sufficere tibi forsitan nomen solum non crederes salvatoris; et non eundem Jesum Christum, Deum esse intelligeres, quem salvatorem Deum esse cognovisses. Quid ergo ait? Exspectantes, inquit, beatam spem, et adventum gloriæ magni Dei et Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi. Nihil hic de nominibus Domini nostri deest. Et Deum hic, et Salvatorem, et Jesum, et Christum vides: sed omnia hæc videns, omnia in Deo esse perspicis. Audisti enim Deum, sed Salvatorem; audisti Deum, sed Jesum; audisti Deum esse, sed Christum.' Separari hoc appellationis diversitate non valet, quod divinitas unitate conjunxit."

58. But,

58. But, moreover, we may learn from these Latin authorities, that even their heretics acknowledged your interpretation. The interpretation of our version was never once thought of in any part of the Christian world, even when Arianism was triumphant over the Catholic faith. Surely, this fact, might of itself suffice to overturn every notion of an ambiguity in the form of expres

sion.

It was probably, in allusion to this verse, that we find the Arians, in their Discourse, a short tract answered by St. Augustine, speaking thus of the Father: "et magno major, et bono melior est manifestatus." (Augustine vol. viii. p. 442.)

But, the following, as they were taken down at the time, and are reported by Augustine (Vid. Possidium in Vità Augustini cap. 17.) are the words of Maximin, the celebrated Arian Bishop, in their curious and interesting conference. (See No. 10, of the Latin authorities.)

"A nobis unus colitur Deus, innatus, infectus, invisibilis, qui ad humana contagia, et ad humanam carnem non descendit. Est autem et Filius, secundum Apostolum, non pusillus, sed magnus Deus. Sicut ait beatus Paulus: Exspectantes beatam spem, et adventum gloriæ magni Dei et Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi. Iste enim magnus Deus Christus, dicit, quod ascendo ad Patrem meum, &c." (John xx. 17.)

A little