as an uncompromising adherence to the faith of the Church; but which others can regard only in the light of a prejudice, and a rooted habit of viewing all things through the eyes of Rome.]

The Benedictine editors begin their preface thus:  “That this discourse is spurious, there is NO LEARNED MAN WHO DOES NOT NOW ADJUDGE ...  The style proves itself more clear than the sun, to be different from that of Athanasius.  Besides this, very many trifles show themselves here unworthy of any sensible man whatever, not to say Athanasius ... and a great number of expressions unknown to Athanasius ... so that it savours of inferior Greek.  And truly his subtle disputation {183} on the hypostasis of Christ, and on the two natures in Christ, persuades us, that he lived after the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon; of which councils moreover he uses the identical words, whereas his dissertation on the two wills in Christ seems to argue, that he lived after the spreading of the error of the Monothelites.  But (continue these Benedictine editors) we would add here the dissertation of Baronius on this subject, sent to us by our brethren from Rome.  That illustrious annotator, indeed, having read only the Latin version of Nannius, which is clearer than the Greek, did not observe the astonishing perplexity of the style[65].”

[Footnote 65:  Even in the Bibliotheca Patrum Concionatoria the homily is declared to be not the work of Athanasius, but to have been written after the sixth general council.  “It is evident,” say the editors, “that it is the monument of a very learned man, though he has his own blemishes, on which, for the most part, we have remarked in the margin.”  Paris, 1662. p. 336.]

The dissertation which the Benedictine editors append, was contained in a letter written by Baronius to Stapleton, in consequence of some animadversions which Stapleton had communicated to Cardinal Allen on the judgment of Baronius.  The letter is dated Rome, November, 1592.  The judgment of Baronius on the spurious character of this homily had been published to the world some time previously; for after some preliminary words of kindness and respect to his correspondent, Baronius proceeds to say, that when he previously published his sentiments on this homily, it was only cursorily and by the way, his work then being on another subject.  Nevertheless he conceived, {184} that the little he had then stated would be sufficient to show, that the homily was not the production of Athanasius, and that all persons of learning, WHO WERE DESIROUS OF THE TRUTH, would freely agree with him; nor was he in this expectation disappointed; for very many persons expressed their agreement with him, congratulating him on separating legitimate from spurious children.  He then states the arguments which the Benedictine editors adopted after him, and which we need not repeat.  But he also urges this fact, that though Cyril had the works of Athanasius in his custody, and though