both the disputing parties ransacked every place for sentiments of Athanasius countenancing their tenets, yet neither at Ephesus nor at Chalcedon was this homily quoted, though it must have altogether driven Eutyches and Nestorius from the field, so exact are its definitions and statements on the points then at issue.  Baronius then adds, that so far from reversing the judgment which he had before passed against the genuineness of this homily, he was compelled in justice to declare his conviction, that it could not have been written till after the heresy of the Monothelites had been spread abroad.  This we know would fix its date, at the very earliest, subsequently to the commencement of the SEVENTH century, three hundred years after Athanasius attended the Council of Nice.  Among the last sentiments of Baronius in this letter, is one which implies a principle worthy of Christian wisdom, and which can never be neglected without injury to the cause of truth.  “These sentiments concerning Athanasius I do not think are affirmed with any detriment to the Church; for the Church does not suffer a loss on this account; who being the pillar {185} and ground of the truth, very far shrinks from seeking, like AEsop’s Jackdaw, helps and ornaments which are not her own:  the bare truth shines more beautiful in her own naked simplicity.”  Were this principle acted upon uniformly in our discussions on religious points of faith or practice, controversy would soon be drawn within far narrower limits; and would gradually be softened into a friendly interchange of sentiments, and would well-nigh be banished from the world.  No person does the cause of truth so much injury, as one who attempts to support it by arguments which will not bear the test of full and enlightened investigation.  And however an unsound principle may be for a while maintained by unsound arguments, the momentary triumph must ultimately end in disappointment.

Coccius also cites two passages as conveying the evidence of Athanasius on this same point; one from the spurious letter addressed to Felix, the pope; the other from the treatise to Marcellus, on the interpretation of the Psalms.  On the former, I need not detain you by any observation; it would be fighting with a shadow.  The latter, which only recognises what I have never affirmed or denied here,—­the interest in our welfare taken by holy souls departed, and their co-operation with us when we are working out our own salvation,—­contains a valuable suggestion on the principles of devotion.

“Let no one, however, set about to adorn these Psalms for the sake of effect with words from without, [artificial and secular phrases,] nor transpose, nor alter the expressions.  But let every one inartificially read and repeat what is written, that those holy persons who employed themselves in their production, recognising their own works, may join with us in prayer; or {186} rather that the Holy Spirit, who spake in those holy men, observing the words with which his voice inspired them, may assist us.  For just as much as the life of those holy men is more pure than ours, so far are their words preferable to any production of our own.”