the "History and Theology of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses," which relates to the Paulicians. Interested, as you know I am, in whatever relates to Byzantine history, I have looked with considerable anxiety for the publication of Mr. Faber's book, ever since I understood that he intended to come forward as the advocate of the ortho

doxy of that remarkable sect. I had publicly maintained a different view. But I was not committed to a system, and was prepared to give the most careful and candid attention to what he might have to offer. Though I was too well acquainted with the original evidence to think it probable that any one could bring forward arguments strong enough to establish a result different from that to which an accurate examination had conducted every scholar who had hitherto explored the subject, I could scarcely think that so practised a writer as Mr. Faber would hazard his literary reputation by undertaking the advocacy of a desperate cause, or that he would, at all events, express any opinion which was not founded on a new and careful examination of the evidence, and which was not supported by calm and dispassionate reasoning. I have been disappointed. Mr. Faber does indeed undertake the defence of the Paulicians, but he appears to have consulted but two of the original writers, (the more important of these only in a bad translation,) and to have practically adopted the dangerous maxim that ridicule is the test of truth. He does not do me the honour of referring to what I have written-indeed, he does not appear to have read my pamphlet, which, I think I may say without presumption, was, by anticipation, a refutation of his chapter on the Paulicians-but I have been so far connected with what has recently been done on the subject, that I should feel it wrong to allow views so erroneous, as I cannot but deem those which he has advocated, to go forth unnoticed. Though the master of Sherburn Hospital may not condescend to notice any less distinguished adversary than Bossuet, an humble scholar, who can be of no service to the community but by his zeal for truth, must not be so ceremonious. In the remarks I am about to offer, I hope I shall not be wanting in what is due to Mr. Faber's years and station, but the cause which I trust we both have at heart is so sacred, that he must excuse my speaking plainly. When, somewhat more than three years ago, I wrote my "Letter to Mr. Maitland on the Opinions of the Paulicians," it was my object merely to state the evidence furnished by the original authorities. I scarcely attempted to support my views by any reference to modern. writers. I do not remember that I referred to any ecclesiastical historian later than Mosheim. Since that time my pursuits have made me more intimately acquainted with the later writers of church history. I have found that they all take the same view respecting the Paulicians as I ventured to give as the result of my own inquiries. To say nothing of Roman catholics, the protestant historians, Schröckh, Henke, Gieseler, Guerike, and Neander in Germany, and Mather in France, differing as they do on other subjects, on this are unanimous. Dr. F. Schmid in Denmark, and Drs. Engelhardt and Gieseler in Germany, have written express dissertations in support of the same view. Though these learned men do not maintain the same senti

ments as to some minor points, though they are not, for instance, agreed whether the errors of the Paulicians were of Gnostic or Manichæan origin, with regard to the main point they all agree; though most of them sufficiently indisposed to favour the catholic church, they all believe that the sect held Dualistic opinions, and bore some of the other principal features of the early oriental heresies.

par

Indeed it does not seem possible to conceive how they could think otherwise. They were acquainted with the authorities; and they knew no canons of criticism which would allow them without ticle of counter evidence to deny what those authorities, numerous and respectable as they are, unanimously assert. That is a process which would now scarcely be ventured upon out of England. Photius, the most learned Greek of the middle ages, Petrus Siculus, a man, as it would appear, singularly simple-minded and honest, who had had the best possible opportunity of becoming acquainted with their principles, and all the historians of the period, expressly describe the Paulicians as having held Manichæan tenets. Some of these writers may shew considerable ignorance and inconsistency in the account which they give of their origin; they may express without circumlocution a hearty detestation of their blasphemous notions; but how does this affect their testimony as to direct matters of fact? Here there is

a perfect uniformity. All of them who enter into particulars, expressly assert that the Paulicians held the doctrine of the two principles, that they believed only in a phantastic incarnation, that they rejected the Old Testament and the epistles of St. Peter, and disallowed the use of the sacraments.

Now how does Mr. Faber proceed in his bold attempt to prove, in direct opposition to the sources, that the Paulicians were an orthodox sect? He takes Petrus Siculus, or as he is pleased to call him, Peter Siculus, and by pointing out a number of inconsistencies and contradictions which he finds, or fancies he finds, in his work, endeavours to throw discredit upon his authority. Having thus acquired a full right of believing just as much as he deemed suitable to his purpose, he selects what can be made appear favourable to his clients, and by most forcible and gratuitous explanations gets rid of everything which tells against them. In this way he contrives to represent them as very good and exemplary Protestants-who "peremptorily rejected every base lust; exhibited, in their whole practice, a consistent piety; and declared themselves, while alleged by their enemies to be the vigilant guardians and the unflinching champions of the speculative dogmas of Manicheism, entirely free+ from all the falsely imputed abominations

Mr. Faber cites large extracts from this writer without any notice of his employing merely a translation, and an unfaithful translation. This neglect is the more unfortunate, as his name, Peter the Sicilian, might lead readers not acquainted with antiquity to suppose that he wrote in Latin. It is not every one who knows that

Latin was never the vernacular language of Sicily.

Mr. Faber lays particular stress on the circumstance, that the Paulicians repudiated the name of Manichæans, and freely expressed their contempt for Manes. Whereas this evidently proves nothing. I am not aware that any one thinks of calling them Manichæans in the precise sense of the term. The term is applied to them merely to indicate their Gnosticisin. The Monophysites readily anathematized

1

of the Gnostic theology." p. 42. By a process similar to that which he has adopted, he might easily have made them appear whatever he pleased.

Of his remarkable inattention to his author's meaning, even in passages which he transcribes, the early part of the chapter affords an extraordinary specimen. It is indeed an astonishing instance of misrepresentation, proceeding, of course, from carelessness. The authorities* tell us that a Manichæan, named Constantine, who had received from an ecclesiastic the books of the gospel and the apostle, having remarked that the unpopularity of his sect proceeded from the character of the absurd and infamous books of its early teachers, was led to make an attempt to maintain its principles exclusively by an appeal to scripture. Will it be believed that Mr. Faber says, in allusion to Peter's account of this part of the story; "The unsuspecting reader, who happens not to have particularly studied this part of ecclesiastical history, will probably be surprised to learn: that the process of reading, with care and attention, the four gospels in connexion with the fourteen epistles of St. Paul, actually converted Constantine into a Manichean ?" p. 36. Whereas the whole history turns upon the fact that Constantine was already a Manichæan when he became acquainted with the New-Testament scriptures; and that the present which he received from his pious guest the deacon, set him upon the scheme of constituting his sect upon a new footing.

The examination of a short note, which occurs on p. 54, will enable us to judge how far Mr. Faber has qualified himself by a careful study of this portion of history, to throw light on the opinions of the Paulicians.

"I have not had an opportunity of reading the work of Photius against the Manichèans but, as I learn from Mosheim, he also, like Peter Siculus, admits, that the Paulicians expressed the utmost abhorrence both of Manes and of his doctrine. Phot. cont. Manich. lib. i. p. 17, 56, 65. See Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. cent. ix. par. ii. chap. 5. sect. v. vol. ii. p. 367. The Historical Work of Peter Siculus, who in the year 870 spent nine months among the Paulicians, to the great jeopardy of his orthodox catholicism, seems to be the original fountain, whence our knowledge of them is derived. Photius died sixteen years after the visit of Peter Siculus."

The ingenuous confession which stands at the beginning of this pas

Apolinarius and Eutyches; yet no one thinks it slander to seek the origin of their error in Apolinarianism, or to call them Eutychians. The Unitarians, as they call themselves, disclaim most of the peculiar opinions of Faustus Socinus, yet few orthodox divines scruple to call them Socinians.

Ὁ δὲ λαβὼν τὰς δύο βίβλους τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου καὶ τοῦ ἀποστόλου, καὶ τὴν ἀθέμιτον καὶ μυσαρὰν αὐτοῦ αἵρεσιν βλέπων βδελυκτὴν παρὰ πάντων καὶ φευκ. ταίαν ὑπάρχουσαν διὰ τὰς ἐν αὐτῇ δυσφημίας τε καὶ αἰσχρουργίας, θέλων αὖθις ἀνανεώσασθαι τὸ κακὸν, μεχανᾶται ἐκ διαβολικῆς ἐνεργείας μὴ ἀναγινώσκεσθαι ἑτέραν βίβλον τὸ παράπαν πλὴν τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου καὶ τοῦ ἀποστόλου· ὅπως δυνηθῇ δὲ αὐτῶν επικαλύψαι τὴν τῆς κακίας βλάβην. Petr. Sic. Hist. p. 40, 42. Κατιδὼν δὲ ὁ ̓Αρμένιος Κωνσταντῖνος βδελυκτὴν καὶ πᾶσι φευκτὴν καὶ ἀποτρόπαιον τὴν αὐτοῦ δυσφημίαν καὶ αποστασίαν, τῇ τοῦ Διαβόλου συμβουλῇ μηχανᾶται τοιόνδε : Πάσας μὲν, ὅσας αὐτοῦ ἡ θρησκεία ἠγάπα τε καὶ περιεπτύσσετο βίβλους, αποβάλλεται καὶ αποσκορακίζει γυμνὰ δὲ τὰ δόγματα τῶν γραμμάτων παρακατασ χών, πειρᾶται τὰς τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου λέξεις καὶ τοῦ ̓Αποστόλου τούτοις ἐναρμόζειν τε καὶ περνάπτειν. Photius contra Manichæos, lib. i. cap. 16. ap. Wolfii Anecd. Græc. tom. i. p. 62, 63.

sage needs no comment. It stamps the value of this portion of Mr. Faber's speculations. Like Gibbon and Milner, he has not consulted what is beyond all question the most important document connected with the subject. Yet the work of Photius is by no means of rare occurrence. The historical part is printed in Montfaucon's Bibliotheca Coisliniana, and it is given entire in Wolf's Anecdota Græca (vols. i. ii.), and the last edition of the Bibliotheca Patrum (tom. xii.) Of the latter part of the note every clause contains an error. 1st. We learn from Petrus Siculus himself, that his residence among the Paulicians was not in 870, but in 868. 2nd. It is quite clear, as I have shewn elsewhere,† that Photius wrote at least two or three years before Peter. 3rd. The illustrious patriarch survived the Sicilian's embassy twenty-three years. Mr. Faber evidently confounds the time of his second deposition (886) with his death. He is supposed to have lived till 891.+

I need not say more. After what I have written, it is quite superfluous to remark, that no one who is curious about the revival of Dualism in the middle ages—one of the most interesting subjects in the history of heresy, will find much to gratify him in Mr. Faber's Inquiry. He has treated the subject hastily and superficially, and, I am sorry to be compelled to add, in a tone of supercilious violence. But, "the ancient Paulicians of Armenia were clearly the theological ancestors of the Albigenses." p. 32. It was therefore necessary that they should, on any terms, be acquitted of the charges laid against them. His labours form another attempt to press history into the service of a theory. I am sure that you, my dear Sir, and such as you, cordially join me in the wish that such attempts may be less and less frequent; that we may see truth sought for her own sake, without any fearful apprehension of the results of what she may discover; and that, taught by a long experience, we may at length be content to receive in meekness and quietness the precious lessons of the past, without this distracting turmoil of sectarian warfare. Believe me to be, with great respect, yours, very truly, J. G. DOWLING.

Gloucester, Sept. 6, 1838.

ON MR. FABER'S VIEWS OF PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION.

DEAR SIR,-Will you allow me to call your attention to the following passage in Mr. Faber's late work on the Waldenses and Albigenses, which, in the present circumstances of the church, seems to me to require some notice?

“As I thus pronounce the two communions of the Vallenses and the Albigenses to be the two witnessing churches of the Apocalypse; and as I further contend, against Bossuet, that the Vallenses, in a more especial manner, constitute that visible church which connects the churches of the reformation with the primitive

* Όπερ καὶ γέγονεν ἐν τῷ δευτέρω ἔτει τῆς βασιλείας Βασιλείου, καὶ Κωνσταντί. νου, καὶ Λέοντος, τῶν εὐσεβῶν καὶ δικαίων μεγάλων βασιλέων ἡμῶν. Petr. Sic. Hist. p. 72. The second year of Basil was 868.

+ Letter to Mr. Maitland, p. 29, note x ; p. 24, note f.

+ Fabr. Bibl. Græc. ix. 370.

church it may be expected, that I should say something, as to their right to be considered churches at all, in regard to their possessing, or their not possessing, the apostolical succession.

"I readily confess, that I am not able to demonstrate the circumstance of their possessing an apostolical succession, either as regularly transmitted by episcopal ordination, or as less regularly handed down by the simple imposition of the hands of the presbytery.

"Yet, though a strictly legal demonstration of this matter, in the case of two churches subjected to incessant persecution, or driven into the obscurity and poverty of an alpine wilderness, may well have been thus rendered impracticable, and thence, in common fairness, cannot be rigidly demanded: we may nevertheless, come so near to the point, that, in concurrence with the scriptural declaration of the assured existence of precisely two witnessing churches during all the middle ages, we may deem it sufficiently established for all legitimate ecclesiastical purposes.”—p. 553.

Without at all entering into the question of the Albigenses and Waldenses, or their claim to be considered as the two witnesses, I must confess myself rather startled to find an author of some tact and experience, almost at the end of a long work, where his whole system has rested on the supposition that "the two churches of history (as Mr. Faber is pleased to call the Albigenses and Waldenses) are the two churches of prophecy," gravely turn round to inquire-or more truly, it would seem, to satisfy the captious reader, who may rather unreasonably expect him to say something on the subject-whether, after all, these "two churches of history" have any "right to be considered churches at all." To most men this would probably have occurred rather at the commencement than at the end of such an investigation. But Mr. Faber seems to feel no difficulty in the matter, notwithstanding what might be thought a somewhat serious feature in the case,-namely, that of all the churches of Christendom, during the whole period which Mr. Faber has selected, these "two churches of history" are very specially the only two churches which have any difficulty in proving that they are churches at all; the only two about which such a question could be seriously entertained for one moment by any person with the least pretension to a knowledge of history. Mr. Faber readily confesses that he is "not able to demonstrate the circumstance of their possessing an apostolical succession, either as regularly transmitted by episcopal ordination, or as less regularly handed down by the simple imposition of the hands of the presbytery." I believe that some of your readers are not prepared to have the question of apostolical succession dismissed as a mere "circumstance" in an inquiry of this sort. But finding himself perplexed to prove "the two churches of history" to be churches at all, either his theory must be renounced, or the question of apostolical succession be thrown overboard. The remarkable expression which Mr. Faber has used to convey his opinion, that succession may be transmitted "by the simple imposition of the hands of the presbytery," is followed up by a long note, in which, with I know not what purpose, we have the story of Pelagius I., a quotation from Jerome, and another from St. Clement of Rome.

Mr. Faber's conclusion I give in his own words:

'Certainly, to depart from the divinely-appointed model by the entire rejection of bishops, save only in a case of palpably overbearing necessity, would, I think, be