Not all her fairy powers can paint
The joys that dwell above the sky,
For every eye but Faith's grows faint,
When stretch'd towards Eternity!

G. P.

AN ANTHEME OR PRAYER FOR THE PRESERUATION OF THE CHURCH, THE QUEENES MAIESTIE, & THE REALME, TO BE SUNG AFTER EVENING PRAYER AT ALL TIMES.*

Saue Lorde & blesse with good increase,

Thy Church, our Queene & Realme in peace.

As for thy giftes we render praise,
So Lorde we crave still blessed dayes,
Let thy sweete worde & gospell pure,
With us deare God for aye endure.
With prosperous reigne increase it stil,
That sound thereof the world may fill.

Saue Lord & blesse with good increase,

Thy Church, our Queen & Realme in peace.

That Vine thy Right hande planted hath
Preserve, O Lord, from enemies wrath,
And those that practise Sions spoyle,
With mightie arme (Lorde) give them foyle.
Thy Church & Kingdome, Christ, we pray,
Increase & build from day to day.

Saue Lord & blesse with good increase,

Thy Church, our Queene & Realme in peace.

Like as thy grace our Queene hath sent,
So blesse her rule & governement.

Thy glorie chiefly to maintaine,

And graunt her long & prosperous Raigne:
All foes confound, & Rebels eke,

That Prince or Churches harme would secke.
Saue Lord & blesse with good increase,

Thy Church, our Queene & Realme in peace.

This English Isle, and people all,
Preserve for Christes blood we call.
Graunt peace t'enjoy thy blessings now,
Because none fyghtes for us but thou,
So shall we live to praise thee then,
Which likewise graunt. Amen, Amen.

Saue Lord & blesse with good increase,

Thy Church, our Queen & Realme in peace.

being the daye of her Imprinted at London

From "A fourme of prayer with thankesgiving, to be used of all the Queenes Maiesties loving subjects euery yeere, the 17. of Nouember, Hignesse entry to her Kingdome. Set forth by authoritie. by Christopher Barker, printer to the Queens Maiestie." VOL. XIV.-Oct. 1838.

3 F

A SONG OF REIOYSING FOR THE PROSPEROUS REIGNE OF OUR MOST GRATIOUS SOUERAIGNE LADY QUEENE ELIZABETH.

The Editor begs to remind his readers that he is not responsible for the opinions
of his Correspondents.

ON THE REV. G. S. FABER'S ACCOUNT OF THE PAULICIANS. MY DEAR SIR,-I shall be glad if you will allow me to employ the pages of the British Magazine as the medium of communicating to the public a few remarks on that part of Mr. Faber's recent work on

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 orthodoxy 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.

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 a particle 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 freet 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 repu diated 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 Gnosticism. The Monophysites readily anathematized

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 Manicleans: 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

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 μυσαρὼν 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 ἀποτρό παιον 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 παρακατασχών, πειρᾶται τὰς τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου λέξεις καὶ τοῦ ̓Αποστόλου τούτοις ἐναρμόζειν τε καὶ περιαπτειν. Photius contra Manichæos, lib. i. cap. 16. ap. Wolfii Aneed. Græc. tom. i. p. 62, 63.