ll regard 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 b