one work being copied or borrowed from the other. There is no such literal accordance, no such identity of language, as to prove this. The agreement is no more than might be expected in two Catholic writers treating of the same subjects, no more than is found in independent works of different Fathers. Further, Dr. Swainson has found a stronger instance than any of these in a passage which he alleges to be “clearly taken from Alcuin "-"the explanation of verse 19."1 In order to enable persons to judge for themselves how far this allegation can be substantiated, I will first subjoin the passage of the Commentary in question; then the passage of Alcuin from which it is alleged to be clearly taken; then some passages from St. Augustine, which require to be compared with both before a judgment can be formed on the point. 66 Si me interrogaveris quid sit" (the Milan and the Paris MSS. all have est for sit) "Pater, ego respondebo Deus et dominus. Similiter si interrogaveris quid sit" (here also the Milan and the Paris MSS. have est) "Filius, ego dicam" (the Paris MSS. read dico) "Deus et dominus. Et, si dicis quid est Spiritus Sanctus, ego dico Deus et dominus. Et in his tribus personis non tres Deos nec tres dominos, sed his" (the Milan MS. and Paris 2826 and 17,448 have in his) "tribus, sicut jam supra dixi" (the Milan and the Paris MSS. all have supra dictum est), "unum Deum et unum dominum confiteor." 2 "Si forte de solo Patre interrogatus fueris, quid sit 1The Nicene and Apostles' Creed,' pp. 431, 438. Pater? responde Deus. Interrogatus de Filio, responde Deus. Interrogatus de Spiritu Sancto, responde Deus. Si interrogatus fueris simul de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto, non Deos sed Deum responde." 1 With these compare the following passages from St. Augustine: 66 'Quæris quid sit Pater, respondetur Deus. Quæris quid sit Filius, respondetur Deus. Quæris quid sit Pater et Filius, respondetur Deus. De solo Patre interrogatus, Deum responde. De solo Filio interrogatus, Deum responde. De utroque interrogatus non Deos, sed Deum responde." 2 "Si enim de singulis interrogemur, utrum Deus sit Pater, respondemus Deus; utrum Deus sit Filius, respondemus Deus; utrum Deus sit Spiritus Sanctus, respondemus Deus. Cum autem de omnibus interrogati fuerimus, utrum tres sint, referimus ad divinam Scripturam dicentem, Audi Israel, Dominus Deus tuus Dominus unus est." 3 "Sic et Dominum si quæras, singulum quemque respondeo, sed simul omnes non tres dominos Deos, sed unum dominum Deum dico. Hæc est fides nostra, quoniam hæc est fides recta, quæ fides etiam catholica nuncupatur. 4 St. Augustine's works were the great quarry from which Western writers on dogmatic theology of subsequent ages drew their materials. Hence a degree of 1 ALCUIN, 'De Fide S. Trinitatis,' lib. i. cap. 2. 3 'Collat. cum Maximino,' 12. 'Con. Maximinum,' lib. ii. c. 23, sect. 3. resemblance will often be found between works written independently one of another. This is the case in regard to these two passages from the Commentary of Fortunatus and the treatise of Alcuin on the Trinity. The doctrine is St. Augustine's, and so is the phraseology to some extent. But neither passage is borrowed or copied from the other. The authors have got their materials from the same source, but have hewn them into different forms: the passage from Alcuin being cast in the model of the first passage from St. Augustine, that from the Commentary following rather the type of the other two. But supposing the resemblance to be such as to indicate that one of the two passages had been drawn or copied from the other, the necessary conclusion would be that the later-written had been drawn from the earlier, that Alcuin had drawn from the Commentary, not the Commentary from Alcuin. Before Dr. Swainson can establish his hypothesis, he has to prove that the Commentary was not written before the ninth century. That Alcuin should have drawn from the Commentary is by no means improbable, considering that he was in the habit of borrowing the thoughts and even language of earlier writers. But in this passage it seems evident, from its close resemblance to the first of the three from St. Augustine, that he received his inspiration directly from that Father, who was, indeed, his principal authority and guide— a fact of which abundant evidence is afforded in the treatise of which it forms a part. It will not be out of place here to examine the nature of the relation between this Commentary and the Sermo de Symbolo,' which appears in the appendix to St. Augustine's works,1 and which is described by the Benedictine editors as a compilation from Ruffinus, Cæsarius, Gregorius, Ivo Carnotensis, and others. Several passages of the Commentary appear in the Sermo,' and, as the latter document could not have been composed before the twelfth century, for Ivo Carnotensis died A.D. 1115, nothing can be more obvious than that it must have drawn these passages either from the Commentary, or from earlier sources, or else partly from the one and partly from the other. The earlier work could not have derived them from the later. And it is moreover obvious that the compiler of the 'Sermo de Symbolo' did take some of these passages in question directly from the Commentary. In the tenth chapter, which relates to the article, "Credo in Spiritum Sanctum," the following occurs :-" Fides namque catholica hæc est, ut unum Deum in Trinitate et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur: credamus et colamus et confiteamur." We cannot help recognizing here the third verse of the Athanasian Creed, with Fortunatus's comment upon it. The 'Sermo' continues immediately: "Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, quia sicut nunquam Pater sine Filio, nec Filius sine Patre, sic et nunquam fuit Pater et Filius sine Spiritu Sancto. Coæterna ergo est sancta Trinitas et inseparabilis unitas sine initio et sine fine." Again, the ipsissima verba of the 1 Vol. vi. p. 758. Edit. 1701. Athanasian Creed-part of the 24th verse-together with the comment of Fortunatus upon them. The reading, it is interesting to notice, is very nearly that of Paris, No. 1008. Then follow immediately the succeeding words of the 24th verse of the Creed: "Nihil majus aut minus;" which are followed by the long comment of Fortunatus upon them, beginning with "Equalitatem personarum," and ending with "Deitas unum est; " forming one of the most remarkable passages in the Commentary. No argument can be required to prove that these passages, in each of which we find the very words of the Creed quoted by the Commentary, with its exposition of them, were derived from the Commentary. Again, the exposition of the article, "Descendit ad inferna," in the 'Sermo,' is precisely the same as that on the same article in the Commentary; and as it is traced to no other source, the conclusion follows that this was the source from which it was borrowed; and this conclusion is all the more obvious considering that other passages have been proved to be borrowed from the same document. There is yet another passage in the Sermo de Symbolo,' clearly drawn from the Commentary, only a little condensed. It is as follows:-" Nec quæratur quomodo genuit Filium, quod et angeli nesciunt, prophetis est incognitum. Unde illud dictum est, Generationem ejus quis enarrabit? Nec a nobis discutiendus est Deus, sed credendus." The Benedictine editors have placed against this passage the marginal note: "Ex Ruffini symbolo," i.e. from the Commentary of Ruffinus |