sanity in the petitioner? Would it be sufficient to say, "that there was no intention to place the

sovereign and his subject on the same level, or "to offer them an equal degree of honour; but that it was only meant to ask for the prayers and “interest of the subject?" The reply would be, Why then did not your conduct accord with your intentions? Why did you not practically make the distinctions which you acknowledge "theoretically ought to be made?" Transfer this example to the parallel case of your adoration of the Virgin and Saints, and it may suggest a salutary warning.

66

§. 3. Value of Dr. Wiseman's Defence. His quotations from spurious and apocryphal writings.

I now come to your Defence of the expressions on which my first Letter commented. It consists in an appeal to Christian Antiquity, with a view to shew that language of the same kind had been employed by the early Fathers. Now, Sir, much as the testimony of Catholic Antiquity is to be valued, you must permit me to say, that we are not bound to approve of every expression which particular writers may have employed in rhetorical compositions. Romanists have no scruple themselves in exercising a reasonable criticism in such cases; and if therefore you had been able to

See Melchior Canus, De locis Theologicis, l. vii. c. iii;

produce exaggerated language from some of the Fathers which approximated to that used by Romanists in their prayers to the Saints, it would not follow that this indiscretion on the part of some pious and holy men, could in any degree justify you for systematically, soberly, and of set purpose, employing language in itself idolatrous. But, Sir, I most positively deny, that Christian Antiquity furnishes any instances of prayers or declarations like those which were adduced in my first Letter. I say this, after having perused and examined the apparently imposing mass of authorities which you have produced. I say арра

rently;" because I was not prepared to find, that a large proportion of the passages which you have quoted as from the Fathers, including all those on which you lay the most stress, are derived from apocryphal and spurious writings; from works written centuries after the time of the Fathers to whom you attribute them; from the writings of heretics falsely attributed to the Fathers! Page Tournely, De Deo, t. i. p. 181; Delahogue, De Ecclesia, p. 436. St. Augustine says, "Neque quorumlibet disputationes quamvis Catholicorum et laudatorum hominum, velut Scripturas Canonicas habere debemus, ut nobis non liceat salvâ honorificentiâ quæ illis debetur hominibus, aliquid in eorum scriptis improbare et respuere, si fortè invenerimus quod aliter senserint quàm veritas habet, divino adjutorio vel ab aliis intellecta, vel à nobis. Talis ego sum in scriptis aliorum, tales volo esse intellectores meorum." August. Epist. 148. al. 111. ad Fortunatianum Siccensem Episcopum, c. 4. t. ii. p. 502.

after page of quotations, garnished with many an ingenious remark, and many a grave admonition, with your applause of the venerable authors, and your contrasts between their sentiments and mine, are derived from works, the genuineness of which is disputed or denied by the ablest critics, even of your own communion! It is really impossible to refrain from a smile, when, after indulging in masses of quotations of this kind, you deal so leniently with a vanquished opponent, as to say, "I "cannot persuade myself that he would have se

66

lected such phrases. . had he been aware, or, at least, had he remembered, that they were SO nearly-indeed quite-identical with those that are found in their (the Fathers') writings "." I must confess that I was not aware of this fact, and notwithstanding your labours, I still remain in my ignorance. I have not been occupied in the same 'pleasing task" to which you allude at the close of your Letter. The " pure sources of ecclesi"astical learning" from which you have been refreshing your mind "," do not seem to me exactly to merit that title.

66

But I proceed to substantiate the truth of the above statement, by noticing the various passages which you have produced from spurious or doubtful compositions.

You cite (p. 20.) a prayer of St. Ephrem Syrus,

contained in the third volume of his works edited by Assemani at Rome in 1746. This prayer, together with a great body of similar prayers, from which you quote largely, appeared for the first time in this edition of Ephrem Syrus, having been unknown to all former editors of his works. Now we find from Assemani's preface, that all these prayers are copied from a manuscript in the Vatican Library (of what age it does not appear), which consists of a collection of prayers made by some monk named Thecaras; and in this collection, the prayers above mentioned are attributed to Ephrem P. So that the evidence for their genuineness depends on the veracity of this monk, of whom we know nothing, and who may perhaps have been a fictitious personage, or may have forged these prayers in the sixteenth or seventeenth century, for any thing that we know to the contrary. This is the evidence for their genuineness. On the other hand, we find that one or two similar prayers

66

66

Ephrem Syri Opera, Græc. Lat. t. iii. p. 524-552.

"Precationes Ephræmo tributæ, aliæ ad Deum sunt, aliæ "ad B. Virginem Deiparam, aliæ ad Sanctos. . separatim habentur. . præsertim in collectione precum, quas Thecaras 'quidem monachus congessit. De hoc Thecara in cod. MS. "Græco Coisliniano . . . sic legitur. Sanctissimi Monachi "Thecare orationes compunctoriæ, collectæ ex divina Scriptura, utplurimum autem ex Sancto Ephræm.' . . . Suppresso Thecaræ nomine, extant in cod. Vat. 1190. à fol. 1117. suntque a "nobis editæ hoc t. iii. p. 492." p. liii.

66

Ephrem Syri Opera, t. iii.

in the former editions of St. Ephrem, containing equally exaggerated expressions in honour of the blessed Virgin, are rejected by Tillemont, Ceillier", Oudinus', and Cave, as altogether unworthy of this holy man, and inconsistent with the spirit of in which he lived.

the age

You cite (p. 22.) a passage from the first homily "In Dormitione B. Mariæ," attributed to John Damascenus. Ceillier has observed, that this homily contains statements which are not consistent with the genuine sentiments of its reputed author *. And Oudinus remarks, that the Festival on which these homilies were delivered, was not instituted till a century after the death of Damascenus; and that the homilies themselves are attributed by some manuscripts to Andrew, Bishop of Cæsarea in the ninth century, by others to Germanus Bishop of Constantinople in the thirteenth century. The next three quotations (p. 22, 23.) are from a homily "In Annunciatione," ascribed also to Damascenus. It appears from Ceillier, that Leo Allatius believes this homily to have been

Tillemont, Histoire Ecclesiastique, t. viii. p. 757.

' Ceillier, Hist. Gen. des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques, t. viii. p. 65, 66. ed. Paris, 1740.

• Casimiri Oudini Comment. de Script. Eccl. t. i. p. 506.

1 Cave, Hist. Literaria, t. ii. p. 238.