composed by Theodore Studites the younger2. When this writer lived, I cannot at this moment discover, but the elder Theodore flourished in the ninth century, nearly a hundred years after the time of Damascenus. Cellier observes, that there are passages in the homilies on the Annunciation, "which do not correspond with the modesty and gravity of this Father "."

At p. 23, you extract three more passages from the same collection of prayers attributed to Ephrem Syrus by the monk Thecaras, of which I have spoken before.

In pages 26, and 27, we have various extracts from the Acts of St. Mary of Egypt, which are introduced with a statement, that "the Bollandists "have proved that her conversion took place about "the year 383, and that the Acts themselves can"not have been composed later than 500." On referring to the preface of the Bollandists, we find first, that the Greeks suppose that Sophonius, Patriarch of Jerusalem in the eighth century, was the Author of these Actsb; and that the Bollandists themselves admit, that there is nothing in their own argument, which obliges us to place the history of Mary in the fourth or even the fifth century ̊. It is true they assert that the life of Mary was

see.

known in the West in the sixth century d. The only proof which is brought for this, is an extract from some manuscript, (of what age or authority is uncertain,) in which Mary of Egypt is indeed mentioned, but without any allusion to the Acts, as far as I can So that there is no evidence for the antiquity of the Acts, or of the passages quoted from them. You produce (p. 28, 29, 30.) very long extracts from the Poem entitled "Christus Patiens" attributed to St. Gregory Nazianzen. Natalis Alexander, one of your most eminent writers, denies its genuineness, and states that the most learned critics generally attribute it to Apollinaris of Laodicea-a heretic! Ceillier observes, that it is rejected as a spurious composition by Tillemont, Dupin, Baillet, Baronius, Rivetus, Vossius, Bellarmine, and Labbe'. He is of opinion that it may have been composed by another Gregory, who lived in the latter part of the sixth century. The Benedictine editors suspect it to be later than the ninth century.

We are next favoured (p. 30, 31.) with long extracts from a Sermon attributed to St. Methodius, bishop of Pataræ. This Sermon is rejected as spurious by Ceillier, who states, that the Feast of the Purification, on which it was delivered, was not

a Ib.
p. 71.

• Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccl. t. iv.

p. 147.

f Ceillier, Hist. Gen. &c. t. vii. p. 196. See also, Oudinus Comment. de Script. Eccl. t. i. p. 644, &c.; Cave, Hist. Literaria, t. i. p. 248.

instituted till A. D. 527, and that the style is unlike that of Methodius. It is also rejected by the learned Jesuit Gretsers, by Canisius, Oudinus', and Cave. Gretser, Oudinus, and Cave, suppose it to have been written by Methodius, patriarch of Constantinople, in the ninth century. At p. 35, 36. you indulge again in quotations from the same spurious homily of Methodius.

The Apocryphal prayers of Ephrem Syrus by Thecaras, already alluded to, are cited again, p. 41, 42.

You have hinted that I could hardly have been acquainted with the language of the Fathers, when I ventured to reprove that of Romanists towards the Virgin and the Saints. I must be allowed in return to express my surprise, that one who is fully qualified to examine into the genuineness of writings ascribed to the Fathers, and who is evidently acquainted with their real works, should have rested the whole strength of his defence on productions, which are, at the very first sight, suspicious; and which the slightest enquiry would have rejected as valueless. I must say that such a mode of defence is worthy of the cause in which it is employed.

f Ceillier, tom. iv. p. 35, 36.

• Fabricii Bibliotheca Græca, t. vii. p. 268. ed. Harles, 1801. b See Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i.

p.

152.

i Oudinus, De Script. Eccl. t. i. p. 303, 304, 305. proves its

spuriousness by several very convincing arguments.

§. 4. Dr. Wiseman's Defence of the Worship of the

Virgin.

Having thus disposed of the quotations from spurious, doubtful, and apocryphal writings, which cannot be brought in proof of any doctrine, let us next proceed to enquire how far the remainder of your citations justify the language to which objections were offered in my first Letter. I fear that this discussion of particular passages will be rather too heavy a tax on the attention of the Reader; but as I am unwilling to leave any part of your defence unexamined, I must only request him to pass on to section 5, when he has been satisfied of the inadequacy of your proofs.

I. The first passage you defend is the following. "That she [the blessed Virgin] may propitiously "assist us while we write, and by her celestial "inspiration may guide us to such counsels as may be most salutary to the Christian Church." Encyclical Letter.

I remarked that this passage distinctly invests the Virgin with the attributes of Deity, and you do not deny that it does. In proof of its lawfulness, however, a spurious prayer of St. Ephrem is cited, (p. 20.) and also a passage from his genuine writings. The latter is wholly unavailing for your purpose. St. Ephrem was speaking of the Incarnation of our Lord, on which he remarks, that God" like a husbandman, grafted the Godhead [of

"his Son] into the [human] nature of the Virgin ;" after which he continues, in the words quoted by you, "Mary was therefore to the Father a plant, "to the Son a mother, and to men a fountain of "the eternal Spirit and the dawn of incorruption." She was so, by becoming the mother of our Lord; for had not our Lord been barn, we should have remained in condemnation; but this is widely different from saying, that she is "a fountain of "the eternal Spirit," or that she herself inspires good counsels.

Your next extract (p. 21.) is from Ildephonsus, bishop of Toledo, in the latter part of the seventh century. This is certainly not an early testimony; nor does it proceed from an author of much note. It is however entirely free from the guilt of ascribing the Divine attributes to a creature. Ildephonsus says, "I entreat thee, that I may have the

66

Spirit of thy Lord, the Spirit of thy Son'." This is perfectly unlike the language of the Encyclical Letter. In the one case the Spirit of God is prayed for: in the other the Virgin is invested with the attributes of that Spirit.

These, Sir, are all the passages which you have been able to produce in justification of the Encyclical Letter, and I think it may be fairly said, that they are wholly insufficient. You allude indeed

k Ephræmi Syri Opera, Græc. Lat. t. iii. p. 527. ed. Assemani. 1 Ildephonsus Tolet. de perp. Virgin. S. Mariæ, Opera P. P. Toletanorum, Madrid, 1782. p. 110.