Many of the remarks of this editor would appear to savour of prejudice
had they come from the pen of one who denied the reality of the
assumption, or oppugned the honour and worship now paid by members of
the Church of Rome to the Virgin. Nor could the suspicion of such
prejudice be otherwise than increased by the insinuation which the same
editor throws out against the honesty of Archbishop Juvenal, and on the
possibility of his having invented the whole story, and so for sinister
purposes deceived Marcian and Pulcheria; just as he fabricated the
writings which he forged for the purpose of securing the primacy of
Palestine; a crime laid to the charge of Juvenal by Leo the Great, in
his letter to Maximus, Bishop of Antioch. [P. 879. See Leo. vol. i. p.
1215. Epist. cxix.]

It is moreover much to be regretted that in making the extract from John
Damascenus those who employ it as evidence of primitive belief, have not
presented it to their readers whole and entire. In the present case the
system of quoting garbled extracts is particularly to be lamented,
because the paragraphs omitted in the quotation carry in themselves
clear proof that Juvenal's answer, as it now appears in John Damascenus,
could not have been made by Juvenal to Marcian and Pulcheria. For in it
is quoted from Dionysius the Areopagite by name, a passage still found
in the works ascribed to him; whereas by the judgment of the most
learned Roman Catholic writers, those spurious works did not make their
appearance in Christendom till the beginning of the sixth century, fifty
years after the Council of Chalcedon, to assist at which {313} Juvenal
is said to have been present in Constantinople when the emperor and
empress held the alleged conversation with him.

The remainder of the passage from the history of Euthymius, rehearsed in