IVi'VZV^i: 0 f PRINCETON, N. J. Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. BT 680 . T95 1851 Tyler, James Endell , 1789- 1851 . The wor ship of the Blessed _Virgin Mary in the church Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library A https://archive.org/details/worshipofblessedOOtyle THE WORSHIP OP THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY IN THE CHURCH OF ROME, PROVED TO BE CONTRARY TO Hol|) ^nipture, AND TO THE FAITH AND PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST THROUGH THE FIRST FIVE CENTURIES. BY J. ENDELL TYLER, B.D. RECTOR OF ST. GILES-IN-THE-FIELDS, AND CANON RESIDENTIARY OF ST. PAUL’S. A NEW EDITION, REVISED BY THE AUTHOR. LONDON: Printed for the SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE; SOLD AT TIIE DEPOSITORY, GREAT QUEEN STREET, LINCOLN’S INN FIELDS, NO. 4, ROYAL EXCHANGE ; AND BY ALL BOOKSELLERS. [647] 1851. LONDON : GILBERT & RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, st. John’s square. TO THE MOST REYEREND _ WILLIAM IIOWLEY, D.D. LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, AT WHOSE DESIRE THE WORK IS NOW PUBLISHED, THIS HUMBLE EEEORT TO RESCUE AND PRESERYE THE TRUTH FROM THE CORRUPTIONS OE SUPERSTITION, IS, WITH ENTIRE REYERENCE AND GRATITUDE, DEDICATED BY IIIS GRACE’S MOST DUTIFUL AND AFFECTIONATE SERYANT, J. ENDELL TYLER. 24 , BEDFORD SQUARE, APRIL 8 , 1844 . ' - TABLE OF CONTENTS. TAGE Introduction .ix Points of Inquiry.xi The Doctrine of Development.xiv Reverence towards the Memory of the Virgin Mary . . xiv PART I. Present Worship of the Virgin.1 CHAPTER I. Authorized and enjoined worship . Prayers to the Almighty through the mediation of Mary Prayers to Mary for her intercession. Prayers to Mary for spiritual and temporal blessings Indulgence of Pope Leo X. with the prescribed prayer Reflexions on the foregoing evidence. CHAPTER II. Worship of the Virgin continued.21 Worship through May, Mary’s Month.25 Bonaventura.28 Gabriel Biel, and John Gerson.41 Damianus . 43 Bernardinus de Bustis.44 Bernardinus Sennensis.47 Theophilus Raynaud.52 1 2 5 6 16 20 VI CONTENTS, CHAPTER III. PAGE Present Doctrine of the Church of Rome ..61 Present Pope’s Encyclical Letter.62 Alphonsus Liguori’s “ Glories of Mary” ....... 65 Work called “ Imitation of the Virgin Mary”.71 “ Little Testament of the Holy Virgin”.73 Confederation of the most holy Mary, mother of Providence . 76 Reflexions on the foregoing. 79 PART II. CHAPTER I. Evidence of Holy Scripture ..82 Evidence of the Old Testament.85 Evidence of the New Testament.86 CHAPTER II. Assumption of the Virgin Mary.102 PART III. Evidence of the Church down to the Nicene Council . 133 CHAPTER I. Ancient Creeds.135 Apostolic Fathers . 137 Epistle of St. Barnabas ..138 Shepherd of Hermas.139 Clement of Rome.140 Ignatius.143 Poly carp.146 CHAPTER II. Evidence to the close of the Second Century. Justin Martyr.151 Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus .154 Irenaeus.157 Clement of Alexandria .162 Tertullian.163 CONTENTS. vii CHAPTER III. Evidence through the Third Century. PAGE Origen.168 Gregory Thaumaturgus ..173 See also Appendix . 394 Cyprian. 174 Methodius .178 Lactantius .1£0 CHAPTER IV. Evidence of the Fourth Century, down to the Nicene Council. Eusebius.182 Apostolical Canons and Constitutions.184 Athanasius.186 PART IV. From the Nicene Council to the close of the Fourth Century.196 CHAPTER I. Cyril of Jerusalem. 196 Hilary of Poictiers ..202 Macarius. 208 Epiphanius.212 CHAPTER II. Basil.226 Gregory of Nazianzum .235 See also Appendix. 398 and 402 Ephraim the Syrian .247 Gregory of Nyssa. 264 Ambrose.271 PART V. Evidence of the Fifth Century.280 CONTENTS. • • • VI] 1 CHAPTER I. PAGE Chrysostom.280 CH4PTER IE Augustine .301 See also Appendix.395 CHAPTER III. Jerome . 325 Basil of Seleucia.335 Orosius and Sedulius.336 Vincentius Lirinensis.338 CHAPTER IV. Councils of Constantinople, &c. . . . *.341 CHAPTER V. Cyril of Alexandria.351 CHAPTER VI. Isidore of Pelusium.361 Theodoret.363 Prosper. 370 CHAPTER VII. Pope Leo. 375 Popes Hilarius, Simplicius, and Felix.. . .381 Pope Gelasius.382 Popes Anastasius and Symmachus.. 385 Conclusion.389 APPENDIX. Gregory Thaumaturgus. 394 Gregory of Nazianzum.398 Do.402 Cyril of Alexandria.408 Mary, the Egyptian.410 INTRODUCTION. The Author of the following treatise has been long accustomed to rank the Worship of the Virgin Mary among the greatest of those impediments which keep asunder the Reformed Church of England and the present Church of Rome. Ardently as every true Christian must long for the establishment of har¬ mony and peace, and for the interchange of the various offices of brotherly love, among all members of Christ’s Church, he cannot hope to see the realiza¬ tion of his desire with respect to these two Churches so long as that wide gulph remains to separate them. A Church which acknowledges no object of religious worship except the Almighty alone, and recognises no mediator between God and man except only the Lord Jesus Christ, cannot, without a compromise of principle, hold the full communion of Christian wor¬ ship with another Church which confesses the Virgin Mary to be the ground of a Christian’s hope, which offers supplications to her for her intercession, and prays to her for her protection, guidance, and succour; which addresses prayers to the Supreme Being through her, and in her name, as mediator; and renders re- X INTRODUCTION. ligious praises to her as the fountain and living spring of mercy, of grace, and of all consolation, acknowledg¬ ing her to be Queen of heaven and Sovereign Mistress of the world. Recent events seem to confirm us greatly in this view; pointing to the worship of Mary in the Church of Rome as the chief practical barrier between mem¬ bers of the two Churches. To many a wavering spirit has the Church of Rome held out her own communion as the sure, and the only sure, place of refuge, where spiritual doubts cease from troubling, and misgivings have no place ; where implicit faith in an infallible guide bids defiance to every assailant, and suffers no disturbing thought to arise, converting the present life of perplexity into a state of tranquillity and peace. Various as are the counteracting causes to prevent the fulfilment of such expectations, none, we are told, are so generally operative, or so insurmountable to a mind that has habitually made God the sole object of prayer, and the Son of God the sole Mediator, as the worship of the blessed Virgin. Be this as it may; as members of the Church of England, separated from the errors of Rome, and ana¬ thematized by Rome in consequence of that separa¬ tion, it well becomes us to ascertain calmly and pa¬ tiently, first, whether what we allege against Rome does in very deed exist in her and belong to her? and, in the next place, whether that, whatever it be, is so contrary to the doctrine of our Saviour and his Apostles, and so inconsistent with the teaching and practice of the Church in her earliest and purest ages, as to require such a separation ? INTRODUCTION. XI These two points it is the main object of the present treatise to ascertain and establish. With that view, the author endeavours, first, to show from authentic documents, and without exagge¬ ration, what has been, and what still is, the teaching and practice of the Church of Rome as to the worship of the Virgin. He has searched diligently into her authorized and prescribed formularies ; into the works of her canonized saints and accredited teachers; and into the devotional exercises provided for her mem¬ bers, with more or less of public sanction attached to them, and still in common use. He then proceeds to another inquiry, and proves that such a system, so far from having its foundation in Holy Scripture, is directly at variance with the teaching of the Book of inspired truth ; and, in confirmation of the conclusions which the study of that volume forces upon the mind, he appeals to the faith, and teaching, and practice of the primitive Church through the first five centuries. In this department of his undertaking he can fear¬ lessly say that he has not wittingly neglected a single genuine work, or a single passage in any genuine work, of the writers of those times, which could throw light on the subject of his inquiry. He has not only exa¬ mined, without any conscious partiality, into the evi¬ dence to which the Roman Catholic advocates for the worship of Mary have appealed, but he has also him¬ self searched with diligence for any other testimony which may exist of each author’s habitual sentiments, and even incidental expressions and indirect references, bearing on the point at issue. On putting the various testimonies together, he acknowledges that the result XII INTRODUCTION. has been no less surprising than satisfactory to himself, as a Catholic Christian protesting against the errors of the Church of Rome. No single remark of any of these writers leads us to infer that the worship of the Virgin was known in their times. On the contrary, their silence, and that often on occasions when their silence is inconsistent with their possessing knowledge on the subject, proves them to have been unconscious of any such doctrine and practice as now prevail in the Church of Rome. But besides this, which may be called negative evidence, w T e find many of the most venerable Fathers of the Church, in their comments on the passages of Scripture which record the actions of the Virgin, directly charging her with errors and failings totally irreconcileable with the present doctrine and practice of the Church of RomeIndeed, a collection of these comments would probably form a catena of interpretation of passages of Scripture as harmonious, consistent, authori¬ tative, and Catholic, as could be collected on any one subject whatever from the writers of the same period. It is also worthy of remark, that the spurious writings ascribed to these Fathers, writings, the date of which cannot with any reason be referred to a period earlier than the seventh century, abound, on the other hand, 1 e. g. See Tertullian, p. 165 and 166 of this volume. Origen, p. 172. Basil, p. 229. Ambrose, p. 277. Chrysostom, p. 294. Cyril of Alexandria, p. 358. Theodoret, p. 367. INTRODUCTION. Xlll with ascriptions of power, and mercy, and glory, to the Virgin, with declarations of implicit belief in her in¬ fluence and intercession, and with prayers to her for temporal and spiritual blessings ; while for any traces of such ascriptions, declarations, and prayers, the genuine works of the same Fathers will be searched in vain 2 . With humble confidence the Author would invite all who call themselves Christians to examine and sift the evidence, and to try the momentous question for themselves; the issue joined between the two Churches being this, Whether the worship of the blessed Virgin Mary in the Church of Rome be not contrary to the teaching of Holy Scripture, and to the faith and prac¬ tice of the Church of Christ for five hundred years and more. If this point be settled; if the written word of God cannot be alleged in support of the system upheld and propagated by the Church of Rome, but is in its general bearing contrary to it; and if the teaching and example of the primitive Church through five hundred years be also contrary to the doctrine and practice of 2 See St. Ignatius, p. 70. Methodius, p. 178. Athanasius, p. 187. Gregory Thaumaturgus, p. 396. Gregory of Nazianzum, p. 240, 241. 398. 402. Ephraim Syrus, p. 250. Chrysostom, p. 70. Augustine, p. 395. Cyril of Alexandria, p. 408. Pope Leo, p. 376. See also, “ Acts of Mary, the Egyptian,” Appendix, p. 410. XIV INTRODUCTION. the Church of Rome, probably few unprejudiced minds will acquiesce in the solution which there appears at the present day among the advocates of that system a growing inclination to put forward and maintain —the doctrine, as it is called, of development. The Al¬ mighty, they allege, did not impart to mankind the whole truth in all its fulness at the first preaching of the Gospel, but bequeathed to his Church the privilege of deriving from Him and communicating to the world successive revelations of essential doctrine. Conse¬ quently (they proceed to argue) it is not enough to show that a tenet is not found in Scripture, nor even in the early Church, to warrant its rejection. It may, they say, have pleased God to reveal it in his own good time; and of the reality of that revelation the Church is the only judge: from her there lies no This is no new doctrine, though after ages of desue¬ tude it has recently been revived. Not for the first time now is recourse had to the perversion of a prin¬ ciple which is in itself, and in its legitimate application, sound and valuable. We find the abuse of the true doctrine censured in early days; and it well becomes us to be on our guard against the return and prevalence of that abuse. We regard it sound doctrine to main¬ tain that just as an individual member of Christ’s Church, however firmly rooted and grounded in the faith, should still daily increase in knowledge, no less than in the spirit of obedience, more and more, so may the Church itself receive from age to age further and clearer developments of the truth; but then the deve¬ lopment in each case must be a further development of INTRODUCTION. XV the truth as it is in Jesus,—the same truth which is announced to the world in the written word of God,— the same truth which was once delivered to the saints. If ever a doctrine or practice be promulgated at vari¬ ance with the tenor of Holy Scripture and primitive Christian worship, that doctrine or that practice carries with it its own condemnation; proving itself to have derived its origin, not from the well-head of truth, but from the deceitfulness of superstition or misbelief. Indeed, this same doctrine of development has been employed to countenance the wildest novelties of unbridled fanaticism, and cannot fail to open a door for the admission, among our most sacred truths, of all the errors which ignorance, superstition, or mistaken zeal or fraud, may devise and spread. But on this subject the Author needs not to dwell in his own words; the same perversion and misapplication of the sound principle of spiritual progress was attempted in early times, and was then most ably exposed and refuted by one whose maxims on the authority of tra¬ dition have of late been very often cited as principles from which there is no appeal. Vincentius Lirinensis thus records his doctrine, that though Churches and individual Christians ought ever to be in a state ad¬ vancing towards perfection in knowledge, faith, and practice, yet no one, whether Church or individual, has a right, under colour of further development, to graft upon the ancient faith new doctrines not warranted in Holy Scripture. In his work called “ Commonitorium,” dilating on St. Paul’s charge to Timothy, “ Keep what is com- XVI INTRODUCTION. mitted unto thee,” among other suggestions, Vin- centius says: “ What is meant by that which is committed ? That which is intrusted to thee, not what has been invented by thee; what thou hast received, not what thou hast devised ; an affair, not of ingenuity, but of learning; not of private adoption, but of public tradition; a thing brought to thee, not brought out by thee ; in which thou must be, not an author, but a keeper; not an originator, but a pursuer; not leading, but following. What was before believed more obscurely, let that from thy exposition be understood more clearly. Let pos¬ terity rejoice in understanding, through thee, what past ages, without understanding, revered. Neverthe¬ less, those same tilings which thou didst learn, do thou teach in such a way as that thou teacli no new doctrine, though thou teach in a new manner.” “But,” continues Vincentius, “perhaps some one will say, 4 Is there, then, in the Church of Christ no progress?’ Surely there is. Let there be a progress, even the greatest. Who would be so envious to man, so hateful to God, as to attempt to hinder it? Yet it must be in such sort as to be in good truth a progress in the faith, not a change of it. Of progress it is the property that the thing itself should be augmented; of change it is the property that there be an alteration from one thing to another. Therefore the understand¬ ing, the science, the wisdom should increase, and be made greatly and strenuously progressive, as well in individuals, as in all collectively; as well in the succes¬ sive stages of a man’s life, as in the advances of the INTRODUCTION. xvii ages and times of the whole Church : but it must be only in one kind, in the same doctrines, in the same SENSE, IN THE SAME TENET 3 .” Now, we believe that to offer prayers to God in the name and through the mediation and intercession of the Virgin Mary, and to offer prayers to her, whether for her intercession, or for her good offices as the dis¬ penser of God’s gifts, and as a mediator between God and man, are “ new inventions,”—not the ancient doc¬ trines of Christianity, but devices superadded to the original truths of salvation ; and withal directly repug¬ nant to the Word of God, and the faith and practice of our fathers in the primitive Church. We, more¬ over, maintain, that if the Roman Church does offer prayer to God through the mediation and intercession of the Virgin Mary, and does present supplications to her for her intercession, or for the gifts of spiritual and temporal graces ; and if these religious acts are proved to be contrary to the plain teaching and spirit of Holy Scripture, and to the faith and practice of the Church through five hundred years ; then no doctrine of development, even in its widest sense, can cover them : for (to adopt the language of some modern casuists) these are not latent doctrines and latent prac¬ tices now at length enucleated, whilst the germ of them always existed; they are not tenets long since, and from the first, really, though unconsciously held by the Church; they are in their very nature contrary to the principles of the Gospel, to the teaching of the Apostles, and to the faith and practice of the Church 3 Oxford, 1836, p. 53. a INTRODUCTION. xviii in its best and purest times: and of these antagonist principles we must discard the one or the other; we must either reject the Scriptures and the early Church, or we must remain separate from Rome, in so far as Rome is the teacher of such errors. On the title of the present work it seems desirable to offer a few words in this place, to prevent any mis¬ understanding of the principles and of the subject of our inquiry. The word “ worship ” is now said to admit of various significations; sometimes implying merely the respect which one human being may enter¬ tain towards another, and sometimes meaning the highest religious and divine honour which a creature can render to the Supreme Lord of the universe : conse¬ quently we are warned not to charge the Romanists with a spiritual offence in paying “worship” to a crea¬ ture, but rather to attach to their word “worship” those ideas only which what they say and do naturally and plainly suggests ; the same warning equally ap¬ plying to the word “adoration.” In the justice of this sentiment we acquiesce; and, in one point of view, the whole of the first part of the following treatise is occupied, it is hoped, in a dispassionate inquiry into the very nature and kind of worship which is actually offered to the Virgin Mary in the Church of Rome. In pursuing this subject honestly and reverently, we surely need not lie under the suspicion of “ assuming that the cause of the Son of God is to be promoted, and his mediatorship and honour exalted, by decrying the worth and dignity of his mother.” This, we are INTRODUCTION. XIX told 4 , lias been assumed. But whoever may be the persons involved in that charge, they cannot certainly be enlightened members of our communion. No true son of the Reformed Church of England can speak dis¬ paragingly or irreverently of the blessed Virgin Mary. Were such an one found in our ranks, we should say of him, that he knows not what spirit he is of. Our Church, in her liturgy, her homilies, her articles, and in the works of her standard divines and most approved teachers, ever speaks of Saint Mary the blessed Virgin in the language of reverence, affection, and gratitude. She was a holy Virgin and a holy mother, “ highly favoured,” “ blessed among women.” The Lord was with her, and she was the earthly parent of the only Saviour of mankind. She was herself blessed, and blessed was the fruit of her womb. Should any one entertain a wish to interrupt the testimony of every succeeding age, and to check the continuous fulfilment of her own prophecy, “ All generations shall call me blessed,” the Church of England would not acknow¬ ledge that wish to be the legitimate and genuine desire of one of her own members. But when we are required either to address our sup¬ plications to the Virgin Mary, and to offer prayers to God through her mediation and intercession, or else to protest against the errors of our fellow-Christians who adhere to the faith and practice of Rome in this respect, we have no ground for hesitation ; the case offers no alternative: our love of unity must yield to our love of truth. We cannot join in that worship which in 4 See Dr. Wiseman’s Lectures, vol. ii. p. 92. XX INTRODUCTION, our conscience we believe to give to a mortal a share at least of the honour due to God alone, and to exalt the Virgin Mary into that office of mediation, advo¬ cacy, and intercession between God and man, which the written word of inspiration and the primitive Church have taught us to ascribe exclusively to that divine Saviour, who was God of the substance of his Father, begotten before the worlds ; and Man of the substance of his mother, born in the world. THE WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN MARY IN THE CHURCH OF ROME. PART I. i PRESENT WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN,, CHAPTER I. AUTHORIZED AND ENJOINED WORSHIP. SECTION I. The practical doctrine of the Church of Rome is this, that as the Virgin Mary surpasses inestimably all saints and angels, cherubim and seraphim, and all the powers of heaven in authority, purity, and dignity, so a worship ought to be addressed to her inestimably higher and more sacred than the worship paid to them. To stamp this difference in a more distinguishing manner, they have coined a new word to signify it alone, neither the Greek nor the Latin language supplying one adequate to this purpose. The worship paid to saints and angels they call by the Greek word dulia , i. e. “ serviceto the worship paid to the one supreme God they assign the name of latria , also meaning “ ser¬ vice;” whilst to the worship of the Virgin they appro- B 2 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. priate the newly invented word “ hyperdulia,” implying “ a service above the other services called dulia V’ This worship of the Virgin Mary in the Church of Rome may be conveniently examined under the fol¬ lowing heads :— First, prayers offered to the Almighty in her name, for her merits, through her mediation, advocacy, and intercession. Secondly, prayers to herself, beseeching her to em¬ ploy her good offices of intercession with the Eternal Father, and with her Son, in behalf of her petitioners. Thirdly, prayers to her directly for her protection from all evils, spiritual and bodily; for her guidance and aid, and for the influences of her grace. Fourthly, must be added the ascription of divine praises to her, in acknowledgment of her attributes and acts of power, wisdom, goodness, and mercy, and of her exalted state above all the spirits of life and glory in heaven; and for her share in the redemption of 1 It may be well to observe, that this distinction has no ground whatever to rest upon beyond the will and the imagination of those who draw it. Both the words dulia and latria are used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and in the original of the New, as entirely equivalent expressions without any such distinction. Whoever wishes to satisfy himself on this point will immediately do so by examining Deuteronomy xxviii. 36. 47, 48 ; 1 Sam. xvii. 9 ; xii. 24; xxvi. 19 ; Ezekiel xx. 40 ; and especially 1 Thess. i. 9, in comparison with Heb. ix. 14, where we find the two words “ dulia” and “ latria” in the form of verbs, used to signify the true worship of God in a person changed from a state of alienation to a state of grace : “ How ye turned to God from idols to serve [dulia] the living and true God.” “ How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve [latria] the living God.” And that, at least down to the fifth century, the words were equally synonymous, is evident from Theodoret, i 319, edit. Halle. CHAP. I.] PUBLIC WORSHIP. 3 the world, and the benefits conferred by her on the individual worshipper. Our examination into the worship of the Virgin under these several heads will be most properly and most satisfactorily carried on by first considering the prescribed services and authorized formularies of the Church of Rome in her Missals and Breviaries. In these documents we do not find the same startling expressions of unqualified divine worship as offer them¬ selves in the works of her canonized saints and ac¬ credited teachers, and in the devotional books still in general use among her members; but we find in them the same principles, which are only expanded, and amplified, and carried out (as it is called) to their full development by other hands. Indeed, the impression will scarcely fail to be made on every reflecting mind, after a general survey of the worship of the Virgin under its various aspects, that however lamentable may be those extravagant excesses into which the votaries of the Virgin Mary have run, yet their unequivocal ascriptions of divine homage to her they may justify by an appeal to the authorized Ritual of the Church of Rome. SECTION II. Under the first head the Roman Missal and Bre¬ viary supply an abundant store of examples, some more than others encroaching on the mediatorial office of the Son of God, the one Mediator between God and man. To establish the fact, one or two instances would be sufficient; but, beyond this, the constant and incessant recourse to the same advocacy b 2 4 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN, [PART I. of the Virgin cannot but suggest the painful idea of a want of confidence in the sole mediation of our Lord Himself, or a want of sure reliance on his pro¬ mise, that God will not reject any one, however hum¬ ble or unworthy, who comes to Him by his Son. In the Post-communion on the day of the Assump¬ tion this prayer is offered: “We, partakers of the heavenly board, implore thy clemency, O Lord our God, that we, who celebrate the Assumption of the Mother of God, may by her intercession be freed from all impending evils. Through.” The following are varieties of the same addresses to the Throne of Grace : “We beseech Thee, O Lord, let the glorious inter¬ cession of the blessed and glorious ever Virgin Mary protect us and bring us to life eternal. Through the Lord 2 ” 44 Pardon, we beseech Thee, O Lord, the offences of thy servants, that we, who cannot please Thee of our own acts, may be saved by the intercession of the Mother of thy Son, our Lord, who livetli with Thee 3 .” On the vigil of the Epiphany this prayer is offered at the Mass: 44 Let this communion, O Lord, purge us from guilt, and by the intercession of the blessed Vir¬ gin, Mother of God, let it make us partakers of the heavenly cure.” To which may be added the following : 44 Grant, we beseech Thee, O Lord God, that we thy servants may enjoy perpetual health of body and mind, 2 Vern. civ.—The references to Vern., iEst., Ant., Hiem., are made to the Roman Breviary published at Norwich, with the Pope’s approbation, by the Rev. F. C. Husenbetli, in the year 1830, in four volumes, containing the services of the four quarters of the year. Vern. clxix. CHAP. I.] PUBLIC WORSHIP. 5 and by the glorious intercession of the blessed Mary ever Virgin be freed from present sorrow, and enjoy eternal gladness. Through the Lord V’ 44 O God, who hast granted to mankind the rewards of eternal life by the fruitful virginhood of the blessed Mary, grant, we beseech Thee, that we may have ex¬ perience of her intercession, through whom we were deemed worthy to obtain our Lord Jesus Christ, thy Son, as the author of life, who liveth with Thee 5 .” 44 O God, who didst deign to choose the virgin palace of the blessed Mary wherein to dwell, grant, we beseech Thee, that Thou mayest make us, being protected by her defence, joyfully present in her com- memoration, Thou who livest and reignest with God the Father 6 .” “ By the Virgin-Mother may the Lord grant us sal¬ vation and peace 7 .” 44 By the prayers and merits of the blessed Mary ever Virgin, and all saints, may the Lord bring us to the kingdom of heaven 8 .” On the second Sunday after Easter we find in the service of the Mass a still more lamentable departure from true Christian worship, where the Church of Rome declares that the offerings made to God at the Lord’s Supper were made for the honour of the Virgin : 44 Having received, O Lord, these helps of our salvation, grant, we beseech Thee, that by the patronage of the blessed Mary ever Virgin, we may be every where protected, in veneration of whom 9 i* we have made these offerings to thy Majesty.” To cite only one more example under this head: On 1 Vern. cxlvi. 5 Vern. clxvii. r ’ Vein. clxv. 7 Vern. cxlviii. 8 Vern. cxlvii. 9 In cujus veneratione.' 6 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. the octave of Easter in the Secret, at the Mass, the in¬ tercession of the Virgin is made to appear as essential a cause of our peace and blessedness as is the propi¬ tiation of Christ ; or rather, the two are represented as joint concurrent causes, as though the office of the Saviour Himself were confined to propitiation, exclu¬ sive altogether of intercession, and the office of inter¬ cession were assigned to the Virgin: “ By thy pro¬ pitiation, O Lord, and by the intercession of the blessed Mary ever Virgin, may this offering be pro¬ fitable to us for our perpetual and present prosperity and peace.” section III. The second head embraces instances of a still further departure from Christian truth and primi¬ tive worship, when the prayer is no longer addressed only to God, but is offered to the Virgin herself, im¬ ploring her to intercede for her supplicants, yet still asking nothing beyond her intercession. The Bre¬ viaries so abound with these prayers throughout as to make any selection difficult: “ Blessed Mother, Virgin undefiled, glorious Queen of the world, intercede for us with the Lord \ Blessed Mother of God, Mary, perpetual Virgin, the Temple of the Lord, the Holy Place of the Holy Spirit, thou alone without example hast pleased our Lord Jesus Christ: pray for the people, mediate for the clergy, intercede for the female sex who are under a vow 2 .” In the form of prayer called LitanicE Lauritance , between the most solemn prayers addressed to the ever-blessed Trinity, and to the Lamb of God that 1 Autum. cxlviii. 2 Vein, clxiii. CHAP. I,] PUBLIC WORSHIP. 7 taketli away the sin of the world, more than forty addresses to the Virgin are inserted, invoking her under as many varieties of title : “ Holy Mother of God pray for us. Mirror of Justice, Cause of our Joy, Mystical Rose, Tower of David, Tower of Ivory, House of Gold, Ark of the Covenant, Gate of Heaven, Refuge of Sinners, Queen of Angels, Queen of All Saints, &c., pray for us 3 .” The following invocation seems to stand midway between these appeals to the Virgin merely for her intercession, and direct prayers to her for blessings, temporal and spiritual, at her own hands; it will therefore be more safe to cite it under this head. “ Hail, O Queen, Mother of Mercy, our Life, Sweetness, and Hope, hail. To thee we sigh, groan¬ ing and weeping in this valley of tears. Come then, our Advocate, turn those compassionate eyes of thine on us; and after this exile show to us Jesus, the blessed fruit of thy womb, O merciful ! O pious ! O sweet Virgin Mary ! “ Pray for us, O holy Mother of God, that we may be rendered worthy of the promises of Christ V 1 SECTION IV. But, unhappily for Christian truth, in the appointed Roman Ritual we find repeated examples of prayer addressed directly to the Virgin for benefits at her hand, spiritual and temporal, without any reference to her prayers, without specifying that her petitions are all that the supplicant seeks. It is no reasonable answer to affirm, that all intended in these forms is to ask for her advocacy and intercession; the mass of the people 3 Vein, ccxxix. 4 iEst. 151. 8 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. will not, do not, cannot regard it in that light. It is asserted, (as, for example, by Cardinal du Perron 5 ,) that when the Church of Rome guides and directs her sons and daughters thus to pray, without any limitation, for specific benefits at the hands of the Virgin-Mother, they are not taught to look for the blessings as her gifts, and at her own disposal; but that the words “by praying for us ” are always to be understood. That this, however, is practically not so, we shall have too plain evidence when we come to examine the full de¬ velopment of the Virgin’s worship in the works of divines, and in the present practice of the people. And can it be right and safe to lay such snares for the con¬ science? If her prayers are the sole object of the peti¬ tioners invocation, why set him, in the solemn services of the Church, an example of prayers which make no allusion to her intercession, but ask as directly and unequivocally for her aid and blessing, as the suppli¬ cations addressed to the Supreme Being ask for his ? In an act, of all human acts the most solemn and holy, can recourse be had to such refined distinctions and subtleties, without awful and imminent spiritual dan¬ ger G ? Among many other invocations of a similar 5 Replique a la Rep. du Roy de la G. Bretagne. Paris, 1620, p. 970. 0 In weighing the import of these addresses, we look especially to the nature of the boon for which the petitioner supplicates, and we find it often a gift which God alone can bestow, and which He has promised to grant to all who seek it at his hand in the name of his blessed Son. The refinement of Bellarmin and others seems still more subtle, and practically unintelligible to the large body of wor¬ shippers. In order to avoid the objection against the invocation of saints, that of necessity it implies omnipresence, they have recourse to the assumption, for which neither Scripture nor reason suggests any colour of argument, that God Himself, hearing the prayer ad- CHAP. I.] PUBLIC WORSHIP. 9 character, this frequently recurs, “ Deem me worthy to praise thee, O hallowed Virgin; give to me strength against thy enemies 7 .” The following seems to be among the most favourite addresses to the Virgin : “ Hail, Star of the Sea, and kind Mother of God, and ever Virgin! happy Gate of Heaven! taking that ‘ Hail ’ from the mouth of Gabriel; do thou esta¬ blish us in peace, changing the name of Eve. Do thou for the accused loose their bonds, for the blind bear forth a light, drive away our evils, demand for us all good things. Show that thou art a mother. Let Him who endured for us to be thy Son through thee receive our prayers. O excellent Virgin, meek among all, do thou make us meek and chaste, freed from fault ; make our life pure, prepare for us a safe journey, that, beholding Jesus, we may always rejoice together. Praise be to God the Father, glory to Christ most high, and to the Holy Ghost: one honour to the Three. Amen.” In the body of this hymn there is reference un¬ doubtedly to an application to be made to the Son; but can it be fitting that such sentiments as are here suggested to the Virgin for her to entertain, should exist in any created being towards God ? Can such a call upon her to show her power and influence over the eternal Son of the eternal Father be fitting in the hearts and in the mouths of us, poor sinners, for whom He left his Father’s glory, and came down on earth to die. “ Show that thou art a mother.” We are aware dressed to a saint, communicates a knowledge of it to that saint, and then receives back from him the prayer of the human petitioner. 7 iEst. clvi. iEst. cxxxvi. 10 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. that, in later times, some versions of the hymn 8 have translated this passage as though the prayer to Mary was, that she would, by her maternal good offices in our behalf, prove to us that she is our mother. We rejoice to see any such indication of a feeling of im¬ propriety in the sentiment in its plain and obvious meaning : but the change is inadmissible ; for not only is it contrary to the whole drift, and plain sense and meaning of the passage, but it is altogether at variance with the interpretation put upon it both before and since the Reformation. In the second line she is addressed as the Mother of God; the Lord Jesus is immediately mentioned in the very next line, and through the entire stanza, as her Son; and the prayer is, that through her that Being, who endured to be her Son, would hear the prayers of the worshippers: and this obvious grammatical and logical meaning, “ Show thyself to be his mother,” is the sense attached to it, not incidentally, but of set purpose, before the Reformation. In a work 9 dedicated to the “Youth of 8 “ Faites voir que vous etes veritablement notre mere.” Nou¬ veau Recueil de Cantiques, p. 353.—In the English book called “ The Prince of Wales’ Manual” (1688), the lines are thus rendered: “ Show us a mother’s care: To Him convey our prayer, Who for our sake put on The title of thy Son.” It is curious to find that in the present day both these senses are attached to the phrase. The Bishop of Friburg, 1832, thus addresses Mary :—“ Mother of the Saviour God, and our own, show that you are both the one and the other—‘ Monstra te esse matrem’—and cause us to experience the sweet effects of your power and your motherly goodness.” [Mariolatry, p. 118. Piller, Imprimeur de l’Eveche.] 9 This work was printed by the famous W. de Worde, at the sign of the Sun, in Fleet-street, 1508 ; and the passage occurs in p. 33, b. CHAP. I.] PUBLIC WORSHIP. 11 Great Britain studious of good morals,” and written expressly for the purpose of explaining these parts of the Ritual according to the use of Sarum, the inter¬ pretation put on this passage is thus expressed : “ Show thyself to be a mother, that is, by appeasing thy Son ; and let thy Son take our prayers through thee, who endured for us miserable sinners to be thy Son.” In the English Primer of our Lady, (of which a MS. copy is now in the Rectory of Draycot, near Stone,) the verse is thus rendered : “ Show thyself to be a mother, So that He accept our petition, Which for our sake, before all other, Was contented to be thy Son.” Nor can any other meaning be attached to the trans¬ lation of the words, as given by Cardinal du Perron in the passage 1 above referred to. The other inter¬ pretation does not appear to have had a place in any one book of former days. In the plain obvious sense of the prayer, we see in it, in softened colours, an exact prototype of Bonaventura’s broad and shocking sum¬ mons to the Virgin, to put forth her full maternal authority, and to command the Lord of Life—“ by the right of a Mother command tiiy Son,” and of Damianus, “Not only asking, but commanding; a mistress, not a handmaid.” To these and similar instances we shall hereafter refer. Another prayer in the Breviary runs thus: “ Under This is by no means the only book of the kind : one is printed at Basle, and another at Cologne, in 1504. They are evidently drawn from some common source, but are not copies of the same work. The Cologne edition tells us, it was the reprint of a familiar com¬ mentary on the hymns, printed long ago. 1 “ Monstre que tu es mere, re^oive par toy nos prieres Celuy, qui ne pour nous a eu agreeable d’etre tien.” 12 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. tliy protection we take refuge, Holy Mother of God. Despise not our supplications in our necessities ; but from all dangers do thou ever deliver us, O glorious and blessed Virgin 2 .” Let us suppose the object of these addresses to be changed; and, instead of the Virgin, let the name of the ever-blessed God most high, the eternal Father of us all, be substituted, and we shall find the very words here addressed to the Virgin offered to Him, and spoken of Him in some of the most affecting prayers and praises recorded in the Bible 3 . 2 iEst. cxlvi. 3 The identity of the prayers offered to the Virgin with those of¬ fered, either in the words of inspiration or in the Roman Ritual, to the Almighty Himself, becomes very striking, if we lay the prayers to the Virgin side by side with the original language of the Roman Liturgy, and the only translation of the Scriptures authorized by that Church : and it is an identity (as may be seen in this hymn and the hymn next cited) not in the form only, but in the substance of the prayers offered and the grace sought. Sub tuum prsesidium confu- gimus; Sed a pericidis cunctis libera nos. Nostras deprecationes n edespi- cias in necessitatibus. In the Roman Ritual the Virgin is thus addressed: Tu nos ab hoste protege. Et bora mortis suscipe. In the same Ritual, or in the Bible, the Almighty is ad¬ dressed thus : Domine, firmamentum meum et refugium meum, ad te con- fugi. —Ps. xvii. 1 ; cxlii. 11. Ne despexeris deprecationem meam.—Ps. liv. 1. Libera, Domine, animam servi tui ab omnibus periculis inferni. Hiem. ccvi. Libera nos a malo. Lord’s Prayer. A periculo mortis libera nos, Domine.—Hiem. cciv. Eripe me de inimicis meis, Domine.—Ps. cxliii. 1. Suscipe, Domine, servum tuum. H iem. ccvi. CHAP. I.] PUBLIC WORSHIP. 13 But another hymn in the office of the Virgin, ad¬ dressed in part to the Saviour Himself, and partly to the Virgin Mary, is to us still more revolting. The Redeemer is only asked to remember his mortal birth; no blessing is here sought at his hands in prayer; his protection is not the subject of the petition; no de¬ liverance of our souls at the hour of death is sought from Him; for these blessings, and these divine mer¬ cies, supplication is made exclusively to the Virgin. Can such a mingled prayer, can such a contrast in prayer, be the genuine fruit of that Gospel which invites and commands us to seek in prayer to God for all we need of temporal and eternal good, in the name and for the sake of his blessed Son? “ O Author of our salvation, remember that once, being born of a spotless Virgin, Thou didst take the form of our body. O Mary, Mother of Grace, Mo¬ ther of^ Mercy, do thou protect us from the enemy, and receive us at the hour of death. Glory to Thee, O Lord, who wast born of a Virgin, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, through eternal ages. Amen V’ SECTION V. It has been asserted by Roman Catholic writers 5 , that at the altar, in the office of the Mass, prayer is not made directly to any saint, but only obliquely, the address being always made to God. But while this assertion would suggest the most sound principle, that a prayer which is not used in the service of the 1 iEst. cxlv. There is another reading of this hymn, but it does not affect the sense. 3 See Cardinal du Perron, agreeably to the former reference. 14 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. Mass, and for the use of which in other services its absence from that office is pleaded as an excuse, ought to have no place at all in the worship of Almighty God; it is difficult to see what is gained by such a plea, if in other parts of the service, prayer is offered directly to the Virgin. Surely it is trifling in things concerning the soul to make such distinctions. If priests about to officiate are to address a prayer directly to the Virgin for her assistance, that she would stand by them, and by her grace enable them to offer a worthy sacrifice, how does this become a less objectionable prayer, because it is not repeated during the service of the Mass ? Does not such a plea inti¬ mate a misgiving in those who make it, as to the law¬ fulness of any addresses of the kind. The following is called in the Roman Breviary, “A Prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary, before the celebration of the Mass,” and is immediately followed by another, called, “ A Prayer to the Male or Female Saint, whose feast is celebrated on that day,” and from whose merits the priest professes to derive his confidence, and to whose honour and glory he declares that he offers the holy sacrament: “ O Mother of pity and mercy, most Blessed Virgin Mary, I, a miserable and unworthy sinner, flee to thee with my whole heart and affection: and I pray thy sweetest pity, that as thou didst stand by thy sweetest Son upon the cross, so thou wouldest vouch¬ safe of thy clemency to stand by me a miserable priest, and by all priests who here and in all the holy Church offer Him this day, that, aided by thy grace, we may be enabled to offer a worthy and acceptable victim in the sight of the Most High and undivided Trinity. Amen.” CHAP. I.] PUBLIC WORSHIP. 15 “ O Holy One, [sancte vel sancta,] behold, I a miser¬ able sinner, deriving confidence from thy merits, now offer the most holy Sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ for thy honour and glory. I humbly and devoutly pray thee that thou wouldest deign to intercede for me to-day, that I may be enabled to offer so great a sacrifice worthily and acceptably, and eternally to praise Him with thee and all his elect, and that I may live with Him for ever.” SECTION VI. The fourth particular point in the worship of the Virgin Mary which we specified, was the ascription of divine praises to her. This ascription pervades all the services appointed for her honour; and abundant examples are at hand. “The Holy Mother of God is exalted above the choir of angels to the heavenly realms. The gates of paradise are opened to us by thee, who, glorious this day, triumpliest with the angels.” Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, thou alone hast destroyed all heresies in the whole world. Deem me worthy to praise thee, hallowed Virgin. Give me strength against thy ene- mies b . Substitute the name of our ever-adorable Redeemer, and many of these expressions would become the heart and the lips of a Christian worshipper. The intention of the author of the present work being to confine himself and his readers closely to one subject, the worship of the Virgin Mary in the Church of Rome, he will not be tempted here to speak on the nature of Indulgences, nor will he make any further comment on the following prayer 0 iEst. dxcviii. WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. 16 [part I. than may seem necessary to convey some knowledge of the circumstances under which it now appears. The Roman Breviary from which these quotations are made was published in England, with the express authority of the then Pope himself, in the year 1830. Pope Leo X. lived more than three hundred years ago, and yet the following announcement stands at the present day in that Breviary immediately before the Absolutions and Benedictions to be said before the readings in certain Offices : “ To those who de¬ voutly recite the following prayer after performing service, Pope Leo X. hath granted indulgence or pardon [indulsit] for defects and faults in celebrating it, contracted by human frailty.” Even were all those distinctions admitted which are so frequently urged by one body of men, and declared by others to be unsatisfactory and inadmis¬ sible, with regard to the different kinds of honour in¬ tended to be ascribed to God, and to the Virgin, and the Saints, (corresponding with the Latria, the Plyperdulia, and the Dulia, to which we have already referred,) can such a joint ascription of “ everlasting praise, honour, and glory from every creature ” be safely made, as we find in the following prayers ? “To the most Holy and Undivided Trinity, to the manhood of our crucified Lord Jesus Christ, to the fruitful purity of the most blessed and most glorious ever Virgin Mary, and to the whole body of all the Saints, be everlasting praise, honour, virtue, and glory from every creature, and to us forgiveness of all sins, through the boundless ages of ages. Amen.” “Blessed is the womb of the Virgin Mary, which bore the Son of the eternal Father.” “ And blessed CHAP. I.] PUBLIC WORSHIP. 17 are the paps which gave suck to Christ the Lord.” “ Our Father.” “ Hail Mary 6 .” Whatever association may be raised in our minds by the circumstance of such an announcement being published in our own country in the nineteenth cen¬ tury, by which a bishop of Rome in the sixteenth century granted pardon (or indulgence) for faults arising from human frailty to all priests for all ages to come, the subject does not fall immediately within the scope of this treatise. But, surely, to join the Holy Trinity with the Virgin Mary and the entire aggregate of the Saints in one and the same ascrip¬ tion of eternal praise, honour, and glory, is as utterly subversive of primitive worship as it is repugnant to the plainest sense of Scripture, and derogatory to the dignity and majesty of that Supreme Being who will not share his honour with another 7 . We said that in the midst of the praises offered to the Virgin Mary, we find ascribed to her a share in the work of the salvation of lost and ruined man from sin and death. In some instances this ascription is made in such a manner as to lead the unwary to form the same estimate of the debt of gratitude due from us to Mary, as that which is due to the Saviour Him- 6 H iem. after the “ General Rubrics.” 7 An attempt has been made to justify this mingled ascription of glory to God, the Virgin, and the Saints, by a reference to that passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews, xii. 22, in which the inspired writer enumerates indiscriminately those blessed spirits with whom the faithful will be united in heaven,—just men made perfect, angels, the Redeemer, the everlasting Father; but in the only point now under our consideration there is not the shadow of resemblance between the two cases. C 18 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. seif; and in such a manner, too, as to countenance and justify to the faithful that lamentable and shock¬ ing union of the names “ of Jesus and Mary,” which we find in devotional exercises now prepared for the people. One example of this occurs in “ the office of the Virgin” on Saturdays in the month of June. Tt purports to be from a sermon of S. Bernard Abbot. “ Grievously, indeed, most dearly beloved, did one man and one woman injure us; but thanks be to God, not the less by ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN are all things restored ; and that not without great in¬ crease [usury] of grace.” Here the restoration of man¬ kind from the danger and misery into which the fall had plunged us, is just as much equally ascribed to our blessed Saviour and to Mary, as that fall itself is re¬ ferred equally to Adam and Eve. Mary is here repre¬ sented just as much our joint saviour with Christ, as Eve is regarded the joint source with Adam of our original fall. SECTION VII. Such is the result of our inquiries into the author¬ ized and prescribed forms of worship in the Church of Rome, in every part of the world where the supre¬ macy of that Church is acknowledged. Can it be matter of wonder that individuals high in honour with that Church have carried out those same principles of worship to far greater lengths ? The principle should undoubtedly be ever present to our mind, of fixing upon a Church itself only what is to be found in its canons, decrees, and formularies, and authoritative teaching; and of that which directly contravenes the Gospel rule and primitive faith and practice, far more than enough is found in the authorized and prescribed CHAP. I.] PUBLIC WORSHIP. 10 Liturgies of Rome to compel all wlio adhere to the Gospel and the example of primitive times to withhold their consent from her worship. But, with this principle steadily before us, justice and prudence combined re¬ quire us to trace for ourselves the practical workings of the system. And, indeed, the deplorable excesses to which priests, bishops, cardinals, and canonized saints have run in the worship of the Virgin Mary, might well induce upright and enlightened Roman Catholics to look anxiously for themselves to their foundations; to determine, with tender caution doubt¬ less and pious care, yet still with an eye bent honestly and only on the truth, whether the corruption be not in the well-head ? whether the stream do not flow from the very fountain itself already impregnated with the poison ? whether the prayers authorized and di¬ rected to be offered to the Virgin in public worship be not in very truth at variance with the first prin¬ ciples of the Gospel-—faith in one God the Giver of every good, and in one Mediator and Intercessor between God and man, the Lord Jesus Himself alone, whose blood cleanseth from all sin? in a word, to weigh well and to reflect, whether all the aberrations of her children in this department of religious duty have not their prototype in the ordinances, the injunc¬ tions, the precepts, and practical example of their Church itself? If we look to principles, as we have already observed, it will be hard to find any of the most unequivocal ascriptions of divine worship made to the Virgin Mary by her most zealous votaries, for which those worshippers would not be able to appeal in justification, and not without reason, to the author¬ ized Ritual of the Church of Rome. Before we proceed to a review of the practical c 2 20 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART 1/ workings of the system, two considerations seem na¬ turally to suggest themselves. First, Were it really intended that the invocation of the Virgin should be exclusively confined to re¬ quests that she would pray and intercede by prayer for her petitioners, why should language be addressed to her which in its plain, obvious, grammatical, and common-sense interpretation conveys the form of di¬ rect prayers to her for benefits at her own disposal ? And, Secondly, If the Church of Rome had intended that her members, when they suppliantly invoke the Vir¬ gin Mary and have recourse to her aid, should offer to her direct and immediate prayers that she would grant temporal and spiritual benefits, to be dispensed to mortals on earth at her own will, and by her own authority and power, in that case what words could that Church have prescribed to the petitioners, what expressions could be put into their mouth, which would have conveyed that intention more explicitly and unequivocally than the very words which have been adopted, and sanctioned, and prescribed ? CHAP. II.] PUBLIC WORSHIP. 21 CHAPTER II. PUBLIC WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN CONTINUED, SECTION I. Few probably can long be engaged in any wide and varied researches into the actual state of the worship of the Virgin Mary in the Church of Rome, without being surprised at finding the prevalence of such a mass of corruption and error as they had before no conception of. The extraordinary excesses to which that adoration has been carried, not by obscure and illiterate or fanatical individuals, but by celebrated doctors, prelates, and canonized persons, seem to introduce us to another religion, for the very germ even of which we seek in the Gospel in vain. If, indeed, we could with justice regard such palpable instances of the worship of the Virgin, in its most objectionable form, as the marks of ages long passed away, and of times less enlightened than our own, we might draw a veil over them, and hide them from our sight, rather than contemplate, in any persons calling themselves by the name of Christ, such departures from primitive truth and worship. But when we find the solemn addresses of the present chief authorities in the Roman Church, nay, the Epistles of the Sovereign Pontiff himself, countenancing, cherishing, and encou¬ raging the same superstitions, it is no longer a matter of choice, but it becomes an imperative duty in those who would rescue or preserve the truth from such WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN, 22 [part I. corruptions to lay bare the facts of the case, without exaggeration and without disguise. There is, however, one feature in the Roman worship of the Virgin, to which our thoughts will be especially drawn by the examination on which we are now entering. Its direct tendency, as practically illustrated in the works of accredited divines of the Church of Rome, and in the devotional exercises prepared for the daily use of the people, is to make the Almighty Himself an object of fear, and the Virgin an object of love; to invest Him, who is the Father of mercy and God of all comfort, with unapproachable majesty and awe, and with the terrors of eternal justice; and then, in direct and striking contrast, to array Mary with mercy, and benignity, and compassionate tenderness, and omnipotence in her love. But so far is our Heavenly Father from terrifying us and repelling us from Himself by alarming representations of his over¬ whelming and unapproachable majesty, that his own word abounds with assurances and representations of a directly opposite tenor: the Bible invites us to regard Him and to draw nigh to Him in full assurance of faith, not only as a God of love, but as Love itself, and moreover, as exercising his feeling of love towards us individually. “The God of love shall be with you 1 .” “ The Father himself loveth you 2 .” “ God is love 3 .” “ In this wns manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world that v 7 e might live through him.” And so far is the same holy Volume from suggesting to us the necessity or expediency of our applying to some mediator and advocate, w 7 ho “ not uniting the divine 2 Cor. xiii. 11. i 2 John xvi. 27. ’ 1 John iv. 8, CHAP. II.] PUBLIC WORSHIP. 23 with the human nature, as the Son of God and man does in his person, but, being simply human, might more intimately sympathize with our weaknesses and wants,” that it is impossible for language to express more strongly and plainly the entire completeness and perfectness of our Divine Redeemers advocacy and mediation, exclusive of all others. “ If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins 4 .” “ He is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them 5 .” “ If God be for us, who can be against us?” “He that hath spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things 6 ?” “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full 7 .” “There is one God and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus 8 .” “ I am the way, the truth, and the life : no man cometh unto the Father, but by 9 ” me . How entirely opposed to such blessed intimations as these, breathing the spirit that pervades the Scriptures throughout, are those doctrines which represent the Virgin Mary as the mediator through whom and by whom we must sue for the Divine clemency; as the dispenser of all God’s blessings and graces; as the sharer of God’s kingdom, leaving to Him the depart¬ ment of vengeance, and taking mercy to herself; as 4 1 John ii. 1, 2. Heb. iv. 8, 9. Rom. viii. 32. 8 Gal. iii. 20. 5 7 Heb. vii. 25. John xvi. 23, John xiv. 6. 24. 9 24 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. the fountain of pity, as the moderator of the Almighty’s justice, and the appeaser of his wrath !- “ Compel God to have mercy upon sinners.” “ Show thyself to be a mother.” “ By thy right of mother, com¬ mand thy Son.” “ Calm the rage of thy heavenly hus¬ band.” “ If any one feels himself aggrieved by the jus¬ tice of God, let him appeal to Mary.” “ God is a God of vengeance; but thou, Mary, dost incline to be mer¬ ciful.” “Thou approachest before the golden altar of human reconciliation, not asking only, but command¬ ing ; a mistress, not a handmaid.” Now, in drawing attention to such results of the Romish system as these, which shock our feelings, and from which our reason turns away, while we think of God’s perfections, and the full atonement and all- powerful intercession of our blessed Redeemer, our ob¬ ject is not to fasten such sentiments on any professed Roman Catholic who may disavow them ; it is to im¬ press on all persons some idea of the excesses into which even celebrated teachers are tempted to run, when once they allow the smallest inroad to be made upon the integrity of God’s worship ; and at the same time to caution our countrymen against encouraging in any way that revival of the worship of the Virgin, to pro¬ mote which the highest authorities of the Church of Rome have lately expressed their anxiety. Though these excessive departures from Gospel truth and the primitive worship of one God through one Mediator, may be disowned by some who still profess to be in communion with the Church of Rome; yet, as we shall now see, they are the tenets of her chief doctors, who though dead yet still speak with authority, men who were raised to her highest dignities in their lifetime, and were solemnly enrolled among her canonized saints CHAP. II.] PUBLIC WORSHIP. 25 after death, and to whose words and actions, appeals continue to be made at the present day. But even in their mildest and least startling forms, the doctrines and practices of Rome in the worship of the Virgin are awfully dangerous; and well does it become every one who loves the truth in sincerity to avoid whatever may even seem to countenance them. Before we proceed to ascertain from the testimony of men, whose writings are in a measure stamped with authority, the real doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome, one more of the many forms of service meeting us on every side, which characterize her pub¬ lic worship, seems to require some notice. The service here alluded to appears to take a sort of middle station between the enjoined formularies, and the devotions of individuals, or family worship. On the one hand, it partakes far too much of a public character to be considered in the light of private religious exercises; on the other, it seems to lack that authority which would rank it among the liturgical offices of the Church. The service is performed with more than ordinary ce¬ remony in the churches; a priest presides, the Host is presented for the adoration of the people, and a sermon is preached by an appointed minister: it is performed (in Paris, for example) every evening through the entire month of May, and is celebrated expressly in honour of the Virgin; for not only is the Satur¬ day in every week (with some exceptions) dedicated to her, but in every year the month of May is devoted to her, and is called by way of eminence “ Mary’s month.” Temporary altars are raised to her on the occasion, surrounded by flowers and evergreens, and profusely adorned with garlands and drapery; her 26 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. image usually standing in a conspicuous place before tlie altar. Societies or guilds are formed chiefly for the celebration of the Virgin’s praises, who bear the chief parts in these religious festivities ; and in some of the churches the effect both to the eye and to the ear is very imposing, in correspondence with the prepa¬ ration. One thing is wanting—the proper object of Chris¬ tian worship. A collection of religious poems, pub¬ lished professedly for the fraternities in Paris, and used in the churches there on those occasions, at the close of the preface is dedicated “To the glory of Jesus and of Mary.” In this collection many of the hymns are addressed directly and exclusively to the Virgin : some without either a shadow of reference to the Son of God, the only Saviour, or any allusion whatever to the God of Christians. The following is a literal translation of one of the hymns entire: “ Around the altars of Mary Let us her children press ; To that mother so endeared Let us address the sweetest prayers. Let a lively and holy mirth Animate us on this holy day, There exists no sadness For a heart full of her love. Let us adorn this sanctuary with flowers, Let us deck her revered altars ; Let us redouble our efforts to please her. Be this month consecrated to her. Let the perfume of these crowns Form a delicious incense, Which, ascending even to her throne, May carry to her both our hearts and our prayers. Let the holy name of Mary Be unto us a name of salvation ; Let our softened soul Ever pay to her a sweet tribute of love, Let us join the choir of angels The more to celebrate her beauty ; And may our songs of praise Resound in eternity. CHAP. II.] PUBLIC WORSHIP. 27 O holy Virgin ! O, our Mother! Watch over us from the height of heaven! And when, from this sojourn of misery, We present our prayers to you, O sweet, O divine Mary ! Lend an ear to our sighs ; And, after this life, Make us to taste of deathless pleasures V’ In the case of the prescribed prayers of the Church addressed to the Virgin, we have already suggested the propriety of trying the real import, the true intent and meaning, and genuine spirit of the address, by substituting the name of the Saviour in place of the Virgin’s; and if the same words, without any change of meaning or substance, form a prayer fit to be offered by sinners to the Redeemer of the world, then, asking, Can this be right? The application of the same test may most beneficially be made here, as well as in the case of numerous other of the prayers now offered by Roman Catholics to the Virgin. Suppose, instead of making these offerings of prayer, and praise, and self- devotion in the month of May to Mary, they were offered to our blessed Lord on the festival of his Na¬ tivity, would they not contain an act of faith in Him, as our Saviour and our God ? It is lamentable to find among these hymns striking proof that those corruptions of the faith, which (as we shall immediately see) in former years drew the contrast in favour of the Virgin, and against God, with reference to the attribute of mercy, are fully respond¬ ed to by her worshippers now. The hymn on the As¬ sumption (p. 183) represents the great and only Poten¬ tate, the God of mercy and loving-kindness, as Mary’s 1 Nouveau Recueil de Cantiques a 1’usage des Confreries des Paroisses de Paris. Paris, 1839, p. 175. 28 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. husband, full of rage and fury, who must be softened by her influence into tenderness and sweetness towards her votaries. The canticle ends with a stanza, here rendered word for word : “ Vouchsafe Mary on this day to hear our sighs, And to second our desires. Vouchsafe Mary on this day To receive our incense, our love. “Calm the rage Of thy heavenly husband. Let him show himself kind To all those that are thine ! Of thy heavenly husband Calm the rage! Let his heart be softened towards us 2 .’’ The course of our argument now leads us to examine the works of some among the canonized saints and ac¬ knowledged doctors of the Church of Rome. SECTION II.-BONAVENTURA. Among the most remarkable monuments of past years are the devotional works of Bonaventura. He was no ordinary man; and the circumstances under which his writings were recommended to the world are indeed memorable. It is difficult to conceive how any Church can give the impress of its own name and approval in a fuller or more unequivocal manner to the productions of any human being, than by the process by which the Church of Rome has stamped her authority on the works of this her canonized saint. In the “Acta Sanctorum 3 ” it is stated, that Bona¬ ventura was born in 1221, and died in 1274. He was of the order of St. Francis, and passed through all degrees of ecclesiastical dignities, short only of the pontifical throne itself. Pope Clement IV., in 1265, 2 P. 183. 3 Antwerp, 1723 ; July 14, pp. 811—823. CHAP. II.] BONAVENTURA. 29 offered to him the Archbishopric of York, which he refused ; but Clement’s successor, Gregory X., elevated him to the dignity of Cardinal-Bishop. His biogra¬ pher expresses his astonishment that the memory of such a man should have so long remained buried with his body, adding that the tardiness of his honours was compensated by their splendour. More than two cen¬ turies after his death, his claims to canonization were urged upon Sixtus IV.; and that Pope in the eleventh year of his reign, invested him with the dignity of a saint. The diploma bears date “xviii Kalend. Maias,” i. e. April 14, 1482. Before a mortal is canonized by the Pope, it is usually required that miracles wrought by him, or upon him, or at his tomb, be proved to the satisfaction of the Roman Court 4 . We need not dwell on the nature of an inquiry into a matter of fact alleged to have been done by an individual two hundred years before, and whose memory (as his biographer complains) had lain buried with his corpse. In this case, among the mira¬ cles specified, it is recorded that on one occasion, when he was filled with awe at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, God, by an angel, took a particle of the conse¬ crated bread from the hands of the priest, and gently placed it in the holy man’s mouth. But with these transactions our present purpose does not lead us to interfere, except so far as to ascertain from them the degree of authority with which Bonaventura must be invested by Roman Catholics as a teacher and in- structor authorized and appointed by their Church. The case stands thus:—Pope Sixtus IV. declares in his diploma, that the Proctor of the order of Minors 4 See “ Acta Sanctorum,” as above quoted. 30 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. proved, by a dissertation on the passage of St. John, “ There are three that bear record in heaven,” that the blessed Trinity had testified to the fact of Bonaventura being a Saint in heaven: the Father proving it by the attested miracles; the Son, by the wisdom of his doc¬ trine ; the Holy Spirit, by the excellency of his life. The Pontiff then adds in his own words, “ He so wrote on divine subjects, that the Holy Spirit seems to have spoken in him 5 .” This testimony is referred to by Pope Sixtus V. The latter Pontiff was crowned May 1, 1585, more than a century after the canonization of Bonaventura, and more than three centuries after his death. By his order the works of Bonaventura were “ most care¬ fully emendated.” The decretal letters, a.d. 1588, pro¬ nounced Bonaventura to be an acknowledged doctor of Holy Church, directing his authority to be cited and employed in all places of education, and in all eccle¬ siastical discussions and studies. The same act offers plenary indulgence to all who assist at the Mass on his feast in certain specified places, with other minor immunities on the conditions annexed 6 . In these documents Bonaventura is called the “ Se¬ raphic Doctorand the same question presents itself to us again, whether it is possible for any human authority to give a more entire, full, and unreserved sanction to the works of any human being, than the Church of Rome has actually given to the writings of Bonaventura 7 . And what do these works present to us on the invocation and worship of the Virgin Mary? 5 P. 831. 6 P. 837- 7 The edition of his works here used was published at Mentz in 1G09 ; and the passages referred to occur in vol. vi., between pp. 400 and 500. CHAP. II.] BONAVENTURA. 31 BONAVENTURA PSALTER 8 . In the first place, taking every one of the 150 psalms singly, Bonaventura so changes the commence¬ ment of each, as to address them all, not as the in¬ spired Psalmist did, to the Lord God Almighty, but to the Virgin Mary; interspersing, in some, much of his own composition, and then adding the Gloria Patri to each. It is indeed a painful task to quote any of these perversions of the holy volume of in¬ spired truth; but we dare not turn our eyes from this evil; we must not be deterred from looking it in the face. A few examples, however, will suffice. In the 30th Psalm, “ In thee, O Lord, have I trusted, let me not be confounded for ever,” &c., the Psalter of the Virgin substitutes these words : “ In thee, O Lady, have I trusted, let me not be confounded for ever: in thy grace take me. 44 Thou art my fortitude and my refuge : my consola¬ tion and my protection. 44 To thee, O Lady, have I cried, while my heart was in heaviness ; and thou didst hear me from the top of the eternal hills. 8 It is curious to find the Cardinal du Perron, in his answer to our King James, declaring that he had never met with this Psalter in his life, and was sure it w r as never written by Bonaventura; alleging that neither Trithemius nor Gesner had mentioned it. The Vatican editors, how r ever, have themselves set that question at rest. They assure us, that they have thrown into the appendix all the works about the genuineness of which there w r as any doubt, and that Bonaventura wrote many works not mentioned by Trithemius, which they have published from the Vatican press. Of this Psalter there is no doubt. See Cardinal du Perron, Replique a la Rep. du Roi de Grande Bretagne, Paris, 1620, p. 974. 32 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. “ Bring thou me out of the snare, that they have hid for me ; for thou art my succour. “ Into thy hands, O Lady, I commend my spirit, my whole life, and my last day.” In the 31st Psalm we read, “ Blessed are they whose hearts love thee, O Virgin Mary; their sins shall be mercifully blotted out by thee.” In the 35th, ver. 2, “ Incline thou the countenance of God upon us ; Compel him to have mercy upon sin- ners 9 . O Lady, thy mercy is in the heaven, and thy grace is spread over the whole earth.” In the 67th, instead of “ Let God arise, and let his enemies be scattered,” the Psalter of the Virgin has, “ Let Mary arise, and let her enemies be scat¬ tered.” In the opening of the 93rd Psalm there is a most startling, (we must not disguise our real estimate,) a most impious and blasphemous comparison of the Supreme God with the Virgin Mary, in reference to the very attribute which in HIM shines first, and last, and brightest—His eternal mercy. It draws the con¬ trast in favour of Mary, and against God : “ The Lord is a God of vengeance ; but thou, O Mother of mercy, inclinest to be merciful V’ The dearly-valued penitential Psalm (129th) is thus addressed to Mary: “ Out of the depths have I called to thee, O Lady; O Lady, hear my voice. Let thine ears be attent to the voice of my praise and glorifying: deliver me from the hand of my enemies; confound their imagi¬ nations and attempts against me. Rescue me in the evil day, and in the day of death forget not my soul: *c COGE ilium peccatorihus misereri.” 1 P. 485. CHAP. II.] BONAVENTURA. 33 carry me into the haven of salvation; let my name be enrolled among the just 2 .” As the penitential psalms are thus turned from Him to whom the inspired pen of the Psalmist ad- dressed them, so are his hymns of praise to Jehovah constrained, through the same channel, to flow to the Virgin; and all nature, in the sea, on the earth, in the heavens, is summoned to praise and glorify Mary. Thus, in the 148th Psalm, we read, “ Praise our Lady of Heaven: glorify her in the highest. Praise her all ye men and cattle, ye birds of the heaven, and fishes of the sea. Praise her, sun and moon ; ye stars, and circles of the planets. Praise her, Cherubin and Seraphin, thrones, and dominions, and powers. Praise her, all ye legions of angels. Praise her, all ye orders of spirits on high 3 .” The last sentence of the psalms is thus perverted : “ Let every thing that hath breath praise our Lady.” May God hasten the time when the only reading in Christendom shall again be in the words of the sweet Psalmist of Israel,— “ Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD.” To this Psalter are annexed various hymns lament¬ ably perverted on the same principle. In one, entitled “A Canticle like that of Habakkuk iii.,” Bonaven- tura not only addresses to the Virgin Mary the words in which that prophet offered his prayer to God, but inserts also the very words in which our Blessed Sa¬ viour most solemnly confessed to his Heavenly Father, and with ascriptions of glory (such as God’s own book ascribes to God only) addresses them all to the Virgin: 2 P. 489. 3 P. 491. D 34 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. Addressed in Holy Scrip¬ ture to God the Lord Jehovah 4 : O Lord, I have heard thy re¬ port, and was afraid. I confess to thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast re¬ vealed them to babes. Thy glory hath covered the heavens. The earth is full of the mercy of the Lord. Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people; for sal¬ vation with thy Christ. Addressed by Bonaven- tura to Alary: O Lady, I have heard thy re¬ port, and was astonished. I will confess to thee, O Lady, because thou hast hid these things from the wise, and hast revealed them to babes. Thy glory hath covered the heavens, and the earth is full of thy mercy. Thou, O Virgin, wentest forth for the salvation of thy people ; for salvation with thy Christ. “ O tliou blessed one, our salvation is placed in tliy hands. Remember our poverty, O thou pious one! WHOM TIlOU WILLEST, HE SHALL BE SAVED ; AND HE FROM WHOM THOU TURNEST AWAY THY COUNTENANCE, GOETH INTO DESTRUCTION.” 4 The parallels become more striking if we lay, side by side, Bonaventura’s words to the Virgin and the Latin version of the Bible, alone of authority in the Church of Rome. Vulgate : Domine, audivi audidonem tuam, et timui. Hab. iii. 2. Confiteor tibi, Pater, Domine caeli et terrae, quia abscondisti haec a sapientibus et prudentibus et revelasti ea parvulis. S. Matt. xi. 25. Operuit caelos gloria ejus. Hab. iii. 3. Misericordia Domini plena est terra.—Ps. xxxii. 5. Egressus es in salutem populi tui; in salutem cum Christo tuo. Hab. iii. 13. Bonaventura: Domina, audivi audidonem tuam, et obstupui. Confitebor tibi, Domina, quia abscondisti haec a sapientibus, et revelasti ea parvulis. Operuit caelos gloria tua. Et misericordia tua plena est terra. Egressa es, Virgo, in salutem populi tui; in salutem cum Christo tuo. CHAP. II.] BONAVENTURA. 35 The Song of the Three Children is altered in the same manner; and both in it, and in the Canticle of Zacharias, these prayers are introduced : 44 O Mother of mercy, have mercy upon us, miser¬ able sinners, who neglect to repent of our past sins, and every day commit many to be repented of.” THE TE DEUM. The Te Deum is thus miserably distorted: 44 We praise thee, Mother of God ; we acknowledge thee, Mary the Virgin. “All the earth doth worship thee, Spouse of the Eternal Father. 44 To thee all angels and archangels, thrones and principalities, faithfully do service. 44 To thee the whole angelic creation with incessant voice proclaim. Holy! Holy ! Holy ! Mary, Parent, Mother of God, and Virgin.Thou with thy Son sittest at the right hand of the Father. 44 O Lady, save thy people, that we may partake of the inheritance of thy Son ; 44 And govern us and guard us for ever. 44 Day by day we salute thee, O pious one; and we desire to praise thee in mind and in voice, even for ever. 44 Vouchsafe, O sweet Mary, to keep us now and for ever without sin. 44 Have mercy upon us, O pious one, have mercy upon us. 44 Let thy mercy be made great with us, because in thee, O Virgin Mary, we put our trust. In thee, sweet Mary, do we hope; defend us for ever. 44 Praise becomes thee. Empire becomes thee. To thee be virtue and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” d 2 36 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. Can the most subtle refinement make this merely a request to her to pray for us ? THE ATHANASIAN CREED. The Athanasian Creed is employed in the same manner; and it is remarkable that the Assumption of the Virgin into heaven (which we shall hereafter prove to have no foundation whatever in fact) is here specified as one of the points to be believed, on pain of forfeiting all hopes of salvation. “ Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold firm the faith concerning the Virgin Mary; which except a man keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlast¬ ingly . “ Whom at length He took up [assumpsit] Himself into heaven; and she sittetli at the right hand of her Son, not ceasing to pray to her Son for us. “ This is the faith concerning the Virgin Mary, which except every one believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” THE LITANY. In the Litany addressed to Mary these sentences occur: “ Holy Mary, whom all things praise and venerate, pray for us—be propitious—spare us, O Lady. “ From all evil deliver us, O Lady. “ In the devastating hour of death deliver us, O Lady. “ From the horrible torments of hell deliver us, O Lady. “ We sinners do beseech thee to hear us. “ That thou wouldest be pleased to give eternal rest CHAP. II.] BONAVENTURA. 37 to all the faithful departed, we beseech thee to hear us, O Lady.” To this catalogue of prayers and praises addressed to the Virgin, we will add only the translation of one prayer more from the same canonized Saint; it con¬ tains a passage often referred to, but the existence of which has been doubted and denied. There it stands, however, in his works, vol. vi. p. 406. “ Therefore, O Empress and our most benign Lady, by the right of a mother command thy most beloved son, our Lord Jesus Christ, that He vouchsafe to raise our minds from the love of earthly things to heavenly desires, who liveth and reign eth.” “Jure matris impera tuo dilectissimo filio.” Now, let any man of ordinary understanding and straightforward principles say, whether any, the most ingenious, refinement can fairly interpret all this to mean merely that Bonaventura invoked the Virgin Mary to pray for him, or for his fellow-creatures. It looks as though he were resolved at all hazards to exalt her to an equality with the Almighty, when we find him, not once, not casually, not in the fervent rapture of momentary excitement, but deliberately through the one hundred and fifty psalms, applying to Mary the very words consecrated by the Holy Spirit to the worship of the supreme and only God, and then selecting for her the most solemn expressions with which the Christian Church approaches the Lord of heaven and earth, our Creator, our Saviour, our Sanc¬ tifier ; employing, moreover, for Mary’s honour, the very words of our belief in the ever-blessed Trinity, and substituting throughout Mary’s name for God's. 38 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. If such a man as Bonaventura, one of the most learned and celebrated men of his age, could be tempt¬ ed by the seductive doctrine cherished by the Church of Rome to employ such language, what can be fairly expected of the large mass of persons who find that language published to the world with the very highest sanction which their religion can give, as the work of a man whom “ the Almighty declared by miracles to be a chosen vessel, and to have been under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so that the Holy Spirit seemed to speak by himand of whom they are taught by the infallible testimony of his canonization 5 , that he is now reigning with Christ in heaven, himself the law¬ ful and appointed object of religious invocation ? SECTION III. These excesses in the worship of the Virgin Mary are not confined to Bonaventura, or to his age. Many examples of the same extravagant exaltation of her as the chief object of adoration and praise meet us on every side, in men whose station and abilities might have seemed to hold them forth to the world as burn¬ ing and shining lights in their generation. And, in draw¬ ing attention to the doctrines and expressed feelings of some few from among the host of the Virgin’s worship¬ pers, the object in view is not to fasten these senti¬ ments on any professed Roman Catholics who may disavow them;—it is to impress on all persons some idea of the excesses into which even celebrated teachers are tempted to run, when once they allow the smallest 5 Cardinal Bellarmin, in his “ Church Triumphant,” maintains that in the act of canonization the Church of Rome is infallible. Vol, ii. p. 871. CHAP. II.] TENDENCY OF THE WORSHIP OF MARY. 89 inroad to be made upon tlie integrity of God’s worship; it is also at the same time to caution our countrymen against encouraging in any way that revival of the wor¬ ship of the Virgin in England, to promote which the highest authorities in the Church of Rome have lately expressed their solicitude. Though these excessive de¬ partures from Gospel truth and the primitive worship of one God by one Mediator, may not be practi¬ cally adopted by all who belong to the Church of Rome ; yet they are the tenets of some of her most approved doctors,—men who were raised to her highest dignities in their lifetime, and solemnly enrolled among her canonized Saints after their death, and whose words and actions continue to be appealed to now. But, even in their mildest and least startling form, these doctrines are awfully dangerous; and well does it become every one who loves the truth in sincerity to avoid whatever may even seem to countenance them. The fact is, that the direct tendency of the worship of the Virgin, as practically illustrated in the Church of Rome, is to make the Almighty Himself an object of fear, and the Virgin an object of love; to invest with unapproachable majesty and awe, and with the terrors of eternal justice, Him, who is the Father of mercy and God of all comfort; and then, in direct and striking contrast, to array Mary with mercy, and benignity, and compassionate tenderness, and omnipotence in her love. His own word invites us to look to Him not only as a God of love, but as Love itself—“ God is love* 3 ;” and so far from terrifying us by representations of his tre¬ mendous majesty, and by assurances that w T e cannot ourselves draw nigh to Him; so far from bidding us to 6 1 John iv. 8. 40 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. approach Him in prayer through mediators, whom (more than our one blessed Redeemer) we might regard as having a fellow-feeling with us, and at the same time as having resistless influence with Him ; his own gracious bidding in the Bible is, “ Come unto me, and I will give you rest 7 ;” “No man cometh unto the Father, but by me 8 ;” “Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out 9 ;” “Let us come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need 1 .” How entirely opposed to such blessed intimations as these (breathing the spirit that pervades the Scrip¬ tures throughout) are those doctrines which represent the Virgin Mary as the mediator through whom and by whom we must sue for the Divine clemency-—as the dispenser of all God’s blessings and graces—as the sharer of God’s kingdom, leaving to Him the depart¬ ment of vengeance, and taking mercy to herself—as the fountain of pity—as the moderator of Jehovah’s justice, and the appeaser of his wrath. “ Show thyself to be a mother 2 .” “ Compel thy Son to have pity 3 .” “ By thy right of Mother command thy Son 3 .” “ Calm the rage of thy heavenly Husband, let his heart be softened towards us 4 .” “ If any one feels himself aggrieved by the justice of God, he may ap¬ peal to Mary 5 .” “ God is a God of vengeance, but thou, Mary, dost incline to be merciful 3 .” Surely these are expressions conveying sentiments and asso¬ ciations shocking to our feelings, and from which our reason turns away, as we think of God’s perfections, 7 Matt. xi. 28. 8 John xiv. 6. 9 John vi. 37. 1 Heb. iv. 1G. 2 iEst. 597. a Bonaventura. 4 Nouveau Recueil. * Bernardin de Bustis. CIIAP. II.] GABRIEL BIEL. 41 and the full atonement and all-powerful intercession of bis Son, Christ our Redeemer. But it must not be disguised that these are the very sentiments in which the most celebrated defenders of the worship of the Virgin in the Church of Rome teach their disciples to acquiesce; and in which they must have themselves acquiesced, if they put in practice what they taught. It is painful to make such extracts as leave us no al¬ ternative in forming an opinion on this point; but it is necessary to do so, or we may do wrong to the cause of truth by suppressing the reality,—a reality over which there has appeared, in some persons high in authority in the Church of Rome, a disposition to draw a veil. The examples, however, are so abundant as to make our selection difficult. SECTION IV.-GABRIEL BIEL. Gabriel Biel was a schoolman of great celebrity. He was born at Spires about a. d. 1425, and in 1484 was appointed the first Professor of Theology in the newly-founded University of Tubingen. He after¬ wards retired to a monastery, and died in 1495. In his 32nd lecture on the Canon of the Mass 6 , referring to a sermon of St. Bernard, he thus ex¬ presses himself: “ The will of God was, that we should have all through Mary. ... You were afraid to approach the Father, frightened by only hearing of Him. . . . He gave you Jesus for a Mediator. What could not such a Son obtain from such a Father? He will surely be heard for his own reverence-sake, for the Father loveth the Son. But are you afraid to 6 Tubingen, 1499. 42 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. approach even Him? He is your brother, and your flesh, tempted through all, that He might become merciful. This brother Mary gave to you. But, perhaps, even in Him you fear the divine majesty, because although He was made man, yet He continued God. You wish to have an advocate even with Him. Betake yourself to Mary; for in Mary is pure hu¬ manity, not only pure from all contamination, but pure also by the singleness of her nature. Nor with any doubt would I say, she too will be heard for her own reverence-sake. The Son surely will hear the Mother, and the Father will hear the Son.” The following prayer is offered in the service of the Mass: 44 Deliver us, we beseech thee, O Lord, from all evils, past, present, and future; and by the interces¬ sion of Mary the blessed and glorious ever Virgin- Mother of God, with thy blessed Apostles, Peter, and Paul, and Andrew, and all Saints, mercifully grant peace in our day, that, aided by the help of thy mercy, we may be ever free both from sin and from all disquietude. Through the same our Lord,” &c. On this Collect, Biel, in his 80th lecture, makes this comment: 44 Again we ask, in this prayer, the defence of peace; and since we cannot, nor do we presume to obtain this by our own merit, . . . therefore we have recourse, in the second part of this prayer, to the suf¬ frages of all his Saints, whom Lie hath constituted in the court of his kingdom as our mediators, most acceptable to Himself, whose prayers his love does not reject. But of them we fly, in the first place, to the most blessed Virgin, the Queen of heaven, to whom the King of kings, the heavenly Father, has given the half of his kingdom; which was signified CHAP. II.] PETRUS D AMI ANUS. 43 in Hester tlie queen, to whom, when she approached to appease King Ahasuerus, the king said, 4 Even if thou slialt ask the half of my kingdom, it shall be given to thee.’ So the heavenly Father, inasmuch as He has justice and mercy as the more valued possessions of his kingdom, retaining justice to himself, granted MERCY TO THE VIRGIN MOTHER.” The very same partition of the kingdom of heaven 7 ? between the Virgin and God Himself, is also asserted by one who was dignified by the name of the Vene¬ rable and most Christian doctor, John Gerson, who died in 1429 ; excepting that, instead of justice and mercy, Gerson mentions power and mercy as the two parts of which God’s kingdom consists; and he states, that whilst 44 power remained with the Lord, the part of mercy was ceded to the mother of Christ and the reigning spouse: hence by the whole Church she is saluted as Queen of Mercy 8 .” section v. PETRUS DAMIANUS, BERNARDINUS DE BUSTIS, BERNARDINUS SENNENIS. Peter Damiani, Cardinal and Bishop, lived four cen¬ turies before Biel, though his works received the 7 This idea of a partition of the kingdom of the Eternal Creator and Governor unhappily very widely pervades the works of those who have written on the worship and honours due to Mary ; asso¬ ciated almost always with the idea of her being the King’s spouse, and so the reigning queen of heaven ; and, like Esther, the wife of Ahasuerus, pleasing her Royal husband by her grace and beauty, and so appeasing his anger and securing immunities for her own people. 8 Gerson, Paris, 1606, tract, iv. Super “ Magnificat,” part iii. p. 754. See Fabricius, vol. iii. p. 49 ; Patav. 1754, 44 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. papal sanction so late as the commencement of the seventeenth century. His writings were published at the command of Pope Clement VIII., who died in the year 1604, and were dedicated to his successor, Paul V., who gave the copyright for fifteen years to the editor Constantine Cajetan, a.d. 1606. One quo¬ tation will suffice. In his sermon on the Nativity of the Virgin he thus addresses her: “ Nothing is impossible with thee, who hast power to restore those in despair to the hope of blessed¬ ness ; for how could that authority which derived its flesh from thy flesh oppose thy power? For thou approaches! before the golden altar of human reconciliation, not asking only, but commanding ; a MISTRESS, NOT A HANDMAID 9 .” Two writers now call for our attention whose par¬ tial identity of name has not unnaturally led to some confusion as to the writings belonging to each—Ber- nardinus de Bustis, and Bernardinus Sennensis ‘. Bernardinus de Bustis (so called from a place in the country of Milan) was the celebrated author of “ The Office of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin,” which was confirmed by the bull of Sixtus IV., and has since been used on the 8tli of December. He composed various works in honour of the Virgin, to one of which he gave the title “ Mariale.” In this work, in the midst of a great variety of sentiments of a similar tendency, he thus expresses himself: “Of so great authority in the heavenly palace is that Empress, that, omitting all intermediate saints, 9 Non solum rogans, sed imperans ; domina, non ancilla. Paris, 1743, vol. ii. p. 107, serm. 44. 1 Fabricius, vol. i. p. 215. CHAP. II.] BERNARPINU8 DE BUSTIS. 45 we may appeal to her from every grievance. With confidence, then, let every one appeal to her, whe¬ ther he be aggrieved by the devil, or by any tyrant, or by his own body, or by divine justice.’ 5 Then, having specified and illustrated the three other sources of grievance, he thus proceeds: “ In the fourth place, he may appeal to her, if any one feels himself aggrieved by the justice of God. That empress Hester was therefore a figure of this Em¬ press of the heavens, with whom God divided his king¬ dom. For whereas God has justice and mercy, he re¬ tained justice to himself to be exercised in this world, and granted mercy to his mother; and thus, if any one feels himself to be aggrieved in the court of God’s justice, let him appeal to the court of mercy of his mother 2 .” If we calmly weigh the import of these words, is it any thing short of robbing the Eternal Father of the brightest jewel in his crown, and sharing his glory with another? Is it not encouraging us to turn our eyes from the God of Mercy as a stern and ruthless judge, and habitually to fix them upon Mary as the dispenser of all we want for the comfort and happiness of our souls ? In another place this Bernardine thus exalts Mary : “ Since the Virgin Mary is Mother of God, (and God is her Son, and every son is naturally inferior to his mother and subject to her, and the mother is preferred above and is superior to her son,) it follows that the blessed virgin is herself superior to God, and God himself is her subject by reason of the humanity derived from her 3 .” And again, “ O the unspeakable 2 Cologne, 1607, part iii. serm. ii. p. 176. 3 Part ix. serm. ii. n. 605. 46 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. dignity of Mary, who was worthy to command the Commander of all 4 !” We must not pass on without making one more quotation from this famed Doctor: it appears to rob God of his justice and power, as well as of his mercy ; and to turn our eyes to Mary for the possession of all we can desire, and for safety from all we can dread. Would that Bernardine stood alone in the propagation of these doctrines ! “We may say that the Blessed Virgin is Chancellor in the court of heaven. For we see, that, in the chancery of our Lord the Pope, three kinds of letters are granted: some are of simple justice, others are of pure grace, and the third mixed, combining justice and grace. . . . The third chancellor is he to whom it appertains to give letters of pure grace and mercy. And this office hath the Blessed Virgin, and therefore she is called the Mother of grace and mercy; but those letters of mercy she gives only in the present life. For to some souls, as they are departing, she gives letters of pure grace ; to others, of simple justice ; and to others mixed, namely, of justice and grace. For some have been very much devoted to her, and to them she gives letters of pure grace, by which she commands that glory be given to them without any pain of purgatory; others are miserable sinners, and not devoted to her, and to them she gives letters of simple justice, by which she commands that con¬ dign vengeance be done upon them; others were luke¬ warm and remiss in their devotion, and to them she gives letters both of justice and of grace ; by which she commands that grace be given unto them, and yet, on 4 Part xii. serm. ii. p. 816. CHAP. II.] BERNARDINUS SENNENSIS. 47 account of tlieir negligence and sloth, some pain of purgatory be also inflicted on them 5 .” Bernardinus Sennensis. —This Bernardine, distin¬ guished as “ of Sienna,” was a canonized Saint 6 . A full account of his life, and of his enrolment by the Pope among the Saints of heaven, is found in the “Acta Sanctorum,” vol. v., May 20, the day especially dedi¬ cated to his honour. Eugenius IV. died before the canonization of Bernardine could be completed; the next Pope, Nicholas V., on Wliit-Sunday, 1450, in full conclave enrolled him among the Saints, to the joy, as we are told, of all Italy. In 1461, Pius II. said, that Bernardine was taken for a Saint even in his lifetime; and in 1472, Sixtus IV. issued a bull, in which he extols the Saint, and authorizes the removal of his body into a new Church, dedicated, as others had been, to his honour. This Bernardine is equally explicit with others in maintaining that all the blessings which Christians can receive on earth are dispensed by Mary; that her princedom equals the Eternal Father’s; that all are her servants and subjects who are the servants and sub¬ jects of the Most High; that all who adore the Son of God should adore his Virgin Mother; and that the Virgin has repaid the Almighty for all that He lias done for the human race. Some of these doctrines are truly startling, but we have been assured they find an echo in the pulpits of many parts of the Continent at the present day. To multiply quotations on these several points is unnecessary and irksome ; a few will suffice for all. 5 Part xii. serm. i. on the 22nd excellence, p. 825. 0 Paris, 1636. 48 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. “ So many creatures do service to the glorious Mary as do service to the Trinity. . . . For He who is the Son of God and of the Blessed Virgin, wishing (so to speak) to make the princedom of his Mother in a manner equal to his Father’s, Fie who was God served his Mother on earth. Moreover, this is true, All things, even the Virgin, are servants of the Divine empire; and again, this is true, All things, even God, are servants of the empire of the Virgin 7 .” “Therefore all the angelic spirits are the ministers and servants of this glorious Virgin 8 .” “To comprise all in a brief sentence, I have no doubt that God granted all the pardons and libera¬ tions in the Old Testament on account of his love and reverence for this blessed maid, by which God pre¬ ordained from eternity that she should by predestina¬ tion be honoured above all his works. On account of the immense love of the Virgin, as well Christ Him¬ self, as the whole blessed Trinity, frequently grants pardon to the most wicked sinners 9 .” “ By the law of succession and the right of inheritance the primacy and kingdom of the whole universe is due to the Blessed Virgin. Nay, when her only Son died on the cross, since Fie had no one on earth of right to succeed Him, his mother by the laws of all succeeded, and acquired by this the principality of all. . . . But of the monarchy of the universe Christ never made any testamentary bequest, because that could never be done without prejudice to his mother. More¬ over, He knew that a mother can annul the will of her Son, if it be made to the prejudice of herself 1 .” 7 Vol. iv. serm. v. c. vi. p. 118. 8 Serm. iii. c. iii. p. 104. 9 Serm. v. c. ii. p. 116. 1 Serm. v. c. vii. pp. 116. 118. CHAP. II.] BERNARDINUS SENNENSIS. 49 “The Virgin Mother 2 , from the time she conceived God, obtained a certain jurisdiction and authority in every temporal procession of the Holy Spirit, so that no creature could obtain any grace of virtue from God, except according to the dispensation of his Virgin Mother 3 . As through the neck the vital breathings descend from the head into the body, so the vital graces are transfused from the head Christ into his mystical body through the Virgin. I fear not to say that this Virgin has a certain jurisdiction over the flowing of all graces. And because she is the mother of such a Son of God, who produces the IToly Spirit, therefore all the gifts, graces, and virtues of the Holy Spirit are administered by the hands of herself to whom she will, when she will, how she will, and in what quantity she will 4 .” “ She is the queen of mercy, the temple of God, the habitation of the Holy Spirit,—always sitting at the right hand of Christ in eternal glory; therefore she is to be venerated, to be saluted, and to be adored with the adoration of hyperdulia : and therefore she sits at the right hand of the King, that, as often as you adore Christ the King, you may adore also the mother of Christ 5 .” “The Blessed Virgin Mary alone has done more for God, or as much (so to speak) as God hath done for 2 Serm. v. c. viii. and Serm. vi. c. ii. pp. 120 and 122.—There is an omission (probably by an error of the press) in the first passage, which the second enables us to supply. 3 This Bernardine is constantly referring to St. Bernard for this doctrine, “ No grace comes from heaven upon the earth, but what passes through the hands of Mary.” 4 Serm. v. p. 119. 3 Serm. vi. p. 121. E 50 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. the whole human race. I verily believe that God will excuse me if I now speak for the Virgin. Let us then gather together into one mass what things God hath done for man; and let us consider what satisfaction the Virgin Mary hath returned to the Lord 6 .” Ber- nardine then enumerates various particulars, (of many of which the ordinary feelings of reverence and deli¬ cacy forbid the transfer into these pages,) putting one against another, in a sort of debtor and creditor ac¬ count, and then summing up the total, thus: “ There¬ fore, setting each individual thing one against another, namely, what things God hath done for man, and what things the Blessed Virgin has done for God, you will see that Mary has done more for God than God has for man ; so that thus, on account of the Blessed Virgin, (whom nevertheless He Himself made,) God is IN A CERTAIN MANNER UNDER GREATER OBLIGATIONS TO IJS THAN WE ARE TO HlM.” The whole treatise he finishes with this address to Mary : “ Truly by mere babbling are we uttering these thy praises and excellencies, but’ we suppliantly pray thy immense sweetness; do thou by thy benignity supply our insufficiencies, that we may worthily praise thee through the endless ages of ages. Amen.” It may here be remarked, that by almost every writer in support of the worship of the Virgin an ap¬ peal is made to St. Bernard 7 as their chief authority; especially is the following passage quoted by many, 6 Serm. vi. p. 120. 7 The present Pope in the same manner refers to him in his Encyclical letter. CHAP. II.] DIPTYCHA MARIANA. 51 either whole or in part, at almost every turn of their argument 8 : 64 If thou art disturbed by the heinousness of thy crimes, and confounded by the foulness of thy con¬ science, if terrified by the horror of judgment thou begin to be swallowed up in the gulf of despair, think of Mary, invoke Mary ; let her not depart from thy heart, let her not depart from thy mouth. For, while thinking of her, thou dost not err; imploring her, thou dost not despair ; following her, thou dost not lose thy way; while she holds thee, thou dost not fall; while she protects thee, thou dost not fear; while she is thy leader, thou art not wearied ; while she is favourable, thou readiest thy end.” SECTION VI. DIPTYCHA MARIANA. We have already observed, that the excesses and ex¬ travagances into which the worshippers of the Virgin have run, when brought to light, exceed all that we have been accustomed to meet with in books or in conversation. So revolting are many of them, that able and learned Roman Catholic writers have deemed the exposure and refutation of them a pious work, due even to the Virgin herself, in order to preserve her le¬ gitimate honours from disparagement and ridicule. It is indeed curious to find that these very writers, while they open to us a mass of superstition, and idola¬ try, and blasphemy, of which we should not other¬ wise have been aware, and while they expose and reprove what they call unwarrantable excesses in 8 See Bern. Sen. vol. iv. p. 124. The passage is found in Ber¬ nard. Paris, 1640, p. 25. E 2 52 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. the votaries of Mary, themselves supply us with the strongest and most convincing evidence of the de¬ plorable extent to which, even with their counte¬ nance and support, both from argument and from their owui example, the worship of the Virgin in its most modified form entrenches upon the honour due to God only, and tempts Christians to anchor on Mary that holy hope which should rest only on Christ Himself. The work of Theophilus Raynaud, a Jesuit of Lyons, is in many points very curious and interesting. One of its professed principles is to modify and reduce within reasonable bounds the worship of the Virgin Mary, and to explode those excesses wdiich, by exciting disgust or suspicion, might endanger, what he considers, her rightful praise and glory. But, fearing lest his in¬ tention should be misunderstood, he thinks it neces¬ sary to make an explicit profession of his sense of the boundless merits of the Virgin, for expressing which he adopts the w 7 ords of a former writer. “ The tor¬ rents of heaven and the fountains of the great deep I would rather open than close in homage of the Virgin. And, if her Son Jesus has omitted any thing as to the pre-eminence of the exaltation of his own mother, I a servant, I a slave, not indeed with effect, but with affection, w 7 ould delight in filling it up. I had rather verily have no tongue, than say one v’ord against our Lady; I would rather have no soul, than diminish aught of her glory 9 .” Many of the dissertations, (some approved, some carried on at great length, some discountenanced by r ' “ Si Filius ejus Jesus aliquid omisisset in prerogative exulta- tionis [qy. exaltationis] suae matris.” Raynaud, Lugduni, 1G65, vol. vii. p. 4. CHAP. II.] THEOPIIILUS RAYNAUD. 53 this writer,) on which men have dared to enter as to the mystery of the incarnation of the eternal Son of God, cannot be quoted here, even to be reproved, without setting at nought all decency and pious re¬ verence; and we will leave them. They warn us at every step to avoid all vain curiosity, and never to pry into those secret things which belong to the Lord our God. And of the manifold questions which are idle and profitless, and savouring of ensnaring superstition rather than of indelicacy, our plan admits of a reference only to a very few. Among those numerous tenets which Raynaud records as having been maintained by the votaries of the Virgin, but which he discounte¬ nances, are these: “ That the Virgin had rescued and snatched some souls out of hell, that they might do penance “That the very flesh of the Virgin Mary is adored daily in the Church with supreme worship, and is a victim offered to God, for a sacrifice of sweet savour to the Lord, because her flesh is one with Christ’s V’ and “is to be worshipped in the Eucharist with the adora¬ tion of hyperdulia 3 .” “ That, by reason of her maternity, the Virgin Mary might be worshipped, with the worship with which God is Himself worshipped,—the adoration of La- tria 4 ; ” and he tells us that both Suarez and Men¬ doza maintained this doctrine. This author disapproves of the sentiment, (a senti¬ ment by no means confined to the author whom he cites, and whose works he says had an immense cir¬ culation,) that Christians love Christ on account of, 1 Raynaud, vol. vii. p. 15. 2 P. 237. 3 P. 65. 4 P. 229. WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. 54 [part I. and in consequence of, the love which they bear to his mother 5 . St. Ildefonsus, he tells us, 44 with a faithful pre¬ sumption and pious boldness,” extended the power of the Virgin to hell, granting to the damned some remedy and refreshing, and freedom from the vexa¬ tion of the devils, “ on the day of her assumption 6 .” Now, the evidence of such an author as this, who was a member of the College of Jesuits, seems to be both unobjectionable and valuable. One of his main objects was to condemn the excessive and extravagant acts of worship and adoration which he witnessed in his predecessors and contemporaries, we must therefore infer that while his own practice, at all events, did not exceed the average, it may fairly be supposed to fall below it. And what does he profess to allow or to maintain ? or what worship does he feel himself justi¬ fied in offering to the Virgin? Although many more passages are at hand, we will quote only two: one, describing a form of worship, which will make her praise perfect, if her votary will add the imitation of Mary; and the other, the closing words of his work, called Diptyclia Mariana, in which he declares it to be his delight to address to the Virgin a hymn in imitation of the Te Deum. In the first passage 7 , he begins by saying that he will not suffer himself to pass by “a pious daily practice of worshipping and religiously invoking the Blessed Vir¬ gin in private, supplied by Richard of St. Lawrence” (lib. ii. de B. V. partic 5). 44 The will,” he says, 44 of the Son is, that we should bless his Mother and our Sovereign Lady at all times, 5 “ Amo Te, Christe Deiis, propter matrem quam diligo.” fT P. 228. 7 P. 232. P. 235. CHAP. II.] THEOPIIILUS RAYNAUD. 55 namely, by night and by day, in prosperity and adver¬ sity ; and that her praise should ever dwell in our heart and in our mouth ; by meditating upon her, by praising her, by praying, blessing, giving thanks to her, by preaching forth her greatnesses; and that her praise should be as a curb in our jaws curbing us in from the vices of the tongue. Wherefore she also herself promises, with her Son, to him who praises her (Isa. 48), 4 With my praise will I curb thee, that thou perish not.’ Also that thou mayest fulfil that psalm (102), &c., ‘All that is within me bless her holy name V And daily are her [ejus] members indi¬ vidually to be blessed, that we may receive back a blessing to our members individually from her [ ab ea\. In like manner are her feet to be blessed, with which she carried the Lord; the womb, in which she carried Him; the heart, whence she courageously believed in Him, and fervently loved Him; the breasts, with which she gave Him suck; the hands, with which she nourished Him; the mouth and tongue, with which she gave to Him the happy kisses of our redemption; the nostrils, with which she smelled the sweet-smelling fragrance of his humanity; the ears, with which she listened with delight to his eloquence; the eyes, with which she devoutly looked upon Him ; the body and soul, which Christ consecrated in her with every benediction. And these most sacred members must be saluted and blessed with all devotion, so that separate salutations must be addressed to the several members separately, namely, ‘ Hail Mary,’ two to the feet, one to the womb, one to the heart, two to the breasts, two to the hands, two to the mouth and tongue, two to the lips, two * “ Ejus” is ambiguous, but “ ab ea ,” in the next line, fixes the sense. 56 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. to the nostrils, two to the ears, two to the eyes, two to the soul and body. And thus in all there are twenty salutations, which after the manner of a daily payment, with separate and an equal number of kneel¬ ings, if it can be done, before her image or altar, are to be paid to the glorious Virgin, according to that psalm (144), 4 Every day will I give thanks unto thee, and praise thy name for ever,’ &c. And as those persons say who have experienced it, and have heard it from holy men, scarcely can be found any other form of ser¬ vice [servitii] which would so much please the Virgin, or from which so much devotion would flow back to those who love her. Likewise, through all her members separately, after the kneeling, adoration, and salutation, thus must it be said: 4 Sweet Lady, I adore and bless those most blessed feet, by which thou didst carry the Lord upon the earth; I adore and bless that most blessed womb, in which thou didst carry Himand so to the other members and senses, commemorating their acts by which they served the Lord; and this will devotion better prescribe than a discourse, grace better than writing.” This, be it remembered, is a branch of Mary’s worship approved and recommended by one whose professed object is to curtail, and limit, and purify, and reduce her worship within reasonable bounds ! Can we wonder at the horrible blasphemies which meet us on every side ? too dreadful, many of them, to be re¬ peated ; but, nevertheless, unhappily upon record. If one who reproves those who indulge in extravagant and excessive worship of the Virgin will himself, not in the fervour of enthusiasm, nor hurried along by the impetuosity of his own eloquence, but calmly and de¬ liberately sanction such condensed superstition as the CHAP. II.] THEOPHILUS RAYNAUD. 57 above service involves, what must have been the ex¬ travagances and excesses which he condemns? Here the worshipper of the Virgin is directed to perform daily a peculiar service to her, in order that he might towards her fulfil the prophetic measure of the Psalmist’s devotion, when he called upon his soul and all within him to bless God the Lord Jehovah. Here it is declared that it was “ Mary, with her Son,” who made that promise to her votaries of safety from destruction, which, whatever be the promise, the word of inspired truth declares to have been made, not by Mary, but by the Lord omnipotent. God, in the passage containing the promise now first as¬ cribed to the Virgin, (though her Son is joined with her,) announces Himself, the speaker, the promiser, to be “ the first and the last.” “ I am He—mine hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens 9 .” The Bible declares the speaker to be God: this writer substitutes Mary for God; and although her ever-blessed Son is joined, yet Mary’s praise, and not her Son’s, is the only offer¬ ing to which her promise is here applied. Really, what we read of the works of Marie D’Agreda 1 , though more shocking to our feelings, as the errors are detailed, yet scarcely implies greater impiety in itself, or more directly and unequivocally robs God of his glory. Raynaud’s accommodation of the Te Deum to the Virgin Mary contains these sentences: 9 This writer quotes the Vulgate, which makes the substitution of the Virgin’s name for the everlasting Creator’s still more glaring. “ Laude mea infrenabo te, ne intereas. . . . Audi me, Jacob. Ego ipse, ego primus, et ego novissimus.” 1 See Bayle. Amsterdam, vol. i. p. 96. 58 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. “ We praise thee, Queen of heaven ; we honour thee, Sovereign Lady of the world. “ All creatures of right praise thee, Mother of im¬ mense splendour, Chamber of the Trinity most high, &c. “Thou art the beloved daughter of the Eternal Fa¬ ther ; thou art the elect mother of the Son of God ; and also the Holy Bride of the Comforter. “ All angels obey thee. Thee the heavens of heavens love inestimably. “To thee Cherubin and Seraphin cry aloud with ineffable voice, ‘Hail, Hail, Hail, O Lady of glory; the heavens and earth are full of the sweetness of thy grace.’ “Thou art the Queen of the apostles, thou the teaching of the evangelists. “Thee the praiseworthy company of the prophets, thee the band of patriarchs worship. “ Thou art the victory of martyrs, thou the glory of confessors. “ Thee the roses of Paradise, glorious virgins, praise; as do the chaste in their choir, singing ‘ Hail, O sweetest Queen, rejoice, O our most worthy Mother, who pourest grace upon the saints, and deliverest souls from the depths.’ “We sinners therefore beseech thee, O mother of God, help that people, whom the precious blood of thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ redeemed. “ Make us to be numbered 2 with thy saints in glory most high. “ Through thee may we, O holy Mother, be deemed worthy to be piously comforted. “ Thou who art crowned with so many prerogatives 2 The reading (probably by an error of the press) is “ munerari.” CHAP. II.] THEOPHILUS RAYNAUD. 59 of holiness in the glory of the Father, rejoicing by thy right of mother in so many privileges of dignity; joy, rejoice, be glad, who art greater than all praise, O merciful, O pious, O sweet Mary the Virgin.” The author adds as his closing expression: “ May these be my words through the whole of this life, and may I with the holy angels break forth into the same through all eternity!” “ I have treated concerning Christ—I have treated concerning his Mother 3 . Sweet is the Lord, sweet is the Lady; because He, my God, is my mercy; she, my Lady, is my gate of mercy. May the mother con¬ duct us to her Son, the daughter to her Father, the bride to her Flusband, who is blessed for evermore! Amen 4 .” With men and Christians bent on arriving at the truth, and possessing it, can any refinement take from this address the character of a direct prayer to the Virgin for benefits in her power to bestow? Can it be freed from an ascription of the divine attributes to Mary ? In the very words in which Christians have been long wont to seek for God’s mercy, and to praise Him, does this parody on the Te Deum ask for Mary’s help, and proclaim her praises. “ Make us to be numbered with the saints in glory. “ We therefore pray thee help the people. “To thee Cherubin and Seraphin with ineffable voice do cry. “The goodly company of the prophets worship thee,” &c. And yet this is the worship offered to the Virgin by J Raynaud adopts here the words of Damiani. 4 P. 240. GO WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. one wlio considers himself as a pattern of moderation and discretion, and care, and circumspection, and pru¬ dence in his praises of the Virgin. “ Others among her votaries (he tells us in a sort of feigned address to one of them) flew through the air, whilst he was con¬ tented to walk on foot as long as he remained on earth; others poured forth words like torrents in her praise, he weighed them in the balance of judgment; others gathered a sour and unripe vintage, he culled ripe fruit in its season and brought them to the table.” His cautions against paying excessive and indiscreet honours to the Virgin are not made by Raynaud cur¬ sorily in passing; they are dwelt upon, and repeated, and confirmed, and illustrated through many folio pages 5 .” This writer’s evidence is unexceptionable; it cannot be suspected ; and it is conclusive. 5 P. 9, &c. CIIAP. III.] PRESENT POPE’S LETTER. 61 CHAPTER III. PRESENT SENTIMENTS AND PRACTICE IN THE CHURCH OF ROME. SECTION I. It may, perhaps, be surmised that the authors cited in the last section having lived many years ago, the sentiments of those who profess the faith of Rome now, have undergone many changes. Assurances, more¬ over, have from time to time been given, that the invocation of the Virgin implies nothing more than a request that she would intercede with God and implore his mercy for her supplicants, just as one Christian may ask a brother on earth to pray for him \ Even were this so, we can see no analogy between the two cases ; but is the fact so? Whatever confidence we may place on the honesty of those who make such declara¬ tions, we can find no new key to interpret satisfactorily the forms of prayer which meet us on every side. Confessedly there are no changes in the authorized and appointed services; we discover no traces of change in the worship of private devotion. The Breviary and the Missal contain the same offices of the Virgin Mary as in former days. The same senti¬ ments are expressed to her in public; the same forms of devotion, both in prayer and praise, are provided for the use of individuals in their daily exercises. What¬ ever meaning may possibly be attached to the expressions 1 See a sermon by the titular Bishop of Siga, preached at Brad¬ ford, July 27, 1825, p. 15. 62 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. employed, (and surely in the most holy and momentous of all things it is dangerous and unjustifiable to employ one language for the ear and eye, and another for the understanding and heart,) the prevailing expressions remain the same as we have found them to have been in past ages. At the head of these modern proofs we reasonably place the encyclical letter of the present Sovereign Pontiff, where the spirit of the worship of the Vir¬ gin seems to diffuse itself throughout in its full strength. Referring the Pope’s words to a test which we have already applied in a similar case, changing the name of the person addressed or spoken of, and substituting the name of the Eternal Father or of his Blessed Son, it is difficult for us to see how the spirit of the Pope’s sentiments falls in the least below the highest grade of religious worship. His words in the third paragraph of this letter, as they appear in the Laity’s Directory for 1833 2 , are these: “ But 3 having at length taken possession of our see in the Lateran Basilic, according to the custom and institution of our predecessors, we turn to you without delay, venerable brethren, and, in testimony of our feel¬ ings towards you, we select for the date of our letter 2 “ The encyclical letter of our most holy Father Pope Gregory, by Divine Providence the sixteenth of that name, to all patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops.” 3 This is the translation circulated in the Roman Catholic Annual (p. 15), called the Laity’s Directory Tor the year 1833, on the title- page of which is this notice : “ The Directory for the Church Service printed by Messrs. Keating and Brown, is the only one which is pub¬ lished with the authority of the Vicars Apostolic in England. London, Nov. 1829. (Signed) James, Bishop of Usula, Vic. Apost. Lond.” CHAP. III.] PRESENT POPE’S LETTER. G3 this most joyful day, on which we celebrate the solemn festival of the most Blessed Virgin’s triumphant as¬ sumption into heaven; that she, who has been through every great calamity our patroness and protectress, MAY WATCH OVER US WRITING TO YOU, AND LEAD OUR MIND BY HER HEAVENLY INFLUENCE to tllOSe Counsels which may prove most salutary to Christ’s flock 4 .” For the name of Mary let us here substitute the ho¬ liest name of all, the Eternal Spirit of Jehovah Himself, and would not these words be a suitable vehicle of a Christian pastor’s sentiments ? Or let us fix on Christ- mas-day, or Easter, or Holy Thursday; and what word expressive of thankfulness for past mercies to the Supreme Giver of all good things, or of hope and trust in the guidance of the Spirit of counsel, and wisdom, and strength, who alone can order the wills and ways of men, might not a Christian bishop take from this declaration of the present Pope, and use it in its first and natural sense, when speaking of the Lord God Almighty ? “We select for the date of our letter this most joy¬ ful day, on which we celebrate the solemn festival of the most Blessed Redeemer’s nativity, (or glorious resurrection, or ascension,) that He, who has been through every great calamity our Patron and Protec¬ tor, may watch over us writing to you, and lead our mind by his heavenly influence to those counsels which may prove most salutary to Christ’s flock.” 4 We shall hereafter see how utterly groundless is the legend of the Virgin’s assumption, how totally unworthy of credit to any one who will trace its history, from the total silence of the first ages, to its final establishment as an article of faith ; and here the Roman Pontiff refers to it, as he would have referred to the Ascension of our Lord recorded in the Holy Gospels ! 64 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. From these sentiments of the present Pope, weigh¬ ing the words employed, and, so far as words may be relied upon as interpreters of the thoughts, looking to the spirit of his professions, we can fairly draw only one inference. However direct and immediate the prayers of any supplicants may be to the Virgin for her protection and defence from all dangers spiritual and bodily, and for the guidance of their inmost thoughts in the right way, such petitioners to Mary would be sanctioned to the utmost by the principles and examples of the present Roman Pontiff. We shall be led in a subsequent part of this work (when examining the records of the Council of Clialce- don) to compare the closing words of this encyclical letter of the present Pope with the more holy, and primitive, and Scriptural aspirations of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople in those earlier days; and not less striking is the contrast between the sentiments now expressed in the opening parts of the same letter, and the spirit of various collects framed for the use of the faithful before the invocation of the Virgin had un¬ happily gained its present strong hold and ascendancy in the Church of Rome. For example, a collect 5 at ves¬ pers teaches to pray to God as the source from whom all holy desires and all good counsels proceed; and on the fifth Sunday after Easter this prayer is offered, “ O God, from whom all good things do come, grant, we pray Thee, that by thy inspiration we may think those things that be good, and by thy guidance may perform the samewhile on the fifth Sunday after the Epiphany, in a collect, the spirit of which is strongly contrasted with the sentiments of the ’ Hiem. 149. CHAP. III.] PRESENT POPE’S LETTER. 65 Pope in both parts of his encyclical letter, the Su¬ preme Being is‘thus piously addressed, “We beseech Thee, O Lord, with thy continuous pity guard thy family, that, leaning on the sole hope of heavenly grace, it may ever be defended by thy protection 6 .” The next example of the worship of the Virgin at this day to which we would refer, is that of a writer who was canonized by the same present Pope Gregory XVI. so recently as the year 1839, Alphonso Liguori. He died in 1787, and the Congregation of Rites at Rome pronounced his works uncensurable, and Pope Pius VII. in 1803, approved of their sentence. In his works we find sentiments the same with those already cited from the Bernardines, Bonaventura, and others of former days, and which show that the worship of the Virgin is now what it was four or five centuries ago. Alphonso Liguori, in the estimation of Roman Catholics, is an authority of no ordinary value. Dr. Wiseman speaks of him as a “venerable man,” “a pattern and a light,” “ whose life and writings in¬ spire us,” he says, “ with an admiration scarcely sur¬ passed by that which we feel towards the early lights of the Churchand his work called, “ The Glories of Mary,” is recommended in Ireland as a manual for all the faithful. He must, therefore, be considered as speaking the sentiments, not only of the Court of Rome and of the Pope who canonized him, but also especially of the bishops and clergy of Rome minister¬ ing at present in these islands. The following passages, with numberless others of the same character, occur in that work 7 :— 6 Hiem. 364. 7 “ The Glories of Mary, mother of God, translated from the Italian of blessed Alphonso Liguori,” Dublin, 1833. F 66 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. “ If Ahasuerus beard the petition of Esther through love, will not God, who has an infinite love for Mary, fling away at her suit the thunderbolts which He was going to hurl on wretched sinners? . . . Indeed, every petition she offers is as a law emanating from the Lord, by which He obliges Himself to be merciful to those for whom she intercedes 8 .” “ Hope of the universe ! My only hope ! Come to my assistance 9 .” 44 4 From the moment that Mary consented to become the Mother of God,’ says St. Bernardine of Sienna, 4 she merited to receive sovereignty over all creatures.’ 4 Mary and Jesus having but one and the same flesh,’ saitli St. Arnaud, abbot, 4 why should not the mother enjoy conjointly with the Son the honours of royalty? Mary is then Queen of the universe, since Jesus is its King.’ Thus, as St. Bernardine again observes, 4 As many creatures as obey God, so many obey the glorious Virgin.’ 4 1 am,’ said she to St. Bridget, 4 the Queen of heaven and Mother of mercy. I am the joy of the just, and the gate through which sinners go to God.’ Queen of heaven and earth, Mother of God, my Sovereign mistress, I present myself before you, as a poor mendicant before a mighty queen. No grace, no pardon, emanates from the throne of the King of kings without passing through the hands of Mary, ac¬ cording to St. Bernard. The plenitude of grace is found in Jesus Christ as the head, whence it flows to Mary, who communicates it to all his members. No doubt, Jesus the Man-God alone suffered to effect our redemption; but it was more convenient, that, both sexes having concurred to our ruin, both should con- 8 Pp. 10, 17. 9 P. 40. CHAP. III.] PRESENT POPE’S LETTER. 67 spire to save us. Albertus Magnus styles Mary 4 the coadjutrix of our redemption.’ All is subject to Mary’s empire, even God Himself. Jesus has ren¬ dered Mary omnipotent: the one is omnipotent by nature, the other is omnipotent by grace. St. Ger- manus says to Mary, 4 You, O Holy Virgin, have over God the authority of a mother, and hence you obtain pardon for the most obdurate sinners.’ It is impossi¬ ble that a true servant of Mary should be damned. 4 My soul,’ says the blessed Eric Suzon, 4 is in the hands of Mary; so that, if the Judge wishes to con¬ demn me, the sentence must pass through this clement Queen, and she knows how to prevent its execu¬ tion 1 !’” “ St. Anselm, to increase our confidence in Mary, assures us that our prayers will often be more speedily heard in invoking her name, than in calling on that of Jesus Christ 2 .” 44 Dispensatrix of the Divine grace, you save whom you please : to you, then, I commit myself, that the enemy may not destroy me 3 ,” 44 We, Holy Virgin, hope for grace and salvation from you; and since you need but say the word, Ah ! do so, you shall be heard, and we shall be saved 4 .” 44 Be mindful of the holy Church, be thou its guar¬ dian and its protectress, be thou always to it a sweet asylum, an impregnable fortress against all the efforts of hell. Be thou our way, by which we may go to Jesus, and the channel through which may flow to us all the graces necessary to our salvation 5 .” So far Liguori. 1 See Mr. Palmer’s Fifth Letter to Dr. Wiseman, p. 80. 2 P. 96. 3 P. 100. 4 P. 137. 5 “ Sacred heart of Jesus.” Dublin, 1834, p. 33. F 2 68 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. The searcher after truth on the subject of our present inquiry is often distressed on finding modern writers making reference to works which have been long since condemned as spurious, and citing them in evidence as genuine productions. But the most perplexing cases of all occur, when persons of note and authority cite the testimony of the ancient fathers without giving any clue to the passage in which the alleged testimony is contained. Of this, very striking instances occur in the works of Alphonsus Liguori, to a few of which it will not be out of place to point here. “ Before Bonaventura, St. Ignatius had pronounced that a sinner can be saved only by having recourse to the Blessed Virgin, whose infinite mercy obtains salvation for those who would be condemned by in¬ finite justice. Some pretend that the text is not taken from Ignatius, but we know that St. Chrysos¬ tom attributes it to him 6 .” “ With what efficacy, with what tender charity does not Mary plead our cause ! From the considera¬ tion thereof, St. Augustine says to her, 4 Men have but one sole advocate in heaven, and it is you, Holy Virgin V ” “ Poor sinners, how lamentable would be your lot, if you had not this powerful advocate; this advocate 9o wise, so prudent, and so tender, that her Son can¬ not condemn those whom she defends 8 .” “The glorious St. Gratian affirms, that though we may ask as many graces as we please, we cannot ob¬ tain them but through the intercession of Mary. St. Antoninus says, ‘ To ask favours without interposing Mary, is to attempt to fly without wings V ” 6 P, 190. 7 P. 170 . 8 P. 171 . 9 P. 154 . CHAP. III.] PRESENT POPE’S LETTER. 69 “ Mary,” says St. Chrysostom, 44 has been elected from all eternity as mother of God, that she may save by her mercy those to whom her Son, in justice, cannot grant pardon V’ This Book, 44 The Glories of Mary,” was not writ¬ ten by a person living centuries ago, amidst those whose excesses Theophylus Raynaud wrote his book to check and discountenance; it contains the senti¬ ments of one who has been dead not sixty years, and to whose teaching the highest authority in the Church of Rome only seven years since set its seal by its most solemn act of all, even his canonization. And what is the doctrine here proclaimed and spread through the world ? That the mercy of Mary is infinite, and obtains salvation for those whom God in his infinite justice would condemn: that the Lord Jesus, whose own gracious lips assure us that the merciful Father of us all sent Him into the world not to con¬ demn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved, whatever be his will, cannot condemn those whom she defends: and though the Holy Scripture assures us that we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, who is also the propitiation for our sins, yet here we are told that the Virgin is our sole advocate in heaven. Whereas the Lord Himself declares, 44 Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do;” 44 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, He will give it you 2 ;” this saint of the Roman Church tells us we may ask what we will, but that without Mary’s intercession we can obtain no grace. The warrant of the heavenly covenant is, 44 that the blood 1 P. 179. 2 John xiv. 13 ; xvi. 23. 70 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. of Christ cleanseth from all sin,” and that “ in Him we have redemption through his blood, even the for¬ giveness of our sinsbut here we are taught that Mary is to save by her mercy those to whom her Son cannot in justice grant pardon. These are, indeed, very startling positions, deplorable departures from the truth as it is in Jesus: and when we find an appeal made to St. Ignatius, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine, in defence of these doctrines, we cannot conceal our feelings of astonishment and sorrow. For the authorities here cited by Liguori most dili¬ gent search has been made, and not a trace of either of them can be found. In no one of the works of Ignatius can any allusion to such a position be dis¬ covered; and though Liguori says, “We know that St. Chrysostom attributes the text to Ignatius,” every other part of the writings of St. Chrysostom, as well as his biographical work on St. Ignatius, has been ransacked for any allusion to such a statement, but in vain. For the testimony also here directly drawn from St. Chrysostom and St. Augustine, their works have been searched with unremitting scrutiny, but with the same result. Not a shadow of any such doctrine can be detected. In neither of these, nor in St. Ignatius, is there found any the most distant allu¬ sion to the mercy, the intercession, or the advocacy and saving power of Mary. Their uniform teaching is, that the Eternal Father is infinite in mercy, and will freely pardon believing penitents who come to II im by his ever-merciful Son. CHAP. III.] “ THE IMITATION OF THE VIRGIN MARY.” 71 SECTION II. Materials are abundantly supplied from numberless other quarters, which may enable us to form a correct estimate of the state of the worship of the Virgin at the present day, wherever allegiance is acknowledged to Rome. Volumes might readily be composed, con¬ sisting wholly of rules and instructions and forms of prayer appertaining to the Virgin, published by autho¬ rity both in our own country and on the continent, to which the Word of God and the doctrine and practice of the primitive Church seem to us utterly and irrecon¬ cilably opposed. To some of these our argument re¬ quires that we refer; though it is neither a profitable nor a pleasing task to dwell, longer than the necessity of the case calls for, on such lamentable corruptions. 44 The 4 Imitation of the Virgin Mary,’ composed on the plan of the 4 Imitation of Christ 3 ,’ ” is a work in its substance and in its title highly objectionable. The ten¬ dency of its very plan is by association to exalt Mary to the same place in our hearts and minds which Tho¬ mas a Ivempis had laboured in his 44 Imitation of Christ” to secure for the Saviour; and it recalls the proceed¬ ings of Bonaventura, in writing psalms to the honour of the Virgin after the manner of David in his hymns to the Lord of Glory. The following prayer to the Virgin seems to be stained with the error, already adverted to, of con¬ trasting the justice and stern dealings even of the Saviour, with the mercy, and loving-kindness, and fel¬ low-feeling of Mary; to make God the object of fear, the Virgin the object of love : 3 London, 1816. “ Approved by T. R. Anselini, Doctor ofSor- bonne, late Bishop of Boulogne.—From the French.” 72 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. “ Mother of my Redeemer, O Mary, in the last moment of my life I implore thy assistance with more earnestness than ever. I find myself, as it were, placed between heaven and hell. Alas! what will become of me, if thou do not exert in my behalf thy powerful influence with Jesus? ... I die with submis¬ sion, since Jesus has ordained it; but notwithstand¬ ing the natural horror which I have of death, I die with pleasure, because I die under tiiy protection 4 .” In the fourteenth chapter 5 the following passage occurs: “ It is giving to the Blessed Virgin a testimony of love, particularly dear and precious to her, to make her holy spouse Joseph the first object of our devo¬ tion, next to that which consecrates us to her ser¬ vice. The name of Joseph is invoked with singular devotion by all the true faithful. They frequently join it with the sacred names of Jesus and Mary. Whilst Jesus and Mary lived at Nazareth, if we had wished to obtain some honour from them, could v T e have employed a more powerful protector than St. Joseph ? Will he now have less power and credit ? Go therefore to Joseph (Gen. xli. 55 6 ) that he may intercede for you. Whatever favour you ask, God 4 Chap, xiii.p. 344. 5 P. 347. 6 This reference to Holy Scripture in support of a doctrine and practice with which it has nothing to do, is not singular in writers who are resolved, at whatever sacrifice of truth and reason, to make every thing bear upon their favourite theory. What countenance can be given to Christians now invoking in prayer Joseph the hus¬ band of Mary, by the circumstance of Pharaoh having told the Egyptians, when crying to him for bread, to go to Joseph his minis¬ ter, who had the charge of those things? “ Go to Joseph” —it is a mere trifling play upon a word in things where the salvation of souls is at stake. CHAP. III.] “ LITTLE TESTAMENT OF THE HOLY VIRGIN.” 73 will grant it you at his request. . . . Go to Joseph in all your necessities; but especially to obtain the grace of a happy death. The general opinion that he died in the arms of Jesus and Mary has inspired the faith¬ ful with great confidence, that through his interces¬ sion they will have an end as happy and consoling as his. In effect it has been remarked, that it is particu¬ larly at the hour of death that those who have been during their life careful to honour this great Saint reap the fruit of their devotion.” In this passage, the low and unworthy idea, itself formed on a groundless tradition, is introduced, of paying reverence to one Saint above the rest, in order to gratify and conciliate another. Joseph must especially be honoured, in order to do what is most acceptable to Mary. Can the tendency of this be any other than to withdraw the mind from that habitual reference of all our actions immediately to God, which the primitive teachers of our holy faith w r ere so anxious to cultivate in all who call themselves by the name of Christ ? In a devotional work, entitled “The Little Testa¬ ment of the Holy Virgin 7 ,” the following is called “ A Prayer to the Blessed Virgin 8 .” Can any thing more entirely place on a perfect level with each other the Eternal Son of God, and the Virgin—Jesus and Mary ? “ O Mary, what w 7 ould be our poverty and misery if the Father of mercies had not drawn you from his treasury to give you to earth ! Oh ! my Life and Con¬ solation ! 1 trust and confide in your holy name. My heart washes to love you ; my lips to praise you ; my 7 Dublin, 1836. 8 P. 46. 74 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. mind to contemplate you; my soul siglis to be yours. Receive me, defend me, preserve me; I cannot perish in your hands. Let the demons tremble when I pro¬ nounce your holy name, since you have ruined their empire; but we shall say, with St. Anselm, that he does not know God, who has not an idea sufficiently high of your greatness and glory. We shall esteem it the greatest honour to be of the number of your ser¬ vants. Let your glory, blessed Mother, be equal to the extent of your name; reign after God over all that is beneath God; but, above all, reign in my heart. You will be my consolation in suffering, my strength in weakness, my counsel in doubt. At the name of Mary, my hope shall be enlightened, my love inflamed. Oh ! that I could deeply engrave the dear name on every heart, suggest it to every tongue, and make all celebrate it with me. Mary! sacred name, un¬ der which no one should despair. Mary ! sacred name, often assaulted, but always victorious. Mary! it shall be my life, my strength, my comfort. Every day shall I invoke it and the divine name of Jesus. The Son shall awake the recollection of the mother, and the mother that of the Son. Jesus and Mary! this is what my heart shall say at my last hour, if my tongue cannot. I shall hear them on my death-bed; they shall be wafted on my expiring breath, and I with them, to see them, know them, bless and love them for eternity. Amen.” In the “New Month of Mary 1 ” this prayer is of¬ fered to the Virgin: “O most powerful, because most faithful of God’s 1 London, 1841 ; p. 72. CHAP. III.] “HEBDOMAS MARIANA.” 75 creatures, I presume to approach thee with a lively sentiment of my own unworthiness to address God, whose indignation I have so much deserved ; and with a strong conviction in the efficacy of thy intercession with Jesus, thy divine Son, who has placed in thy hands all power and strength. May these sentiments always increase within me, that I may never presume, but PLACE ALL MY CONFIDENCE IN THEE.” The “ Hebdomas Mariana 2 ,” a devotional work “ for every day in the week in honour of the most Glorious Virgin-Mother of God, in order to obtain the grace of a happy death,” in the midst of many others to the same effect, contains the following prayers : “ 0 Holy Mary, merciful Queen of Heaven, Daughter of God the Father, Mother of God the Son, Spouse of the Holy Spirit, noble Couch of the whole Trinity ; elected by the Father, preserved by the Son, be¬ loved by the Holy Ghost; overshadowed by the Father, inhabited by the Son, filled with all grace by the Holy Ghost; through thee and for thee may I be blessed by God the Father, who created me; may I be blessed by God the Son, who re¬ deemed me by his most precious blood; may I be blessed by God the Holy Ghost, who sanctified me in baptism; and may the most Sacred Trinity, through thy intercession, receive my soul at the hour of death 3 .” “ O Holy Mary, Mother of our Redeemer! say at the hour of my death that thou art my mother, that I may be blessed, and that my soul may live for thee. And if I shall be sent to that prison of burning until I pay the last farthing, may thy mercy descend with me 3 Dublin, 1839. 3 Pp. 3, 4. 76 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. to refresh me in the flames, to solace me in my tor¬ ments, that I may say, 66 According to the multitude of my sorrows in my heart, may thy consolations re¬ joice my soul 4 !’ Thou, O mother, then hasten to assist me : let not thy Son depart until He shall have blessed me, and remitted all my debts, because thou hast requested Him. Amen 5 .” The following prayers are published for those who are admitted into the “ Pious Confederation of the most Holy Mary, Mother of Providence, the auxiliatrix of Christians, canonically established at Rome' :” “ O Mother of God, most Holy Mary ! how many times have I by my sins deserved hell ! Already, per¬ haps, would the sentence on my first sin have been executed, if thou piadst not compassionately delayed the Divine justice ; and then, overcoming my hardness, hadst drawn me to have confidence in thee. And, oh ! into how many crimes, perhaps, should I have fallen, in the dangers which have happened to me, if thou, affectionate mother, hadst not preserved me with the grace which thou hadst obtained for me,” &c. Here, as elsewhere, Mary is put before the under¬ standings and hearts of Christians as the benign power which stays Divine justice, when the God of mercy without her intervention would have poured out his vengeance on the guilty; and as the watchful and loving guardian who preserves the soul from sinning, when the Holy Spirit, without her grace, would have suffered the soul to fall under the temptation and perish. 4 Like Bonaventura’s psalms, this modern prayer applies to the Virgin Mary the pious sentiments of the Psalmist towards the Eter¬ nal Father. 5 Pp. 13, 14. 6 Rome, with permission, 1835. CHAP. III.] “ HEBDOMAS MARIANA.” 77 At tlie west end of the cathedral of Munich is an image (at least, it was there in 1842), with this prayer inscribed under it: “Thou who alone hast the power to bend the wrath of the Eternal Deity, cover us, O Goddess [or, thou Divine one], in thy virgin bosom.” “ Tu quse sola potes seterni numinis iram Flectere, virgineo nos tege, Diva, sinu.” In Rome, again, the very citadel of the Romish faitli, in the streets and highways of the town, images of the Virgin are set up, with this prayer inscribed under them : “ O Lady, save thy people “ Salvum fac populum tuum Domina a sad parody indeed on the Church’s prayer to the Saviour: “ O Lord, save thy people.” “ Salvum fac populum tuum, Domine.” So lately as 1844, “The History of the Miraculous Image of our Lady of Good Deliverance” was pub¬ lished in Paris by an ecclesiastic. The church in which the image was worshipped was, we are told, renowned for a pious pilgrimage. In 1805 the Pope granted a plenary indulgence to all who should com¬ municate in that church on certain days, provided an altar were decked there in honour of the Virgin. The doctrine which this historian considers to be already adopted by bis readers, or such as he wishes them to entertain, sounds still awfully in our ears, though we have become familiar with the impious ascription to the Virgin Mary of the redemption wrought by Christ alone: “ Consider Mary as in reality effecting our deliver¬ ance when she gave her consent to the incarnation of 78 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. tlie Word; and completing it when on Calvary she offered her Divine Son for the salvation of the human 7 55 race \ But we must not dwell longer 8 on this painful proof of the excessive departure from Gospel truth and pri¬ mitive faith, into which our Roman Catholic brethren (as it should seem, inevitably) run in the worship of the Virgin. SECTION III. When we read in the works of different ages and of distant countries such tenets as these, expressed in the solemn act of prayer : That the sentence on our sins might have been executed by God, if Mary had not stayed the Divine justice; That we might have fallen into many sins, had not Mary, by her grace, preserved us from falling; That she can refresh the tormented soul even in the place of burning; That our prayers may be sometimes more speedily heard when we invoke Mary’s name, than when we pray to the Lord Jesus; That she is the way through which alone we can go to Jesus, and the only channel through which Divine grace can flow into our souls ; That, when our sins make us unworthy to address God, we are to approach Mary, and place our entire hope and confidence in her; That God, for the infinite love He has to Mary, will fling away, at her suit, the thunderbolt which He was on the point of hurling on wretched sinners ; 7 Paris, 1844. Pp. 6. 8. 83. 82. 8 Cumulative evidence to the same effect will be found in a late work called “ Mariolatry.” Painter, 1841. CHAP. III.] MARY, NOT CHRIST, MADE THE MEDIATOR. 79 That when the Eternal and Omnipotent Judge of all the earth, who cannot but do right, wishes to con¬ demn the guilty, Mary knows how to prevent the execution of the sentence ; That when the self-condemned sinner feels himself placed between heaven and hell, and death is at hand, he meets death with submission, because God has or¬ dained it; but, despite of the natural horror of death, he will die with pleasure, because he dies under Mary’s protection;— When we find these, and unnumbered other senti¬ ments equivalent in their force and bearing to these, we are indeed constrained to say, Can the religion which sanctions and prescribes these things be the Christian religion ? the religion which the one Me¬ diator brought down with Him from the eternal and only God in heaven ? In these sentiments we hear not the voice of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus; in these representations we see no sign of that Lamb of God whose blood cleansetli from all sin, and who, for the great love wherewith He loved us, is gone before to prepare a place for us with Himself for ever. Let every refinement of distinction be applied be¬ tween the honour due to God, and the honour paid to the Virgin; between the advocacy of Christ, and the intercession of Mary; between “ prayers direct, and prayers oblique;” between the hope and confidence which the apostles, both by their teaching and exam¬ ple, bid the faithful Christian rest on God’s mercy in Jesus Christ, and the hope and confidence which the canonized saints, and the doctors, and Popes of the Church of Rome profess to place in the power and mercy of Mary: let every explanation which ingenuity can devise be applied here, and the practical upshot of 80 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART I. the whole is a tendency (sometimes direct and abso¬ lute, sometimes indirect, and inferential, and circuitous, and so the more perilous and beguiling) to dispossess our Saviour of many, nay, even of all his saving and redeeming functions, and to leave to Him only the stern, unapproachable character of a judge ;—to wean the affections from God, and fix them upon Mary;—to make the personal application of his blood and merits, whereby alone we can for a moment stand in the place of sons and realize the spirit of adoption, become dependent on her intercession;—to represent all the blessings and graces of the Holy Spirit, his converting and enlightening grace, his protecting and guiding grace, his strengthening and comforting grace, as all shut up in a sealed fountain till her benign and divine influence open it, and convey through herself such por¬ tions of the heavenly treasure as she will to those who have secured her omnipotent patronage ;—to lead be¬ lievers on to regard Mary as the way, and God in Christ as the truth and the life, approachable only by that way;—-in a word, to hold forth the Lord God omnipotent, the gracious, merciful, loving Father, as an object of awe and terror, as the inflexible dispenser of divine justice, inflexible except when his love for Mary bends Him to be merciful to her votaries;—and thus to make her in very and practical truth (though not theoretically, perhaps) the nearest and dearest object of a Christian’s love. But what saitli the Scripture to these things ? Since the above pages were written, the author has become acci¬ dentally acquainted with a fact of which he was before in ignorance, that to such a pitch had the habit risen, not merely of placing our CHAr. III.] MARY, NOT CHRIST, THE MEDIATOR. 81 blessed Lord and the Virgin upon an equality, but of setting Jesus aside merely to make room for Mary, that the Christian era was made to begin, not from the “ birth of Christ,” but from “the Virgin Mother of God.” —See Emanual Acosta’s “Acts of the Jesuits in the East.” Dilingae, 1571. “Ad annum usque a Deipara Virgine, 1568.” G 82 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART II. PART II. EVIDENCE OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. CHAPTER I. SECTION I.-THE BIBLE. If there is one paramount and pervading principle more characteristic of the revealed word of God than any other, it seems to be this,—the preservation of a practical belief in the perfect unity of God, and the fencing of his worship against the admixture of any other of whatever character or form ; the announce¬ ment that the Creator and Governor of the universe is the sole giver of every temporal and spiritual blessing, the one only Being to whom his rational creatures should pay any religious service whatever, the one only Being to whom mortals must seek, by prayer and invocation, for the supply of any of their wants. And to this principle the New Testament has added an¬ other principle equally essential—that there is one, and only one, Mediator between God and man, through whom every blessing must be sought and obtained, the Lord Christ Jesus, who is ever making interces¬ sion for us. As to the first principle, through the entire volume the exclusive worship of God alone is insisted upon and guarded with the utmost jealousy, by assurances, by threats, and by promises, as the God who heareth prayer, alone to be called upon, alone to be invoked, CHAP. I.] EVIDENCE OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 83 alone to be adored. Recourse is had (if we may so speak) to every expedient for the express purpose of protecting the sons and daughters of Adam from the fatal error of embracing in their worship any other being or name whatever, or of seeking from any other than the one Supreme God the supply of their wants: not reserving supreme and direct adoration or prayer to Him, and admitting some subordinate honour and indirect inferior mode of invocation to the most ex¬ alted of his creatures; but banishing at once and for ever the most distant approximation towards prayer and religious honour, and excluding with uncompro¬ mising universality the veriest shadow of spiritual invo¬ cation to any other being than the Most High, God Himself alone. And with regard to the other principle, the Gospel doctrine of the Mediation of Christ, we read, without any qualifying or limiting expression whatever, “ There is One God, and One Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus h”—“ He is able also to save to the uttermost them who come unto God bv him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them 2 .”—Nay, the mouth of Him, who spake as never man spake, thus solemnly and graciously announces the completeness of his own mediation: “ Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you 3 .” Entire pages might be added to the same effect. One Media¬ tor has been revealed in his person and in his offices, and He is expressly declared to be the One Mediator between God and man; we therefore seek God’s covenanted mercies through Him. 1 1 Tim. ii. 5. 2 Heb. vii. 25. G 2 3 John xvi. 23. 84 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART II. But (it will be asked) is the mediatorship of the Son of God exclusive of all other mediators in heaven ? May there not be other mediators of intercession as well as that one Mediator of redemption'? We answer, What might have been man’s duty, had the Almighty been pleased to give another revelation for man’s guidance, is not the question : in the revelation which He lias given, we find mention made only of one Me¬ diator. And if it had been his will that we should approach the throne of mercy through any secondary or subsidiary mediators and intercessors, the analogy of his gracious dealings with mankind would compel us to expect a revelation of that will, as clear and unquestionable as that which we know He has vouch¬ safed of the mediation and intercession of his Son. His own revealed will directs us to pray for our fellow- creatures on earth, and to expect a beneficial effect from the prayers of the faithful upon earth, on our behalf, through the mediation of his blessed Son. To pray for them, therefore, and to seek their prayers, and to wait patiently for an answer, are acts of faith and of duty. But that He will favourably answer the prayers which we might supplicate other intercessors in the unseen world to offer, or which we might offer to Himself through their merits and by their media¬ tion, is no where in the covenant. Instead of this, we find no single act, no single word, nothing which even by implication can be forced to sanction any prayer or religious invocation of any kind to any other being except God Himself alone; nor any reliance whatever on the mediation or intercession of any being in the unseen world, save only our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. But is not his holy Mother an exception ? does not CHAP. I.] EVIDENCE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 85 Scripture teach us to infer that the blessed Virgin has great present influence and power? and that her inter¬ cession and mediation may be sought in prayer ad¬ dressed to her? We answer, that we And no trace or intimation of any thing of the kind. But let us search the Scriptures, and see what has been revealed on this subject. SECTION II.—THE OLD TESTAMENT. The first intimation given to us that a woman was, in the providence of God, appointed to be the instru¬ ment or channel through which the Saviour of man¬ kind should be brought into the world, was made im¬ mediately after the fall, and at the very first dawn of the day of salvation. The authorized English version renders the passage thus: “ I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel 4 .” The Roman Vulgate, instead of the word “ it” reads “shethe Greek Septuagint renders it “he.” But, whichever of the renderings of the Hebrew word be correct, for our present purpose it matters little. Whether the word here originally dictated by the Holy Spirit to Moses be so translated as to refer to the seed of the woman generally, or to the male child, the descendant of the woman, or to the word “ woman ” itself,—and if the latter, whether it refer to Eve, the mother of every child of a mortal parent, or to the immediate mother of the Redeemer,—no Chris¬ tian can doubt, that, before the foundations of the earth were laid, it was ordained in the counsels of the Eternal Godhead, that the Messiah, the Redeemer of 4 Gen. iii. 15. 86 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART II. mankind, should be born of a woman, and that in the mystery of that incarnation the serpent’s head should be bruised. Equally indisputable is it, that this pro¬ phetic announcement was in progress towards its final accomplishment when the Lord Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. Tiie only other reference made in the Old Testament to the mother of our Lord seems to be the celebrated prophecy of Isaiah, about which there can probably arise no controversy affecting the question before us : “ A Virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel 5 .” To the many applications of other passages of the Old Testament to the Virgin Mary (however objec¬ tionable and unjustifiable they are), which are made both in the authorized services of the Church of Rome and in manuals of private devotion, we need not here refer, because they can never be cited in argument. Such, for example, are the addresses of the bride in the Song of Solomon, and that prophecy of the queen in the 45tli Psalm, which has been of late applied to the Virgin as the Queen of Heaven. The praise of wisdom, in the apocryphal book of Eccle- siasticus, is in the same manner applied to the Virgin. But through the Old Testament we find no passage which can by any, however circuitous or inferential, application, be brought to countenance the doctrine, that Mary is a proper object of religious invocation. SECTION III.-THE NEW TESTAMENT. In the New Testament mention by name is made of the Virgin Mary by St. Matthew, St. Mark, and 5 Isa. vii. 14. CHAP. I.] EVIDENCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 87 St. Luke ; and not by name, but as the mother of our Lord, by St. John also in his Gospel; and by no other writer. Neither does St. Paul, in any one of his va¬ rious Epistles, though he mentions by name many of our Lord’s disciples, nor St. James, nor St. Peter, who must often have seen Mary during our Lord’s minis¬ try, nor St. Jude, mention her as living, or allude to her as dead; nor does St. John, though, as his own Gospel teaches us, she had been committed to his care of especial trust, in either of his three Epistles, or in the Revelation, refer to Mary. The first occasion on which in the New Testament any reference is made to the Virgin Mary is the Salu¬ tation of the Angel, recorded in the opening chapter of St. Luke’s Gospel : the last occasion is when she is mentioned by the same Evangelist as “ Mary the mo¬ ther of Jesus,” in conjunction with the brethren of our Lord, and with the Apostles and the women, all con¬ tinuing in prayer and supplication immediately after the Ascension 6 . Between these two events the name of Mary occurs under a variety of circumstances, on every one of which we shall do well to reflect. The first occasion is the Salutation of Mary by the Angel, announcing to her that she should be the mother of the Son of God. Doubtless no daughter of Eve was ever so distinguished among women ; and well does it become us to cherish her memory with affectionate reverence. The words then addressed to her when on earth, with a slight change of expres¬ sion, are daily addressed to her by the Roman Catholic Church, now that she is removed to the invisible world : a Acts i. 13, 14. 88 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART II. 44 Hail, thou that art highly favoured, [the Roman or Italian reads it 4 full of grace,’] the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women.” On the substitution of the phrase, 44 full of grace,” for 44 highly favoured,” or, as our margin suggests, 44 graciously accepted, or much graced,” little needs be said. It may be re¬ gretted, that since the Greek is different here and in the first chapter of St. John, where the words 44 full of grace ” are applied to the only Son of God, a similar distinction had not been preserved in the Roman translation. The other expression, 44 Blessed art thou among women,” is identically the same with the ascription of blessedness made by an inspired tongue to another daughter of Eve, 44 Blessed above women,” or (as both the Septuagint and the Vulgate render the word,) 44 Blessed among women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be 7 ;” and in such ascription of blessedness we see no ground of justification for the posthumous worship of the Virgin Mary. The same observation applies with at least equal strictness to that affecting interview between Mary and her cousin, when Elisabeth, enlightened doubtless by an especial revelation, returned the salutation of Mary by addressing her as the Mother of her Lord; and hailing her visit as an instance of most welcome and condescending kindness : 44 Whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?” Members of the Church of England are taught to refer to this event in Mary’s life with feelings of delight and gratitude. It was on this occasion that she uttered that beautiful hymn, 44 The song of the blessed Virgin 7 Judges v. 24. CHAP. I.] EVIDENCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 89 Mary,” which our Church has selected for daily use at evening prayer. These incidents bring before our minds the image of a pure virgin, humble, pious, obedient, holy: a chosen servant of God; an exalted pattern for her fellow-creatures; but still a fellow-creature and a fellow-servant: a virgin pronounced by an angel to be blessed. But further than this we cannot go. We read of no power, no authority (neither the office and influence of intercession, nor the authority and right to command) being ever, even by implication, committed to her; and we dare not of our own minds venture to take for granted a statement of so vast magnitude, involving associations so awful. We reverence her memory as a holy woman, the Virgin-Mother of our Lord. We cannot supplicate any blessing at her hand: we cannot pray to her for her intercession. The Angel’s announcement to Joseph, whether before or after the birth of Christ, the visit of the Magi, the flight into Egypt, and the return thence, in the record of all which events by St. Matthew the name of Mary occurs, seem to require no especial attention with reference to the immediate subject of our inquiry, however interesting and important in themselves these events are. To Joseph the Angel speaks of the Virgin as “ Mary thy wife.” In every other of these cases she is called “ the young child’s mother,” or “ his mother.” In relating the circumstances of Christ’s birth, the Evangelist employs no words which seem to call for any particular examination. Joseph went up into the city of David to be taxed, with Mary, his es¬ poused wife; and there she brought forth her first¬ born Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling-clothes and 90 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART II. laid Him in a manger. And the shepherds found Mary and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger. And Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. Between the birth of Christ and the flight into Egypt, St, Luke records an event to have happened by no means unimportant,—the presentation of Christ in the Temple 8 . 44 And when the days of her puri¬ fication according to the law of Moses were accom¬ plished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord.” And he, Simeon, 44 came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, 4 Lord/ ” See. 44 And Joseph and his mo¬ ther marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Marv his mother, 4 Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against, (yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed 9 .’” In this incident it is worthy of remark, that Joseph and Mary are both mentioned by name, that they are both called the parents of the child Jesus, that both are equally blessed by Simeon, and that the good old Israelite, illumined by the spirit of prophecy, when he ad¬ dresses himself immediately to Mary, speaks only of her future sorrow, and does not even remotely or faintly allude to any exaltation of her above the other daughters of Abraham l . 44 A sword shall pierce 8 Luke ii. 22. 1 See De Sacy, vol. xxxii. p. 128. Luke ii. 35. CHAP. I.] EVIDENCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 01 through thine own soul also;” a prophecy, as many an¬ cient fathers interpret the passage, accomplished when she witnessed the sufferings and death of her Son 2 , and when her own faith and stedfastness for a time faltered. The next occasion on which the name of the Virgin Mary is found in Scripture is the memorable visit of herself, her husband, and her Son, to Jerusalem, when He was twelve years old. And the manner in which this incident is related by the inspired Evangelist, so far from intimating that Mary was destined to be an object of worship to the believers in her Son, affords evidence strongly bearing in the contrary direc¬ tion. Here, again, Joseph and Mary are both called “his parents.” Joseph is once mentioned by name, and so is Mary. If the language had been so framed as on purpose to take away all distinction of pre¬ ference or superiority, it could not more successfully have effected its purpose. Not only so: of the three addresses recorded as having been made by our blessed Lord to his beloved mother (and only three are recorded in the New Testament), the first occurs during this visit to Jerusalem. It was in answer to the remonstrance made by Mary, “ Son, why hast Thou thus dealt with us ? Behold, thy father and I have sought Thee sorrowing.” “ How is it that ye sought Me ? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” (or, “in my Father’s house,” as some render it.) He makes no distinc¬ tion here, “Knew ye not?” We may appeal to any dispassionate reasoner to pronounce whether this 2 See, as cited in the latter part of this book, the comments of Basil, Augustine, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria, and others. 92 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART II. reproof, couched in these words, countenances the idea that our blessed Lord intended his mother to receive such divine honour from his followers, to the end of time, as the Church of Rome now pays ; and whether St. Luke, whose pen wrote this account, could have been cognizant of any such right invested in the Virgin? The Evangelist adds, “ Llis mother kept all these sayings in heart.” The next passage calling for our consideration is that which records the first miracle: “And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there : and both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine [when the wine failed], the mother of Jesus saith unto Him, ‘They have no wine. 5 Jesus saith unto her, ‘Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come 3 .’” We need make no remark on the comments which different writers of the Roman Catholic communion have recommended for the adoption of the faithful. Let the passage be in¬ terpreted in any way which enlightened criticism and the analogy of Scripture will sanction, and we may ask, Could any unprejudiced mind, after a careful weighing of the incident, the facts, and the words, in all their bearings, expect that the holy and beloved person, toward whom the meek and tender and af¬ fectionate Jesus employed this address, was destined by that omnipotent and omniscient Saviour to become an object of those religious acts with which (as we have seen) the Church of Rome daily approaches her? Indeed, Epiphanius 4 , as we shall hereafter see more at 2 John ii. 1. 4 On the Collyridian heresy. Epiph. Paris, 1662, pp. 1056 •—1064. CHAF. I.] EVIDENCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 93 large, considers our blessed Lord to have employed the word 44 woman ” on this occasion for the express purpose of preserving subsequent believers in his Gos¬ pel from an excessive admiration of Mary: 44 Lest any one should think that the holy Virgin was a being of superior excellence.” We must now advert to an incident recorded with little variety of expression, and with no essential difference, by the first three Evangelists. St. Mat¬ thew’s, which is the fullest account, is this : 44 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, 4 Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.’ But he answered and said unto him that told him, 4 Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?’ And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, 4 Behold my mother and my brethren ! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother 5 .”—Or, as St. Luke expresses it, 44 And he answered and said unto them, 4 My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it 6 .”’ Humanly speaking, could a more favourable op¬ portunity have presented itself to our blessed Lord of referring to his beloved mother in such a manner as to exalt her above her fellow-daughters of Eve? In such a manner, too, as that Christians in after days, when the Saviour’s bodily presence should have 5 Matt. xii. 46—50. Luke viii. 21. 6 In a subsequent part of this work the reader will find in what strong language Tertullian and St. Chrysostom, and others, comment upon this, as it appears to them, unjustifiable intrusion of Mary. 94 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART II. been taken away from them, and the extraordinary communications of the Spirit of truth should have been withdrawn, might have remembered that He had spoken such things, and have been countenanced by his words in doing her homage? But so far is this from the plain and natural tendency of his words, that, had He of acknowledged purpose intended to guard his disciples to the end of time against sup¬ posing that the love and reverence which they felt towards Himself should show itself in their exaltation of his mother above all created beings, language would with difficulty have supplied words more adapt¬ ed for that purpose. Nothing in the communication made to Him seemed to call for such a remark. A plain message announces to Him, as a matter of fact, one of the most common occurrences of daily life; and yet He fixes upon the circumstance as the ground¬ work, not only of declaring the close union between Himself and faithful obedient believers in Him, but of cautioning all against any superstitious feelings towards those who were nearly allied to Him by the ties of his human nature. With reverence we would say, it is as though He desired to record his foreknow¬ ledge of the errors into which his disciples were likely to be seduced, warning them beforehand to shun and resist the temptation. The evidence borne by this passage against the offering by Christians of any religious worship to the Virgin on the ground of her having been the mother of our Lord, is clear and direct. She was the mother of the Redeemer of the world, and blessed is she among women; but that very Redeemer Himself, with his own lips, assures us that every faithful servant of his heavenly Father shall be equally honoured with CHAP. I.] EVIDENCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 95 her. and possess all the privileges which so near and dear a relationship with Himself might he supposed to con¬ vey : 44 Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?” 44 Behold my mother and my brethren!” 44 Who¬ soever shall do the will of my Father in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” We have equal reason to take notice in this place of that most remarkable passage in which our Lord is recorded under different circumstances to have ex¬ pressed the same sentiments, but in words which seem even more strongly indicative of his desire to prevent any undue exaltation of his mother 7 . 44 As he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice and said unto him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps that thou hast sucked.’ ” On the truth or wisdom of that exclamation our Lord makes no remark; He refers not to his mother at all; not even to assure his audience (as St. Augustine and others in after ages taught 8 ), that, however blessed Mary might be in her corporeal conception of the Saviour, yet far more blessed was she (as St. Chry¬ sostom 9 and others remind us), because she had borne Him spiritually in her heart. He alludes not to his mother, except for the purpose of immediately fixing the minds of his hearers on the surer and greater bless¬ edness of his faithful disciples to the end of time. “But he said, ‘Yea rather [or, as some prefer, ‘yea verily and ’] blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it.’ ” Again, it must be asked, Could such an exclamation have been met by such a reply, had our Lord’s will been to exalt his mother as she is 7 Luke xi. 27. s See De Sacy, vol. xxxii. p. 35. 9 Chrys. vol. vii. p. 467. 96 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART II. now exalted by the Church of Rome? Rather, we reverently ask, Would He have given this turn to such an address, had He not desired to check any such feeling towards her ? That affecting and edifying incident recorded by St.¬ John, as having taken place whilst the Lord Jesus was hanging on the cross, (an incident which speaks to every one who has a mind to understand and a heart to feel,) brings before us the last occasion on which the name of the Virgin Mary occurs in the Gospels. No paraphrase could add force, or clearness, or beauty, to the narrative of the Evangelist; no exposi¬ tion could bring out its parts more prominently or powerfully. The calmness and authority of our blessed Lord, his tenderness and affection, his filial love in the very midst of his agony, it is impossible for the pen of man to describe with moreheart-stirring and heart-sooth¬ ing pathos. But not one syllable falls from the lips of Christ, or from the pen of the beloved disciple, which can be construed to imply that our blessed Lord intended Mary to be held by his disciples in such ho¬ nour as would be shown in the offering of prayer and praise to her after her dissolution. He, who could by a word have bidden the whole course of nature and of providence to minister to the health and safety, the support and comfort of his mother, leaves her to the care of one whom He loved, and whose sincerity and devotedness to Him He had, humanly speaking, long experienced. He bids him behave to Mary as he would to his own mother; He bids Mary look to John as to her own son for support and solace. “ Now, there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus, therefore, saw his mother, and the dis- CHAP. I.] EVIDENCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 97 ciple standing by, whom He loved, He said unto his mother, ‘Woman, behold thy son;’ then said He to the disciple, 6 Behold thy mother.’ ” And He added no more. If Christ willed that his beloved mother should end her days in peace, removed equally from the want and desolation of widowhood on the one hand, and from splendour and notoriety on the other, no¬ thing could be more natural than such conduct, in such a Being, at such a time. But if his purpose had been to exalt her into an object of religious ip adoration, that nations should kneel before her, and all people do her homage, and to teach all his fol¬ lowers to look to her as the channel through which the favour and blessings of heaven were to be con¬ veyed to mankind, then the words and the conduct of our blessed Lord at this hour seem to be inexplicable; and so also would be the words of the Evangelist, closing the narrative, “ And from that hour, that dis¬ ciple took her unto his own home.” Subsequently to this, not one word falls from the pen of St. John which can be made to bear on the station, the person, or the circumstances of Mary. After his resurrection, our Saviour remained on earth forty days before He finally ascended bodily into heaven. Many of his interviews and conversations with his disciples during that interval are recorded in the Gospel. Every one of the four Evangelists re¬ lates some act or some saying of our Lord on one or more of those occasions. Mention is made by name of Mary Magdalene, of Mary [the mother] of James, of Salome, of Joanna, of Peter, of Cleoplias, of the disciple whom Jesus loved, (at whose home the mother of our Lord then was,) of Thomas, of Nathanael, and generally of the Eleven. But by no one of the H 98 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART II. Evangelists is reference made at all, in the Gospels, to Mary, the mother of our Lord, as having been present at any one of those interviews; her name is not alluded to throughout. SECTION IV. On one solitary occasion subsequently to Christ’s ascension, mention is made of Mary his mother, but it is in company with many others, and without any further distinction to separate her from the rest. “ And when they were come in [from witnessing the ascension], they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alplieus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren V’ Not one word is said as to Mary having been present to witness even the ascension of her blessed Son; we read of no command from our Lord, no wish expressed, no distant intimation to his disciples, that they should show to her even marks of respect and honour; no allusion is there made to her superiority or pre¬ eminence. Sixty years at the least are generally considered to be comprehended within the subsequent history of the New Testament before the Apocalypse was written; but neither in the narrative, nor in the Epistles, nor yet in the prophetic part of the Holy Book of truth, is there the most distant allusion to Mary 1 2 . Of him 1 Acts i. 13, 14. 2 We need not allude to Rev. xii. 1, as a passage strangely CHAP. I.] EVIDENCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 99 to whose filial care our dying Lord committed his mother we hear much. John we find putting forth the miraculous power of Christ at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple ; we see him imprisoned and arraigned before the Jewish authorities: but not one word is mentioned as to what meanwhile became of Mary. We see John confirming the Church in Samaria; we see him an exile in the island of Patmos; but no men¬ tion is made of Mary: nay, though we have three of his Epistles, and the second of them addressed to one whom he loved in the truth, we can trace no single allusion to the mother of our Lord, alive or dead. We have no reason to suppose that St. Paul had any personal knowledge of the Virgin. At all events it is a fact of which, neither do his own Epistles, nor does the inspired history of his life and labours give the slightest intimation. St. Paul does indeed refer to the human nature of Christ derived from his human mother; and had he been taught by direct revelation, or by his fellow-Apostles, older in the ministry than himself, to entertain towards her such sentiments as the Roman Church now professes to entertain, he could not have found a more inviting occasion to give utter¬ ance to them. But, instead of thus speaking of the Virgin Mary, he does not even mention her name or condition at all; referring only in the most general way to a daughter of Adam, of whom the Son of God was born: “ But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under perverted to apply to the Virgin in heaven, because Roman Catho¬ lics do not at all agree together in such an application. See De Sacy, in loc. 100 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART II. the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that they might receive the adoption of sons 3 .” Thus, from a time certainly within a few days of our Saviour’s ascension, the inspired volume is totally silent throughout as to Mary, whether in life or in death. section v. This absence of evidence in Holy Scripture as to the birth, life, death, glories, and power of the Virgin Mary, seems to have been sensibly felt by many of her zealous votaries. To supply such want of counte¬ nance and of sanction to the honours now paid to her in the Church of Rome, various expedients have been adojffed. The doctrine of progressive development has been much relied on; and revelations of her influence and majesty made by herself to many of her most famous worshippers have been alleged; especially are we referred to the Revelations made by the Virgin to St. Bridget 4 . But another solution of this difficulty has been offered, on which we shall make no comment; since few probably of the most ardent propagators of the doctrine of development will acknowledge it as their own : “ The silence,” it is said, “ of Holy Scripture as to Mary’s birth and circumstances (less being recorded of her than of John the Baptist) was designed, and for this very purpose, to be an encouragement to the votaries of Mary; God, wishing to countenance and second their pious zeal, omitted the record of those particu¬ lars which are now celebrated by her worshippers, that they might have ample room for the full exercise 3 Gal. iv. 4, 5. 4 Diptycha Mariana, vol. vii. p, 20, CHAP. I.] EVIDENCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 101 of their piety, and for their religious and reasonable invention and propagation of novelties concerning her.” Hence the open confession, (which to us savours of impiety, and of a presumptuous desire to fill up what God Himself has not been pleased to reveal,) that, if her son Jesus had omitted any thing concerning Mary, her faithful and zealous servants would supply what was wanting 5 . Others, however, affirm, that though not in Holy Scripture, yet in the early Fathers of the Church the mediation of the Virgin is recognized and taught, and prayers to her for blessings from heaven are sanctioned and prescribed. The chief business of the present work is to show that for at least five hundred years the worship of the Virgin had no place or name in the Church. And on this part of our professed object we now enter. 5 Diptycha Mariana, vii. p. iv. 102 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART II. CHAPTER II. ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN MARY.-A.D. 47. SECTION I. The worship of the Virgin Mary seems to be entirely built upon a belief in the supernatural and miraculous removal of her person, her body as well as her soul, from earth into heaven. This is called in the Roman Church her Assumption; the alleged event being celebrated by an annual festival on the 15th of August. That event is not represented by any one to have taken place subsequently to the time when the Canon of Holy Scripture closes: we are therefore induced to enter now upon an investigation into the evidence on which the belief in so marvellous a transaction rests. By the Church of England two festivals are observed in commemoration of two events relating to the Virgin Mary as the mother of our Lord, in the titles of both of which her name occurs: one the announcement of our Saviours incarnation by the message of an angel, called “ The Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary;” the other “ The Presentation of Christ in the Temple,” called also “ The Purification of St. Mary the Virgin.” On the first of these solemnities we are taught to pray that as we have known the incarnation of the Son of God by the message of an Angel, so by his Cross and passion we may be brought to the glory of his resurrection. On the second we humbly beseech CHAP. II.] ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN. 103 the Divine Majesty, that, as his only Son was pre¬ sented in the Temple in the substance of our flesh, so w T e may be presented unto God with pure and clean hearts, by the same Jesus Christ our Lord. These days are appointed to commemorate events made known to us on the sure warrant of Holy Scripture; and these prayers are primitive and evangelical; they address God alone, and only through his Son. The second prayer was used in the Church from very early times, and is retained in the Roman Breviary \ But instead of the first, which has still a place in the Missal, we now find in the Breviary a prayer neither primitive nor evangelical, which supplicates that those who use it, “believing Mary to be truly the mother of God, may be aided by her intercession with Him 1 2 .” In the Roman Church, however 3 , feasts are dedi¬ cated to the Virgin Mary, in which we cannot join; among others, her Immaculate Conception, and her Assumption. By appointing a service 4 and a collect commemorative of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary in her mother’s womb, and praying that the observance of that solemnity may procure her votaries an increase of peace, the Church of Rome has not only acted without a shadow of countenance from Scripture, or primitive times; but has herself given countenance and sanction, and affixed her seal to a novel superstition, against which, at its commencement, 1 Hus. Brev. H. 536. 2 V. 496. 4 Every Saturday, with few exceptions, throughout the year, is dedicated in the Roman Church to the Virgin Mary ; and, without a specific cause to the contrary, the prescribed offices must be per¬ formed in public or private. 4 H. 445. 104 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART II. so recently as tlie twelfth century, St. Bernard 5 strongly remonstrated with the monks of Lyons; and centuries before Epiphanius had distinctly testified that Mary’s birth was not out of the usual course of nature 6 . It is unhappily, moreover, a superstition which has often been defended by arguments, and explained by dis¬ cussions, which have lost sight of all delicacy, and can in no way be profitable to the understanding or the heart. But of all the institutions in honour of the Virgin, the Feast of the Assumption is regarded by the Roman Church as the head and crown. “ The Assumption of the Virgin Mary (we are told 7 ) is the greatest of all the festivals which the Church celebrates in her honour. It is the consummation of all the other great mysteries by which her life was rendered most wonderful. It is the birth-day of her true greatness and glory, and the crown of all the virtues of her whole life, which we admire singly in her other festivals.” Before such a solemn office of praise and worship as we find in the Church of Rome on the 15th of August were ever admitted among the institutions of the religion of the Gospel, its originators and compilers ought to have built upon sure ground: careful too should those persons be now who join in the service, and promote it by the countenance of their example ; but more especially should the evidence on which it rests be sifted well by all who undertake to defend and uphold it, lest at last they prove to have loved Rome more than 3 Paris, 1632; Ep. 174, p. 1538. 6 Paris, 1622 ; p. 1003, &c. 7 Alban Butler, vol. viii. p. 175. CHAP. II.] ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN. 105 the truth as it is in Jesus. So solemn and marked a religious service in the temple, and at the altar of Him who is the Truth, ought to be founded on Holy Scrip¬ ture ; or at the very least, on undisputed historical evidence, the certain and acknowledged testimony of the Church from the very time of the actual occurrence of the fact on which it is based. Those persons incur a fearful responsibility, who aid in propagating for re¬ ligious verities the inventions of men 8 . SECTION II. But what is the doctrine and the practice of the Church of Rome with regard to the Assumption of the Virgin Mary ? In the ritual of the Assumption, it is many times reiterated in a brief space, and with a slight variation of expression, that the Virgin was taken up into heaven; and this is asserted not on any general 8 Very different opinions are held by Roman Catholic writers as to the antiquity of this feast. All, indeed, maintain that it is of very ancient introduction; but, while some with Lambeeius (lib. viii. p. 286) hold the antiquity of the festival to be so remote that its origin can¬ not be traced, thence inferring that it was instituted by a silent and unrecorded act of the Apostles themselves, others (among whom Kol- larius, the learned annotator on the opinion of Lambeeius) acknow¬ ledged that it was introduced by an ordinance of the Church, though not at the same time in all countries of Christendom. That anno¬ tator would assign its introduction at Rome to the fourth century, at Constantinople to the sixth, in Germany and France to the ninth. The Calendar published by Martene, and supposed by him to be a production of the fourth or fifth century, carries in itself evidence of a more recent origin, having the Feast of Flypapante on Feb. 2, which Baronius (Feb. 2, p. 57) will not allow to have been cele¬ brated before the fifteenth year of Justinian. * XOG WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART II. and indefinite notion of her glorified state, but with reference to one specific and single act of divine inter¬ position, performed at a fixed time, effecting her As¬ sumption 44 to-day.” 44 To-day, Mary the Virgin as¬ cended the heavens. Rejoice, because she is reigning with Christ for ever 9 .” 44 Mary the Virgin is taken up into heaven, to the ethereal chamber, in which the King of kings sits on his starry throne.” 44 The Holy Mother of God has been exalted above the choir of angels, to the heavenly realms.” 44 Come, let us wor¬ ship the Kings of kings, to whose ethereal heaven the Virgin-mother w T as taken up to-day.” And that it is her bodily ascension, her corporeal assumption into heaven, and not merely the transit of her soul from mortal life to eternal bliss, which the Roman Church maintains and proclaims by this service, is put beyond doubt by the service itself. In the fourth and sixth reading or lesson, for example, we find these sentences, — 44 She returned not unto the earth, but is seated in the heavenly tabernacles. How could death devour? how could those below receive ? how could corruption invade THAT BODY in which life was received ? For it a direct, plain, and easy path to heaven was prepared.” Indeed, doctors of the Roman Church do not scruple to affirm distinctly, that one object which their Church had in view, was to condemn the heresy of those who maintained that the reception of the Virgin into heaven was the reception of her soul only, and not also of her body 10 , 9 JEst. 595. 603, 6 04. 10 Lambecius, book viii. p. 306. See also the Lessons from John of Damascus, now appointed to be read on the day of the Assump¬ tion. iEst. 603. CHAr. II.] ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN. 107 Now on what authority does this doctrine rest? On what foundation-stone is this religious service built? It rests on no authentic history; it is supported by no primitive tradition. The most celebrated defenders of these Roman tenets and practices, instead of citing such evidence as would carry some faint semblance of probability, appeal to histories written more than a thousand years after the alleged event, to forged docu¬ ments, and vague rumours. It is quite surprising to find many of them, instead of establishing by evidence what they say God once did, contenting themselves with asserting his omnipotence in proof that their tenets imply no impossibility; dwelling on the fitness and reasonableness of his working such a miracle in honour of so distinguished a vessel of mercy; and while they assume the fact as granted, substituting in place of argument, glowing and poetical descriptions of what must have been the joy in heaven, and what ought to be the corresponding feelings of mortals on earth. At every step of the inquiry into the merits of this case, that most sound principle, which is lament¬ ably neglected, is brought again and again to our mind,—that, as men really and in earnest looking onward to a life after this, we are bound to inquire, not what God could do, nor what man might pro¬ nounce it fitting for God to do, but what He has done, and what He has revealed. The moment a Christian writer betakes himself from evidence to possibilities, he deserts the first principles of Christian truth, and throws us back from the sure and certain hope of the Gospel of Christ, to the “ beautiful fable ” of Socrates, and his exclamation before his judges—“ It were better to be there than here, IF these things are true.” Now should any persons have resolved to adopt 108 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART II. implicitly, without allowing any examination, and with¬ out admitting any appeal, the faith and present prac¬ tice of the Church of Rome, they will take no interest in such an inquiry as we are now instituting; and they will find, in the sentiments of St. Bernard, coun¬ tenance for thus surrendering their judgment and conscience. In the same letter in which, as we have seen, he reproves the monks of Lyons for promoting the then rising superstition 1 as to the immaculate con¬ ception of the Virgin Mary in her mother’s womb, (a superstition sanctioned by a solemn service of the Roman ritual at the present day,) he professes himself to be not “over-scrupulous” in receiving what the Church had taught him as to the Assumption of the Virgin,—“ that the day was to be observed with the highest veneration, on which she was taken up from this wicked world.” On the other hand, well-informed members of that Church assure us, that a general desire has gained ground among them, to have this and other similiar questions examined without prejudice, and the results of the inquiry to be calmly laid open before them and before the world. To such persons, the following pages may seem worthy of consideration. We would, however, here observe (before we enter upon the evidence), that the Romanist writers on this subject are by no means agreed as to the time or place of the Virgin’s death. While some have maintained 1 The letter of St. Bernard is addressed to the Canons of Lyons. Paris, 1632 ; p. 1538. His observations in that letter with the view of discountenancing the rising superstition as to the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary in her mother’s womb (a superstition now sanctioned by the Roman Ritual) deserve the serious consi¬ deration of every one, when placed in juxta-position with his sen¬ timents here quoted. CHAP. II.] ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN. 109 that she breathed her last at Ephesus, others affirm that her departure from this world took place at Jerusalem; and, as to the time of her death, some have assigned it to the year 48 (that is, about the time when St. Paul and St. Barnabas returned to Antioch 2 ), while others refer it to later dates; none, however, fixing it at a period subsequently to the time when the Acts of the Apostles closes. Epiphanius, indeed, towards the end of the fourth century, reminding us that Scripture is wholly and plainly silent on the subject of Mary’s death and burial, as well as of her having ever accom¬ panied St. John in his travels or not, without alluding to any known tradition as to her Assumption, thus sums up his sentiments: “ I dare to say nothing, but after consideration am silent.” And again he savs dis- tinctly, “ Her end is not known.” SECTION III. We now proceed to inquire into the evidence on which so solemn a religious service in honour of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, as the Church of Rome celebrates every year, is founded; a service, the spirit of which diffuses itself through the public ser¬ vices of the whole year, and is mingled with the daily devotional exercises of individual members of that Church. In the first place, the Holy Scriptures are utterly and profoundly silent as to the time and the manner, and even the fact of the Virgin Mary’s death. We then ask, if such an event, (witnessed, as this legend says, by the Apostles,) so marvellous in itself, and so important in its consequences, had actually taken 2 Acts xiv. 26. Epiph. vol. i. p. 1043 and 1003. 110 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART II. place, is it within the verge of credibility, that no allu¬ sion to it should have been made in that inspired book, which records the actions and journeys and letters of those very Apostles, especially in the case of St. John, to whose filial care she had been committed by our blessed Saviour'? Once after the ascension of our Lord, and that within eight days, we find men¬ tioned the name of Mary promiscuously with others; and after that no allusion to her is made in life or in death; and yet no account places her death too late for mention to have been made of it in the Acts of the Apostles. But, when we have in vain searched the holy volume, what light does primitive antiquity enable us to throw on this subject ? The earliest testimony quoted by the supporters of the doctrine is a supposed entry in the Chronicon of Eusebius, written about a. d. 315, opposite the year of our Lord, 48. This is cited by Coccius 3 without any remark, and even Baronius rests the date of Mary’s Assumption on this testimony. The words cited are these: “ Mary the Virgin, the mother of Jesus, was taken up into heaven, as some write that it had been revealed unto them.” Now, for one moment let us suppose that this came from the pen of Eusebius himself; and to what does it amount? A clironologist in the fourth century would then have been found to record that some persons (whom he does not name, not even stating wdien they lived,) had written, not what they had heard as a matter of fact, but that a revelation had been made to them of an event having taken place nearly three centuries before the time of the clironologist. 3 Vol. i. p. 403. CHAP. II.] ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN. Ill But instead of this passage deserving the name of Eusebius as its author, it is palpably and confessedly an interpolation. Suspicions must have arisen at a remote date as to its genuineness; for many manu¬ scripts, especially the seven in the Vatican, were known to contain nothing of the kind. Indeed, the Roman Catholic editor 4 of the Clironicon at Bour- deaux, so far back as a. d. 1604, confesses that he was restrained from expunging it, only because nothing certain as to the Assumption of the Virgin could be substituted in its place! Its spuriousness, however, is no longer a question of dispute or doubt; in 1818 it was excluded from the Milan impression edited by Angelo Maio and John Zohrab; and no trace of it is to be found in the Armenian version, published that same year, with anxious care to secure accuracy, by the monks of the Armenian convent near Venice 5 . The next authority to which we must refer is a letter 6 said to have been written by Sophronius the presbyter, about the commencement of the fifth cen¬ tury. It used to be ascribed to Jerome, but Erasmus referred it to Sophronius. To many this is an un¬ welcome document. Baronius shows great anxiety to detract from the value of the writer’s evidence, who¬ ever he was, sharply criticising him, because he asserts that the faithful in his time still expressed doubts as 4 P. 566. fl The author visited their convent while that edition of the Chro- nicon of Eusebius was in the press ; and he can testify to the appa¬ rent anxiety of the monks to make it worthy of the patronage of Christians. 0 The letter is entitled, “ Ad Paulam et Eustochium de Assump- tione B. M. Virginis.” It is found in Jerome’s Works, edit. J. Martian, vol. v. p. 82. 112 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART II. to the fact of the Virgin’s Assumption. It is, however, to be remarked that Baronius, by assigning to this letter a date still later than the works of Sophronius, adds strength to the arguments for the comparatively recent origin of the tradition. For he says it was written by “an egregious forger of lies,” who lived after the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches had been condemned. Be this as it may; that the letter is of very ancient origin cannot be doubted: and whoever penned it, whether we look to the sensible and pious sentiments contained in it, or to its undisputed antiquity, the following extract cannot fail to be interesting. What¬ ever other inferences may be drawn from it, it leaves no question that, so far from the tradition regarding the Virgin’s Assumption being general in the Church when the writer lived, it was a subject of grave doubt and discussion among Christians, many of whom thought it an act of pious forbearance to abstain altogether from pronouncing any opinion on the subject. “ Many of our people doubt whether Mary was taken up together with her body, or whether she went away leaving the body. But how, or at what time, or by what persons her holy body was taken hence and to what place removed, or whether it rose again, is not known; although some will maintain that she is already revived, and is clothed with a blessed im¬ mortality with Christ in heavenly places. And this very many affirm also of his servant the blessed John the Evangelist (to whom, being a virgin, the Virgin was entrusted by Christ); because in his sepulchre, as it is reported, nothing is found but manna, which also is seen to flow forth. Nevertheless which of CHAP. II.] ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN. 113 these opinions should be thought the more true we doubt. Yet it is better to commit all to God, with whom nothing is impossible, than to wish to define rashly by our own authority anything which we do not approve of 7 . Because nothing is impossible with God, we do not deny that something of the kind was done with regard to the blessed Virgin Mary; although, for caution’s sake, preserving our faith, we ought with pious desire to think rather than to define inconsider¬ ately what without danger may remain unknown s .” This letter, at the very earliest, was not written until the beginning of the fifth century. SECTION IV. Subsequent writers were not wanting to supply what this letter declares to have been, at its own date, unknown, as to the fact, and the manner, and the time of Mary’s Assumption, and the persons connected with the transaction 9 . The first authority appealed to in defence of the tradition, is usually cited as a tvell- known work written by Euthymius, a contemporary of Juvenal, Archbishop of Jerusalem. The earliest author in whose reputed works the passage is found, seems to have been John of Damascus, a monk of Jerusalem, who lived somewhat before the middle of 7 These words, stamping the writer’s own opinion, “ which we do not approve of,” are omitted by Coccius in his quotation. s Baronins, Cologne, 1609, vol. i. p. 408. See also Fabricius, (Hamburgh, 1804,) vol. ix. p. 160. a It is a curious fact, that, at the close of the fifth century, (a.d. 494,) the Roman Council, with Pope Gelasius at its head, among the books not received, specifies as Apocryphal “ the book which is called the ‘ Transitus,’ that is, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin.”—P. 1264. I 114 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART II. the eighth century. Much doubt exists as to the work from which the passage professes to be taken: the monk does not quote from it as “ The history written by Euthymius,” nor as “The history concerning Eu¬ thymius,” but as “ The Euthymiac historyand Lambecius maintains, that it was not an ecclesiastical work written by Euthymius, who died in 472, but a biographical history concerning' Euthymius himself, written, as he thinks probable, by Cyril the monk, who died 531. This opinion is combated by Cote- lerius—the discussion only thickening the dense mist which involves the whole, from first to last. But whether Euthymius were the author or the subject of the work, or neither the one nor the other, the work itself is lost; an epitome only survives; and in that abridgment not a trace of the passage quoted by John of Damascus is found l . That author having represented himself as holding a conversation with the tomb of the Virgin, to which we must again advert, thus appeals to the passage in question: “Ye see, beloved fathers and brethren, what answer the all-gracious tomb makes to us; and, in proof that these things are so, in the Euthymiac history, the third book, and fortieth chapter, it is thus written, word for word :— “It has been above said, that the holy Pulcheria built many churches to Christ, at Constantinople. Of these, however, there is one built in Blachernm, in the beginning of the reign of Marcian of divine me¬ mory. Marcian and Pulcheria, therefore, when they had built a venerable temple to the greatly-to-be- 1 The version of Coccius (who heads the extract merely with these words, “ Euthumius Eremita.” Historiae Ecclesiastics lib. iii. c. 40) differs in some points from the original. Jo. Damas. vol. ii. p. 879. CHAP. II.] ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN. 115 celebrated, and most holy mother of God, and ever Virgin Mary, and had decked it with all ornaments, sought her most holy body, which had conceived God. And having sent for Juvenal, Archbishop of Jerusalem, and for the Bishops of Palestine, who were living in the royal city, on account of the synod then held at Chalcedon, they say to them, We hear that there is in Jerusalem the first and famous church of Mary, mother of God, and ever Virgin, in the garden called Gethsemane, where her body, which bore the Life, was deposited in a coffin. We wish, therefore, her relics to be brought here for the protection of this royal city. But Juvenal answered, In the true and divinely inspired Scripture, indeed, nothing is re¬ corded of the departure of the holy Mary, mother of God: but, from an ancient and most true tradition, we have received, that at the time of her glorious falling asleep, all the holy Apostles, who were going through the world for the salvation of the nations, in a moment of time borne aloft, came together to Jeru¬ salem ; and when they were near her, they had a vision of angels, and divine melody of the highest powers was heard; and then with divine and more heavenly glory, she,, in an unspeakable manner, de¬ livered her holy soul into the hands of God. But that which had conceived God, being borne with angelic and apostolic psalmody, with funeral rites was depo¬ sited in a coffin in Gethsemane. In this place, the chorus and singing of the angels continued for three whole days. But after three days, on the angelic music ceasing, since one of the Apostles had been absent, and came after the third day, and wished to adore the body that had conceived God, the Apostles who were present opened the coffin ; but the body, i 2 116 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART II. pure and every way to be praised, they could not at all find. And when they found only those things in which it had been laid out and placed there, and were filled with an ineffable fragrancy proceeding from those things, they shut the coffin. Being astonished at the miraculous mystery, they could form no other thought but that He who had in his own person deigned to be clothed with flesh, and to be made man of the most holy Virgin, and to be born in the flesh, God the Word and Source of Glory, and who after birth had preserved her virginity immaculate, had seen it good, after she had departed from among the living, to honour her uncontaminated and unpolluted body, by a translation before the common and universal resur¬ rection 2 ” This, then, is the account of the Virgin’s Assumption nearest to the time; and can any thing be more vague, and, in a point of evidence, more utterly worth¬ less ? It stands thus: a preacher, in the eighth century, refers to a work, (the character of which is unknown, and to that part of the work of which not a line is extant,) in which the writer, near the middle of the sixth century, is said to have referred to a conversation reported to have taken place at Constan¬ tinople a hundred years before that writer’s time, in which conversation the then Bishop of Jerusalem was said to have informed the Emperor Marcian of an ancient tradition, concerning a miraculous event nearly four hundred years before that bishop’s time, namely, that the body of Mary was taken out of the coffin, without the knowledge of those who had 2 Jo. Damas. ; Paris, 1712. vol. ii. p. 875. 877. 881. CHAP. II.] ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN. 117 deposited it there. Whereas, the primitive and in¬ spired account (recording most minutely the jour¬ neys and proceedings of those very persons, before, and subsequently to, the alleged event, and the let¬ ters of others,) makes no mention at all of any transaction of the kind; whereas, also, of all the inter¬ mediate historians and writers of every character, not one gives the slightest intimation that any rumour of it had ever reached them. Before we proceed to the next adduced testimony, it may be well to advert to some particulars relative to the sermon said to have been preached by this John of Damascus. The passage occurs in the second of three homilies, on “The sleep of the Virgin,” a term generally used by the later Greeks as an equivalent for the Homan word Assumptio. The publication of these homilies in Greek and Latin is of late date. Lambecius 3 , a.d. 1655, says, that he was not aware of any one having so published them before his time. We wish, however, to raise no question now as to their genuineness. But the preacher’s introduction of this passage into his homily is preceded by a sec¬ tion that deserves the careful weighing of all who would honestly ascertain the real sentiments of the early writers of the Christian Church. It affords a striking example of the manner in which Christian orators used to indulge in addresses and appeals, not only to the spirits of departed men, but even to things which never had life. Here the speaker, in his ser¬ mon, addresses the very tomb of Mary, as though it had ears to hear, and an understanding to compre¬ hend ; and then he represents the tomb as having a tongue to answer, and as calling forth from the 3 Vol. viii. p. 281. 118 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART II. preacher and his congregation a response of admira¬ tion and reverence. Such apostrophes as these can¬ not be too steadily borne in mind, or too carefully weighed, when any argument is drawn from similar salutations offered by ancient Christian orators to saint, or angel, or the Virgin. Among other salutations, John of Damascus, if the homily be his, thus addresses the tomb of the Virgin: “ Thou, O tomb, of holy things most holy (for I will address thee as a living being), where is the much- desired and much-beloved body of the Mother of God?” In this strange dramatic scene the answer of the tomb begins thus: “ Why seek ye her in a tomb, who has been taken up on high to the heavenly taber¬ nacles?” In reply to this, the preacher, first delibe¬ rating with his audience what reply he should make, thus speaks to the tomb; “ Thy grace, indeed, is never-failing and eternal,” &c. By the maintainers of the invocation of saints and angels and the Virgin, many a passage, far more equi¬ vocal and indirect and less cogent than this, which a preacher here addresses to stone and earth, is adduced now to prove, that saints and martyrs and angels and the Virgin were invoked by primitive worshippers. Of the lessons appointed by the Church of Rome for the feast of the Assumption, to be read to be¬ lievers assembled in God’s house of prayer, three are selected and taken entirely from this very oration of John of Damascus 4 . 4 The fourth lesson begins, “ Hodie sacra et animata area the fifth, “ Hodie Virgo immaculata;” the sixth, “Eva quae serpentis.” — JE. 603. These contain the passages to which we have referred as fixing the belief of the Church of Rome in the corporeal assumption of Mary. CHAP. II.] ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN. 119 Le Quien 5 , the editor of the works of John of Da¬ mascus, offers some very interesting remarks bearing immediately on the agitated question, as to the first institution of the Feast of the Assumption, as well as on the tradition itself. lie infers from the words of Modestus, patriarch of Jerusalem, that scarcely any preachers before him had addressed their congrega¬ tions on the departure of the Virgin out of this life ; he thinks that the Feast of the Assumption was, at the commencement of the seventh century, only re¬ cently instituted. While all later writers affirm, that the Virgin was buried in the Valley of Jehosliaphat, Le Quien observes, that this could not have been known to Jerome, who passed a great part of his life in Bethlehem, and yet preserves a total silence on the subject; though, in his “ Epitaph on Paula,” he enumerates all the places in Palestine distinguished by any remarkable event. Neither, he adds, could it have been known to Epiplianius, who, though he lived long in Palestine, yet declares that nothing was known as to the death or burial of the Virgin. Again, in his criticism upon the writings falsely attributed to Melito 6 (their author being, on that ac¬ count, generally referred to as the Pseudo-Melito), Le Quien observes, that since that author says many unworthy things of the Virgin (such, for example, as her great fear when death approached of being ex¬ posed to the wiles of Satan), the work was probably written before the council of Ephesus (i. e. a.d. 449); allemne: this remarkable reason, that “after that time, there began to be entertained, as was right, not only 5 Le Quien refers to earlier homilies on the Dormitio Virginis, p. 857. 6 Melito himself was Bishop of Sardis in the second century. 120 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART II. in the east, but also in the west, a far better estimate of the Mother of God.” Could any stronger proof be urged that the worship of the Virgin Mary was neither apostolical nor primitive? The same editor, Le Quien, insinuates the possi¬ bility of Juvenal (whose character he makes no scru¬ ple to stigmatize) having invented the whole story, in order, for his own sinister purpose, to deceive Marcian and Pulcheria; just, he says, as Juvenal forged cer¬ tain writings for the purpose of securing to himself the primacy of Jerusalem,—a crime laid to his charge also by Leo the Great, in his letter to Maximus, bishop of Antioch 7 . It is much to be lamented, that, in quoting the ex¬ tracts from John of Damascus, those who employ his work as evidence of primitive belief have not pre¬ sented the extract to their readers whole and entire. Garbled quotations are always unsatisfactory; and, in the present instance, the paragraphs omitted carry in themselves clear proof that Juvenal’s answer, as it now appears in John of Damascus, could not have been made to Marcian and Pulcheria by Juve¬ nal, because in it is quoted a passage from “ Dionysius the Areopagite 8 ” by name, still found in the works ascribed to him, but which, as we are compelled to believe, did not make their appearance in Christendom till the beginning of the sixth century, that is, fifty 7 P. 879. See also Leo’s Works, vol. i. p. 1215, Epist. cxix. where we still find the charge as referred to by Le Quien. 8 Cardinal Bellarmin maintains the genuineness of these works, though he acknowledges that they were never quoted before the time of Gregory the Great. He supposes that they had been lost, and were only discovered just before that Pope’s time! De Eccles. Script. CHAP. II.] ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN. 121 years after the Council of Chalcedon, for the purpose of being present at which Juvenal is said to have been resident in Constantinople when the emperor and em¬ press held the alleged conversation with him. The remainder of the passage from the history of Euthy- mius, rehearsed in this oration of John of Damascus, is very obscure and very strange. In it James is called “ the brother of God ” [adelphotheos] ; and it ends by telling us that the royal personages, having heard the report, requested of Juvenal, “ that the holy coffin, with the clothes of the glorious and all-holy Mary, Mother of God, sealed up, might be sent to them and they “ deposited them in the venerable temple of the Mother of God built in Blachernae.” But the maintainers of the story of the Virgin’s Assumption refer us with much confidence to the works of Gregory of Tours, who died at the very close of the sixth century, a.d. 595. On his testi¬ mony we need add little to the comments of his own editor, one of the Benedictines. In his chapter “ On the Apostles and the blessed Virgin,” having referred to the ascension of our blessed Saviour, this Gregory thus proceeds: “ At length the course of this life having been fulfilled by the blessed Mary, when she was now called from the world, all the Apostles were gathered together from every region to her house ; and, when they heard that she was to be taken from the world, they watched with her together. The Lord Jesus then came with his angels, and receiving her soul delivered it to Michael the archangel, and withdrew. And at the dawn the Apostles took up her body, with the couch, and placed it in a tomb, and guarded it, waiting for the arrival of the Lord. And, 122 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [part IT. behold! again the Lord stood by them, and the holy corpse, taken up in a cloud, He ordered to be carried away into Paradise; where now, having resumed her soul, exulting with her elect, she is enjoying the good things of eternity, which will never end 9 .” On this statement of Gregory of Tours, his Bene¬ dictine editor makes these remarks:—“ What Gregory here relates concerning the death of the blessed Virgin, and its circumstances, beyond doubt he drew from that book of the Pseudo-Melito, concerning the re¬ moval of the blessed Virgin, which is classed by Pope Gelasius among the apocryphal books, and which is published in the Bibliotheca Patrum. Now that she died at Ephesus, is the opinion of learned men ; but no one before Gregory of Tours is found to have asserted in express words the resurrection of the blessed Mary, and the Assumption of her body, and also her soul, into heaven. Nevertheless, this opinion not long after prevailed in Gaul, so that it was even intro¬ duced into the Liturgy. Yet the Roman Sacramentary of St. Gregory contains nothing of the kind.” This editor then refers to several previous authors, among others to Adamnanus on Holy Places, to whose senti¬ ments on the subject before us, he adverts in these words : “ Of the sepulchre of the blessed Virgin Mary, which was shown near Jerusalem, in the ValJey of Jelioshaphat, he thus speaks,— 4 In which sepulchre being entombed she rested. But as to the same se¬ pulchre—in what way, or at what time, or by what per¬ sons her holy corpse was removed, or else in what place she is waiting for the resurrection, no one, as it is reported, can know for certain.’” Greg. Tur., Paris, 1699, p. 724. CHAP. II.] ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN. 123 On tliese passages from Gregory of Tours, and his annotator, we would briefly remark, That this Gregory is the first known to have asserted the Assumption of the Virgin, body and soul, as it is now held in the Roman Church; That this account he drew from a forged work by one who is called the False Melito, the very work which just a century before (a.d. 494) the Roman Council, with Pope Gelasius at its head, denounced as apocry¬ phal, and not to be read by the faithful, styling it “The book called the Transitus, that is, the Assump¬ tion of the Blessed Virgin 1 ;” And that only after the time of this Gregory the service of the Assumption crept into the Liturgy; and that there was nothing like the account of Gregory of Tours in the Sacramentary of Gregory the Great. To this latter point we shall have occasion again to advert. Another authority to which the writers on the As¬ sumption of the Virgin appeal, is Nicephorus Callistus, who at the end of the thirteenth or beginning of the fourteenth century dedicated his work to Adronicus Palseologus 2 . This Nicephorus was patriarch of Con¬ stantinople about the reign of our Edward I. or Edward II., and therefore cannot be quoted in any sense of the w r ord as an ancient author writing on the events of the primitive ages; and yet the manner of citing him by Roman Catholic writers would lead us to sup¬ pose that he was a person to whose evidence on early 1 P. 1264. 2 Baronins does not appear to have referred to the history of Euthymius; but he refers to Nicephorus, and also to a work ascribed to Melito, c. iv. v. WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. 124 [part II. ecclesiastical affairs we ought now to defer. His ac¬ count is as follows 3 : “In the fifth year of Claudius, the Virgin, at the age of 59, was made acquainted with her approaching death. Christ Himself then descended from heaven, with a countless multitude, to take up the soul of his mother, summoning his disciples, by thunder and storm, from all parts of the world. The Virgin then bade Peter first, and afterwards the rest of the Apostles, to come with burning torches. The Apostles surrounded her bed, and an outpouring of miracles flowed forth. The blind beheld the sun, the deaf heard, the lame walked, and every disease fled away. The Apostles and others sang as the body was borne from Sion to Gethsemane, angels preceding, surrounding, and fol¬ lowing it. A wonderful thing then took place 4 * * . The Jews v T ere indignant and enraged; and one, more des¬ perately bold than the rest, rushed foiwvard, intending to throw 7 dowm the holy corpse to the ground. Ven¬ geance w r as not tardy, for his hands w r ere cut off from his arms. The procession stopped; and at the com¬ mand of Peter, on the man shedding tears of peni¬ tence, his hands w 7 ere joined on again, and were re¬ stored whole. At Gethsemane she was put into a 3 Nicephorus, Paris, 1630, vol.i. p. 168. lib. ii. c. 21. Baronins also refers to lib. xv. c. 14. 4 This tradition seems to have been much referred to at the time just preceding our English Reformation. In a volume called “ The Hours of the most blessed Mary, according to the legitimate rite of the Church of Salisbury,” Paris, 1526, the frontispiece gives an exact representation of the story at the moment of the Jew’s hands being cut off. They are severed at the wrists and lying on the coffin, on which also his arms are resting. In the sky, the Virgin appears, between the Father and the Son, the dove beins; seen above her. CHAP. II.] ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN. 125 tomb, but her Son translated her to the divine habi¬ tation. Nicephorus then refers to Juvenal, as the authority on which the tradition was received, that the Apostles opened the coffin to enable St. Thomas, the one stated to have been absent, to embrace the body; and he proceeds to describe the personal appearance and looks of the Virgin. It is unnecessary to dwell on such evidence as this ; and yet on this evidence one of the most solemn religious festivals in the Church of Rome, the crown and consummation of others, is built. Palpably it is not within the verge of credibility, that had such an event as the Virgin Mary’s Assumption, an event so miracu¬ lous in its nature, and so important in its consequences, taken place either under the extraordinary circum¬ stances which now envelope the tradition, or under any combination of circumstances whatever, there would have been a total silence respecting it in Holy Scripture; that the writers of the first four centuries should never have shown themselves cognizant of such an event; that the first writer who alluded to any thing of the kind, should have lived in the middle of the fifth century, or later; and that even he should have declared, in a letter to his contemporaries, that the sub¬ ject was one on which many doubts were entertained; and that he himself would not deny it, not because it rested on probable evidence, but because nothing is impossible with God. Can any confidence, moreover, be placed in the relation of a writer in the middle of the sixth centurv, as to a tradition of what an arch- bishop, attending the Council of Chalcedon, had told the emperor at Constantinople, concerning a tradition of what was said to have happened nearly four hundred 126 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART II. years before ? Whereas, in the Acts of that Council, not the faintest trace is found of any allusion to the supposed fact or the alleged tradition; though the transactions of that Council, in many of its most minute details, are recorded; and though its discussions brought the name and circumstances of the Virgin Mary conti¬ nually, and with most lively interest, before the minds of all who attended it. And what dependence can be placed on the bare statement of a bishop of France, at the very end of the sixth century, who, is the first to assert that the Virgin Mary was taken, body and soul, into heaven, and whom his own Roman Catholic editor and annotator professedly declares to have drawn his account from the forged work of one, whose very name proclaims the worthlessness of his testimony, the Pseudo-Melito; the very work, too, which Pope Gelasius and the Roman Council pronounced, a cen¬ tury, before, to be apocryphal, and which they forbade Christians to read. Rut we must not leave the present subject of in¬ vestigation, without adverting to an argument which is put forth in the present day with as much apparent confidence in its conclusiveness, as if it had undergone the most severe test, and been acknowledged to be valid; whereas its utter worthlessness, in point of evidence, a very few words would demonstrate. Since, however, the nature of the evidence in question affects many points of interest beyond the single subject of our present inquiry, the time will not be lost which we may now give to a fuller elucidation of the point at issue. The persons who put forth the argument to which we refer, assert that all our reasonings drawn from the total silence of the Fathers of the first five centuries, CHAP. II.] ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN. 127 botli Greek and Latin, as to the Assumption of the Virgin, with respect either to their own knowledge and belief, or to the practice of the Christian Church in their times, are worth nothing, so long as it can be shown that the festival of the Assumption was celebrated by the Church of Rome before the close of the fifth century; and this they maintain to be proved by our finding that festival in the Calendars and Sacramentaries, or service-books of those days. Es¬ pecially, it is urged, is this fact proved by the Sacra¬ mentaries of Gregory the Great, who died a.d. 604, and of Pope Gelasius, who preceded him by a cen¬ tury, and also by what has been called “ The Roman Calendar, of the fourth, or the early part of the fifth century, published by Martene.” How utterly valueless, nay, worse, how deceitful and misleading, are any conclusions drawn from these sources, is known to every one at all conversant with the subject, and is shown by the very books themselves, which are cited as depositaries of such evidence. In the first place, we would observe, that we by no means dispute the fact, either that Gregory and Ge¬ lasius themselves wrote, or at least superintended and sanctioned each a Sacramentary, containing as our Calendars and Liturgy contain, the Festival days, with the Collects, Gospels, &c. Rut that additions were made to these Sacramentaries or Calenders from time to time, is not only capable of proof by ourselves but has been long acknowledged and asserted, and main¬ tained and reasoned upon, by the best Roman ritualists. Take, for example, Muratori himself, in his preface to the Sacramentary of Gelasius. Having urged what he regards as conclusive arguments, that the work is cor- 128 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART II. rectly attributed to that pope, he proceeds to give an answer to objections which had been made to his view; an answer which recognizes the only correct mode of estimating the value of such evidence as these Sacra- mentaries and old Calendars contain on any subject to which it can be applied. “But, it is said, additions were made to the Sacramentary itself, after the time of Gela- sius! We by no means deny it. But this is no reason why St. Gelasius should not be called its author. Why even the very Liturgy of Gregory is not denied to be his, merely because other prayers, and festivals, and rites were introduced into it after St. Gregory’s time.” Muratori then refers to certain feasts found in his time in the manuscripts of the Sacramentary of Gelasius, which were festivals of the Gallican and not the Roman Church; the appearance therefore of which proves that the document did not continue as * Gelasius left it. He adds, “ In it is also found the Mass for the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, a feast which, as all learned men know (ut omnes eruditi norunt), was instituted after the time of Gelasius.” This, he says, shows that the manuscript in question was written after the time of Gelasius; and since in the time of Charlemagne the Gallican Liturgy was suppressed and the Roman substituted, he concludes that the manuscript was written before a.d. 800 5 . We need scarcely to remark that the appearance of the Assumption as a festival of the Roman Church in a Calendar at the close of the eighth century, cannot affect our question as to the worship of the Virgin through the first four centuries. The Calendar published by Martene, as a Roman Calendar of the end of the fourth or the commence- 5 Muratori, De Rebus Liturgicis, p. 53. CHAP. II.] ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN. 129 ment of the fifth century, needs not detain us long. Martene found two manuscripts which he judged to be of that age; one of which was, as they say (ut perhibent), given to a convent by Charlemagne. But of the dependence to be placed on his judgment and experience in such matters we know nothing; and the value of the testimony depends wholly on the age, not only of the manuscript itself generally, but also of the very entry about which any question is entertained. We have seen that the insertion of the Virgin’s Assumption into the Chronicon of Eusebius is now no longer denied to be spurious; and in those days when Calendars were not, as Almanacks are now, published annually, newly instituted feasts would naturally be inserted in old Calendars. But, after all, it is merely Martene’s conjecture 6 that these manuscripts contained the Roman Calendar at all, whatever were their age; for neither of them was prefaced by any heading or title to that effect. The high antiquity fixed by Martene on those manuscripts cannot be maintained without setting at nought the deliberately pronounced judgment of critics and divines, of whose authority no Roman Catholic will speak lightly. For they have both the feast of Hypapante on the 2nd of February, whereas Baronius 7 affirms that that feast was not observed till the fifteenth year of the Emperor Justinian, which was a.d. 542, nearly a century and a half later than the date assigned to these insulated manuscripts by Martene. But the testimony to which Christians are now not only confidently but triumphantly referred for demon- stration of the fact, that the Feast of the Assumption is older than the time of Gregory the Great, is the 6 Thesaur. Anec. vol. v. p. 76. 7 Baronius; Paris, 1607, p. 57. Feb. 2. Iv 130 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART II. Sacramentary of that pontiff, in which, it is found August 15, the day now observed as that festival in the Church of Rome. This question of the antiquity of the festivals does not involve merely a dry matter of fact, but has an immediate bearing on a most important and interesting subject, no less than the genuine or spurious character of many works attributed to the Fathers of the early Church. We would illustrate our mean¬ ing by a plain example. If it is clearly established that the festival of Hypapante, called also Simeon and Anna, and in more recent times the Purification, was not instituted till the fifteenth year of Justinian, a.d. 542; a homily ascribed to Methodius, who lived in the third century, professing to have been preached on that festival, is proved by the same argument to be supposititious. But, in our inquiry into the degree of dependence which may be placed on the Sacramentary of Gregory the Great, as an historical document to be employed in verifying dates, we must observe, in the first place, that many ages ago, at the close of the eighth, or the beginning of the ninth century, so great uncer¬ tainty was felt as to what was the genuine work of Gregory, and what were additions and interpolations made to it subsequently to his time, that three divines 8 were appointed to distinguish the genuine from the spurious part. But they could not agree as to what had been added ; and naturally, if the manuscripts to which they had access did not agree. These three divines were Rodrade, a monk of Tours; Alcuin, otherwise called Albin, who was Charlemagne’s master, and Grimoldas the abbot. The labours of the latter were published 8 Du Pin, “ Aucteurs Eccles.” Mons, 1681, vol. v. p. 143. CIIAP. II.] ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN. 131 by Pamelius 9 nearly three centuries ago. Grimoldas maintained, that neither the festival of the Virgin’s Nativity nor the Assumption was in Gregory’s Sacra¬ mentary, into which, as we have already seen (according to Muratori’s assertion), festivals, as well as prayers and rites, were inserted since Gregory’s time. Indeed Muratori, though pleading for the antiquity of the festival, distinctly says, that Gregory had not inserted it himself in his Sacramentary. Since that time, Menard published another copy of Gregory’s Sacramentary, which contained the festivals of St. Prix \ or Prsejectus, who died about a.d. 672, that is, sixty-eight years after Gregory’s death, and of Leo II., who died twelve years still later than Prix. But it is a remarkable fact, that, were all other proofs wanting, the very edition ’ to which we are now referred, bears in its forehead a palpably self-evident demonstration, that whoever rests on Gregory’s Sacra¬ mentary as chronological evidence, builds on nothing that can stand the test of truth. For on IV. Idus Mart., the day now observed by the Church of Rome as the anniversary of Gregory’s death, the very Sacra¬ mentary to which appeal is now made, contains the service for the annual festival of Gregory himself, including collects praying for the benefit of his inter¬ cession. That is, the self-same evidence which is now cited to prove the Feast of the Assumption to have been celebrated before Gregory’s death, proves, with equal satisfaction, that the solemnities on the anni¬ versaries of that pope’s death were celebrated, and that he was a canonized saint 2 , and that the efficacy 9 Pamelius ; Cologne, 1571, vol. ii. p. 336. 388. 1 Acta Sanct. vol. ii. p. 629. * Greg. Paris, 1705, p. 30. K 2 132 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. of liis intercession in heaven was prayed for while he himself was still alive bodily on earth, discharging his office as the sovereign pontiff of Rome. And thus the Assumption of the Virgin, tried by Holy Scripture, by the testimony of the early Church, and on the very evidence proffered in its support by its advocates, proves to be in truth, “ a fond thing, vainly invented,” built on no ground which reason or faith can rest its foot upon. ANCIENT CREEDS. 133 PART III. EVIDENCE OF THE EARLY CHURCH AGAINST THE WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN DOWN TO THE COUNCIL OF NIG^A. CHAPTER I. ANCIENT CREEDS AND THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. SECTION I. In pursuing* our inquiry into the lawfulness of the worship of the Virgin Mary in the Church of Rome, we are led to examine the evidence of Christian an¬ tiquity, not by any misgiving, lest the testimony of Scripture might appear defective or doubtful; far less by any idea of God’s word needing the support of man’s suffrage. On the contrary, the voice of God in his revealed word gives to us no faint or uncertain sound, as it warns us against offering prayers, or any religious worship, or any invocation, to the Virgin Mary; and it must be a fixed principle in the Chris¬ tian’s creed, that wherever God’s written word is clear and certain, human evidence cannot be weighed against it. When the Lord hath spoken, well does it become the whole earth to be silent before Him; when the Eternal Judge Himself hath decided, the witness of man bears on its very face the stamp of incompetency and presumption. But, in testing the soundness of our interpretation of God’s written word, the works of the earliest writers of the Christian Church are most valu¬ able ; and in our investigation of the prevalence of WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. 134 [part III. any doctrine or practice in primitive times, tliose an¬ cient records are indispensable. Now let it be supposed, that instead of the oracles of God’s revelation having spoken against the doctrine and practice of offering prayer or religious worship to any being but God alone, the question had been left in Scripture an open question; then what evi¬ dence would have been deducible from the writings of the primitive Church for the worship of the Vir¬ gin ? What testimony do the first ages, after the canon of Scripture was closed, bear upon this point ? When we of the Church of England religiously abstain from the presentation of any address of the nature of prayer or siqiplication, entreaty, request, or any invoca¬ tion of whatever kind, and from any acts of religious worship and praise to Mary, are we, or are we not, treading in the steps of the first Christians, and adher¬ ing to the very pattern which they set ? Do not mem¬ bers of the Church of Rome by such acts of worship directed to the Virgin Mary, as we find in their autho¬ rized and appointed liturgies, and in their works of pri¬ vate devotion, depart as far and as decidedly from the model of primitive Christianity as they do from the plain sense of Holy Scripture ? The result of a careful examination of the body of Christian writers is this, that at least through the first five centuries the wor¬ ship of the Virgin, now insisted upon by the Council of Trent, prescribed by the Roman Ritual, and actually practised in the Church of Rome, had neither name, nor place, nor existence among Christians. The writers who lived in those times never refer to the worship of the Virgin as a practice with which they were familiar; and the principles which they habi¬ tually maintain, and the sentiments with which their CHAP. I.] ANCIENT CREEDS. 135 works abound, are utterly irreconcileable with such a practice. Among those indeed who adhere to the Tridentine Confession of Faith, there are persons on whom such an investigation would not be allowed to exercise any influence. The sentiments of the celebrated Huet, wherever they are adopted, would operate to the re¬ jection of such inquiries as we are now instituting. His words on the immaculate conception of the Vir¬ gin are of far wider application than the immediate occasion on which he used them: “ That the blessed Mary never conceived any sin in herself, is in the present day an established principle in the Church, and confirmed by the Council of Trent; in which it is our duty to acquiesce, rather than in the dicta of the ancients, if any of them seem to think otherwise, among whom must be numbered Origen V’ In the present work, however, we take for granted that the reader is open to conviction, desirous of arriving at the truth, and, as one efficient means of attaining it, ready to sift honestly and patiently the evidence of the primitive church. section II. THE ANCIENT CREEDS. Before we proceed to inquire into the evidence afforded by individual writers, either in their own re¬ corded sentiments, or with reference to the prevailing belief and practice of their age, it will not be here out of place to observe, that, in the most ancient creeds there is no intimation whatever of any idea 1 Origen’s Works, vol. iv. part ii. p. 156. 136 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. being then entertained as to the posthumous exaltation of the Virgin, her assumption into heaven, the invoca¬ tion of her name, reliance on her merits and patron¬ age, or belief in her intercession. Many creeds are recorded in the early writers, in which the incarna¬ tion of the Son of God is invariably an article never omitted, and in some cases it is dwelt upon largely; but the phrases employed allude to no dignity of his mother’s nature, no mediatorial office assigned to her, no power of benefiting mankind granted to her, nor any adoration of her name. The three creeds usually employed in the Church now afford con¬ jointly a fair specimen of the language and sentiments of the rest, some of which mention the Virgin by name, others not alluding to her further than as St. Paul does,—“born of a woman.” “He was conceived bv the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary 2 “ He was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary 3 ;” “ God of the substance of his Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world 4 .” Thus some of the ancient creeds say, “born of a Virgin;” others, “born of Mary;” others, “ born of the holy Virgin Mary;” not one referring to her except as the mother of the Incarnate Word, or making any allusion to her dignity, or authority, or present state : and in this respect they all differ es¬ sentially from the creed of Pope Pius IV., to the belief in the truth of which ministers of the Church of Rome are bound, as containing articles of faith, without a belief in which there is no salvation 5 . That creed not only announces that the saints reigning with Christ are 2 Apostles’ Creed. 3 Nicene Creed. 4 Athanasian Creed. 5 Catechismus ad Parochos. Lugduni, 1686 ; p. 521. CHAP. I.] EVIDENCE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 137 to be worshipped and invoked, but, whilst it asserts that generally due honour and worship must be paid to images of other saints, joins in a marked manner the images of “ Christ and the Virgin Mary” together, in contradistinction to the others. Of such things as these there is no more trace to be found in any of the ancient creeds than in the Holy Scriptures them¬ selves 6 . SECTION III. EVIDENCE OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. In sifting the testimony of the most ancient writers of the primitive Church, it will be necessary, for the satisfaction of all parties, that we examine, in the first place, those ancient writings which are ascribed to an Apostle, or to fellow-labourers of the Apostles, fami¬ liarly known as “ the Apostolic Fathers.” They are five in number: Barnabas, Clement, Hernias, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Some of these works have been gene¬ rally considered spurious, others have been as gene¬ rally pronounced genuine. The question, however, of their genuineness, though in itself deeply interest¬ ing, will little affect their testimony on the subject before us: whether written or not by the pen of those to whom antiquity has referred them, they are wit¬ nesses of the opinions and practices current at the time of their composition. No one can reasonably doubt that they were all in existence long before the Council of Nicsea; whilst some of them with greatest probability may be referred to a point of time within 6 We need not here allude to what are called Ancient Liturgies, because none of those whose reputed dates fall within the five hun¬ dred years embraced in the present treatise can even with the greatest latitude of admission be regarded as genuine. 138 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. the first century after our Lord’s death, or even after his birth. With all their errors, and blemishes, and interpolations, taken at the worst;—after every rea¬ sonable deduction for defects in taste, and style, and matter, these writings are too venerable for their anti¬ quity, too often appealed to with respect and affection by some who have been among the brightest orna¬ ments of the Christian Church, and contain too copious a store of evangelical truth, sound principle, primitive simplicity, and pious sentiment, to admit of their being passed over with levity or neglect. THE EPISTLE OF ST. BARNABAS. In this work 7 , written probably by a converted Jew about the close of the first century, or certainly before the middle of the second, we search in vain for any trace of the worship or invocation of any being except God alone. The writer gives directions on the sub¬ ject of prayer; he speaks of angels as the ministers of God ; he speaks of the reward of the righteous at the day of judgment: but he suggests not the semblance of a supposition that he either held the doctrine him¬ self which the Church of Rome now holds with regard to the Virgin Mary, or was aware of its existence among Christians. Among his many valuable rules for a Christian’s guidance we read, “ Thou shalt preserve what thou hast received, neither adding thereto, nor taking therefrom. Thou shalt not come with a bad conscience to thy prayer.” The closing sentences contain this blessing: “ Now God, who is the Lord of all the world, give 7 The edition here used is that of Cotelerius, revised by Le Clerc. Antwerp, 1698. CHAP. I.] SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. 139 to you wisdom, skill, understanding, knowledge of his judgements, with patience. And be ye taught of God, seeking what the Lord requires of you; and do it, that ye may be saved in the day of judgment. The Lord of glory and of all grace be with your spirit. Amen 8 .” In this writer there is no mention whatever made of the Virgin Mary. SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. This work, deriving its name from the circumstance of an angelic teacher being represented as a shepherd, is now considered by many to have been the produc¬ tion of Hennas, a brother of Pius, Bishop of Pome 9 ; though others are persuaded that it is of a much ear¬ lier date. The writer speaks much of prayer; but not the faintest hint occurs throughout the three books, of which the work consists, that he had any idea of wor¬ ship or prayer of any kind being offered to any created being. The following passage, found in the Greek quotation from Hernias made by Antiochus (Horn. 85), the Latin of which is now read in the second book, ninth man¬ date, is part only of a section, the whole of which will repay a careful perusal. “ Let us then remove from us double-heartedness and faint-heartedness, and never at all doubt of suppli¬ cating any thing from God, nor say within ourselves, IIow can I, who have been guilty of so many sins against Him, ask of the Lord and receive ? But with all thine whole heart turn to the Lord, and ask of him 8 Pp. 50. 52. The appointment of Pius to the See of Rome is generally re¬ ferred to the year 153. 140 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. without doubting; and thou slialt know his great mercy, that he will not forsake thee, but will fulfil the desire of thy soul 1 with much to the same effect, contrasting very strongly with the modem doctrine of approaching Christ through Mary. In the twelfth section of the ninth similitude, the Latin (the Greek being lost) contains this passage: “ These all are messengers to be reverenced for their dignity. By these, therefore, as it were by a wall, the Lord is girded round. But the gate is the Son of God, who is the only way to God. For no one shall enter into God, except by his Son.” How sad a degeneracy has crept into that Church, which now addresses Mary as “ the gate of heaven,” and implores her to be “our way to God !” This primitive writer will not suffer us to be de¬ terred by any consciousness of our own transgressions from approaching God Himself directly and imme¬ diately ourselves; but he bids us draw near to the mercy-seat of our heavenly Father, through his only Son our only Mediator. In his works no allusion whatever is made to the Virgin Mary. ST. CLEMENT, BISHOP OF ROME. It is impossible to read the testimony borne by Eusebius 2 , and other ancient writers, to the character and circumstances of Clement, without becoming in¬ terested in whatever production of his pen may have escaped the ravages of time. “ Third from the Apos¬ tles,” (says Eusebius,) “ Clement obtained the bishopric of Rome; one who had seen the Apostles and conversed 1 Hook iii. sim. 2. 2 Euseb. Eccles. Hist. v. c. G. CHAP. I.] ST. CLEMENT, BISHOP OF ROME. 141 with them, and had still the sound of their preaching in his ears, and their tradition before his eyes 3 .” Clement’s first epistle to the Corinthians is considered by many as the only genuine work of his now extant. Archbishop Wake sees reason to believe that it was written about a.d. 70 ; others assign to it a date twenty years later. St. Jerome speaks of it in high terms of admiration, and few will read it now without assenting to his judgment, that it is a very useful and admirable work 4 . A delightful tone of primitive simplicity per¬ vades it. His testimony to our redemption by the atoning sacrifice of Christ, and to the life-giving influences of the Holy Spirit, is clear, direct, and re¬ peated. Perhaps in our present inquiry this epistle of Clement becomes even more interesting, as the pas¬ toral letter of one of the earliest bishops of that Church whose present belief and practice we are now testing by the evidence of primitive times. In his writings diligent search has been made for any ex¬ pression which (as to the point at issue) might throw light upon the tenets and practices whether of Clement himself, of the Church in whose name he wrote, the Church whose members he addressed, or the Catholic Church at large. But so far from a single word occurring which would lead us to suppose that he was cognizant of any invocation of the Virgin, or any reliance on her intercession prevailing among Chris¬ tians, his evidence is more than negative against it. Clement speaks of Angels; he speaks of the holy men 3 See St. Paul to the Philippians, c. iv. v. 3. 4 Cat. Script. Eccles. Jerom. vol. iv. part ii. p. 107* Edit, Benedict. Paris, 1706. 142 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. of old who pleased God,—Enoch, Abraham, David, Elijah, and Job ; he bids us think on Peter and Paul, to look to them all with reverence and gratitude, in order that we may imitate their good examples. lie speaks of prayer; he urges on all the duty of prayer; he specifies the object of our prayers ; he particularizes the subjects of our prayers; but he speaks only of prayer to God in the name and for the sake of his blessed Son. Of any other mediator or intercessor Clement seems to have had no knowledge. Clement speaks of the Lord Jesus having descended from Abraham according to the flesh ; but he makes no mention of that daughter of Abraham of whom Christ was born. The following are a few among many passages se¬ lected in furtherance of our present inquiry: 44 Let us venerate the Lord Jesus, whose blood was given for us 5 .” “ Let us approach him in holiness of soul, lifting up holy and undefiled hands towards him ; loving our merciful and tender Father, who hath made us a por¬ tion of his elect 6 .” 44 This is the wav, beloved, in which we find Jesus Christ our salvation, the Chief-priest of our offerings, our Protector, and the Succourer of our weakness. By him let us look steadfastly to the heights of heaven ; by him let us behold his most high and spotless face; by him the eyes of our hearts are opened; by him our ignorant and darkened minds shoot forth into his marvellous light; by him the Supreme Governor willed that we should taste immortal knowledge; who, 5 C. 21. 6 C. 29. CHAP. I.] SAINT IGNATIUS. 143 being the brightness of his magnificence, is so much greater than the Angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they 7 .” “ The all-seeing God, the Sovereign Ruler of spirits, and the Lord of all flesh, who hath chosen the Lord Jesus, and us through him to be a peculiar people, grant to every soul, that calletli on his glorious and holy name, faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffering, self-control, purity, and temperance, to the good plea¬ sure of his name, through our High-priest and Pro¬ tector, Jesus Christ; through whom to him be glory and majesty, dominion and honour, now and for ever and ever, world without end. Amen 8 .” Clement of Rome makes no mention of the Virgin Mary. SAINT IGNATIUS. This martyr set the seal of his blood to the truth about seventy years after the death of our Lord. From Antioch of Syria, of which place he was the bishop, he was sent to the imperial city, Rome; and there, not with resignation only to the divine will, but with joy and gladness, he ended his mortal career by a death for which he had been long prepared. His epistles are written with much of the florid colouring of Asiatic eloquence ; but they have all the raciness of originality, and they glow with that fervour of Christian charity which compels us to love him as our father and friend in Christ. A careful study of this holy man’s literary remains brings to light no single trace of any invocation of the Virgin. Whether in their genuine form, or in the 7 C. 36. 8 C. 58. 144 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. paraphrase which has often passed for the original, but which is the work of a subsequent age, we search in vain for any intimation, either of his own belief in Mary’s influence and power, her patronage and inter¬ cession, or of his acquaintance with the existence of any such religious opinion in others. One or two specimens of his genuine epistles, and of their para¬ phrase, will suffice. The following bear the most closely on our subject: “ There is one Physician, both of a corporeal and of a spiritual nature; begotten, and not begotten ; God in the flesh ; true Life in death ; both from Mary and from God ; first liable to suffering, and then incapable of suffering 9 .” The paraphrase of this passage stands thus : “ Our Physician is the only True God, ungenerated and unapproachable, the Lord of all things, the Fa¬ ther and Generator of the only-begotten Son. We have also, as our Physician, our Lord God, Jesus Christ, who was before the wmrkl, the only-begotten Son and the Word, but also afterwards Man of the Virgin Mary, for the Word was made flesh h” In the same epistle to the Ephesians, he speaks of our Lord as “ Son of God, and Son of Man, according to the flesh of the seed of David V’ In his epistle to the Magnesians we find these words: “ At one place be there one prayer and one supplication, one mind, one hope in love, in blameless rejoicing: Jesus Christ is one, than which nothing is better. All then throng as to one temple, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ, who proceeded from one 9 Epist. to Ephes. p. 13. sect. 5-—7. 5 P. 48. C. 7. 2 P. 17. sect. 20. CHAP. I.] SAINT IGNATIUS. 145 Father, and is in one, and returned to one. 5 ’ Again, lie says: “ Remember me in your prayers, that I may attain to God : I am in need of your prayer united in God, and of your love.” In the paraphrase on the epistle to the Philadel¬ phians, among much interesting matter, we read these sentences: “ One is the God of the Old and the New Testament. One is the Mediator between God and man, for the production of the creatures endued with reason and perception, and for the provision of what is useful and adapted to them: and One is the Comforter, who wrought in Moses, and the Prophets, and the Apostles. All the Saints, therefore, were saved in Christ, hoping in Him, and waiting for Him; and through Him they obtained salvation, being Saints worthy of love and admiration; having acquired a testimony from Jesus Christ in the Gospel of our common hope 3 .” In his epistle to the Romans, he speaks to them of his own prayer to God, and repeatedly implores them to pray to Christ for him. He prays for his fellow- labourers in the Lord; he implores them to approach the Throne of Grace with supplications for mercy on his own soul 4 . Of the worship of the Virgin Mary, of any invoca¬ tion of her name, of any reliance on her mediation and intercession, Ignatius appears to have been utterly ignorant. And this brings us beyond the close of the first century. Unhappily we are thus early in our inquiry com- 3 P. 81, sect. 5. 4 P. 28, sect. 4. L 146 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. pelled to advert to the unjustifiable expedient of quot¬ ing for evidence spurious passages, and urging them with all confidence, in support of a favourite doctrine. Alphonsus Liguori, canonized by the present Pope in 1839, thus quotes Ignatius, in defence of the present Roman doctrine concerning the Virgin’s attributes and saving power: “ Before Bonaventura, St. Ignatius had pronounced that a sinner can be saved only by having recourse to the blessed Virgin, whose infinite mercy obtains sal¬ vation for those who would be condemned by infinite justice. Some pretend that the text is not taken from Ignatius, but we know that St. Chrysostom attributes it to him V’ After what we have before said, it is scarcely neces¬ sary to add, that in no one of the works of St. Ignatius can any allusion to such a position be discovered; and though Liguori says, “ We know that St. Chrysostom attributes it to Ignatius,” yet not only has the work of that father on the life and character of Ignatius, but also every other part of his works, been carefully and repeatedly searched for any allusion to such a statement, but not the slightest trace can be discovered. In the course of our present investigation, we shall too often be reminded of the recklessness and eager anxiety with which the system of quoting spurious works as genuine, and of referring to works which cannot be discovered, has been pursued. SAINT POLYCARP. The only remaining name among those who have been reverenced as Apostolical Fathers is the vener- 5 Dublin, 1843, p. 190. CHAP. I.] SAINT POLYCARP, 147 able Polycarp. He suffered martyrdom by fire, at a very advanced age, in Smyrna, about one hundred and thirty years after our Saviour’s death. Only one epistle from this holy man’s pen has survived. It is addressed to the Philippians, and in it he speaks to his brother Christians of prayer, constant, incessant prayer: but the prayer of which he speaks is suppli¬ cation only to God ; to any other religious invocation he never alludes. In this epistle he admonishes virgins how they ought to walk with a spotless and chaste conscience, but he makes no mention of the Virgin 31 ary. Before we close our examination of the recorded sentiments of the Apostolical Fathers, we must advert, though briefly, to the epistle generally received as the genuine letter from the Church of Smyrna to the neighbouring churches, narrating the martyrdom of Polycarp. With some variations from the copy gene¬ rally circulated, the letter is preserved in the works of Eusebius. On the subject of our present research its evidence is not merely negative : it purports to con¬ tain not only the sentiments of the contemporaries of Polycarp who witnessed his death, and dictated the letter, but also the very words of the martyr himself in the last prayer which he ever offered on earth. So far from countenancing the invocation of any being save God alone, or relying upon any one’s advocacy and intercession except only Christ’s, the letter con¬ tains a very remarkable and very interesting passage which bears directly against all exaltation of a mortal into an object of religious worship. A few extracts must suffice: “ The Church of God, which is in Smyrna, to the Church in Philomela, and to all branches of the holy l 2 148 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. Catholic Church dwelling in any place, mercy, peace, and love of God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ be multiplied c .” Before his death Polycarp offered this prayer, or rather this thanksgiving, to God for his mercy in deeming him worthy to suffer death for the truth. “ Father of thy beloved and blessed Son, Jesus Christ, by whom we have received our knowledge concerning Thee, the God of Angels and power, and of the whole creation, and of the whole family of the just who live before Thee ; I bless Thee because Thou hast deemed me worthy of this day and this hour, to receive my portion among the number of the Martyrs in the cup of Christ, to the resurrection both of soul and body in the incorruption of the Holy Ghost; among whom may I be received before Thee this day in a rich and acceptable sacrifice, even as Thou the true God, who canst not lie, foreshowing and fulfilling, hast beforehand prepared. For this and for all I praise Thee, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, through the eternal Iligh-priest, Jesus Christ, thy beloved Son, through Whom, to Thee, with Him in the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and for future ages. Amen.” Having described his death, and the anxiety of his friends to get possession of the remains of his body, the narrative proceeds : “ Some one then suggested to Nicetes to entreat the governor not to give up his body, lest, said he, leav¬ ing the crucified One, they should begin to worship Him; and this they said at the suggestion and impor¬ tunity of the Jews, who also watched 11 s when we Euseb. Paris, 1628, Book i. Hist. iv. c. xv. p. 163. 6 CHAP. I.] SAINT POLYCARP. 149 would take the body from the fire. This they did, not knowing that we can never either leave Christ, who suffered for the salvation of all who will be saved in all the world, or worship any other. For Him, being the Son of God, we worship; but the Martyrs, as dis¬ ciples and imitators of our Lord, we worthily love, because of their pre-eminent good will towards their own King and Teacher, with whom may we become partakers and fellow-disciples.’' In this relic of primitive antiquity we have the prayer of a holy Martyr at his last hour, offered to God alone, through Christ alone. Here we find no allusion to any other intercessor; no commending of the dying Christian’s soul to the Virgin. Here also we find that Christians offered religious worship to no one but the Lord; while they loved the Martyrs, and kept their names in grateful remembrance, honouring even their ashes when the spirit had fled. Polycarp pleads no other merits, he seeks no intercession, he prays for no aid, save only his Redeemer’s, SECTION IY. We have now examined those works which are re¬ garded by members of the Church of Rome, not less than by ourselves, as the remains of Apostolical Fa¬ thers ; Christians, who, at the very lowest computation, lived close upon the Apostles’ time, and who, according to the conviction of many among ancient and modern divines, had all of them conversed with the Apostles, and heard the w T ord of truth from their mouth. The same question offers itself to us under different cir¬ cumstances of great cogency. If the doctrine and practice of worshipping the Virgin as Roman Catho- 150 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. lies now do; if the doctrine of her mediatorial office ; if the practice of praying to her, even for her inter¬ cession ; if reliance on her power, and influence, and merits, had been known and recognized and acted upon by the Apostles themselves, and those who were successors or disciples of the Apostles,—in the nature of things, would not some plain unequivocal indications of it have appeared in such writings as these ?—writings in which much is said of prayer, of intercessory prayer, of the subjects of prayer, of the nature of prayer, of the time and place of prayer, the spirit in which to be accepted we must offer our prayer, and the persons for whom we ought to pray? Does it accord with common sense and ordinary experience, with what we should expect in other cases, with the analogy of his¬ tory and the analogy of faith, that we should find a profound and total silence on the subject of any prayer or invocation to the Virgin Mary for her good offices and intercession, if prayer or invocation addressed to the Virgin Mary had been known, approved, and prac¬ tised in the primitive Church? This brings us past the middle of the second cen¬ tury. CHAP. II.] EVIDENCE OF JUSTIN. 151 CHAPTER II. EVIDENCE TO THE CLOSE OF THE SECOND CENTURY. SECTION I.-JUSTIN MARTYR, A. D. 150 \ Justin, who flourished about a.d. 150, was trained from his early youth in all the learning of Greece and of Egypt. He was born in Palestine of heathen parents, but after a patient examination of the evidences of Christianity, and a close comparison of them with the systems of philosophy which had long been familiar to him, he became a disciple of Christ. In those systems he found nothing solid or satisfactory, nothing on which his mind could rest. In the Gospel he gained all that his soul yearned for, as a being destined for immortal life, conscious of that destiny, and longing for its accom¬ plishment. His understanding was convinced, and his heart was touched; and, regardless of every worldly consideration, he openly professed Christianity, and be¬ fore kings and people, Jews and Gentiles, he pleaded for the truth, and preached the religion of the crucified One with unquenchable zeal and astonishing effect. The evidence of such a man on any doctrine connected with our Christian faith must be looked to with interest. Justin Martyr speaks of public and of private prayer ; and he offers prayer, but the prayer of which he speaks, and the prayer which he offers, are addressed Ed. Benedict. Paris, 1742. i 152 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. to God alone; and lie alludes to no advocate or inter¬ cessor in heaven, except only the eternal Son of God Himself. In his first Apologia, (or defence, addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius,) he describes minutely the manner in which converts were admitted by baptism into the fellowship of Christ’s religion, and also the mode of celebrating the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper; he gives, moreover, an account of the manner in which the Christians all assembled for the purpose of public worship, and how that worship was conducted. In these details many an opportunity offered itself for some mention of the Virgin Mary, had she then attained that place in Christian worship which she now pos¬ sesses in the Church of Rome ; but her name does not occur throughout. “ In all our oblations,” this is Justin’s testimony, “we bless the Creator of all things, through his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit 2 .” Justin Martyr refers to the Virgin Mary in her character of the mother of our Lord ; but we discover no trace of any idea of her power or influence, of any invocation of her name, any thought of her merits to be pleaded in our behalf, any regard to her as a medi¬ ator and intercessor; nay, we find no epithet expres¬ sive of honour, or dignity, or exaltation, beyond what we ourselves habitually use. “ He therefore calls him¬ self the Son of man, either from his birth of a virgin who was of the race of David and Jacob and Isaac and Abraham, or because Abraham himself was the father of those persons enumerated, from whom Mary drew her origin V’ And a little below, he adds, “ For Eve being a virgin, and incorrupt, having received the 2 Sect. 67, p. 83. 3 Trypho, sect. 100, p. 195. CHAP. II.] EVIDENCE OF JUSTIN. 153 word from the serpent, brought forth transgression and death ; but Mary the Virgin, having received faith and joy (on the angel Gabriel announcing to her the glad tidings that the spirit of the Lord should come upon her, and the power of the Highest overshadow her,) answered, ‘ Be it unto me according to thy word.’ And of her was born He of whom we have shown that so many Scriptures have been spoken; He by whom God destroys the serpent, and angels and men resembling [the serpent], but works a rescue from death for such as repent of evil and believe in Him.” In another place lie says 4 , “ According to the command of God, Joseph, taking Him together with Mary, went into Egypt” In the volume which contains Justin’s works we find “ Books of Questions,” in which many doubts and diffi¬ culties and objections, as well of Jews as of Gentiles, are stated and answered. It is agreed on all sides that these are not the genuine productions of Justin, but the work of a later hand. The evidence, indeed, ap¬ pears very strong which leads us to regard them as the composition of a Syrian Christian, and to assign to them the date of the fifth century; and certainly, as offering indications of the opinions of Christians at the time of their being put together, they are valuable documents. Among these Questions an inquiry is made, “How could Christ be free from blame, who so often set at nought his parents 5 ?” The answer is, He did not set his mother at nought; He honoured her in deed, and would not hurt her by his words : but the respondent adds, that Christ chiefly honoured Mary in that view of her maternal character under which 4 Trypho, sect. 102, p. 196. 5 Qu. 136, p. 500. 154 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. all who heard the word of God and kept it were his brothers and sisters and mother, and that she who surpassed all women in virtue was therefore chosen to be the mother of the Saviour. Justin Martvr admonishes us strongly against look¬ ing to any being for help or assistance except God only. Even when speaking of those who confide in their own strength and fortune and other sources of good, he says, in perfect unison with the pervading principles and associations of his whole mind, as far as we can read them in his works, without any modifi¬ cation or exception in favour of the power and in¬ fluence and intercession of the Virgin, 44 In that Christ said, Thou art my God, go not far from me, He at the same time taught that all persons ought to hope in God who made all things, and seek for safety and health from Him alone 6 .” SECTION II.——TATIAN, ATIIENAGORAS, THEOPIIILUS. In the same volume with the works of Justin Martyr, the Benedictine editors have published with much care the remains of Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus. These were all learned Christians of the second century; and although they do not stand all on an equal footing, either with each other or with Justin, as examples of purity of doctrine and freedom from errors, yet are they all witnesses, as far as they go, of the opinions prevalent among Christians in their day: and we find their editors, the Benedic¬ tines, when strenuously endeavouring to defend by an¬ cient testimony some doctrines of the Roman Church, ( Sect. 102, p. 197. CHAP. II.] TATIAN, ATHENAGORAS, THEOPHILUS. 155 appealing to the works of each of these authors sepa¬ rately. Tatian, by birth an Assyrian, was a pupil of Jus¬ tin Martyr: his life was, beyond others, marked by severe austerity. One work of his remains to the present time, “ An Address to the Greeksin which he exposes the follies and immoral tendencies of their theology. In the course of his argument, mentioning many of the females by name whom the Greek poets had immortalized, he compares them with the modest and chaste and retired habits of Christian virgins, who, he says 7 , as they are occupied with their distaff, speak of heavenly things, and what they learn from God’s oracles, far more admirably than Sappho could sing her immoral strains. The question forces itself on our mind as we read such portions of his address as these, Could a Christian writer have here ab¬ stained from speaking of the Virgin Mary, if she had been the same object of his invocation, the same source of his hope, the same theme of his praise, as she now is with worshippers in the Roman communion? Could he have passed her by unnamed, without an allusion to her honour on earth, or her exaltation to heaven, and her influence there ? Athenagoras was a Christian philosopher of consider¬ able reputation. His Defence of our holy religion, addressed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus, was made about a.d. 177. To this we add his treatise on the Resurrection of the dead. In his “ Embassy,” or “ Defence 8 ,” in language 8 C. 10, p. 286. 7 C. 33, p. 270. 156 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. much resembling Justin Martyr’s, he expresses his wonder that any should call Christians atheists, who believed in one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and believed also that there were Angels, created by that supreme God to be his minis¬ ters, and to execute his commands throughout the world. He is here led (in explanation, to the royal personages, of the mystery that God could have a Son,) to speak of the eternal existence of the Word with his Father; but he makes no such mention as we might have expected of the incarnation, nor does he allude to the Virgin Mary. Theophilus addresses a learned Pagan, who had sneered at the religion of Christians. His treatise seems a sort of preliminary or introductory argument, preparing his correspondent for the admission of Chris¬ tian doctrine, rather than an exposition of the truths of the Gospel. In the following passage he thus speaks of the unity of God : “ We also confess God, but only one—the builder, and maker, and creator of all this universe ; and we know that all things are ordained by prescience, but by Him alone: and we have learned a holy law; but for our legislator we have the true God, who teaches us to act justly, to be pious, and do good 9 .” He speaks also of God the Word, begotten from everlasting of the Father 1 . He speaks not at all of the Virgin Mary; but it is remarkable, that, in his translation of the third chapter of Genesis, he renders the passage to which our atten- 0 Lib. iii. c. 9. 1 Lib. ii. c. 22. CHAP. II.] IRENiEUS. 157 tion lias been already drawn, not, as the Roman version translates it, with reference to the woman but to her seed. “ I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed : it ( avro) shall watch 2 thy head, and thou shalt watch his (or its, civtov) heel 3 .” SECTION III.—TRENiEUS, A.D. 180 4 . Justin sealed his faith by his blood, about a. d. 165; and next to him in the noble army of martyrs we must examine the evidence of Irenseus, Bishop of Lyons. Of his works a very small proportion survives in the original Greek ; but that little is such as might well make every scholar and divine lament the calamity which theology and literature have sustained by the loss of this writer’s own language. It is not, perhaps, beyond the range of hope that future researches may yet recover at least some part of the treasure. Mean¬ while we must avail ourselves with thankfulness of the nervous though inelegant version which the Latin translation affords, imperfect and corrupt in many parts as that copy unfortunately is. This, however, is not the place for recommending the remains of Iremeus; and every one at all acquainted with the literature of the early Church knows well how valuable a store of ancient Christian learning is preserved even in the wreck of his works. One passage 5 in Irenoeus, closely resembling a passage we have just quoted from Justin Martyr, is cited by Bellarmin and others, as justifying 2 rripi'iaeig. There is a doubt as to the reading here. It is sup¬ posed to mean, to watch with a view of injuring. 3 Lib. ii. c. 21. 4 Ed. Paris, 1710. 5 Lib. v. c. 19, p. 316. 158 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. tlie invocation of tlie Virgin Mary; but it is entirely beside tlie mark. The passage is rendered word for word : “ For as that one, (Eve,) by the discourse of an angel, was seduced to fly from God, running counter to his word, so also this one, (Mary,) by the discourse of an angel, received the glad tidings, that she should bear God. And as that one was seduced to fly from God, in like manner also this one was persuaded to obey God; so that of the virgin Eve the Virgin Mary might become the advocate ; and as the human race was bound to death by a virgin, it might be loosed by a virgin, a virgin’s disobedience being disposed of in an equal scale by a virgin’s obedience 6 .” Cardinal Bellarmin stops short at the word advocate, and ex¬ claims, “What can be clearer?” Now in whatever sense Irenseus may be supposed 6 Manifeste itaque in sua propria venientem Doininum et sua propria eum bajulantem conditione quae bajulatur ab ipso, et reca- pitulationem ejus quae in ligno fuit inobedientiae per earn quae in ligno est obedientiara facientem et seductionem illam solutam qua seducta est male ilia quae jam viro destinata erat virgo Eva per veritatem evangelizata est bene ab angelo jam sub viro Virgo Maria. Quemadmodum enim ilia per angeli sermonem seducta est ut effu- geret Deum praevaricata verbum ejus, ita et baec per angelicum sermonem evangelizata est ut portaret Deum obediens ejus verbo. Etsi ea inobedierat Deo, sed haec suasa est obedire Deo, uti virginis Evae virgo Maria fieret advocata, et quemadmodum astrictum est morti genus humanum per virginem, solvatur* per virginem aequa lance disposita virginalis inobedientia per virginalem obeclientiam. Adbuc enim protoplasti peccatum per correptionem primogeniti emendacionem accipiens, et serpentis prudentia devicta in columbae simplicitate, vinculis autem illis resolutis per quae alligati eramus morti.” * That solvatur is the correct reading, and not salvatur, no critic can doubt. CHAP. II.] IRENiEUS. 159 to have employed the Greek word here rendered in the Latin version advocata , it is difficult to see how the circumstance of Mary becoming the advocate of Eve, who so many generations before Mary’s birth had been removed to the other world, can bear upon the question, whether it is lawful for a Christian now dwelling on earth to invoke the Virgin Mary. But in our own days another most startling sense is applied to the closing words of Irenseus in the same paragraph. The comment being founded on un¬ questionably an untenable 7 reading, to prove the un- soundness of the reading would have been enough, had not the interpretation now given to the passage supplied a palpable instance of the deplorable extent to which the doctrine of the Virgin’s merits as affecting man’s salvation is carried by our contemporaries. We shall scarcely find even in Bonaventura or the Bernardines a more entire sacrifice of Christian truth to the theory of the Virgin’s exaltation and prerogatives. The writer to whom we refer having maintained that the words “ Death by Eve, Life by Mary,” are frequently found in the Fathers, and “ imply that the Virgin had more than a mechanical share in the world’s redemp¬ tion,” afterwards proceeds to say, “ Now observe the very strong language of St. Irenseus: Quemadmodum astrictum est morti genus humanum per Virginem , sal- vatur per Virginem , cBcpud lance disposita mrginalis inobedientia per mrginalem obedientiam. That is in common parlance, 4 The merits of Mary were so great as to counterbalance the sin of Eve !’” We need not dwell on so monstrous and shocking a perversion of the meaning of Irenseus as this would 7 Dublin Review, June, 1844. 160 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. have been, even had the reading been salvatur , be¬ cause beyond all doubt the proper reading is solvatur. Whether the passage be tried by the external evidence of printed editions from a date further back than three hundred years; or of the best manuscripts, or of ancient quotations; or by the internal evidence of what the sense requires, and of the sentiments and language of Irenseus in other parts of his work, the old reading solvatur must be restored. The idea pre¬ sent to the mind of Irenseus, and repeatedly embodied by him in words is, that the knot by which Eve’s unfaithfulness 8 bound the human race was loosed by the Virgin’s faithfulness in becoming the mother of the Saviour. The old and true reading here preserves the correlativeness of the terms of the passage ; the new reading, first introduced by Grabe in 1702, at once destroys it. How far Irenseus was from thus exalting Mary into a Saviour, whose merits counterbalanced Eve’s sin in yielding to Satan, and involving mankind in her fall, is evident to any one who reads his remains. In referring to the mother of our Lord, he speaks of “ Mary” or “ the Virgin,” or “ Mary, who hitherto was a virgin,” without any adjunct or term of reverence, never alluding either to her influence with God or to any practice among Christians of invoking her. Of the Incarnation he thus speaks : “ This Son of God is our Lord, being the Word of the Father and the Son of Man ; since of Mary, who derived her origin from man, and was herself a human being, Tie had his gene¬ ration according to man. Wherefore also the Lord Himself gave us a sign in the depth, and height above, See lib. iii. c. 22, p. 220. 8 CHAP. II.] IRENiEUS, 161 wliicli man asked not for, because he hoped not that a virgin could conceive, remaining a virgin, and bring forth a son ; and that child is God with us.” He speaks, moreover, in a very pointed manner, of the Church (excluding the invocation of angels, and incan¬ tations, &c.) “with cleanliness, purity, and openness directing prayers to the Lord who made all things, and calling upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, exercising its power for the benefit, not the seduction, of mankind 9 .” Although the expressions of Irenseus as to Mary’s unworthy and unjustifiable haste for our Lord to dis¬ play his power at the marriage feast in Cana, are not so strong in condemnation of her as many which we shall hereafter find in various fathers of the early Church, yet it may be asked, would any one holding the doctrines of modem Rome as to the Virgin’s per¬ fectness, have given utterance to such sentiments as these which we find in Irenseus 1 : “All these things were foreknown by the Father, and are accomplished by the Son, .... at the fit time. Wherefore when Marv hastened to the won- derful miracle of the wine, and wished before the time to partake of that cup, the Lord repelling her untimely hurrying, said, ‘ What have I to do with thee, woman ? mine hour is not yet come,’ waiting for that hour which was foreknown by the Father.” M 9 Lib. ii. c. 32, sect. 5, p. 166. 1 Lib. iii. c. 18, p. 206, 2, 162 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. SECTION IV.-CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 2 , ABOUT A.D. 190. Contemporary with Irenseus, and probably less than twenty years his junior, was Clement, the celebrated Christian philosopher of Alexandria. The tendency of Clement’s disposition, to blend with the simplicity of the Gospel that philosophy in which he so fully abounded, makes him far less valuable as a Christian teacher; but his evidence as to the matter of fact is rendered by that bent of his mind still more cogent. Clement has left on record many of his meditations on the nature, the efficacy, the duty, and the blessed comfort of prayer. When he speaks of God, and of the Christian in prayer, (defining prayer to be “ communion or intercourse, or conversation with God,”) his language rises with the subject, and be¬ comes exquisitely beautiful, and not unfrequently sublime. “Therefore,” he says, “keeping the whole of our life as a feast, every where and on every part persuaded that God is present, we praise Him as we til] our lands ; we sing hymns as we are sailing. The Chris¬ tian is persuaded that God hears every thing; not the voice only, but the thoughts. .... He prays for things essentially good 3 .” “It is the extreme of ignorance to ask from those who are not gods, as though they were gods. Whence, since there is only one only good God, both we our¬ selves and the angels supplicate from Him alone, that some good things might be given to us, and others might remain with us 4 .” 2 Edit. Oxon. 1715. 3 Stromata, lib. vii. § 7, p. 851, &c. i Sect. 12, p. 879. CHAP. II.] TERTULLIAN. 1G3 Having referred to the opinion of some Greeks as to the power of demons over the affairs of mortals, Clement adds, “But they think it matters nothing whether we speak of these as gods, or as angels giving to the spirits of such the name of 4 demons,’ and teach¬ ing that they should be worshipped by men, as having by Divine Providence, on account of the purity of their lives, received authority to be conversant about earthly places, in order that they may minister to mortals 5 .” In this last passage, the language which he ascribes to the supporters of heathen superstition, in order to refute their errors, so nearly approaches the language of the Church of Rome when speaking of the powers of the Virgin Mary, that we may be assured, had he entertained any idea of seeking her aid or her inter¬ cession by invocation, he would have mentioned it as an exception. Clement speaks of Mary, and of her virgin state when she became a mother, and the mystery of Christ’s birth; but he speaks of her without one word of honour 6 . SECTION V.-TERTULLIAN, ABOUT A. D. 190. Tertullian of Carthage 7 was a contemporary of Cle¬ ment of Alexandria, and so nearly of the same age, that it has been doubted which of the two should take precedence in point of time. There is a very wide difference in the tone and character of their works, as there was in the frame and constitution of their minds. The lenient and liberal views of the erudite and ac¬ complished master of the Alexandrian school stand 5 Strom. § iii. p. 753. G P. 889. 7 Paris, 1695. M 2 164 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. out in prominent and broad contrast with the strict and severe doctrines of Tertullian. Tertullian fell into very serious errors by joining himself to Montanus: still, on his mind is discoverable the working of that spirit which animated the early converts to Christianity; and his whole soul seems to have been filled with a desire to promote the practical influence of the Gospel. A decided line of distinction is drawn by Roman Catholic writers between the works of Tertullian written before he espoused the errors of Montanus, and his subsequent productions. But such a distinc¬ tion will not affect his testimony as a witness on the point of fact before us. Had he maintained the invo¬ cation of the Virgin whilst he continued in full com¬ munion with the Church, and rejected it afterwards, no one would quote his later opinions as inconsistent with the general practice of Christians. But we are only seeking in his works evidence of the matter of fact.—Do they afford any proof that the worship of the Virgin, prayers to her for her aid and intercession, and praises to her honour, formed a part of the doc¬ trine and practice of the Catholic Church in his time ? Jerome 8 expressly tells us that Cyprian never passed a single day without studying the works of Tertullian 9 , and that after Tertullian had remained a presbyter of the Church to middle life, the envy and 8 Jerome mentions this circumstance more than once, and his words in referring to it are very striking : “ I saw one Paulus, who said that he had seen Cyprian’s secretary at Rome, who used to tell him that Cyprian never passed a single day without reading Tertul¬ lian, and that he often said to him, ‘ Give me the master,’ meaning Tertullian.” Jerom. vol. iv. part ii. p. 115. Jerom. 1684. Tom. i. p. 183. CHAP. II.] TERTULLIAN. 165 revilings of tlie members of the Roman Church caused him to fall from its communion, and to espouse Mon¬ tan ism. Tertullian’s sentiments, when his thoughts are on prayer, are very beautiful. For example, in his Apo¬ logy \ with much more in the same animating strain, he says, “ We (Christians) invoke the eternal God, the true God, the living God, for the safety of the Emperor. . . . Thither (heavenward) looking up with hands extended, because they are harmless; with our head bare, because we are not ashamed; without a prompter, because it is from the heart; we Christians pray for all rulers a long life, a secure government, a safe home, brave armies, a faithful senate, a good people, a quiet world. “ These things I cannot ask in prayer from any other except Him from whom I know that I shall obtain : because He is the one who alone grants, and I am one whom it behoveth to obtain by prayer 2 ,” &c. In the opening of his reflections on the Lord’s Prayer, he says : <£ Let us consider, beloved, the heavenly wisdom in the precept of praying in secret, by which He required in a man faith to believe that both the sight and the hearing of the Omnipotent God are present under our roofs and in our secret places ; and desired the lowli¬ ness of faith, that to Him alone, who, according to his belief, hears and sees every where, he would offer his worship 3 .” Rut the evidence of Tertullian is not confined to those passages in which he directs us to address our supplications to God alone, who alone liearetli prayer: 1 Sect. 30. 2 P. 27. 3 P. 129. 1GG WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. Lis sentiments with regard to the Virgin Mary (like those of Chrysostom and others) are altogether conclu¬ sive on the question before us. It is inconceivable that any man accustomed to offer praises to the Virgin, as the Homan Church now does, to confide in her intercession, and to invoke her name in prayer, could have entertained such sentiments as are expressed in the following passage,—sentiments which Tertullian repeats in other places, with only some slight variety of expression : “ But what reason is there for the answer, which denied his mother and his brethren ? The brothers of the Lord had not believed in Him, as it is contained in the Gospel, which was before Marcion’s time. His mother, in like manner, is not shown to have adhered to Him; whereas other Marys and Marthas were often in his company. By this, finally, their unbelief is made evident. Whilst He was teaching the way of life, whilst He was preaching the kingdom of God, whilst He was engaged in curing sicknesses and evils, at a time when strangers were fixedly intent upon Him, then persons so nearly related to Him were absent. At last they come up and stand outside the door, and do not enter; not thinking, forsooth, of what was going on there': nor do they wait, just as though they were bringing something more urgent than the business in which He was then chiefly engaged; but, moreover, they interrupt Him, and endeavour to recal Him from so great a work. “ Now I pray you, Apelles, and you, Marcion, if per¬ chance, when you were playing at chess, or disputing about players or charioteers, you were called away by such a message, would you not have said, ‘ Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?’ And whilst CHAP. II.] TERTULLIAN. 167 Christ was preaching and setting forth God, fulfilling the law and the prophets, dispersing the darkness of so many ages, did He undeservedly employ this saying to strike at the unbelief of those who stood without, or to shake off the importunity of those who were calling Him away from his work 4 .” In another place 5 he says on the same subject, “ ‘ Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with Thee.’ He, Christ, with reason felt indignant, that, whilst strangers were bent intently on his discourse, persons so nearly related to Him should stand without, seeking, moreover, to call Him away from his solemn work 6 .” In another treatise 7 , he tells us that Christ was brought forth by a virgin, who was also to be married once after his birth, that in Christ the two titles of sanctity might be distinctly marked, by a mother who was both a virgin and also once married. This brings us to the end of the second century. 4 De carne Christi, vii. p. 315. 5 Adv. Marcionem. iv. 19, p. 433. 0 Chrysostom (as we shall see when we examine his testimony) employs even stronger language than Tertullian, in reflecting upon the conduct of Mary and the Lord’s brothers on this occasion. 7 De Monogamia, vii. p. 529. 168 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. CHAPTER III. EVIDENCE THROUGH THE THIRD CENTURY. SECTION I.-EVIDENCE OF ORIGEN, A.D. 230. Jerome informs us that Tertullian lived to a very advanced age. Long, therefore, before his death flourished Origen, one of the most celebrated lights of the primitive Church '. He was educated a Christian. Indeed, his father is said to have suffered martyrdom about a.d. 202. Origen was a pupil of Clement of Alexandria. His virtues and his labours have called forth the admiration of all ages; and, though he cannot be implicitly followed as a teacher, what still remains of his works will be delivered down as a rich treasure to succeeding times. He was a most voluminous writer; and Jerome asked the members of his Church 1 2 , “ Who is there among us that can read as many books as Origen has composed?” A large proportion of his works are lost, and of those which remain few are preserved in the original Greek. We must often study Origen through the medium of a translation, the accuracy of which we have no means of verifying. Many of the works for- 1 Benedictine edition by De la Rue, Paris, 1733. De la Rue had completed only part of his preface to the third volume when he died. This was in 1739. He seems to have been as pious and benevolent as he was learned and industrious. 2 Vol. iv. epist. xli. p. 346. CHAP. III.J EVIDENCE OF ORIGEN. 169 merly ascribed to him are unquestionably spurious; and yet are they quoted by Roman Catholic authors and editors of the present day in defence of the wor¬ ship of saints and angels 3 . Speaking of one of them still unhappily cited as genuine, we can only repeat the very words which Huet, Bishop of Avranches, so many years ago uttered with regard to that very work: “ It is wonderful, that they should be sometimes cited in evidence by some theologians, without any note OF THEIR BEING FORGERIES 4 .” It seems impossible to find words which can ex¬ press more strongly than the words of Origen express the duty and privilege of Christians praying to God alone for all they need, and offering that prayer through the alone mediation of Jesus Christ, the Word and Son of God, our Saviour, to the utter exclusion of all creatures of whatever nature as objects of our prayer, or as intercessors to be invoked. Celsus accused the Christians of being atheists, godless men, without a God ; and, too well representing the weakness and failings of human nature, urged on them the necessity, at least the expediency, of conci¬ liating those intermediate beings, who, as he said, exe¬ cuted the will of the Supreme Being, and might perhaps have much left at their own will and discretion to give 3 Dr. Wiseman in his lectures in Moorfields, and Berrington and Kirk in their joint compilation (from which Dr. Wiseman quoted), cite the “ Lament of Origen” as Origen’s own work. Pope Gela- sius and a Council of seventy assistant Bishops, in the year 494, denounced it as apocryphal.—Berrington and Kirk, London, 1830, p. 403 ; Lectures by Nicholas Wiseman, D.D. London, 1836, vol. ii. p. 107 ; Cone. Labb. vol. iv. p. 1265. 4 Origen’s Works, vol. iv. p. 326. Appendix. 170 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. or to withhold; and, consequently, the desirableness of securing their good offices by praying to them. To these charges and suggestions Origen replies : 64 We must pray to God alone, who is over all things; and we must pray also to the only-begotten and first¬ born of every creature, the Word of God; and we must implore Him as our ITigh-priest to carry our prayer, first coming to Him, to his God and our God, to his Father and the Father of those who live agree¬ ably to the word of God 5 .” With very much to the same effect, and many most sublime passages urging the same doctrine, but which we have not room here to quote at large, we read the following: 44 The one God—the God who is over all—is to be propitiated by us, and to be appeased by prayer; the God who is rendered favourable by piety and all virtue. But if he (Celsus) is desirous, after the Supreme God, to propitiate some others also, let him bear in mind, that just as a body in motion is accompanied by the motion of its shadow, so also, by rendering the Su¬ preme God favourable, it follows that the person has all his friends, angels, souls, spirits, favourable also, for they sympathize with those who are worthy of God’s favour; and not only do they become kindly affected towards the worthy, but they also join in. their work with those who desire to worship the Supreme God; and they propitiate Him, and pray with us, and supplicate with us. We therefore boldly say, that, to¬ gether with men who on principle prefer the better part, and pray to God, ten thousands of holy powers 5 Cont. Cels. § 8, c. xxvi. vol. i. p. 761. CHAr. III.] EVIDENCE OF ORIGEN. 171 join in prayer (uicX^tol) UNASKED” [unbidden, un¬ called UPON, UNINVOKED 6 ]. What an opportunity was here for Origen to have stated, that though Christians did not call upon angels and the subordinate divinities of heathenism, yet that with other holy persons, objects of their prayers in heaven, they called upon the Virgin Mary, the mother of the Saviour, the queen of heaven, the gate of hea¬ ven, the way to heaven, in whom the Supreme God w T as well pleased, and who could succour and save whom she would ! Instead of this, we find him in one place referring to Mary 7 just as we should ourselves speak of her, as one not like other mothers, but as a pure Virgin, and therefore not amenable to the Leviti- cal law relating to matrons 8 : in another, he refers to “ the announcement to Zacharias of the birth of John, and to Mary of the advent of our Saviour among men 9 making no difference of dignity between the father of the Baptist and the mother of our Lord. But not one word is found to intimate the belief of himself or of the Church in the influence and advocacy of Mary, or the practice of the Church or of himself in praying to her for her succour or intercession. But the positive testimony of Origen is very strong against the present doctrine and practice of the Church of Home towards the Virgin Mary. Huet charges Origen with holding unsound tenets, “ contrary to the doctrine at the present day of the Church of Borne, and to the Council of Trent.” The third error with which he charges him is, that whereas “ the Church 6 Cont. Cels. lib. viii. § 64, vol. i. p. 789. See also lib. viii. vol. i. p. 786 ; lib. 5, § 4, p. 579 ; lib. viii. § 17, p. 751. 7 In Levit. Horn. viii. vol. ii. p. 228. 8 Levit. xii. 2. 9 Comment, on John, § 24, vol. iv. p. 82. 172 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. and that Council maintain that the Virgin Mary never had sin, Origen holds that she was not only liable to sin, but actually was guilty of it 1 .” And in proof of this charge Huet quotes Origen’s comment on Luke, c. ii.——“ What is that sword that pierced through the hearts, not only of others, but of Mary also ? It is plainly written that, at the time of the passion, all the Apostles were offended ; the Lord Himself saying, £ All you shall be offended this night.’ Therefore all were offended to such a degree, that Peter also, the chief of the Apostles, thrice denied Him. What! Do we suppose, that when the Apostles were offended, the mother of our Lord was free from feeling offence ? If she did not feel offence in the suffering of our Lord, Jesus did not die for her sins. But if all have sinned and want the glory of God, being justified by his grace and redeemed, surely Mary too was offended at that time. And this is what Simeon now prophesies, saying, And through thy own soul, thou who knowest that without a husband thou broughtest forth, who didst hear the voice of Gabriel, ‘ The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,’ the sword of unbelief shall pierce; and thou slialt be struck by the sharp point of doubt, when thou shalt see Him whom thou heardest to be the Son of God, and whom thou knowest that thou broughtest forth without a husband, crucified and dying, and subject to human suffering 2 ,” In the same charge, and not without reason, Huet implicates Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, and others. The fact is, that a large proportion of the ancient Fathers of the Church speak freely on the want of faith in the 1 Vol. iv. p. 156, in Appendix. 2 Homil. in Luc. xvii. vol. iii. p. 952. CHAP. HI.] GREGORY THAUMATURGES. 173 Virgin Mary, or the imperfection and weakness of her faith. SECTION II.-GREGORY THAUMATURGUS, A.D. 245. Gregory, whose original name was Theodoras, and who was also called Thaumaturgus, or the Wonder¬ worker, from the number of miracles ascribed to him, was Bishop of Caesarea in Pontus 3 . His name is not found among those whom the canon law of Rome, or the council of Pope Gelasius, at the close of the fifth century, admitted into the catalogue of approved and authoritative teachers; indeed, that decree makes no mention of him. Yet, since he is often quoted by Bellarmin and other Roman Catholic controversialists, it does not appear safe to omit all inquiry into his evidence. This Gregory was a disciple of Origen, on whom he wrote a panegyric, which Jerome reports to have been extant in his time; he also wrote a work on the Book of Ecclesiastes, mentioned likewise by Jerome, which has come down to the present day. In these works 4 , which are held by all to be genuine, not the slightest trace can be found of any supplication to the Virgin, 3 He is said to have been advanced to the episcopate in the tenth year of Alexander Severus, i. e. a.d. 245. Among other wonderful acts of this “ Wonder-worker,” it was said that by his prayer he removed a mountain which prevented the building of a church ; to have dried up a lake which had caused some discord ; and by plant¬ ing his staff on the bank of the river Lycus (the staff immediately growing into a tree) he prevented that river from ever after inun¬ dating the land, or extending its flood beyond that tree. In the prefatory matter of the edition of Vossius, a reference for these miracles is made to the Roman Breviary on Nov. 17. 4 Paris, 1G22. 174 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. or any reference to tier intercession, or any praises to tier name. To these genuine works Vossius added some others, which either had never before been brought to light, or had never been published as Gregory’s, though one had been previously published as a work of Athanasius. Among these are one sermon on the Baptism of our Lord, and a dissertation on the Soul, together with three discourses said to have been delivered in honour of the Virgin on the festival of the Annunciation ; though the origin of that festival cannot be referred with any show of reason to an earlier date than the seventh century,—more than three centuries after Gregory’s death 5 . Here we must observe, with surprise and pain, that though Bellarmin 6 , in his zeal to maintain the anti¬ quity of the Feast of the Annunciation, cites the homily (which Vossius here ascribes to Gregory) as a homily of St. Athanasius, delivered on that festival; yet in his work on ecclesiastical writers, he condemns the very same homily as a forgery, declaring the evi¬ dence against it to be irresistible. SECTION III.-EVIDENCE OF ST. CYPRIAN 7 , a.d. 258. In the middle of the third century, Cyprian 8 , a man of substance, and a rhetorician of Carthage, was con- 5 These are beyond question supposititious. Some of the argu¬ ments by which their spuriousness is proved will be found in the Appendix. 6 Bellarmin, Prague, 1721, vol. ii. p. 515. Bellarmin, Cologne, 1617, vol. vii. p. 50. 7 Benedictine, Paris, 1726. s Cyprian is said to have been converted about a.d. 246, to have been consecrated a.d. 248, and to have suffered martyrdom, a.d. 258. See Jerome, vol. iv. p. 342. CHAP. III.] ST. CYPRIAN. 175 verted to Christianity. He was then fifty years of age; and his learning, virtues, and devotedness to the cause which he had espoused, soon raised him to the dignity, the responsibility, and in those days the danger of the episcopate. Many of his writings of undoubted genu¬ ineness are preserved, and they have in every age been appealed to as the works of a faithful son of the Catholic Church. On the subject of prayer he has written powerfully and affectingly; and had he ad¬ dressed himself to the Virgin Mary, invoking her succour, or urging her intercession, his line of argu¬ ment, in many parts of his various productions, would have led naturally to an expression of his sentiments in that respect: but no trace of such belief or practice is to be found. We need not be detained long by our inquiry into the evidence of Cyprian. Two extracts indicative of the tone and character of his views will suffice: one forming a part of the introduction to his Comments on the Lord’s Prayer, fitted for the edifica¬ tion of Christians in every age ; the other closing his treatise on Mortality, or The Mortality, one of those beautiful productions by which during the plague that raged in Carthage, a. d. 252, he comforted and ex¬ horted the Christians, that they might meet death without fear or amazement, in sure and certain hope of eternal life in heaven. The sentiments in the latter passage will be responded to by every Christian, whe¬ ther in communion with the Church of Pome or with the Church of England; whilst in the former we are reminded, that, to pray as Cyprian prayed, we must address ourselves to God alone, in the name, and trusting to the merits only, of his blessed Son. “ He who caused us to live taught us also to pray, from that kindness evidently by which He designs to 170 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN, [PART III. give and confer on us every other blessing; that, when we speak to the Father in the prayer and supplication which his Son taught, we may the more readily be heard. He had previously foretold that the hour was coming when the true worshippers should worship the Father in spirit and in truth ; and He fulfilled what He before promised, that we who have received the spirit and truth from his sanctification, may from his instruc¬ tion offer adoration truly and spiritually. For what prayer can be more spiritual than that which is given to us by Christ, by whom even the Holy Spirit is sent to us? What can be a more true prayer with the Father, than that which came from the lips of the Son, who is Truth ? So that to pray otherwise than He taught is not only ignorance, but a fault, since He has Himself laid it down and said, ‘Ye reject the com¬ mandment of God to establish your own tradition.’ Let us pray then, most beloved brethren, as our teacher God has instructed us. It is a welcome and friendly •/ prayer to petition God from his own, to mount up to his ears by the prayer of Christ. Let the Father recognize the words of his Son, when we offer a prayer. Let Him who dwelleth inwardly in our breast, Himself be in our voice; and since we have Him as our advo¬ cate with the Father for our sins, when as sinners we are petitioning for our sins, let us put forth the words of our advocate 9 .” “We must consider, most beloved brethren, and frequently reflect, that we have renounced the world, and are meanwhile living here as strangers and pil¬ grims. Let us embrace the day which assigns each to his own home, which restores us to paradise and the 9 De Orat. Dom. p. ‘204. CHAP. III.] ST. CYPRIAN. 177 kingdom of heaven, snatched hence, and liberated from the entanglements of the world. What man, when he is in a foreign country, would not hasten to return to his native land? .... We regard paradise as our country. We have begun already to have the pa¬ triarchs for our parents. Why do we not hasten and run, that we may see our country and salute our pa¬ rents ? There a large number of dear ones are waiting for us, of parents, brothers, children ; a numerous and full crowd are longing for us, already secure of their own immortality, and still anxious for our safety. To come to the sight and the embrace of these, how great will be the mutual joy to them and to us ! What a pleasure of the kingdom of heaven is there without the fear of dying, and with an eternity of living! How consummate and never-ending a happiness ! There is the glorious company of the Apostles ; there is the assembly of exulting Prophets ; there is the unnumbered family of Martyrs, crowned for the vic¬ tory of their struggles and sufferings; there are virgins triumphing, who by the power of chastity have subdued the lusts of the flesh and the body; there are the merciful recompensed, who with food and bounty to the poor have done the works of righteousness, who keeping the Lord’s commands have transferred their earthly inheritance into hea¬ venly treasures. To these, O most dearly beloved brethren, let us hasten with most eager longing: let us desire that our lot may be, to be with them speedily, to come speedily to Christ. Let God see this to be our thought ; let our Lord Christ be¬ hold this to be the purpose of our mind and faith, who will give more abundant rewards of his glory N 178 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [rART III. to them whose desires for himself have been the greater V’ In Cyprian we do not find one word expressive of honour or reverence towards the Virgin Mary ; nor any allusion to her advocacy and intercession, or her influ¬ ence with God. Nor is her name mentioned in the letter of his correspondent, Firmilian, Bishop of Cap¬ padocia. Some notice must here be taken of Methodius, Bishop of Tyre, a pious writer of the third century. A work, formerly attributed to him 1 2 , continues even at the present day to be quoted in proof of the early invo¬ cation of the Virgin; but the homily has long ago been pronounced by the best critics, some of them Roman Catholic editors, to be the production of a later age. Indeed, many homilies ascribed to other authors, purporting to have been delivered, like this, at so early a period, on the festival of our Lord’s Pre- 1 De Mortalitate, p. 236. 2 Dr. Wiseman, in his remarks on Mr. Palmer’s Letter, 1841, p. 30, quotes from this homily of Methodius as though it were genuine.—Methodius, Gl. Combes, Paris, 1644. See the note of the Benedictine editor of Jerome, who says, once for all, that the Symposium is the only entire work of Methodius extant.—Jerome’s Works, vol. ii. p. 910. Baronius says expressly, “ I do not hesitate to say, that no Greek or Latin writer has left a sermon delivered on the feast of the Purification (called sometimes ‘ Hypapantes,’ some¬ times ‘ Simeon and Anna,’) before the fifteenth year of Justinian ; and that Pope Gelasius paved the way for the institution of that feast, by putting an end to the festivities of the Lupercalia, which were also observed in February.”—Baronius, in Feb. 2, Paris, 1607, p. 57. Lumper also, part 13, p. 474, shows that unquestionably this homily is of a much later age. CHAP. III.] METHODIUS. 179 sentation in the temple, carry in their very forehead the stamp of spuriousness : because that feast began to be observed in the Church so late as the fifteenth year of Justinian, in the sixth century. The theolo¬ gical language of this homily, moreover, belongs to a period long subsequent; for the writer employs expressions to guard against the Arian heresy, and seems to make extracts from the Nicene Creed— “very God of very God, very light of very light.” The general opinion seems to be, that both this and many other writings formerly ascribed to the first Methodius, were written by persons of a later age. Even were the work genuine, instead of being con¬ fessedly spurious, it is clearly oratorical, and affords just as strong a demonstration that Methodius believed that the city of Jerusalem could hear his salutation, as that the Virgin could hear his prayers; for he addresses the same “ Hail ” to Mary, Simeon, and the Holy City alike, calling it “The earthly heaven 3 .” It is indeed surprising to see with what eagerness and pertinacity the advocates of the worship of the Virgin enlist in their service every work which has ever had the name of an ancient writer attached to it —not only treatises of disputed and doubtful genuine¬ ness, but also works, which for centuries have been denounced by the most enlightened writers even of their own Church as decidedly spurious. We are re¬ minded at every step of the confession of the Bordeaux editor of the Chronicon of Eusebius, that overpowered by the evidence against the record contained in it of the Virgin’s Assumption, he would have expunged it from his edition, were it not for his knowledge that 3 See Fabricius, vol. vii. p. 268, and vol. x. p. 241. N 2 180 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. nothing certain as to the Assumption of the Virgin could be substituted in its stead. SECTION IV. - LACTANTIUS, A.D. 280-317. Cyprian suffered martyrdom somewhat before the year 260. Towards the close of this century, and at the beginning of the fourth, flourished Lactantius 4 . He was deeply imbued with classical learning and philosophy. Before he became a writer, (as Jerome informs us 5 ,) he taught rhetoric at Nicomedia; and afterwards in extreme old age he was the tutor of Caesar Crispus, son of Constantine, in Gaul. Among many other writings which Jerome enumerates, he specifies the book, “ On the Anger of God,” as a most beautiful work. Bellarmin speaks of him disparag¬ ingly, as one who had fallen into many errors, and was better versed in Cicero than in the Holy Scrip¬ tures. The fact is, that his testimony is decidedly against the doctrine of the adoration of any other being than God, and of the intercession of any other mediator than Christ. The following are among the few passages in his works that bear on our subject: “He was, there¬ fore, both God and man ; appointed a mediator be¬ tween God and man. Whence the Greeks call Him MEfTiVrjv [mediator], that He might bring man to God, that is, to immortality; because, had He been only God, He could not have given a pattern to man; if He had been only man, He could not have forced man to justice, had not an authority and power 4 Ed. Lenglet Dufresnoy, 1748. 5 Jerome, vol. iv. p. ii. p. 110 ; Paris, 1706. CHAP. III.] LACTANTIUS. 181 greater than man’s been added 6 .” “ God,” he says, in one passage, “ hath created ministers, whom we call messengers [angels] .... But neither are these gods, nor do they wish to be called gods, or to be worshipped, as being those who do nothing beyond the command and will of God 7 .” Lactantius speaks 8 of a “ Holy Virgin,” chosen for the work of Christ; but not one word of greater honour, or looking towards adoration; though dwell¬ ing on the incarnation of the Son of God, had he or his fellow-believers paid religious honour to Mary, it is incredible that he would have avoided all allusion to her advocacy and power. This brings us beyond the close of the third century. 6 Vol. i. p. 339. 7 Vol. i. p. 31. 8 Vol. i. p.299. 182 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. CHAPTER IV. EVIDENCE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY, DOWN TO THE COUNCIL OF NICiE A. SECTION I.-EUSEBIUS, A.D. 314 \ The evidence of Eusebius on any subject con¬ nected with primitive faith and practice cannot be looked to without feelings of deep interest. He flourished at the beginning of the fourth century, and was Bishop of Caesarea, in Palestine. His tes¬ timony has always been appealed to, as an authority not to be lightly gainsaid. He was a voluminous writer, and his writings were very diversified in their character. But in his works, historical, biographical, controversial, or by whatever name any of them may be called, overflowing as they are with learning, philo¬ sophical and scriptural, we find no single passage to countenance the decrees of the Council of Trent; not one passage is found among his writings to justify the belief that, the primitive Church was wont to suppli¬ cate the Virgin Mary, either to impart to the suppli¬ cants any favour, or to pray for them. The testimony of Eusebius has a directly contrary bearing. In the opening chapter of his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius prays, “ that he might have God for his guide in the way, the power of the Lord to work with 1 His chief theological works were certainly written before the Nicene Council, and probably a.d. 315. CHAP. IV.] EUSEBIUS. 183 him.” And again, (c. v.) “ Calling upon God the Father of the Word, and the heavenly Word him¬ self, Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, to be our guide and helper in the declaration of the truth.” Proceeding to the history of our Lord, and having dwelt much upon his pre-existence and Godhead, he says not one word about the mother who bare Him, beyond this, that, in giving the genealogy of Joseph, the Gospel virtually gives the genealogy of Mary. Eusebius again and again reminds us, that, though there be spiritual powers keeping their stations around their King, whom we should know and honour accord¬ ing to their measure of dignity, we must “ render to God alone, the Sovereign King, the honour of worship 2 ,” “ confessing God alone, and Him alone worshipping 3 .” Eusebius 4 speaks of the Virgin Mary, but is alto¬ gether silent as to any religious honour of any kind being offered to her, and that in passages where he could not have omitted all reference to it, had it at all existed. In the oration of the Emperor Constantine, as it is recorded by Eusebius 5 , direct mention is made of “the chaste Virginity,” and of “the maid w 7 ho was the mother of God, and yet remained a Virgin.” But the object present to the author’s mind was so exclusively God manifest in the flesh, that he does not throughout even mention the name of Mary, or allude to any religious honour due or paid to her. 2 Demonst. Evang. ; Paris, 1628, Lib. iii. c. 3, p. 106. 3 Praepar. Evan. Lib. vii. c. 15, p. 237. 4 Cantab. 1720: § 11, p. 689; and § 19, p. 703. 5 Augustae Taurinorum, (Triers,) 1746: vol. i. p. 624. 184 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. SECTION II. APOSTOLICAL CANONS AND CONSTITUTIONS G . These documents, though confessedly not the genuine productions of the Apostles or of their age, have been always held in much veneration by the Church of Rome. The most learned writers fix their date at a period not more remote than the beginning of the fourth century. In these are given minute rules for the conducting of public worship; forms of prayer are prescribed to be used in the Church by the bishops and clergy, and by the people; forms of supplication and thanksgiving are recommended for private use, in the morning, at night, and at meals; forms, too, there are of creeds and confessions; but not one single allusion in them is found to any religious address to the Virgin Mary, or any reference to her power, influence, merits, or intercession. Occasions most opportune for the in¬ troduction of such doctrine and practice are repeatedly recurring, but they are uniformly passed by. Again and again is prayer directed to be made to the one only living and true God exclusively of all other, and exclusively through the mediation and intercession of the one only Saviour, Jesus Christ. The Apostolical Constitutions, in which there is reference made to the mother of our Lord, can scarcely be read by any one without leaving an im¬ pression clear and powerful on the mind, that no religious honour was paid to the Virgin Mary when they were written, certainly not more than is now cheerfully paid to her by members of the Church of 6 In the same volumes with the Apostolical Fathers above re¬ ferred to. CHAI\ IV.] APOSTOLICAL CANONS, &C. 185 England. If, for example, we take the prayer pre¬ scribed to be used on the appointment of a Deaconess, the inference from it must be, that others, with whom the Lord’s Spirit had dwelt, were at least held in equal honour with Mary. “ O Eternal God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of male and female, who didst fill with thy Spirit Miriam and Hannah and Huldah, and didst not disdain that thy Son should be born of a woman,” &c. 7 Thus, in another passage Mary is spoken of just as other women who had the gift of prophecy; and of her equally and in conjunction with the others it is said, that they were not elated by the gift, not lifting themselves up against the men. “But even have women prophesied in ancient times,— Miriam, the sister of Aaron and Moses; after her, Deborah; and afterwards Huldah and Judith, one under Josiali, the other under Darius ; and the mother of the Lord also prophesied, and Elizabeth her kins¬ woman, and Anna, and in our days the daughters of Philip; yet they were not lifted up against the men, but observed their own measure. Therefore, among you should any man or woman have such a grace, let them be humble, that God may take pleasure in them 8 .” In the Apostolical Canons we find no allusion to Mary, nor indeed any passage bearing on our present inquiry, except the last clause of all, containing the benediction. Here not only is the prayer for spiritual blessings addressed to God alone, but it is offered exclusively through the mediation of Christ alone : “ Now may God, the only unproduced Being, the Creator of all things, unite you all by peace in the 7 Book viii. c. 20. 8 Book viii. c. 2. 186 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. Holy Ghost, make you perfect unto every good work, not to be turned aside, unblamable, not deserving re¬ proof ; and may He deem you worthy of eternal life with us, by the mediation of his beloved Son Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour, with whom be glory to Him the Sovereign God and Father in the Holy Ghost the Comforter, now and ever, world without end. Amen.” Here is no prayer to Mary, no reference to her merits and intercession, no ascription of glory to her and the Saviour conjointly. God in Christ is all in all. SECTION III.— SAINT ATHANASIUS, A.D. 350 9 . Athanasius, of Alexandria, the renowned and un¬ daunted defender of the Catholic faith, was born about the year 296; and, after presiding in the Church as bishop for more than forty-six years, died about a.d. 373, approaching his 80th year. It is impossible for any one interested in the question, “ What is truth ?” to look upon the belief and practice of this primitive Christian champion with indifference. On the subject of our present investigation, few among the early writers of the Church have been so grossly and reck¬ lessly misrepresented in his belief and in his practice as Athanasius. Bellarmin and others cite him as a witness in favour of the invocation of the Virgin, whereas a careful and upright study of his remains brings before us a man who had taken most true and scriptural views of the Christian’s hoj3e and confidence in God alone; the glowing fervour of his piety cen- 9 Benedict, ed. Paris, 1698. Padua, 1777.—In this edition some fragments ascribed to Athanasius, and found in certain catenae, &c., have been introduced, some of which are of a doubtful character, and others evidently spurious. CHAP. IV.] ATHANASIUS. 187 tring only in the Lord,—his sure and certain hope in life and in death anchoring only in the mercies of God, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ alone, our only Mediator, Advocate, and Saviour. It is a painful subject; and, were the truth not at stake, we might gladly have drawn a veil over it, and hidden it from the eyes of others and our own. Anx¬ ious as we may be to avoid whatever might savour of personal charges, the truth as it is in Jesus impera¬ tively calls upon us to lay open before the world the expedients by which the worship of the Virgin Mary is attempted to be defended in our own country, in our own times, and by persons whose authority seems to have assumed the highest place among our Homan Catholic brethren. A homily formerly ascribed to St. Athanasius, but which has been long rejected as spurious and apocry¬ phal, continues to be quoted now at the present day as genuine. Bellarmin so appeals to it; and had he been the only writer, or the last writer, who had cited this homily as the testimony of St. Athanasius, it would have been enough for us to refer to the judg¬ ment of the Benedictine editors who have since Bellar- min’s time classed this homily among the spurious works 1 which had been without reason assigned to Athanasius. Or rather, we might have referred the whole matter to Bellarmin himself. For it is very remarkable, that though, in his anxiety to enlist every able writer to defend the cause of the invocation of saints, he has cited this homily in his Church Tri¬ umphant as containing the words of Athanasius, with¬ out any allusion to its decided spuriousness, or even to any doubt or suspicion attached to it, and although he 1 Vol. ii. pp. 390. 401. 188 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. again appeals to it 2 precisely in the same manner, and without any qualification whatever, in proof of the antiquity of the feast of the Annunciation, on which this homily was said to have been delivered by Atha¬ nasius ; yet, when pronouncing his judgment on the different works assigned to Athanasius, he condemns this same treatise as a forgery, declaring the evidence against it to be irresistible 3 . Dr. Nicholas Wiseman, Bishop of Melipotamus, thus introduces and comments upon a passage, or rather extracts drawn from the homily in question: “ St. Athanasius, the most zealous and strenuous supporter that the Church ever possessed of the di¬ vinity of Jesus Christ, and consequently of his infinite superiority over all the saints, thus enthusiastically addresses his ever-blessed mother: 4 Hear now, O daughter of David; incline thine ear to our prayers; we raise our cry to thee. Remember us, O most holy Virgin, and, for the feeble eulogiums we give thee, grant us great gifts from the treasures of thy graces, thou that art full of grace. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Queen and Mother of God, in¬ tercede for us.’ Mark well,” continues Dr. Wiseman, “ these words, 4 grant us great gifts from the treasures of thy graces,’ as if he hoped directly to receive them from her. Do Catholics use stronger words than these; or did Athanasius think or speak with us, or with Protestants 4 ? ” 2 Vol.ii. p. 515. De Cult. Sanct. lib. iii. c. xvi. Prague, 1721. 3 Bellarmin, De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis. Cologne, 1617, vol. vii. p. 50. 4 Dr. Wiseman’s Lectures, vol. ii. p. 108. London, Booker, 1836. Berington and Kirk, pp. 430, 431. (Dr. Wiseman’s note refers us to “ Serm. in Annunt. t. ii. p. 401.”) CHAP. IV.] ATHANASIUS. 189 To these questions the direct answer is, that neither these words, nor the homily from which they are quoted, ever came from the pen of Athanasius ; and moreover, that the irrefutable proof of their spurious¬ ness is drawn out at large by the Benedictine editors in the very edition and the identical volume of the works of Athanasius to which Dr. Wiseman refers for his authority when he quotes the passage as genuine. The above quotation (made up of different sentences selected from different clauses, and put together so as to make one paragraph,) is found in a homily called “ On the Annunciation of the Mother of God.” How long before the time of Baronius this homily had been discarded as spurious, or how long its genuineness had been suspected, does not appear; but certainly two centuries and a half ago, and repeatedly since, it has been condemned as totally and indisputably spurious, and has been excluded from the works of Athanasius as a forgery, not by members only of the Reformed Church, but by most zealous and steady adherents to the Church of Rome, and the most strenuous defenders of her doctrines and practice. The Benedictine editors, who published the remains of St. Athanasius in 1698, class the works contained in the second volume under two heads, the doubtful and the spurious ; and the homily in question is ranked, without hesitation, among the spurious. In the middle of that volume, they not only declare the work to be unquestionably a forgery, assigning the reasons for their decision, but they fortify their own judgment by quoting at length the letter written by the celebrated Baronius, more than a century before, to our countryman Stapleton. Both these documents are very interesting, and compel us at every turn to 190 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. renew our astonishment that such a homily should he so quoted in the present day without any allusion to its spurious or doubtful character. The Benedictine editors begin their preface thus 5 : “ 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 of Athanasius; and a great number of expressions unknown to Athanasius, so that it sa¬ vours of lower Greek. And truly his subtle disputa¬ tion of the hypostasis of Christ, and on the two natures in Christ, persuades us that the writer lived after the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon ; of which councils moreover he uses the identical words: whereas his dis¬ sertation on the two wills in Christ seems to argue that he lived after the spreading of the error of the Mo¬ nothelites. But ” (continue these editors) “ we would add here the dissertation of Baronius on the subject, sent to us by our brethren from Rome. That illus¬ trious 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.” The dissertation which the Benedictine editors ap¬ pend 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, Nov. 1592. The judgment of Baronius on the 5 This preface will be found at p. 332, vol. ii. of the Paduan edition of 1777, where the homily is ranked without any doubt among the spurious works. CHAP. IV.] ATHANASIUS. 191 spuriousness of this homily had been published to the world some time previously; for, after preliminary words of kindness and respect to his correspondent, Baronius proceeds to say, that, when on the former occasion he published his sentiments on this homily, it was only cursorily and by the way, his work then being on another subject. Nevertheless, he conceived that the little he had then stated would be sufficient to show that the homily was not the production of Athanasius, and that all persons of learning who were desirous of the truth would freely agree with him ; nor was he in this expectation disappointed, for very many expressed their agreement with him, congra¬ tulating him on separating legitimate from spurious children. In addition to the arguments adopted from him by the Benedictines, Baronius urges this fact, that though Cyril had the works of Athanasius in his custody, and though both the disputing parties ran¬ sacked every place for sentiments of Athanasius coun¬ tenancing their tenets, yet neither at Ephesus nor at Chalcedon was this homily quoted, though it must have driven Eutyches and Nestorius from the field, so exact are its definitions and statements on the points then at issue. Baronius adds, that, so far from revers¬ ing the judgment which he had before passed against the genuineness of this homily, he was compelled in justice to declare his conviction that it could not have been written till after the heresy of the Monothelites had been spread abroad. This would fix its date, at the very earliest, subsequently to the commencement of the seventh century, three hundred years after Athanasius attended the Council of Nicsea. Among the last words of Baronius in this letter, we read a sentiment, which can never be neglected without 192 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. injury to the cause of truth, and which, if uniformly applied in our religious discussions, would soon bring controversy within far narrower limits, and gradually convert it from angry warfare into a friendly inter¬ change of opinions : “I do not consider these sentiments concerning Atha¬ nasius to be affirmed with any detriment to the Church; for the Church suffers no loss on this account, who, being the pillar and ground of the truth, shrinks very far from seeking, like iEsop’s jackdaw, helps and orna¬ ments which are not her own : the bare truth shines more beautiful in its own naked simplicity.” And yet, notwithstanding this utter repudiation of the whole homily, as a work falsely attributed to Atha¬ nasius; after its unqualified condemnation by Bellar- min; after the Benedictine editors have declared, that there was no learned man who did not adjudge it to be spurious, the forgery being self-condemned by evi¬ dence clearer than the sun; after Baronius has ex¬ pressed his assurance that all learned men de¬ sirous of the truth would agree with him in pro¬ nouncing it to be spurious ;—after all this, we find it quoted in evidence as the genuine work of Atha¬ nasius in the middle of the nineteenth century, with¬ out the faintest shadow of an allusion to the combined judgment by which it has been condemned, or even to any suspicion ever having been entertained of its being a forgery. The genuine works of Athanasius himself prove him to have thought and spoken with the Church of England, and not with the Church of Rome, on the invocation of the Virgin Mary. Whilst he speaks of God having taken our nature upon Him, Athanasius again and again calls Mary “ the holy Virgin who bare CHAP. IV.] ATHANASIUS. 193 God 6 .” But not one single sentence has been found indicating either his acknowledgment of her as a medi¬ ator and intercessor, or his practice of invoking her succour and her prayers. But many passages might he cited which prove him to have looked to God alone, through Christ alone, for the supply of all his temporal and spiritual wants. We have been detained so long on the spurious homily assigned to him, that we cannot make room (as we should have wished) for his entire comment on St. Paul’s expressions, 1 Tliess. chap. iii. v. 11, when, in his third oration against the Arians, he would prove from it the unity of the Father and the Son. The argument at large will amply repay a careful examination; its opening sentences are these : 44 Thus then again, when he is praying for the Thes- salonians, and saying, 4 Now our God and Father Him¬ self, and the Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way to you,’ he preserves the unity of the Father and the Son ; for he says not, 4 May they direct,’ as though a twofold grace were given from Him and Him, but, 4 May He direct,’ to show that the Father givetli this through the Son. For if there was not an unity, and the Word was not the proper offspring of the Father’s substance, as the radiation of the light, but the Son was distinct in nature from the Father, it had sufficed for the Father alone to have made the gift, no generated being partaking with the Maker in the gifts. But now such a giving proves the unity of the Father and the Son. Thus, no one would pray to receive any thing from God and the angels, or from any other created being ; nor would any one say, 4 May God and the angels give it thee;’ but from the Father and the Son, because of their unity, and the oneness of the gifts. G See the close of his work on the Incarnation. O 194 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART III. For whatsoever is given, is given through the Son ; nor is there any thing which the Father works, except through the Son ; for thus the receiver has the gra¬ cious favour without fail.” In what broad contrast does this doctrine of Atha¬ nasius stand with a prayer said to be approved by Pius VI., and which is defended by Dr. Wiseman in his Remarks on a Letter from the Rev. W. Palmer; London, 1841, p. 36: “ Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, I offer you my heart and my soul. Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, assist me in my last agony. Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, may my soul expire in peace with you.” These things are now, but from the beginning it was not so. Athanasius was ever bent on establishing the per¬ fect divinity and humanity of Christ, and he thus speaks : “ The general scope of Holy Scripture is to make a general announcement concerning the Saviour, that He was always God, and is a Son, being the Word, and brightness, and wisdom of the Father; and that He afterwards became man for us, taking flesh of the Virgin Mary, who bare God 7 .” 7 T rjg OeoroKov. Those who would depend upon this word tlieo- tocos as a proof of the exalted honour in which the early Christians held the Virgin, and not rather of their anxiety to preserve whole and entire the doctrine of the union of perfect God and perfect man in the person of Christ deriving his manhood through her, would do well to weigh the language of the Fathers in some analogous cases. The Apostle James (for example), called in Scripture the Lord’s brother, was afterwards named Adelphotheos, or God’s brother; not to exalt him above his fellow Apostles, but to declare the faith of those who gave him that name, that the Lord Jesus was very God. Just so the word theotocos—or “ she who gave birth to God”—was applied to Mary, not to exalt her, but to declare the Catholic faith in the Godhead of Him, who was born of Mary. See Joan. Damasc. Horn. ii. c. 18. In Dormit. Virg. vol. ii. p. 881. Le Quien, Paris, 1712. CHAP. IV.] ATHANASIUS. 195 The works of St. Athanasius have been carefully examined, with a view to our present inquiry; and not one single passage can be discovered indicative of any worship of the Virgin, or any belief in her power and intercession, or any invocation of her even for her prayers. “No one would pray,” he says, “to receive any thing from God and the holy angels, or any other CREATED BEING 8 .” 8 Benedict, vol. i. p. 561 ; Paduan ed. vol. i. p. 444. 196 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. PART IV. FROM THE COUNCIL OF NIC^A TO THE END OF THE FOURTH CENTURY. CHAPTER I. SECTION I.-CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, A.D. 340 l . The link in the chain of primitive writers which con¬ nects the testimonies of those who flourished before or during the Nicene Council with those who followed, is Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem. This celebrated and revered patriarch in the Christian household was probably born about ten years before that council, and was ordained deacon by Macarius, and priest by Maxi¬ mus, who were his immediate predecessors in the epis¬ copate of Jerusalem, and who probably had both attended at Nicsea. The principal work of Cyril, and which has been generally ranked among the most interesting remains of Christian antiquity, consists of eighteen catechetical lectures which he delivered to the candidates for bap¬ tism through the weeks before Easter, and five which he addressed after that festival to those who had then been admitted into the Church. These lectures take so wide and so general a view of all the doctrines of Christianity, that we shall scarcely find a single point 1 Edit. Oxford, 1703, by T. Miles; Paris, 1728, Ed. Benedict.; Venice, 1763, ditto. CHAP. I.] CYRIL OF JERUSALEM. 197 of theology omitted by him. He professes to instruct the catechumens in every branch of divine knowledge; and, if prayers and supplications to the Virgin had then found a place among the devotions of the faithful, it is scarcely to be conceived that no mention would have been made of such a duty or practice, nor any expres¬ sion have fallen from him which could be supposed to allude to it. Such, however, is the case ; and that too not only when his subject might appear to lead his thoughts into another channel, but when his line of argument would seem naturally to suggest a reference to the religious honours paid to the Virgin. Rather we would say, in various instances, the total omission of her name affords conclusive evidence that the belief and practice of the Roman Church in the present day had no place in the Catholic Church in the days of Cyril. Let us take as an example the present Confession, and the present prayers in the Mass both before and after the consecration of the host, and compare them with the record given of corresponding addresses in the time of Cyril. The confession thus begins: “I confess to God Almighty, to the blessed Mary ever-Virgin, to the blessed Michael the Archangel, to the blessed John the Baptist, to the holy apostles Peter and Paul,” &c. 2 Again in the prayer before consecration we now find these words: “Communicating with and venerating the memory of, in the first place, the glorious ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord Jesus Christ; and likewise also of thy blessed Apostles and Martyrs,” &c. And in the prayer after consecration we read this supplication: “ Deliver us, O Lord, we beseech thee, 2 Cat. xxiii. 9. 198 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. from all evils present, past, and to come ; and by the intercession of the blessed and glorious ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with thy blessed Apostles,” &c. But Cyril, when describing the order in the celebra¬ tion of the Holy Eucharist observed by the Church in his day, though he tells us that they made mention of archangels, apostles, and martyrs, yet makes no allusion whatever to the Virgin Mary. “After this” (after the priest has said, “ Let us give thanks to the Lord,” and the people have responded, “It is meet and right,”) “ we make mention of the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the stars, and all the creation rational and irrational, visible and invisible, angels, archangels, &c., virtually employing the expres¬ sion of David, ‘Magnify the Lord with me.’ ” “Then 3 we make mention also of those who have fallen asleep before us, first patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, that by their prayers and intercessions God would receive our supplications .” If the Church of Christ taught then as the Church of Rome now teaches, that the Virgin Mary was “ exalted above the Choir of Angels into the kingdom of heaven, to the ethereal chamber in which the King of kings sits on his starry throne,” could Cyril of Jerusalem, when detailing with such minuteness the various particulars of the service which he daily wit¬ nessed, have omitted all mention of her name ? In this interesting compendium of Christian doctrine, 3 It has been held that the passage in italics in this second para¬ graph is an interpolation of a much later date than Cyril’s own work ; but, without some stronger arguments than we have yet seen, we could not pronounce against its genuineness. If it is the production of a subsequent age, the argument in the text becomes only stronger and more remarkable* CHAP. I.] CYRIL OF JERUSALEM. ] 99 Cyril dwells with much fulness of argument and illus¬ tration on the divine generation of Christ by the Holy Spirit, of the Virgin Mary. He exposes with much evident anxiety the baneful heresy of those who held that our Lord was not born of a Virgin, but was the son of Joseph and of Mary. In the course of his argu¬ ment proving Christ to be God of the substance of his Father begotten before the worlds, and man of the substance of his mother born in the world, many occasions offered themselves, which would not only have naturally admitted, but have called for, a state¬ ment of the judgment of the Church, or at least some reference to it as a doctrine acknowledged by all 4 : and yet not one word as to her nature, or character, or the honour due to her name, or her advocacy with God, or invocations of her patronage, occurs throughout. Cyril speaks of her as “ the pure and holy Virgin Mary;” he speaks of Christ as “God born of the Virgin 5 ;” he applies to her the word 44 theotocos,” 44 she who gave birth to God;” just as we shall find the most approved writers of the Church of England speaking of her, but nothing more. We find no allusion to her birth or her death, or to her state after death; nor any reference to her life, except just so far as the Gospel itself informs us of her. In the following passages the Annunciation to Mary of the birth of our Lord, the fact of her con¬ ception of Christ by the Holy Spirit, the affectionate commendation of her to the care of St. John, made by our Saviour on the cross, are cursorily mentioned and argued from as acknowledged verities ; but not a syllable occurs which would lead us to suppose that 4 Cat. x. 19. 5 Cat. xii. 24. 200 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. tlie Christian Catechist in Jerusalem in the middle of the fourth century thought otherwise of the Virgin Mary, or acted differently towards her, than true members of the Church of England now think and act. “ By a virgin, Eve, came death: it was fitting that by a virgin, [or rather of a virgin,] life should appear; in order that, as a serpent deceived the one, so should Gabriel announce glad tidings to the other c .” “This is that Holy Spirit which came upon the holy Mary. He made her holy, that she might have power to receive Him by whom all things were made 7 .” The following passage deserves to he well weighed: “And the only begotten Son of God Himself, when nailed in his flesh to the wood at the time of the crucifixion, seeing Mary, his own mother according to the flesh, and John, the most beloved of the disciples, to him He says, ‘ Behold thy mother,’ and to Mary, ‘Behold thy son;’ teaching her the maternal affection that was due, and obliquely accomplishing what is said by Luke, ‘And his father and his mother mar¬ velled,’ which heretics lay hold of, saying that He was produced by a man and a woman : for just as Mary was the mother of John on account of her maternal affection, not by giving him birth ; so Joseph was called the father of Christ, not by generation, (for, according to the Gospel, he knew her not until she brought forth her first-born son,) but on account of the care which was taken in bringing Him up 8 .” c Cat. xii. M. 6. B. 15. 7 Cat. xvii. B. 6. M. 4. 8 Cat. vii. 9. CHAP. I.] CYRIL OF JERUSALEM. 201 In the following passage he suggests an answer to those unbelieving Jews, who, from the impossibility of a human being coming into existence if either father or mother be wanting, argued against the incarnation of our Lord. “ Ask them,” he says, “ of whom, at the beginning, was Eve begotten ? What mother con¬ ceived her who had no mother ? Was then Eve born without a mother from the side of a man, and may not a child be born without a father from a virgin’s womb ? A service was due to man from woman ; for Eve sprang from Adam, not conceived by a mother, but, so to speak, brought forth by man alone. Mary, then, re¬ paid this service; not by man, but immediately, with¬ out pollution, by herself conceiving by the Holy Ghost through the power of God 9 .” We are not aware of any other passage in Cyril bearing on our subject; and, in those to which we have referred, there is not the slightest intimation of any religious honour being at that time paid to Mary. Pie strenuously contends for the true doctrine, (as our own article expresses it,) that “the Son, who is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God of one substance with the Father, took man’s nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin of her substancebut in all his arguments and state¬ ments he exalts God alone, and speaks of Mary only as we speak of her, as a pure and holy virgin, blessed among women, the mysterious instrument in God’s hand of effecting the miraculous birth of Him who made all things. The evidence of Cyril is positive and irrefutable against the prevalence of any such religious worship, whether it be called dulia or liyper- 9 Cat. xii. (29.) 13. 202 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. dulia, as is now offered to lier in the Church of Rome. Before we dismiss this witness, we are induced to quote one passage, though not connected immediately with our present inquiry; because it seems to express briefly, and simply, but most powerfully, a principle of prime importance to the Christian student, to which it were well for the cause of the Gospel, and our own peace and consolation, if all of us who profess and call ourselves Christians would more steadily adhere. £< The Father, through the Son, with the Holy Ghost, dispenses every grace. The gifts of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, are not different each from the other. For one is the salvation, one the power, one the faith. One God, the Father; one Lord, his only-begotten Son; one the Holy Ghost, the Comforter. And it is abundantly sufficient [albap/ccc] for us to know this. But do not busy yourself about his nature or substance; for, had it been written, we would have spoken of it. On what is not written let us not venture. It is abundantly sufficient for us to know for our salvation that there is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost b” SECTION II. ST. HILARY, BISHOP OF POICTIERS, A.D. 350b While Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, testifies that the Church of Christ in the East was in his time free from all such worship of the Virgin Mary as the 1 Cat. xvi. 24. 8 Benedictine edit. Paris, 1693. Veronse, 1730. CHAP. I.] HILARY, BISHOP OF POICTIERS. 203 Church of Rome now prescribes, his contemporary, Hilary, establishes the same fact as to the Church in the West. Hilary, as the most credible accounts re- port, was born at Poictiers; of which city he became Bishop about the year 350, or 355. Having presided over that see with chequered fortune, but with un¬ tarnished character, for about twelve years, and having proved himself to be one of the brightest ornaments of the Gallican Church, he was called from his perse¬ cutions and his honours to that rest which remainetli for the people of God. The chief works of Hilary now extant are his Commentary on the Psalms and on the Gospel of St. Matthew, and his book on the Holy Trinity. In his interpretation of the Psalms, his general principle of representing the Psalmist as speaking in the person of our Saviour, or of his faithful disciples, and giving to each psalm a Christian application, leads him to speak constantly of the Saviour’s incarnation; and thus an occasion would have offered itself repeatedly of expressing his sentiments as to the station and nature of the Virgin Mary, had any such views been present to his mind, as our Roman Catholic brethren now entertain. On the contrary, he never refers to any especial honour either paid to her by himself and his fellow-Christians, or considered by him to be her due. She is not alluded to as exercising any patronage, as having any power or influence in heaven or on earth, or as having already been received into glory. Plilary, together with the great body of the earliest Christian writers, is clear and explicit in the statement of his belief that the angels of God are messengers between heaven and earth, bearing the prayers of the faithful to God’s throne, and conveying blessings down 204 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. to those who love Him : he represents it as their great duty and delight, in obedience to the appointment of the Sovereign Lord of all, to exercise every benevolent office in promoting the present well-being and the eternal salvation of those who believe in their Father and our Father, in their God and our God. Hilary speaks with honour and gratitude of the Apostles, Evangelists, Martyrs, Patriarchs, as objects of our pious contemplation; though he takes care to warn us that our help can come from God only, and that the Saviour Himself is the only ground of our hope. But of the Virgin Mary (excepting in one passage in which he tells us that even she herself, though the mother of our Lord, must yet undergo the general judgment) he speaks only as Mary, or the Virgin ; and that not with any reference to her character, nor, except as a pure virgin, to any honour due to her, but solely as the mother of Christ. Indeed, how very far he was from entertaining those sentiments towards her which we consider unjustifiable, but which are cherished by the Church of Rome, a striking evidence is con¬ veyed (among many others) in his manner of adverting to the announcement of our Saviour’s name by the Angel to Joseph. “ Now our word Saviour is, in the Hebrew, Jesus. And this the Angel confirms, when speaking of Mary to Joseph, 3 4 She shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins 3 .’ ” Repeating this same sentiment in his interpretation of another psalm 4 , he employs the same words, except that he omits all mention of the Virgin. 3 Ps. 66, p. 1S6. Veronse, p. 210. 4 Ps. 51. Veronse, p. 93. CHAP. I.] HILARY, BISHOP OF POICTIERS. 205 In his comment on St. Matthew 5 he animadverts on the misrepresentations of irreligious men, who took occasion from the words of Scripture to form an un¬ worthy estimate of Mary’s character; and he maintains (as many divines of the Reformed Church have main¬ tained) that she never had any children by Joseph after our blessed Saviour’s birth : a point which we, with his pious contemporary, Basil, whose testimony we must soon examine, may well leave as Scripture has left it. The passage, however, to which we have already alluded, and in which he speaks of the necessity under which Mary, though the mother of our Lord, lay not less than all others, of undergoing the future and final judgment of God, requires the serious and candid con¬ sideration of all who would defend the present Roman doctrine concerning the blessed Virgin by the evidence of saints and doctors of the primitive Church. In citing this passage, and in laying side by side with it the sentiments of Hilary elsewhere expressed as to those who are to be judged, we express no opinion as to the soundness of his doctrine, or the accuracy of his quotations, or of his interpretation of Scripture. If his views approve themselves as correct, that will add nothing to the strength of our argument; if we must withhold our assent from them, that will not detract one iota from its force ; the simple question being, What is the evidence borne by Hilary on the worship and invocation of the Virgin Mary? We find that he never speaks of her as an object of religious reverence; and we now ask, Had Hilary entertained towards her such sentiments as we find expressed in the authorized 5 Matt. i. p. 612. Verona?, 671. 206 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. services of tlie Roman Church, could he have written such passages as the following ? “ He who believetli in me is not judged, but passes from death unto life ; but be who believetli not is already judged. Since, then, the saint is not to be judged, who is to pass from death into life, and the infidel is already judged to punishment, it is understood that judgment is left for those who, according to the nature of their deeds between sins and faith, are to be judged 6 .” “ The Prophet remembered that it was a hard thing and most perilous to human nature to desire God’s judgment; for, since no man living is clean in his sight, how can his judgment be desirable? Since we must render an account of every idle word, shall we desire the judgment-day, in which we must undergo that incessant hre, and those severe punishments of a soul to be cleansed from sin? A sword shall pass through the soul of the blessed Mary, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. If that Virgin who conceived God is to come into the severity of judg¬ ment, who will dare to be judged by God 7 ?” Some passages ascribed to Hilary are constantly appealed to in vindication of the worship of the Virgin, in which that author contrasts the evil brought into the world by Eve, with the blessing of which Mary was the channel. But how unsound is that argument clearly appears by the following among other passages, in which Hilary does not allude to Mary at all, though he is contrasting the original source of sin and misery derived from a woman with the restoration of fallen 0 Ps. 57, p. 126. Veronse, p. 143. 7 Ps. 118, 119, p. 262. Veronse, p. 294. CHAP. I.] HILARY, BISHOP OF POICTIERS. 207 man by Christ, made known by a kind of retribution first to women. He speaks of the female sex; of the person of Mary he says nothing. “ But inasmuch as some poor women 8 see our Lord first, salute him, fall down at his knees, are com¬ manded to bear the tidings to the Apostle 9 , the order of the original cause is reversed ; so that as death began from that sex, so to it the glory, and sight, and fruit, and tidings of the resurrection should first be made.” It would be an easy and a pleasing task, did not the object and plan of this work preclude us from entering upon it, to quote passages truly interesting and im¬ proving to Christians, which would place in a clear and strong light the spiritual character of the religion of Hilary. At one time he puts before us in very awakening language the dangers which beset us on every side l . He describes the perils to which every department of nature gives birth, and against which the Christian must be ever on his guard : the very gems of unknown seas, and gold dug from the bowels of the earth, tempting us to covetousness; the troubles of life, the wantonness and unholy desires of our fel¬ low-creatures, the example and influence of those in high places, soliciting us to sin, with a seductiveness too powerful for our frail nature to withstand. Then he bids us look to God, almighty and omnipresent, assuring us that He will never forsake the man who trusts in Him ; but will give him strength against every enemy to his salvation, and bring him safe to Himself at last. At another time he bids us look 8 Mulierculss. 1 Ps. 126, &c. 9 St. Matt. chap, last, p. 751. Verona?, 810. 208 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. to the angels and prophets who are employed by their heavenly Master in forwarding our salvation by their ministry, admonishing us, contemplating their holy offices of obedience and love, to lift our heart heaven¬ ward ; but ever looking beyond them to Him alone, from whom every good and perfect gift comes down on sinful and redeemed man 2 . To confess God as our help, and to know that God for our sakes became man, he declares to be a true confession, a never-failing hope, worthy of the gifts of the heavenly blessing 3 —our only hope. Hilary’s description of the Christian’s day, as it was passed by him and his fellow-disciples in Christ’s school, must close our present reference to his highly valuable remains: The day is opened with prayers to God, The day is closed with hymns to God. 4 SECTION III.-MACARIUS, A.D. 350. Macarius, of Egypt, flourished about the middle of the fourth century. Fifty of his discourses have come down to our day : in them he speaks much of the virgin¬ pureness with which the soul and body of a Christian must be dedicated to God ; but though there would have been ample room and frequent opportunities for referring to the Virgin Mary, (which later writers seldom fail to seize in their anxiety to exalt her,) yet he never refers to her once, except as the mother of whom Christ took his human nature. And he tells us that the body which Christ took of Mary He lifted upon the Cross 5 . 2 Ps. 119, p. 379. 3 Ibid, and Ps. 122, p. 391. Veronae, 444. 4 Ps. 61, p. 190. 5 Paris, 1622. Horn. xi. p. 61. CHAP. I.] MACARIUS. 209 There is indeed a broad contrast between the lan¬ guage of this early preacher and of the eulogists and worshippers of Mary in later times 6 . Instead of calling Mary the “ Spouse of God,” as they often do with painful indelicacy and presumption, he describes the human soul, created in the image of God, and after the fall purified by the Holy Spirit, and prepared for the heavenly visitor, as that spouse. Macarius could not have so written, had the modern notions and lan¬ guage about the Virgin Mary been then prevalent. Macarius speaks much and beautifully of prayer and praise, but it is prayer and praise addressed only to God. The following sentiments, part of the twentieth homily, taken one by one, are so utterly inconsistent with the modern doctrine of a Christian looking to Mary for his cure and remedy, the enlightening and guiding of his mind, his salvation from sin, and safety in death,—and they are in themselves so full of the truths of the Gospel in their primitive simplicity, bid¬ ding us to approach God alone in Christ, and to place our hope and trust in no other guide, physician, re¬ storer, advocate, or patron,—that few will grudge the space taken up by the rehearsal of them. “ Let such a soul then ask of Christ, who is the bestower, and clothes us with glory in light unspeakable; not making to itself a clothing of vain thoughts, de¬ ceived by a fancy of its own righteousness.Let us then implore and pray God to clothe us with the garment of salvation—our Lord Jesus Christ; for the souls who are clothed with him shall never be stripped, but in the resurrection even their bodies shall be 5 Horn, xlvii. p. 233. P 210 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. glorified.Glory be to Him for bis unutterable pity and unspeakable mercy. As the woman with an issue of blood, believing in truth and touching the hem of our Lord’s garment, immediately obtained a cure, and the flowing of the impure fountain of blood was dried up; thus every soul having the incurable wound of sin—the fountain of impious and wicked thoughts,— if it will approach to Christ, believing in truth, will receive a remedy saving it from the incurable fountain of the passions ; and that fountain that sends forth impure thoughts is dried up, and fails by the power of Jesus alone : nor can this wound be cured by any other. For in the transgression of Adam the enemy so managed as to wound and darken the inner man—the mind that leads, and that sees God. Afterwards, his eyes looked to evil and to the passions, swerving from heavenly goods. He was therefore so wounded as to be healed by no one but the Lord only; by Him alone is it possible. For as the woman with an issue of blood, spending all her substance on persons able to cure, was healed by none of them until she approached the Lord, believing in truth and touching his hem, and thus immediately she felt the cure, and the issue of blood stanched; so the soul, afflicted from the beginning by an incurable wound of the evil of the passions, no one of the righteous, neither Fathers, nor Prophets, nor Patriarchs could cure. Moses came, but he was altogether unable to give a remedy. Priests, gifts, tithes, sabbaths, new moons, washings, sacrifices, whole burnt-offerings, and all the other justification was accomplished in the Law; and yet the soul could not be healed and cured from the impure issue of evil thoughts. And all this justifi¬ cation could not heal him until the Saviour came, the true Physician, who cures freely, who gave Himself a CIIAP. I.] MACARIUS. 21 1 ransom for men. He alone effected tlie great and saving liberation and freedom of tlie soul. He freed it from slavery, and brought it out of darkness, glorifying it with his own light; He Himself dried in it the foun¬ tain of impure thoughts. For its own earthly remedies, that is, its own justifications, alone could not cure and heal it from such an unseen wound ; but by the heavenly and Divine nature of the gift of the Holy Ghost, by this medicine alone, could man obtain healing and attain to life, being cleansed in the heart by the Holy Spirit. . . . As the blind man, had he not cried out, and as the woman with the issue of blood, had she not come to the Lord, would not have been healed; so a man, unless of his own will and his whole choice, he comes to the Lord, and with the full assurance of faith prays, does not obtain a remedy. What is the reason that they, believing, were immediately healed, but we do not yet see in truth, and are not healed of our secret passions ; and yet the Lord has more care for the immortal soul than for the body ? For if the Lord, when He came on earth, attended to the corruptible bodies, how much more the immortal soul made after his own likeness? It is through our want of faith, through our divisions, because we do not love Him with all our heart, nor in truth believe on Him, we have not yet obtained our spiritual healing and salvation. Let us believe on Him therefore, and let us draw nigh to Him in truth, that He may speedily work a cure in us; for He has promised to give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him, and to open to them that knock, and that those who seek shall find; and He is incapable of falsehood who promises. To Him be glory and power for ever. Amen.” In Macarius there is no trace of any other Giver to whom we should apply than God—no Virgin to whom, p 2 212 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. or through whom, we should apply, no mediator except the Lord Jesus Christ only. SECTION IV.-EPIPHANIUS, A.D. 370 7 . Epiphanius was Bishop of Salamis, in the island of Cyprus, a few years after the middle of the fourth century. We shall, probably, be safe in fixing the date of his testimony at about a.d. 370. Many Chris¬ tian writers appear from time to time in subsequent years of the same name; a circumstance, among others, with reason represented as the cause of works having been ascribed to him which evidently have no preten¬ sions to so high antiquity. Among his genuine productions, the most important is his work on the heresies which had then already appeared in the world to distract the peace of the Church. In ascertaining the testimony borne by Epiphanius on the question of the invocation of the Virgin Mary, our attention will of necessity be chiefly directed to his discussion of the heresies relative to Mary herself; and, indeed, there are few passages besides that call for any examination. The panegyric on the mother of God, bound up with his works, is confessedly of a much later date 8 . Epiphanius, with many others of that age, regarded those Christians as guilty of heresy who held that the Blessed Virgin lived with Joseph as his wife after she had given birth to our Lord; and he always speaks of her with reverence, because of the mystery of the Saviour’s incarnation, which she was the chosen mortal instrument of effecting. His anxiety throughout seems 7 Paris, 1622. 8 See Fabricius, vol. viii. p. 275 ; and Oudin, vol. ii. p. 318. CHAP. I.] EPIPIIANIUS. 213 to be to give her the honour due to her office and cha¬ racter ; he speaks with indignation of those who could entertain disparaging views of her unsullied purity and holiness ; he had no doubt of her future perfect bliss, both body and soul, in the eternal kingdom of her Son. But of her “ immaculate conception,” her “ assumption into heaven,” her “ exaltation to glory above the high¬ est angels,” her “ omnipotent intercession with the Al¬ mighty,” the Church’s “ prayers to God for the blessings of her mediation,” of her being the “ channel through which every blessing must flow that comes from heaven to man,” of the faithful “ suppliantly invoking her, and flying to her prayers, help, and assistance,”— of all these points Epiphanius seems to have known nothing. On the contrary, his testimony appears to be conclusive against the existence of any such doctrines prevailing in the Church as a body, or among Christians individually, in his time. But the reader will judge for himself how far this inference is justified. We are not aware of having omitted a single passage which could throw any additional light on the subject. The following extract is taken from his arguments against the heresy of Marcion 9 , in which Epiphanius thus expresses his assurance of the Virgin Mary’s freedom from actual sin, and of her final salvation : “ ‘ Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God.’ He accuses not all flesh. For how could that flesh be accused which never committed any of the above-mentioned acts ? But I will prove the point by other arguments. ‘ Who,’ he says, 4 will lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect?’ How will the holy Mary with her flesh not inherit the kingdom of God, 9 P. 352. 214 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. who was never guilty of fornication, or uncleanness, or adultery, or any of those irremediable works of the flesh ? ” In his dissertations on those heresies which re¬ lated to the nature, character, and office of the Vir¬ gin, he confesses that he had great difficulty in ascer¬ taining the precise views of the misbelievers ; and that some opinions reported to him were so monstrous in absurdity and impiety, that he could scarcely bring him¬ self to believe what he had heard. Epiphanius then mentions three distinct heresies: First, the heresy of those who denied the perfect in¬ carnation of Christ; some of whom maintained that He brought his body with Him from heaven \ Secondly, of those who held that after Christ’s birth Mary lived with Joseph as his wife 2 .” Thirdly, of those who on certain days religiously offered cakes to Mary, and worshipped her 3 . In his dissertations on these opinions and practices, he quotes in full the letter 4 which he had written to his fathers, brothers, and children in Christ, who lived in Arabia, and who had been troubled by these false doctrines. With regard to Mary, whilst he indignantly asks, How could any one dare to speak disparagingly of her, who was selected out of so many thousands to be the mother of our Lord? and whilst he urges that those who honour God will honour his saints, he declares, that, as to her death 5 and burial, he will affirm nothing, because the Scripture is so silent on the point as not even to tell us whether St. John took her with him in his journeys to those countries through which he 1 P. 995. 2 P. 1033. 3 P. 1057. 5 P. 1043. 4 P. 1034. CHAP. I.] EPIPHANIUS. 215 preached the Gospel. He refers to some histories of the life of Mary, and shows clearly that he had heard strange opinions concerning her and Joseph; he believed the report which made Joseph upwards of eighty years age when Mary was espoused to him. Among his observations on the first of these he¬ resies, be says 6 , “ The body of the Saviour born of Mary, according to the Scripture, was a human and a true body. It was a true body, since it was the same with our own; for Mary is our sister, since we all came from Adam.” He afterwards proceeds to say, that “just as the perverse views of some heretics denying the Godhead of the Saviour, and severing Him from the Father, drove others to the opposite error, and provoked them to say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were one and the same person ; so the unworthy doc¬ trines reflecting on the Virgin drove some persons to ✓ the opposite extreme, and provoked them to pay her divine worship—making her a deity—offering cakes in her name—assembling together and striving to honour her beyond due measure.” FTaving then referred to the worship paid to Jephthali’s daughter and to the daughter of Pharaoh, as instances of the tendency of mankind to superstition and turn¬ ing to evil from good, ever restless and fond of novelty, he immediately adds these very striking expressions: “ For whether the holy Virgin be dead and buried, in that case her death is in honour, her end in purity, and her crown in virginhood; or whether she was slain (as it is written, a sword shall pierce through her soul also), her glory is among martyrs, and the holy body of her, 6 P. 1003. 216 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. by whom light rose on the world, is in the midst of blessings ; or whether she remained, (for it is not im¬ possible for God to do whatsoever He wishes, for her end is not known,) we must not honour the saints beyond due measure, but honour their Lord. Let then, the error of those deceived people cease. For neither is Mary a deity, nor deriving her body from heaven, but from the intercourse of a man and woman; determined, as Isaac was, by promise. And let no one make offer¬ ings to her name, for he destroys his own soul; nor, on the other hand, let him be so intoxicated as to insult the holy Virgin.” In all these dissertations Epiphanius alludes to no especial honour due to the Virgin above other saints; but as he began his letter to the Christians of Arabia by charging men to bring no calumnies against the Virgin (for, if they honoured God, they would honour his saints), so he ends the letter with these senti¬ ments : “The saints are in honour, their rest is in glory, their departure hence is in perfectness, their lot is blessedness, their society is with angels in holy man¬ sions, their dwelling is in heaven, their conversation is in divine writings, their glory is in honour beyond cal¬ culation and continuous, their rewards are in Christ Jesu our Lord, through whom and with whom be glory to the Father, with the Holy Ghost, for ever V’ His dissertation on the Collyridian heresy he pre¬ faces by stating, that opposite extremes are equally bad, and the mischief is equal in both these heresies: on the one hand, of those who make light of the holy 7 P. 1050. CHAP. I.] EPIPIJANIUS. 217 Virgin ; and on the other, of those who extol her be¬ yond propriety. Then, after some very severe remarks against the female sex as the originators of evil, he says that this heresy took its rise entirely in women, who were in the habit of preparing a sort of quadran¬ gular seat, and spreading a napkin, putting on bread and offering it to Mary’s name; and then he prays God to enable him to cut up this idolatrous heresy by the roots. He begins by showing, that through the Old Testa¬ ment we never find women exercising the priestly office; and under the New, if women were to be allowed to exercise it, or be engaged in any of the canonical ordinances of the Church, it w 7 ould rather have become Mary herself, the mother of our Lord, to discharge that office. But that was not allowed; nor was even baptism committed to her. These sacred offices were never assigned to women. Having then described the tendency of men’s minds, at the sugges¬ tion of the devil, to pay to mortals divine honours, departing from their allegiance to the one only God, and worshipping dead men and their lifeless images, he thus proceeds: “ Nay [some will reply] but the body of Mary is holy ! Yes, but not a deity. Nay, but the Virgin is a virgin, and honoured ! Yes, yet not given for us to worship, but herself worshipping Him who was born of her in the flesh. For this reason the Gospel confirms us, saying (in the words of our Lord), 4 Woman, what have I to do with thee?’ Lest anv should think that J the holy Virgin was a being of superior excellence, He calls her woman, —as if He prophesied on account of those divisions and heresies which were to take place on the earth,—in order that no one, by admiring 218 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. the holy Virgin in excess, might fall into this folly of heresy. The whole story” (he continues) “is full of absurdity. For what Scripture speaks of it ? Which of the Prophets ever suffered a man to be worshipped, not to say, a woman ? She is a chosen vessel, but she is a woman, and not at all changed in nature, though as to her mind and sense she is held in honour : as the bodies of the saints, or whatever else in point of honour I might mention more excellent; as Elijah, a virgin from his birth, and continuing so throughout, and being taken up did not see death; as John, who lay upon the bosom of our Lord, whom Jesus loved; as the holy Thecla; and as Mary, honoured above her, because of the dispensation of which she was deemed worthy. But neither is Elijah, though among the living an object of worship ; nor is John an object of worship, though by his own prayer, or rather by receiv¬ ing grace from God, he made his death wonderful; nor is Thecla, nor any one of the saints, an object of wor¬ ship. For the old error shall not lord it over us, that we should leave the Living One, and worship things made by Him. ‘For they served and worshipped the creature more than the Creator.’ For, if Fie willeth not that the angels be worshipped, how much more is He unwilling that worship should be paid to her who was born of Anna, and was given to Anna from Joa¬ chim, given to the father and mother by promise, but nevertheless not born differently from the nature of man V* Flad Epiphanius been accustomed to celebrate the Virgin Mary, as the authorized services of the Church of Rome celebrate her now, as immaculate in her mother’s conception of her, and glorifying her as ex¬ alted above the choir of angels, as queen of angels, CHAP. I.] EPIPHANIUS. 210 and queen of all saints, could he have written such a sentence as this, in which he argues, that God, who would not suffer the angels to he worshipped, would much less have allowed a Virgin to be worshipped, who was a mortal like ourselves, “and not born out of the ordinary course of nature.” The remainder of the paragraph refers to what Epi- phanius calls “a tradition, and the history of Mary;” which stated that the birth of Mary was promised by an angel to Joachim, but was by no means out of the ordinary course of nature. Again, he thus proceeds, “ God the Word, as a Creator and of authority over the thing, formed Himself from the Virgin, as from the earth, having clothed Himself with flesh from the holy Virgin; but, nevertheless, not a virgin to be worshipped, nor that He might make her a deity,—not that we might offer in her name, not that after so many generations women should become priestesses. God willed not this to take place in Salome, nor in Mary herself. Tie suffered her not to administer baptism, nor to bless the disciples; He did not commission her to rule upon earth : but only ap¬ pointed this, that she should be a holy thing, and be deemed worthy of his kingdom. Whence, then, is the coiling serpent ? Whence are his crooked counsels renewed ? Let Mary be in honour; but let the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be worshipped. Let no one wor¬ ship Mary. The mystery [that sacred thing, religious worship] is assigned, I do not say, to no woman, but not even to any man : it is assigned to God. Neither do angels receive that ascription of glory [that dox- ology]. Let these errors written in the hearts of the deceived be wiped away. Let the evil generated at the tree be obliterated from our sight. Let no one eat 220 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. of the error which has arisen by means of holy Mary: for though the tree be beautiful, yet it is not given for food ; and though Mary be most beautiful, and holy, and honoured, yet she is not intended to be worshipped. Let Eve, our mother, be honoured, as having been formed by God; but let her not be listened to, lest she persuade her children to eat of the tree, and trans¬ gress the commandment. And how many more things might be said ? for these silly women offer to her the cake, as either worshipping Mary herself, or they take upon themselves to offer this rotten fruit in her behalf! The whole thing is foolish and strange, and is a device and deceit of the devil. But, not to extend my dis¬ course further, what I have already said will suffice, Let Mary be in honour. Let the Lord be worshipped 8 .” It seemed necessary to make these, otherwise long extracts, for the purpose of ascertaining the real mean¬ ing of Epiphanius : mere insulated quotations often give a very unfair view of the writer’s sentiments. And probably few will conceive it possible that any honest man, who maintained the present doctrines of the Church of Borne, or knew those to be the doctrines held and taught by his contemporaries through the Christian world, could have written the sentiments above quoted. It is not the case of merely negative testimony; it is not the absence only of any intimation of the writer’s belief in the lawfulness and duty of seeking the Virgin’s protection by invoking her aid, or of his knowledge of the prevalence of such invocation among the faithful around him. It is the case of a Christian bishop reprobating a practice (which he calls foolish, and the device of Satan, and which had then P. 1064. CHAP. I.] EPIPHANIUS. 221 lately sprung up in some distant portion of Christen¬ dom,) of worshipping the Virgin ; and this he does without making any exception of invoking her aid or asking her to intercede. He does not remonstrate with these innovators for not adhering to any established mode of addressing her; for not being content with that worship of her which they found already prevalent. And yet this surely he would have done, had any such mode of worship then prevailed in the Catholic Church. He speaks peremptorily and universally, without any reserve or exception; and repeats the same naked com¬ mand again and again, “ Let no one worship Mary.” It has been said by writers of the Church of Rome, that Epiphanius does not reprove his misguided con¬ temporaries for offering prayers to the Virgin, but for offering her cakes as a sort of sacrifice; and, conse¬ quently, that his reproof does not reach the point at issue, unless the Roman Church can be shown to offer the sacrifice of the Mass in honour of Mary. But surely this is no answer. It is impossible to conceive, that, had Epiphanius not been aware that prayers were daily offered to the Virgin, and the mercy of God sought through her intercession, in the Christian churches, he would, in so unqualified a manner, have denounced all worship of the Virgin. He says not only, “ Do not offer sacrifice to Mary,” but “ Let no man worship Mary; let God be worshipped.” The offering of a sacrifice was one part of religious worship, but so is the offering of prayer and praise equally a part; and Epiphanius, taking occasion from the one part more immediately brought under his notice, con¬ demns all worship of Mary equally, without any limita¬ tion or exception. This is in itself evident; but the case becomes still more clear, and the argument is 222 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. further confirmed, by a brief reflection upon the Greek words used by Epiplianius. The verbs used by him in these passages, “ Let no one worship Mary“ Let the Lord be worshipped,” are precisely the same with those which St. John employs in the Revelation, when describing a worship in which sacrifice could have no part. 44 I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel. And He saith unto me, 4 See thou do it not. Worship God 9 .” And it is a very curious circumstance, that whilst Epipha- nius himself, in this genuine work, says, 44 Let no one worship Maryland 44 The angels do not receive this honour,” the writer of the spurious work ascribed to him, to which we have already adverted, uses the self¬ same Greek word when he represents the angels as worshipping Mary l . The fact is, that, had Epiphanius sought for the most general and comprehensive word for the express purpose of excluding the Virgin Mary from any kind of religious worship whatever,—the falling down before her, praying to her, invoking her succour, singing hymns to her or in honour of her,— he could not probably have selected any word more comprehensive than the word he has chosen. But Epiphanius says, 44 Let Mary be had in ho¬ nour.” To which every true son of the Church of 9 T?/v M« irpoaKWEiTit), O Kuptoc Trpoff^vreiirdio. ’Fj-nracrov 7rpo(TKvrrj(Tcu. TJ 0£w 7rpoaKvir)aoy. 1 It is worthy of remark, that this same word, to the very letter, is used by the author of the spurious work (to which our atten¬ tion will hereafter be directed) ascribed to Ephraim Syrus, when the writer addresses the Virgin herself in the language of adoration, “ We bless thee, O Bride of God, and with fear we worship thee”— TcpoGKvyovfitr. Vol. iii. p. 543,—prayers strangely cited, in the pre¬ sent day, in justification of the worship in the Church of Rome. CHAP. I.] EPIPHANIUS. 223 England will respond Amen. We discard, as fully as Epiphanius could do, all unworthy or disparaging sentiments towards the Holy Virgin-Mother of our Lord. But, in disowning those who speak irreverently of her, we are careful (as Epiphanius enjoins) not to be driven to the opposite extreme, nor to honour her above the measure due to her. We honour her me¬ mory as we honour all the holy saints of God. Epipha¬ nius bids us honour Mary; but so he bids us honour Eve, the mother of us all (using the self-same word Ti/uaaOa)). We honour Mary, but we cannot worship her. It is too obvious to require more than a few words, and yet it is not superfluous to observe, that the senti¬ ments expressed in these dissertations of Epiphanius prove that he entertained on various points besides the Invocation of Mary, very different notions from those which are professed by members of the Church of Rome now, and countenanced by the Roman Ritual. Epiphanius could not have held the “immaculate CONCEPTION OF THE VIRGIN IN HER MOTHER’S WOMB;” or he would not have assured us, as he does repeatedly, that though her birth was promised to her father, yet was it in the ordinary course of nature, “ not born in any way differently from the nature of men.” Epiphanius could have known nothing of the as¬ sumption of the Virgin, now the chief and crown of her festivals in the Church of Rome; or he would not have told us, that, because the Scripture is silent on the subject of her death, he would not dare to express his opinion, whether she fell asleep by a natural death, or suffered martyrdom, or was allowed to remain on earth 2 .” 2 P. 1043. 224 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. Of her merits, as influencing our spiritual condition ; of her intercession ; of her present interest with God, as our advocate; of any prayers, even for her aid and prayers, being offered by the Church, or by the faith¬ ful in private ; of all this Epiplianius says not one word. His evidence is all, from first to last, clearly, pointedly, and irrefutably against the invocation of the Virgin Mary. Epiplianius testifies that the present worship of the Blessed Virgin in the Church of Rome had neither place nor name among primitive Christian worshippers. ciiap. ii.] BASIL. 225 CHAPTER II. BASIL, GREGORY OF NAZIANZUM, EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN, AND GREGORY OF NYSSA. SECTION I. Our attention is now especially called to the evidence of four contemporaries, who, although not perhaps personally known each to every one of the other three, yet were united together, some indeed by the ties of blood or of friendship, and all by the bond of one faith, and one hope, and one charity. Basil was the brother of Gregory of Nyssa, the companion and friend of Gregory of Nazianzum, and the spiritual father in Christ by the imposition of whose hands Ephraim is said to have received the holy order of the Christian ministry. The testimony of each of these must be examined separately; and, though we cannot regard them all as of equal magnitude or brightness, yet will each star of this constellation be found to shed much valuable light on our path, whilst the combined light of them all united seems to bring the object of our discovery clearly and distinctly before our mind, and to leave no room at all for doubt as to the state of religious worship, so far as our present inquiry is concerned, at the close of the fourth century. Up to that time, at all events, the invocation of the Virgin Mary had no place among the faithful followers of the Cross. 226 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. SECTION II.— BASIL, A.D. 370. This Christian father and bishop, who acquired the name of the Great, in contradistinction to the multi¬ tude of bishops and pastors of the same name who succeeded him, is often appealed to under the ho¬ noured title of the Great Teacher of Truth. All Christians, whether in the earliest ages from his own time, or in more modern days, have agreed to do his memory honour; and editors of his works express their assurance that he would take no umbrage at their reflections on his errors, so great was his love of truth. Basil was born at Neocsesarea, probably about the year 328, though some have placed his birth ten or twelve years earlier. He was ordained deacon and priest at Caesarea ; but, in consequence of an unhappy misunderstanding between him and the bishop of that city, he withdrew, about a.d. 358, into the deserts of Pontus, and there spent his time chiefly in religious solitude, which, however, was relieved by the sweet and friendly converse of Gregory of Nazian- zum. Happily, Basil and the Bishop of Caesarea were reconciled; and about the year 370, he succeeded, on the death of that bishop, to the see of Caesarea. He was suffered to feed the flock of Christ there as their chief shepherd for about eight or nine years, and then he died in peace. The great number of Christian writers of very infe¬ rior note, but of the same name,—not less than forty, probably more,—diminishes our surprise on finding so many confessedly spurious works ascribed to him. The Benedictine editor, M. Julian Gamier ', to whose labours we are deeply indebted, has done much towards 1 Paris, 1721 ; and Paris, 1839. CHAP. II.] BASIL. 227 fclie entire separation of the supposititious from the genuine works of Basil; we have much reason to be satisfied with the results of his integrity, industry, and skill. Although the negative evidence of Basil against the existence in the Christian Church, at his time, of any thing approaching the religious worship of the Virgin, is interwoven with all his remains, of whatever kind, not more than two or three passages seem to call for any especial examination. Basil, with all true and orthodox Christians, believed (to use the words of the Church of England) that “ the Son, the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God of one substance with the Fa¬ ther, took man’s nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin of her substance that “he was born of a pure Virgin.” And thus, in his Comments on the record of the Creation 2 , in refutation of those who maintained the impossibility of a Virgin being a mother, he affirms that God had, by his marvellous acts in the works of creation, provided by the operations of nature unnum¬ bered preparations for the reception of the mysteries of the Gospel among mankind. The accuracy, or the inaccuracy, of Basil on subjects of natural history does not affect our inquiry. In this passage he maintains, that, in the economy of grace, the incarnation of the Son of God was effected through Mary, a virgin : but of her he says no more. But whilst Basil seems not to have left one single expression which would imply either that he himself entertained towards the Virgin Mary’s name any other respect and veneration than we do, as she was a chosen 2 Hex. Horn. viii. s. 6. (vol. i. p. 70.) Ed. 1839, p. 107. Q, 2 228 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. vessel, called (as others of our fellow-mortals were, though in different offices and vocations,) to fulfil God’s will in his dispensation of mercy by becoming the mother of our Lord ; or that he knew of any Christians who invoked her name, or sought by prayer her medi¬ ation or intercession with our heavenly Father; the evidence of Basil on this subject is not merely negative. There are passages which bear positive testimony to the fact, that Basil did not entertain towards the Vir¬ gin any such sentiments as are now professed by members of the Roman Church; that he offered her no worship—let it be called dulia, or hyperdulia; that he regarded her as one whose faith was tried and was shaken 3 , and who needed the renewal of the Holy Spirit after that her stedfast trust in God’s promises had for a while been interrupted ; in a word, that he neither regarded her as an intercessor or mediator, nor believed in her assumption, nor placed any hope in her good offices in heaven to be secured by prayer on the part of man, addressed either to herself or to God. The following passage from his letter to Optimus the Bishop leaves no doubt as to the sentiments of Basil. Optimus had laid before Basil some of the difficulties which he felt in the interpretation of Holy Scripture. Among other questions, he requested his assistance towards the right understanding of the address made by Simeon to Mary on the Presentation of Christ in the Temple 4 . Basil complies with his 3 We shall find many of the ancient Fathers putting forth similar sentiments with regard to the Virgin, which, as they appear to have no foundation in Scripture, we may well leave as we find them. The citation of them in evidence of a primitive writer’s sentiments implies no approval or admission of them as our own. 4 Luke ii. 35. CIIAP. II.] BASIL. 229 request 5 , and recommends him to interpret the words “And he shall be for a sign that shall be spoken against,” as prophetic of those lamentable disputes which had arisen concerning the incarnation of Christ; some maintaining “ that he had an earthly body, others that it was a heavenly body; some that it pre-existed from all eternity, others that it had its origin from Mary.” And then, in explanation of the expression “A sword shall pierce through thine own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed,” he thus proceeds : “ The sword is the word that trieth, that judgeth the thoughts, and separateth to the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit, the joints and marrow 6 . As, therefore, every soul was subjected to some doubt at the time of the Passion, (according to the voice of the Lord, who said, 4 All shall be offended because of me’,) Simeon prophesied concerning Mary also herself, that standing by the cross, and seeing what was being done, and hearing those words, notwithstanding the testimony of Gabriel, notwithstanding the [thy] ineffable know¬ ledge of the divine conception, notwithstanding the great display of miracles; yet, after all, saitli he, there shall arise a certain wavering, even in thy own soul. For it behoved the Lord to taste death for every man, and, by making a propitiation for the world, to save all men by his blood. Consequently, even thee thyself also, who hast been instructed from above in the things of the Lord, some doubt shall affect. This is the sword.” Basil then proceeds to explain the remaining clause in Simeon’s address to Mary, thus: 5 Vol. iii. Epist. 260, p. 400. Ed. 1839, vol. iii. p. 579. 6 Heb. iv. 12. 230 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. “‘That the thoughts of many hearts might be re¬ vealed.’ He intimates, that after the offence taken at the cross of Christ, both by the disciples and Mary, some remedy should speedily come from the Lord, confirming their hearts in their faith on Him. Thus we know that Peter, after having been offended, held the faith of Christ more stedfastly. The weakness and frailty of human nature were proved, in order that the power of God might be shown.” Now, without adopting, or rejecting Basil’s inter¬ pretation of Simeon’s address to the Virgin Mary, it is impossible to believe that one who entertained these sentiments could at the same time have held the doc¬ trines concerning the Virgin Mary which the Church of Rome teaches her members to hold. We cannot wonder at the expression which the Benedictine editor uses, both in a marginal note and in the index, “ This of Basil is not quite a fair opinion concerning the holy Mother of God.” “ Basil, not very decorously [minus belle] thinks that Mary herself wavered at the time of the Passion.” In a note, also, the same editor ex¬ presses his persuasion that he shall not give Basil offence, if he says, that in this point he had departed from the Gospel history, and from the true interpreta¬ tion of Simeon’s words. He considers Basil to have drawn his view from Origen, and tells us that others had followed him in adopting the same interpretation. Whence Basil derived his view, or how far his is the true interpretation of the passage, has nothing to do with the object of our present inquiry. Basil is here proved to have held sentiments altogether incom¬ patible with the present belief and practice of the Roman Church concerning the Virgin Mary. The volumes which contain the genuine productions CHAP. II.] BASIL. 231 of Basil (like the works of almost every ancient writer) remind us of the recklessness with which the errors of subsequent ages were ascribed to those primitive teach¬ ers of our holy faith. But when we bear in mind that not less than forty, probably more, of the same name with Basil, though of very inferior note, followed him, we can scarcely wonder at so many spurious works being ascribed to him. Thus, in a supposititious letter, said to have been addressed by Basil to Julian the Apostate 7 , the following sentiments occur: 44 1 acknow¬ ledge the incarnation of the Son, and that the holy Mary, who bare Him in the flesh, is the mother of God 8 : and 1 receive the holy Apostles, Prophets, and Martyrs, and call upon them for their supplication to God,—I mean, by their mediation,—that the merciful God would have pity upon me, and that I might have redemption and remission of my offences. Whence also I honour and worship their pictures and representations, espe¬ cially since these were delivered down to us from the Apostles, and are not forbidden, but are recorded in all our churches.” These are sentiments as much opposed to the genuine remains of Basil, as they are to the sentiments of the Church of England now. By such forgeries the authority of the early Fathers has been too long surreptitiously made to countenance the errors of faith and worship which crept into the Church long after those holy men had fallen asleep in Christ. By no labours, perhaps, can the learning and ability of the lovers of truth, and the faithful sons of the 7 Epist. 3G0. See Vit. Bas. c. viii. s To the spurious homily “ Upon the holy generation of Christ, in which its author dwells on the perpetual virginity of Mary, we need not advert. The Benedictine editors themselves place it in the Appendix, as in their judgment spurious. 232 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. Church of Christ, promote the cause of primitive worship more effectually, than by clearing the field of Christian antiquity of those spurious and noxious weeds which the enemy of truth has from age to age sown so artfully, choking in many cases the genuine and good seed, in others mingling subtle poison with the wholesome fruits of God’s truth. Much has been done already, but we shall be more and more con¬ vinced, as our inquiry proceeds, that much remains to be done. Before we leave this venerable and holy teacher of Christ’s school, the author would recall some few of Basil’s genuine sentiments on the efficacy and comfort of prayer, the duty and the blessing of habitually stu¬ dying the Holy Scriptures, and the consolations admi¬ nistered by genuine Christianity to those who are in sorrow and affliction. The passages bear, though in¬ directly and remotely, yet convincingly, on the imme¬ diate subject of our inquiry: the absence throughout of all allusion to the Virgin Mary, whose protection at the awful hour of death and from the face of their enemy the Roman Church now bids her children to supplicate, is most striking and satisfactory. It is refreshing to hear this holy man in his retire¬ ment speaking (like a voice from the wilderness) of the inestimable value of Holy Scripture as the guide of our life, supplying us with rules of conduct, re¬ cording the lives of good men as living models for a child of God, and proposing their bright example for our imitation. No less delightful is it to hear him speak of prayer. Prayer, he says, should ever attend our study of Holy Scripture: our mind is more vi¬ gorous then, more renovated with the strength of youth, and is under a stronger influence of the love CHAP. II.1 —i BASIL. 233 of Gocl. The best prayer he considers to be that which brings the idea of God more vividly before the mind: to have God present ever in our thoughts and our hearts, he says, realizes the indwelling of God in us. Thus we become a temple of God when the tenor of our thoughts and our remembrance of Him is not cut asunder by earthly cares, nor the mind disturbed by passions unawares assailing us. Flying from all these, the man who loves God withdraws himself to God, banishing all evil desires which would tempt him to what is unholy, and persevering in those pursuits which lead to excellence His letter of condolence to Nectarius \ on the death of that friend’s only son, is most beautiful in itself, and opens to us the views of Basil as to the foun¬ tain and living spring of all consolation to a Christian. Having expressed his own deep affliction caused by the melancholy loss which his friend has sustained, he recalls Nectarius to a consideration of the tenure of human life, and the many instances which they had known of similar calamities. He then adds, “ Above all, it is God’s command that because of the hope of the resur¬ rection we sorrow not for those who have fallen asleep. Moreover, with the great Judge of our struggles crowns of great glory are reserved as the rewards of great pa¬ tience. Wherefore I call on you, as a generous com¬ batant, not to sink beneath the weight of your sorrow, nor suffer your soul to be swallowed up by it; persuaded of this, that though the reasons of God’s dispensations are hidden from us, yet whatever is apportioned to us by Him, who is wise and who loveth us, should be 9 Epist. ii. vol. iii. pp. 72 and 73 ; Ed. 1839, vol. iii. p. 99. 1 Epist. v. p. 77 ; Ed. 1839, p. 108. 234 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. borne, however painful it may be. For He knows bow to assign what is for the real good of each, and why He appoints to different persons unequal periods of life. Though not comprehended by man, there is a cause why some are taken away sooner hence, whilst others are left to linger on in this life of pain. So that in all things we should adore his loving-kindness, and not repining, [or taking any thing ill which comes from Him,] remember the famous exclamation which that great combatant Job uttered when he saw his ten children round one table in one moment destroyed : ‘The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away. As it pleased the Lord, so it was.’ Let us make that admirable sentiment our own. By the just Judge an equal reward is reserved for those who acquit them¬ selves equally. We have not been deprived of our boy ; we have only returned him to the Lender. His life is not extinct, but is changed for the better. The earth does not cover our beloved one, but heaven hath received him. Wait we only a little while, and we shall again be with him whose loss we feel. The time of our separation will not be long. In this life we are all hastening on the road to the same inn ; in which one is already lodged, another is coming in after him, a third hastening: one end will receive us all. He has finished his journey first; but w r e are all on the same journey, and the same inn awaits us all. Only may we resemble him in purity, that we may obtain the same rest with the children of Christ.” At the close of the next, which is also a consolatory letter, addressed to the wife of the same Nectarius, and written on the same trying event, he says, “ In these cases argument is not enough for consolation. We have need also of prayer. I pray the Lord Him- CHAP. II.] GREGORY OF NAZIANZUM. 235 self that He, touching your heart by his ineffable power, will by good thoughts enkindle light in your soul, that you may have the well-spring of comfort in your own home 2 .” section in. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUM 3 , A.D. 380. Gregory, called Theologus from his profound erudi¬ tion in divine knowledge, and of Nazianzum from the city in Cappadocia of that name, was the friend of Basil, and catechist and tutor of Jerome 4 . He was trained, we are told, in the most celebrated schools of rhetoric, as well in other cities as at Athens. For some years he superintended the church of Nazianzum as the coadjutor or suffragan of his father, who was at that time by age and infirmities disabled from dis¬ charging the episcopal functions. He was afterwards called to preside over the metropolitan church of Con¬ stantinople, from which he retired by a voluntary re¬ signation of the burdens and honours of that see; and, having passed the ten remaining years of his life in retirement, he died about the year 391, at the age of probably not less than ninety-one years. This celebrated writer of Christian antiquity is re¬ ferred to by the Roman Catholic commentator on the proceedings of the Council of Trent 5 as one of those who, “ by addressing saints in public harangues, laid the foundation of the modern practice of praying to them ; though such addresses ought to be regarded as 2 P. 79 ; Ed. 1839, p. 112. 3 Paris, vol. i. 1778 ; vol. ii. 1840. 4 See Fabricius, vol. ix. p. 383. s Histoire du Cone, de Trent, par Paoli Sarpi, traduit par Pierre Francois de Courayer, Amsterdam, 1751. 236 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [part IV* figures of rhetoric rather than invocations.” Gregory’s works contain many panegyrics delivered on the anni¬ versaries or at the tombs of celebrated Christians, (some of them his contemporaries,) at the close of which he apostrophizes the martyr, apologizing for his own defects, begging him to accept his exertions, however unworthy of the merits he had been celebrating, and to look favourably on the company who were assembled in his honour. But, in the same harangues, we find him apostrophizing things which never had ears to hear, or a mind to understand : 64 Such are thy narra¬ tions and wonders, O Egypt,” &c. 6 It is difficult to believe that any one who was seeking, not what might by ingenuity be forced to countenance a system, but what is real bona-fide evidence of the faith and practice of enlightened Christians in the first ages of the Church, would acquiesce with any satisfaction in such apostrophes. If weighed in the balance of truth, these apostrophes carry with them no greater proof that the Christian orator invoked the saint in an act of religious worship, than the words of Tacitus, in apostrophizing Agricola, bear that he sought the aid of his departed friend. There is, however, this important difference, that Gregory entertained no doubts as to the immortality of the soul; whereas the words of the Roman historian imply that with him the existence of a future state was still an unsettled question. In more recent instances, also, we find misgivings and doubts as to the power of the departed to hear their surviving friends when addressing them. Such, for example, is the apo¬ strophe made by Frederic II., King of Prussia, in his panegyric of Prince Henry. And after doubts of this Vol. i. p. G21. c CHAP. II.] GREGORY OF NAZIANZUM. 237 sort once expressed, few probably would see any proof of the belief or practice of the heathen biographer or the modern king, were they to make many other similar apostrophes without the expression of such doubt. But precisely the same expression of uncertainty and doubt and misgiving occurs (and that not once only) in these addresses of Gregory of Nazianzum. It may put the illustration in a clearer light, if we lay the instances we have mentioned side by side with Gregory’s. There is a remarkable correspondence in many of the circumstances of the three cases: Tacitus addresses his wife’s father as a beloved parent; Frederic addresses his nephew; Gregory addresses his own sister:—• TACITUS. Agricola! If there be a place for the spi¬ rits of the pious, if, as philosophers think, great souls perish not with their bodies, rest thou in peace: and call thou us thy fa¬ mily, from weak re- pinings and feminine wailings to a contem¬ plation of thy virtues, which it is not lawful for us to mourn or wail for ; rather let us adorn thee with our admiration, with tem¬ poral honours, and if nature so permit, by resembling thee. FREDERIC. Prince! You who knew how dear you were to me — how precious was your person to me : if the voice of the living can make itself heard by the dead, listen to a voice which was not unknown to you. Suffer this frail mo¬ nument, the only one, alas ! that I can erect to your memory to be raised to you 7 . GREGORY. Mayest thou enjoy all these, of which when on earth thou receivedst a few drop¬ pings from thy genu¬ ine disposition to¬ wards them. But if thou canst take any interest in our affairs, and this boon is granted by God to pious souls, to have a sense of such things, receive our address instead of many fune¬ ral obsequies, and in preference to many 8 . 7 For both these references see Taciti Op. Brotier, vol. iv. p. 131. Greg. Naz. vol. i. p. 232. 238 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. The whole of this passage of Gregory’s address deserves a place here. It is full of Christian faith and love. It is observable that in his reference to the joys of heaven which he believed that his sister already possessed, though he mentions the glory of angels and of other beings and of God, yet there is no allusion to the Virgin Mary. “ Better, I well know, and far more to be prized, are the things thou hast now, than what are seen here; the sound of those who keep holyday, the choir of angels, the vision both of other beings, and also of the Trinity most high; the more pure and perfect illumination of glory no longer withdrawing itself from a mind in bondage, and dissipated by the passions, but entirely contemplated, and held by the whole mind, and shining upon our souls with the full light of the God¬ head—all these mayest thou enjoy, of which,” &c. Another very remarkable instance of the same doubt and uncertainty, not as to the happiness of true Chris¬ tians in another world, but as to their power to hear the addresses made to them by any here below, occurs in Gregory’s First Invective against Julian 9 . Having called upon all on earth to hear him, he adds, “ Hear, O heaven, and give ear, O earth . . . And do thou hear, soul of the great Constantius, if there be any perception, and all ye souls of the kings before him who loved Christ.” And the note in the Benedictine edition thus interprets and illustrates these words of Gregory : “ If the dead are sensible of any thing. Thus Isocrates \ in the same words, but somewhat 9 Vol. i. p. 78. 1 Funeral oration over Evagoras ; a similar doubt is expressed in his iEgineticus, as to the power of Thrasyllus to be sensible of what takes place about his children. Bekker, Oxon. pp. 254 and 563. CHAP. II.] GREGORY OF NAZIANZUM. 239 more fully: ‘If there is any perception of what is going on here.’ ” We do not see how, after the expression of these doubts, any sound argument can be based upon such addresses to the souls of the departed made by Gre¬ gory. To confine ourselves more particularly to the imme¬ diate subject of our present inquiry, we do not find any testimony borne by Gregory to the invocation of the Virgin ; on the contrary, he is a clear and strong witness against it. But here a painful duty is forced upon any one who would make a sacrifice of every thing rather than of the truth,—Gregory of Nazianzum is boldly and confidently cited as one who himself prayed directly and unequivocally to the Virgin Mary. The appeal is thus made to his authority 2 , by Dr. N. Wiseman, Roman Catholic Bishop of Melipotamus. “ But I must not omit another passage of the same father,” (St. Gregory “the Theologian,”) “neither will I venture to abridge it. It is the conclusion of his dra¬ matic composition, entitled ‘ Christ Suffering.’ What¬ ever may be put to the account of poetical feeling and expression, enough will remain to satisfy us of his be¬ lief. But, after all, there is poetry in all sincere prayer; every office of Catholic devotion, public or private, is essentially poetical: and if it was lawful for St. Gregory to address the Blessed Virgin as follows, under any circumstances, it cannot be idolatrous in us. ‘ More¬ over, kindly admit thy Mother, O Word! as an inter¬ cessor, and those to whom Thou hast granted the grace to loose. August, venerable, all-blessed Virgin ! thou 2 Remarks on a Letter from the Rev. W. Palmer, by N. Wiseman, D.D., Bishop of Melipotamus. London, 1841, p. 28. 240 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. inhabitest the heavenly mansions of the blessed, freed from the incumbrance of mortality, clad in the gar¬ ment of incorruption, known ever immortal as a Deity. Be kind from above to my addresses. Yea, yea, most glorious maiden, receive my words; for this distinc¬ tion belongs to thee alone of mortals, as the mother of the Word, although beyond comprehension ! On which relying I address thee, and, to adorn thee, bear a gar¬ land woven from the purest meads, O Lady; for that many favours thou vouchsafing hast ever freed me from various calamities of enemies visible, but more invisible. When I shall reach the end of my life, as I have intreated, may I ever have thee as protector of the riches of my entire life, and as a most acceptable intercessor with thy Son, together with his well-pleas¬ ing servants. Allow me not to be delivered up to torments, and to be the sj)ort of the cruel despoiler of men. Stand by me, and save me from the fire and darkness by the faith which justified! me, and by thy favour; for in thee was seen the grace of God to us. Therefore I weave for thee a grateful hymn, Virgin Mother! fair and supreme above all other virgins, sub¬ lime above all heavenly orders of beings! Mistress! Queen of all things ! Delight of our race ! be thou ever kind to it, and to me in every place salvation.’ “Here” (observes Dr. Wiseman) “ is the blessed Virgin directly prayed to, considered a protector, a defender against enemies. In short, in this one address St. Gregory sums up all that is contained in the passage considered by Mr. Palmer so objectionable in the mouths of modern Catholics.” To this alleged testimony of the great Theologian, only one answer can be given; but of the certainty of that answer we can entertain no question. Gregory CHAP. II.] GREGORY OF NAZIANZUM. 241 of Nazianzum never wrote any of those words: the tragedy, written after the manner of Euripides, was not written by Gregory, nor in his age 3 .” The greatest difficulty in the case is, how to account for such a citation being made without any allusion to the autho¬ rities by which it is pronounced not to be Gregory’s. Had members of any other Church alone, or recently, rejected that work, (however strong and sound their reasons might have seemed to us,) we should not have been surprised at our Roman Catholic contemporaries still quoting an authority to which they had been accustomed to appeal; but here we need quote no other evidence than the united testimonies of the large majority of Roman Catholic critics, to prove that a passage has been cited as genuine, which is beyond all question spurious. We need only to refer to the words of the Roman Catholic editor of the second volume of Gregory’s works, published in Paris, in the year 1840, on the principles of the Benedictine editors. His arguments will be found in the Appendix. Another passage has been frequently quoted in proof that Gregory of Nazianzum recognized prayer to the Virgin as an established and common practice in the century before his time. The passage occurs in an oration said to have been delivered by this Gre¬ gory in collaudation of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage. The reasons which compel us to regard this oration as altogether spurious, and the production of a writer far Gregory’s inferior in knowledge, will be also found in 3 The composition itself is a tragedy, after the manner of Euripides, called “ Christ suffering.” The dramatis personae are Christ, his mother, Joseph, a theologian, the Magdalene, Nicodemus, a mes¬ senger, Pilate, a congregation of priests, choir of virgins, semichorus, a young man, a guard. R 242 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. the Appendix. But if, for argument’s sake, the ora¬ tion were received as genuine, its evidence amounts to very little. It is, however, most highly valued by the defenders of the worship of the Virgin ; and, with the view of retaining it among Gregory’s works, consi¬ derable pains have been taken to reconcile the confu¬ sion and inconsistencies which abound in it throughout. Indeed, the Benedictine editors confess, (whilst they extol its importance, and tenaciously retain it,) “ that nowhere in the fourth century is the protection and the assistance of the blessed Virgin Mary so clearly and so explicitly commended as in this oration 4 .” But, whoever was the author of this speech, the story which he details is this: That a young lady of great beauty was in imminent danger in consequence of the violent emotions which her charms had excited in Cyprian, who, to bring her into his toils and secure her to himself, had recourse to the arts of magic, in which he was versed, and to the assistance of one of those evil spirits whom magicians bribed by acts of homage. “ Justina,” (to use the orator’s own words,) “ discarding ALL OTHERS, FLIES FOR REFUGE TO GOD, wllO had pro¬ tected Susanna and Thecla, and takes her own bride¬ groom for her champion against hateful lust. And who was this ?—Christ, who rebukes the winds and supports the sinking, and consigns a legion of devils to the deep, and rescues from the den the just man ex¬ posed as food for lions, and by the outstretching of his arms conquers the wild beasts, and rescues the fugitive prophet swallowed up by the whale, even in its belly preserving his faith, and saves the Assyrian youths in the fire, quenching the flame by his angel, and adding 4 Vol. i. p. 437. CHAP. II.] GREGORY OF NAZIANZUM. 243 a fourth to the three. Meditating on these and more instances than these, (and beseeching the Virgin Mary to assist a virgin in peril,) she throws before her the charm of fasting and mortification, at the same time marring her beauty as treacherous, that she might withdraw the fuel of the flame and expend the heat of passion, and also making God propitious by her faith and her humility ; for God is served by nothing so much as by affliction ; and loving-kindness is given in return for tears.” If this statement came from Gregory of Nazianzum in its present form, it shows, that he reported without a word of approbation or of dissatisfaction the circum¬ stance of a virgin in peril having, a century before, called upon the Virgin Mary to protect her from the wanton attacks of one who was then a child of Satan, exercising for her ruin his arts as a magician, but whom she converted to Christianity, and who after¬ wards became Bishop of Carthage. The sentence is parenthetical, and no reference is made to the Virgin Mary’s help in what precedes or follows it: on the contrary, the orator expressly states, that Justina, V forsaking all other aid, betook herself only to God. Still, if the oration is genuine, this parenthesis must be allowed to carry that degree of evidence as to the practice of the preceding century which each indivi¬ dual may consider it legitimately to bear. Yet the objections to its being regarded as the genuine pro¬ duction of Gregory the Theologist seem to us insur¬ mountable. The insulated parenthesis, however, in this oration, which we have above quoted, is confessed by Roman Catholics to be, of all, the most clear and explicit testimony of the invocation of the Virgin, which the fourth century supplies! r 2 244 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. But here a question naturally forces itself upon the mind. If there is so much uncertainty as to the authen¬ ticity and genuineness of this oration, will not the un¬ disputed works of Gregory enable us to infer what were his own sentiments as to the invocation of the Virgin Mary ? Will not his compositions, either in prose or in verse, inform us whether he addressed the Virgin in prayer himself, or was aware that the Chris¬ tian Church, as a body and in its members, so addressed her? Undoubtedly Gregory has left quite enough upon record in his own undisputed works to enable any one to answer these questions for himself. The result of a diligent inquiry is, that there is no intimation what¬ ever that Gregory looked for any help or aid to the Virgin Mary, or ever invoked her himself; nor does he ever allude to her worship by others his contempo¬ raries as a practice with which he was acquainted. But the nature and circumstances of Gregory’s works take his testimony out of the common class of negative evidence, and invest it with a force of no ordi¬ nary cogency. The course of his arguments often led him to speak of the union in Christ of the divine and human nature, and consequently of the birth of Christ. On all these occasions he speaks of the Virgin Mary as a being of untainted purity in body and mind, using often expressions which, though not in themselves and of necessity implying any thing contrary to sound doc¬ trine, yet are liable to misinterpretation, and which, perhaps, made the descent to error in a subsequent age more easy 5 , but none of which imply any trust in her mediation, or any invocation of her aid. 5 See vol. i. p. 728 ; vol. i. p. 852 ; vol. ii. p. 85. CHAP. II.] GREGORY OF NAZIANZUM. 245 Gregory has left behind him a large number of poems on religious and moral subjects, of unequal merit as compositions, still breathing throughout the spirit of an enlightened, pious, and holy Christian. Among these are, at least, thirty hymns of pray el¬ and thanksgiving. Yet, among these it is in vain to search for any invocation to the Virgin, or any ad¬ dress to her, or any recognition of her influence as intercessor, or any power given to her as the dispenser of blessings or mercies. In the variety of his petitions he seems to ask for all things needful both for the soul and body. It is interesting and edifying to com¬ pare these prayers, not only with the less solemnly authorized hymns of prayer and praise offered to the Virgin in Roman Catholic churches, but even with the authorized prayers of the Liturgy of Rome. Gregory prays for guidance in his journey, for protec¬ tion from his enemies, for a pure heart and life, for help and acceptance in the hour of death ; but we find no “ Mary, mother of grace, protect us from our enemies, make our life pure, prepare for us a safe journey, receive us in the hour of death.” Every ad¬ dress is made to God his Saviour: no mention occurs of the Virgin’s name, no allusion to her advocacy. God in Christ is, from first to last, the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega of Gregory’s worship and invocation. There are, however, both in his prose and in his verse, references made to Mary, and we are unwilling to omit any one of them. In his oration on the Nativity he uses this strong- expression: “ Christ is born of a Virgin. Ye women, live as virgins that ye may be mothers of Christ G .” Orat. xxxviii. p. 664. 6 246 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. In a short poem, speaking of liis mother, he says, “ Nonna, praying at this table, was taken away, and now shines, (with Susanna, Mary, and the Annas,) a support of women 7 .” In one verse he applies to Mary an epithet which the translator renders “ like to God 8 ,” but which in the note we are properly directed to interpret “ pious.” In another poem 9 , written in honour of the virgin- state, as an example of the offspring surpassing its parent in excellence, he says: “ And Christ is indeed of Mary, but far more excellent Not only than Mary, and those who are clothed with flesh, But also than all the intellects which the spacious heaven inveils 1 .” Surely these are not the addresses and the senti¬ ments of one who invoked the Virgin or sought her aid in supplication. We will only refer to one more passage. In his sermon on the Nativity he calls upon the Christian to honour Bethlehem and the manger; to hasten with the star, and offer with the Magi, and to worship with the shepherds, and sing with the angels and arch¬ angels— “ Let there,” says the preacher, “ be one united celebration made by the powers of heaven and earth; for I am persuaded that they join in this festival 2 .” Of Joseph and Mary he there says nothing. 7 Vol. ii. p. 1134. Carm. lxix. 8 Vol. ii. p. 308. v. 199. 0 P. 336. v. 694. 1 To this passage the index refers us thus : “ Mary inferior to Christ, superior to all others.” Her inferiority is expressed in the text; of her superiority Gregory says not a word. 2 Orat. xxxviii. p. 674. CHAP. II.] EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN. 247 SECTION IY.-ST. EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN, 370—380 3 . Ephraim the Syrian is said to have been born at Nisibis in Mesopotamia, and (as a tradition, which is much questioned, states) was ordained deacon by Basil. It is generally believed that he was never ordained priest. The place of his ministry was Edessa, and his death probably happened between the years 375 and 380. His works, as they are now offered to us, are written partly in Greek, partly in Syriac, though many of the learned seriously question the fact of his having written him¬ self any work in Greek 4 . A legend, involving a mira¬ culous interposition, and which has not improperly been said to savour of the fabulous, records that he spoke only his own language till he was ordained by Basil, when he suddenly spoke Greek as fluently and as accurately as his native tongue 5 . The great difficulty which every one must feel in searching for Ephraim’s own sentiments on any subject of theological interest, is the arduous and almost hope¬ less task of separating his genuine works from those supposititious productions with which they are min¬ gled. Another Ephraim, called the Younger, lived about the middle of the sixth century; and we are assured that many of the works, now ascribed to the elder Ephraim of Edessa, would with more justice be 3 Rome, 1732, six vols. fol.; Oxford, Thwaites, 1709 ; Vossius, Cologne, 1603. 4 Theodoret, 1. iv. c. 26, and Sozomen, 1. iii. c. 16, say that Ephraim was unacquainted with Greek. See Tillemont, 1. viii. p. 743. And Jerome says, that Ephraim wrote in Syriac, and that he had himself read a work of Ephraim’s on the Holy Spirit, trans¬ lated into Greek. 5 See Fabricius, vol. viii. p. 217. 248 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. considered as the productions of the younger Ephraim, if not of some yet later writer 6 . Some writers reject all those works as unauthentic which are found only in Greek translations; others have set their stamp of authenticity on writings as¬ cribed to Ephraim, which many upright judges find themselves compelled to pronounce spurious. Car¬ dinal Bellarmin says he had only read some few of the works of Ephraim ; and declares himself unable to pronounce whether they were all genuine, or mingled with some spurious compositions 7 . Among those who would go far towards banishing the works, now publish¬ ed as Ephraim’s, from the catalogue of witnesses to primitive Christian doctrine, are Rivet and Tentzel s ; while the Roman editor, Asseman, seems bent on ad¬ mitting as genuine, with few exceptions, whatever has been handed down under the name of Ephraim. It is very disappointing to find one, who had at his com¬ mand so great a variety of valuable means for forming a correct judgment, suffering his zeal for the doctrines of the Roman Church to force upon him the office of advocate, and to divest him of the character of an up¬ right and impartial arbiter 9 . c See Fabrieius, vol. viii. p. 540. 7 Op. Epb. vol. i. p. lvii. 8 See Tillemont, p. 746. 9 Had the sound principles which guided Baronius and the Bene¬ dictine editor in giving their verdict on some of the works of Atha¬ nasius, been allowed the same place in the minds of the two editors of Ephraim,—one, the editor of his works in Greek ; the other of his Syriac remains,—instead of triumphant rhapsodies on the annoy¬ ance felt by heretics on finding such accumulated support to the Roman system poured in from the East, and on the victory supposed to be gained over those who separated from Rome, by the testimony of this Father’s works, then first published ; and instead of argu¬ ments for adopting these works from the sentence and practice of CHAP. II.] EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN. 249 M. Lenain cle Tillemont 10 , who (to use his own ex¬ pression) had only the translation of a translation to supply him with materials for forming his judgment, has taken a very different course from either of these extreme parties. His criticisms carry with them the marks of candour, discrimination, and research. The canons which he prescribes to himself compel him to reject many of the works which Asseman strives to re¬ store to their place among Ephraim’s genuine produc¬ tions ; and, at the same time, to retain others, which critics both before him and after him have excluded. Kohl \ in his account of the Sclavonic version of Ephraim’s works, is more rigid than Tillemont, but not so general in his denouncements as Rivet. Thus, whilst some of the writings which have been ascribed to Ephraim must be acknowledged to be spurious, and others are pronounced to be genuine and are unsus¬ pected, (except so far as a translation can never be appealed to with entire satisfaction,) a third class are declared to be spurious by some, and are maintained by others to be genuine. In the midst of so much uncertainty, we might have been induced, under other the Church of Rome as to apocryphal books of Scripture, we should have had a view of the remains of Ephraim offered to us very dif¬ ferent from that which this edition now’ presents. The whole work must be undertaken afresh. But, till a material change takes place in the policy of those who preside over the treasures of the Vatican, the difficulty of separating the legitimate from the spurious in Ephraim’s works will be almost insurmountable. The author of the present work made an unsuccessful attempt to learn the real state and condition and circumstances of the Vatican manuscripts, through the kind offices of one of the most learned of our English Roman Catholics : who however at once represented any attempt of the kind as labour thrown away. Vol. viii. p. 743, &c. 1 Petersburg!), 1729, p. 223, &c. 10 1 250 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. circumstances, to pass on after making only a few remarks on the evidence of Ephraim; or, according to the beautiful suggestion of Tillemont, we might have been satisfied with culling a few of those affecting passages out of the works ascribed, whether rightly or not, to Ephraim, which will never fail to find a re¬ sponse in the breast of every contrite Christian, from whatever pen they came. But when persons of high station in the Church of Rome boldly and confidently appeal to the evidence of Ephraim in proof that prayers were offered to the Virgin in the primitive Church, and in that appeal cite passages as genuine and indisputable which on the very face of them have no pretensions whatever to be regarded as Ephraim’s; for us to abstain from laying bare such proceedings, would be to sacrifice the sacred cause of truth to a morbid and unworthy motive. Dr. N. Wiseman, Roman Catholic Bishop of Melipo- tamus, in his lectures delivered in the chapel in Moor- fields in the year 1836, thus speaks (vol. ii. p. 109): “ Another saint of this age, St. Ephrem, is remarkable as the oldest Father and writer of the Oriental Church. His expressions are really so exceedingly strong, that I am sure many Catholics of the present day would feel a certain delicacy or difficulty in using some of them in their prayers, for fear of offending persons of another religion ; they go so much beyond those which we use.” Having referred to two passages,—one to prove that the martyrs were invoked by Ephraim, a point on which this work is not intended to touch; and the other, to show that both Mary was invoked, and God was prayed to through her intercession, which cannot be found according to the reference (“ Serm. de Laud. B. Mar. Virg., t. iii. p. 156,”)— Dr. Wiseman proceeds: “There CHAP. II.] EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN. 251 are passages, however, innumerable, in liis writings much stronger, and I will read you one or two as specimens of the many prayers found in his works addressed to the blessed Virgin : ‘In thee, patroness and mediatrix with God, who was born from thee, the human race, O mother of God, placetli its joy, and ever is de¬ pendent upon thy patronage, and in thee alone hath refuge and strength, who hast full confidence in Him. Behold, I also draw nigh to thee with a fervent soul, not having courage to approach thy Son, but imploring that through thy intercession (/xEtm-a'ac) I may obtain salvation. Despise not then thy servant, who placeth all his hopes in thee after God; reject him not, placed in greatest danger and oppressed with many griefs; but thou, who art compassionate and the mother of a mer¬ ciful God, have mercy upon thy servant, free me from fatal concupiscence,’ &c. In another prayer we meet the following words, addressed to the same ever-glorious Virgin: ‘After the Trinity, thou art mistress of all; after the Paraclete, another paraclete ; after the Medi¬ ator, mediatrix of the whole world.’ Surely this is more than enough to prove, that if this glory of the Syriac Church, this friend of the great St. Basil, had lived in our times, he would not have been allowed to officiate in the English Church, but would have been obliged to retire to some humble chapel, if he wished to discharge his sacred functions.” This lecture Dr. Wiseman published in the year 1836 ; and the same author, after a lapse of five years, in his Remarks on the Letter of the Rev. W. Palmer 2 , undertaking to compare the expressions of the present Pope’s Encyclical Letter with the language of ancient 2 London, 1841, p. 20. 252 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. times, has felt himself justified in making this state¬ ment : “ The Fathers—S. Ephrem Syrus, the friend of St. Basil, and most highly extolled by contemporary Fathers, thus prays to the blessed Virgin : 4 Entirely renew me, making me a temple of the most holy, and life-giving, and most excellent Spirit, who dwelt and overshadowed thy immaculate womb, Power from on high.’ Again 3 , the same must be said of St. Ephrem. Page after page of his writings is filled with prayers to the mother of God, which go far beyond any thing that Catholics are in the habit of using nowadays. The few extracts that I make, chiefly with reference to Mr. Palmer’s objections, will afford but poor specimens of the context of his prayers. Thus he addresses her : 4 O Virgin, Lady, Mother of God, most blessed Mother of God, .... incline thine ear and hear my words, sent forth from unclean and impure lips. For, behold, with a contrite soul and an humble mind I have recourse to thy mercy. For I have no other hope or refuge , my only comfort and quick defence ; ... of my withered heart, divine refreshment; of my dark soul, brightest lamp. For in thee I hope, in thee I exult.’ Again : 4 Virgin, Lady, Mother of God, .... in thee I place all my hopes; and in thee I trust, more exalted than all heavenly power.’ — Operum tom. iii. Grseco-Lat., p. 524.” The Author, in writing these pages, lias anxiously endeavoured to abstain from every expression which might unnecessarily give pain to any one ; here, how¬ ever, he cannot but express his deep and sincere con¬ cern that any person of so high a rank in liis Church, and of so wide a fame among his own people as a 3 P. 23. CHAP. II.] EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN. 253 champion of their faith, should in aid of his argu¬ ment have thus triumphantly quoted, we do not say, passages the genuineness of which was disputed on one side and maintained on the other (although even in that case we might have expected some notice to have been in fairness taken of their disputed genuineness)-— we do not say, passages from works which, though once ascribed to a Father, have been long acknowledged even by members of his own Church to he spurious; hut from works which never were ascribed to Ephraim in any age, which are not ascribed to him in any one MANUSCRIPT OR PRINTED BOOK, which Were NEVER even bound up with Ephraim’s works before the 1/ Roman edition of 1732 4 , from which they are now extracted (from which also Dr. Wiseman quotes them) —works which that very edition itself, so far from representing them as the prayers of Ephraim, proves not to have been his. The facts are these:-—A monk named Thecaras 5 compiled certain penitential prayers for every day in the week. These were headed as “ Penitential prayers of the most holy monk Thecaras, collected from divine Scripture, but for the most part from holy Ephraim, for those who desire to contend against their own inclination towards the passions and pleasures 6 .” Such 4 This edition consists of six volumes ; three containing the Greek works published in 1732, and three containing the Syriac works published in 1736, under the auspices of Clement XII. 5 Here it may be observed, that the only prayers of Thecaras which it has fallen to the author of this work to read [Venice, 1783] seem to correspond much in sentiment and style with these peni¬ tential prayers, but differ totally in spirit, sentiment, and style from those independent prayers to the Virgin to which Dr. Wiseman appeals. 0 Ephraim’s Greek works, vol. i. p. clxviii. 254 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. is the heading in the manuscript of the Coislinian Library in Paris. In the Vatican manuscript 7 , with the omission of the word 44 Penitential,” the heading is the same, but the name of Tliecaras is suppressed 8 . These are the prayers which, with this heading, were published in the Roman edition of Ephraim’s works. But, when the prayers of this series are brought to a close, a short prayer is introduced from a printed work, 44 Horologium Grsecorum in Mesonyctico,” which is also found in a manuscript of the Vatican (Vat. MS. 775, p. 18), totally different from the manu¬ script which contains the prayers of Thecaras. Then, after this, come the prayers from which Dr. Wiseman quotes,—but these have nothing whatever to do even with the prayers of Thecaras, much less with those of Ephraim; they are totally independent of either Ephraim or Thecaras. The Roman editor, indeed, of his own mere will has introduced, in Latin, the word 44 ejusdem,” 44 of the same,” in his general heading to 7 MS. Vat. 1190, p. 1117. 8 “ Prayers like those of Thecaras” (as the Roman editor repre¬ sents them) are found separately in some Vatican MSS. (not the MS. containing the prayers to the Virgin in question, but totally different), and are published in his third volume, from p. 482 to 492. Then come the penitential prayers of Thecaras (though his name is suppressed—“ suppresso Thecarae nomine”) from p. 492 to 523 : at the bottom of which page is the prayer from the Horologium. In these penitential prayers (not of Ephraim, but Thecaras) there is no address to the Virgin, except in the middle of the Lamentation on the Lord’s day at evening, in which it is unquestionably an inter¬ polation violently thrust into the middle of a prayer to God, who is the sole object of invocation both before and after the interpolated rhap¬ sody. Then followq from p. 524, the prayers to which Dr. Wiseman appeals, headed each severally in the manuscript ’Ev^V/ rrjc Oeotckov (a prayer of her who bare God), without reference either to Ephraim, or Thecaras, or any other author. CIIAP. II.] EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN. 255 the prayers that follow—“ Prayers of tlie same to the Mother of God but for this he has no more reason than a Latin editor and translator of the New Testa¬ ment would have for ascribing the Acts of the Apos¬ tles to St. John, because that book followed next in the Greek manuscript. The Vatican manuscript does not pretend to be a manuscript of Ephraim’s works, or even of his prayers; for example, between the third prayer to the Virgin, p. 1135 of the Vatican MS., and the fourth prayer, p. 1137, intervenes in p. 1136 a prayer to the Virgin, called by name A Prayer of Barsanuphius 9 : and, instead of any general heading, or any allusion to Ephraim, or even to The- caras, as the author, the manuscript calls each sepa¬ rately “A Prayer of the most holy Mother of God;” “ A Prayer of the Mother of God V’ &c.; and one is entitled “ The Confessing Prayer to the most holy Mother of God.” With reference to these prayers to the Virgin ascribed to Ephraim, it is very remarkable, that the Roman editor himself, in his preface 2 to this edition, confesses, that though he cannot bring himself, with some late writers, to think the prayers unworthy of Ephraim, yet in prayers of this kind some epithets were added by amanuenses, either from their own piety towards the Virgin, or drawn from other writings of holy men. It has been already observed, that these prayers have never appeared before in any edition of Ephraim’s works, nor are they found in any other manuscript than the Cod. Vat. 1190 3 ; except the first prayer, which is said to be found also in Cod. Vat. 663, p. 230. 9 Op. Eph. vol. i. p. cxxxvi. 1 Pp. 524, 548, &c. 2 Vol. i. p. liv. 3 Vatican Cod. 1190, pp. 1133, 1134, 1135, 1137, 1147. 256 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. Even Vossius, who, in liis dedicatory epistle to the Pope 4 , says that he had brought to light all the works of Ephraim, some of which had never before been published, especially from the Italian, and more particularly the Roman manuscripts, makes no allusion to any of these prayers. And afterwards Possevinus 5 though he speaks of the Vatican manuscripts, does not allude to these. And yet Dr. Wiseman, in 1836, and again in 1841, quotes, as the indisputable works of Ephraim, prayers which, had they been the genuine productions of the writer to whom the week’s peniten¬ tial prayers are ascribed, would have been the produc¬ tions, not of Ephraim, but of Thecaras; but which even the very manuscript which contains them does not represent as having been the composition of either the one or the other. But, with regard to these supposititious prayers, the Roman editor himself is indeed by no means free from blame. In his preface 6 he represents these prayers, (not only those collected by Thecaras, but also those which are addressed to the Virgin), as being found, not only in the Vatican manuscripts, but also in the Cois- linian, and, as his authority, he quotes Montfaucon’s account of the Coislinian manuscripts, referring to the very page ; yet he omits to tell us (what Montfaucon 7 reports expressly), that the first penitential prayer, with the opening of the second, is all that is contained in that MS., the rest of even those prayers being entirely lost 8 . Of the prayers to the Virgin, quoted by Dr. 4 Vossius dates bis letter 1589. 5 Vol. i. Op. Epb. p. lviii. c; Vol. i. p. clxviii. 7 Montfaucon, 1715, p. 426. 8 In Montfaucon the title is, “ Prayers collected by Thecaras the monk.” Cod. 312, a fob 310. See vol. i. Op. Epb. p. clxvi. CHAP. II.] EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN. 2 57 Wiseman, that manuscript lias not a single trace, though the Roman editor 9 , in the case of every one of the eleven prayers separately, refers us by name to that manuscript as containing them. These prayers having nothing whatever to do with Ephraim, we need scarcely stop to remark, that internal evidence, clear and irresistible, proves them to have been of a much later age, not only than Ephraim, but even than the Council of Chalcedon ; whilst, in point of direct worship to the Virgin, they not only (as Dr. Wiseman tells us in his Lectures ] ,) go far beyond any thing which the members of his Church are in the habit of using now a days, but might be cited as countenancing all the lamentable corruptions of Bona- ventura when he applies to Mary the language which in the Psalms is addressed only to the Most High. The w T riter scruples not to say to the Virgin 2 , “ Thou only art the most highest over all the earth 3 ,” using the very words of the versicle, “ Thou whose name is Jehovah art only the Most Highest in all the earth.” Nay, to such a pitch of impiety does the writer go, as to apply to Mary that name which the Saviour of the world appropriated to Himself, “ the true Vine 4 .” The first of these prayers to the Virgin ends thus (it is painful to transcribe such an ascription of glory to a creature, however pure and holy): “ That, being liberated from the darkness of sin, I might be deemed worthy to glorify and freely celebrate thee, the only true Mother of the true Light, Christ our 9 See alphabetical list of the works in Greek, vol. i. p. clxxxii. &c, Vol. ii. p. 109. 2 Vol. iii. pp, 544. 539. 3 Septuag. Ps. lxxxii. Heb. Ps. lxxxiii. 1 'H afiTTtXog r] q.\rjQivrj. St. John, xv. 1. § 258 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. God, because Tliou alone with him (avv avrio ) and through him ( 81 avrov ) art blessed and glorified by every creature visible and invisible, now and always, for ever and ever. Amen.” It is, moreover, curious to observe, that whereas Epiphanius, in the passages already referred to in this volume, adopts language to which some of our Roman Catholic brethren have declared themselves ready to respond, “ Let Mary be in honour, but let the Lord be worshipped. Let no one worship Mary;” in these prayers the supplicant offers Mary worship, using the self-same Greek word by which Epiphanius proscribed her worship 5 , “ But thee, O Bride of God, in faith we praise, with desire we venerate, and with fear w T e worship, always magnifying and religiously blessing thee.” But it is time to leave these blasphemies, most un¬ justly fathered upon Ephraim of Edessa, who, if w T e may judge from other works ascribed to him, would have shrunk from them as the wdles of the tempter, (to use Epiphanius’ words,) bent on seducing men from the pure worship of the one only God, our Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. In the section of Dr. Wiseman’s lectures quoted above occurs a passage found in a sermon, ascribed to Ephraim, on the praises of the Blessed Virgin. This The words of Epiphanius stand out in broad contrast with these spurious prayers : Epiphanius. kv rif-irj earco Maptd. Mcifnci/J, £3. 3 Vol. i. p. 198. CHAP. II.] EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN. 263 as “being exalted above the choirs of angels in heaven,” to have been “taken up into the ethereal bride-chamber, in which the King of kings sits on his starry throne;” to be the “ refuge of sinners,” “ the queen of angels, pa¬ triarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, confessors, and all saints;”—can we conceive that when enumerating all the subjects of a Christian’s contemplation, from the eternal Father down to the Christian himself, he could have omitted all mention of Mary ? It is curious to remark, that, though in the first volume of the works in the Roman edition, Ephraim refers us to Symeon as a just and pious man, and to others, such as Martha and Mary, as patterns for our imitation in devotion, and speaks especially of purity, chastity, and humility, yet he never on these occasions adverts to Mary. We are not aware of her name being mentioned throughout the entire volume as an object of honour, or admiration, or gratitude. Instead, then, of agreeing with Dr. Wiseman, that, “ if this glory of the Syriac Church had lived in our times, he w T ould not have been allowed to officiate in the English Church, but would have been obliged to retire to some humble chapel, if he wished to discharge his sacred functions,” because, according to Dr. Wise¬ man, he uses expressions when addressing the Virgin stronger than are ever used by any of the Roman Church now; instead of allowing that page after page of Ephraim’s writings is filled with prayers to the mother of God; we challenge the most zealous and indefatigable advocate of her worship to bring forward one single passage which an upright and en¬ lightened criticism would pronounce genuine, and which contains the record of one single act of adoration or 264 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. invocation of the Virgin Mary, either by Ephraim himself, or by any one of his contemporaries. The prayers cited with such unqualified confidence by Dr. Wiseman have nothing whatever to do with Ephraim the Syrian of Edessa as their author or recorder. SECTION V. - GREGORY OF NYSSA, A.D. 390 4 . Gregory, brother of Basil the Great, devoted him¬ self for many years to the calling of an orator and rhetorician. About the age of forty, and about the year 372, he was consecrated Bishop of Nyssa, in Cappadocia, by Basil. He was a married man, for Gregory of Nazianzum 5 condoles with him on the loss of his wife after he had been admitted into the Chris¬ tian priesthood. In common with many of his contem¬ poraries, he suffered much discomfort and persecution in consequence of the bitter controversies which dis¬ tracted the Church. The time of his release by death from the burden and cares of a servant of Christ is not certainly known; it could not have been before the closing years of the fourth century, for he was unques¬ tionably present at the Council of Constantinople, a.d. 394 6 . Besides those works of Gregory the genuineness of which is not disputed, some are ascribed to him which are justly suspected. On other subjects of theological inquiry it would be necessary to have the question settled, as best it might, which of those works should be received as genuine, and which should be considered 4 Three vols. fol. Paris, 1638. 6 Epist. 95. 6 Fabricius, vol. ix. p. 98. CHAP. II.] GREGORY OF NYSSA. 265 as spurious \ With reference, however, to the question now before us, we need not dwell upon that point; for in none of the works, whether rightly or incorrectly referred to Gregory as their author, is any countenance whatever given to the invocation of the Virgin Mary. In other departments of faith and practice, we perceive traces of credulity and superstition in his own mind, and indications of that growing corruption and de¬ generacy which then began to tarnish many portions of the Christian Church. In his harangues over the ashes of martyrs, (if those homilies be the genuine productions of Gregory,) whilst we are offended by much of the declamation of the sophist, we seek in vain for that soberness of judgment which is indis¬ pensable in a teacher of divine things. But in his genuine works, whilst he is writing his thoughts calmly and deliberately, there is much worthy of the pen of a Christian philosopher. Thus, in his elaborate work written against the errors of Eunomius, we find these reflections on the object of Christian worship, worthy of the best age: “That nothing which is brought into existence by creation is an object of worship to man, the Divine Word has enacted, as we may learn from almost the whole of the sacred volume. Moses, the Tables, the Law, the Prophets in order, the Gospels, the decrees 7 It may be well to observe that some of these works must be set aside as spurious; e. g. the Homily “ In Occursum Domini,” that feast not having been instituted till long after the time of Gregory ; and the sermon containing expressions which certainly were not in use up to the time of the Council of Chalcedon, such as Of.ofj.r]rrip TvapdevoQ. In the Homily on the Nativity, the writer quotes at length from a work which he calls an apocryphal history, and dwells much on the unsullied purity of the Virgin. 266 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. of all the Ajiostles, equally forbid us to look to the creature 8 .” “That we may, therefore, not be subject to these things, we, who are taught by the Scriptures to look to the true Godhead, are instructed to regard every created being as foreign from the divine nature, and to serve and reverence the uncreated nature alone, the characteristic and distinguishing property of which is neither to have had any beginning of existence, nor ever to cease to exist 9 .” In his comment on the Lord’s Prayer 10 , which will repay a more minute examination, Gregory defines prayer to be “ a petition for some good presented with supplication to God adding this among other valuable suggestions, “ Plave a pure mind, and then boldly ad¬ dress God with your own voice, and call him your Father w T ho is the Sovereign of all. He will look upon you with fatherly eyes; tie will clothe you with the divine robe, and adorn you with his ring; He will prepare your feet with Gospel sandals for the journey upwards, and will settle you in the heavenly country V’ As we might have expected in one who entertained these principles on the unity of the object of worship, and on the duty and privilege of drawing nigh unto God our own selves in prayer, we can discover not a single trace, however faint, of any invocation of the Virgin in any one of his works. But the evidence arises not merely from the absence of any expression of re¬ ligious feelings towards her in discussions which might not naturally suggest them, and where silence might be compatible with such feelings: when speaking of God manifest in the flesh, of the pure and spotless 8 Vol. ii. book iv. p. 572. 9 Vol. ii. p. 574. 10 Vol. ii. p. 724. 1 P. 731. CHAP. II.] GREGORY OF NYSSA. 267 nature of Christ as man, of God becoming man, taking upon Himself a body which should bear God, though he dwells much and repeatedly on the miraculous concep¬ tion of Christ and his miraculous birth, he seems of fixed purpose to draw our minds away from the person of her who gave birth to the Saviour, and to fix them on the office or part assigned to her in that mysterious dispensation. There may be exceptions which even a careful examination may have passed by unobserved; but in general, when he is most specific in maintaining the immaculate nature of Christ’s birth, he never men¬ tions Mary by name: his expressions for the most part are, “ the Virgin purity,” “ the Virginity,” and, much less frequently, “the Virgin.” ITis object is to main¬ tain that God became man by a miraculous birth of Virgin purity, and he seems to regard the Virgin as having discharged her office in this mysterious economy of grace when she had given birth to the Redeemer, who took our nature of the seed of David from her substance. A few examples will suffice. In his work on the life of Moses and his account of the Creation he thus speaks of Christ: “This is the only-begotten God, who Himself com¬ prehends all things, and yet pitched his tabernacle among ns.Marriage did not produce his divine flesh, but He becomes the framer of his own body, marked out by the finger of God ; for the Holy Ghost came upon the Virgin, and the power of the Highest overshadowed her 2 .” It must be remarked that, whereas the Roman Ri¬ tual applies the language of the book of Ecclesiastes 2 Vol. i. pp. 224 and 234. 268 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. and the Song of Solomon to the Virgin Mary, and authors 3 who have written in defence of her worship appeal to those oracles of truth as evidence of her exalted character yet, this Gregory, in his elaborate interpretation of those boohs, though he speaks very much at large, and very minutely, of Christ’s birth, does not allude to Mary at all. This point is more especially observable in his spiritual application of the Song of Solomon to the Christian dispensation. He considers that under the figure of a marriage is represented the union between the human soul and God. In the course of his discussion he refers to St. John lying on our Lord’s bosom ; he invites the daughters of Jerusalem to look to their mother, Je¬ rusalem which is above; he interprets one passage as foreshadowing the angels attending our Lord when He became man; another as fulfilled in the devoted¬ ness of the twelve Apostles; another, in the beauty of the Christian Church; he speaks of the genealogy of Christ traced from Abraham and David; he directs our thoughts to Nathanael, and Andrew, and the great Apostle John; he tells us of Paul pouring the pure doctrine of truth into the ears of the Holy Virgin, but that Virgin was Thecla 4 . Of the Virgin Mary he says nothing. If from the works of Gregory of Nyssa we turn to the Roman Ritual as established and observed at the present day, every impartial inquirer will see that this Gregory and the framers of that Liturgy have not drawn from the same source. Passage after passage in the Roman 3 Coccius (vol. i. 262) appeals to Canticles, iv. 7, as a Scripture proof of the supreme excellence of the Virgin. See also Breviarium Romanura, [Husenbeth, Norwich, 1830, TEst. p. 600.] 4 Vol. i. p. 676. CHAP. II.] GREGORY OF NYSSA. 269 service on the feasts of the Virgin are applied to her, which Gregory applies to the glory of Christ’s divinity, of his truth, and of his Church. Nay, when he dwells upon the mystery that Christ alone, of all the myriads on myriads of men, was born, not as others, but of the purity of a virgin 5 , he applies no single passage of the whole book to Mary; nor does he speak of the Virgin Mary personally, but only of the virginhood of which Christ was born 6 . Two or three passages will suffice to establish these points; though the full force of the evidence can be felt only by seeing in the very writings of Gregory how many opportunities offered themselves to him for the natural expression of sentiments of reverence and worship towards the Virgin Mary as an object of invocation, where we find very different thoughts suggested. In his first homily on the Canticles 7 he says : “ Think ye that I am speaking of that Solomon who was born of Bathsheba ? Another Solomon is signified, who is also himself born of the seed of David, whose name is Peace, the true King of Israel, whose wisdom is unbounded, or rather whose essence is wisdom and truth.” On the mystery, How in Virginhood there could be Birth 8 ? he says : “ Since one part of Christ is not produced, and the other is produced, the unproduced we call that which is eternal and before the world, and which made all 5 P. 667. 0 P. 668. Top Yijg TcapQerLag (3\a<7rop .— rrjg a(pdopov 7rapdepiug apEXcifiep, i. p. 663. 7 Vol. i. Horn. i. p. 475. Tfjg aapKog (pvcny fjp Vol. i. p. 662. s 270 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. things; the produced, that which, according to the dispensation effected for our sakes, was conformed to the body of our humility. Rather it would be prefer¬ able to set forth this idea in the very words of God. We call The Unproduced The Word, who was in the beginning, by whom all things were made, and without whom was nothing that was made; The produced, Him who became flesh and dwelt among us, whom even when incarnate the effulgent glory shows to be God manifest in the flesh—verily God—the only- begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father.” In all these passages,—and many others might be added,—even when maintaining that the Virgin purity was preserved in the birth of Christ 9 , there is no men¬ tion made of Mary, nor one w T ord uttered in her praise ; no reliance placed on her merits, or on the power of her intercession—no invocation of her good offices, or of the mediation of her prayers. With Gregory of Nyssa God in Christ is all in all. 9 Vol. ii. Orat. ii. Cont. Eunom. p. 537. CHAP. III.] ST. AMBROSE. 271 CHAPTER III. ST. AMBROSE, A. E>. 397 1 . St. Ambrose, Bisliop of Milan, has ever been held in high esteem by every branch of the Catholic Church, as well as by the Church of Rome. In a collect in the Roman Ritual (a prayer, unjustifiably, as it appears to us, and unholily addressed to his spirit in heaven,) he is called “ most excellent Teacher,” “ Light of the Holy Church,” “Lover of the Divine Law.” And many of the hymns ascribed to St. Ambrose the Church of Rome has adopted into her service. St. Ambrose was born in France, probably about the year 340: his death is generally referred to the year 397. He became Bishop of Milan in the year 374. Through all the works of St. Ambrose we have not found a single passage which gives the faintest indi¬ cation that the invocation of the Virgin formed any part of Catholic worship in his time, or that he or his fellow-Christians placed any confidence in her media¬ tion, or offered any prayers to Almighty God, hoping for acceptance through her intercession. And this in the case of St. Ambrose is proof of no ordinary weight and character 2 . For not only are his writings interspersed 1 Bened. Ed. a.d. 1686. 2 It is curious to observe, that whilst the Benedictine editors, who evidently have bestowed much thought and care on the subject, ex¬ clude from the catalogue of the hymns of St. Ambrose many ascribed to him in the Roman Breviary ; some, w'hich the rigid rule prescribed 272 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. throughout with prayers and supplications to the throne of grace, (in some of which mention is directly made of the incarnation of our Lord in the Virgin Mary by name,) hut he has left us many of his own hymns, which, as we have said, the Roman Church has incor¬ porated into her Liturgy. These hymns indeed glow with fervent piety, and are well fitted to lift up the Christian’s soul heavenward to his God and Saviour. But in no single line does Ambrose rob that Saviour of his own proper and exclusive honour as our only mediator and advocate; in no one does he make men¬ tion of Mary’s intercession, under the plea that he is honouring the Saviour when he honours the Mother. Had any such worship of the Virgin prevailed in Chris¬ tendom as we now see in the Roman Church, surely these fruits of the heart and the pen of the Christian poet would have contained some instances of the fact. by those editors has stamped with his name, are given in the Breviary to another. It may not, perhaps, be uninteresting here to have in¬ serted the titles of the twelve hymns allowed by the Benedictine editors to be the genuine productions of St. Ambrose ; though with reason they admonish us that probably even these have been sub¬ jected to changes and variations in the course of time. 1. iEterne rerum Conaitor. 2. Deus Creator omnium. 3. Jam surgit hora tertia. 4. Veni Redemptor Gentium. 5. Illuminans Altissimus. 6. Orabo mente Dominum. 7. Splendor Paternae Gloriae. 8. TEterna Christi munera. 9. Somno refectis artubus. 10. Consors Paterni Luminis. 11. O Lux, Beata Trinitas. 12. Fit Porta Christi pervia. The Breviary reckons as hymns of St. Ambrose, 1. Rerum Cre¬ ator omnium ; 2. Te lucis ante terminum ; 3. Christe Redemptor omnium; 4. Jam Christus Sol Justitiae ; 5. Audi Benigne Conditor; G. Ex more docti mystico ; 7. Veni Creator Spiritus; 8. Jesu nostra Redemptio ; whilst it ascribes O Lux, Beata Trinitas, to St. Gregory. The reader is referred for further information on this subject to the Benedictine edition, vol. ii. p. 1218. ClIAr. III.] ST. AMBROSE. 273 These divine songs would surely have afforded ample room for his feelings and his imagination in addresses to the Virgin, had his faith and his understanding sanctioned any mention of her name as an object of religious worship. But the contrary is most strikingly the fact. In the Breviary corrected agreeably to the decree of the Council of Trent, and commanded by Pope Pius, in 1568, to be used throughout the world, many of the hymns are ascribed to their supposed authors. The hymns assigned to St. Ambrose stand out in strong, and at the same time lovely, contrast with the degenerate effusions of later days. No address to Mary is discoverable in any one of them, no prayer to the Supreme Being to hear the intercession of Mary in the Christian’s behalf. The addresses of Ambrose are made to God alone, and offered through Christ alone. In these hymns he speaks again and again of the Virgin-Mother 3 , whose honour and joy was Christ; he quotes our Lord’s words upon the cross, “Woman, behold thy son he speaks of the believer’s hope in life and in death ; but that hope he describes as being- founded, not in the patronage, and advocacy, and inter¬ cession of the Virgin, but solely in the mercy of God, who for our sakes became man and was born of a pure Virgin. We must also observe, that whereas the hymns of later ages represent Mary as the Bride of the Most High, and speak of the Almighty as her husband, whose wrath she may appease, Ambrose re¬ presents the Virgin as the royal palace of chastity, the chamber from which the Son of God proceeded, (alluding to the Psalmist’s expression,) the temple in which for a while He dwelt 4 . But when he speaks of 4 Ps. xix. 5. 3 Hymn xii. T 274 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. Him as a bridegroom, the bride is his holy Church ; of whom He is at once the Spouse, the Redeemer, and the Builder 5 . The works of Ambrose enable us to infer that he considered the Virgin Mary holy and immaculate in her person, and holy and mysterious in her office; blessed among women; and in purity of mind, piety of soul, devotedness to God, attention to friends and relatives in their need, in a word, in all that can adorn the ser¬ vants of heaven, a bright example for those who would be approved servants of God, especially professed vir¬ gins : and he strenuously maintains, (though sometimes by arguments which may not be approved by all,) that, after the birth of Christ, Mary remained a virgin 6 . In his works on Virgins, and in his treatise called The Institution of Virgins, he dwells very much upon the excellence of Mary, and he encourages Christian vir¬ gins by suggesting the thought of Mary presenting them to our Saviour in heaven 7 ; and had he addressed her by invocation, or offered prayers to God through her intercession, it would appear the most improbable of all things that he should not have given the slightest intimation of such belief and practice either on his own part, or on the part of the Church. But so it is; we seek in vain for any indication of the kind. It may be satisfactory to make two or three extracts as specimens of the mode in which Ambrose speaks of the Virgin: he generally calls her Mary alone ; but sometimes, though very rarely, adds (what we are ever ready to add) the epithet “ holy 8 .” 5 Processit aula Virginis Sponsus, Redemptor, Conditor, Suae Gigas Ecclesiae. c Vol. ii. pp. 260, 2G1. 7 De Virg. lib. ii. c. 2. 8 Vol. i. p. 1291. CHAP. III.] ST. AMBROSE. 275 On the words of Elisabeth addressed to Mary, “And blessed is she who believed,” Ambrose observes, “ You see that Mary did not doubt, but believe; and consequently she obtained the fruit of faith. ‘And blessed ’ (she says) 4 art thou who believedst.’ But ye also are blessed who have heard and believed; for every soul that believeth, both conceives and brings forth the Word of God, and acknowledges his works. Let the soul of Mary be in every one, so as to magnify the Lord; let the spirit of Mary be in every one so as to rejoice in God. If according to the flesh there is one Mother of Christ, yet according to faith Christ is the fruit of every one : for every soul receives the word of God; provided, nevertheless, that being im¬ maculate and free from vice it preserve its chastity with unpolluted modesty 9 .” Thus it is that, when he speaks of Mary’s character and conduct, his object is not to exalt her, but to ex¬ cite others to follow her example. On the passage of St. Luke, 44 My mother and bre¬ thren are these who hear the word of God and do it,” Ambrose thus comments, 44 He is a master in morality who affords in his own person an example to others, and the preceptor is Himself the person to put his own precepts into practice. For whereas He was about to instruct others that one who would not leave his father and mother is not worthy of the Son of God, He first subjects Himself to this same rule ; not that He might disclaim the kindnesses of maternal piety, (for his own rule is, He who honouretli not his father or mother, let him die the death,) but because He acknowledges that He owes more to the mysteries of his Father than 9 Vol. i. p. 1290. T 2 276 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN". [PART IV. to tlie affections of his mother. Nor are parents un¬ justly discarded here, but the ties of the mind are repre¬ sented as more obligatory than the ties of the body. They who seek to see Christ ought not to stand without. For if parents themselves, when they stand without, are not acknowledged (and perhaps they are not acknowledged for an example to us), how shall we be acknowledged if we stand without? Consequently here it is, not (as some heretics lay their snares) that the mother is denied, who is acknowledged even from the cross, but Heaven’s commands are preferred to bodily relationships h” The heretics to whom Ambrose here refers, were those who denied that Christ was very man born of Mary 2 . In his observations on what took place at the cruci¬ fixion, Ambrose, whilst he recognizes the entire and perfect sacrifice for sin offered by Christ alone, and powerfully sets aside all assistance from others in that work, at the same time suggests the possibility of a strange idea having arisen in Mary’s mind that her death might assist somewhat towards the good of man¬ kind to be effected at that hour; an idea which Ambrose represents as the offspring of ignorance in a very pious mind ready to sacrifice self to duty. It is remarkable too, that A mbrose here, as in his hymns, calls Mary, not the Queen of heaven, or the Spouse of God, but the Royal palace, the habitation of the temple of the Son of God; just as the Apostles called every true Christian the temple of God, the habitation of God, through the Spirit 3 . The same sentiments occur in other of his works 4 . 1 Vol. i. p. 1392. 2 See Jerome on Matt. xii. 3 Eph. ii. 22 ; 2 Cor. vi. 16, &c. 4 V 0 1. ii. p. 260. CHAP. III.] ST. AMBROSE. 277 44 But Mary, no less than it became the mother ot Christ, when the Apostles fled, stood before the cross, and with pious eyes beheld the wounds of her Son, because she expected not the death of the pledge, but the salvation of the world; or, perhaps, because she had known of the redemption of the world by the death of her Son, the Royal palace thought that she might herself by her death also add somewhat to the public good. But Jesus wanted not an assistant for the redemption of all. He accepted his mother’s affec¬ tion, but He needed not the assistance of man.” 44 We have then a teacher of piety: this lesson teaches us what a mother’s affection should imitate, and what the reverence of sons should follow; namely, that they” (the mothers) 44 should offer themselves amidst the dangers of their children; that to the chil¬ dren the mother’s anxiety should be a source of greater grief than the sadness of their own death 5 .” In his comment on the 118th Psalm, St. Ambrose thus speaks 6 : 44 Come, O Lord Jesus, seek thy servant, seek thy wearied sheep; come, O shepherd. . . . Come, O Lord, because thou alone canst recal a wandering sheep,.Come and seek thy sheep, not by servants, not by hirelings, but by thine own self. Do thou take me in the flesh, which fell in Adam. Take me, Thou, not of Sarah, but of Mary, that it ’’ [the flesh Thou tookest from Mary] 44 might be a virgin not corrupt, but a virgin by grace free from every stain of sin. Bear me on the Cross, which brings salvation to those in error, in which alone is rest to the weary, in which they who die will live.” 5 Vol. i. p. 1533, and vol. ii. p. 1048. 6 Vol. i. p. 1254. 278 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART IV. We must not bring our review of the evidence of St. Ambrose to a close without referring briefly to a comment on the Epistle to the Romans, which was for ages ascribed to him as its author. Hencman, and the Church of Lvons, and the third Council of Aken, with many others, have quoted largely from this work as the production of Ambrose: Lanfranc, Peter Lombard, Gratian, as the Benedictine editors candidly inform us, and even Cardinal Bellarmin, considered it his genuine work. But those editors are decidedly of opinion that it is not the composition of Ambrose ; and (as the safer course) we will not cite it as containing his sentiments. Whatever were its origin, whether it were of an earlier or a later age, it is a very interesting work: and if it must be assigned to a time when the Invocation of Saints, and the pleading of their merits, had been established, it becomes indeed a very extra¬ ordinary production. On the passage, “ Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,” we read this comment 7 : “ They think themselves wise, because they fancy they have investigated the laws of nature; examining the courses of the stars and the qualities of the ele¬ ments, but despising the Lord of these. They are therefore fools; for, if these are objects of praise, how much more the Creator of these? Yet, when they are under a feeling of shame, they are accustomed to use this wretched excuse for neglecting God, that by means of those men ” [per istos] “ they can approach to God, as men approach a king by his courtiers. “ Come. Is any one so foolish and forgetful of his 7 Vol, ii. p. 34 of Appendix. CHAP. III.] ST. AMBROSE. 279 own safety as to claim for the courtier the honour due to the king ? Should any be found attempting such a thing, they would justly be condemned of high treason. And yet these men do not think themselves guilty, who transfer the honour of God to a creature, and, leaving the Lord, adore their fellow-servants; as if there were any thing fur¬ ther that could be reserved for God. Men ap¬ proach a king by his officers and courtiers, only be¬ cause the king is a man, and knows not to whom he ought to entrust his government. But to secure God’s favour (from whom nothing is hid, for He knows the deserts of every one), there is need, not of an inter¬ cessor, but of a devout mind ; for, wheresoever such a one addresses Him, He will answer him.” Whoever was the author of these sentiments, they coincide entirely with those of St. Ambrose in his undisputed work on the death of Theodosius: “ Thou alone, O Lord, art to be invoked; thou alone art to be implored to cause him [the Emperor] to be represented in his sons. Do Thou, O Lord, by guarding even the little ones in this humility, preserve those safe who hope in Thee 8 .” 8 Vol. ii. p. 1207. See also the strong language in which he dis¬ cards all idea of any created being becoming our spiritual physician, or promoting by his good offices our restoration to God; vol. i. p. 1352. 280 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. PART V. CHAPTER I. ST, CHRYSOSTOM AND ST. AUGUSTINE. Two of the brightest ornaments of the Christian world next offer themselves for our examination,—St. John Chrysostom, the glory of the Greek Church, and St. Augustine, equally the honour of the Latin. Accord¬ ing to the most generally received accounts, these two luminaries of our holy faith were born into the world in the very same year, a.d. 354; though Chry¬ sostom was called to his rest when he had scarcely passed the meridian of man’s life as a labourer in Christ’s vineyard, and his brother-confessor was left to toil successfully in the same field till he had passed the age after which the Psalmist bids us expect only labour and sorrow. SECTION I.—ST. CHRYSOSTOM, A.D. 405 b John, surnamed from his extraordinary eloquence Chrysostom, or “the golden-mouthed,” was horn in Antioch of Coelosyria about the year a. d. 354 1 2 . His father died soon after his birth, and he was baptized in 1 Thirteen vols. fol. Paris, 1718. 2 Writers are not agreed as to the time of Chrysostom’s birth ; some placing it as early as a.d. 347, others so late as a.d. 354. CHAP. I.] CHRYSOSTOM. 281 liis twenty-third year. At the age of twenty-seven, lie was ordained deacon, and at thirty-two priest: in his forty-fourth year he succeeded Nectarius, who was the successor of Gregory of Nazianzum, as Bishop of Con¬ stantinople. From this office he was deposed, and he died in exile somewhere about the year 407. In our endeavours to ascertain the standard of doctrine, the habitual views, and ruling principles and sentiments of this noble Christian writer, the greatest care is necessary in distinguishing between his genuine works, and those productions which patient and en¬ lightened criticism must pronounce to be spurious. The learned Benedictine editor represents the treatises to be innumerable which the fraud of booksellers and the absurd vanity of petty authors 3 had combined to impose upon the world as Chrysostom’s, but which had no pretensions to such a place in literature. The works, too, which upon the whole must be regarded as the genuine productions of his tongue or pen, (as the same authority teaches us to suspect, whilst our own obser¬ vation can only increase the suspicion,) are by no means free from changes and interpolations. Would that a wide and careful research were instituted by men ade¬ quate to the task into the treasures which still remain unexamined ! Next to the blessed Scriptures them¬ selves, no department of theology so powerfully appeals to the Christian world for the united efforts of those to whom primitive truth is dear, as the text of the early writers both of the Greek and of the Latin Church ; nor would any field more abundantly or satis¬ factorily repay the labour bestowed upon it. This remark, applicable in the case of all those ancient 3 Innumeri pene Graeculi. 282 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. Fathers whose remains have been saved from the wreck of time, is forced upon us with especial interest in our examination of St. Chrysostom’s testimony. The attempt to support a system, however ancient or however valued, by counterfeit witnesses, and by evidence which will not bear the light of day, even were it consistent with the principles of Christianity or of common honesty, cannot be long successful. Too long indeed already has dependence been placed upon translations made by persons incompetent to the task, or by men who professedly left the original when they fancied they could substitute something prefer¬ able of their own; and too long has the custom pre¬ vailed, even among the most celebrated champions of theological tenets, recklessly to quote, as genuine evidence of the earliest doctrines of the Church, the unworthy forgeries of a corrupt and ignorant age. The Benedictine editors have done much towards the puri¬ fying of the volumes of Chrysostom from the gross and palpable impositions with which age after age had loaded them. Were we engaged in ascertaining his evidence on some other points of doctrine, it would be necessary to speak somewhat more at large on this subject; but for the immediate object of our investiga¬ tion we need dwell no longer upon it now. We shall cite no passage which the Benedictine editors have not admitted as genuine, nor exclude any which they have not pronounced to be spurious. On the subject of our inquiry, the result of a tho¬ rough examination of the works of St. Chrysostom is the conviction, that from his first to his last page there is not the faintest intimation that he either ad¬ dressed the Virgin Mary by invocation, or placed any confidence in her merits and intercession himself, or CHAP. I.] CHRYSOSTOM. 283 that he was at all aware that Christians, either indivi¬ dually or as a body in the Church, had ever prayed to her even for her prayers, or had prayed to God to hear them through her intercession. But the testimony of St. Chrysostom is not merely negative; on the contrary, the evidence is clear, and strong, and manifold, that he addressed his prayers to Almighty God alone, in the name and through the mediation of Jesus Christ our only Saviour, never in¬ voking the Virgin, never making mention of her name, even in a subordinate sense, as intercessor or mediator. The sentiments of Chrysostom on the necessity, the dignity, and the blessed effects of prayer are so just, and at the same time so encouraging and uplifting, that, before we cite the proofs of these positions, we shall do well to reflect on some few of the passages which convey his views on prayer. We shall find him exhorting sincere Christians to approach with humble confidence to the throne of grace, taking with them faith, and repentance, and obedient love; and seeking then for no foreign aid or recommendation, looking for no intercessor in heaven but Christ only 4 . These sentiments are not confined to any part of his voluminous remains, but are interspersed through them all: the difficulty is not to discover them, but to select from those which offer themselves. In his comment on the 4th Psalm we read these beautiful remarks on the efficacy of prayer 5 6 . “ If I possess justice, some one will say, what need of prayer; for that will guide us right in all things, 4 We find, indeed, in his works, instances of the corruptions lately introduced among Christians ; but his own faith and practice seem to have escaped the contamination. 6 Vol. v. p. 8. 284 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [TART V. ancl He who gives knows what we need? Because prayer is no slight bond of love towards God, accus¬ toming us to habitual intercourse with Him, and leading us to wisdom ; for if any one, by intercourse with some admirable man, gathers much fruit from the in¬ tercourse, how much more will he who has continual intercourse with God ! But we have not an adequate sense of the value of prayer, since we do not apply to it with thoughtful care, nor employ it agreeably to the laws of God. “ If we would approach with becoming carefulness, and as persons about to converse with God, we should then know, even before we received what we asked, how great a gain w r e must reap as its fruit; for a man who is trained to converse with God, as we ought, will afterwards be an angel. It is thus that his soul is loosened from the bonds of the body; thus his reason is lifted on high; thus is his home removed to heaven; thus does he look above the things of this life ; thus is he stationed by the royal throne itself, though he be poor, though he be a servant, obscure and unlettered. For God seeketh not the beauty of language, nor the composition of words, but the loveliness of the soul; and, if that speak what is well-pleasing to Him, the man goes away with the full accomplishment of his purpose. See you how great facility is here ? Among men, when a man applies to any one, he must needs be a good speaker, and must flatter enough those who are about the great man, and devise many other schemes to insure a favourable reception ; but here he wants nothing but a sober mind, and then there is nothing to prevent his being nigh to God, 4 For I am a God drawing nigh, and not a God far off.’ So that to be far off is owing to ourselves ; for he is Himself CHAP. I.] CHRYSOSTOM. 285 always near. And why say I that we need not ora¬ tory ? Often we do not even need a voice; for even if you speak in your hearts, and call upon Him aright, He will readily assent even then. “ No soldier stands by to drive you away; no spear- bearer, to cut off the opportunity; no one to say, You cannot approach Him now, come again. But, when¬ ever you come, He is standing to hear—be it in the time of dinner, in the time of supper, at midnight, in the market-place, in the way, in the chamber,—though you approach within, and present yourself in the judgment- hall to the Ruler, and call Him. There is nothing to hinder Him from assenting to your request, if you call on Him aright. There is no ground for saying, I fear to approach, and present my petition; my enemy is standing by. Even this obstacle is removed: He will not attend to your enemy, and cut short your suit. You may always and continually plead with Him, and there is no difficulty. “There is no need of porters to introduce you, nor stewards, nor comptrollers, nor guards, nor friends; but when you by yourself approach, then He will most of all listen to you, then [I say] when you ask no one. We do not so much prevail with Him when we ask by others, as when we ask by ourselves ; for, since it is our own friendship He loves, He takes every means of fixing our confidence in Him. When He sees us doing this by ourselves, then He especially grants our request. Thus did He in the case of the woman of Canaan: when Peter and James applied to Him in her behalf, He did not assent; but, when she herself persevered, He soon granted her request. For, though He seemed to defer it for a little while, He did so, not to put her off, but to crown her the more, and to draw her suppli- 286 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. cation nearer to Himself. Let us, therefore, take good heed to approach God in prayer; and let us learn how we ought to offer our prayer.” On the importunity and success of this Syrophce- nician suppliant Chrysostom dwells repeatedly, and in such a manner as to force us to believe that he could not himself have had recourse to the invocation of any other being than God alone, or have suggested to others any confidence in the intercession of any other mediator than Christ only, certainly not making an exception in favour of the blessed Virgin. In his comment on Genesis, chap, xvi. 6 , he furnishes us with many valuable reflections on the mercy of the Saviour, and the holy confidence with which true Christians may rest all their hopes in Him, and approach Him in prayer, with sure trust that they will never be sent empty away. We would gladly embody that com¬ ment in the present treatise; but, although bearing directly on our point, it would swell this part of our evidence to a disproportionate extent. On the general sentiments of Chrysostom as to the Christian duty of praying to God only through the mediation of his blessed Son, without the intercession of any other mediator, we will confine ourselves to two short ex¬ tracts further; the first from his homily composed expressly on the woman of Canaan, the other from his comment on the Epistle to the Romans. In the first passage we read these words 7 : “ ‘ And Jesus going out from thence went into the parts of Tyre and Sidon, and behold, a woman.’ The Evangelist wonders, ‘ Behold, a woman,’ the ancient armour of the devil, she who expelled me from para- c Vo), iv. p. 386. 7 Vol. iii. p. 435. CHAP. I.] CHRYSOSTOM. 287 dise, the mother of sin, the prime leader of trans¬ gression. That very woman comes, that very nature; a new and unlooked-for wonder ! The Jews fly from Him, and the woman follows Him. 4 And behold, a woman coming out from those coasts besought Him, saying, O Lord, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me.’ The woman becomes an Evangelist and acknow¬ ledges his divinity, and the dispensation,— 4 O Lord !’— [she acknowledges] his sovereignty: 4 Thou Son of David,’—she confesses his incarnation : 4 Have mercy on me,’ see her philosophic spirit. 4 Llave mercy on me, I have no good deeds, I have no confidence from my manner of life; I betake myself to mercy, to the • common haven of sinners; I betake myself to mercy, where is no judgment-seat, where my safety is freed from investigation.’ Though she were thus a sinner and a transgressor, she is bold enough to approach. And see the wisdom of the woman; she calls not on James, she does not supplicate John, she ap¬ proaches not to Peter, she does not force her way through their company. 4 1 have no need of a me¬ diator : but, taking repentance to plead with me, I approach the Fountain itself. For this cause He came down, for this cause He became incarnate, that I might converse with Him.’ The cherubim tremble at Him above, and here below a harlot converses with Him. 4 Have mercy on me !’ It is a simple word, and yet it finds a fathomless sea of salvation. 4 Have mercy on me!’ For this cause Thou didst come, for this cause Thou tookedst upon Thee flesh, for this cause Thou becamest what I am. Above is trembling, below is confidence. Have mercy on me ! I have no need of a mediator. Llave mercy on me !” 288 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. In the other passage adverted to above 8 , we find him thus commenting on the Apostle’s benediction, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, Amen.” “ See you whence we ought to begin, and where to end all things? For from this he laid the foundation of his epistle, and from this he put on also its roof; at once both praying for the mother of all good things for them, and mentioning also every be¬ nefit. For this is the chief province of a true instruc¬ tor, to benefit his disciples, not by word only, but also by prayer. Wherefore, he says, we will persevere in prayer and in the ministration of the word. Who, then, WILL PRAY FOR US, NOW THAT PAUL HAS GONE away ? These who are imitators of Paul. Only let us render ourselves worthy of such patronage, that we may not only hear Paul’s voice here, but, even when we go thither, may be found worthy to see the champion of Christ. And the rather if we listen to him here, shall we see him there ; even though not ourselves standing near, yet we shall at all events see him shining near the royal throne. There the che¬ rubim glorify, there the seraphim fly, there shall we see, together with Peter and the choir of Saints, Paul, being their chief leader and president 9 ; and we shall enjoy true love. For if, when he was here, he so loved men, that, on the choice being offered him to be dis¬ solved and to be with Christ, he chose to be here; how much more ardent will he show his love there ?” Here it may be asked whether it is within the verge 8 Vol. ix. p. 756. 9 It may be remarked, that in this passage, not Peter, but Paul, is represented as the chief leader and president of the Saints, even when Peter is also named. CHAP. I.] CHRYSOSTOM. 289 of probability that St. Chrysostom, when lie speaks of these things in this manner, could have believed it lawful and beneficial for a Christian to pray to any other mediator, or through any other intercessor than Christ alone? “I want no mediator.” “ She applies not to the Apostles.” “ Who shall pray for us, now Paul is gone ?” Is it possible to conceive that, had he practised himself the invocation of Saints, (as many in his days were already tempted to do,) he would not have alluded to it here; and have assured his disciples, that though Paul was absent, yet was he still carrying on the office of intercessor ? Instead of this he tells them, that those who were imitators and followers of Paul would pray for them, now that Paul was gone. SECTION II. But to proceed to the more immediate subject of our inquiry: what was St. Chrysostom’s faith and practice with regard to the Virgin Mary ? Is she made an exception ? For the dignity to which it pleased the Almighty to raise her, that she should be the mother of our Lord, St. Chrysostom held the Virgin’s memory in reverence, and very strenuously does he maintain that she re¬ mained a virgin unspotted to the day of her death. But, whilst he professes no sentiments of honour towards her which a true and enlightened member of the Church of England would not profess, he at the same time speaks of her conduct on one occasion, and of her knowledge and state of mind generally with regard to our Saviour, in terms which few members of our Church would employ. Chrysostom generally calls the Virgin, simply, u 290 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. Mary; seldom adding any epithet expressive of her sanctity and blessedness. He never calls her “ Mother of God.” He declares her to be a pure and unpolluted virgin \ and finds in the Old Testament types and figures by which her office was foreshadowed. In one place 2 , he tells us that Eden signifying a virgin-land, in which God without the work of man planted a garden, prefigured the Virgin, who, without knowing a man, brought forth Christ. In another 3 , he consi¬ ders Eve, and the tree of knowledge, and death, when man by transgression fell, to correspond with Mary, and the tree of the cross, and our Lord’s death, which gained for us the victory; that, as a virgin’s fault caused us to be expelled from paradise 4 so by the instrumentality of a virgin we found eternal life. He considers that her superior excellence showed itself in her admirable self-command when she heard an¬ nounced to her that she should bring forth the Sa¬ viour, behaving with exemplary modesty, instead of being transported by a sudden burst of excessive joy 5 . He regards the flight into Egypt as a means of mak¬ ing Mary conspicuous, and a bright object of admira¬ tion c . She was given, he says 7 , by the angel to the care of Joseph, as she was by Christ upon the cross to John, in order to protect and defend herself and her character from reproach and oppression. We must now direct our especial attention to three passages in the genuine works of Chrysostom, and weigh well the import of his words in each, as indica¬ tions of his general sentiments concerning Mary. 3 Vol. iii. p. 113. * Vol. v. p. 171. 7 P. 57. 1 Vol. iii. p. 16. 3 Vol. iii. p. 752. 5 Vol. vii. p. 34. 6 P. 125. CHAP. I.] CHRYSOSTOM. 291 First, liis remarks on our Lord’s words at the marriage- feast at Cana; secondly, liis account of wliat took place at the cross; and thirdly, bis representation of Mary’s conduct and our Lord’s words on that previous well-known occasion when Mary and his brethren stood without the house desiring to see Jesus. The question will force itself upon our mind, Could Mary have been regarded by St. Chrysostom, or by those to whom he addressed these sentiments, as she is now regarded by the Church of Rome ? His account of the miracle of turning water into wine Chrysostom thus prefaces 8 : “ No unimportant question is propounded to us to¬ day : when the mother of Jesus said, 4 They have no wine,’ Christ said, 4 Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come;’ and though He said this, He did what his mother suggested. Invoking, therefore, Him Himself who wrought the miracle, let us next proceed to the solution of the difficulty.” He then says, 44 Christ was not subjected to the necessity of seasons, for He pre-eminently assigned to seasons them¬ selves their order; for He was their maker. But John introduces Christ using this expression, 4 Mine hour is not yet come,’ to show that He was not yet ma¬ nifested to the great body of the people, and that He had not as yet the full complement of his Apostles: but Andrew with Philip followed Him, and no other. Nay, rather, not even these all knew Him as He ought to be known ; not even his mother, nor his brethren. For after his numerous miracles the Evangelist says this of his brethren, 4 For neither did his brethren believe in him.’ But neither did those at the marriage Vol. viii. p. 125. u 2 8 292 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. know Him ; for otherwise they would have come to Him, and sought his aid in their want. On this account He says 4 Mine hour is not yet come.’ e I am not known to those who are present; nay, they do not even know that the wine has failed. Suffer them to become aware of this first. I ought not to learn this from you ; for you are my mother, and you throw suspicion on my miracle. Those who want it ought to come and ask; not because I need this, but that they may receive what is done with full acquiescence.’ And for what reason (some one will say), after saying, 4 Mine hour is not yet come,’ and after refusing, did He do what his mother said ? Chiefly to afford to gainsayers, and those who think Him subject to times and seasons, a sufficient de¬ monstration that He was not subject to times. In the second place He did it, because He honoured his mo¬ ther ; that He might not appear to contradict her en¬ tirely throughout; that He might not expose Himself to the suspicion of weakness ; that He might not in the presence of so many put his mother to shame; for she had brought the servants to Him. Thus it was that, though He said to the woman of Canaan, 4 It is not meet to take the children’s bread and give it to dogs,’ yet He granted the boon afterwards, because He was affected by her perseverance. Yea, moreover, though He said, 4 1 am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,’ yet afterwards He healed the woman’s daughter. Hence we learn that, though we be unworthy, yet by our perseverance we make our¬ selves worthy to receive. Wherefore, also, his mo¬ ther remained, and wisely brought the servants, so that the request might be made by more persons. She consequently added, 4 Whatsoever He shall say to you, do it.’ For she knew that the refusal was not from CHAP. I.] CHRYSOSTOM. 293 want of power, but from the absence of boastful dis¬ play ; and, that He might not seem absolutely to throw Himself upon the miracle, she therefore brought the servants 9 .” Chrysostom’s assertion, that Mary was not even her¬ self acquainted with our Lord’s real character and dis¬ pensation, is by no means confined to this passage; and in some instances it has called forth the animadversion of his editors. Thus, in his exposition of the words of the Psalmist, which he renders “ God shall come ma¬ nifestly, our God, and shall not keep silence “ See you” (he says) “ how He proceeds gradually to open his word, and reveal the treasure, and emit a more cheer¬ ing ray, saying 4 God shall come manifestly?’ Why! when was He not present manifestly ? At his former advent. For He came without noise, hidden from the many, and for a long time escaping observation. Why do I speak of the many, whereas not even the Virgin who conceived Him knew the ineffable mystery, nor even his brethren believed on Him, nor he who appeared to be his father formed any great opinion of Him ?” The following is Chrysostom’s comment upon the act of our blessed Saviour when He commended his sorrowing mother to his beloved disciple 2 : “ But He Himself, hanging on the cross, com¬ mends his mother to his disciple, teaching us to our last breath to take every affectionate care of our parents. Thus, when she unseasonably annoyed 9 See also his 21st Horn, on St. John, vol. viii. p. 123 : “ He could not have raised her from that low opinion to the highest, if she had continued to expect that she was always to be honoured by Him, instead of herself regarding Him as her Lord.” 1 Vol. v. p. 225 ; Ps. 1. 2 Vol. viii. p. 505. 294 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. Him, He said, 4 Wliat have I to do with thee?’ and 4 Who is my mother 1 ’ But here He shows much natural affection, and entrusts her to the disciple whom He loved.Observe how free from agi¬ tation He does every thing, even when hanging on the cross ; conversing with his disciple about his mother, fulfilling the prophecies, suggesting good hope in the thief. .... Now, the women stood by the cross; and the weaker sex appeared the more manly. And He Himself commends his mother, 4 Be¬ hold thy Son.’ Oh, for the honour! With what honour does He invest the disciple! For when He was Himself going away, He delivers her to the dis¬ ciple to take care of her. For since it was pro¬ bable that she as a mother would grieve, and look for protection, He with reason commits her to the hands of one who loved Him. To him He says, 4 Be¬ hold thy mother.’ This Fie said to unite them in love ; and the disciple, understanding this, took her to his own home. But why did He make mention of no other woman, though another stood by ? To teach us to pay more than common attention to our mothers. For as we must not even know those parents who oppose themselves in spiritual things, so, when they interpose no obstacle in those mat¬ ters, it is right to pay them every respect, and to place them above the rest, because they gave us birth, and nourished us, and underwent so many thousand dangers. Thus too does he silence the im¬ pudence of Marcion; for, had He not been born in the flesh, nor had a mother, why should He have taken such care of her alone ?” In his homily on St. Matthew, chap. xii. v. 46, we read the comment here quoted. We cannot wonder at CHAP. I.] CHRYSOSTOM. 295 the Benedictine editor exclaiming, as he does, very quaintly in the margin, “Fair words, Chrysostom 3 !” Had a member of the Church of England published such sentiments for the first time now, he would have been reproved, not only by his Roman Catholic con¬ temporaries, but by many of his own communion. Could Chrysostom (we may confidently ask) have ad¬ dressed this homily to the faithful Christians of his day, if either he or they entertained those sentiments with regard to the Virgin Mary which are professed by our Roman Catholic brethren; had he or had the Church then invoked her in supplication, or trusted to her intercession, and mediation, and advocacy, as the Queen of heaven, in dignity and glory and power above the seraphim 4 ? “ What I lately said 4 , that, if virtue be absent, all besides is superfluous; this is now proved abundantly. I was saying, that age, and nature, and the living in a wilderness, and all such things, were unprofitable, un¬ less our principle and purpose were good; but to-day we learn something more, that not even the conceiving of Christ in the womb, and bringing forth that won¬ derful birth, hath any advantage if there be not virtue: and this is especially manifest from this circumstance 5 ; c Whilst he was yet speaking,’ says the Evangelist, ‘ some one says to him, Thy mother and thy brethren seek thee; and he said, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren 6 ?’ Now this He said, not because He felt ashamed of his mother, nor with the intention of 3 Bona verba, Chrysostome! 4 Vol. vii. p. 467. 5 Even Calvin himself dissents from this view of Chrysostom, which is also that of Ambrose, and says their views are groundless, and unworthy of the piety of the Virgin.—Calvin in loc. vol. vi. p. 142. 6 De Sacy adopts the views of Grotius.—Vol. xxix. p. 440. 296 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. denying her who brought Him forth ; for, had He been ashamed, He would not have passed through her womb: but it was to show that she would derive no advantage from this, unless she did her duty in every thing. For what she was then undertaking was the effect of ex¬ cessive ambition ; for she wished to show to the people that she commanded and controlled her son, she having as yet formed no high opinion of Him. Con¬ sequently she comes to Him unseasonably. “ Now see the foolish arrogance 7 both of herself and of them ! Whereas they ought to have entered, and heard Him with the multitude; or, had they been unwilling to do this, to have waited till He had finished his discourse, and then to have approached Him; they call for Him out: and this they do before all, exhibit¬ ing their excessive ambition, and wishing to show that they commanded Him with great authority. A point which the Evangelist marks with disapprobation; for it was to intimate this that he said, ‘ Whilst he was yet speaking to the multitude,’—as much as if he had said ‘ What! was there no other opportunity ? what! could they not have conversed with Him in private? and what, after all, did they want to say? If it was on the doctrines of the truth, then it was right He should propound to all in common, and to speak before all, that others also might be benefited. But, if it was on other subjects, of interest to themselves, they ought not to have been thus urgent. For, if Fie would not suffer a man to bury his father, that his following of Him might not be broken off, much more ought his address not to have been interrupted for things which 7 ’A irovoia, vesana qusedam insolentia et animi elatio.—Steph. Thes. The Oxford “ Library of the Fathers” renders the word “ self-confidence.” The Benedictines translate it “ arrogantia CHAP. I.] CHRYSOSTOM. 297 were not of interest to Him.’ Hence it is evident that they did this solely out of vain-glory. And John shows this, when he says, 4 Neither did his brethren believe on him;’ and he records some words of theirs, full of great folly, when he tells us that they took Him to Jerusalem, not for any other purpose, but that they might themselves derive glory from his miracles. 4 If thou do these things,’ said they, 4 show thyself to the world, for no one doeth any thing in secret, and seeketli himself to be conspicuous;’ at which time He rebuked them for this, reproving their carnal mind. For when the Jews reproached Him, saying, 4 Is not this the car¬ penter’s son, whose father and mother we know; and his brethren, are they not among us?’ they, wishing to get rid of the charge from the meanness of his origin, excited Him to a display of miracles. He there¬ fore gives them a repulse, wishing to heal their ma¬ lady ; since, had He desired to deny his mother, He would surely then have denied her, when they cast this reproach. On the contrary, He shows Himself to have entertained so great care for her, that on the very cross He entrusts her to the disciple who was his best beloved of all, and leaves many kind injunc¬ tions concerning her. But He does not so now, and that because of his care for her and his brethren; for since they approached Him as a mere man, and were puffed with vain-glory, He expels that disease, not by insulting them, but by correcting them. 44 Fie did not wish to excite doubts in the mind, but to remove the most tyrannical of passions, and by little and little to lead to a correct estimate of Flimself, and to persuade her that He was not only her son, but her sovereign Lord. You will thus see that the rebuke was eminently becoming in Him, and profitable to her, 298 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. and withal containing much of mildness. He did not say, ‘Go, tell the mother she is not my mother;’ but He answered him who brought the message thus, ‘Who is my mother?’ together with what has been already said; effecting another object,—that neither should they nor any others, trusting to their connexions, neg¬ lect virtue. For if it profited her nothing to be his mother, unless that qualification were present, scarcely will any one else be saved in consequence of his relation¬ ship. There is only one nobility of birth,—the doing the will of God. This is a kind of good birth far better and nobler than the other.” In the next section, too long to transcribe here, though its paragraphs contain many sentiments all leading to the same point, we read these expressions: “ When a woman said, ‘ Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked,’ He does not say, ‘ Her womb did not bear me, I sucked not her paps;’ but this, ‘ Yea, rather blessed are they who do the will of my Father.’ You see how every where Fie does not deny the relationship of nature, but He adds that of virtue.” “The same object He is effecting here,” (as in his remonstrance with the Jews as children of Abraham,) “ but less severely, and with more gentleness ; for his speech related to his mother. Fie did not say, ‘ She is not my mother, they are not ray brethren, because they do not the will of my Father.’ lie did not pass his sentence, and condemn them; but left them the option, speaking with a considerateness which became Him, ‘ He that doeth the will of my Father, he is my brother, and sister, and mother; so that, if they wish to be such, let them enter upon this path.’ And when the woman cried out, ‘Blessed is the womb that bare thee,’ He says not, CHAP. I.] CHRYSOSTOM. 299 ‘ She is not my mother;’ but, ‘ If she wishes to be blessed, let her do the will of my Father; for such a one is my brother, and sister, and mother.’ Oh, how great an honour! how great is virtue! To what an exalted eminence does it carry one who embraces it! How many women have called that holy Virgin and her womb blessed, and have longed to be such mothers, and to give up every thing besides! What is there to hinder them? For behold, Fie has cut out for us a broad way, and it is in the power, not of women only, but of men also, to be placed in such a rank as that, —rather in a much higher one; for this far more constitutes one his mother, than did those labour- pangs. So that, if that is a cause for calling another blessed, much more is this, inasmuch as it is para¬ mount. Do not then merely desire, but also with much diligence walk along the path which leads to the object of your desire. Having said this, He went out of the house. See you how He both rebuked them, and also did what they desired. The same thing also He did at the marriage ; for there too He rebuked her when she unseasonably apjjlied to Him, and yet did not refuse; by the first act correcting her weakness, by the second showing his good-will towards his mother. So here also He both healed the disease of vain-glory, and yet rendered becoming honour to his mother, although she was preferring an unseasonable request.” Thus is the testimony of St. Chrysostom beyond controversy conclusive against the present doctrine of the Church of Rome as to the worship of the Virgin Mary, and against the practice in his day of placing any religious trust in her merits, intercession, and advocacy. And this brings us within the commence¬ ment of the fifth century. 300 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. SECTION III.—JOHN CASSIAN, A.D. 500 8 . Before we proceed to the evidence of St. Augustine, it may be well to refer to John Cassian, who, being at first one of Chrysostom’s deacons, afterwards removing to Gaul, was ordained priest at Marseilles. He com¬ posed many theological dissertations in Latin, in which he writes at much length on the duty of prayer, and on the objects and subjects of a Christian’s prayer; but he speaks only of prayer to God, without any allusion to the present influence or advocacy of the Virgin, or of any invocation of her to be made by Christians 9 . In his treatise on the Incarnation of Christ *, he argues against those who would call Mary Christo- tocos—mother of Christ, and not Theotocos—mother of God ; but he speaks not of any worship due to her on that account. His mind was fixed upon the union of the Divine and human nature in Him who was Son of God and Man. 8 Leipsic, 1733. 9 Collat. ix. 1 De Incarn. lib. ii. c. 2. CHAP. II.] AUGUSTINE. 301 CHAPTER II. SECTION I.-AUGUSTINE, A.D. 430 ! . St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, in Africa, was born about a.d. 354, and died at an advanced age in the year 430, the very year of the Council of Ephesus, to which he was summoned. When we recollect how rapidly Pagan superstitions invaded the integrity and purity of primitive worship after the conversion of Constantine, and how much the influence of many unhallowed innovations had mingled itself with the spirit of Christianity (like a little leaven leavening the whole lump) when Augustine was first initiated into the mysteries of our holy religion, our surprise may be great that his works, full and noble monuments of Gospel truth, present so few stains of an unscriptural and unprimitive character. We cannot, indeed, appeal to him as one who, when he was com¬ pelled to walk in the midst of the furnace, yet felt no hurt, and on whose garments the smell of fire had not passed. This would have required an interposition of the Most High no less miraculous than that which preserved the three faithful martyrs in the furnace of Babylon. But whilst some points even in Augustine— indications of fallible man—warn us with voices strong and clear to look for our rule of faith only to the inspired and written Word of God, to which he himself most constantly appealed, we have cause for thankful- 1 Paris, 1700. 302 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. ness that tlie great Head of the Church raised up at that season this burning and shining light; who, as the servant of the Holy Spirit, yet still only as a fallible and an erring brother, will continue to enlighten, and guide, and support the children of the Church of Christ whilst sacred literature has a place on earth. Augustine found a large proportion of the Christian world leaning decidedly to superstition, and encourag¬ ing the substitution of human learning and of a de¬ generate philosophy for the simplicity of the Gospel. From time to time, as occasion offered, he recalled his fellow-believers from those superstitions to which converts still clung when they professed to resign Pa¬ ganism for Christianity; and he discountenanced those subtle disquisitions which flattered the pride of our nature, but were little in accordance with the truth as it is in Jesus. He found many substituting the angels and martyrs, of whom they heard in Christian churches and read in Christian books, for the gods many, and lords many, whom their fathers had served; and some of his most powerful and eloquent composi¬ tions are directed to the counteraction of that evil. But he did not so vigorously as he might have done set about the utter eradication of the growing bane; and sometimes, in the unrestrained flow of his elo¬ quence, he would himself address the subject of his eulogy in such a manner as to supply arguments from his example for the very practices which he disowned. The principle on which he professed to act in the case of unauthorized novelties in Christian worship seems, to a certain extent at least, to have guided him generally: “ Approve of these things I cannot; to reprove them more freely, I dare not 2 .” Still, his 2 Vol. ii. p. 142 ; Epist. ad Januarium, lv. s. 35. CHAP. II.] AUGUSTINE. 303 pure and exalted sentiments on tlie subject of religious worship must have materially tended, within the sphere of their influence, to withdraw men’s minds from all other objects of invocation, and to fix them on the one only Supreme God 3 ; as also to withdraw them from all other mediators and intercessors, and to fix their hopes on the mediation and intercession of Christ Jesus our Lord, alone. It may be safe and interesting, before we proceed to the immediate subject of our present inquiry, to recall to our minds one or two passages which seem to have this tendency. In his book on True Religion, he thus speaks 4 : “Let not our religion he the worship of dead men, because, if they lived piously, they are not so disposed as to seek such honours; but they wish Him to be worshipped by us, who enlightening them, they rejoice that we are deemed worthy of being made partakers with them; they are to be honoured then on the ground of imitation, not to be adored on the ground of 3 It cannot be necessary to refer to those works, formerly ascribed to Augustine, which are acknowledged by the best Roman Catholic critics to be utterly spurious; such, for example, as the Book of Meditations, in which prayer is offered to God through the inter¬ cession of Mary, and prayer is addressed to Mary herself. It is lamentable to find that some Roman Catholic writers are so forgetful of the principles of truth, which should guide us all, as even in the present day to quote passages from such works as evidence of Augustine’s faith. See Kirk and Berrington, p. 445. That these are spurious works, see the Benedictine editor’s admonition, Appen¬ dix to vol. vi. p. 103. In the quotation above referred to as made by Kirk and Berring¬ ton, it is painful to observe, that, whereas they quote in other cases from the Benedictine edition which pronounces this quotation to be a forgery, they here refer to the Paris edition of 1586, without even alluding to any doubt as to the testimony being genuine. 4 Vol. i. p. 786. WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. 304 [part V. religion; and if they lived ill, wherever they be, they must not be worshipped. “ That object which the highest angels worship, is to be also worshipped by the lowest man; because the very nature of man becomes the lowest by not wor¬ shipping that object. For angels and men have not different sources of wisdom and truth, but both derive what they possess from one unchangeable wisdom and truth; for this very thing was done for our salvation in the dispensation of time, that the very Excellence of God, and the Wisdom of God, unchangeable, and con- substantial with the Father, and coeternal, should vouchsafe to take upon Himself human nature, through which He might teach us that the object to be wor¬ shipped by men is to be worshipped by every intelli¬ gent and rational creature. This also we may believe, that the most perfect angels themselves, and the most excellent servants of God, wish that we with them¬ selves should worship God, in the contemplation of whom they are blessed. For neither are we blessed by seeing an angel, but by seeing the truth; by which also we love the angels, and rejoice with them ; nor are we envious because they enjoy it (the truth) more readily, or without any annoyances to interrupt them ; but we love them the more, because we are commanded to hope for some such blessing from our common Lord. Therefore we honour them with love, not with service. Nor do we build temples to them; for they are unwilling so to be honoured by us, because they know that, when we are good, we are ourselves as temples of the most high God. Well therefore it is written, that a man was forbidden by an angel to adore him ; but [he must adore] that one Lord under whom he also would be his fellow-servant. CHAP. II.] AUGUSTINE. 305 “ Behold, I worship one God—the one principle of all things, and the Wisdom by which whatever soul is wise is wise, and that Gift by which whatever is blessed is blessed. Whichever of the angels loves this God, I am sure he loves me ; whoever abides in Him, and can be sensible of human prayer, in Him he hears me ; whoever regards Him as his good, in Him he assists me ; nor can he be envious of my participation of Him. Let the adorers or the adulators of parts of the universe tell me what good being does not that man conciliate to himself who worships that one object which every good being loves, in the knowledge of whom he rejoices, and by having recourse to whom, as his principle, he becomes good.” Nor do we think it possible to conceive that St. Au¬ gustine looked to any other mediation or intercession than Christ’s only. His comment on the words of St.John he could never surely have left without any modification or explanation, had he been accustomed to pray to God, trusting in the mediation of the Virgin Mary, or of any other than the Lord Jesus alone : “‘We have an advocate with the Father.’ Ye see John himself preserving humility. Certainly he was a righteous and great man, who drank from the bosom of the Lord mysterious secrets ; he who, imbibing from the breast of the Lord divine truth, uttered, ‘ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God he being such a man said not, ‘ Ye have an advocate with the Fatherbut, ‘ If any man sin, we have an advocate.’ He says not, ‘Ye have,’ nor ‘Ye have me,’ nor does he say, ‘ Ye have Christ Himselfbut, as he puts ‘ Christ,’ not ‘ himself,’ so does he say, ‘ We have,’ not ‘ Ye have.’ He had rather put himself in the number of sinners, that he might have Christ x 306 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. for liis advocate, than put himself as an advocate in Christ’s stead, and be found among the proud who must be condemned. My brethren, we have Jesus Christ Himself our advocate with the Father—He is the propitiation for our sins. . . . But some one will say, 4 What, then, do not holy ones ’ [sancti] 4 pray for us ? What, then, do not the bishops and chiefs pray for the people V Nay, attend to the Scripture, and see that the chiefs even commend themselves to the people; for the Apostle says to the people, 4 Praying at the same time for us also.’ The Apostle prays for the people, the people pray for the Apostle. We pray for you, brethren, but pray ye also for us. Let all the members pray mutually for each other, and the Head intercede for all 5 .” This subject seems to have strongly and deeply im¬ pressed itself on St. Augustine’s mind; for we find him again, in his refutation of Parmenianus, with refer¬ ence to the same passage of St. John, thus expressing liimseif, in words which, were they written by a mo¬ dern divine, would be considered as directed expressly against the present errors of Rome : 44 John says, 4 1 write this that ye sin not.’ If it should thus have followed, and he had said, 4 If any one sin, ye have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and He is the propitiation for your sins,’ he might seem, as it were, to have separated himself from sinners, so that he might no longer have had need of the propitiation which is made by the Mediator sit¬ ting at the right hand of the Father, and interceding for us. This truly he would have said, not only proudly, but also falsely. But had he thus said, 4 Tlns have I 5 Vol. iii. part 2. p. 831. CHAP. II.] AUGUSTINE. 807 written to you, that ye sin not; and, if any man sin, ye have me for a mediator with the Father, and I pray pardon for your sins, (as Parmenianus in a certain place puts the bishop as a mediator between the people and God,) who of good and faithful Christians would en¬ dure him ? Who would regard him as an Apostle of Christ, and not as Antichrist ? . . . All Christian men mutually commend themselves to each other’s prayers. But He for whom no one intercedes, whilst he inter¬ cedes for all, is the one and the true Mediator, of whom the type prefigured in the Old Testament is the priest; and no one is there found to have prayed for the priest. “ But Paul, though under the Head an especial mem¬ ber, yet because he was a member of Christ, and knew that the great and true High-priest had not by a figure entered within the veil into the holy of holies, but by express and real truth had for us entered within hea¬ ven to no imaginary, but to an eternal holiness,—he also commends himself to the prayers of the Church : he makes not himself a mediator between God and the people, but he asks that all the members of Christ’s body would pray mutually for each other. Since the members are mutually anxious for each other, and, if one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; and, if one member be glorified, all the members re¬ joice with it; thus let the mutual prayers of all the members yet toiling on the earth ascend to the Head, who is gone before us into heaven, in whom is the pro¬ pitiation for our sins. For were Paul a mediator, so would his fellow-Apostles be mediators, and thus would there be many mediators; and Paul’s reasoning would be inconsistent with himself, by which he said, 4 There x 2 308 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus 6 .’” These are by no means solitary passages: the works of St. Augustine breathe the same spirit throughout. We need not, however, be detained by a reference to more than one other passage, which is in his Confes¬ sions 7 : “ Whom could I find who could reconcile me to thee? Was I to betake myself to the angels?— With what prayer? By what sacraments? . . . The Mediator between God and man must have somewhat of the likeness of God, and somewhat of the likeness of man; lest being in both cases like man, he might be far from God; or, being in both like God, he might be far from man, and so would not be a mediator. . . . The true Mediator, whom by thy secret mercy thou hast shown to the humble, and whom thou hast sent, that by his example they might learn humility, that Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ, ap¬ peared between sinful mortals and the righteous and immortal One.How didst thou love us, O good Father, who sparedst not thine only Son, but didst de¬ liver Him for us ungodly men ! Deservedly is my hope strong in this, that thou wilt heal all my infirmities by Him who sittetli at thy right hand and intercedes with thee for us; otherwise I should despair.” Is it possible to conceive that this holy man, when he presented his prayers to the blessed and eternal Trinity, carried with him in his heart, or on his tongue, the advocacy or intercession of any being, angel, saint, or Virgin, save only the eternal Son of God and man? Vol. ix. p. 34. 7 Vol. i. pp. 193, 194. CHAP. II.] AUGUSTINE, 309 SECTION II. But we must now inquire specifically what were St. Augustine’s sentiments and belief and practice with regard to the Virgin Mary, the adoration of her, and faith in her merits and intercession. To the question, What is Augustine’s testimony? the only answer which can fairly he made is this, That, from the first to the last page of his voluminous works, there is not a single expression which would lead us to suppose that he ever invoked her himself, or was aware of her invocation forming any part of the worship of his fellow-Chris- tians, either in their public assemblies or their private devotions; nor is there a single expression which would induce us to believe that Augustine looked to her for any aid, spiritual or temporal, or placed any confidence whatever in her mediation or intercession. On the contrary, there is accumulated and convincing proof that he knew nothing of her worship, let it be called dulia or hyperdulia; that he knew nothing of her immaculate Conception, of her Assumption into heaven 8 , or of festivals instituted to her honour; in a word, that, though he maintains strong opinions on some points left open by our Church, his belief and sentiments corresponded in all essential points with the belief and sentiments of the Church of England, and were utterly inconsistent with the present belief and practice of the Church of Rome. Many of the spurious works ascribed to St. Augus- 8 In another part of this work we refer to the passage (Vol. ix. p. 116) usually quoted to prove that the feast of the Annunciation was observed in the Church in the time of Augustine, and show the fallacy of the argument. 310 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. tine contain passages strongly impregnated with er¬ rors, which had their origin in an age long after he was taken to his rest; and such spurious works are still quoted, without any intimation of their doubtful or supposititious character. Thus, in a work called “ The Manual of Devotion, by Ambrose Lisle Pliil- lipps, Esq., of Grace-Dieu Manor,” (Derby, 1843,) p. 98, the author says, “ The ancient Fathers of the early Church give us full warrant to apply to the blessed Virgin all the passages of Scripture which may also be applied to the Church. Thus, the glorious St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, in the third discourse to the catechumens on the Creed, applies the vision of St. John the Evangelist in the 12th chapter of the Apocalypse, where he sees a woman clothed with the sun, and a crown of twelve stars on her head, as re¬ ferring to our blessed Lady.—Vol. vi. Paris, 1837, p. 965.” It is astonishing to find this sermon thus quoted as St. Augustine’s, when, in the very volume in which it is found, the editor prefaces the sermons, of which this is the third, with such a heading as this (p. 930) : 44 Here follow three other sermons on the Creed, which by no means present to us Augustine, to whom hither¬ to in former editions they have been ascribed, but an orator far his inferior in the character of his speaking, in learning, and in talent 9 .” St. Augustine is not one of those who, either from the scantiness of his remains, or the nature of his works, might leave us in doubt as to his sentiments: 9 From the third of these Mr. Phillipps quotes the above passage, as though it were acknowledged to be St. Augustine’s, without any allusion to its condemnation as a spurious work in the very edition to which he refers. CHAP. II.] AUGUSTINE. 311 lie is led in very many of liis works to speak of the Virgin Mary, her nature, her office, and her character, both directly and incidentally. On two subjects, of especial interest to him, to which he is constantly and fully reverting, he is led to speak of her in every variety of light: the one subject is the Incarnation of the Son of God, the other is the institution of the life of Virginity by professed and devoted vir¬ gins ; a life which, he says, originally derived its dignity from her l . St. Augustine, then, strongly maintains that Mary was a devoted virgin before the Angel’s salutation, and that so she remained through her whole life to her death, never having lived with Joseph as her husband; and that those who are called his brethren were relatives of Mary. He considers Mary a bright example of religious and moral excel¬ lence, especially to those who devoted themselves to a virgin life ; nay, for the honour of our Lord, he wishes no question to be ever entertained as to sinful¬ ness in Mary 2 . In making a spiritual and typical ap¬ plication of the words in Genesis, “ that a mist,” or, as he calls it, a fountain, “ sprang up, and watered the whole face of the earth;” having stated that by the face was meant the dignity of the earth, he says, that the fountain represented the Holy Spirit, the garden 1 Vol. v. p. 296. 2 Vol. x. p. 144. “ Except therefore the holy Virgin Mary, con¬ cerning whom, for the honour of the Lord, I wish not any question at all to be discussed when the subject is on sins ; for how can we tell whether a greater portion of grace were not given to her to en¬ able her to conquer sin altogether, who was thought worthy to con¬ ceive and bring forth Him who it is certain had no sin ? Except this Virgin only, if we could collect all the holy men and holy women who ever lived here, would they not confess, ‘ It we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves?’ ” 312 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. tlie will of God, the man to till it was Christ, and the face of the earth was Mary, of whom it was said “ The Holy Spirit shall overshadow tliee.” He says, that, with Elizabeth and Anna, she was one of the few re¬ corded in the New Testament as having prophesied 3 . He says that her question, “ How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” did not imply a want of faith in her, but only a desire to know what would be God’s good pleasure; and he contrasts this question of Mary with the question of Zacliarias 4 , which, though the same in sound, was, he says, far different in spirit. Tie says that she conceived Christ in her soul by faith, be¬ fore she conceived Him in her womb. He calls her the Virgin Mary, the holy Mary 5 ; a virgin when she conceived, when she brought forth, when she died; the mother of the Lord. But he never uses the term Mother of God. He speaks of Mary dying 6 , but he alludes not to her Assumption. He speaks of the conception 7 of her by her father and mother, but he expressly says she was herself conceived and born in sin ; though she herself conceived without spot or stain of sin, and gave birth to the sinless Saviour. Instead of representing Mary as the Bride and Spouse of the Almighty, (a title now, alas ! too commonly applied to her by our Roman Ca¬ tholic brethren,) Augustine represents her as the chamber only 8 , in which the Divine Word was as a Bridegroom united with his human nature as his bride. He considers the tradition which represents Mary as having been the daughter of Joachim, of the tribe of 3 Vol. vii. p. 488. 4 Vol. v. p. 1167. 5 Vol. v. p. 251. 0 Vol. vi. p. 289. 7 Vol. iv. p. 241 ; and Vol. x. p. 654; and Vol. iii. part i. p. 268. s Vol. iii. part ii. p. 354. CHAP. II.] AUGUSTINE. 313 Levi, as drawn from an apocryphal source by Faustus 9 ; and if he were induced to regard Joachim as her father at all, he would consider him as not appertaining to the sacerdotal tribe of Levi, but the regal tribe of Judah. He tells us that Angels adore the flesh of Christ 1 sitting at the right hand of the Father; but for any re¬ joicing of the Angels on Mary’s admission to heaven, such as the Roman service on the day of her Assump- tion asserts, we look in Augustine’s works in vain, SECTION III. But it will be more satisfactory to quote at length some passages which seem to embody his sentiments, on the subject of our inquiry: many such there are, edifying and interesting in themselves, as well as va¬ luable testimonies to the point at issue. The question will repeatedly force itself on the reader of St. Au¬ gustine, Could this writer have suppliantly invoked Mary ? Could he have hoped for acceptance with God through her intercession ? Could he have relied on her merits and intercession ? If, for example, we ex¬ amine his treatise on the 12th verse of the 2nd chapter of St. John, “After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples,” we read these sentiments 2 : “You will find that ail the relatives of Mary are brethren of Christ. But the disciples were still more his brethren, for even those relatives would not have been his brethren had they not been his disciples; and without cause would they have been his brethren, had they not acknowledged 9 Vol. viii. p. 427. 1 Vol. v. p. 970. 2 Vol. iii. part ii. p. 369. 314 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. tlieir brother for their master. For in a certain place, when his mother and his brethren were announced to Him as standing without, and He was speaking with his disciples, he said, 4 Who is my mother, and who are my brethren ?’ and stretching forth his hand to his dis¬ ciples He said, these are my brethren; and whosoever will do the will of mv Father, he is my mother, and brother, and sister.’ Therefore was also Mary, because she did the will of the Father. In her the Lord mag¬ nified this, that she did the will of the Father, not that flesh gave birth to flesh. Attend to this, my dear friends. Wherefore, when the Lord seemed the object of admiration in a crowd, working signs and wonders, and showing what was hidden in his flesh, some souls admiring Him said, 4 Llappy the womb that bare tliee!’ and He answered, £ Yea, happy are they who hear the word of God and keep it.’ This is to say, Even my mother, whom you call happy, is there¬ fore happy, because she keeps the w T ord of God, not because in her the Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us; but because she keeps the Word of God, by which she was made, and which was made flesh in her. Let not men rejoice in their temporal offspring; let them leap for joy if they are in Spirit joined to God.” In the same manner, at the commencement of his book on Holy Virginhood he thus comments on the same passage 3 : “ What else does He teach us but to prefer our spiritual family to our carnal relationship ? and that men are not blessed because they are joined to just and holy men by kindred, but if they are united with them by obeying and imitating their instructions and 3 Vol. vi. p. 342. CHAP. II.] AUGUSTINE. 315 moral character. Consequently Mary was more blessed by receiving the faith of Christ, than by conceiving the flesh of Christ.Finally, what did their relationship profit his brethren,—that is, his relatives according to the flesh,—who did not believe in Him ? So also the near relationship of a mother would have profited Mary nothing, unless she had carried Christ more happily in her heart than in the flesh. . . . He, the offspring of one holy virgin is the ornament of all holy virgins; and they together with Mary are mothers of Christ, if they do his Father’s will : hence also Mary is in a more praiseworthy and blessed manner the mother of Christ. He spiritually exhibits all these relationships in the people whom He has redeemed ; He regards as his brothers and sisters holy men and holy women, because they are joint-heirs in the hea¬ venly inheritance. The whole Church is his mother, because she truly bears by the grace of God his mem¬ bers, that is, his faithful ones. So likewise every pious soul is his mother, doing the will of his Father with most fruitful love, in those whom she brings forth, until He be formed in them. Mary, therefore, doing the will of God is bodily only the mother of Christ, but spiritually his mother and his sister 4 .” In his comment on our Lord’s address to his mother at the marriage-feast, Augustine deems it necessary to refute the false inferences of two very opposite classes of men : first, those who maintained from the words “ Woman, what have I to do with thee?” that Mary was not the mother of the Lord Jesus; and, secondly, those fatalists (mathematicians, as he calls them), who alleged Christ’s following words, “ Mine hour is not yet 4 Vol. vi. p. 343. 31G WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. come,” in proof that our Saviour Himself was under the necessity of destiny. In his refutation of the latter error, we find nothing which needs to be quoted here. In his answer to the former, St. Augustine’s words may help us in forming a correct view of the habitual sentiments entertained by him of Mary and of her office and character : “ The Lord when invited came to a marriage *. What marvel that He should go into that house to a marriage, who came into this world for a marriage? Lor, had He not come to a marriage, He would not have had a bride. He has a bride whom He redeemed by his blood, and to whom He gave the Holy Spirit as a pledge. He rescued her from the thraldom of the devil; He died for her transgressions ; He rose again for her justification. Who will offer so much to his bride ? Let men offer any adorning presents of the earth, gold, silver, precious stones, horses, slaves, fields, and farms: will any one offer his own blood ? . . . . But the Lord, secure in his death, gave his own blood for her, whom at his resurrection He might have, whom He had already united to Himself in the Virgin’s womb. For the Word is the bridegroom, and his human flesh is the bride; and both are one Son of God, and the same the Son of man. When He was made the head of the Church, that womb of the Vir¬ gin Mary was the bridechamber: then He went out as a bridegroom out of his chamber. As the Scripture saith, 4 He went as a bridegroom out of his chamber, and rejoiced as a giant to run his course,’—He went from his chamber as a bridegroom, and being invited He came to a marriage G . For some undoubted mys- 5 Vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 354. fi P. 355 . CHAP. II.] AUGUSTINE. 317 tery, He seems not to acknowledge the mother from whom He proceeded as a bridegroom 7 .Why then does the Son say to the mother, ‘ What have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come?’ Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man; in that He was God, He had no mother; in that He was man, He had. She, therefore, was the mother of his flesh, the mother of his humanity, the mother of the infirmity which He took upon Him for our sakes. But the miracle which He was about to perform He was about to perform according to his divinity, not according to his infirmity; in that He was God, not in that He was born a weak man. But the weakness of God is stronger than man. His mother required Him to perform a miracle, but He, as it were, does not acknowledge his human origin 8 when about to effect a divine work; as though He said, ‘ That part of me which works the miracle, thou didst not give birth to. It was not thou that gavest birth to my divinity : but because, thou gavest birth to my infirmity, I will then acknowledge thee when that infirmity shall hang upon the cross. 5 For this is the meaning of 4 Mine hour is not yet come. 5 For then He acknowledged her, who had truly always known her. And, before He was born of her, He had known her in predestination; and before He, as God, created her of whom He as man was created, He had known his mother: but at a certain hour, in a mystery. He does not acknowledge her; and at a certain hour, in mystery He again acknowledges her. He then acknowledged her when that to which she gave birth was dying : for that was not dying by which Mary was made, but that was dying which was formed from Viscera humana non agnoscit. 7 P. 357, 8 318 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. Mary; the eternity of the Godhead died not, but the infirmity of the flesh died. He consequently makes this answer, distinguishing in the faith of the disciples who it was that came, and by what way ; for He came by his mother a woman, the God and Lord of heaven and earth. In that He was the Lord of the world, of the earth, and the heaven, He was Lord also of Mary; in that He was the Creator of the heaven and the earth, He was the Creator also of Mary: but according to what is said, 4 Made of a woman, made under the Law,’ He was the son of Mary; Himself the Lord of Mary and the Son of Mary, the Creator of Mary and Himself created from Mary. 44 Marvel not that Lie is both Son and Lord ; for as of Mary, so also of David, is He called the Son; and of David is He therefore the Son, because He is the Son of Mary. In the same manner, then, as Lie is both the Son and Lord of David,—the Son of David accord¬ ing to the flesh, the Son of God according to his divinity; so is Lie the Son of Mary according to the flesh, and the Lord of Mary according to his majesty. Therefore, because she was not the mother of his divinity, and it was by his divinity that the miracle was about to be performed, he answered, 4 What have I to do with thee V But do not think that I shall deny thee as my mother; for then I will acknowledge thee when the weakness of which thou art the mother shall begin to hang upon the cross,’ Let us test the truth of this. When the Lord suffered, as the same Evangelist (who had known the mother of the Lord, and who even at this marriage-feast introduced the mother of the Lord to us,) himself relates, 4 there was about the cross the mother of Jesus; and Jesus said to his mother, 4 Woman, behold thy Son,’ and to the CHAP. II.] AUGUSTINE. 319 disciple, 4 Behold thy mother.’ He commends his mother to his disciple; He who was about to die before his mother, and to rise again before his mother’s death, commends his mother;—as a human being, He commends to a human being a human being. This had Mary brought forth. That hour was then already come of which at that time He had spoken, 4 Mine hour is not yet come.’ ” Here we cannot but advert to an essential difference, constantly forcing itself upon our notice, between the manner in which St. Augustine employs the funda¬ mental truth, that the Son of God was born the Son of man of the Virgin-mother of her substance, and the turn generally given to it by Roman Catholic writers. They employ that truth to exalt Mary, and draw our minds to a contemplation of her exalted nature, and excite our praise towards her : Augustine, to fix our thoughts on the atonement, to excite in us a lively faith in Christ alone, and to fill our hearts with thanks¬ giving and praise. He is ever drawing away our minds from the means to the end, and from the in¬ strument to the eternal agent,—from Mary to God. Thus : 44 Mary believed, and what she believed was effected in her. Let us believe, also, that what was effected may be profitable to us also 9 .” Then, again, in a sermon on the Nativity 1 : 44 Therefore, that Day, even the Word of God, the Day which shineth on angels, the Day which shineth in that country whence we are sojourners, clothed Himself with flesh, and is born of a Virgin. ... We were mortals, we were op¬ pressed by our sins, we were bearing our own punish¬ ment. . . . Christ is born—let no one doubt to be born 9 Vol. v. p. 951. 1 Vol. v. p. 890. 320 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. again; let his mercy be poured in our hearts. His mother bare Him in her womb—let us also bear Him in our heart. The Virgin was filled by the incarnation of Christ—let our hearts be filled by the faith of Christ. The Virgin brought forth the Saviour—let our soul bring forth salvation, let us also bring forth praise. Let us not be barren, let our souls be fruitful to God.” Thus, again, in a discourse, an object of which is to reconcile the genealogies of St. Matthew and St. Luke, St. Augustine speaks on Mary’s modesty, not with the view of exalting her, but, as he expressly tells us, to train up other women in the same principles. 44 In the first place, brethren, and chiefly for the discipline of women, our sisters, so holy a modesty of the Virgin Mary must not be passed by. She had given birth to Christ; an angel had come to her, and said, 4 Behold, thou shalt conceive and bear a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High.’ She had been thought worthy to give birth to the Son of the Highest, and she was most humble; nor did she pre¬ fer herself to her husband, not even in the order of naming themselves, so as to say, 4 1 and thy father but she says, 4 Thy father and I.’ She thinks not of the dignity of her womb, but of conjugal order; for the lowly Christ would not have taught his mother to be proud. 4 Thy father and I have sought thee sorrow¬ ing.’ She says, 4 Thy father and I,’ because the man is the head of the woman. How much less ought other women to be proud 2 ?” But so many instances of this habitual reference from Mary to God, from her office as mother to our ? Vol. v. p. 291. CHAP. II.] AUGUSTINE. 321 duty as Christ’s members, present themselves through¬ out the works of St. Augustine, that the difficulty is, not to find, but to choose; not to gather, but to select from what we have gathered : and on this immediate point w T e will only add one more specimen. It is from a sermon on the Nativity. “ With reason, then, did the prophets announce that He should be born; and the heavens and angels, that He was born. He lay in a manger, who held the world; He was an infant, and the Word. Him, whom the heavens do not contain, the bosom of one woman bare. She ruled our Ruler ; she carried Him, in whom we are : she gave suck to our Bread: O manifested weakness, and wondrous humility, in which the whole Divinity thus lay hid ! The mother to whom in his infancy He was subject, He ruled by his power; and her, whose breasts He sucked, He fed with truth. May He perfect his gifts in us, who did not abhor to take on Himself our origin! may He Himself make us the sons of God, who for our sakes willed to become Son of man 3 ! ” SECTION IV. Although the importance of St. Augustine’s testi¬ mony has induced us to dwell thus long on his works, yet we cannot anticipate the regret of any one at our appending another passage, in itself most animating and uplifting to the Christian, and at the same time, though not so fully and in detail as other parts of his works, yet virtually presenting to us the habitual senti¬ ments of the great master of the Christian Israel, w T hose testimony we have been examining, on the Vol. v. p. 882. Y 322 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. nature of Angels, and on the part to which the Virgin Mary was called in the work of our redemption. The following are his remarks on the words of the 148tli Psalm, “ He hath made them fast for ever and ever. He hath given them a precept which shall not be broken 4 .” “ All heavenly things, all things above, all powers and angels, a city on high, good, holy, blessed ; from which because we are wanderers, we are yet miser¬ able ; and whither because we are about to return, we are blessed in hope; and whither when we shall have returned, we shall be blessed in deed. What precept do you think the heavenly beings and holy angels have? What precept did God give to them ? What, except to praise Him? Blessed are they whose business it is to praise God. They plough not, they sow not, they grind not, they dress not food; for these are works of necessity, and no necessity is there. They steal not, they plunder not, they commit not adultery; for these are works of iniquity, and no iniquity is there. They break not bread to the hungry, they clothe not the naked, the stranger they take not in, they visit not the sick, they reconcile not the contentious, they bury not the dead; these are works of mercy, and no misery on which mercy might be shown is there. O blessed ones! Do we think we shall be thus ? Ah ! let us sigh for it, and from a sigh let us groan. And what are we that we might be there ? Mortals, cast forth, cast away,—earth and ashes. But He who promised is omnipotent. If we look to ourselves, what are we? If we look to Him, He is God, He is omnipotent. Will not He make an angel of a man, who made man 4 Vol. iv. p. 1676. CHAP. II.] AUGUSTINE. 323 of nothing ? Or would God esteem man for nought, for whom He was willing that his only Son should die ? Let us look to the proof of his love. We have re¬ ceived such an earnest of God’s promise. We hold fast the death of Christ; we hold fast the blood of Christ. Who died ? The only One. For whom did He die ? We might have wished it had been for the good—for the just! But what? Christ, says the Apostle, died for the ungodly. He who gave his own death for the ungodly, what does tie preserve for the righteous but his own life ? Let then human weakness lift itself; let it not despair, nor crush itself, nor turn itself away, nor say, 4 1 shall not be.’ He who promised is God, and He came that He might promise; He appeared to man, He came to take upon Himself our death, to promise his life. He came to the country of our sojourn to receive here what here abounds,—reproaches, scourging, smiting on the cheek, spittings in the face, revilings, a crown of thorns, hanging on the tree, the cross, death. . . . These things abound in our country, and to such treatment He came. What did He give here? What did He receive here? He gave exhortation, He gave doctrine, He gave remission of sins: He received reproaches, the cross, and death. He brought from that country good things to us, and in our country He endured evils. 44 Yet He promised us that we should be there, whence He came; and He says, 4 Father, I will that where I am, there may they also be.’ So great love went before. Because where we were, Fie was with us ; where Fie is, we shall be with Him. O mortal man ! what hath God promised thee ? That thou shalt live for ever. Thou dost not believe ! Believe, believe! What Fie hath done already is more than what lie has promised. What has He done? He has died for thee. y 2 324 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. What has He promised ? That thou shalt live with Him, It is harder to believe that the Eternal One died, than that a mortal should live for ever. We have that al¬ ready which it is the harder to believe. If for man’s sake God died, shall not man live with God? Shall not a mortal live for ever, for whose sake He who is eternal died ? “ But how did God die ? and whence did God die ? and can God die ? He took from thee that whence He might die for thee. He could not die, except as flesh; He could not die, except as a mortal body. He clothes Himself where He might die for thee; He will clothe thee where thou mayest live with Him. Where did He clothe Himself with death? In the Virginity of his Mother. Where will tie clothe thee with life ? In the equality of his Father. Here He chose for Himself a chaste chamber, where He might be united, a bridegroom, with his bride. The Word was made flesh, that He might be the Head of the Church. For the Word Himself is not part of the Church ; but took upon Himself flesh that He might be the Head of the Church. Somewhat of ours is already above, namely, what He received here, where He died and was crucified. Already have certain first- fruits of thine gone before, and dost thou doubt that thou shalt follow?” The evidence of St. Augustine is clear, strong, and manifold against the doctrine and practice of the Church of Home with regard to the blessed Virgin Mary; and his testimony brings us into the second quarter of the fifth century. CHAP. III.] JEROME. 825 CHAPTER III. SECTION I.-ST. JEROME, A.D. 418 b In the estimation of Roman Catholic writers, the name of Jerome, “ the greatest master of the Churches,” stands among the highest, if not as the very highest, of the early Fathers of the Christian Church. He was born in an obscure town, but as his biographer as¬ sures us, he was nourished from his cradle with the pure milk of Catholic truth 1 2 . Fie was “ the friend and the oracle of Pope Damasus, and was joined (as the Roman writers say,) in an indissoluble communion with the Roman See and, by the canon law of Rome, not only are his books received implicitly, but of the works of others, such as Ruffinus and Origen, those only are stamped with authority which “ the blessed Jerome does not reject 3 .” Nay, in the Epistle Dedicatory to Clement XII. Jerome is declared to have been pro¬ nounced by the unanimous voice of Rome, to be wor¬ thy of the highest sacerdotal dignity, even the chair of Peter itself; but he preferred the silence and retire¬ ment of a hermit’s life. It is impossible for any one engaged in an inquiry into the belief and practice of the primitive Church, whatever be the immediate sub- 1 The references are made to the admirable Benedictine edition of Jerome, published at Verona, from 1734 to 1742, in 11 vols. fob 2 See his Life, vol. xi. p. 14. 3 See Gibert Jur. Can. 1732, p. 12. See also Sac. Concil. Paris 1671, p. 1236. 326 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. jecfc of investigation, not to look with more than ordi¬ nary interest and anxiety to the sentiments of Jerome ; and on the question before us we must attach still greater importance to his testimony, from the circum¬ stance that the state and condition of the Virgin Mary, as the Mother of our Lord, repeatedly formed the subject both of his discussions with those whose opinions he controverted, and of his instruction to those who esteemed him as their teacher in Christian doc¬ trine. And what is the character of that evidence ? From the very first to the very last page of his voluminous works, embracing every variety of theological subjects, not one single expression occurs, we do not say, to warrant the conclusion that Jerome looked with faith to the intercession of the Virgin, or ever invoked her aid or her prayers ; but which would even imply his knowledge that any dependence on her intercession, or any invocation of her aid, prevailed in any part of the Catholic Church in his day. His works have been most diligently searched, and ransacked, with the view of finding some countenance in them for those prac¬ tices which we call the innovations and corruptions of later times. But the search is made in vain. The evidence of this celebrated Father is all one way, and is totally incompatible with the supposition that his belief and practice coincided with the belief and prac¬ tice of the Church of Borne, as fixed by the Council of Trent, as enjoined and exemplified in her authorised formularies and rituals, and as exhibited in the devo¬ tional works of her most approved authors. Indeed, we cannot discover that any one of the most laborious and zealous defenders of that liyperdulia which is now professedly paid to the Virgin, has cited a single pas- CHAP. III.] JEROME. 327 sage from Jerome in its favour 4 . And this is the more remarkable, because on some points, which many theo¬ logians have considered as open questions, he is more than usually energetic in maintaining the Virgin’s dig¬ nity. For example, he strenuously asserts that she was never the wife of Joseph ; that those who are called in the Gospel “ Christ’s brethren,” were not her children ; that to the day of her death she remained the same pure and immaculate Virgin as she was be¬ fore the birth of the Saviour. In a letter to Pamma- chius, written with a view to defend himself against the charge of having, in his zeal for the state of virgin- hood, spoken disparagingly of marriage, he employs this language : “ When anything in my work appears harsh to you, look not to my words, but to the Scrip¬ ture, from which my words are taken. Christ is a Virgin; the Mother of our Virgin [masculine] is a perpetual Virgin; Holy Mary is Mother and Virgin— a Virgin after the birth, a mother before her nuptials 5 . To those questions, which have since been pursued with far more of curiosity 6 and presumption than of humility and delicacy, we shall not allude. The Church of England, by keeping a solemn and pious silence on 4 Vol. i. pp. 120. 679. and 720. 5 Epist. 48 (otherwise 50), written probably a.d. 393; vol. i. p. 231. 6 The Benedictine editor on Jerome’s fourteenth Homily on St. Luke, (vol. vii. p. 289,) aware that Jerome’s words were at variance with the opinions which have been sedulously propagated by Roman writers of comparatively recent dates, refers to one of these points with painful illustrations ; points these, the discussion of which can in no way benefit either our head or our heart, and can neither increase our knowledge of Gospel verity, nor strengthen our faith in Christ. This editor includes Tertullian, Basil, Ambrose, and Athanasius in the same charge of error with Jerome. \ 328 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. those mysteries in our blessed Lord’s incarnation, has plainly indicated to her faithful children her mind and will that they should abstain from such bold and pro¬ fitless speculations, and, practically applying the prin¬ ciple of Jerome (which he sometimes seems to have himself forgotten), not to proceed a single step further in these subjects than the Scripture itself may seem to lead us by the hand. Jerome repeatedly propounds Mary as an example to be followed by all virgins, but it is in words very far removed from the language of one who would ad¬ dress her by invocation. Thus, in a letter written about the year a.d. 403 7 , to Laeta, on the education of her daughter, he says, “ Let her imitate Mary, whom Gabriel found alone in her chamber; and perhaps for this very reason was she terrified, because she beheld a man, whom she was not accustomed to see.” Thus too, in his epistle to Eustochium, written about twenty years before 8 , in which he says “ Death came by Eve, and Life by Maryand in which he calls his correspondent the spouse of God, and bids her follow the example of Mary, the sister of Lazarus, who pre¬ ferred Christ’s doctrine to her food; after cautioning Eustochium not to follow the example of those who gave their minds to worldly affairs, he proceeds : “ Let us follow the example of better persons. Propose to yourself the blessed Mary, who was of so great purity as to be thought worthy to be the mother of the Lord; who, when the angel Gabriel, in the form of a man, came down to her, saying, fi Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee,’ being confounded and terrified, 7 Epist. 107, p. 679. s Epist. 22, vol. i. p. 120. CHAP. III.] JEROME. 329 could not answer for slie had never been saluted by a man. At length she learned that he was a messenger, and speaks; and she who was afraid of a man converses freely with an angel.” And then so far from fixing the reader’s mind on Mary, as though she were the chief subject of his thoughts, he assures his female correspondent, that by the same purity of mind and body she might herself also become the mother of the Saviour 9 ; and, still withdrawing the mind from Mary, he exclaims, “ The labour is great, but the prize is great, to be what the martyrs are, what the apostles are, what Christ is.” In another letter which he wrote about the year 405, to a mother and a daughter who were at variance, and whom he enjoins to be reconciled, he thus speaks 1 ; “ Mother and daughter, names of piety, words signifi¬ cant of duties, the bonds of nature, an alliance second after God ! It is no praise if you love, it is wickedness that you hate. The Lord Jesus was subjected to his parents. He revered his mother, of whom He was Him¬ self the Father; He honoured his nourisher, the man whom He had nourished; and He remembered that Tie had been carried in the womb of one, and in the arms of the other. Whence also, when hanging on the cross, He commends to his disciple the parent whom, before the cross, He had never sent away.” Whilst Jerome, both in his comments on holy Scrip¬ ture and in his treatise called Hebrew Questions 2 , applies some passages to the Virgin Mary, which most commentators, ancient and modern, interpret of Christ, he applies to the Saviour Himself the celebrated passage 9 Potes et tu esse Mater Domini. 1 Epist. 117, vol. i. p. 777. 2 Vol. ix. p. 28, and vol. iii. p. 309. 380 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. in Genesis, which the Vulgate translates so as to apply it to Mary, “ He shall bruise thy head not as the Vulgate renders it, “She shall bruise thy head;” adding, “ Because our steps are hindered by the ser¬ pent, and the Lord shall bruise Satan under our feet speedily.” On the other hand, on Isaiah, xi. I 3 , “A branch shall come out from the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall grow from his root,” Jerome says, “ The branch is the mother of our Lord, simple, pure, sincere, with no ex¬ ternal germ, and, after the likeness of God, fruitful in herself alone. The flower of the branch is Christ, who says, e I am the flower of the field, and the lily of the valley;’ who also in another place is spoken of as ‘ a stone cut from the mountain without handsthe Pro¬ phet signifying that a virgin” [masculine] “ should spring from a virgin.” In his translation of one of Origen’s Homilies on St. Luke 4 , having stated that Elisabeth was not filled with the Holy Spirit till she had conceived John, he thus illustrates his meaning, by referring to what of a similar nature was known of the Saviour: “ Mary was filled with the Holy Ghost then, when she began to hold the Saviour in her womb; for immediately that she re¬ ceived the Holy Spirit, the framer of our Lord’s body, and that the Son of God began to be in her womb, herself also w T as filled with the Lloly Ghost.” In his comment on Ezekiel xliv. 1 5 , Jerome con¬ siders the closed gate to mean the Word of God, the knowledge of God, or Paradise; and, after giving his own view, he tells us that some beautifully interpreted 5 Vol. i. p. 101, and vol. iv. p. 155. 4 Horn. vii. vol. vii. p. 265. 5 Vol. v. p. 535. CHAP. IIT.] JEROME. 331 it of the Virgin Mary, who before and after the nativity was a virgin. In his prologue to Zephaniah, he says 6 , “ I say no¬ thing of Anna and Elisabeth, and other holy women, whose little fires (as of stars) the clear light of Mary hides.” And, in another place, he represents the holiness of Zachariah and Elisabeth to be inferior to Mary’s 7 . He calls her a prophetess, the mother of the Sa¬ viour, the holy and blessed mother of the Lord; and he speaks of her who should give birth to God 8 . “ O house of David, marvel not at the novelty of the fact if a virgin shall bring forth God, Him who hath so great power, that though He will be born after a long time, yet now when called upon can set thee free; for He it is who appeared to Abraham, and talked with Moses 9 Jerome tells us that Mary was chid by our Lord as a woman ; he calling her, as St. Paul does, not a virgin, but a woman ; though St. Paul (he says) meant not to imply by that expression that she was a married woman. In his comment on Jeremiah, xxxi. 22, “ A woman shall compass a man,” though he speaks of the Saviour’s miraculous conception and birth of a woman, yet he makes no mention of Mary \ St. Jerome was the great encourager and patron of the virgin-life, and he is led throughout his works to refer to Mary again and again; but he speaks of her only as the Virgin-Mother of our Lord. Not one word escapes his pen implying his own de- 6 Vol. vi. p. 671. r Vol. ii. p. 230. 8 Vol. vii. pp. 504. 449. 9 Com. on Isaiah, vii. 15 ; vol. iv. p. 111. 1 Vol. iv. 1069. 332 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. pendence on her merits and intercession; not the most distant allusion is made to any invocation offered to her in his time, either by the assembled Church, or by individual Christians in their private devotions. No intimation is given to us of any festival instituted in her honour, of any churches dedicated to her name. He alludes not to her miraculous death, or to her assumption into heaven. lie speaks of prayer, but it is prayer only to God ; he bids us not to take our food without prayer, never to retire from the table without thanksgiving, but it must be offered to the Creator 2 . We will only quote two more passages ; one, record¬ ing Jerome’s sentiments on the object of religious worship 3 ; and another, in which he speaks of Mary in a manner totally incompatible with such sentiments as our Roman Catholic brethren now entertain, as well as with the decree of the Council of Trent: “We worship not, nor adore, I do not say, the relics of martyrs, but neither the sun, nor the moon, nor angels nor arch¬ angels, nor cherubin nor seraphin, nor any name that is named in the present world or in the world to come, lest we serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. We honour the relics of martyrs, that we may adore Him whose martyrs they are; we honour the servants, that the honour of the servants may redound to the Lord.” The Council of Trent declares that the Virgin Mary, by the special privilege of God, never was chargeable with any sin at all; and, consistently with the worship 2 The words are too beautiful not to be quoted in the original: “ Nec cibi sumantur, nisi oratione prsemissa ; nec recedatura mensa, nisi referatur Creatori gratia.”—Vol. i. p. 119. 3 Epist. cix. vol. i. p. 720. CHAP. III.] JEROME. 333 now offered to her, less could scarcely have been ex¬ pected. But how did the ancient teachers of Chris¬ tianity speak on this point ? We have already seen how St. Basil contradicts this notion, in his interpreta¬ tion of Simeon’s prophecy to Mary; and how St. Chry¬ sostom agrees with him the words of St. Jerome, in his translation of Origen’s Homily upon the same Scripture, are these 4 : “ Simeon then says, ‘ And a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also V What is that sword which pierced through the hearts, not of others only, but also of Mary? It is plainly w T ritten, that in the time of the passion all the Apostles were offended; our Lord Him¬ self also saying, 4 * All ye shall be offended this night.’ Therefore all of them together were offended ; so much, that Peter also, the chief of the Apostles, denied Him thrice. What! do we suppose, that, when the Apostles were offended, the mother of our Lord w 7 as free from the offence ? If she felt not offence at the passion of the Lord, Jesus did not die for her sins. But if all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God, being justified by his grace, and redeemed, surely Mary also was offended at that time. And this is what Simeon now prophesies. ‘Thine own soul also—thine who knowest that thou, a virgin, without a husband didst bring forth,—who didst hear from Gabriel, 4 The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee,’—shall the sword of un¬ belief pierce through ; and thou shalt be struck with the 4 Horn. xvii. in Luc., vol. vii. p. 300. 5 See Basil and others, who take the same view which Jerome presents to us here, and are all included by the Benedictine editors in the charge of holding opinions contrary to the doctrines of the Church of Rome, and of the Council of Trent. 334 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. point of the weapon of doubt, and thy thoughts shall tear and distract thee, when thou slialt see Him whom thou hast heard to be the Son of God, and whom thou knowest to have been conceived without the seed of man, crucified and die, and be subject to human punish¬ ments, and at last lamenting with tears, and saying ? Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.’ ” Again, on the passage, “ When the days of their ” [so he reads it, eoruni\ “ purification were accom¬ plished,” he says, “ The purification of what persons ? If it had been written on account of her purification, that is, Mary’s, who had brought forth, no question would have arisen; and we should have confidently said, that Mary, who was a mortal, needed purification after parturition 6 .” Again, on the passage, “ And they understood not this saying,” Jerome’s words are, “ Observe this also, that, as long as He was in the possession of his Father, He was above; because Joseph and Mary had not yet a full faith, therefore they could not remain above with Him, but he is said to have gone down with them V’ Whether we regard these as the sentiments adopted by Jerome himself from Origen, or as Origen’s trans¬ lated by Jerome, and left without any note of disap¬ probation by him, it may be asked, Could these men have believed, as the modern Romanists believe, of the Virgin Mary ? Is the faith of the Church of Rome, or of the Church of England, the faith of the primitive Fathers ? The dissatisfaction evinced by the Bene¬ dictine editor at these “ audacious accusations 8 ” of 6 Horn. xiv. vol. vii. p. 285. 7 Horn. xx. vol. vii. p. 309. 8 “ So true is it,” says the Benedictine editor, “ that Adamantius was guilty of injustice towards the Holy Virgin. In the fourteenth homily, he says she needed purification : in the seventeenth homily CHAP. III.] BASIL OF SELEUCIA. 335 Mary (as he calls them) suggests the only answer.— The primitive Fathers of the Christian Church did not entertain the same thoughts and the same belief as to the Virgin Mary which the Church of Rome now suggests, and teaches, and requires of her members. Surely, had Jerome felt that Mary w^as the “ground of his hope,” had he “ invoked her protection and guid¬ ance,” had he been aware of such feelings or such practices prevailing among his Christian contempo¬ raries, indications of this must have shown themselves in some part or other of his works; but not a shadow of any thing of the kind is discoverable. This is the testimony of Jerome, who, though born about the middle of the fourth century, brings down our evidence through some years of the fifth century, his death probably not having taken place till the year 420; and some of his epistles being with great reason referred to a date so late as a.d. 417, or a.d. 418. SECTION II.-BASIL OF SELEUCIA, A.D. 425 9 . About this time lived Basil, Bishop of Seleucia. The greatness of the number of those who were called by the name of Basil renders it very difficult to pronounce of any work, published under that name, to whose pen it may be safely ascribed. To this Basil, as its author, a work is now referred, which cannot stand the test of close examination. Dausqueius, the Jesuit, so late as the year 1661, was the first who published this Basil’s that she felt scandal and doubt as to her Son ; now much more au¬ daciously he accuses her of unbelief and little faith.” The correct¬ ness of Origen or of Jerome’s view is not the question before us, but what their sentiments really were. 9 Paris, 1622. 336 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. reputed works in Greek, adding his own Latin transla¬ tion ; and he informs us that Basil’s works had only lately been drawn out from their hiding-place; and that Andreas Schottus, his brother-Jesuit, had sent a copy to him in Greek \ What were the circumstances and the appearance of the manuscript, and on what authority he ascribed it to this Basil, we know not; while the evidence against the homily, both internal and external, is too strong to be set aside. Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who lived in the ninth century, expressly says that this Basil wrote fifteen homilies, which he enumerates, specifying their sub¬ jects, and this is not one of them; though he says that other compositions were carried about under his name. The homily professes to have been delivered on the feast of the Annunciation, though no allusion to that feast is found for two centuries after this Basil lived 2 . The works of this writer are not alluded to in the decree of Pope Gelasius, nor consequently in the Canon Law of Rome. And Bellarmin himself, in his treatise on Ecclesias¬ tical Writers, makes no mention either of the writings or even of the name of this Basil. SECTION III.—OROSIUS AND SEDULIUS 3 . Among the doctors approved of by the Roman Ca¬ non Law are Orosius and Sedulius. We are unwilling to omit any one of those who are received by the Church of Rome as authorities in matters of Christian faith and practice, and we have therefore thought it 1 Dausqueius, in his Dedication. 2 See Appendix B. 3 Bib. Vet. Pat. Venice, 1773, tom. ix. CHAP. III.] OROSIUS AND SEDULIUS. 337 necessary to examine the scanty remains of these two writers. Orosius, a Spaniard, called in the Canon Law “a very learned man,” and whose date is about the year 400, wrote seven books on the History of Rome, through which he traces the hand of Divine Provi¬ dence preparing the way for the Christian dispensation. In this work he speaks of the Saviour as the Son of God and Man, the offspring of a Virgin. He wrote also a work full of theological erudition on the Free¬ dom of the Will. In the course of this treatise many opportunities offered themselves of referring to Mary, had he associated with her name the idea of sinless perfection, or had he regarded her as a mediator and intercessor, or as one who was to be invoked by us sinners. But he makes no mention of her. He refers to St. Paul, and St. Peter, and St. James, and Zacharias, and the Canaanitisli woman, and others; but to the Virgin Mary he makes no reference at all. He speaks of Christ as the only Mediator and Intercessor. Sedulius, to whom the Canon Law assigns the title of 44 Venerable,” in his beautiful Christian poems, speaks much of the Virgin as the Mother of Him, who was God from eternity, and Man born in this world; and in a passage, lately quoted by a Roman Catholic bishop, he speaks of her as the woman through whom alone the way of life was effected. But we find nothing in Sedulius to countenance a Christian either in addressing Mary in prayer, or in praying to God through her intercession. His testimony may with the greatest degree of probability be referred to the 338 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. year of our Lord 440 ; though some place it earlier, others later. SECTION IV.-VINCENT OF LIRENS, A.D. 430. In the short but celebrated work of this writer called Commonitorium, a passage occurs which de¬ serves, on every account, our serious attention. He was called “of Lirens” from an island, or, as Bellarmin says, a monastery of that name 4 ; and his work, writ¬ ten about the year 434, is directed against the several heresies which had then perverted Scripture doctrine, and disturbed the peace of Christendom. In his in¬ troductory remarks, he points out with equal brevity and clearness the use of primitive tradition in our in¬ quiries after the Apostolic doctrine, and the faith once delivered to the Saints. The whole passage, to which alone our thoughts are now especially called, is the following: Nestorius held that there were two sons; one, who was God from the Father; the other, man born of his mother; “ Conse¬ quently, that the holy Mary is not to be called Tlieo- tocos, because, forsooth, of her was born, not that Christ who was God, but that Christ who was man.” He then proceeds : “ Through this unity of person, by reason of a like miracle, it w r as brought to pass, that, the flesh of the Word growing entirely from his mother, God the Word Himself is with most truly Catholic faith be¬ lieved, and is with greatest impiety denied, to have been born of a virgin. This being the case, let not any one attempt to defraud the holy Mary of the pri- 4 Vol. vii. DeScriptor. Eccles. CHAP. III.] VINCENT OF LIRENS. 339 vileges and special glory of divine grace. For by the singular gift of our Lord and God, her Son, she must be most truly and blessedly confessed to be Theotocos; yet not in that sense Theotocos, in which a certain impious heresy supposes her to be, which asserts that she is only to be called Mother of God by a figure of speech, namely, because she brought forth that man who afterwards was made God ; just as we speak of the mother of a bishop or a priest, not because she gives birth to one already a bishop or priest, but by producing that man who afterwards was made priest or bishop. Not so is the holy Mary Theotocos; but for this reason rather, because in her most holy womb the mystery was effected, that, by a singular and soli¬ tary unity of person, as the Word was flesh in flesh, so man in God is God.” After making this most explicit declaration of the Catholic faith, “ that the Word, the Son of the Father, very and eternal God of one substance with the Father, took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin of her substance;” and after reprobating, with senti¬ ments of abhorrence, the rashness and impiety of those who would rob the Virgin of her lawful character and honour as the mother of that man who was very God ; how does Vincentius proceed ? Had he been trained in that school which professes to offer to Mary reli¬ gious invocation, to pray to our heavenly Father through her intercession, to honour her above Angels and Cherubim, and to regard Mary as the chief source of a Christian’s hope, surely some intimation of such principles would not fail to have appeared in this place. But we look for such in vain. The author does indeed immediately pronounce blessings, and honour, and reverence ; yet Mary is not the object of his pious z 2 340 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [TART V. admiration, but the Church, which maintains the truth as to the person of Christ: he does draw a comparison between what is now going* on in this world, and the exalted duties and office of the holy Angels; but it is the profession of the true faith in Christ, not the glory of the Virgin-Mother, of which he speaks. 44 Blessed Catholic Church, which worships One God in the fulness of the Trinity, and also the Equality of the Trinity in one Godhead ! Blessed Church, which believes that there are two true and perfect substances in Christ, but Christ to be one person ! By that (the unity of person) we confess both man to be the Son of God, and God to be the Son of the Virgin. Blessed, therefore, and worshipful, praised and most holy, and altogether to be compared with the praise of Angels above, is that confession which glorifies one Lord God in threefold sanctification.” To the sound and clear views of this author on the doctrine of progressive improvement and advances to¬ wards perfection in knowledge, faith, and practice we have referred in the Introduction. CHAP. IV.] COUNCILS. 341 CHAPTER IV. COUNCILS OF CONSTANTINOPLE, EPHESUS, AND CHALCEDON 1 . It will be borne in mind that the legend on which the doctrine of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary is founded, professes to trace the tradition to Juvenal, Archbishop of Jerusalem, when he was sojourning in Constantinople for the purpose of attending the Ge¬ neral Council of Chalcedon. To the emperor and em¬ press, who presided at that council, Juvenal is said to have communicated the tradition, as received in Pales¬ tine, that the body of Mary was miraculously removed from the tomb into heaven. This circumstance would, of itself, induce us to ascertain, by an examination of the records of the council, whether any traces may be found confirmatory of such a tradition, or otherwise: but further, the questions discussed at that council, closely bearing on the main subject of our inquiry, would of themselves make a thorough examination of its records indispensable; and since that council cannot be regarded as an insulated assembly, but as a continu¬ ation rather, or re-assembling, of the preceding minor Councils of Constantinople and Ephesus, it will be necessary briefly to refer to the occasion and nature generally of all those Christian synods. Nothing seems to have transpired in the previous councils which could Cone. Gen. Florence, 1761 ; vols. v. vi. vii. 1 342 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [part V. be brought as evidence on the subject of our inquiry, beyond, at least, the general and strong negative evi¬ dence of the absence throughout of all reference to the Virgin Mary’s glory, influence, patronage, and interces¬ sion; whereas, the questions which had disturbed Chris¬ tendom, and were agitated in these councils in the very middle of the fifth century, inseparable from a perpetu¬ ally recurring mention of the Virgin’s name, afforded an opportunity at every turn to those who composed the councils and all connected with them, including the Bishop of Rome himself, of expressing their senti¬ ments towards her. The nature of the present work precludes us from entering at any length upon the character and history of these, or of antecedent coun¬ cils ; a few words, however, seem requisite to enable us to judge of the nature and weight of the evidence borne by them on the question immediately before us. The source of all the disputes which then rent the Church of Him who had bequeathed peace, as his best and last gift, to his followers, was the anxiety to define and explain the nature of the great Christian mystery —the incarnation of the Son of God. All parties ap¬ pealed to the Nicene Creed ; though there seems to have been, to say the least, much misunderstanding, and unnecessary violence, and party spirit on all sides. The celebrated Eutyclies of Constantinople was charged with having espoused heterodox doctrine, by maintain¬ ing that in Christ was only one nature—the incarnate Word. On this charge he was accused before a council held at Constantinople in a.d. 448. His doctrine was considered to involve a denial of the human nature of the Son of God. The council condemned him of heresy, deposed and excommunicated him. From this proceeding Eutyclies appealed to a general council. A CHAP. IV.] COUNCILS. 343 council (the authority of which has been solemnly denied, but with what adequate reason, it belongs not to our present inquiry to determine,) was convened at Ephesus in the following year by the Emperor Theodo¬ sius. The proceedings of this assembly were accom¬ panied by lamentable unfairness and violence. Euty- clies was acquitted and restored by this council, and his accusers were condemned and persecuted; Flavianus, Archbishop of Constantinople, who had summoned the preceding council, being even scourged and exiled. That patriarch, in his distress, sought the good offices of Leo, Bishop of Rome, who espoused his cause; but who failed, nevertheless, of inducing Theodosius to convene a general council. His successor Marcian, however, consented; and, in the year 451, the Council was convened, which first meeting at Nice, was by adjournment removed to Chalcedon. In this council all the proceedings, as well of the council of Constanti¬ nople as of Ephesus, were rehearsed at length ; and, from a close examination of the proceedings of those three councils, only one inference seems deducible,— namely, that the invocation of the Virgin Mary had not then obtained that place in the Christian Church which the Church of Rome now assigns to it; a place, however, which the Church of England, among other branches of the Catholic Church, maintains that it cannot, without a sacrifice of the sound and unalterable principles of religious worship, be suffered to retain. The grand question then, agitated with too much asperity and too little charity, was this; Whether, by the incarnation, our blessed Saviour became possessed of two natures, the divine and human. Subordinate to this, and necessary for its decision, was involved the question, What part of his nature, if any, Christ 344 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. derived from the Virgin Mary? Again and again does this question bring the name, the office, the circum¬ stances, and the nature of that holy and blessed mother of our Lord before these councils. The name of Marv is continually in the mouth of the accusers, the ac¬ cused, the judges, and the witnesses ; and had Chris¬ tian pastors then entertained the same feelings of de¬ votion towards her,—had they professed the same belief as to her assumption into heaven, and her influ¬ ence and authority in directing the destinies of man, and in protecting the Church on earth,—had they ha¬ bitually appealed to her with the same prayers for her intercession and good offices, and placed the same con¬ fidence in her as we find now exhibited even in the authorized services of the Roman Ritual,—it is impossi¬ ble to conceive that no signs, no intimation, not the slightest reference to such views and feelings, should, either directly or incidentally, have shown themselves, somewhere or other, among the manifold and pro¬ tracted proceedings of these councils. A diligent search has been made; but no expression on the part of the orthodox can be found as to Mary’s nature and office, or as to our feelings and conduct towards her, in which a member of the Church of England would not heartily acquiesce. No sentiment can be found implying invocation or religious worship of any kind, or in any degree: no allusion to her assumption is there. The works of Leo, who in the documents of this council is frequently called Archbishop of Rome 2 , and who is a canonized saint of that Church, will be here¬ after examined as affording independent testimony. In 2 Vol. v. p. 1418. CHAP. IV.] COUNCILS. 345 his letters to Julian, Bishop of Cos, he speaks of Christ as bom of “ a Virgin“ the blessed Virgin“ the pure undefiled Virgin 3 and, in his letters to the Empress Pulcheria, he calls the mother of our Lord simply “ the Virgin Mary;” or “the blessed Virgin Mary;” or simply “the Virgin-Mother.” In his celebrated letter to Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople, (not one word of which, according to the decree of the Roman council under Gelasius, is to be questioned by any man, on pain of incurring an anathema,) Pope Leo says, that Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary his mother, who brought Him forth with the same virgin purity with which she had conceived Him. Flavianus, in his confession of faith to the Emperor Theodosius, affirms that Christ was born “ of Mary the Virgin, of the same substance with the Father according to his Godhead, of the same substance with his mother according to his manhood 4 .” Lie speaks of her afterwards as “ the holy Virgin.” There is, indeed, one expression, to which we have already referred, used in a quotation from Cyril of Alexandria, and adopted in these transactions, which requires a few words of especial observation. The word is Theotocos, which the Latins were accustomed to transfer into their works, only substituting the Roman for the Greek characters, but which afterwards the writers of the Church of Rome translated by Dei- para, and in more recent times by Dei Mater (Mother of God), Dei Genitrix, Creatoris Genitrix; employing those terms, not in explanation of the two-fold nature of Christ, as was the case in these councils, but in 3 Leo, Works, vol. i. pp. 1049, 980, 801, &c. 1 Vol. vi. p. 539. 346 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. exaltation of Mary, liis Virgin-Mother. This word, as we have seen, in its primitive sense, was adopted by Christians in much earlier times than the Council of Chalcedon; but it was employed to express more strongly the Catholic belief in the Divine and human nature of Him who was Son both of God and man, and by no means for the purpose of raising Mary into an object of religious adoration 5 . The sense in which it was used was explained in the 7th act of the Council of Constantinople, repeated at Chalcedon, as given by Cyril of Alexandria : 46 According to this sense of an unconfused union, we confess the Holy Virgin to be Theotocos, because that God the Word was made flesh, and became man, and from that very conception united with Himself the temple received from her.” Nothing in our present inquiry turns upon the real meaning of the word Theotocos. Some, who have been among the brightest ornaments of the Church of England, have adopted the language, 44 Mother of God while many others among us believe that the original sense would be more correctly conveyed by the expression, 44 Mother of Him who was God.” SECTION II, There are other points in the course of these im¬ portant proceedings to which our attention is invited, with the view of contrasting the sentiments of the 5 It is curious to remark, that (according to Balusius) all the ancient books, and all the editions of the records of these Councils before the Roman edition, retained in the Latin translation the Greek word Theotocos ; and when it was, at length, translated by “ Dei Genitrix,” the editor thought it necessary, in justification of so novel a form, to ask, “ Who doubts that this is a good interpreta¬ tion?” Vol. vi. p. 735 . CHAP. IV.] COUNCILS. 347 Bishop of Rome in the middle of the fifth century, and also the expressions employed by other chief pastors of Christ’s flock, with the language of the appointed authorized services of the Roman Church now, and the sentiments of her reigning Pontiff and accredited ministers. The circumstances of the Church throughout Chris¬ tendom, as represented in Leo’s letter in the fifth cen¬ tury, and the circumstances of the Church of Rome, as lamented by the present Pope (Gregory XVI.) in 1832 6 , are in many respects very similar. The end desired by Leo and by Flavianus, his brother-pastor and contemporary, Bishop of Constantinople, and by Gregory, now Bishop of Rome, is one and the same; namely, the suppression of heresy, the prevalence of the truth, and the unity of the Christian Church. But how widely and how strikingly different are the foundations on which they respectively build their hopes for the attainment of that end ! The present Roman Pontiff’s hopes, and desires, and exhortations are thus expressed : “ That all may have a successful and happy issue, let us raise our eyes to the most blessed Virgin Mary, who alone destroys heresies, who is our greatest hope, YEA, TILE ENTIRE GROUND OF OUR HOPE. May she exert her patronage to draw down an efficacious bless¬ ing on our desires, our plans, and proceedings in the present straitened condition of our Lord’s flock ! We will also implore in humble prayer from Peter the Prince of the Apostles, and from his fellow-Apostle Paul, that you may all stand, as a wall to prevent any other foundation than what hath been laid; and, sup- 6 That is when this work was first published. I 348 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. ported by this cheering hope, we have confidence that the author and finisher of the faith, Jesus Christ, will at / last console us all in the tribulations which have found us exceedingly. To you, venerable brethren, and the flocks committed to your care, we most lovingly impart, as auspicious of celestial help, the apostolic benediction. Dated at Rome, from St. Mary Major’s, August 15, the festival of the Assumption of the same blessed Virgin Mary, the year of our Lord 1832, of our pontificate the second.” How deplorable a change! how melancholy a dege¬ neracy is here evinced from the faith, and hopes, and sentiments of Christian bishops in days of old ! In the hopes expressed by Leo and Flavian we seek in vain for any reference or allusion “ to the blessed Virgin Mary as the destroyer of heresies, the greatest hope, the entire gTOund of a Christian’s hopewe seek in vain for any exhortation to the faithful “to raise their eves to her in order to obtain a merciful and happy issue.” To God, and God alone, are the faithful exhorted to pray; on God, and God alone, do those Christians, whether at Rome or at Constantinople, declare that their hopes rely ; God alone they regard as the destroyer of heresies, the restorer of peace, and the protector of the Church’s unity. “ Their greatest hope, yea, the entire ground of their hope,” the Being to be “ implored in humble prayer,” is not Mary, nor Peter, nor Paul, but God alone, the Creator of the world, the Redeemer of mankind, the sanctifier of Mary, and Peter, and Paul, and of all the elect people of God. Thus, Flavian, writing to Leo, says : “ Where¬ fore” [in consequence of those errors, and heresies, and distractions which he had deplored,] “ we must be sober, and watch unto prayer, and draw nigh to God; CHAP. IV.] COUNCILS. 349 and cast away foolish questions, and follow the Fathers, and not go beyond the eternal landmarks taught us by the Holy Scriptures 7 .” And again : “ Thus will the heresy which has arisen, and the consequent commo¬ tion, be easily destroyed by your holy letters with the assistance of God 8 .” Thus Leo in his turn, writing to Julian, Bishop of Cos, utters this truly Christian senti¬ ment : “ May the mercy of God, as we trust, grant that, without the loss of any soul, the sound parts may be protected against the darts of the devil, and the wounded parts may be healed ! May God preserve you safe and sound, most honoured brother 9 !” Thus the same Bishop of Rome, writing to Flavian in the most celebrated of his epistles, expressed his hopes in these words: “ Confidently trusting that the help of God will be present, so that one who has been misled, condemning the vanity of his own thoughts, may be saved. May God preserve you in health and strength, most beloved brother 1 !” We must not dwell longer on these most interesting documents. The whole Council of Chalcedon, at the conclusion of all, and when the triumph was considered to have been se¬ cured over Eutyclies, and their gratitude was expressed that all heresy had been destroyed, instead of referring to Mary as the “ sole destroyer of heresies,” shouted, as if with the voice of one man, from side to side, “ It is God alone who hath done this 2 !” Neither ante¬ cedently did their chief pastors exhort them to “ raise their eyes to Mary,” and promise to “implore” what 7 Leo, vol. i. p. 751 ; Cone. vol. v. p. 1330. 8 Leo, vol. i. p. 791 ; Cone. vol. v. p. 1355. 9 Leo, vol. i. p. 883 ; Cone. vol. v. p. 1423. 1 Leo, vol. i. p. 838 ; Cone. vol. v. p. 1390. 2 Cone. vol. vii. p. 174. 350 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. they needed “ in humble prayer from Peter and Paul neither in the straitened condition of the Lord’s flock did they invoke any other than God. And when truth prevailed, and the victory was won, while they were lavish of their grateful thanks to the emperor and his queen, who were present and had succoured them, of help from the invisible world they make no mention, save only of the Lord’s : they had implored neither angel, nor saint, nor the Virgin, to be their protector and patron ; and neither angel, nor saint, nor Virgin shared their praises; God, and God alone, through Christ, was exalted in that day. CHAP. V.] CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA. 351 CHAPTER V. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, A.D. 440 \ Cyril became Bishop of Alexandria in the year 412. In 403 we are told that he was present at Chalce- don when Chrysostom was deposed. He was called by many the Buie, or Standard, of sound doctrine, —in his opinions removed equally from the errors of Eutyches and Nestorius. Perhaps, among all the more voluminous primitive writers, the works of no one so much require a thorough, searching, and en¬ lightened examination. The Paris editors did little, or rather nothing, in the way of separating the genuine productions of Cyril from the forgeries which are made to bear his name. We cannot but lament that the Benedictines left him untouched. Even they might, perhaps, have stamped with their seal of approbation some works which a more successful criticism would have discarded; but we should not have found, still mingled with the undoubted labours of Cyril, composi¬ tions which palpably carry their own condemnation with them. Some persons, indeed, have spoken in so disparaging a manner of Cyril as might deter any one from undertaking the task of separating his genuine works from the spurious, lest, after all, the result should not repay the labour. But many of us are per¬ suaded that the task would be amply compensated, 1 Paris, six vols. fol. 1638. 352 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. both by the satisfaction which would accrue to the labourer himself, and the benefit conferred on the cause of Christian truth. It is not necessary that we should acquiesce in all the interpretations of Scripture adopted by this truly evan¬ gelical and apostolic man in order to feel sentiments of admiration and gratitude for his example in one essen¬ tial particular,-—his habitual reference to holy Scrip¬ ture in support of whatever he advances as to doctrine or practice. It is indeed cheering and animating to witness in him so steady and constant an appeal to the word of God. “ Our hope is all in Christ,” is the golden sentiment with which he closes his treatise on the Right Faith 2 ; and, if we may judge of a writer’s mind by his works, the same is the principle which filled his whole soul and guided his life. The thoughts of his heart seem to revolve round God in Christ as their centre; the Incarnate Word is all in all to him: he shows that he needed no other mediator than Christ Jesus alone ; he looked for no other intercession than Christ’s. In his genuine works we find much satisfac¬ tory proof that he neither invoked Mary, nor prayed to God through her intercession. All his hope was in Christ, and that hope was abundantly sufficient to cheer and support him on his way to heaven. The subject which mainly occupied his thoughts com¬ pelled him to refer constantly to the Blessed Virgin. His whole soul w 7 as engaged and absorbed by the duty of establishing the doctrine, then assailed from oppo¬ site quarters, that the Blessed Fruit of her womb, the Lord Jesus Christ, was perfect God and perfect Man. In these references he speaks of her always with re- 2 Vol. vi. p. 180. CHAP. V.] CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA. 353 spect and reverence, as the mysterious Virgin-Mother of Him who was God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the world, and Man of the substance of Mary, born in the world. Thus he tells us that East and West confessed Mary to be Theotocos, parent of Him who was God 3 . He calls her generally the Holy Vir¬ gin, but he speaks as though her office was discharged when she gave birth to the Redeemer; and he never alludes to herself personally as an object of adoration or invocation, nor as possessed of any power to assist us, nor as one through whose intercession we might hope to procure the desires of our hearts when we approach God in prayer. Indeed, many of his senti¬ ments would assure us that he thought and spoke of the Virgin Mary as we of the Church of England do now; whilst some of his expressions would seem to sink below that reverential feeling which our language generally implies. The following are the principal passages which bear upon our subject. On the miracle at Cana he thus comments 4 : “ He comes with his own disciples to the marriage, for it was right that they who desired to see his wonderful deeds should be present with Him when He wrought the miracle, since they would draw from the deed, as it were, food for the faith that was in them. And, when wine failed the guests, his mother called the Lord, who was good, to his wonted kindness, saying, 4 They have no wine. 5 For, as though He had authority to do whatsoever He would, she invites Him to the miracle. 4 Woman, what have I to do with thee ? mine hour is not yet come.’ Well did our Lord form this expres¬ sion also for us; for He ought not to have run on to 4 VoL iv. p. 135. A a 3 Vol. vi. Epist. p. 30. 354 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. act full speed, or to appear a ready worker of miracles on his own mere motion; but to go to it with some difficulty and after invitation, and to consult the wants of the case rather than the gratification of the hearers. . . . . Especially does our Lord, by undertaking from respect towards his mother what He did not wish to do, show that the honour due to parents is of the highest kind.Having great influence towards bringing about the miracle, the woman prevailed, as was becoming, persuading the Lord as a son ; and she began the matter by already preparing the attendants at the feast to do whatsoever might be ordered.” Cyril’s comment 5 on the act of our Lord in con¬ signing his mother to the care of St. John, is full of interest, and, as evidence on the point before us, is of much importance : “ 4 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleoplias, and Mary Magdalene.’ The divine Evangelist has profitably men¬ tioned this also, showing even in this that no one of the sacred words falls to the ground.He intro¬ duces as standing by the cross his mother, and with her the other women, evidently weeping; for the female race is much, we know, given to tears, and ex¬ ceedingly prone to lamentations, especially when they have abundant reasons for shedding tears. What then persuaded the blessed Evangelist to dwell on such minute points as to specify the tarrying there of the women ? His object was to teach us this: that, as was probable, his unexpected suffering gave offence to the very mother of our Lord herself; and the death upon 5 Vol. iv. p. 1064. Of the genuineness of this comment there is no doubt whatever. Bellarmin reckons this twelfth book on St. John among the undisputed works of Cyril. CHAP. V.] CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA. 355 the cross being very bitter, and besides this the mock- ings of the Jews, and the soldiers probably watching Him at the very cross, and laughing to scorn Him who hung upon it, and in the very sight of his mother daring to divide his garments, threw her somewhat from the reasoning which became her. For, doubt not that she admitted some such musings as these 6 : 4 1 gave birth to Him who is now laughed to scorn upon the cross ; but, when He said He was the true Son of the Almighty God, perhaps Fie was somehow deceived. How could Fie, who said, I am the Life, be crucified ? And in what way could He be seized and bound by the cords of his murderers? How did He not master the designs of his persecutors ? Why does He not come down from the cross, who com¬ manded Lazarus to return to life, and astonished all Judea with his miracles?’ “ It is exceedingly probable that the female mind (to yvvaLov), not knowing the mystery, should slip into some such reasonings as these. For we shall do right in believing that the nature of those events was dread¬ ful enough to turn from its course even the most sober mind; and it is nothing marvellous if a woman was made to stumble into this state. For if the chief of the blessed disciples himself, Peter, once was offended when Christ spoke and taught plainly that He was to be delivered into the hands of sinners, and to suffer the cross and death, so that he hastily exclaimed, 4 That be far from thee, O Lord ! that shall not happen unto thee !’ what wonder is it if the delicate mind of a 6 The reader will bear in mind, that Cyril here only takes the same view which Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzum, Ambrose, Jerome, and others, took before him, of the Virgin’s faith faltering at the cross. a a 2 356 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. woman should be hurried into weaker views? And this we say, not vainly forming conjectures, as some may think ; but drawn into our suspicion concerning the mother of our Lord, from what is written. For we remember that Simeon the Just, when he took our Lord, then a babe, into his arms, as it is written, gave thanks and said, 4 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word ; for mine eyes have seen thy salvation.’ And to the holy Virgin her¬ self he said, 4 Lo ! this one is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign that shall be spoken against; yea, a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts might be revealed.’ By the 4 sword’ he meant the sharp attack of the passion, which distracted the female mind into reasonings which were out of place; for tempta¬ tions try the hearts of those who suffer, and lay bare the reasonings that are in them.” 44 4 When, therefore, Jesus saw his mother and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he said to his mother, Woman, behold thy son ! then saitli he to the disciple, Behold thy mother ! and from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.’ He takes provi¬ dent care of his mother, as if regardless of the excess of his suffering; for, though suffering, He felt it not: and He delivers her to his beloved disciple John, who was the writer of this book ; and Lie bids him take her home, and regard her in the rank of a mother; and He charges again his mother to regard that true disciple in no other light than really as a son, namely, one who by respect and affection would fulfil and imitate the duties of a real son.What good did Christ effect by this ? In the first place, we say, that He wished to strengthen the principle, which is honoured CHAP. V.] CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA. 357 even in the Law ; for what says the ordinance by Moses? 6 Honour thy father and thy mother, that it may be well with thee.’ . . . When the Legislator then enacted that so great honour should be paid by us to our parents, how was it otherwise than becoming that so celebrated a commandment should be sanctioned by the suffrage of the Saviour ? And since the character of every good and of every virtue came primarily through Him, why should not this virtue also have run on together with the rest? for honour to parents is the most precious form of virtue. And tell me how, except first of all from Christ and in Christ, could we have learned that our affection for them must not be neglected, though a flood of intolerable misfortunes bear upon us ? for he is truly the most exalted person who keeps the commandments, and is not driven from the pursuit of what is right, not so much in the time of a calm, as in the midst of storm and flood. To what I have already said, I would add, that how could it be other¬ wise than becoming for the Lord to take provident care of his own mother, when she had fallen so as to feel offence, and was confused by disordered thoughts ? for, being the true God, and looking into the motions of the heart, and knowdng what was in its depth, how could He but know the thoughts which at that time especially disturbed her at the honoured cross ? Know¬ ing, therefore, the reasonings which were in her, he delivered her to the disciple who was the best in¬ structor in mysteries, and who w T as able well, and not inadequately, to explain the mystery; for he was a wise man and a divine, who both receives her and takes her away rejoicing, intending to fulfil the whole desire of the Saviour concerning her.” 358 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. Here Cyril 7 tells us that Mary was astounded at the unexpected sufferings and death of her Son, and was unable to reconcile what she then saw with what He had told her of his divine nature; but that we must not wonder at such weakness and stumbling in Mary, when even Peter himself felt somewhat of the same disappointment. Here Cyril tells us that our Saviour, when He saw the disturbed and disordered state of his mother’s mind, arising from her ignorance of the divine dispensation, kindly entrusted her to St. John, who was a theologian profoundly acquainted with the divine will, and able to explain to her adequately the whole mystery of Christ’s passion. Is it possible to read these passages, and not infer that St. Cyril of Alexandria was very far indeed from entertaining those sentiments concerning the perfection of the Virgin Mary which were afterwards propagated, and are still professed, by the Church of Rome ? The same conclusion is forced upon us by Cyril’s reasoning in a homily delivered to a very crowded audience 8 , in which he speaks of the prophecy of Simeon, addressed to Mary, in such a manner as to leave no doubt that he ranked the Virgin below the Apostles both in faith and knowledge. “ Simeon said to the holy Virgin, ‘A sword shall pierce through thine % own soul also;’ by the c sword,’ meaning, perhaps, the pain which she felt on account of Christ, when she saw Him, to whom she had given birth, crucified; not at all knowing that He was stronger than death, and 7 On this point Cyril takes, as we have seen, the same view with Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzum, Ambrose, Jerome, ancl others. 8 Vol. vi. p. 391. CHAP. V.] CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA 359 would rise again from tlie dead. And do not wonder at all if tlie Virgin is ignorant on a point on which we shall find even the holy Apostles themselves to have been of little faith. Yea, the blessed Thomas, unless he had put his hand into his side, and touched the places of the nails, would not have believed, though the other disciples said that Christ was risen, and openly showed Himself to them. It was right that the truly wise Evangelist should teach us all things whatsoever the Son, through us and for our sakes, underwent when He became flesh, and did not disdain to take upon Himself our poverty; that we might glorify Him as our Redeemer and Lord, as our Saviour and God, —because to Him and with Him, to God, even the Father, with the Holy Ghost, is glory and power for ever and for ever. Amen.” We will only add one passage, contrasting very strikingly with those extraordinary representations of later times, which we find even in the authorized ser¬ vices of the Roman Church, and which abound in the works of her divines and in the books of devotion generally circulated; those, namely, in which the Virgin is represented as a being of such surpassing excellence, that far above all created beings, princi¬ palities, and powers in heavenly places, far above all prophets and apostles, angels and cherubim, she stands next to God, to be approached by a worship peculiarly her own. Having quoted St. Paul as applying to Christ the title of the Lord of Glory, and as representing Him to be better than the angels, Cyril thus speaks 9 : “ Now, to be, and to be called, the Lord of Glory, how is this 9 Vol. v. p. 697. 360 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. otherwise than exceeding great, and surpassing every thing created, or brought to its birth ? I pass by mortal things, for they are very small; but I say, that if any one should name angels, and enumerate the princi¬ palities, and thrones, and dominions, and mention also the highest seraphim, he would confess that these fall far short of his exceeding glory.” Repeatedly does Cyril thus enumerate all things held in the highest honour by the faithful; but neither above, nor among the highest does he ever mention the Virgin Mary. And, yet, even to the testimony of this Cyril we are referred for proof that the Virgin is invoked, and “ that to her, in some sort, the works of Christ are attributed h” The homily 1 2 quoted in evidence was for the first time admitted among the works of Cyril by Aubert, and in the second part of the fifth volume of his edition of Cyril’s works is entitled “ An Encomium of the same Cyril upon Holy Mary, the Theotocos 3 .” This is one of those works which make us more especially regret that the Benedictine editors left Cyril of Alexandria without undergoing their examination. This homily cannot, in any point of view, be regarded as genuine: it carries its own condemnation with it, and evidently is the corrupt version of a rhapsody composed in a much later age than the Council of Ephesus. Our remarks upon it will be found in the Appendix. 1 Dr. Wiseman’s Remarks on Mr. Palmer’s Letter. 1841, p. 25. 2 Vol. v. part 2, p. 379. 3 There is, in the same volume, another version of the same homily, entitled “ Of the same against Nestorius, when the Seven went down to the Holy Mary,” p. 355. CHAr. VI ] ISIDORE. 361 CHAPTER VI. SECTION I.-ISIDORE OF PELUSIUM, A.D. 450 ! . Isidore, called “ of Pelusium” from the mountain of that name near one of the mouths of the Nile, where the convent stood of which he was the abbot, was a disciple of St. Chrysostom, and was celebrated as a philosopher, a rhetorician, and a divine. His death is with much probability referred to a.d. 450. His works are of a very peculiar character, consisting almost entirely, if not altogether, of letters addressed to various persons on subjects chiefly in immediate connexion with the faith and life of Christians. It is said that they once amounted to ten thousand, of which more than two thousand are preserved to our times. There are some very interesting and very beautiful portions in the re¬ mains of this Christian writer, which no believer can carefully read without profit; for example, his very striking practical application of the Lord’s Prayer, in the 24th epistle of the 4th book. On this Father’s evidence on the worship of the Vir¬ gin, we need say but very few words. In the nearly three thousand letters written on various subjects of deep interest to every Christian, the name of Mary is scarcely found at all; and the passages are very few in which any reference is made to her as the mother Paris, 1638, i 362 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN, [PART V. of our Lord. The following are the most important pas¬ sages—rather, the only important passages—discovered on the subject. The reader will immediately see how far these passages are from indicating the existence of such religious feelings and practices towards the Virgin as our Roman Catholic brethren now profess and maintain. “We must not seek from nature proofs of things above nature; for, though the Word became flesh, yet Christ is not a mere man, but rather God become man. In the two natures He is the one Son of God 2 .” “ 4 1 am not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,’ said the Lord to the Canaanitish woman, desiring to fulfil the promise made to Abra¬ ham, having both taken upon Him his seed, and hav¬ ing chosen a mother from it, and in her and of her having been made flesh and become man, in all things like ourselves, sin only except 3 .” “ The holy volume of the Gospels bringing down the genealogy to Joseph, who drew his relationship from David, sufficed to show through him, that the Virgin also was of the same tribe with David, since the Divine Law directed marriages to be made between persons of the same tribe 4 .” “You ask, What more excessive tenet, or what doc¬ trine different from ours, do the deceived and polytheis- tical Greeks maintain when they write of the mother of the gods; whereas we also believe in a mother of God? Hear then briefly what I desire you to know truly. The Greeks acknowledge that the mother of their gods, even of the highest, both conceived and brought forth from incontinence and nameless passions; 2 Book i. ep. 405. 3 Book i. ep. 121. 4 Book i. ep. 7. CHAP. VI.] THEODORET. 363 neither ignorant nor guiltless of any species of wanton¬ ness as the mother of such beings. But her, whom we confess to be the mother of our God incarnate, all gene¬ rations of men acknowledge to have conceived one Son, in one solitary way, without seed, and without corrup¬ tion 5 .” Having then described the sufferings of our Saviour, Isidore proceeds : “ His resurrection proved Him to be a suffering incarnate Deity, and that she who brought Him forth was the mother of an incarnate Deity 6 .” In another letter Isidore says : “ Let nothing be suffered to become an impediment to the Gospel of our Lord, and let no distraction of mind attend spiritual instruction; nor let the interven¬ tion of any disturbance interrupt useful discussion : for neither did Christ, when Lie was sought for by his mother and his brethren, pay attention to their call, when He had begun his instruction, and was attending to the salvation of his hearers; showing that spiritual things should be held in higher estimation than carnal.” The evidence of Isidore brings us to the middle of the fifth century. SECTION II.-THEODORET, A.D. 450 7 . Theodoret was born at Antioch, about a.d. 386: he was educated by monks in a convent near his native place; and continued to live among them till he be¬ came Bishop of Cyrus, in Syria, about a.d. 420. He was considered to have been unsettled in his views on the theological questions which then agitated Chris¬ tendom, and at one time to have espoused the side of 5 Book i. ep. 54. " Lib. i. ep. 159. 7 [Paris, 1642, four vols. fol.] Halle, 1769, five vols. oct. 304 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. Nestorius. When Cyril of Alexandria contended on these points with John Bishop of Antioch, Theodoret opposed him, but they were afterwards reconciled. He was deprived of his bishopric by the second Council of Ephesus, but was restored by the Council of Chalcedon, after he had most solemnly declared himself a firm ad¬ herent to the Catholic faith. His testimony brings us down to about a.d. 457. It is impossible to read the works of Theodoret without finding in them evidence of the lamentable extent to which superstition had then shot forth its roots and branches, and encumbered the garden of the Lord. In his writings indisputable proofs present themselves that Christians in his time, in their zeal to convert their heathen neighbours to the religion of the Cross, offered to them as an inducement the adoption" of saints and martyrs in the place of their fabled divin¬ ities of the lower ranks. Thus those saints and martyrs, who shed their blood rather than renounce their alle¬ giance to the one only God, and their faith in the one only Mediator, were themselves made the substitutes of the household deities of paganism, and of the tutelary gods of the fields, and woods, and mountains, and seas, and winds, and storms 8 . To this delusive and fatal principle, which, as we learn from Theodoret, gave great offence to the more enlightened among his heathen contemporaries, Christendom may ascribe, with tears of sorrow, a large and fearful share of those super- 8 Some divines of great authority are disposed to think, that the Christians here adverted to did not act upon the principle of accom¬ modation, but had themselves been led into the practices, which they recommended to others, by the natural tendency of the human mind to superstition. The evidence of Theodoret on the question before us is not affected by either of these theories. CHAP. VI.] TIIEODORET. 365 stitious tenets and practices which well-nigh buried primitive faith and apostolic worship. But, gigantic as were the strides which superstition had then already taken, Christian worship is proved to have been still free from the invocation of the Virgin Mary, and primitive faith to have hitherto preserved the Church from the innovation of addressing God in prayer through her intercession. The subject which seems more than any other to have engaged the thoughts of Theodoret, and which indeed for a long period engrossed the interest of all Christendom was the perfect union in our blessed Saviour of the Divine and Human nature. Disputes inseparable from the defence of the truth on the seve¬ ral points connected with this question banished peace from the kingdom of the Prince of peace on earth ; whilst the theological combatants spoke, and seem to have felt and acted towards each other, with all the bitterness and hatred of personal enemies. But these disputes, of necessity, involved at every turn an inquiry into the office sustained in the mystery of the incarna¬ tion by the Virgin Mary herself. One question held to be of great moment was, whether the title of Theo- tocos (she who gave birth to Him who was God) could be applied properly to her. Never did any theological controversy give more ample room for the full profession of whatever sentiments of reverence and religion were entertained towards her; and yet we find throughout, that the thoughts of Christians were then fixed, not on the superior excellence of the Virgin personally, but on the nature of her office in giving birth to the Saviour. The question w r as, not whether the Virgin was the proper object of religious adoration, but whe¬ ther that fruit of her womb which the angel pronounced 3GG WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. to be the Son of the Highest, and to have David for his father, Jesus born of her in Bethlehem, though one Christ, was very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, as well as very man of her substance, —this was the question really at issue. Doubtless, the mystery of God manifest in the flesh invested the mother of our Lord with a mysterious name and cha¬ racter peculiarly her own, and which no other daughter of Eve could ever share ; and, if we understand Theo- doret rightly 9 , we see that persons were beginning in his time to apply to her, in elucidation of the mystery of the Incarnation, titles which had not before been ascribed to her. But we find no trace whatever in his writings of any invocation of her; no application to her to exert on the supplicant’s behalf her interest with God ; no supplication to God to allow the intercession of the Virgin to prevail with Him for mercy. A very few passages will enable the reader to form a correct estimate of the evidence of Theodoret. He tells us that Mary was called Joseph’s wife, because she was betrothed to him \ He (in common with some pre¬ vious writers) interprets the gate described by Ezekiel 2 as prophetic of the Virgin’s womb 3 . He tells us, that though she was ten thousand times pure, yet was she the offspring of David, Abraham, and Adam; and that, from her, He who was Truth itself sprang 4 . And when he declares the Christian’s belief in the resurrec- 9 Epist. 151. See vol. iv. p. 1302. 1 Vol. i. p. 276. 2 xliv. 1, 2, 3. 3 Vol. ii. p. 1032. 4 Vol. i. p. 1207.—The Editor, in the second Index, under the word Maria, thinks this a wretched interpolation, and suggests that the meaning is, “ Although she is a hundred times pure, yet she descended from David, Abraham, and Adam, and consequently could not be herself the Justice and Truth which came down from heaven.” CHAP. VI.] THEODORET. 3G7 tion of the dead, lie says, “ Of that resurrection the first-fruits was our Lord Jesus Christ, who received from Mary, Theotocos, a body verily and not in appear¬ ance 5 .” On the Incarnation of Christ, Theodoret thus speaks : “The natures were not confused, but remained in their integrity. If we thus view the subject, we shall see the harmony of the Evangelists; for concerning that only-begotten, the Lord Christ, one proclaims what belongs to the Divinity, another what belongs to the Humanity : and the Lord Christ Himself teaches us to take this view; at one time calling Himself the Son of God, at another the Son of Man; and at one time He honours his mother as her who gave Him birth, at another as her Lord He chides her 6 .” In a letter to a bishop named Irenseus, having ap¬ pealed to the conduct of men towards each other in secular affairs, who do not insist upon all combatants employing the same weapons of attack and defence, he thus speaks of theological controversy : “ Thus ought we to judge of those who contend in the cause of reli¬ gion : we ought not to seek for names which may breed contention, but arguments which may clearly spread the truth abroad, and which may fill the gainsayers with shame. For what difference does it make whe¬ ther we call the holy Virgin anthropotocos [her who bare a man] at once and theotocos [her who bare God], or to call her the mother and the handmaid of Him whom she bare; and to add, moreover, that she is the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ as man, and his hand¬ maid as God, and thus to silence all pretext for carp¬ ing, while we convey the same idea by another expres- 5 Vol. iii. p. 745. c Vol. iv. p. 105. 368 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. sion ? Besides this, we ought to observe, that one of those is a common appellation, the other exclusively the Virgin’s; and that all the controversy has arisen on this point, which ought not to be. And most of the ancient Fathers have applied the more honourable appellation to the Virgin. And your piety also has done this in two or three orations which I have in my possession, you having kindly sent them to me; and you, my lord, have not added the word anthropotocos to the word theotocos, but have conveyed the same sense in other words 7 .” There are many passages in this ancient Father all leading to the same conclusion, that in his view Mary was a holy and blessed Virgin ever to be held in reve¬ rence and honour as the mother and the handmaid of the Lord; but by no means is she represented by him as the object of invocation, or one whose mediation and intercession Christians might plead with God. We must not swell this volume by the citation of many such passages; and yet some there are which so clearly lay before us the true Catholic doctrine of the incarna¬ tion, and the general views and feelings of Theodoret and his contemporaries on the subject before us, that we should not feel justified in passing on to another witness without dwelling somewhat longer on his testi¬ mony. Having quoted the prophecy of Isaiah which an¬ nounces the future Messiah as the Mighty God, he says, “ If the Child born of the Virgin is called the Mighty God, with reason is she who brought Him forth called theotocos; for she who bears, shares the honour of Him who is born 8 :” adding, moreover, this s Vol. iv. p. 1311. Epist. xvi. vol. iv. p. 1077. CHAP. VI.] THEODORET. 369 explanation of St. Paul saying of Christ, “ without father, without mother “ for He is without father as to his manhood, for as man He was brought forth only by his mother; and He is without mother as to his Godhead, for He was begotten of his Father alone before the worlds.” In the same letter 9 he thus writes: “But if we confess Christ, and declare Christ to be God and man, who is so foolish as to shun the word anthropotocos in conjunction with theotocos? for in the case of the Lord Christ we use both appella¬ tions; wherefore the Virgin is honoured and called ‘highly favoured 1 .’ What sensible person then would refuse to apply names derived from the Saviour’s names to the Virgin, who through Him is held in honour by the faithful ? for it is not that He who sprang from her derives his dignity from her, but she through Him who was born of her is adorned with the highest appella¬ tions. Now, if Christ were only God, and had derived the origin of his existence from the Virgin, then let the Virgin be called and named Theotocos, as having given birth to Him who by nature is God. But if Christ is both God and man, and the one nature was ever, (for He never began to exist, being coeternal with the Father,) and the other in these last days sprang from human nature, let him who wishes to state doctrines entwine the Virgin’s appellations from both these views, showing what appertains to nature and what to the union ; but if any one is desirous of speaking in the panegyric form, and to weave hymns, and compose praises, and wishes at all events to employ the more dignified appellations, not stating doctrines, but panegyrising, and, as much as possible, holding up to 9 Vol. iv. p. 1303. 1 Theodoret here uses the Greek word employed by St. Luke. B b 370 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. admiration the greatness of the mystery, let him enjoy his desire, and employ the great names, and let him praise and admire: we find many such things among orthodox teachers. But everywhere let moderation be regarded highly 2 .” It is to he observed that Theodoret is here checking the rising tendency to employ, when speaking of the Virgin, the more honourable titles, to the exclusion of the less distinguishing appellations; and that while he urges the Christian teacher, when stating doctrines, to speak the whole truth, and to refer to the Virgin as the mother of the Man, in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, as well as the mother of Him who was God, he expressly gives to the poet and panegyrist, when not strictly teaching Christian doc¬ trine, a greater latitude; but even then not to exalt the Virgin, but to extol the mystery. We have often traced the error of the worship of the Virgin (or rather the invocation of Saints in general) in its origin mainly to the enthusiastic and unchastened language of popular harangues, and the poetical effusions of the panegyrist. To this error Theodoret gives no countenance. His testimony brings us within the latter half of the fifth century. SECTION III.-PROSPER, A.D. 460 3 . Contemporary with Isidore of Pelusium and Theodoret, though a few years younger, was Prosper of Acquitaine, 2 There are two other passages of a similar kind which will repay the reader’s examination, though they throw no additional light on the immediate subject before us beyond what the paragraphs we have already quoted are found to impart; vol. v. p. 1082 and p. 1086. 3 Paris, 1711, and 1739. CHAP. VI.] PROSPER. 371 who died about a.d. 463, whom the Roman canon law honours as “ a very religious man.” To this character of Prosper we cordially add our humble testimony, as far as the mind and heart of an author are discernible through his writings by a fellow-mortal. His reference of all that we have of spiritual good to the grace of Christ alone; the steady constant fixing of the eye of faith on our blessed Saviour; his entire renunciation of all human merits ; the pure love of high and unaffected piety throughout; his strong and warm-hearted exhor¬ tation to a persevering study of Holy Scripture;— these, with his many other excellencies, recommend him much and dearly to every true Christian. His annotations on the Psalms, from the hundredth to the last, are in themselves very beautiful; having a truly spiritual and evangelical tone pervading them through¬ out ; and few will not feel regret that we have not the same pious man’s assistance in our interpretation and Christian application of the larger portion of that holy book. We find no passage in which he alludes to the Virgin as an object of religious worship, or a source of the Christian’s hope: he speaks of Christ as the offspring of the unspotted Virgin; and of her he says no more. But he does bid us, again and again, look to the aton¬ ing merits of our Saviour, and to his prevailing inter¬ cession ; and to anchor our hope on his mercy alone. We have room only for the citation of a very few passages. In his commentary on the Psalms 4 he speaks of the prayer in which our Lord is now daily interceding for us, and he alludes to no other intercessor 5 ; and he asks, 4 Ps. 140. b b 2 5 Ps. 141. 372 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. What ruler and guide liave the wicked, except the- devil ? whom would the faithful have, except Christ ? He tells us that of the religious man, here, the only hope is God, and, hereafter, the only reward is God 6 . He cheers us too with such sentiments as these : “The confidence of those who hope is God’s mercy. Let no one fear because of his iniquities when he would approach God the Lord; only let him give up himself with his whole heart, and cease from willing and from doing what displeases even himself; let him not say that such and such a sin may be perhaps for¬ given, whilst another, from its very nature, must be punished; but let him cry out from the depths, and let him hope from the morning-watch even until night; because his Redeemer, who is without sin, for this very reason shed his precious blood for the unjust, that He might blot out all the sins of all who believe in Him.” In his poem on the Ungrateful, he teaches us to depend upon God’s grace alone, and to ascribe all our righteous deeds to Him alone, renouncing utterly all human merit. The work is written in hexameter verse, and cannot fail to lose much of its point and beauty from such a literal translation as can alone be satisfactory when we are seeking evidence. Having asked, Why should we feel any false shame, in this valley of tears, to confess that without God we are of ourselves nothing ? he thus proceeds : “ And yet, if we direct our thoughts to holy actions, when the chaste mind resists the desires of the flesh, when we yield not to the tempter, and, though harassed with bitter sufferings, we remain with heart unhurt, we act then with liberty! True: but it is a liberty 0 Ps. 129. CHAP. VI.] PROSPER. 373 redeemed for us, of which God is the ruler: and from the supreme light the Light is our life, health, virtue, wisdom. The Grace of Christ is that by which it runs, rejoices, endures, avoids, chooses, is urgent, believes, hopes, loves, is cleansed, is justified 7 .” “ For, if we do anything, we do it by thy assistance, O Lord : Thou movest our hearts; Thou suggestest the prayer of one who seeks that which Thou art willing to give ; keeping what Thou bestowest, and creating merits from merits, and crowning largely thine own gifts. We must not, however, think that our care is lessened, or our pursuit of virtue slackened, or that the work of our mind grows torpid by this, that the good deeds of the Saints are thine, and whatever in them is healthful or strong derives its life and health from Thee, so that the will of man might seem to do nothing, whilst Thou dost effect all. And what with¬ out Thee does that will effect, except that thing by which it is an exile banished far from Thee, destined by its own motion to enter on precipitous paths out of the way, unless Thou, O Good Being, take it up when wearied and faint, and carry it back, and cherish, defend, and adorn it ? Then its course becomes swift, its eyes see, its liberty is free, its wisdom is wise, its judgment is just, its virtue is strong, its faculties are sound. Of this help may we always feel the need; from it may our will advance; without this may our bodily senses exercise no power, and may all slavish work cease; and, whilst thy will, and not our own, is operative in us, may we enjoy our lawful sabbaths and our holy festivals 8 !” In such a man as this it were vain to seek for any 7 Verse 971. 8 Verse 982. 374 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. proofs of hope resting elsewhere than in God alone. He bids us proceed boldly to the Throne of Grace, trusting in the Saviour’s atoning blood, and, renouncing all our own good deeds, plead only for mercy through his merits, and hoping to be heard only through his intercession. Prosper was a disciple of St. Augustine, and secretary to Pope Leo. He was not taken to the rest which awaits the people of God till about a.d. 463. CHAP. VII.] LEO. 375 CHAPTER VII. LEO, A.D. 461. Leo, tlie first Pope of that name, and a canonized saint of the Church of Rome, was advanced to the Pope¬ dom a.d. 440, and, having governed that Church for twenty-one years, died a.d. 461. Few saints in the Roman calendar are spoken of with so much reverence as Leo. Fie is often represented as equal to the Apos¬ tles ; and with such authority are his works invested that, a.d. 494, Pope Gelasius, and a council at Rome of seventy Bishops, being assembled chiefly to determine what books should be held to be canonical, what apo¬ cryphal, what should be sanctioned, and what pro¬ hibited \ numbering Pope Leo’s Letter to Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, among the books to be sanc¬ tioned, add, “ The text of which if any one shall dispute, even to a single iota, and shall not receive it in all things with reverence, let him be accursed.” This celebrated letter was written in 449, and to it our at¬ tention has been already drawn, when the evidence of the Councils of Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon formed the subject of our inquiry. The evidence of such a man must be looked to with interest; and the result of our researches is most satis¬ factory. The genuine writings of Leo (his Roman edi¬ tors themselves being judges of their genuineness) sup- 1 So early in the Church of Rome did the system of forming an Index Expurgatorius begin. 370 WORSHIP OF TIIE VIRGIN. [PART V. ply no indication whatever of Leo either praying to the Virgin himself, even for her intercession, or being cognisant of any practice of the kind in the Church over which he so long presided. There are, indeed, two homilies ascribed to Leo, said to have been delivered by him on the feast of the Annunciation, which present very different views 2 . These, however, are pronounced unhesitatingly by the Roman editor to be beyond all question spurious, and we need not refer to them again. It may still be worthy of remark, that this is another instance of those homilies being proved to be spurious which are said to have been delivered on the feast of the Annunciation before the beginning of the sixth century; an instance also of spurious works abounding with marks of the Virgin’s worship from which the genuine works of the writers to whom these spurious works are ascribed, through the first five centuries, are entirely free. Among the works of Leo pronounced to be genuine, we have more than ninety discourses or homilies, and upwards of one hundred and seventy epistles, addressed to various individuals or bodies of men, and embracing every variety of subject connected with the doctrine and worship, the principles and practice, of Churches and of private Christians. Of Leo’s discourses ten were delivered on our Lord’s Nativity, in every page of which, had he believed and acted as his successors now believe and act, he would have been irresistibly led to give utterance to his feelings towards the Virgin Mary. But his thoughts were fixed on the Saviour Himself, and his heart was full of gratitude and adoring love to God; not on the blessed daughter of Eve, the 2 Venice, 1753. Vol. i. pp. 384 and 438. CHAP. VII.] LEO. 377 root of Jesse (as he calls Mary), who was the mother of Him who is God and Man. On the union of the % divine and human nature in one person never to be divided, Jesus Christ, God and Man, Son both of God and man, Leo speaks constantly, clearly, and power¬ fully ; so he does on the Virgin-purity of Mary, who brought Him forth by wondrous birth. But throughout his sermons, and throughout his epistles, not one word is found which would lead us to infer that he offered religious praises to the Virgin, or invoked her name, or looked to her for any benefits, or supplicated her for her intercession. He is constantly exhorting his hearers and brethren to join him in prayer; but God alone, through Christ alone, is the object of that prayer. In Pope Leo we seek in vain for any countenance to justify the 3 present Pope’s profession of confidence in Mary’s guidance, illumination, and protection. Here is no appeal to the faithful, “ That all may have a suc¬ cessful and happy issue, let us raise our eyes to the most blessed Virgin Mary, who alone destroys heresies, who is our greatest hope, yea, the entire ground of our hope.” Leo directed his hearers to God alone as the destroyer of the enemies of the truth; as the Christian’s greatest and only hope; as the dispenser Himself of every blessing to those who approached Him in faithful prayer by his blessed Son ; as Himself ready to send down an efficacious blessing on the desires, and plans, and proceedings of his servants, and to make his minis¬ ters to be as a wall of defence against the invasion of false doctrine. In every one of these particulars Leo’s primitive doctrine and practice stand indeed in direct 3 Pope Gregory XVI. died a.d. 1846. 378 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. and marked contrast with the sentiments of the pre¬ sent Pontiff. Almost every discourse will supply an example of this in some one point or other. Pope Leo knew nothing of the Assumption of the Virgin ; the legend had not then been framed ; but he does again and again invite his fellow-sinners and fellow-believers to rejoice on the most solemn festival of his most blessed Saviour’s incarnation. POPE GREGORY XVI., A.D. 1833. 1. We select for the date of our letter this most joyful day, in which we celebrate the most so¬ lemn festival of the most blessed Virgin’s triumph and Assumption into heaven. 2. That she, who has been through every great calamity our patroness and protrectress, 3. May watch over us, writing to you, and lead our mind by her heavenly influence to those coun¬ sels which may prove most salu¬ tary to Christ’s flock. POPE LEO, A.D. 440. 1. Our Saviour (dearly be¬ loved) was born to-day ; let us rejoice! . . . There is no room for sadness. No one is cut off from partaking of this joy ; all have one common reason for re¬ joicing, because our Lord, the destroyer of sin and death, as He found no one free from guilt, so He came to set all free. Let the saint rejoice, because he ap¬ proaches the palm of victory. Let the sinner rejoice! because he is invited to pardon. Let the Gentile be instructed, because he is called to life.—P. 64. 2. God Almighty succouring us through all.-—P. 162. 3. I beseech you by the mer¬ cies of God assist me by your prayers, that the Holy Spirit may remain in me, and your judge¬ ments may not be unstable. To this our exhortation the grace of God is at hand, and gives suc¬ cour, [5] which by revealing the truth through the world, has de¬ stroyed the enemies of Christ’s CHAP. VII.] LEO. 379 POPE GREGORY, A.D. 1833. 4. But, that all may have a successful issue, let us raise our eyes to the most blessed Virgin Mary, 5. Who alone destroys all he¬ resies ; 6. Who is our greatest hope ; yea, the entire ground of our hope. 7. May she exert her patron¬ age to draw down an efficacious blessing on our desires, our plans, and proceedings, in the present straitened condition of the Lord’s flock. POPE LEO, A.D. 440. incarnation, and death, and re¬ surrection, so that the faithful in all the world, agreeing with the authority of the Apostolic faith, may rejoice in one joy with our¬ selves.—-P. 258. 4. Let us then fly to the mercy of God, which is everywhere pre¬ sent. (P. 166.) That your kind¬ ness towards me may secure its intended fruit, do you suppliantly implore the most merciful cle¬ mency of our God, that He would in our days [5] put to flight those who oppose themselves to us, [7] would fortify our faith, increase our love, increase our peace, and vouchsafe to make me his poor servant (whom, to show the riches of his grace, He willed to preside at the helm of his Church,) suffi¬ cient for so great a work, and useful to your edification. . . . through Jesus Christ our Lord. 6. & 7. The grace of God, as we hope, will be present, and will enable us, by your prayers, to perform what we have under¬ taken.—P. 242, Iii Pope Leo we find evidence of implicit trust in God; no confidence in man’s merit; but a full and thankful acknowledgment of the salvation obtained by the death of Christ, and made effectual to us by the grace of the Holy Spirit, to be obtained by the earnest 380 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. prayer of a faithful and obedient Christian. We find indications, indeed, of some rising errors, which were soon to invade the integrity of primitive faith : still with him God in Christ is all in all. The following, which are the closing words of his second sermon on the Nativity, speak of the purity of the Virgin, and of the birth of Christ, as an article of a Christian’s creed; but nothing approaching to in¬ vocation of her, or confidence in her merits, or hope in her intercession, can be found. “ Praise the Lord, well-beloved, in all his works and judgments. Let there be in you a belief, without doubt, of the virgin purity and the birth. With holy and sincere devoted- ness, honour the sacred and divine mystery of the Restoration of man. Embrace Christ born in our flesh, that you may be accounted worthy to see Him as the same God of glory reigning in majesty, who with the Father and the Holy Spirit remaineth in the unity of the Godhead for ever and ever.” Pope Leo knew nothing of the worship of the Virgin or hyperdulia: and his testimony brings us far into the third part of the fifth century. SECTION II.-POPE GELASIUS, A.D. 496 4 . Between the death of Leo and the elevation of Ge- lasius to the See of Rome about thirty years elapsed. The intervening prelates in the imperial city seem to have left few literary works behind them; nor does any author of note appear to have flourished in any part of Christendom during this interval. These 4 Sacrosancta Concilia, Paris, 1621, p. 1154.—The pages in that edition of the Councils are confused. CHAP. VII.] GELASIUS. 381 Bishops of Rome were Hilarus, a.d. 461 ; Simplicius, a.d. 467 ; and Felix, a.d. 483. Hilarus speaks of “ the grace of God 5 ” and “ the in¬ spiration of the Lord Jesus Christ” as the source of mercies; and in his time the Council held at Venice speaks of “ the Confession of Faith in the Holy Trinity,” and of a rising superstition 6 called “The Lots of the Saints,” which the Council denounces; but of the Virgin Mary we read nothing. In the letters of Simplicius and his correspondents we find continual references to God’s mercy as the fountain of hope and blessings; to Christ, as the sal¬ vation of the emperor and the strength of his realm 7 ; to the mercy of Christ, as that power which wards off evil 8 , as the protector of his servants. But there is no mention of the Virgin Mary throughout, of her in¬ fluence or mediation. In the letters of Felix though many indications of superstition show themselves 9 , yet no allusion whatever is made to the mediation or intercession, the patronage, power, or influence of the Virgin Mary. The Roman Synod held under him refers to God’s power in con¬ quering heresies, and to his grace; but they give not the shadow of an intimation that we can obtain that grace by the mediation and intercession of the Virgin. In his letter of admonition and reproof to Peter, Bishop of Antioch, called the Fuller, warning him against the error of representing the divinity of Christ as suffering, Felix dwells at some length on the incarnation of Christ; and he there speaks of the holy purity of the Virgin’s womb, when Christ was born of a woman \ b P. 1042. 8 P. 1074. 6 P. 1057. 9 P. 1059. 7 P. 1073. 1 P. 1061. 382 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. He does not mention the name of Mary, and he applies the prophetic psalm, “ Look down from heaven, behold and visit this vine,” not, as others have done, to the Virgin, but to the “saving incarnation of the Word.” Felix died a.d. 492. SECTION III. Gelasius, by birth an African, held that Synod of seventy bishops which is usually called the First Roman Council. In this council 2 was passed that decree, which classed the works then most known, and which were comparatively few, under the two heads of ap¬ proved and forbidden works. Gelasius devoted him¬ self much to the temporal advancement of the Church of Rome, and to its influence and authority over the rest of the world. In a letter addressed to Laurentius, a bishop of Greece, who seems to have solicited his interference, Gelasius prescribes a rule of faith, to which he desired all to conform. In this confession his reference to the Virgin Mary is couched in these words : “We confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the only- begotten Son of God before all ages, without begin¬ ning, of the Father as touching his Godhead, in these last times was incarnate, and became perfect Man of the most holy Virgin Mary, possessed of a rational soul and taking a body; of the same substance with the Father as touching his Godhead, and of the same substance with us as touching his humanity. Christ brought not his body from heaven, but received it from our substance; that is, from the Virgin.” In his striking dissertation on Original Sin, and the 2 P. 1263. CHAP. VII.] GELASIUS. 383 universal taint and infection of sin, it is impossible that be could have omitted all mention of the Virgin, had the Church of Rome (of which he was Pope) then held the Virgin’s total immunity from sin, as the present Church of Rome does. We are not here referring to the doctrine of her own immaculate conception in her mother’s womb (that is so recent an invention, that even St. Bernard, in the twelfth century, reproves the monks of Lyons for giving any encouragement to such a novelty), but to an immaculate personal and divine purity in herself, such as the authorized services of the Church of Rome, and the devotions of her canonized saints, now set forth. There is much sound and health¬ ful teaching in the scanty remains of this bishop, and on the point immediately before us, the following sen¬ timents seem worthy of our notice and admiration. Having reprobated the fundamental error of those who held that man by his own strength and exertions can in this life reach a state of moral and spiritual perfec¬ tion, Gelasius thus proceeds 3 : “ But should any one assert that, not by the possibility of human strength, but by divine grace, such a state may in this life be conferred on any holy man, he surely does right to entertain that opinion with confi¬ dence, and with faith to cherish that hope. But whether any such have existed who have reached even to this perfection of the present life, as it is nowhere plainly asserted, so does it become us neither readily to affirm, nor to deny it. The more sober course is to determine from the words of the holy Projdiets and Apostles themselves (than whom in truth in this world, as far as concerns the course of a holy life, 3 P. 1240. 384 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [PART V. nothing ever was or is more excellent) to what extent we ought to measure our progress in this life. These, although by a more abundant gift of God they were assailed by very rare or very small failings of human nature, and by a fuller affluence of God’s grace they easily overcame the vices of mortality, yet themselves testify that they were not wholly free from them; so that it belongs alone to that immaculate Lamb to have no sin at all; otherwise that might seem not to be imputed to Him alone, if any holy one besides should be thought free from sin. Let us then be content with the confession of the saints, and let us rather hear what¬ ever they affirm concerning themselves, than pursue what may be either rashly entertained in our thoughts, or blown about by our own opinions.” Could such sentiments, without any exception or modification, have been written by Gelasius, had the Virgin Mary been habitually an object of his contem¬ plation as a mortal without sin? Both Gelasius and Leo speak of Christ as having found no one mortal without sin when He came to redeem all; no exception whatever being made in favour of the Virgin Mary. In a letter to Rusticus, Bishop of Lyons, having spoken of the storms of evil which pressed him, and the trials of affliction by which he was overwhelmed, he, like his predecessor Leo, makes no mention of the Virgin, her power and influence, her intercession, her guidance and watchful care: his heart (as far as language can be an index of the heart) speaks only of God. “But we faint not, and amidst so many pressures neither does my mind sink, nor my zeal slacken, nor does fear cast me down; but, though in straits and perplexities, we place our confidence in Him who will with the tempta¬ tions provide a way for escape; and who, though for a CHAP. VII.] SYMMACHUS. 385 time He will allow us to be depressed, yet will not suffer us to be overwhelmed 4 .” This letter was written a.d. 494; after which he held the second Roman Council a.d. 495, and in the November of the next year he died. This brings us within four years of the end of the first five hundred years from the birth of Christ. Certainly in Gelasius, the Bishop and Pope of Rome, we see not the shadow of any worship of the Virgin at all; nothing, in faith or practice, corresponding with the present belief and practice of the Church of Rome, either as held and exemplified in himself, or as existing, to his knowledge, in any part of the Catholic Church of Christ. SECTION IV.—ANASTASIUS AND SYMMACHUS. Gelasius was succeeded by Anastasius II.; and Ana- stasius, who presided over the Roman Church a few days short of two years, was followed by Symmaclius, whose life extended fourteen years beyond the period by which our present investigation is limited. In the scanty remains of these two Popes not one single expression occurs from which we could infer that the invocation of the Virgin Mary, or any faith in her merits and influence, was known to them ; yet, when speaking of the divine and human nature of our Lord, they would have found abundant room for references to her heavenly influence, had the habitual associations of their minds led that way. Such references were continually made in after-ages. Invariably, however, these Pontiffs refer to God alone, the first and imme¬ diate Giver of every good gift; and “ their chief hope, 4 P. 1259. c c 386 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. [part V- yea, tlie entire ground of their hope,” their own and their correspondents’, is not the Virgin, hut Christ. Instead of declaring her to be “ the sole destroyer of heresies,” they hope in God that lie will defend his truth by his own mighty power and silence the opposi¬ tions, and upbraidings, and corruptions of its enemies. Anastasius in his letter of gratulation to Clovis, King of the French, who had just professed Chris¬ tianity and had been baptized in the true faith, refer¬ ring the king’s spiritual birth to God as the effecter, thus admonishes him: “ Therefore, glorious and illustrious son, give joy to thy mother [the Church], and be to her a pillar of iron ; for the love of many is waxing cold, and by the cunning of evil men our barque is tossed by the billows and beaten by the foaming waves. But we hope, for hope and against hope, and praise the Lord, who hath rescued thee from the power of darkness, and hath pro¬ vided for the Church so great a prince, who may be able to defend it, and to put on the helmet of salvation against the invading attempts of the baneful. Go on then, beloved son, that God Almighty may preserve thy peace and kingdom with his heavenly protection, and give his angels charge to keep thee in all his [? thy] ways, and give to thee victory over thy enemies round about.” In the letter of Anastasius to his namesake Anasta¬ sius the Emperor, we are struck by his continual re¬ currence to the Scripture, both of the Old and the New Testament, for authority in support of his posi¬ tions. Symmachus, in his Letter of Defence written against the Emperor Anastasius, who had been excommuni¬ cated, thus speaks of Christ’s divine and human nature : CHAP. VII.] SYMMACHUS. 387 “ Christ is truly, wholly Gocl, and wholly man; so was He conceived, so lived in the world, so suffered, so descended into hell, so was raised again, so appeared with his disciples, so was He exalted into heaven, and so is it said that He will come again, and so is He at this day in heaven 5 .” To the Bishops of Africa, Symmaclius caused this to be written (there is a doubt whether he wrote it him¬ self, or used a deacon as an amanuensis) : “ God will happily accomplish the rewards of your confession, when it shall please Him to restore rest to the Churches; that He may, by the sweetness of peace, console us for the sorrow which adversity brought upon us.” “ Is this done ” (he says) “ from the love of life, or from the love of souls, in imitation of their first Shep¬ herd, our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, our hope, who laid down his life for the sheep 6 ?” To Csesarius, writing on the restoration of peace to the Church, he says: “ And if by the help of God the risen controversy shall be stayed, let us ascribe that to his merits 7 .” Thus we find that the Bishops of Rome itself up to the end of the fifth century (and how much longer the limits put to our investigation do not admit of our inquiry), who were (as we learn from their own repre¬ sentations) similarly circumstanced with the present reigning Pontiff, instead of “ lifting their eyes to the Virgin Mary as their hope, as the destroyer of heresies, as the guide and preserver of the Lord’s ministers,” spoke only of God as the author of truth, and peace, 5 P. 1297. 6 P. 1301. c c 2 7 P. 1308. 388 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. and wisdom, and safety; and looked for temporal and spiritual blessings to Him alone, through the merits and mediation only of his Eternal Son, without the intervention of any patronage, mediation, influence, power, or intercession of the blessed Virgin Mary. Symmachus died a.d. 514. CONCLUSION. 389 CONCLUSION. We have now brought to a close our proposed task, with regard to the worship of the Virgin Mary in the Church of Rome. We have seen that in that Church, prayer, unequivocal and direct, is now addressed to her for her intercession, and for her patronage, and assist¬ ance, and protection, and for temporal and spiritual graces. We have seen that God is petitioned to grant the requests of those wlio pray to Him, for the sake of the Virgin, through her merits and intercession. We have seen that spiritual praises are offered to her for past benefits, and hymns are sung to her glory. We have found that Christians are taught to depend upon her as the anchor of their souls, and to devote them¬ selves by a solemn act of religion to her service, as the Queen of heaven and the Spouse of God. The pattern, and principles, and fundamental ground of all this worship, we find fully and unquestionably existing in the appointed offices, the authorized and prescribed services of the Roman Ritual; while the excesses and extravagances of the worship of the Virgin we see in the doctrinal and devotional works of her votaries, many of them being canonized saints and accredited teachers. It is not for us to accuse our brethren in the Church of Rome of idolatry or heresy; though in our own conscience we should ourselves be guilty of both, were we to associate any created being 390 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. with Almighty God as the object of our prayer, or with our blessed Saviour as our mediator and inter¬ cessor. We condemn not others; to their own master they stand or fall; but being persuaded in our own mind that we should act in direct opposition to God’s own teaching if we were to pray to the Virgin, or to pray to God in her name, pleading her advocacy and trusting to her merits, we at once protest against the fundamental errors of that Church which justifies, and enjoins, and requires, on pain of excommunication, such worship to be paid to the Virgin, as in our con¬ sciences we consider to invade the province of Almighty God, the Giver of all good, and the province of the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour, the only Mediator between God and man. To assure ourselves on these essential points, we have first searched the Holy Scriptures ; and from the first to the last page we find not one iota or tittle to suggest, or sanction, or admit of divine worship being offered to the Virgin ; but much everyway to discoun¬ tenance and forbid it. And to assure ourselves that we understand the inspired volume as our forefathers in Christ received it from the first; that what we hold on this point was the tenet of the primitive Church; and that what we dread as a fundamental error was introduced by the corruptions of superstition in more recent ages; we have examined to the utmost of our ability and means the remains of Christian antiquity. Especially have we searched into the writings of those whose works (a.d. 492) received the approbation of the pope and his council at Rome ; we have also diligently sought for evidence in the records of the early coun¬ cils ; and we find all the genuine and unsuspected works of Christian writers, not for a few years, or in a CONCLUSION. 391 portion of Christendom, but to the end of the first five hundred years and more, and in every country in the Eastern and the Western empire, in Europe, in Africa, and in Asia, testifying as with one voice that the writers and their contemporaries knew of no belief in the present power of the Virgin, and her influence with God ; no practice in public or private of praying to God through her mediation, or of invoking her for her good offices of intercession, and advocacy, and pa¬ tronage ; no offering of thanks and praise made to her; no ascription of divine honour and glory to her name. On the contrary, all the writers through those ages testify that to the early Christians God was the only object of prayer; and Christ the only heavenly Mediator and Intercessor in whom they put their trust. The revealed truths of the Bible, and the witnesses of the Christian Church warn us, as with a voice from heaven, never to substitute the Virgin for Christ, not even for a moment, not by the most transient appeal to God in her name; never to seek what we need as souls on our way to God, from any source but the Almighty, the first Cause of all things, the Giver of every good gift, the God of all comfort, the Rock of our salvation, the only Ground of our hope; and to pour out our hearts before Him, through his only Son alone, who is the way, the truth, and the life. We honour the Virgin Mary, we love her memory, w T e would, by God’s grace, follow her example in faith and humility, meekness and obedience; we bless God for the wonderful work of salvation, in effecting which she was.a chosen vessel; we call her a blessed saint and a holy Virgin; we cannot doubt of her eternal 302 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN - . happiness through the merits of Him who was “ God of the substance of his Father before the world, and man of the substance of his mother born in the world.” But we cannot address religious praises to her; we cannot trust in her merits, or intercession, or advocacy, for our acceptance with God ; we cannot invoke her for any blessing, temporal or spiritual; we cannot pray to God through her intercession or for it. This in us would be sin. We pray to God alone; we offer re¬ ligious praise, our spiritual sacrifices, to God alone; we trust in God alone; we need no other mediator, we apply to no other mediator, intercessor, or advocate, in the unseen world, but Jesus Christ alone the Son of God and the Son of Man. In this faith, we implore God alone, for the sake only of his Son, to keep us stedfast unto death ; and in the full assurance of the belief that this faith is founded on the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner¬ stone, we will endeavour, by the blessing of the Eternal Shepherd and Bishop of Souls, to preserve the same faith, as our Church now professes it, whole and unde¬ filed, and to deliver it down without spot or stain of superstition, to our children’s children, as their best inheritance for ever. We beseech Thee, O Lord, pour thy grace into our hearts, that as we have known the incarnation of thy Son, Jesus Christ, by the message of an angel, so by his cross and passion we may be brought unto the glory of his resurrection, through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. CONCLUSION. 393 Almighty God, who hast given to us thy only- begotten Son to take our nature upon Him and to be born of a pure Virgin ; grant that we, being regenerate and made thy children by adoption and grace, may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit, through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with Thee and the same Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen. It is meet, right, and our bounden duty that we should at all times and in all places give thanks unto Thee, O Lord, Holy Father, Almighty, Everlasting God ; because Thou didst give Jesus Christ, thine only Son, to be born for us, who by the operation of the Holy Ghost was made very Man, of the substance of the Virgin Mary his mother, and that without spot of sin, to make us clean from all sin. Therefore with Angels and Archangels, and with all the company of heaven we laud and magnify thy glorious name, ever¬ more praising Thee, and saying, Holy ! Holy! Holy! Lord God of Hosts, heaven and earth are full of thy glory. Glory be to Thee, O Lord Most High! Amen. 394 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. APPENDIX A. GREGORY THAUMATURGUS. The discourses which Vossius published among this early writer’s works, were, he says \ found by himself in a very ancient MS. belonging to the convent of Cryptoferrata, near Rome, which he compared with the Vatican MS., and also with that of Cardinal Sir- letus. The discourses purport to have been delivered in honour of the Virgin on the festival of the Annun¬ ciation ; and Vossius enumerates other discourses con¬ tained in the same manuscript delivered by illustrious men, among which he specifies that sermon, ascribed to St. Athanasius, which the Benedictine editors, and Baronius before them, have pronounced to be beyond question spurious, and probably a production of the seventh century. Neither does Jerome in his enumeration of the works of this Gregory, nor any other ancient writer, allude to these discourses. Cardinal Bellarmin 2 indeed himself unhesitatingly rejects as spurious two of the new works ascribed to this Gregory by Vossius, on the ground that they had been written with a view to heresies which were not known in the church till long after the time of Gregory; and, when speaking of these very discourses, lie says, “ Of them I entertain no cer¬ tain opinion, for the ancients have made no mention of 1 P. 109. 2 Vol. vii., De Scriptor. Eccles. APPENDIX A. 395 the works; and yet it cannot be proved that they are supposititious.” These discourses profess to have been delivered by this Gregory on the festival of the Annunciation, whereas that festival was not observed in the Church for many ages after his death. In the “ Acta Sanctorum,” indeed, the institution of this festival is ascribed to the Virgin herself, who, as the legend says, every year observed this day; the Apostles afterwards appointing it to be observed for ever in gratitude to the Virgin. But the earliest authority cited in that work are these very discourses, ascribed now to Gregory. Alban Butler says that Pope Gelasius alludes to this festival; the passage has been carefully sought for, but in vain: and even had Gelasius referred to it, that would have been two centuries and a half after Gre¬ gory’s time. Bellarmin, tenaciously maintaining the antiquity of this festival, cites the oration said to have been delivered upon it by Athanasius; the very oration which he himself, and Baronius, and the Benedictines pronounce to be spurious; and which Baronius refers to the seventh century. Reference has been made to St. Augustine in proof of the festival having been observed in his day: even that would be more than two centuries later tlnCn this Gregory’s time. But Augustine does not, in the pas¬ sage cited 3 , allude to any festival at all; only saying that the Church believed the tradition that Christ was conceived on the 25tli of March, reckoning backward from his birth. In Spain, this festival was ordered by a Council at 3 De Timitate, Lib. iv. c. 9, vol. viii. p. 816. 3D6 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. Toledo to be observed eight days before Christmas, but this was so late as a.d. 656 ; afterwards the Spanish Church kept both their own day and the 25tli of March. But whilst the existence of this festival in the time of Gregory Thaumaturgus rests on no evi¬ dence whatever, the proof that it was not observed till the commencement of the seventh century is conclu¬ sive. By the ancient rules of the Church, all festivals and commemorations, even of the martyrs, were forbidden in Lent, except the Saturday and the Lord’s day. This is enacted in the Council of Laodicea 4 , held in the middle of the fourth century 5 , without any exception of the Annunciation : whereas, in the Council held at Constantinople in the palace of the Emperor, and thence called Concilium in Trullo, the same prohibi¬ tion was re-enacted; only, the feast of the Annuncia¬ tion was then made an exception. This Council was held a.d. 692 6 . These homilies have been pronounced by many cele¬ brated critics to be spurious, among whom are Cave and Dupin 7 : and Lumper 8 at some length, proves them to be of a much later date. But Vossius put off the character of a judge, and acted like a partizan; his professed devotedness to the worship of the Virgin converting his editorial preface into a rhapsody. He dedicates the edition to “ the Mother of God, the blessed Mary ever Virgin, and to Saint Gregory;” and the following are among his 4 The date of the Council of Laodicea is not precisely known : some writers refer it to a.d. 357 ; others, to a time ten years later. 5 Labbe, vol. i. p. 1505. 0 Ibid. vol. vi. p. 1165. 7 See Bingham, Book xx. chap. viii. § 4. 8 Lumper, Part xiii. p. 313. APPENDIX A. 397 variously combined acts of worship addressed chiefly to Mary, while some of them are addressed to Gregory as her servant. lie thus begins : “ My mind is astounded, my memory fails, my utterance languishes, and my tongue cleaves to my jaws, whilst I strive to celebrate the lieraldings of thy praise, O most holy Virgin, Mother of God, Mary ! and hold before my mind the mirror of thy heroic virtues.” “ Here I will make an end; and I pray and beseech thee, O Gregory ! together with the most glorious and most holy Mother of God, Mary the Virgin, that ye will at all times undertake the patronage of me, that ye will join your prayers with mine, and never cease to intercede for me with the most merciful God, that through you, after this frail, sad, and short life ended, I may be deemed worthy to reach the life truly blessed and eternal.” “ Hail, Mother, the heaven, the Virgin, the throne, and of our Church the honour and glory and strength! Hail, thou, the comfort and ready help of those in danger and who have recourse to thee ! Hail, refuge of sinners, hope of all the good and afflicted, the fountain of grace and of all comfort 9 ! Hail, best mediatrix between Christ and man ! Hail, sure and unfailing protection of us all! Hail, only relief of e If we compare these words in the original Latin with the words of St. Paul in the Latin Vulgate (the version of the Scriptures most familiar to Vossius), when the Apostle speaks of our heavenly Father as the God of all comfort:—to every scholar they must seem most strikingly identifiable. Vossius addresses Mary as “ Fons totius consolationis.” St. Paul says of God, “ Deus totius consolationis.” Equally painful is it to find, in the next sentence, Mary called “ the only Hope, the only Relief, the Way to the Place on high.” Com¬ pare John, xiv. 6. 398 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. the troubles and disturbances of this life ! Hail, only hope of the desponding, succour of the oppressed, and present help of those who fly to thee ! Hail, gate and key of heaven’s kingdom, the ladder and the way up¬ wards of all the elect! To thee we cry : remember us, O most holy Mother and Virgin! remember, I say ; and, in return for these encomiums and eulogies, give us back great gifts out of the riches of thy so abundant graces. To thee we sigh, that in all our troubles and difficulties tliou wouldest benignantly and promptly succour us.” It is no longer matter of wonder, that such a man should be anxious to make so early a writer as Gregory Thaumaturgus the author of homilies in honour of the Virgin, when we find him praying for great gifts from her abundant treasures, expressly in return for the abundance of his collaudations of her : but it is matter of wonder, that such homilies should be appealed to, now, as genuine ; though they had never been pub¬ lished or enumerated among his works, or referred to as his, whether extant or lost, or even heard of for at least thirteen hundred years. APPENDIX B. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUM. THE TRAGEDY CALLED “ CHRIST SUFFERING.” The statement of the Parisian editor, M. Caillau, “priest of the Society of Mercy, called The Blessed APPENDIX B. 399 Mary Immaculate in her Conception,” embodying his reasons for pronouncing this work spurious, is as fol¬ lows 1 : “ Whilst I was very carefully reflecting on the ma¬ nuscripts of the Benedictines, which Providence had placed in my hand, one only seemed to be wanting, namely, their sentiments on the tragedy called ‘Christ Suffering; 5 and I felt this the more, because a ques¬ tion of a religious no less than a literary interest is involved in it. But, for curing this defect, an abundant supply was at hand of men the most skilled in every branch of criticism who have ever lived down to the present time. For, that this tragedy is not to be ascribed to [Gregory] the Theologist, there agree with one voice Tillemont 2 , Dupin 3 , Baillet, Jugement des Savants 4 , Baronius 5 , Rivet 6 , Vossius 7 , Bellarmin 8 , Labbe 9 , and after them, Ceillier 10 .” “ Now these are the arguments on which this judg¬ ment, which can scarcely be set aside, is built. In the first place, all the old manuscripts are silent as to the 1 Greg. Theologi. Paris, 1840. Edit. M. Caillau, Priest of the Society of Mercy, called The Blessed Mary Immaculate in her Conception. Vol. ii. p. 1205. The first volume was published in Paris in the year 1778. 2 Tom. ix. p. 559. 3 Tom. ii. pp. 372 and 651. 4 Tom. iv. part ii. p. 457. 5 Tom. i. ad ann. 34, [p. 157,] § 129. 0 Critic. Sac. p. 343. 7 Instit. Poetic, lib. ii. c. 14, p. 72. 8 De Script. Eccles. 9 De Script. Eccles. 10 Hist, des Aut. Sac. tom. vii. p. 176.—The author has verified all these references. Fabricius has been lately quoted as acknow¬ ledging the genuineness of the work in question. But, he only rejects the notion of its having been written by Apollinaris, and in the same page he tells us that Lipsius and even Vossius doubted, and that Triller and Valcken undertook to demonstrate that it was spurious. 400 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. author’s name; and only one manuscript is adduced which has the name of the Theologist, and one other of Suidas, neither very old nor of much importance, where this tragedy is appended to the works of St. Gre¬ gory. Secondly', There is not found in the said work that purity of doctrine which all admire in the other poems, epistles, and orations of the Theologist. For here the most holy Virgin is at one time offended by the news of her Son’s murder; at another, cast down by an unworthy fear, whereas, according to the saying of St. Ambrose, 4 The mother stood before the cross, and, when the men fled, she stood intrepidat another, in¬ dulging to excess in sighs and groans, though the same holy doctor says of her, 4 1 read of her standing -—of her weeping, I do not readat another, seized at length by a mad fury, and attacking her Son’s ene¬ mies with most severe injuries, so as moreover to im¬ precate on them every calamity. To this add, that the author, drawing from apocryphal sources accounts un¬ doubtedly false, says that the holy Virgin was brought up by the hands of an angel, and was delivered by the whole senate as a wife to a modest husband; that Christ appeared to his most holy mother immediately after his resurrection ; that many churches were at that time erected to the honour of the blessed Virgin, and solemn festivals celebrated,-—which seems not to have been done till about the middle of the fifth cen¬ tury, after the decree published at Ephesus in the year 431 1 2 . Thirdly, In this drama you will seek in vain for 1 Hamburgh, vol. viii. p. 429. 2 Churches dedicated to God were from very early times called hy the names of Martyrs and Saints, and among others, hy the name of Mary. But we find no trace of any festival celebrated in honour of Mary, till long after the close of the fifth century. APPENDIX B. 401 St. Gregory’s elegance of style and varied colouring; moreover, his dignity of language, and correctness of metre 3 , and abundance of similitudes; by all of which the other poems of the blessed doctor are adorned : whence it is clear that this poem is not to be ascribed to him.” The same editor thinks it not improbable that it was written by Gregory of Antioch towards the close of the sixth century. To this judgment we wish to add nothing: there can be no doubt of its general soundness. We cannot, how¬ ever, but observe, that it is drawn up by an editor who, so far from disparaging the Virgin Mary, is repeatedly led into mistakes by his zealous anxiety to do her ho¬ nour. Curious instances of this appear in his index. Under the head of Mary, for example, he says, “Mary, a support of women ;” whilst in the passage referred to, whatever be its meaning, Gregory applies the word, not to Mary, but to his own mother Nonna 4 , whom he describes as “shining now with Susanna, Mary, and the Annas.” If the Mary here mentioned by Gregory means the blessed Virgin, he mingles her with¬ out any distinction with the others. Again, the editor says, “ Mary, inferior to Christ, but superior to all others ;” whereas, in the poem to which the reference is made, Mary’s inferiority to Christ is asserted in con¬ junction with all others in heaven and in earth, but not one word is said about her superiority to all others 5 . We can only again express our surprise that a work so unquestionably spurious as the Tragedy in question, 3 Leuenkius pronounces that in this poem no regard is paid to the laws of Iambic verse, which were accurately observed by Gregory.— See Appendix to vol. ii. Paris edition of Gregory. 4 Vol. ii. p. 1134; Carm. lxix. 5 Vol. ii. p. 336. D d 402 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. should be boldly quoted in the present day, without an allusion to any doubt being entertained as to its genuineness. APPENDIX C. HOMILY OF GREGORY OF NAZIANZUM, THE THEOLOGIAN. In examining this homily with the view of forming a correct judgment as to its genuineness, we must bear in mind what was the character of the author to whom it is ascribed. lie was one of the most learned bishops of the Church, and one whose mind had been stored with all the knowledge which the most cele¬ brated schools could impart. lie had studied in other famous seats of learning, and especially at Alexandria, and at Athens. Could he have been the author of a homily filled with so many gross mistakes and incon¬ sistencies, and confusion of facts and persons ? The question deserves a patient and full examination. The alternative is of no slight importance; if we maintain the genuineness of the oration, then this great teacher and Pdieologist is convicted of gross mistakes, inconsis¬ tent with the range of his learning and knowledge; and if the glaring inconsistencies and ignorance per¬ vading the homily compel us to pronounce against its genuineness, then this testimony to the early prevalence of invocations to Mary (which, slight as it is at the best, is acknowledged by the Benedictine editors 6 to be the fi Vol. i. p. 437. APPENDIX C. 403 clearest and most explicit which the fourth century can produce,) must be given up. In the first place, then, nothing is known of the time, or place, or occasion of the delivery of this oration. The notice of Nicetas, which stands as the heading of the homily in the Paris edition of 1611, states that it was spoken to the people of Nazianzum, Gregory’s usual place of residence, the day after the festival of St. Cyprian, on the orator’s return from the warm baths at the foot of the precipitous mountain near the town; which he frequented, partly for the comfort of retirement, and partly for the cure of an infirmity under which he laboured. But the Benedic¬ tine editors reject this supposition altogether, because the orator addresses his audience as persons with whom he had been only a short time acquainted ; and they maintain that the oration was delivered at Constan¬ tinople, a.d. 379. Secondly, The Cyprian, in collaudation of whom the orator delivered this panegyric, and of whose licentious¬ ness and vice, and magical arts, and violence towards the virgin Justina, he was speaking, was St. Cyprian, the renowned Bishop of Carthage; whereas all the editors and critics, with one voice, pronounce such a stigma upon St. Cyprian’s character to be a calumny which must not for a moment be allowed to attach itself to that holy man’s name. Thus Dr. Wiseman speaks of “ the machinations of the magician Cyprian,” without any allusion to the Saint of Carthage. But whoever were the orator, that the subject of his dis¬ course was St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, admits of no doubt. The words of the orator, variously and again and again repeated, fix the identity of the indi¬ vidual subject of his panegyric beyond question. Thus, D d 2 404 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. in one passage, be says, “This Cyprian, my friends,—- tliat those of you who know it may he the more pleased by the remembrance, and those who know it not may learn the fairest of all our histories, and the common glory of Christians,—is that man, the great name formerly of the Carthaginians, but now of the whole world.” Again, lie says, “ He not only presided over the Church of the Carthaginians or of Africa (from him and on account of him celebrated to the present day), but also the whole West, and almost the very East, and the South and the North, wherever fame reached. Thus Cyprian becomes ours.” Now, Baronius 7 affirms, that this was a mistake in the orator; that the anecdote must have related to some other Cyprian; and that, as for St. Cyprian of Carthage, the story which charges him with having used magical arts is a fable to be exploded. Can we consider Gregory the Theologian, who was the most learned man of his time, and who had himself studied in Africa, to have fallen into such a mistake, and to have been the propagator of such a fable ? Thirdly, The orator 8 , in a manner totally at variance with Gregory’s, states that, “if used with faith, the very ashes of Cyprian dislodged devils, expelled dis¬ eases, foretold things to come; as they know who have made the experiment, and have delivered the account down to us, and will deliver it for times to come.” Fourthly, To abridge the tale in the words of the Benedictine editor, the orator 9 asserts that the body of Cyprian, having been hidden by a pious woman, was 7 Baronius, Martyr. 26 Sept. p. 376, Paris, 1607 ; and Anna]. Eccles. vol. ii. p. 564. Anno Christi 250. “ Explosa fabula ilia de Cypriani magica arte.” 8 P. 449. 9 P. 448. APPENDIX C. 405 for a long time concealed, and was brought to light by a revelation made to another woman. Whereas the “ Acts of the Proconsulate 1 ” tell us distinctly that the body of St. Cyprian, after he was beheaded, was carried at night, by torch-light, to the burying-place of Macro- bius on the Massalian way, near the fishponds, with many prayers and exultations 2 . Fifthly, The orator asserts that the persecution, by which the Cyprian of whom he speaks was first banished and then beheaded, was under Decius, who was bent on destroying so eminent a Christian ; whereas Cyprian of Carthage, though banished in the Decian persecution, yet returned from exile, and, after some years of labour in his episcopate, suffered martyrdom about a.d. 259, at the close of Valerian’s reign 3 . Sixthly, Whilst it is with one voice denied that the Cyprian to whose memory the stain of attempting Justina’s seduction attached, could be the Bishop of Carthage, many of the circumstances specified by the orator as belonging to the subject of his eulogy corre¬ spond precisely with the acknowledged facts of that Saint Cyprian’s life. Cyprian’s biographer was Pon¬ tius, his own deacon, who witnessed his martyrdom; and what he tells us of the birth, station, learning, wealth, liberality, and the death of his master, coincides exactly with the description in this panegyric. The circumstance, too, beautifully told by the orator, of his Cyprian having written many letters to encourage and comfort his people under their persecution, which both 1 See Benedictine edition of Cyprian. 2 Cyprian, Paris, 1726, cxlvii. 3 There is much difficulty in fixing these dates with minute ex¬ actness ; but allowing for all the varieties of reckoning, the incon¬ sistencies and anachronisms in this oration remain unaffected. 406 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. the memoir of Pontius and St. Cyprian’s letters, still extant, prove to have belonged to the Bishop of Car¬ thage, leaves no doubt as to the person whom the orator considered himself to be describing. Whereas, on the other hand, the stories detailed by the orator of the man practising the arts of magic and summoning the devil to his aid in the work of seduction, and then destroying his books, and then being converted by Justina, whose chastity he had attempted, are all irreconcileable with the facts of the life of St. Cyprian of Carthage, who was himself a married man before his conversion, who was converted in his fiftieth year by his friend Csecilius the presbyter, and who, instead of disgracing himself by magic, engaged in the pursuits of literature, and practised every moral virtue. The orator declares, that the person of whom he spoke was Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, the glory of the Catholic Church: the question recurs, Could Gregory of Nazi- anzum have been that orator ? Seventhly, To avoid the scandal of leaving such imputations on the character of the great Cyprian, commentators tell us that not he, but Cyprian of Nicomedia was the person meant by the orator. But, should we entertain that suggestion, the oration be¬ comes involved in other inconsistencies. The orator says, that his Cyprian was beheaded under Decius, who died about a.d. 251 ; whereas no account fixes the martyrdom of Cyprian of Nicomedia at an earlier date than the reign of Diocletian and Maximinian, which did not commence till after the lapse of more than thirty years from the death of Decius. Eighthly, Supposing the orator to mean Cyprian of Nicomedia, then he is altogether mistaken as to the kind of death suffered by the martyr. ITe says it was APPENDIX C. 407 by the sword severing the head from the body (the real mode of the martyrdom of Cyprian of Carthage); whereas Cyprian of Nicomedia, together with his fel¬ low-martyr Justina, was burnt on an instrument of torture called the gridiron, or frying-pan. Ninthly, If Cyprian of Nicomedia be the subject of the orator’s panegyric, then the story of the body having been hidden by one woman, and revealed to another, is no less inapplicable to him, than, on the other supposition, it would be to Cyprian of Carthage 4 . We are expressly told that the corpse of the martyr was exposed to be devoured by wild beasts, but that some Christian sailors carried it away by night and bore it to Rome, whence it was removed to Constan¬ tinople, and buried in the basilica, near the baptistry. The passage, lastly, in which the orator tells us that one woman concealed, and another discovered the re¬ mains of Cyprian, contains a very extraordinary sen¬ tence by no means to be overlooked in our present inquiry, as to the author of this oration. The reading may, perhaps, be a corruption, but it stands thus:— “ That the women might also be purified; as those women who both before gave birth to Christ, and told his disciples after his resurrection from the dead, so now also the one woman showing, the other giving up Cyprian 5 .” With these instances before us of the confusion, and contradictions, and inconsistencies which pervade this oration throughout, we cannot allow it to be the ge¬ nuine production of so eminent and learned a divine as Gregory of Nazianzum. We cannot conceive that 4 See Baronius, Martyr. Sept. 26, p. 376. 6 "£lenrtp to v XpLorov Ka'i TtKovffcu 7r porepor. 408 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. a bishop so deeply imbued with literature in all its branches, sacred and secular, doctrinal and historical, could have delivered an oration which professes in the plainest language, and by various expressions, to be a panegyric on that Cyprian who was the renowned pre¬ late of Carthage, the glory of Africa and the world, and yet which is pervaded with a tissue of inconsisten¬ cies and contradictions, biographical and historical, from its first to its last page. This, however, is con¬ fessed to be the clearest testimony which the fourth century provides of the invocation of the Virgin. APPENDIX D. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA. That the two homilies referred to in the text, and now ascribed to Cyril, (palpably different versions of the same original,) are the productions of a later age, can scarcely admit of the least doubt. That the ho¬ mily quoted by Dr. Wiseman is a corrupt copy, who¬ ever was its author, we learn even from Aubert himself, who first added it to Cyril’s works. That editor in¬ forms us that he copied it out from a most faulty (mendacissimo) manuscript in the King’s Library (Paris), and emended it as well as he could, by guesses. He tells us, also, that it will prove itself to any one at a glance to be the genuine offspring of Cyril: assigning, as his proof, “ that the author of the homily inveighs against Nestorius; and also, by a most clear testimony, calls Celestinus Archbishop of the whole world.” Celestinus was Bishop of Rome when the Council of APPENDIX D. 409 Ephesus was convened ; and among the monuments of that council many letters are recorded, some from Cyril to Celestinus, some from Celestinus to Cyril, and some from each of those bishops to others, with the epistles of other bishops to them. Now, so far from Cyril acknowledging Celestinus to be Archbishop of the whole world, in his letter to Nestorius he speaks of Celestinus as Bishop, indeed, of Great Rome, but still as his fellow-minister, and brother, and fellow-bishop 6 ; and he addresses him just as he does the Bishop of Constantinople : 44 Cyril, to the most holy father and most dear to God, Celestinus;” 44 Cyril, to the most holy and sacred lord archbishop and father, Maximia- nus.” And Cyril is thus addressed by Celestinus: 44 Celestinus, to his beloved brother, Cyril.” Celestinus, in one letter, adds, 44 The same we have written to our holy brothers and fellow-bishops, John [Antioch], Juvenal [Jerusalem], Flavian [Constantinople],” &c. And he urges Cyril to induce Nestorius to confess the same faith 44 which the Roman Church holds, and the Church of your holiness [Alexandria] holds,” &c. Paul, Bishop of Emesa, thus addressed Cyril: 44 To my lord, the most holy and sacred archbishop, Cyril.” And John, Bishop of Antioch, addresses in the same terms Xystus, Bishop of Rome, Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, and Maximianus, Bishop of Constantinople, as 44 his most holy brethren.” But whoever was the author, the homily in point of evidence is of no value. It might with equal rea¬ son be cited by a pagan in defence of his addressing an invocation to a thing that never had life. 44 Hail, thou City of the Ephesians,—rather, Goddess of the c a£t\0oD /ecu crvWeLTovpyov ii/jlu)v : again, avvnzLcyKO'Kov rjfiioi’. 410 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. Sea 7 ; because, instead of earthly harbours, angelical and heavenly harbours are come to thee ! And hail, thou thrice-blessed John, Apostle and Evangelist! and hail, thou, too, Mary, who didst bear God!” In the body of the homily, the preacher certainly “attributes to Mary the works of Christ;” ascribing to her, among other works of the only Saviour, the salvation of every believing soul: “ Hail Mary, parent of God, through whom every spirit that believes is saved !” The close of the other version of the same homily, which is found also in vol. iv. of the General Councils, p. 1251, as it now stands, is a mass of confusion; in which, neverthe¬ less, whatever be the author’s meaning, he declares that, when he praises Mary, it is the Church he is praising: “Praising the ever-Virgin Mary, that is to say, the holy Church and her Son, and her spotless husband, because to him is glory for ever. Amen 8 .” Cardinal Bellarmin 1 seems not to have been at all aware of the existence of such a homily 2 . APPENDIX E. “ THE ACTS OF ST. MARY OF EGYPT.” The Author did not originally intend to refer to this work. It has, however, been cited in evidence as a 7 It is difficult to know how to render this expression /jiaWov Se QctXaarrodea. T he Latin of Aubert renders it, “ Novo maris prospectu ornatior.” Mr. Palmer (Letter V. to Dr. Wiseman, p. 27), translates it, “ more than sea-beholding.” It has been rendered, “ Spectacle of the seabut nothing turns upon the meaning of the word. h Vol. vi. p. 358. 1 Vol. vii. p. 50. 2 See Concilii Ephesini Acta; Ingolstad. 1576. Concilia Gene- ralia; Florence, 1761, vols. iv. and v. APPENDIX E. 411 “remarkable monument” of the worship of the Virgin Mary in the fourth century; and its character has been very recently defended by supporters of that worship. The testimony of this brief and insulated production (the Latin translation of which occupies only seven folio pages) is thus quoted with apparently implicit confidence in its character 3 . “ A remarkable monument of most confident sup¬ plication made to the Blessed Virgin, and that too in the presence of, and suggested by, her image, we have in The Acts of St. Mary of Egypt. The Bollandists 4 have proved that her conversion, the effect of that prayer, took place about the year 383, and that the Acts themselves cannot have been composed later than 500. We are there told by herself, that, unable to enter the Church of Jerusalem on the festival of the Holy Cross, in deep distress of mind, looking up, she beheld a figure of the Blessed Virgin, and, fixing her eyes upon it, she spoke these words: ‘Lady Virgin, I know myself to be unworthy to look up to an image of thee most pure ; help me in my distress , and without assistance , command that entrance be permitted me, &c., that I may venerate the divine cross.’ It would be too long here to quote all that follows, and there¬ fore I throw some of it into a note. How similar is the language of the fourth century to that now re- 3 Dr. Wiseman’s Remarks on Mr. Palmer’s Letter. London, 1841, p. 26. 4 Dr. Wiseman refers to the treatise on “ The Life” or “ Acts of Mary,” as though it were the joint work of many ; it is in reality, however, the production only of one, wdio speaks of himself in the first person singular.—See Acta Sanctorum, tom. i. April 2, p. 68. 412 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. probated so harshly in the Catholic Church, after a lapse of fourteen centuries ! ” The points here stated by Dr. Wiseman to be proved are two: first, that Mary of Egypt was con¬ verted in consequence of her prayer to the Virgin about the year 383; and, secondly, that the work called “ the Acts of St. Mary of Egypt” cannot have been composed later than a.d. 500. Into the nature and validity of that proof we will now inquire; but it may be well briefly to state the contents of the work itself. An Egyptian girl, at the tender age of twelve years, discarding the affection of her father and mother, and deserting their roof, went to live in the city of Alex¬ andria, where she immediately entered upon a life of the most abandoned profligacy, too dreadful, she says, to be told. Having persevered in confirmed habits of unceasing dissoluteness for full seventeen years, on one summer’s day she saw large crowds of people flocking towards the shore; and, on asking what it meant, she found that they were on the point of embarking for Jerusalem, to be present at the solemnity of elevating the holy Cross. She immediately resolved to join the party, and throwing away her distaff, she ran to the sea; but she had no money to pay her passage or to procure provisions. After some disappointment, she found a knot of fine young men, full of mirth and laughter, ten or more in number, on whom she pre¬ vailed to take her with them. The transactions of that voyage and journey, she says, were too shocking for religious and moral ears to hear. At length reach¬ ing Jerusalem, for some days she carried on her wicked practices. Then, on the day of the solemnity, she APPENDIX E. 413 approached the church, seeking what young men she might allure into her snare ; but, when she came in the midst of the thronging crowd, she was not suffered to enter, but was constantly pushed and pulled back by some invisible power. At length she gave over the attempt, and withdrew; and, in much agony of mind, seeing a representation of the Virgin Mary in the court, she addressed to her a long prayer, promising never to return to her evil ways, and invoking the Virgin to cause her to be admitted. She then returned to the church, and no longer found any difficulty of entrance, but was gratified by witnessing the exaltation of the Cross. She then addressed to the Virgin a prayer, promising to devote her life to her, and asking for her guidance. On leaving the church, a person put three pieces of money into her hand, saying, “ Mother, take this.” Having heard a voice which said, “ If you will cross the Jordan, you shall find rest,” she forthwith went to a baker’s shop and bought three loaves, and en¬ quired of him the way. This was about the third hour; and, reaching the Jordan by night, she received the holy Communion in the Church of Christ’s fore¬ runner. Here she ate half a loaf and slept; and next morning crossed the river in a boat which she found on the bank. She then made for the wilderness; the bread became dry, and was all soon consumed. Her clothes, also, wore away; and in the wilderness she lived in the open air without any lodging, without any clothing, and without any food beyond the herbs and such other things as she could find in the desert. The first seventeen years of this life she passed in constant and violent struggles against her unbridled and wild passions, which raged like untamed wild 414 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. beasts, and in praying always to tlie Virgin to deliver her from her temptations. After the lapse of these seventeen years of conflict she discerned a bright light shining all around her, and from that moment she was tempted no more. Still she continued for full thirty years longer in the same wilderness, houseless and naked, and without any food, but feeding inwardly on the word of God, and being clothed by it. Through the whole of this space of forty-seven years she had seen neither the face of a human being, nor a wild beast, nor any other animal; but, at that time, her solitude was interrupted. In Palestine, on the west of the Jordan, was a monastery, the monks of which were in the habit of passing some portion of Lent in the wilderness, sepa¬ rated from each other, and returning always before Palm Sunday. One of them, named Zosimas, who had lived in a monastery for fifty-three years, in his wanderings, whilst engaged in prayer, was suddenly arrested by the appearance of an emaciated naked figure, with black skin as if from the heat of the sun, and hair like wool, who turned hastily from him and retreated towards the interior of the desert; he, forgetting his advanced age, ran after her with all speed, and gaining ground upon her, (she being seventy- four years of age,) after great exertion finding himself at length within hearing, prayed the fugitive not to fly from an aged sinner like him. She, however, ran down a sort of watercourse, and mounted the other side; then she stopped, and, telling him that she w T as a woman, prayed him to throw off his cloak that she might cover her person with it. He did so. After joining in prayer, he earnestly besought her to tell him her history; but she first inquired of him what was APPENDIX E. 415 going on in the Christian world, what the Kings were doing, and how the Church was governed. He replied to her, “ By your prayers, mother, God has given settled peace and quietness to the Church.” She then prayed, and he afterwards swore, calling God to witness, that he saw her suspended in the air a cubit from the earth. He implored her then to tell him her whole history, which she did, having besought him never to cease praying for her, and conjuring him not to tell it to any one before her death. Afterwards she urges him to go away, and promises that he should see her the next year; she charges him, however, not to cross the Jordan at the usual time, but to wait in the monastery till the Thursday preceding Good Friday, and then to come to the west side of Jordan and to tarry there for her, bringing with him the consecrated elements, that he might administer the holy Com¬ munion to her. They then parted, he having first adored the ground on which she stood. Fie remained in the convent without divulging the matter to any one: and when the week in Lent came round in which it was usual for the monks to leave the convent, he found that a slight fever would have detained him had he desired to go. But on the day appointed, having taken a small cup (parvum poculum) of the consecrated elements, he sate on the banks of Jordan waiting for her; and when night had set in (it being a bright full-moon) he perceived Mary on the other side, but doubted how she could get over. Soon, however, he saw her making the sign of the cross upon the waters, and then walking over upon their surface, as if it had been on dry ground. On this occasion, she, having given him the usual kiss of peace, and received the Communion from his hands, repeated part of the 416 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. Song of Simeon, and then bade him return to his home. She told him, however, to come the next year to the watercourse, where he first met her. Having taken three grains on the tip of her finger from his basket of provisions, saying, the grace of God was sufficient to keep the soul pure, she recrossed the Jordan, walking upon the waters as before. The next year Zosimas went into the desert at the set time, and at length found Mary a corpse, stretched on the ground ; and, having kissed her feet, he thought within himself whether it would be agreeable to her that he should bury her. On looking round, he saw these words written on the ground : “ Zosimas, bury in this place the humble Mary, restore earth to earth; but pray the Lord for me as the ninth day is passing of the month Parmuthi, according to the Egyptians 5 ; which is, according to the Romans, April; that is, the fifth of the Ides of April, on the night of the Passion which brings salvation, after receiving the divine and holy Supper.” On discovering this writing, Zosimas took a stick, and attempted to dig a grave with it; but the stick was dry and rotten, and it broke : when, lifting up his eyes, he saw a lion standing by the corpse and licking her footsteps; which surprised him the more, because Mary had never seen any wild beast there. The lion seemed not inclined to injure Zosimas ; on the contrary, by a motion he saluted him, and showed himself willing to assist him, and then Zosimas addressed him thus: “ O lion, you can much assist me in digging this grave with your claws.” On which the lion scratched the grave, into which Zosimas laid the body, wrapped up in 6 This is the Latin version. APPENDIX E. 417 the cloak which he had given her at their first interview The lion withdrew into the desert, and Zosimas re¬ turned to his convent, and told his superior and brethren, Mary had at first charged Zosimas to warn his superior that some irregularities were going on in his convent, which he, on inquiry, found to he true; thus verifying Mary’s words, and proving her to have been inspired ! The monks preserved the remembrance of these things, and delivered down the story by oral tradition, till after the death of Zosimas, in about the hundredth year of his age. Some time after, the writer of the Acts of Mary, whoever he was, not finding that the history had ever been committed to writing, composed the book which is the subject of our present inquiry. We need not here dwell either upon the character of the story itself, or upon the insufficiency of oral tradition for the correct transmission through so many years of the very words used, because the credibility of the story is in reality not the point at issue. For, however incredible the legend may be deemed, yet, if the work called “ The Acts of Mary,” was composed before a.d. 500, as the Bollandist is said to have proved, it would be evidence that the offering of prayers to the Virgin, such as are sought to be now justified by the alleged practice of the primitive Church, was at that time known as an established custom. We will now, therefore, inquire into the nature of that proof. The theory of the Bollandist is this : That the conversion of the Egyptian penitent took place about a.d. 383 ; that her death, forty-eight years afterwards, happened in 431; that Zosimas outlived her twenty years or more; that the monks preserved her history by word of mouth for thirty years or more e e 418 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. after his death; that the author of the Acts then recorded it before a.d. 500. The Bollandist is said to have proved, that her con¬ version, the effect of her prayer to the Virgin, took place about a.d. 383. Now, the foundation on which he builds his argument are the questions put by Mary, and the answer made by Zosimas, at their first meeting ; and it is essential to that proof, not that the substance only of her question, but the very words, nay, the very number of the noun and of the verb used, should have been remembered by Zosimas, and reported without change to the monks, and preserved accurately by them, and received by the author, and recorded in his history, without any alteration; and also, that the answer made by Zosimas of necessity implies what the Bollandist attaches to it. Mary requests Zosimas to acquaint her with what was going on in the world. The question which, as the Bollandist says, fixes the time before which her conversion could not have taken place, is this: “ What are the kings doing?” This, he says, of necessity im¬ plies that the question was asked by one who had left the world for solitude, after the death of the Emperor Constantine, and at a time when more than one emperor possessed the sovereignty. She does not say, “ What is the king doing?” but “ What are the kings doing ?” But she asks also as to the state of the Church and the world ; and the answer of Zosimas, informing her that God had, through her prayers, given lasting peace, is represented as implying that her death could not have taken place at the time when the Church was distracted by heresies, nor when the seas were infested by pirates, and the roads with robbers, as they were in APPENDIX E. 410 after-days ; otherwise such large numbers would not have ventured to cross the seas, and take their journey to Jerusalem. But in the writing on the earth, which requested Zosimas to bury her corpse, she also enjoined him to pray for her on Good Friday, the day she died ; that day, as the Bollandist resolves, falling in the year of her death on the first of April. This, says the Bollandist, will enable us, without difficulty, to determine the time of her death. For between the year 348, which must be too early, and the year 511, which must (as he as¬ sumes) be too late, (in both of which years Good Friday happened on the first of April,) only two years occur wdien Good Friday happened on the same day, viz. 432 and 421, on one of which, consequently, her death must have taken place. The first is preferred, when peace generally prevailed. Thus she would have been con¬ verted about 383, fifty-eight years from the elevation of the cross by Constantine. This would allow of Zosimas outliving Mary full thirty years, and the story might well have been preserved, though unwritten yet, in the mouth of the monks for twenty or thirty years after his death, and thus the history might have been composed about 480, and the historian might truly say he wrote what happened in his time. The Bollandist supposes, that, on the publication of this history to the world, search would immediately be made for her body, and her relics would be sent to Rome. The reader will observe that all this reasoning is built on certain assumed facts and dates, any one of which being removed, the reasoning falls to the ground ; whilst to any person acquainted with the history of those times, many occasions will occur on which the answer of Zosimas would have been as appropriate, at e e 2 420 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. least, as it could have been in the supposed year 420 or 432. But a most serious difficulty was here to be encoun¬ tered by the Bollandist, in fixing upon the first day of April as the day of her death; for the Latin copies distinctly say, that the day of her death was the ninth of April, not the first. This would upset the whole argument: but the Bollandist says that the Greeks were more likely to know, as she was a Greek saint; yet many of the Greek MSS. specify no date at all. And in a Latin MS. 6 in the British Museum, of the thirteenth century, the date of the month is altogether omitted, and the only words said to have been written on the ground are these : “ Father Zozimas, bury in this place the little corpse of the wretched Mary,—restore to the earth its own dust; and pray for me to the Lord by whose command you were sent. In the month of April I am taken to heaven.” So utterly worthless is any argument built upon the supposed day of her death! The Bollandist, moreover, states that even “ April 1st” was not in the original sentence written by Mary on the ground, but was added by the historian, or some other, for explanation; and that the Latin in¬ terpreter officiously and wrongly substituted April 9th; and, in the copy which the Bollandist gives us of the translation of the work, he omits all the words which specify the day. Moreover, the whole of his reasoning is built on the supposition that Mary died on the first of April, and that the first of April was also the first of the Egyptian month Parmuthi. Whereas, on the contrary, the first of Parmuthi was the 27th of 0 Harleian MS., 2800. APPENDIX E. 421 March, and the first of April was the sixth of Par- muthi 7 ; and the Oxford Greek MSS. most distinctly say, “ In the month of Parmuthi, on the first.” But the more important question is as to the time at which the work was composed. The Bollandist is said to have proved that it could not have been com¬ posed later than a.d. 500. His argument is no other than this. In the year 518, Eleutherius, as an ancient history reports, going to Rome, received as a present from Hormisda, the Pope, certain relics of St. Mary of Egypt, and the head is specified (p. 71), which, together with the shoulder of St. Stephen the Protomartyr, he carried with him to Tournay; but the Bollandist says, that in the work in question, no mention is made of her bones having been then exhumed : consequently the exhumation, he argues, must have taken place be¬ tween the time of writing that book, and a.d. 518; therefore, it is proved that the work could not have been composed after the year 500 ! But, supposing the reasoning on these supposed facts to be valid here, there is this extraordinary and con¬ flicting fact recorded by Paulus flEmilius, an Abbot, and afterwards Archbishop of Urbino, that, in the year One thousand and fifty-nine, Luke, Abbot of a monas¬ tery at Carbona, in Calabria, in his visit to the Holy Land, searched for and found Mary’s grave, and brought the body from Palestine: a priest, however, stole the head, and sold it to the nuns of St. Mary of Egypt, for their church at Naples ; and Franciscus Gonzaga says, that though “ it had no letters testimonial,” yet the number of miracles wrought by that relic recommended 7 “ Rudimenta Linguae Coptae, ad usum Collegii Urbani de pro¬ paganda fide.” Rome, 1778, p. 396. “ L’Art de verifier les Dates,” tom. i. Paris, 1783, p. xx. 422 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. it, and indicated that it was the real head of “ the glo¬ rious sinner*” If Luke exhumed the body in 1059, what confidence can be placed in an argument built on the tradition that Pope Hormisda gave part of Mary’s body to Eleutherius in 518? The Bollandist supposes that the monks may have originally taken only a small portion of the remains and sent them to Rome, leaving the rest in the tomb. This statement of the archbishop invalidates the argument on which the date of the composition is said to be proved to have taken place before a.d. 500. Dynamius Patricius, however, Rector of the Patri- mony of the Roman Church in Gaul, who died in 598, is cited to prove that the history of Mary was known in that country at a very early date. Supposing the work to be genuine, he speaks nothing of the Acts or the Life of Mary, as the Bollandist represents him to have spoken; but only gives two instances of a wild beast having assisted at the grave of a holy person; 8 Gonzaga tells us that the head was exhibited on the altar from the vespers of her feast to sunset on her octave. He says he needs only specify one miracle, and it is this : The officer whose duty it was to offer incense about the head, said within himself, “ Perhaps, after all, this is not the head of St. Mary of Egypt;” on which he was seized with great agony. But the nuns’ confessor, coming in, cried out, “ I most firmly believe this to be the head of St. Mary of Egypt;” and he gave to the incredulous officer a drink of water, which he had expressly for the purpose poured into it. No sooner had he swallowed the draught than he was restored, and confessed his want of faith ; and from that time, says Gonzaga, the relic was held in still greater honour. Though the head was, according to one account, taken by Eleutherius to Tournay in 518, and, according to another, was in 1059 sold to the nuns of Carbona, yet the Bollandist tells us that there was a great dispute between the people of Cremona and Carbona, as to which of the two had the greater share of Mary’s relics. 423 APPENDIX E. one of which is Mary of Egypt, the other being Paul the first hermit 9 . While the Bollandist builds his theory on mere assumptions, and cannot, as he confesses, offer any con¬ jecture as to the authorship of the work in question, other testimony claims attention. Nicephoros Callis- tus 1 , who lived towards the end of the thirteenth cen¬ tury, is the first writer known to have mentioned the “ Life of Mary of Egypt” as a work ; and in his history, having given a succinct account of the story just as we now find it, he distinctly ascribes it, with commenda¬ tions, to Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, as its author. In this work Callistus says nothing of the time at which the life was composed, nor does he allude to Andrew of Crete, or any other as contempo¬ rary with Sophronius. But the Bollandist says that Callistus, in another work ascribed to him, called Synaxaria, &c., when speaking of Andrew, Archbishop of Crete, asserts that Andrew wrote his Great Canon at the time when Sophronius wrote his Life of Mary 9 The Author does not intend to give an opinion as to the genu¬ ineness of this work. Petrus de Natalibus could not find any manuscript of it: the only copy known is that from which the Bol¬ landist says he derived his information. The story in the Life of Marius is this : “ At another time, when he was going to visit some sons of the Church, a bitch with whelps suddenly springing at him tore his satchel. But as this servant of God bent down his face for a little while at this, two wolves, revengers of the injury, seized the bitch, and destining it for their own food carried it to the wood, as the people witnessed. But if any one does not believe that some¬ times the beasts of the forest, laying aside their savageness, have known how to minister to the benefit of the righteous, let him hear that lions made the grave of Paul the first hermit, and of St. Mary of Egypt; let him hear, and in all praise God, and wonder, and believe.” 1 Vol. ii. p. 738. lib. xvii. c. 5. 424 WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN. of Egypt, and that he carried them both with him to the Sixth Council at Constantinople, a.d. 680. This, the Bollandist says, involves an anachronism: and at the same time he assures us, that he found in that account of Callistus more errors than periods. But supposing that historian, in another independent work ascribed to him, in which he speaks only inciden¬ tally of Sophronius, and of the life of Mary, to have fallen into a mistake as to the time at which Sophronius composed that memoir, or Andrew composed his Great Canon, that cannot invalidate the positive and direct declaration in his history as to the authorship of the Life of Mary, of which he was then writing. And certain it is, and the Bollandist does not deny the fact, that Sophronius is the writer to whom the work is ascribed in different Greek manuscripts, while no manuscript whatever, Greek or Latin, refers it to any other author. In the Bodleian Library we have three Greek manuscripts 2 of this “ Life of St. Mary of Egyptwhich are of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries; and in every one of them the “ Life” is ascribed distinctly to Sophronius, Archbishop of Jeru¬ salem. Surius 3 considers the Latin translation which he had adopted, as superior to many others. He took it from a very ancient manuscript, the title of which was “ The Life of Mary of Egypt, the author being among the Greeks Sophronius, Bishop of Jerusalem ; and translated by Paul, the Deacon of the Church of Napleswhile Coccius, wdio cites every passage which he can make to bear on the worship of the Virgin, 2 MS. Baroc. cxcvii. f. 321—6; MS. Cromwell, vi. f. 71 ; MS. Laud. Gr. xxx. ad calcem. 3 Vol. ii. p. 18G. Venice, 1581. APPENDIX E. 425 quotes this work as the production of Sophronius Bishop of Jerusalem, and assigns to it the date of 630. A review of this dissertation will, it is believed, con¬ vince any unprejudiced mind, that, so far from the Bollandist having proved the Egyptian penitent’s con¬ version to have been about a.d. 383, there is not one particle of solidity in his argument; resting, as it does, upon assumed premises, and gratuitous suppositions, and met as it is by antagonist facts and arguments at every step : and so far from his having proved that the work was written before a.d. 500, his only asserted fact to establish that point is contradicted point-blank by, at least, an equally authentic story. The first writer who mentions “ The Acts,” or “ The Life,” ascribes it to Sophronius, who lived towards the close of the seventh century: various manuscripts of the work bear his name as its author; and it has never been ascribed to any other. THE END. Gilbert & Rivington, Printers, St, John’s Square, London. - ■ - WORKS AGAINST POPERY, PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE; AND SOLD AT THE DEPOSITORIES, 77, Great Queen- street, Lincoln’s Inn Fields ; No. 4, Royal Exchange; and by all Booksellers. BARROW (Rev. Dr.) on the POPE’S SUPREMACY, cloth, 7s. HOLY SCRIPTURE and the POPE’S SUPREMACY CONTRASTED. By ISAAC BARROW, D.D. Edited by JAMES BROGDEN, M.A., stitched, 10s. 2d. per 100. CHURCHES of ROME and ENGLAND COMPARED in their DECLARED DOCTRINE and PRACTICES. By RICHARD MANT, D.D., Bishop of Down and Connor, stitched, 15s. 8 d. per 100. CORRUPTIONS of the CHURCH of ROME. By the Right Rev. GEORGE BULL, D.D., late Lord Bishop of St. David’s, stitched, 33s. per 100. DIALOGUES between a PROTESTANT and a ROMAN CATHOLIC. By the Rev. S. HOBSON, M.A., stitched, 20s. 4 d. per 100. DISCOURSE AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. By the Right Rev. JOHN TILLOTSON, D.D., Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, stitched, 11s. 8d. per 100. DISSUASIVE FROM POPERY ; in a Letter from Archbishop TILLOTSON to the Earl of Shrewsbury, stitched, 8s. 4 d. per 100. FACTS and ASSERTIONS ; or, a Brief and Plain Exhibition of the Incon¬ gruity of the Peculiar Doctrines of the Church of Rome. By the Rev GEORGE STANLEY FABER, B.D.,stitched, 23s. 6d. per 100. IMAGE-WORSHIP (On). By the Rev. J. E. TYLER, Rector of St. Giles- in-the-Fields, and Canon Residentiary of St. Paul’s, cloth, 6s. OUR PROTESTANT FOREFATHERS. By the Rev. WILLIAM STE¬ PHEN GILLY, D.D., Prebendary of Durham, stitched, 24s. 10 d. per 100. ROME and the BIBLE. By the Rev. G. S. FABER, B.D., stitched, "Js. per 100. ROMANISM and HOLY SCRIPTURE COMPARED. By the Right Rev. RICHARD MANT, D.D., Lord Bishop of Down and Connor, stitched, 22s. per 100. SECKER’S (Archbishop) FIVE SERMONS AGAINST POPERY. Ar¬ ranged under different heads, by the Right Rev. BEILBY PORTEUS, D.D., Lord Bishop of London, stitched, 30s. per 100. WHAT IS A CATHOLIC ? A Dialogue between an English Catholic and a Roman Catholic. By the Rev. SAMUEL HOBSON, L.L.B., stitched, 8s. 4 d. per 100. WHAT IS ROMANISM ? Nos. I. and II. On the Supremacy of the Pope. On Pardons and Indulgences granted by the Pope. By J. ENDELL TYLER, B.D., Rector of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, and Canon Residentiary of St. Paul’s, stitched, I2s. 8