First, I would observe that it is by no means agreed among all who have

written upon the subject, what was the place, or what was the time of

the Virgin's death. Whilst some have maintained that she breathed her

last at Ephesus, the large majority assert 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 of the Christian era, about the time at

which Paul and Barnabas (as we read in Holy Scripture) returned to

Antioch; whilst others refer it to a later date. I am not, however,

aware of any supposition which fixes it at a period subsequent to that

at which the canon of Scripture closes. Epiphanius indeed, towards the

close of the fourth century, reminding us that Scripture is totally and

purely silent on the subject as well of Mary's death and burial, as of

her having accompanied St. John in his travels or not, without alluding

to any tradition as to her assumption, thus sums up his sentiments: "I

dare to say nothing; but considering it, I observe silence." [Epiph.

vol. i. p. 1043.] {301}

Should any of my readers have deliberately adopted as the rule of their

faith the present practice of the Church of Rome, I cannot hope that

they will take any interest in the following inquiry; but I have been

assured, by most sensible and well-informed members of that Church, that

there is a very general desire entertained to have this and other

questions connected with our subject examined without prejudice, and

calmly placed before them. To such persons I trust this chapter may not

appear altogether unworthy of their consideration. Those who would turn

from it on the principle to which we have here alluded, will find

themselves very closely responding to the sentiments professed by St.

Bernard, "Exalt her who is exalted above the choirs of angels to the

heavenly kingdom. These things the Church sings to me of her, and has

taught me to sing the same to others. For my part, what I have received

from it, I am secure in holding and delivering; which also, I confess, I

am not OVER-SCRUPULOUS in admitting. (Quod non scrupulosius fateor

admiserim.) I have received in truth from the Church that that day is to

be observed with the highest veneration on which she was TAKEN up

(assumpta) from this wicked world, and carrying with her into heaven

feasts of the most celebrated joys[107]."

[Footnote 107: See Lambecius, book viii. p. 286. The letter of

St. Bernard is addressed to the Canons of Lyons on the

Conception of the holy Mary. Paris, 1632, p. 1538. His

observations in that letter, with a view of discountenancing the

rising superstition, in juxtaposition with these sentiments, are

well deserving the serious consideration of every one.]

Let us then, with the authorized and enjoined service of the Church of

Rome for the 15th of August before us, examine the evidence on which

that religious {302} service, the most solemn consummation of all the

rest, is founded.

In the service of the Assumption, more than twice seven times is it

reiterated in a very brief space, and with slight variations of

expression, that Mary was taken up into heaven; and that, not on any

general and indefinite idea of her beatific and glorified state, but

with reference to one specific single act of divine favour, performed at

a fixed time, effecting her assumption, as it is called, "to-day." [Æs.

595.] "To-day Mary the Virgin ascended the heavens. Rejoice, because she

is reigning with Christ for ever." "Mary the Virgin is taken up into

heaven, to the ethereal chamber in which the King of kings sits on his

starry throne." "The holy mother of God hath been exalted above the

choirs of angels to the heavenly realms." "Come, let us worship the King

of kings, to whose ethereal heaven the Virgin Mother was taken up

to-day." And that it is her bodily ascension, her corporeal assumption

into heaven, and not merely the transit of her soul[108] from mortal

life to eternal bliss, which the Roman Church maintains and propagates

by this service, is put beyond doubt by the service itself. In the

fourth and sixth reading[109], or lesson, for example, we find these

{303} sentences:--"She returned not into 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."

[Footnote 108: Lambecius, indeed (book viii. p. 306), distinctly

affirms, that one object which the Church had in view was to

condemn the HERESY of those who maintain that the reception of

the Virgin into heaven, was the reception of her soul only, and

not also of her body. "Ut damnet eorum hæresin qui sanctissimæ

Dei genetricis rcceptionem in coelum ad animam ipsius tantum,

non vero simul etiam ad corpus pertinere existimant."]

[Footnote 109: Non reversa est in terram, sed ... in coelestibus

tabernaculis collocatum. Quomodo mois devoraret, quomodo inferi

susciperent, quomodo corruptio invaderit CORPUS ILLUD in quo

vita suscepta est? Huic recta plana et facilis ad coelum parata

est via. Æs. 603, 604.]

Now, on what authority does this doctrine rest? On what foundation stone

is this religious worship built? The holy Scriptures are totally and

profoundly silent, as to the time, the place, the manner of Mary's

death. Once after the ascension of our Lord, and that within eight days,

we find mentioned the name of Mary promiscuously with others; after

that, no allusion is made to her in life or in death; and no account, as

far as I can find, places her death too late for mention to have been

made of it in the Acts of the Apostles. The historian, Nicephorus

Callistus, refers it to the 5th year of Claudius, that is about A.D. 47:

after which period, events through more than fifteen years are recorded

in that book of sacred Scripture.

But closing the holy volume, what light does primitive antiquity enable

us to throw on this subject?

The earliest testimony quoted by the defenders of the doctrine, that

Mary was at her death taken up bodily into heaven, is a supposed entry

in the Chronicon of Eusebius, opposite the year of our Lord 48. This is

cited by Coccius without any remark; and even Baronius rests the date of

Mary's assumption upon this testimony. [Vol. i. 403.] The words referred

to are these,--"Mary the Virgin, the mother of Jesus, was taken up into

heaven; as some write that it had been revealed to them." {304}

Now, suppose for one moment that this came from the pen of Eusebius

himself, to what does it amount? A chronologist in the fourth century

records that some persons, whom he does not name, not even stating when

they lived, had written down, not what they had heard as matter of fact,

or received by tradition, but that a revelation had been made to them of

a fact alleged to have taken place nearly three centuries before the

time of that writer. But instead of this passage deserving the name of

Eusebius as its author, it is now on all sides acknowledged to be

altogether a palpable interpolation. Suspicions, one would suppose, must

have been at a very remote date suggested as to the genuineness of this

sentence. Many manuscripts, especially the seven in the Vatican, were

known to contain nothing of the kind; and the Roman Catholic editor of

the Chronicon at Bordeaux, A.D. 1604, tells us that he was restrained

from expunging it, only because nothing certain as to the assumption of

the Virgin could be substituted in its stead. [P. 566.] Its spuriousness

however can no longer be a question of dispute or doubt; it is excluded

from the Milan edition of 1818, by Angelo Maio and John Zohrab; and no

trace of it is to be found in the Armenian[110] version, published by

the monks of the Armenian convent at Venice, in 1818.

[Footnote 110: The author visited that convent whilst this

edition of the Chronicon of Eusebius was going through the

press, and can testify to the apparent anxiety of the monks to

make it worthy of the patronage of Christians.]

The next authority, to which we are referred, is a letter[111] said to

have been written by Sophronius the {305} presbyter, about the

commencement of the fifth century. The letter used to be ascribed to

Jerome; Erasmus referred it to Sophronius; but Baronius says it was

written "by an egregious forger of lies," ("egregius mendaciorum

concinnator,") who lived after the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches

had been condemned. I am not at all anxious to enter upon that point of

criticism; that the letter is of very ancient origin cannot be doubted.

This document would lead us to conclude, that so far from the tradition

regarding the Virgin's assumption being general in the Church, it was a

point of grave doubt and discussion among the faithful, many of whom

thought it an act of pious forbearance to abstain altogether from

pronouncing any opinion on the subject. Whoever penned the letter, and

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[112].

[Footnote 111: The letter is entitled "Ad Paulam et Eustochium

de Assumptione B.M. Virginis." It is found in the fifth volume

of Jerome's works, p. 82. Edit. Jo. Martian.]

[Footnote 112: Baronius shows great anxiety (Cologne, 1609, vol.

i. p. 408) to detract from the value of this author's testimony,

whoever he was; sharply criticising him because he asserts, that

the faithful in his time still expressed doubts as to the matter

of fact of Mary's assumption. By assigning, however, to the

letter a still later date than the works of Sophronius, Baronius

adds strength to the arguments for the comparatively recent

origin of the tradition of her assumption. See Fabricius

(Hamburgh, 1804), vol. ix. p. 160.]

"Many of our people doubt whether Mary was taken up together with her

body, or went away, leaving the body. But how, or at what time, or by

what persons her most holy body was taken hence, or whither removed, or

whether it rose again, is not known; although some will maintain that

she is already revived, and is clothed with a blessed immortality with

Christ in heavenly places, which very many affirm also of the blessed

{306} John, the Evangelist, his servant, to whom being a virgin, the

virgin was intrusted 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 these opinions should be thought the more true we

doubt. Yet it is better to commit all to God, to whom nothing is

impossible, than to wish to define rashly[113] by our own authority any

thing, which we do not approve of.... 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 (salva fide)

preserving our faith, we ought rather with pious desire to think, than

inconsiderately to define, what without danger may remain unknown." This

letter, at the earliest, was not written until the beginning of the

fifth century.

[Footnote 113: These last words, stamping the author's own

opinion, "Which we do not approve of," are left out in the

quotation of Coccius.]

Subsequent writers were not wanting to fill up what this letter declares

to have been at its own date unknown, as to the manner and time of

Mary's assumption, and the persons employed in effecting it. The first

authority appealed to in defence of the tradition relating to the

assumption of the Virgin[114], is usually cited as a well-known work

written by Euthymius, who was contemporary with Juvenal, Archbishop of

Jerusalem. And the testimony simply quoted as his, offers to us the

following account of the miraculous transaction[115]:--

[Footnote 114: Coccius heads the extract merely with these

words: "Euthumius Eremita Historiæ Ecclesiasticæ, lib. iii. c.

40;" assigning the date A.D. 549.]

[Footnote 115: This version by Coccius differs in some points

from the original. Jo. Dam. vol. ii. p. 879.]

"It has been above said, that the holy Pulcheria {307} built many

churches to Christ at Constantinople. Of these, however, there is one

which was built in Blachernæ, in the beginning of Marcian I's _reign_ of

divine memory. These, therefore, namely, Marcian and Pulcheria, when

they had built a venerable temple to the greatly to be 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 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 holy and divinely inspired Scripture, indeed, nothing

is recorded of the departure of 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 at Jerusalem. And when they were near her,

they had a vision of angels, and divine melody of the highest powers was

heard: and thus with divine and more than heavenly glory, she delivered

her holy soul into the hands of God in an unspeakable manner. But that

which had conceived God being borne with angelic and apostolic psalmody,

with funeral rites, was deposited in a coffin in Gethsemane. In this

place the chorus and singing of the angels continued for three whole

days. But {308} 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 which had conceived God, the Apostles, who were

present, opened the coffin; but the body, 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 astounded at the miraculous mystery, they could form no

other thought, but that He, who in his own person had vouchsafed 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 Lord 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

resurrection."

Such is the passage offered to us in its insulated form, as an extract

from Euthymius. To be enabled, however, to estimate its worth, the

inquirer must submit to the labour of considerable research. He will not

have pursued his investigation far, before he will find, that a thick

cloud of uncertainty and doubt hangs over this page of ecclesiastical

history. Not that the evidence alleged in support of the reputed miracle

can leave us in doubt as to the credibility of the tradition; for that

tradition can scarcely be now countenanced by the most zealous and

uncompromising maintainers of the assumption of the Virgin. What I would

say is, that the question as to the genuineness and authenticity of the

works by which the tradition is said to have been preserved, is far more

difficult and complicated, than {309} those writers must have believed,

who appeal to such testimony without any doubt or qualification. The

result of my own inquiries I submit to your candid acceptance.

The earliest author in whose reputed writings I have found the

tradition, is John Damascenus, a monk of Jerusalem, who flourished

somewhat before the middle of the eighth century. The passage is found

in the second of three homilies on the "Sleep of the Virgin," a term

generally used by the Greeks as an equivalent for the Latin word

"Assumptio." The original publication of these homilies in Greek and

Latin is comparatively of a late date. Lambecius, whose work is dated

1665, says he was not aware that any one had so published them before

his time[116]. But not to raise the question of their genuineness, the

preacher's introduction of this passage into his homily is preceded by a

very remarkable section, affording 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. The speaker here in his sermon addresses the tomb of Mary, as

though it had ears to hear, and an understanding to comprehend; and then

represents the tomb as having a tongue to answer, and as calling forth

from the preacher and his congregation an address of admiration and

reverence. Such apostrophes as these cannot be too steadily borne in

mind, or too carefully weighed, when any argument is sought to be drawn

from similar salutations offered by ancient Christian orators to saint,

or angel, or the Virgin.

[Footnote 116: Vol. viii. p. 281. Le Quien, who published them

in 1712, refers to earlier homilies on the Dormitio Virginis.

Jo. Damas. Paris, 1712. vol. ii. p. 857.] {310}

The following are among the expressions in which the preacher, in the

passage under consideration, addresses the Virgin's tomb: "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?"

[Vol. ii. p. 875.] The answer of the tomb begins thus, "Why seek ye her

in a tomb, who has been taken up on high to the heavenly tabernacles?"

In reply to this, the preacher first deliberating with his hearers what

answer he should make, thus addresses the tomb: "Thy grace indeed is

never-failing and eternal," &c. [P. 881.] By the maintainers of the

invocation of saints, many a passage far less unequivocal and less

cogent than this has been adduced to show, that saints and martyrs were

invoked by primitive worshippers.

We find John Damascenus thus introducing the passage of Euthymius, "Ye

see, beloved fathers and brethren, what answer the all-glorious tomb

makes to us; and that these things are so, in the EUTHYMIAC HISTORY, the

third book and fortieth chapter, is thus written word for word." [P.

877.]

Lambecius maintains, that the history here quoted by John Damascenus was

not an ecclesiastical history, written by Euthymius, who died in A.D.

472, but a biographical history concerning Euthymius himself, written by

an ecclesiastic, whom he supposes to be Cyril, the monk, who died in

A.D. 531. This opinion of Lambecius is combated by Cotelerius; the

discussion only adding to the denseness of the cloud which involves the

whole tradition. But whether the work quoted had Euthymius for its

author or its subject, the work itself is lost; and an epitome only of

such a work has come down to {311} our time. In that abridgment the

passage quoted by Damascenus is not found.

The editor of John Damascenus, Le Quien, in his annotations on this

portion of his work, offers to us some very interesting remarks, which

bear immediately on the agitated question as to the first observance of

the feast of the Assumption, as well as on the tradition itself. Le

Quien infers, from the words of Modestus, patriarch of Jerusalem, that

scarcely any preachers before him had addressed their congregations on

the departure of the Virgin out of this life; he thinks, moreover, that

the Feast of the Assumption was at the commencement of the seventh

century only recently instituted. Though all later writers affirm that

the Virgin was buried in the valley of Jehoshaphat, in the garden of

Gethsemane, the same editor says, that this could not have been known to

Jerome, who passed a great part of his life in Bethlehem, and yet

observes a total silence on the subject; though in his "Epitaph on

Paula," [Jerome, Paris, 1706. Vol. iv. p. 670-688, ep. 86.] he

enumerates all the places in Palestine consecrated by any remarkable

event. Neither, he adds, could it have been known to Epiphanius, who,

though he lived long in Palestine, yet declares that nothing was known

as to the death or burial of the Virgin. [Vol. ii, p. 858.]

Again, in his remarks upon the writings falsely attributed to Melito,

the same editor says, that since this Pseudo-Melito speaks many jejune

things of the Virgin Mary, (such for example as at the approach of death

her exceeding fear of being exposed to the wiles of Satan,) he

concludes, from that circumstance, that the work was written before the

Council of Ephesus; alleging this very remarkable reason, that "after

that {312} time there BEGAN TO BE ENTERTAINED, as was right, not only in

the East, but also in the West, a far better estimate of the parent of

God." [P. 880.]

Many of the remarks of this editor would appear to savour of prejudice

had they come from the pen of one who denied the reality of the

assumption, or oppugned the honour and worship now paid by members of

the Church of Rome to the Virgin. Nor could the suspicion of such

prejudice be otherwise than increased by the insinuation which the same

editor throws out against the honesty of Archbishop Juvenal, and on the

possibility of his having invented the whole story, and so for sinister

purposes deceived Marcian and Pulcheria; just as he fabricated the

writings which he forged for the purpose of securing the primacy of

Palestine; a crime laid to the charge of Juvenal by Leo the Great, in

his letter to Maximus, Bishop of Antioch. [P. 879. See Leo. vol. i. p.

1215. Epist. cxix.]

It is moreover much to be regretted that in making the extract from John

Damascenus those who employ it as evidence of primitive belief, have not

presented it to their readers whole and entire. In the present case the

system of quoting garbled extracts is particularly to be lamented,

because the paragraphs omitted in the quotation carry in themselves

clear proof that Juvenal's answer, as it now appears in John Damascenus,

could not have been made by Juvenal to Marcian and Pulcheria. For in it

is quoted from Dionysius the Areopagite by name, a passage still found

in the works ascribed to him; whereas by the judgment of the most

learned Roman Catholic writers, those spurious works did not make their

appearance in Christendom till the beginning of the sixth century, fifty

years after the Council of Chalcedon, to assist at which {313} Juvenal

is said to have been present in Constantinople when the emperor and

empress held the alleged conversation with him.

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

this oration of John Damascenus, is as follows: "There were present with

the Apostles at that time both the most honoured Timothy the Apostle,

and first bishop of the Ephesians, and Dionysius the Areopagite,

himself, as the great Dionysius testifies in the laboured words

concerning the blessed Hierotheus, himself also then being present, to

the above-named apostle Timothy, saying thus, Since with the inspired

hierarchs themselves, when we also as thou knowest, and yourself, and

many of our holy brethren had come together to the sight of the body

which gave the principle of life; and there was present too James the

brother of the Lord ([Greek: adelphotheos]), and Peter the chief and the

most revered head of the apostles ([Greek: theologon]); then it seemed

right, after the spectacle, that all the hierarchs (as each was able)

should sing of the boundless goodness of the divine power. After the

apostles, as you know, he surpassed all the other sacred persons, wholly

carried away, and altogether in an ecstasy, and feeling an entire

sympathy with what was sung; and by all by whom he was heard, and seen,

and known (and he[117] knew it not), he was considered to be an inspired

and divine hymnologist. And why should I speak to you about the things

there divinely said, for unless I have even forgotten myself, I know

that I have often heard from you some portions also of those inspired

canticles? And the royal personages having heard this, requested of

Juvenal the archbishop, that the holy coffin, with the {314} clothes of

the glorious and all-holy Mary, mother of God, sealed up, might be sent

to them. And this, when sent, they deposited in the venerable temple of

the Mother of God, built in Blachernae; and these things were so."

[Footnote 117: This seems confused in the original ([Greek: kai

eginosketo, kai ouk eginoske]). The whole passage is involved in

great obscurity.]

It is a fact no less lamentable than remarkable, that out of the lessons

appointed by the Church of Rome for the feast of the Assumption, to be

read to believers assembled in God's house of prayer, three of those

lessons are selected and taken entirely from this very oration of John

Damascenus[118].

[Footnote 118:

The Fourth Lesson begins "Hodie sacra et animata arca."

The Fifth " " "Hodie virgo immaculata."

The Sixth " " "Eva quæ serpentis," &c.--Æ. 603.

These contain the passages to which we have before referred as

fixing the belief of the Church of Rome to be in the CORPOREAL

assumption of Mary. "Quomodo corruptio invaderet CORPUS ILLUD in

quo vita suscepta est? [Greek: pos diaphthora tou zoodochon

katatolmaeseie somatos.]"]

This, then, is the account nearest to the time of the supposed event;

and yet can any thing be more vague, and by way of testimony, more

worthless? A writer near the middle of the sixth century refers to a

conversation, said to have taken place in the middle of the fifth

century; in this reported conversation at Constantinople, the Bishop of

Jerusalem is represented to have informed the Emperor and Empress of an

ancient tradition, which was believed, concerning a miraculous event,

said to have taken place nearly four hundred years before, that the body

was taken out of a coffin without the knowledge of those who had

deposited it there: Whilst the primitive and inspired account, recording

most minutely the journeys and proceedings of some of those very

persons, and the letters of others, makes no mention at all of any

transaction of the kind; and of {315} all the intermediate historians

and ecclesiastical writers not one gives the slightest intimation that

any rumour of it had reached them[119].

[Footnote 119: Baronius appears not to have referred to this

history of Euthymius, but he refers to Nicephorus, and also to a

work ascribed to Melito, c. 4, 5. Nicephorus, Paris, 1630. vol.

i. p. 168. lib. ii. c. 21. Baronius also refers to lib. 15. c.

14. This Nicephorus was Patriarch of Constantinople. He lived

during the reign of our Edward the First, or Edward the Second,

and cannot, therefore, be cited in any sense of the word as an

ancient author writing on the events of the primitive ages;

though the manner in which his testimony is appealed to would

imply, that he was a man to whose authority on early

ecclesiastical affairs we were now expected to defer.]

Another authority to which the writers on the assumption of the Virgin

appeal, is that of Nicephorus Callistus, who, at the end of the

thirteenth or the beginning of the fourteenth century, dedicated his

work to Andronicus Palæologus. The account given by Nicephorus is this:

In the fifth year of Claudius, the Virgin at the age of fifty-nine, was

made acquainted with her approaching death. Christ himself then

descended from heaven with a countless multitude of angels, to take up

the soul of his mother; He summoned 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[120].

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 coffin was

borne from Sion to Gethsemane, angels preceding, surrounding, and

following it. {316} A wonderful thing then took place. The Jews were

indignant and enraged, and one more desperately bold than the rest

rushed forward, intending to throw down the holy corpse to the ground.

Vengeance was not tardy; for his hands were cut off from his arms[121].

The procession stopped; and at the command of Peter, on the man shedding

tears of penitence, his hands were joined on again and restored whole.

At Gethsemane she was put into a tomb, but her Son transferred her to

the divine habitation.

[Footnote 120: This author here quotes the forged work ascribed

to Dionysius the Areopagite, to which we have before referred.]

[Footnote 121: This tradition seems to have been much referred

to at a time just preceding our Reformation. In a volume called

"The Hours of the most blessed Mary, according to the legitimate

rite of the Church of Salisbury," printed in Paris in 1526, from

which we have made many extracts in the second part of this

work, 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 wrist, and are lying on the coffin, on which his

arms also are resting. In the sky the Virgin appears between the

Father and the Son, the Holy Dove being seen above her. The same

print occurs also in another part of the volume.]

Nicephorus then refers to Juvenal, Archbishop of Jerusalem, 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 then he proceeds to describe the personal

appearance of the Virgin. [Vol. i. p. 171.]

I am unwilling to trespass upon the patience of my readers by any

comment upon such evidence as this. Is it within the verge of

credibility that had such an event as Mary's assumption taken place

under the extraordinary circumstances which now invest the tradition, or

under any circumstances whatever, there would have been a total silence

respecting it in the Holy Scriptures? {317} That the writers of the

first four centuries should never have referred to such a fact? That the

first writer who alludes to it, should have lived in the middle of the

fifth century, or later; and that he should have declared in a letter to

his contemporaries that the subject was one on which many doubted; and

that he himself would not deny it, not because it rested upon probable

evidence, but because nothing was impossible with God; and that nothing

was known as to the time, the manner, or the persons concerned, even had

the assumption taken place? Can we place any confidence in the relation

of a writer in the middle of the sixth century, as to a tradition of

what an archbishop of Jerusalem attending the council of Chalcedon, had

told the sovereigns at Constantinople of a tradition, as to what was

said to have happened nearly four hundred years before, whilst 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 circumstances are recorded,

and though the discussions of that Council brought the name and

circumstances of the Virgin Mary continually before the minds of all who

attended it?

This, however, is a point of too great importance to be dismissed

summarily; and seems to require us to examine, however briefly, into the

circumstances of that Council. {318}

* * * * *

CHAPTER IV.--COUNCILS OF CONSTANTINOPLE, EPHESUS, AND THE GENERAL

COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON

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 General Council of Chalcedon. To the Emperor and Empress,

who presided at that council, Juvenal is said to have communicated the

tradition, as received in Palestine, of the miraculous taking up of

Mary's body into heaven. This circumstance seems, as we have already

intimated, of itself, to require us to examine the records of that

Council, with the view of ascertaining whether any traces may be found

confirmatory of the tradition, or otherwise; and since that Council

cannot be regarded as an insulated assembly, but as a continuation

rather or resumption of the preceding minor Councils of Constantinople

and Ephesus, we must briefly refer to the occasion and nature generally

of that succession of Christian synods. I am not aware that in the

previous Councils any thing had transpired {319} which could be brought

as evidence on the subject of our inquiry. The questions which had

disturbed the peace of Christendom, and which were agitated in these

Councils, inseparable from a repeated mention of the Virgin Mary's name,

afforded an opportunity at every turn for an expression of the

sentiments of those who composed the Councils, and of all connected with

them, including the Bishop of Rome himself, towards her. It would be

altogether foreign from the purpose of this address to enter in any way

at large upon the character and history of those or the preceding

Councils, yet a few words seem necessary, 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 last and best 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; a point on which it were well for all

Christians to follow only so far as the Holy Scriptures lead them by the

hand. All parties appealed to the Nicene Council; though there seems to

have been, to say the least, much misunderstanding and unnecessary

violence and party spirit on all sides. The celebrated Eutyches of

Constantinople was charged with having espoused heterodox doctrine, by

maintaining 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 Eutyches appealed to a

General Council. A council (the authority of which, however, {320} has

been solemnly, but with what adequate reason we need not stop to

examine, repudiated), was convened at Ephesus in the following year, by

the Emperor Theodosius. The proceedings of this assembly were

accompanied by lamentable unfairness and violence. Eutyches was

acquitted, and restored by this council[122]; and his accusers were

condemned and persecuted; Flavianus, Archbishop of Constantinople, who

had summoned the preceding council, being even scourged and exiled. In

his distress that patriarch 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 of Chalcedon was convened,

first meeting at Nice, and by adjournment being removed to Chalcedon. In

this council all the proceedings as well of the Council of

Constantinople 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 and worship of

saints and of the Virgin Mary had not then obtained that place in the

Christian {321} 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 has usurped, and cannot, without a

sacrifice of the only sound principle of religious worship, be suffered

to retain.

[Footnote 122: The sentiments of Eutyches, even as they are

recorded by the party who charged him with heresy, seem to imply

so much of soundness in his principles, and of moderation in his

maintenance of those principles, that one must feel sorrow on

finding such a man maintaining error at any time. The following

is among the records of transactions rehearsed at Chalcedon:

"He, Eutyches, professed that he followed the expositions of the

holy and blessed Fathers who formed the Councils of Nicæa and

Ephesus, and was ready to subscribe to them. But if any where it

might chance, as he said, that our fathers were deceived and led

astray, that as for himself he neither accepted nor accused

those things, but he only on such points investigated the divine

Scriptures as more to be depended upon [Greek: os

bebaioteras]."]

The grand question then agitated with too much asperity, and too little

charity, was, 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 derived from the Virgin Mary? Again and again

does this question bring the name, the office, the circumstances, and

the nature of that holy and blessed mother of our Lord before these

Councils. The name of Mary is continually in the mouth of the accusers,

the accused, the judges, and the witnesses; and had Christian pastors

then entertained the same feelings of devotion towards her; had they

professed the same belief as to her assumption into heaven, and her

influence and authority in directing the destinies of man, and in

protecting the Church on earth; had they habitually appealed to her with

the same prayers for her intercession and good offices, and placed the

same confidence in her as we find now exhibited in the authorized

services of the Roman Ritual, it is impossible to conceive that no

signs, no intimation of such views and feelings, would, either directly

or incidentally, have shown themselves, somewhere or other, among the

manifold and protracted proceedings of these Councils. I have searched

diligently, but I can find no expression as to her nature and office, or

as to our feelings and conduct towards Mary, in which, as a {322}

Catholic of the Anglican Church, I should not heartily acquiesce. I can

find no sentiment implying invocation, or religious worship of any kind,

or in any degree; I find no allusion to her Assumption.

Pope Leo, who is frequently in these documents [Vol. v. p. 1418.] called

Archbishop of Rome, in a letter to Julianus, Bishop of Cos, speaks of

Christ as born of "A Virgin," "The blessed Virgin," "The pure, undefiled

Virgin;" and in a letter to the empress Pulcheria, he calls Mary simply

"The Virgin Mary." In his celebrated letter to Flavianus, not one iota

of which (according to the decree of the Roman council under Pope

Gelasius) was 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 as she had conceived him. Flavianus, Archbishop of

Constantinople, in his Declaration 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." [Vol. vi. p. 539.]

He speaks of her afterwards as "The holy Virgin."

There is, indeed, one word 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_[123], which the Latins

were accustomed {323} to transfer into their works, substituting only

Roman instead of Greek characters, but which afterwards the authors of

the Church of Rome translated by Deipara, and in more recent ages by Dei

Mater, Dei Genetrix, Creatoris Genetrix, &c. employing those terms not

in explanation of the twofold nature of Christ's person, as was the case

in these Councils, but in exaltation of Mary, his Virgin mother. This

word was adopted by Christians in much earlier times than the Council of

Chalcedon; but it was employed only to express more strongly the

Catholic belief in the union of the divine and human nature in 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. The sense in which it was

used was explained in the seventh Act of the Council of Constantinople,

(repeated at Chalcedon) as given by Cyril of Alexandria. "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."

[Footnote 123: [Greek: Theotokos]. To those who would depend

upon this word _theotocos_ as a proof of the exalted honour in

which the early Christians held the Virgin, and not as

indicative of an anxiety to preserve whole and entire the

doctrine of the union of perfect God and perfect man in Christ,

deriving his manhood through her, I would suggest the necessity

of weighing well that argument with this fact before them; that

to the Apostle James, called in Scripture the Lord's brother,

was assigned the name of Adelphotheos, or God's brother. This

name was given to James, not to exalt him above his

fellow-apostles, but to declare the faith of those who gave it

him in the union of the divine and human nature of Christ.--See

Joan. Damascenus, Hom. ii. c. 18. In Dormit. Virg. vol. ii. p.

881. Le Quien, Paris, 1712. The Latin translation renders it

Domini frater.]

Nothing in our present inquiry turns upon the real {324} meaning of that

word _theotocos_. Some who have been among the brightest ornaments of

the Anglican Church have adopted the translation "mother of God," whilst

many others among us believe that the original sense would be more

correctly conveyed by the expression "mother of Him who was God."

I am induced here to lay side by side, with the second Article of our

Anglican Church, the Confession of Faith from Cyril, first recited at

Constantinople, then repeated at Ephesus, and afterwards again rehearsed

at Chalcedon; in its last clause the expression occurs which gave rise

to these remarks.

_Ancient Confession._

We confess that our Lord Jesus, the Christ, the only begotten

Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, from a reasonable soul

and body, begotten from everlasting of the Father according to

his Godhead, and in these last days, He the same for us and for

our salvation [was born] of Mary, the Virgin, according to his

manhood--of the same substance with the Father according to his

Godhead, of the same substance with us according to his manhood.

For of two natures there became an union. Wherefore we confess

one Christ, one Lord. According to this sense of the 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.

[Vol. vi. p. 736.]

_Second Article of Anglican Church._

The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from

everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one

substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the

blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect

natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined

together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one

Christ, very God, and very man; who truly suffered, was

crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and

to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for

actual sins of men. {325}

But there are other points in the course of these important proceedings

to which I would solicit your especial attention, with the view of

comparing the sentiments of the Bishop of Rome at that day, 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 of his accredited

ministers.

The circumstances of the Church Catholic, as represented in Leo's letter

in the fifth century, and the circumstances of the Church of Rome, as

lamented by the present Pope in 1832[124], are in many respects very

similar. The end desired by Leo and 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!

[Footnote 124: "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."]

The present Roman Pontiff's hopes, and desires, and exhortations are

thus expressed[125]:--

[Footnote 125: This is the translation circulated in the Roman

Catholic Annual, p. 15, called, The Laity's Directory for 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 published with the authority of

the Vicars Apostolic in England.--London, Nov. 12, 1829." Signed

"James, Bishop of Usula, Vic. Ap. Lond."]

"That all may have a successful and happy issue, let us raise our eyes

to the most blessed Virgin Mary, {326} WHO ALONE DESTROYS HERESIES, who

is our GREATEST HOPE, yea, the ENTIRE GROUND OF OUR HOPE[126]. May she

exert her patronage to draw down an efficacious blessing on our desires,

our plans, and proceedings in the present straitened condition of the

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 supported by this cheering hope, we have confidence that the

author and finisher of faith, Jesus Christ, will at last console us all

in the tribulations which have found us exceedingly."

[Footnote 126: On this word there is a note of reference to S.

Bern. Serm. de Nat. B.M.V. 7.]

"To you, venerable brethren, and the flocks committed to your care, we

most lovingly impart, as auspicious of celestial help, the Apostolic

Benediction. Given at Rome from St. Mary Major's, August 15th, 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 degeneracy is here evinced

from the faith, and hopes, and sentiments of Christian bishops in days

of old! In the expressed hopes of Leo and Flavianus, you will seek in

vain for any reference or allusion "to the blessed Virgin Mary, as the

destroyer of heresies, the greatest hope, the entire ground of a

Christian's hope;" you will in vain seek for any exhortation for the

faithful "to raise their eyes to her in order to obtain a merciful and

happy issue." Equally vain would be your search for any "imploring in

humble prayer," of Peter and Paul, or any even distant allusion to help

from them. {327} To God and God alone are the faithful exhorted to pray;

on God and God alone do those Christians express that their hopes rely;

God alone they regard as the destroyer of heresy, 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,

the Redeemer, the Sanctifier of Mary, and of Peter, and of Paul.

Thus Flavian writing to Leo says, "Wherefore (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." [Vol. v. 1330.]

And again, "Thus will the heresy which has arisen, and the consequent

commotion, be easily destroyed by your holy letters with the assistance

of God." [Vol. v. 1355.] Thus Leo in his turn writing to Julian, Bishop

of Cos, utters this truly Christian sentiment. "May the mercy of God, as

we trust, grant that without the loss of any soul, against the darts of

the devil the sound parts may be entirely preserved, and the wounded

parts may be healed. May God preserve you safe and sound, most honoured

brother!" [Vol. v. 1423.] Thus the same Bishop of Rome writing to

Flavian, expresses 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!" [Vol. v.

1390.]

I will detain you by only one more reference to these most interesting

documents. The whole Council of Chalcedon, at the conclusion of all, and

when the {328} triumph was considered to have been secured over

Eutyches, and their gratitude was expressed that the heresies had been

destroyed--instead of referring to Mary as the "sole destroyer of

heresies," shout, as if with the voice of one man, from every side, "It

is God alone who hath done this!" [Vol. vii. p. 174.] Neither

antecedently did their chief pastors exhort them to raise their eyes to

Mary, and promise to "implore" the blessing 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, whilst 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 saints,

nor Virgin to be their protector and patron; no angel, nor saint, nor

virgin, shared their praises;--God alone was exalted in that day.

And, let not the answer, ever at hand when reference is thus made to the

prayers or professions of individuals, whether popes or canonized

saints, seduce any now from a pursuit of the very truth. These, it is

said, "are the prayers and professions of individuals, it is unfair then

to make the Church responsible for them; we appeal from them to the

Church." But in this case the words of the Sovereign Pontiff are in good

faith the words of the Church of Rome; not because I at all would

identify the words of a Pope with the Church, but because the prayers of

the Church of Rome in her authorized solemn services and acts of worship

justify {329} Pope Gregory in every sentiment he utters, and every

expression he employs. Does Gregory bid the faithful lift up their eyes

to Mary the sole destroyer of heresies? The Roman ritual in the Lesser

Office of the holy Virgin thus addresses her, "Rejoice, O Mary Virgin;

thou alone hast destroyed all heresies in the whole world:" And again:

"Under thy protection we take refuge, holy parent of God; despise not

thou our prayers in our necessities, but from all dangers ever deliver

us, O glorious and blessed Virgin." Does Gregory assure the faithful

that he will implore in humble prayer of Peter and Paul? in doing so he

is only treading in the very footsteps of the Roman Church itself. In an

address, which we have already quoted (see p. 262), Peter is thus

invoked. "Now O good shepherd, merciful Peter, accept the prayers of us

who supplicate, and loose the bands of our sins, by the power committed

to thee, by which thou shuttest heaven against all by a word, and

openest it."

These things are now; but from the beginning it was not so. {330}

* * * * *

CHAPTER V.

SECTION I.--PRESENT WORSHIP OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN IN THE AUTHORIZED AND

ENJOINED SERVICES OF THE CHURCH OF ROME.

When from examining the evidence of antiquity we turn to the present

enjoined services of the Church of Rome, it is impossible not to be

struck by the fact repeatedly forced upon our notice, that whereas the

invocation of the Virgin seems to have been introduced at a period much

later than those addresses to the martyrs which have already invited our

attention, her worship now assumes so much higher a place, and claims so

large a share in the public worship of the Roman Catholic portions of

Christendom above martyrs, saints, and angels. The offices of the Virgin

present instances of all those various and progressive stages of divine

worship, which we have already exemplified in the case of the martyrs,

from the first primitive and Christian practice of making the

anniversary of the Saint a day either of especial praise and prayer to

God for the mercies of redemption generally, or of returning thanks to

God for the graces manifested in his holy servants now in peace, with

prayers for light and strength to enable the worshippers to follow them,

as they followed Christ--down to the last and worst stage, the

consummation {331} of all, namely, prayer directly to saints and angels

for protection, succour, and spiritual benefits at their hands.

I. Of the first class is the following collect, retained almost word for

word in our Anglican service.

_On the day of the Purification._

"Almighty and everlasting God, we humbly beseech thy majesty, that as

thy only begotten Son was this day presented in the temple in substance

of our flesh, so Thou wouldest cause us to be presented unto Thee with

purified minds. Through the same."

(Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, majestatem tuam supplices exoramus, ut

sicut unigenitus Filius tuus hodierna die cum nostræ carnis substantia

est præsentatus, ita nos facias purificatis tibi mentibus præsentari.

Per eundem Dominum.--H. 536.)

Such a prayer is founded on the facts of revelation, and is primitive,

catholic, apostolic, and evangelical.

II. Of the second progressive stage towards the adoration of the saints,

the offices of the Virgin supply us with various instances; the case,

namely, of the Christian orator being led by the flow of his eloquence

to apostrophize the spirit of the Saint, and address him as though he

were present, witnessing the celebration of his day, hearing the

panegyrics uttered for his honour, and partaking with the congregation

in their religious acts of worship.

"O holy and spotless virginhood; with what praises to extol thee I know

not: because Him, whom the heavens could not contain, thou didst bear in

thy bosom. {332} Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit

of thy womb. Thou art blessed, O Virgin Mary, who didst carry the Lord,

the Creator of the world. Thou didst give birth to Him who made thee,

and remainest a virgin for ever. [Beata es Virgo Maria, quæ Dominum

portasti Creatorem mundi: genuisti qui te fecit, et in æternum permanes

virgo.--Vern. clxii.] Hail, holy parent, who didst in child-birth bring

forth the King who ruleth heaven and earth for ever and ever. Amen."

[Salve sacra parens enixa puerpera regem, qui coelum terramque regit in

sæcula sæculorum. Amen.--Introit. at the mass on the Nativity of the

Virgin.]

In apostrophes like these, the members of the Anglican Church see

nothing in itself harmful, so long as they are kept within due bounds.

Many of the passages cited from the ancient writers in proof of their

having espoused the doctrine, and exemplified in themselves the practice

of invoking saints, are nothing more than these glowing addresses. They

have been responded to by one of the brightest ornaments, and sweetest

minstrels of the Anglican Church, whose apostrophe at the same time by

its own words would guard us against the abuses and excesses in which in

the Roman Catholic Church this practice, followed without restraint and

indulged in with less and less of caution and soberness, unhappily

ended; abuses against which also we cannot ourselves now be too

constantly and carefully on our guard.

"Ave Maria! Blessed maid,

Lily of Eden's fragrant shade,

Who can express the love,

That nurtured thee so pure and sweet;

Making thy heart a shelter meet

For Jesus' holy Dove? {333}

Ave Maria! mother blest,

To whom, caressing and caress'd,

Clings the Eternal Child!

Favour'd beyond archangel's dream,

When first on thee with tenderest gleam

The newborn Saviour smiled.

Ave Maria! thou whose name,

ALL BUT ADORING love may claim,

Yet may we reach thy shrine;

For HE, thy Son and Saviour, vows,

To crown all lowly lofty brows

With love and joy like thine.

Bless'd is the womb that bare Him,--bless'd

The bosom where his lips were press'd;

But rather bless'd are they

Who hear his word and keep it well,

The living homes where Christ shall dwell,

And never pass away."

J. Keble's Christian Year. "The Annunciation."

Would that no branch of the Church Catholic had ever passed the boundary

line drawn here so exquisitely by this Anglican Catholic, from whose

lips or pen no syllable could ever fall in disparagement of the holy

Virgin, as blessed among women, and the holy mother of our Lord. To

bring about the re-union of Christians would in that case have been a

far more hopeful task than it is now.

III. In the third stage, a prayer was offered to God, that He would

permit the intercessions of the saints to help us; or the prayer

contained the expression of a wish,--a desire not addressed either to

God or to the saint, merely words expressive of the hope of the

individual. The following are some of the many instances now contained

in the Roman Breviary: {334}

"May the Virgin of virgins herself intercede for us to the Lord. Amen."

[Ipsa Virgo virginum intercedat pro nobis ad Dominum. Amen.--Vern.

cxlviii.]

In the Post-communion, on the day of the Assumption, this prayer is

offered:--"Partakers of the heavenly table, we 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,"

&c. [Mensæ coelestis participes effecti imploramus clementiam tuam,

Domine Deus noster, ut qui Assumptionem Dei Genetricis colimus, a

cunctis malis imminentibus ejus intercessione liberemur. Per.--Miss.

Rom.]

"We beseech Thee, O Lord, let the glorious intercession of the blessed

and glorious ever Virgin Mary protect us and bring us to life eternal."

[Beatæ et gloriosæ semper Virginia Mariæ, quæsumus, Domine, intercessio

gloriosa nos protegat, et ad vitam producat æternam.--Vern. clv.]

"Pardon, we beseech Thee, O Lord, the offences of thy servants, that we,

who cannot please Thee of our own act, may be saved by the intercession

of the mother of thy Son, our Lord, who liveth with Thee." [Famulorum

tuorum quæsumus, Domine, delictis ignosce, ut qui tibi placere de

nostris actibus non valemus, Genetricis Filii tui, Domini nostri,

intercessione salvemur, qui tecum vivit.--Vern. clxix.]

On the vigil of the Epiphany, this prayer is offered in the

Post-communion at the mass,--"Let this communion, O Lord, purge us from

guilt, and by the intercession of the blessed Virgin, mother of God, let

it make us partakers of the heavenly cure. Through the same." [Hæc nos

communio, Domine, purget a crimine, et intercedente beata Virgine Dei

genetrice coelestis remedii faciat esse consortes. Per eundem.--Miss.

Rom.]

"Grant, we beseech Thee, O Lord God, that we thy {335} servants may

enjoy perpetual health of body and mind, and be freed from present

sorrow, and enjoy eternal gladness, by the glorious intercession of the

blessed Mary, ever Virgin. Through." [Concede nos famulos tuos,

quæsumus, Domine Deus, perpetua mentis et corporis sanitate gaudere, et

gloriosa beatæ Mariæ semper Virginis intercessione a præsenti liberari

tristitia, et æterna perfrui lætitia. Per Dominum.--Vern. cxlvi.]

On the second Sunday after Easter, we find a further and more sad

departure from the simplicity of Christian worship, in which the Church

of Rome declares that the offerings made to God at the Lord's Supper

were made for the honour of the Virgin.--"Having received, O Lord, the

helps of our salvation, grant, we beseech Thee, that by the patronage of

Mary, ever Virgin, we may be every where protected; in veneration of

whom we make these offerings to thy Majesty." [Sumptis, Domine, salutis

nostræ subsidiis, da, quæsumus, beatæ Mariæ semper Virginis patrociniis

ubique protegi, _in cujus veneratione_ hæc tuæ obtulimus

Majestati.--Post Commun. Mis. Rom.]

On the octave of Easter, at the celebration of mass, in the Secret, the

intercession of the Virgin is made to appear as essential a cause of our

peace and blessedness as the propitiation of Christ; or rather, the two

are represented as joint concurrent causes; as though the office of the

Saviour was confined to propitiation, exclusive altogether of

intercession, whilst the office of intercession was assigned to the

Virgin.--"By thy propitiation, O Lord, and by the intercession of the

blessed Mary, ever Virgin, may this offering be profitable to us for

perpetual and present prosperity and peace." [Tua, Domine, propitiatione

et beatæ Marisæ semper Virginis intercessione ad perpetuam atque

prsesentem hæc oblatio nobis profecerit prosperitatem et pacem.] {336}

IV. A fourth station in this lamentable progress was evidenced when

Christians at the tombs of martyrs implored, yet still in prayer to God,

that He would, for the sake of the martyrs, and by their merits and good

offices, grant to the petitioner some benefit temporal or spiritual. Of

that practice, we have an example in this prayer: "O God, who didst

deign to choose the blessed Virgin's womb in which to dwell, vouchsafe,

we beseech thee, to make us, defended by her protection, to take

pleasure in her commemoration." [Deus qui virginalem aulam beatæ Mariæ

in qua habitares eligerere dignatus es, da, quæsumus, ut sua nos

defensione munitos jucundos facias suæ interesse commemorationi.--Æst.

clvi.]

"By the Virgin mother, may the Lord grant us health and peace. Amen."

[Per Virginem Matrem concedat nobis Dominus salutem et pacem.

Amen.--Vern. cxliii.]

"By the prayers and merits of the blessed Mary, ever Virgin, and of all

saints, may the Lord bring us to the kingdom of heaven." [Precibus et

meritis beatæ Mariæ Virginis et omnium sanctorum perducat nos Dominus ad

regna coelorum.--Vern. cxlvii.]

"May the Virgin Mary bless us, together with a pious offspring." [Nos

cum prole pia benedicat Virgo Maria.--Vern. cxlvii.]

V. The fifth grade involves a still more melancholy departure from

Christian truth and primitive simplicity, when the prayer is no longer

addressed to God, but is offered to the Virgin, imploring her to

intercede with God for the supplicants, yet still asking nothing but her

prayers.

"Blessed mother, Virgin undefiled, glorious Queen of the world,

intercede for us with the Lord." [Beata Mater, et intacta Virgo,

gloriosa regina mundi, intercede pro nobis ad Dominum.--Aut. cxliv.]

{337}

"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." [Beata Dei

Genitrix, Maria Virgo perpetua, templum Domini, sacrarium Spiritus

Sancti, sola sine exemplo placuisti Domino nostro Jesu Christo; ora pro

populo, interveni pro clero, intercede pro devoto femineo sexu.--Vern.

clxiii.]

"Holy Mary, pray for us!

Holy mother of God, pray for us!

Holy Virgin of virgins, pray for us!"

In the form of prayer called Litaniæ Lauretanæ, between the most solemn

addresses to the ever blessed Trinity, and to the Lamb of God that

taketh away the sins of the world, are inserted more than forty

addresses to the Virgin, invoking her under as many varieties of title.

She is appealed to as--The Mirror of Justice, The Cause of our Joy, The

mystical Rose, The Tower of David, The Tower of Ivory, The House of

Gold, The Arc of the Covenant, The Gate of Heaven, The Refuge of

Sinners, The Queen of Angels, the Queen of all Saints. [Vern. ccxxxix.]

In examining the case of the invocation of saints, we placed under this

head, as the safer course, a kind of invocation which seemed to

vacillate between this appeal to them merely for intercession, and the

last consummation of all, direct prayer to them for blessings. We

exemplified it by the hymn to St. Stephen. The following seems very much

of the same character, addressed to the Virgin:--

"Hail, O Queen, Mother of mercy, our life, sweetness, and hope,

Hail! To thee we cry, banished sons {338} of Eve. To thee we

sigh, groaning 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! [Salve, Regina,

Mater Misericordiæ, vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra, salve. Ad te

clamamus exules filii Evæ. Ad te suspiramus gementes et flentes

in hac lachrymarum valle. Eja ergo Advocata nostra, illos tuos

misericordes oculos ad nos converte, et Jesum benedictum fructum

ventris tui nobis post hoc exilium ostende. O clemens! O pia! O

dulcis Virgo Maria!]

"Pray for us, O holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy

of the promises of Christ." [Ora pro nobis, Sancta Dei Genetrix,

ut digni efficiamur promissionibus Christi.--Æst. 151.]

VI. Unhappily, in the appointed religious services of the Roman ritual,

we have too many examples of prayer for benefits spiritual and temporal,

addressed directly to the Virgin. It is in vain to say that all that is

meant is to ask her intercession; the people will not, cannot, do not,

regard it in that light. It is affirmed that when the Church of Rome

guides and directs her sons and daughters to pray for specific benefits

at the hands of the Virgin mother, without any mention of her prayers,

without specifying that her petitions are all that they ask; yet they

are taught only to ask for her intercession, and are not encouraged to

look for the blessings as her gift and at her hands. But, can this be

right and safe? In an act of all human acts the most solemn and holy,

can recourse be had to such refinements without great danger?

Among many others of a similar kind this invocation frequently recurs,

"Deem me worthy to praise thee, {339} O sacred Virgin; give to me

strength against thy enemies." [Dignare me laudare te, Virgo sacrata. Da

mihi virtutem contra hostes tuos.--Æst. clvi.]

The following seems to be among the most favourite addresses to the

Virgin:--"Hail, Star of the Sea, kind Mother of God, and ever Virgin!

Happy Gate of Heaven, taking that 'Hail!' from the mouth of Gabriel,

establish us in peace,--changing the name of Eve. For the guilty, loose

their bonds; bring forth light for the blind; 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, us, FREED FROM FAULT, MAKE MEEK AND

CHASTE; make our life pure; prepare a safe journey; that, beholding

Jesus, we may always rejoice. Praise be to God the Father, glory to

Christ most high, and to the Holy Spirit; one honour to the three.

Amen."

[Ave Man's Stella,

Dei Mater alma,

Atque semper Virgo!

Felix coeli porta,

Sumens illud Ave

Gabrielis ore,

Funda nos in pace,

Mutans Evæ nomen.

Solve vincla reis,

Profer lumen cæcis,

Mala nostra pelle,

Bona cuncta posce.

MONSTRA TE ESSE MATREM;

Sumat per te preces,

Qui pro nobis natus

Tulit esse tuus.

Virgo singularis,

Inter omnes mitis,

Nos culpa solutos,

Mites fac et castos,

Vitam præsta puram,

Iter para tutum,

Ut videntes Jesum

Semper collætemur.

Sit laus Deo Patri, summo Christo decus,

Spiritui Sancto, tribus honor unus. Amen.--Æst. 597.

]

In the body of this hymn, there is undoubtedly reference to an

application to be made to the Son, &c.; but can it be fitting that such

language as is here suggested to the Virgin, for her to use, should be

addressed by a {340} mortal to God? can such a call upon her to show her

power and influence over the eternal Son of the eternal Father be

fitting--"Show that thou art a mother?" I confess that against what is

here implied, my understanding and my heart entirely revolt.[127]

[Footnote 127: At the present day some versions, contrary to the

whole drift and plain sense and meaning of the passage, have

translated it, as though the prayer was, that Mary would, by her

maternal good offices in our behalf, prove to us that she was

our mother. An instance of what I mean occurs in a work called

"Nouveau Recueil de Cantiques," p. 353.

"Monstra te esse Matrem: Faites voir que vous êtes véritablement

notre mère." In an English manual, first printed in 1688, and

then called "The Prince of Wales's Manual," the lines are thus

rendered--

Shew us a Mother's care,

To Him convey our prayer,

Who for our sake put on

The title of thy Son.

I rejoice to see an indication of a feeling of impropriety in

the sentiment in its plain, obvious meaning; still the change is

inadmissible. She is addressed above, in the second line, as the

mother of God; 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.

Since I first prepared this note for the press, I have found a

proof, that the obvious grammatical and logical meaning, "show

thyself to be His mother," is the sense in which it was received

and interpreted before the Reformation. In a work dedicated to

the "Youth of England studious of good morals," and entitled

"Expositio Sequentiarum," the only interpretation given to this

passage is thus expressed: "Show thyself to be a MOTHER, namely

BY APPEASING THY SON, and let thy Son take our prayers through

thee, who (namely, the Son born of the Virgin Mary,) for us

miserable sinners endured to be thy Son." "Monstra te esse

MATREM (sc.) placando TILIUM TUUM, et filius tuus sumat precem,

id est, deprecationes nostras per te qui (sc.) filius natus ex

Virgine Maria pro nobis (sc.) miseris peccatoribus tulit, id

est, sustinuit esse tuus filius." It must be observed, that this

work was expressly written for the purpose of explaining these

parts of the ritual according to the use of Sarum. It was

printed by the famous W. de Worde, at the sign of the Sun in

Fleet-street, 1508. The passage occurs in p. 33. b. This is by

no means the only book of the kind. I have before me one printed

at Basil, in 1504, and another at Cologne the same year. They

are evidently all drawn from some common source, but are not

reprints all of the same work, for there are in each some

variations. The Cologne edition tells us, that it was the

reprint of a familiar commentary long ago (jamdudum) published

on the hymns. All these join in construing the passage so as to

represent the prayer to the Virgin to be, that she would show

and prove that she was mother by appeasing her Son, and causing

him to hear our prayers. Nor can any other meaning be attached

to the translation of the words as given by Cardinal Du Perron

(Replique à la Rep. du Roy de la G. Bretagne. Paris, 1620, p.

970). "Et pourtant quand l'Eglise dit à la saincte Vierge,

'Defends nous de l'ennemy, et nous reçoy à l'heure delamort,'

elle n'entend pas prier la Vierge qu'elle nous reçoive par sa

propre virtu, mais par impetration de la grace de son Fils,

comme l'Eglise le temoigne en ces mots: 'Monstre que tu es mère,

reçoive par toy nos prieres celuy, qui né pour nous a eu

agreeable d'être tien!'" This novel interpretation I have not

found in any one book of former days.] {341}

Another prayer runs thus: "Under thy protection we take refuge, Holy

Mother of God. Despise not our supplications in our necessities; but

from all dangers ever deliver us, O glorious and Blessed Virgin." [Sub

tuum præsidium confugimus, sancta Dei Genetrix; nostras deprecationes ne

despicias in necessitatibus, sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper,

Virgo gloriosa et benedicta.--Æst. cxlvi.]

Let us suppose the object of these addresses to be changed; and instead

of the Virgin let us substitute the name of the ever-blessed God and

Father of us all. The very words here addressed to the Virgin are

offered to Him, and spoken of Him in some of the most affecting prayers

and praises recorded in the Bible[128].

[Footnote 128: The identity of the prayers offered to the Virgin

with those offered in the Book of inspiration, or in the Roman

Ritual to the Almighty, becomes very striking, if we lay side by

side the authorized language of the Roman Liturgy, and the only

translation of the Scriptures authorized by the Roman Church.

_Roman Ritual in addressing the _Roman Ritual, or Translation

Virgin_ of the Bible, in addressing

the Almighty_.

Sub tuum præsidium confugimus. Dominus, firmamentum meum et

refugium meum. Ad te

confugi.--Ps. xvii. 1; cxlii.

11.

Nostras deprecationes ne despicias Ne despexeris deprecationem

in necessitatibus. meam.--Ps. liv. 1.

Sed a periculis cunctis libera nos. Libera, Domine, animam servi

tui ab omnibus periculis

inferni. Hiem. ccvi.

Libera nos a malo. Orat. Dom.

A periculo mortis libera nos,

Domine.--Hiem. cciv.

Tu nos ab hoste protege. Eripe me de inimicis meis,

Domine.--Ps. cxlii. 11.

Et hora mortis SUSPICE. _Suscipe_, Domine, servum

tuum.--Hiem. ccvi. {342}

]

But another hymn in the office of the Virgin, addressed in part to the

blessed Saviour himself, and partly to the Virgin Mary, is still more

revolting to all my feelings with regard to religious worship. The

Redeemer is only asked to remember his mortal birth; no blessing is here

supplicated for at his hands; his protection is not sought; no

deliverance of our souls at the hour of death is implored from Him;

these blessings, and these heavenly benefits, and these divine mercies,

are sought for exclusively at the hands of the Virgin alone. Can such a

mingled prayer, can such a contrast in prayer, be the genuine fruit of

that Gospel which bids us ask for all we need in prayer to God in the

name and for the sake of his blessed Son?

"Author of our salvation, remember that once, by {343} being

born of a spotless virgin, thou didst take the form of our body!

Mary, mother of grace, mother 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[129]."

[Footnote 129:

Memento, Salutis Auctor, Tu nos ab hoste protege,

Quod nostri quondam corporis, Et hora mortis suscipe.

Ex illibata Virgine, Gloria tibi, Domine,

Nascendo formam sumpseris. Qui natus es de Virgine,

Maria mater gratiæ, Cum Patre et Sancto Spiritu,

Mater misericordiæ, In sempiterna sæcula. Amen.

In the new version, (referred to in page 260 of the present

work,) this hymn stands thus:--

Memento, rerum Conctitor, Maria mater gratiæ,

Nostri quod olim corporis, Dulcis parens clementiæ,

Sacrata ab alvo Virginis, Tu nos ab hoste protege,

Nascendo forrnam sumpseris. In mortis hora suscipe, &c.

Æst. clv.]

Could the beloved John, to whose kind and tender care our blessed Lord

gave his mother of especial trust, have offered to her such a prayer as

this? To God alone surely would he have prayed for deliverance from all

evil and mischief. To God alone would he have prayed:--"In the hour of

death, good Lord, deliver us, and all for Jesus Christ's sake, our only

Saviour and Mediator."

To one other example of the practice of the Church of Rome I must refer.

The rubric in our Book of Common Prayer directs that "at the end of

every Psalm throughout the year, shall be repeated, Glory be to the

Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost: As it was in the

beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen." In the

Roman Breviary also we find this rubric: "This verse, _Gloria_, is

always said in the end of all psalms, EXCEPT IT BE OTHERWISE {344}

NOTED." [Æst. 3.] Such notifications occur at the end of various psalms.

On the Feast of the Assumption [Æst. 595.], fourteen psalms are

appointed to be used. At the close of every one of these psalms, without

however any note that the Gloria is not to be said, there is appended an

anthem to the Virgin. In some cases, so intimately is the anthem

interwoven with the closing words of the psalm, as that under other

circumstances it would induce us to infer that the Gloria was intended

to be left out, especially as in the Parvum Officium of the Virgin [Æst.

clv.], though to the various psalms anthems in the same manner have been

annexed, yet the words "Gloria Patri et Filio" are inserted in each case

between the psalm and the anthem. Be this as it may, the annexation of

the anthem has a lamentable tendency to withdraw the thoughts of the

worshippers from the truths contained in the inspired psalm, and to fix

them upon Mary and her Assumption; changing the Church's address from

the Eternal Being, alone invoked by the Psalmist, to one, who though a

virgin blessed among women, is a creature of God's hand. Thus, at the

conclusion of the 8th psalm; "O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy

name in all the world," we find immediately annexed these two anthems,

"The holy mother of God is exalted above the choirs of angels to the

heavenly realms. The gates of paradise are opened to us by thee, [by

thee, O Virgin [Quæ gloriosa]] who glorious triumphest with the angels."

Thus again, an anthem is attached to the last verse of the 95th (in the

Hebrew and English versions the 96th). "He shall judge the earth in

equity, and the people with his truth. Rejoice, {345} 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

enemies." To the 96th (97th), the latter clause of that address is

repeated, with the addition of the following: "After the birth thou

didst remain a virgin inviolate. Mother of God, intercede for us."

An instance of the anthem being so intimately interwoven with the psalm,

as to render the insertion of the "Gloria," between the two, to say the

least, forced and unnatural, occurs at the close of the 86th (87th)

psalm. The vulgate translation of the last verse, differing entirely

from the English, is this: "As the habitation of all who rejoice is in

thee." This sentence of the Psalmist is thus taken up in the Roman

Ritual: "As the habitation of all us who rejoice is in THEE, Holy Mother

of God."

The object proposed by the Church from of old in concluding each psalm

by an ascription of glory to the eternal Trinity, was to lead the

worshipper to apply the sentiments of the psalm to the work of our

salvation accomplished by the three Persons of the Godhead. The

analogous end of these anthems in the present service of the Church of

Rome is to fix the thoughts of the worshipper upon Mary. This practice

unhappily sanctions the excesses into which Bonaventura and others have

run in their departures from the purity and integrity of primitive

worship.

Cardinal du Perron informs us, 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 if prayers are offered in other

parts of the service directly to them, it is difficult to see what is

gained by that announcement. Surely it is trifling {346} to make such

immaterial distinctions. If as a priest I could address the following

prayer to the Virgin in preparing for offering mass, why should I not

offer a prayer to the same being during its celebration?

"O mother of pity and mercy, blessed Virgin Mary, I a miserable and

unworthy sinner, flee to thee with my whole heart and affection, and I

pray thy most sweet pity, that as thou didst stand by thy most sweet Son

hanging upon the cross, so thou wouldest vouchsafe mercifully 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." [O Mater pietatis et misericordiæ,

beatissima Virgo Maria, ego miser et indignus peccator ad te confugio

toto corde et affectu. Et precor dulcissimam pietatem tuam, ut sicut

dulcissimo Filio tuo in cruce pendenti astitisti, ita et mihi misero

sacerdoti et sacerdotibus omnibus hic et in tota sancta ecclesia ipsum

hodie offerentibus, clementer assistere digneris, ut tua gratia adjuti

dignam et acceptabilem hostiam in conspectu summæ et individuæ

Trinitatis offerre valeamus. Amen.--Rom. Brev. Hus. Hiem. p. ccxxxiii.]

This is called, in the Roman Breviary, "A PRAYER to the blessed Virgin

before the celebration of the mass," and is immediately followed by

another prayer directed to be offered to any saint, male or female,

whose feast is on that day celebrated. "O Holy N. behold I, a miserable

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 devotedly pray thee that thou wouldest deign to

intercede for me to-day, that I may be enabled to offer so great a

sacrifice {347} worthily and acceptably, and to praise Him eternally

with thee and with all his elect, and that I may live with Him for

ever." [O sancte N. ecce ego miser peccator de tuis mentis confisus,

offero nunc sacratissimura sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Domini

nostri Jesu Christ! PRO TUO HONORE ET GLORIA; precor te humiliter et

devote ut pro me hodie intercedere digneris, ut tantum sacrificium digne

et acceptabiliter offerre valeam, ut Eum tecum et cum omnibus electis

ejus æternaliter laudare et cum eo semper regnare valeam.--Hiem.

ccxxxiii.]

* * * * *

Such, Christian brethren, is the result of our inquiries into the real

practice of the Church of Rome with regard to the worship of the Virgin

Mary at the present day, in every part of the world where allegiance to

that Church is acknowledged. Can we wonder that individuals, high in

honour with that Church, have carried out the same worship to far

greater lengths? I have ever present to my mind the principle of fixing

upon the Church of Rome herself that only which is to be found in her

canons, acknowledged decrees, and formularies. And unhappily of that

which directly contravenes the Gospel-rule and primitive practice, far

more than enough is found in her authorized rituals to compel all who

hold to the Gospel and the integrity of primitive times, to withdraw

their assent and consent from her worship. But with this principle

before us, surely common justice and common prudence require that we

should see for ourselves the practical workings of the system. "By their

fruits ye shall know them," is a principle no less sanctioned by the

Gospel than suggested by common sense and experience And, indeed, the

shocking lengths to which priests, bishops, cardinals, and canonized

persons have gone in this particular of the worship of the Virgin, might

well {348} cause every upright and enlightened Roman Catholic to look

anxiously to the foundation; to determine honestly, though with tender

caution and pious care, for himself, whether the corruption be not in

the well-head, whether the stream do not flow impregnated with the

poison from the very fountain itself; whether the prayers authorized and

directed by the Church of Rome to be offered to the Virgin be not in

themselves at variance with the first principles of the Gospel--Faith in

one God, the giver of every good, and in one Mediator and Intercessor

between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, whose blood cleanseth from

all sin: in a word, to see whether all the aberrations of her children

in this department of religious duty have not their prototype in the

laws and ordinances, the rules and injunctions, the example and practice

of their mother herself.

Indeed I am compelled here to say, that, however revolting to us as

believers in Jesus, and as worshippers of the one true God, are those

extravagant excesses into which the votaries of the Virgin Mary have

run, I have found few of their most unequivocal ascriptions of divine

worship to her, for a justification of which they cannot with reason

appeal to the authorized ritual of the Church of Rome.

In leaving this point of our inquiry, I would suggest two

considerations: 1st, If it was intended that the invocation of the

Virgin should be exclusively confined to requests, praying her to pray

and intercede by prayer for the petitioners, why should language be

addressed to her which in its plain, obvious, grammatical, and common

sense interpretation conveys the form of direct prayers to her for

benefits believed to be at her disposal? And, 2ndly, If the Church had

{349} intended that her members, when they suppliantly invoked the

Virgin Mary, and had recourse to her aid, should have offered to her

direct and immediate prayers that she would grant temporal and spiritual

benefits, to be dispensed at her own will, and by her own authority and

power, in that case, what words could the Church have put into the mouth

of the petitioners which would more explicitly and unequivocally have

conveyed that idea?

* * * * *

SECTION II.--WORSHIP OF THE VIRGIN, CONTINUED.

I have no intention of dwelling at any length on the extraordinary

excesses to which the adoration of the Virgin Mary has been carried in

the Church of Rome, I do not mean by obscure and illiterate or fanatical

individuals, but by her celebrated prelates, doctors, and saints. My

researches have brought to my knowledge such a mass of error and

corruption in the worship of Christians as I never before had any

conception of; and rather than bring it all forward, and exhibit it to

others, I would turn my own eyes from it altogether. Still many reasons

render it absolutely necessary that we should not pass over the subject

entirely in silence. Few in England, I believe, are aware of the real

facts of the case; and it well becomes us to guard ourselves and others

against such melancholy results as would appear to be inseparable from

the invocation and worship of the Virgin. If indeed we could be

justified in regarding such palpable instances of her worship in its

most objectionable form as the {350} marks of former and less

enlightened times, most gladly would I draw a veil over them, and hide

them from our sight for ever. But when I find the solemn addresses of

the present chief authorities in the Church, nay, the epistles of the

present sovereign Pontiff himself, cherishing, countenancing, and

encouraging the selfsame evil departures from primitive truth and

worship, it becomes a matter not of choice, but of necessity, to give

examples at least of the deplorable excesses into which the highest and

most honoured in that communion have been betrayed. On the present

Pope's encyclical letter [A.D. 1840] we have already observed; and in

this place I propose to examine only one more of those many excesses

meeting us on every side, which characterize the public worship of the

Virgin. The instance to which I refer seems to take a sort of middle

station between the authorized enjoined services of the Church of Rome,

and the devotions of individuals and family worship. It partakes on the

one hand far too much of a public character to be considered in the

light of private religious exercises; and on the other it wants that

authority which would rank it among the appointed services of the

Church. The devotional parts of the services are found neither in the

Missals nor the Breviaries, and the adoption and celebration of the

service seems to be left to the option and care of individuals. But the

service is performed in the Churches,--a Priest presides,--the Host is

presented to the adorations of the people,--and a sermon is preached by

an appointed minister. The service to which I am referring is performed

every evening through the entire month of May, and is celebrated

expressly in honour of the Virgin Mary. {351}

The month of May is dedicated to her, and is called Mary's month.

Temporary altars are raised to her honour, surrounded by flowers and

adorned with garlands and drapery; her image usually standing before the

altar. Societies are formed chiefly for the celebration of the Virgin's

praises, and in some Churches the effect, both to the eye and to the

ear, corresponds with the preparation. One thing only is wanting--the

proper object of worship. I have now before me a book of hymns published

professedly for the religious fraternities in Paris, and used in the

Churches there. [Nouveau Recueil de Cantiques à l'usage des confréries

des Paroisses de Paris. Paris, 1839.] Many of these hymns are addressed

to the Virgin alone; some without any reference to the Son of God and

Man, the only Saviour, and without any allusion to the God of

Christians; indeed, an address to a heathen Goddess more entirely

destitute of Christianity can scarcely be conceived. I copy one hymn

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 in 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 altar;

Let us redouble our efforts to please her.

Be this month consecrated to her;

Let the perfume of these crowns

Form a delicious incense, {352}

Which ascending even to her throne

May carry to her both our hearts and our prayers.

Let the holy name of Mary

Be for us a name of salvation!

Let our softened soul

Ever pay to her a sweet tribute of love.

Let us join the choirs of angels

The more to celebrate her beauty;

And may our songs of praise

Resound in eternity.

O holy Virgin! O our mother!

Watch over us from fhe height of heaven;

And when from this sojourning 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 immortal pleasures."

[Autour des autels de Marie

Nous ses enfants, empressons-nous;

A cette Mère si chérie,

Adressons les voeux les plus doux.

Qu'une vive et sainte allégresse

Nous anime dans ce saint jour;

Il n'existe point de tristesse

Pour un coeur plein de son amour.

Ornons des fleurs ce sanctuaire,

Parons son autel révéré,

Redoublons d'efforts pour lui plaire.

Que ce mois lui soi, consacré;

Que le parfume de ces couronnes

Forme un encens délicieux,

Qui s'élevant jusqu'à son trône,

Lui porte et nos coeurs et nos voeux.

Que le nom sacré de Marie

Soit pour nous un nom de salut;

Que toujours notre âme attendrie,

D'amour lui paie un doux tribut.

Unissons-nous aux choeurs des anges,

Pour mieux célébrer sa beauté.

Et puissent nos chants de louanges

Retentir dans l'éternité.

O Vierge sainte! ô notre Mère!

Veillez sur nous du haut des cieux;

Et de ce séjour de misère,

Quand nous vous présentons nos voeux,

O douce, ô divine Marie!

Prêtez l'oreille à nos soupirs;--

Et faites qu'après cette vie,

Nous goûtions d'immortels plaisirs.

--"Cantiques à l'usage des Confréries." Paris, 1839, p. 175.]

In the course of the present work I have already suggested the propriety

of trying the real import, {353} the true intent, and meaning and force

of an address to a Saint, by substituting the holiest name ever uttered

on earth, for the name of the Saint to whom such address is offered; and

if the same words, without any change, form a prayer fit to be offered

by us sinners to the Saviour of the world, then to ask ourselves, Can

this be right? I would earnestly recommend the application of the same

test here; and in many other of the prayers now offered (for many such

there are now offered) by Roman Catholics to the Virgin. Suppose,

instead of offering these songs of praise and prayer, and self-devotion

to Mary in the month of May, we were to offer them, on the day of his

nativity, to our blessed Lord, would they not form an act of faith in

Him as our Saviour and our God?

"Around the altar of Jesus,

Let us, his children, press;

To that Saviour so endeared

Let us address the sweetest prayers. {354}

Let a lively and holy mirth

Animate us in this holy day:

There exists no sadness

For a heart full of his love.

Let the holy name of Jesus

Be for us a name of salvation!

Let our softened soul

Ever pay to HIM a sweet tribute of love.

O holy Jesus! O our Saviour!

Watch over us from the height of heaven;

And when from this sojourning of misery,

We present our prayers to Thee;

O sweet, O divine Redeemer,

Lend an ear to our sighs; and after this life,

Make Thou us to taste of immortal pleasures."

* * * * *

SECTION III.--BONAVENTURA.

I will now briefly call your attention to the devotional works of the

celebrated Bonaventura. He is no ordinary man; and the circumstances

under which his works were commended to the world are indeed remarkable.

I know not how a Church can give the impress of its own name and

approval in a more full or unequivocal manner to the works of any human

being, than the Church of Rome has stamped her authority on the works of

this her saint.

In the "Acta Sanctorum", [Antwerp, 1723, July 14, p. 811-823.] it is

stated, that this celebrated man was born in 1221, and died in 1274. He

passed through all degrees of ecclesiastical dignities, {355} short only

of the pontifical throne itself. He was of the order of St. Francis, and

refused the archbishopric of York, when it was offered to him by Pope

Clement the Fourth, in 1265; whose successor, Gregory the Tenth,

elevated him to the dignity of cardinal bishop. His biographer expresses

his astonishment, that such a man's memory should have been so long

buried with his body; but adds, that the tardiness of his honours was

compensated by their splendour.

More than two centuries after his death, his claims to canonization were

urged upon Sixtus the Fourth; and that Pope raised him to the dignity of

saint; the diploma of his canonization bearing date 18 kalends of May,

1482, the eleventh year of that pope's reign.

Before a saint 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[130]. 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 is said to have

lain buried with his corpse. Among the miracles specified, it is

recorded, that on one occasion, when he was filled with solemn awe and

fear at the celebration of the Lord's Supper, God, by an angel, took a

particle of the consecrated host from the hands of the priest, and

gently placed it in the holy man's mouth. But, with these transactions,

I am not anxious to interfere, except so far as to ascertain the degree

of authority with which any pious Roman Catholic must be induced to

invest Bonaventura as a teacher and instructor in the doctrines of

Christianity, authorized and appointed by his Church. The case stands

thus:--Pope Sixtus IV. states in his {356} diploma, that the proctor of

the order of Minors, proved by a dissertation on the passage of St.

John, "There are three that bear record in heaven," that the blessed

Trinity had borne testimony to the fact of Bonaventura being a saint in

heaven: the Father proving it by the attested miracles; the Son, in the

WISDOM OF HIS DOCTRINE; the Holy Spirit, by the goodness 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." [Page 831.

"Ea de divinis rebus scripsit, ut in eo Spiritus Sanctus locutus

videatur."] A testimony referred to by Pope Sixtus the Fifth.

[Footnote 130: See the canonization of St. Bonaventura in the

Acta Sanctorum.]

This 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 carefully

emendated." The decretal letters, A.D. 1588, pronounced him to be an

acknowledged doctor of Holy Church, directing his authority to be cited

and employed in all places of education, and in all ecclesiastical

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. [Page 837.]

In these documents Bonaventura[131] is called the Seraphic Doctor; and I

repeat my doubt, whether it is possible for any human authority to give

a more full, entire, and unreserved sanction to the works of any human

being than the Church of Rome has given to {357} the writings of

Bonaventura. And what do those works present to us, on the subject of

the Invocation and worship of the Virgin Mary?

[Footnote 131: The edition of his works which I have used was

published at Mentz in 1609; and the passages referred to are in

vol. vi. between pp. 400 and 500.]

Taking every one of the one hundred and fifty psalms[132], Bonaventura

so changes the commencement of each, as to address them not as the

inspired Psalmist did, to the Lord Jehovah, the One only Lord God

Almighty, but to the Virgin Mary; inserting much of his own composition,

and then adding the Gloria Patri to each. It is very painful to refer to

these prostitutions of any part of the Holy Book of revealed truth; but

we must not be deterred from looking this evil in the face. A few

examples, however, will suffice.

[Footnote 132: It is curious to find the Cardinal Du Perron, in

his answer to our King James, declaring that he had never seen

nor met with this Psalter in his life, and he was sure it was

never written by Bonaventura; alleging that it was not mentioned

by Trithemius or Gesner. The Vatican editors, however, have set

that question at rest. They assure us that they have thrown into

the appendix all the works about the genuineness of which there

was 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 à la Rep. du Roi de Grand Bretagne. Paris,

1620, p. 974.]

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 te, Domina, speravi; non confundar in æternum, &c. &c. In

manus tuas, Domina, commendo spiritum meum, totam vitam meam, et diem

ultimum meum.--P. 480.]

"In thee, O Lady, have I trusted; let me not be confounded for ever: in

thy grace take me.