Newman Reader - Letter to Pusey

NOTES

NOTE I. PAGE 33

Testimonies of the Fathers to the Doctrine that Mary is the Second Eve

{119} ST. JUSTIN:—[Huion Theou gegrammenon auton en tois apomnemoneumasi ton apostolon autou echontes, kai huion auton legontes, nenoekamen, kai pro panton poiematon apo tou patros dunamei autou kai boulei proelthonta ... kai dia tes parthenou anthropos [on] gegonenai, hina kai di' hes hodou he apo tou opheos parakoe ten archen elabe, kai dia tautes tes hodou kai katalusin labei; parthenos gar ousa Eua kai aphthoros ton logon ton apo tou opheos sullabousa, parakoen kai thanaton eteke; pistin de kai charan labousa Maria he parthenos, euangelizomenou autei Gabriel angelou, hoti Pneuma Kuriou ep' auten epeleusetai, &c. ... apekrinato, Genoito moi kata to rhema sou].—Tryph. 100.

2. Tertullian:— Ne mihi vacet incursus nominis Adæ, unde Christus Adam ab Apostolo dictus est, si terreni non fuit census homo ejus? Sed et hic ratio defendit, quod Deus imaginem et similitudinem suam a diabolo captam æmula operatione recuperavit. In virginem enim adhuc Evam irrepserat verbum ædificatorium {120} mortis. In virginem æque introducendum erat Dei verbum extructorium vitæ; ut quod per ejusmodi sexum abierat in perditionem, per eundem sexum redigeretur in salutem. Crediderat Eva serpenti; credidit Maria Gabrieli; quod illa credendo deliquit, hæc credendo delevit."—De Carn. Chr. 17.

3. St. Irenæus:—"Consequenter autem et Maria virgo obediens invenitur, dicens, Ecce ancilla tua, Domine, fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum. Eva vero inobediens: non obedivit enim, adhuc quum esset virgo. Quemadmodum illa, virum quidem habens Adam, virgo tamen adhuc existens (erant enim utrique nudi in Paradiso, et non confundebantur, quoniam, paullo ante facti, non intellectum habebant filiorum generationis; oportebat enim illos primo adolescere, dehinc sic multiplicari), inobediens facta, et sibi et universo generi humano causa facta est mortis: sic et Maria, habens prædestinatum virum, et tamen virgo, obediens, et sibi et universo generi humano causa facta est salutis. Et propter hoc Lex eam, quæ desponsata erat viro, licet virgo sit adhuc, uxorem ejus, qui desponsaverat, vocat; eam quæ est à Maria in Evam recirculationem significans: quia non aliter quod colligatum est solveretur, nisi ipsæ compagines alligationis reflectantur retrorsus; ut primæ conjunctiones solvantur per secundas, secundæ rursus liberent primas. Et evenit primam quidem compaginem à secundâ colligatione solvere, secundam vero colligationem primæ solutionis habere locum. Et propter hoc Dominus dicebat, primos quidem novissimos futuros, et novissimos primos. Et propheta autem hoc idem significat, dicens, 'Pro patribus nati sunt tibi filii.' 'Primogenitus' {121} enim 'mortuorum' natus Dominus et in sinum suum recipiens pristinos patres, regeneravit eos in vitam Dei, ipse initium viventium factus, quoniam Adam initium morientium factus est. Propter hoc et Lucas initium generationis a Domino inchoans, in Adam retulit, significans, quoniam non illi hunc, sed hic illos in Evangelium vitæ regeneravit. Sic autem et Evæ inobedientiæ nodus solutionem accepit per obedientiam Mariæ. Quod enim alligavit virgo Eva per incredulitatem, hoc virgo Maria solvit per fidem."—S. Iren. contr. Hær. iii. 22.

"Quemadmodum enim illa per Angeli sermonem seducta est, ut effugeret Deum, prævaricata verbum ejus; ita et hæc per Angelicum sermonem evangelizata est, ut portaret Deum, obediens ejus verbo. Et si ea inobedierat Deo; sed hæc suasa est obedire Deo, uti Virginis Evæ Virgo Maria fieret advocata. Et quemadmodum adstrictum est morti genus humanum per Virginem, salvatur [solvatur] per Virginem, æqua lance disposita, virginalis inobedientia, per virginalem obedientiam."—Ibid. v. 19.

4. St. Cyril:—[Dia parthenou tes Euas elthen ho thanatos, edei dia parthenou, mallon de ek parthenou, phanenai ten zoen; hina hosper ekeinen ophis epatesen, houto kai tauten Gabriel euangelisetai.]—Cat. xii. 1.

5. St. Ephrem.:—"Per Evam nempe decora et amabilis hominis gloria extincta est, quæ tamen rursus per Mariam refloruit"—Opp. Syr. ii. p. 318.

"Initio protoparentum delicto in omnes homines mors pertransiit; hodie vero per Mariam translati sumus de morte ad vitam. Initio serpens, Evæ auribus occupatis, inde virus in totum corpus dilatavit; hodie Maria {122} ex auribus perpetuæ felicitatis assertorem excepit. Quod ergo mortis fuit, simul et vitæ extitit instrumentum"—iii. p. 607.

6. ST. EPIPHANIUS:—[Aute estin he para men tei Euai semainomene di' ainigmatos labousa to kaleisthai meter zonton ... kai en thauma hoti meta ten parabasin tauten ten megalen eschen eponumian. kai kata men to aistheton, ap' ekeines tes Euas pasa ton anthropon he gennesis epi ges gegennetai; hode de alethos apo Marias aute he zoe toi kosmoi gegennetai; hina zonta gennesei, kai gennetai he Maria meter zonton; di' ainugmatos oun he Maria meter zonton kekletai ... alla kai heteron peri touton dianoeisthai esti thaumaston, peri de tes Euas kai tes Marias. he men gar Eua prophasis genennetai thanatou tois anthropois; ... he de Maria prophasis zoes ... hina zoe anti thanatou gennetai, ekkleisasaton thanaton ton ek gunaikos palin ho dia gunaikos hemin zoe gegennemenos].—Hær. 78. 18.

7. St. Jerome:—"Postquam vero Virgo concepit in utero, et peperit nobis puerum ... soluta maledictio est. Mors per Evam, vita per Mariam."—Ep. 22. ad Eustochium, 21.

8. St. Augustine:—"Huc accedit magnum sacramentum, ut, quoniam per feminam nobis mors acciderat, vita nobis per feminam nasceretur: ut de utrâque naturâ, id est, femininâ et masculinâ, victus diabolus cruciaretur, quoniam de ambarum subversione lætabatur, cui parum fuerat ad pœnam si ambæ naturæ in nobis liberarentur, nisi etiam perambas liberaremur".—De Agone Christ. 24.

9. St. Peter Chrysologus:—"Benedicta tu in mulieribus. Quia in quibus Eva maledicta puniebat viscera; tunc in illis gaudet, honoratur, suspicitur Maria benedicta. {123} Et facta est vera nunc mater viventium per gratiam quæ mater extitit morientium per naturam ... Quantus sit Deus satis ignorat ille, qui hujus Virginis mentem non stupet, animum non miratur: pavet cœlum, tremunt Angeli, creatura non sustinet, natura non sufficit, et una puella sic Deum in sui pectoris capit, recipit, oblectat hospitio, ut pacem terris, cœlis gloriam, salutem perditis, vitam mortuis, terrenis cum cœlestibus parentelam, ipsius Dei cum carne commercium, pro ipsa domus exigat pensione, pro ipsius uteri mercede conquirat, et impleat illud Prophetæ: Ecce hæreditas Domini, filii merces fructus ventris. Sed jam se concludat sermo ut de partur Virginis, donante Deo, et indulgente tempore, gratius proloquamur."—Serm. 140.

10. St. Fulgentius:—"In primi hominis conjuge, nequitia diaboli seductam depravavit mentem: in secundi autem hominis matre, gratia Dei et mentem integram servavit, et carnem: menti contulit firmissimam fidem, carni abstulit omnino libidinem. Quoniam igitur miserabiliter pro peccato damnatus est homo, ideo sine peccato mirabiliter natus est Deus homo."—Serm. ii.

"Venite, virgines, ad virginem; venite, concipientes, ad concipientem; venite, parturientes, ad parturientem; venite, matres, ad matrem; venite, lactantes, ad lactantem; venite, juvenculæ, ad juvenculam. Ideo omnes istos cursus naturæ virgo Maria in Domino nostro Jesu Christo suscepit, ut omnibus ad se confugientibus fœminis subveniret, et sic restauraret omne genus fœminarum ad se advenientium nova Eva servando virginitatem, sicut omne genus virorum Adam novus recuperat dominus Jesus Christus."—Ibid. iii. {124}

I have omitted, among the instances of the comparison of Eve with Mary, the passage at the end of the Epistle to Diognetus, a testimony which would be most important from the great antiquity of that work, from the religious beauty of its composition, and the stress laid upon it by Protestants. But I cannot construe it satisfactorily as it stands in the received text. Should not the semicolon be placed after [phtheiretai], not, as in the editions, after [pisteuetai]? thus:—[hon ophis ouch aptetai oude plane sunchorizetai, oude Eua phtheiretai; alla parthenos pisteuetai, kai soterion deiknutai, kai apostoloi k.t.l.] {125}

Top | Contents | Works | Home

NOTE II. PAGE 48.

Suarez on the Immaculate Conception

ABRIDGED from Suarez. Opp. t. 17, p. 7—Ed. Venet. 1746:—

"1. Statuendum est B. Virginem fuisse a Christo redemptam, quia Christus fuit universalis redemptor totius generis humani, et pro omnibus hominibus mortuus est."—p. 15.

"2. Præterea constat indiguisse Virginem redemptione, quia nimirum descendebat ex Adamo per seminalem generationem."—p. 7.

"3. Tanquam certum statuendum est, B. Virginem procreatam esse ex viri et fœminæ commixtione carnali, ad modum aliorum hominum. Habetur certâ traditione et communi consensu totius Ecclesiæ."—p. 7.

"4. Absolute et simpliciter fatendum B. Virginem in Adam peccasse."—p. 16.

"5. B. Virgo peccavit in Adamo, ex quo tanquam ex radice infecta per seminalem rationem est orta; hæc est tota ratio contrahendi originale peccatum, quod est ex vi conceptionis, nisi gratia Dei præveniat."—p. 16.

"6. Certum est B. Virginem fuisse mortuam saltem in Adamo. Sicut in Christo vitam habuit, ita et in {126} Adam fuit mortua. Alias B. Virgo non contraxisset mortem aliasve corporis pœnalitates ex Adamo; consequens [autem] est omnino falsum. Habuit B. Virgo meritum mortis saltem in Adamo. Illa vere habuit mortem carnis ex peccato Adami contractam."—p. 16.

"7. B. Virgo, ex vi suæ conceptionis fuit obnoxia originali peccato, seu debitum habuit contrahendi illud, nisi divinâ gratiâ fuisset impeditum."—p. 16.

"8. Si B. Virgo non fuisset (ut ita dicam) vendita in Adamo, et de se servituti peccati obnoxia, non fuisset vere redempta."—p. 16.

"9. Dicendum est, potuisse B. Virginem præservari ab originali peccato, et in primo suæ conceptionis instanti sanctificari."—p. 17.

"10. Potuit B. Virgo ex vi suæ originis esse obnoxia culpæ, et ideo indigere redemptione, et nihilominus in eodem momento, in quo erat obnoxia, præveniri, ne illam contraheret."—p. 14.

"11. Dicendum B. Virginem in ipso primo instanti conceptionis suæ fuisse sanctificatam, et ab originali peccato præservatam."—p. 19.

"12. Carnem Virginis fuisse carnem peccati … verum est, non quia illa caro aliquando fuit subdita peccato aut informata anima carente gratia, sed quia fuit mortalis et passibilis ex debito peccati, cui de se erat obnoxia, si per Christi gratiam non fuisset præservata."—p. 22.

"13. Quod B. Virgo de se fuerit obnoxia peccato, (si illud revera nunquam habuit) non derogat perfectæ ejus sanctitati et puritati."—pp. 16, 17. {127}

Cornelius à Lapide, Comment. in Ep. ad Rom. v. 12, says:—

"The Blessed Virgin sinned in Adam, and incurred this necessity of contracting original sin; but original sin itself she did not contract in herself in fact, nor had it; for she was anticipated by the grace of God, which excluded all sin from her, in the first moment of her conception."

In 2 Ep. ad Corinth. v. 15:—

"All died, namely, in Adam, for in him all contracted the necessity of sin and death, even the Deipara; so that both herself and man altogether needed Christ as a Redeemer and His death. Therefore the Blessed Virgin sinned and died in Adam, but in her own person she contracted not sin and the death of the soul, for she was anticipated by God and God's grace."

If any one wishes to see our doctrine drawn out in a Treatise of the present day, he should have recourse to Dr. Ullathorne's Exposition of the Immaculate Conception, a work full of instruction and of the first authority. {128}

Top | Contents | Works | Home

NOTE III. PAGE 50.

The Anomalous Statements of St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, and St. Cyril about the Blessed Virgin

I HAVE admitted that several great Fathers of the Church of the fourth and fifth centuries speak of the Blessed Virgin in terms which we never should think of using now, and which at first sight are inconsistent with the belief and sentiment concerning her, which I have ascribed to their times. These Fathers are St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, and St. Cyril of Alexandria; and the occasion of their speaking is furnished by certain passages of Scripture on which they are commenting. It may in consequence be asked of me, why I do not take these three, instead of St. Justin, St. Irenæus, and Tertullian, as my authoritative basis for determining the doctrine of the primitive times concerning the Blessed Mary: why, instead of making St. Irenæus, &c., the rule, and St. Basil, &c., the exception, I do not make the earlier Fathers the exception, and the latter the rule. Since I do not, it may be urged against me that I am but making a case for my own opinion, and playing the part of an advocate.

Now I do not see that it would be illogical or nugatory, though I did nothing more than make a case; {129} indeed I have worded myself in my Letter as if I wished to do little more. For so much as this would surely be to the purpose, considering that the majority of Anglicans have a supreme confidence that no case whatever can be made in behalf of our doctrine concerning the Blessed Virgin from the ancient Fathers. I should have gained a real point if I did anything to destroy this imagination; but I intend to attempt something more than this. I shall attempt to invalidate the only grounds on which any teaching contrary to the Catholic can be founded on Antiquity.

First, I set down the passages which create the difficulty, as they are found in the great work of Petavius, a theologian too candid and fearless to put out of sight or explain away adverse facts, from fear of scandal, or from the expedience of controversy.

1. St. Basil then writes thus, in his 260th Epistle, addressed to Optimus:—

"[Symeon] uses the word 'sword,' meaning the word which is tentative and critical of the thoughts, and reaches unto the separation of soul and spirit, of the joints and marrow. Since then every soul, at the time of the Passion, was subjected in a way to some unsettlement ([diakrisei]), according to the Lord's word, who said, 'All ye shall be scandalized in Me,' Symeon prophesies even of Mary herself, that, standing by the Cross, and seeing what was doing, and hearing the words, after the testimony of Gabriel, after the secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great manifestation of miracles, Thou wilt experience, he says, a certain tossing {130} ([salos]) of thy soul. For it beseemed the Lord to taste death for every one, and to become a propitiation of the world, in order to justify all in His blood. And thee thyself who hast been taught from above the things concerning the Lord, some unsettlement ([diakrisis]) will reach. This is the sword; 'that out of many hearts thoughts may be revealed.' He obscurely signifies, that, after the scandalizing which took place upon the Cross of Christ, both to the disciples and to Mary herself, some quick healing should follow upon it from the Lord, confirming their heart unto faith in Him."

2. St. Chrysostom, in Matth. Hom. iv.:—

"'Wherefore,' a man may say, 'did not the Angel do in the case of the Virgin [what he did to Joseph?'" viz., appear to her after, not before, the Incarnation], "'why did he not bring her the good tidings after her conception?' lest she should be in great disturbance and trouble. For the probability was, that, had she not known the clear fact, she would have resolved something strange ([atopon]) about herself, and had recourse to rope or sword, not bearing the disgrace. For the Virgin was admirable, and Luke shows her virtue when he says that, when she heard the salutation, she did not at once become extravagant, nor appropriated the words, but was troubled, searching what was the nature of the salutation. One then of so refined a mind ([diekribomene]) would be made beside herself with despondency, considering the disgrace, and not expecting, whatever she may say, to persuade any one who hears her, that adultery had not been the fact. Lest then these things should occur, the Angel came before the conception; for {131} it beseemed that that womb should be without disorder, which the Creator of all entered, and that that soul should be rid of all perturbation, which was counted worthy to become the minister of such mysteries."

In Matth. Hom. xliv. (vid. also in Joann. Hom. xxi.):—

"Today we learn something else even further, viz., that not even to bear Christ in the womb, and to have that wonderful childbirth, has any gain without virtue. And this is especially true from this passage, 'As He was yet speaking to the multitude, behold His Mother and His brethren stood without, seeking to speak to Him,' &c. This He said, not as ashamed of His Mother, nor as denying her who bore Him; for, had He been ashamed, He had not passed through that womb; but as showing that there was no profit to her thence, unless she did all that was necessary. For what she attempted, came of overmuch love of honour; for she wished to show to the people that she had power and authority over her Son, in nothing ever as yet having given herself airs ([phantazomene]) about Him. Therefore she came thus unseasonably. Observe then her and their rashness ([aponoian]) ... Had He wished to deny His Mother, then He would have denied, when the Jews taunted Him with her. But no: He shows such care of her as to commit her as a legacy on the Cross itself to the disciple whom He loved best of all, and to take anxious oversight of her. But does He not do the same now, by caring for her and His brethren? ... And consider, not only the words which convey the considerate rebuke, but also ... who He is who utters it ... and what He {132} aims at in uttering it; not, that is, as wishing to cast her into perplexity, but to release her from a most tyrannical affection, and to bring her gradually to the fitting thought concerning Him, and to persuade her that He is not only her Son, but also her Master."

3. St. Cyril, in Joann. lib. xii. 1064:—

"How shall we explain this passage? He introduces both His Mother and the other women with her standing at the Cross, and, as is plain, weeping. For somehow the race of women is ever fond of tears; and especially given to laments, when it has rich occasions for weeping. How then did they persuade the blessed Evangelist to be so minute in his account, as to make mention of this abidance of the women? For it was his purpose to teach even this, viz., that probably even the Mother of the Lord herself was scandalized at the unexpected Passion, and that the death upon the Cross, being so very bitter, was near unsettling her from her fitting mind; and in addition to this, the mockeries of the Jews, and the soldiers too, perhaps, who were sitting near the Cross and making a jest of Him who was hanging on it, and daring, in the sight of His very mother, the division of His garments. Doubt not that she admitted ([eisedezato]) some such thoughts as these:—I bore Him who is laughed at on the wood; but, in saying He was the true son of the Omnipotent God, perhaps somehow He was mistaken. He said He was the Life, how then has He been crucified? how has He been strangled by the cords of His murderers? how prevailed He not over the plot of His persecutors? why descends He not from the Cross, though He bade Lazarus to return to life, and amazed all {133} Judæa with His miracles? And it is very natural that the woman in her ([to gunaion]), not knowing the mystery, should slide into some such trains of thought. For we must conclude, if we judge well, that the gravity of the circumstances was enough to overturn even a self-possessed mind; it is no wonder then if a woman ([to gunaion]) slipped into this reasoning. For if Peter himself, the chosen one of the holy disciples, once was scandalized ... so as to cry out hastily, Be it far from Thee, Lord ... what paradox is it, if the soft mind of womankind was carried off to weak ideas? And this we say, not idly conjecturing, as it may strike one, but entertaining the suspicion from what is written concerning the Mother of the Lord. For we remember that Simeon the Just, when he received the Lord as a little child into his arms, ... said to her, 'A sword shall go through thine own soul, that out of many hearts thoughts may be revealed.' By sword he meant the sharp excess of suffering cutting down a woman's mind into extravagant thoughts. For temptations test the hearts of those who suffer them, and make bare the thoughts which are in them."

Now what do these three Fathers say in these passages?

1. St. Basil imputes to the Blessed Virgin, not only doubt, but the sin of doubt. On the other hand, 1. he imputes it only on one occasion; 2. he does not consider it to be a grave sin; 3. he implies that, in point of spiritual perfection, she is above the Apostles.

2. St. Chrysostom, in his first passage, does not impute {134} sin to her at all. He says God so disposed things for her as to shield her from the chance of sinning; that she was too admirable to be allowed to be betrayed by her best and purest feelings into sin. All that is implied repugnant to a Catholic's reverence for her, is, that her woman's nature, viewed in itself and apart from the watchful providence of God's grace over her, would not have had strength to resist a hypothetical temptation,—a position which a Catholic will not care to affirm or deny, though he will feel great displeasure at having to discuss it at all. This, moreover, at least is distinctly brought out in the passage, viz., that in St. Chrysostom's mind, our Lady was not a mere physical instrument of the Incarnation, but that her soul, as well as her body, "ministered to the mystery," and needed to be duly prepared for it.

As to his second most extraordinary passage, I should not be candid, unless I simply admitted that it is as much at variance with what we hold, as it is solitary and singular in the writings of Antiquity. The saint distinctly and (pace illius) needlessly, imputes to the Blessed Virgin, on the occasion in question, the sin or infirmity of vainglory. He has a parallel passage in commenting on the miracle at the marriage-feast. All that can be said to alleviate the startling character of these passages is, that it does not appear that St. Chrysostom would account such vainglory in a woman as any great failing.

3. Lastly, as to St. Cyril, I do not see that he declares that Mary actually doubted at the Crucifixion, but that, considering she was a woman, it is likely she was tempted {135} to doubt, and nearly doubted. Moreover, St. Cyril does not seem to consider such doubt, had it occurred, as any great sin.

Thus on the whole, all three Fathers, St. Basil and St. Cyril explicitly, and St. Chrysostom by implication, consider that on occasions she was, or might be, exposed to violent temptation to doubt; but two Fathers consider that she actually did sin, though she sinned lightly;—the sin being doubt, and on one occasion, according to St. Basil; and on two occasions, the sin being vainglory, according to St. Chrysostom.

However, the strong language of these Fathers is not directed against our Lady's person, so much as against her nature. They seem to have participated with Ambrose, Jerome, and other Fathers, in that low estimation of woman's nature which was general in their times. In the broad imperial world, the conception entertained of womankind was not high; it seemed only to perpetuate the poetical tradition of the "Varium et mutabile semper." Little was then known of that true nobility, which is exemplified in the females of the Gothic and German races, and in those of the old Jewish stock, Miriam, Deborah, Judith, and Susanna, the forerunners of Mary. When then St. Chrysostom imputes vainglory to her, he is not imputing to her anything worse than an infirmity, the infirmity of a nature, inferior to man's, and intrinsically feeble; as though the Almighty could have created a more excellent being than Mary, but could not have made a greater woman. Accordingly Chrysostom does not say that she sinned. He does not deny that she had all the perfections which {136} woman could have; but he seems to have thought the capabilities of her nature were bounded, so that the utmost grace bestowed upon it could not raise it above that standard of perfection in which its elements resulted, and that to attempt more, would have been to injure, not to benefit it. Of course I am not stating this as brought out in any part of his writings, but it seems to me to be the real sentiment of many of the ancients.

I will add that such a belief on the part of these Fathers, that the Blessed Virgin had committed a sin or a weakness, was not in itself inconsistent with the exercise of love and devotion to her (though I am not pretending that there is proof of any such exercise on their part in fact); and for this simple reason, that if sinlessness were a condition of inspiring devotion, we should not feel devotion to any but our Lady, not to St. Joseph, or to the Apostles, or to our Patron saints.

Such then is the teaching of these three Fathers; now how far is it in antagonism to ours? On the one hand, we will not allow that our Blessed Lady ever sinned; we cannot bear the notion, entering, as we do, into the full spirit of St. Augustine's words, "Concerning the Holy Virgin Mary, I wish no question to be raised at all, when we are treating of sins." On the other hand, we admit, rather we maintain, that, except for the grace of God, she might have sinned; and that she may have been exposed to temptation in the sense in which our Lord was exposed to it, though as His Divine Nature made it impossible for Him to yield to it, so His grace preserved her under its assaults also. While then we do {137} not hold that St. Simeon prophesied of temptation, when he said a sword would pierce her, still, if any one likes to say he did, we do not consider him heretical, provided he does not impute to her any sinful or inordinate emotion as the consequence to it. In this way St. Cyril may be let off altogether; and we have only to treat of the paradoxa or anomala of those great Saints, St. Basil and St. Chrysostom. I proceed to their controversial value.

I mean, that having determined what the Three Fathers say, and how far they are at issue with what Catholics hold now, I now come to the main question, viz., What is the authoritative force in controversy of what they thus say in opposition to Catholic teaching? I think I shall be able to show that it has no controversial force at all.

1. I begin by observing, that the main force of passages which can be brought from any Father or Fathers in controversy, lies in the fact that such passages represent the judgment or sentiment of their own respective countries; and again, I say that the force of that local judgment or sentiment lies in its being the existing expression of an Apostolical tradition. I am far, of course, from denying the claim of the teaching of a Father on our deference, arising out of his personal position and character; or the claims of the mere sentiments of a Christian population on our careful attention, as a fact carrying with it, under circumstances, especial weight; but, in a question of doctrine, we must have recourse to the great source of doctrine, Apostolical Tradition, and a {138} Father must represent his own people, and that people must be the witnesses of an uninterrupted Tradition from the Apostles, if anything decisive is to come of any theological statement which is found in his writings; and if, in a particular case, there is no reason to suppose that he does echo the popular voice, or that that popular voice is transmitted from Apostolic times,—or (to take another channel of Tradition) unless the Father in question receives and reports his doctrine from the Bishops and Priests who instructed him on the very understanding and profession that it is Apostolical,—then, though it was not one Father but ten who said a thing, it would weigh nothing against the assertion of only one Father to the contrary, provided it was clear that that one Father witnessed to an Apostolical Tradition. Now I do not say that I can decide the question by this issue with all the exactness which is conceivable, but still this is the issue by which it must be tried, and the issue by which I shall be enabled, as I think, to come to a satisfactory conclusion upon it.

2. Such, I say, being the issue, viz., that a doctrine reported by the Fathers, in order to have dogmatic force, must be a Tradition in its source or form, next, what is a Tradition, considered in its matter? It is a belief, which, be it affirmative or negative, is positive. The mere absence of a tradition in a country, is not a tradition the other way. If, for instance, there was no tradition in Syria and Asia Minor that the phrase "consubstantial with the Father," came from the Apostles, that would not be a tradition that it did not come from the Apostles; though of course it would be necessary for those who {139} said that it did, to account for the ignorance of those countries as to the real fact.

3. The proposition "Christ is God," serves as an example of what I mean by an affirmative tradition; and "no one born of woman is born in God's favour," is an example of a negative tradition. I observe then, in the third place, that a tradition does not carry its own full explanation with it; it does but land (so to say) a proposition at the feet of the Apostles, and its interpretation has still to be determined,—as the Apostles' words in Scripture, however much theirs, need an interpretation. Thus I may accept the above negative Tradition, that "no one woman-born is born in God's favour," yet question its strict universality, as a point of criticism, saying that a general proposition admits of exceptions, that our Lord was born of woman, yet was the sinless and acceptable priest and sacrifice for all men. So again the Arians allowed that "Christ was God," but they disputed about the meaning of the word "God."

4. Further, there are explicit traditions and implicit. By an explicit tradition I mean a doctrine which is conveyed in the letter of the proposition which has been handed down; and by implicit, one which lies in the force and virtue, not in the letter of the proposition. Thus it might be an Apostolical tradition that our Lord was the very Son of God, of one nature with the Father, and in all things equal to Him; and again a tradition that there was but one God: these would be explicit, but in them would necessarily be conveyed, moreover, the implicit tradition, that the Father and the Son were numerically one. Implicit traditions are {140} positive traditions, as being strictly conveyed in positive.

5. Lastly, there are at least two ways of determining an Apostolical tradition:—(l.) When credible witnesses declare that it is Apostolical; as when three hundred Fathers at Nicæa stopped their ears at Arius's blasphemies: (2.) When, in various places, independent witnesses enunciate one and the same doctrine, as St. Irenæus, St. Cyprian, and Eusebius assert, that the Apostles founded a Church, Catholic and One.

Now to apply these principles to the particular case on account of which I have laid them down.

1. That "Mary is the new Eve," is a proposition answering to the idea of a Tradition. I am not prepared to say that it can be shown to have the first of the above two tests of its Apostolicity, viz. that the writers who record it, profess to have received it from the Apostles; but I conceive it has the second test, viz. that the writers are independent witnesses, as I have shown at length in the course of my Letter.

It is an explicit tradition; and by the force of it follow two others, which are implicit:—first (considering the condition of Eve in paradise), that Mary had no part in sin, and indefinitely large measures of grace; secondly (considering the doctrine of merits), that she has been exalted to glory proportionate to that grace.

This is what I have to observe on the argument in behalf of the Blessed Virgin. St. Justin, St. Irenæus, Tertullian, are witnesses of an Apostolical tradition, {141} because in three distinct parts of the world they enunciate one and the same definite doctrine. And it is remarkable that they witness just for those three seats of Catholic teaching, where the truth in this matter was likely to be especially lodged. St. Justin speaks for Jerusalem, the see of St. James; St. Irenæus for Ephesus, the dwelling-place, the place of burial, of St. John; and Tertullian, who made a long residence at Rome, for the city of St. Peter and St. Paul.

2. Now, what can be produced on the other side, parallel to an argument like this? A tradition in its matter is a positive statement of belief; in its form it is a statement which comes from the Apostles: (1.) now, first in point of matter, what definite statement of belief at all, is witnessed to by St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, and St. Cyril? I cannot find any. They do but interpret certain passages in the Gospels to our Lady's disadvantage; is an interpretation a distinct statement of belief? but even if it was, there is no joint interpretation in this case; they do not all three interpret one and the same passage. Nor do they agree together in their interpretation of those passages, which either one or other of them interprets so harshly; for, while St. Chrysostom holds that our Lord spoke in correction of His Mother at the wedding feast, St. Cyril on the contrary says that He wrought a miracle which He was Himself unwilling to work, in order to show "reverence to His Mother," and that she "having great authority for the working of the miracle, got the victory, persuading the Lord, as being her Son, as was fitting." But, taking the statements which are in her disparagement as we find them, can we {142} generalize them into one proposition? Shall we make it such as this, viz. "The Blessed Virgin during her earthly life committed actual sin"? If we mean by this, that there was a positive recognition of such a proposition in the country of St. Basil or St. Chrysostom, this surely is not to be gathered merely from their separate and independent comments on passages of Scripture. All that can be gathered thence legitimately is, that, had there been a positive belief in her sinlessness in those countries, the Fathers in question would not have spoken of her in the terms which they have used; in other words, that there was no belief in her sinlessness then and there; but the absence of a belief is not a belief to the contrary, it is not that positive statement, which, as I have said, is required for the matter of a tradition.

(2.) Nor do the passages which I have quoted from these Fathers, supply us with any tradition, viewed in its form, that is, as a statement which has come down from the Apostles. I have suggested two tests of such a statement:—one, when the writers who make it so declare that it was from the Apostles; and the other when, being independent of one another, they bear witness to one and the same positive statement of doctrine. Neither test is fulfilled in this case. The three Fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries are but commenting on Scripture; and comments, though carrying with them of course, and betokening, the tone of thought of the place and time to which they belong, are, primâ facie, of a private and personal character. If they are more than this, the onus probandi lies with those who so maintain. Exegetical theology is one department of {143} divine science, and dogmatic is another. On the other hand, the three Fathers of the 2nd century are all writing on dogmatic subjects, when they compare Mary to Eve.

Now to take the Three later Fathers, viewed as organs of tradition, one by one :—

1. As to St. Cyril, as I have said, he does not, strictly speaking, say more than that our Lady was grievously tempted. This does not imply sin, for our Lord was "tempted in all things like as we are, yet without sin." Moreover, it is this St. Cyril who spoke at Ephesus of the Blessed Virgin in terms of such high panegyric, as to make it more consistent in him to suppose that she was sinless, than that she was not.

2. St. Basil derives his notion from Origen, that the Blessed Virgin at the time of the Passion admitted a doubt about our Lord's mission, and Origen, so far from professing to rest it on Tradition, draws it as a theological conclusion from a received doctrine. Origen's characteristic fault was to prefer scientific reasonings to authority; and he exemplifies it in the case before us. In the middle age, the great obstacle to the reception of the doctrine of the Blessed Mary's immaculate conception, was the notion that, unless she had been in some sense a sinner, she could not have been redeemed. By an argument parallel to this, Origen argues, that since she was one of the redeemed, she must at one time or another have committed an actual sin. He says: "Are we to think, that the Apostles were scandalized, and not the Lord's Mother? If she suffered not scandal at {144} our Lord's passion, then Jesus died not for her sins. If all have sinned and need the glory of God, being justified by His grace, and redeemed, certainly Mary at that time was scandalized." This is precisely the argument of Basil, as contained in the passage given above; his statement then of the Blessed Virgin's wavering in faith, instead of professing to be the tradition of a doctrine, carries with it an avowal of its being none at all.

However, I am not unwilling to grant that, whereas Scripture tells us that all were scandalized at our Lord's passion, there was some sort of traditional interpretation of Simeon's words, to the effect that she was in some sense included in that trial. How near the Apostolic era the tradition existed, cannot be determined; but such a belief need not include the idea of sin in the Blessed Virgin, but only the presence of temptation and darkness of spirit. This tradition, whatever its authority, would be easily perverted, so as actually to impute sin to her, by such reasonings as that of Origen. Origen himself, in the course of the passage to which I have referred, speaks of "the sword" of Simeon, and is the first to do so. St. Cyril, who, though an Alexandrian as well as Origen, represents a very different school of theology, has, as we have seen, the same interpretation for the piercing sword. It is also found in a Homily attributed to St. Amphilochius; and in that sixth Oration of Proclus, which, according to Tillemont and Ceillier, is not to be considered genuine. It is also found in a work incorrectly attributed to St. Augustine.

3. St. Chrysostom is, par excellence, the Commentator {145} of the Church. As Commentator and Preacher, he, of all the Fathers, carries about him the most intense personality. In this lies his very charm, peculiar to himself. He is ever overflowing with thought, and he pours it forth with a natural engaging frankness, and an unwearied freshness and vigour. If he really was in the practice of deeply studying and carefully criticizing what he delivered in public, he had in perfection the rare art of concealing his art. He ever speaks from himself, not of course without being impregnated with the fulness of a Catholic training, but, still, not speaking by rule, but as if, "trusting the lore of his own loyal heart." On the other hand, if it is not a paradox to say it, no one carries with him so little of the science, precision, consistency, gravity of a Doctor of the Church, as he who is one of the greatest. The difficulties are well known which he has occasioned to school theologians: his obiter dicta about our Lady are among them.

On the whole then I conclude that these three Fathers supply no evidence that, in what they say about her having failed in faith or humility on certain occasions mentioned in Scripture, they are reporting the enunciations of Apostolical Tradition.

Moreover, such difficulties as the above are not uncommon in the writings of the Fathers. I will mention several:—

1. St. Gregory Nyssen is a great dogmatic divine; he too, like St. Basil, is of the school of Origen; and, in several passages of his works, he, like Origen, declares or {146} suggests that future punishment will not be eternal. Those Anglicans who consider St. Chrysostom's passages in his Commentary on the Gospels to be a real argument against the Catholic belief of the Blessed Virgin's sinlessness, should explain why they do not feel St. Gregory Nyssen's teaching in his Catechetical Discourse, an argument against their own belief in the eternity of punishment.

2. Again, Anglicans believe in the proper Divinity of our Lord, in spite of Bull's saying of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, "Nearly all the ancient Catholics, who preceded Arius, have the appearance of being ignorant of the invisible and incomprehensible (immensam) nature of the Son of God;" an article of faith expressly contained in the Athanasian Creed, and enforced by its anathema.

3. The Divinity of the Holy Ghost is an integral part of the fundamental doctrine of Christianity; yet St. Basil, in the fourth century, apprehending the storm of controversy which its assertion would raise, refrained from asserting it on an occasion when the Arians were on watch as to what he would say. And, on his keeping silence, St. Athanasius took his part. Such inconsistencies take place continually, and no Catholic doctrine but suffers from them at times, until what has been preserved by Tradition is formally pronounced to be Apostolical by definition of the Church.

Before concluding, I shall briefly take notice of two questions which may be asked me.

1. How are we to account for the absence, at Antioch {147} or Cæsarea, of a tradition of our Lady's sinlessness? I answer that it was obliterated or confused for the time by the Arian troubles in the countries in which those Sees are situated.

It is not surely wonderful, if, in Syria and Asia Minor, the seat in the fourth century of Arianism and Semi-Arianism, the prerogatives of the Mother were obscured together with the essential glory of the Son, or if they who denied the tradition of His divinity, forgot the tradition of her sinlessness. Christians in those countries and times, however religious themselves, however orthodox their teachers, were necessarily under peculiar disadvantages.

Now let it be observed that Basil grew up in the very midst of Semi-Arianism, and had direct relations with that portion of its professors who had been reconciled to the Church and accepted the Homoüsion. It is not wonderful then, if he had no firm habitual hold upon a doctrine which (though Apostolical) in his day was as yet so much in the background all over Christendom, as our Lady's sinlessness.

As to Chrysostom, not only was he in close relations with the once Semi-Arian Cathedra of Antioch, to the disowning of the rival succession there, recognized by Rome and Alexandria, but, as his writings otherwise show, he came under the teaching of the celebrated Antiochene School, celebrated, that is, at once for its method of Scripture criticism, and (orthodox as it was itself) for the successive outbreaks of heresy among its members. These outbreaks began in Paul of Samosata, were continued in the Semi-Arian pupils of Lucian, and {148} ended in Nestorius. The famous Theodore, and Diodorus, of the same school, who, though not heretics themselves, have a bad name in the Church, were, Diodorus the master, and Theodore the fellow-pupil, of St. Chrysostom. (Vid. Essay on Doctr. Devel. chap. v. § 2.) Here then is a natural explanation, why St. Chrysostom, even more than St. Basil, might be wanting, great doctor as he was, in a clear perception of the place of the Blessed Virgin in the Evangelical Dispensation.

2. How are we to account for the passages in the Gospels which are the occasion of the three Fathers' remarks to her disparagement? I answer, they were intended to discriminate between our Lord's work who is our Teacher and Redeemer, and the ministrative office of His Mother.

As to the words of Simeon, indeed, as interpreted by St. Basil and St. Cyril, there is nothing in the sacred text which obliges us to consider the "sword" to mean doubt rather than anguish; but Matth. xii. 46-50, with its parallels Mark iii. 31-35, and Luke viii. 19-21: and with Luke xi. 27, 28, and John ii. 4, requires some explanation.

I observe then, that, when our Lord commenced His ministry, and during it, as one of His chief self-sacrifices, He separated Himself from all ties of earth, in order to fulfil the typical idea of a teacher and priest; and to give an example to His priests after Him; and especially to manifest by this action the cardinal truth, as expressed by the Prophet, "I am the Lord, and there is no Saviour besides Me." As to His Priests, they, after Him, were to be of the order of that Melchizedech, who was {149} "without father and without mother;" for "no man, being a soldier to God, entangleth himself with secular business:" and "no man putting his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." Again, as to the Levites, who were His types in the Old Law, there was that honourable history of their zeal for God, when they even slew their own brethren and companions who had committed idolatry; "who said to his father and to his mother, I do not know you, and to his brethren, I know you not, and their own children they have not known." To this His separation even from His Mother He refers by anticipation at twelve years old in His words, "How is it that you sought Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?"

The separation from her, with whom He had lived thirty years and more, was not to last beyond the time of His ministry. She seems to have been surprised when she first heard of it, for St. Luke says, on occasion of His staying in the Temple, "they understood not the word that He spoke to them." Nay, she seems hardly to have understood it at the marriage-feast; but He, in dwelling on it more distinctly then, implied also that it was not to last long. He said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? My hour is not yet come,"—that is, the hour of His triumph, when His Mother was to take her predestined place in His kingdom. In saying the hour was not yet come, He implied that the hour would come, when He would have to "do with her," and she might ask and obtain from Him miracles. Accordingly, St. Augustine thinks that that hour had {150} come, when He said upon the Cross, "Consummatum est," and, after this ceremonial estrangement of years, He recognized His Mother and committed her to the beloved disciple. Thus, by marking out the beginning and the end of the period of exception, during which she could not exert her influence upon Him, He signifies more clearly by the contrast, that her presence with Him, and Her power, was to be the rule of His kingdom. In a higher sense than He spoke to the Apostles, He seems to address her in the words, "Because I have spoken these things, sorrow hath filled your heart. But I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man shall take from you." (Vid. Sermon iii. in Sermons on Subjects of the Day. Also the comment of St. Irenæus, &c., upon John ii. 4, in my note on Athanas. Orat. iii. 41.)

Also, I might have added the passage in Tertullian, Carn. Christ. § 7, as illustrating, by its contrast with § 17 (quoted above, p. 34), the distinction between doctrinal tradition and personal opinion, if it were clear to me that he included the Blessed Virgin in the unbelief which he imputes to our Lord's brethren; on the contrary, he expressly separates her off from them. The passage runs thus on the text, "Who is My Mother? and who are My Brethren?"

"The Lord's brothers had not believed in Him, as is contained in the Gospel published before Marcion. His Mother, equally, is not described (non demonstratur) as having adhered to Him, whereas other Marthas and Maries are frequent in intercourse with him. In this place at length their (eorum) incredulity is evident; {151} while He was teaching the way of life, was preaching the kingdom of God, was working for the cure of ailments and diseases, though strangers were riveted to Him, these, so much the nearest to Him (tam proximi), were away. At length they come upon Him, and stand without, nor enter, not reckoning forsooth on what was going on within."

Additional Note, Ed. 5.—It may be added to the above, that Fr. Hippolyto Maracci, in his "Vindicati Chrysostomica," arguing in behalf of St. Chrysostom's belief in the Blessed Virgin's Immaculate Conception, maintains that a real belief in that doctrine is compatible with an admission that she was not free from venial sin, granting for argument's sake that St. Chrysostom held the latter doctrine. If this be so, it follows that we cannot at once conclude that either he or the other two Fathers deny the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, because here and there in their writings they impute to the Blessed Virgin infirmities or faults. He writes as follows:—

"Demus, quod dandum non est, scilicet Chrysostomum tribuisse Deiparæ Virgini peccatum actuale veniale, nunquid ex hoc potest solidè inferri ipsum eidem tribuisse etiam peccatum originale? Minimè quidem. Non enim apparet necessaria connexio inter carentiam peccati venialis et carentiam originalis, ita ut ex unâ possit inferri alia. Potuit Chrysostomus liberare B. Virginem à peccato originali, licet non liberaverit à veniali. Peccatum veniale, juxta doctrinam Angelici Doctoris, non causat maculam in animâ, nec spiritualem pulchritudinem in eâ demolitur, stareque potest cum elogiis 'immaculatæ,' {152} 'incontaminatæ,' 'impollutæ,' &c. Cæterùm peccatum originale, cùm penitus omnem gratiæ ornatum explodat, cum decore immaculatæ, incontaminatæ, impollutæ &c., minimè potest consistere. Chrysostomus arbitratus est, minùs indecorum fuisse Christo nasci ex matre, quæ levi veniali maculâ afficeretur, quam quæ originali ignominiâ dehonestaretur. Præservare Virginem a peccato originali majus privilegium et excellentius beneficium est ex parte Dei, quàm eam non permittere maculâ veniali aliquantulum opacari. Stante enim præservatione à peccato originali, nec anima Dei inimicitiam contrahit, nec diaboli mancipium evadit, nec denique redditur inepta ad recipienda plura auxilia gratiæ annexa, quibus plura peccata venialia declinare posset. Ex aliâ parte, peccatum veniale ex se his bonis recipiendis obicem non adeo ponit, nec animæ pulchritudini, nec amicitiæ, nec charitati machinatur exilium." {153}

Top | Contents | Works | Home

NOTE IV. PAGE 91

On the Teaching of the Greek Church about the Blessed Virgin

CANISIUS, in his work de Mariâ Deiparâ Virgine, p. 514, while engaged in showing the carefulness with which the Church distinguishes the worship of God from the cultus of the Blessed Virgin, observes, "Lest the Church should depart from Latria (i.e. the worship of God) she has instituted the public supplications in the Liturgy in perpetuity in such wise as to address them directly to God the Father, and not to the Saints, according to that common form of praying, 'Almighty, everlasting God,' &c.; and the said prayers which they also call 'Collects,' she generally ends in this way, 'through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord.'" He says more to the same purpose; but the two points here laid down are sufficient; viz. that as to the Latin Missal, Ritual, and Breviary, (1.) Saints are not directly addressed in these authoritative books: and (2.) in them prayers end with the name of Jesus. An apposite illustration of both of these, that is, in what is omitted and what is introduced, is supplied by the concluding prayer of the Offertory in the Latin Mass. If in any case the name of "our Lady and all Saints" might at the end of a prayer be substituted {154} for our Lord's name, it would be when the object addressed is, not God the Father, but the Son, or the Holy Trinity; but let us observe how the prayer in question runs:—

"Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas"—"Receive, O Holy Trinity, this oblation which we make to Thee, in memory of the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in honour of the Blessed Mary, Ever-Virgin, of Blessed John Baptist, and of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of these and all Saints, that it may avail for their honour and our salvation, and that they may vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven, whose memory we celebrate on earth, Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen."

When in occasional Collects the intercession of the Blessed Mary is introduced, it does not supersede mention of our Lord as the Intercessor. Thus in the Post-Communion on the Feast of the Circumcision,—

"May this Communion, O Lord, purify us from guilt; and at the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, make us partakers of the heavenly remedy, through the same our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen."

In like manner, when the Son is addressed, and the intercession of Mary and the Saints is supplicated, His atoning passion is introduced at the close, as on the Feast of the Seven Dolours:—

"God, at whose passion, according to the prophecy of Simeon, the most sweet soul of the glorious Virgin-Mother Mary was pierced through with the sword of sorrow, mercifully grant, that we, who reverently commemorate her piercing and passion, may, by the intercession {155} of the glorious merits and prayers of the Saints who faithfully stood by the Cross, obtain the happy fruit of Thy Passion, who livest and reignest, &c."

"We offer to Thee, Lord Jesus Christ, our prayers and sacrifices, humbly supplicating, that we, who renew in our prayers the piercing of the most sweet soul of Thy Blessed Mother Mary, by the manifold compassionate intervention of both her and her holy companions under the Cross, by the merits of Thy death, may merit a place with the Blessed, who livest, &c."

Now let us observe how far less observant of dogmatic exactness, how free and fearless in its exaltation of the Blessed Virgin, is the formal Greek devotion:—

1. "We have risen from sleep, and we fall down before Thee, O good God; and we sing to Thee the Angelic Hymn, O powerful God. Holy, holy, holy art Thou, God; have mercy on us through the Theotocos.

"Thou hast raised me from my bed and slumber, O God. Lighten my mind, and open my heart and lips, to sing of Thee, Holy Trinity. Holy, holy, holy art Thou, God; have mercy on us through the Theotocos.

"Soon will come the Judge, and the deeds of all will be laid bare ... Holy, holy, holy art Thou, God; have mercy on us through the Theotocos."—Horologium, p. 2, Venet. 1836: vide also, pp. 34, 48, 52. Also Eucholog. Venet. p. 358.

2. "O God, who lookest on the earth, and makest it tremble, deliver us from the fearful threatenings of earthquake, Christ our God; and send down on us Thy rich mercies, and save us, at the intercessions ([presbeiais]) {156} of the Theotocos."—Ibid. p. 224. Vid. also Pentecostar. p. 14.

3. "O Holy God, ... visit us in Thy goodness, pardon us every sin, sanctify our souls, and grant us to serve Thee in holiness all the days of our life, at the intercessions ([presbeiais]) of the Holy Theotocos and all the Saints, &c."—Euchologium, p. 64. Venet. 1832.

4. "Again, and still again, let us beseech the Lord in peace. Help, save, pity, preserve us, O God [through] her, the all-holy, Immaculate, most Blessed, and glorious ([diaphulaxon hemas ho Theos, tes panagias]), &c."—Euchologium, p. 92. Venet. 1832. Vid. also Pentecostar, p. 232; and passim.

5. "Lord, Almighty Sovereign, ... restore and raise from her bed this Thy servant, &c. ... at the intercession ([presbeiais]) of the all-undefiled Theotocos and all the Saints."—Ibid. p. 142.

6. "Have mercy and pardon, (for Thou alone hast power to remit sins and iniquities,) at the intercession of Thy all-holy Mother and all the Saints."—Ibid. p. 150.

7. "O Lord God Almighty, ... bless and hallow Thy place ... at the intercession ([presbeiais]) of our glorious Lady, Mary, Mother of God and Ever-Virgin."—Eucholog. p. 389.

Is the Blessed Virgin ever called "our Lady," as here, in the Latin Prayers? whereas it is a frequent title of her in the Greek.

8. "Save me, my God, from all injury and harm, Thou who art glorified in Three Persons ... and guard Thy flock at the intercessions ([enteuxesin]) of the Theotocos." {157} —Pentecostarium, p. 50. Venet. 1820. Vid. also Goar, Eucholog. p. 30.

9. "In the porch of Solomon there lay a multitude of sick ... Lord, send to us Thy great mercies at the intercession ([presbeiais]) of the Theotocos."—Pentecostar. p. 84. Vid. also Goar, Eucholog. pp. 488, 543.

10. "O great God, the Highest, who alone hast immortality ... prosper our prayer as the incense before Thee ... that we may remember even in the night Thy holy Name, ... and rise anew in gladness of soul ... bringing our prayers and supplications to Thy loving kindness in behalf of our own sins and of all Thy people, whom visit in mercy at the intercessions ([presbeiais]) of the Holy Theotocos."—Ibid. p. 232. Vid. Horolog. p. 192. Venet. 1836.

11. Between the Trisagion and Epistle in Mass. "O Holy God, who dwellest in the holy place, whom with the voice of their Trisagion the Seraphim do praise, &c. ... sanctify our souls and bodies, and grant us to serve Thee in holiness all the days of our life, at the intercession ([presbeiais]) of the Holy Theotocos and all the Saints."—Eucholog. p. 64. Venet. 1832.

12. In the early part of Mass. "Lift up the horn of Christians, and send down on us Thy rich mercies, by the power of the precious and life-giving Cross, by the grace of Thy light-bringing, third-day resurrection from the dead, at the intercession ([presbeiais]) of our All-holy Blessed Lady, Mother of God and Ever-Virgin, and all Thy Saints."—Assemani, Codex Liturg. t. v. p. 71. Rite of St. James.

13. At the Offertory at Mass. "In honour and {158} memory of our singularly blessed and glorious Queen, Mary Theotocos and Ever-Virgin; at whose intercession, O Lord, receive, O Lord, this sacrifice unto Thy altar which is beyond the heavens."—Goar, Euchol. p. 58. Rite of St. Chrysostom.

14. In the Commemoration at Mass. "Cantors. Hail, Mary, full of grace, &c. &c. ... for thou hast borne the Saviour of our souls. Priest. [Remember, Lord] especially the most Holy Immaculate, &c. ... Mary. Cantors. It is meet truly to bless ([makarizein]) thee, the Theotocos ... more honourable than the Cherubim, &c. ... thee we magnify, who art truly the Theotocos. O Full of Grace, in thee the whole creation rejoices, the congregation of Angels, and the race of men, O sanctified shrine, and spiritual Paradise, boast of virgins," &c.—Assemani, t. v. p. 44. Jerusalem Rite.

15. In the Commemoration at Mass. "Priest. Especially and first of all, we make mention of the Holy, glorious, and Ever-Virgin Mary, &c. Deacon. Remember her, Lord God, and at her holy and pure prayers be propitious, have mercy upon us, and favourably hear us. Priest. Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, pray for me to thy Son Only-begotten, who came of thee, that, having remitted my sins and debts, He may accept from my humble and sinful hands this sacrifice, which is offered by my vileness on this altar, through thy intercession, Mother most holy."—Ibid. p. 186. Syrian Rite.

16. Apparently, after the Consecration. "The Priest incenses thrice before the Image (or Picture, imagine) of the Virgin and says: Rejoice, Mary, beautiful dove, who {159} hast borne for us God, the Word; thee we salute with the Angel Gabriel, saying, Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, Hail, Virgin, true Queen; hail, glory of our race, thou hast borne Emmanuel. We ask, remember us, O faithful advocate, in the sight of our Lord Jesus Christ, that He put away from us our sins."—Ibid. t. vii., pars 2da. in fin. p. 20. Alexandrian Rite.

17. At the Communion in Mass. "Forgive, our God, remit, pardon me my trespasses as many as I have committed, whether in knowledge or in ignorance, whether in word or in deed. All these things pardon me, as Thou art good and kind to men, at the intercession ([presbeiais]) of Thy all-undefiled and Ever-Virgin Mother. Preserve me uncondemned, that I may receive Thy precious and undefiled Body, for the healing of my body and soul."—Goar, Euchologium, p. 66.

18. After Communion at Mass. "O Lord, be merciful to us, bless us, let Thy countenance be seen upon us, and pity us, Lord, save Thy people, bless Thine heritage, &c., ... through the prayers and addresses (orationes) which the Lady of us all, Mother of God, the divine (diva) and Holy Mary, and the four bright holy ones, Michael," &c., &c.—Renaudot, Liturg. Orient. t. i. p. 29. Coptic Rite of St. Basil. Vid. also ibid. pp. 29, 37, 89, 515, of St. Basil, Coptic; of St. Gregory, Coptic; of Alexandria, Greek; and of Ethiopia.

19. After Communion at Mass. "We have consummated this holy service ([leitourgian]), as we have been ordered, O Lord ... we, sinners, and Thine unworthy servants, who have been made worthy to serve at Thy holy altar, in offering to Thee the bloodless sacrifice, the {160} immaculate Body, and the precious Blood of the Great God, our Saviour Jesus Christ, to Thy glory, the unoriginate Father, and to the glory of Him, Thy only-begotten Son, and of the Holy Ghost, good, life-giving, and consubstantial with Thee. We ask a place on Thy right hand in Thy fearful and just day through the intercession ([dia ton presbeion]) and prayers of our most glorious Lady, Mary, Mother of God, and Ever-Virgin, and of all saints."—Assemani, Cod. Liturg. t. vii. p. 85. Rite of Alexandria.

20. After Communion at Mass. "We thank Thee, Lord, Lover of men, Benefactor of our souls, that also on this day Thou hast vouchsafed us Thy heavenly and immortal mysteries. Direct our way aright, confirm us all in Thy fear, &c, ... at the prayers and supplications of the glorious Theotocos and Ever-Virgin Mary, and of all Thy saints."—Eucholog. p. 86. Venet. 1832.

21. Concluding words of Mass. "Blessed is He who has given us His holy Body and precious Blood. We have received grace and found life, by virtue of the Cross of Jesus Christ. To Thee, O Lord, we give thanks, &c. Praise to Mary, who is the glory of us all, who has brought forth for us the Eucharist."—Renaudot, Liturg. Orient. t. i. p. 522. Rite of Ethiopia.

I will add some of the instances, which have caught my eye in these ecclesiastical books, of expressions used of the Blessed Virgin, which, among Latins, though occurring in some Antiphons, belong more to the popular than to the formal and appointed devotions paid to her.

22. "Thee we have as a tower and harbour, and an {161} acceptable ambassadress ([presbin]) to the God whom thou didst bear, Mother of God who hadst no spouse, the salvation of believers."—Pentecostar. p. 209. Venet. 1820.

23. "O Virgin alone holy and undefiled, who hast miraculously ([asporos]) conceived God, intercede ([presbeue]) for the salvation of the soul of thy servant."—Eucholog. p. 439. Venet. 1832.

24. "Show forth thy speedy protection and aid and mercy on thy servant, and still the waves, thou pure one, of vain thoughts, and raise up my fallen soul, O Mother of God. For I know, O Virgin, I know that thou hast power for whatever thou willest."—Ibid. p. 679.

25. "Joachim and Anna were set free from the reproach of childlessness, and Adam and Eve from the corruption of death, O undefiled, in thy holy birth. And thy people keeps festival upon it, being ransomed from the guilt of their offences in crying to thee. The barren bears the Theotocos, and the nurse of Life."—Horolog. p. 198. Venet. 1836.

26. "Let us now run earnestly to the Theotocos, sinners as we are, and low, and let us fall in repentance, crying from the depths of our souls, Lady, aid us, taking compassion on us. Make haste, we perish under the multitude of our offences. Turn us not, thy servants, empty away; for we have thee as our only hope."—Ibid. p. 470. Vid. "My whole hope I repose in thee."—Triodion, p. 94. Venet. 1820.

27. "We have gained thee for a wall of relief, and the all-perfect salvation of souls, and a relief ([platusmon]) {162} in afflictions, and in thy light we ever rejoice; O Queen, even now through suffering and danger preserve us."—Ibid. p. 474.

28. "By thy mediation, Virgin, I am saved."—Triod. p. 6. Venet. 1820.

29. "The relief of the afflicted, the release of the sick, O Virgin Theotocos, save this city and people; the peace of those who are oppressed by war, the calm of the tempest-tost, the sole protection of the faithful."—Goar, Eucholog. p. 478.

30. All through the Office Books are found a great number of Collects and Prayers to the Blessed Virgin, called Theotocia, whereas in the Latin Offices addresses to her scarcely get beyond the Antiphons. There are above 100 of them in the Euchology, above 170 in the Pentecostarium, close upon 350 in the Triodion. These, according to Renaudot, are sometimes collected together into separate volumes. (Liturg. Orient. t. ii. p. 98.)

31. At p. 424 of the Horologium there is a collection of 100 invocations in her honour, arranged for the year.

32. At page 271 of the Euchologium, is a form of prayer to her "in the confession of a sinner," consisting of thirty-six collects, concluding with a Gospel, supplication, &c. If there were any doubt of the difference which the Greeks make between her and the Saints, one of these would be evidence of it. "Take with you ([paralabe]) the multitude of Archangels and of the heavenly hosts, and the Forerunner, &c., ... and make intercession ([presbeian]), Holy one, in my behalf with God," p. 275. Vid. also ibid. p. 390, &c.

33. There is another form of prayer to her at p. 640, {163} of forty-three collects or verses, "in expectation of war," arranged to form an Iambic acrostic, "O undefiled, be the ally of my household." Among other phrases we read here, "Thou art the head commander ([ho archistrategos]) of Christians; ... "They in their chariots and horses, we, thy people, in thy name;" "with thy spiritual hand cast down the enemies of thy people;" "Thy power runs with thy will ([sundromon echeis])," &c. "Deliver not thine heritage, O holy one, into the hands of the heathen, lest they shall say, Where is the Mother of God in whom they trusted?" "Hear from thy holy Temple, thy servants, O pure one, and pour out God's wrath upon the Gentiles that do not know thee, and the kingdoms that have not faithfully called upon thy glorious name."

34. It is remarkable, that, not only the Jacobites, but even the Nestorians agree with the Orthodox in the unlimited honours they pay to the Blessed Virgin. "No one," says Renaudot, "has accused the Orientals of deficiency in the legitimate honours, which are the right of the Deipara; but many have charged them with having sometimes been extravagant in that devotion, and running into superstition, which accusation is not without foundation."—t. i. p. 257.

Another remark of his is in point here. The extracts above made are in great measure from Greek service-books of the day; but even those which are not such are evidence, according to their date and place, of opinions and practices, then and there existing. "Their weight does not depend on the authority of the writers, but on the use of the Churches. Those prayers had {164} their authors, who indeed were not known; but, when once it was clear that they had been used in Mass, who their authors were ceased to be a question."—t. i. p. 173. The existing manuscripts can hardly be supposed to be mere compositions, but are records of rites.

I say then, first:—That usage, which, after a split has taken place in a religious communion, is found to obtain equally in each of its separated parts, may fairly be said to have existed before the split occurred. The concurrence of Orthodox, Nestorian, and Jacobite in the honours they pay to the Blessed Virgin, is an evidence that those honours were in the irsubstance paid to her in their "Undivided Church."

Next:—Passages such as the above, taken from the formal ritual of the Greeks, are more compromising to those who propose entering into communion with them, than such parallel statements as occur in unauthoritative devotions of the Latins. {165}

Top | Contents | Works | Home

NOTE V. PAGE 107.

On a Scandalous Tenet Concerning The Blessed Virgin

I FIND the following very apposite passage at note t, p. 390, of vol. i. of Mr. Morris's "Jesus the Son of Mary," a work full of learning, which unhappily I forgot to consult, till my Letter was finished and in type.

"An error of this sort [that our Lady is in the Holy Eucharist] was held by some persons, and is condemned in the following language by Benedict XIV. [i.e. by Cardinal Lambertini], as has been pointed out to me by my old and valued friend, Father Faber: 'This doctrine was held to be erroneous, dangerous, and scandalous, and the cultus was reprobated, which in consequence of it they asserted was to be paid to the most Blessed Virgin in the Sacrament of the Altar.'

"Lambertini de Canonizatione Sanctorum, lib. iv. p. 2, c. 31, n. 32.

"De cultu erga Deiparam in Sacramento Altaris.

"Non multis abhinc annis prodiit Liber de cultu erga Deiparam in Sacramento altaris, auctore Patre Zephyrino de Someire Recollecto Sancti Francisci, in quo asserebatur, in Sacramento altaris aliquam illius partem adesse, eandem videlicet carnem, quam olim ejus sanctissima anima vivificavit, eumdemque illum sanguinem, {166} qui in ejus venis continebatur, et ipsum lac, quo ejus ubera plena erant. Addebatur, nos habere in Sacramento non tantum sanguinem Deiparæ, quatenus in carnem et ossa Christi mutatus est, sed etiam partem sanguinis in propria specie; neque solum veram carnem ipsius, sed etiam aliquid singulorum membrorum, quia sanguis, et lac, ex quibus formatum et nutritum fuit corpus Christi, missa fuerunt ab omnibus et singulis membris Beatissimæ Virginis.

Etiam Christophorus de Vega in volumine satis amplo, quod inscribitur "Theologia Mariana," Lugduni edito ann. 1653, fusius ea omnia prosecutus est: sed Theophilus Raynaudus in suis Diptychis Marianis, t. 7, p. 65, ea reprobat, asseritque hæresim sapere juxta Guidonem Carmelitam in Summa de hæresibus tract. de hæresi Græcorum, c. 13, cujus verba sunt hæc: "Tertius decimus error Græcorum est. Dicunt enim, quod reliquiæ Panis consecrati sunt reliquiæ corporis Beatæ Virginis. Hic error stultitiæ et amentiæ plenus est. Nam corpus Christi sub qualibet parte hostiæ consecratæ integrum manet. Itaque quælibet pars, a tota consecrata hostia divisa et separata, est verum corpus Christi. Hæreticum autem est et fatuum dicere, quod corpus Christi sit corpus Virginis matris suæ, sicut hæreticum esset dicere, quod Christus esset Beata Virgo: quia distinctorum hominum distincta sunt corpora, nec tantus honor debetur corpori virginis, quantus debetur corpori Christi, cui ratione Divini Suppositi debetur honor latriæ, non corpori Virginis. Igitur dicere, reliquias hostiæ consecratæ esse reliquias corporis Beatæ Virginis est hæreticum manifesto." {167}

Porro Theologorum Princeps B. Thomas, 3 part. quæst. 31, art. 5, docet primo, Christi corpus conceptum fuisse ex Beatæ Virginis castissimis et purissimis sanguinibus non quibuscunque, sed "perductis ad quamdam ampliorem digestionem per virtutem generativam ipsius, ut essent materia apta ad conceptum," cum Christi conceptio fuerit secundum conditionem naturæ; materiamque aptam, sive purissimum sanguinem in conceptione Christi sola Spiritus Sancti operatione in utero Virginis adunatum, et in prolem formatum fuisse; ita ut vere dicatur corpus Christi ex purissimis et castissimis sanguinibus Beatæ Virginis fuisse formatum. Docet secundo, non potuisse corpus Christi formari de aliqua substantia, videlicet de carne et ossibus Beatissimæ Virginis, cum sint partes integrantes corpus ipsius: ideoque subtrahi non potuissent sine corruptione, et ejus diminutione: illud vero, quod aliquando dicitur, Christum de Beata Virgine carnem sumpsisse, intelligendum esse et explicandum, non quod materia corporis ejus fuerit actu caro, sed sanguis qui est potentia caro. Docet demum tertio, quomodo subtrahi potuerit ex corpore Adam aliqua ejus pars absque ipsius diminutione, cum Adam institutus ut principium quoddam humanæ naturæ, aliquid habuerit ultra partes sui corporis personales, quod ab eo subtractum est pro formanda Heva, salva ipsius integritate in ratione perfecti corporis humani: quæ locum habere non potuerunt in Beatissima Virgine, quæ uti singulare individuum habuit perfectissimum corpus humanum, et aptissimam materiam ad Christi corpus formandum, quantum est ex parte feminæ, et ad ejus naturalem generationem. Ex {168} quo fit, ut non potuerit, salva integritate Beatæ Virginis, aliquid subtrahi, quod dici posset de substantia corporis ipsius.

Itaque, cum per hanc doctrinam, Fidei principiis conjunctissimam, directe et expressis verbis improbata remanserint asserta in citato libro Patris Zephyrini, ejus doctrina habita est tanquam "erronea, periculosa, et scandalosa," reprobatusque fuit cultus, quem ex ea præstandum Beatissimæ Virgini in Sacramento altaris asserebat. Loquendi autem formulæ a nonnullis Patribus adhibitæ, Care Mariæ est caro Christi etc. Nobis carnem Mariæ manducandum ad salutem dedit, ita explicandæ sunt, non ut dicamus, in Christo aliquid esse, quod sit Mariæ; sed Christum conceptum esse ex Maria Virgine, materiam ipsa ministrante in similitudinem naturæ et speciei, et ideo filium ejus esse. Sic, quia caro Christi fuit sumpta de David, ut expresse dicitur ad Romanos 1: "Qui factus est ex semine David secundum carnem," David dicitur Christus, ut notat S. Augustinus enarrat, in Psalm. 144, num. 2: "Intelligitur laus ipsi David, laus ipsi Christo." Christus autem secundum carnem David, quia Filius David." Et infra: "Quia itaque ex ipso Christus secundum carnem, ideo David." Est item solemnis Scripturæ usus, loquendo de parentibus, ut caro unius vocitetur caro alterius. Sic Laban, Gen. 29, dixit Jacob: "Os meum es, et caro mea;" et Judas, loquendo de fratre suo Joseph, Gen. 27, ait: "Frater enim, et caro nostra est;" et Lev. 18 legitur: "Soror patris tui caro est patris tui, et soror matris tuæ caro est matris tuæ;" abaque eo quod hinc inferri possit, ut in Jacob {169} fuerit aliqua actualis pars corporis Laban, aut in Joseph pars Judæ, aut in filio pars aliqua patris. Igitur id solum affirmare licet, in Sacramento esse carnem Christi assumptam ex Maria, ut ait Sanctus Ambrosius relatus in canone Omnia, de Consecrat. distinct. 2 his verbis: "Hæc caro mea est pro mundi vita, et, ut mirabilius loquar, non alia plane quam quæ nata est de Maria, et passa in cruce, et resurrexit de sepulcro; hæc, inquam, ipsa est." Et infra loquens de corpore Christi: "Illud vere, illud sane, quod sumptum est de Virgine, quod passum est, et sepultum."

So much for Fr. de Someire's wild notion. As to Oswald, his work is on the Index. Vide page 5 of "Appendix Librorum Prohibitorum a die 6 Septembris, 1852, ad mensem Junium, 1858."

Additional Note, Ed. 5.—As another and recent instance of the jealousy with which the Holy See preserves the bounds, within which both tradition and theology confine the cultus of the Blessed Virgin, I refer to a Decree of Inquisition of February 28, 1875, addressed to the Bishop of Presmilia, in which the title of "Queen of the Heart of Jesus," as well as a certain novelty in the representation of Madonna and Child, as in use in a certain Sodality, are condemned, on the ground that they may be understood in a sense inconsistent with the true faith. It will be found in the "Irish Ecclesiastical Record" for April, 1875.

The Bishop had forbidden the above innovations, and the Sacred Congregation, "to which the examination of the matter was committed by the Holy Father," says to {170} the Bishop, it cannot but "acknowledge and praise your Excellency's zeal and care in defending the purity of the faith, especially in these days, when it seems not to be held in much account by men, who, whatever their piety, are led by a sovereign love of novelty to neglect the danger, incurred in consequence by the simple among the faithful, of deviating from the right sense of piety and devotion by means of strange and foreign doctrines.

"To obviate this danger," the letter proceeds to say, the Sacred Congregation has at other times (altre volte) interposed, "to warn and reprehend" those who, by such language about the Blessed Virgin, "have not sufficiently conformed to the right Catholic sense," but "ascribe power to her, as issuing from her divine maternity, beyond its due limits; as if this new title had brought her an accession of greatness and glory hitherto unknown, and, in the notion of her sublime dignity hitherto held by the Church according to the doctrine of the Holy Fathers, there were something still wanting, not considering that, although she has the greatest influence (possa moltissimo) with her Son, still it cannot be piously affirmed that she exercises command over Him (eserciti impero)."

Further, in order apparently to mark the ministrative office of the Blessed Virgin, and her dependence as a creature on her Son, "it has been ruled by the Sovereign Pontiff, that the images or pictures to be consecrated to the cultus in question, must represent the Virgin as carrying the infant Jesus, not placed before her knees, but in her arms."

Top | Contents | Works | Home