"fifth and sixth age." The latin version of the greek is sufficiently exact.

Porro duplicem sanctis cultum adhibemus. Alterum quippe Verbi Divini Matri, quem Hyperduliam appellamus, enimvero Dei (et hujus quidem solius) ut famula vere sit, et ipsa Deipara; at Mater ejus est, utpote quæ unam Trinitatis personam in carne genuit. Quare omnium cum sanctorum, tum angelorum longe superior prædicatur (" and a throne above all the saints and heavenly spirits "-Eccl. Al.) unde et hyperdulico eam cultu veneramur. Alterum vero quem et dulicum vocamus, sanctis angelis, apostolis, prophetis, martyribus omnibus, denique sanctis, adhibemus. Hardouin, Tom. xi. p. 259.

It was thus that the Church of Jerusalem, in the seventeenth century, raised its voice in support of " catholic truth," and protested against those worst of heretics, oi Kaλovīvoi.

But another question forcibly presents itself.-Ifit be true" that Scripture was written, not to exalt this or that particular saint (not even the Blessed Virgin) but to give glory to Almighty God" (Newman's Sermons, vol. ii. p. 148), and we suppose this must be granted, then for what purpose were those books written which directly encouraged the "solemnities" in honour of particular saints, and especially of the Virgin, wherewith the church of the fifth and sixth centuries was wholly occupied ? or, in other words-was not the Bible written for one purpose, and the books of the ancient church altogether for another, and an opposite purpose?

The uninitiated reader would probably take little account of so simple a phrase as " Assumption of the B. V. Mary," meeting his eye in his almanac; but there is a world of meaning involved in the words. This same feast of the Assumption, celebrated with so much pomp, as well in the western as the eastern church, set before the eyes of the people the fully-expanded blasphemy which had long been working itself out of the hot-bed of early superstition. In the solemnities of this impious festival the people were taught to look to the Queen of Heaven, as sitting upon a throne, highly exalted above the thrones, principalities, and powers of the upper world, and as having a name above every name,

and wielding a sceptre to which archangels bowed, and at the sight of which devils trembled. To this "exalted creature" they were to address their supplications; she being the fountain of all grace to sinful mortals, and the sole mediatrix between the church and her Son!

Who does not shudder in repeating these abominations? The pious reader would resent it as an injury, were I here to adduce the language of the principal church writers, from the fifth century downwards, on this head. Human audacity has never exceeded these enormities:-they were dictated by Hell in its high mockery of God and man. If Christianity be indeed fairly represented in the "solemnities," prayers, hymns, and pomps of the feast of the Assumption-let us go back to Judaism :—let us take refuge in Mahometism :-let us profess the pure theology of Plato!

A christian man, informed in church history, and knowing to what an extent of impiety the worship of the Virgin has gone, and especially how it has been crowned in the blasphemous pomps of the "Festival of the Assumption," would surely wish to keep himself altogether clear of any, even the most remote implication in these blackest horrors of superstition. Or let him herein take a lesson from the early Christians, who scrupled to take part in the most trivial civil observance that might be interpreted as implicating them in pagan rites. The writer already quoted, and who should be an authority in the present controversy, says

our own church has set apart only such Festivals in honour of the Blessed Mary as may also be Festivals in honour of our Lord; the Purification, commemorating his presentation in the Temple, and the Annunciation, commemorating His incarnation."-(Newman's Sermons, vol. ii. p. 152.) The festival of the Assumption then, which has no (Scriptural) connexion with our Lord's history, and which embodies the very worst corruptions of the "fifth and sixth ages," is abandoned by Mr. Newman as "a popish superstition."

Not so the Editors of the Ecclesiastical Almanac,* who well knowing, what perhaps hundreds of the clergy barely surmise,

The Ecclesiastical Almanac is affirmed by the best informed persons to have been issued under the auspices, and with the approval, of the writers of the Tracts for the Times-some say, compiled by themselves.

have included this Festival in their calendar, not merely commending it by "Black Letter," to the pious regards of "all Christians," but recommending it, by a special note, the phraseology of which, although the simple reader might not perceive it, carefully embraces each principal article of the ancient superstition. The Editors and their friends should think themselves bound in all candour to lay before the English public the entire services and "solemnities" of the Festival of the Assumption, as observed in the Eastern and the Western churches; and then plainly to say whether they approve these services, or condemn them.

If they approve, and if they will distinctly say so, the church in which they minister should know how to deal with them.

If they disapprove, then how have they dared, in so momentous an instance, and so long, to conceal their disapprobation; nay to employ language which implies acquiescence?

Let the writers of the Oxford Tracts spread the documents touching this affair before the world; and favour us with their opinion thereupon, without ambiguity. If they profess that they want the leisure requisite for the purpose, there are those who would cheerfully undertake the labour; and they will then have nothing to do but to declare, in so many words, yea or nay, whether they think the "solemnities" of the festival of the Assumption to be "abominable idolatries," or edifying christian services. There can be no room in such an instance for a middle opinion.

173

CHRISTIANIZED DEMONOLATRY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY.

No reader of church history can require it to be proved that the various rites and usages on account of which the Romish and Greek church are usually impugned as idolatrous, by protestants, were openly practised, and were authorized by the heads of the church in the age of Gregory I. But when did these superstitions (if such we may account them) first make their appearance? It is superfluous to produce evidence of their existence and prevalence in the times immediately preceding those of Pope Gregory. Gregory of Tours, Leo I., Evagrius, Sozomen, Socrates, Theodoret, Isidore, Cyril of Alexandria, and many others, forbid the supposition that they, or any of their contemporaries, had been the authors of the opinions, or the usages, now in question. The men of that period did indeed give these superstitions a more distinct expression; and in various instances they amplified particular rites; yet only as a man clears and plants, and beautifies an inheritance, on which his ancestors had toiled in the same manner.

The only question which there can be any room to ask is this, -Whether the church of the fourth century-the nicene church, invented, or whether it inherited the superstitions it has transmitted. In reference to the conclusion toward which we are now tending, it is indifferent which of these suppositions we adopt. If the former, then we find a sufficient reason for denouncing the nicene divines as the most dangerous of guides. If the latter, then a case is made out conclusively against the hypothesis now before us.

At present then we are to inquire only concerning notions and rites prevalent during the fourth century. Very copious citations will not, I think, be demanded by intelligent and candid readers, who will duly estimate the value of the few to which I must confine myself. In the first instance, and that I may take the benefit of so high an authority, I shall offer (in abstract at least) the evidence on the ground of which bishop Newton did not hesitate heavily to inculpate the divines of this period as the authors, or the promoters of idolatry. I shall take the bishop's text as it stands, sentence by sentence, subjoining a sample or two of each of the passages to which he refers. He introduces this part of his argument by saying

"It is certain that the monks had the principal share in promoting and propagating the worship of the dead; and either out of credulity, or for worse reasons, recommended it to the people with all the pomp and power of their eloquence, in their homilies and orations. Read only some of the most celebrated Fathers :-"Read the orations of Basil on the martyr Mamas, and on the forty Martyrs."

The illustrious preacher and bishop of Cæsarea, beholding a vast assemblage before him, gathered around the shrine of the martyr, consoles himself under the consciousness of his inability to do justice to his great subject, or to satisfy the expectations of his hearers, in the thought that they were able, without his aid, to make up the saint's commemorative eulogium by merely recounting the benefits, spiritual and temporal, which they had severally received from his hands. Mamas, a shepherd of Cappadocia, had suffered about the year 275; churches had been built to his honour, and, as it appears, he had come in these provinces to be as much importuned as was St. Lawrence at Milan, or St. Januarius at Naples, being one of the dii majores of the Greek church; nor was there any sort of aid he would not render to his favoured votaries. In explanation of Basil's allusions, it should be observed that a principal function of these divinities was to discover lost or stolen goods, in dreams, to those who had occasion to seek such information at their hands.

Some passages of Newton's 23d Dissertation will be found in the Supplement, pp. iii. iv. v.