Christians were baptized, confirmed, absolved, communicated; then as now, there was marriage, and ordination, and the last unction. But, just as for many ages doubtful or spurious Gospels and Epistles were handed down alongside of the genuine, and it was not till the end of the fourth century that the Canon of either Old or New Testament began to be fixed by dogmatic decree ;* so for centuries other rites were spoken of under the common name of sacraments, some of which we should now call 'Sacramentals' while others, like the agape, or the washing of the feet, have almost or altogether passed away; and it was left for a later age to mark out seven, as alone possessing by divine institution an inherent sacramental grace. All were divinely ordained, and administered from the beginning in the Church; but it was only by degrees that the full conception of their precise nature and number grew upon her consciousness. To define two or seven is equally to develope; Peter Lombard was the first to specify an exact number. There were many differences on the subject among the earlier Reformers. It would not be difficult to trace out similarly the history of the doctrine of the Eucharist, but it would occupy more space than can be spared here.† (2.) Let us turn to another illustration, afforded by the cultus of Saints and Angels. Of this no doubt abundant intimations——φωνάντα συνετοῖσι—may be found both in the Old *St. Paul, St. James, and St. Jude, quote apocryphal books, some of which, as the Revelation of Elias, are now lost; some, as the Book of Enoch, still survive. †The stages of the process are exhibited with clearness and candour in the late Archdeacon Wilberforce's book on the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. and New Testament, especially the latter, nor are there wanting clear testimonies in writers of the third and fourth centuries of honour paid to Saints, especially martyrs, and invocations addressed to them.* Still, and this is my point, it was only by degrees that their position was adequately recognized. In every one of the liturgies of which manuscripts remain to us, among the prayers for the departed in the Canon are found special petitions for the Blessed Virgin and the Saints. Controversialists have sometimes explained these as prayers for the increase of their 'accidental glory,' but the explanation is obviously an afterthought. The very term 'accidental glory,' and the idea it represents, came in centuries later with the scholastic theology. It is better to say at once-what is certainly the case-that the eye of the Christian worshipper was not yet adjusted to the right focus for appreciating clearly the position of the heavenly hierarchy in the economy of grace. The importance of the question, from its bearing on the central mystery of the Incarnation, was gradually brought out in subsequent controversies, especially in the Iconoclastic disputes. of the eighth century. It was not till the fourteenth century, that the enjoyment of the Beatific Vision by the Saints before the day of judgment was defined by authority. (3.) This leads me naturally to notice a somewhat kindred development, and I do so the more readily because it has been * Thomassin (De Incarn. xi. 6) thinks the early Church probably abstained from any cultus of Angels through an oikovoμía, lest it should give occasion for idolatry in converts from heathenism. But this reasoning from the disciplina arcani must not be pushed too far. The first objectors to images were the Phantasiasts. selected as the reductio ad absurdum of the whole theory-I mean the Immaculate Conception. The reasons for defining it at this particular time, and the nature of the defining authority, are separate questions, which lie beyond the limits of my present inquiry. But the doctrine itself is often objected to as neither primitive, nor scriptural, nor reasonable, nor devout; sometimes as ascribing to the Mother the inalienable prerogative of her Son.* Waiving the last point, which is founded on a misconception of what is meant, let us see how the case really stands.† The doctrine of original sin was first distinctly laid down by St. Augustine in controversy with the Pelagians in the fourth century, whence it is obvious that Mary's exemption from the general doom could not be taught earlier than that. But we may go further. St. Basil, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and Origen do not scruple to affirm that she sinned by want of faith at the Crucifixion; St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition; Tertullian of unbelief. To our ears such language sounds shocking, and it would be shocking to use it now, but we must remember that it did not appear so at the time. On the other hand, St. Irenæus contrasts Mary's faith with Eve's incredulity, and St. Ambrose com * Even so calm and thoughtful a writer as the Bishop of London goes out of his way, in his Preface to a recent work on The Final Court of Appeal, to speak of 'the idolatrous doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.' Yet supposing (for argument's sake) that invocation of the Blessed Virgin is idolatrous, that practice is quite independent of the belief in her Immaculate Conception, and existed for centuries before any question on the latter subject was stirred in the Church. Neither does the belief necessarily imply the practice. Adam and Eve were certainly created 'immaculate,' yet we do not publicly invoke them. †The patristic references in this and the following section are taken from Petavius De Incarn, and De Trin. mends her courage at the Cross. Soon afterwards St. Augustine says that, out of reverence, he will make no mention of her when speaking of sin, but he is referring to actual, not original sin. Then came the Nestorian controversy, and the Council of Ephesus. And here it is worth while to remark, that much the same kind of arguments which are urged now against what its opponents are fond of stigmatising as the 'new dogma' were urged by Nestorians and their allies then against the new definition of OEOTOKOS. It was novel, it did not occur in Scripture or the writings of the Fathers,* it savoured of Eutychian heresy, and had therefore been denounced from the pulpit of his metropolitan cathedral by the second Patriarch in Christendom. It was certainly needless, and it might be dangerous. Every one knew that Christ was God, and that Mary was His Mother; but the adoption of this newfangled formula might be taken to imply that she was the mother of His Divinity, which was blasphemous, or that the two natures were fused into one, which was heretical. The term XρUTOTOKÒs, which Nestorius was willing to accept, expressed all that was required, and was free from these grave objections. So men argued then; but experience has abundantly proved the necessity of the definition of Ephesus for guarding the honour of our Lord's Divinity. And so the later definition which our own days have witnessed is designed to exhibit on the one hand the reality of original sin, and on the other the spotless sanctity of that human flesh, hypostatically united to the Godhead, which He took from His Mother's * This was urged, but was not strictly true.-See Petav. De Inc., v. 15. womb. Natural reason and natural reverence would combine to tell us that such a belief was most congruous to the dignity of the Incarnation; but it shows the caution with which the public ratification of developments is suffered to proceed, that so many centuries should have intervened between its first suggestion and its formal definition.* "The number of those (so-called) new doctrines will not oppress us, if it takes eight centuries to promulgate even one of them."+ The disputes between Franciscans and Dominicans on the motive of the Incarnation had no doubt much to do with the ventilation of the question; for it is obvious how much more readily the Scotist theory adapts itself to the Immaculate Conception than the Thomist, though I am of course far from denying that the latter, which is still widely held in the Church, can be reconciled with it. St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, and St. Thomas, in questioning the new development, simply represented the conservative element which exists and always must exist in the Church. It is natural and right that every fresh phase of opinion, as it appears, should be challenged and put on the defensive. "Quis novus hic nostris successit sedibus hospes ?" is the inquiry it must expect to be greeted with. And it is bound to justify itself at the bar of ecclesiastical public opinion and theological science, before it can make any claim to direct *It must be remembered that the belief in the Immaculate Nativity of the Blessed Virgin has prevailed universally for centuries, and was expressly acknowledged by St. Bonaventure, and St. Bernard, though spoken of doubtfully by St. Anselm. A similar belief obtains, though not of faith, as to St. John Baptist, and is indicated by the Feast of his Nativity being observed in the Church. Cf. Luke i. 15. + Newman's Apologia pro Vita Sua, p. 395. Longman, 1854. |