The comparative novelty of the doctrine in theology is proved by history. There is not one great teacher of the Christian Church who, before the breaking out of the controversy between Lyons and Bernard in 1140 — that is, for the first eleven centuries of our £era — was favorable to the doctrine as now propagated by the Chiuch of Eome. "The question does not exist for them; they know nothing of this specific doctrine-; they speak in respect to original sin and the need of redemp- tion in such a way as to prove that the immaculate conception of Mary could not have been any part of their creed. Their praises of the Virgin are often im- moderate; they defend her perpetual virginity (Epi- phanius, Haer. 78 ; Jerome, adc. Ilelvidianum, etc.) ; many of them believe that she was 'sanctified' in the womb ; most of them declare that she never was guilty of actual sin ; but they do not know anything about her exemption from all infection of original sin. Augustine defends her only against the charge of actual sin (De Natura et Gracia, c. 36) : 'Excepta sancta Virgine ]\Ia- ria, de qua propter honorem Domini nuUam prorsus, cum de peccatis agitur, haberi volo quajstionem.' This pas- sage is quoted in favor of the dogma, but it plainly re- fers only to actual transgression, and it is contained in a reply to the position of Pelagius, that there were saints who had not sinned. In his treatise on the Re- mission of Si7is (bk. ii, ch. xxiv, § 38), this greatest of the Latin fathers says explicitly that Christ alone was with- out sin : ' Solus ergo ille etiam, homo factus, manens Deus, peccatum nidhim habuit unquam ;' nor does he intimate any exception. In his work De Genesi, ad lit. c. 18, n. 32, he speaks of ' the body of Christ as taken from the flesh of a woman, who was conceived of a mother with sinful flesh ;' and he indicates a clear dis- tinction between JMary's nature and Christ's nature in this respect. Augustine's followers make similar state- ments. Eusebius Emissenus (supposed by some to be Hilary) on the 'Nativity' says, 'From the bond of the old sin is not even the mother of the Redeemer free.' Fulgentius writes, ' The flesh of Mary, which was con- ceived in unrighteousness in a human way, was truly sinful flesh ;' and he adds that ' this flesh is in itself truly sinful.' referring to Paul's use of the term ' flesh' to designate our common hereditary sinfulness. Oth- ers of the fathers make use of similar statements, irrec- oncilable with a belief in the immaculate conception. (See Perrone, p. 40 sq. BandeUus, De Singulari Puri- tate et Prwrogaiiva ConcejJtionis Christi [1470], a work by a Dominican, contains some four hunched testimo- nies against the dogma from the fathers : see also the work of the cardinal Tiu-recamata, De Veritate Concep- tionis [1550]). It is, indeed, true that the fathers do not often speak directly upon the point in question ; but this is for the simple reason, conclusive against the claim of universality, that they did not know anything
BOIACULATE COXCEPTION 508 BIMACULATE CONCEPTION
about it. The doctrine is declared, A.D. 1140, by Ber- nard, to be a ' noveltj' ;' and he says that the festival is ' the mother of presumption, the sister of superstition, and the daughter of levity' (Ep. 174, ad Canon Lwjd. § 5 sq. ; comp. Serm. 78 in Cant.). Others of the earlier fathers speak of Mary in such a way as is absolutely irreconcilable with the idea that they believed in her immaculate conception. Hilary (Psa. cxix, lib. 3, § 12 ; comp. Tracts for the Times, No. 79, p. 36) declares that she is exposed to' the fire of judgment. Irenreus, Tertidlian, Origen, Basil the Great, and Chrj^sostom, do not hesi- tate to speak of faults of Marj^ of her being rebuked by Christ. ' If Mary,' says Origen, ' did not feel offence at our Lord's suflFeruigs, Jesus did not die for her sins ;' Chrysostom ascribes to her ' excessive ambition at the marriage festival at Cana ;' Basil thinks that she, too, 'wavered at the time of the crucifixion;' all of which statements are utterly inconsistent, not only with the dogma of the immaculate conception, but also with a belief in her perfect innocency (comp. Gieseler, Ch. Hist. § 99, note 30, with the references to Irenteus, iii, 18 ; Tertullian, De Came Christi, 7 ; Origen, in Litcam Horn. 17 ; Basil, E]). 260 (317) ; Chrysostom, Horn. 45 in Matt., Horn. 21 in John). Tertullian, De Came Christi, § xvi, declares that ' Christ, by putting on the flesh, made it his, and made it sinless;' Ireufeus, that 'Christ made human nature pure hy taking it;' Athanasius, on the ' Incarnation,' teaches the same doctrine, that ' Christ sanctified his own body,' and that ' he hath purified the body, which was in itself corruptible.' Of course, the body he assumed was not in and of itself sinless. Gregory of Nazianzum, and John of Damascus (730), teach expressly that the Virgin was sanctified by the Holy Ghost. If Christ, by assuming human nature in Mary, 'made it sinless,' it was not so before his incarna- tion" (Smith, ut sup.). The view which some hold on the title of S-EoroKoc, given to Mary at the Council of Eph- esus, we think bears so wholly on the incarnation of Christ that we refrain from introducing it here. See also Nestorianism. Of the numberless passages from the fathers which set forth the doctrine of the univer- sality of sin, and the miiversal need of redemption through Christ, without making the Virgin Mary the exception, we wiU speak under the third head. An ad- ditional source of evidence is afforded us by the early liturgies of offices of the Church. " They exalt INIary and her conception, but they do never call it an ' im- maculate' conception. It is only in the latest years that the term 'immaculate' has been introduced into the AVestem offices of the highest authority. The of- fices themselves, in honor of the Virgin, did not become current in the West till the 11th century-. In the office for her birth, in the ancient churclies, it is read that ' she was sanctified from the stain of sin ;' in one of the German liturgies, ' that she was born with a propensity to sin ;' in the Roman Church itself, the office spoke of the ' sanctification of the Virgin.' This silence, and the late alteration of these offices, are conclusive as to the non-existence of the dogma. In the year 791 (al. 796) a council was held at Friuli (Concilium Forojuliense), called by Paulinus (Paulus), patriarch of Aquileia, dur- ing the pontificate of Adrian I, to consider the Trinity and the Incarnation, in respect to the procession of tlie Holy Spirit, and ' Adoptianism,' that is, the opinion maintained by archbishop Elipandus of Toledo, and oth- ers, that Christ in his human nature was the Son of God only by ' adoption.' A long and explicit Confes- sion of Faith was published by this comicil, in the course of which it is said, ' Solus enim sine peccato natus est homo, quoniam solus est incaniatus de Spiritu Sancto et immaculata Virgine novus homo. Consubstantialis Deo Patri in sua, id est, divina ; consubstantialis etiam matri, sitie sordepeccati, in nostra, id est, humana natura' (Hardiun, Acta Concil. 1714, iv, 856, C). If the belief in the immaculate conce^jtion of the Virgin had been any part of the orthodoxy of the times, it would have been impossible for a council to have spoken in this