§ 81. THE WORSHIP OF MAKT. MARIOLOGT. 411
acquitted only of actual sin, afterward even of original ; though the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin was long contested, and was not established as an article of faith in the Roman clmrcli till 1854. Thus the veneration of Mary gradually degenerated into the worship of Mary ; and this took so deep hold upon the popular religious life in the Middle Age. that, in spite of all scholastic distinctions between latria^ and dulia^ and hyperdulia, Mariolatry practically prevailed ove? the worship of Christ. Hence in the innumerable Madonnas of Catholic art the human mother is the principal figure, and the divine child accessory. The Komish devotions scarcely utter a Pater Hosier without an Ave Mana^ and turn even more frequently and naturally to the compassionate, tenderhearted mother for her intercessions, than to the eternal Son of God, thinking that in this indirect way the desired gift is more sure to be obtained. To this day the worship of Mary is one of the principal points of separation between the Grseco- Roman Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism. It is one of the strongest expressions of the fundamental Romish error of unduly exalting the human factors or instruments of redemption, and obstructing, or rendering needless, the immediate access of believei-s to Christ, by thrusting in subordinate mediators. Nor can we but agree with nearly all unbiased historians in regarding the worship of Mary as an echo of ancient heathenism. It brings plainly to mind the worship of Ceres, of Isis, and of other ancient mothers of the gods ; as the worship of saints and angels recalls the hero-worship of Greece and Rome. Polytheism was so deeply rooted among the people, that it reproduced itself in Christian forms. The popular religious want had accustomed itself even to female deities, and very naturally betook itself first of all to Mary, the highly favored and blessed mother of the divine-human Redeemer, as the worthiest object of adoration.
Let us trace now the main features in the historical devel opment of the Catholic Mariology and Mariolatry.
The New Testament contains no intimation of any worship or festival celebration of Mary. On the one hand, Mary ia rightly called by Elizabeth, under the influence of the Hob
412 THIRD PERIOD. A.D. 311-590.
Ghost, " the mother of the Lorcf- ' — but nowhcie " the mother of God^'' wliich is at least not entirely synonymous — and is sainted by her, as ^vell as by the ang-cl Gabriel, as " blessed among: women ; " ' nay, she herself prophesies in her ins]nred song, ■which has since resonnded through all ages of the church, that "henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.'" Through all the youth of Jesus she appears as a devout virgin, full of childlike innocence, purity, and humility ; and the few traces we have of her later life, especially the touching scene at the cross,* confinn this impression. But, on the other hand, it is equally unquestionable, that she is nowhere in the New Testament excepted from the universal sinfulness and the universal need of redemption, and represented as immaculately holy, or as in any way an object of divine veneration. On the contrary, true to the genuine female character, she modestly stands back throughout the gospel history, and in the Acts and the Epistles she is mentioned barely once, and then simply as the " mother of Jesus ; " ^ even her birth and her death are unknown. Her glory fades in holy humility before the higher glory of her Son. In truth, there are plain indications that the Lord, with prophetic reference to the future apotheosis of His mother according to the flesh, from the first gave warning against it. At the wedding in Cana He administered to her, though leniently and respectfully, a rebuke for premature zeal mingled perhaps with maternal vanity.* On a subsequent
' Luke i. 43 : 'H fj.-lir'np toC nvpiov nov.
' Lube i. 28: Xa'pe, k(X°-P'''''^H-^''V' ^ Kvpws /uera aov, ivKoyrn-Uvt) ah tV yvvatl'ti: So Elizabeth, Luke i. 42 : Y.vKoyr)fi4vt) av «V ywaili, koi flXoyquivos 6 Kapnhs ttji HOtXias onv.
* Luke i. 48 : 'ATrb toC vvv /xaKapiovai fie naaai at yfveai,
* John xis. 25-27.
* Acts i. 14.
' John ii. 4 : Ti ^/xol t:al aol, yvvat ; Comp. the commentators on the passage. The expression "woman" is entirely respectful, comp. John xix. 21; xx. 13, 15. But the "What have I to do with tltee?" is, like the Hebrew T\\'^ ■'^"'^'? (Josh. xxii. 24; 2 Sam. xvi. 10; xix. 22; 1 Kings xvii. 18; 2 Kings iii. 13; 2 Ghron. xxxv. 21), a rebuke and censure of undue interfei ence ; comp. Matt. viii. 20; Luke viii. 28; Mark i. 24 (also the classics). Meyer the best grammatical expositor, otaerves on yvvat: "That Jesus did not say /u^rtp, flowed involuntarily fuin thf