Continued from Witnesses For The Prosecution

MORE WITNESSES.

EUTHYMIUS ZIGABENUS, a monk of Constantinople in 1116 A.D., is next advanced. I was not aware of the existence of any writings of that Eastern monk; but Zoller says he wrote an “oration on the adoration of the venerable girdle of Mary mother of God”! and quotes the following passage from chapter viii.:

“Mary is higher than every created thing, and superior to every created thing, whether visible or invisible. She is pure, unpolluted, and a virgin intact; the wife, most sweet and free from rebuke, of the Father who is invisible and incomprehensible.”

The horrible blasphemy of that passage precludes cross-examination or comment. Zigabenus could not have found notions so awfully impure even in the mythology of the amours of Jupiter.

Let us then pass at once to the next witness: Guerricus, Abbas Ignasiensis (near Rheims) in 1140 A.D. (Sermo II, De Annunc. Beatae Virginis):

“Mary is the Holy Land, in the work of redemption, who gave birth to the remission of sins and the fruit of holy life for all men; and she freed her sons from the condemnation of Original Sin.”

This witness has put Mary in the place of our Redeemer, and likened her to the promised land of Canaan and the New Jerusalem; but he has not witnessed for the immaculate conception of Mary. Let him pass!

The next witness! Petrus Bloesensis, the chancellor of the Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote in 1160 A.D. (Sermo XLIV., apud Zoller):

“From the mass of human flesh, as it were from all the corn of a harvest, the flesh of Mary was chosen out, like a wave-sheaf, and sanctified; and then, from that most holy flesh of hers, a still more worthy little portion was selected, and the Word of God took it upon Him.”

Peter of Blois has given assertions, or rather analogies, of a most fantastic character, but no argument or solid ground of reason for his assertions. The wave-sheaf was an offering to God in testimony that all the harvest came from Him; and it presignified Christ, who was offered of man and for man. Peter of Blois puts Mary in Christ’s place; and, after stating that her flesh was most holy, he admits that it was not homogeneous, and that our Lord had to pick out a bit that was holier than the rest.

From the chancellor of Canterbury let us pass to the chancellor of the University of Paris, Petrus Comestor seu Manducator, in 1170 A.D. (Tract., De Immac. Concep., apud Zoller):

“The world does not rejoice because Anna knew a man, but it rejoices because Anna received in herself the cause of her salvation (i.e., Mary); and, if I must say it, the world does not venerate the seed (humores) of Joachim, but it rejoices because Mary was conceived. The sacrament of her conception, Isaiah foresaw in the spirit, and said: A branch (virga) shall come out of the root of Jesse,” etc.

Punning is catching; and Petrus Comestor must play upon virga and virgo, just as Cardinal Damian did before him. But the cardinal did not call conception a sacrament; although, in the view of the Roman Church—which holds that the grace of God was sent in the conception of Mary to cleanse the seed of Adam from original sin—he might well have done so; for an immaculate conception may be regarded as an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. What is remarkable in the evidence of the learned chancellor of Paris is, that he passes on to Anna some of the wonderful mysteries which the Roman divines had begun to ascribe to Mary. We shall afterwards hear S. Bernard refusing to accept the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary, because that, if acknowledged, it could not logically be denied to Anna, nor to Anna’s mother, and grandmother, and great-grandmother, up to Eve.

Let us however call the great S. Dominic, in 1215, the inventor of the rosary, and founder of the Dominicans or “Order of Preachers.” Observe the style of reasoning on which he founded his belief that Mary was conceived immaculate. (Tract., De Corp. Christi, contra Albig., apud Zoller):

“As the first Adam was made from the virgin earth before it had been cursed, so it was fitting that the same should be the case with the second Adam, which is Christ, whose earth, that is His virgin mother, was never cursed.”

The pun here is between virgin earth and virgin mother; and the conclusion is that Mary was not cursed, although the virgin earth was cursed.

A greater than Dominic next enters the witness box. What says S. Thomas of Aquino (Lect. VI, In Ep. ad Gal. iii.)?

“One man in a thousand have I found who was without all sin, that is, Christ; but one woman, among all women, I have not found to be altogether free from sin, not at least from Original Sin, nor from venial sins.”

So far the evidence is clean against the dogma; but Zoller is equal to the occasion; he foists in the words, “Yet the most pure Mary, most worthy of all praise, must be excepted.” This interpolation is in direct contradiction to the passage itself, and could not have been penned by that most logical doctor Aquinas. Zoller himself, seeing this, has added that the passage has been omitted from all modern editions (i.e., modern, more than two centuries ago) as unauthentic. The passage itself yields very good testimony as to the means employed by the Romanists to get their pet dogma accepted.

Nothing daunted, the Benedictine Zoller calls another witness, whom he styles “the blessed Gundisalvus.” He was Archbishop of Toledo in 1302 A.D. Of this Gundisalvus, Zoller says (No. 515), that:

“Whenever he offered the sacrifice on the altar, he was deservedly regaled with the apparition of the blessed Virgin herself. Once, when he was preparing, on the feast day of the Immaculate Conception, to offer the mass, the most pure Virgin presented herself before him, bringing him a chasuble, white and most beautiful, and handing it to him she said: ‘My son, know that I was myself conceived without taint of Original Sin; wherefore try to bring it about that this feast day shall always be celebrated with all reverence and solemnity.’ The archbishop thenceforward exerted himself, with so much ardor, to bring this about, that he succeeded in inducing all Spain to practice this singular worship [i.e., unprecedented worship], and incited the neighboring provinces to yield solemn honors to the immaculate Virgin.”

That is no evidence, be it observed. It is hearsay, and secondhand, and far too improbable and too ridiculous in itself to be received. Yet Roman Catholic divines imagine that the narrations of such “lying wonders” can suffice to prove their point.

Here is such another fairy tale, of the year 1317, in the old Chronicle:

“In the city of Chester there was a convent of the Carmelites, who (according to their usual custom) named themselves Brothers of the blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel… In this procession, amongst other Religious, the Carmelite fathers were also present, who, passing by a wooden statue of the most pure Virgin Mary, which was held in great veneration, many of them bowed down their heads and saluted the said sacred Virgin, saying, Ave, Maria! At the same time the statue did bow down its head and saluted them again, and stretching forth its finger, which before was doubled, pointing to the pious Carmelites, did with a distinct voice pronounce three times these words, ‘Behold, these are my brothers’”

(See Treatise of the Scapular, etc, etc. Dublin, C. M. Warren, 21, Upper Ormond Quay).

Thomas Argentinensis, or Thomas of Strasbourg, Prior-general of the Augustinians in 1345, shall now be called (lib. II. dist. xxx. quaest. 1, ad. 3):

“The glorious Virgin, singular in her privileges, was so prevented by the grace of the Holy Spirit, that she was never tainted by Original Sin.”

That is a statement of opinion, no more. He continues (lib. III. dist. iii. quaest. 1, ad. 1):

“It was fitting that the Son of God should have preserved His virgin mother from the corruption of her origin (Original Sin); because it was proper that He should have observed that honor towards His mother which every man is bound, by the Divine precept, to show to his own mother.”

This again is merely a statement of opinion—Thomas’ opinion as to what was fit and proper for our Lord Jesus Christ to do.

S. Bridget, in the year 1360, pretended to the gift of prophecy. She imagined that she “saw visions and dreamed dreams.” She asserted that the Virgin Mary had appeared to her, and said:

“Know that my immaculate conception has been revealed to few; because God willed that, as the natural law and the free choice of good and evil, preceded the written law of Christ, so He willed that the written law should follow and restrain all inordinate affection: and so also it pleased Him that the friends of God should deny my immaculate conception, so that some few might exert their zeal, until, through the desire to magnify my greatness, the truth should become known.”

The Virgin Mary, finding it impossible to do better, evidently thought it advisable to offer an apology for the paucity of the numbers, among all the theologians of that day, who would accept the dogma as to her conception.

S. Vincentius Ferrerius, a Dominican of Valencia in 1414, and master of the pope’s palace, thought it necessary to make a great sweeping assertion which should at once put the Virgin Mary out of the genus of humanity and above the race of mortals (Sermo II, De Nativ., apud Zoller):

“Do not suppose that it was with Mary as it is with us who are conceived in sin; because, at once, as soon as her soul had been created, it was sanctified, and the angels instantly began, in heaven, the annual celebrations of the Feast of the Conception.”

Trithemius, or Joannes de Trittenheim, Abbot of Spanheim in 1500, praised Anna, the mother of Mary, in the following terms (De Laud. Annae, apud Zoller):

“She must have been truly holy who gave birth to Mary without the taint of original sin. Every child that was born without the taint of original sin must have had a mother that was truly holy. She who conceived and bore the mother of God must herself have been most pleasing to God, and the most devoted to God of all in Israel. There was none holier than S. Anna in all Israel, who, in conceiving the mother of God, formed a stainless vessel for the Holy Spirit… Anna, before she had conceived the mother of God, was holy; yet, in conceiving her, she underwent a still greater sanctification, because she was worthy of being made the dwelling of her who, beyond all creatures, was full of grace. The reliquary and tabernacle in which relics of saints are deposited we regard as sanctified and to be venerated; how much more then is Anna to be venerated, she in whom lay the spotless mother of God! How much more must she be venerated as being so much the more sanctified and full of honor! Yes, truly holy was she who bore Mary without taint of Original Sin—Mary, than whom no one was ever more holy!”

Why did he not end with the words, which closed similar addresses to Cybele, “Maria, magna dea mater”?

Cardinal Bellarmine, the Jesuit (1580 A.D.), in his Calendar of the Virgin (ad diem 13 Aug. apud Zoller, No. 186), and Paulus, Bariensis Episcopus (in Anno Sancto), say:

“It certainly was a great privilege, and a most singular grace, obtained by the immaculate Virgin, that the angel Gabriel did not feel any impure desire, such as is inherited from Adam [on his visiting the Virgin Mary at the Annunciation] (quòd angelus iste nec ullum inhonestum pruritum, ab Adamo hæreditatum, senserit).”

What do we hear? Stand down at once, Cardinal Bellarmine, and you too, Bishop Paul! How can the court be expected to receive such polluted evidence?

Then only two more witnesses shall be called for the defense: Laurentius Chrysogonus, and a modern saint and doctor of the Roman Church. The former says (Mundus Marianus, pars i. discurs. 9, no. 7, Apud Paulum ab Omnibus Sanctis):

“To the most holy Virgin all things are possible, because of the most high dignity of her Divine maternity, which brought her an infinite power and empire in the things of all the world… Wherefore many of the holy Fathers very rightly asserted that the Virgin’s power was common to her and to the Incarnate Word, a power which she properly merited to attain with the glory and dignity of her Divine maternity; by which she both was made lady (domina) and queen of the whole universe, and also acquired condignly a power and supernatural dominion of jurisdiction and property in the salvation of souls very similar to that which the Incarnate Word also merited.”

Lastly, the following evidence is given by S. Alphonsus Liguori, saint and doctor of the Roman Church, a little more than a hundred years ago:

“When S. Dominic was preaching at Carcassonne, in France, an Albigensian heretic, who, for having publicly ridiculed the devotion of the rosary, was possessed by devils, was brought to him. The saint then obliged the evil spirits to declare whether the things which he said about the most holy rosary were true. Howling, they replied, ‘Listen, Christians, all that this enemy of ours has said of Mary, and of the most holy rosary, is true.’ They moreover added that they had no power against the servants of Mary; and that many, by invoking in death the name of Mary, were saved, contrary to their deserts. They concluded, saying, ‘We are forced to declare that no one is lost who perseveres in devotion to Mary, and in that of the most holy rosary, for Mary obtains for those who are sinners true repentance before they die.’ S. Dominic then made the people recite the rosary, and, oh, prodigy! at every Hail Mary many vile spirits left the body of the possessed man under the form of red-hot coals; so that, when the rosary was finished, he was entirely freed. On this occasion many heretics were converted.” (Glories of Mary, p. 502)

“Blessed Alan relates that there was a lady named Dominica, who for a time said the rosary; but having afterwards given it up, she fell into such poverty, that one day, in despair, she gave herself three stabs with a knife. When she was on the point of expiring, and the devils were already prepared to take her to hell, the most blessed Virgin appeared to her, and said: ‘Daughter, although thou hast forgotten me, I would not forget thee, on account of the rosary which at one time thou didst recite in my honor. But now, if thou wilt continue to recite it, I will not only restore thee to life, but will also restore thee the property thou hast lost.’ Dominica recovered her health, and persevering in the recitation of the rosary, recovered her property, and on her death-bed was again visited by Mary, who praised her for her fidelity, and she then died a holy death.” (Glories of Mary, p. 503)

“On the Feast of the Epiphany, a priest, who had lost his tongue, prayed for its restoration, and behold, Mary appeared to him with a tongue in her hand, and said, ‘Since thou hast lost thy tongue for the faith, and for the honor thou hast shown me, I now give thee a new one.’ When she said this, she, with her own hands, put the tongue in his mouth; and, in the same instant, the priest, raising his voice, recited the ‘Hail Mary.’” (LIGUORI: Glories of Mary, p. 521)

“In the Franciscan chronicles it is related that two religious of that order, who were going to visit a sanctuary of the blessed Virgin, were overtaken by night in a great forest, where they became so bewildered and troubled, that they knew not what to do. But, advancing a little farther, dark as it was, they thought they discovered a house. They went towards it, and felt the wall with their hands: they sought the door, knocked, and immediately heard some one within asking who they were. They replied that they were two poor religious who had lost their way in the forest, and that they begged at least for shelter, that they might not be devoured by the wolves. In an instant the doors were thrown open, and two pages richly dressed stood before them, and received them with the greatest courtesy. The religious asked them who resided in that palace. The pages replied that it was a most compassionate lady. ‘We should be glad to present her our respects, and thank her for her charity.’ ‘She also,’ the pages answered, ‘wishes to see you; and we are now going to conduct you into her presence.’ They ascended the staircase, and found all the apartments illuminated, richly furnished, and scented with an odor of paradise. Finally they entered the apartment of the lady, who was majestic and most beautiful in her appearance. She received them with the greatest affability, and then asked them where they were going. They answered that they were going to visit a certain church of the blessed Virgin. ‘Oh! since that is the case,’ she replied, ‘I will give you before you go a letter, which will be of great service to you.’ Whilst the lady was addressing them, they felt their hearts inflamed with the love of God, and an internal joy which they had never before experienced. They then retired to sleep, if, indeed, they could do so, overcome as they were by the happiness they experienced; and in the morning they again went to take leave of the lady and thank her, and also to receive the letter, which she gave them, and they then departed. But when they got a short distance from the house, they perceived that the letter had no direction. They turned about, and sought first on one side, then on another, but in vain; they could no longer find the house. Finally, they opened the letter to see for whom it was meant and what it contained; and they found that it was from the most blessed Virgin Mary, and addressed to themselves. In it she told them that she was the lady whom they had seen the night before, and that on account of their devotion for her she had provided a lodging and refreshment for them in that wood. She exhorted them to continue to serve and love her, for she always would amply reward their devotion, and would succor them in life and at death. At the foot of the page they read her signature, ‘I, Mary the Virgin.’ Let each one here imagine the gratitude of these good religious, and how they thanked the Divine mother, and how greatly they were inflamed with the desire to love and serve her for their whole lives!” (LIGUORI: Glories of Mary, pp. 332, 333)

“S. Augustine asks, ‘Whence have they (Mary’s eyes) made thee flee, unless it be from the bosom of Thy Father into the womb of Thy mother?’ On the same thought the learned interpreter, Fernandez, says that the most humble eyes of Mary, which she always kept fixed on the Divine greatness, never losing sight of her own nothingness, did such violence to God Himself, that they drew Him into her womb. Her most humble eyes held God in such a way captive, that this blessed virgin, with a kind of most sweet violence, drew the Word Himself of God the Father into her womb. Thus it is that we can understand, says the Abbot Franco, why the Holy Ghost praised the beauty of this His spouse so greatly, on account of her dove’s eyes: How beautiful art thou, My love, how beautiful art thou! thine eyes are dove’s eyes! For Mary, looking at God with the eyes of a simple and humble dove, enamored Him to such a degree by her beauty, that with the bands of love she made Him a prisoner in her chaste womb. The abbot thus speaks, ‘Where on earth could so beautiful a virgin be found, who could allure the King of heaven by her eyes, and by a holy violence lead Him captive, bound in the chains of love?’” (LIGUORI: Glories of Mary, p. 308: 1852)

Even in the last century such ridiculous fairy tales and “old wives’ fables,” and such blasphemous ribaldry could be penned by a so-called saint!

That closes the case for the defense. There now follows the summing up, or rather the historical retrospect.—first period.

(To be continued.)