| Monumental Christianity; or, The art and symbolism of the primitive church. CHAPTER VIII - 5 |
Page 6 of 6 And these are not Brahmins sounding the praises of Lakshmi or Devaki, and making invocations to them as mediatresses ; nor are they Babylonian priests ador- ing Mylitta, or Egyptian ones worshipping Isis ; nor yet Greek and Roman vota- ries of Ceres, or Juno, or Venus ; but they are learned and so-called Christian men, who have thus exalted the Virgin Mary into a veritable goddess and queen of heaven like any one of these. The translation of the passages above given from Cardinal Bona, can be verified by the reader on consulting the original.' And what is most lamentable about these essentially Pagan and pantheistic rhapsodies and blasphemies, is, that they are now imposed as articles of faith on all the members of the Latin Church, under the pains and penalties of eternal dam- nation, ever since the Pontifical decree of December 8th, 1854, and its reaffirmation in the Encyclical and Syllabus issued ten years afterwards. It is only a choice of errors, when men of sense and intelligence prefer scientific scepticism, or even materialistic atheism, to such pantheistic mysticism as underlies the whole doctrine of Mary as Mediatrix and Queen of Heaven, and of the Roman Pontiff as God's infallible representative or personated power on earth, in both Church and State. The earliest and only Christian father who seems to give any hint of the sub- ject of Mary as an advocate and mother of God, out of which modern ingenuity has made a mediatrix and a goddess, is Irenaeus, who flourished in the latter half of the second century, who runs this parallel between Eve and Mary: "Just as Eve was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word ; so did Mary, by an angelic communication, receive the ' Div, Psal. c. XII. 3 and 4 of paragraph 2. 224 Monumental Christianity. glad tidings that she should produce {portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness {advocatd) of the Virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin ; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience." * He whom Mary was the instrument of bringing into tlie world was God in one sense, and man in another ; and Mary was only Eve's advocate or helper, in the sense of making up her deficiency, both of them being finite and mortal women alike. For Irenaeus says in another place : " He, therefore, the Son of God, our Lord, being the Word of the Father, and the Son of man, since He had a generation as to His human nature from Mary — who was descended from mankind, and who was herself a human being — was made the Son of God."" This is emphatic and dis- tinct enough as to Mary's advocacy and motherhood of God. About the year of our Lord 390, St. Basil formed a small sect or society of female devotees for the special-worship of the Virgin Mary, who met on certain days, and made to her offerings of cakes called collyrida, i. e., thin cakes well kneaded, of a triangular shape, as idolatrous Israel did in the time of Jeremiah, (vii. 18,) when the women kneaded their dough to make cakes for the Queen of Heaven ; and this Christian female sect was hence called Collyridians. Their existence was short. The ceremonies practised at their meetings were considered idolatrous, and were reprimanded by the orthodox clergy." Already was Mary beginning to be regarded as something more than human. No wonder, then, that remonstrance was made. Anastasius, priest and friend of Nestorius, the bishop of Constantinople, one day, in the year 428, or there- abouts, declared in a sermon, " Let no man call Mary the Mother of God, for she was a woman, and it is impossible that God should be born of a human creature." This utterance gave great offence, and produced a commotion among the orthodox both of the clergy and laity, who had always taught and believed that Jesus Christ was God, in no way separate as a man from Divinity; and that Jesus Christ, the God-man, was born of the Virgin Mary. Nestorius took sides with his priest against the people, a bold and unusual thing for a Bishop to do, in maintaining, as it is alleged, the two-fold personality as well as two-fold nature of Christ, instead of the orthodox belief in the two natures being joined together in but one person : and so he said that Mary should rather be called Christotokos than Theotokos. St, > Adv, Hares, V. c. 19, i. ' ^^v. Hares, III. c, XIX. 3. •Ducange, Collyrida, Tcxier and Pullan, p. 42. yesus Christ as Human. 225 Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, exposed and refuted the reputed mistake of Nestorius ; and the council of Ephesus, summoned in A. D. 431, by the joint Emperors Theodo- sius and Valentinian III. with the concurrence and co5peration of the Bishop of Rome, Celestine I., condemned as a heresy the teaching of Nestorius, and he was banished, first to Antioch, and then to Africa. He was harshly and unfairly dealt with. His expressions were perhaps no more than exaggerations into which he may have been betrayed in the heat of controversy, rather than denials of the truths which they seemed to contradict. He steadily disavowed the more odious opinions which were imputed to him; he repeatedly professed his willingness to admit the term Theotokos, provided it were guarded against abuses. The contro- versy more than once seemed on the point of being settled, but pride of conquest, or unwillingness to concede, and personal animosities, on both sides, prevented. The court of Theodosius was against Nestorius, partly influenced by Cyril's money, partly by Pulcheria whom Nestorius had offended, and partly by dread of the monks and the populace.' The wrong done to Nestorius must be laid to the charge of the secular or lay power of the State, rather than to the clergy and the Council of Ephesus, The Council was chiefly concerned to maintain the orthodox faith, and declared that it was " the real and inseparable union of the two natures of Christ in One Person, and that the human nature which Christ took of the Holy Virgin, never subsisted separately from the Divine Person of the Son of God." And this still remains the orthodox faith of Christendom proper ; or as Bishop Pearson says, " We must acknowledge that the Blessed Virgin was truly and prop- erly the mother of our Saviour. And so she is frequently styled the Mother of Jesus in the language of the Evangelists, and by Elizabeth particularly, the mother of her Lordf as also by the general consent of the Church ; because He that was so born of her was God, the Deipara^ which being a compound title begun in the Greek Church, was resolved into its parts by the Latins ; and so the Virgin was plainly named the Mother of God.*** But out of all this, or in spite of it, one can hardly say which, the cultus of the Virgin at length took possession of the whole Eastern Church in the eighth cen- tury ; and in the Western Church we find a special office, consisting of seven can- onical hours, and in a form which had hitherto been used for the worship of Almighty God alone, was instituted among the Benedictines, A. D. 1056, which was soon adopted by the regular clergy, and was made generally obligatory by the canons of the Council of Claremont, A. D. 1096. Pope Urban II. decreed that the ' Robertson's Ch, Hist,^ I. pp. 450-57. • Exposition 0/ the Creed, I. p. 218. Oxford, 3d Ed. 1847. 226 Monumental Christianity. hours of the Blessed Virgin Mary should be daily sung, and more solemnly ob- served on Sabbath days.* Cardinal Bona claims for this office of the Virgin a far more ancient date than the above, i. ^., the time of Gregory II., A. D. 715.' And both Martene and Johnson assert that the festival of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was established as early as A. D. 694, when the Council of Toledo fixed the date of its celebration on the eighth of December instead of the eighteenth. This of course implies an earlier celebration, although Martene says that St. Ildephonsus, Bishop of Toledo, was its reputed author.* Sixtus IV., A. D. 1476 and 1483, issued two bulls to quiet the dissensions of the Church occasioned by the fierce controversy of the Franciscans and Dominicans on the subject of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, to the effect that the new office composed by Leonard de Negoralis in honour of the Virgin might be used ; and indulgences were granted to all such as celebrated it or assisted at its celebration ; and they who asserted that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was false or heretical, or that it was a sin to celebrate this office of the Virgin, were condemned : while all such as contended about it, one*vay or the other, were excommunicated, until the whole matter in controversy should be settled by the Church of Rome and the Apostolical See. The office of the Virgin spread into England and was used in the time of Anselm, A. D. 1 102-8 ; and it became part of the Canon law in the time of Archbishop Mepham, A. D. 1328.* So, too, it spread into other coun- tries, the Church of Lyons, Irenaeus* Church, using it as early as A. D. 1136, when it became part of the canon law. The Council of Trent did not settle the long and fierce controversy in the Latin Church about the Immaculate Conception, but merely re-affirmed or renewed the decrees of Sixtus IV. Here is the declaration of that Council, as cited from the first Aldine edition of its acts: Declaret tamen hac sancta Synodus^ non esse suce'intentionis comprefiendere in hoc decreto^ ubi de peccato originali agitur^ beat am et tntmaculatatn virginetn Mariam^ Dei Genitricem ; sed Xysti Papa Quarti, sub poenis in eis constitutionibus quas innovate And so it has been reserved for this nineteenth century of boasted enlighten- ment and pusillanimous Churchmanship to witness the shameful and blasphemous spectacle of the Roman Pontiff declaring and defining this Dogma of the Immac- ulate Conception, in boldest effrontery, and in the face of centuries of opposition, > Martene De Ant, Monaeh Rit, II. c. XII. torn. IV, p. 82. ^Div. Psa!,, c. 12, 2, 2. * De Rit, IV., c. 2, 15. torn. iv. Canons, II., p. 347. Oxford, 1851. ¦ Johnson's Canons, II., p. 346. • Canones, &c., Aldus, Romae, MDLXIV. s •a Q 1 < > s a > o e i I <9 Jesus Christ as Human. 227 whereby a mere woman is exalted into the rank of Divinity, and the wife of Joseph made a goddess and the mother of God, like Devaki, or Mylitta, or Venus. M. Didron publishes the exact drawing of a sculpture at the Church of St. Denis, France, of the sixteenth century, representing the assumption of the Virgin Mary as Venus rising from the sea into heaven.* It is here exactly reproduced. This is to Paganize Christianity, and not to Christianize Paganism. The assump- tion or the translation of the Virgin bodily into heaven is entirely unknown to the Primitive Church, and is nowhere contained in the Bible; and it only makes its appearance in Mediaeval art about the time when the idolatrous veneration for Mary had culminated, that is, about the end of the thirteenth or beginning of the fourteenth century.* It is an article of faith in the Latin Church, notwithstanding its utter lack of foundation in truth. Any one curious to know how the subject has been treated by Mediaeval Christian art, is referred to Mrs Jameson's excellent work on the " Legends of the Madonna." The assumption into heaven is followed by the coronation of the Virgin, unknown to primitive Christian literature and art, but holding an equally conspicuous place in the literature and art of the middle ages wfth the assumption. As this corona- tion implies co-equality and co-operation with the Holy Trinity on the part of Mary, and is the acme of all Pagan idolatry, in common with that which worships images of the Virgin and of Christ," it may be well to compare some of the oldest Hindu representations of the subject with the Romish, and see how complete the resemblance is. Buddha (Fig. 98) is the symbol and incarnation of all Divine wisdom and intelli- gence ; he sits on his lotus-throne, in profound meditation, within a canopy and glory surmounted by winged angels, with the crescent moon or Yoni marked on his fore- head, indicative of the female principle and power, while the magic sign of the cross is on the palm of his left hand, symbolical of life and its perpetual reproduction. It is the enthronement of this female principle in Buddha that looks like the coronation of the same thing in the heavens of the Latin Church, the only difference consisting in the use of symbols in the one case, and of the actual woman in the other. We have seen something like Fig. 99 before, in the androgynous Brahma-Maya of the first chapter. This is essentially the same, the male and female principles ' Paganisffu dans VArt CMtun, p. 12-Z3. Paris, 1853. Icon, Chrii., Gr, and Lai,, p. 288. Also Piper's Myth,, p. 157. * Didron's Paganisme,8tc., p. 12. * Firmissime assezx) Imagines Christi, ac Deiparse semper Virginis. nee non alionim Sanctorum habendas, et retinendas, esse, atque debitum honorem, ac venerationem impertiendam. Form of oath, &c.. Lid. Symi. I., p. 100. Streitwolf et Klener. Gottingen, 1846. 228 Monumental Christianity. of the universe incar- nate, or brought from heaven to earth, and again transferred from earth to heaven. It is the whole manifesta- tion of life and the means of its produc- tion. The androgynous being, who is either hu- man or divine, stands in the vase of the world, flames issuing from one side, and water spout- ing from the other, fire and water being the two essential elements of life; the circle of deity is around them; and over all floats the Great Mother spread- ing the veil of creation of the heavens above them, and blessing the nup- tials with hands outstretched in the form of the cros6.** I admit that the union here is more that of real husband and wife than a mystical spiritual union, such as that which subsists between Christ and His Church ; but confessedly, the physical occupation of the same seat in heaven with Christ on the part of Mary, looks as if the Latin Church regarded her actual presence there as necessary to all the life, joy, and prosperity of the world. If not in the same precise way, it is still the same essential enthronement and co- operation of the female principle and power as characterized all Paganism the world over. Fig. ICO is the Papal representation of the matter, the exaltation of the Virgin to the same throne with Christ, and the union blessed by her coronation. Both are within the circle of Deity ; both have the Divine glory round their heads ; both are equally adored by standing and prostrate saints in heaven ; and the union, mystical indeed, must be traced back to the old Pagan notion of a goddess mother, ' Religions de VAntiquite^ vol. I. pp. 270-1. and plate XIII. Flo. 98.~Buddha. Fig. 99.— Androgynous Deity. i-:^ Pio. xex .^Coronation of Blutyani. yesus Christ as Human. 229 Fig. too.— Coronation and Adoration of Mary. Rome, t3th and S4tli centuries. Maria Maggiore, at Rome; and which says of it, that It wife, and sister, i, e.^ to some female as necessary to main- tain the life and happiness of the whole universe, the heavenly world as well as the earthly. I have reproduced this coronation scene from Agin- court's great work, copied from a Mosaic in the Basilica of Santa was begun during thirteenth century, the beginning of the pontificate of Nicholas IV., in the latter part of the by Giacomo Torrite, and finished by Gaddo Gaddi, in the fourteenth. There is another Mosaic greatly resembling this, in the Church of Santa Maria in Trastevere, at Rome, executed between the years 1 1 30 and 1 143, during the pontificate of Innocent II.,* which represents Mary and Christ seated side by side on their heavenly throne. He holding her by the hand, and she already crowned queen of heaven ; both have the glory round their heads, and both equally receive the adoration of the saints grouped on either side. Perhaps the most complete counterpart of this in Paganism is the annexed representation, (Fig. loi,) from an ancient Hindu sculpture of Bhavani, or Parvati, the deified female principle of nature, and of fecundity, otherwise personated in Lakshmi- Devaki, Diana, Juno-Lucina, and Venus.* She is seated on a lion as a throne, and is richly decorated with gems, holding the Child in one hand, and a lotus in the other; and she is surrounded by all the great and holy beings of the animal and spiritual worlds, giving her honour and worship. As Maha-Devi she sits above, crowned as supreme goddess. The Papal representation is more refined and spiritual than the Pagan, but the same in fact ; Mary is a deified mortal, or a deified female principle as Bhavani is, and receives the same kind of religious homage. The pure theism of the Old Testament has no trace of this dualistic or androgynous principle, nor has the " Agincourt, Peinture, pi. XVIII. Nos. 6 and 18. • Moor*s Hindu Pan. and Coleman's Hindu MythoL, pi. 34. --•ji::- ^ jr-^; ? 230 Monumental Christianity. Christianity of the New Testament. Pagan and pantheistical from first to last, no apol- ogies or explanations can ever excuse or alter the fact, in the Latin Church, of Mary being exalted at the right hand of the throne of God as a co-ordinate function and power with Christ our Lord and hers, in the administration of all things, and more especially in the management of the Church, and the maintenance of its life, peace, and prosperity. And no one can witness, as I have done, the excessive devotion paid to jewelled, crowned, and sceptered images of the Virgin Mary at Rome and elsewhere, in churches of the Papal obedience, without being convinced that she is far more than an humble exemplar of piety to her devotees ; and that she has passed into the same rank with the three Persons of the Holy and Blessed Trinity, as an object of the higher worship, or at least as one to be worshipped in connec- tion with the Triune God. This codrdinate female influence with God is unnecessary and of mere human device. It is idolatrous and mischievous. That candid writer, John Henry New- man, well says, that " Christianity knows no difference of sex ; in it there is neither male nor female, because there is but One character to which all must conform, One likeness which all must imitate ; and from it man must learn all the gentleness and tenderness of a woman, and woman must learn all the strength and severity of man."' * Life of St Walbniiga. English Saints, I. p. 73. ^' Jtnd the wot[d wa$ made fl6$h and dwelt amoug u$.'' SL Jno,, i. 14. ^' B {$ wiiltten, $hou $hali woii$bip iba Loiid iby <|h)d, and him only ahali ihou aat(va.^ 5/. Matt,, iv. 10. Kic. im.— Reputed PortnUt of Christ. Fresco In St Calliztus. 3d Century JesTis Christ as Sufferer. 231 |