of the Saviour? And since the character of every good and of every virtue came primarily through him, why should not this virtue also have run on together with the rest? for honour to parents is the most precious form of virtue. And tell me how, except first of all from Christ and in Christ, could we have learned that our affection for them must not be neglected, though a flood of intolerable misfortunes bear upon us? for he is truly the most exalted person who keeps the commandments, and is not driven from the pursuit of what is right, not so much in the time of a calm, as in the midst of storm and flood. To what I have already said, I would add, that how could it be otherwise than becoming for the Lord to take provident care of his own mother, when she had fallen so as to feel offence, and was confused by disordered thoughts? for, being the true God, and looking into the motions of the heart, and knowing what was in its depth, how could he but know the thoughts which at that time especially disturbed her at the honoured cross? Knowing, therefore, the reasonings which were in her, he delivered her to the disciple who was the best instructor in mysteries, and who was able well, and not inadequately, to explain the mystery; for he was a wise man and a divine, who both receives her and takes her away rejoicing, intending to fulfil the whole desire of the Saviour concerning her."

Here Cyril* tells us that Mary was astounded at the unexpected sufferings and death of her Son, and was unable to reconcile what she then saw with what he had told her of his divine nature; but that we must

On this point Cyril takes, as we have seen, the same view with Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzum, Ambrose, Jerome, and others.

not wonder at such weakness and stumbling in Mary, when even Peter himself. felt somewhat of the same disappointment. Here Cyril tells us that our Saviour, when he saw the disturbed and disordered state of his mother's mind, arising from her ignorance of the divine dispensation, kindly entrusted her to St. John, who was a theologian profoundly acquainted with the divine will, and able to explain to her adequately the whole mystery of Christ's passion. Is it possible to read these passages, and not infer that St. Cyril of Alexandria was very far indeed from entertaining those sentiments concerning the perfection of the Virgin Mary which were afterwards propagated, and are still professed, by the Church of Rome?

The same conclusion is forced upon us by Cyril's reasoning in a homily delivered to a very crowded audience,* in which he speaks of the prophecy of Simeon, addressed to Mary, in such a manner as to leave no doubt that he ranked the Virgin below the Apostles both in faith and knowledge. "Simeon said to the holy Virgin, A sword shall pierce through thine own soul also;' by the sword,' meaning, perhaps, the pain which she felt on account of Christ, when she saw him, to whom she had given birth, crucified; not at all knowing that he was stronger than death, and would rise again from the dead. And do not wonder at all if the VIRGIN is ignorant on a point on which we shall find EVEN THE HOLY APOSTLES themselves to have been of little faith. Yea, the blessed Thomas, unless he had put his hand into his side, and touched the places of the nails, would not have believed, though the other disciples said that Christ was risen, and openly shewed himself to them.

* Vol. vi. p. 391.

It was

right that the truly wise Evangelist should teach us all things whatsoever the Son, through us and for our sakes, underwent when he became flesh, and did not disdain to take upon himself our poverty; that we might glorify him as our Redeemer and Lord, as our Saviour and God,-because to him and with him, to God, even the Father, with the Holy Ghost, is glory and power for ever and for ever. Amen."

We will only add one passage, contrasting very strikingly with those extraordinary representations of later times, which we find even in the authorized services of the Roman Church, and which abound in the works of her divines and in the books of devotion generally circulated; those, namely, in which the Virgin is represented as a being of such surpassing excellence, that far above all created beings, principalities and powers in heavenly places, far above all prophets and apostles, angels and cherubim, she stands next to God, to be approached by a worship peculiarly her

own.

Having quoted St. Paul as applying to Christ the title of the Lord of Glory, and as representing him to be better than the angels, Cyril thus speaks :* "Now, to be, and to be called, the Lord of Glory, how is this otherwise than exceeding great, and surpassing every thing created, or brought to its birth? I pass by mortal things, for they are very small; but I say, that if any one should name angels, and enumerate the principalities, and thrones, and dominions, and mention also the highest seraphim, he would confess that these fall far short of His exceeding glory." Repeatedly does Cyril thus enumerate all things held in the highest honour by the faithful; but neither above, * Vol. v. P. 697.

nor among the highest does he ever mention the Virgin Mary.

And, yet, even to the testimony of this Cyril we are referred for proof that the Virgin is invoked, and "that to her, in some sort, the works of Christ are attributed."* The homily† quoted in evidence was for the first time admitted among the works of Cyril by Aubert, and in the sixth volume of his edition of Cyril's works is entitled "An Encomium of the same Cyril upon Holy Mary, the Theotocos."+

This is one of those works which make us more especially regret that the Benedictine editors left Cyril of Alexandria without undergoing their examination. His homily cannot, in any point of view, be regarded as genuine it carries its own condemnation with it, and evidently is the corrupt version of a rhapsody composed in a much later age than the Council of Ephesus. Our remarks upon it will be found in the Appendix.

* Dr. Wiseman's Remarks on Mr. Palmer's Letter, 1841, p. 25. + Vol. vi. p. 379.

There is, in the same volume, another version of the same homily, entitled "Of the same against Nestorius, when the Seven went down to the Holy Mary."

CHAPTER VII.

LEO, A.D. 461.

LEO, the first Pope of that name, and a canonized saint of the Church of Rome, was advanced to the Popedom in A.D. 440, and, having governed that Church for twenty-one years, died A.D. 461. Few saints in the Roman calendar are spoken of with so much reverence as Leo. He is often represented as equal to the Apostles; and with such authority are his works invested that, A. D. 494, Pope Gelasius, and a council at Rome of seventy Bishops, assembled chiefly to determine what books should be held to be canonical, what apocryphal, what should be sanctioned, and what prohibited,* numbering Pope Leo's Letter to Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, among the books to be sanctioned, add, "The text of which if any one shall dispute, even to a single iota, and shall not receive it in all things with reverence, let him be accursed." This celebrated letter was written in 449, and to it our attention has been already drawn, when the evidence of the Councils of Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon formed the subject of our inquiry.

The evidence of such a man must be looked to with interest; and the result of our researches is most

So early in the Church of Rome did the system of forming an Index Expurgatorius begin.