unless the Roman Church can be shewn to offer the sacrifice of the Mass in honour of Mary. But surely this is no answer. It is impossible to conceive, that, had Epiphanius been aware that prayers were daily offered to the Virgin, and the mercy of God sought through her intercession, in the Christian churches, he would, in so unqualified a manner, have denounced all worship of the Virgin. He says not only, "Do not offer sacrifice to Mary," but "Let no man worship Mary; let God be worshipped." The offering of a sacrifice was one part of religious worship, but so is the offering of prayer and praise equally a part; and Epiphanius, taking occasion from the one part more immediately brought under his notice, condemns all the worship of Mary equally, without any limitation or exception. This is in itself evident; but the case becomes still more clear, and the argument is further confirmed, by a brief reflection upon the words used by Epiphanius.

The verbs used by him in these passages, "Let no one worship Mary." "Let the Lord be worshipped," are precisely the same with those which St. John employs in the Revelation, when describing a worship in which sacrifice could have no part. "I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel. And he saith unto me, 'See thou do it not. Worship God.'"* And it is a very curious circumstance, that whilst Epiphanius himself, in this genuine work, says, "Let no one worship Mary," and "The angels do not receive this honour," the writer of the spurious work ascribed to him, to which we have already adverted, uses the selfsame Greek word when he represents the angels as

* Τὴν Μαρίαμ μηδεὶς προσκυνείτω, Ο Κύριος προσκυνείσθω.
Ἔπεσον προσκυνῆσαι. Τῷ Θεῷ προσκύνησον.

WORSHIPPING Mary.* The fact is, that, had Epiphanius sought for the most general and comprehensive word for the express purpose of excluding the Virgin Mary from any kind of religious worship whatever,-the falling down before her, praying to her, invoking her succour, singing hymns to her or in honour of her, he could not probably have selected any word more comprehensive than the word he has chosen.

But Epiphanius says, "Let Mary be had in honour." To which every true son of the Church of England will respond Amen. We discard, as fully as Epiphanius could do, all unworthy or disparaging sentiments of the Holy Virgin-Mother of our Lord. But, in repudiating those who speak irreverently of her, we are careful (as Epiphanius bids us to be) not to be driven to the opposite extreme, nor to honour her above the measure due to her. We honour her memory as we honour all the holy saints of God. Epiphanius bids us honour Mary; but so he bids us honour Eve, the mother of us all (using the self-same word Tuάoba). We honour Mary, but we cannot worship her.

It is too obvious to require more than a few words, and yet it is not superfluous to observe, that the sentiments expressed in these dissertations of Epiphanius prove that he entertained very different notions from those which are professed by members of the Church of Rome now, and countenanced by the Roman

It is worthy of remark, that this same word, to the very letter, is used by the author of the spurious work (to which our attention will hereafter be directed) ascribed to Ephraim Syrus, when the writer addresses the Virgin herself in the language of adoration, "We bless thee, O Bride of God, and with fear we worship thee" πроσкνvοuμεv. Vol. iii. p. 543,—prayers strangely cited, in the preent day, in justification of the worship in the Church of Rome.

Ritual, on various points besides the Invocation of Mary.

Epiphanius could not have held the immaculate conception of the Virgin in her mother's womb; or he would not have assured us, as he does repeatedly, that though her birth was promised to her father, yet was it in the ordinary course of nature, "not born in any way differently from the nature of men."

Epiphanius could have known nothing of the assumption of the Virgin, now the chief and crown of her festivals in the Church of Rome; or he would not have told us, that, because the Scripture is silent on the subject of her death, he would not dare to express his opinion, whether she fell asleep by a natural death, or suffered martyrdom, or was allowed to remain on earth. *

Of her merits, as influencing our spiritual condition; of her intercession; of her present interest with God, as our advocate; of any prayers, even for her aid and prayers, being offered by the Church, or by the faithful in private; of all this Epiphanius says not one word. His evidence is all, from first to last, clearly, pointedly, and irrefutably against the invocation of the Virgin Mary. Epiphanius testifies that the present worship of the blessed Virgin in the Church of Rome had neither place nor name among primitive Christian worshippers.

*P. 1043.

CHAPTER II.

BASIL, GREGORY OF NAZIANZUM, EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN, AND GREGORY OF NYSSA.

SECTION I.

OUR attention is now especially called to the evidence of four contemporaries, who, although not perhaps personally known each to every one of the other three, yet were united together, some indeed by the ties of blood or of friendship, and all by the bond of one faith, and one hope, and one charity. Basil was the brother of Gregory of Nyssa, the companion and friend of Gregory of Nazianzum, and the spiritual father in Christ by the imposition of whose hands Ephraim is said to have received the holy order of the Christian ministry. The testimony of each of these must be examined separately; and though we cannot regard them all as of equal magnitude or brightness, yet will each star of this constellation be found to shed much valuable light on our path, whilst the combined light of them all united seems to bring the object of our discovery clearly and distinctly before our mind, and to leave no room at all for doubt as to the state of religious worship, so far as our present inquiry is concerned, at the close of the fourth century. Up to that time, at all events, the invoca

tion of the Virgin Mary had no place among the faithful followers of the Cross.

SECTION II.-BASIL, 370.

This Christian father and bishop, who acquired the name of the Great, in contradistinction to the multitude of bishops and pastors of the same name who succeeded him, is often appealed to under the honoured title of the Great Teacher of Truth. All Christians, whether in the earliest ages from his own time, or in more modern days, have agreed to do his memory honour; and editors of his works express their assurance that he would take no umbrage at their reflections on his errors, so great was his love of truth. Basil was born at Neocæsarea, probably about the year 328, though some have placed his birth ten or twelve years earlier. He was ordained deacon and priest at Cæsarea; but, in consequence of an unhappy misunderstanding between him and the bishop of that city, he withdrew, about A.D. 358, into the deserts of Pontus, and there spent his time chiefly in religious solitude, which, however, was relieved by the sweet and friendly converse of Gregory of Nazianzum. Happily, Basil and the Bishop of Cæsarea were reconciled; and about the year 370, he succeeded, on the death of that bishop, to the see of Cæsarea. He was suffered to feed the flock of Christ there as their chief shepherd for about eight or nine years, and then he died in peace.

The great number of Christian writers of very inferior note, but of the same name,-not less than forty, probably more,-diminishes our surprise on finding so many confessedly spurious works ascribed to him.