Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

NOTE 1. It is doubted by no one of the Catholics that the Virgin Mother of God is gifted with eternal blessedness, and that her most holy soul has been exalted above all the Orders of the blessed Minds; for that truth Holy Mother Church publicly confesses, which not only celebrates the solemn day of the Virgin assumed into heaven as a witness, but also in the divine office, which she on that very day religiously renders to the glory of God and in honor of the assumed Virgin, among other encomia of her triumphal Assumption brings forth this: The holy Mother of God has been exalted above the Choirs of Angels and the heavenly kingdoms. This same truth the SS. Fathers, all who have celebrated the praises of the assumed Virgin Mother of God, most openly attest, as may be read in their Oracles and sermons, especially in Bernard in his sermons on the Assumption of Blessed Mary; for there, to pass over the rest, Sermon 1 he pronounces distinctly: Neither on earth is there a worthier place than the temple of the virginal womb, in which Mary received the Son of God, nor in heaven a royal throne, in which today the Son of Mary has exalted Mary, etc. Whence Epist. 174, which is to the Canons of Lyons, he piously no less than elegantly admonishes: Exalt finally her who is exalted above the Choirs of Angels, to the heavenly kingdoms. This the Church sings to me concerning her, and it taught me to sing the same. What I have received, I securely both hold and hand on; what I have not, I confess I would admit with some scruple. Certainly I received from the Church that day to be kept with the highest veneration, on which the assumed one, passing from this wicked world, brought also to the heavens the joys of the most famous feasts. Whence there remains alone to be opened and declared the truth, whether the Virgin Mother of God has been assumed on high not only in soul, but also in body, and exalted above all the Orders of Angels.

NOTE 2. With Duval, quaest. On the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, art. 6, there are various, but chiefly three, degrees of certitude in matters of faith. The first is when a thing is absolutely to be believed by divine faith, as that God is the Creator of Heaven and Earth, etc. The second, when a thing closely approaches faith, as what is believed by all the faithful. The third truly, when it is consonant with faith. But the more common opinion is that the bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God is not certain with the certainty of faith of the first kind. Whether, however, it obtains one of the two other degrees of certitude, the prudent reader will judge from what is to be said.

NOTE 3. There is a distinction between believing something with pious faith, and believing with Catholic faith: for Catholic faith has every kind of certitude; but pious faith does not obtain such great certitude, but has it so probable that it expels fear of the contrary, and is far greater than what can be had through the knowledge of any natural science. But that pious faith may claim this certitude to itself, three conditions are required, as Gerson teaches, Tract. On the Girl of Orleans: First: that the thing pertain to piety and devotion, such as those things which are proposed in commendation of God and the Saints. Second, that it be highly probable, from the common narration or attestation of the faithful. Third, that this relation and attestation be known to the Prelates of the Church, and not disapproved by them, but rather tolerated. Now it is certain that the opinion of the bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God is affected by these three conditions, and moreover has not only very many Fathers and SS. Doctors in its patronage and assertion, but also is confirmed by the common sense and consent of the Church, as Peter Aurelius teaches in his assertion of the Epistle of the Bishops of Gaul, where having said: Whatever is opposed to the consent of the Church is always erroneous or contrary to the word of God, because every consent of the Church is contained in a certain word of God and scripture, or contains the Catholic faith entirely: although it have a certitude greater than every human one, therefore to contradict it is erroneous; immediately he subjoins: That the Blessed Virgin Mother of God went into Heaven in body and soul is a most true doctrine, upheld by the consent of the Church; nor will he who denies it be guilty of error; it will not be heresy, nor does it withstand the word of God, in which nothing about it exists. By which words he signifies that the doctrine of the bodily Assumption obtains that degree of certitude which is not only greater than every human faith, but also which no one can oppose without the note of error. These things thus premised, let

One Conclusion. — THE BODILY ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN MOTHER OF GOD INTO HEAVEN IS PIOUSLY AND RELIGIOUSLY BELIEVED AND ASSERTED BY THE FAITHFUL. This Conclusion is most received among all Catholics, and is confirmed by most valid reasons and considerations, which for the sake of greater clarity and facility it helps to propose and weigh under the distinct following paragraphs.

§ 1. — THE ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN MOTHER OF GOD IS PROVED FROM THE INSTITUTION OF AN ANNUAL FESTAL DAY IN HER HONOR AND UNDER THAT TITLE. — The Church does not celebrate a festal day in assertion of any Mystery, or in veneration of sanctity, without holding that mystery, or that sanctity, in whose honor she keeps the feast, as confessed and undoubted: but now for very many past centuries the Church has kept a festal day in honor of the Assumption of the soul and body of the Virgin Mother of God: therefore the sentiment of the Church is that the Virgin Mother of God has been assumed and received into Heaven in soul together with body. The major is clear from St. Bernard Ep. 174, where from the feast of the Nativity of the Virgin Mother of God he gathers that she was sanctified in the womb: I learned of the birth of the Virgin, he says, in the Church, and from the Church to hold its festal and holy day undoubted, feeling most firmly with the Church that she received it in the womb, that she might come forth holy, etc. And below: Nor does Holy Church at all err, esteeming that very day of her Nativity holy, and receiving it every year with votive celebration amid the exultation of the whole earth. It is also established from what we said pag. 792. The minor, upon which chiefly the hinge of difficulty turns, is proved first by the authority of the SS. Fathers, who derived by tradition handed down from the very Apostles even to us that solemnity was accustomed to be celebrated by the Church in the assumption of the Virgin Mother of God, for, as St. Augustine most beautifully says, book 4 On Baptism, chapter 21, What the whole Church holds, and was not instituted by Councils, but was always retained, is most rightly believed to have been instituted and handed down by no less than apostolical authority — but that the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God was accustomed to be celebrated by the Church, St. Bernard signifies in the letter just praised, where he says: I received from the Church that day to be kept with the highest veneration, on which the assumed one, passing from this wicked world, brought also to the heavens the joys of the most famous feasts; as if he said: there are festal days whose beginning we know well at what time they began: but concerning the feast of the Assumption of Blessed Mary nothing else appears to us than the very origin of the nascent Church itself, how Marius Victorinus Bishop of Rieti weighs the words of St. Bernard in his Scholia on Jerome; for thus he writes: That the Virgin was assumed together with her body from the monument in which she had been laid down, the whole Church believes and celebrates: the feast of the third day was everywhere to be celebrated — the Apostles, as Bernard is authority, decreed. Yet I confess that this feast was celebrated by the entire Church absolutely only after long succession of time, for Andrew of Crete, Orat. 2, On the Dormition of Blessed Virgin, says: It is a mystery, hitherto such as was celebrated by few, yet now held by all in love and desire. Moreover, that the solemnity of the Assumption of the Mother of God was celebrated in the times of the very Apostles is no light indication that it began to be kept from her death, and that daily commemoration of her was made in the sacrifice of the Mass, as the Liturgy of St. James teaches, in which these words are read; Commemorating the most holy, immaculate, most glorious Mother of God and ever Virgin Mary, our Lady, with all Saints and Just ones. If then from then her cult took its rise, one may easily bring oneself to believe her Assumption was celebrated on a festal and solemn day. For if among the decrees of Clement, book 8 of the Apostolic Constitutions, chapter 39, the faithful are commanded to rest from servile works on the feasts of the Apostles, and on the day of St. Stephen Protomartyr, who doubts that the same was sanctioned and constituted by them on the very day of the transmigration of the Blessed Virgin, whom all the faithful while she dwelt on earth venerated with so great affection and veneration? Add that from the very origins of the nascent Church the solemn memory of the Saints, especially Martyrs, was celebrated on the very day on which they passed from the living, as appears from the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna in Eusebius book 4 of the History c. 15, where of St. Polycarp, disciple of the Apostles, it is thus written: In which place, and even now by the favor of the Lord we keep solemn and frequented gatherings, indeed especially on the day of his Passion, but also we celebrate the memories of those who suffered before, that the minds of those following may be roused by the way and examples of their predecessors. But who would deny that the same was done in celebrating the memory of the death and Assumption of Blessed Mary? which perhaps because they were open to all men, were therefore consigned to letters by none of those whose writings have come down to our times. Nevertheless, that the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God was celebrated in the times of St. Jerome and Augustine, James Pamelius asserts in his Liturgical works, and this is established above all from the Comes, or Lectionary of Jerome, in which the Mass office to be celebrated is described in this order: In the Assumption of Mary. Lesson of the book of Wisdom. In all things rest is sought. Continuation of the holy Gospel according to Luke. Jesus entered into a certain town. Which are read in the Church in the same manner even to the present day. — It is established also from the Office and Prefaces Ambrosian, both on the Vigil and on the feast of the Assumption.

And indeed this is the Preface of the feast: pleasant, and salutary: that we, O Mother, praise thee with most sacred songs with exulting souls, bless, and preach thee. Among whom the blessed Mother of God, the undefiled Virgin Mary, shines forth most gloriously, whose day of Assumption, to be kept with all devotion, let us celebrate with the present sacrifice. Through Christ. — This very thing appears chiefly from the Martyrology published under the name of St. Hieron. Eusebius, for the reason that he himself is believed to have made it Latin from the Greek: for therein we read 1° Kalends of September: The Assumption of the holy Mother of our Lord. It is established from Nicephorus, who writes that a law concerning the feast of the Assumption was enacted by the Emperor Maurice. Now Maurice lived in the year 583. Moreover, with how great solemnity that same feast was kept in the first times of the Church appears not only from the statute of Leo IV., by which he commands that the Octaves of the feast of the Assumption be celebrated through the whole Church: for Octaves are not usually assigned except to the more solemn feasts. The same is established from the response of Nicholas I. to the inquiries of the Bulgarians, for there among the fasts anciently accustomed to be observed by the faithful he recounts the fast before the solemnity of the Assumption of the holy Mother of God, and ever Virgin, and our Lady.

You will say, that it is not likely that the feast of the Assumption was celebrated throughout the whole Church from the very origins of the nascent Church, and was most known to the faithful: since in the time of Charlemagne this was called into doubt, whether that feast ought to be celebrated, as appears from his Capitularies lib. 1. c. 116, where treating of the feasts to be celebrated he says: Concerning the Assumption of Saint Mary we leave it to inquiry, that is, whether it is to be celebrated or not: therefore at that time the feast was not everywhere, especially in Gaul, celebrated.

I answer, that that is not the sense of Charles's words: for plainly it is established that before the times of that Emperor the festal day of the Assumption of Saint Mary was not only celebrated in Gaul, but also that on it one was to cease from every servile and forensic work, and that by ecclesiastical precept; for it had already been decreed by Chrodegang Bishop of Metz in the rules published by him, which he prescribed for his own Church, in the reign of Charles the Great's father Pepin, who lived before the year 750; for we read chapter 86: It has pleased us to intimate, that we and our Clergy keep the feasts of God, and of Saint Mary, and of the 12 Apostles, whose use is in that Province: insofar as God shall have given possibility, let us attend to the divine office by day and by night. And chapter 17 he commemorates that very feast of the Assumption among the chief solemnities accustomed to be celebrated. For he writes: On the chief solemnities, that is, the Nativity and octave, and on the Epiphany of the Lord, and Easter, and on the Ascension of the Lord, and at Pentecost, and on the feasts of saints, that is, of St. Stephen, and St. John Evangelist, and on the solemnity of the Infants, and on the Purification, and on the Assumption of Saint Mary: likewise on the feasts of the blessed Apostles, and of St. John the Baptist, and St. Laurence, and St. Martin, or on the votive of any saint whose honor is specially celebrated in each Parish, let the full Office be celebrated, and let them be refreshed with these. Nay rather the same solemnity is proved to be older still from the Synodal Statutes of the Church of Rheims under Lord Sonnatius Archbishop of Rheims in the year 633. For chapter 20 these things are held: *Feasts to be cut off from all forensic work, and to be celebrated with due veneration. These are: the Nativi-ty of the Lord, Circumcision, Epiphany, etc. The Assumption of Blessed Mary and her Nativity, etc. The same appears from this, that before Pepin King of Gaul the Gallican Churches rendered the divine offices according to the custom, form, and rite of the Roman Church, as Hugh Menardus relates in the preface of the book of the Sacramentary of St. Gregory; for the confirmation of which matter he adduces these things, from the epistle of Charles the Bald to the clergy of Ravenna, where Charles speaks thus: For even up to the time of our father Pepin, the Gallican Churches celebrate no otherwise than the Roman and Milanese Churches do. And the same thing both Hilduin in his Areopagitica, and also Walafrid Strabo, and Sigebert in the Chronicles, and many others testify. Since these things are so, the consequence follows that the Gallican Churches used no other Missal than that very Roman one, namely the Sacramentary of St. Gregory, which indeed can be proved by several arguments; but chiefly by the authority of the Council of Rheims, as read in Burchard chapter 97 of the third book, where it stands thus: The Mass being finished, let the Chalice with paten, and the book of the sacraments with the priestly vestments, be stored away in a clean place under lock. It appears also from Amalarius, who acting as legate to Constantinople is said to have died there around the year 818; for he often makes mention of Sacramentaries and Antiphonaries, etc. But in that book of the Sacramentary of St. Gregory the bodily Assumption of the most blessed Virgin is most plainly set forth: therefore from then that feast was being kept among the Gallican Churches. — Whence, regarding the aforesaid words from the Capitularies of Charlemagne, I say that nothing else is there signified than that the Bishops were to be consulted whether, as was accustomed to be done, the corporal feast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God ought to be celebrated with solemn rite. For since at that time a question had arisen concerning the body of the Virgin assumed into Heaven, he did not wish, in enumerating the yearly celebrations which he commanded to be observed throughout his whole dominion, to define by his own authority the noted controversy concerning the bodily Assumption of Blessed Virgin by decreeing that the feast of that Assumption was to be celebrated: but since he knew well that causes of this kind pertained to Episcopal judgment, he judged the Bishops were to be consulted and asked concerning this matter; for he says: These are the festivals in hand, which must be venerated in all things. The Nativity of the Lord, St. Stephen, John Evangelist, the Innocents, the octave of the Lord, Epiphany, octave of Epiphany, Purification, the days of holy Easter, the Greater Litany, Ascension of the Lord, Pentecost, St. John Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, St. Martin, St. Andrew: Concerning the Assumption of Saint Mary we leave to inquiry. That is, the Bishops are to be consulted whether, judging the feast of the Assumption to have been introduced by the ignorance or superstition of the people, as a fourth, they thought it ought to be rejected; or rather whether, that controversy settled and those little clouds of doubt dispersed, they judged (to whom perhaps at that time, gathered in synod as was the custom, he was transmitting those chapters and sanctions for approval) that the feast of the Assumption ought to be kept with celebrated rite, as was accustomed. Moreover, the occasion of this controversy raised concerning the assumed body of the Virgin seems to have been supplied by a certain Gallican Bishop named Arculfus, who out of piety and devotion, having visited Palestine to salute the sacred places, since he was skilled neither in Greek nor Latin, made use of the service and interpretation of a certain Monk, by whom he suffered many things to be imposed upon him. But when, returning home, a storm having arisen, the ship in which he was carried put ashore at the British coast, he betook himself to a Priest named Adomnanus, certainly a man of good desert in letters, who, the occasion offering itself while Arculf related his whole pilgrimage and the delineation of the sacred places, described it in three books, as Bede testifies in the book On the Holy Places, where he has these words: These things, joined to the places, as far as I could, following with faithful history I have set down, chiefly the dictation of Arculfus, Bishop of the Gauls; which the Priest Adamnanus most erudite in the Scriptures, describing in lucid speech, comprised in three little books. Indeed the aforesaid Prelate, leaving his homeland out of desire for the holy places, came to the Land of promise; lingering some months at Jerusalem he made use of a certain Monk named Peter as leader and interpreter alike; he surveyed with curious intentness everything round about that he desired, and traversed Alexandria, Damascus, Constantinople, and Cilicia too. But wishing to revisit his homeland, the ship was lifted, and after many windings, the wind contrary, he was carried to our island, that is, of the Britons. And at length he himself, after not a few perils returning to the aforesaid venerable man Adomnanus, taught him to be the writer of that most beautiful history, explaining his journey alike and the things he had seen; from which plucking some things, relating and comparing books, we transmit to you to be read. But since Beda, treating in the same book chapter 6 On the Sepulchre of the Virgin, sets forth things similar to those narrated in the Sermon of Pseudo-Jerome, namely that it is unknown by whom, or how, the body of the Virgin was taken away, nor where it awaits resurrection, it is established that this was borrowed from that false narrative of Arculfus received from that Monk. Which same narrative, when Arculfus himself, Gaul already revisited, recited along with other things which he had heard and seen, thence among the Gauls the bodily Assumption of the Mother of God was called into disputation, which indeed was ended in the Council of Mainz held in the year 813, a few months before the death of Charlemagne, to which were present very many Bishops and Abbots of Gaul and Germany; for in that Council it was decreed that the feast of the Assumption of Blessed Virgin was to be celebrated: and immediately that which Charles had determined should be inquired concerning that feast was in that Council enacted and defined.

You will say 2. That even if the festal day in honor of the Blessed Virgin migrating from this mortal life to Heaven was instituted and celebrated by the Church, nevertheless from this it is not consequent that the sense and sentiment of the Church is that the Virgin Mother of God was received into Heaven in body together with soul: otherwise by equal reason it would have to be inferred that all those whose migration to blessed eternity and natalitia she celebrates were also carried up into Heaven in soul and body, which how absurd it is there is no one who does not see.

Truly, on the contrary, the Church could not have opened more perspicaciously and distinctly her sentiment concerning the Mother of God elevated in soul and body than by celebrating the festal day of her migration from this life under the title of Assumption: for why, I pray, when the Church speaks of the Saints and keeps their festal day — whose souls enjoy eternal beatitude while meanwhile their bodies lie in earth awaiting resurrection — does she call theirs either natale, or dormition, or transitus, or passio: whereas when she makes mention of the death of the Virgin Mother of God, she designates it by the illustrious and peculiar name of Assumption? Certainly no other cause can be brought forward than that, since the Church has always acknowledged that the unique Virgin was carried up into Heaven in body together with soul, she wished to use that name by which she might designate this special gift and privilege: for those things are commonly said to be assumed which, consisting with some mass or body, are carried from one place to another. Thus Matthew 4 it is said that the devil took Christ up, first into the holy city, then into an exceeding high mountain. Which indeed is confirmed from the triumphal migration of Christ from earth into Heaven, whose festal day is called indeed by the Latins Ascension, to denote that Christ penetrated the Heavens in soul and body by His own power, and not by alien aid: but by the Greeks it is called Assumption: which name they borrowed from Sacred Scripture: for Mark, last chapter v. 19, we read: And the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into Heaven. And Luke 9: And it came to pass, when the days of his assumption were fulfilled. Similarly Acts 1 and 1 Timothy 3 Christ is said to be assumed. And Sacred Scripture employed this formula of speaking, that it might signify more expressly that Christ, as true man, was clothed with a true, and not a fantastic body, and that together with it His soul was carried up into Heaven by the divine virtue inherent in Him. Hence St. Chrysostom, Homil. 1 on the Acts of the Apostles, expounding these words: was taken up, says: He did not say ascended: for he still speaks as of a man. And Homil. 2, expounding these words: as you saw him going into Heaven, says: It was not said, whom you saw assumed, but taken up into Heaven, namely that you understand this Assumption to be the Ascension: for it belongs to flesh to be assumed. All these things John Belethus, Theologian of Paris, most beautifully confirms in his explanation of the divine offices, chapter 41. It must be known, he says, that the passage of the Saints is called in many ways. For it is called exit, transit, obit, natale, nativity, birthday, dormition, deposition, just as also the passion, and assumption of John the Evangelist: but this name, quasi by antonomasia, is said only of Blessed Mary.

I would not however wish you to take all these terms as synonyms, that is, differing only in sound of syllables, but the same in sense and signification: for although they are used to signify the same migration from among the living, nevertheless there inheres in them this peculiar force of signifying, that the obitus of a Martyr e.g. precisely only intimates the solution of his soul from the body: but passion declares not only separation from the body, but that it was touched by the violence of torments: but deposition signifies the sacred remains of the Martyr, committed indeed to earth, but to be rendered back at some time: transit denotes generically migration from this mortal and temporal life to the blessed and eternal one: but dormition represents the death of the Saints like sleep, from which they shall sometime awake: but Assumption, or taking up, signifies not only the carrying up of the soul, but of the body into Heaven, which death or dormition preceded.

You will urge. The term Assumption is very often employed by the SS. Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers and Orators to signify not indeed the migration of the body, but only of the soul of the Saints into heaven: therefore although the Church has used this term to denote the felicity of the Blessed Virgin, it is not consequent from this that she believes her received into heaven in soul together with body. The antecedent is proved from St. Cyprian Epist. 1 to the Martyrs where, relating the words of St. Paul Epist. 2 to Timoth. For I am even now a sacrifice, he sets them forth thus: I am already a sacrifice, and the time of my Assumption is at hand. Thus Gregory Nazianzen in the funeral oration for Gorgonia his sister affirms that her assumption took place. St. Augustine in the book On Pastors, chapter 11: Now, he says, Peter has been assumed into the rest of Apostles and Martyrs. Paulinus, Letter to Amandus Bishop: Whom, although we know my brother to have been assumed temporally, to be quickly followed in that cloud, let us nevertheless praise him as having died more happily for that cause. Maximus Bishop of Turin in Homil. 1 On St. Laurence: Therefore when he perceived by the mouth of Priest and Martyr that he too was to be assumed by every manner of death, gathering the crowds of the poor, he divided the ecclesiastical wealth with religious liberality. Remigius Bishop of Rheims in the consolatory letter to Clodoreus: It anguishes me and wears me down, the sadness of your voice, that your sister of glorious memory has passed away assumed; but we may be consoled, because such a one departed from this light that she ought rather to be regarded with remembrance than mourned. For it belonged to her life that she be believed assumed by the Lord, who elected by God migrated to the heavens. Boniface Bishop of Mainz in the Life of Saint Livin Martyr, or rather Livin himself in the prayer, which he has thus: And especially, O Lord, may those who shall have devoutly kept the memory of the day of my Assumption hold the whole year most safe through my presence of grace. St. Bernard in the Life of St. Malachy Bishop: In the place and time which he had chosen and foretold, Valochius Bishop, and legate of the apostolic see, as if assumed from our hands by Angels, happily fell asleep in the Lord. Likewise the Church of Sens on the feast of St. Augustine says in the antiphon at the Magnificat: Here is the celebrated day on which, loosed from the burden of flesh, Prelate Augustine was assumed with the Angels.

I answer, that by these and similar formulas of speaking the public faith of the Church concerning the bodily assumption of the Virgin Mother of God into heaven is neither shaken nor diminished: for although certain Writers and Ecclesiastical Orators sometimes employ the word Assumption to signify the migration of holy souls from this mortal life into heaven, no detriment whatsoever or prejudice accrues from it to the judgment of the Church, which constantly uses the term Assumption, and under that word celebrates the festal day in honor of that bodily migration of the Blessed Virgin. For who does not know that Christian Orators and historians do not always employ words in that sense in which the Church employs them? Thus it is not infrequent with them to transfer the word Ascension, consecrated by the Church to designating the triumphal mystery of Christ migrating into heaven, to indicating the passage of Saints from this life into heaven: which manner of speaking St. Bernard very often uses Sermon 1 On the Assumption of Blessed Virgin: Virgin, he says, fruitful of womb, ascending the heavens, thou didst begin without doubt to heap up the joys of things above with the augmentations of Christ. And below: For thither ascends the sublime fruit of the earth, whence descend given gifts so perfected best: the Virgin ascending on high, O blessed Virgin, herself also owes gifts to men, etc. But who will judge that St. Bernard there employs the word Ascension in that propriety in which by usage the Church signifies the mystery of Christ the Lord penetrating the heavens by His own power? Therefore by equal reason it must be concluded that although sometimes Writers and Ecclesiastical Orators explain the migration of holy souls from this life by the word Assumption, it does not follow from this that they use that word in its proper signification, in which the Church uses it, when she celebrates and sanctifies under the special title of Assumption the triumphal and bodily reception of the Virgin Mother of God into heaven.

You will say 3. When the Church treats of the death of Blessed Virgin she uses not only the word assumption but also of dormition: therefore nothing else is intended by her in the term assumption than that Blessed Virgin truly died, and her soul, like the other Saints — whose death very often is called sleep even in Scripture — flew forth to eternal felicity; while meanwhile her most holy body rested in the tomb and as it were slumbered. The truth of the antecedent appears from the formula of speaking of all the Ecclesiastical Writers, especially truly of the Greek Fathers: for hardly one of them is there who, when he institutes discourse on the death of the Mother of God, does not designate it by the term dormition, namely in that way in which the death of the faithful is called not death but sleep and slumber. Hence all the sermons which the SS. Fathers delivered to the people on the death and beatitude of the Mother of God we have consigned in their writings under this title: Sermon, or Oration on the Dormition of the Mother of God. Thus, besides others, St. Damascene, St. Andrew Archbishop Hierosolymitan of Crete, Saint Germanus Archbishop of Constantinople, etc. This same thing all the published acts, or monuments of the old Church confirm, namely Martyrologies, Calendars, and Ecclesiastical offices. Martyrologies indeed, for the old Roman Martyrology desired by Cardinal Baronius, and at length found and published by Heribert Rosweyde, theologian of Utrecht of the Society of Jesus, and inscribed to Paul V. Supreme Pontiff, stands thus 18 Kal. The dormition of Saint Mary. Besides the Roman Calendar older by nine hundred years, written in golden characters, and likewise published by domno Frontone Canon Regular of St. Augustine, from the Monastery of Saint Genevieve of Paris in the year 1632. On day 1 of August. Solemnly on the Pausation of Saint Mary. Similarly the Martyrology of Usuard, which the Roman Church, and very many others use, composed at the command of Charlemagne, edited through the labors of John Molanus, Professor of sacred Theology at Louvain. 18 Kalends of September, the Dormition of the holy Mother of God Mary. The same has the Martyrology of Ado Archbishop of Vienne: therefore by the name of Assumption nothing else is designated than the death of the Mother of God, and migration from among the living.

I answer, denying the antecedent, whose falsity appears from the unanimous and constant sentiment of the Roman Church and of the Latin SS. Fathers, to whom the term Assumption, not however dormition, was familiar whenever they institute discourse on the passing of the Virgin Mother of God into heaven, as will evidently appear from the following paragraphs. But that the consequence is false will not be doubted by anyone who with a Catholic mind penetrates the sense of the Greek SS. Fathers concerning the migration of the most Blessed Virgin, which they indicate by the word dormition; for they intend to signify by this term nothing else than what is declared by Assumption: which indeed appears most openly not only from St. John Damascene but from the others who instituted sermons or orations on the dormition of B. Virgin; for they constantly affirm that she was assumed into heaven with her body. Hence St. Damascene uses not only the word dormition but also of assumption to attest the same truth.

Not without reason nevertheless the Greek Fathers rather used the word dormition than assumption, that they might proscribe the error — truer to say delirium — of the Collyridians, and likewise the invention of the Antidicomarianites: of whom the former thought the Virgin Mother of God was not like us a partaker of human nature, but divine, and thus as being God entirely unacquainted with death: whom St. Epiphanius refutes abundantly, haeresi 79. But the Antidicomarianites, whom he likewise assails in haeresi 78, so that they might satisfy their unrestrained voluptuousness the more boldly, had certain devout virgins in their houses with them, abusing them to the occasion of sin, following the example of the most holy Mother of God, whom, commended by Christ to John, they wished ever to have remained with him, and to have set out with him into Asia: which invention Epiphanius certainly assails, declaring that Blessed John, when he undertook the journey into Asia, did not bring the Holy Virgin with him, but left her asleep at Jerusalem. To these add that perhaps therefore the Greek Fathers sometimes used the names of Dormition, Rest, Pausation, Deposition, namely because on different days they were accustomed to celebrate the feast of the death, and of the Assumption of Saint Mary. Which is plainly gathered from the most approved Codices of the Martyrology of Eusebius, of which we shall treat presently. For just as therein these words are read: 15 Kal. February: The Depositio of the holy and glorious B. Mary Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ; so also these others: 18 kalends of September: The Assumption of Saint Mary mother of our Lord; which not obscurely signify without doubt different days assigned for celebrating the death and the Assumption of the Virgin Mary: therefore the term dormition was accepted by the Greek Fathers in no other way than for a brief sleep, from which shortly after the Virgin Mother of God awoke.

To the confirmation, however, sought from the pretended Roman Martyrology, I answer, that mention of this Martyrology was first made by Ado Archbishop of Vienne, who lived near the end of the IX century, of whom Baronius thus speaks in the treatise On the Roman Martyrology, chapter 3.

This itself, simple, without other addition, Roman Martyrology, and the same brief one, in which only the name, and place of the Martyrs, and day of passion were placed, is that very one of which Ado makes mention in the preface of his Martyrology, in these words: That for this work the days of the Martyrs might be noted most truly, which are found sufficiently recorded in the Calendars, helped us a venerable and most ancient Martyrology, directed by a Roman Pontiff to a certain holy Bishop from the city Aquileia, and lent to me afterward for some days by a certain Religious Brother; which I transcribed with diligent care, placed at Ravenna, I judged should be put at the head of this work. So Ado. Baronius subjoins: Moreover in all those Martyrologies of Ado which I have seen printed, that very one accepted at Rome is wanting. Monsander certainly would have performed an illustrious work worthy of learned men and longed-for, if he had published together with the Martyrology of Ado itself that illustrious monument of antiquity, which Ado testifies himself to have had in his manuscript.

Truly, that Martyrology of which Ado makes mention can by no means be judged the Roman Martyrology, and that Ado gravely fell, and was deceived, by the Monk who handed over that Martyrology to him, affirming it to be Roman, many and most weighty considerations persuade. First indeed, because those who wrote concerning the authors of Martyrologies related Eusebius of Caesarea as their standard-bearer

who first of all exerted labor in composing a Martyrology, no mention being made of a Roman Martyrology, as is asserted: thus Walafrid Strabo lib. Of Ecclesiastical Things, chapter 25. Beda in his retractions on the Acts chapter 1. To the same point the more recent writers affirm, especially Molanus in the dissertation prefixed to the Martyrology of Usuard. Secondly, Usuard himself, weaving an index of all Martyrologies, by no means makes mention of a Roman Martyrology, concerning which nevertheless he would not have been silent on account of the authority of the Roman Church, if truly some Roman Martyrology had existed. Thirdly, those who contend for some principal Martyrology of the old Roman Church rely chiefly on the authority of St. Gregory the Great, who in the Letter to Eulogius the Alexandrian Bishop has thus: For we have the names of all the Martyrs gathered in one codex, distributed through the single days of their passions, and every day we celebrate the solemnities of Masses in their veneration. Nevertheless in that volume it is not indicated how each one suffered: but only the place of the passion is put. Whence it comes about that many out of diverse lands and provinces are recognized daily as crowned with martyrdom; but we believe you have these things. But besides that St. Gregory the Great in his book of the Sacramentary used the customary voice of Assumption, which certainly he would not have done if at that time the Roman Church otherwise spoke in her Martyrology and was accustomed frequently to use the word Dormition, every difficulty which could arise from those words Valesius explains so well that I do not grudge to copy his words here. Therefore thus he says: From which words it is clear that St. Gregory speaks not of the particular Church of Rome, or of any Roman Martyrology, which he does not even name; but of the Martyrology which then was common to the whole Latin Church: now that this was the Martyrology inscribed under the name of the divine Jerome is clear from this, because that very thing was in use in Italy, and in the parts of the West, Cassiodorus teaches, lib. On Divine Readings, chapter 2. So Valesius, whose conjecture becomes the more probable because St. Gregory wrote this letter not to some Bishop of the Latin Church, but to the Patriarch of the Alexandrian Church; and thus significantly inserted these words, We have not the names of all the Martyrs, namely in all the Churches of the West, but we believe you have these things, in the Church namely of the East: since indeed the Martyrology of Eusebius, a Greek man, written in Greek, ought to be no less familiar among the Orientals than that rendered into latinity by St. Jerome was worn in use among the Western Churches. Add that St. Gregory testifies that on single days several saints are inscribed in the Martyrology of which he makes mention, for he says: And many out of diverse lands and provinces are known daily as crowned with martyrdom: but they cannot square with the Martyrology brought to light by Rosweyde: since on single days only the name of one Saint is inscribed in that Martyrology: therefore that Martyrology of Rosweyde is not that of which St. Gregory makes mention. By similar reason I say the Calendar published by John Frontone can by no means be judged Roman: which certainly many things demonstrate. First indeed, that it relates neither the names nor the feasts of many Saints: whom nevertheless the Roman Church has always venerated; for in it neither the names and festal days of SS. Matthew, and Luke, nor of St. Thomas Apostle are inscribed: but who will judge

that the Roman Church did not keep the solemnities of the Apostles and Evangelists, while meanwhile she kept with great celebration the feast of SS. Agapius, Chrysanthus, Euplius, and Felicula, and of very many others, who are related in that Calendar? Secondly St. Gregory just praised affirms in the Roman Church on single days the memory of several Saints is celebrated, in whose honor the solemnities of Masses would be carried out: but in that little booklet the greatest part of days appears uncelebrated and unnmarked without any name of Martyr or Saint. Thirdly finally, John Fronto himself published the supposititious little booklet under the name of Roman Calendar, signifies quite plainly in the preface to the Reader, when he says: Moreover, to call this little booklet a Calendar, although it does not enumerate days by Kal.; yet since it was not a convenient name to me I used that one. To these add that even if truly that little booklet were held as a Roman Calendar, nevertheless nothing whatsoever of prejudice to our sentiment would happen from its testimony: since that term Pausation not obscurely signifies the mystery of the Virgin assumed into heaven; for in Latin he is called Pausarius who designates a pause by voice: thus he who presides over the symphony, and gives the sign of pauses, whereby the musical concord may be produced according to the rules of art with quicker or slower modulation, can be called Pausarius: whence pausation, in the present matter, would not incongruously designate a brief delay of time during which the Most Blessed Virgin lay in the sepulchre, having lost and again received life, and as it were made a kind of pause: so much so that the other Saints are said to sleep in the Lord, but she herself (as Bede hints) only to have paused in the sepulchre.

But as regards the Martyrologies of Usuard and Ado, that their authority is not sufficiently to be proved will be shown below.

§ 2. — IT IS PROVED SECONDLY THAT THE BLESSED VIRGIN WAS CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN IN BODY AND SOUL FROM ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION. — Ecclesiastical tradition I call that which although it flowed from the Apostles was nevertheless not divinely revealed to them immediately: for Theologians distinguish traditions of twofold kind, of which some are divine, which were revealed immediately to the Apostles, the Holy Spirit inspiring, and these subsequently obtain the certitude of divine faith, as the baptism of children, which although it be not handed down expressly in Scripture, yet he who denies it truly incurs the note of heresy. But others are called Ecclesiastical and Apostolic together, which indeed flowed from the Apostles; yet proceeded from them as from Bishops or Rectors of Churches, upon whom it lay to establish very many things in the government of the Church and for illustrating and confirming the faith of Christians, which they did not receive dictated or inspired immediately by Christ. For the Apostles, as Tertullian relates lib. On the Soldier's Crown, chapter 3, established many things by their own authority for the common good and governance of the Church, which Christ the Lord had not expressly dictated to them: About to approach the water, he says there, but also sometimes beforehand in the Church under the hand of the Prelate we attest that we renounce the devil, and his pomp, and his Angels. Then we are thrice immersed, answering somewhat more than the Lord determined in the Gospel. Thence, having been received, we taste a foretaste of the union of milk and honey. And from that day we abstain for the whole week from the daily bath. The sacrament of the Eucharist, both in time of fast and commanded by the Lord in all things, we receive at gatherings before dawn, nor from the hand of others than the pre- siding ones. We make oblations for the dead, on the birthday, on the yearly day. On the Lord's day we hold fasting unlawful, or to adore on bended knees. We extend the same immunity from the day of Easter until Pentecost. Anything shaken down to earth of our chalice or bread we anxiously endure, or every progress and advance, at every entrance and exit, at clothing and footwear, at baths, at tables, at lights, at couches, at seats, whatever conversation exercises us, we bear on our forehead the sign-mark of the cross. If you demand a law of the Scriptures for these and other disciplines of this kind, you will find none: tradition is set before you as authoress, custom as confirmress, and faith as observer. Of this kind of tradition is that which the Church, as received from the Apostles, has derived to faithful peoples from the very origins of the nascent Church even to us with happy success, namely that Blessed Virgin was received into heaven in body together with soul. Which tradition St. Damascene most beautifully delineates thus, and weighs as handed down from the elders, Orat. 2 On the Dormition of Blessed Virgin, where having related how the Virgin Mother of God closed her last day, and was buried by the Apostles, and carried up into heaven after three days, he says:

Do you see then, Most dear Fathers and Brothers, with what words he uses that most famous sepulchre toward us? But that these things stand thus is clear from the Euthymiaca History, wherein lib. 3. cap. 10. it is written most distinctly: It was commemorated above how holy Pulcheria built several Churches to Christ in the city of Constantinople. One of these is that which was built at Blachernae in the first years of the Empire of Marcian of divine memory. When therefore they had built there a venerable temple to the most famous and most holy Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, and adorned it with all ornaments, they sought the most sacred body which had borne God: and having summoned Juvenal Archbishop of Jerusalem, and the Bishops of Palestine, who at that time were dwelling in the Imperial city because the Council of Chalcedon had been convened, she addresses them thus: We have heard that there is at Jerusalem the chief Church of the excellent Mother of God and perpetual Virgin Mary, in that place which is called Gethsemane, where her body, which bore life, was laid away in a coffin. It pleases therefore that relics be brought hither from there, that they may be a protection to this imperial city. But Juvenal, receiving this discourse, answered in these words: Although the things which befell in the death of Saint Mary the Mother of God have been by no means handed down in monuments by Scripture divinely inspired, nevertheless from ancient and most venerable tradition we have received this, that at the time of her glorious death all the holy Apostles, who were traversing the round of lands for the salvation of the Gentiles, were snatched up through the deep in a moment of time and gathered at Jerusalem. And while they were there an Angelic vision befell them, and a divine song of pre-eminent virtues was heard: and thus with divine and heavenly glory she commended her holy soul into the hands of God: but her body, which had borne God, borne forth to burial with Angelic and Apostolic song was laid away in a coffin at Gethsemane: in which place indeed the Angels ceased not for three whole days to form choirs and sing. But when they themselves after three days accomplished had made an end of singing, the Apostles who were present opened the tomb for this reason, because one of them, namely Thomas, who had then not been present, desired to adore. But > they could by no means find her most sacred body: but when they had found only her lying cloths, and had been suffused from them with a certain ineffable sweetness, they closed the coffin. And stricken with admiration of that mystery, they could reckon with themselves only this, that God the Word and Lord of glory, who had willed to put on flesh from her and become man in His own person, willed likewise after her departure from life to honor her body immaculate and devoid of all filthiness with incorruptibility and translation before the common general resurrection. There were present moreover together with Apostle Timothy also Dionysius the Areopagite, just as Great Dionysius himself concerning blessed Hierotheus, who himself was then present, testifies in those books which he elaborated to the aforesaid Apostle Timothy, in these words: Since even among our own holy Prelates initiated in the divine name, at what time we too, as known, and very many of our holy brethren, came together to behold that body which had begun life, and had borne God (there was present also James the brother of God, and Peter, the supreme and most pre-eminent summit of the Apostles), where after the spectacle it pleased that all the sacred Prelates should each according to his powers extol with praises the goodness of divine imbecility of infinite virtue, the Theologians excepted, he surpassed all the other sacred Heralds, as does not escape thee, wholly exceeding, wholly rapt outside himself, and so it seemed he was: and by all who heard him, and beheld him, and recognized him, he was judged seized by divine numen, and plainly a divine praiser. But why need I hold discourse with thee concerning those things which were divinely spoken there? since unless oblivion of myself has seized me too, I know that I have often heard from thee some parts also of those divine canticles. When the Emperors had heard these things, they contended with Archbishop Juvenal that that holy coffin together with the things placed therein of the glorious and most holy Mother of God might safely be sent to them. And when this had happened they laid him away in the venerable temple of the holy Mother of God, which had been erected at Blachernae. And these things stood in this manner.

These words of St. Damascene. — It is confirmed. however, this narrative and Ecclesiastical tradition, not only by the praised testimony of St. Dionysius, and Juvenal, but also by S. Sabba Hierosolymitanus, and the most famous Monk of the Monastery at that time in Laura, and Abbot, equal of Juvenalis, who in the Menaea, of which we shall speak in the following, whose author or restorer he himself was, just as in the typical, or ritual books of Jerusalem, openly patronizes this narrative; for making Sermon from Men. 15 August On the Dormition, and Assumption of the Virgin: It belonged to the reason of decorum, he says, that they who had been Ministers, as Spectators of the divine Word, should also be present beholders of the dormition of the Mother, from whom that Word had been made incarnate, as it were the last Mystery which remained for them to accomplish: in which namely they might not only behold before their eyes the Savior ascending from earth into heaven: but even exist ocular witnesses of His Genetrix translated to the skies. Wherefore transported through all spaces of lands from every place, by a certain divine instinct, they came together into Sion, and led as it were the Virgin hastening to enter heaven. False therefore is that which some thrust forward, that many Writers exist equals of Juvenal and superiors to Damascene, who have openly commemorated the same tradition of the Church of Jerusalem concerning the assumed body of the Virgin. Gregory of Tours subscribes, who lived in century VI., for book 1 Of Miracles, in narrating the death of the Virgin, he relates almost the same as Juvenal: Fulfilled, he says, by St. Mary the course of this life, when now she was about to be released from the world, all the Apostles were gathered together from single regions to her house. And when they had kept vigil, because she was to be assumed from the world, they groaned together with her: and behold the Lord Jesus came with His Angels, and seizing her soul delivered it to Michael the Angel, and departed: moreover at dawn the Apostles came with the bier her body, and placed it in the monument, and kept it awaiting the coming of the Lord: and again once more the Lord stood by them, and the holy body taken up He commanded to be carried in a cloud into Paradise, where now its soul resumed, exulting with His Elect, it enjoys the goods of eternity about to cut off no end. All the Greeks also openly teach the Apostles were present at the funeral of B. Virgin, etc. This narration of Gregory Notkerus confirms thus in the Martyrology at 18 Kalends of September, where having premised: What the venerable Father Gregory Bishop of Tours thinks in the book of Miracles concerning the same Assumption, it pleases to bring forth for the utility of nations by commemorating. Not yet will anyone say this narration of Gregory fabricated, which Notkerus testifies himself to relate for the utility of nations. With which words thus premised by him, he copies out the whole of Gregory intact, and at length subjoins these: But if anyone be moved how the same Gregory, placed at the setting of the Sun, had learned the things done in the east, let them recognize from his other writings, because to Saint Martin, as to Philosophers, men used to run together from the whole globe, and from parts of the western world the holy places in Jerusalem were frequented, which also used continually to happen even to these times of the Normans. But lest the same Catholic and venerable Father seem to have thought against the Apostle, where he says: Christ rose again until the advent of Him: it must be known, because either this special Assumption of the body of the venerable Mother of God Mary, or of those who are read to have risen with the Lord adjures rather than assails Apostolic authority, since both that body of His, which God willed to incorporate to Himself, it befitted to be raised into heaven the sooner, and those witnesses of our true Resurrection and Ascension went forth without doubt established. From which appears most false written by some that the narration of Gregory was corrected and reprehended by Notker.

There subscribes also St. Andrew Archbishop of Crete, who lived in century 7. as Genebrardus relates, and Gualtherius in the Chronicles, though others make him earlier. This one, I say, in the first Oration which he published in praise of the Assumption of the Virgin, where he narrated that B. Virgin truly died, and that her death befell in manner of ecstatic sleep and Adamic slumber, relates that she was at length buried by the Apostles, and proves it by the words above praised of St. Dionysius; afterward concludes: Therefore it agrees that that divine man, to whom he speaks, say that almost the whole sacred Senate of Apostles came together to that venerable and great spectacle of the Mother of God: of which number he himself was one, together with the most religious ones, thus elegantly weighs Oration 2. where he says: *And so there was a new spec>tacle of the state, inaccessible to reasons of mind; a woman >

passing beyond the nature of heavens in purity, to penetrate the holy fires of celestial beings; the Virgin, surpassing by the miracle of the divine birth the Seraphim themselves, to draw nearer first to that nature, to God Creator of all; the Mother, illustrious by the birth of life itself, born like the Offspring in the issue of life, a miracle worthy of God and of faith. For as the womb of her bearing was uncorrupted, so neither was the flesh of her dying dissipated. O marvelous thing! the birth devoid of corruption, neither did the sepulchre admit corruption. Nor indeed did it touch the Saints: do you wish I should tell the proof of the thing? But let no hearer mock, I pray. How the empty monument? I shall ask indeed abundantly. How the body of her deceased obscure? Why are lacking the burial coffins, unless the corpse laid in the tomb escaped corruption? unless the treasure was translated? But if otherwise it stands thus, that is not true translation, when others also existed? namely separation of the soul from the body, deposition of flesh, solution of composition, disjunction of parts, resolution, conjunction, compaction, and withdrawal into obscurity: for thus far the empty sepulchre remains, itself bearing testimony, itself witness that she was translated.

Nor does it hinder that he subjoins:

Not to me explored, whether to the parts coalescing into one composition out of one concretion, perhaps by the hidden author of things willing with counsel of more propitious will of Himself to honor the Mother: or certainly the one eminent over the other, and thus as from that mutual disjunction the one obtained a seat superior to the world, the other bordering on it: or finally some new and diverse reason of order fell to her, so that all things in her were new in very deed, suitably receiving an exceptional reason, or exceeding every reason and knowledge.

These things, I say, do not hinder, since easily can they be reconciled with the preceding, if we shall have said Andrew of Crete wished the body of the Mother of God to have been translated shortly after her death into some heavenly place, and deposited there, until according to the ordinance of God shortly after it was again united to the soul. Which indeed seems also the mind of Leo the Emperor in the Oration On the Dormition of the Virgin, who borrowed this sentiment from Andrew of Crete, when he says: The soul of the Virgin was received into heaven, but the body was stored away. Nor does Peter Abelard seem to have departed from that sentiment in the unique Sermon On the Assumption, where he says:

For three days the body of the Lord lay in the sepulchre, and from the day of resurrection He deferred it until the day of His Ascension, which deferral or not, as was said, He endured in the Mother. Finally He took up the sacred body secretly before into Paradise, than He raised it, that the Assumption of the lifeless body might be more wonderful, and resurrection, He by no means raised it again judging it unworthy of earthly contact.

Another also stands present to us witness of the same narrative and tradition not ignoble, S. Cosmas by nation Hierosolymitan, whom John Patriarch of the same city says in the life of St. Damascene was Damascene's spur to labors, and companion in letters and religious education and exercise, nor not Bishop of Maiuma. Now this one, as Guy Abbot of Saint Denis relates in the Sanctilogium at 18 Kalends September, which exists in manuscript in the Bibliotheca Victoriana, writes:

And the Lord said to Peter: Bury the body of my Mother with reverence, and keep it those three days with diligence. For I myself then shall come, > and transfer it to incorruption, and clothe it with clarity like mine, that what has been received, what it accepted, may shine purely, and accord.

Cosmas also relates the terrible and marvelous mystery, which needs not natural discussion, nor curious investigation, since all things which are said of the Genetrix of God are supernatural, to be admired, and tremendous rather than investigated. Gone forth, as he says, from her body, her soul, the body uttered these words: I give thanks to thee, Lord, because I am worthy of thy glory, remember me, because I am thy fashioning, and thy deposit to be kept. Roused therefore the rest falling upon the body of the virgin lifeless, grieved exceedingly began to moan. Lifting therefore the holy body to the monument they were carrying it, Peter beginning Psalm, In exitu Israel de Aegypto. The Choirs also of Angels praise the Trinity, so that Jerusalem shaken by so great glory, then the chief Priests send a multitude with swords and clubs. But Jephonias raging with violence approached the bier, desiring to drag to earth the body of the Genetrix Mary: who because he strives unworthily to drag it, by his touch is deservedly deprived: for both hands torn from the elbows are cut off, hanging from the bier, tortured with horrible pain. But he implores pardon, and promises amendment. To whom Peter: By no means shalt thou be able to obtain pardon, unless thou kiss the body of the perpetual virgin, and confess Christ propagated from her to be the Son of God. When he had done this, the hands whence they had been torn were joined to the elbows. Which if they be true, as Guy relates, they confirm by no light testimony the aforesaid Ecclesiastical tradition. Yet I would wish you take these things reported by Guy, as that regarding the graces exhibited to God from the Virgin's body, you judge not the body itself, but the soul of the Virgin reverently; so that the sense be, the soul of the Virgin already loosed from the body burst forth in thanksgiving for her body: in which certainly nothing whatsoever absurd, nor open to mockery may be observed, as some pretend. Nor ought those things disturb, which he adds of the severed hand of him who had attempted to cast down the body of the Blessed Virgin from the bier. For similar things narrates S. Germanus of Constantinople in the Oration praised above, where he says:

Timid moreover who then even among the incredulous Hebrews, and vain (for they are vanity of vanities, as being always scandals, nor do they ever cease to menace more contentiously, and to give forth trifles), with hand stretched out and hastening (for in whose hands, he says, is always iniquity) shakes the couch-bier of the bed, daring to assail the body of the undefiled one, nor fearing to crush and dash in pieces the fleshly throne of the Most High: and he is so punished forthwith with excision of his hands, made an example, and terror to the Jews ever forward against Christ. Now the sacred corpse was near perishing in the tomb. But truly the Apostles dared not (with what reverence, and religious fear were they held) to touch the body of the Virgin. And indeed the disciples, on account of what pre-eminent honor they held her, and because they knew well that her most chaste body was a vessel of God, they preferred a fear worthy of all praise, lest they should indulge to themselves contact with her. But those who were of the common people faithful strove even to snatch some of the relics, whereby they might procure for themselves sanctification: yet none laid hands upon it: since the Hebrews punished by the calmer example had before their eyes above all her petulance.

These words St. Andrew. From these therefore appears how some more recent writers hallucinate when they will that narrative and tradition commemorated by Ss. Juvenal and Damascene be reckoned among old wives' tales, and trifles, and assail it according to their powers.

They answer first, that that very narrative of the Dormition of B. Virgin, and of the Apostles gathered to her funeral is held for apocryphal by Baronius, who likewise, they say, mocks the testimony of St. Dionysius in this matter. Truly this response falls in every part of it, for Baronius to the year 48. n. 14. relates indeed the circumstances from an apocryphal little book on the transit and Assumption of the Virgin published under the feigned name of Melito Bishop of Sardis, refuted not only by Beda in his retract. on Act. cap. 8.; but also numbered among apocrypha by the authority of the Roman Council, over which Pope Gelasius presided: yet Baronius does not omit those things which the annals relate concerning the resurrection and Assumption of the Virgin. For Baronius says:

But those things which Nicephorus himself lib. 2. c. 21. and lib. 15. c. 14., and formerly, as he himself relates, are handed down by Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem concerning the Apostles gathered in the same moment from diverse regions of the Globe to Jerusalem for her death, carried aloft through the air, are contained most certainly in the same apocryphon of Melito; which Beda also knew: again also, the things which are related concerning the miracle wrought upon the Jew, who attempted to overturn the bier in which she was being borne to burial, are read in the same apocryphon likewise. But when we say these things, we do not assail them thus, as if they could not at all be true, since no word is impossible with God: just as neither on that account, that there it is related she rose again, and was assumed together with body into heaven, do we deny it or call it into doubt: but that they handed down, which especially Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem testified himself to have received not from any written commentary, but rather from the ancient and venerable tradition of the Ancients.

From which words it plainly stands that Baronius does not disapprove that history and narrative, but only warns that certain circumstances of this narrative are also held in the apocryphal little book published under the name of Melito. The same must be said of the testimony of St. Dionysius, by which this history is supported: for Baronius did not, as certain ones invent, doubt the author of those books, or deny those writings truly to be Dionysius's, but only asserts that the sentiment cannot stand of those who think B. Virgin died before the year of Christ 59. otherwise Dionysius converted by Paul in the year of the Lord 52. would not have come to Jerusalem with the Apostles, nor then been present at the Mother of God. For Baronius writes:

If therefore we say the Genetrix of God died in any of the aforesaid years, Dionysius could by no means have been present at her funeral: for he was converted to the faith not only in that year, or the following, but not even by the year 52 of the Lord (as will stand established from these things which we have said, and which we shall say in their place, exact account of times having been taken), when Paul came to Athens: nay from Luke, who with wonderful diligence rereads from that time all the places to which Paul came, and the seasons during which he remained in them, until his coming to Jerusalem, it clearly appears he could not come to Jerusalem before the year of the Lord 57., to which age if you add 14 or 15 years, during which, as was said, the most holy Virgin lived after she brought forth the Savior, you will gather manifestly that she in that year, in which Paul came last to Jerusalem, passed > the year of age 72. because Epiphanius Presbyter, and Cedrenus, whom we have cited, affirmed that she migrated from this life: if we shall have consented to which, and the things which Dionysius writes can be fitted to the same, as wishing it to be understood of the most sacred body of the Genetrix of God, in which sense indeed all the Greeks are known to have accepted those words. These words Baronius; by which considerations it stands that he does not assail the aforesaid narrative, nor call into doubt the truth of the assumed Virgin; although he rejects certain little parts of that narration which the proscribed book on the transit of the Virgin records.

They answer 2. That narration wavers in very many things: First namely if all these things had happened as they are related, without doubt St. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles would have related something of them: but he makes mention of none of those things: therefore they are to be judged less true. Secondly, very many things are related in this narration which crept in from the proscribed and apocryphal book on the transit of the Virgin, and which therefore venerable Beda rejects and assails: therefore they merit no faith. Thirdly, it is not established that B. Virgin died and was buried at Jerusalem: nay it is probable that she set out with John Evangelist to Ephesus, there likewise closed her last day, and was buried: for the Ephesine Synod writes thus to the Clergy and People of Constantinople: Wherefore also Nestorius, when he had gone into the city of the Ephesians, in which John the Theologian, and the Virgin Mother of God Saint Mary fell asleep, by the gathering of Ss. Fathers and Bishops, alienating himself spontaneously … was condemned. For the words, in which signify, as that John, so also the Mother of God fell asleep at Ephesus. which Modestus Bishop of Jerusalem also confirms in the Homily on the ointment-bearing Virgins. Fourthly, less true appear those things which are narrated of Pulcheria, and Marcian, since no Greek historian makes mention of those things, just as neither does anyone make mention of the Euthymiaca history, from which alone St. Damascene drew out this narrative. Fifthly, it is not established that that second oration on Assumption, where this narrative is read and the Euthymiaca history praised, is a genuine work of St. Damascene, since Billius, who made and published these Orations of Damascene in Latin, did not join the Greek text of the author to the Latin version: which nevertheless had been done in other orations made by him. To these add that Damascene does not seem an accurate writer, but mostly writes uncertain things as true, as is established from that narration in which he relates the soul of Trajan was liberated from hell by the prayers of Gregory the Great. Therefore by all these considerations appears that the aforesaid narration concerning the Assumption of the Virgin merits no faith among the prudent.

Truly I deny both antecedent and consequence. And to the first reason of doubting I say that by hidden judgment of God, and by special ordination of divine providence it befell that all things concerning the life of the most sacred Virgin, after Christ's ascension into heaven, in the very origin of the nascent Church, and the following centuries remained more obscure, and buried as it were in silence: which certainly long ago noted St. Andrew of Crete in the first Oration on the dormition of the Virgin, where he writes thus:

Nor are there lacking things, he says, from these entirely, who may be more studious of discussion and who doubt and inquire, what cause it be, why of the Theologians, that is, of Apostles and Evangelists, we know no one, beholding so undefiled, and venerable a transit of the holy Mother of God, wrote, left any treatise in this argument, as surely those divine pillars composed the Gospels, and handed on to us Theological Expositions. Of which certainly sentiment he relates this reason: Moreover we say this to be in the cause, that long after, in times long past, a dormition inspired of God befell her: for they say that she, when she had come to extreme old age, migrated from human things. Or because those times did not yet permit the explication of these things, when the Gospel began first to be written, whereby the discourse of dispensation might be sown, assuming these straightway while expounding them. For there were going to be heretics, who were about to assert B. Virgin to have been partaker not of human nature but divine; whence if anything had befallen concerning her triumphal Assumption, someone of Apostles or Evangelists had narrated it, thence perhaps those heretics would have pre-texted a cause for their error. Add that not even the Canonical Writers themselves relate B. Virgin dying from this life, nor did they publish that to be propagated by constant and universal tradition: for Epiphanius seems to have been ignorant of that tradition, when he writes haeresi 78.: Moreover after that thing was done thus, and he received him to himself (he speaks of St. John) B. Virgin no longer remained with him), which if anyone think to be falsely boasted by us, let him wish to follow the traces of the sacred Scriptures, in which he shall find no mention of the death of Mary, whether she died, or not, whether buried or not buried. And a little below: therefore whether Mary died we know not, or was buried together.

The same thing leaves not only in doubt Timothy Presbyter Ierosolymitanus, who is placed among the Fathers of the fifth century in the Library of SS. Fathers of the Greeks; nay even seems to intimate the blessed Virgin did not die; for he writes: Hence it happened that some thought the Mother of the Lord slain by the sword, and affected with bloody death, such as Martyrs had the issue of life, for this reason that Simeon said: because thine own soul a sword shall transpierce: but the matter does not stand thus; for a sword hammered by the smith divides the body, cuts not the soul: whence also above all blameless, and holy by every mode the Virgin through Him, who translated her assumed into the supernal places, even until now is immortal. S. Isidorus likewise seems to have been in the same sentiment, who flourished around the end of the sixth century, for he writes: Specially no history teaches Mary to have been slain by the animadversion of the sword, because neither is her death anywhere read, while nevertheless neither is her burial found. Nothing therefore concerning the death of the Virgin at that time from Scripture, or that tradition which always and among all and everywhere prevails, was explored: whence if it be licit to call into doubt those things which they relate concerning her funeral, because no Apostle committed it to writings, or narrated it to be published by general tradition, it will be licit likewise to turn into doubt whether B. Virgin died or not. Similarly who could licitly doubt whether she was immune from every actual sin through the whole life, and very many others of this kind, which from the Apostles were neither written, nor dictated to be written by another?

To solve they say all things related in the apocryphal book are not false: for truly in 3 book Esdrae, certainly apocryphal e.g. it is written nothing is falser than truth: but who will judge that false, because it is written in an apocryphal book? Similarly lest I run out farther, in the same Canon of Gelasius, by which is proscribed the book on the transit of the Virgin published under the feigned name of Melito Bishop of Sardenensis, also among apocryphal books are related the works of Tertullian, and likewise the book of histories of Eusebius of Caesarea; may one therefore assert all things in those books to be fictitious, and mere fables? And that I touch the matter more closely, the book itself On the transit of B. Virgin asserts her to have died, and been committed to the sepulchre; but who will assert that false? Therefore although the aforesaid narrative relate some things which the apocryphal book on the transit of the Virgin likewise commemorates, it is not consequent from this that therefore it is false, or uncertain. Nor does it hinder that Beda proscribes that narration in those things in which it militates against Apostolic truth, namely, that the Apostles in the second year after the death of Christ already dispersed through the globe to announce the grace of the Gospel, flew back again to Jerusalem, stirred up by reports, to celebrate the funeral of B. Virgin; for this manifestly fights with the Acts of the Apostles, from which it is most certain that for the whole two years from the death of Christ the Apostles had not yet journeyed through the globe. It is most certain also from the same Acts that Paul the Apostle and Barnabas, long after two years elapsed from the death of Christ, were sent forth to sow the Gospel among the Gentiles. Which certainly do not cohere with the apocryphal book On the transit of the Virgin, in which it is asserted the Apostles in the second year after the Ascension of the Lord, from remote parts of the globe flew down to Jerusalem for the funeral of the Virgin. Deservedly therefore Beda damns the narration of that book in those things which manifestly fight with Sacred Scripture: but against it fights not the bodily Assumption of the Virgin, and immediately Beda does not assail it. But that such is not another sentiment of Beda, appears from his words: for he writes cap. 3. retract. on the Acts:

If dispersed, he says, the Church, the Apostles remained in Jerusalem, as Luke writes ⟦OCR illegible: "coiteat elea nentncium ei de tilte bi cxperneza"⟧ in the second year after the Ascension of the Lord, the Apostles were all divided through the whole globe each into his own Province to preach, who all, the death of B. Mary approaching, from the places in which they preached the word of God, lifted up on clouds, were snatched to Jerusalem, and deposited before the door of her house … which words plainly contradict B. Luke, by which he narrates the Apostles, driven out from Jerusalem with the other faithful, remained there, and preached through everything, until the Church had peace through all Judea, and Samaria, and Galilee, that this could not be accomplished in one year is doubtful to none.

To the third I say, it is certain that the Virgin Mother of God did not die at Ephesus, but at Jerusalem: for this openly testify St. Sabba, Juvenal, S. Germanus, S. Damascene, nor even St. Andrew of Crete, who in Oration 2 On the dormition of the Virgin, says: It was made a most sacred mention, that in it especially this mystery of the holy Genetrix of God was accomplished: in it was spread the pavement of the temple of the knees' bending of the most chaste sacred body, crying with clear voice: for as long as her womb remains incorrupt, so long it had its dwelling there, and there obeying the laws of nature received the end of life. Nor does Modestus oppose this truth, if anyone weigh his words rightly, for he says: *Historically they hand down Magdalene, of whom the Lord cast out seven demons, to have been this virgin. After the dormition of our most holy Lady the Mother of God she set out to Ephesus to the beloved disciple, where she perfected the Apostolic course by Martyrdom curia unguentifera > perfected. From which appears the contrary, which is intended Modestus

to assert;

for truly if B. Virgin had died at Ephesus, what need would there have been of Magdalene, who as believed had adhered as inseparable companion to B. Virgin, to go on after her death to Ephesus? Who would not laugh at Modestus speaking not of the Virgin Mother of God, but of Magdalene, when he says she set out to Ephesus? But neither do the Ephesine Fathers signify anything about that matter, but only that with special cult, as John, so also Mary they honored at Ephesus, whence the particle (in which) denotes that the Virgin Mother of God, and John above all were venerated there. To these add that Polycrates Bishop of the city of Ephesus, not long from the time of the Apostles wrote, as Saint Jerome relates in the Catalogue Of Illustrious Men: In Asia, he says, great luminaries have fallen asleep, who shall rise again in the day of the Lord, when He shall come from Heaven in His Majesty about to raise again all Saints: I speak of Philip of the 12. Apostles, who sleeps at Hierapolis, and his two daughters, who grew old Virgins, and another daughter of his, who full of the Holy Spirit fell asleep at Ephesus: but also John, who reclined above the breast of the Lord, and a Pontiff bearing on his forehead a golden plate, Martyr, and Doctor sleeps at Ephesus. Where, as appears, he makes no mention of the Virgin, certainly not going to pass over it, if truly she lay at Ephesus.

To the fourth I say, those things related by Juvenal by no means deflect from truth: for who would deny Marcian the Emperor and Pulcheria built at Blachernae? Who calls into doubt they were present in the Imperial city at the time of the Council of Chalcedon? Did not Juvenal attend that same Council? Nor does it hinder that the acts of the Council of Chalcedon produce nothing of that matter, nor does anyone relate of those things among Greek Writers; for truly the Acts of Councils relate only those things which aim at the end of the assembled Council, such as was not that interrogation of Juvenal by Marcian, and Pulcheria: very often also it happens that things most known, and sung abroad among the common people no Writer collects, since it would be ungrateful to consign to letters what are carried in the mouth of all: thus perhaps then Philo, then Josephus, although most studious of their own affairs, and of their Nation, wrote nothing of the continual miracle of the probatic pool, which nevertheless no one will deny without grave error, since St. John relates it cap. 5.

To the fifth I say, it is most certain that second Oration to be as much a genuine offspring of St. Damascene as all the others, for it altogether breathes his style, and Billius professes himself to have received these Greek orations from Cardinal Sirleto, which long ago had translated, but badly, Volaterranus. Nor does it matter that Billius did not add the Greek of the Author to his version, for he did not furnish it perhaps because Cardinal Sirletus willed not, who had lent the Greek text to him to translate; perhaps also because something was wanting in the Greek text. Add that Billius in very many other little works of St. Damascene edited by himself did not join the Greek text of Damascene; since he nowhere placed Greek except to the oration On Transfiguration, and three Orations On the Nativity B. Virgin: because, as he says there, then the Greek text together with the Latin version first came forth into light; nevertheless there is no prudent man who therefore detracts these Opuscula from St. Damascene.

Nor is St. Damascene less worthy of faith, that perchance he wrote the soul of Trajan was liberated from hell by the prayers of Gregory the Great.

For does the fact that he wrote this and erred in these things make him therefore unworthy of belief in other matters? But if it be so, scarcely should anyone of the SS. Fathers be believed, since, Augustine being witness, to none besides Canonical Writers has it ever been given not to err in some thing.

§ 3. — THE BODILY ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN MOTHER OF GOD IS PROVED FROM THE DIVINE OFFICE OF THE SAME DAY OF GOD.

Luculently and perspicuously appears what is the sentiment of the Church concerning the assumed Virgin in soul and body, from the prayers and rites composed to the glory of the assumed Virgin; for whence more evidently can anyone gather what was the sentiment of the Church concerning the death of the Virgin, and her bodily reception into Heaven, than from prayers of this kind? That indeed the Church plainly believes which she openly professes herself to believe in her public prayers: but from prayers of this kind of the Church and divine offices accustomed to be celebrated in honor of the assumed Virgin, the Church long ago testified that the Virgin assumed was in soul together with body; which certainly we prove: First from the book of Sacramentary of Saint Gregory, from which three things are gathered plainly: First indeed that in Gregory's time, that is in century 6., it was received and published among the faithful B. Virgin to be assumed in soul together with body; since St. Gregory uses the name of Assumption not once but twice. Second, that the vigil also of the feast of the Assumption at that time was celebrated, and hence the feast instituted. Third finally, that the Virgin Mother of God was received into Heaven in soul together with body.

The first indeed and second becomes known from these words of the same book of Sacramentary, by which are designated the Vigil together with the feast of the assumed Virgin: For we read 19 Kal. September, Nat. S. Eusebii Priest, etc. On the same day the Vigil of the Assumption of S. Mary, 18 Kal. September. The Assumption of Saint Mary Virgin. The same stands established from the preface of the Mass of the same day, in which these things are held: Dignified and just it is, equitable and salutary, that we give thanks to thee always and everywhere, Holy Lord, omnipotent Father, eternal God, and thee amid the veneration of preserved virgins praise with exulting souls, bless, and preach. Among whom the undefiled Genetrix of God Virgin Mary shone forth gloriously, whose day of Assumption we celebrate, etc. But that at that time it was known in the Church that B. Virgin in body together with soul was assumed into Heaven, appears from the Oration or collect which on this very day was recited in the same Sacramentary in these words: Venerable to us, Lord, is the festivity of this day, in which the holy Genetrix of God underwent temporal death: yet could not be depressed by the bonds of death, who begot from herself thy Son our Lord Incarnate. For these words, yet could not be depressed by the bonds of death, signify nothing else than that the body of B. Virgin could not lie under the laws of death, namely be held by the sepulchre, nor be subjected to corruption or dissolution. That certain Neoterics interpret those words of the nerves of sin, appears most absurd, from this that the Virgin Mother of God never lay under the death of the soul, which is sin. Nor surely did Peter Abelard understand by another reason the words of that Collect, who in the Sermon On Assumption, already almost five hundred years ago wrote thus:

To which indeed attests the sepulchre found wholly empty, just as before it had been the Lord's, that she too B. Virgin may be believed to have attained the glory of resurrection, and the twofold stole, as manifestly the festivity of this day contains in the Oration these words: in which the holy Genetrix of God underwent temporal death, yet could not be depressed by the bonds of death: for since there is premised temporal death, it is patently shown that what is subjoined concerning the bonds of death must be referred to that death, not to the death of the soul, not to be held by whose bonds is common to all Elect.

Similarly these words, yet could not be depressed by the bonds of death, Albertus Magnus explains in q. 130. super Missus est, where he says:

Now it is asked, what is called the nexus of death. Either it is a good, or an evil. Not evil, because it was capable of every good. Likewise good does not depress, but elevates: therefore nexus does not name there anything of good. But if it is evil, either it is evil of fault, or evil of punishment, because death is not a nexus to fault, because after death there is not a state of fault, but of punishment. Likewise nothing would be said, that after death she could not sin, because she would be Mother of God, since after death no one sins. But if it is evil of punishment, I ask what punishment does it import? Not gehenna, because death does not bind to that, because many die who do not go to gehenna. By same reason nor to purgatory: because many die who do not go to purgatory: nor even can it say temporal punishment, because death binds not to that, but absolves from it. For it cannot say the punishment of death, because B. Virgin truly died; therefore it remains that it can signify nothing except incineration: therefore says the sense, could not be depressed by bonds of death, that is, could not be incinerated; and unless she had risen again immediately, she would have been incinerated, as other bodies.

To these subscribes Dominic Soto in t. 4. d. 43. q. 2. art. 1. On the most sacred Virgin, he says: if she rose again, it is not doubtful that she rose again into life sempiternal, in which in Heavens she enjoys it with her Son. But this Jerome in the same sermon left under doubt. Now truly through the course of times this opinion, or credulity, that in body and soul she was assumed into Heaven, has prevailed very much. Not yet however has it been related among articles of faith necessary to be believed, although it be most piously to be believed, for in the Collect of that feast the Church says that she could not be depressed by bonds of death. Nor does it avail to answer that the Roman Sacramentary seems not a genuine work of St. Gregory, but only perhaps approved by him. For this response rests on no foundation whatsoever, since the contrary affirm Cassiodorus, John Deacon, Berno of Augia, and all who have written on divine Offices. This above all Walafrid Strabo affirms, declaring the Sacramentary gathered by Gregory out of preceding books, which embraced the rites of Sacraments to be performed, which Saint Gregory himself reduced into better form and order. The same confirm the Fathers of Frankfort. For when Elipandus and other Bishops of Spain had published a little book writing to them, that in divine Offices, and Prayers at Masses, which they had received from the tradition of Eugenius, Ildephonsus, Julian Bishops of the Toletan City, Christ the Son of God is named adoptive; they answered in this manner: *It is better to believe the testimony of God the Father concerning His Son, than Ildephonsus our own, who composed such prayers for us in Vesper solemnities as the universal and holy Church of God has not, nor do we think ourselves heard in them. Although Ildephonsus our own in his prayers named Christ adoptive, our Gregory indeed Pontiff of the Roman Sed, and most illustrious > true Doctor in his Prayers always did not

doubt to name Him unigenitus.

By which words without doubt they signify the Sacramentary of Saint Gregory: for at the end of very many Orations or Collects of the same Sacramentary Christ is called Unigenitus Son of God.

This same truth appears from the remaining parts of the divine Office on the festal day Assumption of the Mother of God Virgin; since the Antiphons resound, Verses are sung, responsories cry out, Petitions set forth that B. Virgin was assumed into Heaven. That stands established both from the Breviary and from the Missal: but assumption, as we said in the first §., signifies the reception not only of the soul but of the body of the Mother of God into Heaven. Nor indeed here did the Western Church alone use this: for also the Eastern observes the same rite in its prayers and rites, which they call Menaologia or rather Menaea. There are moreover of this kind 12 codices of the Greek Church, wherein are contained through each single day various praises to be sung in honor of the most holy Mother of God and of Saints: of which Menaea the first Collector is said to be S. Sabbas Archimandrite of Monastery Laura, as Simeon Thessalonicensis testifies in Leo Allatius, dissertation

1. On the Ecclesiastical Books of the Greeks: but by injury of times, nor even the irruption of Barbarians, when almost the Menaea had perished, by Sophronius first, then by John Damascene were restored to pristine polish, with added by each very many Odes in praise of Saints, who shone forth after the time of Saint Sabba, as the same Simeon testifies. In the Menaea themselves moreover most plainly is declared that the Virgin Mother of God was assumed in soul and body into Heaven: for Men. 15 August in Greater Vespers these things are held:

It belonged to the reason of decorum that they who had been Ministers and Spectators of the divine Word should also be present beholders of the dormition of the Mother, from whom that Word had been incarnate: as it were the last of Mysteries that remained for them to accomplish, whereby namely they might behold before their eyes not only the Savior ascending from earth into Heaven, but even exist ocular witnesses of their Genetrix translated to the skies. Wherefore transported through all spaces of lands by a certain divine force from every place they came together into Sion, and led in a certain way the Virgin hastening to enter into Heaven.

Similarly from Men. 18.:

O prodigy full of most sacred horror! She who carried in her womb the King incomprehensible to all, now just now is carried to the sepulchre, and the multitude of Angels with the Apostles watch reverently her sacred body, which received God in itself, and that body Jesus her Son lifted up into Heaven, and Savior of our souls.

Similarly from Men. 17 August:

Thy Son, and our God, that He might establish faith of the two natures He has, died indeed as man, but rose again as God. Thee too to die, O Genetrix of God, pleased God well according to the prescription of nature; lest the Incarnation of Christ seem alien from faith, as a phantasm, if its mother were not mortal. But thou didst migrate from earth into the Heavens, as a bride from thy bridal chamber, or having gone forth from a kind of tabernacle. And as thou didst illuminate the earth by bearing, so thou didst sanctify the ether by ascending. Meanwhile the Apostles cared for thy funeral untouched: and amid the exequies saw thy body gone up on high. These words are altogether spoken with fear: this is the change of the right hand of the Most High.

But how great force the argument sought from > sacred prayers of the Church has for establishing faith of any thing.

Luculently explains Celestine Supreme Pontiff in chapter 11 of the Epistle to Prosper, and Hilarion, where among other things he has these: On account of the inviolable constants of the most blessed and apostolic see, whereby insisting on the footsteps of the most pious Father, the error of pestiferous novelty laid down, we wash out the whole heresy, and in faith we look for perseverance in the end that we may return again to the grace of Christ: let us also regard the sacrament of sacerdotal Sacraments, which handed to Apostles are celebrated in the whole world, and in every Catholic Church uniformly, that the law of praying may establish the law of believing.

§ 4. — THE BODILY ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN MOTHER OF GOD IS PROVED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE SS. FATHERS.

Besides the praised authorities of SS. Fathers in preceding §§. very many others, either of the same or of others, favor this truth: above all truly St. John Damascene besides the praised second oration, of which above, even in the prior oration On the Dormition of B. Virgin speaks thus: Of whom in parturition her virginity remained intact, the same migrating from life, her body was so preserved that not dissolved, but translated unto a more excellent and more divine death, which is no longer interrupted by death, but endures into infinite ages of ages. And below: Nor was that body of thine immaculate, devoid of all stain left on earth, but translated into Heaven and royal seats, thou Queen, Lady, mistress, and true mother, and genetrix. And afterward:

Just as if anyone should apply an unguent of immense price to garments, or some place, and then remove it, the remains of sweetness remain even upon what the unguent sprinkled: in the same manner now also thy divine and sacred body, devoid again of every stain, replete with divine fragrance: that fount, I say, of perennial grace placed in the sepulchre, and then snatched up again to a more excellent and loftier region, by no means so left the sepulchre as it would be devoid of honor, but then it imparted divine benediction and grace, then left to those who come with faith a monument of Saints, and the memory of all their fount.

There subscribes Peter Damianus, who in sermon On Assumption speaks thus:

This is that day which has filled the gates of Heaven with sublimer joy, annual to the world, continuous to Angels, joining men to Angels and Angels to men with felic federation. Behold with eyes of mind the Son ascending, and the Mother assumed: do you see anything more excellent exhibited in the Ascension of the Son, and anything more glorious shown in the Assumption of the Virgin? For the Savior ascended into Heaven by the command of potestative virtue as Lord and Creator, accompanied by the obedience of Angels, supported not by aid: Mary was assumed into Heaven, but especially by the indication of Him who raised her, with Angels accompanying and ministering, while she was sustained by grace, not nature. That day this Assumption, that Ascension differ: since one thing is power, another mercy, and only to the Creator alone is it privilege, having surpassed the nature of things by proper power.

Nor say you that Peter Damian in these words does not say the bodily Assumption of Mary into Heaven, tacitly going to say if he had believed Assumption to have been of such kind. For this response is accused of falsity, not only from the aforesaid words, but also from those which Peter Damian has there:

The whole multitude of Angels is gathered together, that they may see the Queen sitting at the right hand of the Lord > of virtues, on a gilded throne, in body ever immaculate, surrounded with variety, distinguished by multiplicity of virtues.

S. Bernardus most openly supports this truth, for besides the praises in 1 Sermon 1 On the Assumption of Virgin, he has these:

Who would suffice to think how gloriously today the Queen of the world came forth, and with what affection of devotion the whole multitude of heavenly regions went forth to her meeting, whereby to the throne of glory she was led with Canticle, with how placid countenance, how serene face, received with divine embraces by the Son, and exulted over every creature, with that honor wherewith so great Mother was worthy, with that glory which became so great a Son? Quite a little kiss such impressed upon the suckling, to whom the Mother applauded in virginal bosom. Truly, has she not attained happier things, which today from the mouth of Him Sitting at the right hand of the Father in blessed solution received, while she ascended to the throne of glory? etc.

And Sermon 1.: It is time for speaking to every flesh, when the Mother of incorrupt Word is assumed into Heaven, nor ought human mortality cease from praises, when the alone human nature is exalted above immortal Spirits in the Virgin. But to what purpose would Bernard say it time to speak to every flesh, unless he believed the flesh of the Mother of the Lord assumed into Heaven? Why would he assert only human nature exalted in the Virgin, unless because previously in Christ not only human nature, but insofar as joined hypostatically with the divine had been elevated into Heaven? But concerning the mind of S. Bernard there can be no doubt, from this that he noted and touched all at least the errors of Peter Abelard up to that one: nowhere however does he carp at the sentiment of Abelard concerning the bodily Assumption of Virgin into Heaven, which he thus expounds in Sermon On Assumption:

If diligently, he says, we compare the meeting of Angels, and triumphal pomp exhibited to Christ with the pleasantness of today's festivity, we shall see something more given to the Mother in her Assumption than was exhibited to Him in the Ascension of the Son: and the course of this pomp much more worthy than that; for Angels alone could meet Christ ascending; He truly together with the whole supernal Court as much of Angels as of souls of the faithful received her soul, whose flesh He had before received; nor her soul only, but also her body is believed today to have carried up into Heaven, that by glorification of soul and flesh alike He might reward her, in which, as was said, He decreed at once to assume soul and flesh. To which indeed attests very much the sepulchre found wholly empty, just as before it had been the Lord's, that she too may be believed to have attained the glory of Resurrection and genuine stole.

Equal to Bernard was Hugh Victorine, who lib. 3. Of Theological Erudition, c. 125. writes thus:

The seventh (Privilege of Virgin Mother of God) is that with her body, as much as we believe, she lives in Heaven: for although B. Jerome (he speaks of the Sermon of Pseudo-Jerome, concerning which below) here puts opinions, he nevertheless does not disown the fact, but submitted the necks of our whole faith to astute reason, in which we say it is not impossible to God that that singular habitation of divinity should not lie under corruption, or not in all things. For He who preserved the three garments of the boys unharmed in the fiery furnace was able, and willed, to preserve incorrupt the body of His Mother.

To these can be added Fulbert of Chartres, who in Sermon On the Nativity of B. Virgin writes thus:

John ministered to her after the passion and resurrection of the Lord until > the end: but she most holy was in the valley of Josaphat, where is built up a Church in honor of her, and St. John was buried at Ephesus: afterward truly when religious Christians wished to regard the relics of his Mother, namely of the Lord, they found the sepulchre empty. But also looking into the sepulchre of B. John they found nothing except manna. Christian piety believes therefore that Christ God Son of God gloriously raised again His Mother, and exalted her above the Heavens.

Here I make no mention of very many others equal to S. Bernard, who subscribe to the same sentiment, namely Honorius Augustodunensis, Rupert of Tuy, Adam of S. Victor, etc. who in that century subscribed to the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God. I cannot however pass over in silence the sentiment of the illustrious chief of Theologians, namely Albertus Magnus, who in the questions super Missus est, q. 132. by very many arguments proves B. Virgin to be assumed into Heaven with body and soul. The same sentiment the Angelic Doctor defends: for from the feast of the bodily Assumption as from an indubitated principle he gathers the Virgin was sanctified in maternal womb, because the Church likewise celebrates the feast of her Nativity: for thus he writes 3 p. q. 27. art. 1.: We answer that it must be said, that concerning the sanctification of B. Mary, namely that she was sanctified in the womb, nothing is handed down in Canonical Scripture, which also makes no mention even of her Nativity. As however Augustine reasonably argues in the sermon on the Assumption of the Virgin herself, that she was assumed with body into Heaven (which however Scripture does not hand down), so also we can reasonably argue that she was sanctified in the womb. Nor does it matter that in assertion of this truth he brings forward the testimony of a sermon of Saint Augustine, which however later we shall prove not to be his but perhaps of Fulbert of Chartres: for from this appears there was no controversy in the time of S. Thomas concerning the bodily reception of the Virgin into Heaven, since there was no disputation about that sermon. He hands down the same truth Opusc. 8., where he says: The earth (supple malediction) was common among women, namely that they be reduced to dust, and from this B. Virgin was immune, because she was assumed with body into Heaven: for we believe that after death she rose again, and was carried into Heaven. And subscribes Doctor Seraphicus in the Sermon on B. Mary, where he has these: O how far from that vice of incineration was (as we believe) the most holy body of Mary! For that body is the most sacred Ark of God, which befitted not to putrefy, but to be raised after the likeness of her Son before all putrefaction: whence of both Son and Mother notably says the Prophet: Surge Domine in requiem tuam, tu et arca sanctificationis tuae. The same afterward was the sentiment of Gerson Chancellor of Paris, for 4 p. operum Sermon on Conception:

The Holy Spirit, he says, sometimes reveals to the Church or Doctors of later times certain truths, or expositions of Sacred Scripture, which He revealed not to their predecessors. Thus Gregory says Danieli 12. Many shall pass over, and knowledge shall be manifold of the Lord. Therefore Moses knew more than Abraham, Prophet than Moses, Apostles than Prophets, and Doctors have added many truths beyond Apostles. Wherefore we can say this truth, that B. Mary was not conceived in original sin, from those truths which newly are revealed or declared as well through miracles which are read, as through the greater part of Eccle> sic sancta, which holds in this manner. There was some time in which it was not generally held that Virgin Mary was in Paradise with body and soul, as now is held, and similarly after institution of feast of Nativity S. Joannis. The Nativity of our Lady was ordained through revelation of one only virgin, and many similar things.

To these — that I may omit others presently of whatever century down to us of this most certainly discovered truth, and most received Assertor by the Church — it pleases to praise one alone S. Bernardino, who not only preaches B. Virgin assumed into Heaven in soul and body, but also proves by most valid reasons, which I judged must be written here for the reader's gratification. For he says Sermon 12. which is On Assumption B. Virgin, art. 3. cap. 1.: Although, he says, concerning this (namely bodily Assumption) the authority of sacred Scripture be not found express: yet it repugns not Sacred Scripture, but rather sounds consonantly and harmonizes with it, and also manifold reason persuades most efficaciously; for according to Augustine none doubts that Jesus could do this: surely less ought he doubt that He Himself willed, because filial reverence befitted this. That moreover B. Virgin reigns glorious in the Heavens both in body and soul is shown by sevenfold reason.

§ 5. — THE SAME TRUTH IS PROVED BY REASON BY S. BERNARDINE.

First on account of unity of substance of flesh in mother and offspring. For since the flesh of offspring is drawn naturally from the flesh of mother, the same proper substance of flesh belongs to each. Therefore from the general sentence of death, although Christ Son of God did not exempt His Mother, because from it He willed neither Himself nor anyone to be alien, and hence died the Son, the Mother died; nevertheless as the flesh of offspring was not corrupted: Ps. Nec dabis sanctum tuum videre corruptionem so neither ought the most holy flesh of the Mother, from whom the flesh of Son was assumed, to be corrupted, or incinerated, or reduced to dust. Therefore the soul is reunited to the flesh, and B. Virgin Mary is simultaneously in soul and body glorified. Secondly on account of incorruptibility. For manifold indeed was sentence pronounced against woman. First against other women. Whence Gen. 3 cap. the Lord says: Multiplicabo aerumnas tuas, et conceptus tuos, in dolore paries filios, et sub viri potestate eris. Mary indeed multiplied sorrows: when, as said Luke 2., in the passion of the Son the sword of sorrow transpierced her soul: but she multiplied not conceptions, nor lived under power of man, because with most intact viscera, and integrity of virginity remaining she conceived of Spirit S.; which because she received without pollution of sin and detriment of virile admixture, without pain she bore, and without violation of integrity remained with entire modesty of virginity. Since truly He could and willed to keep the Mother immune from corruption of integrity, and violation of modesty in conception and parturition, beyond sentence pronounced against whatsoever women, it befitted Him to be able and willing to keep her from corruption of dissolution and incineration, beyond, nay above general condition of human nature. Thus therefore we say, the Mother of the Lord underwent mortality of human lot, yet such that by bonds of death she could not be held, whereby the Lord willed without corruption to be conceived and born.

Thirdly, on account of honorableness, that is, that He might conserve the honor of His Mother. Exodus the same chapter 20. it is written: Honora Patrem tuum, et Matrem tuam. If therefore Christ refused not to keep the law but fulfilled it, > as said Matth. 5., in what manner He could He honored the Father,

as said Ioan. 8.: Ego honorifico Patrem meum: so He owed the Mother to honor in what manner He could. If therefore opprobrium of human condition and vituperation is rottenness and worm, as from that opprobrium He Himself existed alien, so He owed to conserve the Mother immune, since the same flesh is of mother and offspring. As therefore in life He honored her by grace of conception and parturition especially above others, so undoubtedly it must be felt that in death He honored her with special grace.

Fourthly, on account of dignity and sanctity. For so great was Mary's dignity and sanctity, that she merited to be Mother of the Holy of Holies of God: but as the Son is Sanctus Sanctorum, so it stands established that the Mother, who bore Him, is Sancta Sanctorum, in whom was that precious treasure, tabernacle of God, throne of God, and bridal chamber. But so great sanctity, so great dignity ought no corruption of rottenness to follow, no incineration of dissolution. In no way therefore does it seem worthy or consonant to reason that that most sacred body, from which Christ received flesh, and in which He united the divine person to human nature, that the Word be made flesh and dwell in us, should become food for worms themselves, and after worms cast-off dust be cast out.

Fifthly, on account of conformity namely of mother and offspring. For the Mother was perfectly conformed to her Son, and chief imitator. If therefore Ioan. 12 cap. He Himself says: Si quis mihi ministrat, me sequatur: et ubi sum ego, illic et minister meus erit: Mary indeed Christ's chief imitator followed not only the steps of His feet but also out of reverence followed the Lord Himself with affection of piety, faith, religion, and ardent love of charity, so that she could never be torn from His faith and love, Him whom she conceived by the Holy Spirit, an Angel announcing. For she conceived Him, bore Him, nursed Him, carried Him about, hid Him from the face of Herod: therefore she ought not to be anywhere except where Christ is. And not only as other Saints are, but with a certain special prerogative. Since, as Matth. 16 cap. it is written: Ipse reddet unicuique iuxta opera sua. If therefore the death of all Saints is precious, the death of Mary is most precious, attended by so great grace. If therefore in life Mary was gifted with grace before all, in death surely it must not be diminished: but where Christ Son of God reigns in mind and body she was placed. Again if Mary was most conformable to Christ as Mother in purity, and nobility, or royal dignity, surely the Mother ought not to be separated from Son, Queen from King, not only mentally but not even bodily. Therefore Mary Queen of heaven of Christ ought together with Himself to have been placed glorified in soul and body among celestial things.

Sixthly, on account of equity: for as Ambrose says: Christ our Lord came healing both. Accordingly He took man, born however of woman. But perfect cure and perfect liberation is manifested in resurrection: therefore resurrection in each sex ought to be manifested in testimony of perfect cure. As therefore as regards the male sex it was manifested and appeared in Christ, so also it ought to appear in a female. But in no other female could or ought more fitly be manifested, and befitted than in sweetest Mother of Christ, who in life existed free from all corruption. And this is what the Prophet in person of Lord says: *Thalamus eius sicut sol in conspectu meo, et sicut Luna perfecta ⟦OCR illegible: "in atrinum"⟧ et testis in epulo fidelis. The throne indeed of the Son of God is His Mother, who in His sight shining like sun is as regards glory of soul; and like perfect moon forever as regards glory of body without defect: hence faithful witness of glory of resurrection. Seventhly, on account of integrity, that is on account of complement of beatitude. For, as Augustine says sup. Genesis to letter, and Bernard On loving God, because of appetite of administering body souls are retarded, lest they bear themselves totally into God, as into highest good, alone excepted soul of Christ, which was united to Word by unity of person, which because of personal union was retarded in nothing nor suffered detriment of glory. Since therefore complement of glory is in reassumption of second stole⟦?⟧, unfitting and indecent seems that Mother of God, Queen of heaven suffered some detriment of glory. Therefore it was necessary that her body, although because of condition of flesh soul had been separated from body, nevertheless together with body afterward existed glorified. In same book also he adduces examples of Sacred Scripture; for he says: One firm will amid crackling fires preserved not only bodies of three boys unharmed but even garments unscorched, Dan. iii. Why therefore should it not effect in His own Mother what He did in another's? He preserved Jonas in belly of Whale incorrupt beyond usual course of nature, Ion. 2 cap., and will He not preserve the Mother incorrupt beyond nature? Daniel was preserved in most ardent or most unrestrained lake of Lions, Dan. xiv. Why therefore must not Mary, endowed with such great merits of dignities, be preserved?

§ 6. — OBJECTIONS WILL BE PROPOSED AND SOLVED.

They object therefore first that sermon noted above under name of S. Hieronymi, which begins: Cogitis me, Paula, et Eustochium, etc. Where that masked Writer under usurped name and feigned title of S. Hieronymi assails doctrine of Church concerning bodily Assumption of Virgin, and strives to shake it by authority of so great man: for among other things, when he had said Virgin's Mausoleum in Valley Iosaphat shown empty in middle⟦?⟧, he subjoins:

These things I would say therefore, because many of ours doubt whether she was assumed at once with body, or died leaving her body. But how, or at what time, or by what persons her most sacred body was taken away thence, or whither transferred, whether she resumed it, is unknown. And within: Nevertheless what of these is judged truer we are uncertain: yet we commit all to God, to whom nothing impossible, rather than we should wish rashly to define anything by our authority which we prove not: just as concerning those whom we believe rose again with Lord, Gospel witness, but whether they returned into dust of earth we have no certainty.

Therefore in time of S. Hieronymi it was altogether uncertain that B. Virgin had been assumed into heaven simultaneously in soul and body.

I deny the consequence. and reason rendered I say with Baronius to year of Christ 43. n. 13. that Sermon not only is not Jerome's, but not even of any sincere and true writer, but of certain other Author, who craftily usurped names of Jerome, Paula, and Eustochium to merit faith. Which certainly is demonstrated with easy labor by gravest considerations. First for same one supposes himself compelled by prayers of Paula, and Eustochius to write this sermon; whereas at time he wrote, Paula had already migrated from life at least 44 years before: since in that sermon he exhorts Paula to beware error of Nestorius and Eutyches. Nestorian heresy, as S. Prosper writes in Chronicle, arose and began to be published in year of Christ 429. Eutychian truly is consigned to year 451, as gathered from Acts of Council of Constantinople related in Council of Chalcedon. But Paula closed last day in year of Christ 404. for S. Hieronymus in epitaph of Paula herself writes thus: Slept holy, B. Paula 7 Kal Feb. third Sabbath, after sixth ⟦erubitum?⟧ buried 5 Kal same, Consuls Honorio August six times, and ⟦Ardabure?⟧, ⟦Aristeneto?⟧ to be restored. This Era falls in year of Christ 404. To these add that this masked Writer under name of S. Hieronymi wrote this sermon around year 448, whereas from Chronicle S. Prosperi it stands that S. Hieronymus died in year of Christ 420. That however he touches both heresies of Nestorius and Eutychis sufficiently stands from these words: Hence also Theotocon her hyperetice we confess, namely genetrix of God: and likewise Christotocon: neither why Word put off flesh late, nor because prefated flesh was joined: but then when Word was made flesh from flesh of Virgin, substance of Divinity and humanity is joined in womb so unconvulsed that that person is God, and not Christ. With these words, I say, he assails both heresies, namely Nestorii, who denied Virgin to be Theotocon: and Eutychis affirming two natures in Christ did not remain unconfused and unmixed after union.

Secondly, says Baronius n. 18., how, I ask, that author, who counterfeited himself Jerome, says sepulcher of Genetrix of God at time when Jerome lived to have been perspicuous to all from earth above? By what reason Epiphanius often dwelling at Jerusalem (as Jerome hands down concerning him) says himself uncertain whether she died, if her sepulchre set before eyes of all were immediately perspicuous to all? Or how could Jerome omit mention of it, who rereading all places of Palestine which S. Paula coming from Rome visited, and — to pass over sepulchre of Christ — recounts all other monuments there worthy of memory, as 12 Patriarchs, Iosue, Eleazar son of Aaron, Elisaeus, Abdias, Michaea, John Baptist, Lazarus, and likewise Mausoleum of Helena Queen of Adiabeni, who in time of Claudii fed people laboring with famine? Who can be brought to believe that sepulcher alone of Genetrix of God spurned by Paula, so she did not visit it? or Jerome thus fallen from mind as not remember it? since especially treating of Gethsemani in book Of Hebrew Places, he attests only one Church erected there, where Lord prayed in garden, nor makes even word concerning sepulchre of Genetrix of God contiguous to same place?

From these therefore imposture of man becomes more manifest, who under name of same Hieronymi > wrote said epistle to Paulam, while he says: Moreover his sepulchre is shown to us beholding until present in valley of Iosaphat in middle, situated which is path between mount Sion, and mount Oliveti, which thou, o Paula, hast seen with eyes, where Church fabricated in honor of him of wonderful stone storied, in which buried to have been, as you can know, preached by all, but now empty mausoleum is shown to those going. These things that egregious composer of falsehoods, who is convicted of patent falsehood not only from these things we said but also from Eusebius lib. 3. Life Constantini, cap. 24. and others, who treated of holy places found in times of Constantini and buildings adorned, since none of them made even light mention of sepulcher of Virgin.

These words Baronius. It stands therefore that sepulcher of Virgin lay hid long, and perhaps became known only around times of Juvenal Ierosolymitan Prelate: whence it happened that upon its discovery published through globe, Marcian Emperor, and Pulcheria moved to summon same Juvenal, entreating him⟦?⟧, that if he had any relics of sacratissime Virgin, he transmit them to them, to be replaced in augustissime temple which they had cared to build in honor of B. Virgin at Blachernis, as said pag. 766⟦?⟧. — Thirdly, that Author, whoever he be, invents trifles and fables far alien from gravity of speech S. Hieronymi; for he fabricates to Paula ludic and fictitious visions which he openly publishes, whereas he asserts they were consigned to him sub secreto by Paula, as when he says, around beginning, addressing Paulam:

To manger also, o Paula, thee witness, boy born, thou heardest multitude of Angels amid cradle-games of newborn partus, and plaints of unknowing weeping for fescennines, singing Gloria in excelsis Deo, and in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis, and sawest radiant star. Shepherds moreover evangelizing thou didst believe; Magi besides bearing three munera in vision with blessed eyes thou didst behold, she herself those same munera well understanding, with all things of faith offered to God⟦?⟧. For even with same Magi God-boy in manger thou didst adore. But perhaps complaining, me detractor, that I betrayed thee, thou wilt cry: yet what⟦?⟧ I, if thou wished to be hidden, conscience witness, oughtest not to narrate to me before manger, where thou weptst very much: which that I confess true, with praises of Christ, although I wish, adjured, nor can thy praises altogether be silent. Therefore thee only I shall ask, daughter, whom milk thou dost nurse: thou wilt better unlock those things which I know not some form, or certainly in spirit thou sawest.

By which words that author whoever he be brings forth very many things which savor not even a hair of weighty eloquence S. Hieronymi. For who would endure Canticle of Angel likened to obscene fescennine verses? Who will judge S. Hieronymum, studying above all christian humility, to have wished to subject goads of vain glory to S. Paulam, into whose ears he chiefly instilled his own demission, by publishing while she lived divine revelations made to her? Who will bring himself to believe most prudent man wished to publish committed to his ear secrets? Nor certainly less appear false those things he subjoins when he says: All deeds of Salvatoris, and obsequia B. Mariae, likewise acts of her ye learned from Evangelio. For I would wish he brought forth from which Evangelista he drew out acts of life B. Virginis. Truly, as sometimes truth compels even its own opponents to its tutela and patrocinium, thence it came about that Pseudo-Hieronymus himself who had taken parts of corporalis Assumptionis to be impugned was assertor of it: truly feast in honor of assumptae Virginis accustomed to be celebrated by Ecclesia under name Assumptionis he testifies when he says around beginning: Concerning Assumptione however of her, because beautifully assumed⟦?⟧, because intention of your devotion demands⟦?⟧, present absent I cared to write to you, which devoted I offered present in absence: as holds your holy collegium on day of so great solemnity munus of Latini sermonis, in which tender infantia may learn to perceive sweetness from ubere of milk, and concerning eximia to think egregia: how, God bidding⟦?⟧, through single hours this whole day be spent in praise, and celebrated with joy: he subjoins however that sentiment concerning bodily Assumption had grown strong among very many also at his time. Although, he says, certain ones may wish to affirm her already resuscitated, and blessed with immortalitate with Christ to be clothed in caelestibus.

Adversaries urge: That Sermon the Church long held for genuine treatise of S. Hieronymi, which inserted part of it into Breviarium for lessons to be recited on that very festal day of Assumptionis; as seen in ancient Breviaries not only of particular Churches and Orders but even in Roman Breviaries, in which from that time when feast of Assumptionis began to be celebrated also began to be read lessons taken from that sermon under name S. Hieronymi. — Then, when in time of Charlemagne some controversy had arisen concerning body of Virgin assumed into heaven, and certain ones denied Virgin assumed in body, relying on authority of that sermon itself which circulated under name S. Hieronymi, and when certain Monk Corbeiensis had begun to assail sermon S. Hieronymi, Hinemarus opposed himself to him: for Flodoardus Remensis writes Hist. lib. 3. cap. 8.: Likewise wrote in behalf of little book of history concerning birth sanctae Mariae, and hom. B. Hieronymi concerning Assumption of Genitricis herself, which certain Micaelmarus Corbeiensis⟦?⟧ contended were not to be received. To which same Lord answered profectam⟦?⟧ history to have us for edification, not for producing authority: but homilia same asserts dictated catholice by Hieronymo, as style, caution of sense and intellect, and other certain indications demonstrate. And certainly persons through whom from oriental parts at certain time carried to our Regions arrived make faith.

Nor Hinemarus only, but very many others testified aforesaid sermon to be S. Hieronymi. Thus Odilo Abbas Cluniacensis in Sermon On Assumption Virginis manuscript, which Cluniacensis Bibliotheca has: Of her, he says, merits and gloriosissima hodierna Assumptione Interpretes of divine law S. Hieronymus, and other egregii Doctores so great and such things could and wished to say, to which we owe to add nothing. — Similarly Durandus Bishop Mimatensis lib. 1. On Divine Offices, cap. 21. writes thus:

Hieronymus says: In what manner B. Virgo was assumed, whether in body or beyond body I know not; Deus scit: Augustinus truly says, that in body. Truth however is, that first assumed in anima: whether corpus remained in terra uncertain we hold: and better is piously to doubt than rashly define anything: piously nevertheless must be believed her to have been totally assumed.

To these is joined Ado Episcopus Viennensis, who in little book Concerning feasts toward end at VII Ides September writes thus:

Of whom (San> ctissimae Genitricis Dei) dormitionem XVIII Kal Septembris every Ecclesia celebrates, whose sacred body likewise is not found above earth, just as neither sepulchre B. Moysis, whom sacred Scripture says buried by Lord: nevertheless pious mother Ecclesia, which founded in integerrima faith stands in its observations, keeps venerable memory festive thus of her, that she doubt not she migrated according to condition of flesh; that⟦?⟧ venerable templum Spiritus sancti that, namely flesh itself beatissimae Virginis Mariae hidden by divine nutu and consilio, sobrietas Ecclesiae rather chose with piety to be ignorant than teaching holding something frivolous and apocryphal thence.

Nearly similar has Usuardus, whom Vossius lib. 2. De Hist. Latinis says to be Monk of coenobium Fuldense of Order D. Benedicti, hearer of Alcuini. Philippus Labbe, in Bibliotheca Chronologica, asserts him to have been Monk of Order S. Benedicti, and Abbot of S. Salvatoris Vicecomitis in lower Normannia: others truly think him to have been Monk of coenobium S. Germani near Parisios⟦?⟧, resting on this foundation, that in perantiquum Martyrologium Manuscriptum donated by Petro Pithoeo to Fathers of Monastery S. Germani these are read at end of prologue: Here ends prologue Usuardi Monk S. Germani Parisiensis. He, I say, in Martyrologio his has these: Eighteenth Kalends Septembris. Dormitio sanctae Genitricis Dei Mariae, whose sacratissimum corpus, though not found super terram, tamen pia mater Ecclesiae keeps venerable memory festive thus of her, that doubt not she migrated pro conditione carnis. But that venerable templum Spiritus sancti hidden nutu and consilio divino, more chose sobrietas Ecclesiae cum pietate nescire than aliquid frivolous and apocryphum thence tenendo docere. Therefore by all these considerations stands both aforesaid sermon to be S. Hieronymi, and Church not to hold certain B. Virginem in body simultaneously and soul received into caelo.

I deny the consequence, and to first head say it would not be wonder that very many authors praised this sermon, and several Churches inscribed lessons from it in their Breviaries, since long it was thought this sermon truly to be S. Hieronymi, and hence very many things in commendation and glory of Virgin Mother of God are held written in it not only elegantly but piously; whence not wonder that Church Romana sometimes drew lessons from that sermon, for, as Pius V. observes in his constitution prefixed to Breviary edited by him and purged of many errors with which it abounded, in ancient Breviaries very many things were alien and uncertain, which altogether were expuncta: just as long ago already rescinded from Roman Breviary was that Sermon of Pseudo-Hieronymi: and immediately no authority or commendation is applied to it because some part of it was once inserted in Breviaries or because it had very many laudatores. Whose care and study⟦?⟧ was not to investigate and search out whether truly that sermon circulating under name S. Hieronymi was his or not; since concerning it then no controversy was moved. For that Hinemarus undertook defense of that sermon against Monk Corbiensem, he did not do for that reason, as if he called into doubt bodily Assumption Virginis Deiparae: with what faith would he have undertaken that, when few years before by Fathers of Council Moguntinus had been asserted bodily Assumption, which could not escape Hinemarum? Nothing therefore else accomplished Hincmarus than kindly interpret that sermon which he judged to be S. Hieronymi, lest on its account S. Hieronymus should be heard ill among Catholics; this seems Flodoardus to intimate when he says: Immo vero eumdem⟦?⟧ assert (Hinemarum) said catholice ab Hieronymo, as style, caution, sense and intellect and other certain indication demonstrate. — But as regards Adonem, and Usuardum, deservedly Baronius carps them ad an. 48. n. 15. these words:

Usuardus, and Ado in their Martyrologies, thinking writing that concerning transit B. Mariae germana Hieronymi, and again that to be only in Ecclesia which he felt, judging; quasi ex sententia Ecclesiae described in hunc modum placed 18 Kal Septemb Dormitio sanctae Genitricis Dei Mariae, cuius sacratissimum corpus, etsi non inveniatur super terram, tamen pia mater Ecclesia eius venerabilem memoriam sic festivam agit, ut pro conditione carnis eam migrasse non dubitet. Quod autem venerabile illud Spiritus sancti templum nutu et consilio divino collocatum sit, plus elegit sobrietas Ecclesiae cum pietate nescire, quam aliquid frivolum et apocryphum inde tenendo docere. These themselves⟦?⟧. But while they think to avoid apocryphon, fallen they are into worse. But whence finally these accepted by them, whence deduced? Certainly from nowhere else than from that, I say not only apocrypho libro but impostura, pervulgata nomine Hieronymi, or recently by certain ones, ut Erasmo, same ascribed Sophronio: there indeed nearly these same words are held, or which render entirely same sententiam: propter cautelam, salva fide, pio magis desiderio opinari oporteat, quam inconsulte definire quod sine periculo nescitur. These there, and many more to same sentiment, as that above: what of these judged truer, ambigimus, whether soul alone, or joined to body received into caelum. Laudanda perhaps modestia, unless labefactata mendacio. If indeed sententia Domini, who speaks from Himself, mendax est; quanto magis, qui falsely, quo might hunt some fidem, simulated himself Hieronymum; so that whom stands to have lived after times Nestorii, so familiarly seems to address Paulam, and Eustochium? From these therefore you see what sort are its merces, which only smeared with these tenebris it was licit to venditare, since sincera veritas gaudeat luce.

Shortly after:

But Usuardum, and Adonem to instituted once oration let us call back again. Whence, I ask, to you this nomenclature newly usurped, that ye say Dormitionem not Assumptionem, since especially on eve of that day both said you, Vigilia Assumptionis? Why rather according to your sentiment Vigilia dormitionis? Why this inconstantia of sermon? Forced indeed with Apostle say: Currebatis bene; quis vos impedivit? Or perhaps moved by example of Graecorum, who likewise said Dormitionem? But neither aids you such example: since otherwise Ioannes Damascenus and others who said dormitionem nevertheless plainly testified her assumed into caelum one with body; nor, as you, hesitated affirming it. But certainly (as clearly appears) nothing drove you to these unless authority of Hieronymi, which you thought. Hence worthy of some excuse, that deceived by name Hieronymi, if example Romanae Ecclesiae which ye should follow ye had brought forward. Did they not precede traces which > ye should have followed of Martyrologii Romani most ancient, in which not Dormitio but Assumptio is said? Which voce always used Ecclesia Romana, as seen in Ordine Romano, Sacramentario Sancti Gregorii, other ancient Ritualibus and Missalibus books. What, I ask you, means it that while recollecting Nativitatis of all others Sanctorum, namely celebritatem of migration from this life, Church accustomed to name natalem diem, or migrationem, or sometimes dormitionem, this she calls neither migrationem but names Assumptionem except because willed to signify transitus to God not only animae but also simul evectionem corporis? For as when Christi anima una cum carne ascended caelos propria non aliena virtute He calls Ascensionem; so migrationem Genitricis Dei, because not suapte virtute but Filii gratia rose again a mortuis and was evecta in caelum, proprietate loquendi Ecclesia maluit appellare Assumptionem. Moreover not only these epistola commentitia nomine Hieronymi scripta vel Sophronio falso attributa deceive, sed et alii complures eorumdem auctoritate decepti sunt, who said: Plus elegit sobrietas Ecclesiae nescire cum pietate, quam aliquid frivolum et apocryphum inde tenendo docere; as among others author ille sermonis, who hitherto lurked under name Augustini (est autem trigesimus quintus de Sanctis), sed etiam⟦?⟧: since cited by him Isidorus, another ab Augustino to be author certain est: he, I say, struck by same Hieronymi auctoritate nec verbum proferre de Assumptione cum corpore ausus est. But let them say, I wish, ubinam, aut quando, or quo saltem levi signo, what they say, Ecclesia professa sit se nescire, since otherwise though edicted no decree of that matter, in ipsis sacris Ecclesiasticis precibus, quas ea die publice recitare consuevit, id affirmasse saepius videatur, Versibus, Responsoriis, Antiphonis, and Lectionibus; to quam sententiam while Patres omnes who treated of matter unice⟦?⟧ conspirent, and class Scholasticorum, procacis sit animi indicium, usui universalis Ecclesiae and tot Patrum sententiis not acquiescere, maximamque omnium esse temeritatem contradicere his omnibus, since especially quae⟦?⟧ Hieronymi, vel Sophronii nomine scripta est epistola, quam refellimus, ac proinde Sermones de Assumptione falso adscripti Augustino, quos merito Lovaniensis Schola reiicit in angulum, or which are of such kind other apocryphorum quisquiliae, quae potius detrahunt quam probent veritatem, we confess all these same things still other ratione, ut manifestae arguantur falsitatis.

These words Baronius, which therefore, although somewhat longer, we wished here to insert, since compendiously it touches nearly everything, which more fully hitherto we discussed.

You ask: At what time the aforesaid concluded⟦?⟧ sermon of Pseudo-Hieronymi is judged? — I answer to me not improbable seems that little book published and circulated after year 680. in which sixth Oecumenica Synodus was celebrated, in which damned was haeresis Monothelitarum, since keenly it fights for two operationibus Christi, for he says: Stands therefore one, same Christ secundum utrasque formas operatum, humanitatis namely, ac Divinitatis, hence two exercised operationes: operated indeed each forma seu natura cum > alterius communione, id quod proprium habuit: Verbo siquidem operante, quod divinum est⟦?⟧, and carne quod proprium habuit.

These words seem borrowed ex sexta Synodo. Add that if libellus that had been circulated sub nomine S. Hieronymi before praefatam Synodum; without doubt omnes sacri Praesules, and Doctores, who fought most keenly congestis SS. Patrum Oraculis adversus Monothelitas, someone would have praised praefatum libellum S. Hieronymi: at nullus, whom I saw, Scriptores of that age make mention of it; and immediately seems libellus then not edited in lucem: therefore licet conicere him fuisse vulgatum circa finem saeculi septimi: since evidently Arculphus reversus in Gallias began narrare ea, quae audiverat a Monacho de sublato corpore Virginis: occasione indeed illius narrationis someone novitate huius sententiae delighted published istum sermonem, to whom ut fidem aliquam conciliaret, sub nomine S. Hieronymi illum evulgavit.

§ 7. — THE SENTIMENT OF SACRA FACULTATIS PARISIENSIS PRO ASSUMPTIONE CORPOREA B. VIRGINIS.

To all these accedes sacra Facultatis Parisiensis sentiment concerning Assumptione corporali Virginis Deiparae, ac doctrina, which certainly shone most openly circa annum Christi 1497⟦?⟧, gravi edita censura adversus F. Ioannem Morcellum Dominicanum, qui cum inter concionandum quatuor in Ecclesia S. Benedicti sacras propositiones de B. Maria Virgine insulse protulisset, when that reported ad sacram Parisiensem Facultatem, duo statim praestitit: Primum, Comitiis habitis die 23 mensis Augusti, iussit propositiones revocari ab eodem fratre Morcello, quem sibi eo consilio sisti voluit. Deinde habito consensu D. Ioannis Simonis, who tunc praeerat Parisiensi Ecclesiae Episcopus, mandavit eidem Morcello, that in Concione, quam habiturus erat eadem in Basilica festo die Nativitatis S. Mariae, tum propositiones a se temere editas revocaret, tum censuram coram populo legeret, qua sacra Facultas singulas ex illis propositionibus notaverat. Quod utrumque a Morcello praestitum. Tenor however censurae sacrae Facultatis Parisiensis follows:

Anno Domini 1497. Augusti 26. qualificavit Facultas approbando novem Deputatorum sententiam, propositiones Fratris Ioannis Morcelli Praedicatoris modo, qui sequitur. Prima propositio: Deus potest producere creaturam puram in maiori gloria, quam sit Virgo Maria de potentia absoluta, licet non de potentia ordinaria. Censura: Quoad primam partem, licet sit vera, tamen inepte, indiscrete, infructuose, and sine aedificatione populi taliter praedicanda. Quoad secundam partem, si comparare intendat Virginem ad humanitatem Christi, vel animam eius quoad gloriam, falsa est, erronea in fide, and sic revocanda. — Secunda propositio: Problema est Virginem Mariam pulchriorem esse corporaliter Eva. Censura: Est temeraria, laudis and dignitatis Virginis detractiva, falsa, dictis Sanctorum dissona, Scripturae sacrae verisimiliter contraria, de haeresi suspecta: ideo revocanda. — Tertia propositio: Christum occurrisse Virgini Mariae in sua Assumptione apocryphum est. Censura: Falsa est, contra scripta Doctorum, impietati favens, piarum aurium offensiva, retractiva populi a devotione, quam habet ad Virginem Genitricem Dei: ideo revocanda. — Quarta propositio: Nos non tenemur credere sub poena peccati mortalis, quod Virgo fuit assumpta in corpore et anima, quia non est Articulus Fidei. Censura: Ita patet⟦?⟧, temeraria, scandalosa, impia, devotionis populi diminutiva ad Virginem, falsa and haeretica; ideo publice revocanda. Revocatae sunt 23 per Praedicatorem Fratrem Ioannem Morcellum, in praesentia Facultatis, revocabitque coram populo die Nativitatis Virginis Mariae proxime ventura in Ecclesia S. Benedicti, ubi propositiones praedicaverat die Assumptionis, cuius revocationis copia, and schedulae per Facultatem Theologiae confectae, consensu Reverendi in Christo Patris, and Domini Episcopi Parisiensis, datae per praedictam Facultatem Fratri Ioanni Morcello ad pronuntiandum in suo sermone, quem fecit die Nativitatis B. Mariae in Ecclesia S. Benedicti bene versae. Parisisiis anno, die, mense praedictis.

From which appears how religious is sacra Facultas Parisiensis toward cultum and observantiam Virginis Deiparae; truly far from only immaculatam Conceptionem eius, sed etiam Assumptionem in caelum corporalem strenuissime propugnat.

I answer, that censura seems supposititia. Primo quia supposed facta 7 Kal Sept an 1497⟦?⟧, at Robertus Gaguinus Ordinis SS Trinitatis de Redemptione Captivorum Minister generalis, ac Pontificii iuris Interpres, who same year Kal Octob concertationem habuit de puritate Conceptionis Virginis Mariae adversus Vincentium Castrenovanum, in qua nomine Theologorum Parisiensium apparere voluit; in qua autem refert omnes gloria Deiparae Virginis detractores, quos sacra Facultas suis censuris mulctaverat ac proscripserat: at nec verbum quidem in narratione accusatoria illa pronuntiat de damnato Ioanne Morcello. Sign est igitur censuram illam supposititiam esse; nam si qua veritate niteretur, illam procul dubio, ut egregium suae narrationis argumentum, non siluisset. Ait enim:

quandoquidem tota studii atque certaminis haec disceptatio est, vestrum examen iure subibit, quo permulti olim aut steterunt, aut reciderunt: quod enim vestro liberatum est scrutinio, id sine dubietate verum, iustumque a fidelissimis quibusque suscipitur. Christianae nempe religioni non minus firmamento, quam arrogantiae plurimorum formidini semper fuistis. Nam sapientiae Theologicae, and vestra laudis est Maiorum vestrorum gravis quondam definitio in Ioannem de Montesono, cuius defensorem Ebroicanum Pontificem Guillermum poena similis complexa est. Quod secutus ad parem errorem Ioannes Thomas, vestro examine damnationem accepit. Eodem exemplo plexus est Adam Suessionaeus, nec Guatridus de Sancto Martino vestram evasit censuram. Temeritas Ioannis Adae erroris sui perfidiam vobis insequentibus abnegavit. Sed numquid Petrus de Canchero, Ioannes Vicolai, Petrus quoque de Cheriaco superati vestris disputationibus⟦?⟧, diffamatione publica retractationis se reddiderunt insignes, et famosos?

Secundo, censura ridetur nimis festinanter lata; siquidem intra praedicationem propositionum, and notationem earundem intercedunt dies tantum 11, quo sane modico tempore potuerunt non deputati investigare, ac revolvere Concilia, ac SS Patres, ut iuxta placita eorum de propositionibus praedictis ferrent sententiam. Adde quod revocatae sunt propositiones per Fr Ioannem Morcellum die 23 Augusti, cum tamen supposed notatae, ac damnatae, ac censura proscripta die 26⟦?⟧ Augusti. Tertio, quarta damnatur propositio ut haeretica, cum tamen non sit articulus fidei, Virginem assumptam esse in caelum in corpore and anima, ac proinde negare id non haereticum est. — Verum quam futilia, quamque levia sint haec momenta, quibus impetitur censura sacrae Facultatis, facile apparet. Primum quidem, quia significat Gaguinus sibi propositum fuisse in medium adducere, non quidem actum esset heri vel nudius tertius; sed olim, and a maioribus decreta a sacra Facultate adversus Novatores, ut apparet verbis eius: ad quod certe institutum nil conferebat recens censura adversus Morcellum lata; quippe quae adhuc vulgabatur ore omnium. Ad secundum dico non diu laborandum fuisse Facultati, ut deprehenderet quibus notis proscriberet praefatas propositiones, maxime vero quartam, quippe cum receptissimum tunc temporis esset in Ecclesia, Deiparam Virginem assumptam esse in caelum corpore simul and anima. Quod utique fit veri similius⟦?⟧, quia illae propositiones Morcelli F. ita offenderant probos omnes, ut non expectata sollemni Facultatis censura, qua tantum 26 Augusti edita est, easdem ipse privatim die 28 eiusdem mensis coram Facultate revocare coactus fuerit, donec videlicet per Facultatem sigillatim notatas eas revocaret in publica Concione, and eiuraret. Id tertium dico, quartam illam propositionem damnari non idcirco ut haereticam, quod Morcellus negaret Mariam Virginem evectam in caelum corpore, sed quod doceret ideo nos non teneri sub poena peccati mortalis id credere, quia non est articulus fidei: plurima enim sunt, quae inter articulos fidei non censentur, puta quadragesimale ieunium servandum esse, and similia innumera, quae si quis negaret, mortalis labem peccati incurreret; ac proinde haereticum est asserere posse citra mortale peccatum negari id quod inter Articulos fidei non censetur.