ON THE TITLE "MOTHER OF GOD."

SIR, I have repeatedly seen it asserted of late, in quarters to which I have been accustomed to look for sound theology, that to reject the phrase "Mother of God," as applied to the Virgin Mary, is rank heresy; being the very error for which Nestorius was condemned by the general council of Ephesus, A. D. 431. I especially refer to the statements in the " British Critic," No. XLV., p. 135, and No. XLVIII., p. 489; also to the letter signed "D. P.," in the November number of the "British Magazine," p. 520. The subject is one which can scarcely be discussed without irreverence; but as the following remarks proceed from no spirit of profane speculation, I venture to hope that they may be candidly considered.

If the words "Mother of God" be the exact English equivalent of the term Oɛorókos, then a rejection of those words is justly branded as heresy; OεOTÓKos being the term employed by the Ephesine fathers technically to convey their doctrine, and their doctrine being universally acknowledged as true by the catholic church.

But, if OɛOTókos be not exactly represented in our language by "Mother of God," as its equivalent, then, to reject the latter phrase may or may not be heresy; but if it be, it is so for some other reason than the adoption or confirmation of OEоrókos by the council of Ephesus.

Are the two expressions, then, precisely synonymous? I plead guilty to some degree of hesitation on this point. "Mother of God" to my apprehension conveys more than is signified properly or necessarily by OEOTOKOS. It seems to imply not simply parturition, but generation or derivation of substance. And as I unfeignedly believe, in the words of the Athanasian Creed, that "our Lord Jesus Christ,

any bishop? and " Another Presbyter" replies, Because it is "to be devoted to the sole use of an episcopally-ordained minister." Why, so might an arm-chair be, but that would not make it an episcopal chair. Surely it cannot be maintained that if an episcopally-ordained minister were to settle, and gather a congregation, in some newly discovered island, there would on that account be an episcopal church there, while neither the minister nor the people recognised the jurisdiction or superintendence of any bishop, in any way whatever. Of the references to Athanasius and Epiphanius nothing need be said; for however they may bear upon the lawfulness or expediency of the thing, they are altogether irrelevant as it respects the name, which was the matter brought into question.

The Editor feels it right to add another remark, repeating that he has not the most remote idea who "Another Presbyter" may be, and expressing his sincere wish not to give him any just ground of offence. There is something in the latter part of the first letter which, if the positive assertion of the signature did not forbid such a suspicion, might lead clergymen of the church of England to suspect that "Another Presbyter" might be a presbyter of another church. There is something so much in the Home Mission, the M'Ghee and Mar-prelate, way in the suggestion, that, if the honour of episcopacy is to be maintained, it must be by shewing that it cannot interfere with good men doing good, according to their own good pleasure, so-in the hint delicately conveyed, that if the bishops stand in the way they may expect to have their shins kicked-that if it could be considered as speaking the feelings of the association, or of any person whose advocacy they would blame the Editor for saving them from, it would do their cause more harm than could have been done by the unanswered letter of the " Presbyter."

the Son of God, is God and man; God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world," I cannot, without scruple, subscribe to the use of a term which seems to imply that very "confusion of substance" which the creed disallows.

OEOTÓKOÇ, it is true, may be strained to the same meaning. Schleusner supplies examples in which TIKTE is used in the sense of gigno and of concipio; but such is not its usual, nor its proper, much less its necessary, meaning; and there is reason to believe that it was not that which the Ephesine fathers attached to it, in whose time a distinction between OƐOTÓKOs and Oεou μýrηp was observed, which can scarcely be other than that which has presented itself to me. Bishop Pearson, who, as the "British Critic" says, "has traced the origin and progress of the name with consummate learning," states that, "although OεOTÓKOS may be extended [mark the word] to signify as much as the mother of God, because TiKTELY doth sometimes denote as much as yɛvvậy, and therefore it hath been translated Dei genetrix as well as Deipara; yet those ancient Greeks which call the Virgin OɛOTÓKоg did not call her μητέρα τοῦ Θεοῦ. But the Latins translating Θεοτόκος Dei genetrix, and the Greeks translating Dei genetrix Oɛov μýrnp, they both at last called her plainly the mother of God. The first which the Greeks observed to style her so was Leo the Great, as was observed by Ephraim, Patriarch of Theopolis. It is therefore certain that first in the Greek church they termed the Blessed Virgin Oɛoróкos, and the Latins from them Dei genetrix and Mater Dei, and the Greeks from them again μhrηp Oɛou, upon the authority of Leo, not taking notice of other Latins who styled her so before him."-On the Creed, Art. III., Born of the Virgin Mary, note.

*

*

Why this reserve on the part of the more ancient Greeks, if the two phrases were precisely synonymous? Why this care to note the first writer who employed μýrnρ Oɛov, unless it were reckoned a novelty at least, probably an indiscretion, in going beyond the wellconsidered language of the church catholic?

Bishop Pearson himself is apparently actuated by a similar feeling. He gives, indeed, in his text, both titles as applied to the Virgin, but to the Ephesine term he adds a brief explanation; and the other, though he does not call it "plain popery," he ascribes not to the catholic church, but to the Latin. "Wherefore, from these three, a true conception, nutrition, and parturition, we must acknowledge that the Blessed Virgin was truly and properly the mother of our Saviour. And so is she frequently styled the mother of Jesus in the language of the evangelists, and by Elizabeth particularly, the mother of her Lord,' as also by the general consent of the church (because he which was born of her was God) the Deipara; which being a compound title begun in the Greek church was resolved into its parts by the Latins, and so the Virgin was plainly named the mother of God." "D. P.," holding the two titles to be equivalent to each other, asserts that "the direct and undeniable consequence of stating that the Blessed Virgin is not OɛOTÓKoç, the mother of God, is, that her son was not God." I wonder that " D. P." did not perceive how easily it

may be retorted, that the consequence is quite as direct and undeniable (if the word mother mean what it usually and properly means), that the mother of God must herself be God, and so the proper object of divine worship. If, on the other hand, the word mother in this phrase, be not used in its full and proper meaning, but in some lower, limited, or qualified sense, (Deipara, but not Dei genetrix,) then, to reject its application to the Virgin in its full and proper sense ought not, I humbly think, to be stigmatized as heresy.

Δοκιμαστής.

BISHOP WILSON'S MEMORANDA.

SIR,-In the life of Bishop Wilson (by Cruttwell), prefixed to the folio edition of his works, we find certain heads of advice given to that holy bishop, at the time he was ordained deacon, by a friend whom he greatly esteemed and loved.

These suggestions Wilson himself valued so highly that he kept to the end of his long life the little memorandum book in which they were written, and was used to set down therein many of his private prayers and meditations.

After saying this, it would be presumptuous for me to add anything for the purpose of recommending these admonitions to the serions consideration of such of your readers as are in holy orders, or in course of preparation for the ministry.

But there is one passage in particular which I will venture to extract; for I am anxious to direct attention to it, as shewing how many reverential customs were usually observed by the more strict churchmen of those days (A.D. 1686) which have now fallen into entire or partial disuse.

"Never to miss the church's public devotions twice a day, when unavoidable busi ness, or want of health, or of a church (as in travelling), does not hinder. In church to behave himself always very reverently; nor ever turn his back upon the altar in service time, nor on the minister, when it can be avoided; to stand at the lessons and epistle as well as at the gospel, and especially when a psalm is sung; to bow reverently at the name of Jesus whenever it is mentioned in any of the church's offices; to turn towards the east when the Gloria Patri and the creeds are rehearsing; and to make obeisance at coming into and going out of the church, and at going up to, and coming down from, the altar; are all ancient commendable and devout usages, and which thousands of good people of our church practise at this day, and amongst them, if he deserves to be reckoned amongst them, T. W.'s dear friend.”

Now where can you find one, in the present day, who observes, I do not say these very practices, but any such system of holy reverence as this? yet we have clear and distinct testimony, that one hundred and fifty years ago all these usages were observed by thousands of the members of our church.

Is it not certain, then, that we have greatly changed our standard of the veneration due to sacred things since then?

And is it not probable that the irreverence, which has now grown to such an alarming height, may have been greatly fostered and increased by the wilful and allowed disuse of so many practices which were calculated to keep up a spirit of holy awe in men's minds?

If a higher standard were set before the multitude, even their conduct would not be so bad as it is now our misfortune to witness.

And if the service of Almighty God, and his holy house and altar, were duly honoured even by a few, we should, I think, have good reason to hope that religious controversies would be conducted in a different spirit-in a spirit more like that of Laud, and Ken, and Kettlewell, and Bishop Wilson himself.

And surely if at any time of her history the church in this kingdom made her protest faithfully, and in the true spirit of the gospel, against the antichristian errors of popery, it was in this early part of the reign of James II.

Does it not then appear that our best defence against Romanism is, to cultivate the true and primitive spirit of reverence for sacred things and sacred places, and maintain and restore, if interrupted, so far as we can, all commendable and devout usages tending to maintain that spirit which shall appear to have the sanction of the purest antiquity?

For veneration for what is sacred is to serious and humble minds so necessary a feeling that it is vain to attempt to extinguish it; not to say how very wrong it must be so to do.

Enthusiasm may take up men's minds for a little while, but as soon as they grow calm they cannot but feel that it is right to reverence holy things, and wrong to dishonour them. The natural consequence is, that they find themselves forced to approve, and are often thus tempted to join, those who make a show of such reverence, even though their veneration for what is sacred be made contemptible by tinsel pomp, and corrupted by profane idolatries.

If this be so-if these holy men among our ancestors, the saints of our branch of the church, were right, it must, I think, follow that he is most faithfully and effectually protesting against popery who cherishes and maintains in every possible way a true and deep-seated reverence for holy places and holy things; while he is in fact most powerfully serving the cause of Romanism who, glorying in his own contempt for ancient devotional usages, is accusing every one of popery whose veneration for churches and altars should exceed that standard which he has taken up in his own mind or received from the traditions of men. I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,

G. P.

THE JESUITS.-CONSTITUTIONES SOCIETATIS JESU.

SIR, -When the act was passed in 1829, designated by a venerable lord, since "consigned (to use his own language) to the urn, the sepulchre, and mortality," a violation of those laws which he held as necessary to the preservation of the throne as to that of the church, and as indispensable to the existence of the Lords and Commons of this realm as to that of the King and our holy religion," it was attempted to calm our constitutional fears, and allay our protestant

Lord Eldon.

VOL. XIV.-Dec. 1838.

4 T

anxieties, by the promise of safe principles," "full and permanent security," and "the gradual suppression, and final prohibition" of the Jesuits and other religious orders, communities, or societies of the church of Rome, bound by monastic or religious vows.

We have seen, in the course of the nine years which have followed that reckless and most deplorable enactment, what is the safety of the principles upon which our concessions have been yielded; how great are the fulness and permanency of our security in oaths, abjurations, and declarations; and, above all, how effectually that other most important result has been produced, the suppression and prohibition of an order whose maxims the pope§ himself, "the sovereign pacificator," has proscribed as scandalous, and manifestly contrary to good morals; and whose insatiable avidity of temporal possessions,|| idolatrous ceremonies, and intermeddling with temporal matters, and the administration of government, forced his holiness to the conviction that it was very difficult, not to say impossible, that the church could recover a firm and durable peace so long as the said society subsisted; and compelled him, in the plenitude of his apostolical power, to suppress and abolish the said company for ever.

Notwitstanding the provisions of the act for the gradual suppression and final prohibition of the Jesuits, consisting in the formal registration of all the fraternity at that time within the United Kingdom, the forbidding any more to come into this realm, or to become, or to admit members of the order, under pain of banishment, the general

Mr. Secretary Peel.
Act of 1829.

+ King's Speech, February 5, 1829. § Clement XIV. Bull, 21st July, 1773. Paupertas, ut murus Religionis firmissimus, diligenda et in suâ puritate conservanda est; quantum divinâ gratiâ aspirante fieri poterit."-Constitutiones Societatis Jesu."-Parte vii. cap. ii.

"Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, Ego, N. licet undecunque divino tuo conspectu indignissimus, fretus tamen pietate ac misericordiâ tuâ infinità, et impulsus tibi serviendi desiderio voveo coram sacratissimâ Virgine Marià, et curiâ tuâ cœlesti universâ divinæ Majestati tuæ Paupertatem, Castitatem, ut Obedientiam perpetuam in Societate Jesu, et promitto eandem Societatem me ingressurum, ut vitam in câ perpetuò degam; omnia intelligendo juxta ipsius Societatis Constitutiones.”—Ib. Parte v. cap. iv. 4.

"Ut plenius possit Societas rebus spiritualibus juxta suum Institutum vacare; quoadejus fieri poterit, a negotiis sæcularibus abstineant (qualia sunt testamentariorum, vel executorum, vel procuratorum rerum civilium, aut id genus officia) nee ea ullis precibus adducti obeunda suscipiant, vel in illis se occupari sinant."-Constitut. Parte vi. cap. iii. 7.

"Complaints and quarrels were multiplied on every side. In some places dangerous seditions arose, tumults, discords, dissensions, scandals, which weakening, or entirely breaking, the bonds of Christian charity, excited the faithful to all the rage of party natreds and enmities. Desolation and danger grew to such a height, that the very sovereigns whose piety and liberality towards the company were so well known as to be looked upon as hereditary in their families, (we mean our dearly beloved sons in Christ, the kings of France, Spain, Portugal, and Sicily,) found ⚫ themselves reduced to the necessity of expelling and driving from their states, kingdoms, and provinces, these very companions of Jesus, persuaded that there remained no other remedy to so great evils; and that this step was necessary, in order to prevent the Christians from rising one against another, and from massacring each other in the very bosom of our common mother, the Holy Church."-Bull of Clement XIV. July 21, 1773.