How spotless it seems, and how pure! I wish that my spirit were so! And that while my soul shall endure It might shine far more bright than the snow! Were my heart but as pure and as bright as the snow! It shall go with the breath of Spring! Bright flowers for the silvery snow! Bright flowers shall spring on the grave of the snow! Leisure Hour. THE PRESBYTERIAN CRITIC. JUST as our Magazine was going to press, we received the January number of the "Presbyterian Critic," a Monthly Magazine to be published in Baltimore, under the editorial supervision of the Rev. STUART ROBINSON and THOMAS E. PECK. We extend the right hand of fellowship to our brethren in the work. The topics proposed for discussion are of immense importance; and "Truth, like a torch, the more it's shook, it shines." For ourselves, we can freely say, that we have always regarded the field of periodical literature wide open to all collaborators. When some of our Pittsburgh brethren, last year, thought of establishing a Monthly Magazine, we advised them to proceed, and assured them of cordial welcome on the part of the existing Magazine. Indeed, we have often thought, that New York and Baltimore ought, each to issue some publication, being important centres of influence. May the Lord guide our brethren in their new enterprise. The price of the "PRESBYTERIAN CRITIC" is One Dollar a year, in advance. "This Magazine is devoted to the free discussion of ecclesiastical and religious subjects generally; its articles will all be original, condensed, and spirited, and designed to promote the purity and efficiency of Christianity, especially by PRESBYTERIAN means. A number of the most gifted minds in the Church will contribute to enrich its pages. It addresses intelligent Presbyterians, both clergymen and laymen, and will be found to meet an urgent want in our ecclesiastical literature." THE PRESBYTERIAN MAGAZINE. MARCH, 1855. Miscellaneous Articles. THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. THE readers of the Presbyterian Magazine are aware that his holiness, the Pope, and a vast assembly of cardinals and bishops, have lately been engaged at Rome in determining what the doctrine of the Church really is, on the question of the Immaculate Conception. To some it may appear strange, that nineteen centuries of the Church's history have passed by, and that it should have remained for a pope in our day to decide by his own dogmatic deliverance, what the true faith is on a subject which, for centuries, was never heard of among the professors of this Christian faith, and which, when originated, led to some of the most bitter and determined religious dissensions among Romanists themselves, which have ever agitated and divided the followers of the papacy. A few historical details on the subject may not be uninteresting, touching the nature of the doctrine, its history and reception in the Church, the controversies to which it has given rise, together with the prospects which exist in the present state of Romanism, for a final settlement of this disputed question. "The defenders of the immaculate conception maintained that the Virgin Mary was conceived in the womb of her mother, with the same purity that is attributed to Christ's conception in her womb." It would appear that this doctrine was first distinctly proclaimed in the twelfth century by Peter Lombard, and the increasing homage and veneration of Mary had rapidly prepared the minds of many for its reception. Lombard's views were opposed by Thomas Acquinas; but, on the other hand, Duns Scotus addressed himself with all the power of his keen dialectics, to sustain the propositions of Lombard; and thus the doctrine was rendered more popular. That the mother of our Lord was born free from sin, was recognized as a fact, even as early as the ninth century, by the theologians of Rome; and in a later age, when the followers of Peter Lombard, and of Duns Scotus were ranged against each other, they were entirely agreed, as to her sinlessness at birth. In the eleventh century, a festival was instituted in commemoration of her nativity; and it is reported, that in England this occasion was rendered of special importance, under the auspices of Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury. In course of time, certain of the French churches began to observe the day, in connection with the doctrine of the conception; and if the church at Lyons was not the first, it was the most important one, in which these observances were maintained. Accordingly, we find that in 1140, a controversy had publicly commenced, in consequence of St. Bernard disapproving of these practices, and addressing a letter of remonstrance on the subject to the Canons of Lyons.* The discussion speedily presented the usual amount of heat and exacerbation on the part of the combatants; but, as yet, the war had only commenced. It soon became apparent that the two great orders of the Franciscans and Dominicans were to spend all their strength, and marshal all their forces against each other on this debatable territory. The subject of their learned strife was, whether at any time before her birth, the Virgin contracted the taint of original sin, at the moment of her conception, or at the infusion of the soul; or whether she escaped all forms of human depravity, being immaculate and sinless, from the commencement of her being. The Franciscans maintained the latter, and even went so far, as to proclaim that she was begotten in the womb of her mother by the Holy Ghost. The leading schoolmen of the thirteenth century inclined to the opposite opinion; some of them holding, that the power of sanctification anticipated the stain of original sin; while others believed, that it followed, and remedied all moral defects, so as to insure her birth without sin; while the precise period when this total purification took place, was left undetermined. The Dominicans maintained the same views with unbounded zeal, and by every means in their power endeavoured to overthrow their enemies, the Franciscans. They had recourse to revelations from heaven, and ecclesiastical miracles, in order to sustain their cause; but as Gieseler shows,† their last attempt at the supernatural recoiled on themselves; as a prior, and three leading members of a religious house in Berne, were burnt alive, in consequence of their attempting to poison a man by the sacrament, who had detected them in their clumsy efforts in miracle manufactures. Great reliance was placed by the Dominicans on the revelation of St. Catherine, that the Virgin was even born under the taint of original sin, but she was sanctified just three hours afterwards! * Vid. St Bernard's Epistle, clxxiv. tom. i. p. 170, and Mosheim (Murdock's ed.), vol. ii. p. 261, note 38. + Gieseler's Ecc. His. iii. § 144. Important as this intelligence was, even from such a reliable person as a saint, the fanatical spirit of the Franciscans predominated; and as the Virgin was rapidly rising to the dignity of Queen of Heaven, all who crowned her with. honours, no matter how absurd their nature, were almost sure of popular favour, and in the end of securing the victory. As we have mentioned, St. Bernard, the canons of Lyons, and John Duns Scotus, and the leading men of their day, held that the Virgin was actually born without sin; but when the controversy arose on the novel proposition about the immaculate conception, the views which St. Bernard expressed, in opposition to this dogma, found determined and warm supporters. Among the most distinguished, was John de Monçon, better known by his Latin appellative, John de Montesonus. He was a native of Arragon, a Dominican doctor, and a professor of theology. Preaching on the doctrine of original sin, he declared that this stain was inherent in all human creatures, from the moment of their conception, and, as it could only be effaced by the redemption of Jesus Christ, he inferred that the Virgin Mary was conceived in sin. This fact he urged, as an incidental illustration of the established doctrine, intending to make it more clear and striking. He soon met with opponents, and, in 1384, the controversy raged with much violence. He now proceeded so far, as to proclaim that all who held the dogma of the immaculate conception, sinned against religion and the faith. For several years, the strife on this extraordinary subject continued to agitate the church, being aggravated by a public discussion, in which Montesonus defended himself in the boldest manner. The University of Paris had been displeased with the Dominicans and the Franciscans, in consequence of several disputes with both these orders, and now that Montesonus was censured by the theologians, no time was lost by the heads of the University, in denouncing the Dominican doctor, whose views were pronounced an impious outrage against the mother of Christ. The doctors sustained their views by affirming, that the prophesied sacrifice of Christ had an effect before its accomplishment, on his birth, and on that of his mother, and that in her case this exemption from moral taint was rightly designated the immaculate conception.* Monçon, in alarm, fled to Avignon, where Clement VII. resided, and appealed from the decision of the University. The entire order of the Dominicans, regarding themselves in their capacity of inquisitors, as the special guardians of the true faith, were indignant at finding one of their number thus charged with heresy. Accordingly, they sent seventy of their most learned doctors to sustain the opinions of Monçon before the papal tribunal, and as they well knew the nature of the arguments which had the weightest effect at Avignon, they subscribed and forwarded 40,000 crowns of gold His. of Popery, London, J. W. Parker, 1838, p. 186. to support his cause. The Sorbonne was not idle. The most illustrious professors of this eminent school were deputed to oppose him, and thus the church which rejoices in the possession of infallibility, presented an instructive spectacle as to unity of faith. The Pope was sorely tried; he dreaded to displease either party; he knew the value of the Dominicans, and he feared the power of the others; and with a view to save himself, he secretly dismissed Montesonus, and sent him to seek refuge in Arragon. The theologians of the Sorbonne were not satisfied by partial success, and they succeeded in persuading Charles VI., the young king of France, who had not yet completed his twenty-first year, and who was noted for his ignorance, to decide the question on their behalf. It was known that his confessor favoured the views of Montesonus; and even Clement himself was inclined to the side of the inquisitors; but the decision of the monarch, and his conduct in sending to prison all who denied the views of the doctors of the Sorbonne, produced a decided effect. Clement VII. had long dreaded that he would be sacrificed to his rival, Urban VI., and as he relied for support on the court of France, he feared to offend Charles. Accordingly, contrary to his convictions, and in terror as to the result from the fury of the Dominicans, he issued a bull, condemning John de Monçon and all his adherents. The gratified monarch was permitted to institute a new festival in honour of the immaculate conception, to constrain his confessor and the leading Dominicans to renounce their opinions, while the order of St. Dominic was degraded to the lowest rank, and none of that body were in future to act as confessor to the king.* The action of Clement VII. did not pacify the Church; and the exclusion of the Dominicans from the University of Paris, from 1389 until 1404, helped to prolong the discussions. Gradually, however, the attention of the faithful was attracted to other subjects, and the controversy abated. The old quarrel was renewed again in the seventeenth century, and caused much annoyance to Paul V., Gregory XV., and Alexander VII. In Spain also the dispute was revived, and so much annoyed were Philip III. and IV., that they despatched envoys to Rome, beseeching the head of the Church to determine the subject. The same influences distracted the Spanish court, that alarmed and terrified the Vatican. Although inclined to the side of the Franciscans, the monarchs of Spain thoroughly comprehended the terrific influence of the inquisitors, and hence their anxiety to call in the aid of Rome. Nothing, however, could be gained at Rome, except that it was affirmed by the head of the Infallible Church that the cause of the Franciscans was very plausible; the Dominicans were forbidden to assail it, and the Franciscans were enjoined to refrain from charging heresy or error on their antagonists. His. of Popery, 8vo., J. W. Parker, London, 1838, pp. 186, 187. |