german. The argument of John would be weak and unsatisfactory, indeed, if he had stated, that "neither did his cousins believe in him ;" and although it might surprise and offend prejudiced Pharisees to see that he possessed so much power and wisdom, when his brothers and sisters were not in any way distinguished by a similar intellectual superiority, there would be far less ground for their astonishment, if founded on the consideration, that these amazing gifts were not enjoyed by the sons of his father's sister, or by the daughters of his mother's brother. When our Lord exclaims, "Behold my mother and my brethren!" is not the beauty of the passage sadly marred if we substitute "cousins" for brethren, as well as if we have recourse to a similar change in the subsequent condescending declaration, "Whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my cousin-german, or second-cousin, or mother!"

Not contented, however, with having sought out many inventions in reference to Mary herself, the Pope has called upon the church to give heed to fables and genealogies with respect to her pretended progenitors. I believe, however, that Levi, Panther, Barpanther, and Joachim, the alleged ancestors of Mary, are, in Jewish history at least, as apocryphal as are, in the Scottish annals, Amberkeleth, Feritharis, Fethelmacus, and Dornadilla; but Joachim, we are plainly told, was the father of Mary, and Ann, his wife, her mother; that after they had been long childless, the high priest Issachar having reproached Joachim with this misfortune, the poor man was ashamed to return home, but an angel announced both to him and to his wife that they should have a daughter. According to some, a kiss from her husband was sufficient to make the highly-favoured mother conceive; but St Bernard lays it down as the opinion of the church, that Mary, although she was delivered, being a virgin, was not brought into the world by a virgin (Epist. 174). Epiphanius, who flourished about the year 370, and is one

of the most credulous of the patristic authorities, is the earliest author by whom this fable is brought forward, on the authority of tradition and of a spurious legend, which also mentions, that Zacharias was struck dumb in the temple, because he had seen there a man in the shape of an ass. Augustine (iii. p. 644) refuses to admit this story as an argument against him, "because it is not canonical." In truth, it

seems only to be a very awkward and clumsy imitation of the Scripture narrative; and had the fact been true, it seems highly improbable, that the Holy Ghost would not have inspired one, at least, of the evangelists to have written it for our learning; and yet both Joachim and Ann have been gravely booked in the calendar,— the husband since 1622, whilst the wife was more fortunate in respect of precedence, having been gazetted in 1584. A certain village in Brittany is famous for an image of St Ann; it was revealed in 1625 where this treasure was to be found, and it performed several great miracles as soon as it was dug up. Alms enough were collected to build a beautiful church to the image, and indulgences were granted from Rome for those who, out of devotion, visited it. So important are these pseudo saints deemed by the apostate church, that a violent controversy was maintained in the sixteenth century, between_Cornelius Agrippa, a celebrated writer, and certain Dominican monks, on this grave and important question, whether St Ann had three husbands, and a child by each, or only one husband, and one daughter by him. On all these matters the Scripture is profoundly silent, although they must have taken place (if at all) before any of the events which are there narrated, and where, had they really happened, they would no doubt have been recorded also.

Supposing that Mary and Jesus were (if I may so express myself) to change places in the sacred recordthat it was to Mary that all the prophets bore witness; that she was predicted as the desire of nations; that we

were told, that at the name of Mary every knee should bow and every tongue confess; that her discourses and her miracles were the chief theme of the four evangelists; that she had for our sins been by wicked hands crucified and slain, and afterwards ascended up on high, and led captivity captive; that Jesus, on the other hand, had done no sign or wonder; that little was stated concerning him in the gospels, nothing in the Acts, nothing in the apostolic epistles, and that he was only spoken of as the son of Mary. I ask, whether the divines connected with any church would not have been most justly taxed with being guilty of an unpardonable sin, if they had, after the expiration of several centuries, presumed to inculcate as a tenet, the rejection of which involved eternal damnation, that Jesus, who did not a single miracle during his life, had been performing since his death a greater number of signs and wonders, than are recorded in holy writ as having been performed by his divine mother, and that although Mary invited all transgressors to come to her, no one was entitled to do so without invoking her son's intercession? Would not a worshipper of the divine Mary have indignantly asked, was Jesus crucified for him, or was he baptized in the name of Jesus? Would not the priests, in such a state of matters, have been taxed with idolatry, if they had placed Ireland under the patronage and protection of Jesus, whilst neglecting the weightier matters of Mary's sacrifice and supremacy? This, my dear friends, mutatis mutandis, is precisely what Rome has done in reference to the Son of God and the Virgin Mary. They have ascribed to her such prerogatives as it is blasphemous in any creature to assume or to confer. But whilst they, in the impotence of their blind and impious bigotry, anathematize all true believers, who rely exclusively on Jesus, and who repudiate their superstitious figments with respect to Mary, let us look up unto Him, and unto Him only, as the author and finisher of our faith; that whilst admitting all that the Scriptures tell us

concerning his mother, and nothing more, "believe we may have life through His name, who in all things hath the pre-eminence, and is all our salvation and all our desire."

III.-SAINT-WORSHIP.

THE worship or invocation of deceased believers, is a practice of which the Word of God does not present the slightest vestige. John the Baptist was put to death during Christ's personal ministry; but although there had not risen a greater among them that are born of women, our Lord did not appoint any day to be observed in his honour, nor did the apostles ever exclaim, Sancte Johannes, ora pro nobis. James, the brother of John, was killed by the sword for the sake of the gospel ; but Peter, the vicar of Christ, did not exercise on his behalf, or on that of Stephen the protomartyr, that power of canonization which has, in later times, been arrogantly assumed, and lavishly exercised, by his self-constituted representatives. We must either suppose, that our Lord and his apostles were deficient in respect and gratitude for the memory of the most eminent of God's servants, or that the Papists have sought out an invention which is unwarrantable and unscriptural. Paul and Peter often beg an interest in the prayers of living saints; but never, in any instance, solicit the intercession, or rely on the merits, of the dead. They were, no doubt, conscious (if, indeed, the notion of doing either ever entered into their heads, which I very much doubt), that it would be as foolish and as criminal to go about to establish the righteousness of departed fellow-sinners, as to rely upon their own works, in whole or in part, as a ground of acceptance at the bar of divine justice. When Paul speaks of believers being "come to the spirits of the just made perfect," by which expression he signifies, that they were all members of the same mystical body,

he does not say one word as to any intercourse subsisting between the saints in heaven and their brethren on earth, or any services which the one could render to the other. On the subject of the images of departed worthies the apostle says nothing. In fact, the word "image" is never employed in the evangelists, except on one single occasion, when our Lord asks a question about the "image" on a piece of money. In the Acts it is also a

66

απαξ λεγόμενον, and is only used in reference to the "image," not of the Virgin Mary, but of the great goddess Diana. In the plural it never occurs once in the New Testament, nor are the words "painting" or "picture" found either in the plural or the singular. Image," though used eleven times in the Epistles, is never associated with any expressions indicative of worship or respect towards the dead; and although it presents itself to our notice eight times in the Apocalypse, it always stands in a very unenviable juxtaposition, being invariably connected with "the beast;" and we are told of the noisome and grievous sore, which fell on the men which had the mark of the beast, and worshipped his image. Without stopping to inquire, who are the parties whom this plague may be expected to invade, it cannot, at all events, affect us Presbyterians, in none of whose temples a martyr's image is worshipped, or a dead saint's aid invoked.

In our Lord's striking and awful parable of the rich man and Lazarus, no encouragement is held out to the belief, that the dead are allowed to interfere in matters pertaining to sublunary transactions. "Moses and the

prophets" are referred to as the only sources from which knowledge of the way of salvation can be expected or derived. Of tradition, or miracles, or aid from the departed, Abraham says nothing,-he neither volunteers to make any personal effort nor sanctions the suggestion of Lazarus being sent to awaken sinners to repentance; he even expressly states, that such a messenger from the tomb would not be believed, if Moses and the prophets