CHAPTER XX. THE VIRGIN MARY.

There are two passages of Irenæus, in which the name of the Blessed Virgin is introduced, which would not have called for any particular remark, were it not for the manner in which they are perverted by Romanist writers, and especially by the Benedictine editor, Massuet, in support of the blasphemous honour they bestow on her. When, however, we have examined them, we shall perceive that, although they may, no doubt, to those whose minds are imbued with superstitious prejudice, at first sight appear to countenance that prejudice, they do not really favour it.

The first of these passages affirms that “as Eve, having Adam for her husband, but being still a virgin ... being disobedient, became both to herself and to the whole human race the cause of death; so also Mary, having her destined husband and yet a virgin, being obedient, became both to herself and to the whole human race the cause of salvation(532).” There seems no difficulty in granting all this, and yet the conclusion by no means follows that the Blessed Virgin is to be regarded as a mediatrix and intercessor with God, next after her Son(533). Eve was certainly the cause of death to the whole human race, because through her transgression Adam was made to transgress; and in him all mankind are made sinners. But it does not appear that original sin came to all mankind directly from Eve, or that she was any otherwise the cause of death to our race, except by bringing Adam into the transgression: otherwise we must suppose that our Lord, being born of a woman, must have inherited a sinful nature; for even Massuet does not make the Virgin sinless. As the transgression of Eve therefore, although no doubt her own act, was only instrumentally and indirectly the cause of our condemnation, so the obedience of the Virgin Mary, although her own act, was only instrumentally and indirectly the cause of our salvation, that is, by leading to the incarnation and birth of our Lord(534). And if so, there is no foundation whatever for making her a mediatrix and intercessor with God.

But still stronger reliance appears to be placed upon the next passage, in which the Virgin Mary is called “the _advocate_ of the Virgin Eve(535).” And yet that very passage supplies a proof that this term cannot be taken otherwise than in a figurative and improper sense: for Irenæus therein asserts that “as the human race was condemned to death through a virgin, so it is _saved_ through a virgin;” i. e. as he himself explains it, through her submission to the angelic announcement of the will of God, that his Son should be born of her. Now it would be clear blasphemy to ascribe our _salvation_ to the Virgin otherwise than in a figurative sense, as being an instrument in the divine hand for its accomplishment by becoming the mother of the real Saviour; and so, in the same figurative sense she was the advocate of Eve, by becoming the mother of him who was really her advocate. The figure is, no doubt, rather bold, but still it is evidently but a figure.

This interpretation indeed is so obvious, that to us, who have no such prejudices as the members of the Roman Church, it would have been unnecessary to insist upon it, were it not for the violent perversion of the passage by their writers. It is, perhaps, worthy of more distinct indication, that Irenæus, by declaring that the Blessed Virgin was the cause of salvation to _herself_, as well as to others(536), directly contradicts the idea held by some in the Roman Church, (and I believe in the Greek likewise,) that she was entirely sinless. On the other hand, he undoubtedly countenances (although he does not use) the appellation given to her by many, of the _mother of God_(537).