maintain that it is of very ancient introduction; but whilst
some, with Lambecius (lib. viii. p. 286), maintain the antiquity
of the festival to be so remote, that its origin cannot be
traced; and thence infer that it was instituted by a silent and
unrecorded act of the Apostles themselves; others (among whom
Kollarius, the learned annotator on the opinion of Lambecius)
acknowledged, that it was introduced by an ordinance of the
Church, though not at the same time in all countries of
Christendom. That annotator assigns its introduction at Rome to
the fourth century; at Constantinople to the sixth; in Germany
and France to the ninth.] {299}

But what is the real state of the case with regard to the fact of the
Assumption of the Virgin Mary? It rests (as we shall soon see) on no
authentic history; it is supported by no primitive tradition. I profess
my surprise to have been great, when I found the most celebrated
defenders of the Roman Catholic cause, instead of citing such evidence
as would bear with it even the appearance of probability, appealing to
histories written more than a thousand years after the alleged event, to
forged documents and vague rumours. I was willing to doubt the
sufficiency of my research; till I found its defenders, instead of
alleging and establishing by evidence what God was by them said to have
done, contenting themselves with asserting his omnipotence, in proof
that the doctrine implied no impossibility; dwelling on the fitness and
reasonableness of his working such a miracle in the honour of her who
was chosen to be the mother of his eternal Son; and whilst they took the
fact as granted, substituting for argument glowing and fervent
descriptions of what might have been the joy in heaven, and what ought
to be the feelings of mortals on earth.