not also of her body. "Ut damnet eorum hæresin qui sanctissimæ
Dei genetricis rcceptionem in coelum ad animam ipsius tantum,
non vero simul etiam ad corpus pertinere existimant."]

[Footnote 109: Non reversa est in terram, sed ... in coelestibus
tabernaculis collocatum. Quomodo mois devoraret, quomodo inferi
susciperent, quomodo corruptio invaderit CORPUS ILLUD in quo
vita suscepta est? Huic recta plana et facilis ad coelum parata
est via. Æs. 603, 604.]

Now, on what authority does this doctrine rest? On what foundation stone
is this religious worship built? The holy Scriptures are totally and
profoundly silent, as to the time, the place, the manner of Mary's
death. Once after the ascension of our Lord, and that within eight days,
we find mentioned the name of Mary promiscuously with others; after
that, no allusion is made to her in life or in death; and no account, as
far as I can find, places her death too late for mention to have been
made of it in the Acts of the Apostles. The historian, Nicephorus
Callistus, refers it to the 5th year of Claudius, that is about A.D. 47:
after which period, events through more than fifteen years are recorded
in that book of sacred Scripture.

But closing the holy volume, what light does primitive antiquity enable
us to throw on this subject?

The earliest testimony quoted by the defenders of the doctrine, that
Mary was at her death taken up bodily into heaven, is a supposed entry
in the Chronicon of Eusebius, opposite the year of our Lord 48. This is
cited by Coccius without any remark; and even Baronius rests the date of
Mary's assumption upon this testimony. [Vol. i. 403.] The words referred