charity, was, whether by the incarnation our blessed Saviour became
possessed of two natures, the divine and human. Subordinate to this, and
necessary for its decision, was involved the question, What part of his
nature, if any, Christ derived from the Virgin Mary? Again and again
does this question bring the name, the office, the circumstances, and
the nature of that holy and blessed mother of our Lord before these
Councils. The name of Mary is continually in the mouth of the accusers,
the accused, the judges, and the witnesses; and had Christian pastors
then entertained the same feelings of devotion towards her; had they
professed the same belief as to her assumption into heaven, and her
influence and authority in directing the destinies of man, and in
protecting the Church on earth; had they habitually appealed to her with
the same prayers for her intercession and good offices, and placed the
same confidence in her as we find now exhibited in the authorized
services of the Roman Ritual, it is impossible to conceive that no
signs, no intimation of such views and feelings, would, either directly
or incidentally, have shown themselves, somewhere or other, among the
manifold and protracted proceedings of these Councils. I have searched
diligently, but I can find no expression as to her nature and office, or
as to our feelings and conduct towards Mary, in which, as a {322}
Catholic of the Anglican Church, I should not heartily acquiesce. I can
find no sentiment implying invocation, or religious worship of any kind,
or in any degree; I find no allusion to her Assumption.

Pope Leo, who is frequently in these documents [Vol. v. p. 1418.] called
Archbishop of Rome, in a letter to Julianus, Bishop of Cos, speaks of
Christ as born of "A Virgin," "The blessed Virgin," "The pure, undefiled
Virgin;" and in a letter to the empress Pulcheria, he calls Mary simply
"The Virgin Mary." In his celebrated letter to Flavianus, not one iota
of which (according to the decree of the Roman council under Pope