John Calvin was far removed from sixteenth century Mariolatry, and by extension, Rome's view of Mary today. Of the writings of John Calvin readily available, Mary was not a person or subject he engaged in frequently. Certainly where she appears in the Gospels, Calvin's attention directly focuses on Mary. Otherwise, she usually didn't factor in when she wasn't in the Biblical text.
Below are excerpts from John Calvin's writings in regard to his extreme differences with Roman Catholicism on Mary and the Mariolatry predominant in the Reformation period. Why document this? Because defenders of Roman Catholicism say the early Reformers were espousing similar Marian views to theirs. As the following quotes will show, John Calvin was not on their side.
Do Not Use the Title "Mother of God"
On September 27, 1552, Calvin wrote a letter to a French Calvinist community in London. They had written to him and asked, "Is it lawful to call Mary the Mother of God?" Calvin responds, No!:
Concerning the other debatable points, I doubt not but there may have been somewhat of ignorance in their reproving the way of speaking of the Virgin Mary as the mother of God, and together with ignorance, it is possible that there may have been rashness and too much forwardness, for, as the old proverb says, The most ignorant are ever the boldest. However, to deal with you with brotherly frankness, I cannot conceal that that title being commonly attributed to the Virgin in sermons is disapproved, and, for my own part I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. Neither will any sober-minded people do so, for which reason I cannot persuade myself that there is any such usage in your church, for it is just as if you were to speak of the blood, of the head, and of the death of God. You know that the Scriptures accustom us to a different style; but there is something still worse about this particular instance, for to call the Virgin Mary the mother of God, can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions. And he that would take a pleasure in that, shews clearly that he knows not what it is to edify the Church (Letters of John Calvin, vol. 2, p. 361-362).
Original text: Quant aux autres pointz quilz ont debatu, ie ne doute pas quil ny ayt eu de l'ignorance en ce quilz ont reprouvé ceste facon de parler que la vierge Marie soit mere de Dieu, et avec l'ignorance il se peut faire quil y ayt eu temerité et audace trop grande, comme le proverbe ancien dit que les plus ignorans sont les plus hardiz. Cependant pour aller en rondeur fraternelle avec vous, ie ne puis dissimuler qu’on trouve mauvais que ce tiltre soit ordinairement attribué aux sermons a ceste vierge, et de ma part ie ne scaurois trouver tel langage ne bon, ne propre, ne convenable. Aussi ne feront toutes gens de sens rassis. Parquoy ie ne me puis persuader quil y ayt eu tel usage en vostre eglise, car cela seroit autant comme de parler du corps, du sang, de la teste, de la mort de Dieu. Vous scavez que l'escriture nous acoustume a ung autre stile, mais il y a pis en cecy pour le scandale. Car de dire la mere de Dieu pour la vierge Marie, ne peut servir qu’a endurcir les ignorans en leurs superstitions. Et celuy qui se plairoit en cela, monstreroit bien quil ne scait que c’est d'edifier l’eglise (CR 42:364).
Do Not Speculate on Whether or Not Mary Had Other Children (Calvin's Agnosticism on Mary's "Perpetual Virginity")
John Calvin never comes right out and says Mary was a Perpetual Virgin (as Roman Catholics understand it). Without any clear denial from Calvin's writings that Mary was not a Perpetual Virgin, coupled with his comments that safeguard against the idea that Mary had other children, I think this is why so many writers have concluded John Calvin held to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. This though is a conclusion from inference rather than a direct admission from Calvin. Calvin's consistent main point about other children from Mary is best characterized as agnosticism... to not speculate beyond the text of Scripture.
25. And knew her not. This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation (Calvin's Commentary on Matthew 1:25).
Original text: Non cognovit eam etc. Huius loci praetextu magnas quondam turbas movit Helvidius in ecclesia: quod inde colligeret, Mariam non nisi ad primum usque partum virginem fuisse, postea autem ex marito sustulisse alios liberos. Perpetua Mariae virginitas acriter et copiose ab Hieronymo defensa fuit. Nobis hoc unum sufficiat, stulte et perperam ex verbis evangelistae colligi, quid post Christum natum contigerit. Vocatur primogenitus: sed non alia ratione nisi ut sciamus, ex virgine esse natum. Negatur Ioseph rem cum ea habuisse, donec peperit: hoc quoque ad idem tempus restringitur. Quid postea sequutum sit, non indicat. Talem esse scripturae usum satis notum est. Et certe nemo unquam hac de re quaestionem movebit nisi curiosus: nemo vero pertinaciter insistet nisi contentiosus rixator (CR. 45:70).
55. Is not this the carpenter’s son? It was, we are aware, by the wonderful purpose of God, that Christ remained in private life till he was thirty years of age. Most improperly and unjustly, therefore, were the inhabitants of Nazareth offended on this account; for they ought rather to have received him with reverence, as one who had suddenly come down from heaven. They see God working in Christ, and intentionally turn away their eyes from this sight, to behold Joseph, and Mary, and all his relatives; thus interposing a veil to shut out the clearest light. The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned (Calvin’s Commentary on Mathew 13:55).
Original text: Nonne hic est fabri filius? Scimus, admirabili Dei consilio factum esse, ut Christus ad annum tricesimum in vita privata se continuerit. Hinc ergo perperam et iniuste a Nazarenis concepta fuit offensio, quum potius amplecti eum reverenter debuerint, quasi repente e coelo delapsum. Deum in Christo operantem cernunt: illinc data opera oculos suos convertunt ad Ioseph, et Mariam, et omnes cognatos, quorum obscura erat conditio, ut velum manifestae luci opponant. Fratres more hebraico vocari consanguineos quoslibet, iam alibi diximus. Quare nimis inscite Helvidius plures fuisse Mariae filios finxit, quia de Christi fratribus aliquoties fiat mentio (CR 45:426).
And notably it is said that [Joseph] did not know the Virgin until she had given birth to her first Son. By this the Evangelist means that Joseph had not taken her as his wife to live with her, but rather to obey God, and to fulfill his obligation to her. It was thus not for reasons of carnal love, nor for profit, nor for anything else that he took her as his wife; it was to obey God and to show that he accepted the grace proffered. This was a blessing, that he could not even fully appreciate. Here is what we must retain. There have been certain strange folk who have wished to suggest from this passage that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! for the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25).
Original text: Et notamment il est dit qu'il n'a point cognu la Vierge iusqu'à ce qu'elle ait enfanté son premier Fils. Par cela l'Evangeliste signifie que Ioseph n'avoit point pris sa femme pour habiter avec elle, mais pour obeir à Dieu, et pour s'aquitter de son devoir envers luy. Ce n'a point donc esté ni pour un amour charnel, ni pour profit, ni pour rien qui soit qu'il a pris sa femme: mais ç'a esté afin d'obeir à Dieu, et pour monstrer qu'il acceptoit la grace qui luy estoit offerte: comme aussi c'estoit un bien qui ne se pouvoit assez estimer. Voyla ce que nous avons à retenir. Or il y a eu aucuns fantastiques qui ont voulu recueillir de ce passage que la vierge Marie avoit eu d'autres enfans que le Fils de Dieu, et que Ioseph avoit puis apres habité avec elle: mais c'est une folie que cela. Car l'Evangeliste n'a pas voulu reciter ce qui estoit advenu apres: il veut seulement declarer l'obeissance de Ioseph, et monstrer aussi qu'il avoit esté bien certifié et deuement que c'estoit Dieu qui luy avoit envoyé son Ange (CR 46:271).
And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second. Thus we see the Holy Spirit's intention. To give ourselves over to subtle foolishness on this question would be to abuse the holy Scriptures, which is to be useful for our edification, as St Paul says (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25).
Original text: Et au reste nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ est nommé le premier nay. Non pas qu’il y ait eu ne le second ne le troisieme : mais l’Evangeliste regarde au precedent. Et l’Escriture parle ainsi, de nommer le premier nay, encores qu’il n’y en ait point de second. Nous voyons donc l’intention du S. Esprit : et pourtant, de nous adonner à ces folles subtilitez, ce seroit abuser de l’Escriture saincte, qui nous doit estre utile a edification, comme dit S. Paul (CR 46:272).
John Calvin Rejected Mary's Vow of Perpetual Virginity
John Calvin specifically rejected using Luke 1:34-38 as a prooftext for Mary's vow of Perpetual virginity ("Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it unto me according to thy word"):
The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews.
We must reply, however, to another objection that the virgin refers to the future, and so declares that she will have no intercourse with a man. The probable and simple explanation is that the greatness or rather majesty of the subject made so powerful an impression on the virgin, that all her senses were bound and locked up in astonishment, when she is informed that the Son of God will be born, she imagines something unusual, and for that reason leaves conjugal intercourse out of view. Hence she breaks out in amazement, How shall this be? And so God graciously forgives her, and replies kindly and gently by the angel, because, in a devout and serious manner, and with admiration of a divine work, she had inquired how that would be, which, she was convinced, went beyond the common and ordinary course of nature. In a word, this question was not so contrary to faith, because it arose rather from admiration than from distrust (Calvin's Comments on Luke 1:34).
Original text: Quod autem ex eius verbis suspicati sunt quidam, perpetuae virginitatis conceptum habuisse votum, nimis infirmum est, imo prorsus absurdum: perfide enim passa fuisset, se marito collocari, sanctumque coniugii foedus non sine Dei ludibrio sprevisset. Quamlibet barbara tyrannis grassata sit in hac parte sub papatu, nunquam tamen eousque progredi ausi sunt, ut permitterent uxori continentiam vovere suo arbitrio. Deinde puerile commentum est, monachismum fingere inter Iudaeos. Solvendum est tamen obiectum illud, quod Virgo in futurum tempus respiciat, ideoque significet, nullam sibi fore cohabitationem cum viro. Haec vero coniectura et probabilis est et simplex, quod rei magnitudo vel potius maiestas virginem perculerit, ut sensus omnes admiratione ligatos haberet ac constrictos. Quum audit, nasciturum esse Dei filium, aliquid non vulgare concipit, atque haec ratio est cur coitum virilem excludat. Hinc attonita exclamat, Quomodo erit istud? Ideo tam clementer illi Deus ignoscit, et per angelum benigne et comiter respondet, quia reverenter et sobrie, non sine admiratione divini operis quaesierat, quomodo futurum esset, quod sibi persuaserat vulgari et consueta naturae ratione esse sublimius. Denique haec quaestio fidei adversa ideo non fuit, quia ex admiratione potius quam ex diffidentia oriebatur (CR 45:30).
John Calvin Rejected the Immaculate Conception of Mary
We condemn those who affirm that a man once justified cannot sin, and likewise those who deny that the truly justified ever fall: those in like manner who assert that a man regenerated by the Spirit of God is able to abstain even from the least sins. These are the delirious dreams of fanatics, who either with devilish arrogance deceive, or with hypocrisy fascinate the minds of men, or plot to lead them to the precipice of despair. As to the special privilege of the Virgin Mary [freedom from original sin], when they produce the celestial diploma we shall believe what they say: for to what do they here give the name of the Church, but just to the Council of Clermont? Augustine was certainly a member of the Church, and though he in one passage chooses, in order to avoid obloquy, rather to be silent respecting the blessed Virgin, he uniformly, without making her an exception, describes the Whole race of Adam as involved in sin. Nay, he even almost in distinct terms classes her among sinners, when writing to Marcellinus, he says, They err greatly who hold that any of the saints except Christ require not to use this prayer, "Forgive us our debts." In so doing, they by no means please the saints whom they laud. Chrysostom and Ambrose, who suspect her of having been tempted by ambition, were members of the Church. All these things I mention for no other end but to let my readers understand that there is no figment so nugatory as not to be classed by these blockheads among the Articles of Faith (Acts of the Council of Trent With Antidote, pp. 157-158).
Original text: Qui hominem semel iustificatum peccare posse negant, eos damnamus: qui item vere iustificatos esse negant, quibus labi contingit: similiter eos, qui etiam a minimis peccatis abstinere posse asserunt hominem Dei spiritu regeneratum. Sunt enim haec fanaticorum deliria, qui vel diabolica arrogantia dementant, vel hypocrisi fascinant hominum mentes, vel in praecipitium desperationis eas adducere moliuntur. De speciali virginis Mariae privilegio, quum coeleste diploma protulerint, credemus quod iactant: nam ecclesiam quid appellant, nisi concilium Claromontanum?) Ecclesiae certe membrum erat Augustinus: qui tametsi, amoliendae invidiae causa, mavult alicubi de beata Virgine silere: passim tamen, sine eius exceptione, totum Adae genus peccato involvit. Quin etiam prope disertis verbis eam in peccatorum ordinem aggregat, quum ad Marcellinum scribens, multum eos errare tradit, qui ulli sanctorum, praeterquam uni Christo, necessariam fuisse hanc deprecationem negant: Remitte nobis debita nostra: minimeque eos placere sanctis quos laudant. Membra ecclesiae erant Chrysostomus et Ambrosius, qui ambitione tentatam fuisse suspicantur. Quae omnia non alium in finem commemoro, quam ut intelligant lectores, nullum esse tam nugatorium figmentum, quod inter fidei dogmata ab istis asinis non censeatur (CR: 35:481).
But they babble childishly: if Christ is free from all spot, and through the secret working of the Spirit was begotten of the seed of Mary, then woman’s seed is not unclean, but only man’s. For we make Christ free of all stain not just because he was begotten of his mother without copulation with man, but because he was sanctified by the Spirit that the generation might be pure and undefiled as would have been true before Adam’s fall. And this remains for us an established fact: whenever Scripture calls our attention to the purity of Christ, it is to be understood of his true human nature, for it would have been superfluous to say that God is pure. Also, the sanctification of which John, chapter 17, speaks would have no place in divine nature Nor do we imagine that Adam’s seed is twofold, even though no infection came to Christ. For the generation of man is not unclean and vicious of itself, but is so as an accidental quality arising from the Fall. No wonder, then, that Christ, through whom integrity was to be restored, was exempted from common corruption. They thrust upon us as something absurd the fact that if the Word of God became flesh, then he was confined within the narrow prison of an earthly body. This is mere impudence! For even if the Word in his immeasurable essence united with the nature of man into one person, we do not imagine that he was confined therein. Here is something marvelous: the Son of God descended from heaven in such a way that, without leaving heaven, he willed to be borne in the virgin’s womb, to go about the earth, and to hang upon the cross; yet he continuously filled the world even as he had done from the beginning! (The Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.13.4, Battles Translation).
Original text: Pueriliter autem nugantur: si ab omni macula immunis est Christus, ac per arcanam spiritus operationem genitus fuit ex semine Mariae, non esse igitur impurum semen mulieris, sed viri duntaxat. Neque enim immunem ab omni labe facimus Christum, quia tantum ex matre sit genitus absque viri concubitu, sed quia sanctificatus est a spiritu, ut pura esset generatio et integra, qualis futura erat ante Adae lapsum. Ac omnino fixum hoc nobis manet, quoties de Christi puritate nos admonet scriptura, notari veram hominis naturam: quia supervacuum esset dicere, purum esse Deum. Sanctificatio etiam de qua loquitur Ioannis 17. in natura divina locum non haberet. Nec vero duplex fingitur Adae semen, quamvis nulla ad Christum contagio pervenerit: quia hominis generatio per se immunda aut vitiosa non est, sed accidentalis ex lapsu. Proinde nihil mirum si Christus, per quem restituenda erat integritas, a vulgari corruptione exemptus fuerit. Quod etiam pro absurdo nobis obtrudunt, si sermo Dei carnem induit, fuisse igitur angusto terreni corporis ergastulo inclusum, mera est procacitas, quia, etsi in unam personam coaluit immensa verbi essentia cum natura hominis, nullam tamen inclusionem fingimus. Mirabiliter enim e coelo descendit filius Dei, ut coelum tamen non relinqueret; mirabiliter in utero virginis gestari, in terris versari, et in cruce pendere voluit, ut semper mundum impleret, sicut ab initio (CR 30:352).
And after that the days were fulfilled. On the fortieth day after the birth, (Lev. xii. 2, 4,) the rite of purification was necessary to be performed. But Mary and Joseph come to Jerusalem for another reason, to present Christ to the Lord, because he was the first-born. Let us now speak Luke makes it apply both to Mary and to Christ: for the pronoun avruv, of them, can have no reference whatever to Joseph. But it ought not to appear strange, that Christ, who was to be "made a curse for us on the cross," (Gal. iii. 13,) should, for our benefit, take upon him our uncleanness with respect to legal guilt, though he was "without blemish and without spot," (1 Pet. i. 19.) It ought not, I say, to appear strange, if the fountain of purity, in order to wash away our stains, chose to be reckoned unclean. It is a mistake to imagine that this law of purification was merely political, and that the woman was unclean in presence of her husband, not in presence of God. On the contrary, it placed before the eyes of the Jews both the corruption of their nature, and the remedy of divine grace.
This law is of itself abundantly sufficient to prove original sin, while it contains a striking proof of the grace of God. For there could not be a clearer demonstration of the curse pronounced on mankind than when the Lord declared, that the child comes from its mother unclean and polluted, and that the mother herself is consequently defiled by childbearing. Certainly, if man were not born a sinner, if he were not by nature a child of wrath, (Eph. ii. 3,) if some taint of sin did not dwell in him, he would have no need of purification. Hence it follows, that all are corrupted in Adam; for the mouth of the Lord charges all with pollution. (Calvin's Comments on Luke 2:22).
Original text: Et postquam completi sunt dies. Die a partu quadragesimo purgationis ritum peragi oportuit. Veniunt tamen Hierosolymam Maria et Ioseph alterius rei etiam causa, ut Christum, quia primogenitus erat, Domino sistant. Nunc priore loco de purgatione dicendum est: eam Lucas Mariae et Christo facit communem. Nam pronomen eorum ad Ioseph nullo modo referri potest. Nihil autem absurdi, quod Christus, qui pro nobis exsecratio futurus erat in cruce, immunditiem nostram, quamvis a culpa et vitio immunis esset, quoad reatum susceperit nostra causa: hoc est, si fons puritatis, ut sordes nostras ablueret, censeri voluerit immundus. Falluntur, qui putant, legem hanc non nisi politicam fuisse, ac si mulier coram marito suo, non coram Deo, immunda foret. Quin potius tam naturae suae corruptio Iudaeis ante oculos posita fuit, quam divinae gratiae remedium. Atque una ista lex ad probandum originale peccatum abunde sufficit, ut insigne testimonium continet gratiae Dei. Neque enim clarius ostendi potuit humani generis maledictio quam quum testatus est Dominus, infantem ex matre prodire impurum et pollutum, atque adeo matrem ipsam partu inquinari. Certe nisi homo nasceretur peccator, et natura esset filius irae, atque in eo resideret aliqua peccati labes, purgatione non egeret. Quare sequitur, omnes in Adam fuisse corruptos, quando pollutionis damnantur ore Domini. Nec obstat, quod alibi vocantur Iudaei rami sancti ex radice sancta (Rom. 11, 16), quia hoc bonum illis quasi adventitium erat. Etsi enim adoptionis privilegio segregati erant in populum electum, prior tamen ordine erat haereditaria ex Adam corruptio (CR 45:87-88).
John Calvin Rejected the Assumption of Mary
Note these words from a reputable Roman Catholic scholar: Calvin "rejects totally the Immaculate Conception as he does the Assumption."
As to Mary’s privileges, [Calvin] rejects totally the Immaculate Conception as he does the Assumption. He thought that the latter feast had one advantage—Catholics thinking that Mary had been assumed bodily could not worship her relics (Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos: a Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, p. 94).
The belief that the body of the Virgin was not interred on earth, but was taken to heaven, has deprived them of all pretext for manufacturing any relics of her remains, which otherwise might have been sufficiently abundant to fill a whole churchyard; yet in order to have at least something belonging to her, they sought to indemnify themselves for the absence of other relics with the possession of her hair and her milk (Treatise on Relics, pp. 248-249).
Original text: Quant à la vierge Marie, pource qu'ilz tiennent que son corps n'est plus en terre, le moyen leur est osté de se vanter d'en avoir les os ; autrement, ie pense qu'ilz eussent faict à croire qu'elle avoit un corps pour remplir un grand charnier. Au reste, ilz se sont vengez sur ses cheveux et sur son laict, pour avoir quelque chose de son corps (CR 34:432).
...since they could obtain nothing else from her body, it never occurred to them to clip her fingernails or take similar items; but one must conclude that not every such idea happened to cross their minds (Treatise on Relics, not translated into English).
Original text ...puis qu'ilz ne pouvoyent avoir autre chose du corps, qu'ilz ne se sont advisez de rongner de ses ongles et de choses semblables; mais il faut dire que tout ne leur est pas venu en memoire (CR 34:433).
"Full of Grace" (kecharitōménē) in Luke 1:28 is an Incorrect Translation
Because the common translation renders the phrase as "Full of grace," the Papists have sought to display a beastly subtlety, claiming that there was a complete fullness of grace within the Virgin Mary—acting, indeed, as if the Greek text actually bore such a meaning. And even if the Greek word could bear such a translation, this would still not serve to validate the opinion of the Papists. For we observe that it is likewise said of Saint Stephen that he was "full of grace." Yet this does not imply that the entire fullness of grace dwelt within him—for that prerogative belongs solely to our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Scriptures attest. Thus, we see how God has, in every respect, permitted and delivered them over to Satan, allowing them to expose themselves to every manner of opprobrium and ignominy. But alas! The world has been so blinded that it has failed to recognize these things (Sermon on Luke 1:26-30).
Original text: Pource que la translation commune porte Pleine de grace, les Caphars ont voulu monstrer une subtilite de bestes, disans qu'il y avoit eu toute plenitude de grace en la vierge Marie: voire, comme si cela estoit ainsi au Grec. Et mesme quand le mot Grec pourroit porter telle translation, si est-ce que ce ne seroit pas pour approuver l'opinion des Papistes. Car nous voyons qu'il est aussi bien dict de sainct Estienne, qu'il a este plein de grace. Et ce n'est pas à dire toutesfois que toute plenitude de grace ait habité en luy: car cela ne compete sinon à nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ, comme l'Escriture en parle. Ainsi nous voyons comme Dieu en toutes sortes les a permis et livrez à Satan, afin qu'ilz s'exposassent eux-mesmes à tout opprobre, et contumelie. Mais quoy? Le monde a este si aveuglé, qu'il n'a point cognu ces choses (CR 46:66).
John Calvin Held All Believers are the Same as Mary
Matthew 12:48. Who is my mother? These words were unquestionably intended to reprove Mary’s eagerness, and she certainly acted improperly in attempting to interrupt the progress of his discourse. At the same time, by disparaging the relationship of flesh and blood, our Lord teaches a very useful doctrine; for he admits all his disciples and all believers to the same honorable rank, as if they were his nearest relatives, or rather he places them in the room of his mother and brethren (Calvin's Comments on Matthew 12:48).
Original text: Matth. 48. Quae est mater mea. Non dubium est, quin his verbis carpatur Mariae importunitas, et certe praepostere cursum doctrinae eius abrumpere tentabat. Sed interea carnis et sanguinis propinquitatem extenuans doctrinam valde utilem profert, dum suos omnes discipulos ac fideles in eundem honoris gradum recipit, ac si inter consanguineos primi essent: imo eos in matris et fratrum locum substituit (CR 45:350).
Thus, from this passage (Luke 1:39-44), we learn that although God desired to magnify the Virgin—having chosen her for a work so worthy and precious as bearing the Savior of the world—nevertheless, in her very person, He also wished to demonstrate how we, too, are all blessed. It is true that being the mother of Jesus Christ was a privilege unique to the Virgin; yet, as He Himself declared, if we are united to Him through faith, He acknowledges and claims us as His fathers, mothers, and brothers. That is to say, we possess a kinship that ought to suffice us entirely; so much so that there is no need for us to be His nephews, cousins, uncles, fathers, or mothers—it is enough that we believe in Him, so that He may receive us as members of His body. Now, there is no union comparable to this one; and therefore, we ought to be well content with it (Sermon on Luke 1:39-44).
Original text: Ainsi donc, cognoissons de ce passage, combien que Dieu ait voulu magnifier la Vierge, et que l’ayant choisie à une oeuvre si digne et si precieuse que de porter le Sauveur du monde, que toutesfois en la personne d’icelle il a aussi voulu monstrer comme nous sommes tous benits. Il est vray que cela a este special à la Vierge, d’estre mere de Iesus Christ: mais tant y a que comme luy-mesmes a prononcé, si nous sommes unis à luy par foy, il nous recognoist et advouë pour ses peres, meres, et ses freres: c’est à dire, nous avons un parentage qui nous doit bien suffire, tellement qu’il ne faut point que nous luy soyons nepveux ou cousins, ou oncles, ou peres, ou meres: c’est assez que nous croyons en luy, afin qu’il nous reçoive comme membres de son corps (CR 46:106).
Mary's Real Highest Honor was to be Regenerated by the Spirit of God
Luke 11:27. Blessed is the womb. By this eulogium the woman intended to magnify the excellence of Christ; for she had no reference to Mary, whom, perhaps, she had never seen. And yet it tends in a high degree to illustrate the glory of Christ, that she pronounces the womb that bore him to be noble and blessed. Nor was the blessing inappropriate, but in strict accordance with the manner of Scripture; for we know that offspring, and particularly when endued with distinguished virtues, is declared to be a remarkable gift of God, preferable to all others. It cannot even be denied that God conferred the highest honor on Mary, by choosing and appointing her to be the mother of his Son. And yet Christ’s reply is so far from assenting to this female voice, that it contains an indirect reproof.
Nay, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God. We see that Christ treats almost as a matter of indifference that point on which the woman had set a high value. And undoubtedly what she supposed to be Mary’s highest honor was far inferior to the other favors which she had received; for it was of vastly greater importance to be regenerated by the Spirit of God than to conceive Christ, according to the flesh, in her womb; to have Christ living spiritually within her than to suckle him with her breasts. In a word, the highest happiness and glory of the holy Virgin consisted in her being a member of his Son, so that the heavenly Father reckoned her in the number of new creatures (Calvin's Comments on Luke 11:27).
Original text: Luc. 27. Beatus venter. Hoc elogio extollere voluit mulier Christi excellentiam: non enim Mariam respexit, quam forte nunquam viderat, sed hoc non parum amplificat Christi gloriam, quod uterum, in quo gestatus est, nobilitet ac beatum reddat. Nec vero absurde, sed ex scripturae more celebratur haec Dei benedictio: scimus enim sobolem, praesertim eximiis virtutibus ornatam, tanquam Dei singulare donum aliis omnibus praeferri. Neque etiam negari potest, quin Deus Mariam filio suo matrem eligens ac destinans summo eam honore dignatus sit. Christi tamen responsum adeo voci mulierculae non subscribit, ut potius contineat obliquam reprehensionem.
Imo, inquit, beati qui audiunt verbum Dei. Videmus ut fere pro nihilo ducat Christus, quod unum extulerat mulier. Et certe quod praecipuum Mariae putabat esse decus, aliis gratiis longe inferius erat: maioris enim praestantiae fuit, regenitam esse Christi spiritu quam Christi carnem utero suo concipere, Christum habere spiritualiter in se viventem quam eum uberibus lactare. Denique summa sanctae Virginis et felicitas et gloria in eo sita fuit, membrum filii sui esse, ut eam coelestis pater inter novas creaturas censeret (CR 45:348).
Carrying Jesus in Mary's Womb is a Lesser Blessing to Mary Being Born Again by the Spirit of God
42. Blessed art thou. [Elizabeth] seems to put Mary and Christ on an equal footing, which would have been highly improper. But I cheerfully agree with those who think that the second clause assigns the reason; for and often signifies because. Accordingly, Elisabeth affirms, that her cousin was blessed on account of the blessedness of her child. To carry Christ in her womb was not Mary’s first blessedness, but was greatly inferior to the distinction of being born again by the Spirit of God to a new life. Yet she is justly called blessed, on whom God bestowed the remarkable honor of bringing into the world his own Son, through whom she had been spiritually renewed. And at this day, the blessedness brought to us by Christ cannot be the subject of our praise, without reminding us, at the same time, of the distinguished honor which God was pleased to bestow on Mary, in making her the mother of his Only Begotten Son (Calvin's Comments on Luke 1:42).
Original text: Benedicta tu. Videtur in pari gradu Mariam et Christum locare, quod minime consentaneum foret. Sed ego libenter eorum sententiam admitto, qui in secundo membro causam reddi putant. Usitatum enim est, copulam sumi vice particulae causalis. Benedictam ergo cognatam suam praedicat Elisabeth propter filii benedictionem. Etsi autem prima non fuit Mariae felicitas, Christum in utero gestare, imo ordine posterior est ista dignitas quam spiritu Christi renasci in novam vitam, merito tamen vocatur benedicta, quam Deus singulari isto honore dignatus est, ut filium suum, in quo spiritualiter erat regenita, mundo pareret. Et hodie celebrari nequit allata nobis per Christum benedictio, quin simul occurrat, quam honorifice Mariam ornaverit Deus, qui unigeniti filii sui matrem esse voluit (CR 45:35).
Mary is "Blessed" Means "Happy" Not "Worthy of Praise"
The angel adds, the Lord is with thee. To those on whom he has once bestowed his love God shows himself gracious and kind, follows and “crowns them with loving-kindness,” (Psalm 103:4.) Next comes the third clause, that she is blessed among women. Blessing is here put down as the result and proof of the Divine kindness. The word Blessed does not, in my opinion, mean, Worthy of praise; but rather means, Happy. Thus, Paul often supplicates for believers, first “grace” and then “peace,” (Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:2,) that is, every kind of blessings; implying that we shall then be truly happy and rich, when we are beloved by God, from whom all blessings proceed. But if Mary’s happiness, righteousness, and life, flow from the undeserved love of God, if her virtues and all her excellence are nothing more than the Divine kindness, it is the height of absurdity to tell us that we should seek from her what she derives from another quarter in the same manner as ourselves (Calvin's Comments on Luke 1:28).
Original text: Original text: Postea subiicit angelus, Deum cum ipsa esse. Nam quos amore suo dignatus est semel Deus, illis se propitium et beneficum exhibet, suisque beneficiis ornat et prosequitur. Ideo additur tertium membrum, quod benedicta sit inter mulieres. Benedictionem enim tanquam effectum et probationem divini favoris ponit. Neque enim pro laude hic, meo iudicio, capitur, sed potius felicitatem notat. Sic Paulus gratiam primum, deinde pacem, hoc est, omne bonorum genus fidelibus precari solet, significans, nos tunc demum beatos et divites fore, si a Deo bonorum omnium autore amemur. Quodsi Mariae felicitas, iustitia et vita ex gratuito Dei amore fluant, eius virtutes totaque excellentia mera est Dei liberalitas: plus quam praepostere faciunt, qui ab ea petendum docent quod aliundo nobiscum habet(CR 45:25).
...much like the blind, who invariably go to extremes: for when they seek to pay homage to God’s graces, they inevitably turn His creatures into idols in the very same breath. Herein lie two very pernicious extremes, against which it is difficult for us to guard ourselves. All the more, then, must we carefully observe the middle path taken by Elizabeth. Some—when they wish to disparage those whom God has exalted, and upon whom He has bestowed excellent gifts so that He might be glorified through them—will exclaim: "Ho! We must not make idols of mere creatures!" Which is to say: we must trample God’s graces underfoot. Thus, one encounters many such presumptuous individuals who insist that every good thing set plainly before their eyes be suppressed and buried in obscurity, under the pretext that one ought not to honor creatures. Others, conversely—as I have mentioned—are so carried away by excess that, upon beholding some exceptional individual, they immediately feel compelled to worship him; God is forgotten, and they strip Him of His own rightful attributes in order to clothe the man in them—and thus, nothing remains but utter confusion. Yet here, Elizabeth holds to the middle path that we ought to follow: namely, that she honors the Virgin precisely because the Virgin has been honored by God; she esteems her for the good that has been wrought in her; yet, in doing so, she does not fixate upon her, nor does she in any way diminish or obscure the honor due to God. For in what sense does she call her "Blessed"? It is in this sense: recognizing that we are all cursed in Adam, she understands that our blessing flows from the gratuitous goodness of God—specifically, when we are united to His Son through faith (Sermon on Luke 1:39-44).
Original text: à la façon des aveugles, qui tousiours excedent mesure: car quand ils veulent faire honneur aux graces de Dieu, il faut que les creatures leur soyent quant et quant des idoles. Et yci il y a deux extremitez bien mauvaises, desquelles il est difficile de nous garder. Et d’autant plus nous faut-il bien noter le moyen qui est tenu par Elizabeth. Les uns, quand ils veulent mespriser ceux que Dieu a eslevez en haut, et ausquels il a mis des dons excellens, afin qu’il en fust glorifié, diront, Ho, il ne faut pas faire des idoles des creatures: c’est à dire, il faut fouller aux pieds les graces de Dieu. On en verra ainsi beaucoup d’outrecuidez, qui voudront que tout le bien qu’on leur propose à veuë d’oeil soit supprimé et enseveli sous ombre qu’il ne faut point honorer les creatures. Or les autres à l’opposite, comme i’ay dit, sont tellement transportez en exces, que quand ils voyent quelque homme excellent, incontinent il faut qu’il soit adoré, et Dieu est oublié, et luy ravira-on ce qui luy est propre, afin d’en revestir l’homme: et ainsi il n’y a que confusion. Mais Elizabeth tient yci le moyen que nous devons suyvre, c’est asçavoir qu’elle honore la Vierge, d’autant qu’elle est honoree de Dieu: elle la prise, pour le bien qui luy a este fait: et cependant elle ne s’arreste point à elle, cependant aussi elle n’amoindrit ou obscurecit en rien qui soit l’honneur de Dieu. Car comment l’appelle-elle Benite? C’est, que cognoissant que nous sommes tous maudits en Adam, la benediction nous procede de la bonte gratuite de Dieu, voire quand nous sommes conioints à son Fils par foy (CR 46:107).
Predestination: Mary was Chosen Before the Creation of the World
Thus, the Virgin Mary—calling herself the handmaiden of the Lord—acknowledges that she was chosen by Him: indeed, even before she was born; nay, even before the creation of the world. She recognizes that she was claimed by Him—not that she came to offer herself to Him of her own accord. For who among us could ever draw near to God until He Himself draws us unto Him? Indeed, it would be nothing short of presumption for us to step forward of our own volition, seeking to make ourselves God’s servants; rather, it is His own prerogative to declare to us that He claims and reserves us for Himself—that He desires us to be His household servants, and even His children, since it has pleased Him to adopt us. In this manner—and even more profoundly—the Virgin Mary attributes everything to the pure goodness of God: namely, that He bestowed upon her such great and surpassing honor as to make her the mother of His only Son, and to allow her to bear within her womb the Savior of the world (Sermon on Luke 1:45-48).
Original text: Ainsi la vierge Marie s’appellant chambriere du Seigneur cognoist qu’elle a esté choisie de luy, voire devant qu’elle fust née, voire devant la creation du monde: et qu’elle a esté retenue des siens: non pas qu’elle se soit venue donner à luy de son mouvement propre. Car qui est celuy de nous qui pourra approcher de Dieu, iusques à ce qu’il l’attire à soy? Et mesmes ce ne sera que temerité de nous avancer quand nous voudrons nous faire serviteurs de Dieu: mais c’est son office propre de nous declairer qu’il nous retient et nous reserve, et qu’il veut que nous soyons ses domestiques, mesmes que nous luy soyons enfans, puis qu’il luy a pleu de nous adopter. Voila comme encores mieux la vierge Marie raporte le tout à la pure bonté de Dieu, ce qu’il luy avoit fait un honneur si grand et si excellent, qu’elle fut mere de son Fils unique: et qu’elle portast en son ventre le Sauveur du monde (CR 46:119).
"Hail Mary" [Ave Maria] is Not a Prayer
With extraordinary ignorance have the Papists, by an enchanter’s trick, changed this salutation into a prayer, and have carried their folly so far, that their preachers are not permitted, in the pulpit, to implore the grace of the Spirit, except through their Hail, Mary [Ave Maria]. But not only are these words a simple congratulation. They unwarrantably assume an office which does not belong to them, and which God committed to none but an angel. Their silly ambition leads them into a second blunder, for they salute a person who is absent (Calvin's Comments on Luke 1:28).
Original Text: Nimis vero crassa inscitia papistae salutationem hanc quasi magico exorcismo in preculam verterunt, atque eo prorupit vesania, ut concionatoribus fas non sit, spiritus gratiam pro suggestu petere, nisi per suum Ave Maria. Atqui praeterquam quod sola gratulatio hic habetur, temere sibi alienum officium usurpant, quod Deus non nisi angelo iniunxit: bis autem stulta aemulatio, quod absentem salutant (CR 45:25).
For what has been made of the Ave Maria? It seemed as though there were no prayer so efficacious as that one. It is true that the Pater was indeed placed first; yet ten Ave Marias were required for every single Pater. And behold the folly of those poor unbelievers: it seemed to them that they should pray to God merely in passing—discharging that duty lightly—but that they should linger upon the Virgin Mary. And thus—both great and small alike—they were rendered so witless and stupefied that the Devil took such possession of them that this message of the Angel, delivered to the Virgin Mary, was perverted into an abuse so gross and enormous that God Himself was thereby dishonored, and the spiritual benefit one ought to derive from it was, by this means, all but utterly obliterated (Sermon on Luke 1:26-30).
Original text: Car qu'a-on fait de l'Ave Maria? Il sembloit qu'il n'y eust priere si valable que ceste-là. Il est vray que le Pater a bien este mis devant: mais il faloit dix Ave Maria pour un Pater. Et aussi voyla quelle a este la sottise des povres incredules, qu'il leur a semblé qu'il faloit prier Dieu comme en passant, et s'en acquitter à la legiere, mais s'arrester à la vierge Marie. Et voyla comme et grands et petis ont esté bebets et abrutis, que le diable les a possedez en telle sorte, que ce message de l'Ange porté à la vierge Marie a esté converti en un abus si lourd et si énorme, que Dieu mesmes en a esté deshonoré, et que par ce moyen le profit qu'on en doit recevoir a esté comme aboli du tout (CR 46:63-64).
Moreover, the folly of these poor blind souls can be refuted in every way, in that they have turned into a prayer that which was, in fact, a testimony to the grace and goodness of God. What do the Papists aim for when they mumble their Ave Maria? It is to appease the Virgin Mary, so that she might act as their advocate before God. That is their entire intention. Yet, when we examine the words closely, they contain nothing of the sort. Furthermore—since it was a specific office entrusted to the Angel alone to bear witness to the goodness and mercy of God, which He wished to unfold and manifest to the world—this office is not shared by us. It is, therefore, an act of temerity and diabolical presumption when these poor simpletons thus presume to usurp the office of the Angel—an office committed to him, and to him alone. Moreover, they would need to grow wings to reach the Virgin; for the matter at hand involves speaking to her face to face. Instead, they cast their mumbled incantations into the air, at random. Indeed, they have gone to such extremes that their hypocritical clerics cannot even enter the pulpit to preach—or to pray to God to guide them, asking that He be pleased to have mercy on His people and grant His Holy Spirit so that His Word may be known and received as it ought to be—without first having recourse to the "treasurer of grace" (as they call her). And this is done invariably—except on Good Friday—because the Virgin Mary is supposedly too resentful on that particular day. They turn to the Cross, inasmuch as the Virgin is too encumbered. These are blasphemies that ought to make the very hair on our heads stand on end Now, a great part of us has been plunged into these very abominations. (Sermon on Luke 1:26-30).
Original text: Et au reste, la sottise de ces povres aveugles se peut redarguer en toutes façons, de ce qu'ils ont converti en priere ce qui estoit un tesmoignage de la grace et de la bonté de Dieu. A quoy pretendent les Papistes, quand ils barbotent leur Ave Maria? C'est pour appaiser la vierge Marie, à ce qu'elle soit leur advocate envers Dieu. Voyla toute leur intention. Or quand nous aurons bien regardé les mots, ils ne contiennent rien de semblable. Et puis qu'a esté un office particulier à l'Ange, que d'estre tesmoin de la bonté et de la misericorde de Dieu, laquelle il vouloit desployer et manifester au monde, cela ne nous est point commun. Et c'est une temerité et presomption diabolique, quand ces povres bestes s'ingerent ainsi à usurper l'office de l'Ange qui luy a esté commis à luy seul. Et puis il faudroit qu'ils prinssent des ailes, pour parvenir iusques à la Vierge. Car il est yci question de parler à elle bouche à bouche. Or ils iettent leurs barbotemens en l'air, et à l'aventure. Et mesmes ils se sont desbordez iusque-là, que leurs Caphards ne sçauroyent entrer en chaire pour prescher, et pour prier Dieu qu'il les addresse, afin qu'il luy plaise avoir pitié de son peuple, et donner son sainct Esprit, afin que sa parole soit cognue et receue comme elle doit, sinon qu'ils recourent à la thresoriere de grace (comme ils disent). Et cela se fait tousiours, excepte le grand vendredi, d'autant que la vierge Marie est trop despiteuse ce iour-là. Ils s'addressent à la croix, d'autant que la Vierge est trop empeschée. Qui sont des blasphemes qui nous doyvent faire dresser les cheveux en la teste. Or nous avons esté plongez une grande partie de nous en ces abominations-là (CR 46:64).
Praise of Mary is Foolish Compared to the Grace of God
He who is mighty hath done to me wonderful things. [Mary] informs us, that the reason why God did not in this case employ the assistance of others was, to make his own power more illustrious. And here we must recall what she formerly said, that God had looked upon her, though she was mean and despicable. Hence it follows, that those praises of Mary are absurd and spurious which do not altogether exalt the power and free grace of God (Calvin's Comments on Luke 1:48).
Original text: Quum dicit, Deum qui potens est fecisse magnifica, significat, Deum non alieno subsidio fuisse adiutum, ut sola eius potentia emineat. Iam repetendum est quod prius dixit, se fuisse respectam, quamvis abiecta et contemptibilis foret. Unde sequitur, praeposteras et adulterinas esse Mariae laudes, quibus non in solidum extolitur Dei potentia et gratuitus favor (CR 45:38-39).
"Queen of Heaven" is a False Title that Implies Mary had Authority Over Christ
Hence we see how widely the Papists differ from her, who idly adorn her with their empty devices, and reckon almost as nothing the benefits which she received from God. They heap up an abundance of magnificent and very presumptuous titles, such as, “Queen of Heaven, Star of Salvation, Gate of Life, Sweetness, Hope, and Salvation.” Nay more, to such a pitch of insolence and fury have they been hurried by Satan, that they give her authority over Christ;* for this is their pretty song, “Beseech the Father, Order the Son” [Roga Patrem, jube Natum]. None of these modes of expression, it is evident, proceeded from the Lord. All are disclaimed by the holy virgin in a single word, when she makes her whole glory to consist in acts of the divine kindness. If it was her duty to praise the name of God alone, who had done to her wonderful things, no room is left for the pretended titles, which come from another quarter. Besides, nothing could be more disrespectful to her, than to rob the Son of God of what is his own, to clothe her with the sacrilegious plunder.
Let Papists now go, and hold us out as doing injury to the mother of Christ, because we reject the falsehoods of men, and extol in her nothing more than the kindness of God. Nay, what is most of all honourable to her we grant, and those absurd worshippers refuse. We cheerfully acknowledge her as our teacher, and obey her instruction and commands. There certainly is no obscurity in what she says here; but the Papists throw it aside, trample it as it were under foot, and do all they can to destroy the credit of her statements. Let us remember that, in praising both men and angels, there is a general rule laid down, to extol in them the grace of God; as nothing is at all worthy of praise which did not proceed from Him (Calvin's Comments on Luke 1:48).
* "Qui plus est, Satan les a transportez en une telle rage et fbrcenerie, qu'ils n'ont point eu de honte de luy attribuer 1'authorite de commander a Christ." — "What is more, Satan has carried them away to such a rage and fury, that they are not ashamed to attribute to her authority to command Christ." [link to French text].
Original text: Unde perspicimus, quantum ab ea distent Papistae, qui inanibus suis figmentis eam temere ornantes quidquid accepit bonorum a Deo fere pro nihilo habent. Magnificos, imo plus quam superbos titulos affatim congerunt, quod sit regina coeli, stella salutis, porta vitae, dulcedo, spes et salus. Quin etiam eo impudentiae et furoris ipsos proripuit Satan, ut imperium illi in Christum traderent: haec enim est eorum cantilena, roga patrem, iube natum. Nihil horum a Domino profectum esse quum liquido constet, omnia uno verbo sancta virgo repudiat, dum totam suam gloriam in Dei beneficiis statuit. Nam si hoc uno tantum nomine celebranda est, quod Deus magnifice cum ipsa egit, fictitiis titulis, qui aliunde proveniunt, nullus relinquitur locus."Adde quod nihil illi magis probrosum est quam filio Dei eripi quod suum est, ut sacrilegis eius spoliis ipsa induatur. Eant nunc papistae, et nos in Christi matrem iniurios esse clamitent, quia reiectis hominum mendaciis tantum Dei beneficia in illa praedicamus. Atqui quod ei maxime honorificum est, nos concedimus, isti vero praeposteri cultores detrahunt. Libenter enim eam amplectimur magistram, eiusque doctrinae et praeceptis obtemperamus. Certe non obscurum est, quid hic dicat: quo posthabito et velut calcato, fidem eius dictis quantum in se est abrogant Papistae. Nos vero meminerimus, communem hic in laudandis tum angelis tum hominibus praescribi regulam, ut in illis celebretur Dei gratia: sicuti etiam nihil omnino est laudabile, quod non inde prodierit (CR 45:38).
The papists attribute to her enough titles, but in this they blaspheme against God and take from him with their sacrileges what was proper and special to Him. They will call the Virgin Mary 'Queen of heaven,' 'Star to guide poor errant folk,' 'Salvation of the world, ' ... God appropriates nothing in Holy Scripture that is not transposed to Mary by the papists ... these poor baboons who are no more than vermin crawling on the earth on the earth— ... poor earthworms [with their] diabolical audacity (English translation from George H. Tavard, The Thousand Faces of the Virgin Mary, p.123).
Original Text: Les Papistes luy attribueront assez de titres, voire blasphemans à l'encontre de Dieu, et luy ravissant avec leurs sacrileges ce qui luy estoit propre et singulier. Ils appelleront là dessus la vierge Marie, Royne des cieux, Estoile pour guider les povres errans, le Salut du monde,... brief Dieu ne s'attribue rien en l'Escriture saincte qu'il ne soit transporté à la Vierge par les Papistes... Ainsi les Papistes (ces povres babouins, qui ne sont que vermine qui rampent sur la terre)...Tant y a que voila leur audace diabolique qu'eux, qui ne sont que povres vers de terre, s'avancent et s'ingerent de leur temerité propre... (CR 46:120).
Jesus Refers to His Mother as "Woman" as a Warning to Not Elevate Mary. Using "Queen of Heaven" is a "horrid blasphemy"
[John 2:4] is a remarkable passage certainly; for why does [Jesus] absolutely refuse to his mother what he freely granted afterwards, on so many occasions, to all sorts of persons? Again, why is he not satisfied with a bare refusal? and why does he reduce her to the ordinary rank of women, and not even deign to call her mother? This saying of Christ openly and manifestly warns men to beware lest, by too superstitiously elevating the honor of the name of mother in the Virgin Mary, they transfer to her what belongs exclusively to God. Christ, therefore, addresses his mother in this manner, in order to lay down a perpetual and general instruction to all ages, that his divine glory must not be obscured by excessive honor paid to his mother.
How necessary this warning became, in consequence of the gross and disgraceful superstitions which followed afterwards, is too well known. For Mary has been constituted the Queen of Heaven, the Hope, the Life, and the Salvation of the world; and, in short, their fury and madness proceeded so far that they stripped Christ of his spoils, and left him almost naked. And when we condemn those horrid blasphemies against the Son of God, the Papists call us malignant and envious; and — what is worse — they maliciously slander us as deadly foes to the honor of the holy Virgin. As if she had not all the honor that is due to her, unless she were made a Goddess; or as if it were treating her with respect, to adorn her with blasphemous titles, and to substitute her in the room of Christ. The Papists, therefore, offer a grievous insult to Mary when, in order to disfigure her by false praises, they take from God what belongs to Him. (Calvin's Comments on John 2:4).
Original text:Insignis certe locus. Cur enim matri praecise negat quod liberaliter aliis quibuslibet toties postea concessit? Deinde cur simplici repulsa non contentus, eam in vulgarem mulierum ordinem cogit, nec iam matris nomine dignatur? Hac Christi voce palam constat denuntiari hominibus, ne nominis materni honorem superstitiose in Maria evehendo, quae Dei propria sunt in ipsam transferant. Sic ergo matrem Christus alloquitur, ut perpetuam ac communem saeculis omnibus doctrinam tradat, ne immodicus matris honor divinam suam gloriam obscuret. Porro quam necessaria haec admonitio fuerit, ex crassis foedisque superstitionibus, quae postea sequutae sunt, plus satis notum est. Facta est enim Maria regina coeli, spes, vita, et mundi salus. Denique eo progressus est vesanus furor, ut Christi propemodum nudati spoliis eam ornarent. Quumque has exsecrabiles in filium Dei blasphemias damnamus, maligni et invidi vocamur a papistis. Imo improbe calumniantur, sanctae virginis honorem hostiliter a nobis impugnari. Quasi vero non habeat quantum illi honoris debetur, nisi dea fiat: aut hoc illi sit honorificum, sacrilegis titulis ornatam in Christi locum subrogari. Atrocem ergo illi Mariae iniuriam faciunt, quando, ut mentitis eam laudibus deforment, Deo eripiunt, quod suum est (CR 47:39).
Do Not Refer to Mary as "Treasurer of Grace"
The papists will call the Virgin Mary Treasurer of grace, and in blaspheming God they give her a frivolous and imaginary title, for they would like her to hold the office of our Lord Jesus, which is to extend to us all the goods that have been given him by the Father in order to share them with each of the members of his body as he pleases and as is fitting (Sermon on Luke 2:15-19, English translation from George H. Tavard, The Thousand Faces of the Virgin Mary, p.123).
Original text: Les Papistes appelleront assez la vierge Marie thresoriere de grace: mais en blasphemant Dieu ils luy attribuent un titre frivole et imaginaire, comme on dit, car ils voudroyent qu'elle eust l'office de nostre Seigneur Iesus, qui est de nous eslargir tous les biens qui luy ont esté donnez du Pere, afin qu'il en distribue à chacun des membres de son corps, comme il luy plaist et qu'il est expedient (CR 46:309).
Latria, Dulia, and Hyperdulia are False Categories. They are a "rotten distinction"
The Papists, omitting that distinction, snatch only at one member for they handle religious worship only. To the end they may ascribe some part thereof, with some honest color, unto creatures, they cut [subdivide] it into latria, dulia, and hyperdulia. They give latria to God alone; as if they should say, that the adoration of worship is due to him alone. They make dulia common to the dead and their bones, to images and pictures. They assign their hyperdulia to the Virgin Mary, and to the cross whereon Christ hanged. That I may omit to say that they babble through childish ignorance, how many of them do understand that rotten distinction? Neither do I speak only of the common sort, but of the chieftains. Therefore, all their worshippings must needs be infected and corrupt with wicked superstition, seeing they unadvisedly match creatures with God. But Luke saith not in this place that Cornelius gave to Peter latria, (or the honor due to God;) he useth only the general word worshipped, and he addeth, notwithstanding, that he was reproved, because he did wickedly extol man higher than became him. Surely, if that new opinion concerning the adoration which is called dulia had any place, Peter ought to have admonished Cornelius that he should not go beyond dulia. (Calvin's Comments on Acts 10:25).
Original text: Papistae illa distinctione omissa membrum duntaxat unum arripiunt. Nam sola religiosa adoratio inter eos tractatur: eius partem, ut cum honesto aliquo praetextu derivent ad creaturas, in latriam, duliam, et hyperduliam secant. Et latriam quidem asserunt uni Deo: ac si dicerent adorationem cultus illi soli deberi. Adorationem duliae, promiscuam mortuis et eorum ossibus, statuis et picturis faciunt: hyperduliam, virgini Mariae, et cruci, in qua pependit Christus, assignant. Ut taceam puerili inscitia illos garrire, quotusquisque eorum putidam illam distinctionem tenet? nec de plebeiis tantum loquor, sed de ipsis primoribus. Omnes ergo eorum cultus prava superstitione infectos et corruptos esse oportet, quum creaturas Deo inconsiderate aggregent. Sed hic non dicit Lucas, Cornelium latriam exhibuisse Petro: generali tantum adorationis nomine utitur, et addit fuisse tamen reprehensum, quia perperam hominem plus iusto efferret. Certe, si locum haberet novum istud dogma de dulica adoratione, monere debuerat Petrus Cornelium, ne ultra duliam procederet (CR 48:237-238).
Prayers to Mary are Blasphemous
True it is that we ought to pray one for another, while we are conversant here below, but as to having recourse to the dead, since Scripture does not tell us to do so, we will not attempt it, for fear of being guilty of presumption. Even the enormous abuses which have been and still are in vogue, warn us to confine ourselves within such simplicity, as a limit which God has set to check all curiosity and boldness. For many prayers have been forged full of horrible blasphemies, such as those which request the Virgin Mary to command her Son, and exert her authority over him and which style her the haven of salvation, the life and hope of those who trust in her. (Confession of Faith, in Name of the Reformed Churches of France, Calvin's Tracts, vol. 2, p. 146).
Original text: Vray est que nous devons prier les uns pour les autres, pendant que nous conversons icy bas: mais de recourir aux trespassez, puis que l'Escriture ne le monstre point, nous ne le voulons attenter, de peur d'estre coulpables de presomption. Mesmes les abus si enormes, qui ont eu la vogue, et ont encores, nous advertisent de nous contenir en telle simplicité, comme en des bornes que Dieu a mises pour reprimer toutes [page 16] curiositez et audace. Car il s'est forgé beaucoup de prieres pleines de blasphemes horribles, comme de requerir à la Vierge Marie, qu'elle commande à son Fils, et exerce empire par dessus luy: de la nommer le port de salut, vie et esperance de ceux qui se confient en ella (CR 37:759).
Mary is Not an Intercessor
Concerning the intercession of the Virgin Mary and departed saints, come back always to this principle, that it is not for us to appoint advocates in paradise, but for God, who has ordained Jesus Christ a single one for all. Also, that our prayers ought to be offered up in faith, and therefore ordered by the word of God, as saith St. Paul in Romans x. Now, it is certain, that throughout the word of God there is not a single syllable of what they say; wherefore all their prayers are profane and displeasing to him. If they further reply to you, that it is not forbidden to us, the answer is easy: that it is forbidden to us to set about anything according to our own proper fancy, yea, in matters of far less moment; but above all, that prayer is a most high privilege, and too sacred to be directed according to our fantasy. Nay more, they cannot deny that their having recourse to the saints arises from pure distrust that Jesus Christ alone would be sufficient (from pure distrust that Jesus Christ alone would be sufficient (for them) (Letters of John Calvin, vol. 2, 294).
Original text: Quant à lintercession de la vierge Marie et des Saincts trespassez, revenez tousiours à ce principe, que ce nest point à nous à faire des Advocats en Paradis, mais à Dieu, lequel a ordonne Iesus Christ un seul pour tous. Item, que nos prieres doyvent estre faites en foi, et par consequent reiglees par la parole de Dieu, comme dit sainct Paul au 10. des Romains. Or est il ainsi quen toute la parole de Dieu il ny a point une seule syllabe de ce quils disent; parquoi toutes leurs prieres sont prophanes et desplaisantes à Dieu. Sils vous repliquent quil ne nous est pas defendu, la response est facile: Quil nous est defendu de nous ingerer à rien faire de nostre propre sens, voire en chose beaucoup moindre, mais surtout que loraison est une chose beaucoup privilegiee et trop sacree pour nous y gouverner en nostre fantasie. Qui plus est, ils ne peuvent nier que ce quils ont recours aux Saincts, ne viene dune pure desfrance que Iesus Christ seul ne leur soit assez suffisant (CR 42:21).
You further exhort us to invocate the Virgin Mary and the saints, among whom you make special mention of Saint Peter, as our patron. But God calls us to Himself alone, forbidding us to have recourse elsewhere, (Ps. xlix.,) and with good right, for His chief glory lies in that we should call upon Him alone in the name of Jesus Christ. But even had there been no such reason for it there, we have many exhortations in Scripture pressing our return to God with prayer and supplication in time of pestilence, of war, and famine. (Is. xliv. xlv.; Jer. iii.; Hos. ii.) Never does there occur a single word about the invocation of the saints (Letters of John Calvin, vol. 1, p. 347).
Original text:Vous nous exhortez puis apres a invoquer la vierge Marie et les sainctz, entre lesquels vous nommez sainct Pierre specialement, comme nostre patron. Mais Dieu nous appelle a luy seul, nous defendant davoir ailleurs nostre recours. (Psal. 49.) Et ce a bon droict. Car la principalle partie de sa gloire gist en cela, que nous linvoquions luy seul au nom de Iesuschrist. Mais encor que ceste raison la ny fust point, il y a tant dexhortations en lescriture de se retourner a Dieu avec prieres et oraisons en temps de peste, de guerre et famine. (Iesa. 44. 55. Ierem. 3. Osee 2.) Iammais il ny a un seul mot dict dinvoquer les sainctz. (CR 42:488-489).
Here, Calvin comments on an execution confession composed by a man about to be put to death:
Being questioned as to whether the Virgin Mary and the saints intercede for us, he answered, that there is but one only intercessor and advocate, Jesus Christ; which is true, for there are neither men nor angels who have access to God the Father save by this Mediator alone. But it would have been well to add, that the office of intercession is not bestowed upon the dead, God commanding us to intercede, the one for the other, in the present life: nevertheless, because it is not lawful to pray to God except in assurance of faith, that nothing remains for us but to call upon God in the name of Jesus Christ, and that all those who seek to the Virgin Mary and the saints as their advocates, act extravagantly, and turn aside out of the way (Letters of John Calvin, vol. 2, p. 420).
Original text: stant interrogue si la vierge Marie et les Saincts intercedent pour nous, il a respondu quil ny a quun seul Iesus Christ Intercesseur et advocat. Ce qui est vrai, car il ny a ni homme, ni Anges qui ayent acces a Dieu le Pere que par ce Mediateur unique. Mais il eust este bon dadiouster pour declaration, que loffice dinterceder nest point donne aux morts, comme Dieu nous commande dinterceder les uns pour les autres en la vie presente. Cependant pource quil nest licite de prier Dieu quen certitude de foi, quil ne nous reste sinon dinvoquer Dieu au nom de Iesus Christ, et que tous ceux qui cherchent la vierge Marie et les Saincts pour leurs advocats, extravaguent et se destournent du chemin (CR 42:594).
Relics of Mary are Fabrications
The Blessed Virgin. - The belief that the body of the Virgin was not interred on earth, but was taken to heaven, has deprived them of all pretext for manufacturing any relics of her remains, which otherwise might have been sufficiently abundant to fill a whole churchyard; yet in order to have at least something belonging to her, they sought to indemnify themselves for the absence of other relics with the possession of her hair and her milk. The hair is shown in several churches at Rome, and at Salvatierra in Spain, at Magon, St Flour, Cluny, Nevers, and in many other towns. With regard to the milk, there is not perhaps a town, a convent, or nunnery, where it is not shown in large or small quantities. Indeed, had the Virgin been a wet-nurse her whole life, or a dairy, she could not have produced more than is shown as hers in various parts.* How they obtained all this milk they do not say, and it is superfluous here to remark that there is no foundation in the Gospels for these foolish and blasphemous extravagances
The Virgin's wardrobe has produced an abundant store of relics. There is a shirt of hers at Chartres, which has been fully celebrated as an idol, and there is another at Aix-la-Chapelle.
I do not know how these things could have been obtained, for it is certain that the Apostles and first Christians were not such triflers as to amuse themselves in this way. It is, however, sufficient for us to consider the shape of these articles of dress, in order clearly to see the impudence of their exhibitors. The shirt at Aix-la-Chapelle is a long clerical surplice, shown hanging to a pole, and if the Blessed Virgin had been a giantess, she would still have felt much inconvenience in wearing so large a garment.
In the same church they preserve the shoes of St Joseph, which could only fit the foot of a little child or a dwarf. The proverb says that liars need good memories, so as not to contradict their own sayings. This rule was not followed out at Aix-la-Chapelle, otherwise care would have been taken to maintain a better proportion of size between the shoes of the husband and the shirt of the wife. And yet these relics, so devoid of all appearance of truth, are devoutly kissed and venerated by crowds!
I know of only two of her head-dresses; one is at the abbey of St Maximian at Treves, and the other is at Lisio in Italy. They may be considered quite as genuine as the Virgin's girdle at Prato and at Montserrat, as her slipper at St Jaqueme, and as her shoe at St Flour.
Now, those who are at all conversant with this subject well know that it was not the custom of the primitive church to collect shoes and stockings, &c., for relics, and also that for five hundred years after the death of the Virgin Mary there was never any talk of such things. It really seems as if these well-known facts would be sufficient to prove the absurdity of all these relics of the Virgin; but her worshippers, 'not merely satisfied with the articles I have just enumerated, endeavour to ascribe to her a love of dress and finery. A comb of hers is shown in the church of St Martin at Rome, and another in that of St Jeanle-Grand at Besançon, besides others that may be shown elsewhere. Now, if this be not a mockery of the Virgin, I do not know what that word implies. They have not forgotten her wedding-ring, which is shown at Perusa.
As it is now the custom for a husband to present his bride with a ring at the marriage ceremony, they imagined it to be so in the time of the Virgin, and in her country, consequently, they show a splendid ring as the one used at her wedding, forgetting the state of poverty in which she lived.
Rome possesses four of her gowns, in the churchés of St John of the Lateran, St Barbara, St Maria supra Minervam, and St Blasius; whilst at Salvatierra they boast of having fragments of a gown belonging to her.
I have forgotten the names of other towns where similar relics are shown.** (A Treatise on Relics, pp. 248-251).
*"Vials filled with such milk were shown in several churches at Rome, at Venice in the church of St Mark, at Aix in Provence, in the church of the Celestins at Avignon, in that of St Anthony at Padua, &c. &c., and many absurd stories are related about the miracles performed with these relics."
** "There are about twenty gowns of the Blessed Virgin exhibited in various places. Many of them are of costly textures, which, if true, would prove that she had an expensive wardrobe."
Original text: Quant à la vierge Marie, pource qu'ilz tiennent que son corps n'est plus en terre, le moyen leur est osté de se vanter d'en avoir les os ; autrement, ie pense qu'ilz eussent faict à croire qu'elle avoit un corps pour remplir un grand charnier. Au reste, ilz se sont vengez sur ses cheveux et sur son laict, pour avoir quelque chose de son corps. De ses cheveux, il y en a à Rome à saincte Marie sus Minerve, à sainct Salvador en Hespaigne, à Mascon, à Cluny, à Noyërs, à sainct Flour, à sainct Iaquerie, et en d'autres plusieurs lieux. Du laict, il n'est ià mestier de nombrer les lieux où il y en a, et aussi ce ne seroit iamais faict: Car il n'y a si petite villette ni si meschant couvent, soit de Moynes, soit de Nonnains, où l'on n'en monstre ; les uns plus, les autres moins. Non pas qu'ilz ayent esté honteux de se vanter d'en avoir pleines potées, mais pource qu'il leur sembloit advis que leur mensonge seroit plus couvert s'ils n'en avoyent que ce qui se pourroit tenir dedans quelque monstre de verre ou de cristalin, afin qu'on n'en feist pas d'examen plus pres. Tant y a, que si la saincte Vierge eust esté une vache, et qu'elle eust esté une nourrice toute sa vie, à grand peine en eust-elle peu rendre telle quantité. D'autre part, ie demanderoye voulentiers comment ce laict, qu'on monstre auiourdhui par tout, s'est recueilly pour le reserver en nostre temps. Car nous ne lisons pas que iamais aucun ayt eu ceste curiosité. Il est bien dict que les Pasteurs ont adoré Iesus Christ, que les Sages luy ont offert leurs presens; mais il n'est point dict qu'ilz ayent rapporté du laict pour recompense. Sainct Luc recite bien ce que Simeon predit à la Vierge, mais il ne dit pas qu'il luy demandast de son laict. Quand on ne regardera que ce poinct, il ne faut ia arguer d'avantage, pour monstrer combien ceste follie est contre toute raison et sans couverture aucune. C'est merveilles, puis qu'ilz ne pouvoyent avoir autre chose du corps, qu'ilz ne se sont advisez de rongner de ses ongles et de choses semblables; mais il faut dire que tout ne leur est pas venu en memoire.
Le reste qu'ilz ont des reliques de nostre Dame est de son baguage. Premierement, il y en a une chemise à Chartres, de laquelle on fait une idole assés renommée; et à Aix en Allemaigne, une autre. Ie laisse là comment c'est qu'ilz les ont peu avoir; car c'est chose certaine que les Apostres et les vrays chrestiens de leur temps n'ont pas esté si badins que de s'amuser à telles manigances. Mais qu'on regarde seulement la forme, et ie quitte le ieu, si on n'aperçoit à l'œil leur impudence. Quand on faict la monstre, à Aix en Allemaigne, de la chemise que nous avons dict estre là, on monstre, au bout d'une perche, comme une longue aulbe de Prestre. Quand la vierge Marie auroit esté une geante, à grand peine eust elle porté une si grande chemise. Et pour luy donner meilleur lustre, on porte quant et quant les chaussettes sainct Ioseph, qui serovent pour un petit enfant ou un Nain. Le proverbe dit: qu'un menteur doit avoir bonne memoire, de peur de se coupper par oubly. Ilz ont mal gardé ceste reigle, quand ilz n'ont pensé de faire meilleure proportion entre les chausses du mary et la chemise de la femme. Qu'on aille maintenant baiser bien devotement ces reliques, lesquelles n'ont autre apparence de verité. De ses couvrechefz, ie n'en say que deux: à Trier un, en l'abbaye sainct Maximin; à Lisie, en Italie, un autre. Mais ie voudroye qu'on advisast de quelle toile ilz sont, et si on les portoit de telle façon en ce temps là au pays de Iudée. Ie voudroye aussi qu'on fist comparaison de l'un à l'autre, pour veoir comment ilz s'entresemblent. A Boulongne ilz en ont un fronteau. Quelcun me demandera si ie pense que ce fronteau soit une chose controuvée. Ie respons que i'en estime autant que de sa ceinture qui est à Prat, et de celle qui est à nostre Dame de Montserrat; de sa pantouffle qui est à sainct Iacquerie, et un de ses soliers, qui est à sainct Flour. Quand il n'y auroit autre chose, tout homme de moyenne prudence sait bien que ce n'a pas esté la façon des fideles, de ramasser ainsi chausses et soliers pour faire des reliques, et que iamais il n'en fut faict mention de plus de cinq cens ans après la mort de la vierge Marie. Qu'en faut-il donc plus arguer, comme si la chose estoit doubteuse? Mesme ilz ont voulu faire à croire à la saincte Vierge qu'elle estoit fort curieuse à se parer et testonner. Car ilz monstrent deux de ses peignes: l'un à Rome, en l'eglise de sainct Martin, et l'autre à sainct Iehan le grand, de Besançon, sans ceux qui se pourroyent monstrer ailleurs. Si cela n'est se moquer de la saincte Vierge, ie n'entens point que c'est de moquerie. Ilz n'ont point oblyé l'aneau de ses espousailles, car ilz l'ont à Peruse. Pource que maintenant la coustume est que le mary donne un aneau à sa femme en l'espousant, ilz ont imaginé qu'il se faisoit ainsi adonc: et sans en faire plus longue inquisition, ont deputé un aneau à cest usaige, beau et riche, ne considerant point la povreté en laquelle a vescu la saincte Vierge. De ses robbes, ilz en ont à Rome, à sainct Iehan de Latran; item, en l'eglise saincte Barbe; item, à saincte Marie sus Minerve; item, en l'eglise sainct Blaise, et à sainct Salvador en Hespaigne: pour le moins ilz se disent en avoir des pieces. I'ay bien encores ouy nommer d'autres lieux, mais il ne m'en souvient (CR 34:432-434).
False Images of Mary
It remains now to speak of her images, not of the common ones, of which there are so many everywhere, but of those which are distinguished from the rest by some particular claims. Thus at Rome there are four, which they pretend were painted by St Luke the evangelist. The principal one is in the church of St Augustine, which they say St Luke had painted for his own use; he always carried it about his person, and it was buried with him. Now, is it not a downright blasphemy to turn thus a holy evangelist into a perfect idolater? And what reason had they for believing that St Luke was a painter? St Paul calls him a physician. I do not know from whence they obtained this notion; but supposing it was so, is it possible to admit that he would have painted the Virgin for the same purpose as the Pagans did a Jupiter, a Venus, or any other idol?
It was not the custom of the primitive Christians to have images, and it only became so a long while afterwards, when the Church was corrupted by superstition. Moreover, the whole world is filled with representations of the Blessed Virgin, which are said to have been painted by the same evangelist (A Treatise on Relics, p. 252).
Original text: Il reste à parler des images, non point des communes, mais de celles qui sont en recommandation par dessus les autres, pour quelque singularité. Or, ilz font à croire à sainct Luc, qu'il en peignit quatre à Rome, au lieu où est maintenant l'eglise de saincte Marie qu'ilz appellent inviolata. L'une se monstre là en un oratoire, laquelle il fit (comme ilz disent) à sa devotion, avec l'anneau duquel sainct Ioseph l'avoit espousée. Il s'en monstre à Rome mesme une autre à saincte Marie la neufve, laquelle ilz disent avoir esté faicte ainsi par sainct Luc en Troude, et que depuis elle leur a esté apportée par un Ange; item une autre à saincte Marie ara cœli, en telle forme qu'elle estoit auprès de la croix. Mais à sainct Augustin, ilz se vantent d'avoir la principalle; car c'est celle, si on les croit, que sainct Luc portoit tousiours avec soy, iusques à la faire enterrer en son sepulcre. Ie vous prie, quel blaspheme de faire d'un sainct Evangeliste un idolatre parfaict? Et mesme quelle couleur ont ilz pour persuader que sainct Luc ayt esté peinctre? S. Paul le nomme bien medecin, mais du mestier de peinctre, ie ne say où ilz l'ont songé. Et quand ainsi seroit qu'il s'en fust meslé, il est autant à presumer qu'il eust voulu peindre la vierge Marie, comme un Iuppiter, ou une Venus, ou quelque autre idole: ce n'estoit pas la façon des Chrestiens d'avoir des images; et n'a esté long temps apres, iusques à ce que l'eglise a esté corrompue de superstitions (CR 34:434-435).
Mary Will Take Revenge on the False Worship of Her on the Last Day
Now, as for the person of the Virgin, we see here how she values herself, which we must carefully note, so that we may agree with her if we wish to render her the praise she acknowledges and accepts. The Papists will attribute to her many titles, even blasphemous ones against God, and, with their sacrileges, robbing her of what was proper and unique to her They will call upon the Virgin Mary, Queen of Heaven, Star to guide the wandering poor, the Salvation of the world, Hope, and Light, in short, God attributes nothing to Himself in Holy Scripture that is not transferred to the Virgin by the Papists. Now we hear what He pronounces through the mouth of His Prophet Isaiah. He swears by His Majesty that He will not suffer His glory to be transferred elsewhere, and that He wants it to remain entirely with Him, and that it must not be touched. Now these villains and execrables want to make God an idol: for under the shadow of what He has pronounced, they want to magnify a fragile and perishable creature, and make it an idol, and want there to be nothing that is not communicated to it Moreover, they exalt her above our Lord Jesus Christ, and want her to command him as if he were her child: as if he had been subdued, and the Virgin Mary held her ground there. But on the contrary, according to the way God has advanced her, she must also show us the way to honor and magnify our Lord Jesus Christ. Now the Papists treat her like a little child still under its mother's care: and have no shame in spewing forth these blasphemies, and making hymns out of them which they shout and sing in their churches, completely contrary to the Canticle that the Virgin Mary composed here. Yet they reproach us for robbing the Virgin of her honor, for vilifying her: in short, it seems to them that we want to trample her underfoot since we do not want to honor her as they see fit. Now let us consider who honors her most. When they call the Virgin Mary Queen of Heaven, Hope of salvation and life, what does that accomplish? It is certain that they want to make her out to be a liar in the first place: for she renounces this, she disavows it, according to what she says: that there was nothing but pettiness in her; that when everything has been thoroughly examined, nothing will be found in her but the pure goodness and infinite bounty of God. And in saying this, let us not assume that she speaks with pretense. Now the Papists, whatever the case may be, accuse her of lying: and from our side, we understand that she utters this truthfully and simply. And besides, when the Papists clothe her with all the spoils of God, what does she gain by this? If some rabble, a nobody, were to wish to honor someone, and were to say to him, "You are King of Antioch, you are Emperor of Constantinople, and so on and so forth," what good would all this praise amount to? It is a scoundrel and a villain who speaks: and will he make kings and princes at his command? So the Papists (those poor baboons, who are nothing but vermin crawling on the earth) will tear God from his seat and make the Virgin Mary Queen of Heaven. And is it theirs? What portion do they have in Heaven? Such is their diabolical audacity that they, who are but poor earthworms, advance and interfere in their own temerity and want to make a Queen in Heaven, as they call the Virgin Mary. Now St. Paul says that in spiritual Lordship there is only our Lord Jesus Christ. How many (he says) are called gods in this world, and many lords, and men build and forge many superiorities here below: as for us, we have only one God whom we worship, and only one Lord Jesus Christ. We therefore strip Jesus Christ of his honor when the Virgin Mary will be called our advocate: see, as the Papists do.
Thus, let us learn to praise the Blessed Virgin. And how? We do so in accordance with the Holy Spirit. And then there will be true praise; but when we wish to magnify her by diminishing God and diminishing Him in such a way as to be to His honor, it is certain that she will seek vengeance against us. However much the Papists think they are honoring her, if they make her an idol as we see, it is certain that she is their mortal enemy, and she will have to rise up on the last day to seek vengeance for the opprobrium and iniquity they have inflicted upon her, for she has stolen honor from her God, for she has been sacrilege, to say that she has been placed in the place of Him who created her and redeemed her. Do we think that she can suffer such blasphemies? Thus, it is certain that the Virgin Mary will accuse the Papists on the last day because of the outrage they are doing her today. And we, for our part, will cherish her as she deserves to be cherished, cherishing her as the Holy Spirit teaches us. But praise must also be accompanied by imitation: and the greatest praise we know how to offer her (as we have said) is to acknowledge her as our mistress, to let her teach us, and for us to be her disciples. Behold, the Papists will claim to be so devoted to the Virgin Mary as to perform wonders: they will have masses sung in her honor, they will erect altars and chapels for her, her images will be well perfumed and well adorned. But they will refuse to accept anything she has said that is clear; and indeed (as I have said) they will manifestly reject everything she has uttered in the name of God and being moved by the Holy Spirit. On our side, let us follow her, and knowing that God has looked upon her with pity, let us contemplate in her person, as in a mirror, the mercy of God, when He draws us from the abyss of death, when He chooses us for Himself, having no other cause than that He is the fountain of all goodness, and seeing that we are so wretched, He is moved and prompted to pity and compassion. When we know that the Virgin Mary offered herself to us as such an example, and when we confess with her that we are nothing, that we are worthless, and that we hold everything from the pure goodness of our God: this is how we will be disciples of the Virgin Mary, and show that we have truly grasped her teaching. And what greater honor can we bestow upon her than this? Thus, when we benefit from this Canticle as it is recited, we will show that the Virgin Mary not only carried Jesus Christ in his human nature in her womb, but also in her heart, and in all her senses and spirit, and that she was filled with many virtues. When we know this, it is so that, following her example, we may truly praise God, and learn to find joy in him. And when daily we see through the message of the Gospel that God wants to reconcile himself to us, and that he does not want to impute our faults to us, but that he gives us full absolution in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ: let us know that this is where all our good lies, and let us bear in patience the poverty, afflictions, sorrows, troubles and anxieties of this world, and let us not cease to rejoice in God and to hope in him, as much as he has shown himself so liberal and merciful towards us. These are the idolaters, for since they hold this false opinion of their good works, it seems to them that they are contributing something to God to be valued by Him for their merits. But we must be reduced to nothing, and come to know the truth that there is nothing but filth and stench within us, until God looks upon us to show us mercy, and we confess that therein lies all our good, our happiness, and our salvation. And we should not desire to be praised or valued before men, except insofar as God's mercy shines forth in them (Sermon on Luke 1:45-48) [See Addendum #1 below for an alternate English translation].
Extended Original text: Or quant à la personne de la Vierge, nous voyons ici comme elle se prise: ce qu'il nous faut bien noter, afin que nous accordions avec elle, si nous luy voulons rendre les louanges qu'elle advoue et accepte. Les Papistes luy attribueront assez de titres, voire blasphemans à l'encontre de Dieu, et luy ravissant avec leurs sacrileges ce qui luy estoit propre et singulier. Ils appelleront là dessus la vierge Marie, Royne des cieux, Estoile pour guider les povres errans, le Salut du monde, Esperance, et Clarté, brief Dieu ne s'attribue rien en l'Escriture saincte qu'il ne soit transporté à la Vierge par les Papistes. Or nous oyons ce qu'il prononce par la bouche de son Prophete Isaye. Il iure par sa Maiesté qu'il ne souffrira point que sa gloire soit transportée ailleurs, et qu'il veut qu'elle luy demeure en son entier, et qu'on n'y touche point. Or ces villains et execrables veulent faire Dieu pariure: car souz umbre de ce qu'il a prononcé, ils veulent magnifier une creature fragile et caduque, et en font une idole, et veulent qu'il n'y ait rien qui ne soit communiqué à elle. Qui plus est, ilz l'exaltent par dessus nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ, et veulent qu'elle luy commande, comme à son enfant: comme s'il s'estoit assuietti, et que la Vierge Marie tint là son reng. Mais à l'opposite selon que Dieu l'a plus avancée, aussi faut il qu'elle nous monstre le chemin pour honnorer et magnifier nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ. Or les Papistes le font comme un petit enfant qui sera encores souz la verge de la mere: et n'ont point de honte de desgorger ces blasphemes-là, et en faire des cantiques qu'ilz crient et chantent en leurs temples tout au rebours de ce Cantique qu'a fait ici la vierge Marie. Or cependant ils nous reprochent que nous ravissons à la Vierge l'honneur, que nous la vilipendons: brief, il leur semble que nous la vueillons fouler au pied d'autant que nous ne la voulons point honnorer à leur guise. Or regardous maintenant qui l'honnore le mieux. Quand ils appellent la vierge Marie Royne du ciel, Esperance de salut et de vie, qu'emporte cela? Il est certain qu'ils la veulent faire menteuse en premier lieu: car elle renonce à cela, elle le desavoue, suivant ce qu'elle dit qu'il n'y a eu en elle que petitesse: que quand on aura bien tout espluché et examiné on ne trouvera en elle rien que la pure bonté et largesse infinie de Dieu. Et en disant cela, n'estimons point qu'elle parle par feintise. Or les Papistes quoy qu'il en soit, l'accusent de mensonge: et de nostre costé nous entendons qu'en rondeur et en simplicité elle prononce cela. Et au reste, quand les Papistes la revestent de toutes les despouilles de Dieu, qu'est-ce qu'elle gaigne par cela? Si quelque trupelu, et un homme de neant vouloit honnorer quelcun, et qu'il luy dit, Tu es roy d'Antioche, tu es empereur de Constantinoble, et ceci et cela: et bien qu'est-ce que voudra toute ceste louange? C'est un belistre et un maraut qui parle: et il fera des roys et des princes à sa teste et à sa poste? Ainsi les Papistes (ces povres babouins, qui ne sont que vermine qui rampent sur la terre) ceux-là arracheront Dieu de son siege et feront la vierge Marie Royne du ciel. Et est-ce à eux? Quelle portion ont-ils au ciel? Tant y a que voila leur audace diabolique qu'eux, qui ne sont que povres vers de terre, s'avancent et s'ingerent de leur temerité propre: et veulent faire une Royne au ciel, comme ils appellent la vierge Marie. Or S. Paul dit qu'en la Seigneurie spirituelle il n'y a que nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ. Combien (dit-il) qu'on nomme plusieurs dieux en ce monde, et plusieurs seigneurs, et les hommes se bastissent et se forgent beaucoup de superioritez ici bas: quant à nous nous avons un seul Dieu que nous adorons, et un seul Seigneur Iesus Christ. Nous despouillons donc Iesus Christ de son honneur quand la vierge Marie sera appellée nostre advocate: voire comme les Papistes en font. Ainsi donc apprenons de louer la saincte Vierge. Et comment? Nous accordons avec le sainct Esprit. Et alors il y aura des louanges veritables: mais quand nous la voudrons magnifier en amoindrissant Dieu, et en diminuant en façon que ce soit son honneur, il est certain qu'elle demandera vengeance contre nous. Comme toutesfois et quantes que les Papistes la pensent bien honorer, s'ils en font une idole comme on le void, il est certain qu'elle leur est ennemie mortelle, et faudra qu'elle se leve au dernier iour pour demander vengeance de ce qu'ils luy auront fait un tel opprobre et iniure, qu'elle ravisse à son Dieu l'honneur, qu'elle soit sacrilege pour dire qu'elle soit mise au lieu de celuy qui l'a creée, et qui l'a rachetée. Pensons-nous qu'elle puisse souffrir tels blasphemes? Ainsi donc il est certain que la vierge Marie accusera les Papistes au dernier iour à cause de l'outrage qu'ils luy font auiourd'huy. Et de nostre costé nous la priserons comme elle doit estre prisée, en la prisant comme le sainct Esprit nous enseigne. Mais il faut aussi qu'avec la louange il y ait aussi l'imitation: et c'est la plus grande louange que nous luy sachions faire (comme nous avons dit) que de l'avouer pour nostre maistresse, qu'elle nous enseigne, et que nous luy soyons ses disciples. Voila les Papistes qui se diront estre tant devots à la vierge Marie que merveilles: ils feront chanter messes en son honneur, ils luy dresseront des autels et des chappelles, ses images seront bien parfumées, et bien attifées. Or cependant ils ne voudront rien tenir de ce qu'elle a declairé: et mesmes (comme i'ay dit) ils reietteront manifestement tout ce qu'elle a prononcé au nom de Dieu et estant poussée par le sainct Esprit. De nostre costé que nous l'ensuyvions, et qu'en cognoissant que Dieu l'a regardée en pitié, que nous contemplions en sa personne, comme en un miroir, la misericorde de Dieu, quand il nous retire des abysmes de mort, quand il nous choisist à soy, n'ayant autre occasion sinon qu'il est la fontaine de toute bonté, et que voyant que nous sommes si miserables, il est esmeu et incité à pitié et com passion. Quand donc nous cognoissons que la vierge Marie s'est proposée à nous en tel exemple, et que nous confessons avec elle que nous ne sommes rien, que nous ne valons rien, et que nous ne tenons tout de la pure bonté de nostre Dieu : voila comme nous serons disciples de la vierge Marie, et monstrerons que nous avons bien retenu sa doctrine. Et quel honneur luy pouvons-nous faire plus grand que celuy-là? Ainsi donc quand nous profiterons en ce Cantique comme il sera recité, nous monstrerons que la vierge Marie n'a point seulement porté Iesus Christ quant à sa nature humaine en son ventre, mais en son coeur, et en tous ses sens et esprits, et qu'elle a esté remplie de beaucoup de vertus. Quand (di-ie) nous cognoissons-cela, c'est afin qu'à son exemple nous puissions bien louer Dieu, et que nous apprenions de nous esiouir en luy. Et quand iournellement nous voyons par le message de l'Evangile que Dieu se veut reconcilier à nous, et qu'il ne nous veut point imputer nos fautes, mais qu'il nous en fait pleine absolution au nom de nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ: que nous cognoissions que c'est là où gist tout nostre bien, et que nous portions en patience les pauvretez, les afflictions, les tristesses, les fascheries et solicitudes de ce monde, et que nous ne laissions pas de nous esiouir en Dieu et que nous esperions en luy, d'autant qu'il s'est monstré si liberal et pitoyable envers nous. Voila les idolatres, d'autant qu'ils ont ceste fausse opinion de leurs bonnes oeuvres, il leur semble qu'ils apportent quelque chose à Dieu pour estre prisez de luy par leurs merites: mais il faut que nous soyons reduits à neant, et que nous cognoissions à la verité qu'il n'y a en nous qu'ordure et puantise, iusques à ce que Dieu nous regarde pour nous faire merci, et que nous confessions que c'est là où gist tout nostre bien, nostre felicité et nostre salut. Et que nous n'appetions point d'estre louez ny prisez devant les hommes, sinon d'autant que la misericorde de Dieu reluira en nous, afin que le tout soit rapporté à sa louange (CR 46:119-122).
Addendum #1: Sermon on Luke 1:45-48 Alternate English Translation
Observe again what little value Mary attaches to herself. If we would pay her appropriate honour, we must be of the same mind as she. The papists accord her any number of titles, but in the process blaspheme God and by their impious rites rob her of what is properly hers. So they blithely hail her as Queen of heaven, Star to guide the wanderer, Salvation of the world, Hope and Light of day. Whatever God reserves to himself in Scripture, the papists attribute to the Virgin. Now by the mouth of his prophet Isaiah, God swears that he will not allow his glory to be transferred to another, and that his glory is his, whole and inviolate.'” Yet these detestable rascals make God out to be a perjurer! They use his words in Scripture as a pretext to exalt a weak and transient creature; they make an idol of her, and insist that there is nothing which may not be properly ascribed to her. Worse, they set her high above our Lord Jesus Christ. They would have her control and direct him, as if he were a child, submissive and respectful of the Virgin's rank.
The very opposite is true! The higher God raised Mary, the more clearly she shows how Christ is to be magnified and exalted. For the papists he is but a child placed under his mother’s rule. These blasphemies they shamelessly put about; they spout them in their churches and shrilly repeat them in hymns which flatly contradict the message of Mary’s song. Despite that, they accuse us of vilifying the Virgin and of depriving her of her honour. They think we want to tread her down because we do not honour her as they do. Who, I ask, honours her better? What do men mean when they call Mary Queen of heaven, or Hope of salvation and of life? First and foremost they make her a liar. She will have no such compliments, and expressly denies them when she speaks only of her lowliness. Sift the evidence as we may, we see nothing at work in her but God’s kindness and boundless generosity. Nor is there any mock humility in Mary’s words. Though the papists may accuse her of lying, we take what she says as sincerely and candidly meant.
In any case, supposing Mary were decked with all God's trophies, what would she gain by that? If some poor wretch, some nonentity, wished to honour someone by saying: “You are king of Antioch, emperor of Constantinople’ (or something similar), what would such praise amount to? The speaker—a mere rufhan, a good-for-nothing—claims the right to make kings and princes at will! In the same way the papists—pranksters who crawl about like vermin— would snatch God from his seat and make Mary Queen of heaven. Who gave them the right to do that? What portion do they have in heaven? Yet in their infernal boldness they dare to interfere and set Mary up on the throne of heaven! We read in Paul that spiritual lordship belongs to Christ alone: Although this world, he says, knows many gods and many lords, and although men may fashion a host of superior beings for themselves, there is but one God whom we worship, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. We strip Christ, therefore, of his honour, when, like the papists, we call Mary our Advocate.
How, then, may we properly praise the Virgin Mary? We follow the Holy Spirit’s lead: then will our praise be genuine. But if we magnify her by diminishing God and detracting from his honour, she will surely demand retribution upon us. To turn her into an idol as the papists do is to make her our mortal enemy. She will rise up at the last day to seek vengeance for the shame and wrong she has suffered. She will not abide such blasphemies.
We, for our part, will esteem her as she should be esteemed, by learning from the Holy Spirit. Yet praise must also be accompanied by imitation. The greatest praise we can render Mary is to take her as our teacher: she must instruct us, and we will be her pupils. Not like the papists, who sing masses in her honour, erect altars and chapels, daintily dress her images and sweeten them with incense, yet ignore all she has said in the power of God’s Spirit. We on the contrary must follow her example, and remember that God looked on her with pity. She should be to us a mirror of God’s mercy. For in mercy God chose us for himself, sinners though we were, rescued us from the abyss of death and had compassion on us. Mary is thus set before us as an example to imitate. With her we acknowledge that we are nothing, that we count for nothing, and are utterly reliant on God’s goodness. That is how we can be Mary’s pupils, proving by our aptness that we have been attentive to her teaching.
What higher honour can we confer on her than that? From Mary’s song we learn that she bore Jesus Christ, in his human nature, not only in her womb but in her heart—in all her affections and in her understanding. She was a woman of very many qualities. Following her example, we should praise God and learn to rejoice in him. There is no greater blessing than the gospel’s assurance that God desires to be reconciled to us, not imputing our sins to us but fully absolving us in Jesus’ name. Only thus will we have patience to bear life’s burdens, whether poverty, suffering, sadness, trouble or worry. We should continually rejoice in God and hope in him, since he has been so generous and merciful toward us. Those who worship idols have a false sense of their good works, believing that they can make offerings to God and by their merits win his approval. The truth is that we must be made less than nothing, and must recognize that we are both rotten and unclean until God receives us in mercy. In his mercy alone we will find blessing, happiness and salvation. Let us not covet men’s praise and good opinion, unless it be that God’s mercy so shines within us that praise is given to him, and not us (Robert White, trans. Songs of the Nativity, Selected Sermons on Luke 1 & 2, pp. 28-31).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment