from whom Mary drew her origin.” [Trypho, Sec. 100. p. 195.] And a little below he adds, “For Eve being a virgin and incorrupt, having received the word from the serpent, brought forth transgression and death; but Mary the Virgin having received faith and joy (on the angel Gabriel announcing to her the glad tidings, that the Spirit of the Lord should come upon her, and the power of the Highest overshadow her) answered, Be it unto me according to thy word.  And of her was born He of whom we have shown that so many Scriptures have been spoken; He by whom God destroys the serpent, and angels and men resembling [the serpent]; but works a rescue from death for such as repent of evil and believe in Him.”  One more passage will suffice, “And according to the command of God, Joseph, taking Him with Mary, went into Egypt.” [Trypho, Sec. 102. p. 196.] {291}

Among those “Questions” to which we have referred under the head of Justin Martyr’s works, but which are confessedly of a much less remote date, probably of the fifth century, an inquiry is made, How could Christ be free from blame, who so often set at nought his parent?  The answer is, that He did not set her at nought; that He honoured her in deed, and would not have hurt her by his words;—­but then the respondent adds, that Christ chiefly honoured Mary in that view of her maternal character, under which all who heard the word of God and kept it, were his brothers and sisters and mother; and that she surpassed all women in virtue. [Qu. 136. p. 500.]

IRENAEUS.  To the confused passage relied upon by Bellarmin, in which Irenaeus is supposed to represent Mary as the advocate of Eve, we have already fully referred (page 120 of this work).  In that passage there is no allusion to any honour paid, or to be paid to her, nor to any invocation of her.  In every passage to which my attention has been drawn, Irenaeus speaks of the mother of our Lord as Mary, or the Virgin, without any adjunct, or term of reverence.

CLEMENT of Alexandria speaks of the Virgin, and refers to an opinion relative to her virgin-state, but without one word of honour. [Stromat. vii. 16. p. 889.]

TERTULLIAN[101].  The passages in which this ancient writer refers to the mother of our Lord are very far from countenancing the religious worship now paid to her by Roman Catholics:  “The brothers of the Lord had not believed on him, as it is contained in the Gospel published {292} before Marcion.  His mother likewise is not shown to have adhered to him; whereas others, Marys and Marthas, were frequently in his company.” (See Tert.  De carne Christi, c. 7. (p. 364.  De Sacy, 29. 439.)) And he tells us that Christ was brought forth by a virgin, who was also about to be married once after the birth, that the two titles of sanctity might be united in Christ by a mother who was both a virgin and also once married[102].

    [Footnote 101:  Paris, 1675.  De carne Christi, vii. p. 315.  De
    Monogamia, vii. p. 529.  N.B.  Both these treatises were probably
    written after he became a Montanist.]