silent, as to the time, the place, the manner of Mary’s death.  Once after the ascension of our Lord, and that within eight days, we find mentioned the name of Mary promiscuously with others; after that, no allusion is made to her in life or in death; and no account, as far as I can find, places her death too late for mention to have been made of it in the Acts of the Apostles.  The historian, Nicephorus Callistus, refers it to the 5th year of Claudius, that is about A.D. 47:  after which period, events through more than fifteen years are recorded in that book of sacred Scripture.

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

The earliest testimony quoted by the defenders of the doctrine, that Mary was at her death taken up bodily into heaven, is a supposed entry in the Chronicon of Eusebius, opposite the year of our Lord 48.  This is cited by Coccius without any remark; and even Baronius rests the date of Mary’s assumption upon this testimony. [Vol. i. 403.] The words referred to are these,—­“Mary the Virgin, the mother of Jesus, was taken up into heaven; as some write that it had been revealed to them.” {304}

Now, suppose for one moment that this came from the pen of Eusebius himself, to what does it amount?  A chronologist in the fourth century records that some persons, whom he does not name, not even stating when they lived, had written down, not what they had heard as matter of fact, or received by tradition, but that a revelation had been made to them of a fact alleged to have taken place nearly three centuries before the time of that writer.  But instead of this passage deserving the name of Eusebius as its author, it is now on all sides acknowledged to be altogether a palpable interpolation.  Suspicions, one would suppose, must have been at a very remote date suggested as to the genuineness of this sentence.  Many manuscripts, especially the seven in the Vatican, were known to contain nothing of the kind; and the Roman Catholic editor of the Chronicon at Bordeaux, A.D. 1604, tells us that he was restrained from expunging it, only because nothing certain as to the assumption of the Virgin could be substituted in its stead. [P. 566.] Its spuriousness however can no longer be a question of dispute or doubt; it is excluded from the Milan edition of 1818, by Angelo Maio and John Zohrab; and no trace of it is to be found in the Armenian[110] version, published by the monks of the Armenian convent at Venice, in 1818.

[Footnote 110:  The author visited that convent whilst this edition of the Chronicon of Eusebius was going through the press, and can testify to the apparent anxiety of the monks to make it worthy of the patronage of Christians.]

The next authority, to which we are referred, is a letter[111] said to have been written by Sophronius the {305} presbyter, about the commencement of the fifth century.  The letter used to be ascribed