to Jerome; Erasmus referred it to Sophronius; but Baronius says it was written “by an egregious forger of lies,” ("egregius mendaciorum concinnator,”) who lived after the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches had been condemned.  I am not at all anxious to enter upon that point of criticism; that the letter is of very ancient origin cannot be doubted.  This document would lead us to conclude, that so far from the tradition regarding the Virgin’s assumption being general in the Church, it was a point of grave doubt and discussion among the faithful, many of whom thought it an act of pious forbearance to abstain altogether from pronouncing any opinion on the subject.  Whoever penned the letter, and whether we look to the sensible and pious sentiments contained in it, or to its undisputed antiquity, the following extract cannot fail to be interesting[112].

    [Footnote 111:  The letter is entitled “Ad Paulam et Eustochium
    de Assumptione B.M.  Virginis.”  It is found in the fifth volume
    of Jerome’s works, p. 82.  Edit.  Jo.  Martian.]

[Footnote 112:  Baronius shows great anxiety (Cologne, 1609, vol. i. p. 408) to detract from the value of this author’s testimony, whoever he was; sharply criticising him because he asserts, that the faithful in his time still expressed doubts as to the matter of fact of Mary’s assumption.  By assigning, however, to the letter a still later date than the works of Sophronius, Baronius adds strength to the arguments for the comparatively recent origin of the tradition of her assumption.  See Fabricius (Hamburgh, 1804), vol. ix. p. 160.]

“Many of our people doubt whether Mary was taken up together with her body, or went away, leaving the body.  But how, or at what time, or by what persons her most holy body was taken hence, or whither removed, or whether it rose again, is not known; although some will maintain that she is already revived, and is clothed with a blessed immortality with Christ in heavenly places, which very many affirm also of the blessed {306} John, the Evangelist, his servant, to whom being a virgin, the virgin was intrusted by Christ, because in his sepulchre, as it is reported, nothing is found but manna, which also is seen to flow forth.  Nevertheless which of these opinions should be thought the more true we doubt.  Yet it is better to commit all to God, to whom nothing is impossible, than to wish to define rashly[113] by our own authority any thing, which we do not approve of....  Because nothing is impossible with God, we do not deny that something of the kind was done with regard to the blessed Virgin Mary; although for caution’s sake (salva fide) preserving our faith, we ought rather with pious desire to think, than inconsiderately to define, what without danger may remain unknown.”  This letter, at the earliest, was not written until the beginning of the fifth century.

    [Footnote 113:  These last words, stamping the author’s own
    opinion, “Which we do not approve of,” are left out in the
    quotation of Coccius.]