IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 i^ Ilia 
 
 - m 
 
 " m 
 
 |M 
 1.8 
 
 
 1.25 
 
 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 
 ^ 6" - 
 
 
 ► 
 
 V] 
 
 m. 
 
 /a 
 
 d> 
 
 
 <p 
 
 e 
 
 
 '/ 
 
 >^ 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corpctration 
 
 33 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
^<p 
 
 L^- 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 1980 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommagie 
 
 I I Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 Couverture restaurAe et/ou pelliculAe 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 I I Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes g6ographiquee en couleur 
 
 Coloured Ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleiur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou Illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 r~7| Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 
 distortion le long de la marge intirieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been or.;itted from filming/ 
 II sa peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, iorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6X6 fiimies. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentalres supplimentaires; 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t(» possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage 
 sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. 
 
 □ 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommag6es 
 
 Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaur6es et/ou pellicul6es 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d6coior6es, tachet6es ou piquies 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages d^tachdes 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 Quality inigale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary materii 
 Comprend du materiel suppidmentaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponibic 
 
 I I Includes supplementary material/ 
 [~~| Only edition available/ 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pag<, > totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6t6 filmAes tt nouveau de fapon d 
 obtenir la meiileure image possible. 
 
 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmi au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 16X 
 
 
 20X 
 
 
 
 
 24X 
 
 
 
 
 28X 
 
 
 
 
 32X 
 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Harold Campbell Vaughan Memorial Library 
 Acadia University 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grflce d la 
 g6n6ro8it6 de: 
 
 Harold Campbell Vaughan Memorial Library 
 Acadia University 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible conside/l.ig the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microiFiche 
 shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimde sont filmds en commengant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmds en commengant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la derniire page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE ", le 
 symbole V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre 
 film6s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour 6tre 
 reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmd d partir 
 de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
■*';nr.':, y'-ji"' ■ '^v 
 
 uff fc <jlx»,' i4iU<^ li'-/* 
 
 MESSIAH 
 
 (GOD INCARNATE^ 
 NOT 
 
 MESSIAH'S MOTHER 
 
 TIIK 
 
 "Bruiser of the Serpent's Head." 
 
 A PLAIN STATEMENT OF THE FACTS REGARDING THE TEXT, 
 
 Cen. Hi. is, 
 TOCKXniiR WITH 
 
 A CONCISE EXPOSURE 
 
 OK 
 
 Mr. R. F". QUIGLEY'S 
 Errors and Controversial Tactics. 
 
 H 
 
 TO WHICH IS ADUED 
 
 A CoM.FXTiON OK DKV'fvnoNs TO BLESsFn Mary taken Verbatim 
 
 FROM Mamai.s in Common Use amonc. Roman Cathomcs, 
 - \ND A Refutation ok the Dogma ok the 
 
 ..-IVMAqUl-AT:: CoN'CKI>TION OK THE 
 
 Bkessed Virgin. / 
 
 BT 
 
 The reverend JOHN M. DAVENPORT, 
 
 Priest of the Church of S.John Baptist, 
 
 St. John, N. H., Canada. IjP 
 
 PRICE, 50 CENTS. 
 
 L 
 
 ST. JOHN, N.^ 
 J. & A. McMillan, 9S and 100 PRiNcS^i^y.u.LiAM Street, 
 
 1S91. 
 
 A 
 )Z1 
 
1 
 
 "Br 
 
 API 
 
 A ( 
 
 A CoLi 
 
 1-K( 
 
■^TT" 
 
 ^ 2- 3 0. 3. 
 
 ZDa; 
 
 MESSIAH 
 
 ((/'<;(/ huariitite) 
 
 Ncrr 
 
 MESSIAH'S MOTHER 
 
 TIIK 
 
 n 
 
 Bruiser of the ieppent'g Head. 
 
 A PLAIN STATEMENT OF THE FACTS REGARDING THE TEXT, 
 
 n 
 
 Celt. III. I J, 
 
 to(;kti"-:r with 
 
 A CONCISE EXPOSURE 
 
 OF 
 
 Mr. R. F. QUIGLEY'S 
 Errors and Conirovcrsial Tactics. 
 
 TO WHICH IS AUUBD ^ 
 
 A Coi.MiCTioN OK Devotions to ni.KSSKi) Marv taken Vcrbalim 
 FROM Mani'ai.s in Common Use amonc. Roman Catholics, 
 
 AND a RkFI TATION OF THE DOOMA OF THE 
 
 Immaculate Conception of the 
 Hlessed Virgin. 
 
 BY 
 
 ThB KEUEREND JOHN M, BIIUENFORT, 
 
 Piicst of the Church of S. John Iiii/>tht, 
 St. John, N. U., Canada. 
 
 ST. JOHN, N. H. : 
 J. & A. McMillan, 98 and 100 Prince William Street, 
 
 1891. 
 
 
The issue of tliis little piimphlct, promised tu many eni|iiirers the week after Mr. R. F. 
 Qiiigley's one-sided rcjjrint, ipse, //>sa, /fisuiii, appeared, has been delayed by numerous and 
 pressing duties of [wimary importance. 
 
 J. M. D. 
 
 Entered according to the Act of rarlianicnt of the Dominion of Canada in the Year iSgi, 
 
 I!y RliV. J. M. nAVGNl'oKT, 
 
 /« the Office of the Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa. 
 
' ^9^r^ 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 ler Mr. R. ¥. 
 unicrous and 
 
 J. M, D. 
 
 ear tSqt, 
 
 PART I. 
 
 PAGB. 
 
 CHAPTER I. — Mr. (Juiglcy " avoids the shock of war," and thus practically admits him- 
 self defeated. g 
 
 CHAl'TKK II. — The first prediction of the (lospel (den, lii. 15) corrupted, and its sense 
 
 utterly perverted by the change of au 1' for an ii. 11 
 
 (In this chapter is exposed to view a specimen of Mr. (Juigley's .Vristotelian (?) logic 
 and philosophy, deemed worthy at the Vatican of a Papal Ph.D.) 
 
 CHAPTKR III. — State of the case very simple in the days of Jerome 15 
 
 (Mr. (Jui^ley trails l/'suni across the scent in order to mislead and confuse his readers). 
 Jerome and Augustine dispute on //iC and //iu only. Ifi 
 
 CHAPTKR I v.— Vercellune, the latest and greatest Roman Catholic authority on the 
 
 Latin Vulgate, asserts that I/>sii»i cannot be found in any manuscript of the Vulgate. 17 
 (In tnis chapter will be seen how Mr, Quigley shirks his penance). 
 
 The term " Vulgate" includes all editions of the Latin MSS. Hibles. 18 
 
 Mr. Quigley, disappointed of his hope, is put to shame by Hellarmine, and flatly contra- . 
 
 dieted by Vercellone, whom, in turn, he dares to contradict 2,'t 
 
 CHAPTKR V. — None of the siaudard critical works support Mr. Qiugley's contention. ... 24 
 (Mr, Quigley, after three years fruitless struggle to perform his penance, pretends it 
 has been changed). 
 Shakespeare's aid is sought to cr er a disgraceful retreat 24 
 
 CHAPTER VI, — The Lecturer's "little di.agram " { M^f, } remains intact, and as truthful 
 
 and useful as ever 20 
 
 Vercellone confirms DeKossi's testimony, but consents, from stress of circumstances, to 
 
 suppress I/>si\ 27 
 
 CHAP'IKR VII.— Why should not Ilk, Hoc, ItU, lllud, &c., be ranked with Ifisum as 
 
 various readings of the Latin Vulgate y 28 
 
 (A further example of Mr. (Juigley's inconsistency), 
 
 Ipsuiii relegated to its own subordinate position 29 
 
 CHAPTKR VIII. — Mr. Quigley convicted by his own authorities of misrepresentation 
 
 and false accusation 29 
 
 UcRossi craftily misrepresented liO 
 
 CHAPTKR IX. — Mr. Quigley supplies further evidence of his proficiency in Aristotelian 
 
 logic and philosophy so highly approved at the Vatican, 30 
 
 Mr. Quigley's contradictory conclusions puzzle both frierrd and foe 31 
 
 He trusts to short memories. 32 
 
 CHAPTKR X. — Clen. iii. 15, in its corrupt form, shown to be the chief Scriptural founda- 
 tion relied on in the liull on the Immaculate Conception. %\ 
 
 (Mr. Quigley finds it " far more convenient " toavoid the Hull than to reprint its official 
 
 translation in his .\ppendix. Why? A fresh challenge issued. Will he accept it?) 
 
 Mr. Qiugley thoroughly misrepresents the Bull, and suppresses important clauses of it 
 
 which bear upon the subject in dispute. 30 
 
 The Pope sins against light, and " vehemently impels his Bishops to return answers 
 
 favourable to his designs 39 
 
 Mr. Quigley must settle with Cardinal Manning and other Roman Catholic authorities. 42 
 S, Bernard, S. Thomas Aiiuinas and other not.ible Roman Catholic divines condemn 
 
 the dogma of the Immaculate Conception 41 
 
 Schouppe (R, C.) is against Mr, tjiiigley 4(i 
 
 Liguori is left unanswered. 47 
 
 Roman Hooks of Devotion support LIguori. 48 
 
 Mr. Quigley should accept a liberal offer 49 
 
 -3 "I /4 9 6 
 
• w^tmm^ttm^tmam 
 
 Con/en/s. 
 
 vM.n 
 
 CHAPTER XI. — The Eastern Chtirch supplies some very " Inconvenient" data concerning 
 
 llic Hull lni(fiil'itis, ;inil (lie liiMrint; of iIil- roiriipt //xii upon lis argument '(!> 
 
 Tliu Kastcni Clmrtli rupudiatcs the dogma of llic Immaculali: Conicptlon 5(1 
 
 ClIAI'TEK XII, -Siiinmary of RoMills already arrived at 01 
 
 Mr, Quiglty ruutvd on every charge. 
 
 TART II. 
 
 CHAH'I'KK I. — The great Fathers of the Church of the firiil kix centuries ,ire uiiaiiiinuuii 
 
 ill interpreting (jen. iii. IS of t'lirist's Victory over Satan. 
 
 (Mr, (Juinley is aKaiii delei:ieil ■.liifiiiiH hi-* );roiiiid, and iMi..representing evidence), 
 
 'I'lie Kaslern and Western Chun lies UManiiiious in their interpretation of Gen. iii. i^. ... 
 
 Mveii those Kathers who used the It.d.i Vulgate set not M.iry in Christ's pi. ice upon the 
 Serpent's head. 
 
 I'atrisiic allusions eipially with direct ipiotations refute the K.C. interpretation ot < ieiLiii. is 
 
 Mr. (Jiiigley liojies to annul the force of Patristic evidence hy deliherately sliirliiiiy the 
 point at issue. 
 
 Conspectus of I'atri:. tic witnesses examined. 
 
 Application of the Vincenlian Canon. 
 
 CHAPTI'.k II. — The Kathers of the tiist six Centuries give no support to the modern 
 Roman Cidtns of the Virgin, or to the notion of her heiiig iiiimaciil.'itely conceived. 
 (Mr. (^uigley is again detected shifting his ground). 
 
 Mr. 'Jiiiglcy virtually admits that .Mariol.itry (iiids no pl.ice in the New Testament 
 
 Where of all places we should expect to find it since it is the cuinpend uni of (lod's 
 revelation 
 
 Apostles' names, however, in its support are iiulispeiisahle and must be secured hy 
 " hook or by crook." S. Andrew and S. J, lines are made false witnesses. 
 
 How the " Hail Mary '' and hymns to the Virgin crept into the various Liturgies 
 
 I'rayer for the faithful dep.irtcd does not imply that they aresuffctiiig Purgatorial agonies. 
 
 The obvious contrast between Mary and K.ve noted hy many K.ithers, gives no real sup- 
 port to Manolatry 
 
 Strained interpret.itions are resorted to ^ 
 
 Ryder supplies an excellent Touchstone for detecting impositions 
 
 The ISenedictines are standing witnesses to the ruinous corru|)tions of Patristic writings. 
 
 Homilies of the seventh or eighth t'eniuries foisted upon (Iregory Tliaum of the third... 
 
 Mr. (Jiiigley confounds the Papist with the Protestant Vossius 
 
 (ireat devotions to the Virgin fathered upon Kphraim the Syrian 
 
 A ninth or tenth Century oration on the H. V. M. fathered upon Methodius of the tliinl. 
 
 'I'he oration could not have been earlier than the seventh Century 
 
 Mr. (Jiiigley is driven to the use of discarded weapons 
 
 llionysius and Clement Alex misrepresented. 
 
 Aichelaus and Origen not to the point 
 
 'I'he main object of the term " Theolokos.'' 
 
 'I'lie Kathers use titles in one sense; the Roman Church quotes them in another, and 
 then pretends the Kathers support her doctrine. 
 
 r.:t 
 Til 
 .'ill 
 
 f.'j 
 (i;i 
 
 ('•I 
 ('ill 
 
 liH 
 
 -fi 
 
 74 
 
 76 
 7H 
 711 
 81 
 
 x:i 
 
 H.-1 
 K(i 
 
 .ss 
 
 •JO 
 
 yi 
 'J'.' 
 
 •Kl 
 
 111 
 
 PART III. 
 
 CHAPTER I.— Mariolatry in the Roman Church US 
 
 Two strongly opposed schools of thought in the Roman Church in K.nglanil in 18(15 iHt 
 
 The Old Catholics, adherents to Newman, and the " Dublin Review " Extremists 101 
 
 CHAP I'ER H. — Signs of the coining "Age of Mary." 10'-' 
 
 DeMomfort's Hi^relical extravagancies regarding Mary's influence and union with souls. lOlt 
 C^orneliiis a I.apide and others teach that Mary feeds all with her own Klesh eipially 
 
 with the Klesh of t'hrisl in the Holy Eucharist. lO.'i 
 
 Newman protests against the " Extravagancies," of modern Marian writers of the 
 
 Liguorian school, and carefully abbtains from reading their works 108 
 
 K. 
 (1. 
 H. 
 I. 
 
 J. 
 K. 
 
PA(;R 
 concerning 
 nl 411 
 
 ,1(1 
 
 61 
 
 uii.iiiiinoiii 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 iilunce). 
 
 
 . iii. i.s> ■•• 
 
 r.i 
 
 :c ii|iiin the 
 
 
 
 rii'i 
 
 t ( Icii.iii. IS 
 
 .is 
 
 lurking the 
 
 
 
 )'.0 
 
 
 
 
 he mnderii 
 
 
 conceiveil. 
 
 tv.\ 
 
 tmcnt 
 
 .;i 
 
 II of (iod'!. 
 
 
 cciircd by 
 
 CM 
 
 Coti/enfs. 
 
 CHAl'TKk III. -LiKiiori's'-Oloricsof Mary." 
 
 I.it;ii<>ii liinisuir |)rotcsts .iKani'^t Ndiumiiors. 
 
 lie ;is«iires lis he iiie.iiis hter:illy wlial he says 
 
 .Mary, the Sinner's I.:iilclcr, the (iate i>( Heaven, etc, 
 
 lly whom alone (Iml wills to dispense Hi> (Irace 
 
 That son! is lost which invokes not Mary. 
 
 .M. try restrains the avenj^in^; arm of Jesus. 
 
 The vengeance of Jesiis contrasted with Mary's mercy, 
 l.igiiori's repertory of ilisunsting and impious Anecdotes. 
 
 l.iKUorian .Mariolatry ainonnts to an Apnstacy 
 
 Iliinian UiiiKuaKe .iileipi.ite for (jotl's wurship on earth. 
 
 I lod ^.ive it with examples of its use in woiship 
 
 The fall.iiy niiderlying Invocation of S.iints, 
 
 fACB. 
 
 .. no 
 
 .. Ill 
 
 .. iiJ 
 
 .. 113 
 
 .. 114 
 
 . 115 
 
 .. llli 
 
 .. 117 
 
 .. 118 
 
 .. lit) 
 
 .. 120 
 
 .. 121 
 
 .. 1 2:1 
 
 Hies 
 
 7:! ' 
 
 11 
 
 lal agonies. 
 
 74 
 
 
 10 real siip- 
 
 76 
 
 7S 
 
 
 ic writings. 
 
 SI 
 
 
 he third. .. 
 
 H.1 
 
 Ki; 
 
 
 rthe thir.l. 
 
 HS 
 
 yd 
 yi 
 y2 
 y;i 
 yt 
 
 
 loiher, and 
 
 S 
 
 A. 
 
 
 U5 J 
 
 1!. 
 C. 
 1). 
 
 
 y« 
 
 K. 
 
 1 i8f)5 
 
 yy 
 
 
 nists 
 
 101 
 
 1'. 
 
 
 102 
 
 U. 
 
 with souls. 
 
 |ii:t 
 
 H 
 
 sli ecpially 
 
 
 1. 
 
 
 10.1 
 
 J. 
 
 L;rs of the 
 
 108 -J 
 
 K. 
 
 Mr, (Juigley, in defending the " red and white lad<ler" impiety, falls into du.-idly heresy. 12:1 
 
 I'rayers froin the " (doiie-. of Mary." 12.1 
 
 I'rofaiie Parodies on the Messianic I'salins and I'rophecics. 120 
 
 The " Kaccuha" supplies some impieties. 12X 
 
 l.ignorian I'-xtravaRancics among the R. C I'isliops. 12y 
 
 Man's redemption depends on Mary's tiat. IHO 
 
 Mary fully knew all implied in Ciahriel's message, I.'U 
 
 '1 he early Church taught nothing like this. l;t2 
 
 I'.lse l'a^il, Chrysostom and others were heretics I'A'A 
 
 ClIAI'TKK IV. — It is a false l)u.ist that .Mariolatry preserves from Infidelity in the Incar- 
 
 natiun lll.'l 
 
 What Henri L.isserre says of Roman Catholic l-'rance i;t4 
 
 Wh.u Padre Cnrci tells of Italy lltTi 
 
 l.'II.AP'IKR V. — The dogma of the Immaculate Conception linpo.scd upon the Roman 
 
 Cluirth in an unprecedented manner i:i,1 
 
 The Hishops allowed themselves to he siiuded out. IMt'i 
 
 Adverse 0])inions of a large minority ignored 1117 
 
 Crushing reply of the .Archliishop of Paris. ISM 
 
 1 he .Ai. hliishop of Rouen asks inconvenient cpicslions I.'ty 
 
 The Piishop of Contance pits Pope against Pope 140 
 
 The Alip. uf Ihvslau " delivers his own soul." 141 
 
 The N'inciini.ui Canon condemns the Dogma 142 
 
 Tlu' .Minority, weighty and numerous, ignored, and open protests disregarded. 14H 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 (p. 11) "A comedy of a Papal Degree." 
 
 (p. ift) DeRossi's grounds for advising that the corrupt rea<ling //isii be corrected 
 
 (p. zyt Mr. (Juigley blunders about the Hebrew genders 
 
 (p. (3) Printer's error in Wordsworth's Greek Testanient. 
 
 (p. 8_t) List of some of the spurious writings on the Cidtus of the Virgin attributed to 
 
 K.arly Kalhers of the Church. ... 
 
 (p. Oi) A comparison between the genuine and spurious works of S. Ki)hraem 
 
 (p. 87) A few comments on Mr. (Juigley's Repriiu in St. John lutiu'tli; I'Vb. i, 181^1. ... 
 
 (p. 8yJ Methodius on Rev, xii. 1-6. 
 
 (p, 78) Dr. Lee's silly tirade against Littledale 
 
 (App. K.) Origin of the Kcast of the Assuniiitinn. 
 
 (p. 14.1) The Abbo I.ahorde's Letter to Pius IX. on the Dogma of the Immaculate 
 
 Conception, 
 
 .\(iR. 
 147 
 14y 
 1.51 
 
 1.1:! 
 
 1,-..1 
 1.14 
 1.10 
 1.17 
 1.18 
 101 
 
 lo:i 
 
CORRF.CTION. 
 
 I', i", liiiK 4 from liiiienni K<ir lip. ilc \n Kochclle (i-i.i) rend Hishop of l^nn (i. m, iif>). 
 
 ADDITIONS. 
 
 P. 13. Aim FociTNori: — My opponent aililuccs iho ("ndrx Ami.itiniis (p. -^^j Rrprint) in 
 r.ivdur <if ilii; I'lirriipt rradink; //.(ii iiiCicn. iii. is. It slioiild tlu-rcrorr lie kmiwii lli;it althiniKli 
 this Coilcx is thf licsl rcprt'sentativo, ;is ;i wlmlv, of tin; Irroine l,alin Viilnate wc now possesi, 
 il is iicvertlii'kss only a Sixlli Century MS. which presents a Jerome text in nn early stai;! of 
 (A'tvif/fwcf , liein^ a mixed text, and containing many interpolations and allerations from the Itala 
 Vulgate, of whii II latter Ipsn is undoubtedly a specimen, since we know S. Icruiiie ailopled 
 //jc, and strenuously conlenileil for it against S. Augustine. 
 
 I'. 33. AlJK FooTNOTK — My opponent pins his faith on Passaglia — lauds him to the skies 
 as " tile Theologian " (/>ar cxci'lUnc) of the Immaciil.tte Conception, ((Uo/if. Jan. 6, 1888, Mic.), 
 Dues he know that this modern light of the Koman Church a few years later (iSfii) wrote a 
 pamphlet on the Temporal power of the I'ope which proved so offensive to the Curia and 
 Pius IX. that it was promptly placed upon the Imiex, while, to save his skin, the author was 
 obliged to llee from Komc? {See Schaff'* Creeds of Christendom, Vol. I , p. 108). 
 
 I'. 48. Ai)i) FdoTNoTH— I nmst draw attention to an interpretation of Ifisa (piitc new to 
 me. It is a bold device. In " I'ictorial Church Histories," bearing Imprimatur of lip. Ulla- 
 tliorne, and the approval of Pius IX., Vol. I., App. p. 1 , I read, "She (the seed of the woman) 
 shall crush thy (the seriient's) head and thou slialt lie in wait for her heel." Mary then is now 
 to be consiilered by the rising generation as the I'romhid Sffd. Eve the woman and Mary the 
 seed alone appear in the text. It is a simple way out of diflficulties to be sure, but it lead, 
 undoubtedly to worse ones, since it banishes all reference to Messiah, and the text therefore 
 ceases to he what the Church of all tiges has held il to be, the Protcvangelium — the first 
 announcement of the gospel of Jesus Christ. On page 415 the text is illustrated — Judith encir- 
 cled by.thls text stands with the head of Holoferncs in her hand as Israel's champion, and thus 
 she is produce<l as an eminent type of Mary, the champion of our race against satan. 
 
 1'. 89. At the close of the second paragraph, add ; (See also Appendix H.). 
 
 (6) 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The main object of this piimphlet is to prove tiic truth of cerl.iiii 
 statements made in a lecture on Misf>rin(s, wiiich have l)ei'n noisily 
 called in (piestion by a Mr. <Jiiijjley, Marrister-at-i-aw, of the City of St. 
 Jolni, N. H., viz: — 
 
 1. Tlijvt the reading ^.f(Hn Gen. iii, 15, of the present (ur Clemen- 
 tine) Latin V'ul}(ate Itible is corrupt. 
 
 2. That this corrupt readinj; arose thronj,di the carelessness of 
 .Scribes in the early Christian Church, who substituted an a for an r, as 
 set forth on the lecturer's diagram. 
 
 3. That this change of a single letter introduced a complete change 
 in the sense of the Messianic Prediction contained in den. iii, 15, by im- 
 puting to Christ's Blessed Mother, work proper only to her Divine .Son, 
 the Messiah, the Redeemer and Champion of the lost race of men. 
 
 4. That this change further resulte<l in most serious ronsecpiences It) 
 Theology, of which the most notorious example may be seen in tiie 
 prominence given to it in the arguments adduced in support of the 
 modern dogma of the hnmaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin 
 Mary, by Roman Catholic Theologians ami by Pope Pius IX in his Hull 
 Iiieffahilis Deux promulgating it. 
 
 Its second object is to e.xpose the state of utter corruption into which 
 the cultus of the Blessed Virgin has fallen in the Roman Church, and 
 to show that its present condition is largely due to an erroneous de- 
 velopment fostered by falsifications of the writings of the early Christian 
 Fathers, and by perversions or misrepresentations of their meaning. 
 
 Mr. Quigley has attempted laboriously and with perverse ingenuity 
 to explain (by explaining away) the meaning of the worship offered, and 
 the prayers addressed to, the Blessed Virgin in the Roman Church. 
 
 The devotions given Verbatim in Part III of this pamphlet from 
 Roman Catholic books, expose the futility of his sophistries. An in- 
 stance of this may be found in the revolting comparison drawn between 
 the repellent frigidity of Jesus and the tender mercy of Mary, in 
 Brother Leo's vision of the white and red ladders, and to Mr. Quigley's 
 defence of the same (pp. 118-123). Rather than re|)udiate anything of 
 Liquori's he prefers to commit himself to so gross a heresy as that 
 which teaches a division of will in the Blessed Trinity. Such are the 
 straits into which Mariolatry conducts its devotees. 
 
 The author regrets that his paniphlet should have to assume a con- 
 troversial form. He issues it for the special satisfaction and direction of 
 persons who followed the '^ Ipse, Ipsa," controversy between Mr. Quigley 
 
 (7) 
 
; r 
 
 8 
 
 Preface. 
 
 I 
 
 and himself in llie St. Jolni Globe 1S87-18S9, and so is compelled to fol- 
 low, at least to some extent, the course of that controversy. At tiie 
 same time, he is unfortunately driven to consider at some length, unim- 
 portant points, magnified out of all proportion by his opponent, for the 
 purpose of diverting attention from the real point at issue, when hard 
 jiressed. A notable instance of this is the question, cunningly dragged 
 in at the start, as to whether or not /psiim be a z'arioiis rcadiu}:; of the 
 Latin Vulgate Manuscripts? (See Part 1, Chap. Ill, etc.) 
 
 In order to make his pamphlet useful to other readers besides those 
 mentioned, the author has carefully divided his subject and notified the 
 contents of each Part, Chapter and Section, while in addition to these 
 he has summarized the matter of each page at its head, so that it is easy 
 for anyone to see at a glance what belongs to the main arguments and 
 what to unimportant issues. 
 
 The author acknowledges with gratitude his indebtedness to many 
 writers on Roman Controversy. So far as possible, all the references 
 have been given. From these it will be seen how invaluable have proved 
 the works of the great leader of the Tractarian movement, now enjoy- 
 ing an earnest of his eternal reward in the blessed rest and joy of Para- 
 dise,the late venerated Dr. Pusey." His Eirenicon, in all three parts, is a 
 mine of wealth on the Roman Controversy — but for the purpose of the 
 present di.scussiini the fust two only were recjuired. It is much to be 
 regretted that this fanu)us work is not more studied, invaluable as it is 
 for many other purposes besides mere controversy. 
 
led to fol- 
 ■. At the 
 .i;tli, uiiiin- 
 nt, for tlie 
 vhcn hard 
 y draggcil 
 iit}^ of the 
 
 ides tliose 
 otified tlie 
 n to tliese 
 t it is easy 
 iiieiits and 
 
 >s to many 
 references 
 ive proved 
 low eiijoy- 
 y of Para- 
 parts, is a 
 lose of tlie 
 nuch to l)e 
 ble as it is 
 
 PART I. 
 
 Chapter I. 
 Mr. Quigley "Avoids the Shock of War," 
 
 There would have been no necessity for another word from 
 me in this controversy if my opponent had manfully accepted 
 my thrice repeated offer in the Glode to share with him the 
 expenses of republishing both sides of it in full. 
 
 With six hundred dollars given him by admiring co-religionists 
 (see Suti and Globe, March 20, 1889), and my share of publishing 
 expenses assured, as well as the labour of correcting proofs to be 
 undertaken by myself, Mr. Quigley was more than guaranteed 
 against personal loss and trouble. 
 
 Being confident in the power of truth I have never flinched 
 in this contest. Common sense, indeed, told me, when my oppo- 
 nent, in mere bravado, proposed to change the lists for the tour- 
 nament from the Globe's columns, first chosen by himself, to the 
 platform of the Mechanics' Institute, that such a contention as 
 ours was not to be settled by stump-oratory before an excited 
 and, perhaps, noisy audience. From the first I have courted the 
 careful and deliberate judgment of my readers, and nothing would 
 have pleased me better than to see my Strictures bound up with 
 the Resume, Rejoinder and Rebutter of my opponent. I tried to 
 secure this conclusion of the controversy regardless of expense, 
 but my opponent appears to have thought discretion to be the 
 better part of valour. 
 
 One would hardly have expected, however, to find a champion 
 of Romanism who, while putting on his armour, boasted " Abso- 
 lute fearlessness is my motto," and who, towards the close of the 
 fray, while parading the names of his "venerated" tutors, ex- 
 claimed, as in their presence (p. 362 Reprint), " Intellectual Fear ! 
 J,/' An instructed Catholic knows not what it is. Why should he 
 I*' fear?" One would hardly have expected, I say, to see such an 
 
 (9) 
 
lO 
 
 Ajid Urns Practically 
 
 one ignominiously avoiding the shock of war. If my Strictures 
 were the feeble eflusions he so loudly proclaims them to be, no 
 one more eagerly than himself would have seized upon the 
 opport' .lity afforded him of placing them, free of cost to himself, 
 side by side with his own brilliant and polished masterpieces, 
 which seem to have made such a stir in the heart of the Vatican. 
 Yet he seems to dread lest his readers should retain any remem- 
 brance of their contents, and so he delays his own publication 
 eighteen months, till the details of the controversy are forgotten, 
 and then springs upon an unsuspecting public a one-sided presen- 
 tation of the case, buttressed by an additional hundred pages of 
 fallacious arguments and coarsest abuse. 
 
 It is no use to pretend that the volume is already large enough, 
 its proportions would be considerably improved by a couple of 
 hundred or so more pages, which is all my condensed arguments 
 would require. So my opponent has no valid excuse for not 
 accepting my offer. 
 
 Even Mr. Quigley's ardent partizans must feel ashamed to 
 see their representative thus lacking courage, and must admit 
 that his unmanly course of action is tantamount to a confession 
 of defeat. 
 
 It is now quite evident that Mr. Quigley realizes that my 
 Strictures are unanswerable, aad that he cannot erase satisfactorily 
 one of the sixty- six Blots I exposed upon his letters. 
 
 Certain it is that had he accepted my offer we should have 
 been spared his Rebutter, because with all his effrontery, he dared 
 not have placed such a tissue of misrepresentations anywhere 
 within easy reach of my Stricttcres. 
 
 It is, of course, possible other motives besides fear urged him 
 not to accept my offer. My comments would no doubt have been 
 anything but pleasant studies for his ecclesiastical superiors, while 
 they might very materially have impeded the sale of his reprint 
 among the Roman Catholic laity, for whom it is considered a 
 dangerous exercise to read both sides of a theological controversy. 
 To be sure he could hardly have induced the Roman Bishop and 
 Clergy of this city and diocese to advertise his book from their 
 pulpits had it contained also my unanswered and unanswerable 
 letters. (Vulgar, abusive language they seem not to mind for their 
 
Admits Hhnself Defeated. 
 
 IX 
 
 Strictures 
 I to be, no 
 
 upon the 
 to himself, 
 sterpieces, 
 le Vatican, 
 ly remem- 
 DubHcation 
 
 forgotten, 
 ied presen- 
 d pages of 
 
 ge enough, 
 I couple of 
 arguments 
 ise for not 
 
 ishamed to 
 
 nust admit 
 
 confession 
 
 s that my 
 atisfactorily 
 
 lould have 
 
 y, he dared 
 
 anywhere 
 
 urged him 
 It have been 
 triors, while 
 
 his reprint 
 Dnsidered a 
 ontroversy. 
 Bishop and 
 from their 
 nanswerable 
 ind for their 
 
 people.) And further, the Index Expurgatorius, rather than a 
 Papal Ph. D., would probably, in that case, have been the issue of 
 its presentation to the Propaganda. 
 . Mixed motives then, in which fear predominated, prevented my 
 opponent from doing justice to the subject in hand, to the public, 
 and to myself. I will, therefore, ask those of my readers who 
 have unfortunately invested two dollars in my opponent's one- 
 sided reprint, to make a note upon its title page, as a warning to 
 persons who may at any time peruse their copy, that its author 
 was afraid to accept the liberal offer of his opponent to defray the 
 expense of re-printing the other side of the controversy. 
 
 And here I cannot but ask : Is it possible that the press of this 
 city is so totally under the control of Mr. Quigley and his sup- 
 porters that none of the reviewers of his reprint have dared to 
 make even the most distant allusion to this most notorious and 
 damaging fact? Everybody at the time my offer appeared in 
 the Globe remarked, " Well ! Mr. Quigley must now either pub- 
 ' lish both sides of the controversy or not reprint at all," yet no 
 reviewer of his book has in any way referred to it. 
 
 Having then made this strong point to begin with, which 
 ■; ought to ren ^y opponent's publication worthless in the eyes 
 •| of all but parti^cv ^, I now pass on to recapitulate the main points 
 ' of the controversy itself, so entirely misrepresented and carica- 
 tured by my opponent. 
 
 Chapter II. 
 
 The First Prediction of the Gospel ( Gen. Hi. 13) corrupted and 
 its sense utterly perverted by the change of an e for an a. 
 
 (In this Chapter is exposed to view a specimen of Mr. Quigley's Aristotelian (!) Logic and 
 Philosophy! deemed worthy at tlie Vatican of a Papal Ph. D. See Globe, Sun and Ti'li-g-ruph, 
 June 22 and 23,1891.) 
 
 It will be remembered that in a lecture on "Misprints," 
 delivered at Trinity School House in November, 1887, the Right 
 Reverend lecturer'^ gave as an example of a misprint which had 
 
 I. See Appendix A. 
 
 3. It should be known that the Right P.cverend lecturer has never condescended to exchange 
 
 one word with Mr. Quigley in this controversy, that it was on my own mere motion 1 undertook 
 
 ~jto call in iiiiestion his impertinent criticisms upon the lecturer in the Cloii', and that therefore 
 
 ^nothing but sheer injpudence, coupled with a desire to magnify himself in the eyes of the public 
 
 land at the Vatican, impelled him to parade the Bishop's name on the title page of his reprint. 
 
12 The Change of a Sbtgle Letter 
 
 I resulted in very serious consequences to Theology, the substitut- 
 
 ' tion of Ipsa for Ipse (the feminine for the masculine pronoun) in 
 
 what is called the Proievangclhivi or " First Prediction of the 
 
 Gospel " in the Old Testament (Gen. iii. 15). By the mere 
 
 change of an e for an a by some copyist of a Latin Vulgate in 
 
 very early days of the Christian Church's existence, this text, of 
 
 1 paramount importance as a prophecy of the Advent of the Incar- 
 
 Ij nate Son of God "to destroy the works of the devil," became 
 
 \ ! converted into a prediction of His Blessed Mother's victory over 
 
 Satan. The words " He (J. e. Christ, the seed of the woman) 
 
 shall bruise thy (the serpent's) head and thou (the serpent) shalt 
 
 bruise His (Christ's) heel," were changed so as to read "She {i.e. 
 
 I Christ's mother) shall bruise thy (the serpent's) head, and thou 
 
 (the serpent) shalt bruise her (Christ's mother's) heel." 
 
 By this change of gender it is evident, upon the very face of 
 the text, our Blessed Redeemer becomes entirely lost to view in this 
 second part of Gen. iii. 15, and whereas He should appear therein 
 as the alone sufferer bruised in the conflict, and the alone Victor- 
 ious Champion of the human race, His blessed mother is made to 
 occupy the positions both of sufferer and conqueror. 
 
 My opponent, of course, following the lead of Ultramontane 
 Sophists, who, we know, can read anything they like into or out 
 of Scriptu'^e, on the facetious" horse-chest mit-is-a-chestnut-horse" 
 principle, moves heaven and earth to compel his readers to believe 
 that " there is absolutely no difference between the two readings." 
 He repeats this absurdity ad nauseam throughout his letters, as 
 though repetition made it the more true. 
 
 I have pointed out in my Strictiires that he might, with equal " n 
 propriety, contend with regard to the Old Testament type of our ^ " F 
 Lord's conflict with Satan in the wilderness, that it is all the same 4^o 
 whether we say " David " or " David's mother " slew Goliath, 
 because she bore and brought forth Israel's Champion, suffered 
 pain and anxiety when he entered the lists with the giant and was 
 highly esteemed in Israel thereafter for her son's sake. It seems 
 almost "a degradation of the mind " to have to consider with any- 
 thing like seriousness such a silly contention. Language would 
 soon cease to be of any use to us, except to conceal our thoughts, 
 if we listened to the special pleadings of such controversialists 
 as my opponent. 
 
Effects a Complete Change of Sense 
 
 13 
 
 e substitut- 
 )ronoun) in 
 :tion of the 
 ' the mere 
 Vulgate in 
 this text, of 
 f the Incar- 
 'il," became 
 /ictory over 
 he woman) 
 rpent) shalt 
 1 " She ii. e. 
 d, and thou 
 
 very face of 
 ) view in this 
 pear therein 
 lone Victor- 
 r is made to 
 
 hramontane 
 into or out 
 itnut-horse" 
 rs to beheve 
 readings." 
 lis letters, as 
 
 :, with equal 
 type of our 
 all the same 
 ew Goliath, 
 on, suffered 
 ant and was 
 2. It seems 
 ler with any- 
 uage would 
 ur thoughts, 
 Toversialists 
 
 It is evident then to begin with, that in this instance the change 
 of a single letter by a Scribe or Copyist in early days, effected 
 a complete change in the plain sense of the prophecy, and that 
 • even if we allow it to be understood, for the sake of argument 
 with Roman Catholic Expositors, that i; is only by virtue of her 
 Son's redemption and grace that the Blessed Virgin Mary figures 
 in the text as Vanquisher of Satan and sufferer in the Contest, 
 the sense of the text is nevertheless entirely altered. The Hebrew, 
 Greek and early Latin Manuscript Bibles, as well as other Manu- 
 script Versions of the Bible, as also the early Christian writers who 
 ■ quoted from them, all present Christ in this text as the Champion 
 _ of the Human race, victorious through suffering over the great 
 : enemy of God and man. 
 
 I None of the Saints, not even His Blessed Mother, the Chief 
 : of the Saints, can share in any way with Christ this His unique 
 ; prerogative as Man's Champion, though it is true, of course, God 
 , wills that by union with Chust all the Redeemed should "trample 
 down Satan under their feet" and in a true sense " become par- 
 takers of the sufferings " of their Master. 
 
 Cardinal Newman's protest against certain extravagances of 
 Mariolatry existing in the Roman Church is so very much to the 
 point that I quote it in this connection : 
 
 "And how, again, is there any thing of incommunicable great- 
 *' ness in His (Christ's) Death and Passion, if He who was alone 
 ^' in the Garden, alone upon the Cross, alone in the Resurrection, 
 '' after all was not alone, but shared his solitary work with His 
 " Blessed Mother, with her to whom, when He entered on His 
 '' ministry, He said for our instruction, not as grudging her her 
 " proper glory, ' Woman, what have I to do with thee ? ' " (Letter 
 to Dr. Pusey on Eirenicon, p. 109). 
 
 The great Roman Catholic Scholar DeRossi, " the last of the 
 Tribunes," " the pet and pride and darling of Pope Pius VL and 
 "all Europe for his Biblical Scholarship" (as my opponent is 
 pleased to describe him), among overwhelming proofs and argu- 
 ments in favour of the masculine reading Ipse, gives this under 
 his twelfth division, " the masculine reading is better, by which 
 *' the bruising of the serpent is ascribed immediately and alone to 
 "the Seed of the woman, and from which the redemption, power 
 
! li^ 
 
 i.j Very Disastrous to a Pure Theology. 
 
 " and Divinity of the Messiah are plainly elicited." (Italics mine). 
 (Pusey's Eirenicon, Vol. II. p. 387). All of which important 
 points we have just sc^n are entirely obliterated by the adopvion 
 of the feminine pronoun. 
 
 That eminent Hebrew and Biblical Scholar, the late Dr. Pusey, 
 justly prized at Oxford, and far beyond the limits of his own land, 
 for his profound learning and unflagging diligence (upon whom 
 my opponent, with his usual vulgar virulence against Anglican 
 writers, heaps abuse and disrespect), that great man, in opposing 
 the sophistries of Perrone, which have been generally adopted by 
 modern Roman Catholic Controversialists, remarks that the pas- 
 sage (Gen. iii. 15) correctly rendered "speaks of our Lord's 
 " direct and personal crushing of the Serpent's head. He was the 
 " ' Seed of the woman ; ' but the Crushing is ascribed, not to the 
 " woman, nor to Him in conjunction with her, but to Him alone. 
 " * * * * It was God Incarnate, not any mere human being, 
 " who crushed our enemy, though, thereafter He has crushed and 
 " shall crush him under our feet also." (Eirenicon, Pt. II. p. 388). 
 
 So fundamental a change, then, as this change of gender in a 
 passage of Scripture of such paramount importance as the Prote- 
 vangelium (Gen. iii. 15) must necessarily in itself be a matter of 
 immense consequence, to say nothing of the erroneous develop- 
 ments (to be noticed hereafter) that have sprung from so grave a 
 corruption of the word of God, and fully warrant the assertion of 
 the Right Reverend lecturer on " Misprints," that the change 
 of an e for an a in Gen. iii. 15, introduced into God's revelation 
 an error of the most serious importance. 
 
 Having now, as I think, made it perfectly clear to my readers 
 that the difference in meaning between Ipse and Ipsa in Gen. iii. 
 15 is of the gravest moment, I would ask them to push aside 
 without the slightest hesitation the columns of sophistical non- 
 sense by which my opponent attempts to confuse their minds in 
 the interests of dangerous error, and invite them to consider in 
 the next place another device by which he has succeeded in rais- 
 ing a considerable amount of blinding dust. 
 
talics mine). 
 
 1 important 
 he adopvion 
 
 2 Dr. Pusey, 
 
 is own land, 
 
 upon whom 
 
 St Anglican 
 
 in opposing 
 
 adopted by 
 
 hat the pas- 
 
 011 r Lord's 
 
 He was the 
 
 /, not to the 
 Hint alone. 
 I man being, 
 :rushed and 
 :. II. p. 388). 
 gender in a 
 s the Prote- 
 a matter of 
 us develop - 
 1 so grave a 
 assertion of 
 the change 
 s revelation 
 
 my readers 
 % in Gen. iii. 
 
 push aside 
 listical non- 
 eir minds in 
 
 consider in 
 ?ded in rais- 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 CH/\PTER III. 
 State of the Case very simple in the days of S. Jerome. 
 
 (Mr, CJiiigley trails Ipsum across the scent In order to mislead and confuse his readers.) 
 
 My opponent accused the Right Reverend lecturer on " Mis- 
 prints " of suppressing the real stale of the tiuestion. " The real 
 "dispute," he said, "such as it is, is between Ipse, Ipsa and Ipsiim. 
 " There is no place for any question of ' misprint.' " 
 
 Let us see. We know from the writings both of S. Jerome 
 and S. Augustine, which have been quoted by my opponent on 
 the point, that in their day there were in existence in the Manu- 
 script Latin Bibles in common circulation (commonly called now 
 by scholars the Vulgate Codices), two readings of the text under 
 discussion, viz : Ipse and Ipsa. Ipse war prevalent in the Manu- 
 script Latin Vulgates of North Africa, the birthplace of the Latin 
 translation of the Bible, and Ipsa in the majority of the Latin 
 Vulgates of Italy. 
 
 When Jerome, in response to the entreaty of Damasus, Bishop 
 of Rome, undertook a revision of the Latin Bible, which had 
 become necessary in consequence of the many and serious dis- 
 crepancies in the existing manuscripts in common use, due to the 
 carelessness of Scribes and wrong translations, he corrected the 
 corrupt reading Ipsa (in Gen. iii. 15) of the Itala Vulgate manu- 
 scripts so as to bring it into accord with the Hebrew original 
 and the Greek and African Latin versions. Whereupon quite a 
 sharp contention took place between him and S. Augustine, who, 
 with his master, S. Ambrose, had become attached through long 
 use to the reading of their own copies. S. Jerome, however, 
 owing to the weight of evidence being all on his side, gained the 
 day, and Ipse was re-established as the correct reading of Gen. iii. 
 15, in the Revised Latin Bible presented by Jerome to Damasus. 
 
 So strong, however, was the prejudice of some of the Bishops 
 and Priests in the Italian Church against the (to them) unaccus- 
 tomed reading, backed as it was by the weight of S. Augustine's 
 preference (however uncritical), that in the multiplication of copies 
 of Jerome's revision. Ipsa was often again substituted for Ipse, a 
 matter of little difficulty in days when people were dependent 
 upon professional copyists for the multiplication of Bibles. 
 
 (15) 
 
I 
 
 16 
 
 Jerome ami Augustine Dispute 
 
 
 The question, however, I wish now to emphasize is this : 
 Did S, Augustine raise as an objection to S. Jerome the existence 
 of a third reading Jpsiim f or Hie, or I/oe, Ille or Illud, or Quod, 
 or an/ adopted or suggested amendments of scholars or Latin 
 tnaislations of Syriac and other versions of the Biljle, such as my 
 opponent has dragged into this discussion? Nothing of the kind. 
 All the evidence now at our disposal goes to show that, so far as 
 the Latin Bibles then in common use were concerned, only two 
 readings of the pronoun were known in the days of S. Jerome for 
 Gen. iii. 15; viz., ^^-^ (the masculine) in accord with the Hebrew 
 original and its Greek or Septuagint translation, and Ipsa a most 
 evident and grave corruption of the text. Supposing, however, 
 for the sake of argument, the neuter Ipsum (or any other neuter 
 pronoun or relative) had been found in some of the current Latin 
 manuscripts, what difference would they have made to S.Jerome's 
 contention ? Would they have made Ipsa any the less a corrup- 
 tion of the sacred text ? Nay, they would rather have confirmed 
 his argument that the pronoun should refer by rights to the " Seed 
 of the woman," and not to the woman herself This we may 
 observe from our own English version, where, to preserve the 
 analogy of the English language, the Hebrew and Greek mascu- 
 lines {Hic and Auios) are represented by our neuter li in Gen. iii. 
 15, so that the pronoun may agree in gender with the word seed. 
 Our neuter // in this place is quite as strong a protest against the 
 corrupt feminine form /psa as if our translators, in order to pre- 
 serve the same gender as the Hebrew and Greek, had adopted 
 the masculine He. What difference then, let me ask, would 
 Jpsum have made to the Right Reverend lecturer's argument 
 supposing that some of the Latin codices contain Ipsum ? It 
 would simply have helped him to demolish the corrupt reading 
 Ipsa. 
 
 De Rossi, we know, arranges all his evidence for the gender 
 of the pronoun in Gen. iii. 15, under two heads only, viz. : (i) 
 The Feminine Hi- ipsa; (2) The Masculine ///<=- -^.y^?.'' The 
 conflict, in short, is between those pronouns which refer to the 
 antecedent noun " woman," and those which refer to the antece- 
 dent noun " Seed." 
 
 3. See Appendix 13. 
 
 ^ 
 
ize is this : 
 le existence 
 d, or Quod, 
 rs or Latin 
 such as my 
 of the kind, 
 at, so far as 
 d, only two 
 Jerome for 
 lie Hebrew 
 Ipsa a most 
 g, however, 
 ther neuter 
 irrent Latin 
 S.Jerome's 
 s a corrup- 
 ; confirmed 
 3 the "Seed 
 lis we may 
 reserve the 
 eek mascu- 
 ' in Gen. iii. 
 word seed. 
 against the 
 "der to pre- 
 ad adopted 
 ask, would 
 i argument 
 ^psum ? It 
 ipt reading 
 
 the gender 
 y, viz. : (i) 
 Ipse:' The 
 efer to the 
 the antece- 
 
 On IrsE and Ii'SA Only 
 
 17 
 
 The \v\.tgln of evidence against the tormer he shows to be 
 sinii)ly overwhL'lniing, and he, therefore, concludes the present 
 Vulgate " ought lo bf brought into conformity with the Hebrew 
 text by authority of the Church." 
 
 Under the second head he masses all the evidence, whether 
 of primary or subsidiary importance, which makes the pro- 
 noun agree with the antecedent "Seed of the woman," what- 
 ever its gender, masculine, feminine or neuter, If^^c, Ipsum, Illc, 
 Illud, riivc, Hoc, Quod, etc. (Thus even the Latin translation of 
 the Arabic V^ersion righdy falls under this head because luce 
 agrees with Slirps (offspring or progeny). " Et ponam inimi- 
 citiam inter te et inter mulierem et inter Stirpem tuam et Stirpem 
 ejus : et hac findet ex te caput et tu mordebis eavi in calcaneo.") * 
 
 This being the case, therefore, it is evident that my opponent 
 trailed Ipsiim across the scent, so to speak, for the express pur- 
 pose of misleading the public and of casting scorn upon truths 
 unpalatable to the Roman Church, which the Right Reverend 
 lecturer set forth. 
 
 Chapter IV. 
 
 Verccllone, the latest and greatest Roman Catholic authority on 
 
 the Latin I 'ulgate, asserts that Ipsum cannot be found 
 
 i?i any manuscript of the Vulgate. 
 
 (In this chapter will be seen how Mr. (Jnigley shirks his penance.) 
 
 As a penance for such dishonesty, and for his vulgar imperti- 
 
 lence to the lecturer. I set my opponent to name any Latin version 
 
 )f the Bible in which Ipsum appears in Gen. iii. 15, meaning, of 
 
 icourse, any of the various editions or revisions of the Latin Bible 
 
 \in common use or circulation in the Omrch from the earliest 
 
 times, commonly called the Vulgate, such as the African Latin 
 
 4. The Arabic itself has the masculine pronoun, but its translator adopted Stirps feminine 
 
 ^offspring) instead of the usual semen, neuter (seed) for the noun, aivl therefore higc instead of 
 
 iJtoc or Ipsum for its pronoun. Some imscrupulous Roman Controversialists have actually 
 
 advanced this feminine pronoun hiec, which clearly refers to the woman's offspring — in support 
 
 of the Vulgate Ipsa which therein refers to the woman herself. 
 
 
Ml 
 
 i8 
 
 The Term " V'u/i^ate'' includes 
 
 version, the Itala, Jerome's revised version, Alcuin's revised 
 version, Lanfranc's revised version, etc., down to the last revision 
 now in use in the Roman Church, commonly known as the 
 Clementine Vulgate, all of which find some representatives in the 
 numerous liliraries of Kurope and elsewhere, and are well known 
 to liiblical critics through the works of those who have examined 
 the best of them and given the results of their tabulations to the 
 literary world. 
 
 Now, since my opponent asserted that because Ipsuni was 
 ignored in the lecture "His Lordship's theory of a misprint and 
 "his statement thcreanent is sheer nonsense^' I might justly have 
 demanded of him proof that ipsum existed in the common Latin 
 manuscript IJibles of the time of Jerome's revision, such as we 
 have for Ipse and Ipsa^ since otherwise Ipsum could not possibly 
 have contested their place as a various reading, or have had any- 
 thing to do with the origin of the corrupt reading Ipsa. Certainly 
 my opponent has proved nothing of the kind, and therefore 
 whatever else he may have proved, he has not in any way lessened 
 the value of the " Bishop's little diagram," which he insultingly 
 boasts he has destroyed. But, as a matter of fact, I have 
 demanded of my opponent much less than this. I have granted 
 for his search the whole range of Vulgate manuscripts, many 
 hundreds in number, which have come down to us from all the 
 Christian ages until printing rendered unnecessary the office of 
 scribe. 
 
 I did not, as my opponent derisively pretends through his 
 Anglican catspaw Philalethcs ! {Globe of Jan. 30, 1891) set him 
 the next to impossible task of examining for himself the Vulgate 
 manuscripts alluded to above, but asked him to quote from 
 Kennicott, DeRossi, Sabatier, Vercellone, or any other authority 
 on the Latin manuscripts, the name, number or whereabouts of 
 any, even the most modern manuscript Vulgate containing Ipstcm 
 in Gen. iii. 15. His case is necessarily lost if he cannot do this. 
 But, from the first, my opponent has shirked his penance. Unable 
 to find in the best books on the various readings of the Latin Vul- 
 gate any record of a Latin Codex containing the coveted Ipsum 
 in our text, and too proud to admit his failure, he has collected 
 and paraded with much blowing of trumpets, instances of Ipsum 
 
 <, 
 
Ail Edilions of the Luiin MSS, Bibles. 
 
 19 
 
 in's revised 
 last revision 
 own as the 
 atives in the 
 well known 
 ,'e examined 
 itions to the 
 
 IpsHM was 
 nisprint and 
 
 justly have 
 Timon Latin 
 
 such as we 
 not possibly 
 ve had any- 
 r. Certainly 
 id therefore 
 vay lessened 
 ; insultingly 
 fact, I have 
 lave granted 
 :ripts, many 
 From all the 
 the ofifice of 
 
 through his 
 igi) set him 
 the Vulgate 
 quote from 
 er authority 
 sreabouts of 
 ining Ipsicm 
 inot do this, 
 ice. Unable 
 e Latin Vul- 
 ^eted Ipsum 
 las collected 
 ;es of Ipsum 
 
 (as also of Hie, Ihcc, Hoc, Quod, /lie, Illud, etc.) from Latin 
 
 ransliitions of Syriac, Samaritan, etc., versions of the Pentateuch, 
 
 roni published translations of independvMU scholars never recog- 
 
 'nizcd in the Church or generally circulated, and from the mere 
 
 ,oj)inions of learned men as to what the best Latin rendering of the 
 
 I h'brew should be. Now, although the.se various translations (as 
 
 Ave shall see directly) prove valuable as helps towards fixini^ the 
 
 mensc of scripture, they in no way enable us to find out what the 
 
 Victual readings of the several editions of the Latin Vulgate were, 
 
 junless in the tables of various readings which may be attached to 
 
 them the authority of Codices is quoted in their support. How 
 
 then do these prove the inaccuracy of the lecturer's statement 
 
 with regard to the origin of Ipsa f 
 
 Finding it impossible to bring my opponent to book, I took 
 
 the pains to give the jniblic, through the Globe, so early in 
 
 he controversy as February 6, 1888, a concise history of 
 
 he Latin Vulgate, together with a few remarks as to how 
 
 arious readings arose in the common manuscript texts. 
 
 fter doing so, I said : " Now let it please be understood that 
 
 I have asked n)y opponent to name a Latin version, either 
 
 ' among the Uncials (i. e. the older class of manuscripts written 
 
 ' in capital letters), or Cursives (the later class written in running 
 
 "hand) which contains the word Ipsum in Gen. iii. 15. I might 
 
 " indeed fairly demand a due proportion of manuscripts of both 
 
 " kinds, since he asserts that Ipsum, as a various reading, disputes 
 
 " the place of Ipse and Ipsa therein, but I have set him the easiest 
 
 " penance possible, I will accept even a single Cursive — and I will 
 
 now make his task easier still, for I will admit he has fulfilled it, 
 
 ' if he can supply me with a single reference to any commentary 
 
 f or sermon of die Chief Fathers of the Church in which the writer 
 
 ^" claims Ipsum as the word found in the manuscript." Now, even 
 
 supposing my opponent's ignorance of his subject up to February 
 
 6, 1888, to have been so profound that he actually did not know 
 
 that the home of the variotcs readings of the Latin Bible is the 
 
 Manuscript Latin Vulgates, I ask, if, after such a clear and 
 
 ^unmistakable exposition of my meaning as the above, he could 
 
 ^possibly entertain the slightest doubt as to what was demanded 
 
 lof him ? Yet, notwithstanding it, he has, with the most persever- 
 
 ,. 
 
1 1 
 
 I 
 
 1 1 
 I 1 
 
 90 Mr. Qxii^lcy, Disiif>poi)ilc(f of /lis /A>/)&, 
 
 injT effrontery, dared to take advaiitaj^c of the general want of 
 familiarity witli this special subject, by assuring the public, aj;ain 
 and avfain, that he has amply fulfilKcl his penance, althouj^h /w has 
 not nuntiomd a sini^ic Codtx of f fie Latin liible of any age ichicU 
 contains Ipsum /;/ Cicn. Hi. /f. 
 
 It is (juite c\ident, however, that he feels the terrible weakness 
 of his case without this most important item of evidence, for we 
 find him, two years after he had j)enned the last letter of his 
 " Rejoinder," apologizing for the lack of it thus in his *' Rebutter" 
 (P- 37") ■ " Who ever claimed /psiim was found in the Latin 
 "Vulgate? Why, I/>sa is the great sin of that version in the 
 " Vicar's eyes, and I put it forward as the authority par excellence 
 " for that one of the various readings which I had to prove. F"or 
 "the other two, /psr, Ipsum, I adduced names and books from 
 ^' every quarter, and I think I have satisfied your readers on that 
 " score." There is only one expression I can think of, that can at 
 all adeiiuately describe the nature of this passage ; viz., " Impu- 
 dent jugglery with words." All along, mark you, we have been ust 
 using the title Vulgate in its widest sense, as inclusive of all the i sti 
 editions of the Vulgate from the vei- first, as, for instance, where , 'ha 
 my opponent himself, so early as the second letter of his Resume Jpsu 
 (^Globe, January 6, i888, p. 39 of his Reprint), speaks of "the 
 " present V^ulgate, the old Italic or Vulgate and its sources, and 
 " S. Jerome's Vulgate," and where again, in citing DeRossi and 
 Bellarmine (p. 25, Reprint), he cannot help doing so in this 
 quotation : " Some MSS. of the Vulgate (that is in the text) (and) 
 " fnany editions'' (italics mine) " of the Vulgate on the margin before 
 ^' those of Sixtus and Clement " have Ipse. " Precisely," he adds, 
 *' But this is simply what Bellarmine, though himself in favor of 
 " retaining Ipsa, said to Chemnitz. I reply," writes the Cardinal, 
 " that the Vulgate is various here, for some Codices have Ipse, 
 " some Ipsa, and besides, it is not contrary to the Vulgate edition, 
 " should one be convinced that he ought to read /pse or Ipsum',' 
 and yet, in spite of his adopting this widest use of the tide Vulgate, 
 and admitting the Vulgate to be various here, he dares, in his 
 apology, so to trifle with his readers as to limit the use of the 
 mil word to the Vulgate of Clement VIII., now in use in the Roman 
 
 'ill!! Church, which, of course, has Ipsa in Gen. iii. 15, and nothing 
 
^f, 
 
 /j /'/// to Shame by lUlhinuinc, 
 
 21 
 
 cncral want of 
 ( public, .igain 
 thouj^h /if has 
 xny age 'u'hich 
 
 rihlc weakness 
 idence, for we 
 t letter of his 
 is "Rebutter" 
 
 in the Latin 
 /crsion in the 
 t>ar excellence 
 i)ro\'e. For 
 d books from 
 eaders on that 
 
 of, tiiat can at 
 : viz., " Impu- 
 we have been 
 live of all the 
 istance, where 
 )f his Resume 
 :)eaks of " the 
 ; sources, and 
 DeRossi and 
 ig so in this 
 he text) (and) 
 margin before 
 lely," he adds, 
 ilf in favor of 
 
 the Cardinal, 
 :es have Ipse, 
 jlgate edition, 
 >se or Ipsutn" 
 2 title Vulgate, 
 
 dares, in his 
 iie use of the 
 in the Roman 
 , and nothing 
 
 se. Can any one trust a word of such a controversialist after 
 his specimen of his jugglery ? 
 
 Now, while we have Bellarmine's extract before us, I should 
 
 ike my readers to observe how strongly it makes against my 
 
 Opponent's contention with regard to Ipsum. I have ciuoted it 
 
 I'rom my opponent's letters, to show, in the fust place, that he 
 
 cknovvk'dges various editions of the Latin ^LSS. under the com- 
 
 lon title Vulgate, in addition to the two last eilitions of Sixtus 
 
 nd Clement, and next, that he admits Ipse and not only Ipsa, as 
 
 \'ulgate reading. Now, compare this with his deceitful apology 
 
 ust (juoted. In the latter he evidently seeks to insinuate that 
 
 fpsc, etpially with Ipsum., finds no place in the Vulgate MSS.f 
 
 vhereas both his quotations, just adduced from DeRossi and 
 
 k'llarmine, convict him of falsehood. Hut Hellarniine does more 
 
 ' han this : he shows us at the same time that Ipsum does not rank 
 
 i ike Ipse as a various reading of the Vulgate, though he admits* 
 
 vhat no one denies, it would be a good translation of the Hebrew, 
 
 ust as any other neuter pronoun or relative would be. He draws 
 
 I strong distinction between the two. "Some Codices,' he says, 
 
 'have Ipse, ?,omii Ipsa," and then instead of proceeding, "some 
 
 Jpsum," as he w(juld doubtless have done hail he known of any 
 
 i Todex which contained it, he simply adds, "and besides, it is not 
 
 'contrary to the Vulgate Edition" (/. f. does not contradict its 
 
 Mense) "should one be convinced that he ought to read Ipse 
 
 i 'or Ipsum.'' 
 
 Throughout his Resume and Rejoiuder (which occupied him 
 ust one year) my opponent managed pretty successfully to hood- 
 ink his readers while he was on the search for the much desired 
 odex, but my Strictures upon his Rejoinder completely opened 
 heir eyes. He, therefore, felt he must make further search for a 
 atin Codex containing Ipsum. He devoted himself to that most 
 leasant of all tasks for a student — a tour among the great 
 ibraries. The labour of research is now reduced to a minimum, 
 very fiimous library has its costly, well -arranged catalogues and 
 umerous assistants to aid one in finding the volumes required, 
 o that, with the least possible expenditure of time and trouble, 
 ne can now amass mountains of learned quotation and reference 
 ivhich look very formidable in the eyes of the uninitiated. I 
 

 i} 
 
 m 
 
 ill 
 
 I 
 
 22 
 
 A/id Flatly Contradicted by W'rccUone, 
 
 I 
 
 make this remark because such an amount of inflated nonsense ^^ 
 
 has been written by partizan reviewers upon the cyclopean task |^ 
 
 undertaken by my opponent, and I am sure he will not think it r 
 
 out of place, since he himself has dubbed this controversy a theo- '^^^'^ 
 
 logical chore. ^'''^ 
 
 Well ! after considerable search in the chief Polyglot Bibles ; in ^ 
 
 the works of such biblical critics as Sabatier, Kennicott, DeRossi, p*^^ 
 
 Vercellone, etc., my opponent was unable to unearth a single | 
 
 specimen of such a Codex .s he required ; such a Codex, he found, Pl^l 
 
 was not known to any of the great authorities on the subject. T 
 
 Further, to cap the negative evidence, he discovered this very r^^ 
 positive statement in the " peerless work" (as he himself describes 
 it) of the greatest of them all, by which all his hopes were extin- 
 guished. I take this verbatim from Mr. (^uigley's new postscript 
 (pp. 102-5 of his Reprint) : " Vercellone, too, in his peerless work 
 " — The Various Readings of the Latin Vulgate Bible, Vol. I., 
 "p. 13 — gives the editions (with their dates) of Bibles with 
 *' Ipsum, and then adds : ' Ignoramus utrum hiec lectio {/psum) 
 " ex codicum fide, quod affirmare videtur Lippomanus, derivata 
 
 " sit.' I do not know whether this reading (Ipsum) rests upon ,. 
 
 "the authority of MSS., but Lippomanus seems to say that it 1 ^ 
 
 "does." Now, this is nothing less than a confession from the 1 '°" 
 
 latest (Vercellone dicti 1869) and admittedly the greatest Roman ] ^ 
 
 Catholic authority upon the Vulgate, whose life was largely spent P 
 
 in the great librarieis of Europe, seeking and collating the best of I " 
 
 the Vulgate Codices, both Uncial and Cursive, of all dates, that T^^K 
 
 out of the hundreds which passed under his ow;i hand and the f" 
 
 hands of his numerous learned assistants, who helped him to f^^^ 
 
 codify manuscripts for th-.i compilation of his great work on The -f -^ ' 
 
 Various Readings of the Latin Vulgate Bible, not one con- I^ " 
 
 TAINED the reading Ipsuin in Gen. iii. 15. "Ignoramus, etc." W^' 
 
 "We are none of us aware of any Codex which supports it." r' ^ 
 
 It means, that so far as the evidence of all the known Vulgate ? ^^ 
 
 Codices goes, no Christian, of any age of the Church, ever read 
 Ipsum in the current editions of the Latin Bibles, from the 
 second to the fourteenth century. 
 
 This is all I require — this amply supports my contention from 
 the first, and exposes the futility of my opponent's silly objections 
 
 •idoe 
 
 li 
 
r, 
 
 JV//o?fi, hi TnrUy he Dares to Contradict. 
 
 23 
 
 ated nonsense 
 Cyclopean task 
 11 not think it 
 oversy a theo- 
 
 ^lot Bibles ; in 
 cott, DeRossi, 
 i^arth a single 
 dex, he found, 
 n the subject. 
 :^red this very 
 nself describes 
 es were extin- 
 aew postscript 
 peerless work 
 Bible, Vol. I., 
 f Bibles with 
 lectio {Ipsum) 
 anus, derivata 
 m) rests upon 
 :o say that it 
 ion from the 
 eatest Roman 
 largely spent 
 ig the best of 
 all dates, that 
 hand and the 
 elped him to 
 work on The 
 
 )T ONE CON- 
 
 Dramus, etc." 
 supports it." 
 lown Vulgate 
 ch, ever read 
 es, from the 
 
 itention from 
 lly objections 
 
 ^o the " Bishop's little diagram ; " this entirely disposes of his 
 Islaborate arguments in support of Ipsum as a various reading 
 i)f the Vulgate, and relegates it to the inferior region of supple- 
 Inentary evidence occupied by Hie, Hoc, Ille, Illud, Quod, etc., 
 Already alluded to, variations which not even my opponent has 
 iiad the hardihood to contend find any place in the Vulgate 
 Codices as various rjadings of the Vulgate. 
 I Here, of course, was a cruel, crushing disappointment to my 
 Jopponent. How does he survive it ? Like an honest man, by 
 Admitting his mistais:? in this particular ? Far from it. Let us 
 iwatch how he rises (!) to the occasion. This time even Ver- 
 Jcellone must be ranked among the noodles. My opponent, with 
 lis deeper insight into the subject than the chief of all his 
 mthorities, actually reproves Vercelione for his timidity thus 
 ;^p. 105 Reprint): "To my mind Lippomanus absolutely afifirms 
 I' it, in these words, ' Ipse conteret caput tuum ; \e\,Juxta alia 
 V exemplaria, Ipsum conteret caput tuum, scilicet semen mulieris.' 
 ■' See Lippomanus' Cate?ia on Genesis and Exodus." Now my 
 )pponent, in grandiloquent style, informs us that he has personally 
 consulted this Catena or Catalogue of various readings compiled 
 )y Lippomanus, and yet marvellous to relate he has not quoted 
 from him the name, number or whereabouts of a single Vulgate 
 jCodex containing the coveted Ipsum. What do my readers think 
 )f that? Vercelione, familiar not only with Lippomanus' Catena, 
 )ut also with his collection of Manuscripts and other cridcal 
 ipparatus, made for the use of the Sixtine Revisors of the Vulgate 
 md now preserved in the Vatican Library, says, that neither he 
 |nor his coadjutors have met with a Vulgate Codex containing 
 Xipsum in Gen. iii. 15. He therefore very naturally doubted 
 |^vhether Lippomanus, by the vague expression "Juxta alia exem- 
 '^laria " referred to the Codices and not to the Latin translations 
 |c. versions, etc., upon which my opponent sets such store, and so 
 fexpresses himself cautiously : " Lippomanus seems to say that it 
 koes." 
 
 I As a matter of fact, however, my opponent, after consulting 
 4the Catena of Lippomanus, has failed to name a Codex of the 
 jLatin Vulgate, either as being lost or still in existence, that has 
 fthe reading Ipsum in Gen. iii. 15; while Vercelione, after careful 
 
24 
 
 Shakespeare's Aid is Soiig/it 
 
 
 111 
 
 , I! 
 
 i Jill 
 
 ill 
 
 ' I 
 
 examination of the very collection of MSS. upon which Lippo- 
 manus based his Catena, distinctly says he knows of no Codex 
 which has that reading. In a similar manner my opponent 
 makes use of the vague evidence of Drusius (p. 104 Reprint), 
 which of course cannot .-^tand for one moment against the decisive 
 statement of Vercellone. 
 
 Now these references to Drusius and Lippomanus show us the 
 very nearest approaches my opponent can make toward the ful- 
 filment of his penance — he has neither named even one Cursive 
 Manuscript Vulgate having Ipsum in Gen. iii, 15, nor quoted one 
 passage from a Father to prove that Ipsuvi existed in the copies 
 of the Latin Bibles of his day. 
 
 If Vercellone is not able to do so, my opponent may as well 
 give up the search as hopeless, and like an honest man admit he 
 has been mistaken in his contention on this point from the very 
 first. 
 
 Chapter V, 
 
 None of the Standard Critical Works support Mr. Quigleys 
 
 Contention. 
 
 (Mr. Qiiigley, after thr-e yc.i > fmillcss struggle to perform his penance, pretends it lias 
 been ch;inged.) 
 
 But alas ! my opponent, instead of making the amende honor- 
 able, had recourse, at this juncture, to an escape from his humili- 
 ating i)osition, which I will leave it to my readers to describe in 
 whatever language they may deem most adequate. In his 
 Rebutter, with well-feigned indignation, he charges me with 
 changing his penance since it was first set him. As usual when 
 in difficulties he betakes himself to Shakespeare. On a previous 
 occasion, when he wanted to cover up some gross perversion of 
 the truth, he placed me among Macbeth's witches around the 
 cauldron gathering " eyes of newts and toes of frogs, etc.," for my 
 savory mess presented to the readers of the Globe. Now that 
 Vercellone has not only cruelly failed to supply his wants but 
 has actually told him he himself is altogether at fault with regard 
 to Ipsnm, he feigns to see in me the terrible midnight assassin 
 
 11; 
 !lj 
 !i! 
 r.ii!|ii! 
 
 iii 
 
To Cover a Disgraceful Retreat. 
 
 25 
 
 kvhich Lippo- 
 of no Codex 
 ny opponent 
 to4 Reprint I, 
 5t the decisive 
 
 IS show us the 
 I ward the ful- 
 T one Cursive 
 3r quoted one 
 in the copies 
 
 t may as well 
 man admit he 
 rom the very 
 
 \Ir. Quigleyi 
 
 nee, pretends it has 
 
 mende honor- 
 
 m his humili- 
 
 :o describe in 
 
 ate. In his 
 
 ^es me with 
 
 .s usual when 
 
 n a previous 
 
 perversion of 
 
 around the 
 
 etc.," for my 
 
 Now that 
 
 is wants but 
 
 t with regard 
 
 ight assassin 
 
 imself, in his castle at Inverness. This might be all very 
 musing were it not spun out to such tiresome length. One is 
 Imost tempted to imagine my opponent's newly acfiuired Papal 
 Jincl Laval degrees were in part rewards for proficiency in the 
 inigic muse, rather than for devotion to Aristotle and Acjuinas, 
 ieeing that the dramatist supplies the most telling arguments in 
 jjliis his " theological chore" (as he calls it), and the two philoso- 
 hers, so dear to Rome, arc most conspicuous *^y their absence, 
 ut however this may be, the readers of the Globe and of his 
 eprint may, I think, feel inclined to ask: How is it, Mr. Ouigley, 
 ou did not make this charge against I-'ather Davenport, of 
 hanging your penance, at a very much earlier date than in your 
 Rebutter :■* After February 6, 1888, at all events, you could not 
 ossibly have misunderstood the real nature of it, even supposing 
 which we do not think likely) you were in any doubt about the 
 latter previously. Why then did you not at the very opening 
 f your Rejoinder, or in some section of it, make this charge 
 gainst him? Your Rejoinder lasted from March 5, 1888, to 
 anuary 21, 1889, and consisted of twenty-nine lengthy contri- 
 utions to the Globe, and yet throughout it you have made no 
 uch damaging complaint. How do you account for this ? "Ay, 
 ere's the rub I " The answer is very simple. My opponent 
 idently imagined from the first that he would be able by the 
 d of Kennicott, DeRossi, Sabatier, Lippomanus, Wrcellone, 
 id other standard critical authors, to discover instances 01 
 sum as a various reading of the Vulgate, and was content to 
 ol the public, by parading examples from every quarter but the 
 ght one, till the much coveted Codex should turn up. Bitterly 
 isappointed on this score (as I have said) at the results of his 
 ur in the States, and not honest enough to admit his mistake ; 
 the same time ambitious of reprinting his letters and carrying 
 rough his scheme for gaining honours from the Vatican as a 
 liampion of his Church's cause, he must needs find an escape 
 'om his trying dilemma. A holy ( ! ) inspiration suggests an- 
 her false accusation against his opponent in order to cover a 
 ameful retreat, and so for the first time the charge that I had 
 anged his penance appears in his Rebutter, which did see 
 e light till the opening of the present year. My reac can 
 
 w take the measure of their man." c 
 
,!;ii; h 
 
 Chapter \'I. 
 
 The Lcdnrcr's '■''little dias^ram'' -. //' [■ rouains intact and as 
 tnithftd and useful as ever. 
 
 My next endeavour will be to show from the two Master 
 Biljiical Critics among Roman Catholics, viz. : DeRossi and 
 Vercellone, that the " Bishop's little diagram " and "his remarks 
 there anent " are founded upon facts and solid learning. 
 
 The great DeRossi (already quoted, pp. 7, 10), after exhibiting 
 at considerable length the evidence in favour both of Ipse and 
 Ipsa, and proving conclusively Ipsa to be a corrupt reading, 
 remarks : " To whomsoever, then, the present reading of the Vul- 
 "gate belongs, whether to the interpreter, or (which is more 
 " probable) to the amanuensis, it ought to be amended from the 
 " Hebrew and Greek fountain heads, and to be referred (as I have 
 "said formerly ' De priecipuis causis negl : hebr. litt.,' p. 94) to 
 " those passages of the Clementine Edition, which yet can and 
 " ought to be conformed to the Hebrew text, and to be amended 
 " by the authority of the Church." ' 
 
 Vercellone (already quoted, p. 16), the most prized of all 
 Roman authorities upon the various readings of the Latin Vul- 
 gate, " whose noble work upon the subject," says Canon Westcott, 
 "has made an epoch in the study of the Vulgate," thus corrobo- 
 rates the testimony of DeRossi (I quote from my opponent's own 
 translation, p. 374 of his Reprint, so as to leave no room for quib- 
 bling), " From which (/. e. the evidence reviewed) it appears to 
 " be established {cimstare videtur) that at the first the present 
 " reading of the Vulgate (/. c. Ipsa) arose from the carelessness of 
 " the copyists, and was then preserved by the Roman revisors ol 
 " the text because it had secured for itself a kind of prescriptive 
 " right from the usage of many centuries among the Latins in 
 " nearly all the manuscripts." 
 
 Now, as there are only two various readings of t^he pronoun 
 in Gen. iii. 15, known as bcloyiging to the Vulgate manuscripts oj \ 
 whatever age, viz., Ipse and Ipsa (as I have already shown), it isi 
 clear that the Right Reverend lecturer on "Misprints" merely 
 
 5. See Appendix B. 
 (26) 
 
 mL ! 
 
Vcrcellone Confirms Dc Rossi's Tcs(>'rtom\ but 
 
 27 
 
 'ad and as 
 
 ut into concise and slrii<ing form what both DeRossi and 
 'crcellonc affirm alter long and careful research, viz., that Ipsa 
 'arose from the carelessness of the scribes." In other words, by 
 heir substituting an a for an e they brought the corrupt Ipsa into 
 he Vulgate text. 
 
 :wo Master '^ My opponent, backetl by the authority of a Papal degree, 
 iRossi and ^lay laugli to scorn these antiquated critics, and " imj)ale them " 
 his remarks L\ih his other dolts, but the " Bishop's little diagram " remains as 
 g- %ood as ever. 
 
 r exhibitmg | We have already seen how important a change DeRossi con- 
 of Ipse and iidered Ipsa to l)ring into the text (p. 7). Is not his recom- 
 ipt readmg, |neiKlation to the Vatican authorities just quoted a further strong 
 ^ of the Vul- Evidence in the same direction ? 
 
 ich is more | \'ercellone, it is true, while proving, like DeRossi, Ipsa to be 
 led from the ^ corrupt reading, is not so outspoken as he to the Papal powers, 
 d (as I have )n the contrary he apologises for the Clementine Revisors 01 
 t-,' P- 94) to : |je Vulgate for leaving Ipsa in the text in spite of the over- 
 yet can and whelming evidence against it. That whereas DeRossi thought it 
 be amended |q serious a blot that it ought to be removed regardless of trouble 
 Ind expense at a time when no revision of the Vulgate was in 
 rized of all iontemplation (viz., 1798 A. D., the date of his publication), 
 Latin \ ul- I'ercellone excuses the last revisors of the Vulgate, who could 
 Dn Westcott, , asily have made the alteration in the text when going to the 
 lus corrobo- j-ggs with their new Vulgate, had they dared be faithful to the 
 )onent's own vidence before them, because forsooth Ipsa " had secured for 
 
 om for quib 
 appears to f 
 the present 
 
 relessncss of 
 
 prescriptive 
 he Latins ir, 
 
 ^he pronoun 
 rnuscripls oj \ 
 shown), it isi 
 nts " merely j 
 
 itself a kind of prescriptive right by long usage ; so that it was 
 evidently a far greater inconvenience to change it than to leave 
 it untouched." We must bear in mind, however, that when 
 ercellone penned this passage (for which I am indebted to my 
 
 n revisors oV\ pponent) a great change had come over the Roman Church. 
 
 he Bull " Incffabilis Deus," defining the dogma of the Immacu- 
 
 te Conception of the Blessed Virgin, had been promulged in 
 
 54, just six years before Vercellone's work appeared. It would 
 
 rtainly have proved most inconvenient for poor Vercellone had 
 
 dared to second DeRossi's recommendation, because Pius IX. 
 
 ,d already adopted Gen. iii. 15 with its corrupt reading Ipsa^ as 
 
 e chief scriptural basis of the dogma in his Bull." Vercellone 
 
 6. See reprint of my 'stricture : G!j!>t\ March j6, ibSy, p. ;3 
 
^ 
 
 iH 
 
 I 
 
 Itll!: 
 
 28 Consents^ front Stress of Circumstances, to Suppress Ipse. 
 
 ri 
 
 vh 
 11 tj 
 f 
 
 he 
 he 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 dared not even blame the last revisors of the Vulgate for retaining | 
 the erro ■ in the text, but deemed it the wiser course to excuse \ 
 their vufaithfulness and then explain it away with the rest of tlu- f 
 modern school of Romanists. 
 
 But surely we may again ask : If Ipse means absolutely the 
 same as Ipsa, as my opponent, repeating the shibboleth of his 
 school, assures us again and again is the case, why should it be 
 evidently " a far greater inconvenience (while going to press) to \ 
 " change it than to leave it untouched ? " The answer is plain to 
 any one familiar with Roman books of devotion and instruction. 
 The true reading, " He (Christ) shall bruise, etc.," would have 
 brought the Vulgate at once into conflict with the common teach- 
 ing of the Roman Church and with scores of treatises and de- 
 votional works upon the Blessed Virgin, in which she figured as 
 the " bruiser of the serpent's head," a doctrine which, with the 
 corrupt reading Ipsa, " had secured for itself a kind of prescri])- : 
 " tive right by long usage." 
 
 Evidently the Roman Church could not at the date of the last 
 revision of the Latin Vulgate, as it certainly cannot now, afford tc 
 part with Ipsa — it is too intimately incorporated with her doctrine 
 and practice. We may, therefore, detect considerable irony in 
 lj|l Vercellone's expression, "far greater inconvenience." My oppo-' 
 
 nent, for instance, would doubtless have found it -a far greatci 
 inconvenience for my Strictures to have appeared, as I desired 
 within the same covers as his own letters, than to leave them ou 
 of the Reprint. 
 
 ieni 
 
 Chapter VII. 
 
 Why should not Hic, Hoc, Ille, Illud, etc., be ranked zvib 
 Ipsum as various readings of the Latin Vulgate f 
 
 \s t 
 ipst 
 cno 
 ;on1 
 
 (A further example of Mr. Qiiiyley's inconsistency). 
 
 My next point (a minor one indeed) is this : My opponent hai^ 
 
 ng 
 my 
 
 16, 
 
 ^boi 
 quoted various other readings besides Ipse, Ipsa, Ipsuni, as foum 1 
 
 jljljij in Gen. iii. 15, such as Hic, Haec, Hoc, Ille, Illud, Quod, etc., al ■ 
 
 of which stand precisely on the same level with Ipsum (/. e. no 
 
 one of them finds a place in the Vulgate MSS.). 
 
 larj 
 her 
 
 i!' 
 
press Ipse. 
 
 te for retaining 
 irse to excuse 
 the rest of the 
 
 absolutely the 
 bboleth of his 
 ly should it be 
 ig to press) to '■ 
 ivver is plain to \ 
 nd instruction 
 
 IrsUM Ke legated to its Ohu Siiboritinate Position. 29 
 
 Why then, in assailing the Right Reverend lecturer on Mis- 
 prints, did my opponent charge him with suppressing Ipsiim 
 merely, and not all these other equally extraneous readings ? 
 
 It is evident he did not know of their existence at the time 
 when he rushed into print to insult the lecturer. As I have before 
 suggested, he depended too confidingly upon the meagre notes 
 of the Douay Version and Cornelius a Lapide, and so jumped to 
 he conclusion that Ipsum belonged equally with Ipse and Ipsa to 
 he Latin Vulgate MSS. 
 
 All I want to point out to my readers by this particular en- 
 
 juiry is this : that it would be just as reasonable to drag " Quod, 
 Hoc, etc., etc." into the question of how the corrupt Ipsa found 
 its way into the Vulgate, as to drag in Ipsum, since Ipsum is no 
 
 ," would have 
 :ommon teach- 
 
 ' . V ' 1 ftnore a Various readine: of the Vulgate than they, 
 she figured as ; ^ » / 
 
 ,'hich, with the. 
 
 nd of prescrip 
 
 date of the last! 
 
 t now, afford tc 
 
 ith her doctrine, 
 
 ;rable irony in- 
 
 " My oppo- 
 
 a far greato 
 
 as I desired 
 
 Chapter VIII. 
 
 Mr. Quigley convicted by his own authorities of misrepresentation 
 
 and false accusation. 
 
 My opponent has made a good deal of capital out of my con- 
 iensed extract from DeRossi, which I found in Pusey's EireJiicon. 
 
 Vercellone, we have seen (p. 16), from a quotation supplied 
 eave tnem ou ^g j^y ^^^ opponent, gives unimpeachable, direct testimony that 
 Ipsum is not to be found in any of the Latin manuscript Vulgates 
 inown to scholars. This, of course, thoroughly supports my 
 contention that where DeRossi mentions Ipse-Ipsum as the ordi- 
 lary Latin equivalents of the Hebrew masculine hu, he is not 
 hereby asserting that Ipsum like Ipse and Ipsa is a various read- 
 ng of the Vulgate," and it therefore fully justifies the omission of 
 my mention of it in my summary of his testimony {Globe, Dec. 
 
 6, 1887) as I could not, after the nonsense that had been written 
 y opponent "^-^bout Ipstim, have introduced it without confusing my readers, 
 
 nless at the same time I had supplied them with a long and 
 y uod, etc., a Medious comment on the subject. Would any honest-minded man 
 psum (/. e. no^ 
 
 7. See Appendix B and C for this, and my opponent's blundering about the Hebrew genders 
 
 'ie ranked ivili 
 Igatc f 
 
30 
 
 Z)i/\ossi Craj'iily Misrt presented. 
 
 ,i'. . ■! 
 
 have reverted to this point, as my opponent does in liis Rebutter 
 (p. 371), after he had found out from V'ercellone that I was right 
 and he himself wrong ? 
 
 In this connection I must draw attention to other specimens 
 of my opponent's chicanery (p. 24, Reprint). IJeRossi says: 
 " Few, douljtful and ailogci/tcr nnre/iab/e urc \.\\c i Hebrew MSS. 
 "in supi^ort of /// " (/.<'., the feminine). Tiicn under the evi- 
 dence for Ifu (the mascuhne) he says: "Ahiiost all Hebrew 
 *' MSS. liave J/it." Therefore, in condensing, so as to save space 
 in the Gtobrs columns, I stated (not in invertctl commas, mark 
 you) that among the authorities in support of the masculine 
 DeRossi enumerates "All triishvorthy Hebrew MSS." Is that 
 or is it not an honest summary of the case for the manuscripts, 
 seeing that those in favour of the feminine are " Few, doubtful 
 and altogether unreliable .''" 
 
 Then, again, he holds up his hands in pretended horror 
 because I thus quote from Pusey's translation "All the Chaldee 
 paraphrases, Onkelos, Jonathan and Jerusalem." Well ! that 
 quotaticjn is verbatim from Pusey's Eirenicon, Vol. II., p. 386. 
 But mj' opponent adds (p. 25) that DeRossi honestly admits 
 that there is one M.S. of Onkelos that has Ipsa. Well ! how- 
 does he admit it? Why does not my opponent as honestly 
 give DeRossi's words, e.xcept that they would cover him 
 with confusion. Here is DeRossi's admission: "Solitary 
 
 AND TO BE SET ASIDE IS THAT COPY OF OnKELOS ; " /. <?., it is 
 
 utterly valueless as evidence in the eyes of scholais. Now, let my 
 readers judge of the moral worth of the man, who, to gain a point 
 in controversy, deliberately, with eyes open to the true state 
 of the case, defames another's character. Yet this is the man the 
 Papacy delights to honour. 
 
 Chapter IX. 
 
 Mr. Quigley supplies further evidence of his proficiency in\ 
 
 Aristotelian Logic and Philosophy so highly 
 
 approved at the Vatican. 
 
 My opponent's path in this ccrJroversy is very tortuous indeed. I 
 We are puzzled to know from his various conflicting conclusions 
 
Mr. Q/a'i^/cys Conltiuiictory Conc/iisions 
 
 31 
 
 what it is he wishes us to believe and what reject. He starts with 
 the assertion that it makes absoUitely no clitTerence to the nieaninj^ 
 of fien. iii. 15 whether tlie pronoun he niascuHne, feminine or 
 neuter. He then at great leni^lh iiUliets upon us a s])ecial plead- 
 intj in fa\'Our of the feminine, in whicli he u[)braitls .S. Jerome for 
 differing from S. Augustine and for " putting the catt before the 
 horse." He follows shortly after with a band of trustworthy advo- 
 cates for Ipse and Ipsiini in the Vulgate, wiiich I have shown in 
 reality establish the Hebrew masculine as the crrrrect reading, and 
 condenui the feminine as corrupt, and then he finishes with three 
 (ir four columns (Letter 28 of Rejoinder) to prove that after all 
 the feminine is und(nibtedly the oldest and best reading, and that, 
 therefore, the present X'ulgate is all right. What utter confusion 
 is here. Surely if his first contention be true, that it makes abso- 
 lutely no diliference to the meaning of (ien. iii. 15 whatever the 
 gender of the pronoun, then, for him at all events, Cadit questio. 
 It is simply absurd for him to show any partiality for the one or 
 the other gender, though by such a contention he practically con- 
 demns as cranks, DeRos.si and numberless other scholars, who 
 have spent so much tinn', energy and money in investigating and 
 writing about this very questio'i. 
 
 Has my opponent no sense of the ludicrous ? Does he not 
 perceive the absurdity of first parading in detail DeRossi's table 
 of authorities against Ipsa, in the vain hope of disfiguring a 
 lecturer's " little diagram," and then turning round upon Jerome 
 and his illustrious supporters, DeRossi and Company, to champion 
 the cause of the condemned Ipsa f 
 
 It is now quite clear Dellossi and Vercellone have proved to 
 him dangerous " two-edged tools " which he should never have 
 touched. I pointed this out long ago in dialogue form (which it 
 was far from " convenient " for my opponent to include in his 
 Reprint). I imagined some clerical friend saying to him : " It is 
 all very well your pretending to have found an example of a 
 Latin X'ulgate M.S. reading Ipsian in order to snatch a momentary 
 victory from Father Davenport, but the evidence you have pro- 
 duced is sim])lv fatal to our Vulgate reading of Gen. iii., 15, Ipsa 
 (She shall bruise, etc.). It cannot be questioned for one moment, 
 by any honest man, that DeRossi and those ' coundess Catholic 
 
32 
 
 J'ic-Ji both J'n'oid ami J-oc. 
 
 authors ' he cites in support of his own concUision, are inconti-s- 
 tablc witnesses aiutainst our reading; l/>S(i. It cannot be questioned 
 that DeRossi brings overwhehnin^ pmots from all (piarlfrs in 
 sup])i)rt of his contention that the masculine ( ' /A: shall bruise thy 
 head' ) is the correct readinj^ of the Hebrew, and that the present 
 readinj; of the X'ulj^ate oni^/t/ to Iw conformed to the Hebrew text. 
 Supposing Ipsiim could be found in some manuscrijit of the 
 Latin X'ulj^ate, what use would it be to us? Ipsiim will not suit 
 us any better than Ipse, since both Ipse and lp!,itm (He and It) 
 refer to the ' Seed of the woman ' and not to the woman herself 
 just as the pronoun It does in the Anglican Version of the Bible. 
 Hy a|)pealiny; to DeRossi and producing that long list of witnesses 
 in favour of Ipse and Ipsiim you have simply played into your 
 adversary's hantl, and have practically given away Ipsa. Far 
 better for you never to have meddled with this controversy than 
 to have dragged to light from the bookshelves, where they rej^osed 
 so safely, before all the Protestants and Roman Catholics of these 
 parts, so formidable, unwelcome and dangerous an array of emi- 
 nent writers opposed to our present reading of Gen. iii. 15. If 
 our people get hold of this, it will make it very difficult for us to 
 defend the use made of this text by the Pope and his advisers in 
 the Bull iNEFFAmLis; impossible indeed for us to adduce Scrip- 
 ture proof of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, or to de- 
 fend the common tenet that Mary is the "bruiser of the Serpent's 
 . head." Therefore, at any cost, remember, you must endeavour to 
 counteract the mischief you have wrought, or we shall not thank 
 you." 
 
 My lighthearted opponent smiles at his friend's anxiety. He 
 is equal to any emergency ; he has proved black white; it will be 
 no harder task to prove white black. He assures his friend that 
 in a few months' time ordinary readers will have forgotten all 
 about DeRossi and Company ; and that he will finish his Re- 
 joinder with an elaborate defence of Ipsa in spite of DeRossi. 
 All is safe, never fear. 
 
 Thus having used DeRossi for a purpose, my opponent for- 
 sakes him and the more honest critics of his own Church, to 
 follow the lead of those who curry favour in high quarters and 
 reject all evidence obnoxious to their tastes. Ipsa must now be 
 
liul he Trusts lo Short Memories. 
 
 33 
 
 iiplicUl at iuiy cost to truth antl hoiK'Sty, otliciwise an Infallible 
 I'ope will be put to shame, and popular Roman instructions antl 
 (loviitions Condemned. Herein lies the secret of my opponent's 
 Miccess at tiie Vatican. He has burked the truth and ilecked 
 out error in its garb. 
 
 ClI.M'TER X. 
 
 GcH. Hi. Jj, i>i its corrupt form, sho~u'n to be the cww.v scrip- 
 tural FOUNDATION rcHcd OH iu the Jiiill ou the 
 Immaculate Conception. 
 
 (Mr. (Jiiiuley finds it " far iiuirc convenient " to avoid tlie I'nll than to reprint it* nfTici.i' 
 translation in Ids Appendix. Wliy? A frcsli cliallennc issncd. Will lie accept it?) 
 
 In the G/obe of March 26 and April 8, 1889, I exposed my 
 opp-^ nent's untrustworthiness with regard to the Bull Ineffabilis 
 Dcus. Those two letters he shelves in his Rebutter with a few 
 sarcasms. I am not surprised. But here they are, together with 
 a few extracts from my first series. 
 
 Festival of the Annunciation, 1889. 
 To tite Editor of the ''Globe:'' 
 
 Sir, — I now enter u[)on the consideration of the fourth 
 division of my subject, viz. : " Whether my opponent has pro- 
 duced satisfactory evidence to show that Gen, iii. 15, with its 
 corrupt reading Ipsa, is not the text relied on by Roman theolo- 
 gians as the chief Scriptural foundation for the dogma of the 
 Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary?" 
 
 To begin with the Bull Ineffabilis of Pius IX. itself, of 
 which, fortunately, I have now been able to secure a copy (pub- 
 lished in Paris, 1884). After careful perusal of the document, I 
 reaffirm with, if possil)le, more confidence than when relying on 
 the extracts from it given in Pusey's Eirenicon and the comments 
 of the late venerated Bishop of Lincoln (see App. D.), that the text 
 Gen. iii. 15, with its corrupt reading Ipsa, is the one Scriptural 
 
34 
 
 The Unll on the Imnhuulatc L'onciplion 
 
 foundation upon whicli the whole aixmnoiU for the Immacuhitc 
 Conception rests, the central column around which are clustered 
 the other supports in tiie shape of mystical interpretations of 
 Scripture anil I'atrislic teachings coiuiecteil therewith. 
 
 My opponent belongs to a profession which is only too well 
 aware of the fict, that with a vast majority of peo|)le, a man has 
 only to multiply words and make strong assertions, to persuade 
 them he has a ^ood case. My o])ponent has htiili in his Rt'sunu 
 (Jan. 20, iSSS) ami his Kijoimhi (July 27, 1SS8) attemitled lo 
 convince your reailers th.it the text (ieu. iii. 15 holds a position of 
 little or no importance in the Hull under iliscussion and that, what- 
 ever arj,amient may depend upon it, is to be found in its first 
 clause without any reference to the second, vi/. : "I will put 
 enmity Ijetween thee and the woman and between thy seed and 
 her seed." He has abused in umneas.ured terms such learned 
 divines as Dr. I'usey and IJishop Wordsworth for asserting; the 
 contrary, while on myself he has exhausted his repertoire of 
 oi)probrious epithets, in what, I suppose, he would call "true 
 Catholic style." 
 
 My opponent has thoroughly misrepresented the Hull. Its 
 argument is permeated and overshadowed, if I may so speak, 
 with the doctrine " The woman shall bruise the serpent's head," 
 To pretend that I even hinted at the idea that the Virgin in her 
 own mere natunil strength, apart from the grace of God, which 
 flowed to her by virtue of the Incarnation of the Son of Ood and 
 His Redemptive work, trampled on the serpent's head, is a 
 calumny, a stratagem of war, unworthy of the lowest type of 
 controversy. I said, and still affirm, that in Roman theology the 
 Blessed Virgin figures in the place of Christ upon the serpent's 
 head, not merely as one of the redeemed, or even as a represen- 
 tative of the Church, but as the human being foretold in Gen. iii. 15, 
 as the one expected throughout the ages to perform that omnipo- 
 tent act, which the true reading of the text attributes to Christ. 
 Where, may I ask, do we find in Roman theology, or books ot 
 devotion, or sacred art, Christ standing on the serpent's head? 
 Where in the Bull Ineii ahilis do we discover Him so repre- 
 sented? It is the Virgin who stands there, and all the quibbling 
 and special pleading in the world can never make that position 
 
./ Docniiuiil Mosi " InconiiiiieHt" io Mr, ijiiiiiicj. 
 
 35 
 
 accnrtl with the words of Holy Writ by which we are all hoiiiul, 
 " The Seed of the woman shall crush the serpent's head." 
 
 Now look at the Hull, in sivcii places (not two or three 
 merely) is the hriiisiiij,^ of the serpent's head by the Blessed 
 X'iriLjin mentioned or dwelt npon. In the very fnst clause (once), 
 in the I2th (twice), in the 15th lonce), in the i6th (twicej, (not 
 17th as my opponent says\ and in the 24th (oncet. 
 
 The argument drawn ivom the first part of the text with 
 rekreiice to the "enmity placed by (iod between the serjjent and 
 the woman" comes in the midst of these alliUiions t(j tlie V'irjj^in's 
 triumph over the serpent ami oicts all its force to tlum. Take 
 away, as I have said, the //>,w?, and it is pointless; the argument 
 falls to the tjround, the artjument beintj, that as the woman is the 
 one foreordained by (iod to crnsh the serpent's iieatl, therefore, 
 the enmity placeil I)etwcen her and tiie serpent must be so com- 
 plete that the serpent could not reasonably have been allowed by 
 God to contaminate her for one moment, even in the womb of 
 liLr mother, with the taint of orij^inal sin which has passed upon 
 all men since the fill. I chalUMijue my opponent to publish an 
 Pai,i;Iish translation of the Hull for tin.' benefil of all your readers. 
 
 The allusions to the trium[)h of liie Virgin over the old serpent, 
 as they occur in the Hull, nn'eal more forcibly, to my mind, the 
 doctrine of the Roman Church with respect to lu'r position than 
 if the second part of Gen. iii. 15 (with Ipsa) were given in quota- 
 tion marks, since they show that the idea fostered by the corrupt 
 reading;' has become so ini^raincd into the mind of the Roman 
 Church, that it matters not now what becomes of the corruption 
 by which she has been so long deceived, so thoroughly has it 
 " leavened the whole lump " of its theology. 
 
 The argument underlying the decree is given us in the very 
 first clause of the Bull, wherein is set forth the greatness of the 
 Blessed Virgin in God's sight from all eternity ; her greatness as 
 the recipient, from God's heavenly treasury, of giaces surpassing 
 those of all angels and saints, graces which would endow her 
 with a holiness next to that of God Himself, a holiness incom- 
 prehensible indeed to all but God, a holiness which must neces- 
 sarily involve exemi)tion from every stain of sin, even original, so 
 that her predicted triumi)h over the old serpent might be the 
 
36 
 
 lie Thoroughly Misrepycscnts It, 
 
 fullest possible. (" * * * ac vel ab ipsa originalis culp;e 
 labe plane immunis amplissimum de antique serpente triuniphum 
 referret tani venerabilis mater * * " i. 
 
 In the opening of clause 12, which adduces the Fathers as 
 witnesses, " the famous victory of the X'irgin over the most 
 hideous enemy of the human race " is closely linked with the 
 assertion of her perfect sanctity and freedom from all spot of sin. 
 
 At its close, a clear distinction is made in the comment on the 
 first clause of Gen. iii. 15 (given by my opponent), between the 
 work wrought by Christ personally and the work He effected 
 through His mother (a distinction, I regret to say, my opponent 
 attempts to hide), which is this: that as Christ exhibited the 
 enmity spoken of in Gen. iii. 15 by fixing to His cross as victor 
 " the handwriting of the decree which was against us" (Col. ii. 14), 
 so the most holy Virgin, by virtue of her intimate union with her 
 Son, displayed through His power the eternal enmity against the 
 poisonous serpent by gaining over him the fullest possible victory, 
 even the crushing of his head with her immaculate foot. 
 
 Now it is perfecdy clear from this clause that the Blessed 
 Virgin figures as Christ's delegate to fulfil the prophecy of Gen, 
 iii. 15, and her position there depends on the reading which is 
 now universally admitted to be corrupt, " She shall bruise thy 
 head." If she be not the chamj)ion of the human race against 
 Satan, she, at all events, is made to take the champion's place by 
 the Pope's decree which proclaims the doctrine of her Immacu- 
 late Conception. 
 
 At the close of the 15th clause of the Bull a comparison is 
 drawn between Eve and the Blessed Virgin The former by 
 obeying the suggestions of the serpent loses her innocence and 
 becomes his slave ; the Virgin, ever increasing her original grant 
 of innocence and grace, in spite of the serpent's attacks, utterly 
 brecks his force and power. 
 
 At the opening of the 16th clause the Virgin is, therefoie, 
 made to figure, according to the Fathers, as "a paradise of de- 
 " lights planted Dy God Himself, defcyided from all the snares of 
 " the poisoyious scrpc^ity Towards its close follows the extract 
 given by my opponent : " Who (the Blessed Virgin), without 
 '' doubt, crushed the poisonous head of the serpent," which forms 
 
 mill 
 
And Suppresses Important C/anses of It, 
 
 37 
 
 the fulcrum ot" the whole contention of the clause, that she 
 escaped, by God's grace, every contamination of body, soul and 
 niiiid from the first moment of her creation. 
 
 My opponent has asserted that this allusion to the second 
 part of the text, (len. iii. 15, is the strongest to be found in the 
 Bull. He is mistaken as usual. He waxes very wrath, your 
 readers will remember, because I said that Pusey's translation 
 pointed to another reference not given by him, and " that I hoped 
 " he was not suppressing anything." Well, perhaps he did not 
 read the Bull through, and therefore did not wilfully suppress 
 anything, but here, at all events, is a stronger passage than any 
 one yet (juoted. It follows immediately after the clause which 
 contains the definition and vhe awful warning to those who repudi- 
 ate or fail to accept it. It it clause 24. 
 
 " Our mouth is filled with joy and our tongue with exultation, 
 and we do render, and ever will render, most great and most 
 humble thanks to our Lord Jesus Christ, that, of his singular 
 goodness, he has granted to us, although unworthy, to offer and 
 decree this honour and this glory and praise to His most holy 
 mother. But we rest our most certain hope and sure confidence, 
 that it will be, that the Most Blessed Virgin — fwho, all beautiful 
 and immaculate, bruised the poisonous head of the most cruel 
 serpent, and brought salvation to the world ; who is also the glory 
 of the Apostles and Prophets, and the honour of the Martyrs, 
 and of all the Saints the joy and crown ; who also, being the 
 safest refuge of all in peril, the most faithful helper, and the most 
 powerful mediatress and reconciless (conciliatrix) of the whole 
 world with her only- begotten Son, and the most illustrious glory 
 and ornament and most firm protection of the Holy Church, ever 
 slew all heresies and delivered the faithful people and nations 
 from die greatest calamities of all sorts, and has freed us, too, 
 from so many gathering perils) — will, by her most mighty 
 patronage, effect, that the holy mother, the Catholic Church, all 
 difficulties removed and errors dispersed, may, throughout all 
 nations and all places, daily more thrive, fiourish and reign from 
 sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth, so that the 
 guilty may obtain pardon ; the sick healing ; the faint hearted 
 strength ; the affiicted consolation ; the imperilled help ; -^nd all in 
 
38 
 
 \V /licit Bear upon the Sul'Jeii in Dispute. 
 
 ii! 
 
 :ii! 
 
 'l 
 \ 
 ,l 
 
 1 Si i:i 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 error, the darkness of mind being dispersed, may return to the 
 way of truth, and there be one fold and one sheplierd." 
 
 " Let all the sons of the Catholic Church, most dear to us, hear 
 these our words, and icith a yet more ardent zeal of piety, religion 
 and love, continue to worship, invoke, pray the most blessed 
 mother of Ciod, the Virgin Mary, conceived without original stain, 
 and to llee unto this most sweet mother of mercy and grace, in 
 all perils, distresses, necessities and doubtful and anxious circum- 
 stances. For nothing is to be feared, nothing despaired of, when 
 she is the captain, she author, she propitious, she protecting, who, 
 bearing a motherly mind towards us, and having in hand theafiairs 
 of our salvation, is anxious about the whole human race, and 
 having been made by the Lord, Queen of Heaven, and exalted 
 above all the orders of saints and angels, standing at the right 
 hand of her only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, does by 
 her mother's prayers most potently impetrate and find what she 
 seeks and cannot be frustrated.'' 
 
 With this extended quotation before them your readers can 
 now judge for themselves what force there is in my opponent's 
 objection, that because this reference to Gen. iii. 15 is parenthetic 
 it loses its force ; they can now see how thoroughly Jesuitical is 
 his assertion that " the second clause of the text is not even 
 quoted properly speaking." Is it not perfectly evident that that 
 long parenthesis, beginning " who all beautiful and immaculate 
 bruised the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent," down to 
 "gathering perils," is the main prop of the edifice? 
 
 Where would be the reasonableness of the subsequent strains 
 were this parenthesis cut out I should like to know ! How would 
 the Pope have dared to speak of the Blessed Virgin as our 
 " captain " " having the affairs of our salvation in hand," unless 
 he had adhered to the falsehood that she is the one proclaimed 
 by God of old as the bruiser of the serpent's head —the champion 
 of our iallen race ? 
 
 Now let us see whether or not the corrupt reading Ipsa for 
 Ipse in Gen. iii. 15 " has accjuired a tremendous importance" by 
 being quoted in the Bull Ineffauilis. 
 
 Here we see a Pope speaking (so Romanists say) as the 
 authoritative and infallible teacher of Christendom, promulgating 
 
The Pope Sins ao^ainst Light, 
 
 39 
 
 (as dt fide, i. c. to be held on pain of eternal damnation) a 
 dogma unknown for ages in the Church : a dogma condemned 
 again and again by anticipation by all the great Fathers of 
 the Church (as the Romanist Turrecremata has shown), 
 taking for the Scripture /oundatioii thereof this corrupted 
 text, a text which he knew to be corrupt, since the great DeRossi, 
 "the pet and pride of the i'apacy, and of all Europe, on account 
 of his Biblical scholarship " (so my ojiponent tells us), affirmed 
 more tiian sixty years previously that the corruption ought to be 
 removed from the Vulgate by the authority of the Church. 
 
 B'lt we must not take the wording of the decree alone : we 
 must examine also the history of its development. 
 
 In an Encyclical letter of Pius IX., dated 1849, the Roman 
 Bishops were urged, in language calculated to ensure such replies 
 as the Pontiff desired, to state their minds and the mind of their 
 dioceses on the question of the Immaculate Conception. " It is 
 our Vehement •w'l'sYi" said the Pope, "that with the greatest pos- 
 "sible speed you would signify to us with what devotion your 
 "clergy and faithful people are animated towards the conception 
 "of the Immaculate Virgin, and luith zvhat longing they bur?i that 
 " the matter should be dco ecd by the Apostolic SceT What Bishop, 
 it may be asked, to start with, imder such a despotism as the 
 Papacy, unless possessed of singular moral courage and devotion 
 to the truth, would have dared to fly in the face of what was so 
 apparendy a foregone conclusion in the Pope's mind with regard 
 to the main question ? But the Pope goes on to urge the oppor- 
 tuneness of the decree by such an argument as this, that as we 
 believe that wrhat is done purely for the glory of God draws down 
 fresh favours from God, so " the Blessed Virgin being placed," 
 as Romanists hold, " between Christ and the Church," what should 
 be done for the glory of the Blessed Virgin would draw down 
 Irom her fresh favours for the Church. He wrote : " On this hope 
 we chiefly rely, that the Most Blessed Virgin — who raised the 
 height of merits above all the Choirs of Angels *to the throne of 
 the Deity, and by the foot of Virtue " bruised the set pent' s head" 
 and who, being constituted between Christ and His Church, and 
 being wholly sweet and full of graces, hath ever delivered the 
 Christian people from calamities of all sorts, etc., etc., will by her 
 
40 
 
 And Even Prompts the Answers he Craves 
 
 most present and powerful patronage with God, both turn away 
 the scourges of Divine wratli, etc., and turn our sorrow into joy. 
 For ye know very zcell, Venerable l^rethren, thai the whole of our 
 confidence is placed in the Most Holy Virgin, since God has 
 placed in Mary the fulness of all good, that accordingly we may 
 know that if there is any hope in ns, if any grace, if any sal- 
 vation, it redounds to us front her because such is His will who 
 hath willed that we should have everything through Mary." The 
 motive for honouring the Virgin then, it appears, was not altoqellicr 
 ■nnselfish ; it was a kind of bribe to her to secure joy and peace. 
 
 I quote this passage, however, especially to show that the 
 doctrine of the corrupted text of Gen. iii. 15 is again prominent 
 as the Scripture support of the rationalizing process which forms 
 the groundwork of the argument in favour of defining the dogma 
 of the Immaculate Conception. 
 
 But this is not all. " Much the same language," says Dr. 
 Pusey, had been addressed to Gregory XVI. and to Pius IX, 
 himself by Bishops (almost exclusively Italian and French), who 
 had asked them successively to proclaim the doctrine as de fide. 
 They hoped (as some expressed it), that "she who requited 
 every least office towards her," and who, they say, was and is to 
 " bruise the serpent's head," and is " the destroyer of all heresies," 
 would establish the truth, restore peace, and destroy heresy. 
 Here we see Ipsa again, and also open bribery of the Virgin. 
 which is anything but complimentary. In a footnote here, Dr. 
 Pusey, who carefully waded through the three volumes of I 
 Bishops' replies to the Poi)e's Encyclical, says : " The frecjuent 
 "allusions to this ' protevangelium ' (Gen. iii. 15) in the letters of| 
 " the Bishops and in controversy, as though it ascribed to the 
 " Blessed Virgin, directly and personally, what God promised as 
 " to the Person of our Lord, shows how deeply this mistake of 
 " the Vulgate has worked into the Marian system." 
 
 I will quote only a few instances giving the references to the 
 volumes as marked in Pusey's footnotes. The Bishop de la 
 Rochelle (i. 13): "For in this most immense mass of errors, 
 " calamities and troubles wherewith we are oppressed and shaken 
 " on all sides, our ivhole hope is to be placed in that most powerful 
 " Virgin, 2uhich bruised the dragon, to whom it was given to 1 
 
To Receive from his Bishops. 
 
 41 
 
 "destroy all heresies, and ;it whose freewill all the treasures of 
 '• heaven are dispensed." 
 
 The Bishop of Pampeluna (i. 491): " That the -n'ickcd one 
 would be slain by the breath of the mouth of Mary," (a thorough 
 perversion of a Messianic prediction — Is. xi 4; i Thess. ii. 8 — 
 thus brought into accord with the corrupt reading of Gen. iii. 15). 
 
 The Archbishop of Ferrara (i. 298): "That she would com- 
 plete the conquest of the infernal serpent." 
 
 Abb. Conimendat of S. Vincent and Anastasius (i. 173^: 
 "She with her Virgin and Immaculate foot will bruise the head of 
 the infernal serpent, will bring to nought the snares of the prince 
 of darkness " 
 
 The Hishoj) of Aire (i. 272) advocated the decree because 
 "never was the bruising of the serpent's head more needed." 
 
 Dr. Pusey distinctly says (Eirenicon i. 168) that the error of 
 Gen. iii. 15 " became the support of the doctrine of the Immacu- 
 late Concepdon and gives rise to the statements in DeMontfort 
 I an influential Roman writer), ' God has never made or formed 
 'but one enmity; but it is an irreconcilable one, which shall 
 'endure and de\-elop e\en unto the end. It is between Mary, 
 'His worthy Mother, and the de\il ; between the children and the 
 'servants of Mary, and the children and instruments of Lucifer.' " 
 
 I have now, I think, supplied ample evidence of the truth of 
 
 my assertions that the corrupted text of Gen. iii. 15 "largely 
 
 " helped to smooth the way for the promulgation of the Dogma 
 
 'of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin," and 
 
 j"that Pope Pius IX. when jjromulgating the dogma in S. Peter's 
 
 ,"at Rome, Dec. 8, 1854, alluded for its defence to this very text," 
 
 while at the same time I have fully demonstrated " that the mis- 
 
 i " take Ipsa for Ipse had acquired a tremendous importance from 
 
 "being quoted in the promulgation of the dogma by Pius IX." 
 
 I ha\e also, I think, cleared my excellent authorities, Dr. 
 Pusey and others, from the charges laid against them of ignorance 
 land misrepresentation, and at the same time have added another 
 |to my numerous examples of how little reliance can be placed on 
 Imy opponent's criticisms. His misrepresentation of the Bull I 
 Inumber " Blot 40." 
 
42 
 
 Mr. Quighy Must ScU/c xiith Cardinal Manning 
 
 My opponent, therefore, would have been wiser had he ken; I 
 silence about the lecture on misprints. Possibly, " my asloundiiia| 
 stupidity" in not reading the Bull through my opponent's spec- 
 tacles may appear to him " inexpressibly sad." It may possibly I 
 "brand me" in the eyes of his adniirers as "the prince of garb- 
 lets and tcrgiversators," or even as, what a certain meek-spirited 
 worshipper of our gentle Lady pret'ers to call me, " a drunken 
 Ijeelzebui) ; " but still I must not be false to my own visual 
 organs. If my eyes be defective he may, perhai)s, in the interests 
 of truth, and in charity to the souls of the benighted citizens of | 
 St. John, carry out my suggestion and circulate a few thousand 
 copies of a faithful English translation of the Bull Inei fabilis, 
 so as to expose my " infamous calunniies, idiotic impertinence. 
 Satanic malevolence, etc., etc.," and at the same time secure 
 adherents to the latest Cult, without acceptance of which we are 
 all in such fearful peril of eternal ruin. 
 
 Though I have amply proved my point, it is, perhaps, well 
 worth while to corroborate the evidence. 
 
 On the day of the announcement of the decree in S. Peter's 
 at Rome, Dec. 8, 1854, the Roman Church everywhere observed 
 the festival with e^itra devotion and solemnity. It was a gala day 
 for the Romanists of London — High Mass (Pontifical where 
 possiblej, sermons, Vespers and Benediction in all the Roman 
 churches and chapels. 
 
 My opponent informs us that Cardinal Manning's word is taken 
 " at the face " by everyone. We who have lived in London know 
 a little better than that, especially since fompoyiio Leto appeared, 
 but, no matter, my opponent is bound to stand by it. I read in a 
 Roman Catholic publication approved by at least a dozen Bishops 
 (whose letters appear at the beginning), and largely circulated in 
 the States under the imprimatur of the Archbishop of New York, 
 in a chapter treating of the Immaculate Conception, that " at S. 
 "James' Church the sermon at the High Mass was preached by 
 " the Rev. Dr. Manning (now Cardinal), who took for his text the 
 "words (Gen. iii. 15), ' She shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie 
 " in wait for her heel.' " (The Catholic Library, Illustrated, Part 
 L, p. 226.) 
 
 Possibly if the reverend gentleman had consulted my learned 
 
\>i)iini 
 
 And Other Roman Catholic Authorities. 
 
 43 
 
 ^"^"t'« spec!] 
 f'^>' possible 
 
 "^^■" vi,ua; 
 tile interest, 
 
 <^'f'2ens 01 
 
 Perti/ience, 
 '"e secure 
 
 icli 
 
 "■e are 
 
 ^^aps, u-ell 
 
 S. Peter's 
 obser\ed 
 g^aia day 
 ■ai where 
 
 ■ RoiDan 
 
 ' Js taken 
 >n know 
 'Peared, 
 ead in a 
 
 ^'shops 
 ated in 
 
 ■ Vork, 
 "a^S. 
 ed by 
 xt the 
 alt he 
 
 Part 
 
 rned 
 
 opponent he would have chosen the first clause of the text on 
 whicli to base his remarks on so all-important an occasion in the 
 world's Metropolis, and have avoided the stupid blunder of 
 imagining that the second clause had anything to do with the 
 do^ma ; still, I record the fact as corroborative of my own con- 
 tention and leave my opponent to settle with the Cardinal. No 
 doubt il he had foreseen the present important controversy in 
 this city he would have been more obliging to the other side. 
 
 But further — in the very first paragraph on the first page of 
 Part I. of this book, I read, " a mysterious prophecy, in which 
 "the goodness of the Creator was visible, even amid the ven- 
 "geance of an irritated God " (may God forgive the hateful and 
 profane expression, say I,) "came to revive the dejected minds of 
 "those two frail creatures, who had sinned through pride, like 
 "Lucifer. A daughter of Eve, a woman with masculine courage, 
 "was to crush the head of the serpent beneath her feet, and 
 " regenerate for ever a guilty race — that woman was Mary." 
 
 Here we see the writer boldly faces the difticulty of the 
 Hebrew masculine verb with a feminine pronoun, by attributing 
 to the woman masculine strength (printing "masculine" in 
 italics) ; while at the same time he lets us know at the very outset 
 of his treatise on " the Mother of God " what he (in common 
 with all those Bishops and Archbishops who recommend his book) 
 esteems the all-important clause of Gen. iii. 15 to be forced home 
 upon the attention of the Roman Catholic laity for whom the 
 book was published. Ah ! but this writer and his supporters, 
 together with Dr. Manning, were not at that time up to the latest 
 phase of the controversy or they never would have stultified their 
 noble champion of these parts by making such foolish remarks. 
 
 Well, let us look a little farther: In the second chapter of the 
 same work, which treats of the " Immaculate Conception," the 
 author attempts no such hair-splitting or forced conclusions from 
 the expression, " I will put enmities," as we have been treated to 
 by my opponent, but candidly admits that " Scripture has made 
 " no exception in favour of any child of Adam " with regard to 
 the inherent misery of original sin, and attributes the belief in 
 the Immaculate Conception of Mary to the " piety of the faithful 
 " who could not dear the idea that the mother of God should be 
 
44 S. Bernard, S. TJwinas Aqninas, and other Notable Roman 
 
 "subject to the disgraceful condemnation which marks us with 
 " the seal of hell in the wombs of our mothers ; they (the faithful > 
 " have been persuaded," he says, " that the Sovereign Judge must 
 " have suspended the general effect of His severe law in favour of 
 " her who came into the world for no other i)urpose than to con- 
 " tribute to the accomplishment of the most secret, most incom- 
 "prehensible of the counsels of God — the incarnation of the 
 " Messias." 
 
 It is only fair to state that this second chapter was written 
 before the promulgation of Pius IX. 's decree Dec. 8, 1854, when 
 the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was only what is called 
 a pious belief. Pius IX., however, determined that this hitherto 
 pious belief should become a dogma dejidc (/. e., to be believed on 
 pain of eternal damnation). It would never have done to erect it 
 on such a sandy foundation as the foregoing, especially as so many 
 eminent theologians from S. Bernard (12th century) downwards 
 such as S. Bonaventure, .S. Thomas Aquinas, Albert the Great, 
 etc.,) had condemned it as false, and so many Fathers and Eccle- 
 siastical writers before his time had refuted it (undesignedly, ot 
 course) by anticipation (as the Roman Catholic writer Turrecre- 
 mata has so amply proved), the suppressiones vcri and sngges- 
 tiones falsi of the Bull on this score notwithstanding. Some 
 Scripture must, therefore, be found by which to prop it up. But 
 alas ! no passage throughout the wide range of both Old and New 
 Testaments could be found to even colourably sustain it, except 
 the corrupt rendering of Gen. iii. 15. Well, there was nothing to 
 be done then but to use it. The Pope had set his heart on the 
 dogma, the Roman Church was ripe for the definition (the 
 question having been practically begged long before by the 
 establishment, in spite of many protests, of a Festival in honour 
 of what was till 1854 a mere opinion). A case must be made out 
 for it somehow or other, for which it was imperative a Scripture 
 foundation should be laid. Gen. iii. 15 (with Ipsa) was adduced, 
 and adduced boldly, in spite of, and without any allusion to, the 
 testimony of DeRossi, Vercellone, and a whole host of Roman 
 Catholic Biblical critics against the false rendering. Seven times 
 with consummate effrontery, beginning with the Jirst clause of 
 the Bull, does the Pope allude \n g\o\\'mg i^xms Xo Xhe glorious 
 
stable Rowan ■ CaUwlic Divines Condemn the Doqina of /nunae. Coneept. 45 
 
 triiiniph of tlie Blessed \ 'irgin over the old serpent, ivJio:<c poison- 
 ous head she had ernshed xvith her immactdate foot, and twice, on 
 the strength of this false presentation of her position, does he 
 iniport into the phrase " I will put enmity between thee and the 
 " woman," a modern and strained interpretaliun it cannot ijcar. 
 On the strength of this and a deceptive claim to Patristic and 
 Cunciliar consent, Pius IX. declared that the doctrine of the 
 Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin was a truth revealed 
 by God and must, therefore, be accepted by all the faithful if they 
 would avoid making shipwreck of their faith and becoming ipso 
 facto excommunicate. 
 
 I pass on. A careful reconsideration of my remarks on the 
 Jesuit Schouppe's exposition of the dogma {Globe, Feb. 23, 188S), 
 in the light (!) of my opponent's somewhat rabid and confused 
 criticism {Globe, Aug. 3, 1888), suggests to me nothing whatever 
 in them to alter or modify. 
 
 .Schouppe had not ^'Ipsuin on the brain," nor any occasion to 
 distort the argument of the Bull. Bold as his master Pius IX., 
 he adopts, without a qualm or a word of apology or warning, the 
 corrupt rendering of Gen. iii. 15, and quotes it in full. On the 
 strength of her victorious position on the head of the serpent he 
 speaks of the Blessed Virgin as pneclara (renowned or matchless) 
 and then with a Porro (Furthermore, the force of which my 
 opponent appears to have overlooked) gives us the strained 
 interpretation, already alluded to so often, on the phrase, " I will 
 put enmity, etc." 
 
 At the risk, therefore, of provoking my opponent to get out 
 of temper and again to break the third commandment (see Globe, 
 Aug. 3, 1888), I must still claim Schouppe as a witness in favor 
 of the contention that the corrupt rendering of Gen. iii. 15 is the 
 text relied on by Roman theologians as the chief Scriptural 
 foundation for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the 
 Blessed Virgin, Moreover, I repeat emphatically that when 
 Ipsa is substituted for the true rendering Ipse in that text, " the 
 Seed of the woman " (/. <?., Christ), occupies an altogether insig- 
 nificant position in the prophecy, that there is then nothing in the 
 text itself to show that He is in anyway a Victor over His own 
 or man's great enemy, or that He suffered in the conflict as man's 
 
46 
 
 Schouppc (,A'. C.) is against Mr. Quig/cy. 
 
 Redeemer; nor is there even a hint that the woman j^ains the 
 Victory in His power. Look at the wordin.u^, " 1 will i)Ut enmity 
 "between llue aiul the woman and between thy seed and hkr 
 " seed ; sur. shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise her heel." 
 The chief enmity here is with the woman, the triumph is the 
 woman's, the suflering is the woman's. The X'ul.uate, I know, 
 renders the second verb by a woril meanini; " lie in wait for " 
 (her heel), but as in the Hebrew the verb is the same in both 
 places it should he translated the same in both. 
 
 Now, here is a point not sufficiently cUvelt upon: The substitu- 
 tion of Ipsa for Ipse does violence not only to the Hebrew at the 
 bejijinning, but also at the end of the clause, which has unques- 
 tionably a masculine, /lis (heel). The bruising of the heel uf " the 
 Seed of the woman " has ever been interpreted of the bruising of 
 Christ's lower nature, His Humanity, upon the Cross. By the 
 false rendering, this part of the prophecy is obliterated or, worse 
 still, perverted into an allusion to the sword which was to pierce 
 the Virgin's heart, a suffering which, however admirable, can in 
 no way be regarded as the R.edemptive work for man foretold by 
 God in the Protevangelium. 
 
 When, therefore, I alluded to Schouppe's adding " united 
 with her Son " as only " a make-weight," 1 meant that that idea 
 had to be read into the corrupted text, as it could not be got 
 out of it, since Christ nowhere in it appears either as the Victor 
 or as the suffering Redeemer or as the source of power over 
 Satan, as He undoubtedly does in the correct rendering, " HE 
 shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel." 
 
 Surely, then, the Right Reverend lecturer on "Misprints" was 
 well within the mark when he said that the change of an c into an 
 a, Ipse into Ipsa, " had acquired a tremendous importance from 
 " being quoted in the promulgation of the dogma of the Immacu- 
 " late Conception by Pius IX.," as he might well have added, 
 " and from the utter perversion it has caused of the sense of one 
 of, if not the most important of, the predicdons of Messiah and 
 His Redemptive work to be found in Holy Scripture." 
 
 To proceed : In my letter of Feb. 23, 1888, 1 said " Schouppe's 
 argument follows the old one of Liguori (Glories of Mary, p. 340, 
 Part H., Discourse i, section 5, on the Immaculate Conception), 
 
Liilhori is Left I'nansuercd. 
 
 47 
 
 'le siibstitu. 
 f^rew at the 
 'IS iinques- 
 
 f^^'Jof'the 
 brui.sing of 
 s. \\y the 
 •^''i Worse 
 ' f" pierce 
 ^^e, can in 
 "■etoJd by 
 
 who quotes Gen. iii. 15 down to the end of the words, ' She shall 
 crush thy head,'" and then adds, "Now, if Mary was to be the 
 " .stronjf woman brought into the world to crush Lucifer, surely it 
 " was not fitting that she should Ijc conquered by Lucifer and made 
 " his sla\e, but rather that she should be free from every stain 
 " and from all subjection to the enemy." My ojiponent preserves 
 a very omnious silence on this comment of the great Liguori. It 
 must indeed, I admit, prove very galling to an anient ilisciple ot 
 the modern school of defenders of the dogma, to find so many 
 foes to contend with in his own household of faith. Hut then he 
 ought surel\ to be somewhat more modest and consiilerate in his 
 remarks on our writers, who simply follow notorious teachers in 
 his own communion. The evidence of Liguori is absolutely con- 
 clusive. His discourse on the Immaculate Conception cijvers 
 thirty-three pages. He apologises for its length on the plea 
 ■|). 361) that his "little congregation (/. c., of brethren) has for 
 " its principal protectress the most holy Virgin Mary, precisely 
 " under this title of her immaculate conception." Liguori has 
 collected into it every conceivable plea (many most ludicrous) for 
 its reasonableness and probable truth, and yet, will it be believed, 
 he makes not the slightest, even jjassing, allusion to the argument 
 drawn by my opponent from the words " I will put enmities, etc." 
 Why is this? Simply that the fjuibble had not been thought of 
 in his day. ( He died 1787. A. D.) 
 
 To make assurance doubly sure, however, with regard to the 
 Scnpliiral foundation which stands in the forefront of his argu- 
 ment, Liguori gives as his authority for it a commentary on 
 Genesis attributed by some, he says, to S. Augustine, though he 
 does not assert it to be that Father's, which runs thus : " As the 
 " devil was the head from whence original sin proceeded, that 
 "head Mary crushed, because no sin ever entered the soul of the 
 "\'irgin, and therefore she was free from all stain," (this occurs 
 in the same paragraph as the first quotation. Part II. Dis. i. Sec. 5). 
 
 My opponent must not be angry, then, because we refuse to 
 be hoodwinked by his modern school of special pleaders. It is 
 tlie way with Roman controversialists to kick down the ladder 
 by which they have reached a certain stage, as I have pointed out 
 with regard to the Forged Decretals, by which the power of the 
 
48 
 
 KoDiaii Books of Diivlioii Support Lif^uon'. 
 
 Papacy was for so many cciituiics au.miuMited, but which can now 
 he safely dispensed witli, while their inlluence in the past is boldly 
 denied. Now that the doi;nia of the Immaculate Conception has 
 been stereotyped by a Papal decree, it is easy enough to say it 
 can pe proved and upheld without any reference to < ien. iii. 15, 
 or, at all events, to that clause containing the condemned render- 
 int,' /f>sa. My opjionent's disingenuous silenct' about my (juotation 
 from Liguori, at the voy lime he uuis //pdmii/i//^^- me for upholding 
 zohat he knexi< to be Lignoris viexv of the question (one of those 
 "scraps," mark you, "from Pusey, S. Liguori, and the Raccolta," 
 he boasts {^Globe, Dec. 18, 18SS] to have "nut unciuailingly " and 
 to have "answered fully and defiandy,") I number " l5lot 41." 
 
 At the same time, I retain Liguori among my witnesses and 
 hand on to him, as a writer more deserving of the honour, the 
 chaplet of elegant titles presented me on this count by my 
 courteous opponent. 
 
 I will conclude this part of my subject with a quotation from 
 a Roman Catholic book of devotion specially composed for the 
 purpose of honouring the new dogma and exalting its importance 
 among the laity. The prayer reveals as clearly as possible the 
 chief argument on which the doctrine is based. It is made from 
 the prayer book of the " Sodality of the hnmaculate Conception',' 
 New York, p. 36: "We salute Thee, Virgin Mother of God, 
 " exempt from original sin, 7vho at the moment of thy conception 
 ''crushed the Serpent's head, etc." In this prayer the Virgin is 
 spoken of as " Immaculate before Conception ; Immaculate in 
 " Conception ; Immaculate after Conception." What Immaculate 
 before Conception means I cannot say, but it seems to point to the 
 pre-existence of the Virgin, unless it be taken as an allusion to 
 the now exploded or much discredited theory, which separates by 
 an interval of time what are called the active and passive concep- 
 tions, which, though referred to in the Bull Ixeffabilis in a 
 quotation from the decree ol Alexander VII. (clause 5), is never- 
 th«.;less ignored in the wording oi Pius IX. (clause 23). I can- 
 not resist the temptation of adding just one more prayer from 
 the Raccolta to the same effect fp. 270) : " Mary, thou mystical 
 " rose of purity my heart rejoices with thine at the glorious 
 " triumph tvhich thou didst gain over the infernal serpent by thy 
 
Mr. Qniiihy Should .icctpt a Lihciul Offer. 
 
 49 
 
 ' Jiininuii/ati' Ccncc(>lion, and because thou wast conceived witli- 
 " out stain ot' original sin, etc." 
 
 Mr. QnijfJey has ah'cady been challenj^cd to put in circulation 
 a cheap ICnylish edition of the lUill f)l' i.'^54. Why has he not 
 (lone so ? A,nain, ten paj^es only of his copious AV^/^/Ztv would 
 have sufficed for a reprint of the Mull in extenso ; he has given 
 us in its place six times that amount of irrelevant matter. He 
 has not even daied to notice with more than a scoff my analysis 
 oftlie Bull with regard to the position of (ien. iii. 15 in it. 
 
 Now, I here make him this otfer, than which nothing can be 
 fairer: If he (within the charmed circle) will supply me with a 
 co|iy of the official translation (to save all quibbling) of the Bull 
 Incffabilis Dciis (which I am unable to procure) I will pay him 
 for it, and at my own expense will have it printed and circulated 
 throughout this city and province. 
 
 Will he accept this fkksh challenge. 
 
 Ch.\i'TEr XI. 
 
 The F.astcrn Church supplies some very '^'' inconvenient" data 
 
 concerning the Bull Ineffaiulis, and the bearing of 
 
 the corrupt IrsA upon its argument, 
 
 Roman controversialists have more than once claimed the 
 Eastern Church in defence of the new dogma of the Immaculate 
 Conception, because of the lofty language she uses when speaking 
 of the Blessed Virgin. 
 
 The following is an extract from an English translation of the 
 fourth of six essays and letters " from the able pen," says Neale, 
 " of Andrew Nicolaievitch Mouravieff, late Procurator of the Holy 
 Governing Synod " of the Russian Church. Dr. J. M, Neale 
 published these essays in extenso in his Voices frofn the East 
 (Masters, 1859). ^ ^^^ fourth essay on " Tlie dogma of the 
 Immaculate Conception " thoroughly repudiates the notion that 
 
 h 
 
50 
 
 The luistcrn Church Krpudiaiis the 
 
 the I-".astcni Church accepts the Tapal tlogma of 1S54, and com- 
 ])letely pulvcri/cs all the arguments and assumptions ol' the Hull 
 I>iejjabilis. 
 
 The Eastern Church, like the English, confesses hut one 
 Immaculate Conception ; viz., that which fnids mention in the 
 Creeds as effecleil by the Holy Cdiost. 
 
 In the section which criticises the utter inadeciuacy of the 
 Scriptural support claimed by the Pope for the new Dogma, he 
 thus writes of the foremost text : 
 
 " In tjuoting the words of the book of Genesis 1 iii. 151, ' I will 
 " put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed 
 "and her seed: it (he gives his own Cireck version) shall bruise 
 " thy head,' Pius IX. attirms that in these very expressions is con- 
 " tained the exemption of the Blessed Virgin from original sin, 
 " since the words ' slie shall bruise thy head ' refer to her. 
 " According to this doctrine, she it is who wins the victory over 
 " the devil ; she it is who crushes the head of the ancient dragon. 
 " We answer this new doctrine of the Pojie by observing that the 
 " Vulgate translation is not faithful ; that, as well in the original 
 " as in the Septuagint, the pronoun cannot be referred to the 
 " woman, but to the seed of the woman — that is, to our Saviour, 
 " who was to be born of the woman. It is thus that the church 
 " has always explaineil, antl still exjilains, the passage. It is in 
 " this sense that Perronc, ardent advocate as he is of the new 
 " dogma, understands the ttxt. It is in this sense that the words 
 " must be explained, if we compare them with the passages in the 
 "New Testament, which attribute the victory over the devil to 
 "Christ (i S. John iii. 8., lleb. ii. 14). Put the Pope, on the 
 " other hand, tells us that all was the work of Mary ! Is not this 
 " to diminish the merits of our Redeemer? And yet it is pro- 
 " claimctl, ex cathedra, by a mouth which is called, and calls itself, 
 •• infallible ! " 
 
 There is no doubt in this writer's minil, we see, as to where 
 the force of the Pope's argument lies ; viz., in the corrupt render- 
 ing of the second clause which makes the Blessed Virgin the 
 char-'-^n of the human race against Satan, " She shall bruise thy 
 head.'' 
 
 But of course, as expected, I fnul in the Rebutter (p. 394) this 
 
J)og)na of the I))iiU(Uiihih' Cof/(t/>//'i>>/. 
 
 51 
 
 '•=!'- 'i will 
 -^" f'y -seed 
 ''^'I'l'i bruise 
 '^ms is co„. 
 
 "■'^''■"aJ sin, 
 er to J,e,, 
 ictory over 
 "t drngoir. 
 '«■ tJiat tlic 
 ^' original 
 -'[ to tJio 
 
 •Saviour, 
 c ciuirdi 
 
 ^t is i/i 
 t/ic new 
 ic words 
 -s in the 
 '^ievil to 
 on the 
 H)t this 
 s pro- 
 '' itseh; 
 
 witness, ;ij)proved by Hr. Xcale, the greatest l*",nj;lish authority 
 of our times on the ICastern Cluirch "impaled" (that is llic woril) 
 with the rest of my " noodles and i^Doramuses." Here, lu)wever, 
 I will ])lace on the stand two more victims for execution, as dis- 
 j^Iayiug' " an imputlence and ignorance colossal in their crinii- 
 " nality." (Oh Rhetoric ! sonorous and overwhelming, well worthy 
 of the far-fai.ied universities of Chatham and Memramcook, N. 13., 
 and of a Papal and Laval Degree). 
 
 The fnst shall be the late Archbishop of Syros and Tenos, 
 who ]jaid a long visit to l'2ngland in 1869-70. lie was well 
 received by the ICnglish Hishops and at Oxford I'niversity. The 
 conference he held with the late Bishop Wilberforce, of Win- 
 chester, was of sufficient importance to be given to the public. 
 It appeareil in pamjjhlet form i Pub. London) 1S71. h'rom this 
 it appears that the Oreck Church regards the dogma of the 
 Immaculate Conception of the Hlessed Virgin Mary as not only 
 "untrue in fact," but also as "/itrd/rir/ /// femienn'." 
 
 The second witness shall be a renowned scholar already (juoted 
 hy my opponent as an admitted authority upon Eastern Church 
 ([uestions. Pusey, in liircnicon, \o\. I. p. 407, Note 3, gives 
 references supplietl by the Rev. 0. Williams, of Cambridge 
 University, Kngland, which prove that the Greek Church believes 
 the Blessed Virgin to ha\e been conceived in original sin. Let 
 these witnesses be " impaled " forthwith saith our impartial judge. 
 
 CiiArrr.R XII. 
 
 Siiiuiuary of Rrsttib already anived a/. 
 
 I now claim to have proveil thus far, and in comparatively 
 lew i)ages, the four main points of mv t)riginal contention, viz. : 
 
 1. That //>sa is a corruption of the correct reading //>se in 
 Cicn iii. 15, introduced through cari'lessness of scribes, in the early 
 days of manusrri|)ts, who substituted a for e. 
 
 2. That the change of gender in\ olved in this change of a 
 
52 
 
 Mr. Ouigley Routed on Every Charge. 
 
 single letter has, in this particular instance, effected a complete 
 and serious change in the plain sense of the iirst and, perhaps, 
 the most important of all the Messianic prophecies in the Bible, 
 and one fraught with grave and dangerous consequences to 
 Theology. 
 
 3. That the corrupted text appears in the Bull of Pius IX., 
 Incffabilis Dens, as the one Script iral foundation upon which 
 the argument for the Immaculate Conception rests. 
 
 4. That IpSKtn, although giving the true sense of the Hebrew 
 Bu equally with Ipse, and although as Latin, better than Ipse, 
 and what we should expect to find after semen, and a translation 
 adopted by many scholars and translators of other versions of the 
 Bible, is not to be found in any copy of the scores of existing 
 MSS. of the Vulgate editions of all ages, and moreover cannot 
 be proved to have ever existed in any of the Manuscript Latin 
 Bibles in common use in the Church of Christ. 
 
r^. 
 
 a a complete 
 
 ''i"tl, perhaps 
 
 '" fhe Bible' 
 
 sequences to 
 
 of Pius IX., 
 upon u-JiicIi' 
 
 the Hebrew 
 f than //>st; 
 transJatioii 
 -yw/^oftlie 
 ot existing- 
 ^er cannot 
 -'"'Pt Latin 
 
 PART II. 
 
 Chapter I. 
 
 T/ic Great Fathers of the Church of the First Six Centuries are 
 ■unanimous in interpreting Gen. Hi. 75" of 
 Christ's llctory over Sata^i. 
 
 (Mr. (^)uigley is again detcctetl shifting his ground and misrepresenting evidence.) 
 
 As I have now efit'ectually dealt with the main arguments of 
 my opponent's Reprint, I might justly conclude with the sum- 
 mary just given. It would, however, be a pity to let slip this 
 opportunity of giving the public a few specimens of my Strictures 
 which would have proved very "inconvenient" companions to 
 my opponent's letters, had he been manly enough to accept my 
 ofL-r to reprint them, free of cost to himself 
 
 The following extracts supply the chief Patristic evidence of 
 the first six centuries, A. D. in favour of the masculine reading. 
 Ipse, in Gen. iii. 15 : 
 
 Clobc, February 14, 1888. 
 
 The Apostolic Fathers — those, that is, who conversed with 
 Apostles or lived in the first century of the Christian era, viz. : 
 Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas (so called), the 
 writer to Diognetus, Hennas and Papias (all Greek writers), 
 have nothing directly to the point. Their writings, however, 
 reveal the lact that Christ Jesus is their " all in all " in life, in 
 death or martyrdom ; that they knew nothing about the cham- 
 pionship of the Blessed Virgin, nor of the necessity of seeking her 
 help and intercession, which certainly they must have done had 
 the modern Roman doctrine and practice with regard to the 
 Virgin formed part of the faith delivered unto them by the 
 Aposdes. 
 
 Of the Fathers, from the second to seventh centuries, there are 
 seven Greek and seven Latin ones who directly quote Gen. iii. 15, 
 some with and some without comment, while some make allusions 
 
 (53) 
 
54 
 
 The Eastern and Western Churches 
 
 to it in other parts of their writings. Their names are Theophilus 
 of Antioch, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, 
 Chrysostoni and Isidore of Pelusium (Greek), and Cyprian, 
 Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Lucifer of Cagliari, Leo the Great, 
 and Gregory the Great (Latins 
 
 Besides these there are five — four Greek and one Syriac — 
 who make allusions to the text without quoting it, viz. ; Justin 
 Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Methodius, Athanasius (Greek) 
 and Ephrem Syrus (Syriacj. The following are names of writers 
 in whose works I can discover no quotation of or even allusion to, 
 Gen. iii. 15, viz. : ci^ht Greek — Athenagoras, Gregory Thauma- 
 turgus, Dionysius of Alexandria, Basil of Ciesarea, Gregory 
 Nyssen, Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret : 
 four Latin — Tertullian, Arnobius, Lactantius and Hilary of 
 Poictiers. 
 
 To begin with those who quote. The (ireek of the passages 
 in Irenseus, Origen and Lsidore of Pelusium is lost, so we have 
 to put up with the Latin translations of then). We should natu- 
 rally expect to find the masculine in the Greek writers, because 
 they used the Septuagint, and we are not mistaken. 
 
 Irenaeus (A. D. 140-202). — In two passages (adv. Hier. iv. 
 40 §3, V. 21 >!i ) has Ipse in both, " Ipse tuum calcabit caput," etc., 
 and " Ipse tuum observabit caput," etc. ( " He shall trample on 
 or shall watch for thy head," etc.) The Greek, doubUess, had 
 antos and autou. In the latter passage Irena-us has this remark- 
 able comment: " Neque enim juste victus fuisset inimicus nisi ex 
 " muliere homo esset qui vicit eum " (For the enemy ivould not 
 have been fairly overcome had not his conqueror been a man 
 born of a woman). 
 
 Theophilus of Antioch, A. D. 168-181. — To Antolycus Chap. 
 21. " It (a/</t?) shall watch thy head and thou shalt watch foi 
 HIS {autou) heel." . 
 
 Hippolytus, A. D. 195-230, in a Fragment on Gen. 49, 16-20 
 has " He shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise His heel." 
 
 Origen, A. D. 185-252, in one or two places on Genesis where 
 the Greek is lost has Ipse showing clearly that he read autos. 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalam, A. D. 3S6. — Catechetical lectures xvi., §10, 
 quotes first part only of Gen. iii. 15. As he quotes throughout 
 
Unanimoiis i)i their Interpretation of Gen. Hi. /j. 55 
 
 I'-e Tlieophilus 
 
 o^' Jerusalem, 
 
 and Cyprian, 
 
 ■eo the Great, 
 
 3110 Syriac — 
 ^' ^^^- ; Justin 
 «ius (Greek) 
 ics of writers 
 '1 allusion to, 
 "■y Thaunia- 
 •a, Gregory 
 ■i'lieodoret ,• 
 Hilar3■ of 
 
 e jJassages 
 'O we have 
 ouid natu- 
 s, because 
 
 Hitr. i\-. 
 put," etc., 
 ample on 
 Jess, had 
 remark - 
 s nisi ex 
 ^f'/d fiot 
 
 a man 
 
 s Chap, 
 tch for 
 
 16-20 
 lel." 
 
 where 
 
 ', ho, 
 rhout 
 
 these lectures from the Septuagint Old Testament there can be 
 no doubt that he read a ?(tos and autou (masculine) in the latter 
 part. 
 
 Chrysostom, A. D. 347-407. — Homilies on Gen. iii. quotes 
 the LXX., atitos, masculine. 
 
 Isidore of Pelusium, A. D. 400-450. — The Latin of the lost 
 Greek runs thus : " Illucl mulieris semen, quod Deus inimicum et 
 infestuin serpenti esse jubet Domiiius noster Jesus est" (That 
 seed of the woman which God decreed should be hostile and 
 fatal to the serpent is our Lord Jesus). 
 
 Next. The Latin Fathers who quote the passage : 
 
 Cyprian of Carthage, A. D. 200-258. — Treatises IIL, 2, ^59, 
 " Hoc semen prcedixerat Deus de muliere procedere quod calcaret 
 caput diaboli, in Cienesi Ipse tuum observabit caput et tu ejus 
 calcaneum." (This seed God had foretold should come forth from 
 the woman which should bruise the devil's head in Genesis, 
 " He shall watch for thy head, etc.") 
 
 Jerome, A. D. 345-420. — Op. Tom. IIL, Col. 309, quest. Heh. 
 in gen. in loc "Ipse servabit melius habet in Hebroeo Ipse conterct 
 * =!= * quia * * * Dominus conteret Satanam sub pedibus nostris 
 velociter." (He shall bruise, according to the Hebrew, is better 
 than He shall ivatch [the LXX.], because [S. Paul says] "the Lord 
 shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.") S. Jerome we see 
 argues back from the reading of Rom. xvi. 20, in favour of the 
 Hebrew over the Septuagint of this passage, and in doing so he 
 tells us the Ipse is Dominus our Lord. 
 
 Lucifer of Cagliara, A. D. 340-376, has Ipse, but I cannot 
 give the reference. 
 
 Leo the Great, A. D. 440-461. — Serm. XXL, in Nat. Dom., 
 ii., >^ I (already quoted), has Semen quod, which he refers to our 
 Lord. 
 
 We 1 .ve now to consider the reading of tl»e three great 
 Latin Fathers, Ambrose, Augustine, and Gregory the Great, who 
 followed the Itala version with Ipsa. 
 
 Ambrose, De fuga seeculi, §43. — ''Ipsa tibi observabit caput et 
 tu illius calcaneum." " She shall watch for thy head and thou for 
 her heel." But the strange thing is that in his comment he does 
 not like modern Romanists refer the mulier and Ipsa to the 
 
56 
 
 El Those who Used the Itala I 'nigate 
 
 Virgin, but to the Church ; and the semen vinlieris to the cliildren 
 of the Church — i.e., the baptised; his concluding words are: 
 " Non ergo ambulemus in terrenis et serpens nobis nocere non 
 poterit. Sumamus EvangeHcum calceamentum quo venenum 
 serpentis excluditur, etc." (Let us not, therefore, walk among 
 earthly things and then the serpent will be unable to hurt us. 
 Let us put on the sandals of the Gospel whereby the serpent's 
 poison is shut out, etc.) 
 
 Augustine (convert and pupil of Ambrose). — In Psalm 
 XXXV., § 18 (Ps. 36. English version). " Ideo cum cautam face- 
 ret Dominus Ecclesiam, ait, Ilia tuum inquit observabit caput et 
 tu ejus calcaneum." (Therefore when the Lord would caution 
 His Church, He said, " She shall watch thy head and thou shalt 
 watch her heel.") 
 
 In Psalm XLVIIL, Serm. i, %b (Ps. 49, English version^ 
 " A Deo quid dictum est serpenti ? Ipsa tuum observabit caput 
 
 et tu ejus calcaneum 
 
 quare autem Eva- hoc dixit ? 
 
 preceptum est Evae ut observet caput diaboli." S. Augustine in- 
 terprets the Ipsa of Eve. It is needless to give the whole of the 
 Latin. The translation runs " What was said by God to the 
 Serpent ? " " She shall mark thy head and thou shalt mark her 
 heel." The devil marketh thy heel in order that when thou slippest 
 he may overthrow thee. He marketh thy heel, do thou mark his 
 head. What is his head ? The beginning of an evil suggestion. 
 * * * * But wherefore said he this to Eve ? Because through 
 the flesh man doth slip. Our flesh is an Eve within us. '^^ * * 
 The devil would make us slip through the flesh just as he had 
 made that man Adam to slip through Eve. Eve is bidden to 
 mark the head of the devil because the devil marketh her heel. 
 
 In Psalm CIIL, Serm. 4, §6 (Ps. 104, English version). 
 " Nostis enim et quid dictum est mulieri, vel potius serpenti Ipsa 
 tuum observabit caput, etc. In magno mysterio dictum in figuiA 
 dictum Ecclesiee ftiiurce. * * * * (^ Ecclesia caput serpentis 
 observa. Quod est caput serpentis ? Prima peccati suggestio." 
 (For ye know what was said to the w^oman, or rather to the 
 serpent. She shall watch thy head, etc. These words are a great 
 mystery spoken in figure of the futtire Omrch. * ^ -^ ^ Q 
 Church watch for the head of the serpent. What is the serpent's 
 head ? The first suggestion of sin). 
 
St'/ not Mary in Christ's Place upon the Serpent's Head. 57 
 
 De Genesi cont : Manich : Lib. II., ^28. De Genesi ad llterani. 
 Similar interpretations to that on Ps. 48. 
 
 Ciregory tlie Great — Job Lib. i, Cap. i, >^ 53, has Ipsa tuum, 
 etc., like Augustine. We know from what he tells us in the intro- 
 duction to his commentary on Job that he used two Latin ver- 
 sions — Jerome's, which he called the new and tlie best, from 
 which he took his text for Job, and the older one current before 
 the revision, which was probably the Itala, from which he says he 
 often received aid in interpreting. He follows this here, appar- 
 ently, but he interprets it like Augustine : " To mark the serpent's 
 head is to keep an eye upon the beginnings of his suggestions," 
 
 These, then, are all the instances 1 can find in the P'athers I 
 have mentioned of quotations and comments on Gen. iii. 15. 
 We have seen that not one of the Fathers till the time of Ambrose 
 (A. D. 340-961 read the feminine — that only three out of the 
 fourteen who (juote Gen. iii. 15, quote from the corrupted Itala 
 Ipsa,-A\\A moreover that they (and this is a very strong point indeed) 
 though clinging to the translation to which they had become 
 accustomed, in no way did violence to the general tradition 
 of the Church with regard to the Protevangelium which made the 
 seed of the woman the champion of the race against the devil, but 
 interpreted the feminine either of Eve herself or in a mystical way 
 of Christ's Bride, the Church. 
 
 We see then that there is not one of the Fathers of the Church 
 of the first si.\ centuries who comments on Gen. iii. 15 who gives 
 the slightest support to the modern Roman doctrine that the 
 Blessed Virgin is there the subject of prophecy as the bruiser of 
 the serpent's head. 
 
 ! shall now follow up this proof by some patristic allusions to 
 the text which ought to convince every one that the modern 
 interpretation had never a place in the early Church. 
 
 Justin Martyr, A. D. 103-164, Dial: Tryph : C. 100. "And 
 by her (the Virgin) has He been born, to Whom we have proved 
 so many Scriptures refer, and by Whom God destroys both the 
 serpent and those angels and men who are like him. 
 
 C. 103 of same. Compares the temptations of Adam and 
 Chri.st and says that the devil, whom Moses called the serpent, 
 was vanquished by Christ. 
 
58 Patristic Allusions, equally -icith Direct Quotations, 
 
 C. 30 of same. He says that devils tremble at Christ's human 
 name (Jesus) and are exorcised (cast out) by Christians using it. 
 
 C. 94 of same. Of the brazen seri)ent raised on the cross 
 pole, he says that it represents the serpent who deceived the first 
 Adam, destroyed by the cross of the second. 
 
 In Apol. ii. 7, he speaks of Jesus born for the destruction of 
 devils, and of the power of His name manifested in the work of 
 e.xorcists. 
 
 Irena'us, A. D. 140-202 Adv. Hier. HI., 123, §7. — (I need not 
 give the Latin of the lost Greek) " For which cause he put enmity 
 between the serpent and the woman with her seed, the two watch- 
 ing one another suspiciously, so that on the one part He whose 
 foot is bitten hath power even to trample on the head of the 
 enemy ; and that the other should bite and slay and impede the 
 man's approaches until the coming- of the seed predestined to 
 trample on his head, which seed 'a'as the o/fsprinq; of Mary, con- 
 cerning whom the Prophet said, " Thou shalt walk upon the asp." 
 
 Clement of Alexandria (died 216), Exhortation to the Heathen. 
 C. XI. §1. — "Adam succumbed to the crawling serpent of 
 pleasure. The Lord, to release him from his bonds, clothed 
 himself in flesh, vanquished the serpent, and enslaved the tyrant 
 death." In chap. I. of same work: "Therefore (for the seducer 
 is one and the same) he that at the beginning brought Eve down 
 to death, now brings thither the rest of mankind. Our ally and 
 helper, too, is the same, the Lord zvho from the beginning gave 
 revelations by prophecy but now calls plainly to salvation * * * 
 Let us flee, therefore, from the prince of the power of the air (Eph. 
 ii. 2) and run to the Lord the Saviour. 
 
 Cyprian (200-258 A. D.) — Discourse on Baptism, §4, in a com- 
 parison between the conflict of the first and second Adam with 
 Satan — Jesus is shown to have crushed the serpent when He nn;t 
 him in the wilderness after His baptism. 
 
 Also §5 shows Christ by His death Satan's victor. "For 
 the devil had received over sinners the power which he claimed 
 for himself over the Immaculate One (/. e. Christ), and thus he 
 himself was overcome decreeing that against the Holy One which 
 was not allowed him by the law he had received." 
 
 Methodius (312 A. D.) — Symposium on Chastity, c, vi. : " For 
 
Refute the Roman Interpretation of Gen. iii. /j. 
 
 59 
 
 with this i)urpose tlie Word assumed the nature of man, that 
 having overcome the .serjjent, He might Himself destroy the con- 
 demnation which had come into being along with man's ruin. " 
 And then he quotes i Cor. xv. 22. 
 
 Athanasius (Hj). 326-73 A. D. ) — Treatise against Arians I. 
 xii. >:<S(or >^5i in Benedictine ed.) : " I"or as when Adam had 
 transgressed, his sin reached unto all men, so, when the Lord had 
 become man and had overthrown the serpent, His great strength 
 might also extend through all men, etc." 
 
 So in H. xxi. 20 (Hened. Md. §6y) — Satan vanquished by 
 Christ in the wilderness. The argument here is that no mere 
 creature could have been man's champion against Satan. This 
 argument, though levelled against the Arians, condemns by anti- 
 cipation the setting up of the Virgin in that position. 
 
 See also Historical Tracts HI. §2 — In consequence of Christ's 
 victory over Satan, mere children in Christ can now mock the 
 devil, and the infant child lays its hand on the hole of the asp 
 and laughs at him who deceived Eve, while all that rightly believe 
 in the Lord, tread Satan under foot. 
 
 Ephraim the Syrian (died 379) — Rhythm 5 : "Thou, O Son 
 of David, hast killed the unseen wolf that murdered Adam." 
 Rhythm 15: "Glory be to Him that slew the wicked one who 
 envied and deceived Adam." 
 
 Rhythm 8 : " Eve lifted up her eyes from Hades and rejoiced 
 in that day, because the Son of her daughter, as a medicine of 
 life, came down to raise 7ip tlie another of His mother. Blessed 
 Babe, that bruised the head of the serpent that smote her (/. e. 
 Eve)."« 
 
 Chrysostom (347-407 A. D.) — Is very full of allusions. The 
 passages are of uich interest, but I shall only give a line or two 
 from each to save space. 
 
 Horn. 67 on John xii. 31. — " So by Christ's death the prince 
 of this world is cast down." 
 
 Horn. 85 on John xix. 18. — A long passage of the same pur- 
 port. 
 
 Horn. 8 on Rom. iv. 21. — The power Christians have by the 
 name of Jesus over the devil, who, like a serpent, trails along 
 the ground. 
 
 3. These Rhythms .ire from the genuine Syriac writings. 
 
6o Mr. Quiglcy Hopes to Annul the Force of Patristic Evidence 
 
 Horn. V. on Eph. ii. i6. — His death hatli slain the enmity. lie 
 hath wounded and killed it not by giving charge to another, nor 
 by what he wrought only, but also by ivhat He snjfered. 
 
 Mere see another refutation by anticipation of the modem 
 doctrine about the Virgin's championship. 
 
 See also Hom. 22 on Eph. vi. 13, and Horn. 4. on Heb. ii. 14. 
 
 Hom. 6 on Col. ii. 15. — Never yet was the devil in so shame- 
 ful a plight. From the cross Christ " made a show " of the 
 diabolical powers " openly." " The serpent was slain on high 
 upon the cross with the world looking on." 
 
 S. Leo the Great (440-61 A. D.)— Ad. Flav.-Epis., C. 2. " Ut 
 mortem Vinceret, et diabolum qui mortis habebat imperium sua 
 virtute dcstrucrct." (That He might vancjuish death and destroy 
 by His own power the devil who held the rule over death.) 
 
 Rufinus (345-420.) — Com. in Symb. Apos. §14, 15. Christ 
 triumphed over the powers of darkness by His cross, and gave 
 strength to His followers to do likewise. 
 
 Gregory the Great (590-640). — Job, bk. H. §40. " The devil 
 is rebuked by the Incarnate Lord and restrained from his baneful 
 license." 
 
 Do. §41. The devil found none from Adam to Christ who 
 could resist him. But now divine power hath appeared in the 
 Hesh, Satan is confounded by the very weakness of the human 
 nature set against him. 
 
 Bk. on Job, 26, 12. Satan overcome by Christ in the wilder- 
 ness. 
 
 Bk. 19, §46. He speaks of the Church as bruising the devil 
 by the power of her preaching and delivering souls from his 
 grasp. 
 
 I have now given quotations and references enough for my 
 purpose. I have diligently searched under various headings in 
 the general indices of names and subjects supplied with the 
 writings of Fathers in the Oxford Library, Clarke's Ante-Nicene 
 Library of the Fathers, etc., and cannot find the slightest hint 
 which could be twisted into a support for the modern Roman in- 
 terpretation of Gen. iii. 15. 
 
 Now, how did my opponent attempt to break the force of this 
 catena of representative Theologians of universal repute — By 
 
liy DcUbcratt'ly S/iirkinii the Point at Issue . 
 
 ^i 
 
 sluiwing that I had misquoted or misrepresented them? or by 
 opimsinj; to it an array of equally weighty authorities for the 
 Roman interpretation ? He cculd not do the one ; he dared not 
 the other. He began by deliberately shirking the point at issue 
 I see next chajiter), and then long after, when my eatena was out 
 of sight and mintl, with characteristic bravado, paraded a few 
 names which did but exhibit the abject feebleness of his case. 
 Here it is (Reprint 342). He begins by citing the (jreek prayers 
 to the Virgin, wrongly attributed to S. Kphraim, which Pusey says 
 on the best authority ( lurenicon H., 302) "are beyond (juestion 
 " neither his )ior of an early date." The quotation is in manifest 
 conflict with my own extracts from the genuine Syriac works of 
 the Saint." Next comes an ecclesiastical writer, Hesychius, cjuoted 
 by Pusey. But Pusey is ignorant which of the twenty-seven 
 persons of the sam2 name is the author. There is another date- 
 less Hesychius he quotes (p. 29, Eiren. H.), who attributes the 
 destruction of the serpent to Christ. So these two H -sychiuses 
 neutralize one another. He then produces stanzas from three 
 Christian poets, all of 'Cao. fifth century (notice the date) — one a 
 Bishop, and two laymen — none of them reckoned as Fathers of 
 the early Church, viz.: S. Avitus, Bp. of V'ienne, A. D. 490-525 ; 
 Prudentius, Spanish barrister and poet, A. D. 405 ; Victor, a 
 learned layman, A. D. 426. He offers further supplies on demand ; 
 but we know what that means. My opponent has not shown him- 
 self so chary of the Globe s space as to omit anything really good. 
 
 Now, against these witnesses I can pit ecclesiastical writers of 
 e(|ual weight, and so balance authorities outside the circle of the 
 Fathers. For instance : Peter Chrysologus, Bp. of Ravenna, 
 433-454 A. D., Sermon 173, de D. Joan Bapt. : "^ Ipse servabit 
 caput tuum ; " and Procopius Gazaeus, A. D. 518-565. In his 
 commentary on Genesis he writes : " The discourse is changed 
 from one gender to another. For as He said all this to the 
 woman, He now says, " He (houtos-Hic) shall observe thy head." 
 
 In my Strictures I pointed out, with regard to Prudentius, 
 that while he attributes the bruising of the Serpent's head to the 
 Blessed ^^irgin on account of the corrupt reading Ipsa common 
 in the )man versions of the Vulgate, he knew nothing of the 
 
 9. See Appendix F. 
 
(>2 
 
 Co>is/>cc/us of Patristic Witnesses Examined. 
 
 notion that the X'irj^in was immaculately conceived ; because in 
 line S94 of his .'y/)('///<<\s7^ he writes ; "Solus lal)e caret peccati 
 coiulitor orbis." (The Maker of the world alone is without spot 
 of sin). 
 
 My o])ponent ha^ , therefore, absolutely no witnesses left of any 
 weii^ht whatever to overthrow the testimony of the great Fathers 
 of the first six centuries ( A. 1). 10,^ to 600) of the Christian era 
 to the fact that the correct reading of Gen. iii. 15 is ''Ipse 
 conteret, etc.," and that the text teaches that Christ peisonal/y, 
 immediately and alone, bruised the Serpent's head, as champion 
 of the human race I le came to redeem. 
 
 The following table gives the raines and dates of the Fathers 
 
 quoted abo\ e : 
 
 Cireck l-athcrs. 
 
 A. n. 
 
 A. D. 
 
 Methodius 312 
 
 Athanasius 326-373 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem 386 
 
 Chrysostom 347-407 
 
 Isidore of Pelusium.... 400-450. 
 
 Justin Martyr 103-164 
 
 Irenaus 140-202 
 
 Theophilus of Antioch..i6.S-iSi 
 Clement of Alexandria, died 216 
 
 Hippoly tus 1 95-230 
 
 Origen 1 85-252 
 
 Latin Fathers. 
 
 A. D. A. D. 
 
 Cyprian of Carthage ...200-258 Rufmus 345-420 
 
 Jerome 345-420 Leo the Great 440-461 
 
 Lucifer of Cagliari 340-376 
 
 Syriac Fatltcr. 
 Ephraim, A. D. 379. 
 
 The Latin Fathers Ambro.' (A. D. 340-396) and Augustine 
 (A. D. 395-430), as I have said, while they adhere to the reading 
 Ipsa, never interpret it of the Blessed Virgin, but are one in mind 
 with the Fathers above named on the subject. Gregory^the Great, 
 Bishop of Rome (A. D. 590-604), used both readings, but pre- 
 ferred Ipse. When using Ipsa he follow's Augustine's interpre- 
 tation. 
 
 It is for my opponent to explain why these three notable 
 Theologians do not interpret Ipsa of the Virgin. 
 
AppUciition 0/ the \ 'inccntiiui Canon, 
 
 63 
 
 Tested, then, by tlic \'incciitiaii Canuii of the 5tli Century, 
 summed up in the words, " I'niversahty, Anticiuity iuul Consent," 
 tlio Romish doctrine tliat Mary is the cliampion ol the human 
 race, l^ruisinj; the serijent's head under lier feet (whieii certainly 
 is the doctrine inculcateil in tlie ordinary books of instruction 
 ami devotion of the Roman Church, notwithstanding the sophis- 
 tries by whicli her TheoU\i,Mans attempt to exjjlain away the 
 damaji;^ing fact), stands condemned. It lacks entirely the all- 
 important mark of aiitiijtii/y, as the evidence drawn from the 
 representative writers of the first six centuries, given above, 
 clearly shows, to say nothing about the other two characteristics 
 just mentioned of Catholic truth, and therefore it must be rejected 
 as false. Yet this false interpretation, as I have shown, forms the 
 chief (so called) .Scriptural suj^port of the argument in favour of 
 the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin in the Pope's 
 Hull, " Ineffabilis Deus.'"' 
 
 Chapter II. 
 
 The Fathers of the Church of the Fust Six Centuries give no 
 
 support to the modern Roman Cultus 0/ the Virgin, or to the 
 
 notion of her being Immaculately Conceived, 
 
 iMr. (^)iiigley is again detocleil sliifiing his ground.) 
 
 The title of this chapter is an indication of a change of view 
 dragged into the discussion by my opponent. Unable to face 
 siiuarely the overwhelming evidence supplied in the last chapter 
 as to the mind of the early Church regarding Gen. iii. 15; 
 finding it impossible to assert that I had either misquoted or 
 misrepresented any of the great Fathers quoted ; at the same 
 time ashamed to array against my phalanx of leaders and teachers 
 of all ages and climes, from A. I). 103 to 600, the few insignificant 
 fifth century authors of the western Church, who (misled by the 
 corrupt Vulgate version of Gen. iii. 15, by that late date widely 
 circulated; attributed the overthrow of Satan to the Blessed 
 
64 
 
 Mr. Oiiii^hy \ 'iiiiiaHv Adiiiifs thai 
 
 Virgin, my opponent deemed it prudent policy to ignore the point 
 under discussion, thus ( Globe, April 13, 1.S88 : Reprint, p. 108) : 
 
 " I ask your readers," he says, " to accompany me while we 
 " search the records of the first six centuries for the place which 
 " Mary held in the devotion and doctrine — in the heart and mind 
 "—of the early Church." 
 
 What do my readers think of a cause that recpiires upholding 
 by such a shift as this ? What can they think of the honesty of 
 a contro\ersialist who adopts it? Is it too much to claim this 
 shirking of the question as a practical admission on my oppon- 
 ent's part, that the Fathers of the first six centuries of the Christian 
 Era are on my side with regard to the reading and interpretation 
 of Gen. iii. 15 ? 
 
 Plowcver, bearing this facr in mind, let us see if my opponent 
 can do any better with his new subject. 
 
 I will track him and expose his hiding places on his tortuous 
 course, however wearisome the task, in order that by an exposure 
 of my opponent's tactics, the public may get an idea of the ordi- 
 nary i-<Mitroversial methods of Romanism, though I admit he 
 surpasses all its champions in coarse and venomous abuse. Now, 
 observe closely his procedure. 
 
 As he can find nothing to lend any countenance to the modern 
 Roman Cult in tl;e Ciospcls, Acts, Epistles, etc , of the New 
 Testament, written by the first and greatest Fathers of the 
 Christian Churcli — writings acknowledged by Roman Catholics 
 themselves to be inspired by the Moly Ghost, and pre-eminent in 
 rank above all other Christian writings — my opponent introduces 
 the first witness on tiiis subject with this remark : "In the first 
 " century we cannot, of course, expect much assistance. It was 
 " the age of Martyrs and Evangelists, not of writers, unless we 
 "except the composers of the New Testament." 
 
 Just think of that for a fair start ! With one wave of the hantl 
 he thinks to get ritl of the whol;? of the first century with its 
 inspired writings and ,\post()lic witnesses to the " h'aith once for 
 «// delivered to the .Saints." 
 
 The Roman Church teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary has 
 ascended in her body (which, like her Divine Son's, saw no cor- 
 ruption) into heaven, and sitteth in ghjry (.n the right hand ot 
 
I\Ia)iolatyy Iu)tds No Place i)t the N. T. 65 
 
 Incarnate Deity upon the throne in highest heaven ; that she there 
 ever li\(>th to make intercession with her Son lor sinners ; lliat 
 she is " tiie only liope of sinners ; their only advocate with jesus 
 " dirist." She is addressed as co-Redeinptress ; as havint;' sliared 
 witli Itsus the siiii'erini4S of the cross; as being "the Peacemaker 
 lutueen (lOi) and man;" as " the most true Mechatress between 
 (iod and man;" :is " the Refuge ot" sinners " wlien odious and 
 hateful to (ioD; as '" the Throne of (irace to which the Apostle 
 " S. I'aul in iiis Mi)istle to the Hebrews exhorts us to fly with 
 " confidence that we may obtain the I~)ivine Mercy and all the 
 " help we need for our salvation ; " as the one through whom 
 alone " Divine Ciraces are dispensed and souls are sanctified;" 
 as " the Ciate of Heaven, because no one can enter that blessed 
 " kinjidoni without passing by her ; " as the one "to whom all 
 "power is given in Heaven and on earth." "Mary opens," we 
 read, "the abyss of Cioo's mercy to whomsoever she wills, when 
 " she wills, and as she wills ; " " no one," we read, " is saved but 
 "tluough Mary ; " " he who has not recourse to Mary is lost." It 
 is her olfice, Rome teaches, to apply the Precious Blood of Christ 
 to the souls of sinners. It is imperative, we are taught, that 
 prayer be addressed to her for all blessings, since " Cioi) wills that 
 we should have nothing that has not passed the hands of Mary." 
 Therefore, " many things," we read, " are asked oi (ioD and not 
 granted; tlv^y are asked of .Mary anil are obtainetl." ' 
 
 What ! lias my opj)onent the hardihood to assure us that this 
 vast doctrinal and practical system of devotion to Marj' is accord- 
 ing to the mind of God, while not one hint is given to us about it 
 in the inspired word of (idd by the very men who saw jesus 
 Christ in the flesh, and were taught by Him ; conversed with Him, 
 both before antl after His resurrection, concerning the mysteries 
 of His Kingdom, the Church; saw Him ascend into Heaven; 
 had personal experience of the marvels and powers of Pentecost ; 
 preached the Cosj^el in all the world ; saw and conversed with 
 the Iilessed Virgin herself, and outlived her by many years ? 
 
 I. See Limioii's " ( Jloiios I f iM.iry," Pub.: Hums I'v: Oatcs, London. A book approved 
 l>y tlic I'ope a?'d luiinbcrless Roman Archbishops autl Bishops, pp. i6, 71, 74, go, 95, 9(1, 99, 
 lui, 105. 112, II j, i.'S, i.'9, If 1, 111, 142, 144, 145, 149, if)(i, 170, iSi), 19., ?io, J41, -4j, J4;, .'51, 
 «lc. ; also ([uotalions in Pan 111. 
 
'1 
 
 66 
 
 IV/urc, of all Places, zee Should Expccl to Find H, 
 
 Yes — with a wave of the liand he gets rid of the insuperable 
 (iifficuUies which meet Mariohitry on the very threshold of the 
 Ciospels and Epistles. " In the first century we cannot,'' he says, 
 " expect much assistance." Ought he not rather to have said : 
 "In the first century xvc should, of course, expect the greatest 
 possible assistance with regard to a doctrine and practice which 
 have absorbed so much interest and attention of Christians for so 
 many years, if they were founded on (iOd's truth. 
 
 The silence of the New Testament writings (spread over, as 
 they were, the last half of the first century) concerning the 
 Assumption and Worship of the Virgin, and the necessity of 
 j)rayer to her for grace, protection and intercession, is inexplicable 
 upon any other ground than that Apostles and E\angelists knew 
 nothing whatever about them. If any one could penetrate Divine 
 mysteries it was S.John, the bosom friend of the Incarnate Word 
 of God. If any one was well acquainted with Christ's Blessed 
 Mother and all the details of her life and death, it was S. John, 
 who took her to his home from Calvary for the rest of her life in 
 obedience to his Master's loving wish. He wrote not his Gospel 
 till the last decade of the first century, when the Church had had 
 at least fifty years after the Virgin's death to develope her Cultus, 
 and yet, though he speaks of " the Word made flesh," he makes 
 but three passing remarks on the Virgin in the narrative ; one of 
 them at least impl;,ing a mild rebuke, while not one word occurs 
 to show that S. John knew anything about her exaltation to Christ's 
 throne, or that he himself or others invoked her in prayer or 
 worshipped her." 
 
 Surely, from such men as the Apostles, we should expect to 
 learn far more than from those of later date, what is of import- 
 ance to the I'ailh and practice of the Church. If these men, full 
 of the Holy Ghost and heavenly wisdom ; if these men, possessed 
 so thoroughly o\ " the mind of Christ," and enjoying such singu- 
 lar advantages for knowing the whole truth, utter not a syllable in 
 any of their instructions, " by word or by Epistle," to the various 
 
 2. The pass.ige in the Revelation .iboiu the woman pnrsiicd by the dragon, was never 
 interiireteil of tlie Virgin by the e.irly writers, but of the Cluirch. If it lie so applied, however, 
 ;t makes ag.iinst the Assnnipticn, because it says " tlie woman fled into the wilderness," while at 
 the same time no word is said abont prayer or worship directed to the wnman. 
 
TT 
 
 Since It is the Ccmpoidimn of Ood's Rereiatioii. 
 
 67 
 
 ;rning tlie 
 cessity of 
 
 Christian communities they addressed, about the Assuniptit n of 
 the X'irgin into Heaven and the consequent need of our worship- 
 ping her and praying to her for grace and protection, or at least 
 for intercession, then, I say, we must regard with the gravest 
 suspicion any subsequent development of such a Cultus, however 
 early it may have appeared in post- Apostolic times. 
 
 The Roman Church would haxe us imagine that the written 
 word conveys to us but a small portion of the truth Christ taught ; 
 that it must be largely supplemented by mere tradition. But the 
 truth is, the Apostles and Evangelists, knowing by Jewish experi- 
 ence how easily tradition may be corrupted, took care, before their 
 deaths, to commit to writing all that was of vital importance in 
 the teaching they had received from Christ. It is true S. John 
 confesses that if all Jesus said and did were put on record, " the 
 world could not contain the books that should be written " — 
 yet it is also true that in the Gospels we possess a perfect image 
 of the salient points of His life, work and teachings ; so that we 
 may depend on them as touchstones to detect error. This truth 
 was openly confessed by the early Church when her Bishops, 
 assembled in council, placed a copy of the Holy Gospels on a 
 throne of honour in their midst. 
 
 In the New Testament writings we possess the fulness of 
 Apostolic teaching, so that any doctrine or practice which confl'cts 
 with it stands condemned, while it is also true, as our si.xth arti-.ie 
 says, " that whatsoever is not read in Holy Scripture, nor may be 
 " proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should 
 "be believed as an Article of Faith, or be thought lequisite or 
 " necessary to salvation^ 
 
 That we require assistance in interpreting some things in 
 Scripture, and that the practice and writings of the Early Church 
 supply us with in\'aluable helps for clearing up what otherwise 
 would be difficulties, all Churchmen will freely and gladly admit, 
 but that is a very different thing from the Roman contention. 
 
 My opponent seems to dread nothing so much as the inspired 
 writings. He will not open them. He b(jasts, indeed, of what 
 great things he could do with Holy Writ if tlie I-^nglish Church 
 pulpits of this city were at his disposal for a few Sundays, because 
 he knows he has just about as much chance of entering diem as 
 
6S 
 
 Apostles Names, /loicever, in its Support 
 
 one of my Sunday-school teachers lias of occiipyinjii;- his own 
 Cathedral pulpit. He lives, a]^parently, on braggadocio. 
 
 Next, how absurd it is to pretend that the Christians of the first 
 century were so persecutetl that they could find no opportunity to 
 write. That period could not compare with the next two centuries 
 and a quarter for severity of persecution, and yet the remains of 
 Cliristian writings belonging to the Ante-Nicene period, which 
 have come down to us, are quite copious. Moreover, does not .S. 
 Luke assure us that there were many writers besides the Apostles 
 and Evangelists who had taken in hand narratives of the life, work 
 and doctrines of Christ, as Apostolic tradition had given them ? 
 (Luke i. I.) 
 
 Having, then, shelved the inspired volume, with its acknow- 
 ledged Apostolic witnesses, how does my opponent proceed tu 
 pro\e " from the records of the Jirst six centuries, the place 
 " wiiich Mary held in the devotion and doctrine — in the heart and 
 " mind — of the early Church ? " He is bound, in decency, to lead 
 off with Apostolic witnesses, though the New Testament Canon 
 avails him nothing. S. Andrew and S. James are made to do 
 service, but the worst of it is that the former is held responsible 
 for utterances composed for him by gnostic heretics in the pre- 
 tended lipistle of the Presbyters and Deacons of Achaia, concern- 
 ing the passion of S. Andreiv, incorporated in the Apocryphal 
 Acts of Aposdes, of gnostic origin, expurgated by Catholics. 
 The whole subject of Apocryphal Acts is ably treated by R. A. 
 Lipsius, D. D., Prof of Divinity in the University of Jena — Smith 
 & Wace's Dictn. of Christn. Biography, Vol. L, pp. 17-32. J.. 
 Harvey Treat, in his useful book, "The Catholic Faith "(pub. 
 Nashotah, Wis.) p. 2, points out what a dangerous two-edged 
 weapon this gnostic document is to Roman Catholics. If they 
 urge the pseudo- Andrew in favour of the Liimaculate Conception, 
 they cannot consistently reject the Greek doctrine regarding the 
 procession of the Holy Spirit, which he advocates, and which is 
 most abhorrent to Roman Catholic theology. This very doctrine 
 is, of course, an index of the late date of the letter introduced 
 into the Apocryphal Acts. I alluded to this in my Strictures. 
 I also said, the translator of Volume XVL in Clarke's Ante- 
 Nicene Library, containing the Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, etc., on 
 
Are Indispensable, and Must be Secured 
 
 69 
 
 page xvi. of his Introduction, after mentioning the evidence pro 
 and con, thus sums up : " The probability is that the book was 
 " written by Leucius, following earlier traditions, and that it was 
 " afterwards revised and fitted for general reading by an orthodox 
 "hand." 
 
 " Though some of the traditions mentioned in the book are 
 " referred to by authors of the beginning of the fifth century, 
 " there does not seem to be any undoubted quotation of it before 
 " the eighth and the tenth centuries." 
 
 The Leucius here referred to is Leucius Charinus, a gnostic 
 heretic whom Gelasius (a Bishop of Rome, A. D. 496) called dis- 
 cipulus diaboli (a disciple of the devil). 
 
 The gnostic heretics, to whom both S. John and S. Paul allude 
 in the New Testament, endeavoured from the first to propagate 
 their erroneous doctrines by means of a popular kind of religious 
 reading, full of the marvellous, in the shape of tracts professing 
 to contain historical reminiscences of Apostolic times. So wide 
 and extensive was their circulation, that in self-defence the Bishops 
 of the Church were constrained to substitute for them a literature 
 equally exciting. This they did by issuing expurgated forms of 
 the tracts ; that is to say, these tracts purified as far as possible 
 from false doctrine, though not rid of legends upon which their 
 interest depended. 
 
 It might be well if my opponent would read through two other 
 gnostic Acts of .S. Andrew of contemporary, if not of earlier 
 origin than the letter he (juotes, viz.: " S. Andrew and S. Matthew 
 (or .Matthias) among the Maneaters," and " S. Peter and S. 
 Andrew among the Barbarians" (Clarke, Ante-Nic, Vol. XVI., 
 pp. 348-372), and consider whether it would not be advisable to 
 publish them in the Globe, with a defence of their authenticity 
 from his own pen. Or, if these be too manifestly absurd, let him 
 undertake a defence of the legends incorporated in the very letter 
 he quotes (pp. 345 and 346 of the same work). It is very evident 
 he scarcely realizes, as yet, to what mudd>' waters he has betaken 
 himself in lieu of the Inspired Scriptures. 
 
 That cause must indeed be weak which necessitates an appeal 
 to such writings as these. 
 
 But supposing, for the sake of argument, we had in this pre- 
 
70 
 
 By ''Hook or by Crook." S. A>idrezi> 
 
 tended Epistle the very words of S. Andrew — would the words 
 blavicless and itnniacu/afc, italicised by my opi^oncnt (pp. 109 and 
 385), necessarily teach the immaculate conception of" the \'irgin ? 
 The Roman Catholic Petau, approved by my oi^ponent, complains 
 of those who force meanings upon words not intended by those 
 who used them. Why does my oppont-nt ignore this fact ? 
 Pusey quotes him as saying (Mirenicon II., 295-6): "For, if 
 " among the Ancients, especially the Oreeks, lliere occur anything 
 " which sounds, as to the Virgin, like aclirantos, ap/ithartos, ami- 
 " antos, i. c, undefilcd, uncorrupted, unpolluted, and more of this 
 " sort, they Jly itpon it eagerly as a godsend and adapt it to their 
 ^* purpose" (/. e., to prove the dogma of the Immac. Concept.) 
 He then gives instances both from Scripture and writers opposed 
 to the novel doctrine, of the use of the word " immaculate," etc., 
 for holiness of life merely, or freedom from wilful sin. In my 
 Strictures, I said in this connection, I might just as well argue 
 that when S. Peter exhorts Christians to keep themselves " spot- 
 less and blameless" in God's sight (the words in the Vulgate are 
 " immaculati et inviolati" 2 Pet. iii., 14 ), or when S. James (i., 27 1 
 describes a truly religious man as "spotless" (Vulgate imviacii- 
 latum), these Apostles meant " immaculately conceived." Was 
 there ever such nonsense insinuated as this ! All the writer meant 
 was that the Blessed Virgin was holy in life and pure from carnal 
 pollution of every kind, which, of course, every Christian believes. 
 Here, \)^tv\, my opponent supplies us with an example of what 
 Dr, Pusey complains of in Roman controversialists, viz.: a change 
 in, or addition to, the plain meanings of terms as they were used 
 by the early writers. (Eirenicon Part II., passim.) In support of 
 his absurd contention, my opponent (p. 385) quotes the imagery 
 of S. Hippolytus drawn from the incorruptible nature of the wood 
 of which the Ark of the Covenant was made ; but even Perrone 
 himself, the chief advocate of the dogma, preparatory to its 
 enunciation by Pius IX., admits that Hippolytus is here speaking 
 merely of the marvellous conception 0/ our Lord, without defiling 
 human agency. (See Pusey, Eirenicon II., 301.) Why does my 
 opponent suppress this fact also ? 
 
 My opponent's next citation supplies him with another Apos- 
 tolic name with which to juggle. It comes from the Greek Liturgy 
 
Ami S. James are Made false ]\'i/iiesses. 
 
 71 
 
 called after S. James, Bp. of Jerusalem — a Liturgy, the origin of 
 which cannot be traced back into Ante-Nicene times, while its 
 name was not known before the time of S. Basil of Citsarea, when, 
 it is conjectured, that in consequence of the fame his name secured 
 or the Liturgy he either composed or enriched for his own church, 
 ihe Church of Jerusalem christened their Liturgy after their first 
 Bishop, in order that it might not seem inferior to that of their 
 neighbours;' 
 
 All that can be said tor the Eastern Liturgies is, that they 
 present a few main features of the Eucharistic service of the early 
 Church, as described by S. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetical 
 Lectures (A. D. 347-8), such as the Lavabo, the Kiss of Peace 
 and Charity, the " Lift up Your Hearts," the " Holy, Holy, Holy," 
 with its introduction, the Invocation of the Pioly Spirit to conse- 
 crate the Bread and Wine, the Prayer for the Church Militant and 
 Expectant, the Lord's Prayer, and the Communion of the People 
 in both kinds. 
 
 Though S. Cyril particularly mentions Patriarchs, Prophets, 
 Apostles, Martyrs, Holy Fathers, and Bishops, in the commemor- 
 ations, he makes no reference whatever to the Blessed Virgin 
 Mary in his lecture on the Liturgy (xxiii.). 
 
 Even writers like Neale and Palmer, whose inclinations led 
 them to fix the earliest dates possible for existing Greek Liturgies 
 (many of whose criticisms have been now proved to be incorrect), 
 cannot assert more than is said above. 
 
 The fact is, the Liturgies, more than any other church docu- 
 ments, have been subjected to alterations, excisions, and additions, 
 from time to time, in the days of manuscripts. A comparison of 
 existing manuscripts tells us this, 
 
 My opponent is hardly up to the times in relying on the 
 Assemani and Renaudot (all of them Romanists, by-the-bye, and 
 the former four, very partizan and untrustworthy, as we know, 
 from the eagerness with which they defended the Ephraim author- 
 ship of the Greek prayers to the Viigin, now repudiated by all 
 scholars as spurious). When I penned my Strictures, I had 
 befc e me Swainson's recent work on the Liturgies,* in which are 
 
 3. PcUicia (Polity of Ch., p. 218) admits it is circulated under this name uithout any waytant. 
 
 4. The Greek Litiugies, by C. A. Swainson, D. D. ; Ca -'. University Press, 1884. 
 
72 
 
 Ihnv the ''Hail Mary" ami Hymns to the Virgin 
 
 to be found rei^rints, in parallel columns, of the most ancient 
 manuscripts of the Greek Liturj^ies now known to l)e in existence. 
 Hy a comparison of these, with later ones, or those now in use, 
 we are able to trace the development of the Liturgies from their 
 simpler to more complicated forms. 
 
 Now, with regard to the Liturgy of S. James, cjuoted by my 
 opjjonent, a fraud has been discovered by Dr. Swainson, which 
 thoroughly refutes the contention of Neale and other Liturgical 
 scholars, that the words of institution, as found therein, show that 
 the original compiler had himself been an eye-witness of the 
 Maundy Thursday celebration in the Upper Chamber. Dr. 
 Swainson has proved that the word (hvniin) to us, in the phrase. 
 " He brake and gave to us, His Apostles, etc.," was inserted bv 
 Palojocappa, a professional copyist of the sixteenth century, to 
 give Apostolic authority to the Liturgy he was engaged to copy. 
 
 Again, he has shown (Introduction, p. xxxvi. ) by a comparison 
 of the Messina Roll (983 A. D.), and the Rossano Manuscript 
 (cir. 1050 A. D.), with later MS.S., that the " Hail Mary, etc.," amid 
 the memorials arose in this way : "In the Liturgy of S. James, 
 according to the Messina Roll and Rossano MS., there were a 
 series of appeals to God, not only to remember those for whom 
 prayers were offered, but also to remember the actions of Saints 
 of old, (compare Lord ranonhcr David), and His own great 
 mercies, (compare Ex. ii. 24, God remembered His covenant ; 
 Neh. i. 8, Remember Thy word ; Ps. xxiv. 6, Remember Thy 
 mercies). Thus, the appeals included: " Remember, especially, 
 the Virgin, Mother of Gou ; and remember John the Baptist, the 
 Apostles, Prophets ; remember the (Ecumenical Synods." (All 
 these, except the first, were omitted by Palococappa), and among 
 these came : " Remember, Lord, the Archangel's voice, which 
 said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured ; the Lord is with thee. 
 Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy 
 womb." Some years passed, and the appeal to God to remember 
 His message was omitted, whilst the message : (" Hail ! thou 
 highly favoured, etc.") was retained ; and by this simple process 
 the commemoration of the Annunciation became an invocation of 
 the Virgin. The appeal to God became an appeal to her. 
 
 Dr, Swainson shows that the same change has taken place in 
 
Crept inio the I 'arious Liturgies. 
 
 73 
 
 S. Mark's Liturtfy. The V^uican Roll, collated aiul printed by 
 him, having the memorial in full : " Remember, Lord, tiie Arch- 
 anj^el's voice, saying, Hail, etc." This disposes of my opponent's 
 quotation (Reprint, p. 3.S7). Again, he shows what momentous 
 additions have been made to the Liturgies of S. Hasil and Chrys- 
 ostom, between the eleventh and sixteenth centuries. He also 
 proves, conclusively, that the two hymns to the Virgin : " It is 
 very meet to bless thee, the mother of God * * * more honour- 
 able than the cherubim, etc., etc.," quoted by my opj^onent (p. 
 390, Reprint), and, " In thee, O full of grace, all creation e.xults 
 X; H< * " j^j-e of niodern introduction, as they are not to be found 
 in any one of the four copies which we must assign to the tenth 
 and eleventh centuries. " They seem," he says, " to have been 
 inserted in Palajocappa's i6th century copy from late Italian 
 versions of the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom." 
 
 What now becomes of S. James' testimony, claimed by my 
 opponent for the modern Roman Cult of the Virgin, and the use 
 of the " Hail Mary " by the College of Apostles, at their cele- 
 brations of the Holy Eucharist ? 
 
 If my opponent will consult the nth century MS. Liturgy of 
 S. Chrysostom, printed in Swainson, he will tind, at p. 131, 
 among the Eti projpheroinens, this : " And, further, we ofier to 
 thee, this reasonable service, on behalf of those at rest in faith, 
 P'orcfathers, Fathers, Patriarchs, Prophets, Aposdes, Preachers, 
 Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessors, Celibates, and every righteous 
 person perfected in faith, especially our All-Holy, Spotless, Emin- 
 endy Blessed Lady, Theotokos and ever- Virgin Mary." In the 
 i6th century MS., just below it, follow after this the two hymns 
 to the Virgin, as in S. James' Liturgy of the same late date, 
 while they find no place in the nth century copy. 
 
 My opponent pretends it makes a wonderful difference whether 
 we translate huper, by, for^ or on behalf of. I have adopted his 
 own on behalf of in the above translation. It makes no differ- 
 ence in the sense. Now, let him turn over a page, and he will 
 find (pp. 131, 132) another Eti prospheromen, etc. : " And, further, 
 we offer to thee this reasonable service for or on behalf of 
 {huper) the whole world, for {huper) the Holy Catholic and 
 Apostolic Church; for {huper) those who live in chastity and 
 
74 Pi ay, I for the faithjitl Departed Docs Not Imply 
 
 holiness of life; lor ihiiper) our most faithful anil Christ-beloved 
 kings, all their court and army, grant them, O Lord, a peaceful 
 reign, etc." 
 
 Now, my oi)i)oiient maintains that Iliipey — " in behalf ot," 
 means, in a former part of tiie prayer, " in honour of" (/. e., 
 "those at rest in faith, fathers, etc., including the Blessed Virgin 
 Mary ") ; does he also contentl that, in the later part just quoted, 
 the Churcli intended to offer the Kucharistic Sacrifice to God in 
 honour of the whole world j =i< * * * in honour of reigning 
 monarchs, their courts and armies? " The absurdity of his silly 
 distinction of the use o{ Ihiper (p. 391, Reprint) is thus held up 
 to ridicule. The preposition Hupcr is used again and again 
 throughout the prayer of the great oblation, in the sense oi for 
 or /;/ behalf of, and it is a mere arbitrary change of meaning to 
 read into it, in honour of, in one place, and not in another. 
 Nothing but the exigencies of a false position, to be supported at 
 all costs, could, I am sure, induce Roman controversialists so to 
 degrade their reasoning faculties as to adopt such puerile and 
 ludicrous explanations of simple language as the above. My 
 opponent seems to be so saturated with modern notions of pur- 
 gatorial pains, that he cannot enter into the mind of the Early 
 Church, which prayed for further blessings, joys and benefits to 
 be showered on the faithful departed in their place of Light and 
 Refreshment, in the intermediate state, in order that they might 
 be in a perfect state of preparedness for their " perfect consum- 
 mation and bliss " at the final resurrection. Me overlooks the 
 fact that the most saintly of the departed are yet without their 
 bodies, and are, therefore, in an hnperfect condition, bearing upon 
 their jicrsons a mark of the results of sin in the very nakedness 
 of their souls, and that they are longing and praying, in the 
 Church Expectant, for the same blessed consummation for which 
 the Church Militant continually prays. 
 
 This prayer, common in the oldest manuscripts to both the 
 Liturgies of S. James and S. Chrysostom, is a witness, that up to 
 the eleventh century at least, the Church deemed it right and 
 seemly to offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice to God, for or on behalf 
 of all the Saints departed, including the Holy Mother herself, in 
 order that the whole Church Expectant, as well as Militant, might 
 
That they are SuJ/'ering Purgatorial Agonies. 
 
 75 
 
 be beiicrilted by the same. It is also a witness that the Cluirch 
 of those ages did not (at all events, generally,) helieve that the 
 HU'ssed Virnin had been assumetl into I leaven in glorified body, 
 but that she yet awaited, in the presence of Christ, in Paradise, a 
 joyful resurrection. 
 
 Of course, if my opponent thinks that by praying for a soul 
 (ki)arted, you necessarily imply that it is suffering Hell's ])ains in 
 Piugatf ry, I cannot wonder that the idea of praying tor the 
 Hlcssed X'irgin api)ears to him to be a " pestilent " notion. If, 
 however, he will conform his theology to that of the ICarly 
 Cluirch, he will admire the I)eauty of such Catholic appeals for 
 the whole of the Church's children. 
 
 The Roman Church, I know, speaks of the eminent Saints 
 (canonized) as " now reigning with Christ in Heaven." As she 
 does not affirm they have been caught up to Heaven with their 
 bodies, she must desire us to suppose that there are in Heaven 
 bodiless human spirits, or imperfect human beings, which seems 
 absurd. What I stated, then, in my Strictures is perfectly true, 
 that in the most ancient of the manuscript copies of the Liturgy 
 of S. Chrysostom we possess (the Barberini Manuscript — an 
 uncial of the end of the ninth century, and not the eighth, as I 
 first stated), the Blessed Virgin is mentioned only twice; once, to 
 pray for her, in common with all the faithful departed at rest in 
 Paradise, and once in a thanksgiving prayer to God for com- 
 munion upon the Holy Mysteries of the Altar, that the communi- 
 cants may be aided by the prayers and supplications of the 
 Blessed Virgin and all the Saints, who, throughout the ages, have 
 been well-pleasing to God ; whereas, in the modern copies of the 
 Liturgy, the Virgin is mentioned nine times, in appeals direct and 
 indirect, for her intercessions, in direct salutations (Hail Mary) 
 and in commemorations of her greatness and glory. 
 
 This statement also remains true. The Liturgy of S, James, 
 as we now have it, contains many interpolations from this Liturgy 
 of S. Chrysostom, which subsequently supplanted it altogether. 
 
 Palmer says of it (p. 43 Origines Liturgica:): " VV^e cannot 
 "rely on the expressions of this Liturgy as a sure guide to the 
 "sendments of the earliest ages. Unsu[)ported by corroborative 
 " testimony, they are of litde value beyond the fifth century, and 
 
7^1 The Obvious Contrast bctxcecn Mary and Eve, A^otei/ by 
 
 \\l 
 
 " only a certain |)()i'tion can be corroborated by testimonies of the 
 " fourth and tliird centuries." 
 
 We see, then, that the title, " unchanjjing," often applied to the 
 Eastern Church nnist be received witli considerable qualificatiuiis 
 — that even since the ninth and eleventh centuries, her various 
 Liturgies have been very seriously changed and developed, and that 
 with regard to the worship and devotion to the Virgin and Saints 
 she has almost kept pace with the Latin Church, though, as 1 have 
 shown, she repudiates the dogma of the Immaculate Conception 
 of the Virgin. 
 
 A disquisition on the causes (not difficult to trace) of this 
 departure of the Eastern Church, from primitive simplicity, 
 would take up more space than my pamphlet will allow. I 
 have, however, said enough to prove that the Apostolic authority 
 of S. James cannot be claimed for sixteenth century corruptions 
 of the Liturgy named after him. 
 
 The Liturgy, conunonly known by the name of S. James, 
 aftbrds us a fair specimen of the process by which all the ancient 
 Liturgies of the Church became interpolated and corrupted. 
 
 My opponent, we have seen, has endeavoured to palm off upon 
 the public, as if from the pen of S. James the Less, himself, a 
 very late intcrijolation, in a Liturgy which appears to have been 
 merely named after him, in the fourth century, at earliest, in order 
 to add to the prestige of the cimrch which used it. 
 
 I now pass on to consider a disgraceful controversial artifice. 
 Following upon the pseudo-James come two faithful witnesses of 
 really early date: S. Justin (A. D. 103-164), and S. Irena-us 
 (A. D. 140-202). From both writers my opponent cites the 
 attractive and readily suggested antitheses, which Irenaus and 
 many Fathers, following Justin, adopted, between the two Virgins 
 — Eve and Mary. They are well known, thus : 
 The one believed a bad, the other a good angel. 
 The one was obedient, the other disobedient to God's com- 
 mands. 
 
 Through the one came death, through the other Life (viz., Him 
 Who is the Life of Men). 
 
 The faith and obedience of the one Virgin counterbalances the 
 unbelief and disobedience of the other, and so the one becomes 
 the paraclete or Comforter of the other. 
 
'oU'ii by 
 
 onies of the 
 
 I'liwl to tlic- 
 I'lli/icatioiis 
 lier various 
 -d, and that 
 «»ncl Saints 
 > 'IS I ha\'c 
 -onception 
 
 •e) of this 
 'iniplicity, 
 allow. I 
 autliority 
 "Tiiptions 
 
 5- James, 
 
 e ancient 
 ted. 
 
 oli' upon 
 pnself, a 
 U'e been 
 in order 
 
 artijicc. 
 esses of 
 i*en;£us 
 tes the 
 •us and 
 Virgins 
 
 > com- 
 
 , Him 
 
 es the 
 monies 
 
 Many lui/hcrs, gives 7io Real Support fo A/ariolatyy. 77 
 
 Now, the firsf artifice of whicli my opponent is guilty here, 
 JH tlie i)rclence that these contrasts su])port Mariohitry, and 
 cannot, therefore, be admitted as sound by Anglicans, who must 
 thus find themselves in conllicl with such eminent h'athers of the 
 sccunil century as Justin Martyr and Irenaus. The second is, 
 that Anglicans are such dolts as not to perceive that Hlesseil Mary 
 was a ?t7'///?ii^ (and not nu-rely a physical) instrument in God's 
 hands for effecting the Incarnation of the Word of God.'* The 
 third is, that the word paraclete means Advocate, instead of its 
 nsual, and in this ])lace, more correct sense, of Comforter" — as 
 though the word referred to Mary's perpetual intercessory work 
 (in behall of Eve, and not to the comfort she afforded the 
 " .Mother of all living," by bearing and bringing forth the Promised 
 .Seed of the woman she longed for. Who was "to bruise the 
 serpent's head." 
 
 Newman, and other Roman Catholics, argue that if the Greek 
 of Iren.'eus (now lost) were paraclete, then that h'ather bestowed 
 oil Mary " the special name and office proper to the Holy Ghost " 
 
 5, Newman was guilty of tliis miscr.ililL- artifu i; when replying tn I'lisoy, anil the insult he 
 lliiis pale! that v;reat tlieoliiniaii was ricine the less <;ravc hecause lie clothed it in elegant language 
 ami fawned upon hiiM. One might as well suggest that a g(jod ICnglisli eoniposer does not know 
 Ills A I! C, as to pretend Pnscy did not ki\ow the elementary truth in Divinity, that the lilesscd 
 \irgiii r('////HA'/>' co-operateil with Oud's will at the Anininciation, and was prepared for that 
 high honour by previous devotion and obedience to the law ami will of Uoi). Puscy, in his 
 saintly, humble, gentle way, replies to Newman (Eirenicon, I't. II., p. 22) : " // nez'cr occurred 
 " III mc to think oi the Dlessed Virgin otherwise than as a inorul instrument of o\ir common 
 "reileniptii>n." "I seemed to you to he speaking of the Blessed Virgin as ' \\\c />hysicill 
 insinuiient only of the Incarnation.' I'liis had not occurred to me, 'rhc contr.ast in my own 
 mind, which I expressed, I suppose, the lessclearly, /'.Ta/dc I liiiii i\\/>icssci1 it so c>fti;n,anJ 
 friwufiposcd it us A-iton'ii, (mark that 1 ) was (piite different from tliis." I'usey then sets out his 
 meaning, which had been so artfully ignored, as to make him ajipear a perfect ignoramus 
 before the world, and thereby shake confulence in his authority. 
 
 Ever since 1 encountered this artifice of Newman to gain a point at the expense of his old 
 friend's theological reputation, I have mistrusted everything he has written. His " Apologia," 
 so sophistical and full of ni»t siu/uitiirs, first shook my confidence in his judgment — his reply to 
 £iie}ticon, Pt. I., sh tered my belief in his honesty. 
 
 6. Canon Churton, of Kings Coll., C<iml)ridge, says in some unpublished addresses to 
 candidates fur ordination, on S. John xvi., 8-11, with regard to the meaning of the Greek word 
 Paraclete, as a title in the New Testament of the Holy Ohost Himself: " It may be observed 
 "thatancient expositors /)r/<?r the meaning of Comforter and Counsellor, rather than that of 
 " Advocate, by which many would now replace it." He further remarks that this sense in this 
 p.iss,age " would be out of harmony with our Lord's discourse to His Disciples, in which He 
 " makes no mention of the intercession of the Spirit." 
 
 Even Ryder (2nd Edit.) has to admit (p. 102) of the Latin adz'ocare. Dr. Littledale has 
 anlhority in the lienedictine Latin Glossary to Irenicus for taking " advocabat plangentes" 
 <iii. 9, 3) as " He consoled the mourners." 
 
78 
 
 Strained Interpretations arc Resorted To. 
 
 (Letter to Pusey, p. 39). At that rate, then, S. Luke did the same 
 for S. Barnabas, the Son of Consolation (paraclesis), when lie 
 gave us the Greek ecpiivalcnt of his Hebrew name. In fact, we 
 may say, that whene\er wc speak of a person being a comfort to 
 another, -..e endow him with " the title and office proper to die 
 Holy Ghost." W'iiat nonsensical arguments seem to satisfy your 
 special pleaders. 
 
 The next witness put forth is Hippolytus (A. I). 195-230). 
 He takes the Ark of the Covenant, made of incorruptible woods, 
 and covered over, within and without, with gold, as a type of the 
 Incarnation. The woods represent Christ's human nature, the 
 gold His Divine. The former made of the Virgin and the Holy 
 Ghost. "How hapj)ily," says my opponent (p. 1 12, Reprint), 
 " it suggests the purity of lier conception." Does he not know 
 that Perrone himself the great advocate of the new dogma of 
 1S54, owns that Hippolytus is here "speaking of the marvellous 
 conception of our Lord without defiling human agency?" The 
 image of incorruptible wood implies, at most (which all must 
 believe I, the X'irgin's actual holiness, when Christ our Lord was 
 conceived of her hy the operation of the Holy Ghost." (Pusey, 
 Eirenicon H., 301 1. So far my opponent has found absolutely no 
 support for the Cultus of the Virgin, as it now exists in the 
 Roman Church, or for the doctrine of the Immaculate Concep- 
 tion of the Virgin. 
 
 My opponent's next quotations are made from notoriously 
 spurious writings At this point, therefore, it is advisable for me 
 (as I have no t time to waste in disposing, one by one, of the 
 numerous doubtful and spurious documents quoted as genuine 
 by my opponent) to supply my readers with a rough and ready 
 method for detecting impositions. I endtle it a Toiichstone of 
 Roman Manufacture, so that it cannot be objected to by Roman 
 Catholics. It was given in my Strictures {Globe, May 14th, 1889)^ 
 one of those numerous extracts my opponent has ignored, and 
 which ..e would have found " very inconvenient " as a next-door 
 neighbour to his collected letters from the GIoIjc. I reprint: 
 
 " Immediately on the appearance of that most valuable multiim 
 in parvo, Littledale's " Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church 
 of Rome,"' which so terribly ex.-rcises the Roman Church, the 
 
 7. See Appenilix I. 
 
Kydtr Suppliis an Excellent Touchstone 
 
 79 
 
 Roman Divines of Ent^land determined to put forth a reply. 
 Rumour connected with it the name of Father Ryder, a man of 
 known abihty and rcadint^, belonging to the Birmingham Oratory, 
 where Cardinal Newman presides. 
 
 " The book, tliough small, was eighteen months in preparation. 
 its rough sheets were submitted to most, if not all, the Roman 
 Catholic Faculties of Theology in I'^ngland, and carefully con- 
 sidered by them, while Newman's master hand may be recognized 
 on nearly every page. Ryder's reply to Littledale's Ptaiit 
 Rcasois, therefore, may justly be regarded as the concentrated 
 essence of Roman Catliolic wisdom in the controversy. As 
 has been apdy said, ' It is the charge of a whole regiment of 
 veterans, headed by the most famous of Roman controversialists 
 of the century, against a solitary combatant.' 
 
 "That the book utterly fails to meet the serious indictment 
 against Romanism by Littledale (see Church Quarterly Revieiv, 
 July, 1881), increases, rather '^an otherwise, its value as evidence 
 of the utmost Rome can iind in her defence of the points attacked. 
 The Cultus of the Virgin, with which the whole system of Romish 
 devotion is thoroughly permeated, claimed, of course, the closest 
 attention of Newman and his allies. They scraped together every 
 atom of e\idence to be found in its favour, from the e^rly ages, 
 which could plausibly be forced into the seivice, and, at the same 
 time, they evinced tlie utmost ingenuity ii. presenting it. Know- 
 ing the barrenness of the Ante-Nicene period (325 years) on this 
 subject, to say nothing of Holy Writ, they deemed it conveyiient 
 to adduce quotations from eighth century writers first, and to 
 work backwards from them to those of an earlier date. A most 
 convenient arrangement, certainl}', for raising a durt which should 
 hide from readers not familiar with the tricks of P-oman contro- 
 versialists, the real state of the case. The quotations cover eight 
 pages, and include si.xteen witnesses, viz., four of the eighth 
 century, one of the seventh, six of the fifth, four of the fourth, 
 none of the third, one of the second, and none of tne Jirst. A 
 very poor show, indeed, when the list is thus analysed. Its utter 
 inadequacy, moreover, be:;omes still more apparent wl.en it is 
 observed that of these most carefully selected passages, the earliest 
 which witnesses for direct petition to the Blessed Virgin for her 
 
So 
 
 lor Detecting Ir.ij'ositious. 
 
 intercession, bears date 726A. D. f]i. 95, 2nd Edition). From 
 Gregory tlie Great (604 A. D.), backwards to Iren^eus, there is 
 nothing- to the point, except one suspicious-looking j^arenthesis 
 in a ([notation from some apocryplial and fabulous acts of Cyp- 
 rian < full of the wildest nonsense^ which contaminates an oration 
 attributeil to S. (iregory Nazianzen (fourth century 1, a quotation 
 which none but men hard pushed to find some support for direct 
 invocation of the X'irgin during the vast gap between the fourth 
 and eiglith centuries, would have dared adduce in evidence. 
 
 Of the rest (from 350 to 604 A. D.), one (496 A. D.) is a speci- 
 men of prayer to (iod (not to Mary), that we may be helped by 
 the intercessions of the Mother of God. The others are mere 
 apostrophisings or panegyrics, so common in sermons of those 
 days, or else fanciful comments on Scripture, not one of all which 
 atTords any authority for the use of even a simple ' Pray for us.' 
 
 " In spite, therefore, of the clever and plausible method 
 adopted by the joint e^'itors of Ryder's (so called) reply to Little- 
 dale, and the reading into rhe evidence what is not there, nothing 
 so exposes to a thoughtful reader the lamentable weakness of the 
 defence of Mariolatry, as the chapter on the ' Cultus of Mary,' 
 put forth by Rome's weightiest champions of to-day. 
 
 " My reason, however, for here drawing attention to the fact, 
 is to supply the public with what I have called a ' rough and 
 ready test ' of the value of my oi)ponent's quotations in favour of 
 the worship and invocation of the X'irgin. 
 
 " Pages 95 to 102 of Ryder afiford us a iouchstoyic of Roman 
 7nanufacture, to the application of which the most prejudiced and 
 scrupulous Romanist cannot object, for the detection of forgeries, 
 or late writings attributed in error, in days of manuscripts, to 
 venerated authors of the early centuries. What, then, becomes 
 of those yards of quotations my opponent would have us believe 
 came from the pen of Gregory Thaumaturgus, S. Ephraim, 
 Methodius, and others, in support of the modern Cult ? 
 
 " Would Ryder, Newman and company have omitted to call 
 such all-important and sufficient witnesses, had they not been con- 
 vinced that they could not bear cross-examination ? 
 
 " I have had, not infrequently, to pit my opponent against 
 writers of his own communion, and I now refer him to Ryder, to 
 
The Benedictines arc Standing Witnesses 
 
 8i 
 
 enquire why the so-called Greek devotions of S. Epliraim, etc., 
 etc., will not bear strict scrutiny, and ask him to give Ryder's 
 answer to the public. 
 
 " My opponent objects to the monotony of my complaints that 
 his (juotations are from spurious or forged writings. I regret, 
 exceedingly, that the charge has so often to be repeated ; the 
 remedy is in his own hands. The monotony of my objections 
 bears a direct proportion to the monotony of his choice of spuri- 
 ous articles. 
 
 " My opponent ought to know, since he has written so learn- 
 edly and lengthily upon the modern literary work of the Bene- 
 dictines, that a sheet o*' tlie Globe s columns would not suffice for 
 a mere list of Patristic writirigs condemned by them as either 
 spurious or doubtful, or of interpolations rejected by them on a 
 careful collation of manuscripts. No doubt those diligent Monks 
 deemed the work of expurgating the Fathers, tiresome and mon- 
 otonous, but necessity was laid upon them, if they would redeem 
 for the Church's use in the future, those invaluable writings, which 
 the dawn of a more enlightened age revealed as inextricably 
 mixed uj) with the basest errors and sui)erstitions contrary to the 
 Word of God, which was then beconiing generally read. What 
 was it that brought the writings of the Fathers into such disre- 
 pute, that generations of Divines gave up the study of them 
 altogether, except the corruptions which had crept into them 
 through designing scribe ., or their clerical employers, to lend the 
 support of ancient names to modern doctrines, or false develop- 
 ments of old ones ? Ryder, himself, has reluctantly to confess 
 that the spuriousness of various panegyrics of the Blessed Virgin, 
 attributed to S. Chrysostom and S Augustine," is very generally 
 admitted (p. 105), although with his usual sophistry, he attempts 
 to break the overwhelming Ibrce of such a fact, in like manner as 
 he labours to minimize, in our view, the evil influence upon the 
 Church's discipline, of the False Decretals. However, it is to 
 Ryder's admission to which I now call attention, and not to his 
 false conclusions 
 
 " Further, my opponent ought to be aware, that the work of 
 expurgating the commonly received text of the Fathers, was not 
 
 8. Such as I.igiiori uses in his Ctiorics of Mary. 
 
82 
 
 To the Ruinous Corruptions of Patristic Writings. 
 
 altogether lair sailing, even for the famous Benedictines of S. 
 Maur. There were leaders in the Hierarchy of the Roman 
 Church of those days, yea, members of their own order, who, 
 wearied of the innumerable excisions and alterations found neces- 
 sary in the work of revising ,he chief of the I'^ithers, actively 
 persecuted the laborious students of S. Maur as innovators and 
 sympathisers with Jansenist heretics. On account of their courage 
 and faithfulness in purging the works of S. Augustine : considered 
 heir chef d'tvuvre) from the spurious rubbish incorporated in the 
 accepted editions of their day, the chief editor, Father Blampain, 
 was privately deposed from his office as head of the Abbey of 
 St. Gcrniain des Pres, by the Benedictines themselves, and re- 
 duced to the position of a private Monk, at the dictation of the 
 then Archbishop of Paris. 
 
 "Judging from the way my opponent reviles me for objecting 
 to spurious passages in the Fathers, he would, doubtless, have 
 joined heartily with the Molinis^s in hunting down poor Blampain. 
 So sad is it, that in every age we find men who imagine God can 
 be served by upholding what is false ! Your readers will not 
 have forgotten his luminous remarks upon i John v. 7. 
 
 " Truth loving scholars must, however, continually lament that 
 the work of honest- minded Benedictines was hampered and in- 
 jured by Romish intolerance of reformation, since it helped to 
 render their work uneven and untrustworthy, in proportion as 
 the revisors succumbed to, or braved the censures of their 
 superiors, who were, only too often, ignorant, unreasoning bigots. 
 A thoroughly expurgated edition of the Fathers is still a desider- 
 atum for the Church." 
 
 Ch.\pter III. 
 
 A Fcio out of Many Specimens of Spurious Writings <j noted by 
 Mr. Quiglcy as Authentic, Treated in Detail. 
 
 Tested by my Touchstone*' (for which I have to thank New- 
 man and Ryder's other co-editors), we find that the following, 
 
 9. Wlien I honour pages 95 to 102 of Ryder by th's ii.unc, I tlo not inc.in tliat all tlie quota- 
 tions therein adduce ' are unquestionably genuine, far from it, (there are some which are un- 
 doubtedly apocryphal or late iuterpolaii ins : e-./,"-., the Justina fable, in au oration attributed to 
 GregC'ry N.izianzen, and the prayer for the Festival of the Anntuiciation, in the Gelasian Sacra- 
 mentary of the 5th Century — a feast not instituted till the C:h), but that all strong evidenc'^ 
 for MarioV.itry which Kyder omits, is now confssecd, even by Romanists, to be spurious. 
 
Homilies of the Scvenlh or Eighth Codurics 
 
 S3 
 
 ctinos ofS. 
 t'^e Roman 
 ^'■f'er, who, 
 Hind neces- 
 '■s. actively 
 vators and 
 Siv courage 
 considered 
 'itod in the 
 BJanipain, 
 Abbey of 
 5, and re- 
 on of the 
 
 objecting 
 "ss, have 
 >lanijxu'n. 
 God can 
 will not 
 
 conspicnoics by their absoice from the pages of Ryder, must be 
 rejected as spurious, viz. : The three Homilies on the Annunci- 
 alion, attributed to Gregory Thaumaturgus ; the Greek Prayers 
 io IhcVirqiii, circulated as S. Ephraim's ; the Panegyric to the 
 \'irgin, called the Ilypapante, said to have been written by 
 Mcdiodius, all (juoted freely by Mr. Ouigley as genuine. Also 
 sermon panegyrics on the \'irgin, for the Festivals of the Annun- 
 ciation and Purification, from the pens of authors of the seventh 
 and eighth centuries, at the earliest, iVaudulently or ignorantly 
 circulated in the Church, under the illustrimis names of Athan- 
 asius, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Augustine, Basil, Gregory Nazi- 
 anzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil of Seleucia, Cyprian, etc.,' without 
 which those great P'athers cannot be enlisted on the side of 
 Mariolatry, or quoted as authorities for even a " Hail Mary " in 
 direct worship of the Virgin. 
 
 I will now prove in detail the accuracy of my test, in a few 
 leading cases. 
 
 I. S. Greciorv Th.\u.maturgus (A. D. 240-265 ) : With regard 
 to the Homilic^ on the Anmoiciafioii, attributed to S. Gregory 
 Thaumaturgus, my opponent admits that Bellarmine and Dupin 
 had doubts about their authorship, but adds : " The critics are ten 
 to one against them, including the learned Protestant, Voss." 
 This is not an honest presentment of the case. Bingham (Bk. 
 XX., c. viii., sec. 4) says : " The best critics. Dr. Cave, Du Pin, 
 Hammond, L'Estrange, and Rivet, reject both these — (/. f., 
 sermons on the Annunciation, by Athanasius and Gregory 
 Thaumaturgus) as spurious writings ; and even Bellarmine and 
 Labbe reckon them dubious." He proceeds : " They were written 
 by Maximus, or some author after the time that the Monothelite 
 heresy appeared in the world, which was in the seventh century." 
 Bingham then goes on to prove that the Festival of the Annunci- 
 ation was, itself, not inaugurated till the seventh century — a fact 
 alone sufficient to condemn, as sjjurious, all homilies and orations 
 on the Festival, attributed to the Fathers anterior to that date. 
 
 I. For a list of spuriou-; writings on the Cnltiis of the Virgin, attributed to the Early 
 Fathers, see App. E. .My opp.nient, judiciously, " for brevity's sake," omits (luotations to the 
 point "from the famous S. Chrysostom, and from S. Epiphanius, who speaks eloiiuently for 
 Egypt, Palestine and Cyprus, to the fifth century" (see p. 120 Reprint). 
 
84 
 
 Foisted upon Gregory Thaum. of ihc Third. 
 
 To ihese adverse critics, Tyler (Worship of the Virgin, p. 396) 
 adds another Roman Catholic authority — Lumper — and supplies 
 cogent arguments against the genuineness of these homilies nl 
 Gregory. 
 
 The learned writer of the article on Ciregory Thaumaturgus. 
 in '-^ ^lith and Wace's Diet. Christ. Biog., Vol. II., p. 737, says: 
 " Four Ilomiliic, preserved by Vossius, on ' the Annunciation of 
 the Holy Virgin Mary,' and on ' Christ's Baptism,' are toiallx 
 unlike the genuine writing of (Gregory ; they are surcharged with 
 the peculiar reverence paid to the Mother of our Lord after the 
 controversy between Nestorius and Cyril, and they adopt the test- 
 words of orthodoxy etirrcnt in the Arian disputes!' 
 
 In Clarke's Ante-Nicene Library of the Fathers, and its 
 American reprint, these sermons .ue classed under the section of 
 " Dubious and Spurious Writings " of Gregory Thaumaturgus. 
 
 I now adduce further conclusive testimony to the same eflect, 
 from a celebrated Roman Catholic' authority of the last century 
 — Pellicia. In his Polity of the Christian Church (translation by 
 Bellett, 1S83, p. 33S), he condemns as spurious the four homilies 
 of Gregory Thaumaturgus, and further adds, that " S. Augustine's 
 sermon 'on the Annunciation of Mary,' which is read on the Day 
 of the Nativity of tJie Virgin Mary in the Roman Breviary^ is 
 reckoned among his spurious works by the Fathers of S. Maur."' 
 
 In this connection I must draw attention to a very serious 
 blunder of my opponent. To counterbalance the weighty auth- 
 ority of his own Bellarmine and Dupin, we have seen, he says, 
 (p. 113 Reprint) " the critics are ten to one against them, including 
 the learned Protestant, Gerard Voss ;" on p. 132, he again speaks 
 of Voss as " the learned Protestant philologist." How " compli- 
 mentary " he can be to Protestants when, as he thinks, they serve 
 his purpose. Yet, " by a strange Nemesis," upon one who could 
 not find abusive epithets strong enough to condemn a far less 
 important confusion of authors of the same name, my oj)ponent 
 has confounded Gerardus Vossius, Provost of Tongern, Papal 
 
 2. All Roman Catholic authority adverse to the aulheiiticity of these ami similar Homilie--., 
 must, of course, carry great weight, since the Roman system demands, as it were, an early dati- 
 for them, and makes it hard for writers to be brave enough to go against the stream. 
 
 3. My opponent will find many other spurious scraps in his Breviary, if he compare the 
 Lections therein from the Fathers, with the Benedictine editions of their works. 
 
Da\ 
 
 Mr. Ouiglcy Confounds the Papist -icith titc Protestant I oss/us. 85 
 
 Protliono/ary, an ardent Papist and -n'orshipper of the Virgin 
 ^SLc his Preface, quoted by Tyler, " Worship of the Virgin," p. 
 397), with the famous CJerardus Johannes Vossius, of world-wide 
 fame for his immense learning. The former writer published the 
 works of Gregory Thaumaturgus, defended the spurious ones, 
 and issued, also, an inaccurate and misleading' Latin translation 
 of the (ireek works of S. Ephraim in 1589 A.I)., and died at 
 Liege, March 25th, 1609. The latter was not born till 1577, and 
 died at Amsterdam, March 19th, 1649. He was notorious as the 
 most accurate and elegant Latin writer of his day, and is spoken 
 of in the Encycl. Britan. as " one of the great scholars of the 
 "world, whose character added lustre to his learning." The fact 
 that the other Vossius finds no mention in any of the Encyclo- 
 pedias, except the Schafif-Herzog, accounts, I suppose, for my 
 opponent's mistake. The Index of Authors, in Bingham's An- 
 ti(}uities (under " Ephraim Syrus " ), would have helped him, 
 however, to avoid the blunder, since he is there distinguished as 
 \'ossius Pinigrensis:' 
 
 I wonder what my opponent would have said of me, had I 
 produced against him as a learned Roman Catlwlic authority of 
 'iVorld-wide renozcn, some obscure Protestant writer who happened 
 to share the same name ! But, let it pass : a Christian, resting 
 secure upon the Truth of God, has no need to magnify into a 
 crime what is clearly the result of mere ignorance. 
 
 2. Ephraim the Syrian (A. D. 379) : As my opponent can 
 find nothing for his purpose in the genuine Syriac writings of 
 S. Ephraim, he betakes himself to the Greek Devotions to the 
 I'irgiji, attributed to him by the Roman Catholic compilers, 
 Vossius and the Assemani. These we have already seen tumbled to 
 the ground on contact w'ith my touchstone. Newman (in Pyder) 
 dared not quote them as either genuine or of an early date. 
 
 4. See Pusey's Kirciiicon II., 303. 
 
 5. We re.itl in the (7/()/v of June 22nd, 1891: "The honour conferred upon Dr. (Juigley 
 " (I'h. D.) is the highest that can be given a layman by the Pope, and has been conferred upon 
 " very few persons in the Knglisli speaking world. Dr. (Juigley is the first layman in America 
 "to receive the degree, which was granted for iiteyit as well as honour." 
 
 The Koman Catholic laity of Canada and the States must, indeed, feel proud of their own 
 order, and also of the discrimination of the Vatican critics, who, apparently, deem it " very 
 merito.ious " to enlist eminent I'rotestants like Vossius in support of Romish peculiarities. 
 
86 
 
 Greek Devotions to the \ 'irgin 
 
 % 
 
 iii 
 
 My opponent oiii^ht to know, if he he the learned man his 
 newly accjuired Papal and Laval degrees seem to make him, that 
 it is far too late in the day for any one to rely ui)on the opinions 
 of such sixteenth and seventeenth century devotees of the \'irgin, 
 as Vossius and the Assemani, on a question of authorship uf 
 panegyrics and devotions to the X'irgin. These men were onlv 
 too anxious to produce, from Eastern sources, supjxirt for Roman 
 Catholic doctrines and i)ractices, in the face of a rapidly growing; 
 Protestantism. The unearthing of any manuscript devotions to 
 the Virgin, which bore the name of Ephraim, was, to them, a 
 perfect godsend, which would confound the Protestants, and 
 make their own names famous at the Vatican and throughout the 
 Roman communion. They accepted, therefore, without question, 
 all the Greek and Latin scraps they could collect, which could, 
 colourably, be published under Ephraim's name. 
 
 The learned translator (Morris) of the Syriac Rhythms of 
 S. Ephraim, in the Oxford Library of the Fathers, looked with 
 suspicion upon the Greek works attributed to the Saint (see his 
 Preface), as the Saint himself knew little or no Greek, and the 
 contrast with the Syriac works is so striking,'' as to raise the 
 gravest doubts as to their authorship. He, therefore, translated 
 selections from the Syriac works only. 
 
 Newman (like Pusey), following, doubdess, the ancient his- 
 torians, Theodoret and Sozomen, asserts (probably wiiii "in- 
 comprehensible ignorance" or " satanic malevolence") that 
 Ephraim "knew no language but Syriac" (letter to Pusey on 
 Eirenicon, p. 42), therefore, whatever we have of his in Greek or 
 Latin, can come to us only through translations. Newman was 
 far too judicious, at all events, to Haunt (as Dr. Wiseman did, in 
 controversy with Palmer, and as my opponent now does) the 
 spurious (ireek prayers to the Blessed Virgin, ascribed by the 
 Papist, not Protestant, Voss, to S, FLphraim, as fourth century 
 evidence in favour of Mariolatry, for he knew that what Pusey 
 said of them, subsequently, was true : " they are, beyond question, 
 neither his nor of an early date " {Eirenicon IL, 302), and he 
 never questioned the accuracy of the statement. 
 
 If further evidence were required to settle the point, I might 
 
 6. Sec .■Xppen'.lix V 
 
Faihcred upon liphraim llic Syriiin, 
 
 87 
 
 refer my readers to the Rev. J. Endell Tyler's learned and lucid 
 criticisms on the spuriuus and corrupted literature of the Early 
 Church, in his Worship of the Virgin, and, especially, to his able 
 exposure of the late Cardinal Wiseman's" controversial use of the 
 spurious Greek de\otions of S. Kphraim (pp. 247-264). I regret, 
 of course, that the Rev. J. Endell Tyler should i)e so ohjectitjn- 
 able an adversary to my ojjponent as he appears to be ; but, then, 
 my opponent is not very easy to please. The late, learned and 
 holy Bishop Wordsworth, of Lincoln, he dul^s "a contemptible 
 no-1'opery ranter " and " bigot," who is guilty of " an infamous 
 literary forgery" 'Reprint, pp. 105-114).'" bishop Wcstcott, 
 worthy successor to the great Lightfoot, of Durham, lately gone 
 to his rest, must be reckoned amongst " the smaller fry, unworthy 
 of credit." The Elder Rosenmiiller writes ^'nonsense;''' the 
 great Milton " is audacious, not to say mendacious ; " the revered 
 Pusey, beloved of Newman, he alludes to as " kicking uj) shines " 
 in 1864, and "getting off some of those inconsequent utterances 
 " for which he was so fatuously famous in his later years." A 
 learned Anglican Bishop is guilty of " idiotic impertinence." The 
 late Rev. R. F. Littledale, whose " Plain Reasons " have never 
 yet been satisfactorily answereil, though the wisdom of the whole 
 Roman Church in England, headed by Newman, prepared the 
 so-called reply by Father Ryder, is called an " infamous liar and 
 unmitigated hypocrite, etc., etc., etc. ; " and so, poor Tyler, 
 " wretchedly ignorant," and a " blind, prejudiced controversialist," 
 must, I suppose, ho. stood in the corner like the rest, and mourn 
 to find the church of his baptism " the Anglican Apostacy," an 
 "Ecclesiastical bedlam," the "offspring of Henry the Eighth's 
 brutal lust,'' and the mother of the " bestial English landlord " of 
 the Emerald Isle." 
 
 7. Tlieti Titul.Tr Uishop of Mclipotainus. 
 8. The fraud consists of a nieic printer's error (see Appendix D). 
 
 9. There is h.irdly a page, cert.iinly not .1 chapter of Mr. Quigley's Reprint free fr ni this 
 kind of personal abuse. Tliis was pointed out in a letter by "Catholic Layman," in the 
 Gazette, Feb. 3rd, 1891, which I reprint (Appendix O). (See also p. 43.) 
 
 It is hardly creditable (I had almost said credible), that the head of the Roman Church 
 should have committed himself to endorse, by an cvce/'tioiial honour, the writings of a contro- 
 versialist who has stooped so low, while treating of a sacred subject. Perhaps the next step will 
 be to adopt Mr.Quigley's Reprint as a SeDihiary Text Book, iti order that aspirants for the 
 Priesthood may cultivate the style of controversy most approved at the Vatican, 
 
88 
 
 ^■l Ninth or Tenth Century Oration on the />'. I'. M. 
 
 However, I li;ive no doubt there are some few persons who 
 will pity i)Oor Tyler, and, i^'rhaps, be inclined rather to believe 
 that a controversialist who resorts to virulent and coarse abuse, 
 has not much confidence, either in the stability of his case, or in 
 the force of his own arj^uments. So S. Chrysostom thought, as 
 I pointed out in my contro\ersy with Cleophas. 
 
 3. Mktiiodius (Mtrd. A. D. 312): I have treated the case of 
 Ephraim next to Gregory Thaumaturgus, because the spurious 
 writings attributed to him, like those referred to (ircgory Thauma- 
 turgus, have been accepted \->y many scholars in the past as 
 genuine, through the zealous advocacy of Vossius (an ardent 
 Romanist) and the Asscmani. 
 
 Now, with rcgaril to the " Oration concernin^i^ Simeon and 
 Anna, on the day they met in the Temple^' attributed by some 
 critics to Methodius, I can show, in the first place, even from one 
 remark of my opponent, that Methodius could hardly have been 
 its author. lie says, that its likeness to the Synposium on 
 Chastity^ which is generally admitted to be, in the in, a com- 
 position (jf Methodius, is sufficient to prove its anth*. .icity. 
 
 Let us see. The Symposium on Chastity occupies 119 pages 
 of a large octavo in Clarke's Library ; the Oration for tlic Festi- 
 val of tJie Pnrifeation, only 25 pages. The latter contains 
 chapter after chapter of impassiuned panegyric and apostrophe 
 to the Virgin ; the former, only two allusions to her, as being 
 Christ's mother. Now, considering the subject of the Symposium 
 is the praise and religious advantages of a state of virginity for 
 devout Christians, one would naturally look tor the figure of the 
 Blessed Virgin throughout the treatise, as a prominent example 
 for imitation. When I first read it through, years ago, and found 
 Christ only, as the one example set up in it for imitation, I 
 
 I. It must honestly be confessed, th.it even this work is not as it came from the hands of 
 Methodius. Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (857-S86 A. D.), " the most eminent literary 
 and Ecclesiastical character of his .age " (Encycl. Brit.), in his monumental work, BiHiothcca, 
 wherein he has copied copious extracts from the works of .Methodius, says : " The Symposium 
 "has been much falsified by .\rian and other heterodox interpolations." On the strength of 
 this early testimony, our own learned Bp. Bull relieved himself of the necessity of discussing 
 particular passages in the treatise (see Smith's Diet. Christ. Biog., iii., 910). 
 
 The editor of the .\merican reprint of Clarke's Ante-Nicene Library, says : "Tokens of 
 such corrujjtions are not wanting, and there can be little doubt that Methodius, the Monkish 
 Artist and Missionary of the ninth century, has been often copied into the works of his earlier 
 n.imesake," Vol. vi., 382. 
 
rathered upon Methodius oj the Third. 
 
 8y 
 
 thmigiit I must have overlooked some references to I lis \'iri;iii 
 Mother, but a second reatlinjf proved I was not mistaken. My 
 (i|)])()iicnt (p. 152 of Reprint) j^^ives us the following sununary of 
 tlii» work : "The holy IJishop thus teaches that ('Inist, the Prince 
 of Virgins, coming from I leaven to teach men the [)erfection of 
 virtue, planted among them the state of \'irginity, to which a 
 particular degree of glory is due in i h a\ en." My opj)oncnt 
 suppresses the "very inconvenient "' fad that, in the Sytnposiiiiii, 
 not one of the ten Virgins who deliver lengthy orations in sup- 
 port and praise of Virginity, mention the Blessed Virgin as even 
 ;i model. The only allusion to her, in reference to her Virginity, 
 is in Thekla's final hymn o( praise to Christ for calling herself and 
 companions to become His spotless brides. The hymn com- 
 memorates Holy Abel, Pure Joseph, Jephtha's Virgin Daughter, 
 Daring Judith, Chaste Susanna, John, Christ's Precursor, the 
 Blessed Virgin Mother, and Christ's Virgin Bride, the Church 
 I Clarke's Ante-Nic. Lib., Vol. XIV., 11 3-1 14). 
 
 Now, I ask, would it be possible for a Roman Catholic author, 
 treating of the subject of Virginity, thus persistently to ignore the 
 Blessed Virgin ? Equally impossible, then, is it for us to believe 
 that the Methodius who penned the Oration on the Purification 
 wrote the Symposium. 
 
 This one piece of internal evidence is enough, I say, to con- 
 demn the Oratio)i as spurious. But we are not dependent on it ; 
 there is much more evidence, internal and external, which com- 
 pels us to regard the Oration as a composition, at the earliest, of 
 the sixth century. George Salmon, Provost of Trinity Coll., 
 Dublin, some time Regius Professor of Divinity in Dublin 
 Uni\'ersity, ranks the Oration on Simeon and Anna among " the 
 doubtful and spurious writings " of Methodius (see my " penny 
 dictionary," as my opponent facetiously calls it. Smith & IVace's 
 Diet. Christian Biograp/iy, Vol. HI., p.91 1) ; and Fredk. Meyrick, 
 Fellow of Trinity Coll., Oxford, and Prebendary of Lincoln 
 Cathedral, thinks it was probably written by Methodius of Con- 
 stantinople, in the ninth century (Smith & Cheetham's Diet, 
 Christian Andquities, Vol. H., p. 1141); the Roman Catholic, 
 Dupin, admits that the Oration is " not mentioned by the 
 Ancients, not even by Photius," of the ninth century, whom, we 
 
IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 1t^ 
 
 112 
 
 2.5 
 
 ■■- ilk III 22 
 uT m 1 2.0 
 
 III— 
 LA. Ill 1.6 
 
 -^ 
 
 pm 
 
 .^v 
 
 <J 
 
 <?t' 
 
 
 ^;. 
 
 // 
 
 '/ 
 
 /J, 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 A 
 
 n>^ 
 
 :\ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 6^ 
 
 <i? 
 
 <^.^^ 
 
 '^^ 
 
■ % 
 
 w. 
 
 \ 
 
 ^m 
 
9© The Oration Could not be Earlier than the ~th Cent. 
 
 have seen (note 9, ji. cS8) quoted copiously from the then known 
 works of Methodius. 
 
 George Sahuon, just quoted, says : " It is generally rejected, 
 " both for reasons of style, and because, as we have reason to 
 *' think, that the system of Church Festivals which it assumes 
 " was not in existence in the time of Methodius." 
 
 Now, the author of the Oration speaks of the Festival as 
 being a glorious day, celebrated in the Universal Church by its 
 Sacred Preachers, and by special hynms well known to all Christ's 
 flock. He speaks thus in the opening chapter. In the third, thus, 
 " O, Lover of this Festival ; " in the tenth, " the Hymns we offer 
 Thee ; " in the eleventh, " this Prominent Feast ; this Sacred 
 Festival ; " in the thirteenth, " Hail to the Church, keeping Holy- 
 day with the Father ; " in the fourteenth, " Hail to the Mother ol" 
 God, ' the beginning, middle, and end of our Feast,' whose memory 
 we celebrate ' with hymns august.' " 
 
 Here, tlien, we see the Festival of the Piirijication fully 
 fledged, and yet it is next to certain that this Festival was not even 
 instituted in the Church before 542 A. 1^. (/. <?., 230 years after the 
 martyrdom of Methodius). Even Baronius (not overscrupulous 
 about the genuineness of the Lections he incorporated in the 
 Breviary) does not hesitate to declare that " no Greek or Latin 
 " Father, before Justinian, has left a sermon on the Occursus" 
 that is, the meeting of Simeon and Anna in the temple, and the 
 Purification of Blessed Mary {Martyr, Feb. 2). If this be so, 
 then the oration cannot be attributed to Methodius of the 3rd 
 Century, but must be considered rather the work of a forger later 
 than A. D. 542, since, in its opening chapter, the preacher fraudu- 
 lently claims to be the author of the Syviposiuvi on Ci Astity- 
 
 The editor of the American Reprint of Clarke's Lib. of the 
 Fathers, while admitting that the style of the oration resembles 
 that of Methodius in many places, calls attention to certain pas- 
 sages which denote a composition or an interpolation subsequent 
 to the Nestorian Controversy and the Council of Ephesus (see 
 Chap. X), and adds : " The whole oration is probably after that 
 dateCA. D. 431)." 
 
 Here again, as I have already stated, my touchstone of Roman 
 manufacture settles the question off hand. Newman, Ryder and 
 
Mr. Qniglcy is Driven to the Use of Discarded Weapons. 91 
 
 '1 
 
 company, in " Ryder's (so called) Reply to Littlcdale," pp. 95- 
 102, have not dared to cpiote Methodius' Oration on the Meeting 
 of Simeon and Anna. Let my opponent explain the reason of 
 this if he can. Does it not seem ridiculous for any one, at this 
 time of day, to refurbish the antiquated. 'Morn ont \vea]ions of 
 Roman controversy ? 
 
 In order to show how customary it was in the days of manu- 
 scripts to obtain early Fathers as witnesses to later developments 
 and errors in practice and doctrine, by palming oft' imitations of 
 their writings, or interpolations in their works, upon the jieople, 
 \ may add here, from Meyrick's article already quoted, this para- 
 graph : " Similar orations attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem, A. D, 
 " 350, and to Amphilochius, A. 1). 370, and to Gregory Nyssen, 
 " A. D. 370, are spurious. So are a Scrnio in Occursuin Domini, 
 " attributed to S. Athanasius, A. D. 325, and a Sermo dc Purifi- 
 " catione B. Maricc, attributed to S. Ambrose, A. D. 374, and 
 " many more sermons alleged to have been delivered on the day 
 " by different early writers." All these stand condemned by the 
 assertion of Baronius, if by no other internal marks of spurious- 
 ness. 
 
 There is no necessity for wearying my readers or myself by 
 exposing any further in tletail the falsilications and misrepresen- 
 tations of ancieU 'imch literature, u])on which my opponent 
 relies for making out a case in lavour of Mariolatry and the 
 Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. 
 
 With their eyes now opened, and my Touchstone (pp. 7S-80) in 
 hand, my readers can now steer a safe cotU'se by themselves. At all 
 events I have, I think, revealed enough of my opponent's method 
 and spurious wares to ensure the rejection of his book, ''Ipse, 
 Ipsa, Ipsiim,'' as unworthy of the least credit. There is, however, 
 one subtle device, not sufficiently dwelt upon, most dangerously 
 antagonistic to the truth. I mean the misinterpretation of genuine 
 documents of the early Fathers. I will, therefore, add a few more 
 instances of this kind of deceit from my opponent's Reprint. 
 
 Immediately following a quotation from the pseudo-Gregory 
 Thaumaturgus, is one from S. Dionysius of Alexandria (A. D. 
 247), p. 1 13. This witness may be put out of court for two rea- 
 sons : 
 
92 
 
 Dioiiysius and Clement Alex. Misrepresented. 
 
 ■ I. The epistle quoted is of doubtful authorship. 
 
 2. Its sense has to be perverted to suit the Roman argument. 
 
 Pusey considers this case, wastes no time over the first point, 
 because the second is an all-sufficient refutation of the Roman 
 contention. 
 
 Plere are his words (Eirenicon II., p. 2(j8) : " Without entering 
 "into the question as to the genuineness of the two works quoted 
 " as S. Dionysius' of Alexandria, I do not think that it would 
 "occur to anyone who had not a thesis to maintain that they 
 "even bore on the Immaculate Conception." He, then, in a foot- 
 note gives the quotations in full, including the extracts quoted by* 
 my opponent. The remarks of the Roman Catholic, Petau, are 
 very a])posite to this case. (See p. 70.) 
 
 My opponent's next quotation is from Clement of Alexandria 
 (p. 115 Reprint). For utter perversion of an author's meaning 
 it can scarcely be surpassed. S. Clement is writing in a mystical 
 way of the Church, as a mother nourishing her children, with 
 Christ, the Word of God, in sacramental mysteries, especially in 
 the Holy Eucharist.' He speaks of the Father as the great 
 nourisher of all, both generated and regenerated, and compares 
 Him to mothers supplying milk to their offspring. He then pro- 
 ceeds thus: "But the Lord Christ, the Fruit of the Virgin, did 
 " not pronounce the breasts of women blessed, nor selected them 
 " to give nourishment ; but when the kind and loving P'ather had 
 " rained doivn the Word,' Himself (/'. e., the Word of God), 
 " became spiritual nourishment to the good. O mystic marvel ! 
 " The Universal Father is one, and one the Universal Word ; and 
 " the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, and one only 
 " the Virgin Mother formed. I would call her the Church. This 
 " Mother, alone, had not milk, because she, alone, never became 
 " a woman " (my opponent omits this last sentence) ; " but she is 
 " at once a Virgin and a mother ; undefiled as a Virgin ; full of 
 " love as a mother ; and calling her children to her, she nurses 
 
 2. Pusey quotes the whole passage, in his treatise, The Doctyine o/ the Real Presence, 
 from the Fathers, p. 328, as suitable tohis subject. 
 
 3. Here S. Clement alludes to the type of Manna, adopted by Jesus, in S. John vi., of 
 Himself, "the Inie Bread or Manna of Life which came down out of Heaven, of which a n. .1 
 ' may eat and live for ever " (Vv. 41-51) He had already treated of this type earlier in t!.e 
 discoursct 
 
Archelaus and Origen Not to the Point. 
 
 93 
 
 "them with holy milk, viz., the Infant Word. Therefore she had 
 " not milk ; because the milk was this Child, fair and comely, viz. 
 "the Body of Christ, which nourishes by the Word, that young 
 "progeny, which the Lord Himself brought forth in throes of the 
 " flesh, which the Lord Himself swaddled with Precious Blood. 
 " O, holy Birth ! O, holy swathing hands ! The Word is all to 
 " the child, both father and mother and tutor and nurse. ' Eat ye 
 " My Flesh,' He says, ' and drink my Blood.' This suitable Food 
 " from Himself the Lord provides for us, and He offers His flesh 
 "and pours forth His Blood, and nothing is wanting to the 
 '" children's growth. O, marvellous mystery ! He bids us put off 
 " from us the old corruption of the flesh, as, also, the old food, and 
 " partaking in exchange, a new nourishment, that of Christ, re- 
 " ceiving Him as far as possible, to lay Him up in ourselves and 
 " place the Saviour in our breast, that we may correct the passions 
 " of our flesh." 
 
 In the next chapter S. Clement explains some points of the 
 allegory or figure. Christians, he says, are the Church's Infants, 
 the Word " the care-soothing breast of the Father," etc., etc. I 
 have supplied my readers with a longer quotation than that given 
 by my opponent in order diat they may see for themselves, by 
 the context, the drift of the writer's teaching and argument, and 
 so be able intelligently to condemn the dishonest play upon words 
 of which my opponent has been guilty. 
 
 Again. Can any of my readers tell me how the following 
 quotation from S. Archelaus Cp. ii6) makes for the worship of 
 the Virgin? "Just as all the Law and the Prophets are summed 
 "up in two words, so also all our hope is made to depend (hinge) 
 " on the birth by Hie Blessed Marv " (italics mine), /. e., on Christ. 
 No Christian can condemn such a statement as this. 
 
 Again. Origen (Homily vi. on Luke), speaking of the angel's 
 words, " Hail full of grace," says " For Mary alone is this saluta- 
 tion reserved," Apart from the inaccurate rendering, " full of 
 grace," who in the world can deny Origen's comment on the 
 same ? How does it support Mariolatry ? It is simply trifling on 
 my opponent's part to multiply instances of this kind. 
 
 The other comments of Origen on the Visitation of Elizabeth 
 by Mary, quoted from some unnamed edition of his Homilies, 
 
94 
 
 The Main Object of the Term " Throiokos" 
 
 have nothin,^; peculiarly Roman about them. Blessed Mary was 
 then bearinjr about in her body the Incarnate Word, and her 
 unicjue privilej^e was revealed to ICli/abeth both by the Holy 
 Ghost and through the supernatural reco.tjnition of the presence 
 of Incarnate Deity, by her own unborn oftspring, as S. Luke him- 
 self tells us. The profanities against Jesus and His Hlessed 
 Mother, condemned by Origen, are revealed to us in chap, xxxi.x. 
 of his first book against Celsus, the concluding passage of which 
 my opponent tacks on, without reference, to his comments upon 
 S. Luke i. 39-45. They are too terrible for repetition, and can 
 have no possible bearing upon the subject matter in hand. These 
 quotations, then, in their plain meaning, are beside the mark, as 
 they are as accej)table to Anglican as to Roman Catholics. If 
 they were of any \'alue they would surely have been utilized by 
 Ryder, Newman and Comi)any in Ryder's Reply to Littledale, 
 pp. 95-102. 
 
 Again, Romanists rely very largely for support of their pres- 
 ent Cultus of the \'irgin upon the panegyrical language adopted 
 by some Fathers subseciuent to the Council of Ephesus (431 
 A. D. s when the term Theotokos, as a title of the Virgin, was 
 adopted by the Church as a protection from the Nestorian heresy 
 with regard to the IDivir" Personality of Jesus Christ. Jesus was 
 not two Persons, a Divine Person united to a human person, of 
 which the Virgin bore merely the human, but in Personality, Divine 
 only, and therefore Mary, His mother, bore and gave birth to a 
 Divine Person, and so was righdy called Theotokos, " the bearer 
 and bringer-forth of Goi:)." 
 
 We must understand that this term was adopted by the Coun- 
 cil for the preservation intact to man of God's saving reveladon 
 by the Incarnate Son, and not as a crown of honour to the Virgin 
 herself, though of course it necessarily raised her in the estima- 
 tion of the Church's children, as they realized more and more all 
 that was involved in the title. 
 
 There is little or nothing, however, in the highly-poetical 
 apostrophes, rhapsodies, and panegyrics on the Virgin Mother of 
 God, to be found in the genuine and expurgated writings of the 
 Fathers, anterior to the seventh century, that cannot be accepted 
 by intelligent Anglicans, so long as the plain sense of their terms 
 
The Falhcrs Use Tiths in One Sense, 
 
 95 
 
 and phraseology be not perverted. Tliis Pusey has pointed out 
 in his criticism on Newman's letter (Eirenicon II., 26-31), thus: 
 " F'urther, my only difficulty in adoj)ting any of the groat titles 
 which, as you say, the Fathers have given to the Blessed Virgin, 
 is my impression that, in popular devotions, those titles which 
 alune would come into question here, /mz'e received a different 
 meaning /torn that in lehieh tlie Fathers used them ;* and so I 
 should be speaking the language of other days, which would be 
 understood as it has been moulded by later usage. / should be 
 using coin zvhich had been re-stanifyed. The titles which the 
 I'athers give to the Blessed Virgin fall, I tiiink, into t\ o classes — 
 those which shadow her pcrjietual Virginity before, in, and after 
 the Birth, and those which speak of her as conceiving and bearing 
 (loD. Of the first, there is no question, and they, I think, seldom 
 occur in modern books of devotion. Those other great terms, 
 great as they were, were, 1 believe, but weaker expressions of that 
 one word Theotokos. They were so many colours evolved out ot 
 that central light. She was the Mother of our Redeemer, and so 
 from her, as the fountain of His Human Birth, came all that He 
 did and was to us. Thus she was ' The Mother of Life,' because 
 siie was the Mother of Him Who is our Life; she was ' The Gate 
 of Paradise,' because she bore Him Who restored us to our lost 
 Paradise; 'The Gate of Heaven,' because He, born of Her, 
 ' opened the Kingdom of Heaven to all believers : ' she was ' The 
 All-undefiled Mother of Holiness,' because 'the Holy One born 
 of Her was called the Son of Gou ; ' the ' Light-clad Mother of 
 Light,' because He Who intlwelt Her, and was born of Her, was 
 'the True Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the 
 world.' And, in like way, that other title, ' Staff of Orthodoxy,' 
 has, ' suppose, reference to that truth, which we suppose to lie as 
 the foundation of the blessing to S. Peter, that the belief in the 
 Incarnation, in our Lord, God and Man, which he has confessed, 
 would be the impregnable strength of the Church. In the well- 
 
 4. He had already alliuled to this (p. 22) : " Later writers apply tc her present otTice, by 
 virtue of her intercession, language which the Fathers used in regard to her office, which she, 
 through grace, accepted, of becoming the .Motiier of her (^own) and our Redeemer."' He refers 
 to it again (p. 36) : " The dllTicidty arose, I lielievc, /// the change 0/ the meaning of the great 
 tL-rms which the Fathers used of the liles^ed Virgin, looking on to the Incarnation, in that she 
 w.is the Mother of our Redeemer, God-Man, and the transference 0/ those terms to describe 
 her present in/liience and power with Him h r SipN." 
 
96 The Ruman Church Quotes ihcm in Another, 
 
 known words of S. Fulgentius: 'It is certain that almost all the 
 errors of heretical pravity have hence manifoldly stolen in upon 
 some, that the great mystery of godliness, which was manifest in 
 the tlesh, justified in the spirit, appeared to Angels, preached to 
 the Clentiles, believed in the world, received up in glory, some do 
 not believe as it is, or altogether disbelieve.' " 
 
 Dr. I'uscy then proceeds to criticise in detail the language of 
 some of those fifth and sixth century Fathers which have sup- 
 plied my opponent with apparently his strongest witnesses. He 
 takes up all their mystical allusions to Old Testament types and 
 their far-fetched poetical imagery, shirks no difficulty, and then 
 concludes thus : " Now, in all this, I suppose that there is nothing 
 which any Anglican who reflected on the term ' Theotokos ' 
 would hesitate about (except that we are unaccustomed to mysti- 
 cal mterpretations of Holy Scripture), if only we were certain 
 that we should be understood to use them in what I believe to 
 have been their original meaning, and not to imply that she (the 
 Blessed Virgin) was 'the gate of Heaven,' etc., by virtue of her 
 present intercession." (Not but that she does pray for us like all 
 the inhabitants of heaven, and that pre-eminently, but that it was 
 not on this account she received such great titles from the F'athers). 
 He enlarges again somewhat on this point (p. 39) : " This change 
 in the meaning of titles given by the Fathers occasions devotions 
 which (you will agree with me) the Fathers knew not (italics mine), 
 and furnishes their doctrinal basis. Vox when, instead of its being 
 said that 'God willfr/ that we should have all through Mary,' /. e., 
 through the Incarnation, it came to be thought that ' God willf/// 
 that we should have all through her,' or that 'through her,' i. <?., 
 through her , itercession, ' God willeth that all graces should pass 
 from Christ, the Head, unto the Church, His Body ; ' that doctrine 
 involved the whole system of teaching as to the office of the 
 Blessed Virgin, as our access to our Redeemer, from which we 
 wish to be exempt." 
 
 According to this teaching, prayer to the Virgin becomes 
 necessary to salvation. This is the doctrine urged so strongly 
 throughout Liguori's Glories of Mary. " Mary is our life, be- 
 cause she obtains for us the pardon of our sins;" " Mary is our 
 life, because she obtains for us the gift of perseverance ; " " Mary 
 
■ r. 
 
 And then Pretends the Fathers Support Her Doetrine. 97 
 
 'lost all the 
 ■n in upon 
 nauifest in 
 ■cached to 
 ', some do 
 
 ngua^i^e of 
 lave sup- 
 jses. He 
 ypes and 
 and then 
 s nGthin_t,r 
 eotokos ' 
 o mysti- 
 
 - certain 
 elieve to 
 she (the 
 
 - of her 
 ' like all 
 It it was 
 athersj. 
 change 
 votions 
 
 mine), 
 > being 
 t^/ /. e., 
 fi\\\eth 
 ,' i. e., 
 J pass 
 'Ctrine 
 >f the 
 :h we 
 
 is the hope of all," " the refuge of sinners," " the hope of sin- 
 ners," " the peacemaker of sinners with God," because her pray- 
 ers tor them are all-powerful with God. 
 
 How does this accord with the teaching of the Ante-Nicene 
 I'athers, whose writings contain no invocation whatever of the 
 X'irgin or of any Saint, or any recommendation of the practice of 
 invocation in any form ? How can this be reconciled with the 
 fact that, even in the case of so copious a writer of the fifth cen- 
 tury as S. Augustine, no prayer to the Blessed Virgin is to be 
 found throughout his voluminous works?' How does this find 
 sii|)i)ort from even the most flowery of the Panegyrics of seventh 
 century writers like Sophronius and Anastasius, quoted by my 
 opponent (pp. 122, 123)? 
 
 I have now, I claim, shown as fully as need be, that the only 
 way in which the Fathers of the first six centuries of the Chris- 
 tian era can be made io support the Roman Cuitus of the Virgin 
 is by either misinterpreting their language or quoting from for- 
 geries or falsified copies of their works. 
 
 In the next Part will be found a collection of devotions to the 
 Virgin, with instructions taken from Roman Catholic manuals of 
 various kinds. 
 
 5. Newman virtually admits that no invocation of the Virgin can be discovered in the 
 voluminous writings of S. AugU4tine, or in the times of SS. Chrysostom and Athanasius. (Letter 
 to I'lisuy, p. III.) 
 
 omes 
 >ngly 
 Sbe- 
 our 
 lary 
 
PART III. 
 
 CHAni-R I. 
 
 Mariolatiy in the Roman Church. 
 
 One of the many valuable results of the publication of Pusey's 
 Eirenicon, was to reveal \ery distinctly to outsiders, what was 
 known previously to few but the initiated, that two distinct and 
 opposite parties existed among English Roman Catholics, as 
 widely separated from each other as the High and Low Church 
 sections among Anglicans. 
 
 Though the days had passed when Ultramontanes, to the 
 scandal of Christendom, flew at the throats of Galileans on the 
 questions of Papal Supremacy and Infallibility, and Scotist and 
 Thomist — Franciscan and Dominican, gnashed their teeth in 
 public at one another, over the question of the Immaculate Con- 
 ception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, yet were there opposing 
 schools of thought within the Roman fold, " agreeing," may be, 
 " to differ," so as not to exjjose the Church's weakness to the 
 world. 
 
 But Pusey's Eirenicon fell as a bombshell within the Roman 
 camp. It was a most disturbing element in its midst ;*it thor- 
 oughly demoralized its chiefs, and scattered its rank and file in 
 difiterent directions. On the one hand we had Newman, Father 
 Lockhart, Bishop Clifford, the Weekly Kegisier, Oxenham, and 
 others, desirous of meeting the charges and proposals of Dr. 
 Pusey in a friendly, Christian spirit, anxious to remove stumbling 
 blocks from the way of those who longed for a healthful reunion 
 of Christendom ; on the other. Archbishop Manning, Dr. CuUen, 
 Canon Oakeley, the Dublin Rcvieiv, Father Gallwey, and other 
 extremists, taking up cudgels, not only against Pusey, but also 
 against Newman and his supporters from among the more con- 
 servative party of Romanists. On no question was this internal 
 (98) 
 
7>i'(7 S/roiiii/y Opfyoscd Schools of Thought 
 
 99 
 
 aiua,i;onisni manire.sti.il more fully than on that regarding the 
 wuisliip of the Virgin. 
 
 Newman, in the Introduction of his Letter to I'usey, u])lifts 
 the veil : He tells us th.it, personally, he " prefers Ijiglish habits 
 of t)elief and devotion to h'oreign." anil that in clinging to this 
 preference he was but availing himself of the teaching with which 
 he fell in, when he joined the Roman Church. The late Vicar- 
 Apostolic of the Lontlon district, Dr. (Jriffilhs, he tells us, 
 warned him against books of devotion of the Italian school, 
 which were just at that time coming into I'2ngland (p. 22), 
 and recommended him, as safe guides, the works of liishop 
 Hay. h'urther on, he expresses regret and apologizes for 
 having deviated, at one part of his course, through the in- 
 fluence of younger men, whom he loved, from the wiser advice 
 of the old Catholics or superiors, to which he subsecjuently 
 returned. He then, in a loving way, shows how he dissents from 
 the extreme party, represented by Faber, Ward, anil Oakeley, 
 though he refrains from any criticism upon Archbishop Maiming 
 " because of his office." He contends that these converts from 
 Anglicanism, younger than himself, " are in no sense spokesmen 
 " for Knglish Catholics, anil they must not stand in the place of 
 "those who have a real title to such an office." He then gives a 
 long list of names of distinguished Romanists, real leaders in his 
 Church, none of them extremists on Marian devotions (with the 
 exception, he should, perhaps, have said, of Wiseman, who fell a 
 victim to the devotions of the pseudo-1-phraim on the subject ). He 
 protests against Pusey's regarding these junior men. "thorough- 
 going and relentless in their statements," as the harbingers of a 
 new age, " when to show a deference for Antiquity will be thought 
 "little else than a mistake." (What can be more cutting than 
 this?) " p'or myself," he goes on, "hopeless as you consider it, 
 " I am not ashamed still to take my stand upon the Fathers, and 
 " do not mean to budge. The history of their times is not yet an 
 " old almanac to me. Of course I maintain the value and auth- 
 " ority of the ' Schola,' as one of the loci thcologici ; still, I 
 " sympathise with Petavius, in preferring to its ' contentious and 
 " subde theology,' that ' more elegant and fruitful teaching which 
 " is moulded after the image of erudite antiquity.' The Fathers 
 
I(>) 
 
 In iliQ Roman Church in En^^land in jS6j. 
 
 " made me a Catholic ; I am not KoiiiK to kick down the ladder 
 " by which I ascended into the Church. It is a ladder quite as 
 " serviceable lor that purpose now as it was twenty years a^n)." 
 So with rejjard to the worship of Mary, he says: "Here, 1 say, 
 " as on other points, the Fathers are enough for me. I do not 
 " wish to say more than they, and will not say less." 
 
 In the body of tlie letter (p. 103) Newman tells us, that though 
 he had been twenty years a Romanist, he had never read Liguoi i 's 
 Glories 0/ Maty ; a statement which shows us how obedient a 
 disciple he was, in some particulars, of his first instructor, Dr. 
 Griffiths. 
 
 Of course all this was gall and vinegar to the Ditblin Rcvic'v, 
 Oakeley, Manning, and the extremists, and so, while Newman, 
 backed by Clitiford, inaugurated a conciliatory and truthful policy, 
 Oakeley and the rest did all in their power to e.xasperate the 
 moderate school, and to close all doors of reconciliation to the 
 Anglican Church. The writer of an article in the Union Revicrc 
 for 1866, p. 302, entitled ''Roman Catholic Critics of the 'Eireni- 
 con,' " opens it with this remark : " An acute Protestant of our 
 acquaintance, of the ' broadest ' school, remarked the other day. 
 after reading Dr. Newman's and Archbishop Manning's recent 
 letters on the ' Eirenicon ' — ' These two men seem to me to 
 believe in two differ eyit religions' " 
 
 The one, as we have seen, was content with the Fathers — the 
 other alleged it to be " a treason and a heresy " to appeal to 
 them ; the one admitted that the religion of the multitude " will 
 ever be tinctured with fanaticism and superstition," " a corrupt 
 religion" — the other asserted that "whoever rises up to con- 
 demn such (popular) practices and opinions, thereby convicts 
 himself of the private spirit, which is the root of all heresy." 
 (Manning's Pastoral Letter, p. 65.) 
 
 In a similar extravagant tone Canon Oakeley repudiated 
 moderation, and closed, as far as he was able, Pusey's door of 
 hope. And whereas Newman said (Letter, p. 105): "If the 
 Catholic F"ait'.i spreads in England, these peculiarities (/. e., extra- 
 vagancies of foreign devotions) will not spread with it," Oakeley 
 affirmed : "It is quite certain that Roman Catholic Bishops and 
 Priests (/. e., of Pius IXth's appointment) will be the instruments of 
 
The Old Catholics, Adhcrtuls to A'ta'iiian, 
 
 lor 
 
 1 the ladder 
 dcr quite as 
 years ago," 
 '^cre, I say, 
 • J do not 
 
 tiiat thoiij.), 
 ^<l I-igtiori 's 
 obedient a 
 ructor, Dr. 
 
 in Rcvia,^ 
 Newman, 
 >Aj1 policy, 
 perate the 
 ion to the 
 '« Jievie:c 
 f 'Eireui. 
 int of our 
 3ther day. 
 r's recent 
 :o me to 
 
 ers — the 
 ppeal to 
 ide " will 
 
 corrupt 
 
 to con- 
 convicts 
 heresy." 
 
 flouiling ' luigl.uul with the devotions to which Dr. Pusey con- 
 scientiously objects'" (Letter to Manning, p. 53). Those very 
 devotions, that is to say, which made Newman imlignant, and 
 called forth his stern and sharp repudiation. " If I professed 
 them (such sentiments as these) I should be guilty of fulsome 
 flattery, * * * * and I should expect her (tlie Hlessed Virgin) to 
 tell one of her people in waiting, to turn me off her service with- 
 out warning." 
 
 The Dub/iti Rcz'ino was angered beyond measure with New- 
 man for this, and announced its purpose of correcting Dr. 
 Newman's mistake, by defending all the statements he had 
 denounced, in its next number, and the scandal of an unseemly 
 wrangle was only put an entl to by the intervention of Episcopal 
 authority, viz.. Bishop Clifibrd's (see Union Keview, 1866, 302 
 and 381). 
 
 There were, then, in 1865 and 1866, when Pusey 's Eirenicon, 
 I'ts. I. and II., appeared, two strongly opposed schools of thought 
 in the Roman Church in England, with regard to the adoration 
 of the Virgin. How far they have preserved themselves distinct 
 to the present time, I Jiave not the means of judging. It is pos- 
 sible the dominant power at the Vatican, the Black Pope (the 
 General of the Jesuits), restored to power by the late Pius IX., 
 aided by the Ultramontane leader, Cardinal Manning, in England, 
 has done much to crush out the old Catholic party, or, at all 
 events, to raise up a new generation of extremists to take its 
 place, as veterans like Newman go down to the grave. 
 
 At all events, we have seen in this city a champion of Roman- 
 ism, who, while professing admiration for the late Cardinal 
 Newman, and using his arguments, where possible, in favour of 
 Mariolatry, deliberately upholding -and defending those Italian 
 devotions to the Virgin with which Newman would have nothing 
 to do, and those extremists, Faber, Oakeley, and Ward, who 
 stirred up his righteous indignation, as being " relentless in their 
 statements " in their desire to bring on what they were pleased to 
 call the coming " age of Mary." We have seen, moreover, this 
 champion crowned with special favours from the Vatican for his 
 valorous defence of Mariolatry in its most modern and extreme 
 development, and thus, surely, we have an unmistakeable sign. 
 
I02 
 
 And Ihc " Dublin Rcvieic'' Extremists. 
 
 among many other signs," that Romanism of the Newman, or 
 moderate type, is no longer approved at head-fiuarters, and tliat 
 books of devotion in general use among ICnglish speakiiijr 
 Romanists of twenty or thirty years since, such as The Key ut 
 Heaven, The Garden of the Soul, The Crown of Jesus, etc., and 
 books of instruction, such as Waterworth's i Berington tS: Kirk's i 
 Faith of Catholics, Challoncr's "Catholic Christian Instructed',' 
 Hay's Sincere Christian, and Hutler's Catechism ' happily in use 
 in St. John Diocese, among Roman Catholics, at present, by order 
 of their Bishop), must give way before those of an Italian type. 
 
 In the (luotations which follow, taken verbatim from Roman 
 Catholic manuals of instruction and devotion, the old-fashioned 
 Roman Catholics of these parts may learn what they may expect 
 to have forced upon them in the future ; while both Roman and 
 Anglican Catholics can perceive how irreconcilable they are to 
 the teaching of Holy W^rit, and how utterly inadequate are mv 
 opponent's so-called explanations of them 
 
 ChAI'TER II. 
 
 Signs of the Coming "Age of Mary." 
 
 "These English {i. e., Romanists) are but half converts,"' ex- 
 claimed an Italian Priest, after witnessing a devout death-bed, 
 where the dying person commended herself to "Jesus," instead 
 of to " Jesus and Mary " (Pusey, Kirenicon I., io8). 
 
 Three things have tended to restrain the Roman Church in 
 England from following closely the lead of Continental extremists : 
 
 6. It was only tliroe years since ihal a Pritst of the Knglish (VliiirLli wrote to a Church p.iper 
 pleading for a generous acceptance of Newman's explanation of ;he Dogma of I'.ipal Infalhhility, 
 when a Roman Catholic, more honest, pcriiaps, than prnilent, too honest, at all events, to all. w 
 of our being misled by sophistry and a sweet ntanner, at once sent a c.iution to the paper I spe.ik 
 
 of, couched in these words : "Sir, — Mr. nuist not forget that Cardinal Newman and Mr. 
 
 ' ' Lilly belong to a little group of ' minimizers," whose views, though not yet coiiiieniniti . ..'ft' 
 '^fcpiii/iattii by the majority of Roman Catholic I') iests, even in this country" (i. c. Knglan<l). 
 He then refutes Newman's assertion by a ipiotation from the Roman Canon Law and signs him- 
 self "Roman Catholic." (See Church 7'imei, Vclohcr 12, iSSS.) 
 
Dc Mont fort 's llcntical Extravagances 
 
 lo.^ 
 
 I, riiL' conserv.'itisni of the l-^nglish character;' 2. The heallhtul 
 intlueiice of its near neighbour, the AngHcan Churcli, with its solid 
 theology and orthodox devotions ; 3. The desire of making prose- 
 lytes. To have adopted Italian or Belgian extravagances would, 
 of course, have wholly ruined the proselytizing business. Falser, 
 "thoroughgoing and relentless" (see Newman's Letter to Pusey, 
 p. 25), bitterly complained that English Ro!nanists knew " little 
 or nothing of the true devotion to the Blessed Virgin," and he 
 told them plainly that the only remedy for their manifokl evils 
 lay in an immense devotion to her ; " remember," repeated he, 
 "nothing short of an immense increase" ^ Bref. to DeMontfort, 
 p. 9, sq,, {juoted by Pusey, Eiren. I., 1 16-18). "Here in Eng- 
 land," he continued, " Mary is not half enough preached. 
 Devotion to her is low, and thin, anil poor; it is frightened out 
 of its wits by the sneers of heresy. Thousands of souls perish 
 because Mary is withheld from them." 
 
 Faber took DeMontfort for his standard ; translated and wrote 
 a preface to his work on the Virgin, in hopes of giving a great 
 impulse to that " universal devotion," which was to characterize 
 the new "Age of Mary " for which he longed and worked and 
 prayed. 
 
 A few extracts from this work will reveal the doctrinal basis 
 upon which the Continental devei' •)menls of Mariolatry rest. 
 DeMontfort seems to assign to the Blessed X'irgin an office like 
 tiiat of God the Holy Ghost, indwelling in the soul. He speaks 
 of " souls born not of blood, nor of flesh, nor of the will of man, 
 but of God and Mary ; " ' he affirms that the " Holy Ghost chose 
 " to make use of our Blessed Lady to bring His fruitfulness into 
 "action, by producing in her and by her, Jesus Christ in His 
 " members ; " that, " according to that word, the ' Kingdom of 
 " God is within you,' in like manner the Kingdom of our Blessed 
 " Lady is principally in the interior of a man, his soul;" that 
 "when NLiry has struck her roots in the soul, she proiluces there 
 " marvels of grace, xvhich she alone can produce, because she 
 " alone is the fruitful Virgin, who never has had, and never will 
 
 7. Newman s.iys (Letter, p. 105) ; "I suppose wc owe it lo the ii.itional ;;ood sense, that 
 Englisli Catholics have been protected from the extravagancies whicli are elsewhere to he f>iind." 
 " I'.xtravagancies " is the very word I used which gave such offence to my opponent. 
 
 8. A parody on S. John i. 13. 
 
I04 Rci>ardbig Marys Injluencc and Union xcith Souls. 
 
 " have, her equal in purity and fruitfulness." " She aloiu," he 
 says, "can produce in union with the Holy Ghost, sintjuliir and 
 " extraordinary things. When the Holy (ihost, her spouse, /w., 
 ^^ found Mary in a sou/, He flies there. He enters there in His 
 " fulness. He communicates Himself" to that soul abundantly and 
 " to the full extent to which she makes room for her Spouse, 
 •' Nay, one ji^reat reason why the Holy Ghost does not now do 
 " startling wonders in our souls is, because He does not find 
 " there a sufticiently great union with His faithful and indisstjluble 
 " spouse." 
 
 At Holy Communion, the soul is taught to desire that she will 
 come and dwell with it, in order to receive her Son, which " she 
 can do by the dominion she has over all hearts, and her .Son will 
 be well received by her, without stains, and without danger of 
 being outraged or destroyed." To the Son the soul is to " pray 
 to have pity upon you, that you may introduce Him into the 
 house of His own mother and yours, and that you will not let 
 Him go without His coming to lodge there." The Holy Ghost 
 " you can pray to come Himself in Mary, His indissoluble 
 spouse, telling Him that her bosom is as pure, and her heart as 
 burning as ever, and that, without His descent into your soul. 
 neither Jesus nor Mary will be formed, nor yet worthily lodged." 
 
 " These details show," Pusey proceeds, " that it is in no figur- 
 ative or general way that DeMontfort lays down, ' What I say 
 absolutely of Jesus Christ, I say relatively of our Blessed Lady. 
 Jesus Christ, having chosen her for the inseparable companion of 
 His life, of His death, of His glory, and of His power in Hciiven 
 and upon earth, has given her by grace, relatively to His Majesty, 
 all the same rights and privileges which He possesses by nature. 
 ' All that is fitting to God by nature, is fitdng to Mary by grace, 
 say the Saints ; so that, according to them, Mary and Jesus, hav- 
 ing but the same will and the same power, the two have the same 
 subjects, servants and slaves." (Pusey, Eiren. I., 164-6, quoted 
 from DeMontfort, pp. 74, 126, 11, 19, 21, 20, 186, 188, 187, 49, 50.) 
 
 I have given this lengthened quotation that my readers may 
 see how thoroughly categorical and free from metaphor and 
 figurative speech DeMontfort is, and, at the same time, how utterly 
 fallacious are my opponent's attempts to reconcile his statements 
 
C. a Lapide and Others Teach that Mary 
 
 105 
 
 with Holy Writ and the mind of the Early Church, with regard 
 to the position of the Blessed Mother of God: that, in fact, he is 
 doing exactly the thing against which Newman protested, vi/., 
 "explaining, by explaining away " the real sense of the writer. 
 
 Now, the preface to DeMontfort's book states that "the MS. 
 ■ has been examined at Rome * * * '^ most minutely examined -as, 
 " to its doctrine, and declared to be exempt from all error which 
 "could be a bar to its author's canonization." 
 
 The Church of Rome, then, is committed to this teaching of 
 De.MoiUfort. 
 
 Again, in Eirenicon, Part I., Pusey quotes Oswald as teaching, 
 in the grossest form, the presence of the body and blood of Mary 
 ill the Eucharist, not then knowing that Oswald's book had been 
 placed on the Index ; but, in Eirenicon II., while apologizing for 
 his error, he remarks (p. 15) : " But after all, though he (Oswald) 
 said strange things, the central point, for which I quoted him, 
 seems to me to lie in what Faber reports to have been a revelation 
 to S. Ignatius Loyola." '' 
 
 " I wished to see," continues Puse^ " whether what I found in 
 Oswald and Faber, of the presence c >cthing of the Blessed 
 \'irgin in the Holy Eucharist, occurreu ii. ^ther writers. And so 
 I took up the third foreign book which I (juoted, ***** 
 Cornelius a Lapide. To me he seemed explicitly to teach the 
 same, on two grounds — first, what seemed to me an assertion of 
 dogma : ' The Blessed Virgin feeds all with her own flesh, 
 equally with the F"lesh of Christ, in the Eucharist ; ' secondly, that 
 from this feeding with her own flesh is derived the transfusion of 
 the graces of the Blessed Virgin into pious communicants. ' And 
 hence ' (it is from her so ' feeding them with her own flesh, 
 equally with the flesh of Christ') ' that love of Virginity and 
 
 9. (Faber, The Precious Blood, pp. 29-30) ; " I'here is some portion of the Precious Ulood 
 which once was Mary's own Blood, and which remains still in our Blessed Lord, incredibly 
 exalted by its imion with His Divine Person, yel still the same. This portion of Himself, it is 
 piously believed, has not been allowed to undergo the usual changes of human substance. At 
 this moment, in Heaven, He retains something which was once His mother's, and which is, 
 possibly, visible, as such, to the Saints and Angels. He vouchsafed at Mass to show to S. 
 Ignaiuis the very part 0/ the Host which had once belonsed to the substance 0/ Mary, It may 
 have a distinct and singular beauty in Heaven, where, by His compassion, it may one day be 
 our blessed lot to see it .ind adore it. But with the exception of this portioti of it, the Precious 
 lilood was a growing thing, etc." 
 
 H 
 
io6 Feeds alluith Hey On'U Flesh Equally with the 
 
 Angelic purity in those who worthily and frequently comimini. 
 cate."" 
 
 The maker ot" the Index to a Lapide understood him as I did, 
 says Pusey. "This, too, Mr. Oakeley justifies " (on physiological 
 grounds). I have (juoted Pusey once more, very fully, because niv 
 opponent has endeavoured here, as elsewhere, to misrepresent 
 him, and to accuse me of garbling. 
 
 Nothing, surely, could be more matter-of-fact and dogmatic 
 than this statement of Cornelius ; there is nothing poetic or senti- 
 mental about it ; it is as categorical as the most explicit definition 
 of Transubstantiation to be found anywhere in Roman theological 
 treatises. Let those who can accept my opponent's edition or 
 explanation of it. 
 
 Perhaps my opponent may now transfer his scurrilous remarks 
 from myself to the Romanist Index maker of his own standard 
 work on the subject. 
 
 The objectionable tenet is based upon a false physiology, long 
 ago rejected by men of science, even as the dogma of Transub- 
 stantiation is founded on a false philosoph)', now generallv 
 ribandoned, which distinguished what it calls the accidents from 
 the substance of matter. 
 
 1, Coriitliiis ;i La/n\/e is the most widely iisei.1 commentary on Scriptnre in the Roin.ii, 
 Church, and my opponent .ittempts in vain to overcome the force of the Imprimaturs alVixod i 
 it. ''■' " r age in Cornelius is a long and elahorale argument on Ecclns xxiv. 29 1 Antworr 
 edit., P- 537)1 ""''*=•■ the marginal heading "In Kucharistia edimus carncm H. \ir;;iiiis; 
 Qnomoilo? " — beginning, " Porro sicut," clown to "immigratet transit." 
 
 'I'ranslated it runs thus (italics mine throughout the quotation) : " As this sayini;, ' Those 
 who eat me, shall hunger still,' is liter.dly true of Christ, Whom we eat in the Kurharisi, and 
 again hunger for Him and long again to eat Him; so can it in like manner he said /(;//)' 
 and litcraUy of the Blessed Virgin. Wondrous is this, but true. For as often as we cat the 
 Flesh of Christ in the Eucharist, so often do we in it i,itl/y eat the Flesh of the Blessed Virgin. 
 For the Flesh of Christ is the Flesh of the Blessed Virgin. Vea, that very Flesh of Christ, 
 before it was det.ached from the Flesh of the Blessed Virgin in the Incarnation, wns the own 
 Flesh of the Blessed Virgin, and was informed and animated by her soul. As, then, we daily 
 hunger after the Flesh of Christ in the Kuchatist, so, too, we hunger for the same Flesh of the 
 Blesssd Virgin, that we may drink her Virgin endowments and ways, and incorporate them in 
 ourselves. And this do not only Priests and Religious, but all Christians ; for the Blessed 
 Virgin feeds all with her own Flesh, i'j«<(//y 7t»/M the Flesh of Christ in the Eucharist. And 
 hence that love of Virginity and Angelic purity in those who worthily and freijuently com- 
 municate. For this cause, all the faithful ought to bear about the Blessed Virgin, as well as 
 Christ, assiduously in heart, in word, and in work ; yea, as it were, to pass into and be trans- 
 muted into the Blessed Virgin, as iron glowing with fire passes into fire, or .is bread se.\soned 
 with leaven p.-\sses, .is it were, into leaven." 
 
 2. " Ejus carnem in Ven. Eucharistia edimus " v. B. Maria : " We eat her (Mary's) Flesh 
 in the adorable Eucharist," 
 
Flesh of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. 
 
 107 
 
 It is not literally true that the blood of a mother circulates in 
 her child at any time of its existence.' But supposing it were 
 true, and that no change subsequently ensued in its separated life, 
 then b\- expanding Cornelius's own argument, we must conclude 
 that if " the Flesh of Christ is the Flesh of the Blessed X'irgin,' 
 then, of necessity, the Flesh of the Blessed Virgin is the Hesh of 
 her mother Anne (and, we must add, also some jtart of the sub- 
 stance of her father), and so on, backward to Adam. The con- 
 sequtiices of this we had rather aot contemplate. 
 
 The portentous folly and presumptuous irreverence of this 
 kind of ratiocination in holy things, for which not the slightest 
 support is to be found in Holy Writ, or the F'athers, is only 
 equalled by the monstrous contention of Suarez, another great 
 light of the modern Roman church, which I dare not quote here, 
 even in the Latin, but which my opponent may find ^and I doubt 
 not it will shock him) in Vol. III., Dissert, i., Sec. i, p. 632, Col. 
 i., B. 6, on the Eucharist. 
 
 The Blessed X'irgin is here seen to be something much more 
 than an advocate or intercessor for the fallen race, to whom ap- 
 peal must be made for help ; something much more than an 
 eminent example of holiness set up by (ioD for our imitation; 
 she is regarded as a glorified being, with whom we must enter 
 into substantial union through sacramental channels, if we would 
 become assimilated to her, even as we become partakers of the 
 Divine Nature through substantial union with the Incarnate Son 
 of (ioD Himself, by means of His own appointment. The doc- 
 trine here inculcated by a Lapide, DeMontfort, and others, and 
 sealeil by authority, is exactly what Newman utterly repudiated. 
 
 Here are his words, following on long lisfof utterances from 
 Liguori and others he deemed reprehensible : " That His Body 
 and Blood, in the Holy PLucharist, are truly hers (the \'irgin's), 
 and appertain to her ; " that " as He is present and received 
 therein, so is she present and received therein ; " "*= * '■> * * that 
 
 3. A writer 111 the r'H/'('« A'lTvV.-i' for i8d6, h;is this fnotiiote : " Itiit Mr. O.ikcloy's physi- 
 ology is altogether nt fault. Not a ilrop of a f.ither's hlood ever flows iii a child's veins : it is 
 .ner.jly a popular expression foi the inherited physical and mental peculiarities. Nor are the 
 blood corpuscles of the mother coniniunicattd to the child as such ; they only supply certain 
 nutriiioiis elements which the infant's system absorbs and modifies. In the same way, the 
 extraneous elements of the child's blood re-enter the veins of the mother, but not as blood, in 
 either case." Vide Cat penter's Principles of Human Physiology, p. S13, Fifth Edition. 
 
io8 Ncwtnan Frotcstcd aqainsi the " Exhazag-aficus" 
 
 " elect souls are born of God and Mary ; " that " the Holy Ghost 
 brings into Iruitf'ilness His action by her, producing in her and 
 by her Jesus Christ in His members;" that " the Kingdom of 
 God in our souls, as our Lord speaks, is really the Kingdom of 
 Mary in the soul " — and "she and the Holy Ghost produce in 
 the soul t.vtraordinary things" — and " when the Holy Cihost 
 finds Mary in the soul He Hies there." " Sentiments such as 
 these I never knew of till I read them in your book, nor. as I 
 think, do the vast majority of English Catholics know them. 
 They seem to me like a bad dream. I could not conceive them 
 to have been said. I know not to what authority to go for them, 
 etc." ****"! will have nothing to do with statements which 
 can only be explained by being explained away." 
 
 It is true, Newman, at this point, prepared for himself a way 
 of escape from the wrath of the enemy within the fold, and, at the 
 same time, suggested to others an easy avoidance of an awkward 
 dilemma, by saying : " I do not, however, speak of these statcnionts 
 as they are found in their authors, for I know nothing of the 
 originals, and cannot believe that they have meant what you say; 
 but I take them as they lie in your pages." 
 
 Now, the disingenuousness of this plea in any controversialist, 
 more especially in one of Newman's position, is evident, and very 
 culpable. If he had not already read Liguori and DeMoiitfort, 
 what right had he to join issue, before the world, with Pusey, on 
 an all-important occasion, until he had studied the writings com- 
 plained of? To intimate, as he did, that Pusey had garbled or 
 misrepresented the authors, while Liguori and DeMontfort were 
 either ready at hand for reference upon the shelves of the Bir- 
 mingham Oratory Library, or easily to be had for the asking or 
 ordering, was not honest, and certainly not just, becau.^e it 
 involved the injury of an old friend's character and literary 
 reputation. 
 
 That Pusey was not charged, at the time, by any of the hostile 
 critics of his Eirenicon, with garbling DeMontfort, a Lapide, and 
 others, but that, on the contrary, such men as Oakeley actually de- 
 fended their most objectionable utterances, is sufficient proof that 
 Pusey had neither been a garbler nor mistaken in his conclusions. 
 
 This being the case, Newman's indignant remonstrance is, in 
 
 l.i 
 
ncics ' 
 
 Of Modern Marian Writers of the Ligitorian School, 109 
 
 e Holy (ihost 
 
 ■ '" Jier and 
 
 Kiny-clom of 
 
 ^i"K"loni of 
 
 l^rodiice in 
 
 "ts such as 
 ok, nor. as I 
 know tlicni. 
 nceive them 
 ^o i'or them, 
 iients which 
 
 nself a way 
 ' 'ThI, at the 
 in awkward 
 "■ statonionts 
 ling of the 
 It you say; 
 
 ■o\'er.sialist, 
 t, and \ery 
 eMontfort, 
 Pusey, on 
 tings coni- 
 ?arblcd or 
 itfort were 
 f the Bir- 
 askinji or 
 ecaiisc it 
 I literary 
 
 le hostile 
 pide, and 
 ually de- 
 roof that 
 elusions. 
 ice is, in 
 
 leality, against "the statements as they arc found in their 
 Authors." 
 
 I may, then, very fairly leave my opponent to deal with 
 Newman's judgment upon the objectionable passages ii; these 
 authors, merely adding this proviso, that he be not quite so 
 abusi\e to the gentle departed as he is to myself 
 
 In the next place, we must observe that DeMontfort's treatise 
 is occupied principally with a subject upon which we have abso- 
 lutely no revelation from Almighty God or His Incarnate Son, 
 viz., the office, influence and work of the ascended Virgin in the 
 Church Triumphant, Expectant and Militant. All here is the 
 result of mere ratiocination and pious guess work. It falls under that 
 category of writings condemned by the Roman Catholics, Gerson 
 and Petavius (or Petau), as based upon " reasoning which is friv- 
 olous and nugatory, in which so many indulge, in order to assign 
 any sort of grace they please, however unusual, to the Blessed 
 \'irgin." " For they argue thus," says Petavius : " ' Whatever the 
 Son of God could bestow for the glory of His mother, that it 
 became Him in fact to furnish ; ' or again : ' Whatever honours 
 or ornaments He has poured out on other Saints, those all together 
 hath He heaped upon His mother;' whence they draw their 
 chain of reasoning to their desired conclusion ; a mode of argu- 
 mentation which Gerson treats with contempt as captious and 
 sophistical." 'See Newman's Letter, p. 115.) 
 
 If the Feathers are cited as witnesses to the truth of their con- 
 dusions, it is only by reading into the great titles they give to the 
 Virgin fon account of her position as the willing instrument of 
 the Incarnation), what never entered the minds of those who 
 bestowed them, that they can be made to serve their purpose. 
 
 In DeMontfort, then, we find the type of the Marian 
 system of the future, the pioneer of the " Coming Age of 
 Mary." 
 
 In saying this, I do not overlook the fact that he is himself the 
 offspring of a much older member of the " thoroughgoing and 
 relentless" school of dogmatists of which Newman so bitterly 
 complained. I mean Liguori. It is mainly due to his Glories of 
 Mary, a book full of what Newman calls "extravagancies" (see 
 p. 103, Note 7), that the Roman Church of Europe is now pre- 
 
no And CarcJuUy .\bstained J'rovi Readiu^^ their Works, 
 
 ■r pared to accept the tcacliing of licr more modern Mariai) writers, 
 like DeMonttbrt, who have sat at the feet of I.ijruori. 
 
 I sliall lu vv, then-fore, complete my task by .siipplving mv 
 readers with a collection of (luotations chietly taken from Liyuori's 
 Glories of Mary. 
 
 Chapter III. 
 
 IJguoris ^"(ilories of Mary," Ete. 
 
 Alfonso Maria da Liguori (b. 1696, d. 17S7 1, the most popular 
 and influential author of devotional works and ethical Theologian 
 in the Roman Catholic Church of the last century, was, nine 
 years after his death, pronounced Venerable byPiusX'I.; was 
 beatified by Pius \TI., Sept. 15th, i<Si6 ; and on May 26th, 1S39, 
 was canonized by Gret^ory XVI. Pius IX. added, July 7th, 1871, 
 to these honours the dignity of Doctor of the Church, thus 
 placini^- him beside Thomas A(|uinas, Hernard of Clairvaux, etc. 
 The decree was based upon the " scholarly and devotional char- 
 acter ■' of his works, and, especially, the circumstance that they 
 " teach in the most excellent manner the truths relating to the 
 Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Mother of God, and the 
 Infallibility of the Roman Bishop speaking from his throne." It 
 ordained that " his works should be cited as of equal authority 
 with those of the other Doctors of the Church, and shoukl be 
 used in schools, colleges, controversies, sermons, etc., as well as 
 in private." (.Schaft'-Herzog Encycl. Vol. II., 1320.) 
 
 The first English edition of his Glories of Mary bears the 
 imprimatur of the late Cardinal Wiseman, A. D. 1852: '"We 
 hereby approve of this translation of the Glories of Mary, and 
 cordially recommend it to the Faithful." 
 
 The second edition has that of Cardinal Manning (1868), 
 much in the same language. 
 
 Both imprimaturs appear in the reprints. 
 
 The first American edition bears the imprimatur of ]o\\\\ 
 Archbishop of New York. 
 
Lii>itoii llinistif PyoU'^ls ay;ainst Miiiiinizers. iii 
 
 The l)ook comes to us, then, with the liillest possible authority • 
 of the Roman Cliurch. 
 
 On its first appearance it was severely criticised by leading 
 Continental Roman Catholics, two of whom were singled out by 
 Ligtiori himself for special remark. Vnm\ his replies to these 
 ivriters we learn from himself that he will not tolerate the explan- 
 .iiions made by some authors, that propositions such as that 
 •God tyrants no grace otherwise than through Mary," are hyper- 
 bolical and exaggerated, having dropped from the lips of some 
 Saints in the heat of fervour, but which, correctly speakinif, is 
 iiiilv to l)e understood as meaning that "through Mary we received 
 (esus Christ, by whose merits we obtain all graces," because, 
 thoiii^h it must be allowed, God can grant grace otherwise, yet 
 that, for the honour of the Mother of His Son, He wills not to 
 L;rant any grace except through her. See " Reply to an Anony- 
 mous Writer," and " A Short Reply to the Abb»' RoUi " ( pp. 563 
 10579, New York l"2dition. Pub. : O'Shea, 18S2, and Chaj). v. p. 
 130 of same Kd.) 
 
 1 notice this contention of Liguori to begin with, because it 
 itfcctually disposes of my opponent's comj)laint that it is unfair 
 to interpret literally the poetic, pious rhapsodies of Saints at 
 devution — Cilohc, Oct. 23rd, 18SS — and Newman's pretence 
 which compares them to " the thousand foolish things in the way 
 of endearments " to be found in love-letters, which appear ludic- 
 rous ill the columns of a newspaper, and which, " when formal- 
 ized into meditations or exercises, are as repulsive as love-letters 
 in a police report." 
 
 Liguori will have nothing to do with such apologists. If their 
 plea were a fair one before he had collected these extravagancies, 
 it is no longer admissible, now that Liguori himself repudiates it, 
 and the Roman Church has commended them in stereotyped 
 form, as suitable for the instruction and devotional use of all her 
 chikhen. She has made Liguori her mouth-piece — his Glories 
 of Mary is now her lex orandi, with regard to the Blessed Virgin, 
 and she must, therefore, consistently stand by it as her lex 
 crcdcndi on the subject. With this remark I swe^p away entirely, 
 as the quibbles of a niinimizer (which he becomes very readily, 
 when it suits his purpose), all those sophistical attempts of my 
 
112 I fe Assures Us lie Means Literally What lie Hays. 
 
 opponent to reconcile the teaching and pliraseology of I.i^'uori 
 with Holy Writ, and the Catholic Faith of the Karly Church. 
 
 Here is Liguori's own defence of many of the terms objected 
 tn by some of his co-religionists in his own day. After aiimittin^ 
 there to be a wrong and a lawful use of hyperbole, he pr()cei;d> 
 to prove it no hyperbole to say that God dispenses all grace to 
 men through the hands of Mary, not merely because she is the 
 Mother of Jesus, the source and plenitude of all graces, but tjt- 
 cause, " in conseciuence of this, the Blessed V^irgin reciived 
 " another plenitude, which is the plenitude of graces ; that as she 
 " is the mediatress of men with CioD, so she might herself (lis- 
 " pense the graces to all men." He is quoting S. Bernard, he 
 says, as his authority. " The Saint says : ' Why should human 
 frailty fear to approach Mary? In her there is nothing severe; 
 nothing terrible ; she is all sweetness, offering milk and wool to 
 all.' Thank Him, then, who has provided you with such a medi- 
 atress. She has made herself all to all, to the wise and to the 
 foolish ; by her most abundant charity she has made herself a 
 debtor to all. She opens her merciful heart to all, that all may 
 receive of her plenitude; the captive redemption, the sick health, 
 the sinner pardon, the just grace, the angels joy, her Son tlesh, 
 that no one may hide himself from her heat." Remark, there- 
 fore, the words, " that all may receive of her plenitude," for they 
 clearly prove that .S. Bernard here speaks, not of the first pleni- 
 tude, which is Jesus Christ, otherwise he could not say that even 
 her Son received His flesh of her plenitude; but of the second, 
 or consequent fulness of grace, as we have already said, which 
 Mary received from God, whereby to dispense to each one of us 
 the graces which we receive. Remark, also, the words, " there is 
 no one who hides himself from her heat." Did any one receive 
 graces otherwise than through Mary, he could hide himself from 
 the heat of this Sun ; but S. Bernard says that no one can hide 
 himself from the warmth of Mary. Elsewhere, he says : " Hy 
 thee we have access to the Son, O blessed finder of grace, bearer 
 of life, and Mother of Salvation, that we may receive Him by 
 thee, Who through thee was given to us ; by which the Saint 
 clearly gives us o understand, that as we have access to the 
 Father only through the Son, who is the mediator of justice, and 
 
Mtiry, the Siuut'r's Ladder, the date of Heaven, etc. 113 
 
 Cliiirch. 
 "IS objected 
 *■'" adiDitti,,^, 
 lie i)r()cee{js 
 ' ''"fir.iceto 
 e she is the 
 ces, hut Ije- 
 '" rcccix^ed 
 t'lat as she 
 'it^rstir (lis- 
 ^t^nianl, |,e 
 Jn'tl liuinan 
 "ff severe, 
 
 "i<J wool to 
 
 'cli a niecli. 
 
 and to the 
 
 - herself;, 
 
 Jat all may 
 
 'ck liealtli, 
 Son flesh, 
 
 irk, tliere- 
 
 i" for they 
 
 irst pleni- 
 
 that even 
 
 e second, 
 
 'tl, which 
 
 )ne of us 
 
 " there is 
 
 : i'ecei\e 
 
 elf from 
 
 -an hide 
 -. "% 
 
 . bearer 
 
 iini by 
 
 2 Saint 
 
 to the 
 
 :e, and 
 
 ,»ho, l)y His merits, olitains for us all ^^races, so, also, we only 
 have access to the Son by means of the Mother, who is the 
 mediiitrcss of ^race, and by her prayers obtains for us all the 
 graces which Jesus Christ has merited for us." A^^ain, " (k)i) has 
 alreadv j^-^rantcd (vi/., our desire), by depositi)iii in Mary the 
 plcnitiule of every blessinj^, that whatever we receive of hcjpe, 
 ijracf and salvation from (ioD, we may see that we have obtained 
 it l)v means of Mary, who ascends overflowing with delights. ' 
 Again, " in reference to the first text which I {[uoted, ' there is no 
 one who hides himself from her heat,' the Saint says, ' Take away 
 the Sun, where will be the day ? Take away Mary, what will be 
 left l>iit the darkest night? ' " 
 
 I.iy;uori pins his faith in defence of his extravagancies upon 
 S. Hcrnard. He continues : " He (the Saint) encourages us (to 
 make Mary our advocate with Jesus), saying, that if she ( Mary) 
 prays for us, her Son is certain graciously to hear her, for He 
 hears His mother, and the Father hears His Son;" and imme- 
 diately adds, " My children, she is the sinner's ladder; she is my 
 greatest confidence ; she is the whole ground of my hope." Here, 
 when the Saint calls her the sinner's ladder and the whole ground 
 of his hope, he certainly does so for no other reason than because 
 he considers her as the intercessor for, and the dispenser of, all 
 graces. She is a ladder, and as we cannot reach the third step of 
 a ladder unless we put our foot on the first, so " neither can we 
 reach God otherwise than by Jesus Christ ; nor Jesus Christ 
 otherwise than by Mary." 
 
 Mary is likened to the gate of heaven, because every grace 
 that comes to man from Heaven " must pass through her hands," 
 and " no one can enter that blessed kingdom without passing by 
 her." She is likened to the neck of the mystical body of Christ, 
 the Church, uniting Christ, the head, to the body, and at the same 
 time the very channel of vital spirits flowing from the Head to the 
 body (p. 134). Liguori quotes, with approval, a sentence from 
 S. Hernardine : " From the moment that the Virgin Mother con- 
 ceived the Divine word in her womb, she acquired a special 
 jurisdiction, so to say, over all the gifts of the Holy Ghost, so 
 that no creature has since received any grace from God otherwise 
 than by the hands of Mary;" and, again, " all gifts, all virtues. 
 
114 ^h' ^yit^^ii iiloHC Only (iod Wills to Dispense His dfan, 
 
 ami all j^raccs aii- dispcnsi-d by the Iiaiuls of Mary to wliumso- 
 ever, wlu'ii, aiid as she pleases." "The Venerable Al»l"ii df 
 Celles," he i:ites approx iiiijly, as exhurtini; "all to have reciniisr 
 to this treasury ol graces (Mary), lor the workl aiul the wlioli.' 
 human race has to receive every good that can he hoped lur 
 through her alone. .Address yourselves to her," he says, " toi by 
 her, and in her, and with her, and honi her, the workl receives, 
 and is to receive, everv good." " It must he now evicUnt t<> all," 
 says I-iguori. " that when these .Saints and authors tell us in such 
 terms tliat all graces come to us through .Mary, iluy do nut 
 simply mean to .say" (like the ancient h'athers, let me add i " that we 
 ' received Jesus Christ, the source of all gocxi, through Mary' fas 
 the writer he controverts pretends) ; ' but that they assure us that 
 (i(iD, who gave us Jesus Christ, riv/A- that all graces that have 
 been, and are, and will be dispensed to men to the enil oi tiie 
 world through the merits of Chri.^t, shoulil be dispensed by the 
 hands and through the intercession of Mary.' " 
 
 Hence, he argues the necessity of praying to and placing all 
 our hopes in Mary. lie say;- • "If Mary does not pray for us 
 we shall not obtain salvation ; because she will not have provided 
 us with grace, which is all that we recpiire." " God having ccillid 
 that all graces should pass through Mary." 
 
 Here, then, we have the Marian system, full blown, in the form 
 of a dogmatic defence of what minimizers would have us believe 
 were mere fervid effusions of pious devotees of Mary. Here we 
 are taught that there are two reservoirs or depositories of grace 
 — Jesus and Mar) — and that we can draw grace from neither tiie 
 one nor the other, e.xcept we make Mary our advocate. Here Mary 
 is seen to difibr loio ciclo from all other Saints, in that she is a 
 dcpositum of grace for the use of mankind, which she pours forth 
 from her merciful heart to her suppliants. .She is the ladder of 
 approach to Jesus; we cannot reach His cars but through her 
 lips ; our salvation and sanctification depends on her advocacy, 
 which must be sought of her , without it we are without the Light 
 which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. Liguori 
 makes S. Bernard's arguments his own ; he will have no mini- 
 mizers like Muratori and Abbe Rolli of old, or Newman and my 
 opponent of to-day — tropes and hyperboles are out of place here. 
 If we have not recourse to Mary there is no salvation for us. 
 
Tluit Soul is Lost :>.hich Itnokcs Not Maiv. 
 
 115 
 
 I.ct my opponent meet Liguori scjuarely, face to face, and not 
 deceive liis readers. 
 
 Hcarinjf, tlicn, in mind I.i^uori's own ilefence of his doctrine, 
 my nadcrs will he able, wi'lmui tiu- aid of my opponent, to put 
 thf rijulit coiistrnctifin on the lollowini; (piotations, some of which 
 luivi- licen ah'eady j^iven in the dlohc : 
 
 I.i^uori quotes with approval (iermanus, where he says "the 
 "\'iiiL;in is tlie breath of CInistians. because, as the body cannot 
 ' live without breathinji:, so the soul cann'ot live •a.'ithout havin}i re- 
 '•course and eoiiiiiieudiui^- itself to Mary, through wh()S(> means 
 "the life of Divine ^race is obtained for us and preserved in us." 
 (Cliaii. 11.,^ 2.) "Oh! if all men," says Lij,nion, "loved this 
 •'most kind and loving Lady, and in temptations always and im- 
 •'nuiiiately had recourse to her, who would fall ? Who would be 
 •'lost ? He falls and is lost who does not tlce to Mary." (Chap. 
 II., ?! 2.) What is the innuendo here ? Has this any resemblance 
 to tile (iospel of jesus Christ ? Has it a feature in common with 
 even the modified utterances of Trent? Liguori tells us that S. 
 Bridget learnt from the Mlessed \'irgin herself that no sinner, 
 however rebellious against (iod, could be lost who had recourse 
 to her, and that she had hearil Jesus tell the \'irgin that even 
 Lucifer himself could be restored if only he wouUl ask her help. 
 iChap. III., S2.) 
 
 Peter Damien is quoted approvingly as asserting "that the 
 salvation of all men is dependent on the Virgin's good pleasure " 
 (Chap, v., ij i); Ciermanus as saying to Mary, "no one can be 
 saved except through thee" ( Chaj). V'., !^ 2). 
 
 S. Anselm ' is made to say " that as he who is not devoted to 
 "Mary and protected by her cannot be saved, so it is impossible 
 "that he should be condemned who recommends himself to the 
 "X'irgin and is regarded by her with affection." (Chap. VIII., 
 !( I.) S. Bonaventure is cpioted as saying, " He who neglects the 
 service of Mary shall die in sin," and " He who has not recourse 
 to thee, O Lady, will not reach Paradise." (Chap. VIII., J^ i.) 
 
 4. R. A. Cofiin, C.SS.R.. Revisor of the Scomcl AiiiLrii.in Kiliiimi, i-iS:;, makes this admis- 
 sion with regard to S. .Viiselm : " It may he remaiked here that in older editions of the works 
 of S. .Xnselm, tlie 'r realise ,tt E.wcllciitin \'i>s!nis, so often c|iioted hy S. Alphonsiis (Lit;uori), 
 is atlrihuted to him, but in later editions it is given as the work of another author. (Here is an. 
 other instance to add to my list of great names prostituted in support of error.) 
 
Ii6 
 
 Mary Restrains the Avenging Arm of Jesus. 
 
 ;f 
 
 The whole of chaj)ter viii., section i, on " Mary rescues her serv- 
 ants from hell" (jip. 254-264, New York Edition), abouiuls in 
 thi'se horrible impieties. 
 
 Again, p. 168, Second American Edition : "Truly unfortunate 
 should we poor sinners be had we not this great advocate, who is 
 so powerful and compassionate, and at the same time ' so prudent 
 and wise that the Judge, her Son,' says Richard of St. Lawrence, 
 ' cannot condemn the guilty who are defended by her.' " 
 
 She is, in the next serrtence, compared to the wist Abigail ap- 
 peasing the wrathful David and preventing him from avenging 
 himself upon the churl Nabal. " This," says Liguori, "is exactly 
 what Mary constantly does in heaven in favour of innumerable 
 sinners : she knows so well how, by her tender and unctuous 
 prayers, to appease the Divine justice, that God Himself blesses 
 her for it, etc." 
 
 Now, my opponent has given us a long disquisition on the 
 poverty of human language to set forth the honour due to Al- 
 mighty God, and yet here we see the author he defends insulting 
 the Divine majesty with detestable profanities like these. 
 
 A few lines further on he approves this assertion, which he 
 attributes to S. Bernard : " Because men acknowledge and fear 
 the Divine Majesty, which is in Him (Christ) as God, it was 
 necessary to assign us another Advocate, to whom he might have 
 recourse with less fear and more confidence ; and this Advocate 
 is Mary, than whom we can not find one more powerful with His 
 Divine Majesty, or one more merciful towards ourselves." How 
 is this to be reconciled with the words of inspiration, i S. Jn. ii. i : 
 ".If any man sin, we hr^ve an Advocate with the Father, Jesus 
 Christ, the righteous ; " and the loving invitation of Jesus the 
 Lover of men, Himself: " Come unto me, etc. ?" 
 
 S. Bernard is made to contrast the severity of the great Medi- 
 ator between God and man, Jesus Christ, with the gentleness of 
 Mary (p. 170) : " But should any one fear to go to the feet of this 
 most sweet Advocate, who has nothing in her of severity, nothing 
 terrible, but who is all courteous, amiable and benign, he -u'oulii, 
 indeed, be offering an insult to the tender compassion of Mary'' 
 How is it the author fails to perceive the impious insult herein 
 involved to the great Lover of mankind, who took upon Him 
 
The Vengeance of Jesus Contrasted with Marys Mercy. 1 1 7 
 
 man's nature, and suffered death upon the cross to redeem men, 
 
 and " TO DRAW ALL MEN UNTO HiMSKLF ? " 
 
 Bonaventure is quoted, p. 98, as saying, " Before Mary was 
 bom there was no one to restrain Gon's arm. But now Mary 
 takes a sinner under her protection and withhohls the avenging 
 arm of her Son, and saves him." Nicephort'.b is quoted, p. 113 : 
 •' Many things are asked from God and ?,re not granted ; they 
 are asked from Mary and are obtained." 
 
 Rlosius is quoted, p. 112: "Often wo shall be heard more 
 quickly, and be thus preserved, if we have recourse to Mary and 
 call on her holy name, than we should be if ve called on the name 
 of Jesus our Saviour." 
 
 In a prayer, p. 71, Liguori puts these words in our mouths: 
 
 "With thee (Mary) to protect me, what can I fear? * * j fear 
 
 not devils. * * I do not even fear thy Son, though justly 
 
 irritiitcd against me, for at a word of thine He will be appeased." 
 
 In thee, O Mother, I have unbounded confidence." 
 
 Bonaventure is again quoted with approval, p. 90 : " If my 
 Redeemer rejerts me on account of my sins, and drives me from 
 His sacred feet, I will cast myself at those of His beloved mother 
 .Mary, and there I will remain prostrate until she has obtained my 
 forgiveness." 
 
 Now what does all this mean ? That Jesus rejects sinners 
 penitent for their sins and that Mary receives them and begs com- 
 passion and forgiveness for them of her Son ? or that He rejects 
 them as impenitent and yet Mary receives them ? If the former, 
 thei! it contradicts the very words of Jesus ; if the latter, then 
 Mary is not of one mind with her Son — she is a refuge for the 
 impenitent. The dilemma is awkward. 
 
 With all this, and much more to the same effect before me, I 
 see no reason for modi'ying my remarks in the Globe on Liguori, 
 on account of my opponent's criticisms, which appear to me to be 
 eminently unfair. The book can be obtained at a low cost in this 
 city. I am content to submit the following statement to the judg- 
 ment of all possessors of Liguori : 
 
 " So ardent is Liguori to persuade every one to approach 
 Jesus only through Mary, that his book (Glories of Mary) 
 actually reeks with most unedifying and degrading stories and 
 
Ii8 Ligiiori's Repertory of Disgusting and Impious Anecdotes 
 
 illustrations of her laxity towards gross and impenitent sinners. 
 No honest-minded Christian could conceive it possible for any 
 man to think of, much less to publish such a scries of dismistino- 
 fables and so-called visions. Take, for instance, the infamous 
 stories of Uda, p. 390 ; of Ernest, p. 76 ; of Mary, p. 36 ; of the 
 wife suicide, p. 123; of the harlot-nun, Beatrice, whom the X'iri^in 
 impersonated for fifteen years, p. 224, which are but a few out of 
 many examples. Liguori's constant endeavour is to draw invidi- 
 ous distinctions between the compa.ssion of Mary and the justice 
 of Jesus. 
 
 " The drift and purport of this book (albeit commended to 
 English Romanists by both Cardinals Wiseman and Mannintr) is 
 accurately set forth in the following story, which occurs, p. 279, 
 of my copy (it was told twice, I believe, in the older editions). 
 ' In the P'ranciscan chronicles it is related of Brother Leo, that he 
 'once saw a red ladder u[)on which Jesus Christ \vas standintj, 
 ' and a white one, upon which stood His holy mother. He saw 
 ' persons attempting to ascend the red ladder ; they ascended a 
 ' icw steps and then fell ; they ascended again, and again fell. 
 ' Then they were exhorted to ascend the white ladder, and on that 
 ' he saw them succeed, for the Blessed Virgin offered them her 
 ' hand, and they arrived in that manner safe in Paradise.' 
 
 " Now, this is only a bald concentration of the teaching of the 
 whole book ; it is only an unvarnished picture of what practically 
 underlies the modern Cultus of the \'irgin. You see, it raises 
 not a dispute as to what sort of worship (Latreia, douleia hyi)er- 
 douleia, etc.) ought to be rendered to the Virgin, but the all- 
 important question, ' What must I do to be saved ? ' The prac- 
 tical answer to Romanists, from Liguori and his followers, is, 
 ' Go to Mary and you will be saved.' From our Blessed Lord 
 and Master it is ' Come unto Me.' 
 
 " According to the vision of Brother Leo, approved by 
 Liguori, Jesus seems to have no compassion for struggling 
 sinners ; He will not lend them a helping hand to Paradise ; they 
 fall again and again if they resj)ond to His invitation, ' Come unto 
 me ; ' but they succeed on the hrst attempt up Mary's ladder, 
 because she has such compassion for poor sinners she will bestir 
 herself to help them. There is something far worse than gro- 
 
LigHOtian Mariolatry Amounts to an Apostasy. iig 
 
 tesciueness here — something far worse than even heresy. // is 
 Apostasy. It is bringing in another (that is, a contrary, accord- 
 ing tu the Greek) gospel, against which S. Paul hurls his Apostolic 
 anathema (Gal. i. 8). 
 
 " The old Calvinists spoke of the Son as appeasing the 
 Fatlier's wrath, forgetful of the gracious words, ' Ciod so loved 
 the world that He gave His Son,' and the fact that the Blessed 
 Trinity co-operated and ever co-operates in effecting man's re- 
 demption. The modern Romanist speaks of Mary as appeasing 
 the wrath of the Son (See 'Glories of Mary' passim.) The 
 latter is farther removed from truth, if anything, than the former. 
 I cannot but think the development of this Cultus of the \'irgin 
 springs from a latent infidelity. Sinful men naturally find it hard 
 to believe that the Almighty Holy God loves them. 'Lord, what 
 is man that thou art mindful of him,' is the cry ever upon their 
 lips. It seems too wonderful to be true that God loves sinners. 
 In spite of all the proofs He has given us of His love and those 
 greatest of all, the Incarnation of the Son of GoD and His bitter 
 Passion, men shrink back from Him and will not trust Him. 
 They cringe before Him and seek other helpers." 
 
 I pointed out in my Letter to the Globe, May 21, 1SS9, how 
 carefully my opponent avoided for months to deal with my quo- 
 tations r-om Liguori, the Raccolta, etc., under the pretence of 
 supplying necessary preliminary remarks. 
 
 After promising, on August 20, 1S8S, to take them in hand 
 forthwith, he treated us to eight long letters to the Globe, spread 
 over three months' time, touching on all sorts of irrelevant sub- 
 jects. 
 
 I remarked : " As I wade through column after column of 
 my opponent's laboured sophistries and pidful evasions, I can 
 hear him groaning anci sighing over Liguori and wishing him 
 further. He now, doubtless, appreciates the astute simplicity of 
 the bland Cardinal who for twenty-four years Hf not to the 
 present day) took very good care not to look inside a Glories 
 of Mary y (See page 100.) 
 
 One of my opponent's preparatory disquisitions was on the 
 "inadequacy of human language for the purposes of Divine wor- 
 ship and address to Gou," in which he contended that it is only 
 
120 Human Language Adequate for God's Worship on Earth. 
 
 fitted to render due homaj:je to the Saints. That, therefore, Pro- 
 testants, in their worship of God, in reality render to Him only 
 that inferior homas^e which Roman Catholics offer to Saints. 
 
 " Is it necessary," I asked, " to expose the speciousness of 
 this ? " A few simple questions are sufficient to refute this state- 
 ment. Who gave man his tongue as " his glory," " the best 
 member that he has" (Psalms xvi. lo; Ivii. 9; cviii. i), the phy- 
 sical complement of his Godlike attribute of mind, wherewith he 
 might converse with God and sing God's praises as the chief and 
 highest occupation of his being, made in the image and likeness 
 of God ? Who made revelations to the Patriarchs in human 
 language ? Who gave us the Decalogue in simple, intelligible 
 utterances? On whose lips do we find the command, " Thou 
 shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve? " 
 
 Was it not God Incarnate who gave us the simple words of 
 the " Our Father ?" the short, ejaculatory prayer of Gethsemane ? 
 and the longer outpouring of the soul in prayer at the last 
 supper ? 
 
 Has not God revealed to us both in the Old and New Testa- 
 ment scriptures the very words of angelic praises which resound 
 in the courts of Heaven — the " Holy, Holy, Holy," the "Glory 
 be to God on high," etc., etc. ? 
 
 There may, indeed, be " unspeakable words " we have yet to 
 learn when we reach Paradise and Heaven, but for all the pur- 
 poses of God's worship in the Earthly Sanctuaries of the Church 
 Militant, human language is certainly adequate. 
 
 But supposing human language be as poverty-stricken as my 
 opponent would have us believe, is his conclusion just? Ought 
 he not rather to argue that "since we have so few terms by which 
 to express God's characteristics and do Him divine homage, does 
 it not behoove us to be exceedingly careful not to give God's 
 honour to another by drawing no distinctions in our terms of wor- 
 ship ?" It is not to the early church that we owe parodies of the 
 Psalms and Te Deum in honour of the Blessed Virgin, but to a 
 Bonaventura of a corrupt age (13th century). 
 
 My opponent, however, scarcely perceives how thoroughly in- 
 
 . consistent he is with himself. After wasting columns of space to 
 
 prove that man has no language by which " to express the noble 
 
(iod Gave It with Examples of Its Use in Worship. 121 
 
 en as niv 
 
 acts of the Lord or show forth His praise," with misdirected zeal 
 he attempts to defend that odious story of the red and white lad- 
 ders, which degrades the mercy of God Incarnate in the eyes 
 of despondent sinners. Of the persons Brother Leo saw attemi)t- 
 ing to mount the ladder of Jesus, not one ascended more than a 
 tew slejjs before he fell back ; while all who betook themselves to 
 .Mary's ladder were quickly assisted to the top by Mary's helping 
 hand to enjoy the delights of Paradise. Surely this is not mak- 
 ing the best use we can of the language at our disposal. 
 
 Mv opponent complains that the language of Scripture, with re- 
 gard to God, is anthroj)omorphic in condescension to human 
 apprehension. He ought surely to look a little deeper also for 
 the reason. 
 
 Man is made " in the image and likeness of God " in his 
 spiritual nature, which is fitted with a physical counterpart, cor- 
 responding to its high dignity. Man was created " after the 
 pattern " of his heavenly original, the GoD-ALui, Christ, the 
 Archetypal Man, by whom God could best be revealed in visible 
 form. (This is the Scotist and most reasonable view of the In- 
 carnation.) Tliere is, then, a certain fitness in the language of 
 Scrii)ture with regard to God, a correspondence between the 
 earthly images and their original. 
 
 For instance, we address God as " Father," not merely be- 
 cause Christ borrowed this imagery of earth to persuade men of 
 God's love for them, but because (as in all His parables) the 
 eartlily image is the counterpart of the heavenly original. 
 
 True, indeed, is it that we must exercise the greatest circum- 
 spection not to abuse this great truth by unwarrantable ratiocina- 
 tion, as is somedmes done with our Lord's parables, and conclusions 
 are reiohed which are clearly beyond their scope and the intention 
 of Him who uttered them. 
 
 I will make my meaning clear by an illustradon adopted by 
 most Roman controversialists in favor of Invocation of Saints. 
 They say truly that God is a King, served and worshipped by 
 innumerable courtiers in the highest heavens. They then point 
 out that in the case of a person seeking a favour of an earthly 
 monarch he strives to gain the ear and patronage of some person 
 of influence about the throne to undertake his suit ; in like man- 
 
122 
 
 The Fallacy Underlying Invocation of Saints. 
 
 I 
 
 
 ner, therefore, say they, we should beg the patronage of the Saints 
 in order to secure from God our heart's desire. 
 
 The falhicy underlying all this is, that God's omniscience is 
 ignored. 
 
 In the case of an earthly monarch he can, as a rule, know 
 nothing of his petitioners or their petitions except through some 
 minister of his court; whereas " the great King of all the earth' 
 is omniscient and omnipresent, and needs no information from any 
 being about any of His creatures. On the contrary, it is from 
 Him that the spirits about His throne, as also the disembodied 
 spirits of the faithful in Paradise, learn what passes upon this 
 earth and in the universe. The Roman Church herself thus 
 teaches. In the Pastoral Letter of the Roman Bishops of the 
 Province of Quebec, for instance (see Annals of S. Aniu' de 
 Beaupre, Vol. II., Jan., 1889, p. 197), the Bishops ask : " But liow 
 "can the Saints know so many prayers offered up to them tVom 
 "all parts of the world?" and they answer thus: "What! 
 "O.D.B.B., is not God, who sees all things, powerful enough to 
 "make known to His elect the homage rendered to them upon 
 "earth, and the prayers offered up to them ?" 
 
 God, our King, therefore, knows all the desires of our hearts 
 and our every prayer, while His courtiers are entirely dependent 
 on Him in the unseen world for any information concerning them. 
 Therefore, while in the one case we reach the King only through 
 a courtier, in the other we reach the courtier only through the 
 King ; and as that King is not capricious or difficult to deal with, 
 but loves his subjects, however lowly their estate, and promises to 
 grant to all true penitents whatsoever is good and needful for 
 their souls and bodies. He is hardly likely to be pleased if we fail 
 to take Him at His word and treat Him as a loving Father, but 
 on the contrary, belabour the Saints daily for their prayers and 
 help, as though He were a stern tyrant, hard to be entreated. 
 
 It is difficult to believe that the Saints themselves could be 
 pleased, did they know of the treatment they receive. What 
 should we say to a man who begged us on his knees every day 
 for months to pray for him ? Surely this, " Have faith and con- 
 fidence in God " or our intercessions will avail you nothing. 
 
 The " King and Courtier " illustration, then, is indeed anthro- 
 
Mr. Qnighy, in Defending the Red and White 
 
 123 
 
 pomorphism with a vengeance, and reveals, in spite of loud pro- 
 fessions to the contrary, a very low estimate of (ioo's attributes 
 and ciiaracter. 
 
 Inspired by some such ill-balanced conceptions of God as 
 these, my opponent attempts to defend the " red and white ladder 
 impiety " by a parody on the beautiful story of Jacob's dream. 
 
 He says (Letter ^3, Nov. 12th, 1SS8) : " Let us suppose some 
 "Anj,flican poet to depict a vision touching the two ladders that 
 •'reached from earth to Heaven ; the one red, upon which the 
 " Eternal Father leaned, from which many fell bad' ..ard and 
 "could not ascend; the other white, upon which the Sacred 
 "Humanity leaned, the help whereof, such as used, were by Jesus 
 "received with a cheerful countenance, and so with facility 
 "ascended into heaven." 
 
 I remark, first of all, on this, that to bring the illustration into 
 accord with Brother Leo's vision, we must substitute the word 
 "all" for "many" (fell backwards). See Glories of Mary, 
 c. vii., i^3. 
 
 In the second place, I record with thankfulness my belief that 
 no Anglican would be so profane as to imagine there were two 
 a|)proaches to Paradise and Heaven. Two ladders suggest in a 
 very definite manner a divided will. Jacob saw only one ladder 
 or slairivay uniting earth to Heaven, upon w!... Ii God's angels 
 were ascending and descending. The Lord sL' ;d above it and 
 spoke to Israel at its base, as the father of the race through whom 
 all the earth should be blessed. Jesus Christ Himself has inter- 
 preted for us the meaning of the ladder (S. John i., 51 ). In it we 
 see the Incarnate Word of God uniting God and man. 
 
 There is, therefore, only one way for man to pass from earth 
 to Heaven prepared by the Blessed Trinity, namely, "Jesus, the 
 Way, the Truth and the Life." The one ladder points to the 
 tinity of will, in the Blessed Trinity in regard of man's redemp- 
 tion, and my opponent's version of the Patriarch's dream can 
 scarcely be considered an improvement upon it. 
 
 It is wonderful my clear-headed opponent does not perceive that 
 the tioo ladders of the impious fiction in the Glories of Mary, he 
 admires so warmly, gives a flat contradiction to what he insists upon 
 as a primary truth, viz., that the Virgin Mother gains all she 
 
124 
 
 Ladder Impiety, Falls Into Deadly Heresy. 
 
 desires for her clients because she never desires anythini^ not de- 
 sired by her Son. Surely he ought to scout the so-called vision 
 as certainly " not from above," because it makes Jesus appear rii^id 
 and harsh to sinners, while his mother is portrayed in il a.s all- 
 merciful and sympathetic. 
 
 If, however, he can adopt the one illustration, then of course, he 
 can readily accept the other, but in any case he must not father 
 his own heretical imaginings upon Anglicans, who will havt- none 
 of them.' 
 
 Now, after this, what is the use of my opponent pretending 
 that, because Liguori utters a few orthodox platitudes in tlic in- 
 troduction of his book and instructs his readers to interpret what 
 " may seem hazardous and perhaps obscure," " according to the 
 rules of sound theology and the doctrine of the Holy Roman 
 Catholic Church," I am not honest in quoting him as I do ? 1 
 contend that it is absolutely impossible to reconcile with Catiiulic 
 Theology any of the quotations I have made in my letters or 
 now make in this jjamphlet, impossible to reconcile any of them, 
 even with the questionable theology on the subject of Invocation 
 of Saints and the worship of Mary adopted by the Council of 
 Trent. Does my opponent pretend, on further consideration, 
 that his own explanation of Brother Leo's vision is consistent with 
 sound Catholic Theology ? Perhaps my opponent will instruct 
 us how the following edifying recital can be reconciled with a 
 sound theology : 
 
 At the close of a long section entided ''Mary rescues her 
 servants from hell" chap, viii., J5 i, p. 254), occurs this story in 
 illustration of its teaching : " In the year 1604 there lived in a city 
 " ol I'"landers two young students, who, instead of attendini^j to 
 " their studies, gave themselves up to excesses and dissipation. 
 " One night, having gone to the house of a woman of ill-fame, one 
 " of them, named Richard, after some time returned, but the other 
 " remained. Richard having gone home, was undressing to go 
 " to rest, when he remembered that he had not recited that clay, 
 
 5 One is compcUctl tn ask at this puiiit, How is it tliat the Vatican scnitini/ors, \y\v voted 
 a Ph.D. to my opponoiu far his bcxik, passed over uiirebukeil so hateful a heresy on Anul iinental 
 truths as here finds expression '.' Can it indeed be that all ecclesiastics in power at Rome are 
 so engrossed with setting forth the honour of the Earthly Mother as to tolerate insults oftVreil to 
 the Heavenly Father b.iscd upon heathenish conceptions of Almighty God? 
 
Prayers from the " Glories of Mary. 
 
 "5 
 
 ''as usual, some ' Hail Marys.' He was oppressed with sleep and 
 " ver\- weary, yet lie roused himself and recited them, although 
 '' icithout devotion (italics mine) and only half awake. He then 
 •went to bed, and, having just fallen asleep, he heard a loud 
 "kniicking at the door, and immediately after, before he had time 
 "to open it, he saw before him his companion, with a hideous and 
 "gluistly appearance. 'Who are you?' he said to him. 'Do 
 " voii not know me ? ' answered the other. ' But what has so 
 ■ changed you ? Vou seem like a demon.' 'Alas!' exclaimed 
 "this poor wretch, ' I am damned.' 'And how is this ? ' ' Know,' 
 "he said, 'that when I came out of that infamous house, the devil 
 "attacked me and strangled me. My body lies in the middle of 
 " the stree , and my soul is in hell. Know that my punishment 
 "would also have been yours, but the blessed Virgin, on account 
 " of those few ' Hail Marys' said in her honour, has saved you. 
 " Happy will it be for you if you know how to avail yourself of 
 "this warning that the Mother of God sends you through me.' 
 "After these words he opened his cloak, showed the fire and 
 "serpents that were consuming him, and then disapjjeared." 
 
 Then follows the story of the other's repentance and life of 
 penance in a monastery, etc. Here, then, we see Liguori's teach- 
 inif /;/ the concrete, so that it cannot be mistaken. 
 
 We have now seen, both from the definite dogmatic instruc- 
 tions of Liguori, and also from his vivid illustrations of the same, 
 exactly what he wishes us to believe with regard to Blessed Mary. 
 
 Ill the same book he supplies us with many prayers and de- 
 votions to the Virgin based upon his teaching. The following are 
 a few out of numerous examples from his "Formalized Medita- 
 tions and Exercises," which I cannot help thinking must have 
 proved to Newman's "English Good Sense" "as repulsive as 
 " lo\ e-letters in a police report." 
 
 \Clofies i>f Mary, First American Eilition.] 
 
 P. 121. " In thee (Mary) sinners find pardon and the just find 
 "perseverance in grace." 
 
 P. 141. "O Lady, refuse not thy compassion to him for whom 
 "Jesus has not refused His blood ; but the merits of this Blood 
 "will not be applied to me if thou dost not recommend me to 
 " God. From thee I hope salvation." 
 
126 
 
 Profane Parodies on the Messianic 
 
 P. 154. "To thee it belongs, Oh Blessed Virgin! to bestow 
 " the merits of this Blood on whomsoever it may please thee." 
 
 1*. 331. "We recommend ourselves to thee; save us from 
 ''damnation and make us serve and love eternally thy Son |csus 
 "Christ." 
 
 P. 333. " I adore thee, Oh Great Queen, and thank thct; lur 
 " all the favours thou hast hitherto granted nie, especially for hav- 
 " ing delivered me from hell. * f * i place in thee all my 
 " hopes of salvation ; accept me for thy servant and receive me 
 " under thy mantle, O thou Mother of Mercy." 
 
 P. 755. "Oh, by the merits of thy (Mary's j precious death, ob- 
 " tain for us detachment, pardon, etc." 
 
 P. 7S4. "Oh, Mistress of all things. Saint of Saints, our 
 " Sirciiiit/i and Rijni;r, (jod, as it iccre, of the World, Glory of 
 " Heaven, accept those who love thee, hear us, for thy Son 
 " honours thee and denies thee nothing." 
 
 P. 7S7. "And thus, O Lady, every created beauty is the 
 " shadow and copy of tliy beauty. Therefore, I do not wonderr 
 " Oh Sovereign Princess, that Heaven and earth are placed 
 " under thy feet; for they are so small and thou so great, etc. ' 
 
 What more, we may justly cncpiire, could be said of Goo by 
 the highest Archangel, or to God by sinners, than is here said to 
 and of the X'irgin ? 
 
 It is due to Bonaventura that we have parodies on the Psalms 
 and Te Deum in honour of Mary. Liguori supplies us with many 
 other shocking parodies. On p. 51, First Am. Edition, he sub- 
 stitutes Mary's name for Gou's in Is. xlix. 15: "Can a woman 
 forget her sucking child, etc." On pp. 54 and 613 he approves 
 Bonaventura's parody on John iii. 16, " Mary so loved the world 
 that she gave her only begotten .Son." "She gave Him to us 
 when she consented to His death ; " in fact, so great was her de- 
 sire for man's salvation, that had " executioners been wanting, 
 " she would herself have crucified Him in obedience to the will of 
 " the Father." On pp. 530 and 577 we find the Cry of the Son of 
 God (Lament, i. 12), applied to the passion of Mary. On p. 614 
 Mary is made to take upon her lips the words of her Son 
 parodied : " Be ye merciful, as your mother also is merciful." 
 On p. 501 The Ascension Day Psalm is parodied in Mary's 
 
Psalms (Did Propht'cits. 
 
 «-V 
 
 hon'Hir: "Lilt up your heads, O ye j^atcs, ^i^ * * and the 
 (^ueeii of Glory shall come in." On p. 300 we meet with a pro- 
 lane ii-irt)dy on Heb. iv. 16: " Let us come boldly to the throne 
 of grace," /. <., ^L'^ry, " that we may obtain mercy, etc." P. 154 
 SL'ciiiid Am. Ldition), Damian atldresses Mary in a parody on 
 S. Ml. xxviii. 18: "All power is given unto thee in heaven and 
 on earth ; " and on p. 155 S. Bernardinc says : "At the command 
 of .Mary all obey, even God" (Imperio Virginis omnia famulantur 
 ttiam Deus). 
 
 Sliould my readers recpiire further evidence of the nature of 
 Liguiiri's Glories of Mury, I must refer them to the book itself, 
 or to an excellent little pamphlet (price sixpence) pub'isheil this 
 vear by Masters, London, entitled " Disloyalty to om Lord, or 
 The Sin of Rome," by Rev. Arthur Hrinkman. 
 
 Ill conclusion of this part of my subject I will add a few quo- 
 utiuiis from the Raccolta, a popular Roman manual of indulgenced 
 devMtions issued by authority of the Pope himself. I quote Irom 
 an authorized English cop}\ which I purchased in 18S0 at the 
 Propaganda in Rome (dated 1878): 
 
 Al)out 130 out of 450 pages are devoted directly to the Virgin, 
 while she finds meui n\ in nearly all the devotions. The follow- 
 ing impious acts of worship and prayer are taken from the 
 "Second Novena in Preparation for the Feast of Our Lady's 
 Nativity," p. 275 (the italics are mine) : " We hail thee, dear child. 
 and we humbly 'ccorship thy most holy body ; we venerate thy 
 sacred swaddling clothes wherewith they bound thee, the sacred 
 cradle, etc." 
 
 Prayer: "Most lovely child. Who by Thy birth hast com- 
 forted the world, made glad the Heavens, struck terror to hell, 
 brought help to the fallen, etc. * "'' * We pray Thee with all 
 fervent love be thou born again in spirit in our souls, through thy 
 most holy love, renew our fervour in Thy service, rekindle in our 
 hearts the Jire of Thy love, and bid all virtues blossom there, 
 which may cause us to find more and more favour in thy gracious 
 eyes. Mary ! be thou Mary to us, and may we feel the saving 
 power of thy sweetest name. Let it ever be our comfort to call 
 on that great name in all our troubles ; let it be our hope in 
 dangers, our shield in temptation and in death our last murmur." 
 
laS 
 
 The " RaccoUa " Supplies some Impictks, 
 
 Herein we find expressions of worship and suplicatiuns such 
 as Christians are wont to present only to (ion or the Incarnate 
 Son or the Holy Spirit. We could not say more at the cradle 
 of Jesus, nor could we pay more honour to the Blessed I'aracli'te 
 Himself than to beg him to "rekindle in our hearts the iwKt of 
 his love." 
 
 Again: p. 187 : "O Most Holy Mother * * * Take me 
 under thy protection and it is enough, because with thee to J4uard 
 me, I fear no ill. No, not my sins, because thou wilt oinain 
 (ioi)'s pardon for them ; nor the devils, because tliou art far 
 mightier than hell ; nor my Judge, Jesus Christ, for at thy prayer, 
 He will lay aside His wrath." p. 247 : " This grace, then, I ask 
 of thee and this I beg, with all the fervour of my soul, that in all 
 the attacks of hell, I may ever have recourse to thee. (), Mary! 
 help me," etc. j). 24H : "O, mother of perpetual help, * * * 
 take me under thy protection t' * * j-^^,. Jf jI^qu protect mo I 
 fear nothing, * * * not from the devils, for thou art more 
 powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my Juclj^e, 
 because, by one prayer from thee He will be appeased." p. 2y6 : 
 " Mary, * * * preserve us from our infernal foe and place us 
 in the arms of Him who is our Goi) and our Creator." 
 
 Now to convince my readers how thoroughly saturated with 
 Liguorianism the Roman Church is (at all events, outside the 
 English speaking portion of it) I will give here a few (luotations 
 from the Bishops' replies to Pius IXth's Encyclical of 1 849, by 
 which he sought to secure the Bishops' assent to the pr jmulgatiim 
 of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin. I take 
 them from Pusey's Eirenicon, Part I, p. 120 scp : 
 
 " Our only hope, says the prelate of Cochin China, is placed 
 in our most holy mother from whom we expect salvation (salus 1." 
 He of Scutari says of his diocese : " The devotion to the Virgin is 
 such as to be defined by no bounds." The Bishops of Spain 
 and Portugal and one of Mexico speak of their countries as 
 Marian kingdoms. One after another they substitute Mary's 
 name for "Jesus" or "God" in cjuotations from scripture, "Glorify 
 the Mother of God " wrote the Bishop of Bova, " that the Mother 
 of God may glorify thee." The Vicar Apos. of Uraguai says: 
 " The Blessed Virgin will direct the goings of j'our holiness in 
 
Lt\(>uorian Kvhavagaucirs Afuoni,'^ Ihr JUsfiops. 129 
 
 the w.iy ot peace ; S/if will command her aiijfcls to keep tliee 
 in all thy ways ; she will deliver and protect you because 
 voii liave known her name." The Archbishop of Gran- 
 ada said of Mary to the Pope : "She was full of grace that of her 
 liiljiu'ss all creatures may receive." 
 
 I.tt me not, then, be accused of drawinjf grotesciue pictures of 
 Marian devotions. It is the Pope who receives such memorials 
 from the Hishops unrebuked. It is the Pope who in an Infallible ! ! 
 utterance supports and approves them by lanj^uage " which can 
 be explained only by beinj^f explained away." It is he, the so- 
 calkd X'icar of Christ, with his subortiinate \'icars who parts with 
 (iop's honour to another, and who with darin.n presumption, as I 
 have shown in quotations already jj^iven, transfers Christ's title, 
 " (''i/>/aif/ 0/ Sci/'i'ii/i'on," to His mother. It is he, who should 
 drive away false doctrine from the Church, that makes the lowly 
 \'ir^in tjrotesque by loadintj her with the titles of the Divine 
 Majesty and ascribing to her divine attributes. It is the Pope 
 who propounds for universal belief the monstrous doctrine " If 
 there be any hope in us, if any grace, if any salvation, it redounds 
 to us from the Hlcssed Virgin because God has willed that we 
 should have everything through Mary." 
 
 " What is so startling about this system," Pusey said, "is its 
 coni|)leteness." 
 
 The theory, based upon the mystical interpretation of the 
 creation of Eve, " Let us make a help meet for him," is that Mary 
 imist be the exact counterpart of Jesus. Her conception must be 
 immaculate, her life spotless from even the slightest venial sin ; 
 she must be full of grace in such measure as to exceed the grace 
 bestowed upon all saints and angels together ; she must share in 
 the Passion meritoriously, and in the presentation of the Sacrifice 
 upon the Cross. (In my copy of the Breviary is a small pic* ire 
 of the \'irgin crowned with thorns.) Of her it is said as of GoD 
 the Father: "Mary so loved the world that she gave her only 
 begotten son for its redemption," since she encouraged and urged 
 Him, it is said, in spite of the sword piercing her own heart, to 
 die upon the cross ; at her death her soul must go to Paradise for 
 a few hours and then return to her incorrujnible body for resur- 
 rection and ascension into heaven, like her Son, in sight of all the 
 
I30 
 
 Mails Redemption Dcf>e)ids on Marys l-'iat. 
 
 apostles, to sit on His right hand, to pour down gifts upon the 
 Church, and to act with Him as Advocate and Intercessor, hi 
 one passage Mary appears as the Melchizedek of the New Law; 
 " she at once Priest, Prophet and Oueen otters the true Hreail 
 Christ." Indeed Mary is actually spoken of by some writers as 
 the " complement" of the Trinity. Co-Redemptress, Mediatrix, 
 Conciliatri.x. Advocate of Sinners, Hope and Refuge of Sinners, 
 Peacemaker between Sinners and (ioD, are very common titles 
 for her, as Pusey has amply shown. 
 
 My opponent, not content with explaining away the plain 
 statements of Liguori, the Raccolta, etc., endorses also somo of 
 the extravagances of Roman writers on the play of Mary's will, 
 to which Pusey strongly objects. The following are some of his 
 statements : 
 
 Commenting on Mary's words, " He it unto me accordini; to 
 "Thy word," he says: "There was then a moment when the 
 " salvation of the world depended on the consent of Mary. Man 
 " could not be redeemed, satisfaction could not be made for sin, 
 " and grace obtained, without the Incarnation, and the Incarna- 
 " tion could not take place without the free voluntary consent of 
 " this humble Jewish maiden." 
 
 Again, " VVe call her blessed for the great things He that is 
 " mighty has dene to her, and we bless her also for her own con- 
 " sent to the work of redemption. She gave to that work all she 
 " had ; she gave her will ; she gave her flesh ; she gave her own 
 " and only Son to one long passion of thirty-three years, to the 
 " agony in the garden, and to the death on the Cross." {Globe, 
 Aug. 28, 1S8S.) 
 
 With regard to the first assertion, that the redemption of man 
 "depended on the 'hat' of Mary," as Pusey puts it, the exaggera- 
 tion is manifest. 
 
 " Because God wills not to do violence to the wills of mora! 
 beings created in His own likeness, and therefore requires willing 
 co-operation on their part for effecting the salvation of their race, 
 does it follow that failure on the part of particular individuals to 
 rise to the claims of their vocation will frustrate His der^igns for 
 the race ? No, indeed ; individuals may fail and suffer infinite 
 loss, but God's eternal purposes can never fail. Therefore, it 
 
.Uary Fully A'nt'w all Implied in GabricVs J/i'ssiii^n'. 131 
 
 Blessed Mary had refused to say, what thousands of Saints before 
 and after said to God in perplexing and difficult circumstances, 
 'Th\ will be done;" " It is the Lord, let Him do what seemeth 
 Him l)cst ;" " Be it unto me according to Thy will ;" she would 
 have fallen from grace and have lost her exalted position and pre- 
 eminent privileges, and some one more worthy woukl have been 
 fouiul to fill her place. 
 
 The substitution of worthy for unworthy moral instruments 
 in Goo's dealings with his people is revealed to us again and 
 again in Holy Writ and the history of the Christian Church. It is, 
 therefore, a monstrous distortion of some writers to represent Goi> 
 as Mary's debtor because she granted hliii t^he favor of her co- 
 operation at the Incn>*nation. As well might sinners assert that 
 Goi> owes them a debt of gratitude when, by repentance, they al- 
 low him to save them and take possession ci their souls, on the 
 ground that, though He created them without their wills, He cannot 
 save them without their willing sui^tv.ission and co-operation. 
 We may feel sure of this, that no one would be more shocked at 
 such profane surmisings than the Blessed Virgin herself. 
 
 The next exaggeration to be exi)osed is based upon the un- 
 warrantable assumption that the Blessed X'irgin had full know- 
 ledge of all that was implied in Gabriel's message ; that she fully 
 realized that she bore in her body a Divine Person. 
 
 It neec" hardly be said, even to ordinary readers of the New Tes- 
 tament, that the Gospel narrative clearly proves that the Blessed 
 Virgin did not apprehend till after his resurrection and ascension, 
 any more than did f'''e Apostles, the real nature of her Son. 
 
 Her conduct and remarks when she found the Boy Jesus 
 among the Jewish Doctors ; the part she played at the first 
 miracle, and her joining with His kinsfolk in interrupting Him in 
 His teaching the people, to mention no other instances, prove 
 this beyond a question. 
 
 Some of the great Fathers of the Church, in fact, go so far as 
 to say that the sword which Simeon predicted shoukl pierce her 
 own soul (S. Luke ii., 35 ) was the doubts which wrung her mind as 
 she saw her hope hanging upon the cross. See Origcii's Homily 
 on Luke, xvii. ; Basil the Great, Epistle 260, Jerome who trans- 
 lates Origen's Homily on Luke xvii., and assents to his comment 
 
132 The Early Church Taught Nothing Like This, 
 
 on " the sword of doubt piercing the X'irgin's soul," and S. Cyril 
 of Alexandria (as late as A, D. 440), who confirms the idea in the 
 following- language on S. John xix. 25 (Oxford Library of 
 Fathers, p. 632): "The unexpected fate of our Lord was an 
 ■" offence unto His mother * :i< * * Vox, doubtless, some such 
 ^' train of thought as this passed through her mind : ' I conceived 
 " Him that is mocked on the Cross. He said, indeed, that He 
 " was the true Son of Almighty God, but it may be that he -was 
 *' deceived'." (Italics mine.) He may have erred when he said: 
 " ' I am the life.' * * * How was it that He did not prevail over the 
 " conspiracy of His persecutors ? and why does He not now come 
 *' down from the cross, since he bade Lazarus return to life, and 
 "struck all Judea with amazement by His miracles?' "The 
 " woman, as is likely, not exactly understanding the mystery, 
 " wandered astray into some such train o( thought," etc., etc., and 
 he finishes his comment by adducing the prophecy of Simeon 
 about the sword, as his authority. 
 
 Tertullian, Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, and 
 others, also speak of the Virgin's ignorance of the mysteries in 
 which she shared so prominently, and of her faltering faith. I 
 cite them, not in order to parade their opinion on certain texts as 
 infallible authority, but simply to show that it was far hum the 
 Church's mind of the early centuries to suppose that the Virgin 
 apprehended the m;ystery of which she was the willing instru- 
 ment, or that she deliberately offered up her " Son to one long 
 " passion of thirty-three years, to the agony in the garden, and to 
 " the death upon the Cross," as my opponent asserts was the 
 case. What then becomes of those exaggerated, if not profane 
 assertions, that " Mary offered up her only begotten Son for the 
 redemption of the world ? " and that she actually " urged Him and 
 €ncouraged Him to mount upon the Cross," and " that she would 
 have crucified Him herself had executioners not been found to 
 act?" 
 
 Newman's attempt to destroy the force of the evidence of the 
 great Fathers above mentioned, in the appendix to his Letter to 
 Pusey, is sophistical in the extreme, and utterly inadequate for 
 the purpose. If the Church of the first five centuries had held 
 what the Roman Church now teaches with regard to the position 
 
Else Ba:il, Chrysostom mid Others 'were Heretics. 133 
 
 and worship of Mary in the scheme of Redemption, such leaders 
 as Origen, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, etc., could 
 never have even dreamt of what they said, much less have given 
 such thoughts as the above to their flocks and perpetuated them 
 in their writings. To have done so would have ensured their 
 e.xcommunication as heretics, instead of their present honourable 
 position among the Saints of the Kalendar. 
 
 Chapter IV. 
 
 // is a false boast that Mariolatry preserves from Infidelity in 
 
 the Incarnation. 
 
 My opponent would have us believe that devotion to the 
 X'irgin, as practiced in the Roman Church, tends to increase love 
 and fidelity to Jesus Christ, and to preserve men from error con- 
 cerning the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, viz., the In- 
 carnation of the Son of God. 
 
 How dare he throw down such a gauntlet with the present 
 condition of Italy, France and Spain staring him in the face ? 
 In no country has Protestantism been more ruthlessly and brutally 
 extirpated than in France. Even such holy churchmen as the 
 Port Royalists were suppressed by fire and sword. In no 
 country, therefore, has infidelity effected worse desolation. \'ol- 
 taire was a direct fruit of skeptical tendencies in ecclesiastical 
 hii^Ii places, fomented by the barbarities practiced on the Jan- 
 scnists ; and the reign of terror, a result of ecclesiastical despot- 
 ism and puerile superstitions. P>ance is a hotbed of atheism and 
 skt.j3ticism of the worst forms at the present moment, and the 
 little religion still remaining in the country is of an emasculated 
 form, as we learn from so devout a Roman Catholic writer as 
 Henri Lasserre, in his preface to a popular translation of the 
 Gospels (once approved by the Pope, but now placed ujion the 
 Index), wherein he bitterly laments the general ignorance of his 
 co-religionists concerning the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. 
 
134 li^^iii^ Henri Lasserre says of Rovian Catholic Franc t 
 
 He complains that " the Book of Books," " the Gospels," are 
 rarely read by even persons who pass for fervent Catholics, 
 " while by the general body of the faithful it is not read at all." 
 " The gospel," he says, " while it continues to be the most illus- 
 ■" trious book in the world, has become a book unknown." In 
 his attempt to account for, and suggest a remedy for this lament- 
 able state of things, he asserts that little books of piety " ( where 
 too often, alas, the sugar of devotion replaces the salt of wisdom )" 
 have pushed the gospels aside. The Church was afraid to 
 encourage a general study of the Gospels. " The watery and 
 " sweetened dilutions which, under the form of books of piety," 
 he says, " have replaced for so many, the nourishment of the 
 " gospel, so pure, so substantial, so strong, so life-giving, could 
 " have no other effect than in the long run to weaken the xi^our 
 " of the Christian temperament." I am well aware of the kind of 
 books of piety alluded to, for I have dozens of them in my 
 library — books crammed full of sickly sentimentalism towards 
 the Blessed Virgin. Honest Lasserre does not pretend that they 
 develope a robust devotion to Jesus Christ, and, therefore, he 
 attempted to make the '^"-ospels popular by publishing a flowing 
 French translation of them in paragraph form, and succeeded in 
 the attempt. Thousands of copies, of all shapes and sizes, got 
 into circulation, bearing the imprimaturs of many French Bishops, 
 and a special commendation from the Pope, when, suddenly, the 
 book was condemned at Rome, placed upon the Inde.x, and all 
 copies in circulation ordered to be handed over to the Bishops. 
 The people were beginnmg to know too much of true Christianity 
 and to compare it with the superstitions in which they had been 
 reared, and therefore the e.xperiment was too dangerous lo be 
 tried any longer. Without, however, going into that question I 
 have amply proved that for Roman Catholic France the worsiiip 
 and invocation of the Virgin has neither warded off infidelity nor 
 developed a robust Christianity. 
 
 Italy, the very seat of the Papacy, has fared little better. The 
 majority of her men are indifferent to religion, if not actual in- 
 fidels, while the prevailing type of Christianity is horribly super- 
 stitious and effeminate. I produce, as an unimpeachable witness 
 of the truth of this statement, an eminent Roman Catholic Priest, 
 
U7iaf Padre Curci fells of Ilaly. 
 
 135 
 
 Padre Curci, who, a few years since, caused a considerable flutter 
 in the Vatican Dovecot by the appearance of his book, Wxticayio 
 Regio, in which he exposed the low estate to which religion has 
 fallen through the influence of Vaticanism. It is a terrible in- 
 dictment of Popery from first to last. I need quote, however, 
 but one passage bearing on the present subject : 
 
 "In these practices and preachings," says Curci, "all the new 
 "Saints and all the new Madonnas, all the new miracles and the 
 "new revelations, recorded in Catholic journals, found ample 
 "place; the one thing which is found either seldom, or cut down 
 "one-half, misunderstood and loathed {svogliato), is Jesus Christ, 
 "with His life. His miracles, and His teaching. This is such a 
 "wound of the Catholic Church * * * * and I believe it to be 
 " now the greatest calamity of Christian Italy ; but as for myself, 
 "if 1, through going mad after Saints and Madonnas, must put 
 "myself out of unison with Christ, I will send Saints and Madon- 
 " nas packing, in order to hold closely to Jesus Christ, without 
 "whom there would be neither Saints nor Madonnas, and I, 
 " myself would be no Christian." 
 
 If my opponent had had the advantage of travelling in 
 Europe to see for himself what was really meant by the " Age of 
 Mary," he would, I am sure, be the first to oppose its advance on 
 this side of the Atlantic. 
 
 Chapter V. 
 
 The Dogma of the Immaenlate Conception imposed upon the 
 Roman Church in an Unprecedented Manner. 
 
 Pius IX. was guilty of a grievous innovation, destructive of 
 the rights of the collective Episcopate, when he presumed to dis- 
 pense with a Council of his Bishops in determining the question 
 whether the pious opinion relative to the Immaculate Conception 
 of the Virgin should be made de fide. 
 
 It is true he issued an Encyclical to his Bishops, asking their 
 
136 The Bishops Alloxv Themselves to be Snuffed Out. 
 
 opinions and the minds of their flocks ; but that was not a fair or 
 legitimate substitute for a council, where all opinions can be 
 heard by all, and unanimity or want of unanimity be made ap- 
 parent to each. In a Council, a minority can tind a hearing, even 
 if browbeaten and suppressed, as at the Vatican in 1870; l)ut a 
 minority which finds utterance only by the Epistles of individuals 
 has no corporate existence, and can be wholly ignored, as was the 
 case here with a very weighty minority. Pusey carefully ex- 
 amined the collection of letters, and published extracts from those 
 of the Bishops opposed to the definition in Note B, pp. 351-406 
 of Eirenicon Pt. I. They are most instructive reading. 
 
 Then, again, the Pope prejudged the case, and so worded his 
 Encyclical as to make it next to impossible for any but the most 
 honest and courageous of men to return other than the answer 
 suggested by himself " It is our vehement wish," he wrote, 
 " that with the greatest possible speed you would signify to us 
 with what devotion your clergy and faithful people are animated 
 towards the Conception of the Immaculate Virgin, and ivith whal 
 longing they burn, that the matter should be decreed by the 
 Apostolic See," etc. As Pusey says (i., 125), " The full weight of 
 Papal authority was given beforehand to the conclusion to which 
 Pius IX. wished to bring the Bishops." 
 
 As might be expected, the Pope received replies after his own 
 heart from the majority of the Bishops; from some very intluea- 
 tial and important Sees, however, he received rebuffs, while not a 
 few Bishops took refuge in silence. Pusey has analysed the list, 
 so to speak (Eirenicon I., 127 Sq.) : "The wishes expressed by 
 the Italian, Spanish and Portuguese Bishops were nearly unani- 
 mous, and these formed three-fifths of those who sent answers." 
 He names twenty who expressed doubts or objections to a defi- 
 nition. Though the Irish Bishops agreed, the Roman Catholic 
 Archbishop of Dublin reported the dissent of the Jesuit Fathers 
 at Dublin, and almost all the Professors of Maynooth College. 
 Of the Archbishops and Bishops of France no ansiver cavic from 
 one-fourth. The Archbishops of Paris and Rouen wrote earnestly 
 to deprecate any decision ; several other Bishops raised doubts 
 and objections ; so that only a bare majority of the Bishops of 
 France (41 out of So) requested the definition. An ominous 
 
 ?:i 
 
Adverse Opinio)is of a Lari^e M'lnoyity Ignored. 137 
 
 silence prevailed in the Austrian-German Monarcliy ; only four 
 out (tl 121 Bishoi)s were found to reciuest the definition; a few 
 sent earnest protests. The Apostolic Nuncio at Vienna informed 
 Cardinal Antonelli he had failed to elicit an opinion from the 
 Archbishops and their Suffragans, though he had striven by con- 
 fidential communications to excite them to respond, and he 
 concluded, therefore, they were not inclined to convert the pious 
 belief into a dogma. Doubts were expressed from Prussia, 
 Hanover, Hesse, Nassau, Bavaria. Switzerland and Savoy sup- 
 pliitl protests; so did the East and India. The United States, 
 like Austria, preserved an ominous silence — only one out of its 
 then 2cS Bishops giving assent. 
 
 There was, then, a powerful minority of Bishops who, although 
 holding for the most part the doctrine of the Immaculate Con- 
 ception (in which they had been instructed from youth) as a pious 
 opinion, objected to its being erected into a Dogma of die P'aith. 
 This minority was totally ignored by Pius IX., as though it never 
 existed (see Pusey, Kiren. I,, 126): "We were touched," he 
 wrote, after receiving replies from the Bishops, " with no slight 
 consolation when the responses of those venerable brethren came 
 to us. For, writing back to us with an incredible happiness, joy 
 and eagerness, they not only asserted anew their own singular 
 piety and mind, and that of the clergy and people of each, 
 towards the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, but 
 also asked of us, as it were, zuith a common vote, that the Im- 
 maculate Conception of the Virgin herself should be defined by 
 our supreme judgment and authority." 
 
 Yet, when he made that statement he had in his possession 
 from at least fifty Archbishops and Bishops strongly worded ob- 
 jections to the definition. Coming, as they did, from men reared 
 in the seminaries, where they were indoctrinated with the pious 
 opinion of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, they ought 
 to have carried great weight with the Pope. Here are a few 
 specimens of them ( Pusey Eirenicon, Part I., Note 2, p. 352 sq.) : 
 
 France. — The late Archbishop of Paris (p. 352), embodying the 
 opinion of his predecessor. " I have consulted the grayest men> 
 the most able theologians of my diocese. I have subsequently 
 myself examined and weighed all things before God with the great* 
 
 K 
 
138 
 
 Crushing Reply of the Archbishop of Paris. 
 
 est care. From all this has resulted a work of which the conclu- 
 sions are: (i) In conformity with the principles of theoloi>y, thu 
 Immaculate Conception of the \'irgin is not a matter whicli can 
 be defined as a truth of the Catholic Faith, and in no case can be 
 imj)osed as a belief obligatory under pain of eternal damnaiion." 
 
 The second conclusion is that, had the Church or the Holv 
 See power to define it, the time was inopportune for doing so. 
 
 In a second letter he alludes to a dissertation on the subject 
 drawn up by his most learned theologians and forwarded to the 
 Pope. In this he expresses his own opinion thus^ "I, myselt", 
 think with them (his theologians), that // is not lawful either for 
 the Church or for the Holy See to count the doctrine of the Im- 
 maculate Conception, in any case, among the articles of the Faith, 
 or verities of the Catholic Faith. Yea, Most Holy I-'ather, I go 
 further than the said theologians, and doubt whether the Church 
 or the Holy See can enact by a solemn decree that this doctrine 
 is certai7i, and must be embraced by all under pain of eternal 
 damnation." 
 
 Later on he raises certain doubts, thirty-eight in number, of 
 which I cite the following : 
 
 Doubt I. — " Can the Church make a definition as to a doctrine 
 which rests neither on Holy Scripture v.v tradition?^' (Italics 
 mine.) 
 
 Doubt 2. — Can anything else be '.:. cd from the passages 
 adduced from the Fathers of the earlier centuries, besides the 
 sanctification of Mary from her mother's womb ? [He instanced 
 such expressions as " Immaculate," " Most pure," " Free from 
 stain of sin," which, he says, were used by S. Bernard, or .S. 
 Thomas Aquinas, too, who denied the Immaculate Conception.] 
 
 Doubt 3. — " Can the Church, when it exceeds the limits of her 
 authority, declare any truth certain, on the sole ground of intrin- 
 sic suitableness ? " 
 
 (I would here ask my readers to observe how the Roman 
 Catholic Archbishop of Paris, in these three doubts, virtually con- 
 cedes Pusey's contention, and the validity of the main arguments 
 of this pamphlet, while at the same time he virtually condemns 
 the argument based merely on congruity, so strongly insisted on 
 by my opponent.) 
 
Tilt Archbishop of Rouen asks inconvenient Questions. 139 
 
 Doubt 10. — "Can the Church propose, under pain of eternal 
 damnation, a doctrine which is altogether indifferent in respect of 
 dogma or rule of life? " 
 
 Doubt II. — " Was it not always the mind of the Council of 
 Trent to maintain liberty of opinions which do not injure doj^ma 
 orniorals ?" 
 
 Doubt 12. — "As to the Immaculate Conception itself: Did 
 not the Holy Council of Trent, and the Holy See, decree that 
 opinions were free, and so, in themselves, indifferent?" 
 
 Doubt 13. — " After the Church has declared, at least implicitly, 
 that neither of these opinions affects dogma or rules of life, would 
 it not, by defining that the one was necessarily to be believed, and 
 anatiiematizing the other, seem to confess that it had erred in 
 tolerating error in its bosom ? " 
 
 Doubt 14. — " Would not a new decision presuppose fresh 
 grounds? But whence have these arisen ? " [F'rom the "pious 
 wisiies " of the faithful, perchance?] 
 
 Doubt 15. — "Failing testimonies of Scripture or tradition, 
 can a doctrinal decision rest on pious wishes of the faithful? " 
 
 Doubt 22. — (Relative to the argument from fitness.) " Does 
 not God destroy all those reasons of congruity by the mystery 
 of the Incarnation ? " 
 
 Doubt 23. — " Why in such a mystery of the self-emptying of 
 the Word, should there be any dispute as to the one or other 
 degree of humility? " 
 
 Doubt 24. — " Might not, perhaps, the ground of congruence 
 be brought forward, more truly to prove that the Virgin Mary 
 was sanctified in her mother's womb ? " 
 
 Doubt 27. — " If, by a special grace, the fruit of human gener- 
 ation can be holy, immaculate, free from all fault, why was not 
 Clirist so born ? " 
 
 Louis, Archbishop 0/ Rouen (p. 360), writes : " I consider that 
 this belief is not clearly contained in the deposit of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures. I consider that tradition in this respect is wanting in pre- 
 cision and unanimity. Had the tradition been clear, could S. 
 Anselm, S. Bonaventura, S. Bernard, S. Thomas (Aquinas), 
 Bellarmine, and so many others, have been ignorant of it. I 
 consider that the belief in the Immaculate Conception does not 
 
140 The Bishop of Contauccs Pits Pope against Pope, 
 
 reach, in a way at all explicit or imposinj^f, above the eleventh 
 century." 
 
 He thinks it would not only be supertluous to define the 
 dogma but perilous — among his reasons this: "What, for in- 
 stance, will the English theologians, so well versed in the study of 
 Ecclesiastical antic}uity, do or say when they shall see the Holy 
 See defnie, as a point of faith, a matter 'which so vuiny oi^cs have 
 scarcely had a glimi)se of (entrevuej, which so many holy per- 
 sons and great doctors have either denied or been ignorant of? 
 Will they not think that the Church, at this day, holds cheap that 
 principle of S. Vincent of Ler ins, so certain and venerable, quod 
 xibiqtie, quod semper, quod ab omnibus?'''' (See page 63 for an- 
 other api)lication of the rule.) 
 
 The Bishop of Coutances asks (p. 362) : " If what was iiitlierto 
 a mere opinion is to-morrow, at the good [)leasure of certain 
 Bishops, to be believed de Fide under pain of damnation ; if, 
 what the S. Council of Trent itself (as Pallavicini attests) would 
 not decree, although then controverted and strongly impugned ; 
 if, what Pope Pius V., of holy memory, Gregory XV., and Alex- 
 ander VII. declared to be not a dogma, but a mere pious opinion, 
 what might be contradicted without note of heresy, should be 
 delivered as a doctrine by decree of the present Supreme PontilT, 
 would not the aforesaid Rationalists and all uncatholics take 
 occasion for assailing anew and more fiercely all our doctrines 
 with their impious speeches ? 
 
 The Bishop of Evreux humbly replies that, after consultation 
 with his Episcopal Council, long study and devotion before the 
 Blessed Sacrament, and invocation of the Holy Spirit for illumi- 
 nation, he has come to the conclusion the definition ought not 
 to be made. His grounds are the same as those of Louis, Arch- 
 bishop of Rouen. Lack of evidence from Scripture and Tradition. 
 The Vincentian Canon is against it. 
 
 The Bishop of Chartres (p. 304) sums up his objections in the 
 words of Petavius : " To bring to a close the discussion of this 
 question, I think that the most holy Virgin Mother of God was 
 free, not only from all actual sin of her own, but from original 
 also. But I am so far persuaded of this, that I would not have 
 it counted of faith, nor would I believe that anyone was to be 
 
'' Popc 
 
 The Abp. Brcslan "Drlhrrs /lis Ou'fi Sou/r 
 
 141 
 
 " ^'t'fiiie tlie 
 •^'''■'t. <or i„. 
 
 ^'i^' study of 
 ^•e tin: Holy 
 V' "A'cs have 
 
 y 'x'ly per. 
 
 cheap that 
 
 ^ 63 <or an- 
 
 '^''s Iiithcrto 
 ^f certain 
 ination; if, 
 -sts) would 
 nipuojied ; 
 aiul Ale.Y- 
 ^'^ opinion, 
 should be 
 lie Pontiff, 
 olics take 
 <-ioctrines 
 
 nsultation 
 'Piore tJie 
 Ji' ilJiuni- 
 ugJit not 
 is, Ardi- 
 Vadition. 
 
 tis in the 
 
 I of this 
 OD was 
 original 
 3t liave 
 3 to be 
 
 condemned, or speak hardly of one who thinks otherwise ; nor 
 am I prcpareti to maintain it in any other w.iy than that now pre- 
 jcribcil by the Roman I'ontiHs and the Council of Trent, /. <'., by 
 ihe Catholic Church." (de Incarn. xiv., 2-10.) 
 
 The Bishop of Anccy (p. 365), on the same grounds as Louis, 
 Archbishop of Rouen, says : " In our opinion, such a judj^ment 
 could not easily escape the note of novelty." 
 
 The Archbishop of lireslau (p. 37S) : " I have re-read before 
 I decided on writing to you, my Lord (/. c., the Apostolic Nuncio 
 at Vienna), the chapters of I'allavincini (Hist. Cone. Trid.), a!id 
 ot" IV'tau (Theol. Dogm. T. vi., L. xiv., c. 2), on this subject. '■^' * 
 History proves that hitherto 'he Holy See has only given dog- 
 matic utterances to appease polemic and scandalous strifes," or to 
 repress dangerous errors. In the present case neither of these 
 jjrounds is apparent," etc. 
 
 The Archbishop concludes : " I have allayed my Episcopal 
 conscience, my Lord, in communicating to you my thoughts and 
 apprchensi' ns in this matter. I have spoken to you as the organ 
 of the Sovereign Pontiff. I repeat once more, that in what I 
 have just set forth I find myself of one mind with all the most 
 zealous and enlightened Catholics in our country^ " Dixi et 
 salvavi animam meam." 
 
 The Bishop of Ahmster (p. 379) tells the Pope that a? regards 
 " the longing for a definition of the dogma " by the people, of 
 which his Encyclical speaks, " no wishes of this sort have reached 
 me hitherto, except of some men whose opinion was especially 
 sought." On the contrary, he affirms that there are not wanting 
 those who think that such a definition would be perilous for the 
 Church in Germany. 
 
 The Bishop of Adrea (p. 385), while assuring the Pope that 
 all his flock hold the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, says : 
 " I am horribly afraid the Church will be assailed by her enemies 
 with new wars if, after so many centuries, she exhibit to the faith- 
 
 6. We arc tempted to ask here, why ilicl not the reigning Pontiflf of the ilays when Fran- 
 ciscans and Dominicans were cutting one anothers throats over the iiiiestion, appease "the 
 polemics and scandalous strifes " by an authoritative decision, instead of leaving the ijuestion an 
 open one? Was it not left open for this very reason, that it was dangerous to the (Church for a 
 Pope to interfere while the strife was so hot? Clearly, either the Pope of those days had no 
 belief in his own power to decide the matter, or he knew that the contending parties did not 
 l)olieve that his " infallible " judgment was an end of all strife. 
 
14- 
 
 Tlu- I'incculian Canon Condtnins the Doiitna. 
 
 fill tr» be bclievt'd a new iiiystt-iy, of 'u hie ft "u'c find no icsliniony 
 in the Si) iplurcs or Holy I-'othi rs, if we except many allej^orics 
 spoken of the laenial Wiscloiu." 
 
 The Bishop of Ccnia (p. 388), though hokliii^ the pious 
 opinion, says: "That sayinj; of Vincent of Lerins must move 
 nie, recei\etl as a rule by all theoloj^ians anil constantly observed, 
 whenever it was the cjuestion of distinj^uishinj^ or defniinj; dogmas 
 of faith, 7t '//(// ii'os (i/Tiaj's, cvcry-a'hcrc, by all received us a dogma 
 of J'ailh, and has been believed till noxv. Every Catholic doj,Miia, 
 being a fact manifest to us by Divine revelation, can neither be 
 known or proveil, save by the Word of Gou, written or handed 
 down ; and since God could, either expressly or implicitly, by 
 Scripture or trailition, reveal a truth unattainable by human in- 
 tellect or reason, the Church never proposes any truth as a do^iiui 
 to be received and believed by all under pain of anathema or 
 heresy, unless it be contained explicitly, or at least implicitly, in 
 the Word of God, written or handed down. Hut some theolo- 
 gians contend that this could scarcely be affirmed as to the pro- 
 posed truth. For, had it been expressly or implicitly revealed in 
 Scripture or tradition, how should older Fathers and Doctors, 
 Theologians and the whole order of Dominicans, and the zvhole 
 school of the Thomists, not only be ignorant of it, but venture, 
 with all their might and vehement abundance of argument [assail 
 it], the Supreme Pontiffs conniving, or at least not condemning 
 as heretics those who, for many ages, opposed with their whole 
 strength the Conception, immaculate at the first instant?" and 
 he asks further, Why did the Council of Trent leave it an open 
 question? 
 
 The Bishop of laca (j). 396) begs for delay till two celebrated 
 MSS. in folio, from Salamanca, be examined, in one of which the 
 statement " that both the Greek and Latin Fathers are on the 
 side of the pious opinion," is thoroughly refuted, " and the say- 
 ing of S. Antoninus, of the defenders of the Immaculate Concep- 
 tion," established as most true, viz., "that they twist the sayings 
 of the ancients against the intention of the speakers." 
 
 I have here quoted eleven of the fifty Bishops cited by Pusey, 
 who brought objections against making the Immaculate Concep- 
 tion a dogma of the Christian Faith. There are several others 
 
»ia. 
 
 The Minority, H'tijihty and AUinicrons, Ignond, 143 
 
 i ""■ pious 
 '""St move 
 
 '^'itJicr be 
 '■ 'laiulecl 
 '''■'-•Hly, Ijy 
 Hiiiiaii in. 
 
 ' ■' "^'"Kma 
 "Iienia or 
 >licitly, i„ 
 
 ^ tllcoio- 
 
 t^'c pro- 
 vcalcd in 
 Doctors, 
 
 vcntuie, 
 't [.i.ssaij 
 ^(-'nining 
 r vvJioJe 
 ?"and 
 '1 0])en 
 
 •bra ted 
 cli tJie 
 )n the 
 ? say- 
 ncep- 
 yings 
 
 Jsey, 
 ce]j- 
 hcrs 
 
 .iiiiong them who are equally strong on the necessity of adheriii); 
 10 the Vincentian Canon with regard to dcrtnitions of dogma. 
 
 Now, it must i)e observed, that besides tlusc; Bishops who 
 adduced solid arguments against erecting the pious opinion into 
 a dogma, there were 172 out of the 74.S Bishops in communion 
 with Rome who returned no answers to the Pope's appeal ( Nar- 
 vaez, p. 48, in Pusey, Eirenicon I., 406), in spite of the efforts of 
 Apostolic Nuncio to secure; tli' : These Bishops may, there- 
 fore, very fairly be counted in llir minority, not eager, at all 
 events, for the dogma to be promulgated. Added to the fifty 
 (leliiiite non-placeis ]\.\s\. quoted, we have a minority of 222 out of 
 74S, or 222 against 526, and yet, as Pusey has pointed out, this 
 minority, with its weighty adverse arguments and judgments, was 
 simply ignored by Pius IX. and treated as though it had no 
 existence. (See page 137.) 
 
 I pointed out in my controversy with " Cleophas " on Papal 
 InfaUibility (p. 28J,' that for the purpose of defining dogmas de 
 fidt\i\ mere majority in a Council — so unlike a Parliament — is 
 ineftective. The Vatican Council virtually acknowledgeil the 
 truth of Strossmayer's exclamation : " That alone can be imposed 
 on the faithful as a dogma, which has a moral unanimity of the 
 Bishops of the Church in its favour," when they hooted down 
 and browbeat the minority, so as to drive them away from Rome 
 altogether. 
 
 It was, of course, much easier for Pius IX. to dispose of a 
 nnnority which was known to him only by letters, and which had 
 no corporate existence before the Church. 
 
 But besides meeting with these living witnesses in his own 
 branch of the Church against the dogma, Pius IX. was fully 
 aware of the want of consent among the Fathers and Doctors of 
 the Church in the past. He knew of the bitter controversies 
 which lasted for years between notable theologians and religious 
 orders on the very question, and had in his possession the re- 
 markable Treatise of Turrecremata, "compiled for the instruction 
 of the Council of Basle, July, A. D. 1437, at the mandate of the 
 Legates of the Apostolic See presiding over the same Council," 
 
 7. Published by McMillan, St. John, N. H., 25 cents. It now cont.iiiis a letter from 
 " Cleophas," written since his secession from the Roman Church. 
 
144 
 
 And Open Pretests Disregarded. 
 
 an analysis of which we now possess in Dr. Puscy's Second 
 Vohinie of his Ei>enieon, which thoroughly and exhaustively 
 disposes of the argument from Antiquity, and also of the claim 
 to consent of the past, since the question was raised. 
 
 In addition he received some outsnoken earnest protests from 
 members of his own church, and also /rom the Archbishop of 
 Utrecht and his Suffragans (already separated from the Papacy). 
 
 The most notable of all open opposition to the dogma which 
 made a great stir at the time in the Roman Church, were three 
 publications from the pen of the famous Aboe Laborde, issued 
 from Paris, one of which, a letter to Pius IX., I print at lengtii in 
 my Appendix (K).'' They are fully and ably considered with 
 other literature on the subject in an article of great force which 
 appeared in the July, 1855, issue of The London Quarterly Kc- 
 view, which is well worth republishing. 
 
 We see, then, from what has been said, that even according to 
 the Roman law governing the promulgation of dogmatic decrees, 
 the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the 
 Blessed Virgin in the Bull of Pius IX., Ineffabilis Dens, lacks 
 the marks of a de fide pronouncement. It was issued without 
 the authority of a Council, and also in spite of want of unanimity 
 among the Roman Bishops This fact may prove a comfort to 
 Roman Catholics who cannot believe that the dogma shoukl be 
 held by all Christians on pain of eternal damnation." 
 
 8. An excellent refiitalioii of the Dcgm;i from an E.istorn Church thcolo^jian may be found 
 in Dr. Neales' Voiies/roiH the East, i|iioteil once in this pamphlet. 
 
 y. I'usey, quoting; Narvaez, says (p. 4'i6, Kirenicon I.); "One of the earliest fruits of 
 Pius IXth's decision fell upon Spain, where the last Sacraments were refused to " Father M. 
 Pascual, who, until .■\. H. 1855, was the oracle of Salamanca, and was held by learned men a 
 fountain of religious wisdom, gushing forth on all sides," because, " when iiilerrogated by 
 certain liishops, he wrote that the Immaculate Conception of the Ulessed Virgin never couUI 
 come to be an article of faith, and never acknowledged the dognta, after the Lord I'ope Pius IX. 
 jironounced it a dogma of faith, and did not recant." And yet, " n\consistenlly," N'arvaez says, 
 " the divine office was said for his soul." — p. 54. 
 
'^>''s Second 
 eA-Iiaii.stive]y 
 °^ t''e claln, 
 
 P''otesLs ii-on, 
 
 ^ ^'apacv). 
 ^R'»a which 
 • ^V'cre three 
 ^'■d^'. issued 
 at icni-th in 
 tlt'i-ed with 
 force which 
 
 -corch'ng to 
 tic decrees, 
 tion of the 
 '^''^■*'. lacks 
 <J vvithout 
 unanimity 
 
 omfon to 
 5Jioii](I be 
 
 '«' fniits of 
 " Katlicr .M. 
 '■'"•''1 IIICII ,, 
 '■'■"g^itcd by 
 "i^ver could 
 ^e Piiis IX, 
 "■v.uv s.u s, 
 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 I claimed (p. 51) to have established in Part I. (pp. 11 to 51) 
 the four main points of my original contention called in question 
 by niy opponent. 
 
 In Parts II., III. and IV. I have gone more into detail on cer- 
 tain points. I have avoided as far as possible any allusion to 
 irrelevant matter dragged into the controversy by my opponent 
 for unworthy purposes I have, I claim, proved conclusively 
 that the Fathers oT the Early Church unanimously interpreted 
 Gen. iii., 15, of Christ's victory over Satan ; that Mariolatry was 
 unknown to them, and the notion that the Blessetl Virgin was 
 immaculately conceived never even dreamed of in their day. I 
 have shown that to make out a case for the modern cultus of the 
 Virgin and the false doctrines concerning her, recourse is had to 
 corrupt readings and perverted senses of ScrijJture ; to strained 
 interpretations of ancient writings, interpolated passages in them 
 and to spurious documents. I have jiroved that, even in the 
 Roman Church, there have long been serious divisions on the 
 subject of Mary, and that as late as 1865 there existed among 
 English-speaking Roman Catholics two very distinct schools of 
 thought with regard to Mariolatry, the one siding with Italian 
 extremists, the other, like Newman, abhorring their extravagances 
 and protesting against them. And finally I have shown that the 
 Dogma of the Immaculate Concci)tion bears not one mark of a 
 Catholic Verity, and cannot even justly claim for itself the sup- 
 port of the fallacious argument from congruity. 
 
 My task is finiiihed. I end it as I began it, in God's name. 
 May he bless this effort to banish error and establish truth. Like 
 all writers against Marian extremists, I have been vilified as one 
 who grudges the Blessed Virgin her honor. History repeats it- 
 self S. Thomas Aquinas and the Dominicans were vilified 
 by the Franciscans, degraded from their positions and hooted at 
 in the streets as revilcrs of the Virgin, by ignorant mobs incited 
 
 (145) 
 
146 
 
 Conclusion. 
 
 by me false accusations of their opponents, in spite of their devo- 
 tion in her service, so even Roman Catholics must admit that I am 
 in fairly good and respectable company. 
 
 With Epiphanius of old, who, while holding the Blessed Vir- 
 gin in profound veneration, protested vigorously against a certain 
 party in the Church, the Collyridians, who worshiped her, I say, 
 I* Let Mary be honored, but let the Father, the Son and the Holy 
 " Ghost be worshipped," and I will now conclude with this prayer 
 for the reunion of Christendom on a basis of truth, without which 
 ne. j^eacemaking can be of lasting benefit : 
 
 O Gracious Father, we humbly beseech Thee for Thy Holy 
 Catholic Church, that Thou wouldest be pleased to fill it with 
 all truth, in all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it ; where it 
 is in error, direct it ; where in anything it i^ amiss, reform it ; 
 where it is right, strengthen and confirm it; where it is in want,' 
 furnish it ; where it is divided and rent asunder, make up the 
 breaches of it, O Thou Holy One of Israel, for Thy dear Son 
 Jesus Christ's sake. Amen. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 A. — Page II. 
 
 A Comedy ok a Papal Degree. 
 
 In the St. Jolin, N. B., dailies of June 22 and 23, 1891, v. 'nd glowing 
 accounts of the exaltation of Mr. R. F. Quigley by a Papal Ph.D. The 
 Globe calls it "a rare honour," and the Sun "a distinction awarded 
 previously to no layman on the Continent of America." The Telegraph 
 says: "'The granting of the degree followed upon the receipt by the 
 Propaganda of a copy of Mr. Quigley's elaborate treatise on Gen. iii. 15, 
 entitled Ipse, Ipsa, Ipsiiiii." It does not appear, however, from the 
 papers, that the degree was awarded solely for this work, though it 
 liapjiened to be the exciting, or immediate, cause, so to speak, of its 
 being conferred. The Telegraph says: "Before the controversy arose, 
 which led to the publication of this w-ork, the author bad devoted him- 
 self to the study of I'hilosophy, and 'a'ould probably, in any event, have 
 received this honour!^ All three papers go pretty fully into the nature 
 of the Philosophy in which Mr. (Juigley has become such a proficient as 
 to claim the distinction of being "the first layman in America," and '''one 
 of only a very fe'c persons in the English speaking world " who ha\e 
 been honoured with this ''highest degree that the Pope can give a lay- 
 man" {Globe, ]\\ne 22, icSgi). That philosophy, we learn from the Sun, 
 is the Aristotelian, elaborated by Thomas Acjuinas and the successors 
 in his school, upon which the present Pope sets such store. We note, 
 however, one strange omission. None of the papers state what treatises 
 by Mr. Quigley on Philosophy were forwarded to the Vatican by the 
 Rev. William Varrily, Parish Priest of Bathurst Village, formerly a pro- 
 fessor at S. Michael's College, Chatham, N. B., under whom Mr. Quigley 
 became such an adept in the School of Afjuinas; or by Bishop Rogers, 
 in whose diocese that college is situated, who endorsed Father Varrily's 
 application to Rome on Mr. Quigley's behalf. 1 have, therefore, been at. 
 tiie pains to enquire of the leading lawyers, and other well read men of 
 this city, intimate with Mr. Quigley's career, and also at the principal 
 bookstores, whether they know of any writings of Mr. Quigley upon 
 philosophical subjects? and I cannot find any one who has ever heard 
 of even a magazine article, or of an article in a "penny dictionary" (as 
 my opponent dubs encyclopa-dias), from bis pen. Is it, then, to be sup- 
 posed that the Pope or the Propaganda have conferred so singular an 
 honour as a Papal Ph.D. upon Mr. Quigley simply on account of his 
 having received a certificate for proficiency and good conduct during a 
 
 (147) 
 
148 
 
 Appendix A. 
 
 (long past) college course, from : n ex-Professor of Philosophy, even 
 though he hail from that famous seat of learning, 8. Michael's College, 
 Chatham, N. P.. ? 
 
 Papal Ph. D.'s would surely not be quite so rare, as Romanists tell us 
 they are, if they could be obtained on such easy terms as these. I5ut 
 now Mr. Quigley himself has given us the real clue to the position. On 
 Sunday, June 21st, 1891, the day Bishop Sweeney solenmly conveyed to 
 him his r.ewly acquired honour in the Cathedral, a small si.xteen paged 
 tract was distriljuted widely among the spectators, which consisted 
 merely of a collection of newspaper reviews of Mr. Quigley's one-sided 
 reprint of the Ipse, Ipsa, Ipsuni controversy. In this "puff" not (jne 
 word appears about Mr. Quigley's Philosophical works (?) or attain- 
 ments. The Reprint is the sole object of attention. What footprints, 
 then, of either Aristotle or Thomas Aquinas can be traced in the 
 Reprint, unless sophistry, misrepresentation, and bad logic are to he 
 counted as such ? 
 
 There is, therefore, only one conclusion left us. We see the Vatican 
 strongly advised by the (R.C.) Episcopal representativesof these parts (the 
 Archbishop of Halifax, the Globe says, June 22, 1891, forwarded to Rome 
 the application endorsed by Bishop Rogers) to encourage and support, 
 by the weight of its authority and approval, the work of a thorough- 
 going disciple of the Ultramontane faction, now dominant at head- 
 quarters, by conferring upon its author some degree. That it would be 
 a lasting disgrace to the Vatican to confer it on the strength of the book 
 alone was evidently realized by the scrutinizers — yet they desired to 
 gratify their suppliants and also to give a fictitious value to a book which 
 would, at all events, serve the purpose of throwing dust in the eyes of 
 their own illiterate adiierents. How was this to be done? Happy 
 thought! They would give him a Ph.D. on the strength of College 
 testimonials and a IMshop's assurance that he had since been a diligent 
 student of Leo Xlllth's favourite Philosophy. So this is the screen 
 behind wliich the Propaganda hopes to slink when rebuked or derided 
 for putting its imprimatur on such a disgraceful production, in every 
 way, as Mr. Quigley's one-sided reprint from the Globe's columns. 
 
 Here, then, we have another specimen of how they back up one 
 another in error in the Roman Church. Hut tiie farce, which may well 
 be entitled "A Comedy of a Papal Degree," has a third act equally 
 amusing, if not edifying. 
 
 More than half the "puff" of the book, circulated in the Cathedral on 
 June 2 1, is made up of reviews copied from theSt.John G/obea.n(\Sitii. Some 
 of my readers may remember my protest against the Globe's allowing 
 the controversy to be reopened in its columns, with new matter added, 
 by a partizan, under the pretence of reviewing my opponent's reprint. 
 The G/obe replied that the writer was a well-read Anglican. As both 
 
Appendix A. 
 
 149 
 
 the thought and diction '^f the review were ininiistal<al)ly Roman, people 
 naturally encjuired, who was tlie Anj^lican catspaw ? The next few days 
 revealed a singular unanimity of opinion on this point, the correctness of 
 which was soon to be fully established. The Sun, of April 29tli, contained 
 a review of the book, also very Roman in botli phraseology and senti- 
 ment, which defended its abusive style as being in accord with ancient 
 usage. Now, the "well-read " Anglican who fathered, or helped to pre- 
 pare this review, has made no secret of his identity, like IViilalctlics of 
 tlie Globe. A night or two before it appeared, he told a friend of mine 
 unreservedly upon the street, that lie was just then going to Mr. Quig- 
 iey's office to meet Mr. Quigley and anotlier Roinan Catholic friend (whose 
 name 1 am unwilling to publish unless forced to do so), for the purpose 
 of preparing a review of Mr. Quigley's book for the Sun. Evidence is 
 not wanting to show that the Globe's review was fathered by the same 
 "ANtiMCAN Scholar," as Mr. Quigley has it in iiis "puff" circulated in 
 iiis Cathedral. Evidently, then, both these reviews were manufactured 
 in the same workshop in Ritchie's lUiildings, and were subsequently 
 transferred to the Press Notices in the " puff." It is an amusing comedy, 
 is it not? An edifying example of how Romanists make history? Hut 
 tlien, fancy the author's allowing this profane adulation of his labours to 
 go forth from his own sanctum, " I have trodden tlie winepress alone! " 
 and fancy an Anglican being inducetl to endorse this sentiment : " If 
 " the results of his (Mr. Ouigley's) efforts siiall be to strengliien the 
 " faithful, and to comfort the doubtful, and to restore the erring, and to 
 '■ remove misconception from tiie minds of those ci.'lio are rcil/ioul llie 
 ''fold 0/ the Catholic Church., (italics mine) he will not have laboured in 
 "vain." — {Globe, Jan. 30, 1S91.) 
 
 W. — PiiMe 16. 
 
 DeRossi's GuorxDS for Holdino that tiik Readino "Ipsa" should 
 HE CoRKECTEO. (/'uscv's lUrcuicoH I/.j;S6'J.) 
 
 " Few doubtful and altogether unreliable are tlie Hebrew MSS. in 
 support oi Hi (Feminine), in which }'od is perhaps a little rwri', and with 
 sluirek or the vowel of the masculine: uncertain and deviating from the 
 reliableness of all the rest is t! '. Greek (whether interpreter or scholiast), 
 perhaps only indicating the reading of Latin MS.S. or some Father: 
 solitary and to be set aside is that copy of Onkelos. Tiie reading of the 
 Vulgate, though nuicii better supported, is not yet sufficiently certain, 
 on account of the dissent of the M.S.S. and Jerome; nor is it of any 
 certain, but rather of altogether doubtful and even (as we shall see 
 below) suspected origin, so that it is rather to be accounted among the 
 
I50 
 
 Appendix /?. 
 
 errors in tliat version ; and tlie most learned expositors and critics 
 among Catiiolics so in fact accoinit it." 
 
 " I5ut for the masculine Hu tiiere stand— (i) tlie consent and itsti- 
 mony of almost all Hebrew MSS. ; (2) the analogy of the sacred context, 
 in which the verb which follows and the prononn suffixed are masculine; 
 (3) the Samaritan text and Samaritan version; (4) tlie Greek version of 
 the LXX., all the MSS. editions and versions derived from it, Ethi()|)ic, 
 Coptic and old Latin, and those who used it, whether Cireek-speaking 
 Jews, as Fhilo, or Christian writers, ai -eing ; (5) all the Chaldee para- 
 phrases, Onkelos, Jonathan, and the Jerusalem; (6) all the other versions 
 of the I'-ast, the oldest Syriac, the Arabic of Saadias, the Mauritanian Araliic 
 of Erpenius, the Persian of Tawos; (7) some MS.S. of the Vulgate, as 
 the Oblong of S. Germain and the Correctorium .Sorbonicum, Stephen's 
 Biblia, Paris, 1540 and 1546, ad. marg.,the Hiblia Lovan, of Henten, and No. 
 tations of Lucas Brugeusis, Lindanus adds four Louvain MSS., and I doubt 
 not that others would coincide, if there should l)e a fresh and more accu- 
 rate collation of Latin MSS. on the place ; (8) many editions of the \'ul- 
 gate on tlie margin, before those of .Sixtus and Clement ; (9) the i)ure 
 Version of Jerome in the Bibliollwca Dii'iiia, edited by the Benedictines 
 of S. Maur, Opp. T. i ; (10) Jerome, who besides his version, reads Ipse 
 in his Quaistt. Heb., on Ezek. xlvii, on Isa. Iviii; (11) Irenteus [iv. 40; 
 V. 21], Cyprian [Test. ii. 9], Lucifer Calaritanus [Hibl. P. iv. 1S2], Chiy- 
 sostomus [Honi. xvii,in Gen.n. 7, Opp. iv. 143], PetrusChrysologus [Hibl. 
 Patr. vii. 976, H.], luicherius [B. P. vi. S34, H.], Procopius Gaza-us [ad. 
 loc. p. 70], .S. Leo [Serm. ii. in Nat. Dom. p. 67], also Moses Bar Ceplia 
 [De Paradiso, P. i. ca;' -S, p. 157 ed. Mas.], S. Epii. Syr. [ad. loc], and 
 all the Fathers wii" i.lie Greek or Syriac; (12) lastly, the masculine 
 
 reading is better. 1 ,t.li the bruising of tiie Serpent is ascribed 
 
 immediately and ahjh.. Id tlv Seed of the woman, and from which the 
 redemption, power. Divinity of the Messiah are plainly eliciteil. 
 
 ■ Which original authorities and witnesses, being most exceedingly 
 grave and insurmountable, evidently demonstrate that the true reading 
 of the sacred text is Hu, Ipse, Ipsitin-. and countless Catholic authors 
 both before and since the Council of Trent, follow this reading as the 
 truer, and prefer it to the feminine." Pusey add.s, " He enumerates 
 thirty-five, refers to 'others ' generally, adding tiiat the words of most of 
 them, and the places where they occur, are given by Coster and Natalis 
 Alexander." De Rossi sums up, " to whomsoever, then, the present 
 reading of the Vulgate belongs, whether to the interpreter, or (which is 
 more probable) to the amanuensis, it ought to be amended from tlie 
 Hebrew and Greek fountain-heads, and to be referred (as I have said 
 formerly, * De prtecipuis causis negl. hebr. litt.' p. 94) to those passages 
 of the Clementine edition, which yet can and ought to be conformed to 
 the Hebrew text and to be amended by the authority of the Church." 
 
Appendix C. 
 
 ISI 
 
 Mk. QriC.I.KV Bl.lNDKKS AliOlT TIIK HkBRF.W GeNDERS. 
 
 Globe, Feb. 12, 1SS9. "He" (Mr. Qiiij;ley) informs tlie i)ublic that 
 "III Hebrew tlie words correspondiiij; to It>si\ /psa, Ipsiiin are /In, ///, 
 " [li(. It will be noticed," he says, "that in Hebrew the masculine and 
 " neuter genders are the same, so that an authority for the one is at the 
 "same time an authority for the other" i Cfoln;\\m\ 4, '88). He assures 
 tiie public that he has the very best authority for tlie statement, viz., 
 Gesenius's Hebrew Lexicon and Grammar, etc. Well ! there is certainly 
 no occasion for his going out of his way to protest tliat he received no 
 help here, for such a statement is enough to take the breath away from 
 even a beginner in Hebrew. I am aware he attempts to cover this 
 blunder in his last letter, written nine months after he made it, i)ut as he 
 neither confesses the blunder nor withdraws the false conclusions he 
 bases upon it, I cannot pass it by unnoticed. 
 
 1 turn to my old Oxford companion of twenty years ago — Gesenius's 
 Hebrew grammar — and fnuX it thus written (Part II., ? 80): "The 
 "Hebrew, like all Shemitic languages, has but two genders, the inascti- 
 " line and fcuiiniiie. Inanimate objects properly of the neuter gender 
 "and abstract ideas, for which other languages have a neuter forin, are 
 " regarded in Hebrew as either masculine or feminine, particularly the 
 ''latter," (tliese last italics are mine.) I turn to (iesenius's Lexicon and 
 find under IIu mas. /fc or ft, and under /// fern. She or It. Yet my op- 
 ponent says that an authority for the masculine pronoun is at the same 
 time an authority for the neuter, and ho writes down the three genders, 
 Ifu, Hi, Hu, for the pronoun as though Hu were the invariable represen- 
 tative of tlie neuter. 
 
 If it were legitimate (which it is not) so to represent the Hebrew 
 genders, then the pronoun Hu would have to be written thus : mas. Hu fern. 
 ///, neut. Hi or Hu — the /// mentioned first, because most frecjuently 
 called into use for its antecedent feminine nouns which find neuter rep- 
 resentatives in other languages. 
 
 In these the pronouns, of course, follow the gender of their anteced- 
 ent nouns. When, therefore, in Latin a neuter noun is the equivalent of 
 some Hebrew feminine noun, its pronoun will also be neuter, and so in 
 like manner is it for the masculine. In the case of Gen. iii. 15, the 
 Hebrew for seed is masculine, and, therefore, its pronoun as well as the 
 pre<"ormative of the verb it governs, are masculine. Its Latin ecpiivalent 
 Semen is neuter, and, therefore, to make good Latin its pronoun should 
 be neuter. We should expect to find Ipsum after semen. But the ex- 
 traordinary thing about the Latin of this text is that the pronoun is not 
 neuter, but masculine in the oldest copies. Tiie reason is that in the 
 first instance the Latin Vulgate was a translation (slavishly literal) from 
 fhe Septuagint or Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. This Greek 
 
152 
 
 Appendix C. 
 
 translation was iiKule I)y Jews who knew Gen. iii. 15 to be a Messianic 
 propiiecy, and tlierefore out of honor to Christ, wiio was to bruise the 
 serpent's head, they sacrificed the grammar which demanded a neuter 
 pronoun after >/><•;'/;/« (a neuter noun signifying "seed") and adopted a 
 masculine, and sjwke of the seed of the woman as //c instead of as //. 
 The Latin Vulgates of Africa followed suit and sacrificed good Latin in 
 order to pay homage to Christ, and so //>se masculine followed the 
 neuter sonoi. If If>sitiii had been used it is probable the text would 
 never have suffered from the corruption which has so totally altered tlie 
 sense of the verse and led to so much false doctrine about the woman or 
 mother of Messiah. 
 
 It must surely strike everyone as passing strange that in the manu- 
 scripts of the Latin Vulgate we find two readings we should least expect 
 in Gen. lii. 15, viz. : Ipse and its corruption Ipsa, but not Ipsuiii, which 
 ought, by the laws of Latin granmiar, so take their place. 
 
 Now, will it be believed that it is upon this puerile blunder of repre- 
 senting the Hebrew genders as three in number, for which a " Merchant 
 Taylors ' " schoolboy would be well Hogged, that my opponent bases all 
 that absurd, fallacious and lengthy criticism on DeRossi's extract in 
 Pusey's Lirenicon and wastes colunuis of the G/ohe in a tirade against 
 myself. 
 
 DeRossi considers first the evidence for the feminine and rejects it as 
 utterly insignificant and unworthy of notice. (.See Appendix li.) 
 
 He then gives in detail the overwhelming evidence from all quarters 
 — Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, l-'thiopic, Syriac, Arabic, etc., etc., in 
 support of the Hebrew masculine, e^nd decides it to be the true reading^ 
 and that consequently the Vulgate ought to be amended to accord witli 
 the Hebrew. 
 
 In his paragraph summing up the evidence, as a Latin writer, he, of 
 course, interprets the Hebrew masculine by its legitimate Latin e(iuiva- 
 lents in this passage, namely. Ipse, Ipsiiin, just as an English writer 
 would do by He or //, as we find in our Hebrew-English Lexicons 
 already mentioned. Yet my opponent would have us believe that 
 DeRossi is here discriminating between the readings of the Latin Vul- 
 gate, which form but a fractional part of the evidence under review. 
 DeRossi fortunately had not " Ipsuin on the brain," and he surely would 
 be amused to fmd his translation of the Hebrew IIu here taken for evi- 
 dence of the existence of Ipsuni in manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate. 
 My opjionent might with as much reason hold up his Hebrew-English 
 Lexicon containing Hh, He or It as evidence for the same conclusion. 
 Herein lies the mare's nest of which 1 warned my opponent; and, if he 
 had not been so ignorant as to suppose there were three genders in 
 Hebrew or so hard pushed to find something to cover his retreat, he 
 would not have disgraced himself by parading it. 
 
^J 
 
 ippendix D, 
 
 153 
 
 PkINTKR'S EkROK tN WOKDSWORTH GrKEK TESTAMENT, 
 
 ^^y opixjiieut, in jjrossly abusive style (Reprint, p. 114) pretends tiiat 
 what is evidently a printer's error in IMsiiop Wordsworth's Commentary 
 on Rom. xvi. 20 ((pioling Cornelius a Lapide) alters the sense. Cor- 
 iitlius prints the Hebrew prononn first in Hebrew letters and then in 
 Kiij,disli //«, this I In the printer has mistaken for Hie, the Latin for this. 
 What does it matter? The Bishop's object in (piotinjj from Cirnelius 
 was to show that as S. Jerome says S. Paul was alluding:; to the Protevan- 
 nclium (Gen. iii. 15) when he said "the God of Peace shall bruise Satan 
 iiiuler your leet shortly," and Cornelius cannot make the modern Viili^ate 
 nadinj^ "She shall bruise, etc.," suit the comment, he has to admit that 
 tile Hebrew original refers to the "Seed of the woman," viz.: Christ, 
 ///(' (iod of Peace, to whom S. Paul (who knew both the Hebrew and the 
 Siptuagint Greek) refers, and not to the Virj;in. It is well my opi)onent 
 sluiuld mark his Cornelius here since he can scarcely find stronjjer nn- 
 dcsii^iied A(>ostolic testimony against the corrupt reading Ipsa, in Gen. 
 iii. 15, than this admission of Cornelius with regard to S. Paul's assertion. 
 
 E. — Page iSj. 
 
 List of Somk ok the Spurious Writings on the Cultus ok the 
 Virgin Attrihuted to Early Fathers of the Church. 
 
 (Collected from Pusey's /urenicon, Vols. I. and IL, Tyler's Worship 
 of the Vir^^iu, Pellicia's Polity of the Church, Bingham's Antiquities, 
 Articles Mary, &c., in Smith's BUyle Dictionary, Smith and Cheetham's 
 Diet. Christian Antiq., and Smith and Wace's Diet. Christian Biog.) 
 
 2nd Century. Melito (or to S. John Divine himself) The De 
 Transitu Virginis Alaritc Litter, embodying the gnostic and Collyridian 
 traditions relative to the death of Mary, though condemned as heretical 
 by Pope Gelasius (494 A. D.) was attributed in the 6th or 7th century to 
 oidier S. John or Melito. 
 
 3rd Century. Gregory Thanmaturgus. Three sermons on the 
 Festival of the Annunciation of the Ble' sed Virgin. 
 
 iVethodius. Oration on the occursus or meeting of Simeon and 
 Anna. A forgery subsequent to the days of Photius (9th cent.) 
 
 4th Century. Athanasius. Sermon on the Occursus or Feast of the 
 Purification. Sermon on the Festival of the Annunciation. Two Ser- 
 mons on the Assumption of the Virgin. 
 
 Jerome. A letter on the possibility of the Assumption of the Virgin. 
 
 Eusebius. An interpolation in Eusebius' Chronicle that the Blessed 
 Virgin was assumed into heaven, A. D. 48. 
 
154 
 
 Apfycndix E. 
 
 Cyril of Jcrusahtit. Oration on tlie I'lirificatioii of tlic Virjpn, 
 
 Aiiiphi/oi/iins. Oration on tlie rurification of the Virgin. 
 
 (,'it\i;<>ry A'yssru. Oration on liit- I'nrilication of tlic \'ir^;in. 
 
 Ambrose. Oration on tlie Piiritication of tlie Virgin. Otlur early 
 writers are said to liavt- |)ri.'ache(l on tliis I'Vstival, tlioii^li the listival 
 was not instituted till 541 or 542 A. I). 
 
 /''piphixiiiiis. Sermon on the Synaxis, or Meeting of the Motlu r of 
 (iod with Joseph, her sponse. (A ninth century l''estival at earliest). 
 Also A Panejjyric on the Theotokos. 
 
 5th Century, .luiiustini'. A treatise on the Assumption of the Vir};in. 
 (See App.J.) Sermon on the Nativityof the Vir};ni, founded on thej;nuslic 
 I'rotevanjjelium — j^ospel of the ISirth of Mary, repuiliated by the early 
 church as t;nostic, but which crept into the church after the sixth cen- 
 tury. Tojie Benedict XIV. (1740-58 A. D.) says: "The story of Mary'.s 
 nativity is drawn frotn turbid hnmlaius!'' 'Phis sermon is still (luoted in 
 the Roman lireviary, Sept. 8, :.s authentic. 
 
 Peter C/irysolojiUS. Sermons on the Anmmciation possibly by Abj). 
 Felix, his successor at Ravenna, A. I). 70S, or more probably by I'eter 
 Damien, of the nth century. 
 
 6th Century. Aimslasiiis of Sinai. Two .sermons on the Anninicia- 
 tion, probably by Anastasius Abbas of the Sth century. 
 
 The Roman Catholic Editor of the second American edition of 
 Lij^uori's Glories of Mary admits that the work De lixcelloilia 
 Virginis., tjuoted by Lij^uori as from the pen of S. Anselm (nth cen- 
 tury) is now considered not to be his. He might also have added tliat 
 very few of Liguori's ipiotations from Ephraim, Augustme, Chrysostum, 
 Ambrose, and other early Fathers are now allowed to be authentic. 
 
 F. — Paf^e 61. 
 A Comparison Bktwkkn the Gkniink and the Sitrious VV^orks ok 
 
 El'HRAIM. 
 
 The following are a few ciuotations from the genuine Syriac works of 
 St. Ephraim bearing upon the teaching of Gen. iii. 15. They are in tlie 
 form of Rhythms and are full of poetical ideas. In his rhythms on the Na- 
 tivity of Jesus Christ he recounts and explains the Old Testament types. 
 In the first rhythm he thus alludes to Aaron's rod. " Him (/. c., Christ) 
 " Aaron looked for, for he saw that if his rod ate up serpents, His cross 
 " would eat the serpent that had eaten Adam and Eve." In Rhythm 5 011 
 the Nativity he thus compares Christ with David: "David, Thy fatlur 
 " for a lamb's sake slaughtered a lion. Thou, O Son of David, hast killed 
 "the unseen wolf that murdered Adam, the simple lamb who fed and 
 "bleated in Paradise." In the same Rhythm S. Ephraim represents the 
 
Appendix K 
 
 IS5 
 
 women addressing the Babe in prayer and not the Virgin, saying "O 
 IJifssed Fruit, l)orn without in;irriaj;c, l)loss the fruit of our \voinb«." 
 
 ill Riiytlnn 3, on the type ot Da^on faUiug in tl»e presence of tiie 
 Ark, he vims writes: " In tiie Arte a iJooV: was iiidden tiiat cried and pro- 
 " claimed concerning ///<• Coiu/neror ! * * * lUessed is he who by 
 "the True I.amb redeemed us, anil destroyed our desiroyer as He did 
 "Uagon." \n the same Rhythm he writes: "The oKl wolf (Satan) 
 "saw the sucking Lamb (the llabe at bethlehem) and trembled before 
 "Him." 
 
 Rhythm 8 will well bear repeating : " Kve lifted up iier eyes from 
 "Hades, and rejoiced in that day (/. c, of Christ's birth) because tlie 
 "SON of her daughter as a medicine of life came down to raise up the 
 " mother of I IIS mother. B/essed liabe thai bruised the head 0/ the scr- 
 "■ pent that smote her (/. c, Eve) ! " 
 
 In Rhythm 50, " on the Faith, against the Disputers," he writes : " He 
 "(the wicked one) it was that envied Adam, and his ciiildren, he de- 
 "ceived iiim with fair words that he migiit perish, and mocked all gen- 
 "rations. * * * Glory to HIM that slew him." 
 
 Now, compare these scriptural teachings with the much more recent 
 devotions, foisted upon so excellent an author as .S. Ejihraim, which my 
 "opponent (juotes: "Hail Paradise of delights (/. 6-., the Virgin.) Hail 
 "tliou pure one who hast crushed the head of the most wicked dragon 
 "and hurled him bound with chains into the abyss." 
 
 Observe to what lengths this rash writer ventures. It cannot be con- 
 tended by the most audacious of minimizers that the Virgin is here re- 
 KMrded only as one of the redeemed of Christ, of whom S. Paul's adap- 
 tation of Gen. iii. 15 is true, " Tlie God of peace shall bruise Satan under 
 your feet shortly ; " both God and Christ are lost sight of in the com- 
 ment and the Virgin is revealed not only as immediately and aloue 
 crushing the dragon's head, but as performing the work of the stronger 
 than the strong, which Christ in parable claimed as his own, vi/.: bind- 
 ing Satan in chains; and as hurling him down into the abyss — an al- 
 mighty act attributed by both S. PeterandS.Jude to the Omnipotent God 
 Himself. 
 
 Internal evidence alone then (though there is plenty of other) must 
 convince the most superficial of readers that the Ephraim of the 
 Rhythms above iiuoted was certainly not the author of this miserable 
 impiety. 
 
 The old Fathers had too much reverence for God and His Incarnate 
 Son, thus to pervert Goiys Word, and "give Gou's glory to another," 
 they had too much regard for truth and for the Blessed Theotokos her- 
 self to Hatter her with praises, which, if she could hear them, would only 
 displease her trutiiful, holy soul. 
 
 The connnent of tiie pseudo liraim on Gen. iii. 15, supplied by my 
 opponent, can only be explainet. .^y being e.xplained away. She figures 
 there 
 
t56 
 
 Appendix G. 
 
 (i) As the nniiscr of the Serpent's liead; 
 
 \2) As the stroiijjer tlian tl\o sltoiiK man armed wliom slie Mmls in 
 cliaiiis ; 
 
 (3) As tile Alminlily one ulio hnrls Satan into ''te abyss. 
 
 Then wliy not adapt i Jolni iii. S in her favour and say : " Tlie BKssed 
 Virgin was manifested that siie migiit destroy the works of the Devil" ? 
 
 (1. — Page iV/. 
 
 A Ficw Comments on Mr. R. F. (ii'ioLEv's Rook Which Aitkakkd i\ 
 THK St. John (•'a-jcfic, Fkd. 3. 1891. 
 
 HOLY WAK. 
 
 (To the Ktlilor of tlic Cazetif.] 
 
 Sir : I laving noticed in the public prints several favorable rom- 
 ments upon a theoloj^ical work which has very recently issned nndir 
 the editorship of a St. John lawyer, and been connnended from the 
 puli)its of some of our city churches, I bethought myself to have a look 
 at its contents, and enjoy, if possible, the charms of somewhat uiuisiial 
 literary etfort, and the display of forensic art in an unaccustomed arena. 
 
 For some eighteen pages, not however without an occasional (jualni 
 at the expressions of the editor, I sailed along a comparatively ck.ir 
 and placid stream of highly respectable l-nglish, with intermittent French 
 ancT Latin, hoping to be gratified with a pleasant passage over the vasty 
 folios still before me. Suddenly, however, the stream became turbid, and at 
 page 19, began tocast up mire and dirt. The pleasure of my literary e.xciir- 
 sion ceased; argument seemed to have given way to vituperation, and 
 the saintly editor to have lost that hold upon the reins which language 
 invariably recjuires to keep it decent. 
 
 So, I betook myself to looking through the volume to ascertain 
 whether or not I could find again the clearer water which the stream 
 could boast at its fountain ; but alas I was doomed to disappointment. 
 Mud seemed to have the upperhand everywhere, and the traditional 
 habit of the lawyer, (''no defence, abuse the plaintill's attorney,") 
 to have overmastered the hoped-for gentleness, (not to say genteel- 
 ness) of the quasi-theologian. 
 
 To illustrate what I thus state, I purpose to mass together some of 
 the expressions from which my, perhaps over-sensitive, nature shrank. 
 
 E. G. page 19. "Another bottle of fog," "the shriek of a lost spirit, or 
 the scream of a drunken Beelzebub." 
 
 20. "This yclept priest," " bloated, spungy shams." 
 
 24. "Here commences with malicious earnestness that career ol 
 fraud, falsehood and dishonesty, etc.," "has branded him with the mark 
 Cain," " his infamy," " crimes here charged against him." 
 
Appendix G. 
 
 157 
 
 26. " Petty malice," "insatiable vanity," "solemn self-conceit," "dc- 
 hnsinK CROtisin." 
 
 27. "I'lieoioKJcal charlatan," "relij;ii)us dwarf," "cowardly insiiuia- 
 lioii," " vajjue declamation," "insult and scurrillity." 
 
 ■S\. "Miserable fallacies," "wretched so|)i\istries," " faiifaronadrs," 
 " l);irefaced, cowardly and dishonest, ignoring and malicious putting 
 aside." 
 
 43. " Presumptuous pretensionsness," " little shifts," "miserabk" sub- 
 terfuges," " master in the art of suppression and missstatement," 
 "simply so conteniptii)le," " steeped to tiie lips in vanity and conceit." 
 
 The above are average specimens of the manner in which this much 
 rcconnnended theological work is bespattered for 364 pages. 
 
 At page 365, we come to the Rebutter, new matter which has not 
 appeared before. And here the editor breaks out with fresli delight of 
 rancour thus : " 1 have made his name a watchword of infamy * * * 
 forever;" "malignity," "meanness," "platitude." "perversity," "de- 
 crepitude of cankered intelligence." "desperation of humiliated vanity," 
 " pseudo jiriest," "lachrymose jeremiad," "a whipped school-boy." 
 
 377. "Infamous deceit," "old Catholic jackanapes," "ritualistic 
 Thersites," "convicted liars," "bloated with falsehood and calumny and 
 scarred by infamies." 
 
 378. " Balaam's ass," " malevolently ignorant head ; " " insolent 
 attempt," " unclean spirit of malice and calunmy." 
 
 379. "Audacious ignorance," "wretched j^ilferer of scraps and retailer 
 of exploded cahmmies," "a wind-bag and foot-ball," "his contemptible 
 cowardice," "low vulgarity and basene.ss of the poltroon," "and now 
 howls ! " 
 
 And not to pile up more such trash, which sullies almost every i>age, 
 we wind up at 452 with "the veriest ritualistic Theocrines," "unfortun- 
 ate man," "the inner crust of his malicious soul ! " 
 
 Melhinks the church that boasts from her pulpits of such apologists 
 must be badly off for defenders. 
 
 1 turn with disgust from forensic theology, and leave such a book 
 to those for whose taste it seems to have been specially adapted. 
 
 Catholic I-avman. 
 
 St. John, Feb. 3. 
 
 H. — rage S9. 
 
 Mktiiodius on Rev. xii., t-6 
 
 Methodius, in his Symposium (The Bantpiet of the Ten Virgins) 
 Discourse viii. by Thekla, Chaps. IV. — XI II., discusses at length the 
 meaning of Rev. XII., i — 6. Here then we should expect to find (if he 
 were the author of the Oration on the Purification) the Hlessed Virgin 
 
^58 
 
 Appendix H. 
 
 occupying his full attention, since this is the passage Romanists 
 adduce as authority for representing tiie Virgin resplendent with 
 the sun, crowned vvitli twelve stars, standing on the moon, witli 
 tiie dragon beneath her feet. Yet Methodius does not even men- 
 tion the Virgin in this connection ; he contends with many of the ancients 
 that " the woman " is the Church, that the " man-child ' means her 
 ciiildren born of water in the image of the true man Christ, and not 
 Christ Himself (Chap. vii). 
 
 On this the editor of the American Ed. of Clarke's Lib., Vol. vi., p. 
 355) has the following interesting Elucidation: " Wt^rdsworth and many 
 others of tiie learned sustain our author's comment on this passage. So 
 Acpiinas, ad loc, Bede, and many others. Methodius is incorrectly 
 represented (Speaker's Connnentary) as rcjeciin^e; the idea that " llie 
 woman" is the IHessed Virgin Mary, for no such idea existed for him to 
 reject. He rejects the idea that the man-child is Christ; but that idea 
 was connected vvitii the supposition that the woman was the Church of 
 the Hebrews bringing forth Messiah. Gregory the Great regards tlie 
 woman as the Christian Church. So Hippolytus: "By the woman 
 * * * is meant most manifestly the Church, endued witii the Father's 
 " Word, whose brigiitness is above the sun," etc. Rossuet says candidly : 
 " C'est I'Eglise, tout dclatante de la lumiere de J. C," etc. 
 
 " Now, note the progress of corruption, one fable engendering anotiier. 
 The text of Gen. iii., 15, contrary to the Hebrew, the LXX., the Syriac, 
 and the Vulgate itself, in the best MSS., is made to read, " She sliall 
 bruise thy head, etc." The " woman," therefore, becomes the tnolher ul 
 our Lord, and the " great red dragon " (of verse 3) from which llie 
 woman " lied into the wilderness," is next represented as tinder her feet 
 (where the moon appears in the sacred narrative); and then the Innnacu- 
 late Conception of her Holy Seed is transferred back to the mother of 
 Mary, who is indecently discussed, and atTirmed to have been blest with 
 an " Innnaculate Conception " when, in the ordinary process of nature, 
 she was made the mother of the Virgin." 
 
 \. — Page 78. 
 The Latk Dr. Littlei^alk and the Eccentric Rishop of the 
 
 NEW ORDER OK CORPORATE REUNION, Dr. LEE. 
 
 Mr. Qnigley very foolishly gives in his Appendix Dr. Lee's silly tirade 
 against Plain Reasons, which made that writer a laughing stock among 
 students when it appeared. He reprints it moreover ati^T the following 
 appeared in the Globe of June 29, 1889, which is scarcely hbnest on his 
 part : — 
 
 As a matter of fact the fire of hostile criticism upon Littledale's Plain 
 Reasons Against Joining the Chureh of Rome has tended to strengthen 
 
^J 
 
 \ppcndix I. 
 
 159 
 
 its arguments. Nothing so lielped it as tlie plausible, but utterly iiiaile- 
 (|iiate so-called reply to it under Father Ryder's editorship. Anyone 
 who will take the trouble to read the matter under " Adtlitioiis and Cor- 
 rections" affixed to the 1881 edition (incorpomted in the te.xt of tiie 
 later editions), will find that the corrections are few and unimportant, 
 while the additions are crushing to the Roman claims. What, then, are 
 we to think of a critic who, in !;is eflbrts to burke the trulli, actually 
 takes the trouble to count the words of all the '" Additions and Correc- 
 tions," no matter whether for or against the Roman claims, in order to 
 l)arade them as " 13,340 worc!s of errata " ? 
 
 I will give the public a few specimens of Littledale's "additions," 
 which my opponent is pleased to believe weaken his indictment against 
 i-'omanism. 
 
 " P. 18, foolnote, after line 3, insert ' The flesh of the Virgin was con- 
 " ceived in original sin, and, therefore, contracted these defects. But the 
 " llesh of Christ took its nature, pure of fault, from the Virgin.' S. 
 Thomas Aquinas, Sunima "III. .\iv., 3." 
 
 Most readers would think this passage from Aquinas corroborated 
 S. Bernard's crushing testimony against the modern dogma of the Im- 
 maculate Conception, given on p. 18, but my opponent has a process of 
 reasoning peculiarly his own. 
 
 The next example of an " addition " I quote for the double reason 
 that it strengthens Littledale's argument against .Saint worship, and at 
 the same time refutes the only apparently strong point in my opponent's 
 defence of the same. 
 
 " P. 29, after line 3, insert this paragraph : There are certain Divine 
 manifestations in the Old Testament, technically known as ' Thcophanics' 
 i. c, 'appearances of God,' which have been cited in defence of Saint 
 and Angel worship, because of the acts ©f homage done by those to 
 whom they were granted. Such are : Abraham's vision of the Three 
 Men (Gen. xviii. i); Jacob's wresMng at Peniel (Gen. xx.xii. 26); Moses 
 at the burning bush (Ex. iii. 2); and Joshua with the Captain of the Lord's 
 host (Josh. V. 13, 14). Two opinions are held as to these : either that 
 they are indirect revelations of God throngli the medium of created 
 angels, which is, naturally enough, tlie Jewish view ; tiie other, and more 
 Christian one, is that they are veiled manifestations of the Second Per- 
 son of the Holy Trinity, which is strengthened in two of the cases (Gen. 
 xviii. I and Ex. iii. 2) by theuseof the incommunicable Name ofy<'/r(?r'(j//, 
 never imparted to any created being — a fact which St. Augustine, our 
 chief authority for the first opinion, was not likely to have noticed, as be- 
 ing ignorant of Hebrew. But whichever view be taken, it will no help 
 Saint or Angel worship now, because the only Theophany under the 
 gospel is the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. No Saint or Angel 
 can henceforward represent Him, or be clothed with His attributes, nor 
 
i6o 
 
 Appendix I. 
 
 can such a thing be even imaghied." Does my opponent contend that 
 this addition of Littledale's weakens his case against Rome ? * * * 
 
 Again— How does tiiis addition serve Romanism? P. 34, end uf 
 page, add : " It is not till the ci^i^hth century that Roman Controversial- 
 ists can find any clear precedents for the modern practice, for all earlier 
 examples cited will prove on examination either to attest only the hulief 
 that the Saints do in fact pray for and with us, not that we should pray 
 to them ; or, if going beyond this, to be either admittedly doubtful or no- 
 toriously spurious." 
 
 Again — What comfort can Romanists extract from this addition? 
 P. 53, add : "In the porch of one of these churches, S. Maria delle (ira- 
 zie, close to the Vatican, the text, Heb. iv. 16, is set up in large, perman- 
 ent letters, with this important change : ' Let us come to the throne of 
 the Virgin Mary^ instead of 'throne of grace,' as it stands in the Bible." 
 
 Again — My opponent, may be, esteems this "addition " very consola- 
 tory to Romanists. 
 
 P. 71, add: "And it is a very remarkable fact that the first great step 
 taken towards the cultus of the Blessed Virgin came, not from any 
 Saint, but from one of the most notorious heretics and evil-doers in 
 Church history, Peter the Fuller, intruded Patriarch of Antioch in the 
 fift entury, etc." 
 
 Again — P. 72, subjoin : "A subordinate form of this argument is tiial, 
 as all reverence paid to the Blessed Virgin is clue to her relation to her 
 Divine Son, it is, in fact, honor paid to Him, and passes on to Him 
 through her as its medium. This plea is shut out by the fact that the 
 proposition ' praise offered to Mary, as Mary, is vain,' was condenuied 
 by Alexander VIII., on Dec. 7, 1690." 
 
 Now, let it be observed that there are 28 pages of " Additions and 
 corrections" to Littledale's 1881 edition of Plain Reasons, and that I 
 have .selected the above extracts from the first six of them only, because 
 they bear upon our present subject. They are fair specimens of the way 
 in which they all (with very few exceptions) strengthen the case against 
 Rome. 
 
 Now, I ask : What must have been the animus or mental condition 
 of the man who could conceive and carry out the idea of actually count- 
 ing up the words of these crushing arguments against Rome in order to 
 stigmatize a popular book against Romanism as utterly untrustwortiiy 
 because it contains " 13,340 words of errata/" 
 
 Is this my op^ionent's idea of literary honesty ? Doubtless it did not 
 suit his purpose to verify Dr. Lee's references a>id charges. 
 
 Be that as it may, however, if he can excuse himself from the guilt of 
 deliberate fraud, he must nevertheless share the ridicule heaped upun 
 the crafty, if not crazy, doctor. * * * 
 
 My opponent would now do well to compare Littledale and Ryder by 
 the aid of an excellent criticism on Ryder's book to be found in the 
 
Appendix I. 
 
 i6i 
 
 Cliurch Quarterly Review (Englisli) for July, 1881, a short extract from 
 wliicli I now copy from its concliidiiig words : 
 
 "We have thus tested Father Ryder's Reply — or rather, as we have 
 "already more than hinted, the joint reply of the collective Angio- 
 " Roman theologians — to Dr. Littledale's Plain Reasons, and our 
 "judgment is that it is cleverly and plausibly, it not very scrupulously, 
 " written for the special class of readers to whom we may fairly assume 
 " lliat it is addressed, and that it does, in its quality of an attack, pick a 
 "few minor holes here and there, which will involve the rewriting of 
 " half a dozen paragraphs in any future editions of Plain Reasons, leav- 
 • ing the amended indictment no whit weaker, nay, yet stronger than it 
 " is now. But, from the defensive and constructive side, the Reply 
 "breaks down altogether, and fails to meet the really crucial difficulties 
 "of the controversy — a fact somewhat obscured for untrained minds by 
 " the (perfectly ; itimate) strategy of adopting a different arrangement 
 "from that of tl l)Ook it undertakes to refute, so that the omission or 
 " the mere perfunctory touching, of the dangerous places does not at 
 "once strike the eye. It does nothing to make Papal supremacy or 
 ' Infallibility more probable, nothing to establish tliat claim to 'certainty' 
 "challenged in Plain Reasons, nothing to clear up the doubts as to the 
 "succession in the Roman set, nothing to purge the Papacy, as a system, 
 " from the charges alleged against it ; nor have we any reason to suppose 
 "that Father Ryder himself thinks otherwise. Those who seek in its 
 "armoury weapons for these purposes will find themselves dis- 
 " appointed." 
 
 Readers of Littledale's Plain Reasons Ai^ainst Joining the Church oj 
 Rome, then, may feel perfectly happy about its trustworthiness. It still 
 remains the most admirable multum in pa>~co we possess for general 
 readers on the Roman controversy.* 
 
 ].— Pagc 153. 
 Origin of the Feast of the Assumption. 
 
 The doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, though not 
 defined by authoriiiy, is universally taught and held in the Roman 
 church, and, indeed, has become really necessary if the dogma of the 
 hnmaculate Conception and the Virgin's position as "queen of heaven" 
 "at the Right Hand of her Son," "placed by God between Christ and 
 the Church," is to be successfully maintained. 
 
 Yet en what grounds of revelation does it stand ? On absolutely 
 none. All that can be said for it is that it seems reasonabl(i that, if 
 
 * Those who woiikl hke to go deeper into some of its points should secure Littled.ile's Words 
 for Truth (8th edition, 1890) and his Fctrine Claims (S. P, C. K., 1889). 
 
l62 
 
 Appendix J. 
 
 Enoch and Elijah, forerunners of tlie Messiah, were transhitcd from earth 
 without seeing corruption of tlicir bodies, tlie motlier of tiie Redeemer 
 ought not to be less honored. It seems fit, certainly, to mere human 
 reason that the body which bore the Son of God should, like His own 
 body, see no corruption. lUit to affirm that, therefore, it was so without 
 a revelation on the subject from God is to be wise above that which is 
 written. It is on this sort of rationalistic principle that so many pecu- 
 liar doctrines of Romanism rest. The documentary evidence fur the 
 belief that Mary's body was taken up into heaven after her death is as 
 follows: In the 3rd or 4th century there was composed a book em- 
 bodying the Gnostic and Collyridian traditions as to the death of 
 S. Mary, called De Transitu Viriiiiiis iMaricc Liber. There are tiiree 
 versions of the story to be found in Clark's Ante-Nicene Library, Vol. 
 XYI. In summary the main points are: That about the year 48 A. 1)., 
 either at Jerusalem or Bethlehem, the Blessed Virgin was warned by an 
 angel of her approaching death ; that she entreated Jesus to allow the 
 Apostles to be witnesses of it ; that, in answer to her prayer, Jesus 
 caused that all the Apostles scattered throughout the world on their 
 several missions among the heathen were suddenly snatched up from the 
 ministerial work in which they were engaged and carried on clouds to 
 the house of Mary ; that they were astonished at meeting one another 
 and conmiunicated with the Virgin regarding what she sairl was about to 
 happen. On the day of her death Jesus, with multitudes of angels, ap- 
 peared and carried eft" her soul. The Apostles, with a great procession, 
 conveyed the Virgin's bcjdy away for burial to a new tomb. Several 
 curious incidents and miracles occurred by the way, but when the body 
 was laid to rest Jesus and His angels again appeared and raised tiie 
 body from the grave and sent it to paradise to be united with its soul. 
 S. Thomas, who was late on the scene, having stopped to finish some- 
 thing he was about in India, refused, doubter that he was, to believe 
 what the Apostles told him about Mary's resurrection, and so S. Peter 
 scolded him and took liim to the grave and opened it, whereupon it was 
 discovered that in place of the body the grave was full of sweet smelling 
 flowers. The Apostles were then dispersed on clouds to their several 
 mission stations. (In my fine quarto edition of the Breviary, dated 
 Antwerp, 1724, p. 902, opposite August 15th, is a plate representing the 
 incident, some of the Apostles are looking up after the ascending 
 Virgin, while some are looking into the sarcophagus admiring the 
 flowers cropping out of it.) 
 
 The fables are long and embellished with many ludicrous details ; I 
 do but give the main outlines. 
 
 But now, notice: Down to the end of the 5th century this story was 
 regarded by the church as a Gnostic or Collyridian fable and the Liber 
 de Transitu was condemned as heretical by a decree attributed to Pope 
 
Appendix J. 
 
 163 
 
 Gelasius (A. D. 494). In the 6lh century, however, a great change 
 passed over the sentiments and tlie theology of the church in reference 
 to the Theotokos, as a reaction doubtless against the Nestorian heresy, 
 and 'the cultus of Mary was seen in embryo. In consequence of this 
 change of sentiment during the 6th and 7th centuries (or later) the 
 ("inostic fable was introduced into the church under the name of Melito, 
 a Bishop of Sardis in the 2nd century, while some attributed it to S. 
 John the Divine himself. In addition to this a letter suggesting the pos- 
 sibility of the Assumption appeared over the name of the great S. 
 Jerome, and a treatise to prove it not impossible was composed and 
 attributed to the great S. Augustine. Two sermons supporting the belief 
 were palmed ofT upon the church as from the pen of S. Athanasius, 
 while an interpolation was made in Eusebius's Chronicle that "in the 
 year 48 Mary the Virgin was taken up into heaven, as some wrote that 
 they had it revealed to them." Thus the authority of S. John, of Melito, 
 of Athanasius, of Eusebius, of Augustine and Jerome was obtained for 
 the belief by a series of forgeries, and the Gnostic legend, already con- 
 demned by an authoritative decree, was passed into^the church as 
 orthodox. 
 
 I need trace the history of this Romish doctrine with its festival no 
 further. A full account of it may be found in Smith and Cheetham's 
 Diet. Antiquities, pp. 1 142-3, fcom which I have quoted and gathered 
 my facts. 
 
 K. — Pas;c 144. 
 
 TnK AnnK Lahorde's Letter to Pius IX. — English Translation 
 Taken From The Ecclesiastic, Vol. 16 (1854 A. D.) pr. 504-509. 
 
 The Abb^ Laborde, of Lectoure, is one of the most eminent divines 
 among the now enfeebled, but still existing Galilean Party in the French 
 Church: the party which produced a Gerson and a Hossuet ; we might 
 almost say a S. Bernard. He is favourably known by his two works La 
 Croyance iL rii>iniaciilCc Conception dc la Sainte Viciffe lie pent devcnir 
 doffute de foi : and his IJ Eglise Gallicanc et ses ina.riines vendees contre 
 les attaques de M. le Cointe de Montalembert et de tout le parti. The 
 letter' however, which he has lately addressed to the Court of Rome, is 
 so remarkable a production, not only for its clear statements of tlu- 
 grounds why the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception cannot become 
 an Article of Faith, but for the boldness wiUi which it asserts those 
 grounds, that we think our readers will be interested in perusing it with- 
 out abbreviation. 
 
 1 Lettre a N. S. P. le Pape Pie IX., sur rimpossibilitiC d'lin noiivoau dogme de Foi. Fraii- 
 (als et Latin. Paris : Dentu, 1854. The Latin is vilely printed. 
 
164 
 
 Appendix K. 
 
 '■\Most Holy Fathev: 
 
 "Our Lord Jesus Christ, vvlien He was about to leave this world, 
 commanded His Apostles that they should go and teach all nations, 
 baptizing them and teaching them to observe all things whatsoever Me 
 had commanded them. In order that they might carry out that ollice 
 perfectly and unconiiuerably, He also promised that the Holy (ihosl 
 should be present to them, and should dwell in them. The Spirit of I he 
 Truth, He s/ia/l testify of life, and shall hrinj^ all thiii,i>s to your remem- 
 brance 'whatsoever 1 have said unto you. 
 
 " Christ fulfilled His promise. And when the blessed Apostles had 
 been filled with the Holy (ihost, they preached everywhere on the 
 house-top that which they had heard in the ear; the Lord working with 
 them, and confirming His Word with signs following. 
 
 " ' We have then for the Authors of our Faith the Apostles of the 
 Lord, who did not select that which they should introduce into it, ac- 
 cording to their own fancy ; but faithfully transmitted to the nations the 
 discipline which they had received from Christ.' (Tertull. de Tra- 
 scriptione 6). >k)w, this sum of the doctrine of Christ transmitted by the 
 Apostles to each Church as it was founded, to be guarded by it, and un- 
 til the last day to be successfully handed on from hand to hand, tliis is 
 the Catholic Faith ; this is that deposit of our Faith of which the Apostle 
 writes to Timothy ; O Timothy , keep the 'deposit, avoidin,ir profane and 
 vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called, ivhich some 
 professing have erred concerning the faith. 
 
 "This deposit, then, of the Faith, is transmitted by the Apostles of 
 Jesus Christ to all Timothies, that is to all who fear God, to be in such 
 wise kept, that they might add nothing, might take away nothing, might 
 change nothing, might mingle nothing that was alien, and that they 
 might not allow anything by any person to be added, taken away or 
 mingled. What more ? They who were the Authors of all religion 
 have forbidden us all. Masters as well as disciples, pastors as well as 
 Faithful, to receive anything so added, diminished, changed, 01 confused ; 
 and they have connnanded us, that if any man in any way should 
 teach otherwise than according to that which they transmitted from 
 the beginning, we should anathematize him. Ihit though ivc or an 
 Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that "which 
 we have preached mito you let him be anathema. As zee said before, so 
 say I now again, If any man preach any other Gospel unto you than that ye 
 have received, let him be anathema. It was on this account that a great 
 man, or rather all the successors of the Apostles the Fathers of the 
 Church, speaking by the mouth of one of themselves, have laid down 
 this law for us: 'To teach therefore anything to Catholic Christians be- 
 sides that which tiiey have received, never is lawful, never has been 
 lawful, never will be lawful; and to anathematize those who do teach 
 
Appendix K. 
 
 i65 
 
 anytliing besides that which has been once for all received, was always 
 a duty, is always a duty, will be always a duty.' And he presently 
 adds: 'Is tliere any one of such audacity, .is to teach anytliing besides 
 tiiat whicii has been already taught in the church ; orofsucii levity, as to 
 receive anything besides that which he has received from the Church ? 
 Tliat teacher of the Gentiles, that trumpet of the Apostles, he that was 
 the lierald of the world, he that had seen the mysteries of Heaven cries 
 out, and repeats to all, always, everywhere. * * * if any man shall 
 teach a new dogma, let him be anathema.' (Vincent. Lirin. Common. I.) 
 "The case standing tlius. Most Holy Father, who will not vvondertiiat 
 a new dogma is now announced to Catholic Ciiristians ; that a new ilog- 
 ma is now being forged at Rome? Is there not a widely spread report that 
 the world is threatened with a decree from your Blessedness,, by which 
 we are commanded to l)elieve that the Conception of the IJIessed Virgin 
 was immaculate? but this is precisely that thing wiiich the Apostle 
 calls rt profane novelty of words and science falsely so named ,' this is 
 precisely to preach to us another Gospel besides that which lias been 
 preaciied to us by Paul. 
 
 " For that Apostle, wiio has seen the mysteries of Heaven, never 
 preached to us tiiat the Blessed Virgin was immaculate in her Concep- 
 tion. He made not one single exception, and therefore included the 
 Blessed Virgin as well as all others when he said : 'For 7uhen we zvere 
 yet ~a'ithout strcni^th, in due time Christ died for the nnffodly : for scarcely 
 for a rijihteous man lOOuld one die ; yet peradvcnture for a 
 f^ood man, some ivould even dare to die.^ She was not therefore good, siie 
 was not therefore righteous — the Blessed Virgin for whom Christ died. 
 'By one man sin entered into the zvorld, and death by sin, and so death 
 passed upon all men, for that all have sinned — all; theref re also the 
 Blessed Virgin. The love of Christ constraineth us, because we thus 
 judge ; that if one died for all, then xvere all dead^ 
 
 " The ancient Fathers of the Church, successors of the chair of the 
 Apostles, legitimate interpreters of Scripture, themselves in their several 
 times the witnesses, guardians, oracles, of the tradition and faith of the 
 Church, have taught us that our Lord Jesus alone was without original 
 sin, because He alone was conceived without the seed of man, without 
 the embrace of man and woman ; but that Mary His blessed mother 
 had a body of sin, that is, was conceived in sin like all others. ' There 
 was therefore none other who could overcome these nets (the nets of 
 sin). For all have sinned, as it is written : As by one man, etc. And again : 
 None is pure from sin, even though his life be but of one day. Our Lord 
 and Saviour Jesus Christ therefore alone did no sin; but the Father made 
 Him sin for us, that in the likeness of sinful flesh anti coming from 
 sin, He might condemn sii He came therefore to these nets, but He 
 and He alone, could not be trken in them.' (Origen. Hom. in Cantic , 3) 
 
1 66 
 
 Appendix K. 
 
 ' He therefore was alone l)orn without sin, VViiom without the embrace 
 of man, tlie Virj^in conceived, not by tlie concupiscence of tlie flesh, l)ut 
 by the obedience of the mind. She only could prepare tlie medicine 
 for our disease, who produced an offspring without the wound of sin.' 
 (AuRUstin. de peccat. meritis, i. 19, 57). 
 
 " Here is tlie privilege of the Son, here is the privilege of the 
 Mother: He only was conceived without sin ; she only conceived with- 
 out sin. 
 
 " I le therefore alone, Who, being made man, remained God, never had 
 any sin, nor assumed a flesh of sin, although coming from a maternal flesh of 
 sin.' (Anguslin. de peccat. meritis ii. 24, 38.) 'All therefore are dead in 
 sins, without one single exception; sins, whether original or committed 
 voluntarily, either by ignorance or by knowing, and not doing that 
 which was righteous ; and for all that were dead, one that liveth died, 
 He Who iiad no sin whatever, to the end that they who live by the re- 
 mission of their sins, might henceforth not live to themselves, but to 
 Him that died for all. (Augustin. de Civitate Dei x.x. 6, i.) 
 
 "The rest of the Fathers unanimously teach the same doctrine. 
 
 " This, then. Most Holy Father,is the faith which we have received from 
 the beginning. As yet, to-day, 1854 years after Paul, it is not an Article 
 of Faith that the Blessed Virgin was free from original sin. If, therefore, 
 this becomes an Article to-morrow it will be a new Article. 
 
 "Together with the present letters, we send to your Holiness a vol- 
 ume in which we have demonstrated at length that which is here stated 
 in brief. That treatise exactly defines the period up to which it was 
 yet unheard of, that the Blessed Virgin was without original sin. The 
 doctor who first openly professed this opinion is there named ; and from 
 the progress of that opinion it is historically shown that this doctrine is 
 a new invention in the Church. We beseech you. Holy Father, seri- 
 ously to meditate the value of these arguments; your Holiness ought to 
 be aware of the unhappy results which must be occasioned by an at- 
 tempt to force a new dogma on Christendom. ' For we have no occasion 
 to indulge curiosity, since Jesus Christ came, nor to make new dis- 
 coveries since the Gospel was preached. When we believe, we desire 
 to believe nothing beyond this. For we believe first of all that there is 
 nothing beyond which we ought to believe.' (Tertul. de Praiscrip. 8.) 
 We cannot disobey the precepts of the Apostles. To acquiesce in new 
 dogmas of faith is unlawful. 
 
 " Most willingly, Holy Father, we confess that the Bishop of the first 
 See has the primacy of the whole Church ; we affirm that the Roman 
 PontiflT is the legitimate successor of S. Peter, and that the authority of 
 the former is as extensive as that of the latter. But we cannot forget 
 that a lime may come when it shall be necessary for Paul to resist Peter 
 to the face ; if it should so iiappen that he is to be blamed in not walk- 
 
Appendix K. 
 
 167 
 
 ing accordiii}; to thetnitli of the Gospel. Yon, Holy Father, are I'eter ; 
 we, that is, tiie body of Christian people, are Paul. If, therefore, yon 
 imitate Peter in not walkinjj according to tiie Kvanji;elic triitii, it innst lie 
 onr part to imitate Panl and to resist you to your face. And what can 
 be more opposed to walkinjj according to the truth than the announce- 
 ment of new dogmas ? ' We, certainly, following no one save Jesus Christ 
 as our principal Head, are associated with your blessedness, that is, 
 with the chair of Peter in communion. We know that the church is l)uilt 
 upon that rock, and we believe him to be profane who shall eat the 
 l.amb outside of this house;' so writes S. Jerome to S. Daniasus; but 
 we cannot forget the holy fortitude (jf mind with wliicli our Hilary, 
 Bishop of Poictiers, wrote to a certain sacrilegious Roman Pontiff: ' 1 
 say, anathema to thee, Liberius, and to thy companions. Again, and a 
 third time, anathema to thee, prevaricator, Liberius.' And here, blessed 
 Father, are the authentic and unadulterated decrees of the Sixth (ieii- 
 eral Council against one that was once Bishop of the first See : 'And. 
 together with these, we have cut off from the holy Catholic Church of 
 God, and have at the same time anathematized Honorius, who was 
 Pope of ancient Rome, because we find in his writings to Sergius, that 
 he in all things followed the mind and approved the impious dogmas of 
 the latter.' Here, holy Father, are the authentic acts of the Seventh 
 Ecunieniccal Council against the same: 'We also confess two wills and 
 two operations, according to the propriety of His natures in Christ; in 
 like manner, as the Si.xth Synod at Constantinople professed by accla- 
 mation, when it rejected Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Macarius, 
 and those who are without the desire of piety, and think with them ! ' 
 
 " And here, holy Father, is the authentic letter of another Bishop of 
 the first See, who also anathematizes that unworthy Bishop of the Ro- 
 man Church, and confirms the anathema of the Si.xth General Council ; 
 it is the letter of Leo \\. : 'In like manner we anathematize the inventors 
 of the new error: that is to say, Theodore, Bishop of Pharam; Cyrus, 
 Bishop of Alexandria ; Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, successors, rather 
 than Bishops, of the Church of Constantinople ; and also Honorius, who, 
 instead of adorning tliis Apostolic Church with the doctrine of Apostolic 
 tradition, endeavoured to overthrow the immaculate faith by profanely 
 betraying it.' Of all these things we may not be ignorant, nor yet of 
 many others of a similar kind, from the times of the Apostles to our 
 own days which it would be tedious to enumerate. Woe to those faith- 
 less shepherds, who, instead of confirming their brethren in the faith 
 (S. Luke xxii. 32) as they ought, have endeavoured to ruin the faith 
 itself I Woe to those shepherds, wolves in sheep's clothing, (S. Matt. 
 xvii. 15) who, after having received from Jesus Christ this holy com- 
 mand: 'Feed My Iambs, feed My sheep, (S.John xxi. 15, 18) have torn 
 with their teeth and their nails, both sheep and Iambs. May God keep 
 
 I 
 
i68 
 
 Appendix K, 
 
 you, beloved Fatlitr, from jvoin^ in tlieir vvivs M.v .1. i . 
 ■see the snares of tlie devil nr...w.. i '^ ^ .' '"■^- '• '7. 'f') tliat yon „,;,» 
 
 ;';ec.u.re., ,.y th^ i:i:t iiut^^" i^^^::'';;'' '-r--^ 
 
 i-Iattery does not cease to allure you u\ssertsd 7 ' '''n^""'' '' 
 «reat j,dory in the sight of nv,n \n 1 v^ll ' '!' '"" •'"'""' ^ 
 
 of the Hishnn ..f p . ^^'" ^■""'"''" t'>^' domination 
 
 are the w.Ies of the serpent, for should it happe o o r " '"' 
 to command the recention of «iw.|, . i '"I'P^" lo >our hlessedness 
 
 self not Ldorv I J, r ''"^"'"' >'''" ^^"' •'<^'l»'i'-e for y„ur- 
 
 .>->. n.m history, that thll'l^^^'o R:m: ^'^l^VoU ''' "'''"^' 
 ueak man, prone to sin, obnoxious to error nd th-„ i^ ,'"'"' '' 
 
 tl.at he may become a prevaricator in irho;L^.db:fd "'•""; 
 and endea\our to deceive deceived 
 
 ^^_ J Fur ,„y.,.ir, „„,, f„, ,„„,y „„,„ „^,^^,^ _^„j ,^^^^_^^^_^ ^^^^ _^^^^^^ ^^ .^^^ 
 
 "August ,3, ,854." "'^"" ^""'' '-*"°""-. »" LliCTOLKE. 
 
\W TMK SAMI-, AtTIIOR : 
 
 Papal Infallibility: 
 
 "CATHOLIC'S" Replies to 'Cleopiia; 
 
 .1- 
 
 TOGKTIIEU WITH A 
 
 Stkiktng Letter from " Clkoi'Has" since his 
 Secession from the Roman Church, 
 
 OCTC>BER, 1888. 
 
 fc- 
 
 ruui.iniKii iiY 
 
 J. iS: A. iMcMlLLAN, SAINT JOHN, N. R 
 
 ,■ ^ . -If,; . ...; ^ .,