A Continuation of Quigley ...
LETTER FROM REY. MR. CAMPBELL.
THE RECTORY, DORCHESTER, N. B., Nov. 29.
To the Editor of the Globe:
SIR,-In last evening's issue Mr. Quigley quotes three Latin versions of Gen. iii. 15; I have a Latin version of the whole Bible, including the Apocrypha - but wanting the title-page and the date - which agrees with no one of the three quoted. I send my reading to you merely as a contribution to the literature of the discussion. On the main argument I say nothing in this communication; for it may be fairly assumed that his Lordship will make Mr. Quigley a fitting reply.
But I would like to ask whether any of your readers have a copy of the same version; and, if they have. whether they will kindly state what version it is, with the date of publication? The verse reads thus: "Praeterea inimicitiam pono inter te et Mulierem hanc similiterq; inter semen tuum et semen hujus; hoc conteret tibi caput, tu autem conteres huic calcaneum."
Yours obediently,
J. ROY CAMPBELL.
LETTER FROM MR. DAVENPORT.
IPSE, IPSA, IPSUM.
To the Editor of the Globe:
SIR,- Surely Mr. Quigley is not correct in his criticism on Genesis iii. 15. He asks somewhat indignantly why Bishop Kingdon, in his lecture did not put the real state of the question before his hearers, and tell them the dispute was not between Ipse and Ipsa, but also between Ipsum. Where then is to be found a Latin version of the Bible with Ipsum in this passage ? I have never read of it in any commentary. Jerome's old Vulgate, made direct from the Hebrew, has the masculine Ipse - the modern Vulgate in spite of this has Ipsa. Where is the Ipsum? Because the English version speaks of the "Seed of the woman " as It, it must not be supposed that the neuter occurs in the Hebrew original, or in either the Greek or Latin versions thereof. It is not true that in speaking of the promised offspring of the woman as It, the English translators rejected Ipse, as Mr. Quigley says.
The "academic aspect of the question," to borrow Mr. Quigley's phrase, stands thus: The Hebrew has a masculine pronoun followed by a masculine verb "He shall bruise." It is true that if the pronoun stood alone without the vowel-pointing, as in the old style of writing Hebrew, it could not be told without looking at the verb what was its gender. About the verb (y'shuphcah), however, there is not and never has been a doubt because it begins with the masculine affix. Therefore the translators of the modern vulgate are without excuse in adopting a feminine translation of the pronoun, and thus doing- violence to the verb, more especially as they had the grand old vulgate of Jerome before their eyes to keep them right. So plain is the Hebrew here that the Septuagint translators (who accomplished their task three centuries before the coming of Christ), while adopting a neuter word sperma for "seed" nevertheless use a masculine pronoun autos here to represent it.
Bishop Kingdon’s statement, therefore, it seems to me, is not as Mr. Quigley says, "wholly incorrect and baseless," even if his "misapprehension be simply appalling" to Mr. Quigley.
I confess that if the Bishop asserted that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin was founded on a misprint, it was too bald and unqualified a statement. Many things helped to stereotype it besides this error. At the same time it must be borne in mind that this mistranslation has been long and much used in the Roman Church for the undue exaltation of the Holy Virgin, while it is very noteworthy that Pope Pius IX., when promulgating the Dogma in S. Peter's at Rome, December 8, 1854, alluded for its defence to this very text, and, moreover, afterwards set up a memorial column of the event in the city, on the top of which stands a figure of the Blessed Virgin (without the holy child, mark you, in her arms) trampling the serpent under foot. This representation of the bruising of the serpent's head by the woman, everybody knows has been for years and still is very common among Roman Catholics. Therefore it is no exaggeration to say that the modern vulgate mistranslation of Genesis iii. 15 has largely helped to smooth the way for the promulgation of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin.
There is one other point in Mr. Quigley's letter I cannot suffer myself to pass over unnoticed. In my opinion he would have been wiser in his own cause had he been less satirical about the neglect of the Holy Virgin by Christians outside the Roman Church. Who is to blame, let me ask, for their present attitude towards her? Who has rendered it well-nigh impossible for them to yield her her proper place and dignity as chief of saints? None other than the Roman Church herself, with her exaggerated and too often idolatrous devotions offered to her.
I must prove such a serious charge as this. I will take two well-known books, in use among Roman Catholics of all lands. "Liguori's Glories of Mary," and " The Raccolta." The first named is a book approved by the highest authorities of the Roman Church, and formally recommended to Anglo-Romans by Cardinals Wiseman and Manning. In that book are to be found such instructions as these: "Mary is our only refuge help and asylum." "Often we shall be heard more quickly, and be thus preserved, if we have recourse to Mary and call upon her name, than we should be if we called on the name of Jesus, our Saviour." "Many things are asked from God and are not granted; they are asked from Mary and are obtained." "At the command of the Virgin all things obey, even God." (Imperio Virginis omnia famulantur, etiam Deus.)
"The salvation of all depends on their being favored and protected by Mary. He who is protected by Mary will be saved; he who is not, will be lost. Mary has only to speak, and her Son executes all." (See Littledale, p. 55.)
In the second book mentioned are to be found devotions to the Virgin in keeping with these impious utterances.
When on a visit to Rome, in 1880, I purchased an English copy of the "Raccolta," at the Propaganda, in order to test the accuracy of Littledale's quotations. The "Raccolta" is a popular Roman manual of indulgenced devotions. My copy is dated, Woodstock College, Maryland, 1878. About 130 out of 450 pages are devoted directly to the Virgin, while she finds mention in nearly all the devotions. The following 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 worship thy most holy body; we venerate thy sacred swaddling clothes wherewith they bound thee, the sacred cradle," &c.
Prayer: "Most lovely child, who by Thy birth has comforted the world, made glad the heavens, struck terror to hell, brought help to the fallen, &c. . . . . We pray Thee with all fervent love, be Thou born again, in spirit in our souls, through Thy most holy love; renew our fervor in Thy service, rekindle in our hearts the fire of Thy love, and bid all virtues blossom there, which may cause us to find more and more favor 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."
Herein we find expressions of worship and supplication such as Christians are wont to present only to God, or the Incarnate Son, or the Holy Spirit. We could not say more at the cradle of Jesus, nor could we pay more honor to the Blessed Paraclete Himself than to beg Him to "rekindle in our hearts the fire of His love."
Now this book has on its title-page, "Published by order of His Holiness Pope Pius IX. Translation authorized and approved by the Sacred Congregation of Holy Indulgences"; while in the preface people are urged to use this book, because then they may feel perfectly assured the indulgences are all right.
The Roman Church, therefore, is thoroughly committed to this book with all its enormities.
Surely it is the duty of all lovers of "the truth as it is in Jesus," i.e., all true Catholic Christians, to come out of a church which puts its imprimatur upon such idolatrous worship as this, and it ill becomes one who accepts such extravagances to chide those who, for fear of them, fall short of their duty.
It ought to be remembered, in this connection, that the Church of England has preserved her balance well under the circumstances, and observes four feasts yearly in honor of the Holy Mother.
Yours faithfully,
JOHN M. DAVENPORT,
Priest of the Mission Church,
Portland, St. John, N. B.
November 28, 1887.
LETTER FROM MR. QUIGLEY.
To the Editor of the Globe:
SIR, - Two communications have appeared in your columns anent mine of Monday last, from writers with whom I had no quarrel. One purports to be an answer and a defense (?) of Bishop Kingdon. Surely the Bishop must feel - Non tali auxilio! Save me from my friends: I will look after my enemies myself!
"It may be fairly assumed" says the second writer, "that His Lordship will make .... a fitting reply." I think so too. The Bishop, deservedly no doubt, gets credit for "pluck " in more departments than one. He is also a man of honor, and recalling his own thought - "humanum est errare - to err is human" - often expressed during his lecture, will not, I think, hesitate to acknowledge his kinship with our common humanity, by making an amende honorable for his error touching the old church to which he owes at least fair play.
Respectfully yours,
R. F. QUIGLEY.
Ritchie's Building,
Friday Morning, Dec. 2d, '87.
LETTER FROM MR. DAVENPORT.
MR. QUIGLEY'S CRITICISMS ON BISHOP KINGDON’S LECTURE.
To the Editor of the Globe:
SIR,- It is as I suspected when I criticised hypothetically what was attributed to Bishop Kingdon by Mr. Quigley. The Bishop has been misrepresented.
Bishop Kingdon has not seen Mr. Quigley's letter, but he has kindly taken the trouble to give me the substance of his own remarks and also some quotations from his lecture. With regard to the Hebrew and Greek texts of Gen. iii. 15, he went over much the same ground as myself in my strictures on Mr. Quigley. He proved also from several of the chief Fathers of the Church that it was far from their mind to attribute the bruising of the Serpent's head to the Virgin; and simply said that the mistake ipsa for ipse had acquired a tremendous importance from being quoted in the promulgation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception by Pius IX. He neither said nor implied that "the dogma was founded on a misprint." I hope, therefore, now Mr. Quigley has been proved in error on every point, he will see his way to act upon his own recommendation which appeared in your to-day's issue. Mr. Quigley seems somewhat indignant that any one should notice his letters besides the person attacked. Why then did he appear in public? and why reproach people in general who refuse to worship the Virgin Mary?
In conclusion, allow me to draw the attention of your readers to a quotation made by Mr. Quigley from S. Epiphanius (I have not verified it, but it will suit my purpose as it stands), which he thinks very telling against persons outside his church, but which, "by a strange Nemesis," points its darts against himself and co-religionists. "It is no less criminal," says the saint, "to vilify the Holy Virgin than to glorify her above measure." Now, I suppose that not even the most rabid protestant will dissent from the assertion that it is a crime to vilify the Blessed Virgin or indeed any other saint living or departed - it remains, however, for Mr. Quigley and his friends to tell us how much further we should go than Liguori and the Raccolta I quoted in glorifying the Holy Virgin before we become criminous. I have no doubt myself what the answer of S. Epiphanius himself would be.
Yours faithfully,
JOHN M. DAVENPORT,
Priest of the Mission Church.
December 2d, 1887.
LETTER FROM MR. QUIGLEY.
IPSE, IPSA, IPSUM.
To the Editor of the Globe:
SIR, - I am not, the public cannot be, satisfied with the latest shuffle in this matter of the writer in Saturday's paper. It is quite "too thin," - too diaphanous indeed and your interested readers will easily "catch on." To exhaust every obligation of courtesy to the Bishop I have had all the papers sent to him to-day. The talk about misrepresentation is simply absurd. Mr. Ellis, of the GLOBE, was present at the lecture, and the GLOBE'S report (Nov. 23) sustains me. The Bishop said substantially what I have charged against him and on the spot immediately after the lecture I protested to Mr. G. Herbert Lee, Secretary to Lecture Committee, against the incorrectness and unfairness of the Bishop's statement. But Saturday's letter makes it even worse for the Bishop, and I cannot believe he will so stultify himself as to adopt it as a part of his defence. However, I propose patiently to await his action after he will have seen the GLOBE'S report, my first letter and the subsequent correspondence. In this country, happily, no man in church or state is beyond the reach of fair criticism of his public utterances. If the Bishop is content with the defence made for him, I will not complain.
The Bishop's defender says I am indignant that any one besides the Bishop should notice my letter. Surely I have not manifested thus far any indignation. I regret if my inattention has unduly wounded his vanity. I did not mean it. I only desire to give the Bishop an opportunity to vindicate himself or to refuse to do so. In either case, I perhaps ought to assure his defender, I will not forget him. Meanwhile let him castigate somewhat his vanity and cultivate the spiritual temper by reading "Liguori and the Raccolta."
Respectfully yours,
R. F. QUIGLEY.
Ritchie's Building, Monday, A. M.
THE RECTORY, DORCHESTER, N. B., Nov. 29.
To the Editor of the Globe:
SIR,-In last evening's issue Mr. Quigley quotes three Latin versions of Gen. iii. 15; I have a Latin version of the whole Bible, including the Apocrypha - but wanting the title-page and the date - which agrees with no one of the three quoted. I send my reading to you merely as a contribution to the literature of the discussion. On the main argument I say nothing in this communication; for it may be fairly assumed that his Lordship will make Mr. Quigley a fitting reply.
But I would like to ask whether any of your readers have a copy of the same version; and, if they have. whether they will kindly state what version it is, with the date of publication? The verse reads thus: "Praeterea inimicitiam pono inter te et Mulierem hanc similiterq; inter semen tuum et semen hujus; hoc conteret tibi caput, tu autem conteres huic calcaneum."
Yours obediently,
J. ROY CAMPBELL.
LETTER FROM MR. DAVENPORT.
IPSE, IPSA, IPSUM.
To the Editor of the Globe:
SIR,- Surely Mr. Quigley is not correct in his criticism on Genesis iii. 15. He asks somewhat indignantly why Bishop Kingdon, in his lecture did not put the real state of the question before his hearers, and tell them the dispute was not between Ipse and Ipsa, but also between Ipsum. Where then is to be found a Latin version of the Bible with Ipsum in this passage ? I have never read of it in any commentary. Jerome's old Vulgate, made direct from the Hebrew, has the masculine Ipse - the modern Vulgate in spite of this has Ipsa. Where is the Ipsum? Because the English version speaks of the "Seed of the woman " as It, it must not be supposed that the neuter occurs in the Hebrew original, or in either the Greek or Latin versions thereof. It is not true that in speaking of the promised offspring of the woman as It, the English translators rejected Ipse, as Mr. Quigley says.
The "academic aspect of the question," to borrow Mr. Quigley's phrase, stands thus: The Hebrew has a masculine pronoun followed by a masculine verb "He shall bruise." It is true that if the pronoun stood alone without the vowel-pointing, as in the old style of writing Hebrew, it could not be told without looking at the verb what was its gender. About the verb (y'shuphcah), however, there is not and never has been a doubt because it begins with the masculine affix. Therefore the translators of the modern vulgate are without excuse in adopting a feminine translation of the pronoun, and thus doing- violence to the verb, more especially as they had the grand old vulgate of Jerome before their eyes to keep them right. So plain is the Hebrew here that the Septuagint translators (who accomplished their task three centuries before the coming of Christ), while adopting a neuter word sperma for "seed" nevertheless use a masculine pronoun autos here to represent it.
Bishop Kingdon’s statement, therefore, it seems to me, is not as Mr. Quigley says, "wholly incorrect and baseless," even if his "misapprehension be simply appalling" to Mr. Quigley.
I confess that if the Bishop asserted that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin was founded on a misprint, it was too bald and unqualified a statement. Many things helped to stereotype it besides this error. At the same time it must be borne in mind that this mistranslation has been long and much used in the Roman Church for the undue exaltation of the Holy Virgin, while it is very noteworthy that Pope Pius IX., when promulgating the Dogma in S. Peter's at Rome, December 8, 1854, alluded for its defence to this very text, and, moreover, afterwards set up a memorial column of the event in the city, on the top of which stands a figure of the Blessed Virgin (without the holy child, mark you, in her arms) trampling the serpent under foot. This representation of the bruising of the serpent's head by the woman, everybody knows has been for years and still is very common among Roman Catholics. Therefore it is no exaggeration to say that the modern vulgate mistranslation of Genesis iii. 15 has largely helped to smooth the way for the promulgation of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin.
There is one other point in Mr. Quigley's letter I cannot suffer myself to pass over unnoticed. In my opinion he would have been wiser in his own cause had he been less satirical about the neglect of the Holy Virgin by Christians outside the Roman Church. Who is to blame, let me ask, for their present attitude towards her? Who has rendered it well-nigh impossible for them to yield her her proper place and dignity as chief of saints? None other than the Roman Church herself, with her exaggerated and too often idolatrous devotions offered to her.
I must prove such a serious charge as this. I will take two well-known books, in use among Roman Catholics of all lands. "Liguori's Glories of Mary," and " The Raccolta." The first named is a book approved by the highest authorities of the Roman Church, and formally recommended to Anglo-Romans by Cardinals Wiseman and Manning. In that book are to be found such instructions as these: "Mary is our only refuge help and asylum." "Often we shall be heard more quickly, and be thus preserved, if we have recourse to Mary and call upon her name, than we should be if we called on the name of Jesus, our Saviour." "Many things are asked from God and are not granted; they are asked from Mary and are obtained." "At the command of the Virgin all things obey, even God." (Imperio Virginis omnia famulantur, etiam Deus.)
"The salvation of all depends on their being favored and protected by Mary. He who is protected by Mary will be saved; he who is not, will be lost. Mary has only to speak, and her Son executes all." (See Littledale, p. 55.)
In the second book mentioned are to be found devotions to the Virgin in keeping with these impious utterances.
When on a visit to Rome, in 1880, I purchased an English copy of the "Raccolta," at the Propaganda, in order to test the accuracy of Littledale's quotations. The "Raccolta" is a popular Roman manual of indulgenced devotions. My copy is dated, Woodstock College, Maryland, 1878. About 130 out of 450 pages are devoted directly to the Virgin, while she finds mention in nearly all the devotions. The following 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 worship thy most holy body; we venerate thy sacred swaddling clothes wherewith they bound thee, the sacred cradle," &c.
Prayer: "Most lovely child, who by Thy birth has comforted the world, made glad the heavens, struck terror to hell, brought help to the fallen, &c. . . . . We pray Thee with all fervent love, be Thou born again, in spirit in our souls, through Thy most holy love; renew our fervor in Thy service, rekindle in our hearts the fire of Thy love, and bid all virtues blossom there, which may cause us to find more and more favor 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."
Herein we find expressions of worship and supplication such as Christians are wont to present only to God, or the Incarnate Son, or the Holy Spirit. We could not say more at the cradle of Jesus, nor could we pay more honor to the Blessed Paraclete Himself than to beg Him to "rekindle in our hearts the fire of His love."
Now this book has on its title-page, "Published by order of His Holiness Pope Pius IX. Translation authorized and approved by the Sacred Congregation of Holy Indulgences"; while in the preface people are urged to use this book, because then they may feel perfectly assured the indulgences are all right.
The Roman Church, therefore, is thoroughly committed to this book with all its enormities.
Surely it is the duty of all lovers of "the truth as it is in Jesus," i.e., all true Catholic Christians, to come out of a church which puts its imprimatur upon such idolatrous worship as this, and it ill becomes one who accepts such extravagances to chide those who, for fear of them, fall short of their duty.
It ought to be remembered, in this connection, that the Church of England has preserved her balance well under the circumstances, and observes four feasts yearly in honor of the Holy Mother.
Yours faithfully,
JOHN M. DAVENPORT,
Priest of the Mission Church,
Portland, St. John, N. B.
November 28, 1887.
LETTER FROM MR. QUIGLEY.
To the Editor of the Globe:
SIR, - Two communications have appeared in your columns anent mine of Monday last, from writers with whom I had no quarrel. One purports to be an answer and a defense (?) of Bishop Kingdon. Surely the Bishop must feel - Non tali auxilio! Save me from my friends: I will look after my enemies myself!
"It may be fairly assumed" says the second writer, "that His Lordship will make .... a fitting reply." I think so too. The Bishop, deservedly no doubt, gets credit for "pluck " in more departments than one. He is also a man of honor, and recalling his own thought - "humanum est errare - to err is human" - often expressed during his lecture, will not, I think, hesitate to acknowledge his kinship with our common humanity, by making an amende honorable for his error touching the old church to which he owes at least fair play.
Respectfully yours,
R. F. QUIGLEY.
Ritchie's Building,
Friday Morning, Dec. 2d, '87.
LETTER FROM MR. DAVENPORT.
MR. QUIGLEY'S CRITICISMS ON BISHOP KINGDON’S LECTURE.
To the Editor of the Globe:
SIR,- It is as I suspected when I criticised hypothetically what was attributed to Bishop Kingdon by Mr. Quigley. The Bishop has been misrepresented.
Bishop Kingdon has not seen Mr. Quigley's letter, but he has kindly taken the trouble to give me the substance of his own remarks and also some quotations from his lecture. With regard to the Hebrew and Greek texts of Gen. iii. 15, he went over much the same ground as myself in my strictures on Mr. Quigley. He proved also from several of the chief Fathers of the Church that it was far from their mind to attribute the bruising of the Serpent's head to the Virgin; and simply said that the mistake ipsa for ipse had acquired a tremendous importance from being quoted in the promulgation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception by Pius IX. He neither said nor implied that "the dogma was founded on a misprint." I hope, therefore, now Mr. Quigley has been proved in error on every point, he will see his way to act upon his own recommendation which appeared in your to-day's issue. Mr. Quigley seems somewhat indignant that any one should notice his letters besides the person attacked. Why then did he appear in public? and why reproach people in general who refuse to worship the Virgin Mary?
In conclusion, allow me to draw the attention of your readers to a quotation made by Mr. Quigley from S. Epiphanius (I have not verified it, but it will suit my purpose as it stands), which he thinks very telling against persons outside his church, but which, "by a strange Nemesis," points its darts against himself and co-religionists. "It is no less criminal," says the saint, "to vilify the Holy Virgin than to glorify her above measure." Now, I suppose that not even the most rabid protestant will dissent from the assertion that it is a crime to vilify the Blessed Virgin or indeed any other saint living or departed - it remains, however, for Mr. Quigley and his friends to tell us how much further we should go than Liguori and the Raccolta I quoted in glorifying the Holy Virgin before we become criminous. I have no doubt myself what the answer of S. Epiphanius himself would be.
Yours faithfully,
JOHN M. DAVENPORT,
Priest of the Mission Church.
December 2d, 1887.
LETTER FROM MR. QUIGLEY.
IPSE, IPSA, IPSUM.
To the Editor of the Globe:
SIR, - I am not, the public cannot be, satisfied with the latest shuffle in this matter of the writer in Saturday's paper. It is quite "too thin," - too diaphanous indeed and your interested readers will easily "catch on." To exhaust every obligation of courtesy to the Bishop I have had all the papers sent to him to-day. The talk about misrepresentation is simply absurd. Mr. Ellis, of the GLOBE, was present at the lecture, and the GLOBE'S report (Nov. 23) sustains me. The Bishop said substantially what I have charged against him and on the spot immediately after the lecture I protested to Mr. G. Herbert Lee, Secretary to Lecture Committee, against the incorrectness and unfairness of the Bishop's statement. But Saturday's letter makes it even worse for the Bishop, and I cannot believe he will so stultify himself as to adopt it as a part of his defence. However, I propose patiently to await his action after he will have seen the GLOBE'S report, my first letter and the subsequent correspondence. In this country, happily, no man in church or state is beyond the reach of fair criticism of his public utterances. If the Bishop is content with the defence made for him, I will not complain.
The Bishop's defender says I am indignant that any one besides the Bishop should notice my letter. Surely I have not manifested thus far any indignation. I regret if my inattention has unduly wounded his vanity. I did not mean it. I only desire to give the Bishop an opportunity to vindicate himself or to refuse to do so. In either case, I perhaps ought to assure his defender, I will not forget him. Meanwhile let him castigate somewhat his vanity and cultivate the spiritual temper by reading "Liguori and the Raccolta."
Respectfully yours,
R. F. QUIGLEY.
Ritchie's Building, Monday, A. M.
<< Home