Letters from Mr. Quigley
********************************
PRELIMINARY LETTERS.
EXTRACT from a Report in the St. John Globe, November 23, 1887, of a Lecture on "MISPRINTS," delivered by the Right Reverend Doctor Kingdon, Coadjutor Bishop of Fredericton, New Brunswick:
"CHURCH OF ENGLAND INSTITUTE.
"Rev. Canon Brigstocke occupied the chair in Trinity Church School-House last evening, and in a few graceful words introduced the Right Rev. Dr. Kingdon as the lecturer of the evening. The subject was ‘Misprints,’ but the lecture covered more than the title indicates, for it abounded in illustrations of errors of all kinds having their origin in copying, in printing, in pronunciation, and in transposition, and in changes of form and in changes of sound.
"SOMETIMES THE SUBSTITUTION OF ONE LETTER FOR ANOTHER MADE A VAST DIFFERENCE, AND AS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THIS HE RE- FERRED TO THE WORDS IPSE AND IPSA, THE LATTER WORD IN AN IMPORTANT PASSAGE IN THE DOUAY (SIC) BIBLE BEING THE FOUNDA- TION OF THE DOGMA OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. . . . ." [1]
LETTER FROM MR. QUIGLEY.
IPSE, IPSA, IPSUM.
To the Editor of The Globe:
SIR, - I very much enjoyed the Right Rev. Dr. Kingdoms lecture on "Misprints," a short report of - which you gave last evening. His Lordship made a strong appeal for accuracy and correctness, and yet, by a strange Nemesis, grievously erred in his illustration of their importance, based upon the words ipse and ipsa, and his statement in connection therewith. Here, by a misprint of the letter "a" for the letter "e," said his Lordship, there lamentably resulted that thirty-three years ago the Roman Catholic Church was led to promulgate the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The inference, I assume, he intended his hearers to draw was that the alleged foundation for the doctrine being, in these days at all events, a clear and confessed mistake, the church had fallen into grave doctrinal error in declaring it to be a truth of the Christian religion. I aim to report the Bishop correctly, though only substantially, and in the criticism I propose to make I desire to avoid the very semblance of the odium theologicum and to treat him with the utmost respect and courtesy.
Now, I begin by saying that the Bishop's statement is not only wholly incorrect and baseless, but to me his misapprehension is simply appalling, The case for a misprint even, and quite regardless of the consequence deplored by him as resulting from it, is far otherwise than that stated by his Lordship. The discussion raised by him is not between ipse and ipsa alone, but between them and the word ipsum. "Why did he not so put it, since this is the real state of the question? To make the points at issue perfectly intelligible I will here set down the matter of the dispute, viz.: Genesis iii. 15 - according to the different versions. Protestant version: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and 'between thy seed and her seed; IT shall bruise, thy head, etc.; Douay version: I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed 'and her seed; SHE shall crush thy head, etc.; The Vulgate: Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius ; IPSA conteret caput tuum, etc. This whole text has been called by the early writers in the church the Proto-Gospel, for it contains a promise of the future Savior. It is, therefore, to Protestant and Catholic alike of transcendent importance and very comprehensive application; but it will be observed that the present contention is over the first word of the second clause only: "IT shall bruise thy head" etc.; "SHE shall crush thy head," etc. The Hebrew text from which both translations ultimately come is according to the learned Cardinal Bellarmine ambiguous, and in consequence three different readings prevailed among ecclesiastical writers as follows; IPSE conteret caput tuum - HE (Christ) shall bruise thy head; IPSA conteret caput tuum - SHE (the woman, the Blessed Virgin, through Christ her Seed) shall crush thy head; IPSUM conteret caput tuum - IT (her seed that is Christ), shall bruise thy head. Why, then, confine the question of misprint to ipse and ipsa and ignore ipsum, the Protestant reading, which itself rejects ipse? The simple truth is that his Lordship's theory of a misprint and his statement thereanent is sheer nonsense. There is absolutely no difference in sense, to the Catholic mind at least, between these three readings. The learned commentator Cornelius a Lapide, Says "all are true" - omnes sunt verae. The Almighty promises that the triumph over Satan is to be complete and his power broken by Christ, who is the seed of the woman. The Protestant version adopts "IPSUM" - "IT," because it thinks it more literally in accord with the true Hebrew reading and that of some of the ancient fathers. The Douay version "IPSA" - "SHE" follows the Vulgate, which is sanctioned by almost all the Latin Fathers, including such names as St. Augustine, St. Gregory, St. Ambrose, St. Bernard, Victor and Avitus, as well as by (the Latin translator of) St. Chrysostom, Bede, Alcuin, and many others. And thus it becomes a mere quillet of verbal criticism! So much for the academic aspect of the question.
And now what becomes of the Bishop's assertion that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is founded on a misprint ? It vanishes into thin air. Of course I am not now discussing the truth of this doctrine, but simply correcting an amazing misconception. Unfortunately such misconceptions are too common among our Protestant brethren where the honor of the Blessed Virgin, the mother of Christ - the "Woman! above all women glorified, our tainted nature's solitary boast," as the Protestant Wordsworth addresses her - is concerned. And while Protestant churches will resound with the praises of Sarah and Rebecca and Rachel, of Miriam and Ruth, of Esther and Judith of the Old Testament, and of Elizabeth and Anna, of Magdalen and Martha of the New, the name of Mary, the mother of Christ, is uttered with bated breath lest the sound of her name should make the preacher liable to the charge of superstition. I do not think of imputing such views to his lordship, but the animus of Kemnitzius and others in discussing this translation in another connection is born of such ignorant prejudice, and I do imagine their interpretations led to his mistake. Catholics do not forget the Blessed Virgin's own prediction of that honor which the church in all ages should pay to her - "all generations shall call me blessed," - Luke i. 48; and we believe with St. Epiphanius that "it is no less criminal to vilify the holy Virgin than to glorify her above measure." But enough. I have tried to make the matter clear. There is nothing at all in the Bishop's point. I, as a Catholic, have no more interest in retaining "IPSA," "SHE," in the text than he has, so far as the Immaculate Conception is concerned. Words have been corrected in the Vulgate since the Council of Trent by Popes Sixtus V and Clement VIII.: so, if, by the discovery of new MSS. or otherwise, it be found that "IT" or "HE," and not "SHE" is the true reading the correction will no doubt be made. But the sublime doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and its definition will not be affected by the change, because it is not dependent upon nor founded on it. It will stand forever all the same, and, perhaps, his lordship and others who now grudgingly "give honor where honor is due" will then have learned to say: Dignare me laudare te, Virgo Sacrata: Da mihi virtutem contra hostes tuos.
Respectfully yours,
R. F. QUIGLEY
[1] GENESIS iii. 15 - "I will put enmities between thee and the Woman, and thy seed and her seed; HE, SHE, or IT - IPSE, IPSA, IPSUM - shall crush thy head," etc. Bishop Kingdon asserted (1) that the letter "a" in "Ipsa - She" was a "Misprint" for the letter "e" in "Ipse - He," and (2) that the Catholic Church, in promulgating the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, founded it upon this "Misprint"! Such is the Anglo-episcopal idea of Catholic Theology!
<< Home