IV. On the Assumption
(1) May 24
Mary is the "Sancta Dei Genetrix," the Holy Mother of God
{62} AS
soon as we apprehend by faith the great fundamental truth that Mary is
the Mother of God, other wonderful truths follow in its train; and one
of these is that she was exempt from the ordinary lot of mortals, which
is not only to die, but to become earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust
to dust. Die she must, and die she did, as her Divine Son died, for He
was man; but various reasons have approved themselves to holy writers,
why, although her body was for a while separated from her soul and
consigned to the tomb, yet it did not remain there, but was speedily
united to her soul again, and raised by our Lord to a new and eternal
life of heavenly glory.
And the most obvious reason for
so concluding is this—that other servants of God have been
raised from the grave by the power of God, and it is not to {63} be
supposed that our Lord would have granted any such privilege to anyone
else without also granting it to His own Mother.
We are told by St. Matthew, that
after our Lord's death upon the Cross "the graves were opened, and many
bodies of the saints that had slept"—that is, slept the sleep of
death, "arose, and coming out of the tombs after His Resurrection, came
into the Holy City, and appeared to many." St. Matthew says, "many
bodies of the Saints"—that is, the holy Prophets, Priests, and Kings
of former times—rose again in anticipation of the last day.
Can we suppose that Abraham, or
David, or Isaias, or Ezechias, should have been thus favoured, and not
God's own Mother? Had she not a claim on the love of her Son to have
what any others had? Was she not nearer to Him than the greatest of the
Saints before her? And is it conceivable that the law of the grave
should admit of relaxation in their case, and not in hers? Therefore we
confidently say that our Lord, having preserved her from sin and the
consequences of sin by His Passion, lost no time in pouring out the full
merits of that Passion upon her body as well as her soul.
On the
Assumption
(2) May 25
Mary is the "Mater Intemerata," the Sinless Mother
{64} ANOTHER
consideration which has led devout minds to believe the Assumption of
our Lady into heaven after her death, without waiting for the general
resurrection at the last day, is furnished by the doctrine of her
Immaculate Conception.
By her Immaculate Conception is
meant, that not only did she never commit any sin whatever, even venial,
in thought, word, or deed, but further than this, that the guilt of
Adam, or what is called original sin, never was her guilt, as it is the
guilt attaching to all other descendants of Adam.
By her Assumption is meant that
not only her soul, but her body also, was taken up to heaven upon her
death, so that there was no long period of her sleeping in the grave, as
is the case with others, even great Saints, who wait for the last day
for the resurrection of their bodies.
One reason for believing in our
Lady's Assumption {65} is that her Divine Son loved her too much to let
her body remain in the grave. A second reason—that now before us—is
this, that she was not only dear to the Lord as a mother is dear to a
son, but also that she was so transcendently holy, so full, so
overflowing with grace. Adam and Eve were created upright and sinless,
and had a large measure of God's grace bestowed upon them; and, in
consequence, their bodies would never have crumbled into dust, had they
not sinned; upon which it was said to them, "Dust thou art, and unto
dust thou shalt return." If Eve, the beautiful daughter of God, never
would have become dust and ashes unless she had sinned, shall we not say
that Mary, having never sinned, retained the gift which Eve by sinning
lost? What had Mary done to forfeit the privilege given to our first
parents in the beginning? Was her comeliness to be turned into
corruption, and her fine gold to become dim, without reason assigned?
Impossible. Therefore we believe that, though she died for a short hour,
as did our Lord Himself, yet, like Him, and by His Almighty power, she
was raised again from the grave.
On the
Assumption
(3) May 26
Mary is the "Rosa Mystica," the Mystical Rose
{66} MARY
is the most beautiful flower that ever was seen in the spiritual world.
It is by the power of God's grace that from this barren and desolate
earth there have ever sprung up at all flowers of holiness and glory.
And Mary is the Queen of them. She is the Queen of spiritual flowers;
and therefore she is called the Rose, for the rose is fitly
called of all flowers the most beautiful.
But moreover, she is the Mystical,
or hidden Rose; for mystical means hidden. How is she now "hidden"
from us more than are other saints? What means this singular
appellation, which we apply to her specially? The answer to this
question introduces us to a third reason for believing in the reunion of
her sacred body to her soul, and its assumption into heaven soon after
her death, instead of its lingering in the grave until the General
Resurrection at the last day.
It is this:—if her body was
not taken into heaven, where is it? how comes it that it is hidden from
us? why do we not hear of her tomb as being here or {67} there? why are
not pilgrimages made to it? why are not relics producible of her, as of
the saints in general? Is it not even a natural instinct which makes us
reverent towards the places where our dead are buried? We bury our great
men honourably. St. Peter speaks of the sepulchre of David as known in
his day, though he had died many hundred years before. When our Lord's
body was taken down from the Cross, He was placed in an honourable tomb.
Such too had been the honour already paid to St. John Baptist, his tomb
being spoken of by St. Mark as generally known. Christians from the
earliest times went from other countries to Jerusalem to see the holy
places. And, when the time of persecution was over, they paid still more
attention to the bodies of the Saints, as of St. Stephen, St. Mark, St.
Barnabas, St. Peter, St. Paul, and other Apostles and Martyrs. These
were transported to great cities, and portions of them sent to this
place or that. Thus, from the first to this day it has been a great
feature and characteristic of the Church to be most tender and reverent
towards the bodies of the Saints. Now, if there was anyone who more than
all would be preciously taken care of, it would be our Lady. Why then do
we hear nothing of the Blessed Virgin's body and its separate relics?
Why is she thus the hidden Rose? Is it conceivable that they who
had been so reverent and careful of the bodies of the Saints and Martyrs
should neglect her—her who was the Queen of Martyrs and the Queen of
Saints, who was the very Mother of our Lord? It is impossible. Why then
is she thus the hidden Rose? Plainly because that sacred body is
in heaven, not on earth.
On the
Assumption
(4) May 27
Mary is the "Turris Davidica," the Tower of David
{68} A TOWER
in its simplest idea is a fabric for defence against enemies. David,
King of Israel, built for this purpose a notable tower; and as he is a
figure or type of our Lord, so is his tower a figure denoting our Lord's
Virgin Mother.
She is called the Tower
of David because she had so signally fulfilled the office of defending
her Divine Son from the assaults of His foes. It is customary with those
who are not Catholics to fancy that the honours we pay to her interfere
with the supreme worship which we pay to Him; that in Catholic teaching
she eclipses Him. But this is the very reverse of the truth.
For if Mary's glory is so very
great, how cannot His be greater still who is the Lord and God of Mary?
He is infinitely above His Mother; and all that grace which filled her
is but the overflowings and superfluities of His incomprehensible
Sanctity. And history teaches us the same lesson. Look at {69} the
Protestant countries which threw off all devotion to her three centuries
ago, under the notion that to put her from their thoughts would be
exalting the praises of her Son. Has that consequence really followed
from their profane conduct towards her? Just the reverse—the
countries, Germany, Switzerland, England, which so acted, have in great
measure ceased to worship Him, and have given up their belief in His
Divinity while the Catholic Church, wherever she is to be found, adores
Christ as true God and true Man, as firmly as ever she did; and strange
indeed would it be, if it ever happened otherwise. Thus Mary is the "Tower
of David."
On the
Assumption
(5) May 28
Mary is the "Virgo Potens," the Powerful Virgin
{70} THIS
great universe, which we see by day and by night, or what is called the
natural world, is ruled by fixed laws, which the Creator has imposed
upon it, and by those wonderful laws is made secure against any
substantial injury or loss. One portion of it may conflict with another,
and there may be changes in it internally; but, viewed as a whole, it is
adapted to stand for ever. Hence the Psalmist says, "He has established
the world, which shall not be moved."
Such is the world of nature; but
there is another and still more wonderful world. There is a power which
avails to alter and subdue this visible world, and to suspend and
counteract its laws; that is, the world of Angels and Saints, of Holy
Church and her children; and the weapon by which they master its laws is
the power of prayer.
By prayer all this may be done,
which naturally is impossible. Noe prayed, and God said that there {71}
never again should be a flood to drown the race of man. Moses prayed,
and ten grievous plagues fell upon the land of Egypt. Josue prayed, and
the sun stood still. Samuel prayed, and thunder and rain came in
wheat-harvest. Elias prayed, and brought down fire from heaven. Eliseus
prayed, and the dead came to life. Ezechias prayed and the vast army of
the Assyrians was smitten and perished.
This is why the Blessed Virgin
is called Powerful—nay, sometimes, All-powerful, because
she has, more than anyone else, more than all Angels and Saints, this
great, prevailing gift of prayer. No one has access to the Almighty as
His Mother has; none has merit such as hers. Her Son will deny her
nothing that she asks; and herein lies her power. While she defends the
Church, neither height nor depth, neither men nor evil spirits, neither
great monarchs, nor craft of man, nor popular violence, can avail to
harm us; for human life is short, but Mary reigns above, a Queen for
ever.
On the
Assumption
(6) May 29
Mary is the "Auxilium Christianorum," the Help of Christians
{72} OUR
glorious Queen, since her Assumption on high, has been the minister of
numberless services to the elect people of God upon earth, and to His
Holy Church. This title of "Help of Christians" relates to those
services of which the Divine Office, while recording and referring to
the occasion on which it was given her, recounts five, connecting
them more or less with the Rosary.
The first was on the first
institution of the Devotion of the Rosary by St. Dominic, when, with the
aid of the Blessed Virgin, he succeeded in arresting and overthrowing
the formidable heresy of the Albigenses in the South of France.
The second was the great victory
gained by the Christian fleet over the powerful Turkish Sultan, in
answer to the intercession of Pope St. Pius V., and the prayers of the
Associations of the Rosary all over the Christian world; in lasting
memory of which wonderful mercy Pope Pius introduced her {73} title "Auxilium
Christianorum" into her Litany; and Pope Gregory XIII., who followed
him, dedicated the first Sunday in October, the day of the victory, to
Our Lady of the Rosary.
The third was, in the words of
the Divine Office, "the glorious victory won at Vienna, under the
guardianship of the Blessed Virgin, over the most savage Sultan of the
Turks, who was trampling on the necks of the Christians; in perpetual
memory of which benefit Pope Innocent XI. dedicated the Sunday in the
Octave of her Nativity as the feast of her august Name."
The fourth instance of her aid
was the victory over the innumerable force of the same Turks in Hungary
on the Feast of St. Mary ad Nives, in answer to the solemn supplication
of the Confraternities of the Rosary; on occasion of which Popes Clement
XI. and Benedict XIII. gave fresh honour and privilege to the Devotion
of the Rosary.
And the fifth was her
restoration of the Pope's temporal power, at the beginning of this
century, after Napoleon the First, Emperor of the French, had taken it
from the Holy See; on which occasion Pope Pius VII. set apart May 24,
the day of this mercy, as the Feast of the Help of Christians,
for a perpetual thanksgiving.
On the
Assumption
(7) May 30
Mary is the "Virgo Fidelis," the most Faithful Virgin
{74} THIS
is one of the titles of the Blessed Virgin, which is especially hers
from the time of her Assumption and glorious Coronation at the right
hand of her Divine Son. How it belongs to her will be plain by
considering some of those other instances in which faithfulness is
spoken of in Holy Scripture.
The word faithfulness
means loyalty to a superior, or exactness in fulfilling an engagement.
In the latter sense it is applied even to Almighty God Himself who, in
His great love for us, has vouchsafed to limit His own power in action
by His word of promise and His covenant with His creatures. He has given
His word that, if we will take Him for our portion and put ourselves
into His hands, He will guide us through all trials and temptations, and
bring us safe to heaven. And to encourage and inspirit us, He reminds
us, in various passages of Scripture that He is the faithful God,
the faithful Creator. {75}
And so, His true saints and
servants have the special title of "Faithful," as being true to Him as
He is to them; as being simply obedient to his will, zealous for His
honour, observant of the sacred interests which He has committed to
their keeping. Thus Abraham is called the Faithful; Moses is declared to
be faithful in all his house; David, on this account, is called the "man
after God's own heart"; St. Paul returns thanks that "God accounted him
faithful"; and, at the last day, God will say to all those who have well
employed their talents, "Well done, good and faithful servant."
Mary, in like manner, is
pre-eminently faithful to her Lord and Son. Let no one for an instant
suppose that she is not supremely zealous for His honour, or, as those
who are not Catholics fancy, that to exalt her is to be unfaithful to
Him. Her true servants are still more truly His. Well as she rewards her
friends, she would deem him no friend, but a traitor, who preferred her
to Him. As He is zealous for her honour, so is she for His. He is the
Fount of grace, and all her gifts are from His goodness. O Mary, teach
us ever to worship thy Son as the One Creator, and to be devout to thee
as the most highly favoured of creatures.
On the
Assumption
(8) May 31
Mary is the "Stella Matutina," the Morning Star—after the Dark
Night, but always Heralding the Sun
{76} WHAT
is the nearest approach in the way of symbols, in this world of sight
and sense, to represent to us the glories of that higher world which is
beyond our bodily perceptions? What are the truest tokens and promises
here, poor though they may be, of what one day we hope to see hereafter,
as being beautiful and rare? Whatever they may be, surely the Blessed
Mother of God may claim them as her own. And so it is; two of them are
ascribed to her as her titles, in her Litany—the stars above, and
flowers below. She is at once the Rosa Mystica and the Stella
Matutina.
And of these two, both of them
well suited to her, the Morning Star becomes her best, and that for
three reasons.
First, the rose belongs to this
earth, but the star is placed in high heaven. Mary now has no part in
this nether world. No change, no violence from fire, {77} water, earth,
or air, affects the stars above; and they show themselves, ever bright
and marvellous, in all regions of this globe, and to all the tribes of
men.
And next, the rose has but a
short life; its decay is as sure as it was graceful and fragrant in its
noon. But Mary, like the stars, abides for ever, as lustrous now as she
was on the day of her Assumption; as pure and perfect, when her Son
comes to judgment, as she is now.
Lastly, it is Mary's prerogative
to be the Morning Star, which heralds in the sun. She does not
shine for herself, or from herself, but she is the reflection of her and
our Redeemer, and she glorifies Him. When she appears in the darkness,
we know that He is close at hand. He is Alpha and Omega, the First and
the Last, the Beginning and the End. Behold He comes quickly, and His
reward is with Him, to render to everyone according to his works. "Surely
I come quickly. Amen. Come, Lord Jesus." [page
78 is blank—NR]
Memorandum
On the Immaculate Conception
I
{79} [Note
1] 1. IT
is so difficult for me to enter into the feelings of a person who understands
the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and yet objects to it, that I
am diffident about attempting to speak on the subject. I was accused of
holding it, in one of the first books I wrote, twenty years ago [Note
2]. On {80} the other hand, this very fact may be an argument
against an objector—for why should it not have been difficult to me at
that time, if there were a real difficulty in receiving it?
2. Does not the objector
consider that Eve was created, or born, without original
sin? Why does not this shock him? Would he have been inclined to worship
Eve in that first estate of hers? Why, then, Mary?
3. Does he not believe that St.
John Baptist had the grace of God—i.e., was regenerated, even
before his birth? What do we believe of Mary, but that grace was given
her at a still earlier period? All we say is, that grace was
given her from the first moment of her existence.
4. We do not say that she did
not owe her salvation to the death of her Son. Just the contrary, we say
that she, of all mere children of Adam, is in the truest sense the fruit
and the purchase of His Passion. He has done for her more than for
anyone else. To others He gives grace and regeneration at a point
in their earthly existence; to her, from the very beginning.
5. We do not make her nature
different from others. Though, as St. Austin says, we do not like to
name her in the same breath with mention of sin, yet, certainly she would
have been a frail being, like Eve, without the grace of God. A
more abundant gift of grace made her what she was from the first. It was
not her nature which secured her perseverance, but the excess of
grace which hindered Nature acting as Nature ever will act. There is no
difference in kind between her and us, though an inconceivable
{81} difference of degree. She and we are both simply saved by
the grace of Christ.
Thus, sincerely speaking, I
really do not see what the difficulty is, and should like it set
down distinctly in words. I will add that the above statement is no
private statement of my own. I never heard of any Catholic who ever had
any other view. I never heard of any other put forth by anyone.
II
Next, Was it a primitive
doctrine? No one can add to revelation. That was given once for
all;—but as time goes on, what was given once for all is understood
more and more clearly. The greatest Fathers and Saints in this sense
have been in error, that, since the matter of which they spoke had not
been sifted, and the Church had not spoken, they did not in their expressions
do justice to their own real meaning. E.g. (1), the
Athanasian Creed says that the Son is "immensus" (in the Protestant
version, "incomprehensible"). Bishop Bull, though defending the
ante-Nicene Fathers, says that it is a marvel that "nearly all of them
have the appearance of being ignorant of the invisibility and
immensity of the Son of God." Do I for a moment think they were
ignorant? No, but that they spoke inconsistently, because they
were opposing other errors, and did not observe what they said. When the
heretic Arius arose, and they saw the use which was made of their
admissions, the Fathers retracted them.
(2) The great Fathers of the
fourth century seem, {82} most of them, to consider our Lord in His
human nature ignorant, and to have grown in knowledge, as St.
Luke seems to say. This doctrine was anathematized by the
Church in the next century, when the Monophysites arose.
(3) In like manner, there are
Fathers who seem to deny original sin, eternal punishment, &c.
(4) Further, the famous symbol "Consubstantial,"
as applied to the Son, which is in the Nicene Creed, was condemned
by a great Council of Antioch, with Saints in it, seventy years before.
Why? Because that Council meant something else by the word.
Now, as to the doctrine of the
Immaculate Conception, it was implied in early times, and never denied.
In the Middle Ages it was denied by St. Thomas and by St.
Bernard, but they took the phrase in a different sense from that in
which the Church now takes it. They understood it with reference to our
Lady's mother, and thought it contradicted the text, "In sin hath my
mother conceived me"—whereas we do not speak of the Immaculate
Conception except as relating to Mary; and the other doctrine (which St.
Thomas and St. Bernard did oppose) is really heretical.
III
As to primitive notion about our
Blessed Lady, really, the frequent contrast of Mary with Eve seems very
strong indeed. It is found in St. Justin, St. Irenĉus, and Tertullian,
three of the earliest Fathers, and in three distinct continents—Gaul,
Africa, and Syria. For instance, "the knot formed by Eve's {83}
disobedience was untied by the obedience of Mary; that what the Virgin
Eve tied through unbelief that the Virgin Mary unties through faith."
Again, "The Virgin Mary becomes the Advocate (Paraclete) of the Virgin
Eve, that as mankind has been bound to death through a
Virgin, through a Virgin it may be saved, the balance being
preserved, a Virgin's disobedience by a Virgin's obedience" (St. Irenĉus,
Hĉer. v. 19). Again, "As Eve, becoming disobedient, became the
cause of death to herself and to all mankind, so Mary, too,
bearing the predestined Man, and yet a Virgin, being obedient, became
the CAUSE
OF SALVATION
both to herself and to all mankind." Again, "Eve being a Virgin, and
incorrupt, bore disobedience and death, but Mary the Virgin, receiving
faith and joy, when Gabriel the Angel evangelised her, answered, 'Be it
unto me,'" &c. Again, "What Eve failed in believing, Mary by
believing hath blotted out."
1. Now, can we refuse to see
that, according to these Fathers, who are earliest of the early, Mary
was a typical woman like Eve, that both were endued with special
gifts of grace, and that Mary succeeded where Eve failed?
2. Moreover, what light they
cast upon St. Alfonso's doctrine, of which a talk is sometimes made, of
the two ladders. You see according to these most early Fathers, Mary undoes
what Eve had done; mankind is saved through a Virgin; the obedience
of Mary becomes the cause of salvation to all mankind. Moreover,
the distinct way in which Mary does this is pointed out when she is
called by the early Fathers an Advocate. The word is used of our
Lord {84} and the Holy Ghost—of our Lord, as interceding for us in His
own Person; of the Holy Ghost, as interceding in the Saints. This is the
white way, as our Lord's own special way is the red way,
viz. of atoning Sacrifice.
3. Further still, what light
these passages cast on two texts of Scripture. Our reading is, "She
shall bruise thy head." Now, this fact alone of our reading, "She shall
bruise," has some weight, for why should not, perhaps, our
reading be the right one? But take the comparison of Scripture with
Scripture, and see how the whole hangs together as we interpret it. A
war between a woman and the serpent is spoken of in Genesis. Who
is the serpent? Scripture nowhere says till the twelfth chapter of the
Apocalypse. There at last, for the first time, the "Serpent" is
interpreted to mean the Evil Spirit. Now, how is he introduced?
Why, by the vision again of a Woman, his enemy—and just as, in
the first vision in Genesis, the Woman has a "seed," so here a "Child."
Can we help saying, then, that the Woman is Mary in the third of
Genesis? And if so, and our reading is right, the first prophecy ever
given contrasts the Second Woman with the First—Mary with Eve, just as
St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, and Tertullian do.
4. Moreover, see the direct
bearing of this upon the Immaculate Conception. There was war
between the woman and the Serpent. This is most emphatically fulfilled
if she had nothing to do with sin—for, so far as any one sins, he has
an alliance with the Evil One. {85}
IV
Now I wish it observed why
I thus adduce the Fathers and Scripture. Not to prove the
doctrine, but to rid it of any such monstrous improbability as would
make a person scruple to accept it when the Church
declares it. A Protestant is apt to say: "Oh, I really never, never can
accept such a doctrine from the hands of the Church, and I had a
thousand thousand times rather determine that the Church spoke falsely,
than that so terrible a doctrine was true." Now, my good man, WHY?
Do not go off in such a wonderful agitation, like a horse shying at he
does not know what. Consider what I have said. Is it, after all, certainly
irrational? is it certainly against Scripture? is it certainly
against the primitive Fathers? is it certainly idolatrous? I
cannot help smiling as I put the questions. Rather, may not something
be said for it from reason, from piety, from antiquity, from the
inspired text? You may see no reason at all to believe the voice of the
Church; you may not yet have attained to faith in it—but what on earth
this doctrine has to do with shaking your faith in her, if you
have faith, or in sending you to the right-about if you are beginning to
think she may be from God, is more than my mind can comprehend.
Many, many doctrines are far harder than the Immaculate Conception. The
doctrine of Original Sin is indefinitely harder. Mary just has not
this difficulty. It is no difficulty to believe that a soul is
united to the flesh without original sin; the great mystery is
that any, that millions on {86} millions, are born with it. Our teaching
about Mary has just one difficulty less than our teaching about the
state of mankind generally.
I say it distinctly—there may
be many excuses at the last day, good and bad, for not being Catholics; one
I cannot conceive: "O Lord, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
was so derogatory to Thy grace, so inconsistent with Thy Passion, so at
variance with Thy word in Genesis and the Apocalypse, so unlike the
teaching of Thy first Saints and Martyrs, as to give me a right
to reject it at all risks, and Thy Church for teaching it. It is a
doctrine as to which my private judgment is fully justified in opposing
the Church's judgment. And this is my plea for living and dying a
Protestant."
Extract from sermon
delivered at Oxford, March 25, 1832
{87} [Note
3] Who can estimate the holiness and perfection of her, who was
chosen to be the Mother of Christ? If to him that hath, more is given,
and holiness and divine favour go together (and this we are expressly
told), what must have been the transcendent purity of her, whom the
Creator Spirit condescended to overshadow with His miraculous presence?
What must have been her gifts, who was chosen to be the only near
earthly relative of the Son of God, the only one whom He was bound by
nature to revere and look up to; the one appointed to train and educate
Him, to instruct Him day by day, as He grew in wisdom and stature? This
contemplation runs to a higher subject, did we dare to follow it; for
what, think you, was the sanctified state of that human nature, of which
God formed His sinless Son; knowing, as we do, that "that which is born
of the flesh is flesh," and that "none can bring a clean thing out of an
unclean?" …
… Nothing is so calculated to
impress on our minds that Christ is really partaker of our nature, and
in all respects man, save sin only, as to associate Him with the thought
of her, by whose ministration He became our Brother.
Top | Contents | Works
| Home
Notes
1. This Memorandum is given as
written off by the Cardinal for Mr. R. I. Wilberforce, formerly
Archdeacon Wilberforce, to aid him in meeting the objections urged by
some Protestant friends against the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception. The italics are the Cardinal's.
The Memorandum and the Extract
which follows are inserted as an endeavour to partially meet the
Cardinal's wish that an instruction on the subject of each of the four
portions of the Litany should accompany each division; a wish which the
Cardinal could not himself fulfil owing to his continued disappointment
in regard to the loss of certain notes which he had intended to make use
of. It was not till he felt himself too ill to begin writing afresh that
he knew the notes would not be forthcoming at all, and he therefore
recommended the use of something already written by him to supply the
want, mentioning in particular his sermon on the Annunciation. This
disappointment also hindered his giving the Meditations his final
revision. [W. N.]
Return to text
2.
Parochial and Plain Sermons, vol. ii.
Return to text
3.
Newman's Parochial and Plain Sermons, Serm. xii, vol. ii.
published 1835.
Return to text
Top | Contents
| Works
| Home
Newman Reader — Works of John Henry
Newman
Copyright İ 2007 by The National Institute for Newman Studies. All rights reserved.
|