Letters to N. Wiseman, D. D. on the errors of Romanism...

Preface

The publication of the series of Letters now brought to a conclusion (at least for the present), was undertaken with a view to exhibit some of the most important features of Romanism in their genuine form. This task has become necessary in consequence of the system of Reserve so generally practised by Romish controversialists, in reference to the more obnoxious parts of their system.

The system referred to, studiously distinguishes the doctrines and practices prevalent in the Roman Communion into two classes ; the former consisting of matters of faith, or doctrines defined by the Church ; the latter consisting of matters of opinion, or doctrines not so defined. The use made of this distinction in all writings and discourses intended for those who are opposed to Romanism, is to avoid all responsibility for, and all discussion on doctrines of the latter class, by representing them as mere non-essentials, which any member of the Roman Communion may dispute or reject at pleasure; while the attention of opponents is drawn entirely to the former class* of doctrines, which being commonly proposed in general terms and with great caution, are far less assailable.

The benefits derived from this system are various. In the first place it induces some of those who are opposed to Romanism, to direct their attention almost entirely to the formal definitions of the Council of Trent, and to condemn some points which might be more discreetly left untouched. The effect of this is to create division amongst opponents, and to place some of them in untenable positions. Secondly, all discussion is avoided on weak and vulnerable points, and there is no danger lest the popular mind should

V

PREFACE, be disturbed by doubts on the propriety of its most favourite notions and practices. Thirdly, it smooths away any opposition which might arise from Romanists themselves if these doctrines were pronounced essential ; and facilitates their dissemination throughout the community. So that, in fine, the most highly objectionable tenets may be universally received amongst Romanists, and yet it may be positively denied that the Roman Catholic Church teaches those tenets. It has been a chief object in these Letters to detect and expose this system, which must be considered as more ingenious than honest.

The Author is desirous to record his most settled conviction, that evils are prevalent in the Roman Communion, of a far more dangerous character, than can be found elsewhere. In the present series of Tracts, only a small portion of those evils has been detailed ; but enough has been said to shew, that several doctrines of a dangerous and heretical character, and various practices which are most decidedly Idolatrous, are openly, and without censure, disseminated, sanctioned, and authorized amongst Romanists.

Setting aside those sects which are bound by their profession to reject articles of the Christian faith, there are perhaps few religious communities which would not, on the whole, contrast favotPrably with Romanism. A comparison, not on insulated points, nor with any partial view, would suffice to shew, that any evils which may have arisen in connection with the Reformation, were more than counterbalanced by the evils of the opposite system ; and a more accurate knowledge of that system would enable us to do more justice to the principles of the Reformers, and to feel more gratitude for the results of their labours.

It has been thought advisable to subjoin to this series of Letters, two Tracts in reply to the Rev, R. W. Sibthorp's " Answer to the question, Why have you become a Catholic," and his " Further Answer/' &c.

Letter I. Introductory

Dr. Wiseman's episcopal rank denied, p. 3, 4. Mr. Newman's language on Romanism explained, 6, 7, 8. Tactics of Romish controversialists, 9, 10. The decrees of Trent not the only authoritative teaching- in the Church of Rome, 12. Idolatrous addresses to the Virgin by the present Pope, 13 — 16. Similar prayers approved by other Popes, 16, 17. Prayer of Cardinal Bona, 17, 18. Romanists responsible for these prayers, 19. Idolatry of Ligorio, 21 — 24. Of Girolamo, 24. Idolatrous addresses to Saints, 25 — 29. Indulgences and Purgatory are made to take the place of Heaven and Hell, 29 — 32. Purgatory a place of torture according to Romanists, 35 — 38. Images, 39. Miscellaneous remarks on Dr. Wiseman's Pamphlet, 41—49.

Letter II

ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION, INDULGENCES, &c.

Introduction, p. 3 — 7. Doctrine of temporal penalties due to remitted sin, 7 — 12. A large mass of error depends on this doctrine, 12 — 14. Its proofs from Reason examined, 15 — 23. Its scriptural proofs examined, 23 — 25. Specific objections to the doctrine, 36 — 41.

VI

CONTEXTS.

Letter III. On Satisfactions Or Penances

Romish doctrine of Satisfaction stated, p. 4 — 6. Requires perpetual penances, 7 — 11. Supposes the pardoned sinner still subject to God's wrath, 11, 12. Destroys all peace of mind, 13. Makes Christians miserable, contrary to the Gospel, 14 — 19. Burdens of this doctrine, and miseries endured by devotees, 20 — 33, It leaves Christians without peace or hope, 33—40.

Letter IV. On The Same Subject

Romish arguments in support of Satisfactions from Scripture, p. 4 — 12. From the Fathers, 12 — 17. Orthodox doctrine on this subject, 18 — 25. Proved from Scripture, 25 — 27. Romish doctrine refuted by the Fathers, 27 — 32. By the Council of Trent, 33. By Romish practice, 34. By Romish theologians, 35 — 38. Conclusions from the whole discussion, 38—41.

Letter V. On The Worship Of Saints And Angels

Introductory remarks on Dr. Wiseman's reply, p. 3 — 6. Romaotsm convicted of Idolatry by his admissions, 6 — 15. His citations from spurious writings of the Fathers, 15 — 22. His defence of idolatrous addresses to the Virgin refuted, 23 — 44. His defence of idolatrous addresses to the Saints refuted, 45 — 51. Testimony of Catholic Antiquitv against such addresses, 51 — 79. Additional proofs of Romish Idolatry and Superstition, 80—91.

Letter VI. On Purgatory

Introduction, p. 3 — 8. Doctrine of Purgatory stated and refuted, 9 — 24. Romish arguments refuted, 24 — 50. Orthodox doctrine opposed to Purgatory, confirmed by Scripture and Catholic Antiquity, 51 — 75. Punishment not due to remitted sins, 75 — 77.

CONTEXTS.

Vll

Letter VII. Ox Indulgences

Connection of Indulgences with privileged Altars and Churches, confraternities, associations, particular devotions, good works, &c. p. 3 — 12. Practical importance of Indulgences in the Romish system, 13 — 16. Doctrine of Indulgences refuted, 16 — 22. Ancient doctrine of Indulgences, 23 — 25. Origin of Romish doctrine, 25, 26. Objections to it, 26 — 32.

Letter VIII. Ox The Worship Of Images Amd Relics

Uneasiness of Romanists under the Charge of Idolatry, p. 3 — 7. Reasons for this, 7 — 9 . Idolatry what, 9 — 12 . Idolatry taught by eminent Romish divines, 13 — 36. Romish subterfuges, 36, 37. Dangers of the system, 38 — 42. Conclusion, 42 — 47.

EXAMINATION OF MR. SIBTHORP'S PAMPHLET.

Evils of ill-regulated curiosity, p. 3 — 8. Mr. Sibthorp's mistaken application of Levitical institutions as typical of the Church, 10 — 16. His argument for the Papacy refuted, 17 — 21. His argument against the continuity of the Church of England refuted, 21 — 28. His view of the unity of the Church untenable, 28—30. Conclusion, 30—33.

SUPPLEMENT.

Refutation of Mr. Sibthorp's defence of his interpretation of the Levitical types, p. 3 — 10. Continuity of the Church of England, 11 — 15. Conclusion, 15, 16,

A LETTER

TO

N. WISEMAN, D.D.

(CALLING HIMSELF BISHOP OF MELIPOTAMUS,)

CONTAINING REMARKS ON HIS

LETTER TO MR. NEWMAN.

BY THE REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M.A.

OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD.

SECOND EDITION,

JOHN HENRY PARKER ; J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON.

BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD.

A LETTER,

SfC.

Sir,

Having ascertained from Mr. Newman that it is not his intention to make any reply to your Letter, (a resolution which, considering his recent labours, cannot excite surprise,) I take the liberty of offering to your notice certain remarks which the perusal of your Letter has irresistibly suggested, and I sincerely hope, that the " plain- " ness of speech" which, in a discussion of such importance, it is necessary to employ, will not be regarded by yourself or by others as indicating any want of respect for your abilities and attainments, or any deficiency in charity and good feeling.

You will excuse me therefore, if I seem to question your right to the title of " bishop" which you assume, and which your adherents are willing to recognise. You, at least, cannot deny, that episcopal consecrations, performed ostensibly for Churches without clergy or people, but really for the purpose

a 2

Letter I

of introducing or perpetuating schism, are illegitimate, and confer no canonical mission or jurisdiction a . You are aware, that such ordinations are, according to the Canons, virtually null and void ; and that they do not constitute those who receive them real bishops — successors of the Apostles. If therefore, as is reported, you have received the form of episcopal consecration at Rome, this does not prove you to be a bishop, or excuse you for exercising episcopal and sacerdotal functions without the license, and in opposition to the authority, of your legitimate Diocesan, the Bishop of Worcester ; an offence which subjects you to deposition and excommunication by the Canons received by the whole Catholic Church.

You have availed yourself with characteristic sagacity of the existing controversy, to invite public attention to those views of Romish doctrines and practices, which the leaders of your party are anxious to impress on us. 1 rejoice for the sake of Truth that you have stepped forward so promptly in vindication of those views. It will afford an opportunity for testing their accuracy. Circumstanced as Romanism is in this country, it is perfectly natural that its advocates should endeavour to disembarrass themselves, as far as possible, of various doctrines and practices which have given serious offence. The interests of your communion are so obviously promoted by such a policy,

a Dublin Review, vol. v. p. 288, &c.

LETTER I.

that language and sentiments are tolerated under your circumstances, which in a purely Romish country would be visited with severe reprobation — perhaps, might put you in the prisons of the Inquisition. The end for which you labour sanctities, in the eyes of your superiors, means which they would otherwise view with jealousy and displeasure. Romanists in England have long been deeply sensible of the obstacles which are presented to their system of proselytism by the existence of general prejudices (as they regard them) against the superstitions of their Church. They have felt with you, that "it is exceedingly difficult to think " differently from what every body about us has M always been thinking and saying. It is almost " impossible to stay the mind, when hurried on by " the press of those behind and on either side of us." (p. 19.) And as the general impression has been and continues to be, that superstitious and idolatrous doctrines or practices are more or less authoritatively sanctioned by the Church of Rome, you avail yourself of the opportunity afforded by Mr. Newman's statement to that effect, to clear your Communion as far as you can from imputations so injurious to its interests, and so distressing to your own feelings as an active agent in the system of proselytism.

It will be my endeavour in the following pages to shew, that public opinion is not so grossly mistaken in these matters as you would fain have

LETTER I.

us imagine, and that, while it would be undoubtedly most unjust to attribute superstitious and idolatrous notions or practices to those individuals of your Communion who disclaim them for themselves, the stain adheres most deeply to the community at large, and that the Roman is, emphatically, a corrupt Church.

You have, as you imagine, detected at the commencement of Mr. Newman's Letter to Dr. Jelf an untenable position, and you direct against this assumed position a vast deal of argument more or less plausible ; but you have so obviously mistaken and misrepresented his views, that I can only account for the mistakes you have committed, by the haste with which you have rushed into this controversy.

Mr. Newman states his persuasion, that the Thirty-Nine Articles " do contain a condemnation " of the authoritative teaching of the Church of " Rome" on the subjects of Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration of Images and Relics, the Invocation of Saints, and the Mass. He asserts indeed, and rightly asserts, (speaking generally,) that whereas those Articles " were written before " the Decrees of Trent, they were not directed ki against those Decrees*." But still, he maintains that the Church of Rome does, even now, in some sense authoritatively teach the errors and superstitions against which the Articles are directed,

" Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 6.

LETTER I.

and which were held by Romanists when those Articles were compiled. His next words are, " The Church of Rome taught authoritatively " before those Decrees (of Trent) as well as since. " Those expressed her authoritative teaching, and " they will continue to express it, while she so " teaches. The simple question is, whether taken " by themselves, in their mere letter, they express it ; " whether, in fact, other senses, short of the sense " conveyed in the present authoritative teaching of the " Roman Church, will not fulfil their letter, and may " not even now, in point of fact, be held in that " Church." (p. 6.)

The meaning of this passage is obvious. It asserts as plainly as words can do, that the wording of the Decrees of Trent in some points may not convey doctrines which our Articles condemn ; while the interpretation generally given by the Romanists — their practical comment — the comment furnished by Authority exterior to the Council of Trent, is objectionable. Mr. N. in the next page explains that he is speaking of the 11 popular " system" of Romanism, and soon afterwards he mentions, " the comment which the Church of " Rome has put on them (the Decrees of Trent) 4 ' in preaching and practice." (p. 9.)

Having perused all these passages, you thus address Mr. N.

" Your intention seems to be, as far as I can &i gather it from these and other passages in the

LETTER I.

" Letter, to establish a distinction between the " doctrines defined or decreed in the General " Council of Trent, and the authoritative teaching " of the Roman Church.'' Certainly : so far you have caught his meaning. He undoubtedly does draw a distinction between the Decrees of Trent, and the authorized teaching of the Church of Rome on these points. That is, he is of opinion, that the words of the Decrees of Trent 11 fall short of the " sense conveyed in the present authoritative teaching " of the Roman Church." (p. 6.) The Decrees are encumbered by a practical comment which goes far beyond them.

You now triumph in the persuasion that you have placed your opponent in an absurd position, and you ironically remark,

" The existence of any such authoritative teach- " ing at variance with the doctrines of the Triden- ' ' tine Synod, is to me a novel idea, and I think it " will prove so to all Catholics." (p. 5.)

Permit me for a moment to arrest you in this hasty jump to a conclusion. You have correctly stated, that Mr. Newman maintains a distinction between the Decrees of Trent on these subjects, and the present authoritative teaching of the Church of Rome ; but surely distinction does not necessarily imply variance or opposition. You have studied so long in the Roman schools, that this cannot have escaped your observation. Why then do you so readily assume that Mr. N, would set the present

LETTER I.

authoritative teaching of the Roman Church " at " variance" with the Decrees of Trent?

You have commenced by mistaking the plain meaning of your Author, and in this mistake you steadily persist to the end of your Pamphlet. Excuse me, Sir, if, on further consideration, it appears to me that this mistake is not quite unintentional. One might hesitate indeed before one presumed to think, that so practised a controversialist as yourself had permitted any thing to escape from his pen inadvertently. Romish controversialists have before now found it convenient to close their own eyes* and to endeavour to close those of the public, against distinctions in which the turning points of controversy are involved. Nothing would be less in accordance with the system which has been adopted by the English Romanists in their controversies with us, than the recognition of such a distinction as that which you have assailed. The language of the Council of Trent has been your invariable refuge, whenever we have pressed you hard with the errors and superstitions prevalent in your Church. To this alone you would gladly direct our attention, as presenting the only exposition of doctrine authorized by all the Churches in communion with Rome. Whatever else may be held or practised amongst you, is, you would assure us, only a matter of private opinion or practice — quite unauthorized. And your Church is therefore to be held responsible for nothing but the guarded and

LETTER I.

comparatively moderate statements of the Council of Trent. You would persuade us, that because idolatry and superstition are not pronounced necessary to salvation by your Church — because you are not obliged to practise them under pain of Anathema — because they do not enter into the very language of the decrees de fide — your Church is quite free from the offence of allowing and authorizing them. You seem to argue, that because you may be Romanists without superseding the worship of God by that of the Virgin Mary, the Saints, Images, and Relics, you are therefore actually free, generally speaking, from the guilt of so doing. Your argument goes to prove, that a man who deliberately takes the life of another, is not a murderer, provided that his act is purely voluntary, and is not done in obedience to the law of God or of the Church. This is a very convenient system of argument indeed. It enables you to avoid any discussion on the weak points of your Church, and to raise an outcry against the prejudice and bigotry of those who would venture to impute superstitions or errors to the Church of Rome generally. It will be my endeavour to shew, that there is some authoritative teaching in the Church of Rome besides that of the Council of Trent, and vou will yourself afford testimony to the correctness of this position.

But I return to your pamphlet. You ask Mr. N. what his reply would be, if you should assert that an interpretation at variance with that which he believes

LETTER I.

"to be the only one reconcileable with catholic truth" is generally prevalent in the Church of England, and should thence argue, that the Church of England is " not to be judged by the Articles, but by " such authoritative teaching, and that therefore its " doctrines, and consequently itself, are not catholic." (p. 5.) The reply is obvious and easy. You have no reason to assume that Mr. N. believes his interpretation to be " the only one reconcileable with " catholic truth." He merely advances what appears to him a catholic interpretation. I am of opinion that the language of the Articles, and the circumstances under which they were written, point to an interpretation somewhat different from that advanced by Mr. N. and yet I have not the least doubt that he would readily admit the orthodoxy of that interpretation, though different from his own. Your premises therefore break down ; and your conclusion finishes in smoke. Supposing however, that, for the sake of argument, he were to admit, that the Articles are unsoundly interpreted by many persons, still that would not render the Church uncatholic, while such interpretations are openly opposed by many other persons of learning and authority, and while they are not recommended and urged by the authorities of the Church. When you can shew, that the idolatrous and superstitious doctrines and practices authorized in your Church are openly opposed and condemned by any influential portion of its members, we shall be rejoiced to

LETTER I.

relieve your Communion from imputations which must, until then, adhere to it.

" It is a serious thing," you continue, 44 to charge " us with setting up the Blessed Virgin in place " of the Holy Trinity, and Purgatory instead of 14 Heaven and Hell. We naturally ask, what shall 44 be considered sufficient evidence of there being an " authoritative teaching, that supersedes the solemn 44 and synodal Decrees of our Church, and makes us " responsible in solidum for its lessons ?" (p. 6.) To this question you have yourself in part furnished the reply in the next page, where you say, " To 44 the teaching of the Roman schools, the Catechism 44 of the Council of Trent, and the sentiments of the " best writers, I have no objections to make. But 44 that you should give as evidence of authoritative 44 teaching popular notions and practices is certainly " surprising." You therefore admit that there is some authoritative teaching in the Church of Rome, besides that of the Decrees of Trent, and of course you cannot hesitate to add to the sources of such authoritative teaching, the decrees of Roman Pontiffs, and the actions of canonized Saints, which are held up at this day for the imitation and edification of the whole Roman Church. I am perfectly satisfied with the concessions you have made, and I believe there will be little difficulty in establishing on these grounds the substantial correctness of the positions which Mr. N. has advanced. Let us consider those positions for a moment.

LETTER I.

Of " the present authoritative teaching of the " Church of Rome," he says, " Instead of setting " before the soul the Holy Trinity, and Heaven " and Hell,, it does seem to me, as a popular system, " to preach the blessed Virgin, and the Saints, and " Purgatory." — And again, "In the Roman schools ' ' we find St. Mary and the Saints the prominent " objects of regard and dispensers of mercy, Pur- " gatory or Indulgences the means of obtaining it.** (P 7.) '

Without doubt, " it is a serious thing" to make this charge, and " it is a serious thing" for you to hear it made. You do not relish such plain speaking. I must however entreat you to bear with me, while I proceed to establish its substantial accuracy — while I demonstrate, that the Blessed Virgin, the Saints, Indulgences, or Purgatory, are commonly and authoritatively set before the souls of your people instead of the Trinity, Heaven and Hell, and viewed as prominent objects of regard, dispensers of mercy, or means of obtaining it. After this I shall proceed to consider the remainder of your Letter.

1 . The Blessed Virgin is authoritatively set before your souls instead of the Trinity.

It is not meant that the Roman Church disbelieves the Trinity, or never worships the Trinity, but that the Virgin receives honours which are due only to the Trinity — honours which interfere with the sole prerogatives of the Deity. The first proof of this

LETTER I.

shall be derived from an authoritative document which all members of your Communion are bound to reverence. I mean, the Encyclical Letter of Pope Gregory XVI. addressed in 1832 to all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops, in which the following passage occurs,

" We hasten unto you, Venerable brethren, and " as a sign of our good will towards you, we " address this letter to you, on this most joyful " day, when we solemnize the festival of the tri- " umphant Assumption of the Holy Virgin into " Heaven, that she whom we have acknowledged " as our patroness and deliverer amongst the greatest " calamities, may propitiously assist us while we " write, and by her celestial inspiration may guide us " to such counsels as may be most salutary to the tl Christian Church ."

I need scarcely remark, that the passages printed in Italics distinctly invest the Virgin with the attributes of Deity. The holy Psalmist declares, that God is his " fortress and deliverer," (Ps. cxliv. 2.)— his " help and deliverer," (Ps. xl. 17.) The Pope regards the Virgin Mary as his " patron and " deliverer." The Prophet Isaiah teaches us, that " counsel" is one of the seven gifts of the Holy

LETTER I.

Spirit, (Is. xl. 2.) The Roman Church herself prays in the sacrament of Confirmation, " Emitte " in eos (confirmandos) septiformem Spiritum tuum " Paraclitum de ccelis, Spiritum sapiential et " intellectus, Spiritum consilii et fortitudinis," &c. (Pontifical. Rom. De Confirm.) I turn to the first treatise on the Trinity by one of your Professors of Theology that comes to my hand, and I there find that the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is proved amongst other things by the fact, that the power of giving grace, of giving spiritual gifts, is ascribed to them in holy Scripture. (See Tournely de Trinitate, p. 384, 499.) And yet, notwithstanding all this, the Pope ascribes confidently to the Virgin Mary the very powers which Scripture and tradition give to the Holy Ghost.

And now, Sir, perilous and idolatrous as such sentiments are, have they ever once been publicly objected to by a single member of your Communion ? Has any one of you ever dared to protest against this ascription of the attributes of Deity to a creature ? Will you yourself venture to utter a word in opposition to it ? I am afraid this would be rather too much to expect from any " Vicar " Apostolic." And why is it that the whole body of your Communion have remained silent, and refrained from uttering a word in censure of language so plainly savouring of heresy and idolatry? Why is it, that even those amongst you who may disapprove of such statements, have

16 LETTER I.

remained mute and confounded ? Because they emanate from Authority — an Authority to which you are obliged to submit > You have asked for some proof that the Virgin Mary is authoritatively put forward in your Church instead of the Trinity ; and I believe you have received a sufficient answer.

I pass over another passage of the same revolting character at the conclusion of the Encyclical Letter, and proceed to other proofs which will further establish the character of the authoritative teaching in your Church. You will not deny the authority of the Litany of the blessed Virgin, printed at the end of the Roman Catechism compiled by Cardinal Bellarmine, and to the repetition of which, Indulgences were attached by Sixtus V, Benedict XIII, and Pius VII. At the conclusion of this is the following prayer.

" We fly to thy protection, Holy Mother of God, " despise not our prayers in our necessities, but 11 deliver us at all times from all evils, glorious and " blessed Virgin d ." The holy Psalmist placed his trust in God. " The Lord will be a refuge for the oppressed^ a refuge in times of trouble. " (Ps. ix. 9.) He consoled the afflicted of Israel by the hope that the Lord " will regard the prayer of the

LETTER T.

destitute, and not despise their prayer." (Ps. cii. 17.) Our Lord himself taught us to pray to our Heavenly Father to " deliver us from all evil." And yet, in spite of all this, the Popes grant indulgences for the repetition of prayers which express the very same sort of confidence in the Virgin as the Scriptures teach us to feel towards God.

I will here mention another prayer to the Virgin, to the repetition of which Pius VI. in 1786 granted Indulgences. It is as follows : " Condescend to " permit me to praise thee, sacred Virgin. Grant " me strength against thine enemies. Blessed be " God in his Saints 6 ." The " Stabat Mater," which has Indulgences annexed to its repetition by Innocent XI, is full of similar petitions f . But I will not dwell further on this branch of the subject.

You wish for some proofs from your " best writers," or any of them, that the Virgin Mary is presented instead of the Trinity, and that she is regarded as the dispenser of mercy. You will readily admit the eminent learning and piety of Cardinal Bona. Hear then the following prayer extracted from his w r ritings.

" Oh most sweet Virgin Mary, Mother of God " and our Lord Jesus Christ, refuge of sinners, " and mother of Mercy, I commit myself this day " and evermore to thy peculiar protection with most

e Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences, p. 244. 1 lb. p. 245.

B

LETT EH I.

" humble devotion. Place me near unto thee, and " protect me from all my enemies visible and invisible. " Say unto my soul, I am thy salvation. Direct " me thy servant in all my ways and actions. Coni( sole me in all my griefs and afflictions. Defend 4< and preserve me from all evils and dangers. " Turn thy face unto me when the end of my "life shall come; and may thy consolation, in " that tremendous hour, rejoice my spirit. Thou " canst do all that thou wilt in heaven and earth, " nor can any resist thy will, for thou obtainest " from the Almighty whatever thou seekest. Hear " therefore and receive my prayers, and despise " me not when I confide in thy mercy. Behold 4f I fall down before thee, most gracious Virgin, " I fall down and worship in thee thy Son, and " I implore thy suffrages to obtain that my sins " may be blotted out, to reconcile the heart of thy " Son to my heart, that He may possess me, and " make me a man according unto his heart g ."