Continued from Historical Retrospect.—Fourth Period. 942 A.D.

HISTORICAL RETROSPECT.—PURIFICATION BEFORE BIRTH.

PETRUS COMMESTOR, “Magister Historiarum,” flourished in 1145 A.D., and was Chancellor of the University of Paris. In a sermon on the Virgin Mary he said: “For the blessed Virgin was conceived in sin, and was subject to the penalty of sin; and therefore her conception should not be celebrated as a Feast. But, since she was sanctified in the womb and cleansed from Original Sin, therefore her nativity may be celebrated. For, when the grace of the Holy Spirit came upon her and the power of the Highest overshadowed her, she was then purified from sin, and, as we may suppose, the lust of sin in her was extinguished. But yet there remained the penalty for sin, which was only alleviated, but not dispensed with.”

Gilbertus Porretanus, Bishop of Poictiers in 1147 A.D. (super Boëthio) wrote: “The body of Christ was derived from the body of the Virgin; and she, like all the rest of mankind, was subject to sin and death, by reason of the sin of our first parents.”

So also Zacharias, Episc. Chrysopolitanus, a Premonstratensian, writing in 1150 A.D. on the words: “the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee,” said (De Concordia Evangel.): “Although we may be made holy, yet not one of us is born holy; for the Prophet says: In sin did my mother conceive me. Jesus was the only one that ever was born holy, because He was not conceived by carnal commingling.”

At the same time Sicardus, Bishop of Cremona, narrated the supposed origin of the Feast of the Conception of the Virgin (Summa de Divinis Officiis, vel Mitrale, lib. viii. cap. de Nativ. Virg.): “Some persons used to celebrate the conception of the blessed Virgin—and perhaps they do so still—because of a revelation which they say was made to an abbot, when he was being shipwrecked. But the story is not authentic; and therefore it seems proper that such festivities should be prohibited, because the Virgin was conceived in Original Sin.”

Arnoldus Carnotensis, Abbas Bonevallis, in 1153 A.D. (Tract. De Laud. Virg.), asserted that: “The Virgin has been put over the whole of creation; and whoever bends the knee to Jesus, also falls down on the ground to pray to the mother; and, as I conclude, the glory of the Son is not so much common to the mother, but is one and the same glory.” This is the way in which he thinks he proves his assertion: “The mother cannot be alienated from the domination and power of her Son; for Mary and Christ have one and the same flesh and spirit, and one and the same love. That was the meaning of the words addressed to her: The Lord is with thee; and she inseparably enjoyed the promise and gift. For unity admits of no division, nor can it be separated into parts; and although two are made one flesh, yet they cannot be again separated. I therefore assert that the glory of the Son, and the glory of the mother are not so much common to both, as identical.”

Joannes Belethus wrote his Rationale Divinorum Officiorum in 1162 A.D. In chapter lxxi., he says: “The candles on Candlemas or the Feast of the Purification of the Virgin Mary, have no authority, except that they have come down from an ancient custom of the pagans. For, of old, there was a custom in Rome, of lighting the city at the beginning of February, and going in procession through the streets, each one carrying a lighted candle; which was called Amburbale. This custom of the pagans, at the beginning of February, was adopted by the Christians at the Feast of Mary.” Again (cap. 146, Rubrica de Assumptione B. Virginis): “Some used at one time to celebrate a Feast of Conception (of the Virgin), and perhaps they celebrate it to this day; but it was never authorized nor approved of; indeed it should rather be put a stop to, because the Virgin Mary was conceived in sin.”

That turbulent, seditious, headstrong, overbearing, worldly-minded, obstinate, and insolent prelate, Thomas à Becket (1164 A.D.), who deserved to be flogged at a cart’s tail until he had been thoroughly humbled, is now worshipped as a saint, and suffers under cold encomiums and spiritless panegyrics from Cardinal Manning, simply because he, the saint, was an outrageous scoundrel; and although the bishops, abbots, and clergy of his own day condemned his behaviour as rash and criminal, and in no way suitable to a saint. They called him always “Regis turbator et Ecclesiæ.” In very plain language they wrote an account of his conduct to the Pope and cardinals. Pope Alexander, in 1164, sent him a decretal letter, enjoining more prudence,—“consulimus et omnimodis exhortamur,” said the Pope; and bidding him “Regi in omnibus et per omnia deferre,” by all means to defer to the king and give way to him in all things. In other letters, the Pope urged more discretion, more circumspection, and less precipitation, “ad gratiam et benevolentiam illustris Regis Anglorum recuperandam” (Epist. et Vita Div. Thomae, Brussels, 1682). Cardinal Wilhelmus and Cardinal Otto wrote also to Pope Alexander, accusing Becket of traitorous and revolutionary practices. Perhaps that accounts for the sudden change in Pope Alexander’s demeanour; for that Pope canonized Becket four years after Becket’s “happy despatch.”

It may be well to halt our procession of witnesses for a few minutes, while we shortly consider the canonisation of saints; that is to say, the manufacture of deified heroes, by the Roman Church, out of a raw material which is verily but little available for the purpose. A remarkable instance of the kind is that of S. Amphibolus, Bishop of the Isle of Man, and fellow martyr of S. Alban. Archbishop Ussher has incontrovertibly shown (De Brit. Eccles. Primord., c. 14), that it was nothing but a stupid blunder. The old legend of S. Alban was misunderstood. The shaggy cloak of ecclesiastics, in that age, was called an Amphibolus; and naturally it went to martyrdom with its owner, and so was made a saint by an ignorant pope. That was worse than making that large cut of beef, still carved in the Guildhall, a “Baron”; and worse than Heliogabalus making his horse a “Consul.”

S. Veronica is another example. She is supposed to have lent her handkerchief to our Saviour; and a picture of His face was alleged to have been miraculously impressed on it. There are two of these handkerchiefs in Rome, each claiming to be the true one,—the one at S. Silvester’s Church, the other at S. Peter’s. There is also a prayer addressed to this picture-pocket-handkerchief, in the Offices: “Conduct us, O thou blessed picture, to our proper home, where we may behold the pure face of Christ.” There is also an altar at S. Peter’s, built to that rag, by Pope Urban VIII. Thus the rag has been honoured more than the British bunting; and yet it has been proved by Mabillon to be a hoax (Iter. Ital., p. 88): “Hæc Christi imago, a recentioribus Veronicæ dicitur; imaginem ipsam veteres Veronicam appellabunt,” etc. That author asserted that the name of the rag—which the Romanists assert to have been the pocket-handkerchief of the supposed woman called Veronica—was itself called, in former times, Veronica, which was a corruption of the words verum icon, or “correct portrait.” Thus was a female saint imagined and manufactured out of ignorance and a blunder as to a name.

Similarly, Faith, Hope, and Charity were imagined to have been virgin martyrs. The Jesuit Garnet, who helped to contrive the Gunpowder Plot, and said the mass for the murderers, and gave those dynamiters absolution in advance, on the morning of the intended explosion, was for a long time described as a saint on his pictures at the Gesù in Rome, and also at S. Omer. He was one of those firebrands who earned his popish sainthood by plotting a most diabolical wholesale murder of innocent persons. That Garnet, and a lot of his rebel crew, have this year been canonized by the great beatification office of murderers and filibusters at Rome.

Now let the procession of witnesses move on!

Ricardus a S. Victore, who flourished in 1164, gives the following evidence: “It is indeed very clear that, unless the blessed Virgin had been entirely purged from her sins, she could not have borne that sublime fruit. What I have said, I will repeat more strongly; unless the Virgin had been cleansed from every contagion of vices, she could not have given birth to the Son of God… For, at the very time when the Virgin was subject to the assault of every vice, by the Holy Spirit overshadowing her, the soil of our sinful nature obtained full peace, and was cleansed from the root of all sins. But her Son, Emmanuel, never had in Him anything which required to be purged out; for, from the hour of His conception, He received all the fulness of holiness, and grew and was perfected in every good thing.”

Mark! up to the moment when the Virgin conceived our Lord, by the Holy Ghost overshadowing her, she “was subject to the assault of every vice.” What a stout denial of that ridiculous theory of the Immaculate Conception of Mary! In the face of that calm and scientific statement, how can we read in patience the staring forgery which the Benedictine Zoller has attributed to that great writer, in order to prove the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (lib. ii., in Cant., c. 26): “The Virgin was a terror to the princes of darkness, so that they dared not approach her, nor tempt her. The flame of her love frightened them away. The fervour of her prayers, and the ardour of her devotions, singed them. They were dumbfounded to find one who was without sin. Thus was fulfilled what was promised, The power of the Highest overshadowed her, and strengthened her, so that it was impossible she should ever commit sin; and from the moment that she became the Temple of God, she was so privileged that she could not be marked by any stain.”

What a clumsy forgery! It ends by a denial of Zoller’s pet dogma; and attributes the supposed purification to the time that she conceived her Saviour, when she “became the Temple of God.” Zoller gives another pseudo-quotation (De Emman., lib. ii. c. 26): “Unless Mary had been completely purged from every taint of vice, she could not have given birth to God the Son of God. For the Virgin to conceive Him, for the Virgin to bear Him, it was necessary that she should be infinitely holy, and infinitely pure.” That is to say, at the time when she conceived our Lord, but not before, she became a goddess,—“infinitely holy, and infinitely pure.”

Jacobus, Pictaviensis Episc., in 1170 A.D., took the view which was novel in his time (Sermo, Annunc.): “Without doubt the blessed Virgin Mary had the guilt of Original Sin; but she was immediately afterwards purged by grace.” Again (Sermo, Nativ. Virg.): “Although Mary was conceived amid the thorns and briars of vices, yet she was purified in her mother’s womb from the stains of sin.”

But Saint Maurice, Archbishop of Paris in 1175, in conjunction with the University of Paris, forbad the celebration of the Feast of the Conception of the Virgin Mary, on the ground that “she was conceived in Original Sin, as taught by Gulielmus, Altissiodorensis Episcopus.”

Another bishop, Raynaldus, Episc. Salernitanus, in 1179 (Dist. cap. De Archd. apud Paulum ab omnibus Sanctis), made the like assertion, that: “the blessed Virgin was born in Original Sin, for she was generated by the seed of Adam.”

So also Cardinal Petrus Capuanus, in 1190 A.D. (Summa de Trin. De Incarn. Verbi): “Not until after the blessed Virgin Mary had been quickened, was she cleansed from Original Sin, by God’s grace.”

In 1198 A.D. that Pope of Popes, Innocent III., came to the throne;—he who proclaimed the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and yet wrote a book against that doctrine; he who assembled a Council to deliberate, and then proclaimed scores of dogmas, suddenly, in spite of the Council. In a sermon on the Purification of the Virgin, preached by that Pope in 1204, he said: “The Holy Spirit first came to the Virgin while she was in her mother’s womb; and purged her soul from Original Sin. He afterwards overshadowed her, so that He might free her soul from the lust of sin, so that she might indeed be without wrinkle or spot or any such thing.” As so many cardinals, bishops, divines, and saints had dated the Purification from the time that the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary, that wily Pope, in order to work out the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, invented another purification, which he said was before the birth of Mary. But then I ask, if she was then freed from Original Sin,—from phronēma sarkos, from the tendency to sin,—how was it that, at the time just before she conceived our Lord, her soul required to be “freed from the lust of sin”?

In the year 1200, Joannes Semeca, Teutonicus, Glossator and Bishop of Halberstadt (Sermo, Nativ. B.V.), said: “We must hold that the blessed Virgin was conceived in Original Sin; and that she remained under the guilt of it for some time. Yet it is credible that that time was short; perhaps, very short.” Again (De Consecr., Dist. cap. pronuntiandum, in Glossa): “Concerning the Feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, we shall say nothing, because it should not be celebrated; seeing that she was conceived in Original Sin, as all the saints were, excepting only the Person of Jesus Christ.”

In the same year Hugo de Vercellis, Bishop of Ferrara, a renowned canonist, tried to compromise the matter after the fashion of Pope Innocent III. (De Consecr., Dist. iv., cap. Firmississime): “There are two births; one in the womb, and one out of the womb; the first, when the soul is sent into the body (i.e. embryo); the second, when the body issues out into the light of day. Mary, and John the Baptist, and Jeremiah, were born in the womb in Original Sin. Wherefore the conception of the Virgin Mary should not be celebrated, because she was conceived in sin.”

Gulielmus, Altissiodorensis Episc., flourished in 1206 A.D. In the third book of his Summa he says: “Since the Virgin Mary was in the loins of Abraham, and descended from him by an act of concupiscence (on the part of her parents), therefore she contracted Original Sin when she was conceived. It was on that ground that Maurice, Bishop of Paris, prohibited the celebration of the Feast of the Virgin Mary’s Conception.”

The same doctrine was proclaimed by Praepositivus Lombardus, a learned doctor, and Chancellor of Paris in 1207. He was styled “Vir mirabilis,” and said (Summa, cap. De Sanctific. Virg.), “The blessed Virgin contracted Original Sin in her conception, but was cleansed from it by sanctification in her mother’s womb.”

So also the great Alanus de Insulis, Bishop of Auxerre, who was styled “Doctor Universalis” (Expos. Symboli Athan.): “After the blessed Virgin had been quickened, she was purified and freed from Original Sin by God’s grace.”

Now Saint Dominic, the inventor of “the Rosary” and the founder of the Order of Preachers, or Dominicans, desires to render his testimony. He gives it through his biographer, Nonatus (Hist. S. D., tom. ii. cap. 11), who narrates with a grave face that Dominic, in 1215 A.D., had communications with Satan, and compelled the evil spirits to come and answer this question: “Which of the saints, after Jesus Christ, is there in heaven whom the devils most fear, and whom men should therefore most worship?” And they answered unanimously that: “No one is ever damned who perseveres in the worship of the Virgin Mary, and in obedience to her; for one sigh of hers, offered by her to the Holy Trinity, exceeds in value the prayers of all the saints put together; and we fear her more than all the saints in Paradise; nor can we ever prevail against her faithful servants.”

It is a great pity that S. Luke did not know that fact when he was writing the Acts of the Apostles; because he has narrated the doings and sayings of the apostles, and has ignored Mary. But then S. Luke drew his inspiration from the Holy Spirit, and had no commerce with the devils. Moreover, we learn from that story that the devils are not so clever as we have been taught; for they cannot keep their own counsel.

In the same year of the Lateran Council, 1215 A.D., Lotharius wrote a book (De miseria conditionis humanae), in which he testified that, not until after Mary had been vivified in the womb, was she purified, by God’s grace, from the taint of Original Sin.

In 1216 Pope Honorius III. mounted the throne of the Emperors of Rome. In preaching on the Purification of the Virgin, he enlarged on a text, which he misquoted, misinterpreted, and grievously wrested: “A river shall make glad the holy place of the tabernacles of the Most High. God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved” (Ps. xlvi. 4). “Those tabernacles, which mean the blessed Virgin Mary, were sanctified by the Most High, because He cleansed her from Original Sin, while she was in the womb of her mother, Anna. The Virgin had this prerogative, that she was not only cleansed from sin, but also afterwards, when she was conceiving her Son, she was freed from the lust or desire to sin; so that thenceforward she could not commit any sin. Therefore it was that the Psalmist added: God is in the midst of her, she shall not be moved. God found a place of rest in the Virgin, and there only, when she conceived her Son; because, from that time forward, He found no sin in her, nor any desire to sin. In all other saints He found a place of turbulence; because He found, in them, desires to sin, from which they were never freed, while in this life.”

Again, in a sermon on the Assumption of the Virgin, he said: “From the stain of Original Sin, which sin the soul contracted in its union with flesh that had been carnally propagated, some few, by a special privilege, were freed before birth, while yet in the wombs of their mothers; namely, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and the blessed Virgin; although, indeed, with regard to the blessed Virgin, we find no hint given in the Scriptures.”

Incautious Pope! you have admitted in your infallibility that the Virgin Mary was conceived in sin, and therefore required to be “freed from Original Sin.” Moreover, you have, also, admitted that no hint of all this is to be found in the Holy Scriptures, although another of your infallible Popes has declared that the Scriptures reveal everything that is necessary to be believed! Incautious Pope! you cannot keep your counsel better than Dominic’s devils. Honorius nevertheless, repeats this evidence, at a later period, in a sermon on John the Baptist; and also in a sermon on Passion Sunday.

A Franciscan monk of the name of S. Anthony of Padua, in 1220 A.D., testified that “The blessed Virgin was sanctified by grace, while in her mother’s womb, and then born free from all sin.” So! S. Anthony denied the Immaculate Conception!

In the same year Laurentius Cremensis, Glossator (De Consecr., Dist. iv. cap. Per baptismum), laid it down that “The birth of the Virgin Mary in the womb is not celebrated as a feast, because she was conceived in Original Sin; but her birth out of the womb may be celebrated.” He repeats this under the head of the third Distinction of De Consecr., chap. Pronuntiandum.

Joannes Gallus, Gallicus, or Gilles, a Dominican doctor of the University of Paris, in 1220 (Summa, lib. iii.), likewise asserts that: “while the flesh of Christ was in the blessed Virgin it was subject to sin, and was necessarily in sin; but before it was united to the Word, it was purged from all contagion of sin.” Again: “The Virgin Mary was born with the taint of Original Sin; for she had been propagated by the seed of Adam.”

In the same year Jacobus de Vitriaco (in Litania Majori) declared that “We invoke the saints in order that they may intercede for us; that is, in order that their merits and good works may be imputed to us, and in order that they may be well disposed towards us; because, if they are so, God will also be well disposed to us, and what we desire will be done.” So much had the worship of Mary and the saints increased and been consolidated in the Roman Church, that God’s love was denied! The fact that He had been “reconciled to us, even while we were dead in trespasses and sins,” was denied! and the sufficiency of the intercession and mediation of Christ Jesus was denied!

Jacobus de Casa, a Franciscan (De Conceptu Virginali), nevertheless declared that “the blessed Virgin was conceived in Original Sin; but, afterwards, while in her mother’s womb, she was more sanctified than other men.”

An Ecclesiastical Council was held at Oxford in 1222, and there (cap. 8) it was decreed: “that all the Feasts of the blessed Mary should be kept with due reverence, except the Feast of the Conception.” Yet “the Conception” of Mary is found in the list of festivals as early as 1247 A.D. (Mansi, xxiii. pp. 764 and 870; and xxiv. p. 813). The Franciscans, in the general Chapter of the Order, at Pisa in 1263, first admitted the Feast of the Conception in their Order.

Alexander de Ales, the “Doctor Irrefragibilis,” in the third book of his Summa, in the year 1230, left no doubt on which side he cast his authority in the balance: “Since every human being who has been carnally generated has of necessity contracted Original Sin, it follows that the blessed Virgin, who had been carnally generated, contracted Original Sin… The Virgin was not holy in conception, Christ alone was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and therefore He alone was holy in conception; and, excepting Him, all mankind must confess what David confessed (Ps. li. 5): In sins did my mother conceive me; and therefore the blessed Virgin was conceived in sins. If she were not conceived in sin, she would have had no guilt; and having no guilt, she would not have needed the redemption achieved by Christ; for redemption was effected only because of sin. But it is contrary to the Catholic faith to say that the blessed Virgin Mary was not redeemed by the blood of Christ.” Alexander de Ales repeats this argument in many other places.

In 1225, Conradus de Saxonia asserted that the Virgin Mary was conceived in sin; but that, after quickening, she was made more holy than others.

Now that great authority, Albertus Magnus, Episc. Ratisbonensis, comes to the witness table and gives his testimony (III. Sent., Dist. III.): “We assert that the blessed Virgin contracted Original Sin, and that she was not sanctified before conception, nor in conception, but after conception. To assert the contrary is a heresy, which has been condemned by S. Bernard, and by all the theologians of the University of Paris.”

S. Raimundus de Pennafort, the Compilator Decretalium, Cardinal, and Penitentiary of Pope Gregory IX., is no mean authority. None was esteemed more highly than he, for centuries. What does he witness? (Summa I., tit. De Feriis): “Let us not touch upon the conception of the Blessed Virgin, because it should not be celebrated; seeing that she was conceived in sin, just like all the rest of mankind, excepting only the Person of Christ, who was not conceived of human seed, but by a mystical inspiration.”

Bartholomeus Brixiensis was the renowned Glossator of the Canon Law, in 1236 A.D. He deposes that (De Consecr., Dist. III. cap. Pronuntiandum in Glossa): “The Feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin should not be celebrated, because she was conceived in Original Sin.”

Thomas de Ales, a Franciscan, and Doctor of the University of Paris in 1240, wrote (De Vitâ B.V.): “The blessed Virgin was conceived in sin; but subsequently she was sanctified, while yet in her mother’s womb, beyond other men.”

The renowned Cardinal Hostiensis wrote his Summa Aurea about the same time, and says (De Pæ. et Re. § Quis debet confiteri): “No one who was conceived by a woman, and human seed, was ever conceived without Original Sin; although we read legends of some who were made holy in the maternal womb; such as Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and the glorious Virgin Mary.”

Yet even Cardinal Hostiensis—so base and benighted were the times—could permit himself to pen the following: (201) “There is a state of marriage existing between God and the blessed Virgin Mary (est etiam matrimonium inter Deum et B.V.M.). Wherefore it is said (Cant. i. 15): Lo! thou art fair, my love; behold thou art fair; thou hast dove’s eyes.”

What awful blasphemy! A marriage between the Almighty God and the Virgin Mary! Surely this is another of the foul importations from the pagan mythology of ancient Rome. Nor can the Romanists escape by saying that it is a blasphemy invented by Henry de Segusio, Cardinal Hostiensis. For concerning that “marriage” we read in the canon law (Causa xxviii. q. ii. § 1 et 2): “The angel Gabriel was sent, etc. Then the contract was made between the parties by the words: Thou hast found favour with the Lord; and: Lo! thou shalt conceive and bear a Son. The ratification of the contract was contained in the words: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee. The consummation took place when Mary said: Behold, the handmaid of the Lord. Then there followed, ineffably and indissolubly and without necessity for any repetition, the marriage of the Divine nature with the human nature, in the womb of the glorious Virgin Mary, thus reuniting the two natures. The contract was contained, on the one part, in the words of Gabriel: Hail, Mary, full of grace; the Lord is with thee; and on the other part, in the answer of the Virgin: Be it unto me according to Thy word. Thus was the marriage contracted by mutual consent… It is manifest from the foregoing that God had for wife a human being incorrupt, unique, and a virgin both before the birth, during the birth, and after the birth of her Son; namely, the blessed and glorious Mary, within whom the Son of God took upon Him a pure and immaculate human flesh, as well as both natures—Divine and human—and ineffably and irrevocably united them. But He (the Son) also married a wife, spiritual, immaculate, and virgin—I mean the marriage of the Son of God and the Church,” etc. etc. Such blasphemies was it necessary to utter, in order to make a semblance of proof of the immaculate conception of Mary!

Another Cardinal, Joannes de Villa Albatis, Archiepiscopus Bisuntinus and Doctor of the University of Paris, in 1240, declared (Sermon on the Purification) that: “The Virgin was purified from Original Sin, while yet in her mother’s womb, after her quickening.” He repeated the same in another sermon on the Assumption.

Vincentius Bellovacensis, who was surnamed “Speculator,” in the same year (Summa Summarum, tit. De Feriis, q. 8) wrote: “The Feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin should not be celebrated, as they do now in many places; so we learn by the Gloss on De Consecratione, Distinctio iii. chapter 1, where the reason is given, viz. Because she was conceived in sin.”

Cardinal Hugo de S. Theodorico, or S. Chiaro, wrote, at the same time, in his Postilla (super Eccles. vii.): “The blessed Virgin Mary contracted Original Sin in her conception; for which reason her conception is not celebrated. Or if some few do celebrate it, they excuse themselves by saying that they have respect only to the sanctification which followed the conception.”

Next year, 1241, Joannes a Wildeshufen, Episc. Bosinensis, declared that (III. Sent., Dist. 3): “From the Scriptures we learn that One alone of all mankind was free from sin, namely Christ. But, of women, not one was free from sin; for the Virgin Mary was tainted with Original Sin.”

In 1244, Vincentius Historialis Burgundus, Ord. Pred., Doctor Parisiensis et Episc. Bellovacensis, wrote (Tract. De Laudibus B.V., tit. de Sanctif.): “The blessed Virgin was sanctified after quickening, and purged then from Original Sin, so that she might be born in perfect purity.” That is, she was conceived in sin, but then purified from it while in the womb; of which purification no proof whatever is offered.

Joannes Genesius (Qualeus) Parmensis testified in 1249 (De Rosario, cap. v.): “The Virgin was born in sin, for she was conceived of the seed of Adam.”

(To be continued.)