satisfaction in his piety or his ample almsgiving,— nay, who does not positively feel a sense of worthlessness in him which induces him to refrain from all comparison with every penitent, but newly drawn from the most loathsome sins ;-to such a man I have to say, remember the Gospel news of mercy is proclaimed to penitents, that CHRIST came not to call the righteous, even had there been any such. Oh, ye haughty ones, cast away from yourselves all proud thoughts. Come down from your high towers and your false confidences. Had ye done all that was demanded of you, ye had been but unprofitable servants; but having so often sinned against the Majesty of the Eternal GOD, what choice have ye but to "hide ye in the dust for fear of the LORD ?" Hath HE not said "The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of man shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted? " 1

APPENDIX.

as

Page 2.

of one who had ever lived an abandoned life."

How very natural this sentiment is, may be seen in the effect it produced upon Origen, with whom, it may be said, the error of making more than one Mary originated. Bernard Lamy says, in his "Dissertatio de Unica Magdalena," "This opinion" (i.e. that the penitent woman of S. Luke, the sister of Lazarus, and Mary Magdalene, are but one person) "was first opposed by Origen; because it seemed to him a very harsh conclusion to suppose that the woman 'a sinner,'-by which appellation he understood a public prostitute,—should eventually become the beloved hostess of CHRIST." He then quotes Origen as follows:-" "It is not credible that Mary, whom JESUS loved, the sister of Martha, who had chosen the better part, should be called a woman in the city that was a sinner. And we think this because the woman who, according to Matthew and Mark, poured upon the head of JESUS a precious unguent, is nowhere written to have been a sinner. But she who, according to Luke, is spoken of as the sinner, did not dare to come to the head of CHRIST, but washed His feet with her tears, as though scarcely even worthy of His very feet, by reason of her sorrow which was working a durable repentance unto salvation. And she who is spoken of by S. Luke weeps, and weeps abundantly, so as to wash the feet of JESUS with her tears; but the Mary of S. John is neither introduced as a sinner, nor as weeping.'

"Origen,"1 continues Lamy, "both by these reasonings and

1 See, however, notes to pages 11 and 14. I think it is very important to observe, with respect to the testimony of the Fathers on this subject, that when S. Augustine comes professedly in his De Consensu Evangelistarum to harmonize the Gospels, he favours the view of but one Magdalene, whereas Chrysostom, Jerome, and Ambrose in intimating rather than asserting an op

by his authority, led very many of the holy Fathers to recognise more than one Magdalene. So great was his authority, and in the interpretation of Holy Scripture he was considered so entirely to have carried off the palm from all other interpreters, that they who adhered to his interpretations ranked second to him."-Lamy. Dissertatio de Unica Magdalena. Appendix ad Comment. in Harm. Evang. pp. 650, 652. Parisiis. 1699.

Page 3.

"while viewing them separately."

Bernard Lamy furnishes us with the following interesting history of the origin of the modern doubts as to the identity of the Magdalene with the penitent woman and Mary sister of Lazarus, wherein he acknowledges the temporary success which attended the publication of those doubts, but shows very convincingly that that success was owing rather to the unfortunate manner in which the dispute was conducted, and to the untenable grounds on which the ancient opinion was allowed to rest, than to any good claims to reception as the truth, which the view opposed to it possessed.

"Whether the narrative of S. Luke, in his seventh chapter, concerning the woman that was a sinner; and whether what he says in the eighth chapter concerning Mary Magdalene, out of whom our LORD had cast seven devils; and lastly, whether what S. John in his tenth chapter and elsewhere attributes to Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus; whether, I say, these three women here named are diverse not more in name than in person, or are one and the same woman, is a question of no less celebrity than obscurity; and one which formerly caused a great diversity of opinion among the holy Fathers, and in these modern times among the greater part of the learned. Some of the ancient writers recognised three, some two, others only one Magdalene: and there were those whose minds were wont to fluctuate between the contending opinions. Nor must it be supposed that in entertaining these doubts they were guilty of any dangerous error. For as the faith would suffer

posite opinion are directly weighing in their judgments the words of only one Gospel. But the value of the opinions of the Fathers will be found very exactly stated in the notes to page 18.

no detriment though the one opinion were assailed, so neither does it acquire confirmation if the other be defended.

"Before the sixteenth century, divines and laymen, the learned and the unlearned, with voice and heart were wont to celebrate the praises of one and the same woman under the aforesaid three names, in singing those hymns and offices to the honour of S. Mary Magdalene which are to be found in the Roman Breviary. In the beginning of the sixteenth century, James Le Fevre, of Etaples, published his view that the learned and the common people were in error; and he asserted that the woman a sinner, Magdalene, and the sister of Lazarus were in reality different women. Josse Clichtove, Doctor of Divinity in the University of Paris, joined him in the publication of this opinion, who, in the year 1518, committed a second time to the press the work of Le Fevre, and again the year following, 1519, undertook the care of its revision, together with his first defence of it, which was repeated and maintained in answer to Marc Grandval, Canon of S. Victor, who, contending for a single Magdalene, had written with great warmth against Le Fevre. In this contest, the illustrious John Fisher Bishop of Rochester favoured the view of a single Magdalene, and wrote in support of the ancient and common opinion a work in three books, which was published at Paris in the year 1519.

"From the writings which were then published in every quarter, we learn that the contention was sharp, and carried on by those who supported the view of a single Magdalene with as much warmth as if the Catholic Church herself were assailed, and her foundations endangered. On the ground that one Magdalene was the theme of the chants of the Church, and, that Gregory the Great, in his homilies which were read in the Church, did not recognise a plurality, they held their own opinion as an unquestionable verity confirmed by tradition. Therefore they inveighed against Le Fevre as an innovator. For at this time every novelty in teaching was by all Catholics regarded with especial distrust, on account of the strange doctrines set forth by Luther, who had just before this started into notoriety. Moreover, Le Fevre was suspected on other grounds; for he seemed to give countenance to heretics, a fact which the last days of his life make pretty clear, for he died at