The month of May-for those that do not know-is the
month of Mary in the catholic church's calendar. As too is October, so it seemed rather appropriate to
focus this month's newsletter on Rome's "first lady," and then examine her in light
When speaking to catholics about Mary and their
love and commitment to her, some will respond by saying that they don't worship Mary,
but rather they venerate her. In the Oxford
dictionary, the word "venerate" means simply
to "regard with great respect." I believe
this is quite an understatement to sum up how catholics truly feel about Mary, and
I would imagine most honest catholics would agree with me on this.
The Oxford dictionary also tells us what the word
"worship" means "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration
for a deity." And this, I honestly believe, is what catholics will
feel happier with.
Interestingly, according to the same dictionary
the word "pray" or "prayer" means "a request for help or expression of thanks addressed
to God or another
deity." So, however one dresses
it up, when a prayer is said to Mary, or the saints, in reality they are actually
petitioning "another deity" to help "intercede"
for them with the one true God.
The New Testament knows nothing at all of this type
of 'third-party' petitioning; rather Jesus is very clear,
that when one prays to God, one must do so in the name
of Jesus (John 16:26).
Tragically for catholics they have been wrongly
taught that there is "truth" outside the Holy Bible, so when challenged by Bible believers
to justify their prayers to the dead, they make the awful blunder of citing the uninspired
books, in desperate hope for justification of prayers to dead people. In truth, Romanism
replaced the first-century Gnostics, who also held to "additional truth" outside the
Canon of Scripture.
Catholics, when praying and worshiping Mary, with
their repetitive prayer petitions and requests, will credit her if and when their
prayers are answered. Clearly, the Mary of catholicism is considered omnipresent,
omniscient and omnipotent, just like God is!
This is also clearly affirmed in their official
catechism of 1994:
"Mary, because of her faith, became the mother of
believers, through whom all nations of the earth receive him who is God's own blessing:
Jesus, the 'fruit of thy womb'." (p. 570).
May I say that there are two major theological problems
1. Catholics like to cite John 19:27 to demonstrate
that Mary is 'the mother of all believers,' for the Lord said, "Behold thy mother."
However, if one wishes to take this verse literally, then is John our son as well?
For we read the following in verse 26: "When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved,
he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold
nations do not receive Jesus/His mother by some automatic default, but they receive
Jesus (not His mother) by coming to a personal
faith in Him, and only in Him alone (John
Their catechism also goes on a little further:
"Because she [Mary] gives us Jesus, her son, Mary
is Mother of God and our
mother; we can entrust all our cares and petitions to her: she
prays for us as she prayed for herself: 'let it be according to your
word'. By entrusting ourselves to her prayer, we abandon ourselves to the will of
God together with her: 'Thy will be done'." (p. 570).
Mary was the mother of Jesus' human nature but never
of His divine nature. Yes, Jesus is God but she didn't give birth to God the Son,
she gave birth to the Son of Man.
Also, and most importantly, there isn't a single
verse in the entire New Testament that demonstrates how the disciples, or anybody
else for that matter, ever sought
Mary's advice on anything, let alone requested intercessions from her; that's because
she was no different from anyone else.
Jesus was the only person
whom the multitudes were interested in, and if anyone would like to know what Mary
thought about her Son, we read in John 2:5 that she very clearly told those present
to do whatever Jesus told them to do. And on top of these most profound words, Mary
took it upon herself to request wine for the wedding. There is nothing in the text
to suggest anybody asked her to ask Him.
We also read in Luke 2:42-52 how the young Jesus
gently reprimanded Mary for calling Joseph His father, not to mention Jesus being
somewhat perplexed that Mary had totally failed to know where He was and what He was
doing, as they journeyed away from the temple in Jerusalem:
"And when he was
twelve years old, they went up
to Jerusalem after the custom of
they had fulfilled the days, as they returned,
the child Jesus tarried behind
in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew
it. But they, supposing
in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought
him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
him not, they
turned back again
to Jerusalem, seeking
him. And it
came to pass,
that after three days they found
him in the temple, sitting
in the midst of
the doctors, both hearing
them, and asking
them questions. And all that heard
him were astonished
at his understanding and answers. And when
were amazed: and his mother said
unto him, Son, why hast thou
thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought
thee sorrowing. And he said
unto them, How is
it that ye sought
me? wist ye
not that I must
be about my Father's business?
And they understood
not the saying which he spake unto them.
with them, and came
to Nazareth, and was
subject unto them: but his mother kept
all these sayings in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man."
also learn from the above account how Mary was neither omniscient nor omnipresent,
for not only did she have no idea where the young Jesus was, but that she had to travel
a day's journey back to find Him. Yet today millions of deluded individuals all over
the world in vain pour their hearts out to "Mary", or so they think, to hear them
and to help them!
additional point on the Scriptures' clear and precise fact that Joseph was not Jesus'
literal father can be found in two verses, Luke 2:33,41. Here we find the Holy Spirit
has taken great care to call Mary His mother, but not Joseph His father. The word
of God only allows Joseph and Mary to be called His parents (due to the fact that
Joseph married Mary), but never Joseph's biological son.
We also read the following blasphemous babble in
their official catechism:
"Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our
death: By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners
and we address ourselves to the 'Mother of Mercy', the All-Holy One" (p. 570).
That Mary is dubbed 'the Holy One' is in direct
conflict with the Bible, where we read the following, from the Lord, about Himself:
"I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator
of Israel, your King" (Is.
And we also discover the following
and most fascinating account when an unclean spirit, who had possessed a man, immediately
recognizes that Jesus is God, by calling Him the Holy One of God:
"And in the synagogue there was a man, which had a spirit of
an unclean devil, and cried out with
a loud voice,
Let us alone; what have
we to do with thee,
thou Jesus of Nazareth? art
thou come to destroy
us? I know
thee who thou art;
the Holy One of God.
And Jesus rebuked
him, saying, Hold
thy peace, and come out of him. And when
the devil had thrown
him in the midst, he came out of him, and hurt
And they were
all amazed, and spake
among themselves, saying, What a word is this! for with authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they
come out. And the fame of him went out
into every place of
the country round about"
So clearly the title 'The Holy One' is a sacred term reserved
exclusively for God, and as such can only be applied to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ
alone (Acts 3:14).
The same is also true of the title 'Holy Father.' But in this
case God the Father is the sole recipient of this divine title, not the despicable
popes of Rome (Ps. 108:7; John 17:11).
One can only wonder with amazement
how on earth a humble Jewish girl was ever allowed to be elevated up to the level
of near 'deity.' There is only one word for this type of arrogant, wilful ignorance
and total disregard for not making the Bible man's final authority in all matters
of faith, practice, and doctrine: idolatry!
May God, therefore, have mercy on the souls of millions upon millions
of catholics and their clergy, for had this type of sin occurred in the Old Testament,
there could only have been one outcome: the death penalty! And let us remember a phrase
that we hear often, "ignorance is no excuse of the law." The same will be true of
God and His word, when He sits in judgment on these people at the Great White Throne
Judgment! (Rev. 21:8).
What may be of interest to the reader is how over
the last 200 years the catholic church has only spoken ex-cathedra twice. (This is
a term, rarely used by popes today, to declare that when a pope speaks from the so-called
"chair of Peter," he is somehow infallible, and therefore what he says must be taken
literally, as if it had come directly from the mouth of God. In truth only God and
His word are infallible, so what we discover here are deluded and deceived popes in
essence claiming to be God themselves (Is. 14:12-17).
On the two occasions when the papacy has spoken
ex cathedra it was of course concerning their beloved "first lady's "immaculate conception"
and "bodily assumption." However, since Rome's
official inception in the 4th century, she has spoken ex cathedra fewer than 20 occasions:
"The number of texts infallibly interpreted by the
church is small; it has been estimated indeed that the total of such texts in under
twenty" (Catholic Commentary, p. 59).
I would also like to share the following facts about
Mary's so-called sinlessness, taken from O. C. Lambert's excellent book, "Catholicism
Against Itself" (although this book was written a good ten years before Vatican II,
it still helps the reader understand how Rome has thought, taught, and operated for
1) Mary never laughed (p. 46).
2) She shunned conversation with her parents (p.
3) Without praying to Mary [one] cannot be saved
"[The] Catholic Encyclopaedia says that the Assumption
of the Virgin is largely based on Dionysius" (p. 63).
Lambert argues persuasively that Dionysius the Areopagite
(a serial forger) cannot be trusted as authentic, something clear even in the following
quote from Rome herself about another one of his infamous writings:
"It is plainly for the purpose of deceiving...It
was intended to create the impression that the author belonged to the time of the
Apostles" (Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol. V, pp. 13, 14).
Therefore, with the catholic church itself bringing
into question the reliability of Dionysius, how can Rome expect catholics and non-catholics
alike to take the heresy of Mary's alleged bodily assumption seriously? Even the catholic
scholar, Peter De Rosa, affirms how fabricated Marian apparitions have been craftily
planned and concocted.
According to catholic "tradition" Mary's mother
and father were named as Joachim and Anna. This dubious source is as follows:
"Apocryphal Gospels of Catholic Origin - The Proto-evangelium
Jacobi, or Infancy Gospel of James, purports to have been written by 'James the brother
of the Lord,' i.e., the Apostle James the Less. It is based on the canonical Gospels
which it expands with legendary and imaginative elements, which are sometimes puerile
and fantastic. The birth, education, and marriage of the Blessed Virgin are described
in the first eleven chapters and these are the source of various traditions current
among the faithful. They are of value in indicating the veneration paid to Mary at
a very early age. For instance it is the 'Protoevangelium' which first tells us that
Mary was the miraculous off-spring of Joachim and Anna, previously childless; that
when three years old the child was taken to the Temple and dedicated to its service,
in fulfilment of her parents' vow" (Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol. I, p. 607).
Amazingly, with Rome distancing herself from the
above, we read the following double talk:
"A tradition of very doubtful value states that
Mary, at the age of three years, was presented in the Temple, and remained there until
she attained womanhood. A feast commemorative of this has been observed in various
parts of the world since about the twelfth century. It was suppressed by Pius V.,
but was later permitted by Sixtus V. in 1585 and has been gradually kept since the
seventeenth century" (Externals of the Catholic Church, p. 131).
Once again Rome speaks out of both sides of her
ecclesiastical mouth. To her "scholars" (those which can afford to buy her expensive
books and encyclopaedias, such a myth is rejected), but for those who cannot
afford such books, and accept everything blindly, Rome omits to tell unfortunate subjects
that such feasts to Mary are totally in vain.
In 1908, some thirty years before the former Jesuit
priest George Tyrell fell foul of his church, he wrote to cardinal Desire Mercier,
about his concerns over Mary worship:
"Your Eminence, on the communion-tessera of this
year, approved by the Archbishop of Milan, I find Mary and the Pope twice put side
by side: Gloria alla madre Immaccolata: Gloria al santo Padre! I have seen
one of the crosses sold to the faithful of Rome on which the figure of Christ is replaced
by that of the Pope. I admit the logic of it all, but I ask myself: where is it to
end"? (Medievalism, p. 71).
Another Jesuit, Albert Gillo also echoed Tyrell's
"[This] childish endeavour to raise the Pope
to the level of a demigod...This campaign of fulsome flattery...Our hero
worship is growing into a disease...If it is not stopped the Popes
in a hundred years will be as sacred as the lamas of Tibet" (A Catholic Plea for
Reunion, pp. 46, 47).
Throughout Tyrell's post-Jesuit life, he continually
spoke out against the errors of his church:
"Blind obedience was the profoundest idolatry and
(Life, p. 293, 405).
One can only hope that Tyrell found salvation in
Christ alone after leaving the Society of Jesus.
So, how was it possible for the church of Constantine,
aka, the catholic church to get it so wrong on the person and place of Mary, in their
so-called Christian religion. Well, since the 4th century AD, catholicism has successfully amalgamated the
pagan worship of goddesses, such as Ashtaroth, Minerva and Diana, in to Mariology,
which had all long been on the scene and worshiped by pagans and infidels for many
years. One further needs to appreciate that Constantine, a pagan himself, built many
of today's catholic churches and cathedrals on lands that had once been places of
pagan worship. By doing this he was able to please everyone by being all things to
He was in all truth the first ecumenical church
leader of his generation, laying the initial foundation for a future one-world religion.
But more importantly for students of Scripture, he is a major type of the future Antichrist.
What he successfully achieved centuries ago, the final Antichrist will finalise to
perfection. And it's not lost on Bible believers how dedicated catholics love and
venerate Mary, much the same way that Muslims love and venerate Mohammed; so it's
all rather convenient and cosy how both religions have found a greater sense of unity
and interest in recent years. The Mary of the catholic church brings both groups together,
including the Hindus as well, today called Chrislam.
In 1981 John Paul II was very nearly assassinated
in St. Peter's Square. He spent five and half hours on the operating table, and in
the process lost six pints of blood. Once he had fully recovered, he dedicated the
success of his surgeons in saving his life not to the Lord Jesus, but to Mary! Today
catholic pilgrims can see the bullet that almost killed their pontiff in Fatima, Portugal,
one of the many global Marian shrine$.
It should also be pointed out how John Paul II,
in particular, was one of the most fanatical of all popes, when it came to his blasphemous
worship and near obsession of Mary. When
he was only a child his mother sadly died so his father, in ignorance, told him that
from that day on Mary would be his 'mother;'. So, without the Bible being the final
matter in all areas of practice, faith, and doctrine in their house, he knew no better
until the day he died. The following quote
from John Paul II, should come as no surprise to the reader, for he thought nothing
of putting the name of Mary before Jesus (Phil. 2:9-11):
"I beseech the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the
Incarnate Word and Mother of the Church,
to support with her powerful intercession the
catechetical work of the entire Church on every level...in the fourteenth year of
my Pontificate" (Official Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church,
The Bible believer
may be intrigued to learn how Mary is mentioned 32 times in the New Testament,
but she speaks only 4 times does
she speak. The following verses from Luke are the most monumental
words ever uttered by mortal woman:
"And Mary said, Behold the handmaid
the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word"
is nothing in this verse to suggest she was worthy to be worshipped, quite the contrary,
she goes on to say the following:
"My soul doth magnify the Lord,
And my spirit hath rejoiced
in God my Saviour"
we discover how she has acknowledged her sin and rejoiced in the fact that her Saviour
was soon to be her Son. And before I move on, may I offer one commentary to the following
hath regarded the
low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call
The term here for 'blessed' has been
used and abused by catholics and high anglicans for centuries, to somehow give credence
to Mary's 'elevated' standing to near deity. However, a quick read of the Scripture
tells us that this term or expression 'blessed' simply means happy, or one who has
found great favour with God, much as we find in Daniel 9:23; 10:11; 10:19.
But let's just say for argument's sake that
Mary was worthy to be prayed to, or that she deserved the title "the queen of heaven,"
wouldn't one have expected Peter, Paul, or even her own sons, James and Jude, to have
mentioned her in any of their epistles? Or how about John the apostle, who out-lived
her and looked after her until her alleged death in Ephesus, wouldn't he have written
about her? Surely one of them would have mentioned, if not at least hinted at, her
"immaculate conception," or "bodily assumption" upon death in any of their writings?
The answer comes back a definite no! None of the
above was ever written or mentioned, directly or indirectly, because a) she was never
immaculately conceived, or bodily assumed up into heaven upon death, and b) the Bible
is all about God and only God! He simply will not share His glory with anyone else.
We also discover in Acts 1 how Mary is patiently
and humbly waiting with the apostles and the others for the Holy Ghost to come upon
Two additional points must be noted and observed
1) Mary is listed in 13th
place in rank/superiority
(see verses 13 and 14).
2) After this verse she is never
mentioned directly, or indirectly ever again.
She simply vanishes.
(Incidentally a catholic fundamentalist once tried
to suggest to me that Romans 16:6, in which a woman called Mary is mentioned, is in
'fact' the mother of the Lord Jesus. In my response, I pointed out to this catholic
fundamentalist that if it had been Mary, why then did the Holy Spirit list Rome's
"first lady," in 5th place?
No adequate answer was forthcoming.)
Peter, the alleged 'first pope,' after Acts 10,
also vanishes from the scene, only to be briefly mentioned by Paul on certain occasions,
with only two epistles being penned by him, namely I and II Peter.
Yet in today's catholic church, more prayers are
said to Mary (their 'omnipresent queen') than Peter, the saints, popes and even the
Lord Jesus Christ all combined. How very sad! Mary, through catholicism, has gone
from being a humble Jewish maidservant, to their 'supreme queen' in heaven.
I have also long thought, why do catholics pray
to inferior sources, when they can go straight to the superior source, that being
God? Catholics will respond by saying that Paul taught that we should pray for one
another, but his point was this: those saints were alive and living on earth, not
dead in heaven.
the living know that
they shall die:
but the dead
any thing, neither
have they any more a reward; for
the memory of
them is forgotten"
Back in 2004 when I first wrote this article, which
has been substantially updated for this newsletter, I watched "The
Passion of the Christ," which I found interesting because Mel Gibson
(a member of a small pre-Vatican II catholic sect) allowed his scriptwriters to call
Mary, 'mother;' and even had her dressing like a nun. I know that this is called artistic
licence, and I also know that catholics have
been chanting this for many years. Yet, incredibly, nowhere in the New Testament does
the Lord Jesus ever call Mary, mother; He simply refers to her as woman.
Please refer to the catholic Douay-Rheims
bible below for such evidence:
Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? My hour is not yet come"
Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith
to his mother: Woman, behold thy son" (John 19:26).
before I move on, please allow me to share the following statement, from the church
of Rome, on what they believe the quality of the Douay-Rheims to
"It [Douay] certainly had great faults, for it is
disfigured by uncouth and sometimes scarcely intelligible language" (Catholic Dictionary,
Amazingly they also have the following to say about
their beloved Vulgate:
"That it [Vulgate] has many defects has never been
denied" (Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol. XV, p. 370).
Before I conclude this newsletter, please allow
me to demonstrate below how Rome tries to elevate Mary up to the place and preeminence
the Son of God
Mary is called the mother of
never called this in any Bible, anywhere in the world. Even catholic bibles don't
call her this. Mary was the human mother of the Lord Jesus, and this is how one should
Jesus is virgin born
Mary is immaculately conceived
We find no evidence
whatsoever for this anywhere in Holy Scripture. To the contrary, we read that she
believed herself to be in need of a Saviour, like all of mankind (Luke 1:47; Rom.
3:23), and although she was sinful, with sinful blood, this does not in anyway change
the fact that Christ was born sinless. We know this to be true because the mother's
blood does not pass into the placenta, during pregnancy. I even asked my GP this and
he affirmed it to be so. This is just as well, for had Mary's sinful blood flowed
through into Jesus' veins, there would have been no salvation for sinners.
Jesus is the perfection of
Perpetual virginity of Mary
We discover that Mary
had at least four other sons and three daughters (Ps. 69:8; Matt. 12:46-50; Matt.
13:55-56). We also learn from Matt. 12, that Jesus didn't rebuke the people for committing
"heresy" when they told Him how His brethren were outside, waiting for Him.
to this odd doctrine, had Mary been a perpetual virgin, then she would have sinned,
for the apostle Paul writes against wives who refuse their husbands marital sex: "Defraud ye not one
the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye
may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency" (Ex.
19:15; 1 Cor. 7:5).
in Matt 1:25, we read: "And [Joseph] knew her not till she had
brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."
This makes it very clear that as a married couple, normal sexual relations occurred
in their marriage, after Jesus was born.
catholic fundamentalists, by not allowing Mary the right to fulfil her wifely role
under the Jewish Mosaic covenant, have actually made her a lawbreaker, and so by twisting
Scripture, they have created a dangerous superstitious belief that she became a perpetual
virgin, or even worse, near deity.
Jesus was resurrected into
Mary was bodily assumed into
Scripture is totally
silent on this ridiculous fable. The catholic church only taught this many centuries
after she died.
Jesus is King of kings and
Lord of lords
Mary was crowned queen of heaven
and the universe
Such lavish and idolatrous
titles would cause Mary much blushing. Again, there is no Scripture for such outlandish
claims. However, catholics will try to cite Rev. 12, suggesting that the woman found
there is Mary. She is not. It is the nation of Israel that John the apostle is describing.
Jesus Christ alone saved the
world from sin
Mary is proclaimed mediatrix of
all graces: she mediates between mankind and Christ, and also shares in the work of
salvation with Jesus Christ
makes it abundantly clear that God has only given mankind one Saviour and Mediator,
and that is Christ Jesus: "For there
is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1
Mary's part in bringing
the Lord Jesus into the world was certainly important and sacred, but it was short
lived. Once she gave birth to the God-Man, her role ceased.
The Lord Jesus Himself, no doubt prophetically and
knowing one day how millions of people would worship His dead mother, rebuked such
a person for praising Mary, instead of God:
"And it came to pass, as he spake these things,
a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is
the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea
rather, blessed are they that
hear the word of God, and keep it" (Luke 11:27-28).
Please note that God's word calls other individuals
blessed, meaning happy (see Gen. 26:29; 30:13; 49:25), yet nobody ever worshiped or
prayed to these people.
We also read the following from Judges 5:24:
women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be."
Mary was a humble recipient of God's grace, not
a dispenser. She mustn't be worshipped or prayed to; and this commandment can be also
found in all catholic bibles, like this from the Douay-Rheims:
"And I, John, who have heard and seen these things.
And, after I had heard and seen, I fell down to adore before the feet of the angel
who shewed me the things. And he said to me: See thou do it not. For I am thy fellow
servant, and of thy brethren the prophets and of them that keep the words of the prophecy
of this book. Adore God"
According to Peter De Rosa, until the 12th century,
the catholic church believed that Mary was born in original sin, like everyone, and
citing numerous Biblical texts, showed where Mary committed many sins. Only
Ambrose and Augustine believed Mary did not sin.
Also, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Origen,
Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Thomas Aquinas, and others such as 'St.' Bernard and 'St.'
Bonaventure, all taught and believed that Mary was born in original sin.
This would also be echoed many years later by two
pontiffs, Gregory the Great and Leo I, who both said:
"Christ alone was conceived
And one of the catholic churches greatest 'scholars,'
Anselm the archbishop of Canterbury, said of Mary:
"The virgin herself
was conceived in iniquity and in sin did her mother conceive her, and with original
sin was she born, because she too sinned in Adam in whom all sinned."
The Mary of the catholic church has sadly been elevated
so high to 'deity,' that it is now impossible to reverse this.
The word of God warns and speaks explicitly how
God is a jealous God, and that He will not share His glory with anyone else. Disastrously,
Rome has strayed so far from this fundamental and non negotiable truth, that the only
hope for a repentant catholic who wishes to be saved would be to forsake this Babylonian
system and to turn totally to Jesus Christ alone for forgiveness and salvation.
Relics, rituals and imaginary intercessors, all
of which come from Satan, will only add more judgment and fury from the Lord God of
the Bible to the lost and blinded sinner. Organized
religion simply cannot save you. Jesus Christ came to save people from their sins,
and from all man-made systems.
The following piece of Scripture should strike absolute
fear and dread into the hearts of all religious and non-regenerate sinners, for here
the Lord Jesus is condemning the papist works-righteous and hypocritical system of
"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye
shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them
that are entering to
go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for
a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he
ye make him two
fold more the child of hell than