11. Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted. But what is this remote grace? St. Thomas (13) explains it, when he says, that if any one was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send.some one to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor, God, at least remotely, gives to the infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel co-operates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul.

REFUTATION VII.

REFUTATION OF THE HERESY OF NESTORIUS, WHO TAUGHT THAT IN CHRIST THERE ARE TWO PERSONS.

1. NESTORIUS is not charged with any errors regarding the mystery of the Trinity. Among the other heresies which he combated in his sermons, and to punish which he implored the Emperor Theodosius, was that of the Arians, who denied that the Word was consubstantial to the Father. We, therefore, have no reason to doubt that he acknowledged the Divinity of the Word, and his consubstantiality with the Father. His heresy particularly attacked the mystery of the Incarnation of the Divine Word, for he denied the hypostatic or personal union of the Word with the humanity. He maintained that the Word was only united with the humanity of Jesus Christ, just in the same way as with the saints, only in a more perfect manner, and from the first moment of his conception. In his writings he explains this point over and over in different ways, but always only as a simple moral and accidental union between the Person of the Word and the humanity of Jesus Christ, but he never admits a hypostatic or personal union. At one time he said it was an union of habitation, that is, that the Word inha

(13) St. Thom. Quæs. 14, de Verit. art. 11, ad. 1.

bited the humanity of Christ, as his temple; next it was, he said, an union of affection, such as exists between two friends. He then said it was an union of operation, inasmuch as the Word availed himself of the humanity of Christ as an instrument to work miracles, and other supernatural operations. Then that it was an union of grace, because the Word, by means of sanctifying grace and other Divine gifts, is united with Christ. Finally, he teaches that this union consists in a moral communication, by which the Word communicates his dignity and excellence to the humanity, and on this account the humanity of Christ should, he said, be adored and honoured, as we honour the purple of the Sovereign, or the throne on which he sits. He always denied with the most determined obstinacy, that the Son of God was made man, was born, suffered, or died for the redemption of man. Finally, he denied the communication of the Idioms, which follows from the Incarnation of the Word, and, consequently, he denied that the Blessed Virgin was truly and properly the Mother of God, blasphemously teaching that she only conceived and brought forth a mere man.

2. This heresy saps the very foundation of the Christian religion, by denying the mystery of the Incarnation, and we will attack it on its two principal points, the first of which consists in denying the hypostatic union, that is, the union of the Person of the Word with human nature, and, consequently, admits that there are two Persons in Christ-the Person of the Word, which dwells in the humanity as in a temple, and the person of man, purely human, and which does not ascend to a higher degree than mere humanity. The second point consists in denying that the Blessed Virgin is truly and properly the Mother of God. These two points we will refute in the two following paragraphs.

SEC. I.IN JESUS CHRIST THERE IS BUT THE ONE PERSON OF THE WORD ALONE, WHICH TERMINATES THE TWO NATURES, DIVINE AND HUMAN, WHICH BOTH SUBSIST IN THE SAME PERSON OF THE WORD, AND, THEREFORE, THIS ONE PERSON IS, AT THE SAME TIME, TRUE GOD AND TRUE MAN.

3. OUR first proof is taken from all those passages in the Scripture, in which it is said that God was made flesh, that God was born of a Virgin, that God emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, that God has redeemed us with his blood, that God died for us on the cross. Every one knows that God could not be conceived, nor born, nor suffer, nor die, in his Divine nature, which is eternal, impassible, and immortal; therefore, if the Scripture teaches us that God was born, and suffered, and died, we should understand it according to his human nature, which had a beginning, and was passible and mortal. And, therefore, if the person in which the human nature subsists was not the Divine Word, St. Matthew would state what is false when he says that God was conceived and born of a Virgin: "Now all this was done that it might

be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the Prophet, saying: Behold a Virgin shall be with child and bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted, is God, with us" (Matt. i. 22, 23). St. John expressly says the same thing: "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (John, i. 14). The Apostle also would have stated a falsehood in saying that God humbled himself, taking the form of a servant: "For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men and in habit found as a man" (Phil. ii. 5-7). St. John would also state what is not the fact, when he says that God died for us: "In this we have known the charity of God, because he hath laid down his life for us" (1 John, iii. 6); and St. Paul says: "The Holy Ghost placed you bishops to rule the Church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood" (Acts, xx. 18); and speaking of the death of our Redeemer, he says: "For if they had known it, they never would have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor. ii. 8).

4. Now it would be false to speak of God in that manner, if God only inhabited the humanity of Jesus Christ accidentally, as a temple, or morally, through affection, or was not united hypostatically or personally, just as it would be false to say that God was born of St. Elizabeth, when she brought forth the Baptist, in whom God inhabited before his birth, by sanctifying grace, and it would be false to say that God died stoned when St. Stephen was stoned to death, or that he died beheaded when St. Paul was beheaded, because he was united to these saints through the medium of love, and of the many heavenly gifts he bestowed on them, so that between them and God there existed a true moral union. When, therefore, it is said that God was born and died, the reason is because the person sustaining and terminating the assumed humanity is truly God, that is the eternal Word. There is, therefore, in Christ but one Person, in which two natures subsist, and in the unity of the Person of the Word, which terminates the two natures, consists the hypostatic union.

5. This truth is also proved, secondly, from those passages of the Scriptures in which Christ-Man is called God, the Son of God, the only begotten Son, the proper Son of God, for a man cannot be called God or Son of God, unless the person who terminates the human nature is truly God. Now Christ-Man is called the supreme God by St. Paul: "And of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things God blessed for ever" (Rom. xix. 5). We read in St. Matthew that Christ himself, after calling himself the Son of Man, asked his disciples whom do they believe him to be, and St. Peter answers that he is the Son of the living God: "Jesus

saith to them, but whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. xvi. 15-17). Then Jesus himself, at the very time that he calls himself man, approves of Peter's answer, who calls him the Son of God, and says that this answer was revealed to him by his eternal Father. Besides, we read in St. Matthew (iii. 17), St. Luke (ix. 13), and St. Mark (i. 11), that Christ, while he was actually receiving Baptism as man from St. John, was called by God his beloved Son: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." St. Peter tells us that in Mount Thabor the Eternal Father spoke the same words: "For, he received from God the Father, honour and glory; this voice coming down to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I have pleased myself, hear ye him" (2 Pet. i. 17). Christ, as man, is called the only begotten Son of the Eternal Father, by St. John: "The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (John, i. 18). As man alone, he is called God's own Son: "He spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all" (Rom. viii. 32). After so many proofs from the Holy Scriptures, who will be rash enough to deny that the man Christ is truly God?

6. The Divinity of Jesus Christ is proved from all these passages of the Scriptures, in which that which can only be attributed to God is attributed to the Person of Christ-Man, and from thence we conclude that this Person, in which the two natures subsist, is true God. Jesus, speaking of himself, says: "I and the Father are one" (John, x. 30); and in the same place he says: "The Father is in me, and I in the Father" (ver. 38). In another passage we read that St. Philip, one day speaking with Jesus Christ, said: "Lord, show us the Father," and our Lord answered: "So long a time have I been with thee, and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. Believe you not that I ain in the Father and the Father in me?" (John, xiv. 8, 11). By these words Christ showed he was the same God as the Father. Christ himself said to the Jews that he was eternal: "Amen, amen, I say unto you, before Abraham was I am" (John, vii. 58); and he says, also, that he works the same as the Father: " My Father worketh until now, and I work..... for what things soever he doth, these the Son also doth in like manner" (John, v. 17). He also says: "All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine (John, xvi. 15). Now, if Christ was not true God all these sayings would be blasphemous, attributing to himself what belongs to God alone.

7. The Divinity of Christ-Man is proved from those other passages of the Scriptures, in which it is said that the Word, or the

say

Son of God, became incarnate: "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" (John, i. 14); "For God so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son" (John, iii. 16); "He spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for all of us" (Rom. viii. 32). Now, if the Person of the Word was not hypostatically united-that is, in one Person with the humanity of Christ-it could not be said that the Word was incarnate, and was sent by the Father to redeem the world, because if this personal union did not exist between the Word and the humanity of Christ, there would be only a moral union of habitation, or affection, or grace, or gifts, or operation, and in this sense we might say that the Father and the Holy Ghost became incarnate also, for all these sorts of unions are not peculiar to the Person of the Word alone, but to the Father and the Holy Ghost, likewise, for God is united in this manner with the Angels and Saints. God has frequently sent Angels as his ambassadors; but as St. Paul says, our Lord has never taken the nature of angels: "For nowhere doth he take hold of the angels, but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold" (Heb. ii. 16). Thus, if Nestorius means to assert that unions of this sort are sufficient to enable us to say that the Word was incarnate, we should also that the Father was incarnate, for the Father, by his graces and his heavenly gifts, was united with, and morally dwelt in, Jesus Christ, according to what our Lord himself says: "The Father is in me...... the Father remaining in me" (John, xiv. 10). We should also admit that the Holy Ghost became incarnate, for Isaias, speaking of the Messiah, says: "The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding" (Isaias, xi. 2). And in St. Luke it is said, that "Jesus was full of the Holy Ghost" Luke, iv. 1). In fine, according to this explanation, every Saint or holy person who loves God could be called the Incarnate Word, for our Saviour says: "If any one love me...... my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him" (John, xiv. 23). Thus Nestorius should admit, either that the Word is not incarnate, or that the Father and the Holy Ghost are incarnate. This was the unanswerable argument of St. Cyril (1): "Quod unus sit Christus, ejusmodi in habitatione Verbum non fieret caro, sed potius hominis incola; et conveniens fuerit illum non hominem, sed humanum vocare, quemadmodum et qui Nazareth inhabitavit, Nazarenus dictus est, non Nazareth. Quinimo nihil prorsus obstiterit......hominem vocari una cum Filio etiam Patrem, et Spiritum Sanctum, habitavit enim in nobis." 8. I might here add all those texts of Scripture in which Christ is spoken of as only one Person subsisting in two natures, as in St. Paul: "One Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things," &c. (1 Cor. viii. 6), and several other texts of like import. If Nestorius

(1) St. Cyril, Dial. 9.