and St. Peter answered: "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God;" and our Saviour answered: "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is heaven." Therefore, the Son of Man is the true Son of God, and, consequently, Mary is the Mother of God.

22. In the second place this truth is proved from tradition. The Symbols or Creeds already quoted against Nestorius, proving that Jesus Christ is true God, also prove that Mary is the true Mother of God, since they teach, "That he was conceived of the Holy Ghost from the Virgin Mary, and was made man." The decree of the Second Council of Nice (Act. VII.) even declares, if possible, more clearly, that Mary is the true Mother of God: "Confitemur autem et Dominam nostram sanctam Mariam proprie et veraciter (properly and truly) Dei Genitricem, quoniam peperit carne unum ex S. Trinitate Christum Deum nostrum; secundum quod et Ephesinum prius dogmatizavit Concilium, quod impium Nestorium cum Collegis suis tanquam personalem dualitatem introducentes ab Ecclesia pepulit."

23. Mary has been called the Mother of God by all the Fathers. I will merely quote from a few who wrote in the early ages previous to Nestorius. St. Ignatius the martyr (1) says: "Deus noster Jesus Christus ex Maria genitus est." St. Justin (2): " Verbum formatum est, et homo factus est ex Virgine;" and again: "Ex virginali utero Primogenitum omnium rerum conditarum carne factum vere puerum nasci, id præoccupans per Spiritum Sanctum." St. Iræneus (3) says: "Verbum existens ex Maria, quæ adhuc erat Virgo, recte accipiebat generationem Adæ recapitulationis." St. Dionisius of Alexandria writes (4): "Quomodo ais tu, hominem esse eximium Christum, et non revera Deum, et ab omni creatura cum Patre, et Spiritu Sancto adorandum, incarnatum ex Virgine Deipara Maria?" And he adds: "Una sola Virgo filia vitæ genuit Verbum vivens, et per se subsistens increatum, et Creatorem." St. Athanasiuss (5) ays: "Hunc scopum, et characterem sanctæ Scripturæ esse, nempe ut duo de Salvatore demonstret : illum scilicet Deum semper fuisse, et Filium esse........ ipsumque postea propter nos carne ex Virgine Deipara Maria assumpta, hominem factum esse." St.Gregory of Nazianzen (6) says: "Si quis sanctam Mariam Deiparam non credit, extra Divinitatem est." St. John Chrysostom says (7): "Admodum stupendum est audire Deum ineffabilem, inerrabilem, incomprehensibilem, Patri æqualem per virgineam venisse vulvam, et ex muliere nasci dignatum esse.' Among the Latin Fathers we will quote a few. Tertullian says (8): "Ante omnia commendanda erit ratio quæ præfuit, ut Dei Filius de Virgine nasceretur."

(1) St. Ignat. Ep. ad Ephe. a. 14. n. 44. (3) Iræn. l. 3, c. 21, al. 31, n. 10. (5) St. Athan. Orat. 3, a. 4, con. Arian. (7) St. Chrys. Hom. 2, in Matth. n. 2.

(2) St. Justin, Apol. & Dialog. cum Triphon (4) St. Dionis. Ep. & Paul, Samos (6) St. Greg. Nazian. Orat. 51 . de Cor. Chris. c. 17.

(8) Tertul.

St. Ambrose says 9: "Filium coæternum Patri suscepisse carnem natum de Spiritu Sancto ex Virgine Maria." St. Jerome says (10), "Natum Deum ex Virgine credimus, quia legimus." St. Augustin (11) says: "Invenisse apud Deum gratiam dicitur (Maria) ut Domini sui, imo omnium Domini Mater esset."

24. I omit other authorities, and will confine myself to only one, that of John, Bishop of Antioch, who wrote to Nestorius in the name of Theodoret, and several other friends of his, on the name of the Mother of God: "Nomen quod a multis sæpe Patribus usurpatum, ac pronunciatum est, adjungere ne graveris; neque vocabulum, quod piam rectamque notionem animi exprimit, refutare pergas; etenim nomen hoc Theotocos nullus unquam Ecclesiasticorum Doctorum repudiavit. Qui enim illo usi sunt, et multi reperiuntur, et apprime celebres; qui vero illud non usurparunt, nunquam erroris alicujus eos insimularunt, qui illo usi sunt.... Etenim si ad quod nominis significatione offertur, non recipimus, restat ut in gravissimum errorem prolabamur, imo vero ut inexplicabilem illam unigeniti Filii Dei œconomiam abnegemus. Quandoquidem nomine hoc sublato vel hujus potius nominis notione repudiata, sequitur mox illum non esse Deum, qui admirabilem illam dispensationem nostræ salutis causa suscepit, tum Dei Verbum neque sese exinanivisse," &c. We may as well mention that St. Cyril wrote to Pope St. Celestine, informing him, that so deeply implanted was this belief in the hearts of the people of Constantinople, that when they heard Dorotheus, by order of Nestorius, pronounce an anathema against those who asserted that she was the Mother of God, they all rose up as one man, refused to hold any more communication with Nestorius, and from that out would not go to the church, a clear proof of what the universal belief of the Church was in those days.

25. The Fathers adduced several reasons to convince Nestorius. I will only state two: First.-It cannot be denied that she is the Mother of God, who conceived and brought forth a Son, who, at the time of his conception, was God. But both Scripture and tradition prove that our Blessed Lady brought forth this Son of God; she is, therefore, truly the Mother of God. "Si Deus est," says St. Cyril, "Dominus noster Jesus Christus, quomodo Dei Genetrix non est, quæ illum genuit, Sancta Virgo" (12)? Here is the second reason: If Mary be not the Mother of God, then the Son whom she brought forth is not God, and, consequently, the Son of God and the Son of Mary are not the same. Now Jesus Christ, as we have already seen, has proclaimed himself the Son of God, and he is the Son of Mary; therefore, the Nestorians must admit, either that Jesus Christ is not the Son of Mary, or that Mary, being the Mother of Jesus Christ, is truly the Mother of God. (9) St. Amb. Ep. 63. (10) St. Hier. l. con. Elvid. (11) St. Aug. in Enchir, (12) St. Cyril, Ep. 1 ad Success.

cap.

36.

THE OBJECTIONS OF THE NESTORIANS ANSWERED.

26. FIRST, they object that the word Deipara, or Mother of God, is not used either in the Scriptures or in the Symbols of the Councils; but we answer, that neither in Scripture or Symbols do we find the word Christotocos, Mother of Christ; therefore, according to that argument, she should not be called the Mother of Christ, as Nestorius himself calls her. But we will give even a more direct answer. It is just the same thing to say that Mary is the Mother of God, as to say that she conceived and brought forth God; but both Scripture and Councils say that she brought forth a God, they, therefore, proclaim her, in equivalent terms, the Mother of God. Besides, the Fathers of the first centuries, as we have quoted, constantly called her the Mother of God, and the Scripture itself calls her Mother of our Lord, as Elizabeth, when filled with the Holy Ghost, said: "Whence is this to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?"

27. They object, secondly, that Mary did not generate the Divinity, and, consequently, she cannot be called the Mother of God. We answer, that she should be called the Mother of God, because she was the mother of a man, who was at the same time true God and true man, just as we say that a woman is the mother of a man composed both of soul and body, though she only produces the body, and not the soul, which is created by God alone. Therefore, as Mary, though she has not generated the Divinity, still, as she brought forth a man, according to the flesh, who was, at the same time, God and man, she should be called the Mother of God.

28. They object, thirdly, that the Mother ought to be consubstantial to the Son; but the Virgin is not consubstantial to God, therefore, she ought not to be called the Mother of God. We answer, that Mary is not consubstantial to Christ as to the Divinity, but merely in humanity alone, and because her Son is both man and God, she is called the Mother of God. They say, besides, that if we persist in calling her the Mother of God, we may induce the simple to believe that she is a Goddess herself; but we answer, that the simple are taught by us that she is only a mere creature, but that she brought forth Christ, God and man. Besides, if Nestorius was so scrupulous about calling her the Mother of God, lest the simple might be led to believe that she was a Goddess, he ought to have a greater scruple in denying her that title, lest the simple might be led to believe, that as she was not the Mother of God, consequently Christ was not God.

REFUTATION VIII.

REFUTATION OF THE HERESY OF EUTYCHES, WHO ASSERTED THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE NATURE IN CHRIST.

1. THE Eutychian heresy is totally opposed to the Nestorian. Nestorius taught that there were two persons and two natures in Christ. Eutyches, on the contrary, admitted that there was but one Person, but he asserted that there was but one nature, likewise, for the Divine nature, he said, absorbed the human nature. Hence, Nestorius denied the Divinity of Christ, Eutyches his humanity; so both one and the other destroyed the mystery of the incarnation and of the redemption of man. We do not exactly know how Eutyches explained his doctrine of only one nature in Christ. In the Council held by St. Flavian he merely explained it in these terms: "That our Lord was of two natures before the union, but after the union only of one nature." And when the Fathers pressed him to explain more clearly, he only answered, that he came not to dispute, but only to suggest to his Holiness what his opinion was (1). Now, in these few words Eutyches uttered two blasphemies: First.-That after the incarnation there was only one nature in Christ, that is, the Divine nature, as he understood it; and, secondly-That before the incarnation of the Word there were two natures, the Divine and the human nature. As St. Leo says, writing to St. Flavian: "Cum tam impie duarum naturarum ante incarnationem Unigenitus Dei Filius fuisse dicatur, quam nefarie postquam Verbum caro factum est, natura in eo singularis asseritur."

2. Returning, however, to the principal error, that the two natures became one after the incarnation, that might be asserted to have happened in four ways: First.-That one of the natures was changed into the other. Second.-That both natures were mixed up and confused, and so only formed one. Third.-That without this mixing up, the two natures in their union formed a third. And, fourth. That the human was absorbed by the Divine nature, and this is, most probably, the opinion of the Eutychians. Now, the Catholic dogina is totally opposed to this unity of the natures in Christ, no matter in what sense the Eutychians understood it. This is what we are going to prove.

SEC. I.-IN CHRIST THERE ARE TWO NATURES-THE DIVINE AND THE HUMAN NATURE DISTINCT, UNMIXED, UNCONFUSED, AND ENTIRE, SUBSISTING INSEPARABLY IN THE ONE HYPOSTASIS, OR PERSON OF THE WORD.

3. THIS dogma is proved from the passages of Scripture already quoted against Arius and Nestorius, in which Christ is proved to be both God and man; for, as he could not be called God, if he

(1) Tom. 4; Concil. Labbæi, p. 223, 226.

had not perfect Divine nature, so he could not be called man, if he had not perfect human nature. We will, however, set the matter in a clearer light. In the Gospel of St. John (Chap. i.) after saying that the Word is God-" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"-it is stated in the 14th verse, that human nature was assumed by the Word: "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.' Hence, St. Leo, in his celebrated Epistle to St. Flavian, says: "Unus idemque (quod sæpe dicendum est) vere Dei Filius, et vere hominis Filius. Deus per id quod in principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum: Homo per id quod Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis. Deus per id quod omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil: Homo per id quod factus est ex muliere, factus sub lege."

4. The two natures in Christ are also most clearly proved by that celebrated text of St. Paul (Philip. ii. 6), which we have so frequently quoted: "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 man, and in habit formed as a man." Here the Apostle allows in Christ the form of God, according to which he is equal to God, and the form of a servant, according to which he emptied himself, and was made like unto men. Now, the form of God and the form of a servant cannot be the same form, nor the same nature; because, if it was the same human nature, we could not say that Christ is equal to God; and, on the contrary, if it was the same Divine nature, Christ could not be said to have emptied himself, and made himself like unto man. We must, therefore, admit that there are two natures in Christ, the Divine nature, by which he is equal to God, and the human nature, by which he is made like

unto man.

5. Besides, this text proves that the two natures in Christ are unmingled and unconfused, each retaining its own properties, because, if the Divine nature was changed in him, he would no longer be God when he became man; but that would contradict what St. Paul says (Rom. ix. 5): "Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things God blessed for ever." Thus Christ is, at the same time, God and man, according to the flesh. If the human was absorbed by the Divine nature, or even changed into a Divine substance, as the Eutychians say, as we learn from Theodoret in his Dialogue Inconfusus, where Eranistes, an Eutychian, says: "Ego dico mansisse Divinitatem, ab hac vero absorptam esse humanitatem. . . . . .ut mare mellis guttam si accipiat, statim enim gutta illa evanescit maris aquæ permixta... ... .Non dicimus delatam esse naturam, quæ assumpta est, sed mutatam esse in substantiam Divinitatis." Thus the human nature, according to them, was absorbed in the Divine nature, like a drop of