running straight into the pit which it had been digging for the Archbishop?

It was for this reason, that he had been so careful to affirm,

1. That the human Heart by union with the Godhead of the Eternal Son was 'deified,' as S. Cyril of Alexandria teaches of the whole human nature of Christ; that is to say, it became the Heart of God.

2. That it is for ever indissolubly united with the Godhead of the Son.

3. That it therefore partakes of the divine worship due to the Divine Person whose human Heart it is.

4. That this indissoluble hypostatic union excludes the heretical notion of two natures to be separately adored with two adorations.

5. That the unity of the Person of the Incarnate Word excludes not only two adorations but any worship less than the divine.

6. That the Sacred Heart is the Heart of God, in which the uncreated and created love of God to man are indissolubly united; and that it is therefore to be adored in one act of divine worship now and to all eternity.

To put this in the simplest theological terms:

First: The Humanity of Christ is to be adored by one and the same divine worship which is due to the Eternal Word with whom it is hypostatically united. This is matter of faith; and its contradictory is condemned under anathema.

Secondly: The objectum materiale of the divine worship is Christ, God and Man.

Thirdly: The objectum formale or motive of the divine worship is the Divine Person of the Son..

This divine worship, one and the same, is due to Christ, God and Man: to His Godhead in se et propter se,' in and for itself; to His Manhood, 'in se, non tamen propter se,' in itself, but not for itself. The Sacred Humanity is to be adored with divine worship, because it is the Humanity of God, and every part of it is adorable for the same reason; therefore the Sacred Heart is an object of divine worship.

We cannot refrain from adding two observations.

The naked and explicit heresies which have been put forth on the subject of the Sacred Heart prove to demonstration a profound and heretical ignorance on the whole subject of the Incarnation. The subject of the Sacred Heart seems to have been providentially used at this time that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.' We have been hitherto altogether unconscious, and could not have believed that so much formal Nestorianism and Semi-Arianism could lie hid in the Anglican Church. And when we remember that the Guardian is, by privilege, the paper of the Anglican clergy, and to be found in a large number of their homes, we feel a profound disappointment. We had hoped better things. We have no pleasure in the errors even of our antagonists. Hitherto we have believed that in the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation at least the Anglican clergy were faithful and well instructed. We are much shaken in this hope by these revelations.

The other reflection is hardly less grave. Charity

thinketh no evil' and 'rejoiceth with the truth.' We cannot understand the outburst of delighted exultation with which the Guardian published to the world that it had heard and believed that a Catholic Bishop had erred from the truth. The Guardian must hate the Catholic Church a great deal more than it loves the Christian Faith. This spirit is not of God, but of the Evil One, and is an ill omen for Anglican Christianity.

SECOND ARTICLE.

NICHOLSON V. GUIRON.

DR. NICHOLSON, having attacked the Archbishop by letter, was answered by the Rev. F. Guiron. A long correspondence followed. We know nothing like it except the Tichborne Case. If we wrong Dr. Nicholson he must thank himself for it. We know nothing of him but by his letters. If he be better than his letters we are glad of it, for his sake. Anything more shallow, pretentious, impertinent, and to all appearance insincere, we have seldom read. We will justify this severe sentence by his own words.

I. Dr. Nicholson states that he heard the Archbishop say: The humanity of our Blessed Redeemer is deified in consequence of its having been assumed by the Divine Son.' This statement is perfectly Catholic and orthodox. It affirms two things, the assumption of humanity by the Son of God; and that the humanity thereby became 'Caro Dei,' or 'Humanitas Dei;' and secondly, that

the Sacred Humanity was thereby indissolubly united to the Person of the Son, and therefore deified.' The Archbishop states that he said: The Sacred Heart of our Lord, being united with the Divinity is deified, and is therefore an object of divine worship.' The terms of these propositions are different: the doctrine is the same. Both affirm the indissoluble union of humanity with the Son of God by the hypostatic union; and that the Sacred Humanity is therefore an object of divine worship. Will it be believed that upon this Dr. Nicholson founds the following charges:

1. That the Archbishop separates the Sacred Humanity from the Godhead.

2. That he teaches two adorations.

3. That he therefore falls under the anathema of the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

It is impossible for falsification to be more direct, formal, and, we do not know how to refrain from adding, conscious. But we shall see as we go on the process of this juggle upon plain words.

II. F. Guiron, who answered Dr. Nicholson's charge, brought to his knowledge the following passage of Perrone: Quamvis hæc Caro (i.e. Caro propria Verbi, or Caro Dei) adoretur in se, non adoratur tamen propter se, quod est proprium solius Dei.'

In these words Perrone affirms:

1. That divine worship is due to God alone, 'Dei solius.'

2. That both natures receive divine worship in the unity of the Person of the Word Incarnate.

3. That the Divine nature is worshipped in se et

propter se, in and for itself, the Human Nature in se but not propter se, in itself but not for itself; because it is worshipped with divine worship by reason of the Godhead of the Word, whose humanity it is.

This is a Godsend for Dr. Nicholson, who begins with new courage as follows: Perrone says that divine worship belongs to God alone, 'proprium Dei solius.' Therefore Perrone does not extend it to the human nature, because it is not God. With Dr. Nicholson, to affirm and to deny are one and the same thing. What he did with the Archbishop's words he now does with Perrone's. He adds, 'Perrone did not teach the deification of the Sacred Humanity.' Now it so happens that in the immediate context from which F. Guiron quoted, Perrone does teach it in the following words: 'Nonnulli Patres humanum Christi velle dixere deificatum, quatenus intime conjunctum erat cum velle divino, uti ipsa humana natura cum divina." But of this we hope Dr. Nicholson was in his accustomed ignorance; for if not, we must charge him not with ignorance but with something worse.

F. Guiron most truly says, Perrone did teach the deification of the Sacred Humanity, or else he could not without error have taught that the Sacred Humanity partakes of the divine worship of the Incarnate Word. This is so true that to do so would be blasphemy.

Dr. Nicholson denies that Perrone taught the deification of the Sacred Humanity. But it is undeniable that he taught that the Sacred Humanity partakes of the divine worship of the Word. Therefore, accord

1 Tract. de Incar. pars ii. c. iii. tom. iii. 131.