ing to Dr. Nicholson, Perrone taught blasphemy. So, of course, F. Guiron, for he teaches what Perrone taught.

III. But the recoil of this on Dr. Nicholson is instant and fatal. If Perrone did not teach blasphemy, he taught that the Sacred Humanity is worshipped with divine worship, because of the hypostatic union with the Word; by which union it is 'deified.' If so, the Sacred Humanity is to be worshipped 'una adoratione,' according to the teaching of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, quoted by Perrone in the same context, but Dr. Nicholson knows nothing about it; at least so we hope for the sake of his sincerity.

2

Here, then, we have a dilemma.

Perrone either taught that the Sacred Humanity is to be worshipped with divine worship by reason of the hypostatic union; or he did not so teach. If he did, Perrone and F. Guiron are sheltered from Dr. Nicholson, and from the anathema of the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

If he did not so teach, then Dr. Nicholson charges not only F. Guiron and the Archbishop, but Perrone also, with introducing two adorations to two separate natures.

But Dr. Nicholson has destroyed himself; for in one of his letters he affirms that Perrone taught that the Sacred Humanity is to be adored, not because it is deified, but because it' Verbo Divino hypostatice unita.' We will assume, then, that Dr. Nicholson admits that Perrone taught that the Sacred Humanity partakes of divine worship by reason of the hypostatic union. But

2 Pars ii. c. iv. tom. iii. 141.

why not say so? Because, we fear, Dr. Nicholson began to have a nervous instinct that if he were to say so, his whole case would be ruined. As we shall next show.

6

IV. F. Guiron very truly says, in perfect conformity with the fathers and theologians of the Church, that the word 'deify' ordinarily signifies to be exalted to an object of worship.' Now nothing can be worshipped with divine worship but God alone-est Dei solius,' as Dr. Nicholson learns from Perrone. Therefore nothing which is separate from God, or out of God, can be an object of divine worship. But the Sacred Humanity, which by hypostatic union was assumed by the Eternal Word, is made' Caro Dei,' and therefore eo ipso deified. Dr. Nicholson calls the hypostatic union a 'possessive relation' of which more before we have done. We affirm that the Caro Dei,' hypostatically, indissolubly, and eternally united to the Son, partakes of the divine worship due to His Godhead alone in se, et propter se, because TOTUS CHRISTUS, Deus et Homo, is worshipped una eademque divini cultus adoratione. Iniquitas mentita est sibi, which may be rendered, Ill-will is caught in its own trap.

Dr. Nicholson's affirmation that Perrone taught that the Sacred Humanity partakes of divine worship because it is hypostatically united to the Divine Word, proves also that Perrone held that the Sacred Humanity was elevated by assumption to be 'Caro Dei,' or deified. But these are the ipsissima verba of F. Guiron; therefore Perrone and F. Guiron alike teach the same Catholic doctrine of the deification and divine worship

of the Humanity of the Incarnate Word; or they are alike blasphemous. But Dr. Nicholson either does not see what he is saying, which is a crime in an accuser, or he sees and knows that his accusation is false. We leave him to take his choice.

V. We will now go one step onward into Dr. Nicholson's labyrinth, or, as Lord Bacon would call it, his 'maze.' Rising to the occasion, he finally delivers himself of the following sentence: The Chief Pastor of the Roman Church in England, from the principal pulpit of his charge, delivers himself dogmatically of a heresy which has been condemned under Catholic anathema.'

If this means anything it means:

1. That the Archbishop taught that the two natures in Christ are to be adored separately.

2. That these two adorations are not one and the For if they were one and the same they could not be two.

same.

But we have no need to argue and deduce. Dr. Nicholson has asserted all this in words. He writes: 'Compare with this the dogmatic statement of Archbishop Manning conveyed in your letter:

"The Divine Person is adored and the Humanity which He assumed is adored.

"The two natures of Christ are both the objects of divine worship, but in a different degree.'

We hope to prove that Dr. Nicholson has deliberately falsified the Archbishop's words, and foisted in his own. There is not a syllable of the Archbishop's or of F. Guiron's, as we shall show, even susceptible of this per

version. It is a pure, gratuitous, and very culpable imputation. This we shall show in due time.

6

Now we have Dr. Nicholson's report of the Archbishop's words before us. 'The human nature of the Blessed Redeemer is deified in consequence of its having been assumed by the Divine Son.' The Archbishop was speaking of the divine worship of the Sacred Heart, and only incidentally of the doctrine of the Sacred Humanity as a whole. He therefore restated his words as follows: The Sacred Heart of our Lord, being united with the Divinity, was deified, and therefore an object of divine worship.' What is true of the Sacred Humanity as a whole is true of every part of the same. Now the word 'hypostatically' is indeed not used here, because few who hear a preacher understand the terminology of the schools. But both these formulæ contain and fully enunciate the hypostatic union as the motive of the divine worship of which the Sacred Humanity partakes.

By assumed by the Divine Son,' as in the first formula, or by united with the Divinity' of our Lord, as in the second, the hypostatic union is completely enunciated. The human nature is thereby declared to be 'Caro Dei:' therefore eo ipso it was deified, and therefore it partakes in the divine worship due to the Eternal Word. Deification and divine worship are inseparable

from the hypostatic union.

Where, then, are the two natures to be worshipped separately' and the two adorations' condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council? There is not a shadow of two adorations in either the Archbishop's or F. Guiron's

words. It is Dr. Nicholson who, by the juggle on Perrone's words Dei solius' has foisted in the notion of separation; and then argues thus: The Archbishop says the Sacred Humanity is to be worshipped. But Perrone says divine worship belongs to God alone, therefore the Sacred Humanity is not to be worshipped. with divine worship. And this with the word 'deified' before him. But F. Guiron asserts, as Dr. Nicholson says, 'the two natures of Christ are both the objects of divine worship, but in a different degree.' Dr. Nicholson repeats the words and changes object into objects, and on his own falsification founds a charge of two separate adorations. F. Guiron expressly says that Christ is the objectum, one and indivisible. His meaning by 'degree' is that the Divine nature is worshipped for its own sake, the Human is not. The worship is one and the same. If he had said, 'With this difference' he would have more effectually shut out Dr. Nicholson's cavils. Therefore the heresies condemned by the Fifth Council are taught, not by the Archbishop, not by F. Guiron, not by Perrone, but profoundly and explicitly by Dr. Nicholson, unless in dissimulation he be prevaricating like the Pharisees when they answered the dilemma of our Lord as to the Baptism of John: If we shall say from heaven, He will say to us: Why, then, did you not believe him? but if we shall say from men, we are afraid of the multitude, for all held John as a prophet.'

VI. We will now proceed to deal with Dr. Nicholson's own theology. If it be as he states, it is bad enough. If it be better than his statements, so much