the worse for him, for then we cannot clear him of dissimulation. But we reserve our estimate of Dr. Nicholson's conduct as he has exhibited himself to us for the end. Now for his theology. If Dr. Nicholson's notion of 'deification' can be ascertained from his words at all, it would seem to be this, that the human nature ceased to be created and finite, and became infinite and uncreated: that is to say, it ceased to be Human nature and became Divine nature. This is portentous: but unless Dr. Nicholson means this, we can in no way discover what he means. He says in one place, 'No one denies that the Divine Word holds a possessive relation in respect to Caro: what the precise modus of that possession is, the Catholic faith defines in the doctrine of the hypostatic union.' We will hope that Dr. Nicholson does not mean the Nestorian 'habitudo OXETIxN.' Well, what is the hypostatic union? Dr. Nicholson does not tell us. He could not do so without saying that it is 'the assumption of Humanity by the Son or by the Eternal Word into the unity of His Divine Person.' But if he had said this, he would have repeated the Archbishop's and F. Guiron's statements, and destroyed his own.

VII. He then quotes as applicable to the pending question the words of S. Proclus in the Council of Ephesus, neque hominem deificatum prædicamus, sed Deum incarnatum confitemur;' that is, we do not preach a Deified Man, but the Incarnate God.' What has this ostentatious parade to do with the question? But we will leave this point for a future article. The Exucontians and Nestorians, indeed, taught that Jesus

had a created and human personality, and, in condemning them, the Council of Ephesus gave to Mary the title of Mother of God.' This title is a test of faith in the sole and divine personality of Jesus. Will Dr. Nicholson call her Mother of God? If so, he will then understand S. Proclus: and not before. But this is, we trust, simple blundering. We go on to something worse. Dr. Nicholson proceeds to quote the following passages to prove that divine worship is not to be given to the Sacred Humanity of Christ. Theologians, says Bellarmine, attribute hyperdulia Soli Humanitati Christi et Matri ejus.' He next quotes Dens as saying 'Humanitas Christi concepta per mentem ut separata a Persona Verbi non sit colenda cultu latriæ sed hyperduliæ.'

And yet with this before him, with soli,' and separata,' and 'per mentem concepta,' Dr. Nicholson is either incapable of seeing, or unwilling to see, that both Bellarmine and Dens, as S. Thomas did before them, are contemplating, not the question of the Adoration of the Sacred Humanity assumed' by, or united' to, the Person of the Son, with which the Archbishop and F. Guiron are all through and exclusively occupied, but in se, and as mentally separated from the Person of the Eternal Word. If Dr. Nicholson will take the trouble to read what S. Thomas says in P. iii. Quæst. XXV. articles 1 and 2, of which we hope he was ignorant, he will see that it has nothing to do with the question.

The Archbishop and F. Guiron, Perrone and Franzelin, with every Catholic theologian, affirm that

the Sacred Humanity of Christ is deified by assumption and by union with the Person of the Divine Word.

6

And yet Dr. Nicholson has, we must say, the effrontery to write as follows: Archbishop Manning abstracts the Humanity and separates the human Heart per se of the Blessed Redeemer as the objectum materiale of divine worship.'

This is precisely what the Archbishop and F. Guiron exclude and render impossible for any truthful mind to imagine.

Their position all along is that the human Heart is the Sacred Heart, and it is sacred because of the hypostatic union, by which it is deified and is indivisibly united to the Person of the Incarnate Word, who is, both as God and Man, the objectum materiale of divine worship.

We hope the Catholic faith, Indeed the same It declares that Deum Verbum

VIII. Further, to draw the accusation closer around the Archbishop, Dr. Nicholson quotes the ninth canon of the Fifth Council. He gives it as follows: Si quis in duabus naturis adorari dicit Christum' (which Archbishop Manning does say), &c. Archbishop does say so, for it is the without which no man can be saved. canon of the same Council says so. Christ is to be adored unâ adoratione; Incarnatum cum propriâ ipsius carne,' that is to say, He is to be adored in two natures with one adoration, namely, with divine worship. Dr. Nicholson does not perceive that the point of the Canon is in the words which follow ex quo duas adorationes introducunt.' If we understand him, Dr. Nicholson explicitly does

VOL. II.

this, for he restricts latria Deo Soli,' and gives hyper

dulia soli Humanitati Christi.'

Dr. Nicholson is therefore by his own confession pointedly under the anathema of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and there, as a theologian of immense pretence and of equal incapacity, for the present we leave him.

We will next deal with Dr, Nicholson's assertion that the Roman Church distinctly teaches that the Humanity of Christ is not an object of latria.'

THIRD ARTICLE.

IS THE SACRED HUMANITY TO BE WORSHIPPED WITH LATRIA?

It is impossible to guess what Dr. Nicholson does believe as to the doctrine of the Incarnation; but he has at length committed himself to a statement of what he does not believe. Here, then, we have something positive; and with this we can deal.

He says the Roman Church distinctly teaches that the Humanity of Christ is not (sic) an object of latria.'

We will therefore prove that the Roman Church does distinctly teach that the Humanity of Christ is an object of latria. To preclude all misunderstanding or cavil we will begin by the following assertions:

1. That the Humanity of Christ was so assumed by the Eternal Word that it never for a moment of time existed apart from the Person of the Son.

2. That the Humanity so assumed by hypostatic union is indissolubly united to the Person of the Son.

The supposition that it ever in reality existed apart from the Person of the Son is Nestorianism.

The supposition that it can or ever will exist apart from the Person of the Son is a heresy without a

name.

S. John makes such heresies the sign of Antichrist: Every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God; and this is Antichrist."

The Sacred Humanity is the Humanity of Christ ' in concreto.'

To abstract it 'per mentis conceptionem' is to create a mental idea which has not, never had, and never can have a real existence.

The Humanity, therefore, of which the Archbishop spoke, and of which we treat, is the Sacred Humanity as it exists by hypostatic union in the Incarnate Word at the right hand of God, and in the Blessed Sacrament.

Before we prove this point it will be well to point out a mishap which has befallen Dr. Nicholson. He was evidently not aware that there are among scholastic theologians two questions bearing on the Adoration due to the Sacred Humanity perfectly distinct from each other.

1. The one is, What adoration or cultus is due to the Sacred Humanity in concreto, that is as subsisting in the Person of the Incarnate Word.

31 S. John iv. 3.