mentions one Jesus Christ, the Son of man and the Son of God. St. Iræneus says (3): "Unum et eundem esse Verbum Dei, et hunc esse unigenitum, et hunc incarnatum pro salute nostra Jesum Christum." St. Dionisius of Alexandria, in a Synodical Epistle, refutes Paul of Samosata, who said that in Christ there were two Persons and two Sons; the one the Son of God, born before all ages; the other the Son of David, called Christ. St. Athanasius (4) says: "Homo una Persona, et unum animal est ex spiritu et carne compositum, ad cujus similitudinem intelligendum est, Christum unam esse Personam, et non duas"-that, as soul and body make but one person in man, so the Divine and hunan nature constitute but one Person in Christ. St. Gregory of Nazianzen (5) says: "Id quod non erat assumpsit, non quo factus, sed unum ex duobus fieri substinens; Deus enim ambo sunt id quod assumpsit, et quod est assumptum, naturæ duæ in unum concurrentes, non duo Filii." St. John Chrysostom (6) thus writes: "Etsi enim (in Christo) duplex natura; verumtamen indivisibilis unio in una filiationis Persona, et substantia." St. Ambrose (7) tersely explains: "Non alter ex Patre, alter ex Virgine, sed item aliter ex Patre, aliter ex Virgine." St. Jerome, opposing Elvidius, says, that "we believe that God was born of a Virgin;" and in another place he says (8): “ Anima et caro Christo cum Verbo Dei una Persona est, unus Christus." 12. It would extend the work too much to quote more from the holy Fathers, so I will pass on to the Decrees of Councils. The Council of Ephesus (9), after a mature examination of the Catholic dogma, by Scripture and Tradition, condemned Nestorius, and deposed him from the See of Constantinople. Here are the words of the Decree: "Dominus noster Jesu Christus quem suis ille blasphemis vocibus impetivit per Ss. hunc Synodum eundem Nestorium Episcopali dignitate privatum, et ab universo sacerdotum consortio, et cœtu alienum esse definit." The fourth General Council, that of Chalcedon, defined the same thing (Act. 5): "Sequentes igitur Ss. Patres, unum, eumdemque confiteri Filium, et Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum consonanter omnes docemus, eundem perfectum in Deitate, et eundem perfectum in humanitate, Deum verum, et hominem verum..... non in duas personas partitum, aut divisum, sed unum eundemque Filium, et unigenitum Deum Verbum, Dominum Jesum Christum." The third Council of Constantinople— that is, the sixth General Council-defined the same doctrine in the last Action; and the seventh General Council, that is, the second of Nice, did the same in the seventh Action. (3) St. Iran. 1. 3, c. 26, al. 18, n. 2. (4) St. Athan. . de Inc. Verb. n. 2. (5) St. Greg. Naz. Orat. 31. (6) St. Joan. Chry. Ep. ad Cæsar. (7) St. Amb. de Incar. c. 5. (8) St. Hieron. trac. 49, in Joan. p. 115, & seq. (9) Concil. Ephes. t. 3; Con. 66 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 13. THEY object, first, certain passages of the Scripture, in which the humanity of Christ is called the temple and habitation of God: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. . . . . . . But he spoke of the temple of his body" (John, ii. 19-21). In another place it is said: "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally" (Col. ii. 9). We answer, that in these texts the personal union of the Word with the human nature is not denied, but it is even more strongly confirmed. Why should we be surprised that the body of Christ, hypostatically united with his soul to the Divine Word, should be called a temple? Why, even our body united to the soul is called a house and tabernacle: "For we know if our earthly house of this habitation be dissolved" (2 Cor. v. 1). And again (ver. 4): "For we also who are in this tabernacle do groan, being burthened." As, therefore, it is no argument against the personal union of the body and soul, to call the body a house and tabernacle, so calling the body of Christ a temple does not prove anything against the hypostatic union of the Word with the humanity of Christ; on the contrary, our Saviour even expresses this union himself in the words which follow: "In three days I will raise it up;" for by that he shows that he was not only man, but God. The Divinity of Christ is also clearly proved by the other text, in which St. Paul says that the followers of the Divinity dwelt bodily in him, thus declaring him to be at the same time true God and true man, according to the words of St. John: "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." 14. They object, secondly, that text of the Epistle: "Being made in the likeness of man, and in habit formed as a man" (Phil. ii. 7). According to that, they say that Christ was a man like unto all other men. We answer that in the previous part of the text the Apostle already answers this, for he shows that Christ was God and equal to God: "Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Therefore the words quoted only prove that the Divine Word being God was made man like unto other men, but that he was not a mere man like all other men. 15. They object, thirdly, that everything in nature ought to have its own peculiar subsistentia, but the subsistentia of human nature is a human person, therefore if in Christ there was not a human person he was not true man. We reply that this is not necessary, if there be a higher or more noble subsistentia, as was the case in Christ, where the Word sustained both natures, and, therefore, though in Christ there was only the Divine person of the Word, still he was true man, because the human nature subsisted in the Word itself. 16. They object, fourthly, if the humanity of Christ consisted of both soul and body, it was complete and perfect; there was, there fore, in him a human Person, besides the Divine person. We answer that the humanity of Christ was complete by reason of nature, for it wanted nothing, but not by reason of the Person, because the Person in which the nature subsisted and was comprised was not a human but a Divine Person, and, therefore, we cannot say that there were two Persons in Christ, for one Person alone, that of the Word, sustains and comprises both the Divine and human nature. 17. They object, fifthly, that St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Athanasius have sometimes called the humanity of Christ the house, the domicile, and the temple of God the Word. Besides that, St. Athanasius, Eusebius of Ceserea, and St. Cyril himself, have spoken of it as the instrument of the Divinity. St. Basil calls Christ Deiferous," the bearer of God. St. Epiphanius and St. Augustin, "Hominem Dominicum," and St. Ambrose and St. Augustin, in the "Te Deum," say that the Word assumed man. We answer, that the Fathers, as we have already seen, have clearly expressed that Christ is true God and true man, so that if there be any obscure passage in these words it is easily cleared up by many others. St. Basil calls Christ the God-bearing man, not because he admits a human person in Christ, but to quash the error of Apollinares, who denied that Christ had a rational soul, and the holy Father only intended, therefore, to show by this expression that the Word assumed both a body and soul; when St. Ambrose and St. Augustin say that the Word assumed man, " assumpsit hominem," they only use the word "hominem" for human nature. 18. We may as well also here refute the errors of the Bishops Felix and Elipandus, who taught (ch. v. n. 39), that Jesus Christ as man was not the natural, but only the adopted Son of God. This opinion was condemned by several Councils, and also by the Popes Adrian and Leo X. The learned Petavius (1) says that it is not actually heretical, but at all events it is rash, and approaching to error, for it is more or less opposed to the unity of the Person of Christ, who, even as man, should be called the natural, and not the adopted Son of God, lest we might be drawn in to admit that in Christ there were two Sons, one natural, and the other adopted. There are, however, two reasons to prove that Christ as man should be called the natural Son of God; the more simple one is found in that passage of the Scriptures, in which the Father speaks of the eternal and continual generation of the Son: "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Psalms, ii. 7). Hence, as the Divine Son was generated previous to his Incarnation, without being personally united to human nature by the flesh, so when he took flesh he was generated, and is always generated, with human nature, hypostatically united to the Divine Person; and hence the Apostle, speaking of Christ as man, applies to him the text of (1) Petav. 7. 7, c. 4, n. 11, et c. 5, n. 8. David now quoted: "So Christ also did not glorify himself, that he might be made a high priest, but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Heb. v. 5). Jesus Christ, therefore, even according to his humanity, is the true Natural Son of God (2). SEC. II.-MARY IS THE REAL AND TRUE MOTHER OF GOD. 19. THE truth of this dogma is a necessary consequence of what we have already said on the subject of the two natures; for if Christ as man is true God, and if Mary be truly the Mother of Christ as man, it necessarily follows that she must be also truly the Mother of God. We will explain it even more clearly by Scripture and tradition. In the first place the Scripture assures us that a Virgin (that is the Virgin Mary) has conceived and brought forth God, as we see in Isaias (vii. 14): "Behold a Virgin shall conceive and shall bring forth a Son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel, which is interpreted (says St. Matthew), God with us." St. Luke, relating what the angel said to Mary, proves the same truth: "Behold thou shalt conceive in the womb, and shalt bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High...... and the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke, i. 31-35). Mark the words: "shall be called the Son of the Most High," "shall be called the Son of God," that is, shall be celebrated and recognized by the whole world as the Son of God. 20. St. Paul proves the same truth when he "Which he had promised before by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures. Concerning the Son who was made to him in the seed of David, according to the flesh" (Rom. i. 2, 3); and, writing to the Galatians, he says: "When the fulness of time was come God sent his Son made of a woman made under the law" (Gal. iv. 4). This Son, promised by God through the Prophets, and sent in the fulness of time, is God equal to the Father, as has been already proved, and this same God, sprang from the seed of David, according to the flesh, was born of Mary; she is, therefore, the true Mother of this God. says: 21. Besides, St. Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Ghost, called Mary the Mother of her Lord: "And whence is this to me that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke, i. 43). Who was the Lord of St. Elizabeth, unless God? Jesus Christ himself, also, as often as he called Mary his Mother, called himself the Son of Man, and still the Scriptures attest that, without the operation of man, he was born of a Virgin. He once asked his disciples: "Whence do men say that the Son of Man is?" (Matt. xvi. 13), (2) Vide Tournelly, Comp. Theol. t. 4, p. 2, Incarn. c. 3, ar. 7, p. 800, signanter, p. 817, vers. ter. 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 María, 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. ... (2) St. Justin, Apol. & Dialog. cum Triphon (4) St. Dionis. Ep. & Paul, Samos (6) St. Greg. Nazian. Orat. 51 . de Cor. Chris, c. 17. n. 44. (8) Tertul. |