on the 2nd of December, 1758, and the literal Paraphrase of the Epistles of the Apostles, after the Commentaries of Hardouin, was included in it: "Quod quidem Opus ob doctrinæ fallaciam, et contortas Sacrarum Litterarum interpretationes....... scandali mensuram implevit." With difficulty, I procured a copy of the work, and I took care also to read the various essays and pamphlets in which it was opposed. It went, however, through several editions, though the author himself gave it up, and submitted to the sentence of the Archbishop of Paris, who, with the other bishops of France, condemned it. Besides the Pontifical and Episcopal condemnation, it was prohibited, likewise, by the Inquisition, and burned by the common hangman, by order of the Parliament of Paris. Father Zacchary, in his Literary History, says that he rejects the work, likewise, and that the General of the Jesuits, whose subject Father Berruyer was, declared that the Society did not recognize it.

2. I find in the treatises written to oppose Berruyer's work, that the writers always quote the errors of the author in his own words, and these errors are both numerous and pernicious, especially those regarding the Mysteries of the Trinity, and the Incarnation of the Eternal Word, against which especially the devil has always worked, through so many heresies; for these Mysteries are the foundation of our Faith and salvation, as Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God made man, the fountain of all graces, and of all hope for us; and hence, St. Peter says that, unless in Jesus, there is no salvation: "Neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts, iv. 12).

3. I was just concluding this work, when I heard of Berruyer's work, and the writings opposing it; and, to tell the truth, I was anxious to conclude this work of mine, and rest myself a little after the many years of labour it cost me; but the magnitude and danger of his errors induced me to refute his book as briefly as I could. Remember that, though the work itself was condemned by Benedict XIV. and Clement XIII., the author was not, since he at once bowed to the decision of the Church, following the advice of St. Augustin, who says that no one can be branded as a heretic, who is not pertinaciously attached to, and defends his errors: "Qui sententiam suam, quamvis falsam, atque perversam, nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt...... corrigi parati cum invenerint, nequaquam sunt inter Hæreticos deputandi."

4. Before we commence the examination of Berruyer's errors, I will give a sketch of his system, that the reader may clearly understand it. His system is founded principally on two Capital Propositions, both as false as can be. I say Capital ones, for all the other errors he published depend on them. The first and chief proposition is this, that Jesus Christ is the natural Son of one God, but of God subsisting in three Persons; that is to say, that Jesus Christ is Son, but not Son of the Father, as principal, and first Person of the Trinity, but Son of the Father subsisting in three

Persons, and, therefore, he is, properly speaking, the Son of the Trinity. The second proposition, which comes from the first, and is also what I call a Capital one, is this, that all the operations of Jesus Christ, both corporal and spiritual, are not the operations of the Word, but only of his humanity, and from this, then, he deduced many false and damnable consequences. Although, as we have already seen, Berruyer himself was not condemned, still his book is a sink of extravagancies, follies, novelties, confusion, and pernicious errors, which, as Clement XIII. says, in his Brief, obscure the principal Articles of our Faith, so that Arians, Nestorians, Sabellians, Socinians, and Pelagians, will all find, some more, some less, something to please them in this work. There are mixed up with all this many truly Catholic sentiments, but these rather confuse than enlighten the mind of the reader. We shall now examine his false doctrine, and especially the first proposition, the parent, we may say, of all the rest.

SEC. 1.-BERRUYER SAYS THAT JESUS CHRIST WAS MADE IN TIME, BY AN OPERATION ad extra, THE NATURAL SON OF GOD, ONE SUBSISTING IN THREE PERSONS, WHO

UNITED THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST WITH A DIVINE PERSON.

5. HE says, first: "Jesus Christus D. N. vere dici potest et debet naturalis Dei Filius; Dei, inquam, ut vox illa Deus supponit pro Deo uno et vero subsistente in tribus personis, agente ad extra, et per actionem transeuntem et liberam uniente humanitatem Christi cum Persona Divina in unitatem Persona" (1). And he briefly repeats the same afterwards: " Filius factus in tempore Deo in tribus Personis subsistenti" (2). And again: "Non repugnat Deo in tribus Personis subsistenti, fieri in tempore, et esse Patrem Filii naturalis, et veri." Jesus Christ, then, he says, should be called the natural Son of God, not because (as Councils, Fathers, and all Theologians say) the Word assumed the humanity of Christ in unity of Person; and thus our Saviour was true God and true man -true man, because he had a human soul and body, and true God because the Eternal Word, the true Son of God, true God generated from the Father, from all eternity, sustained and terminated the two natures of Christ, Divine and human, but because, according to Berruyer, God, subsisting in Three Persons, united the Word to the humanity of Christ, and thus Jesus Christ is the natural Son of God, not because he is the Word, born of the Father, but because he was made the Son of God in time, by God subsisting in three Persons, "uniente humanitatem Christi cum Persona Divina." Again, he repeats the same thing, in another place: Rigorose loquendo per ipsam formaliter actionem unientem Jesus Christus constituitur tantum Filius Dei naturalis." The natural Son, according to Hardouin's and Berruyer's idea; because the real (2) Idem. ibid. p. 60.

(1) Berruyer, t. 8, p. 59.

natural Son of God was the only begotten Son, begotten from the substance of the Father; and hence, the Son that Berruyer speaks of, produced from the three Persons, is Son in name only. It is not repugnant, he says, to God to become a Father in time, and to be the Father of a true and natural Son, and he always explains this of God, subsisting in three Divine Persons.

6. Berruyer adopted this error from his master, John Hardouin, whose Commentary on the New Testament was condemned by Benedict XIV., on the 28th of July, 1743. He it was who first promulgated the proposition, that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God as the Word, but only as man, united to the Person of the Word. Commenting on that passage of St. John, "In the beginning was the Word," he says: "Aliud esse Verbum, aliud esse Filium Dei, intelligi voluit Evangelista Joannes. Verbum est secunda Ss. Trinitatis Persona; Filius Dei, ipsa per se quidem, sed tamen ut eidem Verbo hypostatice unita Christi humanitas." Hardouin, therefore, says that the Person of the Word was united to the humanity of Christ, but that Jesus Christ then became the Son of God, when the humanity was hypostatically united to the Word; and, on this account, he says, he is called the Word, in the Gospel of St. John, up to the time of the Incarnation, but, after that, he is no longer called the Word, only the Only-begotten, and the Son of God: "Quamobrem in hoc Joannis Evangelio Verbum appellatur usque ad Incarnationem. Postquam autem caro factum est, non tam Verbum, sed Unigenitus, et Filius Dei est."

7. Nothing can be more false than this, however, since all the Fathers, Councils, and even the Scriptures, as we shall presently see, clearly declare that the Word himself was the only-begotten Son of God, who became incarnate. Hear what St. Paul says: "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" (Phil. ii. 5, &c.) So that the Apostle says, that Christ, being equal to God, emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. The Divine Person, which was united with Christ, and was equal to God, could not be the only-begotten Son of God, according to Hardouin, but must be understood to be the Word himself, for, otherwise, it would not be the fact that He who was equal to God emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. St. John, besides, in his First Epistle (v. 20), "We know that the Son of God is come." He says: 66 says, 18 come;" it is not, therefore, true that this Son of God became the Son, only when he came, for we see he was the Son of God before he came. The Council of Chalcedon (Act. v.) says, speaking of Jesus Christ: "Ante sæcula quidem de Patre genitum secundum Deitatem, et in novissimis autem diebus propter nos et propter nostram salutem ex Maria Virgine Dei Genitrice secundum humanitatem ... .... non in duas personas partitum, sed unum eundemque

Filium, et unigenitum Deum Verbum." Thus we see it there declared, that Jesus Christ, according to the Divinity, was generated by the Father before all ages, and afterwards became incarnate in the fulness of time, and that he is one and the same, the Son of God and of the Word. In the Third Canon of the Fifth General Council it is declared: "Si quis dixerit unam naturam Dei Verbi incarnatam dicens, non sic ea excipit, sicut Patres docuerunt, quod ex Divina natura et humana, unione secundum subsistentiam facta, unus Christus effectus. . . . . talis anathema sit." We see here there is no doubt expressed that the Word was incarnate, and became Christ, but it was prohibited to say absolutely that the Incarnate nature of the Word was one. We say, in the Symbol at Mass, that we believe in one God, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father, before all ages. Jesus Christ is not, therefore, the Son of God, merely because he was made the Son in time, or because his humanity was united to the Word, as Hardouin says, but because his humanity was assumed by the Word, who was already the Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.

8. All the Fathers teach that the Son of God who was made man is the very Person of the Word. St. Iræneus (3) says: "Unus et idem, et ipse Deus Christus Verbum est Dei." St. Athanasius (4) reproves those who say: "Alium Christum, alium rursum esse Dei Verbum, quod ante Mariam, et sæcula erat Filius Patris." St. Cyril says (5): "Licet (Nestorius) duas naturas esse dicat carnis et Verbi Dei, differentiam significans . . . . . . . . attamen unionem non confitetur; nos enim illas adunantes unum Christum; unum eundem Filium dicimus." St. John Chrysostom (6), reproving Nestorius for his blasphemy, in teaching that in Jesus Christ there were two Sons, says: "Non alterum et alterum, absit, sed unum et eundem Dom. Jesum Deum Verbum carne nostra amictum," &c. St. Basil writes (7): "Verbum hoc quod erat in principio, nec humanum erat, nec Angelorum, sed ipse Unigenitus qui dicitur Verbum; quia impassibiliter natus, et Generantis imago est." St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (8) says: Unus est Deus Pater Verbi viventis..... perfectus perfecti Genitor, Pater Filii unigeniti." St. Augustin says (9): "Et Verbum Dei, forma quædam non formata, sed forma omnium formarum existens in omnibus. Quærunt vero, quomodo nasci potuerit Filius coævus Patri: nonne si ignis æternus esset, coævus esset splendor?" And in another passage he says (10): "Christus Jesus Dei Filius est, et Deus, et Homo; Deus ante omnia secula, Homo in nostro seculo. Deus, quia Dei Verbum: Homo autem, quia in unitatem personæ accessit Verbo anima rationalis, et caro." Eusebius of Ceserea says (11), not like Hardouin: "Non

66

(4) St. Athan. Epist. ad Epictetum.

(3) St. Iræneus. l. 17, adv. Hæres. Cyril. in Commonitor. ad Eulogium. (7) St. Basil. Hom. in Princ. Johann. Nyss. (9) St. August. Serm. 38, de Verb. Dom. (11) Euseb. Ces. l. 1, de Fide.

(5) St.

(6) St. Chrysost. Hom. 3, ad c. 1, Ep. ad Cæsar. (8) St. Greg. Thaumat. in Vita St. Greg. (10) St. August. in Euchirid. c. 35.

cum apparuit, tunc et Filius: non cum nobiscum, tunc et apud Deum: sed quemadmodum in principio erat Verbum, in principio erat..... in principio erat Verbum, de Filio dicit." We would imagine that Eusebius intended to answer Hardouin, by saying that the Word, not alone when he became incarnate and dwelt amongst us, was then the Son of God, and with God, but as in the beginning he was the Word, so, in like manner, he was the Son; and hence, when St. John says: "In the beginning was the Word," he meant to apply it to the Son. It is in this sense all the Fathers and schoolmen take it, likewise, as even Hardouin himself admits, and still he is not ashamed to sustain, that we should not understand that it is the Word, the Son of God, who became incarnate, though both doctors and schoolmen thus understand it. Here are his words: "Non Filius stilo quidem Scripturarum sacrarum, quamquam in scriptis Patrum, et in Schola etiam Filius."

9. This doctrine has been taken up, defended, and diffusely explained, by Berruyer; and to strengthen his position, even that Jesus Christ is not the Son of the Father, as the first Person of the Trinity, but of one God, as subsisting in the three Divine Persons, he lays down a general rule, by which he says all texts of the New Testament in which God is called the Father of Christ, and the Son is called the Son of God, should be understood of the Father subsisting in three Persons, and the Son of God subsisting in three Persons. Here are his words: "Omnes Novi Testamenti textus, in quibus aut Deus dicitur Pater Christi, aut Filius dicitur Filius Dei, vel inducitur Deus Christum sub nomine Filii, aut Christus Deum sub nomine Patris interpretans: vel aliquid de Deo ut Christi Patre, aut de Christo ut Dei Filio narratur, intelligendi sunt de Filio facto in tempore secundum. carnem Deo uni et vero in tribus Personis subsistenti." And this rule, he says, is necessary for the proper and literal understanding of the New Testament: "Hæc notio prorsus necessaria est ad litteralem et germanam intelligentiam Librorum Novi Testamenti" (12). He previously said that all the writers of the Old Testament who prophesied the coming of the Messiah should be understood in the same sense: "Cum et idem omnino censendum est de omnibus Vet. Testamenti Scriptoribus, quoties de futuro Messia Jesu Christo prophetant" (13). Whenever God the Father, or the first Person, he says, is called the Father of Jesus Christ, it must be understood that he is not called so in reality, but by appropriation, on account of the omnipotence attributed to the Person of the Father: "Recte quidem, sed per appropriationem Deus Pater, sive Persona prima, dicitur Pater Jesu Christi, quia actio uniens, sicut et actio creans, actio est omnipotentiæ, cujus attributi actiones Patri, sive primæ Personæ, per appropriationem tribuuntur" (14).

(12) P. Berruyer, t. 8, p. 89 & 98. (13) Berruyer, t. 8, p. 3. (14) Berruyer, t. 8, p. 83.