Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

ever can exist, because there never was, nor ever will be, any other natural Son of God, unless that only-begotten one, generated from all eternity from the substance of the Father, the principle, and first Person of the Trinity. The second generation, made in time, or, to speak more exactly, the Incarnation of the Word, did not make Christ the Son of God, but united him in one Person with the true Son of God; that did not give him a Father but merely a Mother, who begot him from her own substance. Rigorously speaking this cannot be called generation, for the generation of the Son of God is that alone which was from eternity. The humanity of Christ was not generated by God, but was created, and was begotten solely by the Virgin Mary. Berruyer says that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God by two titles-first, by begetting the Word, and secondly, by giving Christ his humanity, since, as he says, the union established between this humanity and the Word has caused Jesus Christ to be made the Son of God. Both reasons, however, are false, for first we cannot say that the Blessed Virgin begot the Word, for the Word had no Mother, but only a Father, that is God. Mary merely begot the Man, who was united in one Person with the Word, and it is on that account that she, the Mother of Man, is justly called the true Mother of God. His second reason is equally false, that the Blessed Virgin has contributed, with her substance, to make Jesus Christ become the Son of God, one subsisting in three Persons, for, as we have proved, this supposition is totally false, so that, by attributing thus two maternities to the Blessed Virgin, he does away with it altogether, for one destroys the other. Berruyer mangles several other texts, but I omit them not to weary the reader with such folly any longer.

SEC. IV. THE MIRACLES WROUGHT BY JESUS CHRIST WERE NOT PERFORMED BY HIS OWN POWERS, BUT OBTAINED FROM HIS FATHER BY HIS PRAYERS.

41. BERRUYER says that Jesus Christ wrought his miracles in this sense alone, that he operated, with a beseeching power, by means of his prayers: "Miracula Christus efficit, non precatio.......prece tamen et postulatione. . . . . . .eo unice sensu dicitur Christus miraculorum effector." In another place he says that Christ, as the Son of God (but the Son in his sense-that is, of one God subsisting in three Persons), had a right, by his divinity, that his prayers should be heard. Remark the expression, "his prayers." Therefore, according to Berruyer, our Saviour did not work miracles by his own power, but obtained them from God by his prayers like any other holy man. This doctrine, however, once admitted, we should hold with Nestorius, that Christ was a mere human person, distinct from the Person of the Word, who, being God, equal to the Father, had no necessity of begging the Father to grant him power to work miracles, since he had all power himself. This error springs from

the former capital ones we have refuted—that is, that Christ is not the Word, but is that Son of God existing only in his imagination, his Son merely in name, made in time by God, subsisting in three Persons, and also that in Christ it was not the Word that operated, but his humanity alone: "Sola humanitas obedivit, sola passa est," &c.

42. He was just as much astray in this proposition that Christ wrought miracles merely by prayer and supplication as he was in his previous statements. St. Thomas, the prince of theologians, teaches" that Christ wrought miracles by his own power, and not by prayer, as others did" (1). And St. Cyril says that he proved,

by the very miracles he wrought, that he was the true Son of God,

since he performed them not by the power of another, but by his own: "Non accipiebat alienam virtutem." Only once, says St. Thomas (2), did he show that he obtained from his Father the power to work miracles, that was in the resurrection of Lazarus, when imploring the power of his Father, he said: "I know that thou hearest me always, but because of the people who stand about have I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me" (John, xi. 42). But, as the holy Doctor remarks, he did this for our instruction, to show us that in our necessities we should have recourse to God as he had. St. Ambrose then tells us not to imagine, from this fact of Lazarus, that our Saviour prayed to his Father for power to perform the miracle, as if he had not power to work it himself; that prayer, he says, was intended for our instruction: "Noli insidiatrices aperire aures, ut putes Filium, Dei quasi infirmum rogare, ut impetret quod implere non possit.......ad præcepta virtutis suæ nos informat exemplo" (3). St. Hilary says just the same; but he also assigns another reason: Christ, he says, did not require to pray, but he did so to make us believe that he was in reality the Son of God: "Non prece eguit, pro nobis, oravit, ne Filius ignoraretur" (4).

43. St. Ambrose (5) remarks, that when Jesus Christ wished, he did not pray, but commanded, and all creatures obeyed-the sea, the winds, and diseases. He commanded the sea to be at rest, and it obeyed: "Peace, be still" (Mark, iv. 39). He commanded that disease should leave the sick, and they were made whole: "Virtue went out from him, and healed all" (Luke, vi. 19). He himself tells us that he could do, and did, everything equal to his Divine Father: "For whatsoever things he (the Father) doth, these the Son also doth in like manner.......For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and giveth life, so the Son also giveth life to whom he will" (John, v. 19, 21). St. Thomas says (6) that the miracles alone which Christ wrought were sufficient to make manifest the Divine

(1) St. Thomas, 3, p. q. 44, art. 4. (2) Idem, ibid. qu. 21, art. 1, ad. 1. (3) St. Ambros. in Luc. (4) St. Hilar. 7. 10, de Trinit. (5) St. Ambros. l. 3, de Fide, c. 4. (6) St. Thom. 3, p. q. 43, art. 4.

power which he possessed: "Ex hoc ostendebatur, quod haberet virtutem coæqualem Deo Patri." This was what our Lord said to the Jews when they were about to stone him: "Many good works have I showed from my Father, for which of those works do you stone me?" The Jews answered him: "For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man, maketh thyself God." Jesus answered them: "You say, thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works," &c. (John, x. 32, &c.) We have said enough on this subject.

SEC. V. THE HOLY GHOST WAS NOT SENT TO THE APOSTLES BY JESUS CHRIST, BUT BY THE FATHER ALONE, AT THE PRAYER OF CHRIST.

44. BERRUYER says that the Holy Ghost was not sent to the Apostles by Jesus Christ, but by the Father, at his prayer: "Ad orationem Jesu Christi, quæ voluntatis ejus efficacis signum erit, mittet Pater Spiritum Sanctum. Quæ quasi raptim delibavimus de Jesu Christo missuro Spiritum Sanctum, quatenus homo Deus est Patrem rogaturus."

[ocr errors]

45. This error is also a necessary consequence of the former ones; that is, Jesus Christ, the Word, did not operate, but the humanity alone, or the Man made the Son of one God subsisting in three Persons, by reason of the union of the Person of the Word with the humanity; and from this false supposition he deduces this present falsehood, that the Holy Ghost was not sent by Jesus Christ, but by the Father, at the prayer of Jesus Christ. If he said that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Word, but from the Father alone, he would fall into the Greek heresy already refuted (Ref. iv.); but he rather leans to the heresy of Nestorius, who, admitting two Persons in Christ, a Divine and a human Person, said, consequently, that the Divine Person dwelling in Jesus Christ, together with the Father, sent the Holy Ghost; and the human Person in Christ obtained from the Father, by his prayers, that the Holy Spirit should be sent. Berruyer does not expressly say this; but when he asserts that the Holy Ghost was not sent by Jesus Christ, only by his prayer alone, he appears to believe, either that there is no Divine Person in Christ at all, or that there are two Persons-one Divine, which sends, of himself, the Holy Ghost; the other human, which obtains, by his prayers, that he may be sent. He shows that that is his opinion, when he says that in Jesus Christ it was the humanity alone that acted and suffered, that is, the Man alone made in time. the Son of God by the whole three Persons. This was not, certainly, the Word who was born of the Father alone before all ages. But the word, he says, was already united to the humanity of Christ in unity of Person; but then we should remember, that according to

his opinion the Word had nothing to do, for it was only the humanity that acted in Christ. That being the case, of what service was the union of the Word in unity of Person with the humanity? Merely, as he said, that by means of the hypostatic union Christ might be made the Son of God, of the three Divine Persons; and hence, he says, the operations of Christ were not elicited by the Word, but merely by his humanity, and the hypostatic union gave no value to his actions: "in ratione principii agentis.....unio hypostatica nihil omnino contulit."

66

46. With what face could Berruyer assert that the Holy Ghost was not sent by Jesus Christ, when he himself several times said he was, and promised his Apostles that he would send them the Paraclete: "But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father" (John, xv. 26); "For if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you" (John, xvi. 7). Listen to this! Christ says that he sent the Holy Ghost; and Berruyer says that the Holy Ghost was not sent by him, but only at his prayer. Perhaps he will argue that Christ himself said: "İ will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete" (John, xiv. 16). But we answer with St. Augustin, that Christ then spoke as man; but when he spoke as God, he said not once, but several times, "whom I will send to you." And again he says: "The Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things" (John, xiv. 26). St. Cyril, explaining this text, says, "in my name," that is, by me, because he proceeds from me. It is certain the Holy Ghost could not be sent unless by the Divine Persons alone, who were his Principle, the Father and the Son. If, then, he was sent by Jesus Christ, there can be no doubt that he was sent by the Word, who operated in Jesus Christ, and the Word being equal to the Father, and with the Father, co-principle of the Holy Ghost, had no necessity to pray to the Father (as Berruyer says) that he might be sent; for as the Father sent him, so did he likewise.

SEC. VI.-OTHER ERRORS OF BERRUYER ON DIFFERENT SUBJECTS.

47. THOSE writers who have refuted Berruyer's work remark several other errors which, though they may not be clearly opposed to Faith, still, in my opinion, are most extravagant, and totally opposed to the general opinion of Fathers and theologians. I will here refute some of the most strange and reprehensible.

48. In one place he says: "Revelatione deficiente, cum nempe Deus ob latentes causas eam nobis denegare vult, non est cur non teneamur saltem objecta credere, quibus religio naturalis fundatur." Speaking here of the revelation of the mysteries of the Faith, he says, that should no such revelation be made to us, we are, at all events,

obliged to believe those objects on which natural religion is based. And then he assigns the reasons subsequently: "Religio pure naturalis, si Deus ea sola contentus esse voluisset, propriam fidem, ac revelationem suo habuisset modo, quibus Deus ipse in fidelium cordibus, et animo inalienabilia jura sua exercuisset." Now the extravagance of this doctrine is only equalled by the confused manner in which it is stated. It would appear that he admits that true believers can be found professing mere natural religion alone, which, according to him, has, in a certain way, its own faith, and its own revelation. Then in mere natural religion there must be a faith and revelation with which God is satisfied. But, says Berruyer's friend, he intends this a mere hypothesis; but this does not render it less objectionable, for it would lead us to believe that God would be satisfied with a religion purely natural, without faith in the merits of Jesus Christ, and sufficient to save its professors. St. Paul answers this, however, for he says: "Then Christ died in vain" (Gal. ii. 21). If natural religion be sufficient to save those who neither believe nor hope in Jesus Christ, then he died in vain for man's salvation. St. Peter, on the contrary, says that salvation. can only be obtained in Christ: "Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved" (Acts, iv. 12). If any infidels, either under the New or Old Law have been saved, it has only been because they knew the grace of the Redeemer, and hence St. Augustin says that it was granted to no person to live according to God, and save his soul, to whom Jesus Christ has not been revealed, either as promised or already come: "Divinitus autem provisum fuisse non dubito, ut ex hoc uno sciremus etiam per alias Gentes esse potuisse, qui secundum Deum vixerunt, eique placuerunt, pertinentes ad spiritualem Jerusalem: quod nemini concessum fuisse credendum est, nisi cui divinitus revelatus est unus Mediator Dei, et hominum homo Christus Jesus, qui venturus in carne sic antiquis Sanctis prænunciabatur, quemadmodum nobis venisse nuntiatus est" (1).

49. This is the faith required for the just man to live always united with God: "The just man liveth by faith," says the Apostle: "But that in the law no man is justified with God it is manifest, because the just man liveth by faith" (Gal. iii. 11). No one, says St. Paul, can render himself just in the sight of God, by the law alone, which imposes commandments, but gives no strength to fulfil them. Neither can we, since the fall of Adam, fulfil them merely by the strength of our free will; the assistance of grace is requisite, which we should implore from God, and hope for through the mediation of our Redeemer. "Ea quippe fides," says St. Augustin (2), "justos sanavit antiquos, quæ sanat, et nos, idest (2) St. Aug. de Nat. et Grat. p. 149.

(1) St. Aug. l. 18 de C. D. c. 47.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »