justified as the ardent petition: "Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us!"

READINGS:

Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 117, 2nd ed., London 1901.-S. J. Hunter, S. J., Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 497 sqq., 2nd ed., s. a. * L. Leroy, De SS. Corde Iesu eiusque Cultu, Leodii 1882. — J. Jungmann, S. J., Die Andacht zum hl. Herzen Jesu und die Bedenken gegen dieselbe, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1885.-N. Nilles, S. J., De Rationibus Festorum SS. Cordis Iesu et Purissimi Cordis Mariae, 2 vols., 5th ed., Ratisbon 1885.— IDEM, The Devotion to the Sacred Heart (tr. by W. H. Kent, O. S. C.), London 1905.H. J. Nix, S. J., De Cultu SS. Cordis Iesu Notiones quaedam Theologicae, 2nd ed., Aug. Vindel. 1886.-W. Humphrey, S. J., The One Mediator, pp. 272 sqq., London s. a.-J. V. Bainvel, La Dévotion au Sacre-Coeur de Jésus, Doctrine, Histoire, 3rd ed., Paris 1911.-J. de Gallifet, S. J., The Adorable Heart of Jesus, 3rd ed., London 1908.

APPENDIX

In the text (pp. 90 sq.) we have given the traditional view of the teaching of Nestorius. This view is based on the writings of his opponents, especially St. Cyril. More recently the publication by Loofs, of over three hundred fragments of Nestorius' own writings, and by F. Nau, of a hitherto unknown work written by him during his exile under the pseudonym of "Heraclides of Damascus," has given rise to a controversy, in which the orthodoxy of Nestorius was vehemently defended against Pope Celestine I by Bethune-Baker, Harnack, and Duchesne. The majority of Catholic savants, however, hold that the traditional account of Nestorianism requires no correction in the light of the newly discovered writings of the unfortunate patriarch, especially since it is not at all likely that his Christological teaching differed in any essential respect from that of his master Theodore of Mopsuestia.

The meaning which Nestorius attached to πрóσwπоv remains obscure, and the term, as used by him, may be interpreted in different ways. This is not surprising, as Nestorius was an exegete and a historian, not a philosopher. M. Jugie probably comes nearest the truth when he says that the ἓν πρόσωπον resulting from the ἕνωσις πроσάπшν is simply a very intimate union of the divine with a human person. According to this view there are

2

1 Nestorius, Le Livre de d'Héraclide de Damas, Paris 1910.

2 Nestorius et la Nestorienne, pp. 94

1912.

Controverse

sqq., Paris

actually two distinct persons in Christ. Junglas3 holds that the essence of Nestorianism consists not so much in the assumption of a twofold personality, as in the probationary theory peculiar to the Antiochene school, viz.: that Christ was compelled to merit the so-called hypostatic union, which began only with His glorious Resurrection, by patient suffering and obedience to the will of God; in other words, that, though he may by a sort of prolepsis be called "Son of God" from the moment of His conception, He did not become true God until after His death. It is in accord with this theory, according to Junglas, that the term coтóκos must be interpreted in the writings of Nestorius: Mary was not really the mother of God, though she may be called thus per anticipationem, just as the mother of a man who is raised to the episcopate may be called the mother of a bishop. Whether this explanation can be made to square with Nestorius' teaching on the Holy Eucharist (where he neglects to emphasize the hypostatic union of the two natures), is not for us to decide. But no matter how the Christology of the unfortunate patriarch be interpreted in the light of his own writings, he certainly did deny that Christ was true God from the moment of His conception, and, furthermore, drew so sharp a line between the divine and the human attributes of our Lord that they can no longer be ascribed to one person. In other words, it is an inevitable corollary of Nestorianism that there are two persons in Christ, and consequently the system was justly condemned as heretical in the anathematisms of St. Cyril.*

3 Die Irrlehre des Nestorius, Treves 1912.

4 Cfr. the Katholik, of Mayence, 1913, I, pp. 233 sqq., 437 sqq.