1. Berruyer says that the operations of Jesus Christ were not produced by the Word, but merely by his humanity, and that the hypostatic union in no wise tended to render the human nature of Christ a complete principle of the actions physically and super naturally performed by him. Here are his words : “Non sunt operationes a Verbo elicitæ………….. sunt operationes totius humanitatis” (1). He had already written (2) : ” Ad complementum autem naturæ Christi humanæ, in rationo principii agentis, et actiones suas physice sive supernaturaliter producentis, unio hypostatica nihil omnino contulit.” In another passage he says that all the propositions regarding Christ, in the Scriptures, and especially in the New Testament, are directly and primarily verified in the Man-God, or, in other words, in the Humanity of Christ, united to the Divinity, and completed by the Word in the unity of Person, and this, he says, is the natural interpretation of Scripture : ” Dico insuper, omnes et singulas ejusdam propositiones, quæ sunt de Christo Jesu in Scripturis sanctis, præsertim Novi Testamenti, semper et ubique verificari directe et primo in homine Deo, sive in humanitate Christi, Divinitati unita et Verbo, completa in imitate personæ………Atque hæc est simplex obvia, et naturalis Scripturas interpretandi methodus,” &c. (3).
  2. In fine, he deduces from this, that it was the Humanity alone of Christ that obeyed, and prayed, and suffered that alone was endowed with all the gifts necessary for operating freely and meritoriously, by the Divine natural and supernatural cohesion (concursus) : ” Humanitas sola obedivit Patri, sola oravit, sola passa est, sola ornata fuit donis et dotibus omnibus necessariis ad agendum libere et meritorie (4). Jesu Christi oblatio, oratio, et mediatio non sunt operationes a Verbo elicitæ tamquam a principio physico et efficiente, sed in eo sensu sunt operationes solius humanitatis Christi in agendo, et merendo per concursum Dei naturalem et supernaturalem completæ” (5). By this Berruyer deprives God of the infinite honour he received from Jesus Christ, who, being God, equal to the Father, became a servant, and sacrificed himself. He also deprives the merits of Jesus Christ of their infinite value, as they were the operations of his humanity alone, according to him, and not performed by the Person of the Word, and, consequently, he destroys that hope which we have in those infinite merits. Besides, he does away with the strongest motive we have to love our Redeemer, which is the consideration that he, being God, and it being impossible that he could suffer as God, took human flesh, that he might die and suffer for us, and thus satisfy the Divine justice for our faults, and obtain for us Grace and life everlasting. But what is more important even, as the Roman Censor says, if it was the Humanity of Christ alone which obeyed, prayed, and suffered, and if the oblations, prayers, and mediation of Christ were not the operations of the Word, but of his Humanity alone, it follows that the Humanity of Christ had subsistence of its own, and, consequently, the human Person of Christ was distinct from the Word, and that would make two Persons.

(1) Berruyer, t. 8, p. 53. (2) Idem, p. 22. (3) Idem, ;p. 18, 19. (4) Berruyer, t. 8, p. 20, 21, & 23. (5) Idem,p. 53.

  1. Berruyer concludes the passage last quoted, ” Humanitas sola obedivit,” &c., by these words : ” Ille (inquam) homo, qui hæc omnia egit, et passus est libere et sancte, et cujus humanitas in Verbo subsistebat, objectum est in recto immediatum omnium, quæ de Christo sunt, narrationum” (6) It was the man, then, in Christ, and not the Word, that operated : ” Ille homo qui hæc omnia egit.” Nor is that cleared up by what he says immediately after : ” Cujus humanitas in Verbo subsistebat ;” for he never gives up his system, but constantly repeats it in his Dissertations, and clothes it in so many curious and involved expressions, that it would be sufficient to turn a person’s brain to study it. His system, as we have previously explained it, is, that Christ is not the Eternal Word, the Son, born of God the Father, but the Son, made in time by one God, subsisting in three Persons, who made him his Son by uniting him to the Divine Person; so that, rigorously speaking, he says he was formally constituted the Son of God, merely by that action which united him with the Divine Person: “Rigorose loquendo, per ipsam formaliter actionem unientem cum Persona Divina.” He, therefore, says that God, by the action of uniting the Humanity of Christ with the Word, formed the second filiation, and caused Christ-Man to become the Son of God, so that, according to his opinion, the union of the Word with the Humanity of Christ was, as it were, a means to make Christ become the Son of God. All this, however, is false, for when we speak of Jesus Christ, we cannot say that that man, on account of being united with a Divine Person, was made by the Trinity the Son of God in time; but we are bound to profess that God, the Eternal Word, is the Son, born of the Father from all eternity, born of the substance of the Father, as the Athanasian Creed says, “God, of the substance of the Father, born before all ages,” for, otherwise, he never could be called the natural Son of God. He it is who, uniting to himself Humanity in unity of Person, has always sustained it, and he it is who performed all operations, who, notwithstanding that he was equal to God, emptied himself, and humbled himself to die on a cross in that flesh which he assumed.

(6) Berruyer, t. 8, p. 53 & 95.

  1. Berruyer’s whole error consists in supposing the humanity of Christ to be a subject subsisting in itself, to which the Word was subsequently united. Faith and reason, however, would both teach him that the Humanity of Christ was accessary to the Word which assumed it, as St. Augustine (7) explains : ” Homo autem, quia in unitatem personæ accessit Verbo Anima et Caro.” Berruyer, however, on the contrary, says that the Divinity of the Word was accessary to the Humanity; but he should have known, as Councils and Fathers teach, that the Humanity of Jesus Christ did not exist until the Word came to take flesh. The Sixth Council (Act. 11) reproved Paul of Samosata, for teaching, with Nestorius, that the humanity of Christ existed previous to the Incarnation. Hence, the Council declared : ” Simul enim caro, simul Dei Verbi caro fuit; simul animata rationabiliter, simul Dei Verbi caro animata rationabiliter.” St. Cyril (8), in his Epistle to Nestorius, which was approved of by the Council of Ephesus, writes : ” Non enim primum vulgaris quispiam homo ex Virgine ortus est, in quem Dei Verbum deinde Se dimiserit; sed in ipso Utero carni unitum secundum carnem progcnitum dicitur, utpote sure carnis generationem sibi ut propriam vindicans.” St. Leo the Great (9), reprobating the doctrine of Eutyches, that Jesus Christ alone, previous to the Incarnation, was in two natures, says : ” Sed hoc Catholicæ mentes auresque non tolerant natura quippe nostra non sic assumpta est, ut prius creata postea sumeretur, sed ut ipsa assumption crearetur.” St. Augustine, speaking of the glorious union of the Humanity of Christ with the Divinity, says : “Ex quo esse Homo cœpit, non aliud cœpit esse Homo> quam Dei Filius” (10). And St. John of Damascus (11) says : ” Non quemadmodum quidam falso prædicant, mens ante carnem ex Virgine assumptam Deo Verbo copulata est, et turn Christi nomen accepit.”

(7) St. Augus. in EucMrid. c. 35. (8) St. Cyrill. Ep. 2, ad Nestor. (9) St. Leo, Ep. ad Julian. (10) St. Aug. in Euchir. c. 36(11) St, Jo. Dam. l. 4 Fide orth, c.6.

  1. Berruyer, however, does not agree with Councils or Fathers, for all the passages of Scripture, he says, which speak of Jesus Christ are directly verified in his humanity united to the Divinity : ” Dico insupere omnes propositiones quæ sunt de Christo in Scripturis verificari directe et primo in homine Deo, sive in humanitate Christi Divinitati unita,” &c. (12). So that the primary object of all that is said regarding Christ, is according to him, Man-God, and not God-Man : ” Homo-Deus, non similiter Deus-homo objectum primarium,” &c.; and again, as we have already seen, that Jesus Christ was formally constituted the natural Son of God, solely by that act which united him to the Word : ” Per ipsam formatter actionem unientem Jesus Christus constituitur tantum Filius Dei naturalis.” This, however, is totally false, for Jesus Christ is the natural Son of God, not on account of the act which united him to the Word, but because the Word, who is the natural Son of God, as generated by the Father from all eternity, assumed the humanity of Christ, and united it to himself in the unity of Person. Berruyer then imagines that the humanity was the primary object in recto, and self- subsisting, to when the Word was united, and that by this union Christ-Man was subsequently made the Son of God in time. Hence, he says, that the humanity alone obeyed, prayed, and suffered : and it was that man (Christ), he says, who did all those things : ” Ille (inquam) homo qui hæc omnia egit objectum est in recto immediatum eorum, quæ de Christo sunt,” &c. In this, however, he is wrong. Faith tells us that we ought to regard as the primary object, the Eternal Word, who assumed the humanity of Christ, and united it to himself hypostatically in one Person, and thus the soul and body of Jesus Christ became the proper soul and body of the Word.

(12) Berruyer, t. 8, p. 18.

When the Word, St. Cyril says, assumed a human body, that body was no longer strange to the Word, but was made his own : “Non est alienum a Verbo corpus suum” (13). This is what is meant by the words of the Creed; ” He came down from heaven, and was incarnate, and was made man.” Hence we, following the Creed, say God was made man, and not, as Berruyer says, man was made God; for this mode of expression would lead us to think that man, already subsisting, was united with God, and we should then, as Nestorius did, suppose two Persons in Christ; but faith teaches us that God was made man by taking human flesh, and thus there is but one Person in Christ, who is both God and man. Neither is it lawful to say (as St. Thomas instructs us) (14), with Nestorius, that Christ was assumed by God as an instrument to work out man’s salvation, since, as St. Cyril, quoted by St. Thomas, teaches, the Scripture will have us to believe that Jesus Christ is not an instrument of God, but God in reality, made man : “Christum non tanquam instrumenti officio assumptum dicit Scriptura, sed tanquam Deum vere humanatum.”

  1. We are bound to believe that there are in Christ two distinct Natures, each of which has its own will and its own proper operations, in opposition to the Monothelites, who held that there was but one will and one operation in Christ. But, on the other hand, it is certain that the operations of the human nature of Jesus Christ were not mere human operations, but, in the language of the schools, Theandric, that is, Divine-human, and chiefly Divine, for although, in every operation of Christ, human nature concurred, still all was subordinate to the Person of the Word, which was the chief and director of all the operations of the humanity. The Word, says Bossuet, presides in all; the Word governs all; and the Man, subject to the direction of the Word, has no other movements but Divine ones; whatever he wishes and does is guided by the Word (15). St. Augustine says that as in us the soul governs the body, so in Jesus Christ the Word governed his humanity : ” Quid est homo,” says the saint, ” anima habens corpus. Quid est Christus? Verbum Dei habens hominem.” St. Thomas says : ” Ubicunque sunt plura agentia ordinata, inferius movetur a superiori………. Sicut autem in homine puro corpus movetur ab animo ………….ita in Domino Jesu Christo humana natura movebatur et regebatur a Divina” (16).

(13) St. Cyr. Epist. ad Nestor. (14) St. Thom. 3 ;p. qu. 2, ar. 6, ad 4. (15) Bossuet, Diss. Ilistor. p. 2.(16) St. Thom, p. 3, q. 19, a. 1.

All, then, that Berruyer states on the subject is totally false : ” Humanitas sola obedivit Patri, sola passa est, Jesu Christi oblatio, oratio, et mediatio non sunt operationes a Verbo elicitæ tanquam a principio physico et efficiente. Ad complementum naturæ Christi humanæ in ratione principii producentis, et actiones suas sive physice sive supernaturaliter agentis, nihil onmino contulit unio hypostatica.” If, as the Roman Censor says, it was the humanity alone of Christ that obeyed, prayed, and suffered; and if the oblations, prayers, and mediation of Jesus Christ were not operations elicited by the Word but by his humanity alone, so that the hypostatic union had, in fact, added nothing to the humanity, for the completion of the principle of his operations, it follows that the humanity of our Redeemer operated by itself, and doing so must have had subsistence proper to itself, and a proper personality distinct from the Person of the Word, and thus we have, as Nestorius taught, two Persons in Christ.

  1. Such, however, is not the fact. All that Jesus Christ did the Word did, which sustained both Natures, and as God could not suffer and die for the salvation of mankind, he, as the Council of Lateran said, took human flesh, and thus became passible and mortal : “Qui cum secundum Divinitatem sit immortalis et impassibilis, idem ipse secundum humanitatem factus est mortalis et passibilis.” It was thus that the Eternal Word, in the flesh he assumed, sacrificed to God his blood and his life itself, and being equal to God became a mediator with God, as St. Paul says, speaking of Jesus Christ : ” In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins; who is the image of the invisible God for in him were all things created in heaven and on earth Because in him it has well pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell” &c. (Col. i, 13). According to St. Paul, then, it is Jesus Christ who created the world, and in whom the plenitude of the Divinity dwells.
  2. One of Berruyer’s apologists says, however, that when his master states, that the humanity alone of  Christ obeyed, prayed, and suffered, that he then speaks of this humanity as the physical principle Quo, that is, the medium by which he operates, and this physical principle belonged to the humanity alone, and not to the Word, for it is through his humanity that he suffered and died. But we answer, that the Humanity, as the principle, Quo, could not act of itself in Christ, unless put in motion by the principle, Quod that is, the Word, which was the one only Person, which sustained the two Natures. He it was who principally performed every action in the assumed Humanity, although it was by means of that he suffered, prayed, and died. That being the case, how can Berruyer be defended, when he says that it was the Humanity alone which prayed and suffered ? How could he say that the oblations, prayers, and mediation of Christ were operations elicited by the Word? And, what is even of greater consequence, how could he say that the hypostatic union had no influence on the actions of Christ Nihil omnino contulit unio hypostatica ? I said already that the Word was the principal agent in all operations. But, say those of the other side : Then, the Humanity of Christ performed no operations ? We answer that the Word did all; for, though the Humanity might also act, still, as the Word was the sole Person sustaining and completing this Humanity, he (the Word) performed every operation both of the soul and body, for both body and soul, by the unity of Person, became his own. Everything, then, which Jesus Christ did his  wishes, actions, and sufferings all belonged to the Word, for it was he who determined everything, and his obedient Humanity consented and executed it. Hence it is that every action of Christ was holy and of infinite value, and capable of procuring every grace, and we are, therefore, bound to praise him for all.
  3. The reader, then, should totally banish from his mind the false idea which Berruyer (as the author of the “Essay” writes) wished to give us of Christ, that the Humanity was a being, existing of itself, to whom God united one of his Sons by nature; for, as will be seen, by referring back to N. 11, there must have been, according to him, two natural Sons one, generated by the Father from all eternity; the other, in time, by the whole Trinity; but, then, Jesus Christ, as he teaches, was not, properly speaking, the Word made incarnate, according to St. John ” The Word was made flesh” but was the other Son of God, made in time. This, however, is not the doctrine of the Holy Fathers; they unanimously teach that it was the Word (17). St. Jerome writes : ” Anima et Caro Christi cum Verbo Dei una Persona est, unus Christus” (18). St. Ambrose (19), showing that Jesus Christ spoke sometimes according to his Divine, and, at other times, according to his human nature, says : ” Quasi Deus sequitur Divina, quia Verbum est, quasi homo dicit humana.” Pope Leo says : ” Idem est qui mortem subiit, et sempiternus esse non desiit.” St. Augustine says: “Jesus Christus Dei Filius est, et Deus, et homo. Deus ante omnia secula, homo in nostro seculo. Deus quia Dei Verbum, Deus enim erat Verbum : homo autem, quia in unitatem personæ accessit Verbo Anima, et Caro ………Non duo Filii, Deus, et homo, sed unus Dei Filius” (20). And, in another place (Cap. 36) : ” Ex quo homo esse cœpit, non aliud ccepit esse homo, quam Dei Filius, et hoc unicus, et propter Deum Verbum, quod illo suscepto caro factum est, utique Deus ut sit Christus una persona, Verbum et homo.” The rest of the Fathers speak the same sentiments; but it would render the Work too diffuse to quote any more.
  4. The Holy See, then, had very good reasons for so rigorously and so frequently condemning Berruyer’s Book; for it not alone contains many errors, in opposition to the doctrines of the Church, but is, besides, most pernicious, because it makes us lose that proper idea we should have of Jesus Christ. The Church teaches that the Eternal Word that is, the only natural Son of God (for he had but one natural Son, who is, therefore, called the only-begotten, born of the substance of God the Father, the first Person of the Trinity), was made man, and died for our salvation. Berruyer, on the contrary, would have us to believe that Jesus Christ is not the Word, the Son, born of the Father from all eternity, but another Son, which only he and Hardouin knew anything about, or, rather, dreamed of, who, if their ideas were founded in fact, would have the name alone, and the honour of being called the Son of God; for, in order that Jesus Christ should be the true natural Son of God, it was requisite that he should be born of the substance of the Father, but the Christ, according to Berruyer, was made in time by the whole Trinity. The whole idea, then, we had hitherto formed of our Redeemer is totally changed.

(17) St. Hieron. Tract. 49, in Joan. (18) St. Ambr. ap. St. Leon, in Ep. 134. (19) St. Leo, Serm. 66. (20) St. Augu. in Euchirid. c. 35.

We considered him to be God, who, for our salvation, humbled himself to take human flesh, in order to suffer and die for us; whereas Berruyer represents him to us, not as a God made man, but as a man made the Son of God, on account of the union established between the Word and his Humanity. Jesus Christ crucified is the greatest proof of God’s love to us, and the strongest motive we have to induce, nay, as St. Paul says, to force us, to love him ” For the charity of Christ presseth us” (II. Cor. v, 14) is to know that the Eternal Word, equal to the Father, and born of the Father, emptied himself, and humbled himself to take human flesh, and die on a cross for us; but, according to Berruyer’s system, this proof of Divine love to us, and this most powerful motive for us to love him, falls to the ground. And, in fine, to show how different is Berruyer’s errors from the truth taught by the Church : The Church tells us to believe that Jesus Christ is God, made man, who, for us, suffered and died, in the flesh he assumed, and who assumed it solely to enable him to die for our love. Berruyer tells us, on the contrary, that Jesus Christ is only a man, who, because he was united by God to one of the Divine Persons, was made by the Trinity the natural Son of God, and died for the salvation of mankind; but, according to Berruyer, he did not die as God, but as man, and could not be the Son of God at all, according to his ideas; for, in order to be the natural Son of God, he should have been born of the substance of the Father, but, according to Berruyer, he was a being ad extra, produced by the whole Trinity, and if he was thus an external product, he could not have been anything but a mere creature; consequently, he must admit two distinct Persons in Christ one Divine, and one human. In fine, if we held this man’s doctrine, we could not say that God ” loved us, and delivered himself up for us” (Ephcs. v, 2); for, according to him, it was not the Word ” who delivered himself up for us,” but the Humanity of Christ, honored, indeed, by the union with the Word, that alone it was which suffered, and was subjected to death. Let him keep these opinions to himself, however, for every faithful Catholic will say, with Saint Paul : “I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered himself for me” (Gal. ii, 20). And we will praise and love with all our hearts that God who, being God, made himself man, to suffer and die for every one of us.

  1. It is painful to witness the distortion of Scripture which Berruyer has recourse to in every part of his work, but more especially in his Dissertations, to accommodate it to his false system, that Jesus Christ was the Son of one God, subsisting in three Persons. We have already (N. 7) quoted that text of St. Paul (Phil, ii, 5, &c.) : ” 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,” &c. Here is conclusive evidence to prove that the Word, equal to the Father, emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, in becoming man. Berruyer says, on the contrary, that it was not the Word, not the Divine Nature, which humbled itself, but the human, conjoined with the Divine Nature : ” Humiliat sese natura humana naturæ Divinæ physice conjuncta.” To consider the Word humbled to become incar nate, and die on the cross, would, he says, be degrading the Divinity; it should, therefore, he says, be only understood according to the communication of the idioms, and, consequently, as referring to the actions of Christ after the hypostatic union, and, therefore, he says it was his Humanity that was humbled. But in that case we may well remark, what is there wonderful in the humiliation of humanity before God ? That prodigy of love and mercy which God exhibited in his Incarnation, and which astonished both heaven and earth, was when the Word, the only-begotten Son of God, equal to the Father, emptied himself (exinanivit), in becoming man, and, from God, became the servant of God, according to the flesh. It is thus all Fathers and Catholic Doctors understand it, with the exception of Berruyer and Hardouin; and it is thus the Council of Chalcedon, also (Act. V.), declared that the Son of God, born of the Father, before all ages, became incarnate in these latter days (novissimis diebus), and suffered for our salvation.
  2. We will take a review of some other texts. St. Paul (Heb. i, 2) says, that God ” in these days hath spoken to us by his Son by whom he also made the world.” All the Fathers understand this, as referring to the Word, by whom all things were created, and who was afterwards made man; but Berruyer explains the passage, ” By whom he also made the world,” thus : In consideration of whom God made the world. He explains the text of St. John, ” By him all things were made,” in like manner, that in regard of him all things were made, so that he does not even admit the Word to be the Creator. But hear St. Paul, on the contrary. God, speaking to his Son, says : ” Thy throne, God, is for ever and ever In the beginning, O Lord, didst thou found the earth, and the works of thy hands are the heavens” (Ileb. i, 8, 10). Here God does not say that he created the heavens and the earth in consideration or in regard of his Son, but that the Son himself created them; and hence St. Chrysostom remarks : ” Nunquam profecto id asserturus, nisi conditorem Filium, non ministrum arbitraretur, ac Patri et Filio pares esse intelligent dignitates.”
  3. David says : ” The Lord hath said to me, thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee” (Psalm ii, 7). Berruyer says that the expression, ” This day have I begotten thee,” has no reference to the eternal generation, as all understand it, but to the generation in time, of which he is the inventor, when Jesus Christ was made in time the Son of one God, subsisting in three Persons. He thus explains the text, ” This  day have I begotten thee” : I will be your Father, and you will be my Son that is, according to the second filiation, made by the one God in three Persons, as he imagines.
  4. St. Luke says : ” And, therefore, also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke, i, 35). Berruyer says that these words do not refer to Jesus Christ, as the Word, but as man; for the expression ” Holy” is not adapted to the Word, but rather to Humanity. All Doctors, however, understand by the Holy One, the Word, the Son of God, born before all ages. Bossuet sagaciously remarks, that the expression, ” Holy,” when it is only an adjective, properly speaking, is adapted to the creature; but when, as in the present case, it is a substantive, it means Holiness essentially, which belongs to God alone.
  5. St. Matthew (xxviii, 19) tells us, that Christ said to his disciples : ” Going, therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Berruyer says, then, that, by the name of Father, the first Person of the Trinity is not meant, but the God of the Jews that is, one God, subsisting in three Persons; by the name of the Son, the Word is not understood, but Christ, as man, made the Son of God, by the act by which God united him to the Word. He says nothing at all about the Holy Ghost. Now, by this doctrine the Sacrament of Baptism is not alone deranged, but totally abolished, I may say; because, according to him, we would not be baptized, at first, in the name of the Father, but in the name of the Trinity, and Baptism, administered after this form, as all theologians hold, with St. Thomas, would be null and void (21). In the second place, we would not be baptized in the name of the real Son of God that is, the Word, who became incarnate, but in the name of that Son, invented by Berruyer, made in time by the Trinity a Son which never did nor ever can exist, because there never was nor 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 the 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.

(21) St. Thomas, 3, p. qu. 60, art. 8.