4 OCTOBER 1873, Page 16

[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] Sin,—As you have failed

to understand Rev. Mr. Guiron's dis- tinction between " facere Deum " and " facere Dei," perhaps yotr will kindly insert three sentences of explanation :—(1.) The Arch- bishop says, that "the Heart of Christ has been deified" (" Cor Christi deificatum eat"). (2.) This may intelligibly mean, that "the Heart of Christ has been made God" (" Cor Christi factual eat Dens"). In such a sense the proposition is monstrous. (3.) But it may also intelligibly mean, that "the Heart of Christ has been made the Heart of God" (" Cor Christi factum eat Cor Del"). This is undeniably orthodox according to Catholic theology, andt it is what the Archbishop intended to say. There is ample patristic authority for using the word " deify " in this sense.— [Of course, if these explanations were universally understood,. our objection, so far as it criticised the phrase "deify," is not tenable. We do not pretend to any knowledge of the patristie use of the word, but unquestionably the popular use is identical with " Deum facere," as, for instance, when it is said in mytho- logy that any human being was deified. In relation to the Roman Catholic faith, this interpretation is the more likely to be popu- larly accepted, hecaume Roman Catholics do believe that bread and wine is, if not deified, at least transmuted into the substance- of a Divine humanity by consecration, and Protestants do not know how far this process of transubstantiation of human things. into divine, may not be pushed. But our objection goes far beyond the word. We do not believe human beings in the act of worship to be equal to the subtle distinctions taken between the object of worship and the motive of worship, and feel very sure. that any kind of worship addressed to the humanity of Christ or the affections of Christ, without distinct and conscious reference to his Divinity, mast degenerate into a kind of idolatry.—ED,

Spectator.]