rTO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR:1 SIR,—Surely your correspondent
in the Spectator of December 17th does the intelligence of the " Baronne" injustice. Her director probably taught her that our Lord was not "a Jew." But in this all Catholic theologians would. I think, support him. Our Lord, according to Catholic theology, "became man." But His Virgin-birth allowed of His assuming human nature, without at the same time tailing it, so to say, in any specialised form. Our Lord is, as St. Peal teaches, the second Adam, a new starting-point for the human race. His humanity is, so to say, universal. It ha&
co more Jewish than it has English characteristics. And the character of our Lord, as we see it manifested in His earthly life, is in entire accordance with this view. There is nothing specially Jewish about it. To maintain that our Lord was "a Jew" would savour of Nestorianism. It would almost necessi- tate the view that our Lord bad assumed not merely human nature, but an already existing human personality. Deplorable as the language used of the Jews by French Roman Catholics may be, it could not be condemned in their eyes on the ground that oor Lord was a Jew. The " Bayonne " would have been more easily silenced by a reference to the Jewish birth of the Blessed Virgin or of St. Peter. That this is what the "Baronne" had in mind seems confirmed by her words: "It in possible that my son might speak with you on the subject." Probably she felt it difficult to enter upon the theology of our Lord's Virgin-birth in general conversation.—I am, Sir, &c.,
5 Vicar's Close, Wells, Somerset. H. L. GOUDGE.
[Surely the Gospel teaches us that the humanity which our Lord put on was that of a Jew. If not, why insist that He was of the House of David P—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
