UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO 3 1822 02665 2784 ESMSJSSSWf^^ JS^^^^SS^^fS^^^sS^^SSisS^SBSSSSSS^^S^ Social Sciences & Humanities Library University of California, Sar. Diego Please Note: This item is subject to recall. Date Due SEP 24 1999 CI 39 (5/97) UCSD Lib. Rev. Prof. Alexander B. Bruce, D.D. 3 1822 02665 2784 =2. BY REV. ALEXANDER B. BRUCE, D.D. Professor ef Apologetic: \ ttameni Exegesis. Free Church College, G . THE PARABOLIC TEACHING OF CHBIST. A System cal study cf the Parables of our Lord. Sto. Goth. Third Revised Ed.:. THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST, in its Physical. Ethical, and Offi- cial Aspects. Bto. Cloth. Second Raised Ed::: :-. $2 :: THE MIBACfLOES ELEMENT 15 THE GOSPELS. Sto. Cloth. Sec- ond Edit is*: S; j THE TRAINING of the TWELVE; or. Passages out of the Gospeli. Exhibiting the twelve disc Jesus under discipline for the eship. Fourth Edition, re- zed, and improved. Cloth. j2.;o. *«• Aft) :' ' t to an) part of ihe lnued S:ices or Canada, on receipt of price, by the Publishers, A. C. ARMSTRONG & SON, 51 East 10th Street, New York. THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST IN ITS PHYSICAL, ETHICAL, AND OFFICIAL ASPECTS. STfje Silt!) Srrics of tfje Cunningham lectures. BY ALEXANDER BALMAIN BRUCE, D.D. PROFESSOR OF APOLOGETICS AND NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS, FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW. Author of "The Parabolic Teaching of Christ," "Miraculous Element in the Gospels,'''' etc., etc. SECOND EDITION REVISED AND ENLARGED. 3Teu- XJorfc: C. ARMSTRONG & SON, 51 EAST 10th STREET. 1899. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. IN issuing a new edition of The Humiliation of Christ, I desire gratefully to acknowledge the appreciative spirit in which a very imperfect attempt to discuss a difficult subject of great importance was received by the theological public. In this edition scarcely any alteration has been made in the text of the Lectures which appeared in the first edition.. But a new Lecture has been added, the Fifth in the present volume, on Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person,. which completes my original design. In this Lecture I have utilized the notes which appeared in the Appendix of the former edition on the Ideal-Man Theory of Christ's Person, and on the title " Son of man," replacing them by new notes on other topics. I have also in the same Lec- ture embodied the substance of an article on Naturalistic Views of Christ's Person, which appeared in the British and Foreign Evangelical Review for January 1879. For the benefit of readers not familiar with the Greek and German languages I have given English translations of extracts from these tongues occurring in the Appendix, along with the original. I have not thought it necessary to follow the same course with extracts in notes at the foot of the page in the body of the work, because the drift of all such ex- tracts is given in the text, so that the English reader loses nothing, except the power of verifying the accuracy of my representations. It was simply for the purpose of such verification that the extracts were given. I trust that iv these additions will have the effect of rendering the book more useful and acceptable. If I have not made more ex- tensive alterations, it is not for want of a deep sense of the defects of my performance. If there are passages in the volume which do not satisfy the mind of the reader, they probably still less satisfy the mind of the writer. And yet I am not sure that if I were to try I could make them bet- ter. Let me express the hope that, in spite of defects, these studies may promote growth in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and by their very short- comings stir up others to handle the high theme more worthily. The Author. CONTENTS. LECTURE I CHRISTOLOGICAL AXIOMS. The Purpose Explained, The Doctrine of the States in Dogmatic Systems, The Kenotic School, The Advantages of the Method, The Axioms difficult to fix, . The Previous Question, Phil. ii. 5-9 explained, The Axioms thence deduced, Christ's Humiliation in Epistle to the Hebrews, Doctrine of the Homousia there taught, The Humiliation a Glorification, Two additional Axioms, . . . Plan of the Course, .... I 2 4 6 8 10 15 22 25 27 30 36 37 LECTURE II. THE PATRISTIC CHRISTOLOGY. Formula of Chalcedon, 39 Apollinarian Theory of Christ's Pers Criticism of the Theory, Nestorian Controversy, Cyril on the Kenosis, . on, 40 45 48 5i Theodoret on the Kenosis, . , 54 Cyril on Christ's Ignorance, Eutychianism, . . Lee's Letter to Flavian, 55 60 63 The Dreary Period of Christology, John of Damascus, . 69 7i Thomas Aquinas, New Ideas in the Summa, 74 75 Christ both Co?nprehensor and Viatc r, S3 VI Contents. LECTURE III. THE LUTHERAN AND REFORMED CHRISTOLOGIES. Origin of the Controversy, Stages of the Controversy, The Christology of John Brentz, The Christology of Martin Chemnitz, The Formula of Concord, Lutheran Christology criticised, The Reformed Christology, . The Reformed Christology criticised, By the Logos through His Spirit, Double Consciousness or Double Life ? Realism of Reformed Christology, . Zanchius and Hulsius on Christ's Ignorance The Homousia in Reformed Christology, 83 84 86 96 105 107 i'5 121 125 127 I3c 130 »33 LECTURE IV. THE MODERN KENOTIC THEORIES. Relation of these Theories to the Old Christologies, Zinzendorf Father of Modern Kenosis, Four Types distinguished, The Theory of Thomasius, Theory of Gess, Theory of Ebrard, . Theory of Martensen, Criticism of these Theories, >34 137 139 139 «45 153 160 164 LECTURE V. MODERN HUMANISTIC THEORIES OF CHRIST'S PERSON. Classification of, Thoroughgoing Naturalism, . Ideal-Man Theory— Schleiermacher, Sentimental Naturalism — Keim, Nondescript Eclectic Naturalism— Haweis, Ideal-Man Theory— Beyschlag, Conclusion of the Survey, 194 196 207 209 218 223 235 Contents. VII LECTURE VI. CHRIST THE SUBJECT OF TEMPTATION AND MORAL DEVELOPMENT. Physical Infirmities a Source of Temptation, Hilary denied the Physical Infirmities, Hilary's Apologists, . Cause of Hilary's Error, Adoptianist View of Christ's Humanity, Menken and Irving taught same Views, Christ's relation to Disease and Death, Temptation and Sinlessness, Potuit non and non potuit, . Christ's Moral Development, Christ perfected, how ? Christ's Priesthood, when begun ? Is a Sinless Development possible ? 237 238 242 247 250 251 258 264 269 274 276 280 285 LECTURE VII. THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST IN ITS OFFICIAL ASPECT. Christ a Servant, ..... Christ's Humiliation as an Apostle, . Socinian Theory of Salvation, . Christ's Humiliation as a Priest, The Sanctifier one with the Sanctified, Sympathy a Source of Suffering, Sympathy Theory of Atonement, Christ, as a Priest, a Representative; as Victim, a Substitute, Theory of Redemption by Sample, . Mystic and Legal Aspects of Atonement compatible, Were Christ's Sufferings penal, M'Leod Campbell's Theory, Bushnell's Latest Views, .... Manifold Wisdom of God in Redemption, . Justice and Love both satisfied, Ritschl and Arnold on the Leading Idea of the Bible, Christ's Fellowship with His Father uninterrupted, Under Divine Wrath during whole State of Humiliation, Did Christ suffer Eternal Death ? . Acceptilation Theory, .... Elements of Value in the Atonement, Scripture Representations of Christ's Sufferings, Summary Formula, ..... Philippi's Equation, ..... Theories of Atonement classified. 291 294 298 301 301 3°4 305 309 3" 317 3i8 319 322 326 328 332 335 337 34i 343 344 347 348 349 3S 2 Vlll Contents. APPENDIX. Lect. I. Note A, Lect. ii. Note a. Lect. III. Note A. ,, Note B. Note C. )) Note D. 1 » Note E. Lect. IV. Note A.- )> Note B. !» Note C. )) Note D. • ) Note E.- If Note F. »» Note G. Lect. VI. Note A. >i Note B. yt Note C. Lect. VII. Note A. ii Note B. »» Note C. i> Note D. it Note E. —On Phil. ii. 6-8, . . . . .359 — Extract.- from Cyril on Christ's Ignoranee, . . 368 — Connection between Lutheran Christology ar.d the Sacramentarian Controversy, . . . 375 — Tllbingen-Giessen Controversy concerning Krypsis and Kenosis, . . . . 376 — Schneckenburger on Connection between Lutheran Christology and Modern Speculative Christology, 380 —Schweitzer on Reformed Christology, . . 382 —Reformed Views of the Impersonality, . . 384 — Kenotic Literature belonging 1, to Thomasian Type, . 388 — Kenotic Literature belonging to Gessian Type, . 396 — Ebrard's Prefaces to his Works, . . . 413 — Ebrard's Solutions of Speculative Christological Problems, ...... 414 —Kenotic Literature belonging to Martensen Type, . 419 —The Christology of Zinzendorf, . . . 425 —Cyril on Metamorphic Kenosis, . . . 429 —On the Temperament of Christ, . . . 43a —Views of Naturalistic Theologians on "the Flesh," . 431 — Socinus on the Priesthood of Christ, . . . 437 — The Pauline Doctrine of Atonement, . . . 439 —Rupert of Duytz on Christ as a Penitent, . . 442 — Reformed and Lutheran Opinions on the Question, Did Christ suffer Spiritual and Eternal Death ? . 443 — St. Bernard on the Greatness of Christ's Sufferings, and its Cause, ..... 447 —Jonathan Edwards on the Sense in which Christ endured Divine Wrath, .... 449 INDEX. 45' LECTURE I. CHRISTOLOGICAL AXIOMS. I PURPOSE in the following lectures to employ the teaching of Scripture, concerning the humiliation of the Son of God, as an aid in the formation of just views on some aspects of the doctrine of Christ's person, experience, and work, and as a guide in the criticism of various Christological and Soteriological theories. The task I enter on is arduous and delicate. It is arduous, because it demands at least a tolerable acquaintance, at first hand as far as possible, with an extensive literature of ancient, modern, and recent origin, the recent alone being sufficiently ample to occupy the leisure of a pastor for years. It is delicate, because the subject, while of vital interest in a religious point of view, is also theologically abstruse. The way of truth is narrow here, and through ignorance or inadvertence one may easily fall into error, while desiring to maintain, and even honestly believing that he is maintaining, the catholic faith. It has, indeed, sometimes been asserted that it is impossible to avoid error on the subject of the person of Christ, all known or conceivable theories oscillating be- tween Ebionitism and Doketism. 1 This, it may be hoped, is the exaggeration of persons not themselves believers in the catholic doctrine of our Lord's divinity; yet it is an exaggeration in which there is so much truth, that it is difficult to enter on a discussion of questions relating to that great theme without conscious fear and trembling. 1 I venture to print the words docetism and docetic with k instead of c (doketism, doketic), following the example of Mr. Grote, who in his History of Greece thus renders all Greek names in which k occurs into English, e.g. Sokrates instead of Socrates. One objection to the spelling docetism is, that to ill-informed minds it may suggest a derivation from doceo instead of from Soxioo. The terms doketism and doketic apply to that view of our Lord's person which makes His human aature and life a mere appearance. 2 The Humiliation of Christ. Yet, on the other hand, no one can discuss to any purpose these questions in a timid spirit. Successful treatment demands not only reverence and caution, but audacity. Without boldness, both in faith and in thought, it is impossible to rise to the grandeur of the truth in Christ, as set forth in Scripture. Courage is required even for believing in the Incarnation; and still more for the scien- tific discussion thereof. What can one do, then, but proceed with firm step, trusting to the gracious guidance of God; expecting, in the words of St. Hilary, 1 that "He may incite the beginnings of this trembling undertaking, confirm them with advancing progress, and call the writer to fellowship with the spirit of prophets and apostles, that he may understand their sayings in the sense in which they spoke them, and follow up the right use of words with the same conceptions of things " ? The attempt I now propose to make is beset with additional difficulty, arising out of its comparative novelty. It has not been the practice of theological writers to assign to the category of the states of Christ, or of the state of humiliation in particular, the dominant position which it is to occupy in the present course of lectures. In most dogmatic systems, doubtless, there is a chapter devoted to the locus, De Static Christi; but in some instances it forms a meagre appendix to the doctrines of Christ's per- son, or of His work, which might be dispensed with;' in other cases it is a mere framework, within which are included in summary form the leading facts of our Lord's history as recorded in the Gospels; 3 while in a third class of cases it serves the purpose of an apology or defence for a foregone Christological conclusion. 4 Exclusive study of the older 1 De Trin. lib. i. 38. The style of this Father is so obscure that it is scarcely warrantable to quote from him without giving the original. His words are: " Ex- pectamus ergo, ut trepide hujus coepti exordia incites, et profectu accrescente con- firmes, et ad consortium vel prophetalis vel apostolici spiritus voces; ut dicta eorum non alio quam ipsi locuti sunt sensu apprehendamus, verborumque propri- etates iisdem rerum significationibus exsequamur." 2 In Turretine, the chapter " De Duplici Christi Statu " scarcely occupies two pages. Calvin and the older Reformed dogmatists make no use of the category a t all. 3 So in Heidegger, Corpus theologiae, locus xviii. * So with the Lutheran divines, concerning whom Strauss justly remarks (Glau- benslehre, vol. ii. 139), that they used the distinction of a twofold state, partly to Christological Axioms. "& dogmatists would tend to discourage the idea of com- mencing a discussion on Christology with the doctrine of Exinanition as a mere conceit; or, to speak more correctly, it would probably prevent such a thought from ever arising in the mind. And yet the discriminating study of these very authors shows that the truths relating to the humil- iation of Christ have exercised a more extensive influence on the doctrines of Christ's person and work than the bare contents of the locus De Statu Christi would lead one to suppose. This is especially manifest in the case of the- ologians belonging to the Reformed confession, whose whole views of Christ's person and work have been largely formed under the influence of the important principle of the like- ness of Christ's humanity in nature and experience to that of other men. 1 Instances are even not wanting among the Reformed theologians of treatises on the Incarnation, commencing with a careful endeavour to fix the meaning of the locus classicus bearing on the subject of our Lord's humiliation, that, viz., in the Epistle to the Philippians. a Lutheran divines, on the other hand, constructed their Christology in utter defiance of the doctrine of humiliation, making the Incarnation, in its idea, consist in a deification of humanity rather than in a descent of God into humanity, and investing the human nature of Christ with all divine attributes, even with such metaphysical ones as are com- monly regarded and described as incommunicable. But even in their case our category took revenge for the neg- lect it experienced at their hands, by compelling them, out of regard to facts and to the end of the Incarnation, to take down again their carefully constructed Christ- ological edifice; the chapter on Exinanition being in effect an attempt to bring the fantastic humanity of Christ back to reality and nature, down from the clouds to the solid complete, partly to cover, their dogma of the communicatio idiomatum. In Ger- hard's Loci, cap. x.-xiii. of locus iv. (De Persona et Officio Christi) treat of the (ommunicatio idiomatum in general, and in its particular forms; and cap. xiv. treats De Statu exinanitionis et exaltationis. 1 Called in theological language the Homotisia {6/noov6ia). 2 E.g. Zanchius, De Incarnatione filii Dei. Zanchius was a contemporary of the authors of the Fortnula Concordiae, and wrote a defence of the Admoniti* Christiana — the Reformed reply to that document. 4 The Humiliation of Christ. earth; an attempt which, as we shall see, was far from being perfectly successful. While the importance of keeping ever in view the doc- trine of the states can only be inferred from the internal character of the old Christologies, in spite of the subor- dinate place assigned thereto in the formal structure of theological systems, it is, on the other hand, a matter of distinct consciousness with more recent writers on Christological themes. In passing from the system- builders of the seventeenth century to the theologians of the nineteenth, one is emboldened to trust the instinct which tells him that the category of the states is not merely entitled to have some sort of recognition- in theology out of deference to the prominence given to it in Scripture, but is a point of view from which the whole doctrine con- cerning Christ's person and work may be advantageously surveyed. The method now contemplated has in effect been adopted by a whole school of modern theologians, who have made the idea of the Kenosis the basis of their Christological inquiries. The various Kenotic theories emanating from this school are, as we shall see, by no means criticism-proof; but their authors have at least done one good service to Christology, by insisting that no theory of Christ's Person can be regarded as satisfactory which is not able to assign some real meaning to their watchword, in relation to the divine side of that Person. The legitimacy and the importance of the proposed method of inquiry have also been recognised by a distinguished German theologian who was not an adherent of the Ken- otic school, his sympathies being with the old Reformed Christology, and whose opinion on such a matter must command the respect of all. I allude to Schneckenburger, author of the instructive work entitled, Comparative Exhib- ition of the Lutheran and the Reformed Doctrinal Systems, 1 one of many valuable treatises on Christological and other 1 Vergleichende Darstelhing des Lutherischen und Reformirten Lehrbegriffs. This work was published atter the author's death in 1855, the MSS. being pre- pared for publication by Gtider, a pupil of Schneckenburger's, who has prefixed to the work an interesting discussion on the question as to the origin of the differ- ence in the theological systems of the two confessions. Christolozical Axioms. %5 topics which owed their origin to the ecclesiastical move- ment towards the re-union of the two branches of the German Protestant Church, long unhappily separated by divergent views on the questions to whose discussion that copious literature is devoted. Besides the work just named, Schneckenburger wrote a special treatise on the two states of Christ, 1 designed as a contribution to eccle- siastical Christology, in which he endeavoured to show that the doctrines of the states taught respectively by the two contrasted confessions involved a corresponding modi- fication of view not only on Christ's person, but also on the nature of His work on earth and in heaven, on the justifica- tion of believers, and even on the whole religious and ecclesiastical life of the two communions. It is true, indeed, that the proof of this position does not settle the question which was the determining factor, the doctrine of the states, or the other doctrines to which it stands re- lated. It does, however, serve to show this at least, that the related doctrines of the states and of the person being, in mathematical language, functions of each other, it is in our option to begin with either, and use it as a help in the determination of the other. Nor has the distinguished writer to whom I have alluded left us in uncertainty as to which of the two courses he deemed preferable. Criticis- ing the rectification of the Lutheran Christology proposed by Thomasius, the founder of the modern Kenotic school, he says: " The position that the doctrine of the person should not be explained by that of the states, but inversely, because the former is the foundation of the latter, is one which I must contradict, nay, which the author himself (Thomasius) virtually contradicts, inasmuch as he seeks to shape the doctrine of the person, or to improve it, by the idea of the states, especially by the doctrine of redemption, in so far as it falls within the state of humiliation." 2 I have no doubt this view is a just one. Indeed, it appears to me that the history of Lutheran Christology affords abundant evidence of the desirableness of commencing Christological 1 Zar Kirchlichen Christologie: Die orthodoxe Lehre vom doppelten Standi Christi nach Lutherischer und Reformirter Fassung. This work was published before the other, in 1848. * Vom doppelten Stande Christi, p. 202. 6 The Humiliation of Christ. inquiries with a careful endeavour to form a correct view of the doctrine of the states, and especially of the Scripture teaching concerning our Lord's humiliation. Had the Lutheran theologians followed this course, it is probable that their peculiar Christology would never have come into existence, and would therefore have stood in no need of rectification. Theologically legitimate, the method I propose is recom- mended by practical considerations. Starting from the central idea, that the whole earthly history of our Saviour is the result and evolution of a sublime act of self-humilia- tion, the doctrine of His person becomes invested with a high ethical interest. An advantage this not to be over- looked in connection with any theological truth involving mysteries perplexing to reason. A mysterious doctrine, divested of moral interest, and allowed to assume the aspect of a mere metaphysical speculation, is a doctrine destined ere long to be discarded. Such, for example, must be the inevitable fate of the doctrine of an immanent Trinity when it becomes dissociated in men's minds from practical religious interests, and degenerates into an ab- stract tenet. The Trinity, to be secure, must be connected in thought with the Incarnation, even as at the first, when it obtained for itself gradually a place in the creed of the Church in connection with efforts to understand the nature and person of Christ; 1 even as the Incarnation itself, in turn, is secure only when it is regarded ethically as a revelation of divine grace. The effect of divorcing doctrinal from moral interests was fully seen in the last century, when the Trinity and kindred dogmas were quietly dropped out of the living belief of the Church, though retained in the written creed. Men then said to themselves, " What is practical, what is of moral utility, is alone of value; the doctrines of the Trinity and of the Deity of Christ are mere theological mysteries, therefore they may be ignored ! " Thus, as Dorner, speaking of the period in question, re- marks, " Many a point which forms a constitutive element of the Christian consciousness was treated as non-essential, 1 Vid. Dorner, History of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. L p. 49 (Clark's translation). Christological Axioms. 7 on the ground of its being unpractical; and in particular, essential portions of Christology, and of that which is con- nected with it, were set aside." 1 The same spirit of narrow religious utilitarianism, of overweening value for the practi- cal and the "verifiable," is abroad at the present time, working steadily towards the restoration of the state of things which prevailed in last century; and those who are concerned to counterwork the evil tendency, must apply their energies to the task of showing that discredited doc- trines are not the dry, metaphysical dogmas they are taken for, but rather a refuge from dry metaphysics — truths which, however mysterious, are yet of vital ethical and re- ligious moment; even the doctrine of the Trinity itself being the product of an ethical view of the divine nature, the embodiment of " the only complete ethical idea of God," 2 not to be abandoned except at the risk of falling into either Pantheism or Atheism. In this point of view it appears advisable to give great prominence to the self-humiliation of Christ in connection with Christological inquiries. This method of procedure procures for us the advantage of starting with an idea which is dear to the Christian heart, with which faith will not willingly part, and for the sake of which it will readily ac- cept truths surpassing human comprehension. If the great thought, under whose guidance we advance, do not con- duct us to new discoveries, it will at all events redeem the subjects of our study from the blighting influence of scholasticism. In the New Testament, and more especially in the Epis- tle of Paul to the Philippians, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, are to be found certain comprehensive statements concerning the meaning and purpose of our Lord's appear- ance on earth. These statements our method requires us 1 Vid. Dorner, History of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. iii. p. 28 (Clark's translation). 2 This view is strongly maintained by Liibner in his Christologie (p. 66), a work of a very speculative character, and Kenotic in its Christology, but full ol valuable and suggestive thoughts, and abounding in interesting expositions and criticisms of contemporary opinions. Liebner's work is especially valuable for the vigoui with which it asserts the ethical conception of God over against the Huutheistic ai the one hand, and the Deistic on the other. 8 The Humiliation of Christ. in the first place to consider with the view of ascertaining what they imply, that we may use the inferences they seem to warrant as axioms in all our subsequent discussions. As the truths we are in quest of are to serve the purpose of axioms, they must, of course, be of an elementary char- acter; but they are not on that account to be despised. The axiom, that things which are equal to the same thing are equal to one another, is a very elementary truth; but it is nevertheless one which you cannot neglect without serious consequences to your system of geometry. In theology, as in mathematics, much depends on the axioms; not a few theological errors have arisen from oversight of some simple commonplace truth. Our object being merely to fix the axioms, it will not be necessary that we should enter into any elaborate, detailed, and exhaustive description of the doctrine of the states, or to attempt more than a general survey. And, further, as the main business of Christology is to form a true concep- tion of the historical person Jesus Christ, we may confine our attention chiefly to the earlier of the two states which belongs to history and falls within our observation, con- cerning which alone we possess much information, and around which the human interest mainly revolves. Of the state of exaltation I shall speak only occasionally, when a fitting opportunity occurs. In addressing ourselves, then, to the task of discovering Christological axioms, we are obliged to acknowledge that the fixation of these is unhappily no easy matter. Few of the axioms are axiomatic in the sense of being truths universally admitted. The diversity of opinion prevailing among interpreters in regard to the meaning of the prin- cipal passage bearing on the subject of Christ's humiliation — that, namely, in the second chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Philippians — is enough to fill the student with despair, and to afflict him with intellectual paralysis. In regard to the kenosis spoken of there, for example, the widest divergence of view prevails. Some make the kenosis scarce- ly more than a skenosis, — the dainty assumption by the unchangeable One of a humanity which is but a doketic husk, a semi-transparent tent, wherein Deity sojourns, and Christological Axioms. 9 through which His glory, but slightly dimmed, shines with dazzling brightness. The Son of God, remaining in all respects what He was before His incarnation, became what He was not, and so emptied Himself. Others ascribe to the kenosis some sense relatively to the divine nature; holding that the incarnation involved even for that nature a change to some extent; that the Son of God did not re- main in all respects as He was; that at least He underwent an occultation of His glory. A third class of expositors make the kenosis consist not merely in a veiling of the divine glory, but in a depotentiation of the divine nature, so that in the incarnate Logos remained only the bare essence of Deity stripped of its metaphysical attributes of omni- potence, omniscience, and omnipresence. According to a fourth school, the kenosis refers not to the divine nature, but to the human nature of Christ. He, being in the form of God, shown to be a divine man by His miracles and by His moral purity, emptied Himself of the cfivine attributes with which He, as a man, was endowed, so far as use at least was concerned, and in this self-denial set Himself forth as a pattern to all Christians, as well as fitted Himself for being the Redeemer from sin. It is specially discouraging to the inquirer after first prin- ciples to find, as he soon does, that, as a rule, the interpre- tation of the passage in question depends on the inter- preter's theological position. So much is this the case, that one can almost tell beforehand what views a particular ex- positor will take, provided his theological school be once ascertained. On the question, for example — a most impor- tant one — respecting the proper subject of the proposition beginning with the words, "Who, being in the form of God," 1 expositors take sides according to their theological bias. The old orthodox Lutherans almost as a matter of course reply, " The subject concerning whom the affirma- tion is made is the Logos incarnate (ensarkos), the man Christ Jesus; the meaning of the apostle being, that the man Christ Jesus, being in the form of God, and possessing as man divine attributes, did nevertheless, while on earth, > Phil. ii. 6. io The Humiliation of Christ. make little or no use of these attributes; but in effect emptied Himself of them, and assumed servile form, and was in fashion and habit as other men." The old Reformed theologians, on the other hand, after the example of the Church Fathers, with equal unanimity reply, "The subject of whom Paul speaks is the Logos before incarnation (asarkos), the Son of God personally pre-existent before He became man; and the sense is, that He, being in the form of God, subsisting as a divine being before the incarnation, emptied Himself, by being made in the likeness of man, and taking upon Him the form of a servant." Among modern theologians, the advocates of the kenosis, in the sense of a metaphysical self-exinanition of the Logos, whether be- longing to the Lutheran or to the Reformed confession, side with the Fathers and with the old Reformed dogma- tists. Those, on the other hand, who reject the doctrine of an immanent Trinity, and along with it the personal pre-existence of the Logos, naturally adopt the view of the Lutheran dogmatists, and understand the passage as re- ferring exclusively to the historical person, the man Christ Jesus. They can do nothing else so long as they claim to have Biblical support for their theological and Christolog- ical systems. They come to this text with a firm convic- tion that it cannot possibly contain any reference to a free, conscious act of the pre-existent Logos. In arguing with expositors of this school there is therefore a previous ques- tion to be settled: Is the Church doctrine of the Trinity scriptural, or is it not ? This is, indeed, the previous question for all Christologi- cal theories. Every one who would form for himself a con- ception of the person of Christ must first determine his idea of God, and then bring that idea to his Christological task as one of its determining factors. Accordingly, in com- plete treatises on the person and work of Christ, like that of Thomasius, 1 we find the Christian idea of God and the doctrine of the Trinity discussed under the head of Christ- ological presuppositions. In the present course of lectures, such a discussion would of course be altogether out of 1 Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk. Darstelhtng der Evangelisch-Lutfur itchen Dogmatik vom Mittelpunkte der Christologie aus. Christological Axioms. 1 1 place; but I may here take occasion to express my con- viction, that what I have called the previous question of Christology, is destined to become the question of the day in this country, as it has been for some time past in Ger- many. What is God ? Is personality, involving self-con- sciousness and self-determination, predicable of the Divine Being; or is He, or rather it, merely the unknown ai.c unknowable substratum of all phenomena, 1 the impersonal immanent spirit of nature, the unconscious moral order of the world in which the idea of the good somehow and to some extent realizes itself, 3 the absolute Idea become An- other in physical nature, and returning to itself and attain- ing to personality in man; becoming incarnate not in an individual man, but in the human race at large ? 3 — such, according to all present indications, are the momentous questions on which the thoughts of men are about to be concentrated. And if one may venture to predict the re- sult of the great debate, it will probably be to show that between Pantheism, under one or other of its forms, mate- rialistic or idealistic, and the Christian doctrine of God, in which the ethical predominates, there is no tenable posi- tion; in the words of a German theologian whom I have already had occasion to quote: " That the whole of specu- lative theology stands in suspense between the pure abstract One, general Being, lv nod ndv, in which God and world alike go down, and the ethical hypostatical Trinity, or be- tween the boldest, emptiest, hardest Pantheism, and the completed ethical personalism of Christianity; all panthe- istic and theistic modes, from Spinoza to the most devel- oped forms of modern Theism, being only transition and oscillation which cannot abide." 4 The influence of theological bias on the exegesis of the locus classictis in the Epistle to the Philippians being apparent in the case of so many theologians of highest 1 Vid. Herbert Spencer, Synthetic Philosophy, First Principles, part i. " Vid. Strauss, Die christliche Glaubenslehre, i. 392, and Mr. Matthew Arnold, Literature and Dogma. Arnold defines God as a Power that makes for righteous- ness; the power being impersonal, and, so to speak, neuter. Arnold's Power making for righteousness is the same with Fichte's moral order of the world, r» garded simply as an ultimate fact, not as the result of a personal Providence 3 So Hegel. < Liebner, Ckristologie, pp. 266-7. 12 The Humiliation of Christ. reputation, it would be intolerable conceit in any man to claim exemption therefrom. I, for my part, have no desire to put forth such a claim. On the contrary, I avow my wish to arrive at a particular conclusion with respect to the interpretation of the passage; one, viz., which should assign a reality to the idea of a Being in the form of God by a free act of gracious condescension becoming man. I am de- sirous to have ground for believing that the apostle speaks here not only of the exemplary humility of the man Jesus, but of the more wonderful, sublime self-humiliation of the pre-existent personal Son of God. For then I should have Scripture warrant for believing that moral heroism has a place within the sphere of the divine nature, and that love is a reality for God as well as for man. I do not wish, if I can help it, to worship an unknown or unknowable God called the Absolute, concerning whom or which all Bible representations are mere make-believe, mere anthropomor- phism; statements expressive not of absolute truth, but simply of what it is well that we should think and feel con- cerning God. I am not disposed to subject my idea of God to the category of the Absolute, which, like Pharaoh's lean kine, devours all other attributes, even for the sake of the most tempting apologetic advantages which that cate- gory may seem to offer. A poor refuge truly from unbelief is the category of the Absolute ! " We know not God in Himself," says the Christian apologist, 1 "therefore we can never know that what the Bible says of Him is false, and ma}' rationally receive it as true." " We know not God," rejoins the agnostic man of science; 2 " and the more logical infer- ence is, that all affirmations concerning Him in the Bible or elsewhere are incompetent; the Bible God is an eidolon whose worship is only excusable because it is wholesome in tendency." " God, strictly speaking, has no attributes, but is mere and simplest essence, which admits of no real difference, nor any composition either of things or of modes," declares the old orthodox dogmatist.* " So be it," replies a formidable modern opponent of orthodoxy, Dr. Baur of 1 Jld. Mansel, Limits of Religious Thought. " Vid. Herbert Spencer, First Principles. * Quenstedt, quoted by Baur, Lehre von der Drcieinigkeit, vol. iii. p. 340. Christological Axioms. 13 Tubingen, 1 " I agree with you, but that proposition amounts to substantial Pantheism; " and the theological system of Schleiermacher shows that Baur is right. If, therefore, we wish to believe with our hearts in the Bible, we must hold fast by the ethical conception of God; and whatever dis- putes arise between us and others holding in common with us the same general idea of the Divine Being, we must settle on ethical grounds, not fleeing for refuge from per- plexities to an idea of God which removes the very founda- tions of faith, and becoming in effect Pantheists or Atheists in order that we may not be Socinians. It is in vain to think of saving the catholic faith on the principles of theo- logical nescience; foolish to seek escape from moral diffi- culties by means of sceptical metaphysics. As Maurice, in his reply to Mansel, well says: "Such an apology for the faith costs too much." 2 It saves such doctrines as those of the Trinity and the Incarnation and the Atonement at the cost of all the moral interest which properly belongs to them, and converts them into mere mysteries, which must be received because we are not able to refute them; but which, in spite of all the apologist's skill, will not be re- ceived, but will meet the fate of all mere mysteries devoid of moral interest, — that of being neglected, or even ridi- culed, as they have been lately by the author of Literature and Dogma; ridiculed not in mere wantonness, though that is not wanting, but in the interest of a practical ethical use of the Bible as a book not intended to propound idle theo- logical puzzles, but to lead men into the way of right conduct. Holding such views, desirous to believe in a God abso- lutely full of moral contents, knowable on the ethical side of His nature truly though not perfectly, like man in that which most exalts human nature, — loving with a love like that of good men, — only incomparably grander, rising in point of magnanimity high above human love, as heaven is high above the earth, 3 passing knowledge in dimensions, but perfectly comprehensible in nature, 4 I am predisposed to 1 Baur, Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, vol. iii. pp. 339-352. * Maurice, What is Revelation? p. 131. 3 Isa. Iv. 8, 9. * Eph. iii. 18, 19. There is an unknowableness of God taught here, but it is a very different one from that asserted by the philosophy of the Absolute. It is the 14 TJie Humiliation of Christ. agree with those who find in the famous text from the Epistle to the Philippians a clear reference to an act of con- descension on the part of the pre-existent Son of God, in virtue of which He became man. Schleiermacher naively objects to the idea of humiliation as applied to the earthly state of Christ, because it implies a previous higher state from which the self-humbled One descended, — a view which he regards as at once destructive of the unity of Christ's person, and incompatible with the nature of God, the absolutely Highest and Eternal. 1 What Schleier- macher objects to in the idea of humiliation, appears tome its chief recommendation; and I agree with Martensen in thinking it a capital defect in Schleiermacher's Christology that it excludes the idea of the pre-existence of the Son, and along with it, the idea of a condescending revelation of love on the part of the eternal Logos. 2 I refuse to accept an idea of God which makes such condescension impossible or meaningless; nor am I able to regard that as the abso- lutely Highest which cannot stoop down from its altitude. The glory of God consists not simply in being high, but in that He, the highest and greatest, can humble Himself in love to be the lowest and least. The moral, not the metaphysical, is the highest, if not the distinctive, in the Divine Being. While making this frank — it may even appear ostenta- tious — avowal of theological bias, and confessing that the Scriptures would contain for me no revelation of God, did they not teach a doctrine of divine grace capable of taking practical historical shape in an Incarnation, I do not admit that it is a far-fetched or strained interpretation which unknowableness as to dimensions of a love believed to be most real, and in its nature comprehensible. It is the same kind of unknowableness which is spoken oi in Job. xi. 7. It is not a question whether God can be known at all, but a ques- tion of finding out the Almighty unto perfection — of taking the measure of the Divine Being. The Scripture doctrine of divine unknowableness is the very op- posite extreme to that of the philosophers. "Thy mercy, O Lord, is in the heavens, Thy truth reacheth unto the clouds: Thy righteousness is like the great mountains^ Thy judgments are a great deep," say the Scriptures. " Mercy, truth, righteousness, judgment, are words which convey no absolutely true meaning wilt reference to the Divine Being," says the philosophy of the Absolute. 1 Glaubenslekre, ii. p. 159. 2 Die Christliche Dogmatik, p. 252. Christological Axioms. i5 brings such a doctrine out of Paul's words in his Epistle to the Philippians. That interpretation appears to me the one which would naturally occur to the mind of any per- son coming to the passage, bent solely on ascertaining its meaning, without reference to his own theological opinions. It may be regarded as a presumption in favour of this view when writers like Schleiermacher and Strauss, neither of them a believer in the doctrine of a personally pre-existent Logos, nevertheless admit that it is at least by implication taught in the passage. The former author, indeed, seeks to deprive the statements contained therein of all theo- logical value, by representing them as of an "ascetic" and " rhetorical " character; the expressions not being intended to be " didactically fixed," 1 — a convenient method of get- ting rid of unacceptable theological dogmas, which may be applied to any extent, and which, if applied to Paul's Epistles, would render it difficult to extract any theological inferences therefrom, inasmuch as nearly all the doctrinal statements they contain arise out of a practical occasion, and are intended to serve a hortatory purpose. Strauss, on the other hand, making no pretence of adhering to Scripture in his theological views, frankly acknowledges that, according to the doctrine of Paul in this place, Christ is One who, before His incarnation, lived in a divine glory, to which, after His freely assumed state of humiliation was over, He returned. 2 It is now time that I should explain the sense in which I understand the passage referred to, which I shall do very briefly, relegating critical details to another place. 3 The subject spoken about is the historical person Jesus Christ, conceived of, however, as having previously existed before He entered into history, and as in His pre-existent state, supplying material fitted to serve the hortatory purpose the 1 Glaubenslehre, ii. p. 161. Schleiermacher's admission is not hearty; for while the manner in which he explains away the apparent meaning of the passage implies such an admission as I have ascribed to him, he remarks that the way in which Paul here sets forth Christ as an example, is quite compatible with the idea that he has in view merely the appearance of lowliness in the life as well as in Um death. 2 Die Christliche Glaubenslehre, i. 420. 8 See Appendix, Note A. 1 6 The Humiliation of Christ. apostle has in view. Paul desires to set before the Church in Philippi the mind of Christ in opposition to the mind of self-seekers, and he includes the pre-existence in his rep- resentation, because the mind he means to illustrate was active therein, and could not be exhibited in all its sub- limity if the view were restricted to the earthly career of the Great Exemplar of self-renunciation. It has been objected, that a reference to the pre-existence is beside the scope of the apostle, his aim being- to induce proud, self-asserting Christians to imitate Christ in all respects in which it was possible for them to become like Him, while in respect of the Incarnation He is inimitable. 1 The objection is a very superficial one. It is true that the act by which the Son of God became man is inimitable; but the mind which moved Him to perform that act is not inimitable; and it is the mind or moral disposition of Christ, revealed both in imitable and inimitable acts, which is the subject of commendation. Therefore, though the great drama of self-humiliation enacted by our Saviour on this earth be the main theme of Christian contemplation, yet is a glimpse into the mind of the pre-existent Son of God a fitting prelude to that drama, tending to make it in its whole course more impressive, and to heighten desire in the spectators to have the same mind dwelling in them- selves, leading them to perform on a humbler scale similar acts of self-denial. Another argument against the refer- ence to a pre-existent state has been drawn from the historical name given to the subject of the proposition, Jesus Christ. But this argument is sufficiently met by the re- mark, that the same method of naming the subject is employed by Paul in other passages where a pre-existence 1 Gerhard's Loci Theologici, locus iv. cap. xiv. " De Statu exinanitionis et exaltalionis." Gerhard says: " Scopus apostoli est, quod velit Philippenses hortari ad humilitatem intuitu in Christi exeraplum facto. Ergo praesentis, non futuri temporis, exemplum illis exhibet. Proponit eis imitandum Christi exemplum tan- quam vitae regulam. Ergo considerat facta Christi quae in oculos incurrunt, in quorum numero non est incarnatio. In eo apostolus jubet Philippenses imitari Christum, in quo similes ipsi nondum erant, sed similes fieri poterant et debebant. Atqui erant illi jam ante veri homines, sed inflati ac superbi: Christum igitur eos imitari, et humilitati studere, jubet, incarnatiore vem n^ mo Filio Dei similis fieri potest" (§ cexciv.). Christological Axioms. 17 of some sort, real or ideal, personal or impersonal, is un deniably implied. 1 Of Him whose mind is commended as worthy of imita- tion, the apostle predicates two acts through which that mind was revealed: First, an act of self-emptying, in virtue of which He became man; then a continuous act or habit of self-humiliation on the part of the incarnate One, which culminated in the endurance of death on the cross. 'Eawdv inevGodev, — He emptied Himself, — that was the first great act by which the mind of the Son of God was revealed. Wherein did this hsvgoo'is consist ? what did it imply ? The apostle gives a twofold answer; one having reference to the pre-existent state, the other to the sphere of Christ's human history. With reference to the former, the kenosis signified a firm determination not to hold fast and selfishly cling to equality of state with God. Thus I understand the words ovh apitayuov rjyr/6a.To to eivai 16a. ©sc£. The ren- dering in our English version (" thought it not robbery to be equal with God"), which follows patristic (Latin) exe- getical tradition, is theologically true, but unsuited to the connection of thought, and to the grammatical construc- tion of the sentence. The apostle's purpose is not formally to teach that Christ was truly God, so that it was not ar- rogance on His part to claim equality of nature with God; but rather to teach that He being God did not make a point of retaining the advantages connected with the divine state of being. Hence he merely mentions Christ's divinity participially by way of preface in the first clause of the sen- tence (5s ev Mopcpy ©sou vTtdpx a > v > wno being, or subsisting, in the form of God), and then hastens on to speak of the mind that animated Him who was in the form of God, as a mind so different from that of those who esteem and desire to exalt themselves above others, that He was willing to part with equality in condition with God. This part of the sentence, beginning with ovh dpnay jiiov, cannot, as Alford justly remarks, "be a mere secondary one, conveying an 1 1 Cor. x. 4-9; Col. i. 14, 15. The use of the historical name in reference tc the pre-existent Logos in these and other passages is admitted by Beyschlag (DU Ckristologie des neuen Testaments, p. 240), who does not admit a personal, but only an ideal pre-existence of the Logos. 1 8 The Humiliation of Christ. additional detail of Christ's majesty in His pre-existent state, but must carry the whole weight of the negation of selfishness on His part;" 1 unless we can suppose the writer guilty of an irrelevancy tending to weaken the force of his appeal by introducing one idea when another is naturally expected. But further, the grammatical construction pre- cludes such a rendering of this clause as is given in the English version. In the text, the idea expressed by dpnay- \})6azo, etc., is opposed to the idea expressed by the words Eavrov lxevoo6ev, the connecting particle being dXXd (but), so that in the former clause is stated negatively what in the latter is stated positively. He did not practise dpitayuov with reference to equality with God; but, on the contrary, emptied Himself. The patristic rendering, re- tained in the English version, requires the connecting par- ticle to be a word signifying "nevertheless;" not dXXd, but a word equivalent to the Attic phrase ov uqv dXXd. * Beyond all doubt, therefore, whatever r6 eivai i'da 0ec3 may mean, it points to something which both the connection of thought and the grammatical structure of the sentence require us to regard the Son of God as willing to give up. Looking now at the connection between the prefatory participial clause and the one we have just been consider- ing, we must regard " to be equal with God " as exegetical of "being in the form of God." Those interpreters who take the whole passage as having exclusive reference to the earthly history of Christ, distinguish the two; regard- ing the form of God as something possessed by Christ even in the state of humiliation, and equality with God as a thing to be attained in the state of exaltation, a privilege for which the Lowly One was content patiently to wait, ab- staining from prematurely clutching at it, by making an unseasonable parade of His divine dignity. But the subor- dinate position assigned to the phrase r6 sivai i'6a QecS in the 1 Alford in loco. * This is frankly acknowledged by Zanchius: "ilia vox dXXd," he says, "ad versativa cum sit particula, et in praecedenti versu non ita liquido apparet cuinarn verbo adversetur, reddit constructionem utcunque difficilem. Syriac. faciliorem facit cum habeat ella, id est nihilocninus." — De filii Dei Incarnatiotie, lib. L cap. ii. 7. Christological Axio7ns. iq clause to which it belongs, it being placed at the end, while ovx dpnayixov ?)y?')6aro stands in the forefront to catch the reader's eye, as the principal matter, shows that it simply repeats the idea already expressed by the words kv uopcp^ Osov vitdpx CsDV - The two phrases being equivalent, it follows that no meaning can be assigned to either which would involve an inadmissible sense for the other. By this rule we are pre- cluded from understanding by the form of God the divine essence or nature; for such an interpretation would oblige us to find in the second clause the idea that the Son of God in a spirit of self-renunciation parted with His divinity. We must decline here to follow in the footsteps of the Fa- thers, who, with the exception of Hilary, 1 invariably took form as synonymous with nature; possibly misled by a too absorbing desire to find in the passage a clear undeniable assertion of our Lord's proper divinity, — a desire which could have been gratified without having recourse to misinterpre- tation; inasmuch as the implied assertion of that truth which the words of the apostle, rightly interpreted, really do con- tain, is even more forcible than a formal didactic statement would have been. Mopcp?j does not mean the same thing as ovdia or t} addit essentiae et proprietatibus essentialibus et naturalibus alia etiam accidentia quae veram rei naturam sequuntur, et quibus, quasi lineamentis et col- oribus ovdia et )6ius knew that, being in the form of God, He had become man, was acquainted with the mind that animated Him before His Incarnation, and Christological Axioms. 23 made it His business in the incarnate state to carry out that mind. 5. Christ's life on earth was emphatically a life of service. 6. Throughout the whole drama of self-exinanition, as indeed the very word implies, Christ was a free agent. He did not merely experience kenosis and tapeinosis, — He emptied Himself, He humbled Himself. The kenosis must be ethically conceived, not as bringing the subject once for all into a state of physical inability to assert equality with God, but as leaving room for a voluntary perseverance in the mind not to assert that equality, on the part of One who could do otherwise. This voluntariness, however, is not to be conceived of as excluding a reign of natural law in Christ's humanity; such being necessary to the reality of that humanity, and involved, indeed, in the very idea of a human nature. To imagine that Christ hungered, and thirsted, and slept, and felt weariness by a special act of will, — making possible by a miracle what would otherwise have been impossible, — is unmitigated doketism. This form of doketism, as I shall have occasion hereafter to point out, is not unknown in the history of doctrine. These inferences are all in harmony with the main scope of the passage, which is to eulogize the humility of Christ, The first gives to that humility unbounded scope to dis- play itself, by introducing the self-renouncing mind even within the sphere of divinity; the second makes self-exin- anition a reality even for God; the third secures that what- ever in the earthly experience of the man Christ Jesus involved humiliation, shall be predicable of a divine person; the fourth gives infinite moral value to every act of self- humiliation performed by Christ on earth, by making the actor conscious of the contrast between His past and present states, performing every lowly service as One who knew "that He was from God;" 1 the fifth exhibits the contrast between the pre-incarnate and the post-incarnate states in the strongest possible light; and the sixth, by representing Christ as, in the whole course of His humilia- tion, a free agent, not merely the passive subject of an involuntary experience, makes Him in all a proper ex- 1 John xiii. 3. 24 The Humiliation of Christ. ample of humility, as well as a fit subject of reward by exaltation. While full of instruction regarding the mind of the Di- vine Being known in this world's history by the name of Jesus Christ, the passage whose meaning we have now ascertained is vague apd general in its statements concern- ing the humanity assumed by that Being in a spirit of self- exinanition. It does not tell us how the humanity was assumed, nor does it teach any definite doctrine on the more general question: how far the assuming agent was like other men. That there was a genesis of some sort, and a likeness to some extent is all that is expressly indicated. The phrases in which the likeness is asserted 1 have even a superficial look of doketism about them, which, while not without its value as an incidental proof that the subject spoken of is something more than man, at the same time seems to imply that He is also something less. It would be altogether unwarrantable, however, to found a serious charge of doketism on the manner in which the apostle expresses himself. 2 For, while it may not be im- possible to put a doketic construction on the letter of the passage, such a construction is utterly excluded by its spirit. The form of a servant ascribed to the incarnate One, implies likeness to men in their present condition in all possible respects; for how could one be in earnest with the servant's work whose humanity was in any sense do- ketic ? Then, from the mind in which the Incarnation took its origin, the complete likeness of Christ's humanity to ours may be inferred with great confidence. He who was not minded to retain His equality with God, was not likely to assume a humanity that was a make-believe or a sham. It would be His desire to be in all things " like unto His brethren." 3 1 kv d/uoicouari dv r jpoj7roov yEv6f.if.vo'., 6xV! l(XTl svpsOei 1 ; &5? av- OpoonoS. ■ As Baur has done in his Apostel Paulus, Zweite Theil, p. 50 ff. (Zweite Auflage). The Gnostic style of thought supposed to characterize the passage, ii. 5-9, involved in the doctrine of the kenosis, and also in the doketic view of Christ's humanity, is Baur's chief argument against the genuineness of the Epistle to the Philippians. 3 Van Mastricht finds even in the phrase xai 6x ? / uari £i)/>«9e/S coS av r Jpoo *o5a testimony to the reality of Chi says: '• X dat habitant, Christological Axioms. 25 On these grounds the homousia 1 of Christ's humanity with ours may be regarded as a legitimate inference from the passage we have been considering. But that import- ant doctrine does not rest on mere inference; it is expressly taught in other places of Scripture, especially in the Epis- tle to the Hebrews, where it is proclaimed with great clearness and emphasis. The writer of that Epistle, like the writer of the Epistle to the Philippians, treats of the subject of Christ's humiliation, but from a different point of view. Paul exhibits that humiliation as something vol- untarily endured by Christ in a spirit of condescension and self-renunciation, which he exhorts his readers to admire and imitate. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, on the other hand, regards the same humiliation as an experience to which Christ was subjected, and which, as apparently incongruous to His intrinsic dignity, demands explanation. The point of view is adapted by the writer to the spiritual condition of his readers. The Hebrew Christians to whom he writes can see in the earthly experience of Jesus nothing glorious or admirable, but only a dark, perplexing puzzle, a stumbling-block to faith, which makes it hard to believe that Jesus can be the Christ. Hence, for one who would establish them in the faith and keep them from apostasy, it becomes an imperative task to endeavour to set the earthly history of the object of faith in such a light that it c hould not only cease to be a stumbling-block, but even b converted into a source of strength and comfort. To this task the writer accordingly addresses himself with great boldness, skill, and eloquence. Disdaining the expedient for making the task easy of lowering the essential dignity of Christ, he commences his Epistle by setting forth that dignity in terms which, for fulness, clearness, and intensity, gestum, speciem omneque externum, quod incurrit in sensus a quo quid agnoscitur, quo veritatem humanae suae naturae passim Christus demonstravit (Luc. xxiv. 39; John xx. 27). Non est idem (6poJi EcaXsicpovxsS uiv exeivo, ti^evteZ Si to Soxovv avzoli evxoXov Eivai itpoS xaxavo- ?j6iv." He goes on to say that it was not Paul's custom, xdpixi Qeov xiSivai dirX&Ji — using the expression as a pious commonplace — aXXd 7tdvxoJi and two'. axoXov^iai Xoyov; which is quite true of Paul and of all the New Testament writers, and favours the interpretation given above. 34 The Humiliation of Christ. ing, from sheer inability to assign a suitable and worthy sense to the reading in the received text, while such an in- terpretation as I have ventured to suggest was open to him. Is it, then, really an inadmissible thought, that God showed favour to Christ in appointing Him to taste death for every man ? is it out of keeping with the general strain of this Epistle ? does it not fit in naturally to what goes before and to what comes after ? Was it not worth while to point out to persons scandalized by the humiliation of Christ, that what to vulgar view might seem a mark of divine disfavour, was, in truth, a signal proof of divine grace; that even in appointing the Son of man to go through a curriculum of suffering, God had been mindful of Him, and had graciously visited Him, opening up to Him the high career of Captain of Salvation ? And how are we to understand the assertion following, that it became Him who is the first cause and last end of all to perfect the Captain of Salvation by suffering, if not as a defence of the bold idea, contained, as it appears to me, in the preceding verse ? The import of that assertion is simply this: The means and the end of salvation are both worthy of the Supreme, by whom and for whom all events in time happen; the end manifestly and admittedly — for who will question that it is worthy of God to lead many sons to glory ? — the means not less than the end, though at first they may appear to compromise the dignity both of the Supreme Cause and of His commissioned Agent. It was honourable for the Captain of Salvation to taste of death in the prose- cution of His great work; it was an honour conferred upon Him by God the Father to be appointed to die for such a purpose. This, then, is another truth, besides the homoiisia of Christ's humanity with ours, which we learn from the Epistle to the Hebrews: that Christ's Jiumiliation is at the same time in an important sense His glorification; that it is not merely followed by a state of exaltation, according to the doctrine of Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians, but car- ries a moral compensation within itself; so that we need not hesitate to emphasize the humiliation, inasmuch as the more real and thorough it is, the greater the glory and Christological Axioms. 3S honour accruing to the humbled One. The glory is that of one " full of grace and truth," manifested not in spite of, but through His humiliation made visible by the Incarna- tion and the human life of the Son of God, as the Apostle John testifies when he says in the beginning of his Gospel: " The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory." The evangelist explains, indeed, that the glory of which he speaks is the glory as of the Only- begotten of the Father; but he does not mean by that the glory of metaphysical majesty visible through the veil of the flesh in consequence of its doketic transparency. He means the glory of divine love which the Only-begotten, who was in the bosom of the Father, came forth to reveal, and of which His state of humiliation on earth was the historical exegesis. It has, indeed, been confidently as- serted by certain writers that John knows nothing of a state of humiliation, — that the Incarnation of the Word is for Him not an abasement, but a new means of revealing His glory, the representation of Christ's death in his Gospel as an exaltation or a glorification being adduced as con- clusive proof of the fact; and Protestant scholastic theo- logians have been severely blamed for overlooking or ignoring the undeniable truth. It is a characteristic illus- tration of the haste and one-sidedness of modern criticism. 1 As if the two ideas of glorification and humiliation were absolutely incompatible; as if John, the apostle of love, was not a very likely person to comprehend their compati- bility; as if the things alleged in proof of his ignorance of a state of humiliation did not rather prove his complete mastery of the truth now insisted on, viz. that the humilia- tions of Christ were on the moral side glorifications ! The glory of which John speaks is that of divine grace revealed in word, deed, and suffering, to the eye of faith. This glory the Only-begotten won by renouncing the compara- tively barren glory of metaphysical majesty. Thus, in be- coming poor, He at the same time enriched Himself. In the words of Martensen, " Because only in the state of humiliation could He fully reveal the depths of divine love, and because it was by this His poverty that He made all 1 Vide Reuss, Theologie Chre'tienne, ii. 455. 36 The Humiliation of Christ. rich, it may be said that as the Son of man He first took full possession of His divine glory; for then only is love in full possession when it can fully communicate itself, and only then does it reveal its omnipotence, when it conquers hearts, and has the strong for a prey." 1 The foregoing discussion of the passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews, bearing on the subject of the humiliation of Christ, thus yields us the following additions to the list of elementary truths: — 7. The service Christ came to render, His vocation as the Captain of Salvation, or the Sanctifier, was such as to in- volve likeness to men in all possible respects, both in nature and in experience; a likeness in nature as complete as if He were merely a human personality; a likeness in ex- perience of temptation, and, in general, of subjection to the curse resting on man on account of sin, limited only by His personal sinlessness. 8. Christ's whole state of exinanition was not only worthy to be rewarded by a subsequent state of exaltation, bu,t was in itself invested with moral sublimity and- dignity; so that, having in view the honour of the Saviour, we have no interest in minimizing His experience of humiliation, but, on the contrary, are concerned to vindicate for that ex- perience the utmost possible fulness, recognising no limit to the descent except that arising out of His sinlessness. And now, having furnished ourselves with this series of axioms, our next business must be to use them as helps in forming a critical estimate of conflicting Christological and Soteriological theories. But before entering on this, the main part of our undertaking, it will be expedient here to indicate the plan on which our subsequent discussions will be conducted. It will not be necessary, for the purpose I have in view in these lectures, that I should treat with scholastic accuracy of the different stages or stations in the status exinanitionis. I do not know that for any purpose such a mode of treatment would be of much service. I question, indeed, whether exactitude in handling this theme be practicable; at all events, it is certain that anything approaching to exactitude is not to 1 Die Christliche Dogmatik, p. 246. Christological Axioms. 37 be found in dogmatic systems. In the works of the lead- ing dogmaticians the stages of our Lord's humiliation are very variously enumerated, though, of course, certain feat- ures are common to all the schemes. Occasionally con- fusion of thought is discernible, — acts being confounded with states, and generals treated as particulars. The In- carnation, e.g., is sometimes reckoned to the state of ex- inanition, whereas it is in truth the efficient cause of the whole state, the original act of gracious condescension whereof the state of humiliation is the historical evolution and result. An instance of the other sort of confusion, that of turning a general into a particular, may perhaps be found in the answer given in the Shorter Catechism to the question referring to Christ's humiliation, where the " wrath of God" comes in, apparently as a particular experience, like "the cursed death of the cross" mentioned immedi- ately after; while the expression, though peculiarly appli- cable to particular experiences, really admits of being applied to the whole state of humiliation as a designation thereof from a certain point of view, as in fact it is applied in the Heidelberg Catechism. 1 Instead, therefore, of attempting an exact enumeration of the stations, I propose to consider the whole state of humiliation under these three leading aspects: the physical, the ethical, and the soteriological. Under the first of these aspects we shall have to consider the bearing of the category of humiliation on Christ's person. The Son of God became man, the Word was made flesh, the Eternally-begotten was born in time of the Vir- gin; what is the dogmatic significance of these facts in reference to the person of the Incarnate One ? Under the second aspect, the ethical, we shall have an opportunity of contemplating the incarnate Son of God as the subject of a human experience involving moral trial, and supplying a stimulus to moral development. Christ was tempted in all points like as we are, and He was per- fected by suffering; in what sense, and to what extent, can 1 Quaestio 37 '. Quid credis, cum dicis, passus est? Eum todo quidem vitae suae tempore quo in terra egit, praecipue vero in ejus extremo, iram Dei adversus peccatum universi generis humani, corpore et anima sustinuisse. d 8 The Humiliation of Christ. temptation and perfecting be predicated of One who was without sin ? Under the third aspect we shall have to consider Christ as a servant, under law, and having a task appointed Him, involving humiliating experiences various in kind and degree. To the physical aspect four lectures will be devoted. One will treat of the ancient Christology, the formula of Chal- cedon being taken as the view-point for our historical sur- vey; a second, of the Christologies of the old Lutheran and Reformed Confessions; a third, of the modern kenotic theories of Christ's person; a fourth, of modern humanistic views of Christ's person, which practically evacuate the idea of the Humiliation of all significance by regarding the Subject thereof merely as a man, whether as the Perfect Ideal Man, or, as in the case of the naturalistic school of theologians, not even so much as that. 1 The other two aspects of our Lord's humiliation will occupy each a sin- gle lecture. 1 This lecture was not delivered, and appears in this edition for the first time. LECTURE II. THE PATRISTIC CHRISTOLOGY. The Christology of the ancient Church took final shape at the Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, in the following for- mula: — " Following the holy Fathers, we all with one consent teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Deity, and the same per- fect in humanity, truly God, and the same truly man, of reasonable soul and body, of the same substance with the Father as to His divinity, of the same substance with us as to His humanity; in all things like to us, except sin; before the ages begotten of the Father as to His Deity, but in the latter days for us, and for our redemption, begot- ten (the same) of the Virgin Mary, the mother of God, as to His humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only- begotten, manifested in two natures, without confusion, without conversion, indivisibly, inseparably. The distinc- tion of natures being by no means abolished by the union, but rather the property of each preserved and combined into one person and one hypostasis; not one severed or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten, viz. God, Logos, and the Lord Jesus Christ." 1 1 "Eva xai zov avzov ojiioAcyelv viov zov xvpiov rj/udov 'Irjdovv Xpi6zov 6vuq>K>vo3i ditdvz£% hx8i8a6xoiiEV, zsXsiov, zov avzov hv Beoztjzi, xai zsXelov, zov avzov hv dvBpwnozrjzi- o/uoovdiov zc3 Ttazpi xazd zr/v Bsozrjza, xai 6/lcoov6iov zov avzov t/jluv xazd zijv dvbpwnozrfza, xazd itdvza o/ioiov t//.iIv xoopii djiiapziaS . . . ex Ma~ pia? zrji itapBivov, zrji Beozohov . . . eva xai zov avzov Xpi6z6v, hx dvajv a>v6Eoov (a/, hv 8vo q>v6s6iv) a6vyxvzooz i dzpi.nzooz y aStat- 4.C The Humiliation of Christ. This famous creed, formulated by the Fourth General Council, was the fruit of two great controversies, the Apol- linarian and the Nestorian; the one having reference to the integrity of our Lord's humanity, the other to the unity of erson. In these two controversies allparties may be said to have been animated by an orthodox interest, and to have been sincerely desirous to hold fast and establish the Catholic faith. All accepted cordially the Nicaean Creed, and sought to construct a Christology on a Trin- in foundation. These remarks apply even to Apolli- naris, who, however much he may have failed in his at- tempt at a construction of Christ's person, seems to have meant that attempt to be a defence of the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation against its assailants. He was a man held in high esteem by his contemporaries for his learning, piety, and eminent services to the cause of truth, till in his old age he promulgated his peculiar Christological theory. Epiphanius speaks of him as one who had always been beloved by himself, Athanasius, and all the orthodox; so that when he first got tidings of the new heresy, he could hardly believe that such a doctrine could emanate from such a man. 1 He had done excellent service as champion of the Nicaean symbol against the Arians, and had given a still more conclusive proof of his zeal in that cause by suffering exile on account of his opposition to the Arian heresy. 2 The theory of Christ's person propounded by Apollinaris was this, that the humanity of Christ did not consist of a reasonable soul and body, as in other men, but of flesh and an animal soul without mind, the place of mind being supplied in His case by the Logos. Of the inner genesis of this theory in its author's mind we have no accounts, and we can only conjecture what were its hidden roots. Among these may probably be reckoned familiarity with, pezooi ax^opiOrooi yvaopi^ojjsyov ovSauou zf>'. rdv i, xai el* f'v Ttp66oonov xai uiav v%66za6iv 6vvzpexov- 6i)i, ovx sii Svo Ttpo6oo7ca fiepiCouEvov r/ SiaipnviiEvov, dXX' iva xai zov avzov viov, xai novoyivrj (-Jeov Xoyov Kvptov'lt}6ovv Xpidrov 1 Adv. Haereses, lib. iii. torn, ii.; Dimoeritat, c. 2, see also c. 24. * Adv. Haereses, lib. iii. torn, ii.: Dimoeritae, c. 24. The Patristic Christology. 41 and partiality for, classic Greek literature, and more espe- cially the works of Plato; 1 antagonism on other matters to Origen, the first among the early Fathers to give prom- inence to the doctrine that Christ's humanity was endowed with a rational soul, predisposing to a diverse way of think- ing on that particular subject likewise; and above all, de- termined hostility to the opinions concerning the person of the Saviour, characteristic of the Arian heretics. So far as one can judge from contemporary representations, and from the fragments of the work on the Incarnation which have been preserved, the Apollinarian theory was attractive to the mind of its inventor chiefly on these accounts: as en- abling him to combat successfully the Arian doctrine of the fallibility of Christ; as ensuring the unity of the person of Christ, with which the doctrine of the integrity of His hu- manity seemed incompatible; and as making the Incarna- tion a great reality for God, involving subjection of the di- vine nature to the experience of suffering. As to the first, the Arian doctrine of the person of Christ was, that in the historical person called Christ appeared in human flesh the very exalted, in a sense divine, creature named in Scripture the Logos, — the Logos taking the place of a human soul, and being liable to human infirmity, and even to sin, inas- much as, however exalted, He was still a creature, therefore finite, therefore fallible, rpejrrJ?, capable of turning, in the abuse of freedom, from good to evil. Apollinaris accepted the Arian method of constructing the person, by the ex- clusion of a rational human soul, and used it as a means of obviating the Arian conclusion, which was revolting to his religious feelings. His reply to the Arian was in effect this: " Christ is, as you say, the Logos appearing in the flesh and performing the part of a human soul; but the Logos is not a creature, as you maintain; He is truly 1 An interesting evidence of this is supplied in the fact, that when the Emperor Julian interdicted the reading of the classic poets and orators in the Christian schools, in the year 362, Apollinaris, along with his father, set himself to provide a kindred literature in the shape of versions of the Scriptures, the father taking up the Old Testament, and turning the Pentateuch into heroic verse, in imitation of Homer, and doing other portions into comedies, tragedies, and lyrics, in imita- tion of Menander, Euripides, and Pindar; while the son took up the New Testa- ment, and turned the Gospels and Epistles into dialogues, in the style of Plato. 42 The Humiliation of Christ. divine, eternally begotten, not made, and therefore morally infallible." In no other way did it seem to him possible to escape the Arian mutability {vpenrov), for he not only admitted the fallibility of all creatures, however exalted, but he believed that in human beings at least a rational soul, endowed with intelligence and freedom, not only may, but must inevitably fall into sin. Freedom, in fact, usually supposed to be a distinction of the human mind, exalting it in the scale of being above the lower animal creation, was in his view an evil to be got rid of, — and accordingly he sought to get rid of it, in the case of Christ, by denying that He had a human mind, and ascribing to Him only an immutable divine mind which, to quote his own words, " should not through defect of knowledge be subject to the flesh, but should without effort bring the flesh into harmony with itself" 1 (as its passive instrument). As to the second advantage believed to be gained by the theory, that, viz., of securing the unity of Christ's person, Apollinaris contended that, on the supposition of the two natures being perfect, the unity could not be maintained. " If," said he, " to perfect man be joined perfect God, there are two, not one: one, the Son of God by nature; another, the Son of God by adoption." 8 On the other hand, he held that his theory gave one person, who was at once perfect man and perfect God, the two natures not being concrete separable things, but two aspects of the same person. Christ was true God, for He was the eternal Logos mani- fest in the flesh. He was also true man, for human nature consists of three component elements, body, animal soul, and spirit, and all these were combined, according to the 1 Gregory of Nyssa, Adv. Apollinarem, c. 40. The words of Apollinaris are: Dvh dpa 6ojZsrai to dvbpoomvov yivoS 67 avaAt'/ipSGoS vov, uai o\ov iiv f jfjoj7tov, dXXd did 7tpo6\r/ipea)S 6apu6i, % cpv6ixdv uiv to r/yeuo- vf.vedQai (whose nature it is to be ruled) fdsiro 8e (XTpiitTov vov, jutj \.no- 'r/TTTovToi avT-fl Sid iTti6Trjiio6vvi)i a.6 r J£VFiav, dXXd 6vvapu6ZovToS avTrjv d(jia6iGDi ecxvTcp. All the accounts of the views of Apollinaris agree in ascribing to him the strange, almost Manichaean, doctrine, that freedom, the attribute of a rational soul, necessarily involved sin. Vid. Athanasius, De Incar- ndiione Christi (near the beginning): offou ydp tsAsioS dvbpoano'i (complete man, metaphysically) kxei ncci diiapTia; also De Salutari Adventu yesu Christi, sub init. Epiphanius, Adv. Haereses, 1. iii. t. ii.; Dimoeritae, c. 26. * Greg. cc. 39, 42. The Patristic Christology. 43 theory, in the person of Christ; while, on the common the- ory, there were four things combined in Him, whereby He became not a man, but a man-God, 1 a monstrum, resem- bling the fabulous animals of Greek mythology. True, it might be objected that the third element in the person of Christ, the nous, was not human but divine. But Apolli- naris was ready with his reply. " The mind in Christ," he said in effect, " is at once divine and human; the Logos is at once the express image of God and the prototype of hu- manity." This appears to be what he meant when he as- serted that the humanity of Christ was eternal, — a part of his system which was much misunderstood by his oppo- nents, who supposed it to have reference to the body of Christ. 2 There is no reason to believe that Apollinaris meant to teach that our Lord's flesh was eternal, and that He brought it with Him from heaven, and therefore was not really born of the Virgin Mary; though some of his ad- herents may have held such opinions. His idea was, that Christ was the celestial man; celestial, because divine; man, not merely as God incarnate, but because the Divine Spirit is at the same time essentially human. In the combination whereby Christ's person was constituted there was thus nothing incongruous, though there was something unique; the divine being fitted in its own nature, and having, as it were, a yearning to become man. This was the speculative element in the Apollinarian theory misapprehended by contemporaries, better understood, and in some quarters more sympathized with, now. 3 The third advantage accruing from his theory, that of making God in very deed the subject of a suffering human experience, Apollinaris reckoned of no less value than the other two. It seemed to him of fundamental importance, 1 Greg. c. 49. * So Gregory Nys., Athanasius, and Epiphanius: in the works referred to in previous note. 3 See Domer, Person of Christ, div. i. vol. ii. p. 372 (Clark's translation). Dorner's account of the Apollinarian theory is very full, able, and candid, and, as far as I can judge, satisfactory; though, as we have only fragments to judge from, there must always be uncertainty on some points. For passages out of the work of Apollinaris bearing on the subject of the affinity of the divine and the human natures, see cap. 48-55 in Greg. Adv. Apoll. Baur's account (Die Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, vol. i.) is less reliable. 44 The Humiliation of Christ* in a soteriological point of view, that the person of Christ should be so conceived of, that everything belonging to His earthly history, both the miracles and the sufferings, should be predicable directly and exclusively of the divine element in Him. On this account he was equally opposed to the Photinian and to the ordinary orthodox view of Christ's person: to the former, because it made Christ merely a divine man (avQpaoxoS evQeoi), 1 the human, not the divine, being the personal element; to the latter, because it virtu- ally divided Christ into two persons, a divine and a human, referring to the divine only the miracles of power and knowledge, and ascribing to the human everything of the nature of suffering. On either theory, it appeared to him, the end of the Incarnation remained unaccomplished; man was not redeemed, unless it could be said that God tasted death. A man liable to the common corruption cannot save the world; neither can we be saved, even by God, un- less He mix with us. He must become an impeccable man, and die, and rise again, and so destroy the empire of death over all; He must die as God, for the death of a mere man does not destroy death, but only the death of one over whom death cannot prevail. 2 Such thoughts as these ap- peared to Apollinaris arguments in favour of his theory; for he maintained that on the common theory the divine had really no part in Christ's sufferings; 3 a statement not without some plausibility in reference to the orthodox Fathers, whose views regarding the impassibility of the di- vine nature were very rigid. To rectify this defect was a leading, we may say the leading, aim of the new Christol- ogy. Gregory of Nyssa, in his polemical treatise against Apollinaris, states that the whole scope of the work in which the latter promulgated his opinions was to make the deity of the only-begotten Son mortal, and to show that not the human in Christ endured suffering, but the impassi- 1 Greg. c. 6: To ai'typoortov £y r jsov toy Xpi6vov ovo/idZeiv, kvavriov tivai ralS v 6vv68gjv' IJavAoy 8s (of Samosata) xai TJ l S xazdpiai (these men began this perverse way of speaking of I ' Greg. cap. 51, 52. 3 Greg. cap. 27. The Patristic Christology. \S ble and unchangeable nature in Him, converted to partici- pation in suffering. 1 It is easy to understand what a fascination a theory like the foregoing would have for a speculative mind; nor are we surprised to learn that, on its being promulgated, it was received with enthusiasm by many. It was a theory whose appearance in the course of doctrinal development was to be looked for, and in some respects even to be desired; and it could not have an author and advocate better qualified by his gifts and character to do it full justice, and secure for it the respectful and serious consideration of the Church, than it found in Apollinaris. Yet the defects of this theory are very glaring. One radical error is the assumption thafc to get rid of sin we must get rid of a human mind in Christ. Gregory of Nyssa, referring to the apostolic dictum, " tempted in all points like as we are, without sin," very per- tinently remarks, parenthetically, "but mind is not sin."* If it be sin, then, to be consistent, the theory ought to take away mind not merely from Christ, but from human nature itself. Yet Apollinaris is so far from doing this, that he represents mind (vovs) as the leading element in human nature (to xvpioorarov). 3 It is because vovi is rci Kvptoorarov that its omission is necessary in order to secure the unity of Christ's person. If Christ consists of two perfect, that is, complete, unmutilated natures, then, according to Apolli- naris, He is two persons, not one. It thus appears that to the metapJiysical perfection of human nature vovz is indis- pensable, while for its moral perfection the removal of the same element is equally indispensable; a view which on the one hand involves a Manichaean attitude towards the first creation, and on the other hand makes a theory of sanctifi- cation impossible. The old man is inevitably bad because he is free; and the new man is to be made good, either by the mutilation of his nature, or by a magical overbearing cf his nature by divine power. Another manifest defect in the theory is, that it adopts ' Greg. cap. 5. s Cap. 11: 6 di vovi duapria ovh edzt. 3 Greg. Nys. Adv. Apoll. c. 23: Christ was ovh avSpGJ7to?, d\\' caS ar- 3/3GJ7TOS dlOTl OVH OUOOV6lOi TCp dv r JpODTZ(p Hard TO HVpiGQTCtT OV. 46 The Humiliation of Christ. means for excluding the possibility of sin in Christ, whick defeat another of its own chief ends, that, viz., of making the Divine partaker of suffering. Place is found for the physical fact of death, but no place is found for the moral suffering connected with temptation. Christ is so carefully guarded from sin, that He is not even allowed to know what it is to be tempted to sin. The author of the theory is so frightened by that Arian scarecrow, the rpenrov, that he solves the problem of Christ's sinlessness by annihilating the conditions under which the problem has to be worked out. There is no human nous, no freedom, no struggle; the fragment of human nature assumed yields itself passively to the sweet control of the Divine Spirit, which dwells within it as its active principle; ' the so-called temptations and struggles recorded in the Gospels are reduced to a show and a sham, and a cheap virtue results, devoid of all human interest, and scarcely deserving the name. It is true Apollinaris did what he could to prevent this consequence, and to make Deity enter fully and really into the conditions of human life, by regarding the Incarnation as involving for the Logos a self-division (diaiptdis), by which He en- tered into an inequality with Himself, and was at once in- finite and finite, impassible and capable of becoming par- taker in human sufferings and conflicts; not, however, by a physical necessity, but by a free act of love. 2 But this de- vice of a double aspect in the Logos falls short of the pur- pose. To arrive at the result aimed at — a real and full participation in suffering, — the theory must go further, and 1 Greg. Nys. Adv. Apoll. c. 41: dftiddTcoZ, (pridi, t?)v ddpxa 7} SeotjjS TtpoddyETai. Gregory takes afliddrooi as meaning freely: to dfiiadTov, St/Xadr}, to 'exivdiov Xe'yet. But Apollinaris uses the word to express the pliancy of the flesh, resulting from its having no will of its own. The flesh was literally as clay in the hands of the Logos as the Potter. * Such seems to be the meaning of the following obscure extracts from Apolli- naris in Gregory's work, c. 29: Aiaip&iv fiiv ti)v tvepyeiav xavd dapxa, ictdaiv 8s xara nvevua . . . "Qnsp ex £l T V V tv Swd/iei itdXiv ido- T7]Ta xai tt)v xara ddpxa ttjZ tvEpyeiai diaipadiv c. 58: '0 IZcoTTip 7t£7tov r JE itElvav, xai Siipav, xai xduaTov, xai dyooviav, xai Xvttvv . . . Kai Ttadxzi to drtapddtxTov 7td f )ov?, ovx avdyxp (pvdsaos dftov- At'/tov, xa r Ja7tep av f JpconoS, aXXa dxoXovOiqc cpvdSGO?. Gregory looks upon the words from ovx dvdyxrj as unintelligible, and asks what is the differ- ence between necessity of nature and consequence of nature. The Patristic Christology. 47 convert the Logos into an ordinary human soul, having the advantage of starting on its career free from sinful bias, but exposed like other souls to temptation, and possessing only a power not to sin {posse non peccare), and this would bring it round to meet the opposite extreme, the hated Arian fallibility. The argument against the Apollinarian theory was con- ducted by the Fathers chiefly from a soteriological point of view. Gregory Nazianzen put the matter in a nut-shell when he said: " That which is not assumed is not healed." ' The patristic theory of redemption was, that Christ re- deemed man, so to speak, by sample, presenting to God in His own person the first-fruits of a renewed humanity. Athanasius contrasts the Apollinarian and the orthodox theories of redemption thus: "Ye say that believers are saved by similitude and imitation, not by renovation, or by first-fruits." 2 Salvation being by first-fruits, of course the Saviour must be physically like His brethren in soul as well as in body, otherwise the sample would not be like the bulk. As Cyril put it: Christ must take flesh that He might deliver us from death; and He must take a human soul to deliver us from sin, destroying sin in humanity by living a human life free from all sin, — rendering the soul He assumed superior to sin by dyeing it, and tinging it with the moral firmness and immutability of His own divine nature. 3 But while insisting on this view of salvation, the opponents of Apollinaris pointed out that even on his own soteriological theory it behoved Christ to assume a perfect humanity. How, asked Athanasius very pertinently, can there be imitation tending to perfection unless there be first a perfect exemplar ? * • Epist. 1, ad Cledonium: to ydp dTtpo6Xijitvov dhtpditEVTOY. 2 De Salutari Adventu yesu Chris ti (about the middle): 'AXXd XiyevE rf) 6uoioo6ei xai r# juiutJ6si 6c6'Z£6 r iai zovS 7tidrevorraS, xai ov ry dva.' xaividsi, xai zij" dnapxy- s De Incarnatione Unigenili, torn. viii. Opera, Migne, p. 1214. 4 De Incarnatione Christi (near the beginning): ui/.ir/di? 8s 7ta>? dv yivoivo npoS TsXsioTtyra, jutj npovita.p'ia6T]Z rrjs dvevdeovi reXeiozrjroi. On the Apollinarian I heory of redemption, see Dorner, who, in opposition to Baur and M&hler, denies that it was a mere doctrine of imitation. Cyril seems to have looked on it in this light, for in the Dialogue on the Incarnation he makes one 4S The Humiliation of Christ. The Nestorian controversy, which broke out about half a century after the death of Apollinaris, 1 may be regarded as the natural sequel of the controversy concerning the in- tegrity of Christ's humanity, whereof a brief account has just been given. The Church, by the voice of Councils and of its representative men, having declared in favour of a complete unmutilated humanity, the next question calling for decision was, How do the two natures in Christ, the divine and the human, stand related to each other ? On this momentous question the Antioch school of theologians took up a position diametrically opposed to that of Apolli- naris. Whereas Apollinaris had sacrificed the integrity of Christ's humanity for the sake of the unity of His person, the Syrian theologians, represented by Theodore of Mop- suestia, and by his pupils, Xestorius, patriarch of Constan- tinople, and Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, seemed disposed to sacrifice the unity of the person in favour of the integrity of the humanity. Their attitude was substantially this: they were determined at all hazards to hold by the reality of the two factors, and especially of the humanity, the latter being the thing assailed; and to admit only such a union as was compatible with such reality. Christ must be a man, at all events, whatever more; a man in all re- spects, save sin, like other men, having a true body, a reasonable soul, and a free will, liable to temptation, and capable of real, not merely apparent, growth, not only in stature, but in wisdom and virtue. Such was the Christ they found in the New Testament, such the Christ who could lay hold of human sympathies; in such a Christ, therefore, they were determined to believe, both as men devoted to exegetical studies, and as men of an ethical rather than a theological bent of mind. With the resolute maintenance of the reality of Christ's manhood, the theologians of Antioch did not find it possible to accept of any union of the natures, except one of an of the interlocutors ask: " What if they should say that our state needed only the sojourning of the Only-begotten among us ? but as He wished to be seen of mor- tals, and to have intercourse with men, and to show to us the way of evangelic life, He put on (economically) flesh like ours, as the divine in its own nature cannot be seen." — Cy. Op., Migne, viii. p. 1212. ' Between 380 and 392 a. d. ; exact date uncertain. The Patristic Christology. 49 ethical character. They rejected a physical union {Jvoo6i<, natf ov6i. 2 Kara itpoyvoiav. 3 6vvaq>£ia. 4 evoodiS dx £ttH W- 8 rar' d'ciav, naV ouorifiiav, KaV av'uvriav, 6 Mara ravrofiovXiav. " ua^ uiicsvv^iav. 8 Cyril. Apolog. contra Theodoret. Anath. iii.: ev uev Ttp66co7tov uai eva TTidv nai Xpidrov buoXoy tlv ev6efje?- dvo 8s raS evGo0ei6aS V7to0rd~ GtiS, ei'rovv q>v<5eil, Xeyeiv ovh aroitov, dXXd xar airiav dxoXovOor The Patristic Christology. 5i opponent Cyril, said: " There is no division as to conjunc- tion, dignity, Sonship, or as to participation in the name Christ; there is only a division of the Deity and the hu- manity. Christ as Christ is indivisible; for we have not two Christs, or two Sons: there is not with us a first and a second, nor one and another, nor one Son and another Son; but one and the same is double, not in dignity, but in nature." J Hence the question, Were Nestorius and those who thought with him Nestorians in the theological sense ? may be answered both affirmatively and negatively: nega- tively, if you look to what they said they held and honestly wished to hold; affirmatively, if you look to the logical consis- tency of their system. They made Christ as much an indepen- dent, self-subsistent man as if He were altogether distinct from the Logos; they described the union between Him and the Logos by phrases implying only a very close moral af- finity; so that the natural inference would seem to be, that the Logos was personally as distinct from Jesus as from any other good man, though more closely related to Him than to any other man. But they refused to draw the inference; they declared there were not in Christ one and another {aXXoi xai aWos), but only one who was double. The great opponent of the Antiochian Christology, Cyril, archbishop of Alexandria, held its advocates responsible for the logical consequences of their theory; and the strong side of his polemic is the manner in which he brings great principles to bear against the doctrine of a divided person- ality. Specially noticeable is the use which he makes of the idea of kenosis, in arguing against that doctrine. Again and again the thought recurs in his various contro- versial writings, that if the Logos did not become man, but merely assumed a man, then what took place was not a kenosis of the Divine Subject, but, on the contrary, an ex- altation of the human subject. Thus, in one place he says: " If, as our adversaries think, the only-begotten Word of God, taking a human being from the seed of David, pro- cured that He should be formed in the holy Virgin, and joined Him to Himself, and caused Him to experience 1 Cyril. Contra Nestorium, lib. ii. c. v. 52 The Humiliation of Christ. death, and, raising Him from the dead, conveyed Him up to heaven, and seated Him on the right hand of God, — ■ vainly, in that case, as it appears, is He said by the holy Fathers, and by us, and by all inspired Scripture, to have become man; for this and nothing else John means when he says, the Word became flesh (J \6yo In another place we find him arguing against the Xestorian doctrine of assump- tion in favour of his own doctrine of union by hypostasis, to the effect that the kenosis requires that the human at- tributes should be predicable of the Divine Subject. " Do you think," he asks his opponent Theodoret, " that St. Paul meant to deceive the saints when he wrote, ' that, being rich, He became poor on our account ' ? But who is the rich One, and how became He poor ? If, as they make bold to think and say, a man was assumed by God, how can He who was assumed and adorned with preternatural honours be said to have become poor ? He only can be said to have been impoverished who is rich as God. But how ? we must consider that question. For, being confessedly unchangeable in nature, He was not converted into the nature of flesh, laying aside His own proper nature; but He remained what He was, that is, God. Where, then, shall we see the humility of impoverishment ? Think you in this, that He took one like ourselves, as the creatures of Nestorius dare to say ? And what sort of poverty and exinanition would that be which consisted in His wishing to honour some man like us ? For God is not injured in any way by doing good. How, then, became He poor ? Thus, that being God by nature, and Son of God the Father, He became man, and was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and subjected Himself to the servile, 1 Quod units sit Christus, Opera, torn, viii., Migne, pp. 1279-8.1. The Patristic Christology. 53 that is, to the human measure; 1 and having become man ; He was not ashamed of the measure of humanity. For, not having refused to become like us, how should He refuse those things by which it would appear that He had really for our sakes been made like us ? If, therefore, we separate Him from the humanities, whether things or words, we differ in no respect from those who all but rob Him of flesh, and wholly overturn the mystery of the Incarnation." Supposing some one to object, that it was altogether un- worthy of God to weep, to fear death, to refuse the cup, he goes on to say: " When the exinanition appears mean to thee, admire the more the charity of the Son. What you call little, He did voluntarily for thee. He wept humanly, that He might dry thy tears; He feared eco- nomically, permitting the flesh to suffer the things proper to it, that He might make us bold: He refused the cup, that the cross might convict the Jews of impiety; He is said to have been weak as to His humanity, that He might remove thy weakness; He offered prayers, that He might render the ears of the Father accessible to thee; He slept, that thou mightst learn not to sleep in temptation, but be watchful unto prayers. " 3 I have made these quotations at some length, because, while fully illustrating the style of Cyril's argumentation from the kenosis against the Nestorian theory, they at the same time set forth clearly his conception of the kenosis as resulting from a hypostatical union, in virtue of which all the humanities in Christ's earthly history were predica- ble of the Logos as the personal subject. Looking now at these passages and others of similar import from a contro- versial point of view, there can be no doubt that they have great argumentative force against the Nestorian view of Christ's person as conceived by Cyril. Yet the advocates of the controverted theory did not feel themselves mortally wounded by such arguments. On the contrary, they in turn argued from the kenosis against their antagonist. In his animadversions on Cyril's third anathema, which asserts 1 SovXonpETtEi vitedv nirpov, tovze6ti to avSpo67ttvov. * Apolog. contra Tkeodoret, pro XII. capitibus, Anath. x. torn. ix. p. 440. 3 Apolog. contra Theodoret. Anath. x. torn. ix. p. 441. 54 The Humiliation of Christ. a physical as opposed to a merely moral union of the natures, Theodoret objects that such a union makes the kenosis a matter of physical necessity, instead of a volun- tary act of condescension. " Nature," he says, "is a thing of a compulsory character and without will. For example, we hunger physically, not suffering this willingly, but by necessity; for certainly those living in poverty would cease begging if they had it in their power not to hunger. In like manner we thirst, sleep, breathe by nature; for these are alj without will; and he who does not experience these things, of necessity dies. If, therefore, the union of the form of Son to the form of a servant was physical, then God the Logos was joined to the form of a servant as compelled by a certain necessity, not in the exercise of philanthropy, and the universal Lawgiver shall be found complying with compulsory laws, contrary to the teaching of Paul, who says; ' He humbled Himself, taking the form of a servant.' The words kavrov ekevoo6e point to a volun- tary act." ' To the same effect John of Antioch, criticizing the same anathema, speaking in the name of the whole Syrian church, asks: " If the union is physical, where is the grace, where the divine mystery ? For natures once formed by God are subject to the reign of necessity." 2 Now Cyril certainly did recognise a reign of physical law, both in the constitution of Christ's person and in the course of His incarnate history. He held that the person was not secure against dissolution unless it were based on physical laws, rather than on a gracious relation of the Logos to the man Jesus, such as the Nestorian party ad- vocated. 3 And he considered that the Logos, in becoming man by a voluntary act, gave to physical laws a certain dominion over Himself: took humanity, on the understand- ing that its laws, conditions, or measures, were to be re- spected. In this very act of voluntary self-subjection to 1 Cyril. Ap. c. Theod. Anath. iii. Anath. iii. runs: El' ris ?ni rov EvoS Xfji6rov dicxipr.i r«; v7to6rd6£iS uetcc ri)v 'ivoo6iv, novy Qwditroov avrai 6vva.(p£ia ry xard ti)v diiav ?}yovv av r JEvriav y 8vva6rEiav, xai acvxi Stj uaWov 6vvoSnv zifv xa'y Evoodiv q>v6iKr)v. 2 Cyril. Apolog. pro XII. capitibus contra Orientales, Anath. iii. 3 Quod units sit Christus, t. viii. p. 1296: ov ydp dvvitoitrov sii dno v, 6 in/ q>v6ixoiS Lpt]pEi6rai vouoii. The Patristic Christology. 55 the laws of humanity did the kenosis consist. By this principle Cyril explained the facts of birth, growth in stature, and experience of sinless infirmities, such as hunger, thirst, sleep, weariness, etc., in the earthly history of the Saviour. " It was not impossible," he says in one place, " for the omnipotent Logos, having resolved for our sakes to become man, to have formed a body for Himself by his own power, refusing birth from a woman, even as Adam was formed; but because that might give occasion to unbelievers to calumniate the Incarnation, saying it was not real, there- fore it was necessary that He should go through the ordi- nary laws of human nature." 1 With reference to physical growth, he says in another place: " It was not impossible that God, the Word begotten of the Father, should lift the body united to Him out of its very swaddling-clothes and raise it up to the measure of mature manhood. But this, would have been a thaumaturgical proceeding, and incon- gruous to the laws of the economy; for the mystery was ac- complished noiselessly. Therefore, in accordance with the economy, He permitted the measures of humanity to prevails over Himself." 2 In a third passage he applies the same principle of compliance with the laws of humanity to ex- plain a group of infirmities, including the appearance of ignorance (a point of which I shall speak more particularly forthwith). "With humanity, the only-begotten Word bore all that pertains to humanity, save sin. But ignorance of the future agrees to the measures of humanity; therefore, while as God knowing all, as man He does not shake Him- self clear of the appearance of ignorance as suitable to humanity. For as He, being the life of all, received bodily food, not despising the measure of the kenosis (He is also described as sleeping and being weary); so likewise, know- ing all, He yet was not ashamed to ascribe to Himself the ignorance which is congruous to humanity. For all that is human became His, sin alone excepted." 3 1 Adv. Nestor, lib. i. cap. i. t. ix. p. 22: HEXooprjHEy dvaynaicoi Sid rdov dv(ipooTtivr]S (pvdsooi vojiioov. 2 Quod unus Christus, t. viii. p. 1332: 'EteXeito yap aipcxpyri to juv6- rr/piov (a fine expression!). 'HcpiEi Sr} ovv oIhovojuixgoS toi? trji dvBpoo- ■XOTTJTOS /.lETpOlZ iq>' EO.VTGJ) to xpaTElv. 3 Adv. Anthropomorphitas, c. xiv. ; vid. Appendix, Note A 56 The Humiliation of Christ. In advocating this reign of physical law, Cyril proclaimed an important truth, and committed no offence against the freedom of the Logos. His fault rather lay in restricting the reign of law to the material sphere, excluding it from the intellectual or moral. This in point of fact he did. He recognised no real growth in wisdom or in character in Christ. He felt, indeed, that the claims of the kenosis ex- tended to the mind as well as to the body, and he made every possible effort to satisfy those claims; but he did not see his way to letting the intellectual and moral growth of Christ be anything more than an appearance. The union between the Logos and the humanity was so close and of such a nature, in his view, that the Logos per se could not be conceived as possessing knowledge of which the incar- nate person was not also consciously possessed. If, as al, admitted, ignorance could not be predicated of the former, neither could it be predicated of the latter. To ascribe to Christ real ignorance was in effect to dissolve the union, and to make Him a man connected with the Logos by an intimate ethical relation. Cyril was fully sensible of the critical importance of the problem, how the ascription to Christ in the gospel history, of growth in knowledge as a child, and of ignorance even in ripe manhood, was to be understood. He returns to it again and again; he discusses it in at least eight different places of his extant works, sometimes at considerable length; he exercises his ingenuity in inventing forms of language by which to express his idea: but he never gets beyond appearance. The kenosis is real in the physical region, it is doketic in the intellec- tual. Practically the position in which Christ is placed is this: the measures of the kenosis require Him to seem ignorant, as ignorance belongs to the state He has as- sumed — being an attribute of ordinary humanity; but the Logos is incapable of so adapting Himself to the human nature He has assumed, that the ignorance of the thean- thropic person shall in any case be real, even the child's growth in knowledge being in reality only a gradual man- ifestation to others of a knowledge already inwardly com- plete. In every one of the passages in which Cyril discusses the question, this is the way the case is put. Xow he rep- TJie Patristic Christology. 5"] resents Christ as usefully pretending not to know the day of judgment, now as not shunning the appearance of igno- rance as decent in one who had assumed humanity, now as economizing or schematizing in speaking of Himself as ignorant. The growth of the boy in knowledge is resolved into a gradual revelation of Himself to the world, out of respect to the physical law by which in ordinary men bodily and mental growth progress together; this law in Christ's case being complied with by a real growth of the body, and by a studied appearance of growth in the mind. " We teach," says Cyril, in his second oratio ad reginas, putting the matter as precisely as possible, — "we teach that it was agreeable to the measures of the kenosis that Christ should receive bodily growth and gradual consolidation and strengthening of the bodily organs, and likewise that He should seem to be filled with wisdom; because it was most meet that the manifestation of His indwelling wisdom should keep pace with the increase in His bodily stature." ' At this point the views of Cyril stand in the sharpest possible contrast to those of the Oriental theologians, who took the Gospel statements in their plain, natural sense, and believed that Christ grew in knowledge as well as in stature, and made progress in virtue through real conflict with temptation. The difference in this respect between the two schools was the natural result of their respective points of view. The Alexandrians started from the divine side, and made the humanity as real as seemed compatible with its hypostatic union to the Logos; the Orientals started from the human side, and made the union between the man and the Logos as intimate as was compatible with the re- ality of the humanity. Both schools failed on different sides: the Orientals, on the side of the unity of the person; the Alexandrians, on the side of the reality of the human nature and experience. Both failed from one cause — over- confident dogmatism as to the conditions and possibilities 1 The question concerning the knowledge of Christ being important, and the views of Cyril having been misunderstood by some, e. g. Forbes in his Listruc- tiones historico-tkeologicae, I deem it advisable to give the passages in Cyril's wok bearing on the topic in full. These accordingly, eight in all, of which Forbes quotes only three, the reader will find in Appendix, Note A, with an English translation in parallel columns. The Humiliation of Christ. of the Incarnation. Both started from the assumption that a union such as is implied in God becoming man, as dis- tinct from that formed by God assuming a man, is not compatible with a completely real human experience. It would have been wiser in both to have accepted the facts, whether they could explain them or not. Had Cyril, in particular, taken this course, he would have escaped moral and intellectual doketism; he would not have felt it neces- sary to place Christ in the unworthy position of being obliged, out of regard to decency, to feign an ignorance which was not real; he would have conceived it possible that the Logos might be conscious of the child Jesus, while the child was unconscious of the Logos, or entirely without self-consciousness; he would not only have taught a gradual revelation of the Logos through Jesus to others, but, with his predecessor Athanasius, he would have admitted that the Logos revealed Himself to Himself in Jesus, 1 and grew in Himself; the Wisdom of God building in Jesus a house for Himself, and causing the house to make progress in wisdom and grace. How these things can be, it may be difficult, or even impossible, to explain — more ways of ex- plaining them than one have been proposed; but we must not suspend acceptance of facts till we have found a theory which accounts for them; we must accept the facts first, and seek for our theory at leisure. The manner in which Cyril disposed of the problem of mental growth may be regarded as an index of the general character of his Christology. That Christology has been characterized as physical rather than ethical;- and it may be further described as monophysitical in tendency, though, it must be admitted, not avowedly, for its author repudi- ated mixture and confusion of the natures, as earnestly as Nestorius repudiated the charge of teaching two Sons.* Cyril looked on the divine and the human natures as two 1 Oratio iii., Con. Arianos, c. 52: Kai rov Xoyov qxxvEpovvroS kccvrov eavra). Then a little below in the same place: El XPV $£ *0 mQavcSs uezd rov aXrfiovS eineTv, avro? kv iavzcS it p6 EHoitz s- r/ 6ooS, many-shaped. 8 Vid. TtpoXoyoi. 3 Dialogue i. p. 7 (Opera, Paris, 1642, vol. iv.). 62 The Humiliation of Christ. is not of that kind, that it cannot be explained in words, that it surpasses all comprehension; and only after being further pressed for an answer does he venture to say, "the divinity remains, and the humanity is absorbed by it as a drop of honey is absorbed by the sea;" 1 but when the absorption took place, whether at the conception or after the resurrection, he hardly can tell. He asserts that God suffered; but he admits the divine impassibility, and repre- sents God in Christ as suffering through the flesh, and voluntarily, in gracious love to men. 2 It is plain from those representations that Eutyches had no distinct definite conception of the constitution of our Lord's person. He felt rather than thought on the subject of Christology. He did not pretend to comprehend the mystery of the Incarnation, but rather gloried in proclaim- ing its incomprehensibleness. He knew that God and flesh were altogether different things, and he believed that Christ's flesh was real; but the divinity bulked so large in his eye, that the humanity in comparison vanished into nothing. And if compelled by fact to admit that the humanity was still there, not drunk up like a drop of honey by the sea of the divinity, he refused, at all events, to re- gard it as on a level with ordinary humanity: reverence protested against calling Christ's divine body consubstan- tial with the bodies of common mortals. It would have been well had the course of events permitted such a man to pass his life in obscurity. But it was otherwise ordered. Eutyches became the representative of a theory which en- gaged the attention of three Synods; being condemned by the first, 8 approved by the second, 4 and re-condemned and finally disposed of as a heresy by the third, the famous Oecu- menical Council of Chalcedon, whose decree is quoted at length at the commencement of the present lecture. The policy of that Council was to steer a middle course between Nestorianism and Eutychianism; the former being conceived as teaching two persons in Christ, the latter as 1 Dialogue ii. pp. 67, 77. 2 Dialogue iii. p. 121. 3 Held at Constantinople, A.D. 448. 4 Held at Ephesus, \.\>. 499; called the Robber Synod on account of the vio lent character of its proceedings. The Patristic Christology. 63 teaching that there was not only but one person, but, more- over, only one nature; the one nature being predominantly divine, and, in so far as human, not like the nature of other men. Between the two extremes, so conceived, there was plenty of room for a middle course, and no very skilful pilotage was needed to keep the vessel within the limits of safe navigation. The pilot in this emergency, as is well known, was the Roman Bishop Leo, whose letter to Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, concerning the errors of Euty- ches, guided the deliberations and fixed the judgment of the Fathers assembled at Chalcedon, and thus became an epoch-making document in the history of Christology. The substance of that celebrated epistle is as follows: — The Son of God became man by birth from the Virgin Mary, and in the incarnate Word two natures were com- bined into one person, each nature retaining its distinct property. For the deliverance of men from sin, an inviol- able nature was united to a passible nature, that one and the same Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, might be able to die in the one, and might be in- capable of dying in the other. Thus, in the entire and perfect nature of a true man true God was born totus in suis, totus in nostris, the nostra including everything but sin. This assumption of servile form by the Son of God, while exalting the humanity of Christ, did not diminish His divinity; for the kenosis by which the Lord of all willed to become one of mortals was not a loss of power, but an act of condescending compassion, 1 which, so far from intro- ducing an alteration into God, only demonstrated the unchangeableness of His will, which cannot be deprived of its benignity, and which refused to be baffled by the wiles of the devil aiming at the destruction of mankind. The Incarnation, being a fulfilment of divine love, involved at the same time for the Son of God no loss of divine glory. He descended from the celestial abode, not receding from the glory of His Father; 2 the immensity of His majesty was simply veiled by the assumption of a servile form. On the other hand, as God was not changed by compassion. 1 Inclinatio fuit miserationis, non defectio potestatis. — Epist. c. 3. t De coelesti sede descendens, et a Paterna gloria non recedens. — Epist. c. 4, 64 The Humiliation of Christ. so man was not consumed by dignity. 1 He who was true God was also true man — there was no lie in the union; the humility of the man and the altitude of Deity were co-ex- istent in the same person. Each nature in Christ performed in communion with the other what was congruous to itself, the Word doing what suited the Word, and the flesh what suited the flesh ; the former coruscating with miracles, the lat- ter submitting to injuries; the Word not receding from equal- ity in glory with His Father, the flesh not leaving the nature of our race. While the natures continue distinct in their properties, yet, in virtue of the unity of the person, things are sometimes predicated of the one which in strictness belong to the other. The Son of man is said to have descended from heaven, in allusion to the Incarnation; and the Son of God is said to have been crucified and buried, though He suffered these things not in His divinity, but in the infirmity of human nature. 2 It is easy to recognise in this letter of Leo the source of, the formula framed and adopted by the Council of Chalce- don. The letter and the formula are virtually one From the " totus in suis, totus in nostris " of the letter comes the " perfect in Deity and the same perfect in humanity " of the formula; and the d6vyxvro3i, dzpeiiraoi, dSiaipizooi, dxGjpidrooi* of the formula do but condense into four words the various phrases scattered up and down the letter, in which the writer sets forth the distinctness and integrity of the two natures on the one hand, and their intimate, inseparable union in one person on the other. If, now, we inquire how far the letter and the formula together were fitted to put an end to controversy, it must be admitted that they did at least indicate the cardinal points of a true Christology, in which all controversialists should agree. They laid down these two fundamental propositions: Christ must be re- garded as one person, the common subject of all predi- cates, human and divine; and in Christ must be recognised 1 Sicut enim Deus non mutatur miseratione: ita homo non consumitur digni- tz.Xe.—Epis(. c. 4. * Propter hanc unitatem personae in utraque natura intelligendam, et Filius hominis le^itur descendisse de coelo, et rursus Filius Dei crucifixus dicitur ac se- pultus. — Epist. c. 5. 3 Without confusion, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably. The Patristic Christology. 65 two distinct natures, the divine and the human — the divine not converted into the human, the human not absorbed into the divine; the latter side of the second proposition, the integrity and reality of the humanity, viz., being chief- ly emphasized, as the state of the controversy required. But they did little more than this. Leo and the Council told men what they should believe, but they gave little aid to faith by showing how the unity of the person and the distinctness of the natures were compatible with each other; aid which, if it could be had, was urgently needed, for the whole controversy may be said to have arisen from a felt inability to combine the unity and the duality, — those who emphasized the unity failing to do justice to the duality, and those who felt compelled to insist strongly on the in- tegrity of Christ's humanity not knowing well how to rec- oncile therewith the unity of His person. Aid of this kind was not to be looked for, indeed, in the decree of a Coun- cil, but it might perhaps have been reasonably expected from ai. epistle which almost assumed the dimensions of a theological treatise. Leo, however, makes no attempt at a solution of the problem, but contents himself with stat- ing its conditions. Certain points of critical importance he passes over in silence. For example, he says nothing on the question of Christ's knowledge, with which Cyril grappled so earnestly, though unsuccessfully. He does not say whether ignorance and growth in wisdom are or are not included under the phrase totus in nostris; and the omission is all the more noticeable that he does enter into some detail on the properties of Christ's humanity, reckon- ing among them birth, infancy, temptation, hunger, thirst, weariness, and sleep. It would have been instructive to know how the Roman bishop applied the formula tolus in suis, totus in nostris to the category of knowledge; and in case he reckoned omniscience among the sua, and ignor- ance among the nostra, to know how he combined these two opposites in one person, and how in this case each nature performed that which was common to it in com- munion with the other. From the style in which Leo ex- presses himself concerning the divine in Christ, one rather fears that he had no light to give on that subject. His 66 The Humiliation of Christ. doctrine of divine immutability is very rigid. The Son of God in becoming man did not recede from the equality of paternal glory, 1 — a statement not in harmony either with the word or with the spirit of Scripture in speaking on the humiliation of Christ, and, indeed, as Dorner has observed,' not in keeping with a thought of Leo's own, occurring in an earlier part of his epistle, viz., that the Incarnation does not violate divine immutability, inasmuch as it is the deed of a will which loved man at his creation, and which does not allow itself to be deprived of its benign disposition towards man, either through his sin or through the devil's wiles. If God's unchangeablene">s be secured by the im- mutability of His loving will, why guard His majesty in a way that tends to make His love a hollow unreality ? why not let love have free course, and be glorified, even though its glorification should involve a temporary forfeiture of glory of another kind ? From our Christological point of view, that of the exinanition, this is a part of Leo's letter with which we cannot sympathize. The doctrine of exin- anition demands the unity of the person and the distinct- ness of the natures, especially the reality and integrity of the human nature; but it does not require us to guard the Divine Majesty as the disciples guarded their Master from the intrusion of the mothers with their children. With reference to such zeal, the Son of God says: " Suffer me to humble myself." Even Cyril understood this better than Leo, for he spoke of the Son of God as somehow made less than Himself in becoming man. 3 On another subject Leo is silent — the question of the personality of the human nature. He teaches the unity of the person, but he does not say to which of the natures the personality is to be appropriated, or whether it belongs to both, or is distinct from both. Whether the humanity of Christ was personal or impersonal, whether Christ was not 1 Sicut verbum ab aequalitate Paternae Gloriae non recessit ita, etc. — Epist. c. 4. 2 Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. i. p. 88. 3 TitEpixovToc. fiiv rcSv rrjs xri'dea>S uizpaov go? Btov iavrov Si ncti uovovovxi xoci fjrzGnievov xabu TteqjrjvEv avQpcoTTo?. — Ad reginas de verb fide, oratio altera, xvi. The manner in which Cyril here expresses him. «clf is curiously guarded and embarrassed, nooi /tovovovxi, somehow almost I The Patristic Christology. 67 merely man but a man, whether personality is to be reck- oned among the nostra ascribed to Christ in their totality, — these are questions which either did not occur to his mind, or on which he did not feel able to throw light. The former supposition is probably the correct one; for the writers of the patristic period did not conceive a person as we do, as a self-conscious Ego, but simply as a centre of unity for the characteristics which distinguish one individ- ual from another. 1 According to this view, Christ would be " the result of the conjunction of natures, the sum total of both, the collective centre of vital unity which is at once God and man." 2 The Council of Chalcedon proved utterly impotent to stay the progress of controversy; its only immediate effect being to produce a schism in the Church, whereby the Monophysite party became constituted into a sect. The great debate went on as if no ecclesiastical decision had been come to, prolonging its existence for upwards of three hundred years, and passing successively through three different stages, distinguished respectively as the Mono- physite, the Monothelite, and the Adoptian controversies. The Chalcedonian formula left a sufficient number of un- settled questions to supply ample materials for further dis- cussions. Are unity of the person and a duality of natures mutually compatible ? what belongs to the category of the natures and what to the category of the person, and, in particular, to which of the two categories is the will to be reckoned ? is personality essential to the completeness of each nature, in particular to the completeness of the human nature ? These questions in turn became the successive subjects of dispute in the long Christological warfare which ensued; the first being the radical point at issue in the Monophysite phase, the second in the Monothelite, the third in the Adoptian; the great controversy thus return- ing in its final stage, at the close of the eighth century, pretty nearly to the point from which it started at the be- ginning of the fourth, Adoptianism being, if not, as some think, with some difference of form, virtually Nestorianism 1 Dorner, Person of Christ, div. i. vol. li. p. 320. 8 Ibid. div. ii. vol. i. p. 87. 68 The Humiliation of Christ. redivivus, at least the assertion of a double aspect in Christ's personality. Of the many contests which raged around these questions in the course of the next three centuries, I will not here attempt to give even the most cursory ac- count. The subject is indeed by no means inviting. From the Council of Chalcedon to the Council of Frankfort may be called the dreary period of Christology, the sources of information being comparatively scanty, the points at issue minute or obscure, and even when both clear and impor- tant, as in the Monothelite controversy, involving subtle scholastic discussions distasteful to the religious spirit, and presenting to view an anatomical figure in place of the Christ of the Gospel history. The doctrine, I suppose, had to pass through all the phases referred to, — probably not one of the battles, great or small, could have been avoided; still one is thankful his lot is cast in better times than those in which they were fought out. Who would care to spend his life discussing such questions as those which occupied the minds of men in the sixth century, and in reference to which Monophysite was at war with Monophysite, as well as with his orthodox opponents ? Was Christ's body corruptible or incorruptible — naturally liable to death, suf- fering, need, and weakness, or liable only because and when the Logos willed ? was it created or uncreated ? nay, could it be said after the union with the Logos to exist at all ? Such were the questions on which men felt keenly in that unhappy age, and in connection with which they be- stowed on each other nicknames offensive in meaning, un- musical in sound; the deniers of the corruptibility calling their antagonists Phthartolatrae, worshippers of the cor- ruptible; the asserters of corruptibility retorting on their opponents with the countercharge of Aphthartodoketism ;' the parties in the question whether the body of Christ after union with the Logos was to be regarded as created or as uncreated, calling each other in kindred spirit Aktistetes and Ktistolators; while those who completed the reductio ad absurdum of Monophysitism, by denying all distinctive reality to the humanity of Christ after the union, went by the name of Niobites, taken from the surname of the founder, 1 See for further particulars in reference to this controversy, Lect. vi. The Patristic Christology. 69 Stephen, an Alexandrian Sophist. Two other disputes em- braced within the Monophysitic controversy were of a more dignified character; those, viz., relating to the par- ticipation of the Logos in Christ's sufferings, and to the knowledge possessed by Christ's human soul. But it is a curious indication of the confused nature of the strife going on in those years, to find parties in the latter of these twrj disputes changing sides, — the Monophysites maintaining the position which one would have expected the defenders of the Chalcedonian formula to take up. The Agnoetes, that is to say, those who asserted that the human soul of Christ was like ours, even in respect of ignorance, were a section of the Monophysite party; and their opponents em- braced not merely the straiter sect of the Monophysites, but the Orthodox, who, as represented, e.g., by Bede, taught that Christ from His conception was full of wisdom, and therefore did not really grow in knowledge as in stature. Amid the smoke of battle men had got bewildered, and, fighting at random, fired upon their own side. 1 Passing, then, without any great effort of self-denial, from these obscure wranglings, and leaping over, also with- out much regret, the Monothelite controversies which fol- lowed in what may called the era of anatomical Christology, I shall close this lecture with brief notices of two rep- resentative men with whom we shall hereafter find it convenient to have some acquaintance: one of them show- ing the state of Christology after the close of the contro- versy concerning the two wills, and before the rise of the Adoptian controversy; the other exhibiting the prevailing Christology of the mediaeval period, when the process of reaction which set in after the Council of Frankfort, in the direction of a one-sided assertion of Christ's divinity, had attained its complete development. I refer to John of Damascus, who flourished about the middle of the eighth century, and Thomas Aquinas, one of the great lights of the thirteenth. i See on this curious phenomenon, Dorner, Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. i. p. 142; and Baur, die Lehre. von der Dreieinigkeit, vol. ii. pp. 87-92. Dorner and Baur agree in their view of the Agnostic controversy, and give the same reore 6entation as that in the text. JO The Humiliation of Christ. John of Damascus carried the distinctness of the natures to its utmost limit, short of the recognition of two hypos- tases in the one Christ. He advocated the doctrine of two wills, on the ground that the faculty of willing is an essential attribute of rational natures. 1 The controversy concerning the two wills had arisen within the Church, and between the adherents to the Chalcedonian formula, because it was not self-evident to which of the two categories, the natures or the person, the will should be referred. Doubt on this point was very excusable, inasmuch as a good deal could be said on both sides. John recognises the legitimacy of such perplexity by virtually treating the will as a matter pertaining both to the natures and to the per- son. " To will," he says, " in the abstract — the will faculty is physical, but to will thus and thus is personal!"* There are two will faculties but only one wilier, the one Christ who wills according to both natures using the will faculty of each.* On the principle of conceding to each nature all its natural properties, John ascribes to the human will the faculty of self-determination {to avvtkov6iov)\ but this is very much a matter of form, for he represents the human soul of Christ as willing freely the things which the divine will wished it to will. 4 His doctrine, therefore, while dyothelitic in one respect, is monothelitic in another; the human will being in effect reduced to the position of a natural impulse of desire to do this, to shun that, to par- take of food, to sleep, etc., and entering only as a momentum into the one determining will of the one Christ. 6 Recognising in the above fashion two wills, the Damas- 1 De Duabus Voluntatibus, c. 22. 5 De Duabus Voluntatibus, c. 24: BeXtjtixov Z&ov 6 avQpoonoS' to Se fjsXrjrov ov ;. * De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. iii. c. xviii.: rj^eXs /xiv ai>T Ezov6icoi xivovlievt, r) tov Kvpiov ipvx??, dXX' kxeivct avTSzovdiaoi rjOsXs a f) Qsia avToi bc'XrjdiS tyjeXe Os'Xetv ocvTrjv. 5 So Dorner, div. ii. vol. i. p. 210. The Patristic Christology. 7 x cene, carrying out the theory embodied in the phrase " oi two and in two distinct natures," asserts a duality in respect to everything pertaining to the nature of God and of man in common. Christ has all the things which the Father hath, except the property of being unbegotten; He has all the things which the first Adam had, except sin alone. Therefore He has two physical wills, two physical energies, two physical faculties of self-determination (avrs^ov^ia), two wisdoms and knowledges. 1 John even goes the length of conceding to Christ's humanity personality, but not separate independent personality: It was without hypostasis in itself, never having had an independent subsistence; but it became enhypostatized through union with the Logos. No nature, he admits, can be without hypostasis, nature apart from individuality being a mere abstraction; but then he holds that the two natures united in Christ do not necessarily possess separate hypostases; they may meet in one hypos- tasis, so that they shall neither be without hypostasis nor possess each a peculiar hypostasis, but have both one and the same. 2 In this way Christ becomes a human individual, and the person of Christ is to be regarded as composite,* Still, in spite of his efforts to make it formally complete, the humanity of Christ in the system of the Damascene re- mained a lifeless thing. The anatomical process to which the human nature was subjected left it an inanimate carcase with the form and features of a man, but without the inspir- ing soul. Already what Dorner happily calls the tran- substantiating process has begun, which was to evacuate Christ's humanity of all its contents, and leave only the outward shell with a God within. In several most im- portant respects, Christ, as exhibited in John's system, — the last important utterance of the Greek Church on the subject of Christology, — is not our brother, like us in all points save sin. At the very first stage of His incarnate history there is an ominous difference between Him and us. His body was not formed in the womb of the Virgin by gradual 1 De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. iii. cap. xiii. 8 De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. iii. c. ix. 3 De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. iii. c. iii.: sis /uiav x>Tto6ra6iv (Si'ivBerov. j 2 The Humiliation of Christ. minute additions, but was perfected at once. 1 Then the soul of the holy child knew no growth in wisdom. Jesus is said to have increased in wisdom and stature; because He did indeed grow in stature, and because He made the mani- festation of the indwelling wisdom keep pace with that growth: 3 just the old doctrine of Cyril, who at this distance appears a saint, and is quoted without hesitation as an orthodox Father. Doubtless the flesh of our Lord was per sc ignorant; but then, in virtue of the identity of the hy- postasis and the indissoluble union, His soul was enriched with the knowledge of future things; 3 and to assert that it really grew in wisdom and grace, as receiving increment of these, is to deny that the union was formed ab initio — is to deny the hypostatic union altogether. If the flesh was truly united to Deity from the first moment of conception, and possessed hypostatic identity therewith, how could it fail to be perfectly enriched with all wisdom and grace ?' Of course temptation was not a very serious affair for such a Christ. He was tempted from without, apart from any internal suggestions, and He repelled and dissipated the assaults of the enemy like smoke? In like manner Christ had no personal need for prayer; He prayed simply as sus- taining our person and performing our part, asking what He did not need by way of example to us; teaching us to ask of God and to raise our souls to Him, and through His holy mind preparing a way for our ascent to the throne of grace. 6 While carrying the formal doctrine of the distinction be- tween the natures to its utmost limits, John considered it 1 De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. iii. c. ii.: ov ralS xazd fxixpov izpo6Q?}xaiS anapzi^oiiivov zov 6xr)nazoS' dXX' vcp tv zeXEiaabavroS. - De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. iii. c. xxii.: zff /.iiv ?}Xixia avcoov, Sid Si zijS ccvir/6eooi zrjs rjXixiai xrjv kwxdpxov6av avzao 6oavipoo6iv ayoov. ;i De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. iii. c. xxi.: Sid Si zrjv r?/5 vito<5zd6EooS zavzo- ryjza xai zrjv d.Sid6na6zov 'ivoo6iv 7TazE7cXovzr/dEv r) zov Kvpiov ipvxv zrjv tgov jueXXovzojv yvoodiv. 4 De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. iii. c. xxii. 5 De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. iii. c. xx.: a>J xanvov SieXv6ev. 6 De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. iii. c. xxiv.: zo rjuszEpov otxEiovjUEVo? itpo6oo- Ttov, xai zvtkSv Iv savraj to ijuizEpov, xai vTtoypani/uoS r)ulv ysvo- uevoi, xai SiSa6xoov ?)/. Xoyep- anas 6e £VGo^ei6a xatf vit66za6iv, ndoS k(5rai SovXtj; eU yi fiiaurrEi o fjXioS, rroA/\ instanti quo materia adunata pervenit ad locumlgenerationis fuit perfecte formatum corpus Christi, et assumptum. The painless birth is taught under quaestio xxxv. (De nativitate Christi) art. vi.: Christus est egressus ex clauso utero matris, et propter hoc in illo partu nullus fuit dolor sicut nee aliqua corruptio; sed fuit ibi maxima jucunditas. To the arguments in favour of the contrary position, that it behoved Christ's life to begin as it ended, with pain, and that the pain of birth was a part of the curse, Aquinas replies that the pain was the mother's, not the child's, and that Christ took on Him death voluntarily, not as under necessary sub jection to the curse. 3 Quaestio vii. (De gratia Christi) art. lii. and iv. 82 The Humiliation of Christ. of all things in the mirror of the Logos, infinite in the sense of embracing all reality though not all possibility, and com- plete from the moment of conception, admitting of no growth, and rendering the knowledge gradually acquired through the senses, one would say, superfluous, as the moon is superfluous in presence of the sun, and causing the very faculty for acquiring experimental knowledge to degenerate into a mere rudimentary organ dwarfed by disuse. 1 This picture of a humanity which is inhuman, or at all events unearthly, receives the finishing touch in the doctrine that Christ, even in the days of His humiliation, was a compreJien- sor a.s well as a viator- — one, that is, who had already reached the goal, as well as one hastening on toward it, and as such could not increase in grace or in knowledge, being perfect from the first; nor in felicity, save by deliverance from the passibility to which His body and the lower part of His soul were subject previous to the resurrection ; and could not know at all by experience what it is to walk by faith, and to be sup- ported under trial by hope. How can such a Christ as this succour us when are tempted ? How can one so little ac- quainted with suffering be a perfect Captain of salvation ? The author of the Summa indeed pleads on behalf of his the- ory, that the goal to which men are to be conducted being the beatific vision, and the medium through which they are con- ducted being the humanity of Christ, it was meet that the Captain should possess what the army led are destined to at- tain, seeing that the cause should always be more powerful than the object on which it exerts its force. 3 But the argu- ment overlooks the fact that Christ's present power is de- rived in great measure from His earthly weakness, and that whilst it did certainly behove Him to enter into glory in order to become the Author of salvation, it not less cer- tainly behoved Him to be perfected by an experience as like as possible to our present condition. It was reserved for another age and for other theological teachers to give the due prominence to this great truth. 1 Quaestio ix. (De scientia Christi in communi) art. i.-iv., quaestion. x.-xii. » Quaestio xv. (De defectibus animae a Christo assumptis) art. x. The term C0»iprehensor is derived from the two texts, I Cor. ix. 24, sic currite ut compre- hendatis, and Phil. iii. 12. sequor autem, si quo modo comprehendam. 3 Pars tertia, quaestio ix. art. ii. : Semper causam oportet esse potiorem causato. LECTURE III. THE LUTHERAN AND REFORMED CHRISTOLOGIES. In the sixteenth century, memorable on so many other accounts in the annals of the Church, Christology passed into a new phase. Only a few years after the commence- ment of the Reformation, there arose a dispute on the sub- ject of Christ's person, which continued without intermis- sion for a century, producing in its course a separation of the German Protestants into two rival communions, distin- guished by the names Lutheran and Reformed, and even giv- ing rise to bitter internal contentions between the members of that section of the German Church which claimed Luther for its founder and father. The long, obstinate, and in its results unhappy controversy, originated in what to us may appear a very small matter — a difference of opinion between Luther and Zuingli as to the nature of Christ's presence in the sacrament of the Supper. Zuingli maintained that the Redeemer was present spiritually only, and solely for those who believe, — the bread and wine being simply emblems of His b' -Ken body and shed blood, aids to faith, and stimu- lants ,o grateful remembrance. Luther vehemently as- serted that the body of the Saviour was present in the Sup- per, in, with, and under the bread, and was eaten both by believers and by unbelievers; by the former to their benefit, by the latter to their hurt. It is easy to see what questions must arise out of such a diversity of view. If Christ's body be present in the Supper, then it must be ubiquitous; but is this attribute compatible with the nature of body, with the ascension of the risen Lord into heaven, with His session at the right han4 of God, with the promise of His second 84 The Humiliation of Christ. coming ? and how did the body of Christ come by this mar- vellous attribute ? was it an acquisition made subsequently to the exaltation, a characteristic feature in the state of heavenly glory conferred on Christ as the reward of His vol- untary humiliation on earth ? or did the humanity of the Incarnate One possess the quality of omnipresence before the ascension or the resurrection, nay, even from the first, from the moment of conception, the necessary result, per- haps, of the union of the divine and human natures in one person, involving the communication to the inferior nature not merely of ubiquity, but of all the august attributes of the superior nature ? Supposing this last position to be taken up, then the further question arises: How is such a humanity, invested with all that belongs to divine majesty, to be reconciled with the facts of Christ's earthly history, with His birth and growth in wisdom; with His localization in different places at different times; with His weakness, temptations, and death ? Such, in fact, were the questions discussed with more or less clearness and fulness by the combatants in all the stages of the great controversy; with this difference, that in the first stage, that in which Luther himself and his opponents Zuingli, CEcolampadius, and Carlstadt were the disputants, the contention was mainly confined to the doctrine of the Supper itself, and the single attribute of ubiquity; while in the second stage, from Brentz to the Formula of Concord, the debate widened into a dis- cussion of the person of Christ, and the consequences of the union of the two natures in that person, with a view to a firm Christological basis for the doctrine of the Supper; and in the third and last stage, that of the Giessen-Tiibingen controversy (internal to the Lutheran Church) the leading subject was the earthly humiliation of Christ, the aim being to adjust Lutheran Christological theories to historical facts. The final result of the whole controversy on the Lutheran side was the formation of a doctrine concerning the person of Christ so artificial, unnatural, and incredible, that any difficulty one may at first experience in under- standing the Lutheran position, arises not from want of clearness in the writers, but from the slowness of a mind not familiar with the svstem to take in the idea that men Lutheran and Reformed Christologies. 85 could seriously believe and deliberately teach what their words seem plainly enough to 6ay. The Christology of the Lutheran Church to an outsider wears the aspect of a vast pyramid resting in a state of most unstable equilibrium on its apex, Christ's bodily presence in the Supper; which again rests upon a water-worn pebble, — the word of insti- tution, " This is my body," easily susceptible of another simple and edifying meaning, — the pyramid being upheld solely by the strong arms of theological giants, and tum- bling into irretrievable ruin so soon as the race of the Titans died out. 1 In making these general observations, I regard the Lutheran Christology as one great whole, distinguished by certain broadly marked characteristics from the rival Chris- tology of the Reformed Confession. On closer inspection, however, we find that the former of the two Christologies resolves itself into two distinct types, which made their appearance at a very early period, and reproduced them- selves throughout the whole course of the century during which the dogma was a subject of active controversy. The two types may be designated, from the names of their first expositors, as the Brentian and the Chemnitzian; the former being the more extreme, bold, and logical form of the theory; the latter, the more moderate, timid, and rational. Both started from the principle that the personal union of the two natures necessarily involved the communication to Mie human nature of divine attributes; but they differed in their use of the common premiss. Brentz and his followers reasoned out the principle to its last results, regardless of consequences. The Chemnitzian school, on the other hand having some fear of facts before their eyes, applied the common assumption in a half-hearted manner, the result being a system less consistent but also less absurd; illog- ical, but just on that account nearer the truth. We shali form to ourselves the clearest idea of the Lutheran Chris- tology as a whole, and put ourselves in a position for un- derstanding the doctrine of the Formula of Concord, b\ making ourselves acquainted with the distinctive peculiar- 1 On the connection between the Lutheran Christology and the Sacramentarian controversy, see Appendix, Note A. 86 The Humiliation of Christ. ities of these two schools; and therefore I propose here to give a brief account of the views of their founders — John Brentz, the friend of Luther and reformer of Wurtemberg, and Martin Chemnitz of Brunswick, a disciple of Melanch- thon, best known by his work on the Council of Trent. The Christological views of Brentz are contained in a series of treatises collected together in the eighth volume of his works, published at Tubingen in 1590. His funda- mental position in reference to the person of Christ is this: Although the natures or substances are altogether diverse, and have each their own peculiar idioms or properties, nevertheless these same substances are conjoined in such a union that they become one inseparable hypostasis, sup- positum or person, and their respective properties are mutually communicated so familiarly, that whatever is a property of either nature is appropriated by the other to itself. 1 The two natures, that is to say, are not merely united in one person, the Ego tying together two alto- gether dissimilar substances still continuing dissimilar; they are united into one person, their union constituting the person, and involving ipso facto a. communication of their respective properties. The Reformed idea, as con- sisting in a mere sustentation of the humanity by the Logos, Brentz repudiated as not a personal union at all, but merely a common union such as God may form with any man. The difference between Christ and Peter, he held, arose not from the sustentation or inhabitation of the man Jesus by the Son of God, but from the communi- cation to Him of the divine properties of the latter. The Son of God, though He fills Peter with His essence, as He fills the man Christ, does not communicate to Peter all His properties, but only some. He vivifies Peter, keeps him in life, gives him the power of casting out devils, yea, of raising the dead; but He does not make him omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. The Son of man, assumed from the Virgin, on the contrary, He adorns not with some only, but with all His gifts, and communicates to Him all His properties. The qualification " as far as He is capable " cannot be allowed; Christ was made capable of all divine 1 De Personali unione duarum naturarutn in Chris to. Opera, vol. viii. p. 84 1 Lutheran and Reformed Christologies. 87 properties, without any exception; if He had not such capacity, there would be no difference between Him and other men, nor could the Word become incarnate. 1 At first Brentz showed a disposition, following the ex- ample of Luther, to apply his fundamental thesis impar- tially to both sides of the composite person, and to make the divine nature appropriate human properties, as well as the human nature divine properties. 2 And there was no reason d priori why this should not be done, for it is surely just as possible for the Infinite to become partaker of the finite and its properties, as for the finite to become partaker of the Infinite. But Brentz apparently soon found out that to apply his principle both ways would be either to reduce the communication of properties, on which so much stress was laid, to the alloiosis of Zuingli, which drove Luther mad with rage, or, in case the communication was held to be real, to make either nature swallow up the other in turn; therefore in his later works he quietly ignored one side and worked out his theory solely on the other side, that, viz., of the appropriation by the human nature of the properties characteristic of the divine nature. In the working out of his theory Brentz exhibits at once great boldness and no small amount of dialectical skill; shrinking from no legitimate inference, and at the same time doing his utmost to answer or obviate objections, though sometimes with very indifferent success. He is careful to explain that in the person of Christ neither nature is changed into the other, but both remain inviolate 1 De Majestate Domini Nostri Jesn Christi ad Dextra.7n Dei Patris, et De Vera Praesentia corporis et sanguinis ejus in Coena, pp. 898-9. This work was a reply to Peter Martyr and Henry Bullinger, Cingliani dogmatis de Coena Do- minica propugnatorious, and it is sadly disfigured by the asperities too common in theological controversy. 2 De Personali unione, p. 839: Nos autem intelligimus in hac materia per idio- mata, non tantum vocabularum, sed etiam rerum proprietates: ut cum per com- municationem idiomatum de Christo dicimus, Deum esse passum et mortuum, non sit sententia, quod Deus verbum dicatur tantum sermone vocabuli pati et mori, res autem ipsa nihil prorsus ad Deum pertineat, sed quod Deus, etsi natura sua nee patitur, nee moritur, tamen passionem et mortem Christi ita sibi communem faciat, ut propter hyposteticam unionem passioni, et morti personaliter adsit, et non aliter, Ut sic dicam, afheiatur quam si ipse pateretur et moreretnr. 88 The Humiliation of Christ. and in possession of their essential properties. 1 There is no cxaequation of the humanity to the divinity. The for- mer is indeed declared to be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.. but it is not declared to be omnipotence itself. Of God alone is this affirmed; the humanity possesses only a communicated divinity, and is made equal to God not in being (ov6ia), but in authority (t£ovdia).* But if each na- ture retains its essential properties, the question at once arises, in reference to the humanity, what are its essential properties ? Is to be in a particular place, e.g., one of them ? and if so, how is the retention of that property to be re- conciled with omnipresence ? At first Brentz seems to have been doubtful what position to take up on this point; for, in a passage near the commencement of his earliest treatise, that on the personal union, he remarks: "If you say that to be in place is so proper to body that it cannot be separated from it, let us suppose meantime that this is in its own way true, yet it cannot be denied that what is impossible to nature is not only possible but easy to divine power." 3 It was not absolutely necessary that he should call in question the position of his opponents in reference to the nature of body, for it was open to him to follow the course adopted by Luther, and to maintain the possibility of body existing in two different ways at the same time; locally, here or there in space; and illocally, everywhere. This course, in point of fact, he did follow, as we shall see; 1 De Personali unione, p. 837. 2 De Incarnatione Christi, p. 1001: Non igitur exaequamus humanitatem Christi divinitati ovti/a seel tantum lc,ov(5ia. 3 De Personali unione, p. 837. It must be stated, however, that in the imme- diately preceding sentence Brentz says: "In loco esse non sit corporis substantia, •sed tantum proprietas substantiae accidentaria." In the paragraph preceding that in which these words occur, he quotes the sentence of Augustine: " Tolle spatia locorum corporibus, nusquam erunt, et quia nusquam erunt, non erunt, " and remarks that he is aware that the things which are said concerning the ma- jesty of Christ seem very absurd to human reason, and plainly impossible; but the hypostatic union of most diverse natures is taught in Scripture, and therefore, though the absurdity of absurdities, must be believed; and this greatest absurdity being once accepted, many other things which appear absurd to human intellect follow of course. This defiant attitude towards reason and philosophy pervades Brentz' writings. In one place, however, he claims philosophy as on his side, on the question whether to be in loco be es-ential to body. See De Div. Maj es- tate, p. 934. Lutheran and Reformed Christologies. 89 but he did not rely solely on that line of argument, but, moreover, boldly took up the position from which, as it appears, he at first shrunk, that to be in loco is after all not an essential attribute, but only an accident of body. This view underlies all his representations of the invisible world. Brentz ridicules the Zuinglian conception of heaven as a certain place not on this earth, but distant and far removed from it, distinct also from the visible lower heavens, not everywhere, but situated above the clouds, and above this corruptible world, yea, above all heavens, in excelsis, the house of the Father, the abode and seat of Christ and His elect, an abode happy, divine, eternal, im- mense, splendid, spiritual, corporeal, having spaces, and these most spacious, in which they walk, sit, stand, and, " for aught I know, recline, for this is not expressly stated." l Heaven is, in his view, simply a state separated from hell, not by space, but by disposition and condition; heaven being where God is known in the majesty of His grace, and hell where He is known in the majesty of His severity.* Going to heaven means going to the Father, who is the Locus of His people, their all in all, the all-including lo- cality; their heaven, earth, place, food, drink, as well as their justice, wisdom, virtue, gladness, joy, and beatitude. 3 The mansions spoken of by Christ to His disciples 4 are purely spiritual. 5 It is not, indeed, absolutely to be denied that there is a certain place of beatitude in which Christ dwells with His saints, but the question is whether the place be such a place as Zuinglians contend for, — superficies cor- poris continentis — Locus circumscriptus, — in other words (ours, not Brentz'), whether it be, properly speaking, a place at all. 6 For, in truth, both space and time, as un- ' De Divina Maj estate Christi, p. 947: . . . Locus certus ... in quibus lo- caliter itur, sedetur, statur, et ambulatur; atque haud scio, num etiam ibi jaceatur hoc enim non invenio additum. 2 De Ascensu Christi in Coelum, pp. 1040-47. s Ibid. p. 1067: Cum igitur Deus erit in nobis Omnia, eerie erit nostrum coelum, nostra terra, noster locus, etc. Vid. also De Div. Maj. p. 959. 4 John xiv. 2; on which Bullinger wrote a treatise, the aim of which was to show that heaven was a definite locality, the abode of Christ and His people. 5 De Ascensu Christi in Coelum, p. 1046. * De Sessione Christi ad dextra??i Dei, p. 1076. Brentz shows manifest siens of distress here: De hoc controvertitur; num beatitudinis locus sit talis, Talis 90 The Humiliation of Christ. derstood in this world, are to be destroyed in heaven, burnt up in the great conflagration which shall usher in the new heavens and the new earth, wherein shall be not space and time, but righteousness. 1 The right hand of God means the omnipotence and majesty of God. The session of Christ at the right hand of God signifies His being crowned with glory and honour, having all things subject to Him, possessing all power in heaven and on earth. 2 It has no relation to place; on the contrary, space is one of the things put under Christ's feet; for place has a name and body has a name, and it is written that He is to be placed above everything that has a name in this world. 3 Christ's glorified body has no form, if by form be meant external figure or appearance; it has only the power of assuming such a form at will by way of economy, as when Christ appeared to Stephen and Paul, and as He shall appear at His second coming. The body of the exalted Lord is not in heaven with wound-prints in the hands [cicatricibtis in manibus), it retains only the essence of body (whatever that maybe); its form is incomprehensible, inconceivable, intolerable to mortal men/ And the same thing holds true of the bodies of the saints. They shall have no more to do with space and time than the angels to whom, the Lord taught, the glorified shall be equal. They shall still be true bodies as to essence; but for the rest they shall be altogether spirit- ual, without visible figure. Such an account of the spiritual ^ody excites curiosity to know what the essence of body as distinct from spirit may be; and one naturally inquires what becomes of the resurrection on these terms. Our author assures us that it still remains, — not without indig- nation at those who ventured to insinuate that his theory left no place for it; but his assurance does not dispel our doubts. 5 Once more, in view of this sublimating process, intended to make room for the doctrine of ubiquity, one not unnaturally inquires, Are all spiritual bodies then inquam, qualem, etc. The talis in large capitals betrays the irritation of a dispu- tant at his wits' end. 1 De Ascensu Chrisli in Caelum, p. 1048. 2 De Divina Maj estate y p. 920, and in many other places. 3 Ibid. pp. 913, 914. •» Ibid. pp. 930, 1047, 1081, 109I. 6 De Sessione, r>. 1092. Lutheran and Reformed Christologies. 91 ubiquitous, those of the saints as well as that of Christ ? Brentz himself asks the question; but his reply is far from satisfactory: " Let us," he says, " not be solicitous at pres- ent, and in this life, concerning the state of the saints in the world to come; but give Christ His own peculiar ma- jesty, more excellent than all that can be named, and join His saints to Him." 1 The foregoing views of the invisible world, and of the con- ditions of existence there, might be available, as they were actually used by Brentz, to meet objections to the doctrine of ubiquity drawn from the hypothesis of a localized heaven to which the glorified body of Christ is confined; 2 but they are manifestly inadequate to the task of reconciling the attribute of ubiquity, supposed to be communicated to Christ's humanity by the personal union, with the conditions of existence on earth. Whatever be the nature of our Lord's glorified body, it is certain at all events that His earthly body had a local existence. How then did Brentz seek to secure, as his theory required, even for the earthly body the attribute of ubiquity ? As Luther had done before him, 3 1 De Divina Majestate Christi, p. 959. 2 Thomasius [Person und IVerk, ii. 358) animadverts on a statement made by Heppe ( Geschichte des Deutschen Protestantistnus), that Brentz did not derive the doctrine of ubiquity from the union of the natures, but from the full entrance of '.he exalted man Christ into the glory of God, and from the session of the Son of God at the right hand of the Father, as one which the slightest acquaintance with Brentz' writings shows to be the direct contrary of the actual fact. Heppe is cer- tainly grossly in error; but his error lies not in what he affirms, but in what he denies. The truth is, Brentz based his doctrines of ubiquity both on the personal union, and on the nature of Christ's glorified body, and of spiritual bodies in general. 5 Luther, after the Scholastics, distinguished three ways in which a thing could be in place: localiter or circumscriptive, definitive, and repletive. Localiter, as when place and bodies correspond; as wine in a vessel takes no more space, and the vessel gives no more space, than the quantity of wine requires. Definitive, when a thing is in a particular place, but cannot be measured by the space of the place, taking more or less room at will, as in the case of angels, who can be either in a house or a nutshell. Repletive, when a thing is at the same time wholly in all places, filling all places, and yet is measured and contained by no place. This third way belongs to God alone. All three ways of being were, ac- cording to Luther, possible for Christ's body. The first it had on earth when it took and gave space according to its dimensions; the second when it rose out of the grave through the stone at the mouth of the sepulchre and passed through closed doors; the third it had and has in virtue of personal union with the omni- present God. Bekenntniss vom Abendmahl Christi, Luther's Sammtliche Werke, 30M Band, Erlangen ed. pp. 207-217. 92 The Humiliation of Christ. viz., by conceiving of the ubiquity as ILLOCAL, and main- taining the co-existence simultaneously in Christ of two ways of being — a local existence here or there in space, and an illocal, omnipresent being in the Logos to which the humanity was united. He admitted frankly that local ubiquity could not be predicated of Christ's humanity either on earth or in heaven. " I am not ignorant," he says, " that certain of the ancients disapproved of this saying: the humanity of Christ is everywhere. I myself would dis- approve of it if by this word (ubique) locality were signi- fied. Let us therefore docendi gratia posit a threefold ubiquity — viz. a local, a repletive, and a personal. Now there is nothing whatever, either spiritual or corporeal, which is everywhere by a local ubiquity; but God alone by His nature is everywhere by a repletive ubiquity. And after the Son of God united to Himself humanity, it neces- sarily follows that that humanity, assumed into the unity of one person by the Son of God, is everywhere by a person- al ubiquity." 1 This distinction between a local and a personal ubiquity — or, as it was afterwards epigrammati- cally expressed, between a ubiquity in loco and a ubiquity in Logo" — being allowed, the combination of an omnipres- ent manner of existence with the limitations of earthly life becomes easy. It can be said at once, as Brentz does say, that Christ was confined within the Virgin's womb, and filled the whole world; 3 that when He was in Bethany about to ride on an ass into Jerusalem, He was at the same moment in the Holy City and the Praetorium; 4 that at the institution of the Holy Supper He sat circumscriptively in one certain place at the table, and at the same time gave to His disciples His own true body in the bread to be eat- en, and His own true blood in the wine to be drunk. 5 It will readily be seen that a theory which, to maintain its consistency, did not shrink from such positions as these, was not likely to find any insuperable difficulty in ascribing 1 De Personali unione, p. 842. 2 See Thomasius, ii. 418, on Aegidius Hunnius. 3 De Divina Maj estate Christi, p. 928. * Eodem loco. 5 De Sessione Christi ad dext. Dei, p. 1073; see also De Incarnatione, 1021. LutJieran and Reformed Christologies. 93 to the humanity of Christ even on earth not only ubiquity, the principal matter in dispute, but all other divine attributes. This accordingly Brentz does. He invests the humanity of Christ with all divine qualities, or, to use his favourite phrase, comprehensive of everything, with DIVINE MAJESTY, from the moment of Incarnation. He does not hesitate to say that the ascension and the session at the right hand of God took place not after the resurrection, but from the very beginning, from the moment when the hypostatical union of the two natures took place. 1 Incarnation and exaltation are in his view identical. 2 He does not indeed deny the historical reality of the ascension from the Mount of Olives; he distinguishes it as the visible ascent, from the invisible one which took place at the moment of Incarna- tion, and explains it to have been a spectacle economically prepared by Christ, partly to fulfil Scripture, partly to make the disciples understand that they were to be favoured no longer with such apparitions as they had enjoyed during the forty days following the resurrection; the time of such general and familiar appearances being now at an end.* It thus appears that, in the system of Brentz, the two states of exaltation and humiliation are not successive, as we have been accustomed to regard them, but rather si- multaneous and co-existent. The only difference between the earthly and the heavenly states is, that in the former Christ was at once humbled and exalted in the same sense, while in the latter He enjoys His exaltation unalloyed by 1 De Personali ttnione, p. 847: Quid autem opus est, de tempore tantum resur- rectionis et ascensionis Christi dicere, cum jam inde ab initio, in momento incar- nationis suae ascendent invisibiliter in coelum, et ad dextram Dei patris sui sederit ? 2 De Div. Maj. p. 923: Deinde non est se-ntiendum, quod humanitas Christi turn primum exaltata est in summam sublimitatem, et acceperit omnem potestatem in coelo et in terra, cum ascendit visibiliter ex monte Oliveti in coelum, sed cum verbum caro factum est, et cum in utero virginis Deus assumpsit hominem in eandem personam. 3 De Ascensu Christi in Coelum, p. 1038; Voluit Christus hoc spectaculo finem facere generalium suarum apparitionum, quibus hactenus per quadraginta dies veritatem resurrectionis suae testifkatus est. Etsi enim postea visus estetiam Paulo: tamen non apparuit amplius generaliter eo modo, quo per quadraginta dies ap- paruit, ut una. cum discipulis familiariter colloqueretur, ambularet, et convivaretur. Hoc igitur externum spectaculum, ascensus Christi ex monte Oliveti, est clausula eorum apparitionum, quibus se hactenus a resurrectione discipulis gratifecerat. 94 The Humiliation of Christ. any accompanying humiliation. The earthly Christ com- bined in Himself, so to speak, two humanities, a humbled one, and an exalted one; this being omnipresent, omnis- cient, omnipotent, etc., that localized, visible, tangible, limited in knowledge and power. One is naturally sceptical of the possibility of such a combination, and curious to know by what means Brentz secures their mutual compati- bility. But on careful examination, one finds that our au- thor does not greatly trouble himself about the solution of this difficult problem, but places majesty and exinanition side by side, and leaves them to adjust themselves to one another as best they can. He divides the things which can happen to the person of Christ into three grades. The first grade is that of divine majesty, in which the man Christ was from the beginning; the second grade is that of exinanition or humiliation, in which He existed in the days of His flesh till the resurrection; the third grade is that of economy or dispensation, terms applicable to Christ's whole life on earth, but which may be conveniently restricted to those acts or events in which Christ after the resurrection, and even after His ascension into heaven, appeared in one particular place, and shall appear in the last day. 1 This third grade Brentz explains after the following fashion. It is economy when Christ does anything, or appears not ac- cording to His majesty, but in accommodation to our power of comprehension, or for our benefit. When He had risen from the dead, and was being sought by the women in the sepulchre, the angel said: " He is risen, He is not here." It was truly said, but not juxta majestatem, but juxta econo- miam. He was not in the sepulchre dead, as the women sought to find Him. He was not in the sepulchre accord- ing to the external aspect. But He was nevertheless not in the sepulchre only, but even in heaven and earth, ac- cording to the majesty of His divinity — the divinity com- municated to His humanity. 5 The same epithet economical is applied to the appearances of the risen Christ, to His eating, to the prints of the nails which He showed to Thomas. These things did not form a part of Christ's humiliation, for that was past; but neither did they belong to His 1 De Divina Maj estate Ckristi, p. 928. 2 Ibid. p. 929. Lutheran and Reformed CJiristologies. 95 exaltation, for the glorified body of the Saviour is neither visible, nor disfigured by wounds, nor liable to hunger; they were simply an accommodation or condescension to the weakness of the disciples. Passing over this third grade, and returning to the ques- tion concerning the compatibility of the other two, we find, as already stated, that Brentz does little more than assert their actual co-existence. Christ the man, being born, was bound in swaddling-clothes and laid in a manger; and if you regard His exinanition, He was not then in any other place; but if you consider His majesty, He could not be confined to the manger, but filled the whole universe. He lay in the sepulchre dead, exinanitione ; He governed heaven and earth alive, majestate. With reference to the attribute of omniscience, indeed, the author expresses himself with less decision. Alluding to certain passages in Luther's writings, quoted by opponents, in which Christ is spoken of as like other men, not thinking of all things at once, or seeing, hearing, and feeling all things at the same time, he explains that these statements are to be understood with reference to the exinanition; so that while, if you look at the majesty of the man Christ, He was from the begin- ning of the Incarnation in forma Dei, and could think, hear, see, and feel all things at one time, nevertheless He hum- bled Himself, and was made in the likeness of men, so that He now eat, now drank, now preached, now slept, and did not always think or see all things. 1 This could, this potuit, is not thoroughgoing; it is the only hesitating word to be found in Brentz. To be consistent, he ought rather to have affirmed that Christ saw, and yet did not seem to see, all things at once. The logic of his theory required him to affirm a dissembled omniscience and omnipotence, as well as an invisible omnipresence. And when he is speaking in general terms of the majesty, he shows that he is fully aware of what his system demands. He expressly says that Christ dissembled His majesty in the time of exin- anition; 2 meaning that it was there in all its fulness, but 1 De Incamatione, p. iooi. 2 Ibid. p. 1027: Personalis unio duarum naturarum in Christo non ita est intel* ligenda, quod divinitas mutetur in humanitatem, aut quod humanitas fuerit ab 96 The Humiliation of Christ only concealed from view by the servile form assumed ir. humility, and because the work of salvation made such assumption necessary; not always or perfectly concealed, however; for although in the time of His humility He did not exhibit the supreme majesty which He had, neverthe- less He did not altogether so dissemble it (our author as- sures us) that it did not sometimes appear, as in the forty days' fast, the walking on the waters, the occasional as- sumption of invisibility, and the transfiguration. 1 In passing from John Brentz to Martin Chemnitz we enter into a very different intellectual and moral climate, the author of the work on the two natures of Christ (De duabus naturis in Christo) being a scholar thoroughly acquainted with the literature of his subject, and able to enrich his pages with a multitude of apt quotations, patris- tic and scholastic, and at the same time a man of a calm, dignified, peace-loving temper. Of this excellent book, in which it is easy to recognise the sobering and modifying influence of extensive knowledge, and of cordial sympathy with men representing diverse theological tendencies, well becoming one who had been a disciple both of Luther and of Melanchthon, 2 it would be a pleasant task to give a full analysis, but I must content myself here with a brief indication of the points in which the Christological system contained therein differs from that of the Wiirtemberg reformer.* aeterno, aut quod humanitas transfuderit suas imbecillitates in divinitatem, sed quod salva utriusque substantia divinitas ornavit in incarnatione humanitatem omni sua majestate, quam tamen majestatem humanitas, tempore exinanitionis, sua modo dissimulavit, donee earn resurrectione, et missione Spiritus Sancti, Ecclesiae, quantum quidem in hoc seculo ad salutem cognitu necessarium est, patefecit. This sentence is a brief statement of Brentz' whole theory at the close of his treatise on the Incarnation. 1 De Personali unione, p. 848. - Melanchthon, as is well known, took the Reformed view of the person of Christ and of Christ's presence in the Supper. 3 For a more detailed account of both the Brentian and the Chemnitzian Chris- tology, readers are referred to Dorner, Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. ii., and still better to Thomasius, Christi Person und IVerk, vol. ii. pp. 342-404. Those who desire to peruse a clear exposition of the Lutheran Christology in all the stages of its history, will find what they want in the valuable work of the last-named author, who devotes upwards of two hundred pages to the subject (vol. ii. 307-526), and traces the course of the controversy from Luther to the period of the Saxon Decisio at the close of the Tubingen -Geissen dispute, in a very lucid and interesting manner. Lutheran and Reformed Christologies. 97 In common with Brentz and all advocates of the Lutheran Christology, Chemnitz held that the personal union of the two natures involved a real communication of the proper- ties of the divine nature to the human, limited only by the principle that each nature must preserve its essential prop- erties, earnestly repudiating the Reformed conception of the union as a sustentation of the human by the divine, or as a mere gluing together of two separate and entirely heterogeneous natures. 1 He differed from Brentz in the ap- plication of the limiting principle, in the view he took of the mode and the effect of the communication, and in the adjustment of the same to the state of exinanition. As to the first point, Chemnitz held visibility, tangibility, exist- ence in loco, to be essential properties of matter; and by the accidential properties of Christ's humanity he under- stood the infirmities to which human nature is liable on accountof sin, and which Christ in the state of exinanition voluntarily assumed that He might suffer for us. 2 In ac- cordance with this view, he consistently held that even the post-resurrection, glorified body of Christ possessed, and will for ever possess, figure, and a localized manner of being. Jesus rose from the dead with that very substance of human nature which He received from the Virgin Mary, having hands, feet, sides, flesh, bones; in that body He ascended to heaven, and He will return to judgment as He was seen to ascend, so that men shall see that very body which they pierced with nails in the passion. 3 The ascen- sion was not a mere economic spectacle, but the actual progress through space of a real body rising gradually from earth up to a locally defined heaven. 4 And as Christ while on earth was in loco as to His body, just like other men; so now, according to natural law, He occupies with His glorified body a certain space, just as saints after the res- urrection will do, whose bodies, though spiritual, will still be material, not angelic in nature. 5 Even the glorified * De duab. nat. caput v. pp. 24, 25. 2 Ibid. p. 4: Naturale ratione sit (hum. nat.) visibilis, palpabilis, physica loca. tione uno loco circumscripta. Accidentalia idiomata vocantur infirmitates proptei peccatum humanae naturae impositae. 3 Ibid. p. 17. * Ibid. p. 185. s md. p. f86. 9S The Humiliation of Christ. body of the Redeemer is by itself and of itself bounded by the property of its nature, and after the manner of glorified bodies is somewhere; and the where is not on earth. Ordi- narily, Christ is now no longer present in His Church, either after the mode of His earthly body or after the mode of His glorified bod)-. 1 On the subject of the communicatio idiomatunt, Chemnitz, while asserting the Lutheran position against the Reformed, was particularly careful to guard against anything like ex- aequation of the natures. While Brentz boldly set aside the axiom finitum non capax i>ifi)iiti as virtually rendering the Incarnation impossible, Chemnitz allowed its validity, and admitted that no divine property could become habit- ually or formally a property of humanity. He therefore conceived of the communication in question, not as an endowment of the human nature of Christ with a second- hand divinity, which after the endowment has once taken place it can claim as its own, but rather as a pervasion of the human nature by the divine, using it as its organ, and exerting its energy in, through, and with it. 2 His watch- word, borrowed from John of Damascus, is 7C£pixoopt;6n; and his favourite, oft-repeated, elaborately-expounded, illustra- tive figure, the patristic mass of heated iron. He carefully prepares his way for the assertion and proof of this pervasion of the human organ by the divine actor, by a systematic classification of all the different modes in which communica- tion of the natures can take place, scrupulously pointing out 1 De duab. nat. pp. 186, 187: De modo igitur praesentiae juxta ratioi>em et conditionem hujus seculi, visibili, sensibili, locali ac circumscripta dicta ilia loqu- untur — secundum quern modum praesentiae Christus jam ordinarie ecclesiae suae interris non amplius est. ... Et hac etiam forma visibili seu conditione corporum glonficatorum Christus corpore suo, nobis in hac vita in ecclesia in terris militante non est praesens, sed in coelis, unde ad judicium redibit. 2 De duab. nat. p. 126: Quod scilicet div. nat. rou \6yov non transfuderit extra se in assumptam naluram majestatem, virtutem, potentiam, et operationem eandem cum divina, vel aequalem divinae majestati, virtuti, potentiae, et opera- tion! quae a divinitate separata, proprie, peculiariter et distinctim, formaliter, habi- laaliter aut subjective, humanitati, et secundum se inhaerunt sed quod tota pleni- tudo divinitatis in assumpta natura personaliter ita habitet, ut div. majestas tota sua plenitudine in nat. assumpta luceat; utque div. virtus, et potentia, majestatis et omnipotentiae suae opera in assumpta natura cum ilia, etper illam exerceat et perficiat. These prepositions, in, cum, per, constitute a standing formula for Chemnitz. Lutheran and Reformed Christologies. 99 how far the Reformed go along with him, and showing manifest anxiety to go as far with them as he can. Then at length he takes his stand on this point of difference; but even here he does not wholly differ from his opponents, foi he includes under his third and highest grade not only the divine properties communicated to the humanity after the manner in which the power of burning is conveyed to heated iron, but those hyperphysical extraordinary gifts and graces with which the Reformed themselves declared the human nature of Christ to have been endowed in order that it might become a fit organ of Deity. 1 Indeed, it is question- able whether there was any serious difference of a theoretical kind between the Reformed and him. For granted, on the one hand, as Chemnitz does grant, that the divine attributes are the divine essence, and therefore inseparable from it, and on the other, that whatever habitually or formally belongs to human nature must be finite, there does not seem much harm in the doctrine of perichoresis, according to which the Logos pervaded the humanity as fire pervades heated iron, or the human soul pervades the body. The point of divergence lay not so much in the theory as in the use made of it in connection with the sacramentarian controversy. 2 The position taken up by Chemnitz on the subject of 1 De duab. nat. caput xii. Chemnitz was the first to make such a classification, though Damascenus had made such distinctions as might easily suggest the scheme to his mind. He distributed idiomatic propositions into three classes: the first, in which the subject is the whole person in concreto, the predicate a property of either nature; the second, in which the subject is either nature, the predicate an activity pertaining to the work of redemption in which both natures concur; the third, in which divine properties are ascribed realiter to the human nature. These kinds of propositions in the dialect of the Lutheran scholastics were distinguished respec- tively as the genus idiomaticum, the genus apotelismaticum, and the genus tnajes- taticum or auchematicum. Strauss (Glaubenslekre, ii. 134) remarks that to be complete a fourth genus should have been added, viz. genus vaiTEtvGOTiKov; in- cluding those propositions in which human properties, such as suffering, death, etc., are ascribed to the divine nature. The dispute between the Lutherans and the Reformed had reference to the third genus. Thomasius is of opinion that by this classification Chemnitz did no real service to Christology, but only tended to foster a scholastic way of teaching the subject (vol. ii. 387). 2 Dorner (Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. ii. p. 204) remarks that Danaeus ob- jected mainly to the second part of Chemnitz' treatise, that which treats of the presence of the whole person of Christ in the Church ioo The Humiliation of Christ. Christ's bodily presence in the Supper, and in the Church generally, was different both from that of the Reformed and from that of Brentz. His characteristic doctrine is not that Christ in His whole person is everywhere present, but that He is able to be present when, where, and how He pleases, even in invisible form. 1 He teaches not a necessary omni- presence, but a hypothetical or optional multipresence. He acknowledges that such multipresence is not only above, but contrary to, the nature of body; and he frankly admits that had there been no express word or special promise in Scripture concerning Christ's presence, even in His human nature, in the Church, he would neither have dared nor wished to teach anything on the subject. He dogmatizes only because Christ said, " This is my body." And he thinks it right to limit dogmatism to the cases specified in Scripture. He declines to say whether the body of Christ be in stones, trees, etc., as Luther affirmed, because there is no evidence that Christ wishes His body to be there, and the discussion of such questions yields no edification; and for the rest, all such mysteries are relegated to the Eternal School, to which our author often piously refers, and where he humbly hopes to learn many things he does not understand now, and among them the incompre- hensible riddles arising out of the Incarnation. At the same time, while grounding his doctrine of potential om- nipresence on the words of Scripture, Chemnitz holds it to be a legitimate deduction from the union of natures. For him, as for all adherents of the Lutheran Christology, it is a sacred canon: after the union the Logos is not outside the flesh, nor the flesh outside the Logos {Logos non extra carnem, et caro non extra Aoyov). To deny that canon, as the Reformed did, is to deny the Incarnation. 2 From this canon it follows that the humanity is always 1 De duab. nat. p. 188: Christum, licet naturalem modum praesentiae corporis sui, onlinarie terris abstulerit . . . tamen suo corpore, etiam post ascensionem, er ante judicium praesentem adesse, aut praesentiam corporis sui exhibere posse in terris, quandocunque, ubicunque et quomodocunque vult, etiam invisibili forma. 2 De duab. nat. p. 20: Quae unio adeo arcta, individua, inseparabilis, et indis- solubilis est, ut div. nat. rvv Xoyov nee velit, nee possit, nee debeat extra hanc cum carne unionem, sed in arctissima ilia unione cogitari, quaeri, aut apprehendi caro etiam assumpta, non extra, sed intra intimum rov Xoyov assumentis com Lutheran and Reformed Christologies. 101 intimately, inseparably, and indistanter present to the Logos;" and from this presence to the Logos follows in turn the possibility of the humanity being present at will to any part of the creation. Why only the possibility is inferred, is a question which naturally arises. One would suppose that if the humanity be always present to the Logos in virtue of the union, it must also be present in some manner, local or illocal, to the universe. But it is not our business to justify, but merely to expound, the theory now under consideration. This limitation of the effect of the union and communion of the natures to a merely potential omnipresence or multipresence was the peculiarity of Chemnitz and his school, and one of the outstanding points of difference between him and Brentz. It was a point greatly debated in after days in the controversy between the Giessen and the Tubingen theologians; the Giessen men contending for the distinction between the two kinds of presence, that to the Logos and that to the world, which had come to be named respectively praesentia intima and praesentia extima, and holding that the former involved only the possibility of the latter; the Tubingen men holding that the distinction in question was imaginary, and that a potential omnipresence was an absurdity. The course of the debate ran into very subtle discussions, which it would be unprofitable and tedious to speak of here. Suffice it to say, that much use was made on the Giessen side of the Chemnitzian conception of the divine majesty communicated to Christ's humanity as ENERGY: the Logos, plexum cogitanda, quarenda, et apprehenda est. Again, p. 194: Ratione hypos- taticae unionis jam post Incarnationem, persona rov \6yov extra unionem cum assumpta natura, et sine ea seorsim aut separatim, nee cogitari nee credi pie et recte vel potest vel debet; nee vicissim assumpta natura extra Xoyov, et sine eo. 1 De duab. nat. p. 195: Ita ergo toti plenitudini Deitatis filii personaliter unita est assumpta nat. ut \6yoS intra arcanum, arctissimum, intimum, profundissimum et praesentissimum complexum totius div. suae naturae, quae supra et extra omnem locum est, secum, intra se, apud se, et penes se, personaliter unitam atque prae- sentissimam semper habeat, et in ilia plenitudine unitae Deitatis assumpta natura suam aSiaiftsrov xai aduxdrazov, juxta Damascenum, individuam seu msep- arabilem, et indistantem, seu locorum intervallo indisjunctam habeat immanentiam. Haec vero praesentia non constat ratione aliqua aut conditione hujus seculi. quae ratione nostra comprehendi possit, sed est magnum, incomprehensibile et irm^o^r- rabile illud mystenum hypostaticae unionis. 102 The Humiliation of Christ. according to Chemnitz, communicated His energy to the human nature, as heat communicates its virtue to iron. By this way of conceiving the matter he tried to meet the objection, that if any divine attributes were communicated to Christ's human nature, all must have been, for example, eternity and immensity. These attributes, he said, are quiescent; they remain within the divine essence; they have no operation ad extra; therefore they are not directly com- municated, but only indirectly through their connection in the divine nature with the operative attributes. 1 The Giessen theologians applied this distinction between opera- tive and inoperative attributes to the question of ubiquity. They said, by omnipresence is meant not immensity, which is an incommunicable attribute of Deity, but presence in the world as an actor, — operative omnipresence. But God is free in action, therefore He is free to be present to the world or not as He pleases. The use of presence is a matter of free will.* This sample of controversial subtlety may suffice as an illustration of the thorny paths into which the dialectics of the Lutheran Christology led its adherents. Let us return to Chemnitz, that we may, in the last place, make ourselves acquainted with his view of the exinanition. On this subject, as on that of ubiquity, the position taken up by Chemnitz is difficult to understand, for the simple reason that it is not self-consistent, being an eclectic at- tempt to combine opposite points of view. Generally speaking, however, his doctrine may be discriminated from that taught by Brentz as follows. The Brentian state of exinanition (status exinanitionis) consisted in possession, with habitual furtive use of majesty; the Chemnitzian, in possession, with occasional use and prevailing non-use. According to Brentz, Christ in His state of humiliation not only could use, but did use, and could not help using, His majesty as a communicated attribute of His human nature; only in that state the use was dissembled, hidden; while in the state of exaltation it is open. According to Chem- nitz, Christ in the state of humiliation cou/d use majesty in, through, and with His humanity, and sometimes did use it 1 De duab. nat. p. 127. 5 U^urpatio praesentiae est liberrimae voluntatis; see Thomasius, vol. ii. p. 431 Lutheran and Reformed Christologies . 103 to show the fact of possession; but generally He did not wish to use it. In the state of exaltation, on the other hand, He entered into the full and manifest use of His di- vine majesty in and by His assumed human nature. 1 Some- times Chemnitz seems inclined to ascribe not only partial use, but even partial defective possession, to the status hu- milis. He adopts from Ambrose the idea of a retraction on the part of the Logos, as explaining the exinanition. The power, he says, and operation of the Logos was not \6\q per se in the time of exinanition, but administered all things everywhere with the Father and the Spirit; but in the human nature during that time He concealed His glory, power, and operation under the infirmities of the flesh, and, as Ambrose speaks, withdrew it from activity,* so that natural properties and infirmities alone seemed to abide and predominate in the assumed nature not merely in the face of men, but even before God; while, neverthe- less, that fulness of divinity in the Logos elsewhere per- formed most powerfully all things with the Father and the Holy Ghost." This passage not only teaches by implica- tion partial non- possession of majesty by the humanity in< the state of humiliation, but involves a contradiction of the- Lutheran axiom, Logos non extra carnem, representing the Logos as, in the state of humiliation, operative where the 1 Chemnitz' usual phrase to describe the exaltation is the plenary and manifest use and exhibition of majesty. Thus, cap. xxxiii. p. 215: Per sessionem vero ad dexteram Dei ingressus est in plenariam et manifestam usurpationem et ostensionem ejus potentiae, virtutis, et gloriae Deitatis, quae tota plenitudine personaliter in assumpta natura ab initio unionis habitavit. Thomasius (ii. 401) represents Chem- nitz as applying the terms plenaria and manifest a to po ssessio as well as usurpatio, in describing the state of exaltation, and quotes in proof the following: Deposita servi forma, assumpta natura humana ad plenariam et manifestam ejus majestatis possessionem et usurpationem, per sessionem ad dextram Dei, collocata et exaltata est. These words have escaped my observation in reading Chemnitz' treatise, but it is quite possible they do occur; for the author's doctrine is not self-consistent, the retractio of which he speaks really implying partial non-possession, defective nepix^P'n^ 1 ''^ imperfect communication of heat to the iron; and, moreover, a similar mode of expression occurs in the Formula of Concord which Chemnitz helped to compose; see part ii. cap. viii. § 26: Ad plenam possessionem, et div. majestatis usurpationem evectus est. 2 Ab opere retraxit, p. 217. 3 Cum tamen interea plenitudo ilia divinitatis Xoyov alibi omnia fortissime cunp Patre et Spiritu Sancto operaretur. — P. 217. 104 The Humiliation of Christ. humanity was not. Yet Chemnitz can hardly have meant to teach the Calvinistic extra, as it was called by the Tu- bingen theologians of a later generation in their warfare with their opponents of Giessen, whom they charged with entertaining that notion so abhorrent to all thoroughgoing Lutherans; for he speaks of Christ, even in the state of humiliation, as showing when He wished that the fulness of divinity dwelt in His flesh, and as manifesting its use as far as He wished through the assumed nature. 1 On the whole, his idea of the exinanition seems to have been full possession, the necessary consequence of the personal union, but prevalent abstinence from use, so as to present the aspect of non-possession, — the mass of iron being heat- ed through and through, yet remaining black to sight and cold to feeling. The illustration is the author's own, and it serves well not only to explain his idea, but to show the. difficulty of his theory of a possession unaccompanied by use. Exinanition in this view is a perpetual miracle, well characterized by the author himself as incomprehensible and indescribable. 2 When the theory is applied to om- niscience, the exinanition appears not only a miracle, but, as the school of Tubingen maintained against the school of Giessen, an impossibility. For what can we understand by abstinence from the use of omniscience ? Chemnitz him- self seems to have found it hard to tell, for his statement on this point looks like the utterance of a man at his wits' end. "Christ, as to His divine nature, had omniscience; as to His human nature, He had infused habits of knowledge in which He grew. But even when He grew in wisdom He was full of wisdom, because the plenitude, as of Deity, so of wisdom and divine knowledge, dwelt personally in the 1 Christus, ipso tempore exinanitionis, quanrlo voluit ostendit plenitudinem illam in sua carne habitare, et usum ejus quando voluit, et quantum voluit, per assump. tarn naturam, ipso exinanitionis tempore exercuit, manifestavit, exeruit. - Haec est incomprehensibilis et inennarrabilis exinanitio. Infinitis enim modis plus est, quam si ignis in ferro prorsus ignito, nee speciem, nee vim, nee operati- onem suam exereret. — P. 217. Again, p. 218: Si in ferro undiquaque perfecte ignito Deus manifestationem et operationem virtutis lucendi et urendi ad tempus supersedeas ut frigidum, nigrum, et obscurum videntibus et contrectantilms ap- pareret. That represents the state of humiliation. The ^-tate of exaltation is whar Jhe iron is not only heated, but shows its heat— vim suum lucendi et urendi Lutheran and Reformed Christologies. io5 assumed nature, in which and through which, as far as the exinanition would allow, it manifested itself more and more. Whence in the time of exinanition Christ's human nature could be ignorant and grow in wisdom; but in the state of exaltation it is omniscient indeed." 1 Such were the two forms which the Lutheran Christol- ogy assumed in the hands of Brentz and Chemnitz. It is manifest that they present sufficient points of difference to make any attempt at reconciliation somewhat difficult. An attempt, however, was made by representatives of the Swabian and Lower Saxon schools, — Chemnitz himself taking a leading part in the work of reconciliation, — and the Formula of Concord was the result. The method of reconciliation adopted in the composition of this ecclesi- astical symbol was that of giving and taking; opposite points of view being placed side by side, and troublesome questions being passed over sub silentio. It was declared, e.g., that in the personal union each nature retains its es- sential properties; but while the essential properties of the divine nature are carefully enumerated, the essential prop- erties of the human nature are not distinguished from the accidental. To be bounded and circumscribed, and to be moved from place to place, are mixed up with properties which are certainly accidental, such as to suffer and die; and we are not told whether the former are essential or not. The whole list are simply called properties. It is further declared that the human nature of Christ was ex- alted to the possession of divine properties over and above its own spiritual and natural ones; and that this exaltation to divine majesty took place first through the personal union, even from the moment of conception, and afterward through glorification after the resurrection; and in proof of the pos- session of majesty from the first, is adduced birth from the Virgin inviolata ipsius virginitater This majesty of the hu- man nature, however, we are told, was for the most part concealed in the state of exinanition, and as it were dis- sembled, — secret use being implied. 3 Yet in another place possession without use, kenosis as to use in opposition to ' P. 139. 2 Formula of Concord, part ii. c. viii. 8. 3 Formula of Concord, part ii. c. viii. 12, 13. 106 The Humiliation of Christ. krypsis, is asserted. 1 Christ always was in possession of the majesty in virtue of the personal union, but He emptied Himself in the state of humiliation; and hence it came that He grew in age, wisdom, and grace, and only after His resurrection entered into a plenary use, as a man, of omni- science, omnipotence, and omnipresence; or, as it is put in another place, into a full possession and use of divine ma- jesty. 2 On the subject of ubiquity, both a hypothetical and a general or necessary omnipresence were taught. The Chemnitzian phrase, Christ can be with His body wherever He wishes, is used, and at the same time quotations from Luther are made, which assert in the strongest possible manner an absolute omnipresence, rendering of course the assertion of a power to be present anywhere at pleasure quite superfluous. Of the distinction suggested by Chem- nitz between presence to the Logos and presence to the world, no notice is taken. A document constructed on such a principle of compro- mise, and so open to a double interpretation, was not likely to put an end to controversy; and certainly the Formula of Concord utterly failed to produce that effect. It only supplied material for fresh disputes to another generation, in which the combatants ranged themselves respectively on the Brentian and the Chemnitzian sides; each party being able to find something in the formula in support of its particular views. On one most important subject the symbol was specially vague and unsatisfactory, that, viz., of the relation of the majesty communicated to the human nature of Christ, by the personal union, to His earthly state of humiliation. It seemed to teach at once full possession and secret use; full possession and prevalent abstinence from use; and not only partial use, but even partial and defective possession. Here was a question around which fierce strife was sure to be waged. Possession with hidden use, or possession without use, involving in some sense even defective possession; on which side did the truth lie ? 1 Formula of Concord, part ii. c. viii. 66. 8 Ibid, part i. c. viii. 16. In part ii. cap. viii. 22, a partial and occasionally manifest use of majesty by Christ, pro Uberrima voluntate in the statu exinaniti onis is taught. Lutheran and Reformed Christologies. 107 Around these points skirmishing went on incessantly for a generation, until at length the great final war between Tubingen and Giessen broke out, in which the combatants went into battle to the respective war-cries of krypsis and kenosis, and fought with indomitable prowess and deadly bitterness for the space of some twenty years, till its noise was drowned in the louder din of a still more protracted war, carried on for another cause, with more substantial but not more carnal weapons. 1 1. Proceeding now to offer a few critical observations on the Lutheran Christology, I begin by repeating a remark already made, that the principle on which the system is based is therein arbitrarily applied. That principle is, that the union of natures in one person involves communication of attributes; and there seems to be no reason a priori why the communication should not be reciprocal. 2 But we are given to understand that the communication is all on one side; divine attributes are communicated to the human nature, but not vice versa. The axioms finitmn non ca- pax infiniti is set aside, while the correlative proposition infinitum non capax finiti is assumed to be axiomatically certain. In the classification of the various kinds of com- munications, one, by which the human nature becomes partaker of the majesty of Deity, is recognised; but for one by which the divine nature becomes partaker of the weak- ness, and subject to the measures of human nature, no place is found. 3 God is not at liberty to descend; He can only 1 See Appendix, Note B. a Gerhard says on this point: In hoc communicationis genere reciprocatio non habet locum. Ratio haec est, quia div. nat. est simpliciter dvaXXoioonoZ ycai djiiETCcftXqroS, ideoper unionem nee perfici, nee minui, nee evehi, nee deprim: potuit; hum. autem nat. quia humilis est et kvSerji ideo per unionem potuit exal- tari, evehi ac perfici. Nee est, quod regeras, unionem esse reciprocam, proinds etiam communicationem. Quamvis autem unio respectu sui ipsius considerata sit aequalis et reciproca, tamen ratione unitarum naturarum considerata exhibet nobis hanc differentiam, quod in unione 6 AoyoS sit assumens, caro autem sit assumpta: 6 AoyoS assumpsit carnem, caro autem non assumpsit Xoyov, jam vero assumpti provectio est, non assumentis, ut dicunt pii veteres. — Loci iv. c. xii. § cci. s Thomasius, ii. p. 459, points out that the Tubingen theologians in their con troversy with the Giessen school taught a genus tapeinoticon, and says that in this they returned to Luther, and enriched the Lutheran Christology. This genus, however, called idiOTtoirjdii or oiHsicoiii?, was not analogous to the genus ioS The Humiliation of Christ. make man ascend: Incarnation means not God becoming man, but man becoming God. Now this one-sided appli- cation of the distinctive principle might be politic and prudent, but it is not logical; nor can it boast of any moral recommendations to compensate for its want of logic. It is not a doctrine worthy of all acceptation, that Incarnation cannot possibly mean the humiliation of God, but must signify the exaltation or deification of man. It is a doctrine contrary to the spirit of Scripture, 1 and to right ideas of the glory of God. This constant talk about the majesty communicated to the humanity of Christ in virtue of the personal union, savours of moral vulgarity, inasmuch as it implies that God's glory lies not in His grace, but chiefly in being infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, and so forth. If obliged to make a choice, I would rather take up with the genus tapeinoticum than with the genus auchematicum, to speak in the language of the schools; in plain terms, a God letting Himself down to man's level seems a grander thing than a God raising man to His level, especially when the latter is not an act of grace, but of necessity, a con- dition sine qua non of Incarnation. 2. The Lutheran Christology, to say the least, threat- ens with extinction the reality of Christ's human nature. Doubtless its advocates are careful to say that each nature after the union retains its essential properties, and to pro- test against their doctrine being held to imply confusion, equalization, or abolition of the natures; and, of course, we believe that they did not mean to teach such errors. But if the question be, What are the logical consequences of their theory ? it is difficult to see how such conclusions can be avoided. It does not suffice to save the reality of the humanity to say, with Brentz, that the Deity possessed anchematicum. Neither the Tubingen theologians nor Luther ascribed to the di- vine nature human qualities as they ascribed human qualities to the human nature; but only in the sense in which the Reformed understood the doctrine of the com- municatio idiomatum, '■ Lutheran theologians admitted that the ancients identified exinanitio with incar- natio. but claimed to have Scripture on their side when they taught that exinanitio proper was subsequent in idea to the Incarnation. Hence they called exinanitio in the former sense ecclesiastica, and exinanitio in their own sense Biblica. Se Gerhard, loci iv. cap. xiv. § xciii. Lutheran and Reformed Christologies. 109 by that nature is a communicated one; for the whole ques- tion is, whether such communication be compatible with the nature of that humanity. As to the attribute of ubiquity, indeed, it must be admitted that the ingenious distinction between local and illocal presence evades the argument drawn by the Reformed from the reality of Christ's body against the ascription of that attribute to the human nature. If any one choose to ascribe to Christ's body an illocal ubiquity, he cannot be refuted, any more than he could be refuted were he to ascribe a similar ubiquity to the body of any ordinary man. The only question is, whether this illocal ubiquity be itself a reality, or only a mere ghost, with which no man can fight, — an invention to save a theory, and by which, while saved in appearance, the theory is substantially sacrificed. The authors of the Re- formed reply to the Fornuda of Concord characterized the Lutheran distinctions between various kinds of presences as impudent and wicked sophisms, cunningly and fraud- ulently devised to defend a false position. 1 This may be rather strong language, but the statement is substantially correct; and one cannot but feel that when once refuge was taken in the epithet " illocal," the controversy concerning the communication of omnipresence to the humanity of Christ degenerated, as Le Blanc hints, into a mere logo- machy. 2 The distinction between the two kinds of presence is virtually a giving up of the theory. The same remark may be made with reference to the Chemnitzian mode of 1 Admonitio Neostadtiensis, c. viii., falsa hypothesis iv. Hae strophae et Sphingis aenigmala nihil sunt nisi impudentissima et nequissima sophismata ad 1 illudendum Deo, et decipiendos homines, versute et fraudulenter excogitata, etc. The Admonitio is contained among the works of Zachary Ursinus, the author and expositor of the Heidelberg Catechism. 2 Theses Theologicae: De unione duarum in Christo naturarum et inde conse- quente idiomatum communicatione. Le Blanc says: Qua. in controversia forte plus est logomachiae atque pertinaciae, quam realis discriminis, nam aliquo sensu con. cedere possumus, realem communicationem proprietatum naturae divinae naturae Christi humanae factum esse, quatenus ut dictum est, in natura ilia humana realitei et personaliter inhabitat, et est divinitas cum omnibus suis proprietatibus, quemad- modum realiter ignis est in ferro ignito, sed quemadmodum ex ilia ignis cum ferro unione recte quidem dicere possumus, ferrum hoc urit, ferrum hoc candit, non tamen recte dicitur, ferreitas urit, ferreitas lucet, quia ignis in ferro, non ipsa tameu ferri natura, ita agit. 1 10 The Humiliation of Christ. conceiving the communication of divine attributes in gen- eral to the human nature as analogous to the pervasion of iron by heat. There can be no doubt that this manner of representing the matter effectually guards against equaliz- ing of the natures. But it does this by failing to teach the Lutheran doctrine of communication. For what the heat communicates to the iron is not anything contrary to, or even above, the nature of the latter; for it is the nature of iron to receive heat, and by it to be made hot and lumin- ous. This illustration, therefore, of heated iron, to which Chemnitz was so partial, does not suffice to justify a com munication of all divine attributes to the human nature, but only such a communication as the Reformed Christology allowed, — a communication, viz., of all the gifts and graces which human nature is capable of receiving. 1 3. This theory, consistently worked out, leaves no room for such an exinanition in the earthly life of Christ as shall satisfy the requirements of historical truth and the aim. of the Incarnation. The humiliation which is admitted to be soteriologically necessary is Christologically impossible. The act of Incarnation endows the human nature of Christ with attributes, of which no doctrine of exinanition, how- ever ingeniously constructed, can deprive it, without de- stroying the Christological basis on which the whole superstructure rests. The distinction between possession and use is entirely inadequate to the task of reducing the humanity, supposed to be already endowed with divine ma- jesty, to the sober measures of the kenosis. This is specially manifest in reference to the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence, to which the distinction cannot even be in- telligibly applied. No doubt attempts were made by the Lutheran theologians to apply the distinction to these at- 1 The Reformed theologians were not slow to point this out. Sadeel, e. g. , remarks that the ancients used the simile of the burning sword principally with reference to the soul of Christ, to show how it gained from union with the Logos, e. g. in being sinless. He also remarks that though fire gives to iron heat and light, it does not give it its own property of ascending, and in like manner " d XoyoZ non ea tribuit hum. nat. quorum hum. ipsa nat. capax esse non potest, cujusmodi est infinitum esse et ubique esse, sed earn illustrat suo fulgore, et exornal dotibus incomprehensibilibus, quatenus ipsius naturae conditio fieri potest." — Dt Vcritate Humanae Naturae Christi, pp. 1S4, 185. To the same effect the Adtnotu A'c-ost. Lutheran mid Reformed Christologies. 1 1 1 tributes by the invention of other still more subtle distinc- tions; but these attempts bear failure stamped on their front. Gerhard, for example, following Chemnitz, disposes of the omniscience of Christ in the state of exinanition in the fol- lowing fashion: "We teach that the soul of Jesus in the very first moment of the Incarnation was personally en- riched, as with other divine excellences, so also with the proper omniscience of the Logos, through and in virtue of the real, most intimate, and indissoluble union and com- munion with the Logos. But as He did not always use His other gifts truly and really communicated to Him in the state of exinanition, so also the omniscience personally communicated to Him as man He did not always exercise actn secnndo, and hence the soul of Christ truly made pro- gress according to natural and habitual knowledge, — the omniscient Logos not always exercising through the as- sumed humanity His energy, which is actu to know all things, but in the state of exaltation the full use of omnis- cience at length ensued." 1 The distinction taken in this passage between the omniscience which the soul of Christ possesses personaliter, and the limited knowledge which it possessed naturaliter, means, if it means anything, that the attribute of omniscience was not really communicated to the human nature, but was merely possessed by the divine person to whom that nature was united. That is to say, the positing of the distinction is the giving up of the Lu- theran theory, and a virtual return to the Reformed point of view. As for the other distinction between being omnis- 1 Loci iv. c. xii. § cclxxix. : Docemus animam Christi in primo status incarna tionis momenta, ut aliis divinis eioxKoo6Ei, irayOpoomjdst, incamatione ejus consistit. Nam sim- pliciter hominem fieri, in similitudine hominis esse, non est exinaniri, humiliari. Qui exinaniri debuit, homo esse debuit; sed non quisquis homo est, exinaniri debet. Nam etiam in statu exaltationis mansit homo; neque tamen vel exinanitus vel humiliatus amplius. Et exinanitus, minoratus est oyo, fipaxv Ti, paulisper, ad breve tempus. Sed homo fuit non paulisper, nee ad breve tempus; sed inde a nativitate semper fuit, est, et erit. Potuit igitur esse homo, et non exinaniri, sed esse i', das "auF gleiche Art wie Gott sein," also die Ewigkeitsform, und nahm ilaftlr die Form der Menschheit {6xij,uoc dv^poDrtov). Similarly, Das Dogma von H. A., i. p. 191. 2 Das Dogma von keil. Abendmahl, ii. p. 790. Modem Kenotic Theories. 1 55 ful man, is altogether supernatural. In walking on the sea, He exhibited a wonder of applied omnipresence. 1 In the use of these powers He was subject to His Father's will; but, nevertheless, they were inherent in His person; He had free control over them; it is conceivable that He might have made a wrong use of them, and herein lay the point of the temptation in the wilderness. 2 Ebrard accepts the Chalcedonian formula — two natures in one person; but he puts his own meaning on the word " natures." By the two natures he understands not two parts or pieces, two subsistent essences united to each other, but two abstracta predicated of the one Christ; two aspects of the one divine human person. In particular, the human nature was not an existing thing, but only a manner or form of being, a complex of properties. The thesis, the Son of God assumed human nature, is equivalent to this: that the Son of God, giving up the form of eternity and en- tering into time-form, and beginning to exist as a human life- centre, formed for Himself out of this life-centre a human- ity in the concrete sense, that is, a human body, soul and spirit, or all momenta and essences which the human life- centre needed for its concrete being and life. Hence the divine nature and the human nature stand related to each other as essence and form: Divine nature as an abstractum is predicated of Christ, because He is the eternal Son of God entered into a time-form of existence, possessing the ethical and metaphysical attributes of God (that is, God's essence) in a finite form of appearance. Human nature is predicated of Christ, because He has assumed the existence form of humanity, and exists as centre of a human individuality with human soul, spirit, body, development. Christ is therefore not partly man, partly God, but wholly man; but if the question be asked, who is this, the answer must be: He is the Son of God, who has by a free act denuded Him- 1 Dogmatik, ii. pp. 20, 29. 5 Ibid. ii. pp. 30, 31. The view stated above, Ebrard defends against l-ange, who maintains [Leben Jesu) that Jesus was conditioned by the will of the Father, not merely in the voluntary use of His miraculous power, but in the possession of the power itself, just like any of the prophets. This position Ebrard holds to be contrary to Scripture. 1 56 The Humiliation of Christ. self of His world-governing, eternal form of being, and entered into the human form of beiiiL, r . It is a divine person who has made Himself a human person. 1 Ebrard reckons it as the fault of Nestorius, and after him of the old Luther- ans (whom he charges with Nestorianism, resulting in the state of exaltation, in the opposite extreme of Eutychian- ism), that the two natures of Christ were treated as con- cretes. On the other hand, he claims for the old Reformed Christologists a clear understanding of the true state of the case. They meant just what he teaches when they said, that in the Incarnation a divine person was not united with a human person, or a divine nature with a human nature; but a divine person assumed a human nature. 8 In one respect only did they come short, viz. in reference to the question how the concrete consciousness and life of the person Christ are to be conceived. On this point, accord- ing to our author, the Reformed Church has never attained to a clear understanding; the reason, in his judgment, being, that the Christology of that Church has failed to grasp the distinction between the eternity-form (Ewigkeitsforni) and the time-form {Zcitlichkcitsforni) of the divine essence. The Reformed theologians, notwithstanding their controversy with the Lutherans, came at last to think of the incarnate Logos as world-governing, and possessing omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence in reference to the universe at large, — a view which came practically to the same thing as the Lutheran one. All the difference was this: the 1 Dogmatik, ii. pp. 41, 42: Die nat. div. und die nat. hum. sind also nicht zwei Subsistenzen oder Theile in Christo, sondern zwei abstracta, die von dem Einen Christus pradicirt werden. GOttliche Natur wind von ihm pradicirt, sofern er der in die Zeitiorm eingegangne ewige Sohn Gottes ist, und die ethischen und meta- physischen Eigenschaften Gottes, d. h. das Wesen Gottes, wiewohl in endlicher Erscheinungsform, besitzt. Menschliche Natur wird von ihm ausgesagt, wiefern er die Existenzform der Menschheit angenommen hat, und als Centrum einer menschlichen Individualitat mit menschlicher Seele, Geist, Leib, Entwicklung existirt. (Gottliche Natur: menschliche Natur=Wesen: Existenzialform.) Er ist also nicht theilweise Mensch und theilweise Gott, sondern er ist ganz Mensch; aber aufdieFrage: Wer ist dieser? (nicht, was?) heisst der Antwort: der, der dieser Mensch ist, ist der Sohn Gottes, der sich in freiem Akte seiner weltregierenden Ewigkeitsform begeben, und in die menschliche Seynsform versetzt hat. Er ist also Eine Person, die. persona divina, welche sich zu einer persona humana ge- macht hat. 1 Ibid. ii. p. 41. Modern Kenotic Theories. i5t Lutheran taught that the human nature in the status ex- inanitionis either renounced or did not exercise omni- science, etc., while the Logos at the same time retained and used it, so that the latter knew all, while the former did not; the Reformed, on the other hand, taught that the Logos incarnate was omniscient, and in the world-governing sense, while the human nature was not. Both positions alike were virtually Nestorian. 1 The true view is, that the powers of the eternal Godhead revealed themselves in Christ, not alongside of the powers of His humanity, not as superhu- man, but in the powers of His humanity; even herein, that His human powers were supernatural, that is, exceeded the capacities of nature as depraved by sin, and He was abso- lutely superior to this depraved nature, so that when and where He wished to work it formed no limit to His power. 2 By this view our author believes the problem is solved: how the divine and the human attributes which constitute the two natures can co-exist in the same person without cancelling each other. The divine attributes remain in an applied form, and in that form they are truly human. Ap- plied omnipotence is simply the dominion of the spirit over nature, which belongs to the idea of man. Applied omni- science is the dominion of the spirit over the objects of knowledge, to which man was originally destined. Applied omnipresence, the power to be where one wills, is simply the dominion of the spirit over the material body, which man was designed to attain; the body in its ultimate idea not being a foreign burden subject to elementary influences, but a free projection of the soul in space, released from all subjection to the elements, to death, or to the law of grav- ity. 3 Whether this be a successful solution of the problem in hand or not, it will be apparent that it is at all events a very different view of the historical Christ from that which we had last under consideration. Gess' view of Christ is thoroughly humanistic; Ebrard's, on the other hand, has far more of the divine element in it, and wears a much more 1 Abendmahl, ii. p. 792. Ebrard gives Zuingli and Olevian credit for having clearer views than most of the Reformed on the subject of the divine attributes. * Dogmatik, ii. p. 143. 8 Abendmahl, i. pp. 192, 193. Dogmatik, ii. pp. 28, 29. 1 58 The Htimiliation of Christ. decided appearance of Apollinarism. As if to compensate for the Apollinarian tendency on the metaphysical side, our author is most decidedly anti-Apollinarian in the view he takes of the ethical aspect of Christ's humanity, ascribing to the incarnate Logos a posse peccare, representing Him as gaining confirmation in obedience by the practice of it under trying circumstances, reaching the higher freedom through the right use of freedom of choice, and gaining heavenly glory strictly as a reward of His filial virtue — all this being demanded by the time-form of existence. 1 We now understand in what sense the kenotic theory as taught by Ebrard can be described as metamorphic. The metamorphosis consists simply in an exchange of the eter- nal for the time-form of existence; an exchange which, once made, is perpetual. 2 It remains to be added that this change of form is not relative merely, but absolute; involv- ing the absolute and perpetual renunciation of the eternal form of being, not simply the renunciation of it with ref- erence to the incarnate life of the Logos. Our author is indeed at this point extremely difficult to understand, and I am doubtful whether the words just used correctly de- scribe his position, or even whether his position be a self- consistent one. For, on the one hand, he says in one place that there is nothing in Scripture to countenance the idea that the Logos retained the form of eternity on enter- ing into the time-form, and while He was in Christ, gov- erned the world over and above. 3 But, on the other hand, he recognises it as a part of the Christological problem to be solved: how can the Logos, conscious of Himself as the eternal, be also conscious of the man Jesus existing in time as Himself? and, on the other hand, how can the man Jesus, existing in time, be conscious of the eternal Logos 1 Dogmatik, ii. p. 22. ? Ibid. ii. p. 37: Form der Menschheit und Form der Evvigkeit (im Sinn voa Ueberzeitlichkeit) schliessen sich schlechthin aus; Christus hat die letztre fur immer aufgegeben, die erstre fur immer angenommen, und der Uebergang aus der unter dem Tod geknechteten Menschheit in die vom Tode befreite, verklarte, hat im Verhaltniss seiner gOttlichen Natur zu seiner menschlichen nichts geaiidert. 3 Dogmatik, ii. p. 35: Die h. Schrift weiss nichts davon, dass der \6yoZ die Form der Ewigkeit beibehalten habe, und wahrend er in Christo war, nebenbei auch nod die Welt regiert habe, sondern er ward Mensch. Modem Kenotic Theories. i5q as Himself? in other words, is a unity of consciousness be- tween the eternal and the incarnate Logos conceivable ? ' The same problem is also put in this form: How is a per- sonal unity between the world-governing Son of God in the Trinity and the incarnate Son of God, who has given up the form of eternity, possible, the one being world-governing, omniscient, etc., while the other is not? 3 It is true the problem is regarded as a psychological one, and may be said to have for its aim to demonstrate the possibility of conscious personal identity surviving the change from the eternal to the time-form of existence. But the very terms in which the problem is stated seem to show that the eternity-form is not thought of as having ceased to exist. Indeed, it is expressly admitted that such language is meaningless with reference to the Eternal. Speaking strictly, we ought not to say the Son of God has given up the Eivigkeitsform, for in eternity there is no " has " and no " given up." Words implying tense are inapplicable to eternity, whose relation to time is not such that one can say eternity is before time, or after it, or during it. 3 Then, further, supposing the psychological problem to be satis- factorily solved for the period of Christ's mature manhood, that is, granting that then the man Jesus could be conscious of His identity with the eternal, world-governing Logos, which is all that is claimed as made out, 4 what of the period of immaturity, of childhood ? With reference to this pe- riod, the author remarks that identity of person is not to be confounded with unity or continuity of consciousness. 6 Perfectly true; but the question is not as to identity of the person, but as to the combination in the same person of 1 Abendmahl, i. p. 186: Ob sich der seiner als eines ewigen, bewusste Logos, des zeitlich existirenden Menschen als seiner selbst bewusst seyn konne, und ob der zeitlich existirende Mensch Jesus sich des ewigen Logos als seiner selbst bewusst seyn konne; oh also eine Einheit des Bewusstseins zwischen dem ewigen und dem menschgewordenen Logos denkbar sei. 2 Dogmatik, ii. p. 144: Wie ist zwischen dem weltregierenden Sohn Gottes in der Trinitat und dem menschgewordenen Sohn Gottes, der die Ewigkeitsform auf- gegeben hat, eine personliche Einheit denkbar ? Jener ist weltregierend allwissend, dleser nicht. 3 Ibid. ii. p. 146. 4 Ibid. ii. p. 145. s See Appendix, Note D, tor an account of Ebrard's method of solving th« problem. 160 The Humiliation of Christ. two modes of existence; a question which must surely be answered in the affirmative, if it be admitted that the Lo gos was self-conscious even when the child Jesus was ut- terly unconscious. This position Ebrard, so far as appears, does not call in question, and therefore it might be legiti- mate to represent his theory as one which teaches only a relative metamorphosis of the Logos, — a change in the form of existence which is after all not so much an exchange, as the adding of one form of existence to another. Such is the sense in which the theory has been understood by some of its author's own countrymen, 1 and the correctness of the interpretation might with some confidence be inferred from the fact that a double existence is expressly taught by other writers whose Christological views come nearest to the Ebrardian type. Nevertheless it is not advisable to force on any author a doctrine which he seems disinclined to hold, and therefore we must reckon it as the character- istic of the present type of kenosis, that it teaches an ab- solute and perpetual exchange of the Eternal for the time- form of existence, as necessarily involved in the idea of Incarnation. (4) Martensen? on the other hand, is beyond all doubt an advocate of a real yet only relative kenosis. This dis- tinguished Danish theologian, in whose writings are finely blended philosophic insight and poetic grace, distinguishes between the Logos revelation and the Christ revelation. The revelation of the Son of God in the fulness of time implies 1 By Gess, at least, who, having quoted a passage from Schoberlein (Grttnd- lehren des JJei/s), to the effect that the Logos incarnate has a double existence, and that we must recognise at once a real kenosis and a possession, yea, a use without concealment of the divine glory, adds in a note: " Aehnlich Ebrard in der Dogmatik." Die Lehre von der Person Ckristi, p. 390. On the other hand, Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, ii. p. 24, seems to understand the exchange of eternity- form with the time-form taught by Ebrard as an absolute one. With reference, and in opposition, to Ebrard's view he remarks: Aber auch so ist es nicht, dass er die Ewigkeitsform mit der Zeitlichkeitsform vertauscht hat, sondern aus seinem geschichtlichen Stande der Ueberweltlichkeit, des weltbeherrschenden Konnens und Wollens und Gegenwartigseins ist er, der hier und dort gleich Ewige, in die Innerweltlichkeit, in die menschliche Umschranktheit des Daseyns und Wissens und Konnens eingegangen, die eine geschichtliche Bethatigung seines ewigen We- sens mit der andern vertauschend. 2 Die Christ liche Dogmatik, Deutsche Ausgabe, Berlin 1856, pp. 221-272. Modem Kenotic Theories. 161 a pre-existence, which does not signify merely an original being in the Father, but also an original being in the world. As the Mediator between the Father and the world, it be- longs to the essence of the Son to live not only in the Father, but also in the world. As " the heart of God the Father," He is at the same time the eternal heart of the world, through which the divine life flows into the creation. As the Logos of the Father, He is at the same time the eternal world-Logos, through whom the divine light rays forth into the creation. He is ground and source of all reason in the creation, whether in man or in angel, in Greek or in Jew. He is the principle of law and promise in the Old Testament, the eternal light which shines in the darkness of heathendom; all holy germs of truth to be found in the heathen world have been sown in the souls of men by Him. He is the eternal principle of providence, amid the confusion of the world's life; all forces of nature, all ideas and angels, being ministering instruments of His all-ordering, all-guiding will. But, in His pre-existence, He is only the essential, not the real Mediator between God and the creature; the contrast between Creator and created is cancelled in essence only, not in existence; the variance between God and the sinful world is done away with only in idea, not in life. Therefore it was needful that the pre-existent Logos should become man, and sup~ plement the Logos-revelation by a Christ-revelation. 1 The novel element in the latter is such a union of the divine and human natures that a man appears on the earth as the self-revelation of the divine Logos, as the God-man? The eternal omnipresent Word became flesh, was born into time. That, however, does not mean that, with the Incar- nation, the eternal Logos ceased to exist in His general world-revelation, or that the Logos, as self-conscious per- sonal Being, was inclosed in His mother's womb, was born as an infant, grew in knowledge; for such a representa- tion is incompatible with the idea of birth. Temporal birth necessarily implies a progress from the unconscious to the conscious, from possibility to reality, from germ to mature organization; and any other mode of conceiving 1 Dogmatik, pp. 221, 222. - Ibid. p. 224. 1 62 The Humiliation of Girist. the birth of the God-man must be characterized as doketic The birth of the Logos means that He enters into the bosom of humanity as possibility, as a holy seed, that He may arise within the human race as a mediating, redeem- ing', human revelation; that the divine fulness individual- izes itself in a single human life, so that the entire sum of holy powers is herein involved. That the Son of God was in His mother's womb not as a self-conscious divine Ego, but as an immature unborn child, is indicated by the words of the angel to Mary: " That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." 1 But as that holy thing, in the course of growth, became conscious of Himself as a human Ego, in the same measure He became conscious of His Godhead, and knew Himself as a divine human Ego, because the fulness of Godhead was the life- ground of His human life; knew Himself as not only hav- ing part in the divine Logos, but as the divine-human con- tinuation of the everlasting life of Godhead. Hence, while Christ said, " I and the Father are one," — an affirmation of unity implying a personal distinction, — He never said, " I and the Logos are one," because He was the Logos revealing Himself in human form. 1 In view of these statements, it is easy to see in what sense the kcnosis is to be understood. It means that the Logos, qua incarnate, possesses His Godhead in the limited forms of human consciousness. He is true God; but, in the Christ revelation, the true Godhead is never outside the true hu- manity. It is not the naked God we see in Christ, but the fulness of Godhead within the compass of humanity; not the properties of the divine nature in their unlimited world- infinitude, but these properties transformed into properties of human nature; the omnipresence becoming the blessed presence of Him who said: " Whoso seeth me seeth the Father; " the omniscience becoming the divine-human wis- dom which reveals to the simple the mysteries of the king- dom; the omnipotence becoming the world-conquering and 1 Luke 1. 35: to yevvcj/.i£vov ayiov (neuter). 2 Dogmatik, pp. 244, 245: Obgleich daher Christus zeugt: "Ich und der Vater sind Eins," sagt er doch niemals: Ich und der Logos sind Eins. Denn er ist die menschliche Se/6stoffenba.r\ing des gottlichen Logos. Modern Kenotic Theories. 163 completing might of holiness and love of Him, to whom was given all power in heaven and on earth. Christ, in pos- session of these transformed attributes, is not less God than the Logos in His universal world-revelation; for the Deity of the Son is the Deity of the Mediator God, or of God as the revealer of God; and in no form is the Son in a truer sense the Mediator and the Revealer of God, than in the form of the Son of man. 1 And while the kenosis is per- fectly compatible with essential Deity even in the Son of man, it does not exclude the continued existence of the Logos as the Mediator and Revealer for the world at large. As the omnipresent Logos, the Son of God continues to shine through the whole creation. 2 He lives a double life: as the pure divine Logos, He works throughout the king- dom of nature, preparing the conditions for the revelation of His all-completing love; as Christ, He works through the kingdom of grace and redemption, and indicates His consciousness of personal identity in the two spheres, by referring to His pre-existence, which to His human con- sciousness takes the form of a recollection? On two points Martensen does not fully explain himself: the human soul of Christ; and the question, How is the duality in the life of the Logos to be reconciled with the unity of His personality ? As to the former, though it is nowhere said, it seems to be tacitly implied, that the incar- nate Logos took in Christ the place of a human soul. The latter topic also the author passes over in discreet silence, thinking it better, possibly, to attempt no solution, than to offer his readers such an abstruse speculation as that by which Ebrard endeavours to explain how the Eternal and 1 Dogmatik, pp. 247, 248. 2 Ibid. p. 246: Als der allgegenwartige Logos die ganze Schopfung durch- leuchtet. 3 Ibid. p. 247: Wohl aber mtissen wir sagen dass der Sohn Gottes in der Oekonomie des Vaters ein doppeltes Dasein fllhrt, dass er ein Doppelleben lebt in weltschopferischer und weltvollendender Thatigkeit. Als der reine Gottheitslogos durchwirkt er in Alles erflillender Gegenwart das Reich der Natur, wirkt die Vor aussetzungen und Bedingungen fur die Offenbarung seiner Alles vollendenden Liebe. Als Christus durchwirkt er das Reich der Gnade, der Erlosung, und Vol- lendung, und weist zurlick auf seiner Praexistenz. See also p. 250, where Christ b spoken of as recollecting His pre-existence* Erinnert er sich seiner ewigen Pra. existenz und seines Aus 'angs vom Vater. 164 TJic Humiliation of Christ. the Incarnate Logos can have an identical consciousness. 1 He animadverts on the dualism, not to speak of the mon- strosity, introduced into the person of Christ by the old orthodox Christology, according to which Christ, as a child in the cradle, secretly carried on the government of the world with the omniscience that work required; while, at the same time, in His human nature He grew in knowledge and wis- dom. By such a grotesque representation, he contends, the unity of the person is annulled, two parallel series of conscious states which never unite are introduced, and the result is in effect a Christ with two heads. 3 But the friends of antiquated orthodoxy might turn round and ask: What better are we on your theory ? You say we teach a Christ with two non-communicating or non-coincident conscious- nesses, or with two heads; you teach a Logos with a double life: one in the world at large, another in the man Jesus; infinite in the former, limited, self-emptied, in the latter; a mere unconscious possibility to begin with, and never ex- ceeding the measures of humanity: show us the possibility of such a double life, and its compatibility with a single personality. This demand some believers in a real but relative kenosis treat as legitimate, and attempt to satisfy. Martensen seems to have preferred to regard the problem as a mystery, deeming the kenosis in the sense explained an indubitable Scripture doctrine and historical fact, and the continued activity of the world-sustaining Logos an obvious corollary from His distinctive function as the Me- diator and Revealer in relation to the universe, and not holding himself bound to reconcile the two, any more than to clear up in a perfectly satisfactory manner any other mystery of the Christian faith. 8 Such are the leading forms which the modern kenotic theory has assumed in the hands of its advocates. In pro- ceeding now to a critical estimate of this theory, certain 1 See Appendix, Note D. ? Dogtnatik, p. 249: Die Einheit der Person wird aufgehoben, und wir be- kommen in Christo zvvei verschiedene Bewusstseinsreihen, die niemals zusammeu gehen werden. Wir bekommen gleichsam einen Christus mit zwei KOpfen, eic Bild, welches nicht nur den Eindruck des Uebermenschlichen sondern des Mon strosen macht, und dem die ethische Wirkung fehlt. ' Vid. Appendix, Note E, for literature belonging to the Martensen type. Modern Kenotic Theories. i65 general considerations suggest themselves, which may here be submitted by way of preface. I. The theory in question, whether tenable or not, is at all events animated by a genuinely orthodox interest; as, indeed, might be inferred from a rapid glance at the roll of its supporters, which includes, in addition to those already mentioned, the names of such men as Delitzsch and Hof- mann, whose orthodoxy, in the catholic sense, is above suspicion. Kenosis, in all its forms presupposes the Church doctrines of the Trinity and the pre-existence of the Lo- gos. The very aim of the theory is to show how the eter- nally pre-existent Son of God, second person of the Trin- ity, by a free self-conscious act of self-exinanition, made Himself capable of Incarnation after the manner recorded in the Gospels. It is true, indeed, that some advocates of the kenotic Christology have deemed it necessary to lay a foun- dation for the self-emptying of the Logos in a conception of the Trinity, or of the Trinitarian Process, as it is called, which involves a Subordinatian view of the relation of the Son to the Father. 1 But the abler or more cautious mem- bers of the school avoid this opinion in their statement of the doctrine; 2 and there does not appear to be any neces- sary connection between the kenosis implied in the Incar- nation, and an eternal inequality of the persons within the immanent Trinity. In every Christological theory it is a problem why the Son and not the Father became incar- nate; and all theories alike are liable to err in the solution of the problem, if they attempt it and do not prefer to let it alone. 3 2. This theory further proposes to itself most legitimate and even praiseworthy ends. It may be said to have two ends in view, one religious, the other scientific — to do full justice to the divine Love as manifested in the Incarnation, 1 E. g. Gess, Liebner. 2 E. g. Hofmann, Delitzsch. 3 Schneckenburger thinks that the kenotic theory, if logically carried out to its ultimate consequences, involves the dissolution of the Trinity. Vom doppelten Stande Christi, Beilage, p. 196 ff., being a review of Thomasius' Beitrage. He says, p. 201: Kurz ich sehe nicht ein, wie das Trinitatsdogma bestehen kann mit der vorgeschlagenen Korrektur (*. e. the rectification of the old Lutheran Chris- tology by the Thomasian doctrine of kenosis). But the opinion is not supported by argument. 1 66 The Humiliation of Christ. and to give such a view of the person of Christ as shall al- low His humanity to remain in all its historical truth. The former aim is very apparent in the Christological utter- ances of the father of modern kenosis, Zinzendorf. 1 The celebrated founder of the Moravian brotherhood went great lengths in the assertion of Christ's likeness to His brethren. Living in a time when men were ashamed of the humilia- tion of Christ, and gave prominence only to what was ra- tional and intelligible, and in a worldly sense respectable, in Christianity, he deemed it his vocation to glory in Christ's passion, and to assert with all possible emphasis the Incar- nation as a lowering of Himself in love, on the part of God the Son, to the level of humanity. This self-lowering he represented as taking place to such an extent, that Ben- gel, with every desire to give an impartial account of his doctrinal system, spoke of him as a new Unitarian, who, while differing widely from other Unitarians, in assigning to the Son not only a place in the Trinity, but a monopoly of divine functions, creation, redemption, and sanctifica- tion, came by so much the nearer to them on the other side, as one who journeys towards the east, going as far as he can, at length comes round to the west. 2 Jesus, ac- cording to Zinzendorf, while never ceasing to be God, was in all matters to be considered as a simple man; and all our comfort is to be derived from His humanity, viewed not only as like us in its weakness, but as characterized by a maximum of weakness, so that the most miserable creature can think of Christ as weaker than himself. The Son of God incarnate thought of Himself as a man; if the thought, " I am God," entered into His mind, it was only in transitu, as a man of thirty years may remember, in a dream, some- thing he had said or done when a child of two or three years. 3 Thus far did He carry the business of self-empty- ing; and in carrying it so far, He but glorified His love. For the greatest thing in the Saviour was not His God- head, or His majesty, or His miracles, but His becoming freely so little? Thus thought the Saviour Himself before 1 See Appendix, Note G. ! Abriss der so genannten Brildergemeine, pp. 28-41. 3 Plitt, Zitizendorf s Theologie Dargestellt, Zweiter Band, p. 171. * Ibid. p. 161, where he quotes from Zinzendorf a passage respecting the sur Modern Kenotic Theories. 167 He came in the flesh. He esteemed it a favour conferred on Him by His Father to be permitted to become man, that He might die for a sinful world. Yea, He reckoned it an additional favour, that, in order to become man, it was necessary that He should go out of the Godhead, and at least for an hour, for a moment, know what it is to be God- forsaken. 1 In more recent writers we miss both the elo- quence and the extravagance characteristic of Zinzendorf, in proclaiming the most thoroughgoing kenosis as the glori- fication of divine love. Modern kenosists are influenced much more by the scientific than by the religious interest, which in the case of Zinzendorf was the supreme, if not the exclusive, object of consideration. Nevertheless, even with regard to the former, there is truth in the remark of Dorner, that the Christology of which Zinzendorf may be regarded as the forerunner, represents a religious trait, viz, the desire to conceive the divine Love as having become as like to, as intimately united with, men as possible. 2 And in this respect the Christology in question, under any of its forms, commends itself to our sympathy. It is im- possible not to have a kindly feeling towards a Christolog- ical theory which is earnestly bent on making the exina- nition of the Son of God a great sublime moral reality. An error is readily pardoned in a theory animated by such an evangelic aim. Even when the resulting view of Christ's person wears a suspicious resemblance to that given in the Socinian theory, we are conscious of a sympathy with the one which we cannot have for the other. We remember that the kenotic Christ, however like the Socinian in other respects, is the result of an act of free grace, on the part of a Divine Being emptying Himself of His divinity as far a» possible, in order that He might become flesh and dwell prise of contemporaries, at seeing a people (the brethren) to whom the greatest thing in Christ was, that He became so little (das ihnen das GrOsste ist, dass der Heiland so klein gewesen ist). 1 Plitt, i. p. 272: Die Concession, die Willigkeit des Vaters, dass der Sohn hat kOnnen Mensch werden, dass er hat kOnnen sein Lcben lassen, das ist das Prasent das ihm der Vater gethan hat. Er sieht es als eine neue Gnade an, dass er hat diirfen, um Mensch zu werden, aus der Gottheit herausgehen und zum wenigsteii eine Stunde, einen Augenblick erfahren, was das heisset, von Gott verlassen sein. 5 Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. iii. p. 258. 1 68 The Humiliation of Christ. among men full of grace and truth. The historical phe- nomenon may be to a large extent the same in either sys- tem, but the moral and theological significance of the phe- nomenon is toto coelo different. The Christ of the kenosis is God self-humbled to man's level; the Socinian Christ is man exalted to the highest human level. The conceptions of the Deity cherished by the two systems are equally diverse. The God of the one system is self-sacrificing love; the God of the other system is a Being who cannot descend from the altitude of His metaphysical majesty. 1 The scientific aim of this theory is equally entitled to respect, its declared purpose being to reconcile the doc- trine of Christ's person with the facts of the gospel history; or more definitely, so to conceive the Incarnation, as to leave room for a real progressive human development, in- tellectually and morally, not less than physically. This purpose all Christological theories profess to keep in view, and all have tried in one way or another to satisfy its re- quirements. The attempts have been varied in their nature, but all have involved a more or less distinct recognition of the need of a kenosis of some kind on the part of the Logos, in order that the truth of Christ's humanity may remain unimpaired. Irenaeus taught a rest or quiescence of the Logos in connection with the temptations, crucifixion, and death of Christ; 2 Ambrose spoke of the Logos withdraw- ing Himself from activity, that He might be subject to infirmity. 3 Hilary conceived of the Logos incarnate as having exchanged the form of God for the form of a servant, and in the assumed form tempering Himself to conformity •with the human habit, lest the infirmity of the assumed nature should be unable to bear the power and infinitude tof the divine nature. 4 Even Cyril, while rejecting a meta- 1 Ritschl characterizes the kenotic theory as verseh&mter Socinianismus. 5 H6nsp yap r/v av f ipooTtoi, 'iva 7teipa6 ( jp, outgo xai \6yoS, 'iva 8ola.6hrjj- Tf<5vxa%ovToZ fxiv zov Xoyov tv too nsipdZs^ai . . . xai 6ravpov6 ( jai, xai a.7to r ivr/6HEiv. Contra Haereses, lib. iii. cap. xix. 3. 3 Exinanivit se, hoc est, potestatem suam ab opere retraxit, ut humiliatus otiosa virtute infirmari videretur. — Comment, in Epistolam ad Philipp. 4 In forma Dei.manens formam servi assumpsit, nvn demutatus sed se ipsum exinaniens, et intra se latens, et intra suam ip-e vacuefactus potestatem; dum se usque ad formam temperat habitus huniam. ne potentem immensamque naturam Modern Kenotic Theories. 169 morphic Incarnation, kenosis in that sense being, in his view, excluded by the 6ht}vqo6i% ascribed by the evangelist to the incarnate Logos, in the same text in which he rep- resents Him as becoming flesh, 1 nevertheless did homage to the demands of the kenosis, by admitting that the super- human endowments of the man Jesus must at all events be carefully concealed, that He might at least seem to be what in truth He was not, and wear to spectators the guise and fashion of a child, a boy, and a man, while His inward habit was that of a God. 2 The Lutherans yielded reluctant obedience to the requirements of history, by ascribing to the man Christ Jesus a possession without use of divine attributes; while the Reformed, on the other hand, made room for growth and experience in the life of the Saviour, by so conceiving of the union of natures, that the human nature should not be overlaid or swallowed up by the divine. 3 In recent times the pressure of the problem ha» been felt more heavily than ever; and men of all schools, believing in the doctrine of the Trinity, have been of one mind as to the necessity of such a construction of Christ's person as, while recognising His Godhead, shall nowise infringe on the integrity and full reality of His humanity. All, as already remarked, 4 have not followed the same method in the work of reconstruction. Some are content with the old Reformed theory carefully re-stated in the light of modern requirements, teaching a duality, not in the consciousness of the God-man, but in the life of the Logos; distributing the mens duplex between the Logos as a person in the Trinity and the concrete God-man, so far as that divine person exhibits and develops Himself in Jesus in a human manner, or as a human individual, being the life principle of this man, sustaining Him, conditioning His existence and personality, dwelling in Him by the assumptae humilitatis non ferret infirmitas, sed in tantum se virtue incircumscripta moderaretur, in quantum oporteret earn usque ad patientiam connexi sibi corporis obedire. De Trinitate, lib. xi. 48. The exchange of forms, though not taught here, is asserted in other passages; see Appendix, Note A, Lect. i.; also Thoma- sius, ii. p. 172 sqq. Thomasius, without good ground, claims Hilary as a sup- porter of kenosis in his own sense. 1 See Appendix, Note G. 2 gee Lecture ii. 3 See Lecture iii. < See x>. 1-56. 170 The Humiliation of Christ. Holy Spirit. 1 Others teach what may be called a gradual Incarnation, conceiving of the union as at first compara- tively outward and dissoluble, gradually becoming more intimate as the human development of Jesus progressed, till at length, after the resurrection, the Logos and the man became absolutely one, 2 — a view in some respects having close affinity to the one previously described; the > So Schneckenburger, Vom doppelten Stande Ckrisli, p. 218: Anstatt jener Lutherischen Spaltung der menschlichen Natur in ihre illokale und lokale Sub- sistenz, vielmehr in die Lebensausserung der gottlichen eine Distinktion fallt, wo- nach die mens duplex sich eigentlich vertheilt an den Logos, sofern er Person der Trinitat ist, und den conkreten Gottmenschen, sofern sich in Jesus jene Person menschlich, d. h. als menschliches Individuum darstellt und entwickelt. Der Logos totus extra Jesum ist die secunda persona trinitatis als solche, mit der scientia personalis, der Logos totus in Jesu ist dieselbe alles durchdringende und bele- bende gottliche Hypostase, sofern sie Lebensprincip dieses Individuums ist, des Gottmenschen, dessen individuelles Bewusstsein nicht schlechthin Alles umfasst. Lebensprincip dieses Individuum ist der Logos, weil er hominem yesum sustentat. sein Dasein und Personsein absolut bedingt, ihm gratiose inwohnt durch den hei- ligen Geist. Schneckenburger speaks of the Reformed theory, so stated, as satis- fying pretty much the Dornerian desiderata, and says that the Reformed thean- thropic life-development is the normal human development of Him who, on account of His unique intimate relation to the Logos (who is the ground of all rational being), is the God-man. 2 So Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. iii. p. 250, where he states his own view in opposition to the kenotic theory: "On the only other possible view (other than the kenotic), we can merely speak of a limitation of the self-communication of the Logos to humanity, not of a lessening or reduction of the Logos Himself. The being and actuality of the Logos remained unchanged; but Jesus possessed the being and actuality of the Logos in virtue of the unio, ■nerely so far as was compatible with the truth of the human growth. For this .eason the eternal personality of the Logos did not immediately, and ere there was a human consciousness, become divine-/;«/«a«." "On this view the object of the volition of the Logos is, in the first instance, solely the production of a divine-human nature, not a divine-human person." The union is "not completely accomplished until the personality of the Logos also became divine-human, through the coming into existence of a human consciousness able to be appropriated and able also itself to appropriate." Further on, Dorner refers to Origen's doctrine of an eternal generation of the Son, as analogous to this doctrine of a gradual Incarnation, one "constantly growing and reproducing itself on the basis of the being." He then adds, by way of explaining this idea: "At the centre of His being, it is true, this man is from the beginning divine-human essence: but many things are yet lacking to this person; other things in it are still dissolubly united — for example, the body is still mortal; other things are still mutable, without detriment to its identity. The divine-human articulation, the bodily and the spir- itual organism of the divine-human person, needs first to be developed " (p. 258). The idea is, that the physical unto is a momentary act, but its effects, physical and moral, are only gradually worked out. Modern Kenotic Theories. 171 main difference being, that in the Reformed theory the Logos consciousness never becomes absolutely coincident with the human consciousness of Christ, the distinction between the Logos totus extra Jesum and the Logos totus in Jesn being eternally valid, while in the other theory the ultimatum or goal is an absolute identity, in the old Lutheran sense, between the divine and the human — the divine become wholly human, and the human wholly divine; and the Lutheran axiom, Logos non extra carnem, being realized in the eternal, as it could not be in the earthly state. The advocates of kenosis, in the sense of depoten- tiation, total or partial, are not satisfied with either of those schemes, and therefore they bring forward their own. And they are quite entitled to do so, and it is our duty to listen to them, not refusing to hear on the ground that the spec- ulation is idle, that there is no problem to solve, no need for any new attempt to answer the question, How can Christ be God without at the same time ceasing to be man ? We may indeed enter on the study of this new theory with a suspicion that it will turn out a failure, yea, with a rooted conviction that all theories whatsoever will break down; only believing firmly that Christ is both God and man, and determined that no theory, orthodox or heterodox, old or new, shall rob us of our faith in either of the factors which constitute our Lord's mysterious person, and using our critical faculties mainly to protect ourselves against such a result. In that case, we shall come to the task of examin- ing the latest Christological speculation in the orthodox interest, with very moderate expectation of new light. But our examination need not on this account be careless, prejudiced, or contemptuous, as if the interests of science, as distinct from those of faith, had already been fully sat- isfied, and all further theorizing, or theological inquiry on the matter, were a simple impertinence. 3. One other general observation remains to be made with reference to the kenotic theory, viz., that it does not seem advisable to dispose of it in a summary manner, by a priori reasoning from the divine inchangeableness. This attribute, doubtless, offers a very tempting short road to the refutation of a theory which we have previously made 172 The Humiliation of Christ. up our minds not to believe. It is very easy for one, taking his stand at that point, to ask imposing and formidable questions. Is this so-called kenosis metaphysically pos- sible? can the almighty God depotentiate Himself? can the infinite One limit Himself? can the omniscient One reduce Himself to the state of a mere human germ, without knowledge, or even so much as self-consciousness ? For my part, I do not care to ask such questions; I am not in- clined to dogmatize on what is possible or impossible for God: I think it best to keep the mind clear of too decided prepossessions on such matters. It appears to me not very safe to indulge in a priori reasonings from divine attributes, and especially from divine unchangeableness. It is wiser in those who believe in revelation to be ready to believe that God can do anything that is not incompatible with His moral nature, to refuse to allow metaphysical difficulties to stand as insuperable obstacles in the way of His gracious purposes, and so far to agree with the advocates of the kenosis as to hold that He can descend and empty Him- self to the extent love requires. For a priori reasoning from divine attributes, besides being liable to a charge of presumption, is apt to be dangerous. We may put weapons into the hands of foes to be wielded with fatal effect against doctrines dear to our hearts. What if the attribute of unchangeableness should be brought to bear against the Incarnation itself ! What if men should begin to ask such questions as these: " If God be unchangeable, how can He become flesh ? If God be essentially unlimited, how can He so subject Himself to the limitations of the humanity of Christ, as in Him to be really with us?" 1 How is Strauss to be answered when he argues: "A God who performs single acts is certainly a person, but not the Ab- solute. Turning Himself from one act to another, or now exercising a certain kind of activity — the extraordinary — anon allowing it to rest, He does and is in one moment, what He neither does nor is in another, and so falls alto- gether under the category of the changeable, the temporal, the finite " ? Here are creation, providence, incarnation, 1 Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. ii. vol. i. p. 65, with referenca to the views taught by Cyril concerning the divine immutability. Modern Kenotic Theories. 173 miracles, demolished by a single stroke of resistless a priori logic, reasoning with unhesitating assurance from the at- tribute of immutability. They that take the sword shall perish with the sword; therefore let believers in these and kindred revealed truths put up again the two-edged sword of a priori reasoning into his place, and be content to try current theories by humbler and more patient methods, mindful what obstacles every Christian truth has encoun- tered in its way to a place in the established creed of the Church, arising out of speculative presuppositions and prepossessions. In this spirit, then, I proceed now to make some critical observations upon the theory in question, some of these being but repetitions or expansions of objections stated by German theologians, who have not seen their way to give the kenotic hypothesis their unqualified approval. 1. First of all, there is a great initial difficulty to be got over. According to the Thomasian theory the Incarnation involves at once an act of assumption and an act of self- limitation; the two acts, distinct in thought, being coin- cident in time, and simply different aspects of one and the same act. Now the difficulty is, that these two phases show the same act in what seem contradictory lights, at once as an assertion and a deposition of divine power. The Incarnation, as assumption of human nature on the part of the Logos, is an exercise of omnipotence; as self-limitation, on the other hand, it is the loss of omnipotence. One act of will has contrary effects; one effect being the creation of the human nature; the other, the entire waste or dissi- pation of force in the act of creation. Are such contrary effects of one act of will compatible ? ' And why should this particular act of creation be followed with the extinc- tion or absorption of creative force, any more than that by which the Logos brought into being the world at large, or the first man ? Is the difference due to the fact that the 1 Schneckenburger, Vom doppelten Stande Christi, p. 214: Eine und dieselbe Willensthat, deren Effekt eine gftttliche iibernatlirliche Machtausserung, assumptio, and zugleich eine iibernaturliche Machtentleerung ware, ist der vollendete Wider- spruch, der sich nur halten kann, wenn die Entleerung zu einer quasi- ex inanitit gemacht wird. 1 74 The Humiliation of Christ. product in this case is personally united to the producer ? Then we are landed in a heathenish view of the Incarna- tion, according to which matter is accredited with power to reduce even Deity united to it to a state of impotence; and the kenosis ceases to be a voluntary act of self- depotentiation, except in the sense that the Logos freely resolves to bring Himself into contact with a creature which, He knows beforehand, will of necessity absorb all His divine energy. 1 It might, indeed, seem a very easy way out of these difficulties to make the kenosis and the assump- tion twe really and temporally separate acts, either of the same actor or of different actors. The Incarnation might be conceived of in one or other of two ways. Either thus: the Logos fully depotentiated Himself; then the Holy Spirit did what the depotentiated Logos was no longer able to do — created a human nature, consisting of a body and a soul, and united this creation to the depotentiated Logos. On this hypothesis there is no assumption, but only a union between the Logos become incapable of such an act, and a human nature, effected by the Holy Ghost; and the thing united to the Logos is not merely a human nature, but a complete human being. 2 Or thus: the Logos first partially depotentiated Himself, leaving Himself enough power to create and assume human nature, and then the process of depotentiation was consummated when the union had been effected. 3 On this hypothesis, however, there arises, for a moment at least, that very dualism which the kenotic theory is intended to get rid of — a self-conscious 1 Schneckenburger, /. c, adduces against the ascription of the absorbtive power to the nature of the svcj/xevov (the human nature), the fact that, in the union with the assumed nature, the Logos ultimately becomes active and potent again, when the kenosis is at an end. He compares the depotentiation of the Logos, which, according to Thomasius, takes place in connection with the Incarnation, to the loss of consciousness sustained by God, according to Lenau's expression, " in the rush of creation." Etwa so wie, nach Lenau's Ausdruck, Gott im Schop- fungsrausch das Bewusstsein verloren haben soil, wUrde des Logos in Assumti- onsakt seine Gottheit bis zum Minimum, jedenfalls bis zur Bewusstlosigkeit jrschopft und eingebusst haben. 2 Schneckenburger, Vom doppelten Stande, pp. 212, 213. Of this hypothesis Schneckenburger remarks: "und so haben wir einerseits die reformirte Lehre, andrerseits noch ein Ilaretisches zu der reformirten Lehre hinzu, namlich das in 8vo q>v6£aov, die assumptio hominis, nicht naturae kumanae." 3 Ibid. p. 212. Modern Ke?iotic Theories. 175 and potent, if not omnipotent, Logos united to a human foetus, and freely resolving to depotentiate Himself still further, even completely, in order that His state may be perfectly congruous to that of the nature He has assumed. 2. Assuming the initial difficulty to have been surmounted, other difficulties confront us in connection with the in- carnate state. One is, that the kenosis reduces the Logos to a state of helpless passivity or impotence. Thomasius, indeed, endeavours to meet this objection by the remark that " Potenz " does not signify something impotent or empty, but fulness concentrated in itself, withdrawn from the circumference of manifestation indeed, yet present in the centre, and having power over itself. 1 But the question is: has this " Potenz " power at will to radiate forth to the circumference of manifestation in action, or is it under a necessity of remaining at the centre confined to a mere mathematical point ? If the former alternative be adopted, as it is by Ebrard, 2 then there is really no depotentiation, as Ebrard consistently holds, but only a change in the mode of manifesting and exercising power. If the latter alterna- tive be adopted, as it is in the frankest manner by Gess, 3 then " Potenz," in spite of the protest of Thomasius, is practically equivalent to impotence. And Thomasius virtually admits this, by representing the development of Christ as taking place under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. He quotes with approval an observation of Kahnis, that the miracles of Christ proved, not His divine nature, but His divine mission; and while not denying them to be expressions of an indwelling power, yet he speaks of them as wrought at the bidding and with the assistance of the Father, and through the medium of the Holy Ghost. 4 In like manner does he account for Christ's knowledge of the divine. That knowledge, we are told, Christ got in no human school; in virtue of His union with the Father, He saw His eternal thoughts, not as one who received them by revelation, but through His own immediate intuition. But at the same time it is admitted that these divine thoughts came gradually to Christ's consciousness through the mediation 1 See p. 143. 2 See p. 152. 3 See p. 146. 4 Christi Person mid Werh, ii. p. 250. 176 The Humiliation of Christ. of the Holy Spirit; though an effort is made tc lessen the importance of the admission by the further statement, that this growth in knowledge, under the education of the Spirit, was but the development of what lay hid in the depths of His own being. 1 Now what is the consequence of this passivity of the Logos, reluctantly admitted by Thomasius, more frankly conceded by Gess ? It is this, that in the Thomasian theory the depotentiated Logos associated with a human soul seems superfluous; it would make little difference though He were not there; 2 and that in the Gessian theory, the Logos, become a human soul, is allowed no benefit from His antecedents, the divine ele- ments fall into abeyance so completely, that His sinless- ness and His consciousness of personal identity are rendered all but unaccountable; insomuch that if Jesus had happened to be a Greek instead of a Jew, without the benefit of the Hebrew Scriptures, He could not have known who He was by the way of a truly human development — in other words, without a miraculous revelation. 3. But this passivity of the depotentiated Logos involves another consequence, which constitutes a third difficulty in the way of accepting the kenotic theory, at least in its Thomasian and Gessian forms. By one act of self-depoten- tiation, the Logos is reduced to such a state of impotence, that His kenosis becomes a matter of physical necessity, not of loving free-will. The love which moved the Son of God to become man consumed itself at one stroke. There is a breach of continuity in the mind which gave rise to the Incarnation. A mighty impulse of free self-conscious love constrained the eternal Son to descend into humanity, and in the descent that love lost itself for years; till at length the man Jesus found out the secret of His birth, and the sublime spirit of self-sacrifice to which it owed its origin, 1 Christi Person und IVerk, ii. p. 237. 2 See Dorner, div. ii. vol. iii. p. 254: " Nay more, on such a supposition the Incarnation of the Logos is of no advantage whatever to the humanity. It does not allow the Logos to communicate Himself in ever-increasing measure, and so as to direct the development of the man assumed. . . . Consequently, the hypoth- esis of a self-depotentiation of the Logos . . . renders it necessary to look out for another principle than the Logos, to wit, the Holy Ghost, to conduct the growth of the God-man" (so, for example, with Thomasius and Hofmann). Modem Kenotic Theories. 177 and made that spirit His own, said Amen to the mind which took shape in the kenosis, 1 and resolved thenceforth to act on it, and so reunited the broken thread of personal identity. On this view, the Logos had no acquaintance with some of the most interesting stages in the experience of Christ. He knew what it was to be conceived in the Virgin's womb, or rather to resolve that He should be; for by the time the fact was accomplished, He was no longer conscious; and He knew what it was to be tempted in the wilderness, and to endure the contradiction of sinners during His ministry, and to die; for by the time these experiences came to Jesus, He had ascertained who He was. But the Logos knew not what it was to be an infant in the cradle, or on His mother's breast; what it was to be a boy subject to His parents; what to grow in wisdom as in stature; what to be an apprentice carpenter: for in those years He was asleep — unconscious. Therefore with infants, children, and youths He has not learned to sympathize; only with full-grown tempted men has His experience fitted Him to have a fellow-feeling.* On this account, one desiderates a way of making the Logos accommodate Himself to the human development other- wise than by depotentiation, that His love may not appear exhausted by a single act, and that the initial act of sym- pathy may not disqualify Him for entering sympathetically into all the experiences of human life — those of the first thirty, not less than those of the last three years of Christ's 1 Schneckenburger, Vom doppelten Stande, p. 204, represents Reinhard as teaching a nachtragliche Genehmigung on the part of the man Jesus, of the exinanitio to which, according to the old Lutheran theory, He was a party from the moment of conception. The humanity of Christ unconsciously divested itself of divine properties at the conception, and consciously consented to the act on reaching maturity, somewhat as a Christian homologates the vows to which he was unconsciously a party at his baptism. In the same way the modern kenosists are shut up by their theory to an ex post facto homologation by the man Jesus of the original act of kenosis which resulted in the Incarnation. 2 Dorner, div. ii. vol. iii. p. 253: "The truth of the kenosis of the Logos is the love which stirred in Him in eternity, in virtue of which He condescends to the creatures who stand in need and are susceptible of Him, that He may know what is theirs and communicate what is His. But the kenosis of self-depotentiation fails to perform that at which it aims. For if the Logos has given up His eternal self- conscious Being, where is His love during that time ? Love without self-conscious- ness is an impossibility." Dorner further questions the necessity of this " unethical sacrifice of Himself." i/S The Humiliation of Christ. earthly history. Is this impossible ? In the words of Dorner, " Is it impossible for the Logos to acquire power over the central susceptibility of humanity which He finds in Jesus, and to belong to it in a unique manner, save by ceasing to stand in any actual relation to others ? or save by reducing Himself to a level of equality with this man ? " 1 4. The Thomasian form of the kenotic theory is open to objection with reference to the personal unity. It teaches the presence in Christ of two life centres, the depotentiated Logos and the human soul. Now this doctrine is in danger of being impaled on one or other of the horns of the following dilemma. Either these two life centres are " homogeneous magnitudes" or they are not. If they are not, then a dualism ensues in the consciousness of the God-man, and the depotentiation of the Logos has taken place in vain; for the very object of that depotentiation was to exclude dualism. Such a dualism can be escaped only by a perfect equality of the two life centres in spirit- ual endowment. The two yoke-fellows must draw equally and keep pace, else the course of the human development will be other than smooth and harmonious. If, on the other hand, the two life centres be homogeneous, then the unity of self-consciousness may indeed be secured; but only with the effect of raising the question: To what pur- pose this duality in the life basis ? Why two human souls to do the work of one ? for, ex hypothesis the depo- tentiated Logos is to all intents and purposes a human soul. Instead of this roundabout process, according to which the Logos first reduces Himself to the dimensions of a human soul, and then associates with Himself another human soul, why not say at once the Logos became a human soul ? On the Thomasian theory, the depotentiated Logos, or, if you will, the human soul of Christ, is degraded from the position of a necessary constituent of the person- ality to that of a dispensable ornament. The two life centres, the self-reduced Logos and the human soul, are like the two eyes or the two ears of a man. As the sensations of both organs coalesce in one mental act of perception, the duality of the organs does not produce 1 Dorner, div. ii. vol. iii. p. 254. Modern Kenotic Theories. ijg any duality of consciousness, while it adds to the symmetry and grace of the person; but on the other hand, it is not necessary to the act of perception, one eye or ear being able to do the work of the two. 1 This being the state of the case as regards the Thoma- sian form of the kenotic hypothesis, it is not surprising that the preponderance of opinion, among theologians of the same Christological school, should be decidedly in favour of the metamorphic form of the theory, which gets rid of the duality of life centres by representing the Logos as undergoing conversion into, or as taking the place and performing the function of, a human soul. This form of the theory now invites our attention. 5. The metamorphic theory of Christ's person, as ex- pounded by Gess, is liable to two grave objections. One of these has reference to the power which this theory gives to the flesh of the incarnate Logos to determine His condition. The text, " the Word became flesh," means, that the flesh and blood which he assumed became in this union a determining power for the Logos. The Incar- nation signifies the subjection of Deity to the dominion of matter. Contact with flesh is fatal to the free, conscious life of God; it is a plunge into a Lethe stream, which involves loss of self-consciousness, and therewith of the divine attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipres- ence, and even of eternal holiness. It is true these attributes are in the metamorphosed Logos in a state of rest; but it is a rest out of which they cannot return until the Logos wakens up to self-consciousness, and that waken- ing does not take place fully till death has delivered the imprisoned Deity from the bondage of His mortal corrupti- ble body. " Not in entire forgetfulness," indeed, did the Son of God pass His life on earth previous to His passion. 1 On this objection to the Thomasian theory, see Dorner, div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 255, 256. Dorner says: " It does not even help the question of the unity of the divine and human, unless we should say that the depotentiation was in itself Incar- nation, that is, conversion into a human existence. ... If, however, no conver- sion be supposed to have taken place, and yet the kenosis be assumed for the pur- pose of the unio ... we should have nothing but two homogeneous magnitudes in or alongside of each other, . . . and the result arrived at resembles a duplica- tion of one and the same, through which the one or the c ther s rendered useless." i8o The Humiliation of Christ. By instinct, by perusal of the Scriptures, by close commun- ion with His Father, Jesus had found out who He was by the time He began His public ministry; and the conclusion at which He had arrived by these means was, or at least may possibly have been, confirmed by flashes of recollec- tion lighting up the darkness of the incarnate state, and for a moment revealing the heavens whence He had come But not till He tasted death did He perfectly recover pos- session of Himself. Then the bound powers of Godhead were immediately, and we may say ipso facto, released from the enslavement of matter. For though our author speaks of Jesus after His death as made alive in the spirit by the Father, 1 this is only a convenient use of Scripture language to express the idea that death itself gave Him back His life in all its native energy. Death, so to speak, disen- gaged the divine power of the Logos, which had been reduced to a latent state by entrance into connection with matter, somewhat as heat applied to water disengages the latent force of steam. Depotentiated at His conception in the Virgin's womb, the incarnate Logos became repotenti- ated at His death, so that He was able to raise His own body from the grave, and transform it into a fit organ for the manifestation of His recovered life in all its fulness — transform it at once, per sattum, not gradually; for a body retaining any particle of gross materiality could not be a fit companion for the Logos returned to Himself, but would only bring Him again, partially at least, into a state of most unseasonable bondage. 1 The other grave difficulty besetting the Gessian theory is, that it ensures the reality of Christ's human experience • Die Lehre von der Person Christi, p. 379: Nach der Todtung am Fleisch ward jesus von dem Vater lebendig gemacht am Geist, und nachdem er im Geiste den Geistern im Gefangniss geprediget hatte, ward sein im Grabe liegender Leib von ihm selbst wieder aufgerichtet, sein im Tode hingegebenes Leben von ihm selbst wieder hingenommen. s Die Lehre von der Person Christi, p. 379. In the above remarks I have given not Gess' own words, but what I regard as the legitimate outcome of his theory. He teaches an immediate transformation of the risen body, and I suggest a reason naturally arising out of his theory for holding that doctrine. With regard to the Ascension, Gess remarks: Die Himmelfahrt ist fur die Leiblichkeit Jesu nicht der Eintritt einer neuen Epoche, sie ist nur das letzte um der Jtlnger willen in feierlicher Auffahrt geschehende Scheiden des Auferstandenen. P. 380. Modern Kenotic Theories. 181 in a way which imperils the end of the Incarnation, viz., the redemption of sinners, for which it is indispensable that the Redeemer Himself should be free from sin. This theory is so thoroughly in earnest with the conversion of the Logos into a human soul, that it quite consistently treats sin as a real possibility for Jesus. And while, of course, all who advocate this theory agree in believing that, as a matter of fact, the possibility did not become actual, I do not think they succeed in giving any good reason for the fact. The risk of moral evil appearing in the life of Jesus is not duly provided against. All that Gess has to say is, that God foreknew that the man Jesus would not fall into sin, and therefore was willing that the risk should be run. 1 That is, the chances might be ten, a hundred, a million to one, against the preservation of sinlessness, but God foresaw that the barely possible would happen, there- fore He decreed that the Incarnation should take place. This is simply giving up the problem as insoluble; a remark applicable also to the Schleiermacherian method of securing the sinlessness of Christ, viz., by a determinism which ex- cludes real moral freedom, i.e. by physical force. Other supporters of the kenotic theory, seeing the unsatisfactori- ness of leaving the vital matter of the Saviour's moral perfection to the chapter of accidents, or, what comes to the same thing, to the power of an unethical necessity, have sought a solution of the problem in the remanent divinity of the Logos incarnate. Liebner, for example, while apparently agreeing with Gess in making the Son of God, entered into " Werden," take the place of a human soul, insists on ascribing to the incarnate Son a large superhuman, superadamitic element. 2 He will not have Christ be regarded as a human being put, by His immaculate conception, in the same position as Adam before the fall, capable of being either good or evil, and having used His freedom well, exhibiting in His person as an individual saint the character of a normally developed Adam. 3 He will have us understand 1 See p. 149. 2 See Appendix, Note B. 3 Christologie, p. 318: Es giebt einen gewissen hoheren Ebionismus, dem ej aur auf einen einzelnen Heiligen ankommt, und dem daher Chnstus nur wiedei 1 82 The Humiliation of Christ. that, being the Logos incarnate, Christ could not but live a holy life; for this among other reasons, because His exist- ence in this world was preceded by an ethical being in the eternal world, of which He had the benefit in His earthly career. Now this may be true as a matter of fact, but in proportion as it is true, is, if not the reality of Christ's moral experience as a man, at least its similarity to that of other men, compromised. And in general it may be remarked in reference to kenotic theories of the Gessian type, that they seemed doomed to oscillate between Apol- linarism and Ebionitism. Either they make the Logos, qua human soul, not human enough or too human. Either they retain for the Logos a little of His divinity to carry Him safely through His curriculum of temptation, or, com- pelling Him to part with all but His metaphysical essence, they reduce Him strictly to Adam's level, and expose Him to Adam's risks. 1 6. In the form given to it by Ebrard, the kenotic theory certainly does not err by making Christ too much of a man. The Christ presented to us under this type, as has been re- marked by a recent German writer, wears the aspect of a middle Being 2 — neither God nor man, but more the former than the latter. He retains all His divine attributes, only not in the absolute form suited to the eternal mode of ex- istence, but in the applied form suited to existence in time; and, retaining these attributes in applied form, He assumes flesh, and is found in fashion as a man. One's first thought is that such a Being is a man only in appearance; but der normal entwickelte Adam ist. Aber Christus muss sowohl auf der person- lichen, als auf der Naturseile zugleich von Adam unterschieden werden. Es bedarf mehr als nur des normal entwickelten Adam, es bedarf eines Allbefreiers, eines universalen und centralen Hauptes. 1 Hodge. Systematic Tkeohgy, vol. ii. p. 431, while disapproving of the kenotic theory, indicates a certain favour for Gess. Referring to Gess' claim to have ar- rived at his conclusion by the study of the Scriptures, he remarks: "There is ground for this self-congratulation of the author, for his book is far more scriptural in its treatment of the subject than any other book of the same class with which we are acquainted. It calls for a thorough review and candid criticism." Hodge's acquaintance with the kenotic literature seems to have been superficial and frag mentary. '-' NOsgen, Christus der Menschen- und Gottessohn, Gotha, 1869, p. 235: " fcib rard's Auifassung macht Christum zu einem menschlich-gOttlichen Mittelwesen." Modern Kenotic Theories. 183 Ebrard stoutly denies that his theory lays him open to a charge of doketism. The Logos, retaining His divine properties in their altered form, does not exceed the di- mensions of humanity. His endowments, indeed, far ex- ceed those of man in his present degenerate state, but they are nothing more than the realization of the ideal of hu- manity. Christ is simply the sinless, pleromatic, wonder- working man, exercising dominion over the laws of nature as depraved by sin. Through the Incarnation of the Son of God was given a man who, as to His will, was in the state of integrity, like Adam before the fall; who, as to His natural gifts, bore within Him all the powers of humanity, which lay as undeveloped germs in the first federal head of the race, like a sun gathering these up into Himself as con- centrated radii of a complete all-sided development; and who, as to His power, stood exalted as Lord over the laws. of the depraved order of nature. 1 This man was neither more nor less than the ideal man, the head of the human race r . in whom the organism of humanity found its unity. If it be objected that, according to this doctrine, man and God «ire practically one, our author replies: Even so, that is the eternal truth of the matter. He holds that it was the eternal purpose of God, altogether irrespective of the en- trance of sin into the world, that on the one hand God .should enter into time by becoming man, and that on the other hand man should rise to the full realization of his ideal in becoming God, and attaining to dominion over the laws of nature, over the objects of knowledge, and over space, such as we see exemplified in the applied omnipo- tence, omniscience, and omnipresence of Christ. 2 There- fore Christ, even in His miracles, in His penetration into the secrets of the future, in His power to transport Himself ' Dogmatik, ii. 32: Durch die Menschwerdung des Sohnes Gottes war also gegeben ein Mensch der (a) was sein Wollen betraf, im stat. integr. stand, d. h. sich, wie Adam vor dem Fall, frei entscheiden konnte fur gut oder bos; (b) was sein naturliche Begabung betraf, alle Krafte der Menschheit, die in dem ersten Stammvater Adam, unentwickelt, keimartig, lagen, als zusammengehende Radien des vollendeten, allseitigen Entwickelung sonnenhaft in sich trug; (c) was sein Konnen betraf, schlechthin erhaben und herrschend iiber den Gesetzen der de- pravirten Naturordnung stand. 2 Vid. Appendix, Note D. 184 The Humiliation of Christ. at will from one place to another, was not superhuman, but only ideally human. In these acts of applied omnipo- tence, omniscience, and omnipresence, He was at once God and man; combining in His person the two natures, not indeed as separate parts, but as two aspects of one and the same being — even the Son of God become man, man sin- less, pleromatic, wonder-working, still man — not possess- ing the eternal world-governing form of the metaphysical attributes of God, not even the eternal form of the ethical attributes, such being incompatible with the idea of man. 1 On the ambitious speculations concerning an Incarna- tion independent of sin, as the realization of the great end of creation, the union of God, the Creator, with man, the highest of His creatures, interwoven by Ebrard into his Christology, I offer no remark, all the more that they con- duct to giddy heights, on which one accustomed to hum- bler levels of thought is apt to experience vertigo. I sim- ply observe, that the Christological theory of this author seems to be more in harmony with the pretentious phil- osophy with which it is associated, than with the facts of gospel history, or with the catholic faith concerning our Lord's person. Ebrard, indeed, is very confident that his theory is at once scriptural and ecclesiastically orthodox; but this circumstance need not influence us much, as over- weening confidence is one of his most marked intellectual characteristics. As to Scripture, it may be admitted that it does appear as if Christ possessed the inherent power to work miracles at will, His virtue in the temptation and at other times consisting in absolutely abstaining from making any use of His power for His own personal behoof. But how is the doctrine that Christ, as man, possessed ap- plied omniscience, to be reconciled with His profession of ignorance ? That profession Ebrard himself regards as .bond fide, and he looks on the ignorance sincerely acknowl- 1 Dogmatik, ii. p. 35: Die gottliche und menschliche Natur sind nicht zwei 'Stttcke, oder Theile, aus denen die Person Christi zusammengeleimt ist, sondern der Sohn Gottes ward Mensch, so dass er nun eben Mensch war, zwar, silndloser, pleromatischer wunderthatiger Mensch, aber eben Mensch, nicht besitzend die mit dem Begriff des Menschen streitende evvige weltregierende Form der meta- physischen Eigenschaften Gottes, selbst nicht die ewige Form der ethischen. Modern Kenotic Theories. iS5 edged, as an evidence that Christ did not possess omni- science in the eternal form. 1 But the question is, did He possess applied omniscience, the power of knowing this and that secret at will; and if He did, how is that attribute to be reconciled with real ignorance? Is it not an abuse of words to ascribe applied omniscience to one of whom ig- norance can be predicated ? 2 How, again, is the doctrine that Christ possessed divine attributes in an applied form, to be reconciled with the state of childhood ? Did Christ as a child possess omnipotence and omniscience applicable at will ? Ebrard could hardly reply in the affirmative, for he admits that Jesus really grew in wisdom as in stature. 4 He might indeed say that the child possessed these attri- butes unconsciously, as a sleeping man possesses knowl- edge: therefore in an inapplicable form. But this, again, is only playing with words. Unconscious, unavailable power is a euphemism for impotence; and unconscious, unavail- able knowledge a euphemism for ignorance. Once more, where in Scripture are we taught that man is destined to attain to such divine powers as Ebrard ascribes to Christ, even to unlimited dominion of the spirit over nature, to unlimited power to penetrate all objects of knowledge, and to unlimited dominion over space ? And if, indeed, this be man's ultimate destiny, to be attained in the state of glory, in what sense does Christ differ from all in whom this ideal of humanity is realized ? Does not this doctrine lead to as many Incarnations as there shall be glorified 1 Dogmatik, ii. p. 21: Was die Allwissenheit betrifft, so weiss er nicht die Zeit des Weltgerichts; selbst die Art seines Leidens sieht er mit naherer Bestimmtheit erst gegen Ende seines Lebens voraus. 2 Dogmatik, ii. p. 20: Von dem Augenblick an, wo er in die Existenzform des menschlichen Embryo eingegangen war, entwickelte er sich als achtes mensch- liches Individuum, ward geboren, lag als Kind in der Krippe, wuchs, und wuchs nicht etwa nur lieblich, so dass seine geistige Entwicklung so gleich von Anfang an vollendet und fertig, oder er gar etwa, wahrend er in der Wiege lag, allwissend gewesen ware, sondern es heisst von ihm, Luk. ii. 52, er nahm zu an Alter und Weisheit. 3 See Dogmatik, ii. p. 145, where, with reference to the personal identity of the Incarnate with the pre-existent Logos, Ebrard emphasizes the truth that unity ot person is not the same thing as unity of consciousness, and remarks that as- every man is more than he knows, so it is conceivable that the incarnate Logos bore within Him the fulness of His eternal essential properties without being conscious of them. 1 86 The Humiliation of Christ. saints ? It is no bar to this conclusion to say that Christ possesses absolutely, what we shall possess relatively. 1 If " relatively " mean imperfectly, then after all it is not man's destiny to possess the unlimited power promised to him. If, on the other hand, " relatively" does not involve limitation, then how does it differ from " absolutely " ? The question of our author's orthodoxy, in the ecclesias- tical sense, is one of secondary importance; but his self- complacency on this score provokes the remark, that his attempt to bring the Patristic and the Reformed Chris- tologies into conformity with his views can hardly appear, to a dispassionate reader, in any other light than as a char- acteristic display of perverse ingenuity. It may be the case that the two natures in Christ are in truth only two aspects, two abstract properties belonging to the Son of God entered into the form of humanity: the divine nature signifying the properties which belong to Him as the incarnate Son OF GOD (uncreated, eternally-begotten, etc.); the human na- ture signifying those which belong to Him as the Son of God INCARNATE (conceived, born, dead, possessing a ra- tional soul and a human body); but this is not the way in which the early fathers, or the Reformed theologians, con- ceived of the matter. 2 The two natures were not in their view two persons, but they were two subsistences, two things. John of Damascus may be taken as a more reliable expositor of the Church doctrine than the erratic modern divine. Having distinguished three senses in which the word nature may be viewed, according as it is considered either sola cogitatione, or in specie, or in individuo, John applies the distinction to the Incarnation as follows: God the Word, assuming flesh, neither took a nature, which is an object of mere mental contemplation (for this would not have been an Incarnation, but an imposture), nor that which 1 Abendmahl, ii. 791: Der aber wer ohne Silnde und der Eingeborene vom Vater war, der besass.absolut, was wir dereinst relativ zu besitzen bestimmt sind. 2 Ebrard, Dogmatik, ii. p. 61, gives the above as the import of the doctrine formulated at the Council of Chalcedon: Die beiden g>v6si? sind also nach chal- cedonischer Lehre weder zwei Personen (der Logos und ein Mensch) noch auch zwei Subsistenzen in dem Einen menschgewordenen Logos (Naturen in concretem Sinn) sondern zwei abstracte, nur durch Abstraction denkbare Propriet&ten, die dem in die Form der Menschheit eingetretenen Sohne Gottes zukommen, etc. Modern Kenotic Theories. 187 is considered in specie, but that only which is in individuo; not, indeed, as having subsisted by itself as an independent individual before its assumption, but as having its subsist- ence in the person of the Word. 1 The Reformed theolo- gians concurred in this view. It is true, indeed, that In their controversy with the Lutherans they were accustomed to speak of the two natures as abstracta, with reference to the person, it being the habit of their opponents to over- look the distinction between person and nature, and ascribe to the human nature of Christ, per se, whatever might be ascribed to the man Christ. But this is a very different thing from regarding the human nature as simply an aspect of the incarnate Logos, as if, for example, the human soul of Christ were simply the Logos under the time-form of existence, subject to the law of succession in His thought, and applying His omnipotence not in all directions simulta- neously, but now in this direction, now in that. In the Reformed Christology, Christ's soul was a numerically dis- tinct entity from the Logos. Hence Ebrard finds it rather difficult to make citations from the Reformed writers, which even seem to support his views, and is under the necessity of correcting their inaccurate (?) expressions, in order to bring them up to the Ebrardian standard of orthodoxy. Thus, e.g., one old expounder of the Reformed Christology says: "The human nature of Christ is a creature, visible, tangible, finite in essence, duration, and power, composed of body and soul; His divine nature is God invisible, impal- pable, infinite as to essence, duration, and power, void of all composition, impassible, immortal." Our modern repre- sentative of the Reformed school of theology treats his predecessor as a blundering schoolboy, and after the words, " the human nature of Christ," writes within brackets ("better, Christ in His human nature"). 2 1 De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. iii. cap. xi. s Dogmatik, ii. p. 114, quoting Wendeline: Ita humana Christi natura est [bes- ser, Christus humana natura est] creatura, visibilis, palpabilis, finita[us] quoad essentiam, durationem, et potentiam, composita[us] ex corpore et anima; divina natura est Deus, invisibilis, impalpabilis, infinita[us] quoad essentiam durationem, potentiam, omnis compositionis expers, impatibilis, immortalis. Ebrard admits that in some writings of the Reformed school the two natures are spoken of as "two parts." On the other hand, he claims Zanchius as one who most clearly 1 88 The Humiliation of Christ. 7. The kenotic theory, in the form given to it by Mar- tensen, escapes at least some of the objections to which, under the forms already considered, it is liable. The initial difficulty pointed out in connection with the Thomasian scheme does not meet us here, where the kenosis while real is only relative; inasmuch as, on this hypothesis, the In- carnation does not signify the assumption of human nature by an already absolutely depotentiated Logos, or by an act of power on the part of the Logos, which is at the same time an act of self-depotentiation; but consists in a voluntary act, by which the Logos becomes a human life centre, without His power becoming exhausted in the act. The passivity of the depotentiated Logos, and helpless subjection to the flesh, in the incarnate state also dis- appear; for to whatever extent the laws of physical nature have power over the Logos, in that state they have it by His own consent. For the same reason, this new form of the theory is not open to the charge of making the Lo- gos, by one act of self-depotentiation, incapable of dis- playing His gracious love in connection with a. large part of his human experience. While the Logos as man passes through the unconscious life of childhood, He is conscious of this stage of His incarnate being, and shows His love by and consciously held the opposite view. The doctrine of Zanchius, however, is simply a repetition of that taught by Damascenus. ( Vid. Dogmatik, ii. p. 104, in a long and very scholastic note on the various senses of the words "subsistence " and " substance," and on the use of them by the Reformed in connection with the Incarnation). In connection with Zanchius, another instance may be mentioned of Ebrard's habit of perverting the meaning of citations, occurring in the same place. He represents Zanchius as teaching that, in the Incarnation, the Logos became a limited Being. The ground of this representation is the following cita- tion: "Christus in ea assumpta forma servi sese evacuavit omni sua divina gloria, omnipotentia, omnipresentia, omniscientia. Factus est ex ditissimo pauperimus, ex omnipotente infirmus, ex omnisciente ignarus, ex immenso finitus." These words, taken by themselves, might naturally suggest an absolute surrender of the divine attributes named, at least in the eternal form. But the following words of Zanchius, not quoted by Ebrard, show that the former author had no intention of teaching any such doctrine: " non quod," Zanchius continues, "reipsa desient esse, quod erat iv /xofxptj Geov, sed quod in hac forma servi sicut factus est ex Deo homo, sic ex Domino servus, ex ditissimo pauperimus, ex omnipotente infirmus, ex omnisciente ignarus, ex immortali mortalis, ex immenso finitus, ex ubique prae- senti, certis locis circumscriptus, denique ex aequali cum Patre, valde minor Patre; a^. proinde quod secundum hanc naturam et formam servi, non potuit dici omni- potens, omniscius, ubique praesens." Zanchius, De Filii Dei Incarnatione, c. ii Modern Kenotic Theories. 18c consenting to pass through it. While escaping these diffi- culties besetting the theory of an absolute metaphysical kenosis, Martensen's doctrine seems to satisfy the demands of the ethical kenosis taught in Scripture. The self-empty- ing ascribed to the Logos by the apostle does not neces- sarily require absolute physical depotentiation, but only that the Logos shall limit Himself so far as the incarnate state is concerned, and shall be able to predicate of Him- self subjection to the limits of that state. Nor does it appear very difficult to reconcile this view with the ex- change of form which, according to the most correct exegesis, seems to be taught in the passage in the Epistle to the Philippians. Granting that the kenosis involved a giving up of divine form, and a taking upon Him on the part of the Logos, in its stead, of the form of a servant in the likeness of man, it does not follow that the Logos ceased absolutely to be what He was; all that necessarily follows is, that the two forms were not combined in the in- carnate life of the Logos. Notwithstanding what is said there, it may be that the Logos has a double life — one in the man Christ Jesus; one as the world-governing, world- illuminating Logos. Such a double life is certainly not taught in the passage, but neither is it formally excluded; nor can it be held to be excluded by implication, unless it can be shown that the doctrine of a double life is incom- patible with the condescension of the Son of God implied in the Incarnation, and evacuates His self-humiliation of all real ethical significance. If the contrary of this be true, then the apostle had simply no occasion to pronounce on the question whether the kenosis was absolute or relative only; it was enough for his purpose to emphasize its reality with reference to the incarnate state; so that, for example, Jesus should not be a child merely in outward seeming, but in very truth, speaking as a child, thinking as a child, understanding as a child. Whatever the form of God may mean, three positions may be taken up as to what the apos- tle meant to teach concerning it in connection with the Incarnation. It may be held that he meant to teach, either that the Logos retained the form of God in becoming man, or that He absolutely renounced the divine form in becom- 190 The Humiliation of Christ. ing man, or that in becoming man the Logos entered intc a form of existence which involved a real renunciation of the divine form, whether absolute or otherwise not being said, or possibly not even thought of. The first position is that taken up by the Fathers: the second is the view which naturally commends itself to advocates of a metamorphic or semi-metamorphic kenosis, like Gess and Ebrard; the third is the position which best fits in to the hypothesis of a double life taught by Martensen. It is a perfectly feasible position. Of course, even if allowed, this view of the apostle's meaning does not prove the hypothesis in question; it simply leaves room for it. But that is all that is wanted to legitimate it as a hypothesis intended tc cover and account for all the facts of our Lord's history, without creating more or greater difficulties than it solves. That this hypothesis has no difficulties of its own to meet, cannot indeed be pretended. The idea of a " double life ' of the Logos raises speculative questions which Martensen has not attempted to answer, and which have not been satisfactorily cleared up by those who have made the at- tempt. It is frankly admitted by some that the double life has the appearance of positing a double personality, a double ego; but it is explained that this appearance vanishes as soon as we more closely consider the relation of time and eternity as not temporal but causal. That being duly weighed, we shall see our way to holding at once a real kenosis, and the possession, yea, the use, without conceal- ment, of the divine glory (S6ia) on the part of the incarnate Son of God. 1 But even after we have thought sufficiently long and intensely on the relation referred to, trying to conceive it as directed till the brain grows weary, we may still find such a combination hard to conceive, and ask our- selves, how can the same mind be conscious and unconscious, finite and infinite, ignorant and omniscient, at the same moment? 2 It is indeed a hard problem, but in justice it 1 So SchOberlein ; see Appendix, Note E. 5 Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. ii. p. 435, states, as a conclusive objectioc to Ebrard's theory, which he understands as teaching a double life of the Logos, that " it assumes that the same individual mind can be conscious and unconscious finite and infinite, ignorant and omniscient, at the same time." Modern Kenotic Theories. 191 must be borne in mind that it is, in one form or another, a problem which presents itself to all who believe in the real Incarnation of an undepotentiated Logos. For Martensen and those who think with him, the problem is, how can one and the same mind (that of the Logos) be at once con- scious and unconscious, omniscient and ignorant ? foi Schneckenburger and Dorner, and such as agree with them, the problem is, how can one and the same person be at once conscious and unconscious, omniscient and ignorant - the former in the Logos per se, the latter in the human soul of the child or the man Jesus ? On the whole, with every desire to give the kenotic theory a fair and candid hearing, one cannot but feel that there are difficulties connected with it which " puzzle " the mind and give the judgment " pause," and dispose to acquiescence in the cautious opinion of a German theologian, more than half Inclined to support a hypothesis in favour with many of his countrymen: "The relations of eternity and time, of the ethical and physical, of the Incarnation to the primitive man, ofthe historical God-man to the previous activity of the Logos; the true and the untrue in Apollinarism, and the bearing of this hypothesis on the d6vyxwov, must be made clearer and more comprehensible than heretofore, before the full scientific and practical fruit of recent Christological speculation can be reaped," 1 or even, it may be added, rightly judged of as to its quality. One may well be excused, in- deed, for assuming this attitude of suspended judgment, not merely in reference to the kenotic theories, but towards all the speculative schemes we have had occasion to notice in this lecture. The hypothesis of a double life, of a gradual Incarnation, and of a depotentiated Logos, are all legitimate enough as tentative solutions of a hard problem; and those who require their aid may use any one of them as a prop around which faith may twine. But it is not necessary to adopt any one of them; we are not obliged to choose be- tween them; we may stand aloof from them all; and it may 1 Nitzsch, System der Christlichen Lehre, sechste Auflage, p. 262, in a note en Liebner's Christologie, which he characterizes as "der bedeutendste Fortschrid der speculativen Lehre vom gottmenschlichen Leben und Bewusstsein zur Bench- tigung der kirchlichen und der beiden confessioneller Lehrarten und Formeln." 192 The Humiliation of Christ. be best when faith can afford to dispense with their services. For it is not good that the certainties of faith should lean too heavily upon uncertain and questionable theories. Wis- dom dictates that we should clearly and broadly distinguish between the great truths revealed to us in Scripture, and the hypotheses which deep thinkers have invented, for the purpose of bringing these truths more fully within the grasp of their understandings. My esteemed predecessor in this lectureship, Principal Rainy, has said : " If there are sifting times before us, the effect will probably be to compel us with more stringency, with more discriminating regard to all considerations bearing on each point, to determine how much we can really say we know, how far we can say Scrip- ture designed to guide our thought to this result, to this alternative, to this resting-place." Applying this most needful discipline to the great subject of our present studies, we shall probably find, after the most painstaking inquiry, that what we know reduces itself as nearly as possible to the axioms enumerated in our first lecture, and that the effect, though not the design, of theories of Christ's person, has been to a large extent to obscure some of these elementary truths, — the unity of the person, or the reality of the humanity, or the divinity dwelling within the man, or the voluntariness and ethical value of the state of humiliation. That is, cer- tainties have been sacrificed for uncertainties, facts for hy- potheses, faith for speculation. If this be the testimony of history, then the lesson is plain : Be content to walk by faith, and take care that no ambitious attempt to walk by sight rob you of any cardinal truth relating to Him in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodilv. LECTURE V. MODERN HUMANISTIC THEORIES OF CHRIST'S PERSON. THE discussions contained in the three preceding lectures leave on the mind the impression that the person of Christ is a great mystery. The catholic believer, who sees in Christ God manifest in the flesh, frankly confesses the mys- tery. For, while he accepts with unfeigned truth the doc- trine of the Incarnation, and finds in that truth, on its ethical side, rest to his spirit, he feels and owns the speculative or scientific construction of Christ's person, as God incarnate, to be a hard if not an insoluble problem. The more he studies the history of past attempts at its solution, and observes how opinion has oscillated between Nestorian duality and Monophysite unity, and how open to criticism are the recent essays of the Kenotic school to construct a Christology not liable to these objections, the less he will be inclined for himself to undertake the task; while still clinging with unabated earnestness to a dogma which gives him a God who can condescend and perform morally heroic acts, and earn for Himself men's devoted love by a sublime career of self-humiliation and self-sacrifice. It cannot be doubted that the mystery which envelops the doctrine of Christ's person, as set forth in the creed, presents a strong temptation to desert the catholic foun- dation, and to refuse to see in the Incarnation " the pillar and ground of the truth." Many in recent years have yielded to the temptation, and have adopted purely humanistic views of the subject. At the root of this departure from the catholic faith, in the case of many, is a naturalistic philos- ophy, which refuses to recognise the miraculous in the con- 194 The Humiliation of Christ. stitution of Christ's person as in every other sphere. In the case of some, however, dissent is professedly based not on philosophy, but on exegesis. Even in the case of those whose belief is determined by philosophic bias, the attitude assumed is not always precisely the same. There are shades and degrees of naturalism, and in giving an account of the naturalistic views of Christ's person it will conduce to ac- curacy to attend to these distinctions. Those who advocate a purely humanistic view of our Lord's person, on whatever ground, may be divided into five classes. First, there are those who take their stand on absolute, thoroughgoing naturalism, refusing to recog- nise miracle in any sphere, physical or moral, and there- fore declining to accept even the old Unitarian view of Christ, according to which, while only a man, He was yet a perfect man. Next, there are others who, while natural- istic in their philosophic proclivities, shrink from the thoroughgoing application of the principles with which they secretly sympathize, and though readily consenting to banish the supernatural from the physical sphere, at the expense of philosophic consistency retain it in the ethical, and with the Catholic Church confess the sinlessness of Jesus. A third party, though really at one with the former of these two schools in opinion, side with the latter in feel- ing, and, while in no instance and in no sphere recognising the veritably miraculous, nevertheless endeavour in their whole delineation of Christ's life and character to embrace in the picture as much as possible of the extraordinary and wonderful. To these three phases of modern naturalistic opinion concerning the Founder of our faith may be added a fourth, that, viz., characteristic of those who, while im- bued with the scientific spirit of our time, and paying great deference to the incredulous attitude of science towards the miraculous, can scarcely be regarded as occupying any definite philosophic position. Men belonging to this school are quite willing to accept the account Jesus gave of Him- self, as far as they can gather it from the evangelic records. Turning away from the multifarious theological controver- sies concerning the person of Christ, as matters which they cannot understand, and with which they have no sympathy, Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 195 they go back to the fountainhead, and try to put them- selves in the position of those who were eye and ear wit- nesses of the Word, and to form for themselves an impres- sion of ITim at first hand. And the impression they do form is very much the same as that expressed by Peter at Caesa- rea-Philippi when he said, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." When asked what they mean by such words, they reply in effect, We cannot tell. " The power of Christ is to be felt, not explained." You may, if you like, manufacture theological dogmas out of them; it is quite possible that they can "by the kind of ingenuity common among professional theologians be brought within the proper lines of accepted opinion." But it is not worth while to do so; it is "a pitiful waste of time." 1 Finally, the fifth class embraces all those who, while agreeing with naturalistic theologians in rejecting the catholic doctrine, do so not on speculative grounds, but on the ground of positive exegesis. To all these schools of opinion the person of Christ is a mystery not less than to those who cordially accept as their own belief the creeds of the Church Catholic. To whom shall we go to escape mystery ? The personality of his beloved Master was a great mystery to the disciple Peter. But was it less of a mystery to the multitude which was broken up into parties in reference to the question, Who is this Son of Man ? — some saying He is John the Baptist, others He is Elias, and others He is Jeremias, or one of the prophets ? In like manner, it is vain for one who is perplexed by the mystery of the Catholic doctrine con- cerning Christ to go in hope of relief to any one of the parties we have discriminated as existing in our day. One and all of them, whether confessedly or not, believe in a Christ who is a mystery; insomuch that the element of mysteriousness must be set aside altogether as a test of truth or falsehood, and our faith be made to rest on entirely different grounds. It may be worth while to enter into some detail in proof of this assertion; for it is a great help to faith to realize distinctly and clearly the alternatives. Simon Peter having asked himself the question, To whom shall we go if we leave Jesus ? and having clearly per- 1 Vid. Haweis, Current Coin, pp. 312, 313. 196 The Humiliation of Christ. ceived that he could not better his position, remained where he was, contenting himself with the Master he had hitherto followed in spite of all drawbacks. So we, when tempted to abandon the conception of Christ which the Church has taught us, because of its acknowledged diffi- culties, do well to ask ourselves, Shall we escape difficulty by exchanging that conception for any other offered us by current opinions ? and to take pains to arrive at a well- considered answer. 1. The first of the five above specified forms of current opinion concerning Christ, that of thoroughgoing natural- ism, does not homologate the sentiment of the apostle, " confessedly great is the mystery of godliness," as pre- sented in the history and character of Jesus of Nazareth. It flatters itself that by the consistent unflinching appli- cation of its fundamental principle, the miraculous impos- sible, to the evangelic biography, it gets rid of all mystery. It finds there, indeed, a marvel of piety, but no miracle; a singularly good and wise man worthy of all love and ad- miration, but no sinless perfect being; a perfect man being a breach in the continuity of human history, a contradiction of the law that all which is real is relative, amoral miracle, and therefore an impossibility not less than the raising of a dead man to life would be. But do the advocates of this view really get rid of all mysterious elements in the life of Jesus, or do they accomplish more than to satisfy them- selves that on their principles there ought to be none ? Let us see. In the first place, if Jesus be a man chargeable with sin, as He is bound to be on their principles, how comes it to pass that it is so hard, even for those who applj? themselves to the task with every good-will, to accuse Him of sin on the basis of the Gospel record ? We know that many attempts have been made by men of this school to establish a charge of moral culpability against Jesus, and we also know how very much the reverse of signal successes these have been. In absence of more important material for such an accusation, the blasphemers of the Son of Man have been obliged to content themselves with such paltry things as these: that harsh word to His mother at Cana; the perversely mystic style of the sermon on the Modem Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 1 97 bread of life in the synagogue of Capernaum, "bristling with statements fitted to irritate and disgust hearers," the sentence in the intercessory prayer, " I pray not for the world, but for them whom Thou hast given me;" the direction given to the disciples to let an offender who re- fuses to confess his fault be unto them as an heathen man and a publican; the harsh treatment of the Syro-Phcenician woman; the heartless reply to the disciple who would bury his father, " Let the dead bury their dead." ' Contemptible arguments surely to bring against the doctrine of Christ's sinlessness, which it were a mistake in an apologist to honour with a serious reply, but which well deserve the in- dignant rebuke of a distinguished American divine: "These and such like specks of fault are discovered, as they think, in the life of Jesus. So graceless in our conceit have we of this age grown, that we can think it a point of scholarly dignity and reason to spot the only perfect beauty that has ever graced our world with such discovered blemishes as these ! As if sin could ever need to be made out against a real sinner in this small way of special pleading; or as if it were ever the way of sin to err in single particles or homoeopathic quantities of wrong. A more just sensibility would denounce this malignant style of criticism as a heart- less and really low-minded pleasure in letting down the honours of goodness." 2 I sympathize with Bushnell's scorn and indignation, but at the same time I feel that the small captious critics of Jesus are to be pitied as well as de- nounced. Their philosophy requires them to speak evil words against the Son of Man; and if the materials for cursing are very scanty, what course is left for the Balaams of modern unbelief than to make the most of such as are available ? In no other way can we account for the fact of such a grave and serious writer as Keim condescending to notice the incidents already referred to, and others of similar nature, as blemishes in the character of Jesus ' Some writers of this school are fair enough to admit that the faults chargeable on our Lord are few and small, and 1 See Pecaut, Le Christ et la Conscience, p. 250. 1 Bushnell, A r ature and the Supernatural, chap. x. 8 Vid. Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, vol. iii. p. 641. 1 98 The Humiliation of Christ. find themselves under the necessity of accounting for the fact, in harmony with the assumption of naturalistic phil- osophy, that He musj: have been, like all other men, in seri- ous respects morally defective. One thing very specially insisted on in this connection is the fragmentary nature of our sources of information. " Suppose," says Pecaut, " no reliable indication of imperfection should be found in the history of Jesus, what inference could be drawn therefrom ? We possess only fragments of His biography, and fragments relative to His public life; that is, to that which is best in the history of a man devoted to the good of others. Do you not know that the discourses and the public acts of every one of us are better than our internal state ? Is that hypocrisy? God forbid: only the best of men speak and act as they wish to be in the bottom of their hearts. But what information have we as to the infancy of Jesus, His private and family history, and finally, as to His inner life ? " ' We might reply, We have the testimony of those who knew Him intimately during the period of His public ministry, and had access to information concerning the antecedent period, who even in His lifetime spoke of Jesus as the Holy One, and after His death spoke of Him as such absolutely and without qualification. But we are told that the testi- mony of the disciples and apostles, while justly making a favourable impression on the whole, does not go beyond the similar testimony borne by Xenophon to Socrates, who nevertheless, by his own confession, was not a sinless man. 1 We are thus thrown back on what is, after all, the most convincing evidence of the sinlessness of Jesus, viz., the utter absence of all trace of any consciousness of sin on His part. It is surely a very striking thing to find one whose moral perceptions were so delicate; who knew so well what was in man; who could see beneath a fair ex- terior rottenness and dead men's bones; who discerned fleshly sin even in licentious thoughts and looks; who had such abhorrence of vanity, pride, ostentation, and other sins of the spirit universally committed in the world, and commonly treated as no sins at all, bearing Himself 1 Le Christ et la Conscience, p. 240. • Keim, Jesu von Nazara, vol. iii. p. 641. Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 199 throughout as one who had no part in these sins of the flesh and spirit, though not exempted from experience of temp- tation. It is doubtless a ready suggestion that admiring attached disciples were not likely to record words or facts indicative of a sense of moral shortcoming. But it deserves to be noticed that the evangelists have not been afraid to record facts which might easily be mistaken for, and have in fact been mistaken for, proofs of moral infirmity, as, e.g., the clearing of the temple, and very specially the great philippic against the religious heads of the people, which Renan and others have regarded as an evidence that Jesus had lost His self-possession, and grown intemperate and fan- atical in feeling; a fact, if it were a fact, certainly revealing great moral weakness. Then it is further to be observed,, that the question is not one of mere suppression of incon- venient facts which might reflect on the character of one's hero. The real state of the case is, that Jesus throughout bears Himself as no one could who had the consciousness of moral shortcoming. By artless narration, as opposed to artistic invention, the evangelists have set before us a man who seems constantly surrounded by the sunlight of a good conscience, void of offence towards God and towards men, entirely exempt from the dark moods of men who have passed through moral tragedies, having no occasion to ex- claim with a Paul, " Oh, wretched man that I am ! " or to confess that the good He would, that He did not; and the evil He would not, that He did. Utterly remote from Pelagian views of human character and conduct, He walks about on this earth as one who enjoys perfect unbroken fellowship with His Father in heaven, and whose relations to men are regulated wholly by the love of righteousness and the spirit of mercy. He is the one man in human history who seems to have no consciousness of sin, His only relation to the sin of the world, to all appearance, being that of one who bears it in His heart as a burden by sympathy, and who, in some mysterious way, hopes to bear it away and destroy it; not a sinner, but a saviour from sin, come to save the morally lost by His love in life and in death. This absence of all consciousness of moral shortcoming in one characterized by such exceptional depth and strength 200 The Humiliation of Christ. of moral conviction, is a second element of mystery in the person of Christ, which must greatly puzzle those who re- fuse to see in Him one " who knew no sin." Granting that the paucity of censurable materials in His recorded public life may be plausibly explained, this phenomenon cannot easily be accounted for. Had Jesus been a Greek, it might have been less unintelligible; for the spirit of the Greeks was much more sensitive to beauty than to sin, and it was possible for one belonging to the Hellenic race to walk about with serene, s'miling countenance and light heart, though he had committed moral offences, his past misdeeds possibly present to his consciousness as occurrences, but no burden to his conscience as transgressions. But Jesus be- longed to a race which had been trained by a stern legal discipline to regard sin as a terrible reality. By the law had come to Him, as to other Jews, if not the knowledge of sin, at least a highly educated conscience, a trained fac- ulty of discernment between right and wrong, and an acute sense of the importance of moral distinctions. And the wonder and the mystery is, that with the Jewish conscience did not come to this man, as to others, the ordinary con- sciousness of sin. In saying this, I do not forget that there were other Jews in whom something superficially resem- bling this strange combination presented itself, self-satis- faction associated with the habit of moral discernment. There were men who could see and severely condemn sin in others, and yet see little or no sin in themselves: who beheld the mote that was in their brother's eye, and con- sidered not the beam that was in their own; who could stand in the temple and thank God that they were not as other men, and with much unction recite their own virtues, while drawing out a catalogue of other men's vices. There were Pharisees, with consciences like a policeman's lantern, with its light side turned outward towards the breaker of the laws, and its dark side towards their guardian. But we •cannot account for the mystery connected with the moral consciousness of Jesus by likening Him to this class of men; and so far as we are aware, it has not occurred to any one to suggest such a solution. Jesus was no Pharisee; He was the scourge of Pharisees, the unsparing exposer and Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 201 denouncer of their moral obliquity, hypocrisy, and pride; the moral antipodes of the class in spirit and in judgment, loving those whom they despised, exalting to the place of supreme importance duties and virtues which they neg- lected, and regarding as trivialities practices which seemed to them of vital moment. And yet He agreed with the Pharisees in this, that He had not the consciousness of sin; He did not, He could not say, " God be merciful to me the sinner; " He felt not the need of repentance. Would not the Son of Man be almost tempted to regard this resem- blance as a misfortune ? He who so intensely loved the publicans and sinners, and whose spirit shrank back with such revulsion and loathing from Pharisaic self-righteous- ness, would rather have taken His place with the poor publican who stood afar off with downcast eyes, and smit- ing on his breast exclaimed, " God be merciful to me the sinner," than with the self-satisfied Pharisee who said, " God, I thank Thee that I am not as other men are." He certainly would have done it if He could, and He did that which came as near to it as possible. Since He could not repent, He felt for those who needed repentance; since He could not bear the burden of personal demerit, by an un- speakably deep and tender sympathy He took on His spirit the burden of those who were heavy laden with guilt; since He could not know sin, He made Himself a sinner by iden- tifying Himself so closely with the sinful as to earn the honourable nickname of the Sinner's Friend. But this beautiful unearthly compassion for the sinful which has earned for Jesus the blessings of so many that were ready to perish, reminds us of yet another direction in which an explanation maybe sought for the mystery of His moral self-consciousness. It may be supposed that His serenity arose out of His own faith in the gospel which He preached to the sinful, the gospel of God's infinite pardoning mercy. He was happy in spite of shortcomings, just as any of us may be, just as every healthy-minded Christian is who believes that God has forgiven his sin, and stands in the same relation to him as if sin had never existed. His sky was cloudless, and His soul full of sunlight, because the mists engendered by an evil conscience had disappeared 202 The Humiliation of Christ. before the warm beams of a heavenly Father's boundless charity. If a Paul or a David could attain to a joy unmarred by the memory of past transgression, through faith in the loving-kindness and multitudinous tender mercies of God, why not a Jesus ? If it was possible for a weeping penitent to go into peace on hearing the soothing words: "Thy faith hath saved thee," why may not the speaker Himself have entered into peace by the same door ? May not His confidence in the power of faith to conduct to peace have been based on His own experience ? It is painful to one who believes in the Sinless One to ask such questions, but we cannot deny that from the point of view of those who do not share our belief they are not irrelevant. What, then, shall we say in reply ? We must remind unbelievers of another well-ascertained fact in the history of Jesus, viz., that He claimed to be the Judge of men, a claim which could not reasonably be made except by one who stood on a different moral level from other men. The fact of the claim and its moral significance are admitted by theologians of eminence belonging to the naturalistic school, as, e.g., by Dr. Baur of Tubingen. This able writer, it need hardly be said, has no faith in a future judgment of the world, as popularly conceived. In his hands the judicial function of Christ resolves itself into the critical power of the truth. " If," he says, " we regard the doctrine and activity of Jesus from the ethical point of view, under which it is to be placed •iccording to the Sermon on the Mount and the parables, it Delongs thereto essentially that that doctrine and activity must be the absolute standard for the judgment of the moral worth and the actions and conduct of men. Accord- ing to the diverse attitude of men towards the doctrine of Jesus, as the ground law of the kingdom of heaven, they are divided into two essentially different classes, whose moral worth, brought to its absolute expression, is expressed by the contrast of everlasting blessedness and everlasting damnation. But what holds in the first place of the doctrine of Jesus, holds also in the next place of His person, so far as He is the originator and promulgator of the same. With His doctrine His person is inseparably connected. He is the concrete embodiment of the eternal significance Modern Humanistic TheoiHes of Christ f s Person. 203 of the absolute truth of His doctrine. Is it His doctrine according to which the moral worth of men is to be judged for all eternity ? then He it is who speaks the sentence as the future judge of men." ' Now, even taking Baur's account- of Christ's judicial function, what a high claim it involves ! It implies that Jesus regarded Himself as the moral idea realized. For His claim is absolute, not relative. His doctrine concerning the judgment is not, I am the Judge in so far as I am in my own person a realization of the ethical ideal, so that the attitude men assume towards me (knowing what they "do) determines their attitude towards that ideal, and the same may be said of every good man in proportion as he realizes in his character the ideal — not that, but, " I am the Judge," without any qualifying " in so far." It is true that the disciples are promised seats beside the King, as co-judges with Him of the tribes of Israel, even as it is said by Paul that the saints shall judge the world. But there is a wide interval between the judicial power of the saint or apostle and that of the Lord Jesus. Jesus is the Judge Absolute, all others — saints, apostles — are judges longo intervallo, and only in so far as they ap- proximate the ideal which He alone realizes. That He claimed to be the Judge absolutely appears from the simple fact of His representing Himself ordinarily as the Judge exclusively, without any mention of assessors, or with such reference to other beings of high rank as puts them in the position of mere attendants; as in the account of the judg- ment in Matt, xxv., which opens with the words, " When the Son of Man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit on the throne of His glory." In view of the claim to be the Judge, it is impossible to regard the unburdened condition of Christ's conscience as the simple result of strong faith in divine forgiveness. That claim is rather a proof that He who advances it does not feel the need of forgiveness; and if the state of mind in- dicated by the claim be regarded as a hallucination, then the claim itself must be reckoned as a third element of mystery in the moral aspect of Christ's person, which can- 1 Neue Testamentliche Tkeologie, p. no. 204 The Humiliation of Christ. not but perplex those who refuse to see in Him anything out of the common course. Here is one who is ex hypotlicsi a sinner, and, judging from the analogy of other men of outstanding force and magnitude of character, probably a great sinner, arrogating to Himself the position of Judge of the sinful, entitled, in discharge of His official functions, to say to the impenitent, " Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire." Is this a part we should expect such an one to aspire to ? Is the claim to exercise such tremen- dous functions a psychologically probable one in the mouth of one who is himself a transgressor ? We could imagine one who had sinned even grievously, and repented of his sin, preaching the doctrine of a judgment to come with great emphasis, seeking to persuade men as one who him- self knew the terror of the Lord. So preached judgment Paul, the penitent and pardoned persecutor. But to preach judgment is a different thing from proclaiming oneself the Judge. Or we could imagine one who had been character- ized by great moral frailty, and who was in the habit of looking on his own shortcomings and those of other men in a genial, indulgent way, as the effect of temperament, circumstances, and so forth, after the fashion of a Rousseau or a Burns, denying a judgment to come; representing Death as the great redeemer, setting the soul free from its base corporeal companion to rise to its native element of goodness, and to the society of blessed spirits who delight in virtue. But not only to be a preacher of judgment, but to proclaim oneself the Judge, becomes none save one who is at once holy, harmless, undefiled, and in character separate from sinners, and yet able, through His power of sympathy and His experience of temptation, to give due weight to all extenuating considerations. Such an one the Scriptures represent Jesus to have been — sinless, therefore ntitled to be the Judge; tempted in all points as we are, therefore able to temper judgment with mercy. In the foregoing observations I have confined myself to personal character, as distinct from the public career, esus, and have simply sought to emphasize these three questions: If Jesus was the sinful erring man naturalism requires Him to be, whence comes it that it is so difficult, Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 2o5 from the record of His life, to convince Him of sin; that in His whole demeanour no trace of a consciousness of moral shortcoming can be discerned; that He claims to Himself the right to be the Judge of all men ? When we pass from this restricted region of inquiry to the wider sphere of the public ministry, materials for a proof that to naturalism the character of Jesus must be a hopeless puzzle greatly multi- ply on our hands. Here, indeed, the naturalistic critic would find no difficulty in convicting the subject of his criticism of sin and folly. The difficulty rather is that sin and folly are so apparent and glaring on naturalistic princi- ples, that it becomes hard to understand how they could be united with so much wisdom and goodness, as all must confess to have been manifested in the career of the Prophet of Nazareth. The central points of interest in this depart- ment are the claims of Jesus to be the Messiah, and the necessity laid upon Him by that claim of playing the part of a thaumaturge. That Jesus did make such a claim, and that the claim carried along with it an obligation to be, or at least to seem, a miracle-worker, are positions generally admitted. But from the naturalistic point of view, the Messiah idea was a hallucination, and miracles are impos- sible. Consequently Jesus, in giving Himself out for the Mes- siah, if not a deliberate deceiver, must have been Himself the victim of a national delusion, and in undertaking to work miracles must have degraded Himself to the level of a con- jurer. But how to reconcile such imposture, self-delusion, and quackery with the wisdom and the moral simplicity so conspicuous in Jesus ? Naturalism is here obliged to make patronizing apologies for its hero, in order, if possible, to mitigate the moral contradictions in His character. Baur tells us that Jesus could not do otherwise than claim to be the Messiah, if He wished to gain for His religion a starting- point from which it could go forth to conquer the world. Christianity, as Jesus conceived it, had indeed nothing narrow or Judaistic about it: its essential characteristics were spirituality and universality; it was a purely moral religion, and therefore a religion for all mankind. But then Jesus Himself was a Jew, and therefore the universal re- ligion must find its cradle among the Jewish people. But 206 The Humiliation of CJirist. no religious movement had any chance of taking a hold on the Jewish mind unless it consented to take its form from the Messianic idea. In other words, Jesus, in order to gain influence in His own country, and so to make a beginning in the conquest of the world, must call Himself the Christ, and offer Himself to His fellow-countrymen as the fulfil- ment of the Messianic hope, knowing full well that the hope, as cherished by them, and as expressed in Old Testa- ment prophecy, was a dream that could never be realized; accommodating Himself to a delusion for their good, and for the ultimate good of the world. Similar apologies are made by Renan for the thaumaturgic element in Christ's career. He cannot deny that actions which would now be considered signs of folly held a prominent place in the life of Jesus. His historic conscience will not allow him to listen too much to nineteenth century repugnances, and to attempt to rescue the character of Jesus by suppressing facts which in the judgment of contemporaries were of the first importance. But he does not feel that these facts give any occasion for concern about the character of Jesus. The thaumaturgic aspect of His public career is after all but a spot on the sun. Who would think of sacrificing to that unwelcome side the sublime side of such a life ? It is enough to say that the miracles of Jesus were a violence done to Him by His age, a concession extorted from Him by a temporary necessity. The exorcist and the thauma- turge have passed away, but the religious reformer will live for ever. 1 Plausible apologies both, but how inconsistent with the well-ascertained spirit of Him who said, " My kingdom is not of this world " ! The Jesus of Baur and Renan says in effect: I must mix a certain amount of the alloy of falsehood with the pure gold of truth in order that it may gain currency in the world. The Jesus of the Gospels says: I decline to act on the principle of worldly prudence, and am content with what success is compatible with perfect truthfulness; and because He resolutely adhered to this programme the world found Him an intolerable nuisance, and nailed Him to a cross. 2. But I must leave this topic, and go on to notice very 1 Vie de Jesus, p. 26S. Modern Humanistic TJieories of Christ's Person. 207 briefly the second of the five forms of current opinion con- cerning the Author of our faith above enumerated, that, viz., which sees in Him no sin, and devoutly reveres Him as the Ideal Perfect Man. This view is familiar to all as that held by Unitarians such as Martineau and Channing, but we may connect it here with the name of Schleiermacher, as having in his system a peculiar philosophic significance. Schleiermacher's doctrine concerning Christ is this: As the original source of Christian life, He must, while a historical individual, at the same time be an Ideal Person, in whom the ideal of humanity is fully realized. As the Ideal Man, while like all men, in virtue of the identity of His human nature, He differs from all through the constant vigour of His God-consciousness, which was a proper being of God in Him, implying absolute freedom from moral taint, and from intellectual error in all things pertaining to His mis- sion as a religious teacher. In Christ the ideal of humanity was for the first time realized; man as at first created fell short of the ideal, so that Christ is the completion and crown of the creation. It will be seen at a glance that this Christology, though coming short of orthodoxy, rises above the plane of naturalism into the region of the miraculous. Christ is, if not physically, at least ethically, a miracle; He alone of all men exhibiting in perfect and unvarying strength the God-consciousness, and maintaining with God a fellowship undisturbed by sin. Now, the philosophic sig- nificance of this Christology as taught by Schleiermacher is, that in his theology it is a departure from the general tendency of his system. It is a supernatural element in a creed which is predominantly influenced by a naturalistic, Pantheistic spirit. This inconsistency is characteristic of Schleiermacher. He is neither a Pantheist nor a Theist in his philosophy and theology, but a mixture of both. This fact explains the difficulty which every reader of the Christ- licJie Glatibe feels in clearly apprehending the author's meaning. Schleiermacher, unlike most Germans, writes a good pure style, and yet somehow you feel that there is a haze upon the page which prevents you from seeing dis- tinctly the thoughts presented. You read the passage again with increased attention, like one straining his eyes 2oS The Humiliation of Christ. to see some object in moonlight, and still you fail to see the idea clearly. The reason is that it is moonlight through which you are looking — the moonlight of Christian faith reflected from the Christian consciousness of the writer upon the dark planet of a Pantheistic philosophy. Strauss, with his usual sagacity, hit the truth about Schleiermacher when he said, that he had pounded Christianity and Pantheism to powder, and had so mixed them that no man could tell where Pantheism ended and where Christianity began. We can- not go wrong, however, in assuming that it was Christianity and not Pantheism that led Schleiermacher to acknowledge in clear unambiguous terms the sinlessness of Jesus. His Pantheism prevented him from recognising in Christ an incarnation of God in the sense of the creeds, and made him willing to abandon much of the miraculous in Christ's history, to treat as doubtful the miraculous conception, and to resolve the resurrection into a revival to consciousness from a state of suspended animation. But he was too much a Christian to be capable of following Pantheism as his leader in the ethical region. Pantheistic philosophy teaches that it is not the way of the ideal to realize itself in an in- dividual, but only in the species; therefore Jesus as an individual historical person must have been more or less morally defective like all other men. To this doctrine Schleiermacher, with Moravian blood in his veins, and full of reverence and love towards the Redeemer, at whatever cost of inconsistency, could only give one answer: " Get thee behind me, Satan." Let us honour him for his incon- sistency, and see in it an involuntary testimony to the force of truth, a witness to the impression of an unearthly purity which the image of Jesus makes on every ingenuous mind. It is evident that the doctrine taught in the Glaubenslehre of Schleiermacher concerning the person of Christ cannot pretend to be clear of all mystery. That gifted author did his best to reduce the mystery and the miracle to a min- imum, that he might commend his Christology to scientific and philosophic tastes. He taught that Christ, though the ideal man, and therefore a product of the creative energy of God out of the common course, was nevertheless but Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 209 the completion of the creation, that to which the rudimen- tary man of the first creation was destined to reach, and towards which the human race in its onward course had been steadily approximating. While therefore there was certainly manifested in Christ a divine initiative, it was an initiative which did no violence to the law of evolution; though there was a miracle, it was a small one. But it is vain to attempt by such representations to conciliate un- belief. A little miracle is as objectionable to Pantheistic naturalism as a great one; the creation of a moneron, the rudest embodiment of the principle of life, as much an offence as the creation of a perfect man. If, therefore, the Christology of Schleiermacher has nothing more to say for itself than that it is an endeavour to present the faith of the church concerning its Founder in a form which, while retaining something distinctively Christian, shall be as in- offensive as possible on the score of mysteriousness, it must be pronounced an utter failure. It is useless for apologetic purposes, and must rest its claims to acceptance on other grounds. 1 3. We come now to the views of the third party referred to at the commencement of this lecture, whom I described as with the naturalistic school in philosophy, but with the supernaturalists in feeling, and as endeavouring in their whole delineation of Christ's life and character to embrace in the picture as much as possible of the extraordinary, while recognising in no sphere the strictly miraculous. This party may be designated the mediation school, or perhaps better still, the school of Sentimental Naturalism; and it commands our respect by its sober, reverent manner of handling the Gospel history, and by the array of distin- guished writers of which it can boast, including Ewald, Keim, and Weizsacker. In perusing the works on the life 1 Views similar to those of Schleiermacher have been propounded recently by Dr. Abbott, author of Through Nature up to Christ, and other works. Dr. Abbott is an eclectic in philosophy, naturalistic on the physical side, supernatur- alistic on the ethical. He represents Christ as perhaps as incapable of working miracles such as those recorded in the Gospels as of sinning. The naivete of this is charming. Dr. Abbott does not seem to be aware that a sinless Christ is as great a miracle as a Christ who can walk on the water. Vid. Preface to Oxfora Sert, torn 210 The Humiliation of Christ. of our Lord emanating from this school, one is struck with the extent to which they recognise the historical character of the Gospel, in comparison with the two lives of Jesus by Strauss, as also with the marked contrast in the whole tone and spirit of the performances. They recognise so much as historically true, that you feel they would recog- nise all, if only their philosophy would allow them. The person of Christ, if not essentially divine and absolutely sinless, is yet in all respects unique, a veritable wander; if some of the miracles be impossible, and therefore the narratives which record them mythical, others were actual occurrences, especially the healing miracles, which, though very extraordinary, were yet not contrary to or outside the course of nature, being explicable on the principles of " Moral Therapeutics." Even the resurrection of Jesus was, in some respects, a reality. The appearances of the " risen " one were not merely subjective visions, the hallu- cinations of a heated brain; there was an objective basis for the faith of the disciples. Not that the dead body of Jesus came to life again, that of course was impossible; but the spirit of Jesus, which survived His death, caused the disciples to see these visions, sent these manifestations from heaven as telegrams, so to speak, to assure them that all was well, and so revive their hopes. All this is, doubt- less, very gratifying and very reassuring to the believing student of the evangelic narrative, tending to confirm him in faith, and to make him confident that he is not following cunningly-devised fables when he accepts the whole as simple truth, without even such abatements as an Ewald or a Keim would make. But while accepting thankfully the concessions of this school, we must bear in mind that these are apt to lead us to form a more favourable judg- ment concerning the position it occupies in contrast to that of Strauss and other extremely negative critics than it deserves. It may be that writers of this school go farther than on their principles they are entitled to go, and that Strauss, with all his brutal irreverent plainness of speech, is the most reliable and consistent exponent of the natur- alistic philosophy in its bearing on religious problems Strauss himself has no doubt on the point. In reviewing, Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 2 1 1 in the introduction to his New Life of Jesus, the works on the same theme which had appeared after the publication of his earlier Life, Strauss notices the views of Keim as ex- pressed in an academical address on the human develop- ment of Jesus Christ, comparing them with those of Renan. While admitting Keim's superiority to Renan in some respects, e. g. in his appreciation of the respective merits of the Synoptics and of John, he thinks him inferior to the Frenchman in this, that, while holding Jesus to be a purely human person, he is nevertheless not willing that He should be one of many, but insists on His being a unique individ- ual on whose mediation all humanity depends. This idea of Christ he characterizes as sentimental, and he expresses the conviction that the error of supposing it possible to reconcile the claim of a full and complete humanity in Jesus with that of a unique being elevated above humanity would much more clearly appear if Keim would undertake to write a detailed life of Jesus. 1 What Strauss desired, Keim has done, and in the Geschichte Jesu von Nazara we have the means of judging how far naturalism can go in recognising the exceptional in the person and history of the Saviour. Now my verdict is that Strauss was right when he affirmed, that on the principles of naturalism you cannot make Christ an exceptional unique person, but must be content to regard Him, as Renan has done, as a very remarkable man, and to recognise Him as the originator of spiritual religion, just as you recognise Socrates as the origi- nator of philosophy, and Aristotle of science, that is, on the understanding that many attempts preceded these masters, and that since their time important improvements have been made, and may yet be made, but still without impeaching the eminent position generally conceded to these great original founders. While highly appreciating much that is excellent in the work, and greatly valuing its positive and reverent spirit, I must nevertheless say that what I find in Keim's History of Jesus of Nazareth is this: Naturalism by inflated exaggerated language striving hard to do justice to the extraordinary in its subject without recognising anything supernatural. It is a case of the frog trying to blow itself 1 New Life of Jesus, i. 45. 212 The Humiliation of Christ. out into the dimensions of the ox. The very style of the work reveals the impossibility of the attempted task; a remark applicable to Ewald also, who belongs to the same school of sentimental naturalism. Always, when writers of this school come to deal with a hard problem, such as the miracles of Jesus, or His assertion of a peculiar relation to God, or His resurrection, they lose themselves in long involved sentences charged with mystic poetic phraseology, from which it is impossible to extract any distinct idea. Strauss remarks, in reference to Ewald's treatment of the resurrection of Jesus, that his long, inflated rhetoric con- tains literally no fragment of an idea beyond what had been said by himself in his first Leben much more clearly, " though assuredly with far less unction." This remark is perfectly just. I remember the feeling of perplexity created in my mind on reading Ewald's remarks on the resurrection in his work on the history of Christ. 1 I supposed at the time that the obscurity was simply an idiosyncrasy of the writer, or, it might be, the effect of ignorance in the reader; till by and by it dawned upon me that Ewald's obscurity, like Schleiermacher's, was the result of his attempting to serve two masters. The drift of the whole discussion is: the resurrection did not, could not, take place, but the beauti- ful dream must be dealt with tenderly, and its reality denied with as much sentiment as if you meant to affirm it. The same observation applies to Keim's manner of dealing with similar topics. He is a sentimental anti-supernaturalist, who tries hard to affirm, while denying the supernatural element. The charge of sentimentalism he would not in- deed resent, for he not only admits, but claims as a merit, a " pectoral " colouring in his delineation of the great biography. As it is very important to be convinced of the illegitimacy of this attempt to reconcile faith and scepticism, and to un- derstand that we must either go further than Keim or Ewald in belief, or not so far, I may briefly explain Keim's mode of dealing with the miraculous in Christ's history be- fore considering the view held by him and others of the same school concerning the person of Christ and His po- 1 The fifth volume of his History of Israel. Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ 's Person. 2 r 3 sition in the universe. As already remarked, Keim, in common with all writers of the same school, recognises to a far greater extent than Strauss the historical character of even the more remarkable passages in Christ's life as re- lated in the Gospels. After all necessary deductions, he admits that the Gospels make on every sound mind the im- pression that in their narratives they do not rest simply on late legends and recent inventions, and that beyond doubt they contain many genuine historical facts, and possibly still more most genuine words of Jesus, and that it is not credible that the great deeds interwoven with the story are fictions. At the same time, being naturalistic in his phil- osophic view-point, he cannot afford to accept all the Gos- pel " miracles" as historical; he can admit only those which, however wonderful, can be conceived to have had a natu- ral cause. To this class belong the miracles of healing, Our author thinks that though Jesus came not to do mighty works, but to preach, yet He could not avoid becoming a healer of disease. Events carried him on into this new path, not to be called " a false path," seeing that through it Jesus entered on a truly divine career. The trust of men and their misery pressed around the new teacher and de- sired His help, though in Galilee and Capernaum there might be no want of physicians, male and female. The synoptic Gospels indicate by their manner of narration that this was the way the healing miracles began; they ascribe not at the beginning, or even at all, the initiative to Jesus, but to those who came seeking help. The sick came to Him, He intensely sympathized with them; the question arose: Do this need of the people, and their appeal for help on the one hand, and my sympathy on the other, not in- dicate a new department of labour, and constitute a call to add to my work as a spiritual physician that of one who heals the diseases of the body ? The heart of Jesus an- swered Yes to this question; and so He set Himself to heal the sick, which He did simply by a word, a word of faith acting on faith in the recipient of benefit. And, strange to say, by the two combined, the faith of Jesus revealing itself in confident words, and the faith of the sick exhibited in no less confident expectations, remarkable cures were 214 The Humiliation of Christ. wrought: diseases of body and mind yielded to the united faith-storm (Glaubensturm) of healer and healed ! How were these cures brought about ? Keim discusses all the various hypotheses that have been suggested, such as that the cures were strictly medical, effected by the professional knowledge of Jesus, or that they were produced by magic arts or by magnetism, or that they were answers to prayer. Rejecting all these hypotheses, he maintains that the cures must be held to spring in the first place from the spiritual life of Jesus, associated with His human will-force, and with His religious confidence, and also with that trait of deep sympathy, of inwardness, of devotion, which He brought to the victims of the world's woe; and in the second place, from the receptivity of the healed, for as spirit works primarily on spirit, the co-operation of the patient is indis- pensable, and, as a matter of fact, we see that stress was laid on it by Jesus. He did mighty works only where there was faith. Regarded by the simple folks of Galilee as the great man, as the prophet, as the deliverer, He by His love awakened love, by His faith called forth faith sufficient to alter the physical life course. Marvellous results of the Glaubensturm and the moral therapeutics so eloquently described. Pity only that the Glaubensturm could not be more frequently raised, and that moral therapeutics, which Matthew Arnold assures us have not been sufficiently studied, 1 were not more generally understood ! Speaking seriously, what are we to think of this new theory of moral therapeutics, by which men like Keim seek to reconcile their acceptance of the healing " miracles " with their philosophic naturalism ? It looks very like a device to hide from themselves their true po- sition, which is that of men drawn in two different direc- tions, towards faith by the general impression of historical truth made on their minds by the Gospel narratives, towards unbelief by their philosophy. Moral therapeutics is a convenient phrase for a dark mysterious region into which those can take refuge who halt between two opin- ions. If it be true, as Matthew Arnold says, that moral therapeutics have not been sufficiently studied, it is per- 1 In Literature and Dogma. Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 2 1 5 haps well for him and the like of him; for it is the darkness of the subject that makes it serve their turn. If ever moral therapeutics should be thoroughly studied, and the con- clusion come to that there is not much in them, then men like Keim and Arnold will be forced to do violence to their historical sense, and to treat all the miraculous narratives together as alike legendary. Meantime they can talk in high-flown sentimental style about the Glaiibensturm and the marvels it can work, without risk of immediate scien- tific contradiction not to be gainsaid. It is easy to show that Keim's manner of dealing with the resurrection of Jesus is equally unsatisfactory. His view amounts to this: The resurrection did not happen, yet something happened, something corresponding to the phe- nomena of modern spiritualism, that something was not 3l miracle in the strict sense, but it was a " wunder;" " a wun- der," says Weizsacker, whose opinion on this topic is sub- stantially the same as Keim's, " as truly as was the whole- history or the person of Jesus." 1 It is not surprising that Strauss in his new Leben Jesu expressed himself as curious to see what Keim would make of the resurrection. " Having renounced," he remarks, "the visions spoken of by Renan, and generally excluded the supernatural from his treat- ment of the subject, there seems no other hypothesis open to him but that of suspended animation. If so, he comes at last to the signal fiasco of falling into the wake of Schlei- ermacher, whose views it was his ambition to surpass in point of historical accuracy." Keim has not fallen into that fiasco certainly, but he has come to a conclusion which is neither one thing nor another, and which Strauss ap- parently, with all his mental resources, was unable even to imagine. The old theft hypothesis adopted by Reimarus and kindred spirits he knew; the swoon hypothesis, ac- cording to which Jesus did not die on the cross, held by Schleiermacher and others, he was also acquainted with; the hypothesis of subjective visions, creatures of a heated brain, he himself strenuously advocated; 2 but as for this 1 Untersuckungen iiber die Evangelische Geschichte, p. 573. 8 Dr. Abbott in Philochristus seems to adopt this hypothesis. He speaks of the visions as continuing for little less than a year, "insomuch that if any one should 216 The Humiliation of Christ. new spiritualistic hypothesis of Keim's, which resolves the appearances of the risen Christ into objective though im- material manifestations, telegraphic messages from the de- parted Master to His disciples, he neither had seen it in books, nor had it entered into his mind to conceive it. Let me now illustrate the peculiar characteristics of this school of theologians by the manner in which they con- ceive and represent the person of Christ. As I remarked on a former page, Keim does not recognise the sinlessness of Jesus; and a similar remark applies to Weizsacker, who speaks of Christ's "sinlessness" as consisting in single- hearted devotion, and of His perfection as similar to that of Paul or any other devoted man. Nevertheless, while re- fusing to acknowlege the doctrine of the Churck on this point, theologians of this school assign to Christ a unique place in His relation to God and the world. The views of Keim on this topic are specially emphatic. Nowhere are they expressed in a more characteristic manner than in the author's discussion of the remarkable text in Matt. xi. 27; which he calls Christ's great confession of sonship. After discussing the various readings of the text, and expressing his preference for the ancient 1 as against the canonical reading, he goes on to say: — " Whichever form of the text we adopt we find therein the glory of Christ, and a great testimony and personal testimony in reference to His whole position. All is given to Him by His Father, that is, the God whom He here for the first time distinctly calls His Father, in contrast to all other men. The all things given aie primarily those babes, the kernel of the people, to whom the Father has shown the adventure to set forth all the manifestations of Jesus, and the time and place and manner of each, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that should be written," pp. 413, 414. Such long continuance Keim holds to be neces- sary to the vision hypothesis, and the fact that there is no evidence of anything of the kind, he holds to be conclusive against it. Having referred to Pkilochristus , I may remark that it may fairly be classed with the literature of sentimental Natur- .alism. In this interesting book the story of Christ is told in the name of one of His disciples, and a strange and incongruous combination of first century faith •.and reverence with nineteenth century scepticism is the result. 1 "No man knew the Father save the Son, nor the Son save the Father," the •clauses in our canonical Gospel being inverted and the tense changed. The Gnos- tics preferred this form because it supported their doctrine that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of the New, as it made Christ claim to be the first teacher of the Fatherhood of God. Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 2 1 7 Son; but likewise all Messianic rights among men, which the faith of the people legitimizes, and the unbelief of the wise avails not to frustrate. But what pre- cisely are those mysterious intangible Messianic rights ? He tells us plainly in the sequel. No one knew the Father except the Son, and the Son except the Father, and he to whom He reveals. His rights, His privilege, His singularity lies, above all, in the through Him for the first time completed knowledge of the Father, and in His becoming known to the humanity whom the Father gives Him, whilst He gives it the knowledge of the Son. It is, in short, the representation of the highest spiritual truths, as the exclusive mediator of which He, at once revealer and re- vealed, is appointed for a believing obedient world of men. In this great thesis lie three mighty utterances. He is the first and only one who through Him and through God has reached the knowledge of God the Father. In the second place, as He knows God, so God has known Him. He has known God as Father, as Father of men, and yet more as His own Father. God has known Him as Son, as Son among many, and yet more as the One among many, and exclusively re- lated to each other. Each to the other a holy, worthy to be known, searched, discovered secret, they (Father and Son) incline towards each other with love, to discover each other, to enjoy each other, with self-satisfying delight, resting on equality of spiritual activity, of being, of nature. It the third place, this self- contained world of Father and Son opens itself to the lower world, to men, only by a free act, because they are pleased to open themselves up and to admit whom they choose to fellowship, and because the Father is still greater than the Son, even when the Son upon earth speaks to the ears of men ; so it is finally not the Son but the Father who is the decisive revealer, interpreting to the spirits and hearts of men the Son, and in the Son Himself admitting the babes, excluding the wise and understanding." More briefly he says again: — " This place is, as no other, the interpreter of the Messiah-thought of Jesus. It we desire to reduce it to its simplest expression, it may be said that Jesus sought His Messiahship in His world historical spiritual achievement, that He mediated for humanity the highest knowledge of God, and the most complete blessed life in God." 1 The bare reading of this passage suffices to convince one that the writer is wading beyond his depth. How per- plexing the second of the three thoughts he finds in the text, on the assumption that the speaker is no more than man, and is distinguished from other men only by His more intimate knowledge of and fellowship with God, a knowledge and fellowship even in His case not absolutely perfect ! The fellowship of Father and Son rests, we are told, on equality of spiritual activity, of being, of nature, and yet all that Christ here claims has for its fact-basis, according to our author, only this, that He was the Inbringer of a higher, 1 Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, ii. 384. 218 The Humiliation of Christ. more satisfying religion, the religion of Christians, the worship of the Father in spirit and in truth. If this were true, it would be better, with Strauss, to deny the gen- uineness of the saying reported by the evangelist in the text cited, on the ground of its mystic, pretentious, superhuman character, than, with Keim, to retain it as the unnatural extravagant utterance of one who was neither more nor less than the first teacher of a new and compar- atively excellent religion. The words are natural and sober only in the mouth of one who is something more and higher than this; even one who occupies the position to- wards God, and performs the functions towards the world of the Johannine Logos, who was with God before He be- came man, and who is the light of every man that Com- eth into the world. The saying takes us out of the histor- ical incarnate life of the speaker into the sphere of the eternal and divine. The claim to be the exclusive revealer of God the Father of itself justifies this assertion. For it does not mean that men who through want of opportunity know not Him, the historical Christ, must on that account be without such knowledge of God as is necessary unto salvation. It means that He is the light of every man in any land or in any age who has light, and that through Him every one is saved that is saved in any place or time; and that is a claim which could rationally be ad- vanced only by one concerning whom the affirmations con- tained in the opening sentence of John's Gospel could be made: " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." 4. I might here conclude this survey of the literature of naturalistic Christology, but as I have undertaken to give some account of current opinions respecting the Author of our holy faith, I could not well avoid saying something on a phase of thought which can scarcely be said to have any philosophic basis, and of which the chief interest is its crudity, which is neither orthodox nor heterodox, simply because it stops short of the point at which orthodoxy and heterodoxy diverge. Probably the best representative of this nondescript school in England is the Rev. H. R. Haweis, one of the pulpit celebrities of London in connection with Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 2 1 9 the Established Church, and author of several well-known books in which opinions on all manner of present-day topics are very freely expressed ; whose popularity as a preacher and as a writer may be accepted as an indication that his way of thinking hits the taste of many. Mr. Haweis is emphat- ically a child of the Zeitgeist, and yields himself with un- hesitating submission to the inspiration of the spirit of the age. He does not believe in miracles in the sense of events which have no natural causes. " As far as I can see," he says, "there are no divine fiats in the sense of things hap- pening without adequate causes. From a close observation of the world about us, one and another event supposed to be by divine fiat is now seen to be due to natural causes." 1 This, however, does not prevent him from accepting most of the miracles recorded in the Bible — miracles of all sorts, miracles of healing, miracles of prophetic foresight, miracu- lous answers to prayer; because he thinks that for all such miracles a natural cause can be assigned. He finds the key that unlocks all mysteries in animal magnetism. Priests and prophets were men endowed with magnetic and spirit- ual gifts; hence their power to do things which seem miracu- lous, to see the future, to pass through fire unharmed, like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; to tame wild beasts, like Daniel in the lions' den. In Christ and His apostles the magnetic and spiritual forces culminated. " God, who chose to speak to man through the man Christ Jesus, who thus revealed the divine nature under the limitation of humanity, also chose that Jesus Christ should take in the highest degree all the natural powers which were bestowed on humanity, both as regards magnetic force and spiritual receptiveness." 2 Hence the healing miracles; hence also the frequent modus operandi by the use of magnetised sub- stances, "as when he made clay and anointed the blind man's eyes, and sighed or breathed hard upon him, another prac- tice well known to magnetic doctors now." Magnetism also explains answers to prayer, whether recorded in the Bible or occurring in Christian experience now; for the magnetic ele- ment is the one thing common to those in the flesh and out of the flesh. And by prayer we put ourselves en rapport with 1 Speech in Season, p. 243. 2 Ibid. p. 49. 220 The Humiliation of Christ. disembodied magnetisers, and receive through their mag- netic influence the desired blessing, e.g., restored health. No one will be surprised to find one who propounds so gro- tesque a theory of the miraculous giving utterance to some- what eccentric ideas on such subjects as the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. Mr. Haweis' opinions on these topics are certainly eccentric enough. In his way he is a believei in a trinity, nay, he holds that every man who thinks per- sistently about God must think of Him as trinity in unity. Foi what, he asks, is our first idea of God ? It is that of a vast, co-ordinating, perhaps impersonal force, which brought into form what we call the universe. This is our first rough no- tion of God — God in the widest sense, the Father. But this notion does not suffice; it leaves God too far off, and we need a God that is nigh. And so we next think of God as like ourselves, a magnified man. To us intellectually, sympathetically, God is perfect man. This second hu- man aspect of God is so necessary to us, that even if we had no historical Christ at all, " we should be obliged to make a Christ, because our mind incarnates God in the form of Christ irresistibly and inevitably whenever we bring definite thought to bear upon the question of a divine being in relation to man. And such a Christ, whether ideal or historical, will be God the Son." But my Christ, where is He ? Is He only an idea or a past historical character ? That will not suffice. I must have a present God with whom I can commune, by whose influence I can be refreshed, a God who touches me and dwells within me. God so conceived is the Holy Ghost. And thus we have our trinity complete, the first of the three modes of Deity being God conceived of as creative force; the second, God conceived of as a man; the third, God conceived of as immanent — " God tangential." It is only a Sabellian trinity of course, as Mr Haweis himself acknowledges, and he has no objection to avoid the charge by identifying Manifestation with Persona- lity, only he thinks the Church of the future is not likely to quibble over phrases with a view of evading the heresy of Sabellianism. From the foregoing doctrine of the Trinity we can ourselves determine what must be our author's doctrine concerning Christ. Christ is the second conception of God Modem Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 221 realized as a historical fact, an expression of God under the limitations of humanity. But it will be best to give his view in his own words: "When I am asked to define what I mean by Christ, I use such expressions as these. There was something in the nature of the great boundless source of being called God which was capable of sympathy with man. That something found outward expression, and became God expressed under the essential limitations of humanity, in Jesus. That such a revelation was specially necessary to the moral and spiritual development of the human race I believe; that such revelation of God was act- ually made to the world I believe. More than this I cannot pledge myself to." 1 According to this view, Christ is the incarnation not of God, but of something in the nature of God which has affinity to man. God Himself, in the totality of His being, according to our author, cannot be incarnated. " There must," he says, " be infinite ranges in the Divine Being's rela- tions to our world, aspects, and energies of Him that can never be comprehended under the limitations of humanity. But there is in Him a human aspect, like the bright side of a planet; that side is turned towards man, expressed out- wardly to man in man, and fully expressed in the man Jesus Christ." 2 I am at a loss how to classify this Christo- logical speculation. In some respects it reminds one of the kenotic theories of the Incarnation, according to which the Son of God in becoming man denuded Himself of the attri- butes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, in order that He might be capable of living the life of a verit- ableman within the limits of humanity. Butinotherrespects it has no affinity with the views of kenotic Christologists, or indeed with any views that can be characterized as Chris- tian. The incarnation taught by Mr. Haweis has more resem- blance to that believed in by the worshippers of Brahma, than to that embodied in the creeds of the Christian Church. Christ is simply an emanation from the one universal sub- stance in which are elements of all sorts, the raw material out of which are manufactured all the individual beings which 1 Thoughts for the Times, p. 82. 1 Current Coin, p. 310. 222 The Humiliation of Christ. together constitute the universe. He is the embodiment of the human element in the eternal Substance, as the stars are the embodiment of some other element. We should rather say He is an embodiment, for why Christ should be singled out as the solitary expression of the something in God that had affinity with men does not appear. All indi- vidual men, according to the Pantheistic theory of the universe, are incarnations of the human element in God, and all that can be affirmed of Christ is what Spinoza said of Him, viz., that He is, so far as known, the wisest and best of men. That is what Mr. Haweis would have said had he occupied any deliberately-chosen consistent philoso- phical standpoint; but being merely an eclectic and a child of the Zeitgeist, under its English form, he utters opinions on the subject of Christ's person which defy classification. That such crude, undigested, and mondescript views should permanently satisfy many earnest minds is not to be expected. The only use they can serve is to be a tempor- ary halting-place to those who, utterly out of sympathy with the formulated doctrines of the Creed, are yet unable to break away from Christianity and its Author. In this respect they are full of interest. It is certainly a striking phenomenon which is presented to our view in this nine- teenth century in the person of such a man as Mr. Haweis, a man regarding creeds and dogmatic systems with morbid disgust, and yet compelled by the evangelic records to rec- ognise in Jesus the Son of God in a sense in which the title can be applied to no other man. To some the phenomenon may appear a thing of evil omen, portending the disinte- gration of the Christian faith, and the ultimate dissolution of the Christian Church. But it has a bright, hopeful side, as well as a dark, discouraging one. It is Christianity re- newing its youth, making a new beginning. It is Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, presenting Him- self to men whose minds have become theologically a tabula rasa, and making on them, through His words of wisdom and deeds of holy love, an impression very similar to that which He made on the minds of His first disciples, and to which the most appropriate expression was given in the confession of Peter, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 223 living God." It is very much to be desired that an impres- sion of this kind should be made at first hand on many minds in our day; for better far is even a crude elementary faith, right so far as it goes, which has been communicated direct to the soul by the Father in heaven, than a more de- veloped orthodox creed held as a tradition received from flesh and blood. Such a faith is vital, and, like all things living, it will grow, and as the result of growth it may ul- timately receive as truth dogmas from which at first it recoiled in incredulity, and so attain to the only orthodoxy which is of any value, that which is right in the spirit as well as in the letter, an orthodoxy of moral conviction, not of mechanical imitation. 5. It remains now to consider the views of those who, while advocating a theory of Christ's person similar to that of Schleiermacher, according to which Christ is the ideal, perfect man — and nothing more — do so, not on philosophic grounds, but solely because they believe they can prove that such is the view presented in Scripture. Substantially the theory held by this school is the same as that of the old Socinians, the main difference being, that while the Socinians emphasized the distinction between God and man, the modern advocates of the Ideal Man theory empha- size the essential identity of the divine and the human, and hence feel able to appropriate phrases and to adopt modes of expression from which the old Socinians would have shrunk. Thus Rothe speaks of God as incarnate in Christ; quarrelling with orthodoxy only because it believes in an Incarnation limited to Christ, instead of teaching, as he does, that God is incarnate in redeemed humanity at large, and that in the Incarnation of Christ we have only the beginning of a process. 1 The place of representative man in connection with this theory may justly be assigned to Beyschlag, who, in his work on the Christology of the New Testament, 2 has made a most elaborate and ingenious attempt to show that it is in accordance with the teaching both of our Lord and of the apostles. Beyschlag's thesis is that Jesus Christ was 1 Dogmatik, ZweiterTheil, erste Abtheilung, p. 153. 2 Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments, Berlin 1866. 224 The Humiliation of Christ. the divine idea of humanity for the first time realized in history, the perfect man, and just because the perfect man the Son of God, the natures of God and of man being essen- tially identical. This he holds to be the doctrine taught not only in the synoptical Gospels, but even in the fourth Gospel, here joining issue with the great founder of the Tubingen school of criticism, Dr. Baur. As is well known to those familiar with his writings, Baur discovers in the New Testament three distinct types of Christology, the first and lowest being that of the synoptical Gospels, the second and intermediate the Pauline, and the third and highest that of the fourth Gospel. The first is Ebionitic in its char- acter, the Christ of the first three Gospels being a mere man endowed by the Holy Ghost with gifts and graces fitting for His Messianic office. In the second, Pauline type of Chris- tology, Christ is still only a man, but He is a man deified — a man placed in a central position towards the universe corresponding to the universalistic views of Christianity advocated by the apostle of the Gentiles, the first-born of every creature, the head and lord of creation, worthy to receive divine honour and worship of all. In the third type of Christology — that set forth in the fourth Gospel — Christ ceases to be veritable man, and becomes a God who has assumed a human body that He may become manifest to the world. Beyschlag, on the other hand, contends that the Christology of the fourth Gospel is essentially the same as that of the first three, the proof offered of this proposition forming part of an attempt to establish the Johannine authorship of that Gospel. Beyschlag says in effect, there is no need to stand in doubt as to Johannine authorship so far as the Christology of the fourth Gospel is concerned. For the Christology of that Gospel is just the Christology of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In all four Gospels one and the same Christ is found — a Christ who, when He calls Himself the Son of Man, means to assert that He is the man par excellence, the ideal man in whom all humanity's pos- sibilities are realized, and who, when He calls Himself the Son of God, means to assert no metaphysical identity of nature, but only to claim for Himself a sonship based on ethical affinity, and manifesting itself by intimate fellow- Modem Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 225 ship of spirit, and therefore a sonship which, while in degree peculiar to Himself, is in kind common to Him with all good men. That Christ in the fourth Gospel much more frequently calls Himself by the latter name than in the other three, is simply due to the fact of his being placed in circumstances which make that natural in the Johannine representation. But what of Xhc pre-existence? Is that not a peculiar feature in the Johannine Christology ? Yes, Beyschlag replies, there is very notably a doctrine of pre- existence taught in the Gospel of John. But then the pre- existence is not such as the creeds of the Church mistakenly represented it. It is the pre-existence not of a real person, member of an eternally-existing essential trinity, but of a divine idea, an idea which is at once the Ebenbild of God — a mirror in which God sees His own image reflected — and the Urbild of man, the archetypal thought according to which God made man, destined in the course of the ages to be realized as it never had been before, in all its plero- matic fulness, in Jesus Christ. And when Christ asserts His pre-existence, it is not as a recollection of a previous conscious life in the bosom of God, but simply as an infer- ence from His own consciousness of unity in spirit with God. In proportion as it becomes clear to Him that He is ; n perfect harmony with God, and therefore realizes the ideal of a humanity made in God's image, it also becomes clear to Him that He must have pre-existed as an idea in the divine mind, and in the language of poetry or imagin- ation may be said to have been in the bosom of the Father, holding delightful converse with Him throughout the ages before He was born into the world. I cannot here attempt a detailed examination of the proof offered by Beyschlag in support of these views, but must content myself with presenting a few samples of his exegesis, which may enable readers to form a clearer idea of the Christological scheme and to estimate its merits, while they will give me an opportunity of saying a few words on the important and interesting subject of Christ's self-witness, or the doctrine which He taught concerning His own pers-on. A prominent place in all Christological discussion is 226 The Humiliation of Christ. due to the question, What is the precise import of the name which our Lord ordinarily and by preference em- ployed to designate Himself, the Son of Man ? On this question much diversity of opinion has prevailed, some re- garding the name as a title of dignity, others as expressive of indignity, while a third class of interpreters think that, as used by Christ, it combines both the senses. Beyschlag is very decidedly of opinion that it is a title of dignity — is, in fact, a synonym for Messiah. He thinks the source of this name for Messiah is the text in Daniel concerning one like unto the Son of Man; herein differing from Schleier- macher, who regarded this opinion as a baseless fancy; and he finds no difficulty in determining from the prophetic text the precise import of the title. " His appearance in heaven seems to point at a not human, but a divine essence, while yet the name Son of Man presupposes not a divine, but a human essence." The solution of the difficulty thus pre- sented is found in the consideration that in the idea of the Son of Man the human is not thought of in opposition to the divine, but as in affinity with it, so that the Messiah of Daniel is the heavenly man. He is man, not God; for He is conceived of as distinct from and dependent on God, but He is higher than any prophet; He is in heaven before He comes to earth to assume His kingdom, at home, so to speak, among the clouds of heaven, a companion of God, of celestial descent and heavenly essence. Hence it fol- lows that He pre-existed before His appearance on the earth; but whether the pre-existence be real or ideal only, a pre-existence in the council and will of God cannot be decided from the passage: the question was not present to the mind of the prophet. Combining this result with the Bible doctrine of the creation of man in God's image, the writer finally arrives at this formula: the in-heaven-pre- existing Son of Man was the archetype of humanity, the image of God, of whom mention is made in the creation- history. Furnished with this idea, he comes to the New Testament and endeavours to show that it is the key to the true meaning of the many texts in the Gospel, some fifty in all, in which the title Son of Man occurs. This Messianic title in the mouth of Jesus, we are told, signifies Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 227 that He is not a man as other men, but the man, the abso- lute, human-divine man; and three passages are singled out in which the meaning is said to be specially apparent These are Mark ii. 10 (Matt. ix. 6; Luke v. 24); Mark ii. 27, 28 (Matt. xii. 8; Luke vi. 5); and Matt. xii. 32 (Luke xii. 10). In the first it is said of the Son of Man that He hath power on the earth (Ini rrji yi}C) to forgive sin. The expression italicized is assumed to be set over against an unexpressed kv t<5 ovpavcp, and the following train of thought is extracted from the text: In heaven above God Himself, of course, forgives sin, but that His grace may be available to men He must have an organ upon earth, a Son of Man among the children of men, who knows the whole will of God in heaven, who as man can speak and act as one in complete unity with God, that is, the Messiah, as the man who is absolutely one with God, and the very image of God. In the second passage Christ claims for Himself, as Son of Man, lordship over the Sabbath day. Beyschlag thinks the Messianic import of the title in this place very clear, "since only as the Messiah can Jesus have the power to set aside a Mosaic, yea divine ordinance, like that of the Sabbath." He lays stress on the relation be- tween the two assertions: the Sabbath was made for man, and the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath, and thinks that the idea intended is this, that the Son of Man is archetype, prince, head of men, in whom the superiority to the Sab- bath, in principle belonging to humanity, becomes an actual authority to break through its prohibitions. The third text is the well-known one concerning blasphemy against the Son of Man. Our author's comments thereon are as follows: " Let us consider the relation here indicated between the Son of Man and the Holy Ghost. It is a relation of distinction, and yet of close connection. The distinction is, that in the Son of Man the revelation of God to men is made in mediated, and, so far, veiled form, there- fore may be misunderstood, so that the blasphemer can always have the benefit of the prayer, "Forgive them, they know not what they do;" but in the Holy Ghost the revelation is made immediately, inwardly, therefore unmis- takably; therefore there is no excuse for the blasphemer. 228 The Humiliation of CJirist. At the same time, the Holy Ghost is not thought of as above the Son of Man, but in Him. The Son of Man is the man who has the spirit of God in His entire fulness, whose inmost though unrecognised essence is the Holy Spirit, the man whose human appearance is the medium of the absolute revelation of God. To this corresponds the fact, obvious in the text, that the blasphemy of the Son of Man is represented as the most heinous of pardonable sins." : These are very questionable interpretations of familiar sayings of Christ. Regarding the last of the three, in particular, I am very sure that it misses the point. " Offences against the Son of Man are pardonable, but that is all; such sins form the extreme limit of the forgivable," so gives the sense Beyschlag, very erroneously in my judgment. Jesus did not mean to represent sins against Himself as barely forgivable; but rather, with characteristic magnanimity, as easily forgivable, because not more heinous than sins against any other good man, and due to the same general causes. He looked upon it as a thing of course that He should be exposed to misunderstanding, calumny, criticism, contradiction, and that just because He was the Son of Man; and He warned the Pharisees of their danger, not because they were sinning against Him, the ideal Man, but because they were not sinning against Him through ignorance, misapprehension, and prejudice, but against the Holy Ghost; being convinced in their hearts that Beelzebub could not do the things they saw Him do, yet pretending to believe that he could and did. The second passage — that relating to the lordship of the Son of Man — does not, any more than the one just referred to, require for its inter- pretation that we understand the name Son of Man as a title of dignity. Christ claimed power to exercise lordship over the Sabbath in the interest of humanity, on the ground of His sympathy with mankind — a far more reliable inter- preter of the divine purpose in the institution than the merciless rigour of the Pharisees. The Sabbath, He con- tended, was made for man; it is a gift of God to weary, burdened sons of Adam. Charity was the motive of the institution, and I, just because I am the Son of Man, heart 1 Christolo^ie, p. 24. Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 229 and soul in sympathy with humanity, and bearing its burden on my spirit, am Lord of the Sabbath day, fitted and entitled to say how it may best be observed. The first of the three texts is more obscure, though one can have no hesitation in pronouncing Beyschlag's interpreta- tion forced and artificial, as even he himself seems to feel, from the apologetic manner in which he introduces it, asking: " Do we draw too much from the words when we find in them the following train of thought ? " To my view, our Lord meant to meet with a redoubled, intensified nega- tive the Pharisaic notions in respect to the forgiveness of sin. They viewed God's relation to sin altogether from the side of His majesty and holiness. The pardon of sin was an affair of state, performed with a grudge, and with awe- inspiring ceremony, and competent only to the divine king. Christ regarded God's relation to sin from the side of His grace and charity. In effect, He says to His sanctimonious hearers: God is not such an one as ye imagine Him. He is not severe and implacable, and slow to pardon offences, and jealous of His prerogative in the rare grudging exercise of mercy. He is good and ready to forgive, and He has no desire to monopolize the privilege of forgiving. He is will- ing that it should be exercised by all in whom dwells His own spirit of love, that men on earth should imitate the Father in Heaven, and say to a penitent: Thy sins be for- given. My right to forgive rests on this, that I am the Son of Man, the sympathetic friend of the sinful, full of the grace and charity of heaven; but as this is a reason which ye seem unable to appreciate, let me show you in another way that I have the authority ye call in question by heal- ing the pardoned one's physical malady. In these texts, as I understand them, the title Son of Man signifies the sympathetic man, qui nihil humani alienum putat. In other texts the title seems rather to signify the unprivileged man par excellence. To this class belongs the familiar pathetic saying: "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head." Beyschlag, indeed, claims this text also as a support to his theory, paraphrasing it, though Son of Man, yet such is my lot. But surely it is far more 230 The Humiliation of Christ. natural to find in the name the reason of the fact stated, and to read, Such is my lot because I am the Son of Man, and nothing else is to be looked for in my company. This construction is further recommended by the consideration that it removes from the saying a tone of querulousness which, on the other view, seems to characterize it, but which was utterly foreign to Christ's temper. Christ spoke of His lot as a homeless one, not as a very hard, unworthy lot for Him, the Ideal Man, but as a matter of course for the unprivileged Son of Man, in the same way as He regarded blasphemy against Himself as a commonplace occurrence, not as a specially heinous offence; for why should not He, the Son of Man, be evil spoken of as well as any other son of man ? So, in the parable of the tares, the lesson of patience with evil in the kingdom is tacitly en- forced by the consideration that the Son of Man has to endure the counterworking of the evil one, and takes it patiently. I, the Son of Man, have to see my labour in sowing the seed of the kingdom marred; it is a part of the curriculum of trial through which I must pass. I meekly accept my lot as the Son of Man; see that ye bear kindred experiences in the same spirit. These two attributes, then, at least, are denoted by the title under consideration. The Son of Man is the unpriv- ileged man and the sympathetic man. But He is more. For there are texts in which the Son of Man, now humbled and unprivileged, is spoken of as the expectant of a king- dom, texts in which a conscious reference to the passage in Daniel is apparent, showing that it is at least one of the Old Testament sources of the title. 1 These texts show that if Jesus was emphatically the unprivileged man, He was so not by constraint, but voluntarily and from philan- thropic motives, and that His position as the Man of Sor- rows involved an incongruity between lot and intrinsic dignity. The Son of Man is more than He seems; there is a mystery about Him; the name assumed, while revealing much conceals something; revealing His heart, it conceals His dignity, it is an incognito congenial to the humour of 1 Among other sources which have been suggested are the eighth psalm and the Protevangelium. Keim favours the former, Hofmann the latter. Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 231 a loving lowly nature. I agree, therefore, with such writers as Keim, who recognise in this title, Son of Man, the ex- pression of a double consciousness, that of one whose present state and mind are lowly, and that of one who knows that a high destiny awaits Him; the former phase of conscious- ness being the one mainly turned outwards towards the world; th2 latter, the one kept in the background or in the shade — the side turned inwards, away from the light. And with special reference to Beyschlag's theory, I must main- tain that the title Son of Man, as ordinarily used by Christ, denotes rather the reality of His humanity than its ideality, though the latter as a fact I do not deny. The reality is the thing emphasized, with what motive may be a question. Dorner and others say, to bring out the truth that human- ity is not the native element of the speaker, and just on* that account is the thing which needs to be asserted. Jesus calls Himself the Son of Man, because He is conscious- of being more than man. It is doubtful if we are entitled to go so far, though certainly, while it is not possible to» demonstrate to the satisfaction of opponents that a divine consciousness forms the background of the human con- sciousness directly expressed by the title, the view of Dorner fits well into the doctrine of Christ's divinity, as- sumed to be established by other evidence. I prefer to find the secret of the emphasis with which Jesus asserted the reality of His humanity in the spirit of humility and love which regulated His whole conduct. He called Him- self Son of Man as the bearer of the grace of the divine kingdom, even as He called Himself Christ as the head of the kingdom, to whom all its citizens owed allegiance, and Son of God as the proper object not only of obedience but of worship. Into the elaborate discussion of the last-mentioned title contained in Beyschlag's treatise I cannot enter. Suffice it to say that in the theory now under review the two titles, Son of Man and Son of God, are practically equivalent. From an analysis of texts the author determines the fol- lowing as the characteristics of Christ's divine sonship: dependence on His heavenly Father, likeness to His Father, and heavenly descent, implying negatively sinlessness, and 232 The Humiliation of Christ. positively that Christ is not an ordinary man, but the man, the heavenly man. The chief interest of his discussion of the Johannine account of our Lord's teaching concerning His person turns on the manner in which he deals with the doctrine of pre-existence. That he resolves into an ideal pre-existence in the divine mind. As a sample of his way of making texts conform to his theory, we may take his remarks on the words, " Before Abraham was, I am." * He admits that the text is susceptible of the traditional inter- pretation, but contends that it is equally susceptible of his, which is to the following effect : " Jesus beyond question speaks of Himself as the Messiah. Abraham had rejoiced to see in vision the day of Messiah's appearing. What more natural than the thought: Before Abraham could be upon the earth must the Messiah have been already in heaven; before God could choose Abraham to be the father of the people of the promise, the content of the promise, Christ, must have existed for God and in God." The pre-existence asserted is thus a mere logical inference, and it is a mere pre-existence in idea or in purpose. This may be a very simple thought, as Beyschlag calls it, but it does not seem a very likely thought to be introduced with a " Verily, verily, I say unto you." Such a solemn formula was fitted to prevent hearers from seeing the real nature of the asser- tion as a mere truism. If Jesus had meant nothing more than that God's promise of a Messiah presupposed the ex- istence in God's mind of the Messianic idea, He would naturally have uttered the word as a matter of course, not with the solemn preface of a " Verily, verily." Beyschlag thinks the use of the present tense eijui, I am, instead of yMyr, is in favour of his interpretation. Before Abraham was, I was, would have expressed real existence; " Before Abraham was I am," expresses merely ideal existence. But by the same reasoning we might make out the existence of God Himself to be merely ideal, which yet Beyschlag does not believe it to be. For is it not written in the nine- tieth psalm, " Before the mountains were brought forth, ■ere ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting, Thou (art), O God." I am is 1 John viii. 58. Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ's Person. 233 the proper expression to denote eternal existence; I was would have conveyed the idea of a temporal existence, though earlier than that of Abraham; in other words, the phrase would have suggested an Arian idea of the pre- existent state. Not to go over all the texts discussed, I give just one more sample of Beyschlag's style of interpretation. In John xiii. 3 he finds the culmination of the process by which Jesus gradually came to know who He was, — viz. the Ideal Man, Ebenbild of God, Urbild of man, — and what therefore must have been His history before He came into the world. The evangelist, we are told, expressly signalizes that the peculiar consciousness of Jesus first reached the acme of clearness on the threshold of death. When, in the intro- duction of the history of the passion, he writes: Jesus, knowing that the Father had. given all things into His hands, and that He was come from God, and went to God, this obser- vation were wholly idle and unintelligible, if thereby he did not mean to say that Jesus then became more distinctly and clearly conscious than ever before of His relation to God, His origin from Him, and His return to Him. In this instance Beyschlag's ingenious but artificial exegesis seems to me to reach the acme of unsatisfactoriness. In the words quoted, the evangelist expresses in the first place his own sense of the magnitude of the condescension of his Lord, by contrasting the intrinsic dignity of Christ with the lowly act He performed in the supper chamber. He to whom all things were given, who came forth from God, and who was about to go to God, did thus and thus. He alludes to Christ's consciousness of all this (e£8v6ixv6iv /.lev yap exivelzo kv avzcp, oze napexcopei zy 6apxi naOelv zd i'Sia- vizip 7i art pioiS xoimgouevoS. 1 See note, p. 262, for Ebrard's view on this point. ' Loci communes, pars i. p. 145: Infirmitates et defectus, non hujus vel illius individui, ut lepra (Matt. viii. 2), caecitas (John ix. 1) sed totius naturae, ex ejus- dem per peccatum corruptione suscepti. As examples of infirmity. Alting mentions tristitia, dolor, timor, ira, in the mind; in the body, lassitudo ex itinere, sudor, lachrymae. Christ the Subject of Temptation. 265 life; another man may be tempted by the very intensity of his love to slay his own son, believing it to be his duty in this way to show that he loves God more than any created good. To ascertain this very thing was the object of Abraham's temptation, if we may infer the design from the declared result, which is stated in these terms: " Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me." Without calling in question the reality of an objective command, it is not difficult to conceive that the command addressed itself to, and found a fulcrum in, an intense desire in Abraham's own heart to be himself satisfied on the same point. Of two possible careers, men may be tempted to choose that one which is not their true vocation, from very opposite motives. One man may be misled by vanity or ambition, eager to attain social distinction; another may be sorely tempted to forsake the better way, by a clear perception that the road along which gifts and conscience bid him travel will be rough, thorny, steep, and in all respects most repulsive to flesh and blood. So was Jesus tempted to choose the path of a worldly Messiahship. In His pure, holy soul the passions of vanity and pride had no place; but His tempta- tion in the wilderness was not on that account a mere sham- fight. Two ways were set before His mental view, — how, whether by objective Satanic suggestion, or by a vision in which God's thoughts and the world's concerning Messiah's career were placed in contrast side by side, it is immaterial to our present purpose to inquire; — but, in point of fact, the two ways were set before His mind, the way of popu- larity on the one hand, and the way of the cross on the other; and though the hosannas of the mob, and the insin- cere homage of the higher classes of society, might have small attractions for His lowly spirit, the wholesale deser- tion of spurious disciples, the incapacity of even genuine disciples to give Him the comfort of sympathetic com- panionship as He walked through the valley of the shadow of death, the hatred of sanctimonious religionists and of selfish unscrupulous politicians, the treason of a false friend, the infuriated crowd crying, " Away with him, away with him," the horrors of crucifixion, — these all passing as dark 266 The Humiliation of Christ. possibilities in panoramic view before His eye, were surely enough to make those " forty days and forty nights Christ was fasting in the wild," days and nights of most real temp- tation, of soul-trouble and agony, whereof forgetfulness of physical wants was but the natural result, as it was the fitting accompaniment ! For we must now observe, in the second place, that not only may the same kind of tempta- tion proceed from morally opposite causes, but the tempta- tion which proceeds from a holy source may be in degree fiercer than that which has its origin in sinful lust. A familiar illustration will make this plain. Suppose the case of two men engaged in trade: one, a conscientious man, whose maxim is: "First righteous, then as prosperous as possible; " the other, a man not troubled with a passionate love of righteousness, vulgar in moral tone, and bent above all things on getting on in the world. Both are needy, and are also placed in circumstances which bring gain within their reach, provided they do not stick at a little fraud. Look now into the breasts of these men, and see what takes place there. The one says to himself, " I am embarrassed for want of money. I am not able to meet my obligations; my wife's anxious face, and my children's pinched features, make me wretched when I return home, and haunt me continually in the market-place. Here is an opportunity of obtaining relief from my difficulties by an act of dishonesty not seldom committed by men of good commercial standing. But, no; get thee behind me, Satan — away with the hateful thought ! I dare not lie, I will rather starve and beg than directly or circuitously tell an untruth." The other says: " Ha ! here at last is a chance for me. I have been miserably kept down hitherto. I shall get my head above water now; I see my way clear to making a very considerable profit by this transaction. No doubt I shall have to indulge in a little sharp practice. But what of that ? Everybody does it; it is but a common trick of trade, and quite respectable; and whether it is respectable or not, it is necessary, and I must do it." Which, now, of these two men has the keener experience of temptation ? Surely the virtuous, conscientious man. He passes through a kind of Gethsemane, an agony of Christ the Sttbjcct of Temptation. 267 bloody sweat, a mortal struggle between love for wife and children and desire to escape the disgrace of insolvency on the one hand, and a moral revulsion from iniquity on the other. The other man has no agony — he has not virtue enough for that; there is nothing in him to stop the current of evil suggestion and make it rage. He is not so much a tempted one, as one who has been drawn away of his own lust and enticed. It thus appears that sinful dispositions, though certainly making men more liable to fall before temptation, do not increase the painful sense of being tempted, but rather diminish it. As a matter of psychological experience, it is the good man, not the bad, that is tempted. Temptation presupposes an attitude of antagonism to evil, and springs out of the difficulties encountered by all who make an earn- est attempt to maintain this attitude. It is in this way that temptation is regarded by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in connection with his doctrine concerning the sympathy of Christ with the tempted. The purpose he has in view is, to comfort Christians under the difficulties con- nected with the maintenance of their Christian profession, which were in effect so many temptations to apostasy; and the comfort he offers is: Jesus can sympathize with you, for He was in all respects tempted as you are, without sin. And trom what has been said, it appears that, notwithstanding the qualifying clause, Jesus was the companion of tempted Christians in these two respects at least: He shared with them the attitude of resistance to evil, and He maintained that attitude against real, immense, and manifold difficul- ties. His difficulties were not, indeed, in all respects the same as those of His followers. A Christian, for example, may have to do battle even unto blood with a lust or appetite, or old habit that wars against his soul. Christ had no such battle to fight. He endured the contradiction of sinners, not that of inclinations to sin. But does that fact cut the regenerated drunkard off from the sympathy of his Redeemer ? No; for in all essential respects his temptation was experienced by Him who knew no sin. The experience of the disciple consists in a conflict between the will of the spirit and the desire of the flesh; the experience 268 The Humiliation of Christ. of the Lord was essentially the same when He said, " Let this cup pass," with the accidental, though most momentous difference, that the desire of His sentient nature was in itself innocent. The disciple, in obedience to the will of God, has to put away the cup his flesh craves; the Master, in obedience to the same will, had to drink the cup from which His flesh shrunk. And while the temptations of both are essentially the same, it is well for the disciple that the accident of sinfulness was not present in the desires of his Lord's human nature. For had it been otherwise, what had been gained ? Only com- panionship in moral weakness: an attribute which may qualify for receiving succour from the strong, but certainly not for being a succourer to the weak. The conclusion, then, to which the foregoing discussion leads us is, that we need have no hesitation in understand- ing the qualifying clause " without sin " as involving the ex- clusion from Christ's human nature of all sinful proclivity, lest, by so interpreting it, we imperil the reality or the thoroughness of His experience of temptation, and rob our- selves of the consolations arising out of His experimentally acquired sympathy with the tempted. 1 But now another question arises in connection with this same qualifying clause, of which some notice must be taken before the present subject can be regarded as discussed on all its sides. " Without sin," by universal consent, signifies, at least, " tempted, but never with sinful result." The ques- tion readily suggests itself: How was this invariably happy issue of all temptation secured or guaranteed ? It is a question much more easy to ask than to answer, for the mind of an inquirer is distracted by opposite interests, whose reconciliation is a hard speculative problem. On the one hand, there is a most legitimate jealousy of any method of guaranteeing a sinless issue which tends to undermine the reality of Christ's temptations; on the other, there is the not less strong feeling, that any other than a sinless result in His case cannot be seriously contemplated as a real possibility. Under the influence of the former motive, 1 Vid. Appendix, Note B, for some remarks on the views of naturalistic theo- logians on the subject of " the Flesh." Christ the Subject of Temptation. 269 one is inclined to describe Christ's moral state by the phrase potnit non peccare, thereby ascribing to Him a power of choosing and doing the right, which, however, implies the opposite alternative as a possibility. But when we allow our minds to dwell on the dignity of Christ's person, and on the soteriological importance of His sinlessness, we are impelled to alter our mode of expression, and for the phrase, potait non peccare, to substitute the stronger one, non potuit peccare, and maintain an impossibility of sinning. Which of the two phrases is the more appropriate, or are they both neccessary to express the whole truth; and if so, how can they be reconciled, so that the one shall not virtu- ally cancel the other ? On these questions, as we might have expected, opinions differ widely; some preferring the weaker phrase, as the true description of Christ's moral condition during His life on earth; others insisting on the stronger, as alone doing justice to the moral perfection of the incarnate Son of God; while a third class see realized in Christ the unity of moral integrity and moral perfection, at once the power not to sin and that which made sin im- possible. Whether this third position can be speculatively justified or not, there can be no doubt, at all events, that the combination of the two formulas most accurately and satisfactorily represents the facts. The potuit non signifies that Christ's experience of temptation was real; that in His temptations He was conscious of a force tending to draw Him to evil. The non potuit, on the other hand, signifies that there was in Christ a counter force stronger than the force of temptation, which certainly, though not without effort, ensures in every case a sinless result. In this view of our Lord's experience of temptation, which makes it consist in a constant conflict of two unequal opposing forces, it becomes very important to provide that a due proportion between the conflicting powers shall be maintained. If the truth represented by the potuit non — viz., that the force of temptation was strong enough to create the consciousness of a struggle — be overlooked, then the whole curriculum of moral trial through which Jesus passed on earth degener- ates at once into a mere stage performance. This one- sided tendency characterized the ancient Church, and finds 270 The Humiliation of Christ. apt expression in the saying of John Damascenus, already quoted, that Christ " repelled and dissipated the assaults of the enemy like smoke." 1 In modern times this doketic view finds no acceptance; theologians of all schools being agreed that the forces of evil, with which the Son of Man fought so noble a fight, were not shadows, but substantial and formidable foes. Even those who, with the Catholic Church of all ages, believe in the essential divinity of Christ, ener- getically protest against the divine element being brought in as an overwhelming force on the side of good, so as to make the force at work on the side of evil relatively zero. The divinity, while regarded as potentially infinite, is con- ceived of as, in its applied form, only a finite power barely sufficient to counterbalance another operating in Christ's person in an opposite direction. In the eloquent words of a Scottish theologian, the work of the divine nature is "not to raise Christ's suffering nature to such a height of glori- ous power as would render all trial slight and contemptible; but to confer upon it such strength as would be infallibly sufficient, but not more than sufficient, just to bear Him through the fearful strife that awaited Him, without His being broken or destroyed, — so that He might thoroughly experience, in all the faculties of His soul and body, the innumerable sensations of overpowering difficulty, and exhausting toil, and fainting weakness, and tormenting anguish, though by the Holy Ghost preserved from sin, — and might touch the very brink of danger, though not be swept away by it; and feel all the horror of the precipice, but without falling over." 3 This passage may be accepted as a satisfactory statement ' Lecture ii. p. 72. 2 Sermon on the sympathy of Christ, by the late Professor M'Lagan, published .11 the work of Mr. Dods, On the Incarnation of the Eternal Word; see pp. 299, 300 of that work. This admirable discourse contains some well -selected examples illustrative of the truth, that temptations arising out of sinless infirmities may be far fiercer than those which arise out of sinful appetites. The author compares the cravings of the intemperate palate for wine, with the natural thirst of the parched traveller in the desert; the pampered appetite of the epicure, with the ravenous hunger of the famishing man, whose fearful power is exhibited in the story of the siege of Samaria, when mothers bargained to slay in succession their own children Christ the Subject of Temptation. 271 of the view of Christ's temptations held in common by Christologists of the Reformed tendency, who have ever been anxious so to conceive of our Lord's person, as to leave to the forces to temptation ample room wherein to display themselves. And as a clear exposition of what is required, in order that Christ's experience of temptation may possess the maximum degree of reality or intensity, without prejudice to His sinlessness, this statement leaves nothing to be desired. It is manifest, however, that the sentences quoted contain rather the statement than the solution of a problem. The necessity for an adjustment of the conflicting powers, so that they shall bear some finite proportion to each other, is distinctly recognised; but how the adjustment is brought about, how the potentially in- finite force becomes finite in effect, is not explained. The question obviously carries us back to the already discussed problem of the kenosis. Moreover, even after that question has been disposed of, another comes up for consideration — viz., in what way is the divine force, become finite, made available as an aid to the successful resistance of tempta- tion ? The only hint at an answer to this question in the foregoing extract is contained in the words, " though by the Holy Ghost preserved from sin." The hint, brief though it be, condenses the substance of what the orthodox Re- formed Christology has said on the subject to which it refers. That Christology, as we know, lays great stress on the influence of the Holy Spirit as the source or cause of Christ's holiness, representing the human wisdom and virtue of our Lord as qualities produced in His human nature by the Logos through His own Spirit. 1 This view may be construed to mean that the divine power, as an aid to holiness against temptation to sin, acted not directly as a physical force, but as a moral force taking the form of ethical motive. Thus construed, the representation in question is one of great importance; for undoubtedly the victory of Christ over temptation, to have ethical value, must be ethically brought about. It must not be the matter-of-course result of the physical ground of His being, but the effect brought about by the operations of the Holy 1 Vid. Lecture iii. p. 125. 272 The Humiliation of Christ. Spirit dwelling in Him in plenary measure, helping Him to exercise strong faith and to cherish lively hope, and in- spiring Him with a love to His Father and to men, and with a consuming zeal for righteousness, which should be more than a match for all the temptations that might be directed against Him by Satan and an evil world, acting on and through a pure but tremulously sensitive human nature. So regarded, Christ's strife with sin is a fair fight, and His conquest a moral achievement, and the physical divine ground is simply the guarantee that gracious influ- ences shall be supplied to the adequate extent. Doubtless the mystery remains how the guarantee comes into play, so as to ensure the desired result, through the operation of such influences. But the burden of that mystery presses equally on all who, whatever their theory of Christ's per- son, agree in maintaining His sinlessness; and no advocate of any modern theory has succeeded in saying anything better fitted to remove the load, than what was wont to be said by the expounders of the old Reformed Christology. Schleiermacher ensures Christ's sinlessness by a doctrine of determinism which excludes moral freedom, and which is able to dispense with the miracle of the Virgin-birth by making Christ's whole sinless life a physical miracle. 1 Rothe seeks his guarantee partly in the supernatural origin of Jesus, involving freedom from original sin; partly in His comparatively perfect upbringing in a circle which, through the Hebrew Scriptures, was in possession of the means of knowing fully the difference between good and evil, so that there was no risk of the holy child falling into sin through ignorance; partly in the moral energy acquired in the course of thirty years spent in virtuous retirement, which Jesus, in ripe manhood, brought to the hard task of His public career, 2 — all which, taken together, rendered sinlessness possible, or even, we may admit, probable, but not certain. The adherents of the modern kenotic theory have not been much more successful than these advocates of a purely humanitarian view of our Lord's person. One says, that Jesus would, in fact, maintain His innocence was foreseen, 1 Der christliche Glanbe, Band ii. p. 67 (§ 97). 2 Theologische Ethik, Band ii. pp. 28(1, 28 1. Christ the Subject of Temptation. 273 ar>d therefore the risk involved in the Incarnation was run.' Another ascribes to Jesus a non posse peccare from the outset, as a distinction necessarily belonging to a theanthropic un- created personality, whose becoming in time was preceded by an ethical being, the benefit of which He reaped on entering into the incarnate state. 2 A third contents him- self with saying that the incarnate Son of God could not deny Himself; the man Jesus, therefore, could not sin, His human historical will could not enter into contradiction with the eternal divine will dwelling within it, and the eternal God became man just because this was the way to certain victory over sin.* A fourth, while admitting that a posse peccare was a possibility involved in freedom, repre- sents it as only an abstract possibility which could not in Christ's case be realized. 4 A fifth lays stress on the pre- dominant passion of Christ's will preventing the slightest trembling in the balance, while the free will of all other men is intrinsically indifferent; 5 which was certainly a characteristic of our Lord as a matter of fact; but the question forces itself on us, Whence this difference between Christ and all other men ? The fact is the very thing to be accounted for. Yet another, to mention just one more, teaches that the potuit non peccare and the non potuit peccare, so far from excluding, rather imply each other; that the sinlessness of Christ is accounted for, neither by His free ethical fight with temptation alone, nor by His holy natural development alone, but by the union of both; and that the guarantee that the possibility of evil should never become a reality lay, not in Christ's virtue or innocence, the relation of merely negative goodness to temptation being always doubtful, not in the divine nature viewed apart from the human, any more than in the human nature viewed apart from the divine, but in the indissoluble bond between the two natures; a bond which could be strained to the uttermost by the power of temptation, but which 1 Gess. See Lecture iv. p. 150. ! Liebner. See Appendix, Note B, Lecture iv. 3 Hofmann. See Appendix, Note C, Lecture iv. * Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, ii. p. 126. » Mr. Hutton, Essays, Theological and Literary, p. 261. See Appendix, Not* F, Lecture iv. 274 Tk& Humiliation of CJirist. could never be broken asunder. Of all the utterances of the kenotic school this is the most satisfactory, and it emanates from one whose Christological theory comes nearest to the Reformed type. 1 II. In the same book of the New Testament in which Christ is represented as passing through an experience of temptation, He is also spoken of as the subject of moral de- velopment. The tempted one is conceived of as in course of being perfected, and when the curriculum of temptation is ended He is regarded as perfect. The notion of perfect- ing, reAeimois, is applied to Christ four times in the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is first introduced in the second chapter, where the Captain of salvation is represented as being per- fected through sufferings; 2 it reappears in the fifth chapter, where it is said of the Son of God that, being made perfect, He became the Author of eternal salvation; 3 it occurs for the third time in the seventh chapter, where the Son, in the state of exaltation after His state of humiliation is past, is described as perfected for evermore; 4 and finally, it may be recognised in that place of the twelfth chapter where Jesus is called the leader and perfecter of faith; the idea being, that faith was one of the things in which Jesus Himself was perfected, and in which, therefore, He is a model to all Christians. 5 That these two doctrines — viz. that Christ on earth was tempted, and that during the same period He was the sub- i Martensen, Die christliche Dogmatik, pp. 263, 264: Die MOglichkeit des BOsen regt sich auch in dem zweiten Adam; dass aber diese MOglichkeit niemals Wirk- lichkeit vvird, wie in dem ersten Adam, sondern nur als der dunkle Grund fttr die Offenbarung der Heiligkeit dienen muss, dafur biirgt nicht die Tugend oder die Unschuld, denn deren Verhaltniss zur Versuchung ist immer gar ungewiss und zweifelhaft, nicht die gOttliche Natur in ihrer Trennung von der menschlichen, auch nicht die menschliche Natur in ihrer Trennung von der gOttlichen, sondern das unaufloshche Band zwischen der gOttlichen und menschlichen Natur, ein Baud das zwar bis zum aussersten Gegensatz und zur Sussersten Spannung zwischen den Naturen gebogen und bewegt werden, niemals aber zerreissen kann (p. 264). 2 Heb. ii. 10: Sid Tta r ii]udroov TEAeicSdai. 3 Heb. v. 9: xai rsXeiGoOsis iyivtto xoiZ vita.Kovov6i\' avr<5 na6n %iriozr/piaZ aiooviov. 4 Heb. vii. 28: viov eiZ rov atcSva teteXeigou£vov. b Heb. xii. 2: rov rr/5 7ti6rscoi cipxvyov xai tsXsigottjv 'b/tfovv- Christ the Subject of Temptation. 2j5 ject of a perfecting process — should be taught by the same inspired writer, so far from being surprising, is rather a matter of course. For the two doctrines imply each other, and are complementary of each other. Wherever there is temptation, there is something to be learned, something that is actually learned; if not the habit of watchfulness against some moral infirmity whose presence has been revealed by temptation at least the virtues of patience and sympathy, and the need and use of faith and prayer. On the other hand, wherever there is room for a process of perfecting, there is room also for temptation. For as the perfect state is a state tempation-proof, so a state short of perfection is a state of liability to be tried and proved by temptation, and capable of being advanced, by this very trial and proof, to the higher perfect state in which temptation can have no place, because neither in the subject nor in His environment do the necessary conditions any longer exist. In these observations I proceed, it will be observed, on the assumption that the notion expressed by the term TeAeiaodis has an ethical import, as applied to Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews. This has been disputed, and the statements referred to have been explained to signify that Christ, by His earthly experience, was qualified for His office as High Priest; that on His ascension into glory He was, so to speak, consecrated or solemnly installed as a Priest whose sacerdotal office should last for ever, a Priest after the order of Melchizedek; and that at the same time He entered into a state of perfect personal felicity, exempt now and for ever from the infirmities and miseries of the days of His flesh. But the truth is, the term in question covers all these ideas, and that of moral develop- ment over and above. The perfecting process has refer- ence at once to Christ's office, to His condition, and to His character. These three aspects, far from being mu- tually exclusive or incompatible, rather imply each other. For example, suppose we understand the passage in the second chapter as signifying that, by suffering, the Captain of salvation was perfected, fully fitted for His office of Saviour, the question at once arises, In what does the outfit of a Captain of salvation consist ? What if that 276 TIic Humiliation of Christ. outfit should be found to include very specially a bond of sympathy between Leader and led, based on a common experience of hardship, and inspiring in those who are to be conducted to glory unbounded confidence in their Con- ductor ? Why, then, it would follow that an ethical in- gredient enters into the process of official perfecting. The Captain becomes perfectly fit for His office by this means, among others, that through comradeship in suffering He learns that intense sympathy with His followers which gains their hearts, and so gives Him unlimited moral power over them. Or, again, suppose we take perfected as signi- fying beatified — introduced into a state of perfect felicity. Whenever we begin to consider what such a state involves, we perceive that an ethical element enters into it. Part of Christ's felicity in the state of exaltation consists in His being delivered from those infirmities to which He was sub- ject in the state of humiliation, and by which He was ex- posed to powerful temptations. That is to say, Christ's entrance into heavenly bliss signifies this among other things, that He thereby passed from a state in which He could be tempted into a state in which He cannot be tempted, — a transition implying an ethical progress from the incom- plete to the perfect. It thus appears that, whether we start from the official or from the beatific point of view, we end at last in an ethical conception of the teAeigo6is predicated of Christ. And there can be no doubt that the writer of the Epistle, in which the deep thought expressed by that word is found, gives to the ethical side marked prominence. When he speaks of Christ as perfected for His office, he adduces the proof of His perfection thus: "In that He Himself hath suffered, being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted." 1 Nor is this faculty of help connected with personal experience of temptation in a merely casual way, as if it would have made little difference though the experi- ence had been dispensed with. On the contrary, a curri- culum of temptation is represented as indispensable, by way of training for office. "Wherefore in all things it be- hoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He ' Heb. ii. iS. Christ the Subject of Temptation. 277 might be a merciful and trustworthy High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." 1 In the second passage, in which the idea of perfectification occurs, it might be very fairly contended that the ethical side was the one directly and immediately presented to view, inasmuch as the thought is introduced in connection with the statement that Christ, though a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which He suffered. It seems a very legitimate inference, that "being made per- fect " means, perfected in the virtue of obedience. But granting that we ought rather to interpret the phrase as signifying perfected for office, still it is impossible to deny that in the writer's view the process of perfecting has an ethical aspect. Christ's obedience to His Father is re- garded as a quality which fits Him for receiving in turn the obedience of others, and for being the Author of eter- nal salvation to all them that do obey Him. And this obedience of His is spoken of as something learned; and, reading backwards, we find that the learning was by no means easy, but very irksome indeed, to flesh and blood. Thus we get the thought that, in order to perfect fitness for the office of Saviour as a Royal Priest, Jesus, in the days of His flesh, in the school-days of His earthly life, underwent a process of moral training whose end was to perfect Him in the virtue of obedience, and which was adapted to that end by the tremendous severity of the tasks prescribed, and the trials proposed. The official per- fecting thus embraces within it a process of moral perfect- ing, which leaves the subject thereof in a higher moral state at the end than it found Him at the beginning. And this idea of a moral growth is by no means slurred over by the writer; on the contrary, he employs all his powers of eloquence to give it the greatest possible breadth and vividness. Starting from the general principle that no right-minded man taketh to himself offices of honour and high responsibility, above all, such an office as that of the priesthood, but only in obedience to a divine call, 3 he ap- • Heb. ii. 17. s Heb. v. 4: xai ovx eavrcp ziS Xanfidvei ttjy tiut)Y. 278 The Humiliation of Christ. plies it to the case of Christ by the remark: " So also Christ glorified not Himself to be made an high priest." 1 Then, to show how utterly remote such a thought was from the Saviour's mind, how utterly innocent He was of the spirit of self-glorification, in connection with the office to which He was called by the voice of God in Scripture, the writer goes on to describe the agony in Gethsemane endured by the Great Priest, just before He passed through the rent veil of His flesh, to make an offering for the sin of the world.' It is as if he had said: "Jesus took the honour of the priesthood on Himself? Ah, no ! there was no tempta- tion to that, in connection with an office in which the Priest had to be at the same time victim. Let the agony in the garden bear witness that Jesus was not in the mood to arrogate to Himself the sacerdotal dignity. That agony was an awfully earnest, utterly sincere, while perfectly sin- less, Nolo Pontifex Fieri on the part of One who real- ized the tremendous responsibilities of the post to which He was summoned, and who was unable for the moment to find any comfort in the thought of its honours and pro- spective joys." It almost seems as if the writer had it in mind to suggest a parallel between Christ passing through the struggle in the garden, and the high priest of Israel presenting an offering first for himself before officiating in behalf of the people, — a parallel to the extent that in both cases there was a confession of weakness. Such a parallel is suggested by the sacrificial expression " offered up," used in reference to Christ's prayers with strong crying and tears; and also by the statement that He was heard for His piety, which seems to hint that His offering was accepted, even as that of the high priest was wont to be. The high priest's sacrifice for himself was accepted because it was a sincere confession of sin; Christ's prayer for Himself was accepted because it was an unreserved confession of weakness, un- accompanied by sin, inasmuch as its last word was, " Not as I will, but as Thou wilt." The high priest was accepted for the piety of sincere penitence; Jesus was accepted for 1 Heb. v. 5: ovrooi xai 6 XpiGroS ovx iavrov £86ca6e yevtfbifvat dpxitpea- 2 Heb. v. 7. Christ the Subject of Temptation. 279 the piety of filial submission, triumphing over the sinless, though extreme, weakness of sentient human nature. 1 It thus appears that the writer of this Epistle, far from glossing over the contrast between the imperfect and the perfect states of Christ, rather makes it as glaring as pos- sible. His manifest design is, to represent our Lord's weakness as going to the utmost limits short of actual dis- obedience and sin. He has a double purpose in view, one be- ing to magnify the merit of an obedience loyally rendered under so trying circumstances — to show, in fact, that one who passed through such an experimentum cruets was indeed morally perfect. The other purpose is to make evident how thoroughly fitted Jesus is to sympathize with the weak, He Himself having been compassed about with so great infirmity. He portrays the agony in lurid colours, for the same reason that it is so carefully recorded in the Gospels, and, may we not add, for the same reason that Jesus Him- self allowed His inward trouble to appear so plainly in the presence of three witnesses, by whom it might be reported to all the world. Had He thought of Himself only, He might, like many a sufferer, have played the stoic. But He thought of the weak of all ages; therefore He hid not His own weakness, but gave it full vent in prayers and tears, and loud cries and prostrations, falling forward all His length on the ground, now praying in articulate language, now uttering inarticulate groans, anon subsiding into silent weeping; His soul resembling the sea in a storm, when the great billows rise up at a distance from the shore, roll on majestically nearer and nearer, then break on the sands with a mighty noise audible to men even in their slumbers. In the third place, where the notion now under discussion occurs in the Epistle, the ethical aspect is not less con- spicuous than in the two preceding. The Son, constituted a Priest after the order of Melchizedek, not by the Leviti- 1 So Hofmann, Sckriftbeweis, ii. 399, to whom I am indebted for the thought in the text. Hofmann says: Jesu Flehen urn Abwendung des Todesleidens ist gleicher Massen wie des Hohepriesters Opfer fur sich selbst eine fromme Aeusserung der Schwachheit, nur mit dem Unterschiede, welcher zwischen der Schwachheit d. ; "-'.'.ndigen Hohepriesters und der des sundlosen Heilands besteht. 2 So The Humiliation of Christ. cal law, but by the word of the oath, is described as " perfected for evermore," in contrast with the Old Testa- ment high priests, who are described as " men having infirmity." The infirmity alluded to is such as lays men open to temptations, through which they often fall into sin; such, therefore, as, in the case of the high priests, was indirectly the cause why they had to offer a sacrifice for themselves before offering one for the people. The perfect- ing of the Son, consequently, must be held to consist in deliverance from infirmity of the same kind; infirmity, that is, through which, in the days of His flesh, He became liable to temptation, and sin became a possibility, though nothing more than a bare possibility for Him. To be liable to temptation is regarded as a morally incomplete state, and the perfect state is conceived of as a state of exaltation above the region of temptation, where there is no infirmity to be used as a fulcrum by the tempter, and no tempter to take advantage of an opportunity. The reAeioodis of Christ, then, according to the representa- tion of it given in the Epistle to the Hebrews, includes a process of moral perfecting. This process does not exhaust the idea; for the perfection ascribed to Christ after His departure from the world is a comprehensive name for His state of exaltation in all its aspects, whether regarded as the state in which He exercises His Melchizedek priest- hood, or as that in which He is free from the miseries of this mortal life, and enjoys the felicity of the life unending; or as that in which He is for ever exempt from temptation, and raised above the position of one undergoing moral pro- bation. All that is here insisted on is, that this last item forms an essential and important part of the idea. The exalted Christ is regarded by the writer of the Epistle as one now morally perfected; the earthly state of humiliation is regarded as a school of virtue, in which Christ had to learn, and did thoroughly learn, certain moral lessons; the experience of temptation is viewed in the light of a curri- culum of ethical discipline, designed to make the tempted One master of certain high heroic arts, the arts to be mas- tered being those of Patience, Obedience, and Sympathy. The fact having been thus ascertained, that the notion of Christ the Subject of Temptation. 281 moral development as applied to Christ has a foundation in Scripture, it remains to advert briefly to two questions which have been much discussed in connection with the present topic. One of these questions naturally arises out of that view of our Lord's earthly experience according to which it was a training for His office as the Saviour. The question is this: When, then, did Christ enter on His priestly duties ? was it on earth when He suffered on the cross, or was it not till He had ascended into glory ? The question was first formally propounded and discussed by Faustus Socinus; but theological controversy may be said to have stumbled on its threshold as early as the days of Nestorius and Cyril. The Antiochian school, true to its ethical tendency, insisted strenuously on the reality of a moral growth in Christ, and regarded His experience of temptation as an ethical discipline, by which He was pre- pared for the office of the priesthood. Conceiving that office as an honour, they spoke of Christ as advancing gradually to the dignity of high priest. 1 Cyril, on the other hand, admitted neither the growth nor the conception of the priestly office as an honour. He affirmed that Christ grew in virtue as in wisdom — that is, only in the sense of graduated manifestation; and the notion of a gradual advance to the priesthood as an honour, he combated by asking his opponents the question, If the priestly office was an honour to which Christ advanced, what becomes of the kenosis ? 2 Thus, on the one side, the sacerdotal functions of Christ were referred to the category of exaltation, while on the other they were thought of as belonging to the state of humiliation. In justice, however, to the theologians of Antioch, it must be borne in mind that their position does not necessarily signify, that Christ's priesthood was wholly 1 Cyril, Adv. Nestorium, lib. iii. cap. 3. Cyril quotes Nestorius speaking ot Christ as owroS 6 xard /uixpov eii dpxiEps'cj? TtpoxoipaS d^iooua {Op. vol. ix. p. 148). Vid. also Apologeticus pro XII. capitibus, Anath. x.; and Apol. contra Theodoretum, Anath. x. * Cyril, Adv. Nest. lib. iii. c. 4: Kexevooxe St/ ovv, xai TETcaiEivooxEV kavrdv HatieiS kv ueiodi- IlaSi ovv in npoExoipEv si? dci'co/ua ye- yovGJ? ispEvS (p. 152). Similarly in the other places referred to in preceding note. Ei 8e npoixo^E, xazd viva xExsvoorat rportov. Ei Ttpoexoipe, tcgoS xExivoozai, xoci kitrooxEv6Ev. 2S2 The Humiliation of Clirist. relegated to a state of exaltation subsequent in time to the state of humiliation, and commencing after the latter was at an end. It might mean only that the office, which in one respect was a humiliation, was in another respect, and at the same time, an honour for which Jesus was gradually- prepared by His course of obedience. In that case it is quite conceivable, that at least some of the duties pertain- ing to the high and honourable office might be performed on earth, and so fall within what we are accustomed to call the state of humiliation. In point of fact, Nestorius and his brethren of the same school did regard Christ's death as a priestly sacrifice, while apparently regarding it also as the last step in the process by which Christ was pre- pared for His Melchizedek priesthood, and became abso- lutely a pontifex consummatus} In this double way of con- templating our Lord's passion — as on one side a humiliation, on another an exaltation; and again, as in one respect the final stage of a preparatory discipline, intended to qualify the sufferer for an eternal priesthood, and in another the offering of Himself a sacrifice for the sins of the world — the Syrian theologians were much superior to Cyril, who deemed dignity and suffering incompatible notions, failed to see that it was an honour to Christ to be appointed to an office which permitted and required Him to taste death for every man, and was therefore virtually compelled to regard the priestly office solely as an indignity to which the Son of God was subjected in the state of exinanition. If the views of the Antioch school of Christologists were such as now represented, then the credit belongs to it of anticipating the true answer to the question raised in modern times by the founder of the Socinian sect. 2 For here, as in so many other cases, truth lies on both sides of the con- troversy. A candid and unbiassed examination of all the relative passages shows that two distinct, though not con- tradictory, ways of regarding the priesthood of Christ are to be found in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Priest of the New Dispensation is the Antitype at once of Aaron and 1 Cyril. Apol. contra Theodor. Anath. x.: o5 Ttd6t]i duocpriaZ vitdpxoov IXsvOspoS, dpxiepevS rj/iidSv, xai iepelov kyevero' avzoS iavrov vitefi tj/UGov tgo &saj Ttpo6evsyKoov (vol. ix. p. 437). 2 See App;ndix, Note C. Christ the Subject of Te?7iptation. 283 of Melchizedek. Regarded in the latter capacity, He is undoubtedly conceived of as entering upon His priesthood on His ascension into heaven, and this in entire harmony with the nature of the priesthood after the order of Mel- chizedek. For that order or species is the ideal of priest- hood realized, and as such possesses the attributes of eternity, perfect personal righteousness as the qualification for office, regal dignity, and a corresponding state of felicity. In this light the Melchizedek priesthood is regarded by the writer of our Epistle. Introduced first apologetically, as a wel- come means of showing that the Scriptures knew of an- other kind of priesthood besides the Levitical, and that therefore it was possible for Christ to be a priest though destitute of the /^-^/qualifications, the idea, if we may say so, grows on the writer's mind till the more ancient in- stitution, which on first view might appear a rude, irregular, and every way inferior species of priesthood, quite eclipses that which took its origin under the law, and, in accordance with the prophetic oracle in the 110th Psalm, becomes not only a High priesthood, but the highest possible priest- hood; the ideally perfect order, whose specific character- istics are carefully ascertained by laying stress on the min- utest particulars recorded concerning Melchizedek; nay, by emphasizing not only the utterances, but even the si- lences, of holy writ respecting that mysterious character. The name of that ancient priest means, king of righteous- ness; therefore perfect holiness must be one of the marks of the ideal species of priesthood. His place of abode was Salem, which means peace; therefore the appropriate seat of the ideal priest is the region of celestial bliss, where he is raised far above the sin and misery and strife which mo- lest the vale of Sodom and Gomorrah, here below. Mel- chizedek was a king as well as a priest, king of Salem while priest of the Most High God; therefore the ideal priest must be a priest sitting on a throne in regal dignity and glory. Finally, the history makes no mention of Melchizedek's parentage, birth, or death; therefore the ideal priesthood is one which, unlike the Levitical, has no dependence on descent, and which in its nature and its effects is eternal} 1 Heb. vii. !-•*. :S4 The Humiliation of Christ. These being the notes of that species of priesthood whereof there can be but one sample, it is manifest that Christ, as the Melchizedek priest, properly enters on His office when He has gone successfully through His curriculum of temp- tation in the earthly school of virtue; 1 when He is raised higher than the heavens, thoroughly proved to be a holy, harmless, undefiled Man, separate in character from sin- ners; 2 when He takes His place as a king on the right hand of God, in the country of peace, the heavenly Salem; 8 when He has passed out of the time-world into the eternal, where there is no distinction between yesterday and to-day, and where priestly functions have absolute eternal validity. 4 Such, accordingly, is the representation given in the Epistle of the priesthood of Christ, viewed as the Antitype of Melchizedek. But is quite otherwise when the point of view changes, from the primitive institution in ancient Salem, to the legal priesthood in Israel. Jesus as the Great High Priest exercises His office only in heaven: as the High Priest, as a Priest after the fashion of Aaron, He exercised His office on earth, and continued to exercise it when He ascended into heaven. As a Priest after the order of Aaron, He offered Himself a sacrifice on the cross, even as Aaron offered the victim on the altar on the great day of atonement; as a Priest after the same order, He presented Himself in His humanity before His Father in heaven, even as Aaron carried the blood of the slain victim within the veil, into the presence of Jehovah. Then and there the one species of priesthood became merged or transformed into the other higher, highest ideal species: the priesthood 1 Heb. v. 10: IJpoday opsvbEiS vno vov Osov dpxiEpEvS Kara. xr)v TOCciv MeXxioeSek — as it were, saluted by that name on entering heaven. Heb. vii. 26: "OdioS, dnaxoi, djuiavzoS, KExoopi6aEvoi dnd zc3v dua(jTOoXav, uai vipr/Xozspoi zcov ovpavaHv yei'ousvoi. 3 Heb. x. 12: OvzoS 8e, juiav vitsp dpiapziooy 7tpo6EVEyxai 0v6iav etS to ditjvEHSi, Imrjv duapTia*. Also contra Theodoret. Anath. x. p. 444: Ei TsXslrai xatf dps- ri)v, t% drsXovi drjXovori, xai iv xpovaj ysyovs rs'XsioS' to Ss drsXsi aitav siS dpsvrjv, vno fxoouov ypaq>rjv to Si vito jugo/uov, v(p' d/.iap- xiav. HqdZ ow yiypanzai nspi avxov ori 'AjuapTiav ovx kitoiT]6s; 286 The Humiliation of Christ. a possibility. Such a child would certainly have undergone a process of real growth in wisdom and goodness, keeping pace with his growth in physical stature. If so, then the sinlessness of His human nature was no reason why Jesus should not experience a similar process of growth. If the growth predicated of Him in the gospel history was, as Cyril strenuously maintained, not real but doketic, exhibi- tive merely, the reason lay not in the absence of sin, but in the presence of the divine nature — i.e. it was metaphysical, not ethical. Even if that reason were valid, its effect would not be to settle the question as to the possibility of a sinless moral development, but simply to make the case of Christ exceptional. The ethical problem would still remain, and might be discussed without reference to the peculiar case of incarnate Deity, in reference to the hypothetical case of an unfallen child of Adam, yea, even in reference to the real case of unfallen Adam himself. Adam before his fall was sinless; but was he perfect ? If he was, how did he fall so easily before what appears a slight temptation ? If a state so insecure was perfection, how shall we characterize that state of stable moral equilibrium, in which the subject is temptation-proof ? Manifestly, whether we be able specula- tively to justify it or not, we must at least recognise as real, the distinction between moral integrity and moral per- fection: the former expression denoting the initial state of a being free from sinful inclination and habits, but liable to temptation and to the possibility of falling; the latter signi- fying the final state of the same being after he has success- fully passed through his curriculum of temptation, and has become morally infallible. An aid to faith in, if not to a speculative comprehension of, this distinction, may be found in the analogy of physical nature. In the physical world, growth by stages is the law. There is first the blade, then the green ear, then the ripe corn in the ear, in the production of grain; first the blos- som, then the crude fruit, then the ripe fruit, in the produc- tion of the apple and other products of like kind. Christ Himself has taught us, in one of His parables, that the same law obtains in the spiritual world, the kingdom of God. There, too, both in the commonwealth at large and Christ the Subject of Temptation. 287 in individual citizens, there is " first the blade, then the ear» after that the full corn in the ear." 1 It is true, indeed, that this law of growth ordinarily applies to subjects whose development is abnormal, proceeding from a state of sin by a very chequered, wayward course, to a state of Christian sanctity. But the parallel drawn in the parable between the natural and the spiritual might of itself teach us, that the abnormality of the development is not the cause why the law of gradual growth obtains in the spiritual sphere. In nature, abnormality is not the cause of growth, but sim- ply an accident to which it is liable, owing to some vice in the seed or tree, or to the unkindliness of the seasons bringing about imperfect or retarded development. There is no reason to think that the fact is otherwise in the moral sphere. Growth there also is normal; the abnormal is stunted retarded growth, due partly to vice of nature, partly to the influence of an evil world, producing fruit inferior in its kind, or which never attains to ripeness. Even in un- fallen humanity there would have been first the blossom, then the green fruit, then the ripe fruit: the blossom being the state of integrity, the green fruit the period of proba- tion, and the ripe fruit the ultimate condition of perfection contemplated from the first, and at length arriving " in its season." 2 In the two stages preceding the last, man would have been imperfect, yet sinless. Imperfect, because what his Maker looked for, and what the law or ideal of his being demanded, — the end to which all preceding stages were means, — was the ripe fruit of a character perfected in wisdom and goodness, by adequate trials of patience; yet sinless, because God and the law of His being demanded not ripe fruit immediately , but only in its season. To be sinless, it is enough to be as you ought at each season — to be a perfect blade at the blossoming period, a perfect green ear at the earing period, and a perfect stalk of ripe grain at the season of harvest. It is not sin to come short of the requirements of the law as the ideal: sin consists in coming short of the requirements of the duty incumbent on me in given circumstances, and at any particular stage in my 1 Matt. iv. 26-29. z Ps. i. 3- 288 The Humiliation of Christ. development. 1 It is not sin in childhood, the blossoming time of human life, to think and speak as a child, and to be incapable of the wisdom and moral sense of manhood: it is enough to think and speak as a holy, innocent child. It is not sin in young-manhood, the time of the green ear, to be assailed by temptations to evil conduct, and to experience profound embarrassment in connection with the question, " What is truth ? " It is enough that the tempted and per- plexed youth choose aright his way of life, preferring the ways of holiness and of faith to the ways of pleasure and ot Pyrrhonism. How far the metaphysical consideration, that Christ was a divine person, is a valid reason for denying the applica- bility to Him of the category of moral development, need not here be discussed. The point now insisted on is, that no ethical objection to the application arises out of the fact that He was sinless. It was possible for the holy One to grow in grace, advancing gradually from the fair spring blossom of early boyhood to the ripe fruit of perfect man- hood. The wisdom of the boy of twelve years was such as could not be excelled at that time of life: yet it was but a boy's wisdom, and left ample room for expansion in all directions. The child who made the doctors wonder by His quick intelligence, and by His shrewd questions and answers, could not then have preached the Sermon on the Mount. The piety which found expression in the words, " Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business ? " was a presage of that devotion which in later years took for its motto, " My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish His work;" yet the former was but a blossom of instinctive, half-conscious filial love, while the latter was that blossom slowly ripened into a deliberate and passionate self-consecration to a divinely-appointed task, whose requirements were fully understood. Nor was Christ's moral growth completed when He had reached mature manhood. There was room for further progress, even after 1 See Milller, Christian Doctrine of Sin, vol. i. pp. 58-69, where the problem of 1 sinless development is solved by the distinction between law and duty, the latter being denned as " the determinate moral requirement made upon a given individual at a given moment of time." Christ the Subject of Temptation. 289 He left the home of His childhood, and went forth to enter upon His public ministry. His baptism in the Jordan formed a crisis not merely in His outward life, but in His inward spiritual history. At that point He entered on a new phase of being, in which He was to learn, through con- tact with the world, moral lessons which could not be got by heart in the seclusion of private life. Then He went to school to become experimentally acquainted both with hu- man wickedness and with human misery, and to learn to suffer from the one and to sympathize with the other. The new discipline in wisdom and virtue being high and abstruse, the Disciple needed a heavenly baptism to make Him an apt scholar; and hence, according to the gospel record, the Spirit -of God descended upon Him, as a Spirit of truth, a Spirit of self-sacrifice, in the interest of righteousness, and above all, as a Spirit of gracious compassion towards suffer- ing humanity. We must beware, indeed, of exaggerating the amount of learning acquired by Jesus after His entrance on His public career, following the example of those nega- tive critics, according to whom the Son of Mary went forth from His retirement in Galilee with the vaguest possible no- tions of what He was going to do, or of the destiny awaiting Him — ignorant that He was the Messiah, ignorant that the world was bad enough to crucify one who should bear witness against its evil; conscious only of great powers stirring within Him, and unable any longer to bear the inactivity and dulness of life in Nazareth. Those who take this view have not sufficiently considered what self-knowl- edge and spiritual insight must have been reached, by such a one as even sceptical critics admit Jesus to have been, during the long period of privacy which the Gospels pass over in reverential silence. In an important sense, we may regard the life of unbroken stillness between twelve and thirty as the time of the green fruit, between the blossom and the ripe fruit; and the whole period of the public ministry, on the other hand, as the season of harvest, in which Christ appeared before the world mature in all essential respects — in the knowledge of Himself and of men, in purpose as the Founder of the divine kingdom, in plans System der christlichen Lehre, pp. 279-283, 6te Auflage. 3 1 S The Humiliation of Christ. but to Him that died and rose again. He presents the same subject on the legal side, when, at the close of the same chapter, addressing men whom he urges to be recon- ciled to God, he writes, " For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the right- eousness of God in Him;" the death of Christ being viewed here as an event which takes place in order that we might not die, but be justified in God's sight, 1 — in other words, as the penalty of our sin inflicted on Christ as our substitute or vicar.' But can such a transference of legal responsibility as seems to be taught in this text really have taken place ? Is such a transference possible ? Is it worthy of the great Sovereign of the universe, the First Cause and Last End of all ? Is it in accordance with the facts of Christ's his- tory ? These are the questions to which we must now turn. Now, as to the first, it scarcely needs to be remarked, that what is affirmed by the Catholic doctrine is not transference of guilt or moral turpitude, but simply of legal liability. Christ was made sin for us, simply to the extent and effect of bearing penalty for our sin. Some prominent defenders of the Catholic doctrine have indeed hesitated to go even so far as this. Archbishop Magee, e. g., in his well-known work on the atonement, maintains that the idea of punish- ment in the strict sense cannot be abstracted from that of guilt; and, while admitting that Christ's sufferings were judicially inflicted, he holds that they can be called the punishment of our sins, only in the sense that they were the sufferings due to us the offenders, and which, if inflicted on the actual offenders, would then take properly the name of punishment. 3 A more recent writer, the Donellan lecturer for the year 1857, in a work on the atonement, which has for its praiseworthy aim to exhibit the Catholic doctrine cleared of such careless expressions and imperfect definitions as tend to awaken hostility or furnish a handle for scepticism, endorses the distinguished prelate's view, and says, "that we must, when we speak of the penal suf- 1 2 Cor. v. 15. 21. * See Appendix, Note A. 3 Discourses and Dissertations on the Scriptural Doctrines of Atonement and Sacrifice, Dissert. No. 42, p. 457 (4th ed.). The Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 319 ferings of Christ, admit that we use the word ' penal ' in a peculiar sense, as expressing the relation of those sufferings not to Him who bore them, but to our demerits, in which they originated." ' Such scruples are entitled to respect, yet there is truth in the remark of another theologian, that, in conceding the judicial character of Christ's sufferings, these writers admit all that is intended to be taught when the epithet " penal " is applied to them. 2 The vital ques- tion is, Can these sufferings be rightly regarded as judicial in their nature ? Now, looking at this question from our peculiar point of view, that of Christ's voluntary humilia- tion, I remark, that if descent into the legal standing of a sinner were at all possible, Christ would gladly make the descent. It was His mind, His bent, His mood, if I may so speak, to go down till He had reached the utmost limits of possibility. So minded, He would be predisposed to find the imputation of men's sin to Himself, to the intent of His bearing their penalty within these limits. By an antecedent act of subjective self-imputation, He would, so to say, prejudge the question in favour of the possibility of an objective imputation. What the moral government of God is supposed to forbid, the sympathy of the Son of man would be prone to ordain as a law for itself. The truth of this observation is tacitly acknowledged by the peculiar theory of atonement taught by the late Dr. M'Leod Camp- bell; the sole value of that theory, indeed, lies in the fact that it involves such an acknowledgment. That writer, repudiating the orthodox doctrine of imputation as a theo- logical figment, and improving a hint thrown out by Presi- dent Edwards respecting an alternative method of satisfying for sin, namely, by an adequate confession of sin, — a hint which he might have got from a schoolman of the twelfth 1 MacDonnel, The Doctrine of the Atonement deduced from Scripture, Lect. vi. p. 198. It is well known that Anselm, who first formulated the theory of satis- faction, did not regard Christ's death as penal. Satisfaction in his system did not consist in paying the penalty, but was rather one of two alternatives, the other teing the paying of the penalty. Thus he says, in Cur Dens Homo, i. c. 15: " Nxesse est, ut omne peccatum satisfactio aut poena sequatur. 1 ' See Baur, Ver- tOhnungslehre, p. 183. If the disuse of a word would reconcile thoughtful mei to the truth intended to be conveyed, one might easily forego it. 1 Professor Crawford, On the Atonement, p. 184. 320 The Humiliation of Christ. century, 1 — propounds the doctrine that Christ, bearing us and our sins on His heart before the Father, made a perfect confession of human sin: a confession which "was a perfect Amen in humanity to the judgment of God on the sin of man; " " a confession due in the truth of things, due on our behalf though we could not render it, due from Him as in our nature and our true Brother, what He must needs feel in Himself because of the holiness and love which were in Him, what He must needs utter to the Father in expiation of our sins when He would make intercession for us; " a confession which had in it " all the elements of a perfect contrition and repentance, excepting the personal con- sciousness of sin." 2 The theory has been treated by critics of all schools as the eccentricity of a devout author, who, dissatisfied with the traditional theory, has substituted in its place another, involving not only greater difficulty, but even something very like absurdity. The idea of a con- fession made by a perfectly holy being, involving all the elements of a perfect repentance, except the personal con- sciousness of sin, is certainly absurd enough. It is either the play of Hamlet without the part of Hamlet; or, if the repentance have any real contents, then the remark of a Transatlantic critic is most pertinent: "After having im- plied that Christ repented of the sins of the race, we do not see why Mr. Campbell should object to the theory that He was punished for these sins." 3 Repentance is certainly the more difficult, and more obviously " impossible " task of the two, for a holy being to perform. But, as already hinted, this eccentric theory has at least this much value, that it bears testimony to the truth that, from whatever quarter objections to the imputation of our sin to Christ were to come, they were not likely to emanate from Christ Himself. The Saviour, according to this theory, through His holy, loving sympathy, imputes the sins of humanity to Himself, as sins for which a confession was due from Him as in our nature, our true Brother. The statement even implies an objective imputation, to the extent of 1 Rupert of Duytz. 2 J. M'Leori Campbell, On the Nature of the Atonement, p. 138. 3 Professor Park, quoted in Bushnell's Forgiveness and Law, p. 31. The Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 321 demanding such a confession. For if the confession was due to God in the very truth of things, surely God could claim His due; and to claim His due from Christ means to make Him responsible for the debt. In principle, the theory differs little from the orthodox; its peculiarity lies simply in this, that it makes the debt payable not by suffering merely, but by confession. But not to insist on this, and regarding the theory in question as denying objective im- putation of sin to Christ, we may still say of it that it asserts, with even extravagant emphasis, the subjective self-imputation of sin to Himself by Christ, as a thing inevitable to one minded as He was. And here at least it speaks the truth, though it may be in an exaggerated form; • for, without a doubt, it was the instinctive impulse of the Redeemer to impute to Himself the world's sin, and in the light of such imputation, to regard the evils of His earthly lot as a personal participation in the curse pronounced on man for sin. It was a satisfaction to His heart to feel that, in being born into a family whose royal lineage and mean condition, combined, bore expressive witness to the misery that had overtaken Israel for her sins, in being subjected to the necessity of earning His bread by the sweat of His brow, in being exposed to the assaults of Satan, in having to endure the contradiction of sinners, in being nailed to the cross, He was indeed made partaker of our curse — in this respect, too, our Brother, and like unto His brethren. From the same subjective point of view we may, with Rupert of Duytz, regard Jesus, as He went from Nazareth to the Jordan to be baptized by John, as going forth to do penance for the sin of the world, clothed in the very habit of a penitent, Himself the Holy of Holies, yet alone fit to render penitence for the sins of the elect, and, as the sin- bearer, receiving the baptism of repentance among the penitent multitude. 1 Every one who, like the Abbot of Duytz, takes a strong hold of the great truth of Christ's self-humiliating love, must sympathize with such a view. We can cite, in favour of this self-imputation of sin on the part of the Saviour, yet another witness, not a medi- aeval, but a modern one — viz. Bushnell, author of the work 1 See Appendix, Note B. 322 The Humiliation of Christ. already quoted in this lecture, on The Vicarious Sacrifice, This ingenious author, having ceased to be entirely satis- fied with the views set forth in the latter portions of that work, published a new treatise, entitled Forgiveness and Law, recalling these sections of the older publication, and substituting in their place certain new views, which had come into his mind, he tells us, almost like a revelation. 1 The new views are promulgated with as much confidence as the old ones, as the unquestionable solution of the great problem. The overweening confidence of the writer is in- deed the gravest fault of the book. That a man should be slow of heart to understand the full meaning of Christ's death is no reproach; at least it is one which it would not become every Christian disciple to bring against a brother. That one who has made the great theme of redemption his study of many years should have something to learn and to unlearn still, is not to be wondered at; for therein is revealed the many-sided wisdom of God, s and who has yet seen all the sides ? nay, who has not, by the very intensity of his gaze at this or the other side, rendered himself as good as blind to the other sides, perhaps equally important ? But one who claims to have got new light, and by the very claim confesses previous partial error, ought to avoid the oracular style, and to speak with the modesty of one who feels he may have to confess to yet further changes of view. Certainly, if the Catholic doctrine be true, Bush- nell had still a good deal to learn; for he denounces that doctrine, as he understands it, with all the old vehemence. Still in the new work he makes an approach to the de- nounced theory in two important directions. He here ad- mits an objective real propitiation of God, as opposed to a purely subjective one, as previously asserted, in which the disciple merely objectivizes his own feelings, conceiving that God Himself is representatively mitigated or become 1 Since these lectures were delivered, Horace Bushnell has passed to his rest and I cannot refrain from expressing my admiration of the man, and the great enjoyment, intense stimulus, and frequent help I have gained from the perusal of his writings, in which, whatever debateable opinions they may contain, sanctified genius shines out on every page. Readers of his biography will learn thence how well he deserves to be called ar. earnest seeker after truth. • Eph. iii. 10. Hie Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 323 propitious, because he is himself inwardly reconciled to God. 1 Instead of this, the author here asserts a real propitiation of God, " finding it in evidence from the propitiation we instinctively make ourselves when we heartily forgive,"' — having observed, that is, that men who want to forgive thoroughly have first to overcome their own moral disgust, by doing acts for the offender which cost them effort and sacrifice.' The other approximation consists in asserting that Christ was " incarnated into the curse," as a necessary condition of His being able to raise men out of the curse into the sphere of Christian liberty. The author represents Christ as " consciously " suffering " the curse or penal shame and disaster of our transgression," in all the leading crises of His life — in the temptation, in the scene upon Mount Olivet when He wept over Jerusalem, in the agony of Gethsemane, and in the crucifixion. His Incarnation, we are told, put Him in the compass of all that belongs to the solidarity of the curse, except that He is touched by none of its contaminations. 4 " Under the curse He feels as if the condemnations of God were upon Him — as they are in all the solidarities of the race into which He is come." 5 " He suffers all the suffering of mankind; not as we do, in mere sympathy with the suffering itself, but as beholding it in its guilty causes, — a suffering in which the displeasures of God and His compassions are united, by a conjunction that is itself the utmost possibility of suffering.' 6 Here is a sufficiently distinct recognition of the subjective imputation of sin to Himself by Christ, who, according to the theory, looks on Himself throughout life as under the curse, the penal shame and disaster of transgression, the condemna- tions and displeasures of God. The author seems inclined to go even further than this, and to admit that Christ's sufferings in these penal aspects were appointed by God, and in some sense a divine infliction. When the prophet says, " He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities," it is not to be doubted that he conceives 1 Forgiveness and Law, p. 12. J Ibid. p. 12. 3 For illustrations, see pp. 40-48 of the work. 4 Forgiveness and Law, p. 151. 6 Ibid. p. 155. 6 Ibid. p. 155. 324 The Humiliation of Christ. some kind of penal infliction in the suffering endured. 1 The only thing doubted is, whether "it is the penalty of our state of discipline, or of justice itself." Bushnell stren- uously maintains the former alternative. Conceding that Christ's sufferings were penal, not only to His feelings, but by God's will, he contends that they were not judicial, but merely penal-sanction sufferings — just the inverse of the position taken up by Archbishop Magee. He holds that there is no such thing as judicial suffering in this world, strict justice being reserved for the world to come. Here men are under a scheme of "probatory discipline," and all the sufferings they undergo are of a disciplinary character. The curse of the law is not the justice of God, but simply the penal-sanction discipline we are under. 1 And what is true of us is true of Christ. His suffering may legitimately enough, perhaps, be regarded as a divine in- fliction, but it does not follow that the infliction is judicial penalty; for it can as well be penal-sanction suffering, as we certainly know that all other suffering in this world is.* " The retributive liability He is in, is indeed severe enough to bear even a look of justice. We only happen to know that no suffering of our own under the curse is justice, and that He is suffering with us in our lot as it is. If we call it penal, as I have called the disciplinary sanction arranged for, it is not the penalty of justice." 4 From this account of the latest speculations of this very able and earnest American theologian two inferences may fairly be drawn. One is, that what I have named the subjective imputation of sin to Himself by Christ, will ever appear, on due consideration, to be an essential element of His self-humiliation. The other is, that it will be found difficult to hold a subjective imputation, without admitting a corresponding objective imputation. Once reckon it as necessary to the completeness of our Lord's humiliation that He should become like unto His brethren, even to the extent of reckoning Himself a partaker in the penal con- sequences of sin, not merely as evil, but as penalty, and you are forced to ask yourself: Does this subjective con- 1 Forgiveness and Lai v, p. 1 70. * Ibid. p. 166. 3 Ibid. p. 172. 4 Ibid. p. 167. The Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 325 sciousness of the Saviour answer to any objective law or principle of divine government ? or is it merely an exagger- ated, though amiable, assertion of His solidarity with the race, on the part of one who burns with the enthusiasm of humanity ? The latter alternative is not likely to commend itself to a considerate mind. For Christ in His humiliation was not wilful. He was not a " voluntary" in His humility. He humbled Himself in the spirit of obedience, doing, doubtless con amore, what was required of Him, but not more than was required of Him. If so, then it was the Father's will that His Son should be on earth as a sinner, suffering penalty for sin. In this light He regarded His Son Himself; in this way He would have His Son view His own position; in this way He would have all men regard Him. He sent Him into the world, as it were, saying, " Behold the Lamb of God, who beareth the sin of the world." But, all this conceded, there still remains the great question, In what sense is Christ the bearer of sin by divine appointment ? is it in the sense of suffering for sin under a judicial infliction, or is it merely in the sense of suffering under the penal sanctions of this present state of probation- ary discipline ? The question here has reference not to what Christ suffered, but to the design for which He suffered. On either alternative the material of Christ's sufferings may be the same; but the design varies, accord- ing as we adopt the one or the other mode of con- ceiving them. If we conceive those sufferings as a judicial infliction, then we regard them as a ground on which God, with a due regard to the claims of justice, grants remission of sin, involving exemption from all penal consequences, and especially from the wrath to come. If we conceive the sufferings as simply amounting to participation in the penal sanctions of a disciplinary state, then their design may be simply to enhance the moral power of the sufferer to bring us out of our sins, and so, as a matter of course, out of their penal retributions, temporal and eternal. Christ comes down to our level in order that He may lift us to His. Finding us under the law, under the curse, under a system of penal sanctions expressive of divine displeasure 326 The Humiliation of Christ. against sin, yet remedial in their aim, He Himself comes un- der the law, the curse, the penal sanctions; that He may, by the moral power thus gained, raise us out of law into liberty, out of the curse into the blessedness of holiness, out of penal sanctions into the privileges of sonship. This latter design is thought to be eminently worthy of God, while the former is denounced as utterly unworthy of the First Cause and Last End of all. Does the case indeed stand so ? Must we, as an increas- ing number of voices declare, give up the celebrated doc- trine of satisfaction as indefensible, and, in particular, as derogatory to the divine wisdom ? This is a question which cannot be adequately discussed here; but a kw general observations may be submitted, with special reference to the bearing of the subject upon the character of the supreme Ruler of the universe. That it became Him for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, for one reason or another, to subject the Captain of salvation to a curriculum of suffering, is generally admitted. The point in dispute is, whether it became Him to subject the Saviour of men to suffering in the form of legal penalty for sin. Now here it greatly behoves us to recall to mind that expression of the Apostle Paul's, already casually referred to, wherein he speaks of the work of redemption through Christ, as con- taining a revelation or exhibition of the manifold, many- sided, or, many-coloured wisdom of God — ?} Tto\vTtoim\o% 6oq>ia rov GeoO. The precise connection of thought in which the expression occurs it is not necessary to point out; it bears the stamp of a phrase coined by the apostle, to embody the feeling produced in his mind, by deep and pro- tracted reflection on the gracious purpose of God in Jesus Christ. After long, rapt meditation on the sublime theme, Paul feels that the divine idea of redemption has many aspects. The pure light of divine wisdom revealed in the gospel is resolvable into many coloured rays, which to- gether constitute a glorious spectrum presented to the admiring view of principalities and powers in heavenly places, and of all men on earth whose eyes have been opened to see it. Entering intc the apostle's mind on this great theme, we too should come to the study of our Lord's The Humiliation of Christ hi its Official Aspect. 327 sufferings, prepared to find therein a many-sided revelation of divine wisdom: not merely the righteous One suffering for righteousness' sake at the hands of the unrighteous; or the Holy one suffering sympathetically with the unholy, that He may win their confidence; or a revelation of divine love in self-sacrifice, meant to overcome the distrust with which human beings regard the Deity, and assure them of His good will; or the Son of God stooping to conquer, voluntarily humbling Himself, because that is the way to gain sovereignty over human hearts, and to obtain the highest of all dominion — that, viz., which wields sway through moral influence, not through mere physical force; or a contrivance for securing that the pardon of sin shall not be prejudicial to the interests of government and good morals; or, " a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice:" but all these together. Why not look on the cross as a prism which analyzes the light of divine wisdom into all these coloured rays, and possibly into others whose presence we may have hitherto failed to detect; so, in place of insisting that Christ's earthly sufferings could serve only one end, acting as if we believed that the greater the number of ends served in mutual harmony, the more these sufferings became Him who, as the First Cause and Last End of all, appointed them as means to accomplish His own wise purposes ? Unity amid variety is doubtless to be desired; and if we can get one theoretic principle from which we can deduce all particulars as corollaries, it is well; but meantime it is most important to take heed that we exclude none of the facts, and that our induction of particulars be complete. If we be at a loss as to which aspect of the subject should be placed first, as the most important, let us at least be care- ful to omit none of the aspects. Perhaps in past times theologians have been more anxious to have their cut and dry theory, than to make a full collection of the facts; and it is gratifying, therefore, to find recent inquirers on this as on other theological subjects, preferring the inductive to the deductive method, according to which, in the words of Professor Crawford, who has himself adopted this method, " we first of all address ourselves to the actual statements of Holy Scripture upon the subject, — deferring in the mean- 328' The Humiliation of Christ. while all theories and assumptions, — and endeavour, by a fair examination and a careful comparison and classification of these statements, to arrive at such conclusions as are deducible from them." l Now it would certainly be very surprising if it should turn out, as the result of such an induction, that the suffer- ings of Christ stood in no relation to the attributes of divine holiness and justice. One would expect to find the satis- factory manifestation of these attributes taking its place among the ends for the accomplishment of which it became the Supreme to make the Captain of salvation a sufferer, alongside the manifestation of divine compassion in sympa- thizing with man's misery, and of divine mercy in forgiving man's sin, and of divine condescension in stooping to man's low level, and of divine love in bearing man's woe. Why should the cross reveal all these last-named attributes, and not also God's holy hatred of sin, and His justice in punish- ing sin ? In revealing these not less than those, does it not only the more completely display the divine wisdom, by ex- hibiting that attribute as one which can accomplish many different ends by one and the same means ? If Christ crucified be the wisdom of God as satisfying His love through self-sacrifice, is He not still more the wisdom of God in satisfying at once both His love and His J7istice — His love, by suffering in sympathy with the sinner's misery; His justice, by suffering penalty for sin in the sinner's stead ? a To this it may be replied: Yes, were the two ends com- 1 The Atonement, p. 3. 2 Some may prefer to make the reference to justice spring out of the idea of love. In this way is the subject regarded in a recent American publication which I have read with very great pleasure: Old Faiths in New Light, by Newman Smith (Scribner, New York). Mr. Smith says: "In thinking of the ways of God which meet in the Incarnation, our all-illumining conception must be derived from the purest human experience of love. . . . Now human love has in it three essential elements; there are three primary colours in love's perfect light; and these three are, the giving of self, or benevolence; the putting self in another's place, sympathy, or the vicanousness of love; and the assertion of the worth of the gift, of the self which is given — self-respect, or the righteousness of love. Under the conception of vicariousness, and the assertion of its own worth involved in per- fect love, the Christian doctrines of Atonement and Redemption need to be re- garded ; and when considered from any lower point of view, as that of law or gov- ernment, the sacrificial work of Christ is hardly lifted out of difficulties and snadowi into a pure moral light." — P. 277. The Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 329 patible; but they are not. The dogma of satisfaction, in the ecclesiastical sense, makes God a merchant of Venice, who stands for justice, and demands the pound of flesh from one quarter or another — just, but utterly ungenerous; nay, not even just, for the dogma involves the perpetration of the injustice of inflicting upon the innocent penalty due to the guilty — an injustice miserably cloaked by the theologic fiction of imputation. Now, certainly any theory which were justly chargeable with degrading the Most High into a Merchant of Venice, would be worthy only of reprobation. But before condemnation is pronounced, care must be taken to ascertain that it is not a case of extremes meeting. What if the two characters compared meet in the one point of standing for justice, and be in all other respects the moral antipodes of each other ? The fact is even so. What God demands is, as we shall see, not the exact pound of flesh, neither more nor less; and what He does demand, He takes not from any quarter, even from an enemy, but from the heart of His own beloved Son. A similar observation may- be made in reply to Ritschl's objection, that the orthodox doctrine makes God a Pharisee, who will have dealings only with perfectly righteous men. 1 Here again we have a case of extremes meeting. It is quite true in one sense that God has dealings only with the morally perfect; for, as Schleiermacher has said, Only the complete can stand before Him. 2 But herein God differs toto coelo from the Pharisee, that He has taken pains to establish a mediated fellowship with the imperfect through the perfect One. We are " accepted in the Beloved." God hath dealings with the sinful in such a way that His zeal for holiness is above suspicion. While holding loving intercourse with the morally defective, He keeps the realized Ideal of moral excellence ever in His eye, and requires us to do the same, that we may know our standing to be, not on our merit, or on divine laxity, but on divine grace. How different from the Pharisee is God in all this ! Pharisaic righteousness is exclusive; God's righteousness is self- 1 Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und VersOhnung, vol. ii. p. 312, iii. p. 96. 2 Der christliche Giaube, ii. p. 135: Nur das Vollkommne vor Gott vorstehen kann. 330 TJic Humiliation of Christ. communicative. The Pharisee knows of no way to show his love for righteousness, other than by holding aloof from the unrighteous. God, in His beloved Son, makes such a manifestation of His righteousness, that He appears at once as a just God and as a Saviour; righteous, and making righteous him that believeth on Jesus, accepting the un- righteous for the sake of His righteous One. But the main stress of the objection to the Catholic doc- trine is not directed against the idea of God being well pleased with the imperfect out of regard to the perfect One; for what else but this is meant by Ritschl's own doctrine, that God imputes to sinners their fellowship with Christ as a ground for a fellowship between them and Himself ? The offence lies in the idea of the innocent suffering in the place of the guilty, as if their unrighteousness were imputed to Him, and made a ground of penal procedure against Him. But are not the two imputations one in principle ? does not the one imply the other ? Ritschl, indeed, as we have seen, 1 will not hear of an imputation of Christ's righteous- ness to us, but only of an imputation of our fellowship with Him. Be it so; the question then takes this shape: If our fellowship with Christ may be imputed to us as a ground of favour before God, may not Christ's fellowship with us be imputed to Him as a ground why He should become in a judicial sense the bearer of our iniquities ? Of the reality of the fellowship there can be no doubt. The innocent One who suffers for the guilty is no stranger who has fortunately been discovered somewhere in the universe, and found will- ing to become the sacrificial victim. He is a kinsman of the guilty, one with them not only in sympathy, but also by divine appointment, as truly as the members of one family are brethren. This fact helps at least to explain the strange phenomenon of innocence suffering for guilt. It were too much to say that the covenant oneness be- tween Christ and sinners makes everything axiomatically plain; for, as Professor Crawford has pointed out, by con- necting our Lord's sufferings with a covenant, we shift the difficulty rather than solve it. 2 The question may be raised regarding such a covenant, Was it not a pactum il* 1 Vid. o. 312. - The Atonement, p. 144. The Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 331 licitum ? But it is going too far on the other hand to say, that the idea of a covenant does not in the smallest degree help to clear up the mysteriousness of Christ's sufferings in the room of the guilty. It renders this service at least, that it brings those sufferings within the scope of inal- ogies, which help us to see that they are in harmony with the world in which we live. For it is a fact, that the closer men are connected by family, social, or political ties, the more they are dealt with, under divine Providence, as a joint-stock company both for good and for evil. Whether this be just or not according to our notions, it is, at all events, the sort of justice that is agoing. It is something to see this. It helps us to abstain from dogmatizing, and to submit to a mystery which we cannot understand. But we are not under the necessity of resigning ourselves, per- manently, to the despairing attitude of men who regard divine justice as something simply inscrutable. On patient inquiry, we find that this perplexing sort of justice, which looks so very like injustice, has a good deal to say for it- self. It is less than just, only because it is a great deal more. The constitution under which we live, in nature and in grace, departs from the s^ict rule of retributive justice which renders to each man according to his works, in the interest of that great principle of love for which alone, ac- cording to many, God has any regard. While inflicting on involuntary sufferers much suffering which they may gloom- ily regard as a dismal fate, it supplies to love, willing to suffer, a glorious opportunity, making it possible for one to do good to others by prayer, like Abraham; by character, like David; by holy obedience in life and death, like the great Captain of salvation. 1 Such a constitution is worthy 1 The principle of vicariousness is involved in intercessory prayer not less than in the doctrine of atonement, and it admits of the same defence in the one case as in the other — viz. that its recognition by God affords opportunity and stimulus to love. On this aspect of the subject Dr. Price has some good observations in his Dissertation on Prayer. To the question of a supposed objector to intercessory prayer, What influence can our prayers have on the state of others ? he replies by pointing out that it is not necessary to suppose that the treatment which beings shall receive depends in all cases solely on what they are in themselves; that though this is what the universal Governor chiefly regards, it is not all; and that while there are some benefits which no means can obtain for beings who have not cer- tain qualifications, there are others which one being may obtain for another. He 33 2 The Humiliation of Christ. of Him for whom are all things, and by whom are all things. It is a constitution based on grace, and pervaded by grace throughout. This holds true even with regard to the covenant of works, which we are accustomed to set in con- trast to the covenant of grace. There was grace even in that earliest covenant in this respect among others, that it held the race to be represented by its first individual mem- ber as its head. That procedure was not according to the strict rule of retributive justice, which renders to each man, as an isolated unit, according to his individual desert; but it was a procedure subservient to the purposes of grace, for it caused sin and the curse to abound, that grace might superabound. And grace was not tardy in beginning its benign sway. It came into play from the moment Adam fell. The second Adam began His reign of grace the day sin entered the world, producing by His secret influence, long before He came in the flesh, effects which are unde- niable as facts, but which are not always traced to their true cause. Bushnell and Ritschl both tell us that God's dealings with mankind in this life are not of a strictly ju- dicial character, that mercy is largely mingled with judg- ment, and that wrath, in the^absolute sense, is a thing to come. The latter of these writers even goes so far as to say, that the very idea of retributive justice is hardly to be found in Scripture, being traceable only in one or two texts in Paul's Epistles, where for the moment he accommodates himself to the Pharisaic standpoint of the unchristian Jews with whom he is arguing. Righteousness as an attribute of God, according to Scripture usage as interpreted by Ritschl, signifies the consistency with which God conducts His federally faithful people to their promised destiny, and is substantially the same thing as grace. 1 How differently different men read the Bible ! Matthew Arnold sees in the Old Testament nothing but a Power making for then goes on to say: " The whole scheme of nature seems to be contrived on pur- pose in such a manner as that beings might have it in their power in numberless ways to bless one another. . . . One end of this constitution appears plainly to be, to give us room and scope for the exercise of beneficence." — Four Disserta- tions, p. 233, 2d edition. 1 Die ckristhche Lehre von der Recht/ertigung und VersOhnung, ii. pp. 10^ no, conf. iii. 412. The Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 333 righteousness, in the sense of tending to make character and lot correspond — that is, to render to men, individually and collectively, according to their works. Ritschl sees in the same Scriptures nothing but Grace, tending to con- duct a chosen race to the attainment of an unmerited good. Each has seen but half the truth, though the theologian certainly comes nearer the truth than the litterateur y for the distinctive idea of revealed religion is God manifesting Himself as the God of grace. But passing from this, and reverting to the statement that God's dealings with the race in this world are not of a strictly or exclusively ju- dicial character, I remark that such is the blessed fact. Though the fallen race is under the divine displeasure, it is also to a large extent under divine mercy: God is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works. 1 He is gracious, and full of compassion, slow to anger, and of great mercy, 2 to such an extent that His patience has often been a stumbling-block and an offence to the good; as to Job, who asked in wonder why God did not appoint peri- odic times of judgment, when, like a judge on circuit, He might try the wicked, and punish them for their iniquities; * and to Jonah, who deserted God's service, giving as a rea- son, " For I knew that Thou art a gracious God, and mer- ciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest Thee of the evil." 4 But, what is the rationale of this di- vine patience ? God's patience with a sinful world, from the beginning had its ground in Christ; even as, after Christ's advent in the flesh, it received its justification through His sacrifice on Calvary. Hence the divine wink- ing at heathen ignorance and idolatry; 6 hence the divine forbearance with the sin of pre-Christian times; 6 hence the divine patience with the chosen people, under the ever-ac- cumulating load of unexpiated transgression, with which the inheritance was so heavily burdened as to be of little value to the heir; 7 hence the continued existence of the fallen race, banished from Paradise and under the curse, yet under a curse much and many ways modified, insomuch 1 Ps. cxlv. 9. 2 Ps cxlv. 8. s job xxiv. i. 4 Jonah iv. 2. « Acts xvii. 30. e Rom. iii. 25. 7 Heb. ix. 15. 334 The Humiliation of Christ* that Zuingli felt emboldened to say, that while original sin by itself would have made all men damnable, it does not in fact, because of the plan of redemption. The se- cret of all this marvellous forbearance with a dark, wicked world was the Son in the bosom of the Father, a mystery hid for many generations from men, so that it exercised little power over them as a subjective influence, except as the object of a dim starlight hope or presentiment; a mystery hid in God, but not hid from Him, but, on the contrary, determining His attitude towards, and influenc- ing His dealings with, the world, as truly before as it has done since the Incarnation. 1 All this vast influence on the fortunes of the human race Christ exercised, as the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the world. As the Logos of God, He made the worlds; as the Son of' God, He upheld all things by the word of His power; as the Lamb of God, He secured for a guilty race that it should have a history, and a history which, while bearing abundant traces of di- vine displeasure, should not less manifestly wear upon it a stamp of divine patience, goodness, and mercy. Hence, when the Lamb was actually slain in the fulness of time, the event was what the Apostle Paul calls a declaration of God's righteousness in His relation to the pre-Christian world. 2 It revealed the true ground of the divine proce- dure, and, if we may so say, redeemed the divine character from the charge of laxity, as if God had behaved Himself towards men like an absolute but benignant despot, deal- ing leniently with his slaves, partly in lofty contempt, partly in humane pity; by showing that in all His dealings with men, wherein He dealt not with them after their sins, He had regard to the perfect One who, in the end of the world, was to appear to atone for sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Be it observed, this is not to degrade Christ's sacrifice into a governmental display intended to act on men's fears, and prevent them from abusing divine good- ness. An atonement after the fashion of a governmental display has no effect on God, and it has an effect on men only after the display has been made; and it affects them by making them believe that God is more severe than ex 1 Eph. iii. 9. s Rom. iii. 25, 26. The Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 335 hypothesi He really is. The atonement made by Christ was a display of God's righteousness, in Paul's sense, as revealing the hidden ground of past forbearance on God's part towards men, clearing God's action of all appearance of laxity, and making manifest that He was in reality more severe than He seemed. And it accomplished all this, just because the Lamb of God, in His sacrifice, was the subject of judicial dealing, bearing on Him the sin of the world. God was justified in not dealing with men after their sins, by deal- ing with the sinless One as a sinner. Christ suffering under a penal-sanction discipline would not have served the pur- pose. This view makes Christ simply one factor in the world's moral education, coming in at the proper juncture and exercising a critical influence on the process, from that point onwards; contemplated by God from the first in that capacity, but exercising no influence whatever on the earlier stages of the process. In Paul's view, Christ is the main- spring of all human history, the hidden ground of the di- vine attitude and procedure towards the world from the first; not merely the power 5o The Humiliation of Christ. Christ, according to this modern expounder of old Luther- an orthodoxy, suffered eternal death as fully and as really as the damned, the only difference being that He, as God, was able to suffer intensively, in a brief space of time, what the weak capacity of ordinary human nature re- quires to be extended, in the case of the damned, over an unending period of time. In this way the eternal death endured by Christ intensively was strictly equal to the eternal death endured inextenso by any one sinner. Then the impersonality of Christ's human nature is brought in as a factor, by which the eternal death of Christ is made equal to the sum of the eternal deaths, actual or possible, of all mankind. To the Socinian objection, that even if it be ad- mitted that Christ could endure eternal death, yet at most He endured only one eternal death, while ex iiypothesi there ware as many eternal deaths to endure as there are single human individuals, this theologian reckons it a good reply to say, that Christ did not endure eternal death as a single common man, as one among many, but as the God-man, " who weighs more than all;" the point intended to be in- sisted on by the phrase within inverted commas being, not the dignity of the sufferer, but the impersonality of His hu- manity in virtue of which He is Man, not an individual man: manhood multiplied by Godhead was to make His humanity, not ethically, but metaphysically, equal to the sum of individuals bearing human nature. Thus the re- sulting formula is, divine capacity of suffering multiplied by the impersonality, multiplied by the intensively endured eternal death, equals the sum of the eternal deaths endur- able in extenso of all the damned, and of all those liable to damnation. 1 A revolting equation, at once metaphysically inconceivable and morally offensive, degrading the suffer- ings of the Redeemer into a mere literal quid pro quo, and exhibiting His atoning death in the aspect least fitted to show forth the divine glory, to satisfy human consciences, or to become a moral power over human hearts. They are not the friends of a great truth, who present it in so re- pulsive a form. Even in the scholastic period of Protes- tant orthodoxy, Cotta, the learned editor of Gerhard's Loci, 1 Kirchliche Glaubenslehre, Theil iv. 2:e Ilalfie. \> j2. The Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 2,5 1 while claiming for himself the character of a sound Luther- an, yet found it necessary to explain that it must be taken with a grain of salt when theologians teach that Christ suffered in His soul infernal pains; and that the statement must be understood to refer, not to the very pains which the damned experience, but rather to the gravity of His pains, which can be compared with that of infernal torments. 1 Modern Lutherans of the Philippi type seem bent on serving up to their contemporaries a rechauffe" of antiquated opin- ions, without the grain of salt deemed by Cotta necessary to make them palatable; with what result it is not diffi- cult to foresee. When the Redeemer breathed out His soul on the cross, His humiliation had reached its climax, if it did not then take end. The interval between death and the resurrection the Reformed confessions reckon to the state of exinanition; but they view it simply as a natural sequel to the death, and speak of it soberly as consisting in Christ's continuing under the power of death for a time. This sobriety has not been imitated by all theologians. What took place during the time when the Saviour's body rested in the tomb, has been the subject of an immense amount of curious and un- profitable speculation, based on a few obscure texts of Scripture. Into the ghostly questions relating to the tri- duum I have no space to enter, and, I must in honesty add, small inclination. To this dark region may be applied the word of prophecy concerning Babylon in ruins, " Owls shall dwell there." Instead, therefore, of flitting about like a theological night-bird in the territory of the dead, where nothing can be distinctly seen or known, I shall conclude this lecture with a brief summary of the theories concern- ing Christ's redeeming work, to which, in its course, I have had occasion to allude. One advantage which has come to us unsought from the study of that work from our chosen 1 Cotta's words are: Atque ex his, quae modo diximur, satis patet. cum grano salis accipiendum esse quando theologi protestantes docent Christum inanima sua dolores infernales passum esse. Neque enim hoc de iis ipsis doloribus quos dam- nati experiuntur, sed potius de gravitate dolorum, qui cum infernalibus comparari possunt, intelligendum est. (Vid. Dissertatio secunda. De stations et officio Chris ti mediatorio.) 3^2 The Humiliation of Christ. point of view, is the suggestion of a method of classifying theories of atonement or redemption. The value of a good method of classification in all departments of knowledge is universally acknowledged. When classification is wholly neglected, science degenerates into mere fact-knowledge, devoid of intellectual interest; when the classification is defective, facts are wrongly assorted, resemblances being overlooked, and differences unduly magnified, or vice versd. These evils are not without exemplification in the present department of knowledge. The recent literature on the doctrine of atonement presents reviews of theories more or less elaborate, in many respects valuable, yet less instruc- tive than they might have been, because the theories criti- cised are simply enumerated in an almost casual order, and opinions of certain writers are noticed as distinct theories, which are in reality simple varieties of one and the same theory * The scheme of classification put into our hands as the spontaneous result of the inquiries in which we have been engaged in this lecture is as follows: — 1. Christ, we have seen, suffered as a prophet for right- eousness' sake, and there is a theory which regards His sufferings solely from this point of view. On this theory, our Lord's sufferings, including His death, were simply in- cidental to His prophetic office, as exercised in this evil world; and their redemptive power lies in this, that they exhibit Christ as a fellow-combatant for truth and right, and show us that fellowship with God is independent of outward happiness, and so prevent our peace of mind from being disturbed by the mistaken notion that all suffering is on account of sin. This is substantially the view held in common by Socinus, Robertson, and Ritschl. It may be distinguished as the prophetic theory. 2. Christ, we have seen, as a priest acting for men before God, needed to have an experience fitted to develop and reveal sympathy, and so to gain the confidence of those whom He represents. There is a theory which looks on the sympathy of Christ manifested in a suffering, sorrow- 1 This remark applies, to a certain extent, to the work of Professor Crawfoid. The Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 353 ful experience, as the whole of His performance, and the source of all His redeeming power. In this theory suffering is not an incident, but a chief end of the Incarnation. Christ not only suffered inevitably by coming into contact with the evil of the world, but came into the world for the ex- press purpose of revealing divine love through self-sacrifice carried to its utmost limit, in order to gain moral influence over men for their spiritual good. This view was first formally propounded by Abelard, and its most distinguished modern expounder is Bushnell. It may be named the sympathetic theory. 3. Christ, we have seen, as the priestly representative of men before God, performs acts which have validity for the whole community: the one sanctifying the whole. We have seen also that, under a certain aspect, Christ's priestly action may legitimately be regarded as including Himself. Now there is a theory which holds that Christ's priestly activity in its whole compass, and under all its aspects, is inclusive of Himself; that He does nothing for us which He does not do for Himself; that whatever He does for us, He does by first doing it for Himself; that He sanctifies the whole lump of humanity by sanctifying Himself as the first-fruits. On this theory, Christ's death is simply the crown of a life of obedience, in which He maintained an absolutely unbroken fellowship with His Father, and pre- sented the ideal which all believers must strive to have realized in themselves. This view many of the Fathers entertained, without intending it as an exhaustive account of Christ's work; and in modern times it has been advocated as the true theory of redemption under various forms, by Schleiermacher, Irving, and Maurice. It may be called the theory of redemption by sample. 4. Christ, we have seen, was not only a priest, but a sacrificial victim; in the latter capacity acting not as a representative, but a substitute, bearing the world's sin imputed to Him, that sinners might be made the righteous- ness of God in Him. In connection with this branch of our subject we found it convenient to distinguish a twofold imputation — a subjective imputation of sin to Christ by Him- self, and an objective imputation of sin to Him by the First 3^4 The Humiliation of Christ. Cause and Last End of all. The former sort of imputation we found recognised by parties who deny the latter; their theory being, that Christ imputed to Himself, as a partaker of humanity, the world's sin, to the extent of making a sorrowful confession of it, which was accepted by God as a confession by humanity, and therefore as a ground of for- giveness. This theory assumes that it is not necessary, in order to pardon, that the penalty of sin be endured, ade- quate confession of sin being an alternative method of satis- fying the claims of divine holiness. Its principal, we may almost say its sole, advocate is M'Leod Campbell. It may be distinguished as the theory of redemption by Christ's self-imputation of sin, or, by perfect confession of sin. 5. The fifth and last theory is the Catholic one of redemp- tion by substitute, which, in addition to the subjective im- putation of sin to Himself by Christ, and to the imputation of sin to Him by believers in their prayers and praises, both admitted by those who take exception to the received doctrine, 1 teaches, over and above, a corresponding objective imputation of sin to the Redeemer by the Supreme Ruler of the world, the ground at once of Christ's action in im- puting human sin to Himself, of our action in imputing our sins to Him, and of God's action in imputing righteousness to us. This theory, like the rest, has assumed various forms in the hands of its advocates; some exaggerating the penalty endured by Christ as the sin-bearer, with a view to mathematical identity, supposed to be required by the principle on which the theory is based; others atten- uating the penalty to a mere symbol or form; while others, again, have striven to steer a medium course between two extremes, laying emphasis not on the quantity or the quality of the Saviour's sufferings, but on their design; yet pointing out, in the interest both of divine justice and of divine love, that these sufferings went to the utmost limit of what it was possible for a holy being to endure. While advocating the last-named theory, still entitled by comparison to be called the Catholic, I have not found it necessary to repudiate as utterly false all those preced- ing. I have been able to recognise each in succession as a 1 See Bushnell, The Vicarious Sacrifice, p. 450 to the end. 1 lie Humiliation of Christ in its Official Aspect. 355 fragment of the truth, one aspect of the many-sided wis- dom of God revealed in the earthly ministry of His eternal Son. In this fact I find great comfort, with reference both to my own theological position on this great theme, and to that of many who occupy a different position. For, on the one hand, it is a presumption in favour of the Catholic doctrine, that it does not require to negative rival theories, except in so far as they are exclusive and antagonistic; and, on the other hand, one may hope that theories which have been a partial truth will bless their advocates by the truth that is in them, connecting them in some way with Him who is the fountain of life, and initiating a process of spiritual development which will carry thern on to higher things. It is not impossible, it is not even uncommon, to grow to Catholic orthodoxy from the meagrest, even from Socinian, beginnings. Such was the way in which the apostles themselves, the first inspired authoritative teachers of the faith, attained to the elevated view-point from which they surveyed Christ's work on earth, when they had reached the position in the Church which their Lord designed them to occupy. Their first lesson in the doctrine of the cross did not rise above the watchword of the Socinian theory: " the righteous One suffering for righteousness' sake, and setting therein an example to all His disciples;" and not till long after, did they attain insight into the meaning of the baptismal name given by the Baptist to Jesus: "The Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world." Let this fact ever be borne in mind by all to whom that name is fraught with peace and provocative of ardent love, and it will help them to maintain an attitude of patience, hope, and charity towards many who reject with determined un- belief, yea, with bitter scorn, truths dear to their own hearts. APPENDIX. LECTURE I. Note A.— Page 15. It is not my intention to attempt a complete history «rff the interpretation of this famous passage, which has occu- pied the thoughts of commentators and theologians in all ages. Those who desire full information on the history o-f opinion may consult, besides the leading commentaries,. Tholuck's Disputatio Christologica de loco Pauli Ep. ad Phil. c. ii. 6-9, or Ernesti's monograph on the same passage in the Theologische Studienund Kritiken (1848, viertes Heft), im which the various methods of interpreting the passage are carefully classified, and an attempt made to explain it by the hypothesis of an allusion being intended by the apostle to the second and third chapters of Genesis. What I pro- pose here is simply to jot down a few notes on particular expressions, and first on the phrase, hv uopv6iz, their anxiety being to find in the passage an unequiv- ocal testimony to the divinity of Christ. The only excep- tion is Hilary, who vacillates on the point, as also on the question closely bound up therewith: whether the forma Dei was renounced or retained in the state of humiliation. In some places Hilary follows the ordinary patristic view, and in others he departs from it. A full list of the relative passages, and an instructive discussion of their import, will be found in Thomasius, Christi Person and Werk, ii. pp. 174- 189. Thomasius thus states the fact as to Hilary's opinion: " Usually he distinguishes strictly between forma servi and forma Dei, as in ix. 14 {De Trimtate), and also between 360 The Humiliation of Christ. human nature and forma servi. Forma Dei is for him the glory-form of God, the form of appearance which belongs to the Son, in virtue of His likeness in essence to the Father. Forma et vultus et facies et imago non differunt, De Trin. viii. 44, 45. It is the stamp of the characteristic expression and impression (Aus- und Abdruck) of the God- head of the Father: quod signatum in Dei forma est, hoc ne- cesse est totum in se coimaginatum habere quod Dei est; on the other hand, forma servi is the habitus Jiumanus, forma Ziomiuis, liumilitas; not, however, so as if the appearing form were abstracted from the essence, but both go to- gether in Hilary's view: the human nature in its earthly limited definiteness, the divine nature in the form of mani- festation essential to it. Therefore speaks he thus at one time: The evacnatio forma Dei is not evacaatio naturae, sub- stantiae; at another time: ut vero assumpsisse formam servi nihil aliud est, quam hominem natum esse, ita in forma Dei esse non aliud est, quam Deum esse; therefore he speaks now of a real renunciation of the forma Dei in the incarna- tion, the contrast to which is interitus naturae; and anon de- clares that the forma Dei preserved itself, to a certain extent, in the evacuatio, in which case the forma is identi- fied with the essence" (p. 174). Among the principal passages bearing on Hilary's opinions on the two con- nected questions as to the meaning of forma Dei, and the retention or renunciation of the forma Dei in the state of exinanition, are the following. I place first those which imply a distinction between form and nature, and an ex- change of divine form for human form in the state of humiliation. De Trinitate, ix. 51: Dei forma jam non erat, quia per ejus exinanitionem servi erat forma suscepta. Neque enim defecerat natura, ne esset; sed in se humilita- tem terrenae nativitatis manens sibi Dei natura susceperat, generis sui potestatem in habitu assumptae humilitatis ex- ercens. ix. 38: Exinaniens se igitur ex Dei forma, servi formam natus susceperat, sed hanc carnis assumptionem ea, cum qua. sibi naturalis unitas erat, Patris natura, non senserat. viii. 45: Exinanivit se ex Dei forma, id est ex eo quod aequalis Deo erat. On the other side, inclining to the ordinary patristic view, are the following passages: — Appendix. — Lecture I. — Note A. 301 xi. 48; In forma Dei manens formam servi assumpsit, non demutatus, sed se ipsum exinaniens, et intra se latens. et intra suam ipse vacuefactus potestatem. Form is here taken as equal to nature, therefore it remains in the servile state, xii. 6: Christus enim in forma Dei manens formam servi accepit. . . . Esse autem in forma Dei non alia intel- ligentia est, quam in Dei manere uatura. Passing on to modern times, we find that the tendency among all interpre- ters, and specially those who regard the kenosis as con- sisting in an exchange of the form of God for the form of a servant, is to identify uopTJ Qeov, (a) in respect of the sense of the words. A6\a always denotes an outward glory an- swering to the inward essence, a concrete, never the im- mediate, existence-form of the essence itself. Form and HerrlicJikeit are very different even in German. [Ii] If it is said that 86£a is not indeed equivalent to uopt} SovXov signifies human nature, as noppij6i, /ht/Se avrovS eidevat tovS xar ovpavov uvraZ dyiovZ dyydXovS, i'va ur/ Xv7toov- Toa gjS ur) QappnBivTEi to fiv6Trj- piov. saving sin. When, therefore, the disciples wished to learn things above them, He usefully pretended not to know, and said that not even the angels in heaven knew; that they might not be grieved because they were not admitted to the knowledge of the mystery. The words in italics in English, and the corresponding words in Greek, show the kernel of Cyril's view. II. The next passage is from the Apologeticus pro XII. capitibus contra Orientates, Anathematismus iv. Speaking of the text in which Jesus is said to have grown in wisdom as in stature, Cyril remarks, against the Orientals whom he charged with making Christ two persons, one of whom real- ly did grow in wisdom: Ovts yap fi£pi6ubv tgov vito6- T&61GOV /jetcc Trfv svoodiv Soyjua- TlZojiieV, OVTS TrjY Ttji ©EOTVTOS v tov sloyov, Ssiuvvdiv avTov oixovo/uixoSs hq>£VTa tij iSia dap- xi, did tgov Tij 1 ; idiai q>vd£GoS iivai vouoov. 'AvbpaonoTtfToS Se to itpo- xotiteiv L6tlv r/Xixia te xaidovvn Aoyoo, to ivooOiv avTcS Sana, xai ii avroov 6itapydvoov ai'pEiv te vibov, xai, eii uirpov 7/A.ixiaS rrji dpTiooi kxov6r/S dvev- syxEiv. $ait)v <5' oti xai t v vrjitito 6oq>iav kxcpjjvai reBavfiadfxevijv pdSiov re xai EvrjXarov r?v avrca- a'A/V tjv to xpi/ua TEpaToitoiai ov ixaxpdv, xai toiS ri/i olxovouiaS \6yoiSavdpuo6Tov. 'ETskslroydp dipO(p7]Ti to uv6Tt']piov. 'Heptsi Sr) ovv otxovoux.x(3i toiS Ttji dvOpoo- rtOTTJTOi JUETpOli £q>' iavTco TO xpazelv. raised the body united to Himsell to its full height from the very swaddling-clothes. I would say also, that in the babe a wonderful wisdom might easily have appeared. But that would have approached the thaumaturgical, and would have been incongruous to the laws of the economy. For the mystery was accomplished noise- lessly. Therefore He economi- cally allowed the measures of humanity to have power over Himself. The accommodation to the laws of the economy, according to this passage, consisted in this: in stature, real growth; in wisdom, apparent growth. The wonderful wisdom was there from the first, but it was not allowed to appear (ex(pr?vai), to avoid an aspect of monstrosity. That the growth in wisdom was simply graduated manifestation of an already present perfect knowledge, appears clearly in the next extract. It is from Adversus Nestorium, p. 154. Alluding to the interpretation put by Nestorius on the text Luke ii. 52, viz. that a real growth in knowledge was meant, Cyril, after pointing out the absurdity of such an idea from the divine point of view, goes on to express his own opinion thus: IV. Ovuovv l8iix r J>/ av aita6ii' aijQiS te xpvhoc xai ze'vov, xai izEpispyiaS d\iov, si fipEcpoZ £>v ETiy ( jE0TtpEitri Ttji 6oq>iai kitoieivo Tijv evdei^iv xaTa fipaxv 8s xai dvaXoycoi ttJ tov (J&j/mro? 7'fXixia. xaTEvpvvoov avTTjv , iuq>avrj te dita6i xa { n6T(2v, itpoxoitTEiv dv Xsyoiro, xai udXa sixoTcoi. Therefore there would have been shown to all an unwonted and strange thing, if, being yet an infant. He had made a de- monstration of His wisdom worthy of God: but expanding it gradually and in proportion to the age of the body, and (in this gradual man- ner) making it manifest to all, He might be said to increase (in wisdom) very appropriately. The same idea is expressed with, if possible, still greater clearness in the next extract, which is taken from Aa reginas de recta fide oratio altera, cap. xvi.: Appendix. — Lecture II — Note A. 371 V. "To Se naidiov nviavE,xai kxparaiouTo nvEvjuaTi, irXr/pov- ixsvov 6oq>iai' xai £«'/3rS Oeov r t v kit avzGp." Kai ndX.iv "7?/xai dvbpGJ7toi5." "Eva \sy ovv £$ r ovKv piov ljjucSv'lT/tiovy Xpidrov, xai avrcp npo6veuovTEi roc re dvbpoomva xai BEoitpErtTJ, TOli JUEV TTJi XEVG06SG0i UETpOli npeTCsiv aA^Soj? Sia/JE/JaiovitsBa to ve ttjv 6oojuaTixr/v auzrj6iv kiti- da'xEijBai, xai f.ir/v xai to xpaTai- ovdbai, tgov tov 6oouaToi ddpvvo- jisvGDV /.lopiccv xaTd jipaxv' xai avTo 6s to Soxeiv n\ypov6Bai 60- q)ia that He should seem to be filled with wisdom, in so far as the manifestation of the wisdom dwell- ing within Him proceeded, as by addition, most congruously to the stature of the body; and this, as I said, agreed with the economy of the Incarnation, and the meas- ures of the state of humiliation. Here, again, observe that the growth in the body is real, the growth in the mind only apparent, — a growth in the sense of graduated manifestation made to correspond with the age of the body, so that no more wisdom might appear than suited the time of life, such correspondence being re- quired by propriety or decency. The next two quotations are from Thesaurus, Assertiones xxii. xxviii. I take the latter first, as referring to the same subject as the last, the growth of the child Jesus in wisdom. Thesaurus, p. 428: VI. $V<5lXOi Tli VO^lOi OVX kltl- rpeTiEi tov avQpoonov TVS Tov6nj- jaocToi rfXixiaS (Sdnsp /usiZova itoXv ttjv q>povyj6iv e'xeiv aXXd 6vvt- pEXEi foaS xai 7} tv r/ulv 6vye6iZ, xai (jv/u/Sadi^Ei rponov Tivd Tali tov 6o3/zaToS npoxoTtalZ. *Hv ovv A certain physical law forbids man having more wisdom than corresponds to the stature of the body: our understanding runs and keeps pace pari passu with the growth of the corporeal frame. Now the Word became flesh, as 57* The Humiliation of Christ. 6 AcyoS kv dapxi ysvojuevoS av- QpcoTtoS xaOd ysypaitTav xai rjv teXeioS, 6oq>ia tov Ilixrpoi xai SvvajuiS Qjv. 'ErtEidi) Se rqj rffi cpv- 6£aoi i/jiiGoy eQst 7tapaxoopelv ncoS tXP'Jy, iva. urj zi Ievov napd ro?S opc36i i'oni6 r )>]. cot dr0pa>7to?, xard fipaxv npoi avlrjv iovroS tov 600- fiaroSf diiExdXvTtTEv kavvov xai odr/jiupai 6oQJTE- poS del xai ^apif'tfrepoS ??v, itpo- xotctexv ei'prjrai, &3s evtevSev rjSrj ttjv TGov OavjuaZovroov npoxoit- teiv 'i\iv , r/ xrfv avvov. it is written, and was perfect, being the wisdom and power of God. But seeing it was in a sense necessary that He should adapt Himself to the custom of our nature, lest He should be reckoned something strange as man by those who saw Him, while His body gradually advanced in growth He concealed Himself, and appeared daily wiser to those who saw and heard Him; . . . because He was ever wiser and more gracious in the esteem of beholders, He is said to have grown in wisdom and grace, so that His growth is to be referred rather to the habit of those who wondered at His wisdom than to Himself. Here it is taught that Christ's growth in wisdom was simply a holding back, or concealment, of wisdom existing in perfection from the first, out of respect to the physical law, according to which, in ordinary men, body and mind keep pace in their growth. The other passage in the Thesatirus (Assertio xxii. 220- 224) is too long to quote in full, and after the foregoing it is not necessary to give it in extenso. The author's view will appear sufficiently from selected sentences. The sub- ject of discussion is the profession of ignorance made by Jesus with reference to the day and hour: VII. Ovx ayvocSv 6 XoyoZ ovx 018a q>v6iv , dXXd Seixvvqov iv iavrcS xai to dvbpaortivov, co ud- Xi6za npsTtEi to dyroeiv . . . 'EtzeiS)} ydp t?)v i)u<3v TCEpisfid- Xeto ddpxa, did tovto xai tyjv rjudov dyvoiav i'^Ezz' Idx^uaTi- Zero. ... (P. 373.) 'AyvoEXv 6e Xsyoov, xaho tcSv dyvoslv itEq>vxoT0OY, SnXovozt d i /f jpaD7CGov, t?)v ojtioioodiv eve8v- 6aTo. {Ibid.) Not as being ignorant the Word says I know not, but showing in Himself the human, to which ignorance is very specially con- gruous. For since He clothed Himself with our flesh, He af- fected to have (put on the fashion of) our ignorance. . . . In saying that He was ignor- ant, He put on the likeness of those whose nature it is to be ignorant, viz. men. Appendix. — Lecture II. — Note A. 373 £l6ittp ovv 6vyxexoopt]xev iav- zov gJs dvBpoonov ysvousvov u£- zd avSpoo7tGOv xai Ttiivyjjv xai Siipyv, xai zd aAAa 7tddx £iy aitsp eipr/zai 7cepi avzov, zov avzov Srj zpoitov dxoXovhov jut'; dxavSaXi- %£dQai xdv cos dv6pG07io? A€yy,jii£z' av6pG07Ccov dyvoslv, ozi zr)V av- zrjv tf/.ii'y kcpopzds ddpxa. OiSs iusy yap goS docpia xai AoyoS gov kv Ilazpv hi) side'vai 8e q>r)di Si' y/uds xai jU£9' t//xgdv g3s dvBpcortoi. (P- 373)- With reference to the question, "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am ? " Cyril remarks (p. 376)j Ovxovv oixovon£i zi itoWdxiS zfji dyroiaS zo dxtfua. Further on, Cyril adduces the question put by Jesus to the dis- ciples, "How many loaves have ye ? " where ignorance was cer- tainly only affected, to prove that dag>ooS oixoYojuixdoS sdB' oz£ zrjv ayvoiav dxyp-aziZ,6u£voSo^2Gozrfp. A few sentences further on he says, with reference to the ignor- ance of the day and hour: Oixovo/nsz yap zoi XpidzoS utf EiSevai Xiycov zr/v oopav ixeivt/v, xai ovx a'A^SoJs dyvost. As, then, He allowed Himself, as become man, to hunger and thirst with men, and to suffer the other things which are said con- cerning Him; in the same way it follows that we ought not to be scandalized, when, as man, He says that He is ignorant along with men, because He bore the same flesh with us. For as Wisdom and as the Logos in the Father He knew; but He says that He knew not on our account and along with us as man. Therefore He often puts on economically the fashion of (i. e. simulates) ignorance. that the Saviour manifestly some- times economically puts on the fashion of ignorance. For Christ acts economically in saying that He does not know that hour, and is not really ignorant. The last extract has reference to the same subject, Christ's profession of ignorance concerning the day and hour. It is from the Apologeticus contra Theodoretum pro XII. capitibtis (Anathematismus iv. p. 416): VIII. Kai £i7t£p idziv eis z£ xai And if He is one and the same 6 avzoi Sid zo zrjs dXr/Bovi evca- in virtue of the true unitv of dEooS xpi?M\ He is the Son of God, and the Only-begotten. 4. The Being and Life emanating from God, or the Logos, is as such transcendent, infinite; but in the way in which He appears as the principle of the Person- ality of Christ, this divine Being and Life passed into human limitations without absorbing these: idomata divina. non communicantur humanae naturae, ocailtatio majestatis divinae. 5. Precisely this theanthropically formed existence and activity is the redeeming work, and it appears as the com- pleted religious life and religious moral activity: opera redemtionis a persona secundum utramque naturam profiscis- cuntur. 6. This economic Christology rests on the real Trinity in the economy of the divine Being: non tres pcr- sonae, non pater, non spiritus sanctus, non essentia tribus per- sonis communis, sed filius, sive bXoyoz, iucarnatus est qua vTt66Ta6iz. The Christology resting on these foundations is not indeed carried fully out, because the old formulae exercised a disturbing influence. The disturbance, however, is not so great as appears. It is said, e.g., starting from the formula, duae naturae in una persona: in Christ is a Appendix. — Lecture III. — Note D. 383 humanly limited knowledge, secundum hum. ejus naturam, an absolute secundum divinam; the latter statement has reference to the divine nature only in the abstract. The concrete Theanthropos has emptied Himself of the absolute knowledge of God; for had He as a real possession the absolute and the limited beside each other, the personality would be cleft asunder; and had He the absolute knowl- edge really, the human finite knowledge would be absorbed. The intention, therefore, was to maintain the perfection of the religious life of Christ only in a humanly limited intelli- gence, and to derive His freedom from error from the divine elements. The reproach is unfounded that the Reformed shrank from the idea of the divine being realized in the temporal; all that they shrank from, and rightly, was the ignoring of the forms under which alone this process is conceivable, and can be accomplished; they aimed at a historic reality; they meant to teach that God really be- came man, became humanly determined; but they did not quite manage to put the matter rightly, to give the idea adequate expression." [In German: Es scheint die Chris- tologie der Reformirten beruhe auf folgenden Grundlagen: 1. Christus ist vollig unserer Gattung angehorig, ein Mensch aus Leib und Seele bestehend, was man die natura kumana, die humanitas Ch. nennt. 2. Christi Menschheit ist durch hochste Fiille von Gnadengaben so hoch gehoben, als eine menschliche Seele iiberhaupt gehoben werden kann, na- mentlich ist jener Erbsiindenhangin Folge dieser Austattung so gebrochen, dass Seele und Leib eine siindlose Lebens- fuhrung erreichen: praestantia humanae Ch. naturae. 3. Zu dieser graduell hochsten Wiirde Christi kommt endlich eine specifisch einzige; das Logosleben Gottes, die Propheten erleuchtend, wohnt Christo ein als innerstes die Personlich- keit beseelendes Princip, divina Ch. natura, oder genauer das Theilhaben an Gott dadurch, dass dieser Mensch tYvn66zaToi too Xoyao ist; er ist der Sohn Gottes, und zwar der eingeborene. 4. Das emanirte gottliche Sein und Le- ben order der Logos ist als solcher transcendent, unend- lich; in der Art aber, wie er als Kern der Personlichkeit Christi zur Erscheinung kommt, ist dieses gottliche Sein und Leben in menschliche Bestimmtheit eingegangen, ohne 384 The Humiliation of Christ. ciiese zu absorbiren, idomata divina non communicantur humanae naturae, occult at io majestatis divinae. 5. Gerade diese theanthropisch gestaltete Existenz und Wirksamkeit ist die erlosende, und erscheint als das vollendete religiose Leben und religios sittliche Wirken — opera redemtionis a persona secundum utramque naturam profisciscuntur. 6. Diese okonomische Christologie ruht auf der realen Trinitat in der Oekonomie des gottlichen Wesens; non tres personae, non pater, non spir. sane, non essentia tribus personis com- munis, sed filius, sive 6 \6yos, iucaruatus est qua V7t66ra6is. Die auf diesen Grundlagen ruhende Christologie ist freilich nicht rein durchgefuhrt worden, indem das Unbequeme der alten Formeln storend eingewirkt hat. Diese Storungen sind aber nicht so bedeutend als sie scheinen. Sagt man z. B., von der Formel ausgehend — duae naturae in una persona, in Christus sei ein menschlich beschriinktes Wissen secundum hum. ejus naturam, ein absolutes secundum divinam: so gilt letzeres von der div. natura in abstracto. Der concrete Theanthropos aber hat sich dessen entaussert; denn hatte *r als wirklichen Besitz das absolute und beschrankte neben einander, so wurde allerdings die Personlichkeit f^espalten; hatte er das absolute wirklich, so ware das oienschlich endliche Wissen absorbirt. Man will also nur .n menschlich bestimmter Intelligenz die Vollendung des Religiosen behaupten und hat diese Irrthumslosigkeit vom Gottlichen abgeleitet. Ungegriindet ist der Vorwurf, man scheue sich reformirter Seits das Gottliche im Zeitlichen verwirklicht zu glauben; vielmehr scheut man sich nur, und mit Recht, die Formen zu ignoriren, unter denen allein dieser Process denkbar ist und vollzogen werden kann; man will gerade eine historische Realitiit, man will lehren, dass Gott wirklich Mensch werde, sich menschlich bestimme, aber man dringt noch nicht durch {Die Glaubenslehre der evangelisch-reformirten Kirche, Zweiter Band, pp. 336, 337)-] Note E.— Page 133. The Reformed theologians were not altogether of one mind as to the relation of the humanity of Christ to the Appendix. — Lecture III. — Note E. 385 category of personality. The prevailing view, however, was that the human nature of our Lord, while dwTc66xaroz in itself, was iwitodraros through the Logos. They did not hesitate to call Christ a man. Such phrases as these occur in the Admonitio : iste homo Deus est; huic homini datam esse ipsam Deitatem. Nevertheless, according to the same document, the human nature is so borne and preserved by the Logos, even in glory, that " ne quidem persona sit per se; sed duntaxat natura, quae ne existeret quidem, nisi sic gestaretur a persona \6yov " {persona is here used in the literal ancient sense of vn66ra6i%, what is placed under as a support, not in the modern sense of the Ego). To the same effect Zanchius, who starts the difficulty, If the Logos assumed a human body with a rational soul, does that not amount to assuming a person ? and then disposes of the " magna dubitatio " by laying down the position, that the humanity was o5 frei aus seinem eigenen dem vaterlichen entsprechenden 390 The Humiliation of Christ. Willen und Wesen gewollt und gesetzt wird. . . . Diese Verendlichung war gar nicht anders moglich als dass Gott selbst im Logos dem Prozess der Vermittlung sich unterwarf; aus Liebe, ja aus unendliche Liebe (to sinful humamty) unterzog er frei sich dem Gezetze allmahliger Entwicklung " (p. 338).] To the objection that the kenosis violates the unchangeableness of God, Konig replies, that God the Logos, by submitting to the kenosis involved in Incarna- tion, showed the most unconditional love, and thereby asserted and maintained His inmost essence (p. 340). On the question to which nature the personality belongs, he remarks that it is inept, because " the God-man Jesus is the Logos in human form; when He thought and said 'I,' He embraced His whole divine-human Being, which became divine-human (or theanthropic) at His Incarnation. . . . There never was a man Jesus apart from the Logos; but as the Logos, before He became in Jesus God-man, pos- sessed personality, one can freely say that the personality of the God-man was the eternal element of the Logos, which, however, in the Incarnation became subject to the piocess and law of human development, gradual in time and space, and of course as personality of the Logos must cease from His supernatural form of existence in order to become the personality of the God-man, in a natural and historical form of existence " [ " der Gottmensch Jesus ist der Logos in Menschengestalt; wenn er ' Ich ' dachte und sagte, so fasste er seine ganzes gottmenschliches Wesen zusammen, welches als Gottmenschliches erst mit und in seiner Menschwerdung geworden oder entstanden. . . . Einen Menschen Jesus ohne den Logos hat es niemals gegeben; da aber allerdings der Logos ehe er in Jesus Gottmensch wurde Personlichkeit besass, so kann man freilich sagen dass die Personlichkeit des Gottmenschen die ewige des Logos war, die aber eben mit der Menschwer- dung dem Prozesse und Gesetze der menschlichen, als zeitlichen und raumlichen allmahligen Entwickelung sich unterwarf und natiirlicherweise als Personlichkeit des Lo- gos, in seiner ubernatiirlichen Existenzform aufhoren musste, um die Personlichkeit des Gottmenschen in natiirlicher und geschichtlicher Existenzform zu werden " (pp. 340, 341)]. Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note A. 391 Konig goes on to argue that if the personality of the Logos had not in free infinite love subjected Himself to a process of gradual human development, the kenosis would not have been real, the human and divine would simply have been parallel to each other. He regards the kenosis as an ex- change of the divine for the human form of personality, and does not allow a double life of the Logos. I have thought it right to give this account of Konig's views, all the more that Thomasius, so far as I have observed, takes no notice of it, though he gives a list of other supporters of the kenotic theory {Person tind Werk, ii. p. 196). DELITZSCH gives his opinion on the kenotic theory in his System der biblischen Psychologies pp. 326-333 (Zweite. Auflage, 1 86 1 ) . He says that it is one of the greatest, holiest, and most worthy to be studied problems of modern theology, in accordance with the pervading impression of true humanity and undivided unity which the person of Christ makes as set forth in Scripture, to remove the self- contradictory dualism, above which the Church view of the God-man has not been able to raise itself, in such a way that, without relapse into long refuted errors, the substance of the Catholic dogma may remain intact. The right solution, he indicates, will be that which in the first place holds fast the gottlich-menschliche Doppelwesen of Christ, without assuming a transformation of the divine nature into the human, in contradiction to the eternal, unchangeable self-equality (Selbstgleichheit) of God; and, in the second place, which allows the thesis, that the Logos in Christ is the person-forming and the humanity the as- sumed, to remain in possession of its scriptural rights; and thirdly, which succeeds in showing how the Logos, with- out ceasing to be what He is eternally, could make Him- self the subject of so truly human a being as meets us everywhere in the Christ of the Gospels. The main ques- tion is, according to Delitzsch, this: " How could the Logos so empty Himself, that He should give up His eternal glory, and yet more, His eternal mode of existence, and the properties flowing therefrom in relation to the world, the omnipotence, the omniscience, the omnipresence, with- out surrendering the identity of His eternal Being?" 392 The Humiliation of Christ. [" Wie konnte der Logos sich so entaussern dass er seine ewige Doxa und noch mehr; dass er seine ewige Seinsweise und die aus ihr der Welt gegeniiber fliessenden Eigen- schaften der Allmacht, der Allvvissenheit, der Allgegenwart aufgab, ohne doch die Identitat seines ewigen Seins aufzu- geben " (p. 327).] The fact, he says, is indubitable. The incarnate Logos is not in possession of the eternal doxa, for He desires to regain it (John xvii. 5). He is not om- niscient, for He knows not, as He Himself says, the day and hour of the end (Mark xiii. 32). He is not almighty, for power over all, as the risen One says, is given unto Him (Matt, xxviii. 18). He is not omnipresent, since He is ascended in order to fill all (Eph. iv. 10). To refer these expressions to the humanity alone, is to sever the unity of the person, and turn the reality of the human nature into a sham. The only question is, How is the fact to be accounted for ? How could the Logos give up His eternal glory, and these attributes of His divine manner of being, without parting with His divine nature, whose effulgence that glory is, and whose energy those attributes are ? The solution, according to our author, is to be found in this, that the essence of absolute personality consists in unlim- ited self-determination, and that the root of the divine Being is will, which is the prius of all actual self-conscious- ness. The Son of God could thus without renouncing His being " withdraw to this lowest basis, this root-power, this all-determining ground and origin of His Being, and so with the emptying of His unfolded Being make Himself the subject of a human personality, and become objective to Himself in a new up-springing self-consciousness, which, although it has His now double existence for contents, yet is no double consciousness, but a single one springing out of a single divine-human life ground " [" auf diese unterste Basis, diese wurtzelhafte Potenz, diesen alles beschlies- senden Grund und Ursprung seines Wesens zuriickziehen und so mit Entausserung seiner Wesensentfaltung sich zum Subjecte einer menschlichen Personlichkeit machen, und sich selbst in einem neu aufgehenden Selbstbewusstsein gegenstandlich werden, welches, obgleich es sein nunmch- riges Doppelwesen zum Inhalt hat, doch kein doppeltes, Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note A. 393 sondern ein aus einheitlichem gottmenschlichen Lebens- grunde aufgehendes einiges ist " (p. 328)]. Such self-reduc- tion involves no interference with the immanent trinitarian process, because " the Son remained even in that with- drawal or systole of His unfolded Being in which the kenosis lay, the other divine will, in which the original will of the Father mirrors itself, and which has the fulness of the Father's Being for its contents " [" der Sohn blieb auch in jener Einzehung und, so zu sagen, Systole seiner Wesens- entfaltung worin die Entausserung besteht, der andere gottliche Wille, in welchem der urbildliche Wille des Va- ters sich spiegelt, und welcher die Wesensfulle des Vaters zu seinem bewegenden Inhalt hat " (p. 329)]. Neither does it involve any suspension of the world-preserving and governing activity of the Trinity, because in " the self- emptying of the Son realizes itself the eternal will of love of the triune God, and therewith His own eternal will " [" in der Selbstentausserung des Sohnes verwirklicht sich ja der ewige Liebeswille Gottes des dreieinigen, und somit sein eigener ewiger Will " {ibid.)']. Redemption is the centre of the upholding and governing of the world, there- fore " so far from any blank entering into the world- sustaining, world-governing activity of the triune God, that activity rather concentrated itself centripetally in the self- emptying of the Son, and had therein its centre of gravity, without wholly resolving itself thereinto " [" Kam in die welterhaltende und weltregierende Thatigkeit des dreiein- igen Gottes so wenig eine Liicke, dass sie sich viel mehr in dieser Selbstentausserung des Sohnes, ohne darin aufzu- gehen, gleichsam centripetalkraftig zusammenfasste und daran ihren Schwerpunkt hatte " (ibid.)]; so that the ipspoov zccTiavza (Heb. i. 1) retained its truth, "even as the hu- man spirit in the bonds of sleep, not less than in the full stir of waking hours, without interruption of its self-iden- tical life, continues through the soul to be the life-power which dominates the body. The self-emptying of the Son, and His theanthropic suffering unto death connected there- with is, rightly viewed, the most strongly willed, most powerful, most intensive self-assertion; in this self-empty- ing culminates the free self-might of the everlasting Son, 394 The Humiliation of Christ. and concentrates itself in the eternal love which wills and carries through the completion of the world; its effects ex- tend not only over the whole of humanity, but over heaven and earth " [" ahnlich wie der menschliche Geist in der Ge- bundenheit des Schlafes nicht minder, als in der vollen Reg- samkeit des Wachens, ohne Abbruch seines selbstgleichen Lebens mittelst der Seele die den Leib durchwaltende Lebensmacht zu sein fortfahrt. Die Selbstentausserung des Sohnes und sein damit verbundenes gottmenschliches Leiden bis zum Tode ist ja, recht besehen, die willens- starkste thatkraftigste allerintensivste Selbstbethatigung; in dieser Selbstentausserung gipfelt die freie Selbstmacht des ewigen Sohnes und concentrirt sich die der Welt Vol- lendung wollende und durchsetzende ewige Liebe: ihre Wirkungen erstrecken sich nicht allein auf die ganze Mensch- heit, sondern auf Himmel und Erde " (p. 330)]. The view here given of the continued participation by the self- emptied Logos in the government of the world, taught also by Hofmann (see next note), is quite compatible with the Thomasian theory of depotentiation. It is physical power replaced by moral; strength perfected in weakness. From the above it will be seen that Delitzsch does not hold that the Logos superseded the human soul; and he takes care, with express reference to Gess, to repudiate this view. KAHNIS declares for the kenotic theory of Christ's per- son in Die LeJire heiligen Geiste, pp. 57, 58. He starts from the difficult question, How in Christ the relation of the divine consciousness to the human is to be conceived ? On the Church doctrine of two natures in one person, the per- sonality belonging to the divine nature, and the human nature being by consequence impersonal, he remarks, that as the essence of humanity lies in consciousness, Christ without a human Ego is not complete man; further, that human thought, will, and feeling are not conceivable with- out a human self-consciousness; and finally, that the cer- tain fact of the gradual development of Jesus is reduced to seeming, if the Ego, which grows in wisdom, is at the same time wisdom itself; if the Ego, which grows in grace, is at the same time the source of grace. The human nature Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note A. 395 imperatively demands a human person. But as the divine Ego nevertheless stands fast, the only outlet seems two persons. This solution, however, has ever been rejected, and justly, for it reduces the whole life of Jesus to a lie, because in such a relation (a sort of possession) the Son of God is not man, nor is the man Son of God, and either person, in appropriating the properties of the other, is guilty of taking what does not belong to it. (Uebergriffe machte, die gottliche des Scheines, die menschliche des Raubes.) There must be but one person. This one per- son could unite the two natures only by being finite and infinite at the same time. The human self-consciousness, which is not an immoveable point, but in all life-relations is diversely shaped, sensuous, understanding, rational, re- ligious, etc., consciousness (sinnliches, verstandiges, ver- nunftiges, religioses u. s. w. Bewusstsein), presents an analogy for the assumption in Christ of a self-consciousness which belongs at once to both natures. When Christ is tempted, weeps, trembles in the garden, feels Himself God- forsaken, His Ego enters wholly into human finitude; when He names Himself the resurrection and the life, is transfigured, when He desires the glory which He had with the Father, the divine consciousness dominates over all finite relations. The forthcoming of the one does not ex- clude the other, but it demands a retirement of it, yet with- out sin in the human (doch ohne Sunde beim menschlichen). John's word, " The Word became flesh," does not signify an assumption of, but a transition into, human nature (ein Annehmen oder Anziehen der menschlichen Natur, son- dern ein Uebergehen in dieselbe); demands therefore that the Logos consciousness should become human (dass das unendliche Logosbewusstsein ein endlich menschliches geworden sei). The Logos consciousness therefore must be conceived of, during the infancy of Jesus, as latent in the human, and with the progressive human development out of the religious relation (aus dem religiosen Verhalt- nisse), growing into a consciousness of a peculiar child- hood (als Bewusstsein einer besonderen Kindschaft), till in maturity Jesus assumed the divine life which the human Ego has as grace, as the nature of His Ego (das gottliche 396 The Humiliation of Christ. Leben welches das menschliche Ich als Gnade hat, ala Natur seines Ich aufnahm). Therefore, while the Church doctrine rightly derives the self-consciousness of Christ, not from the human nature, but from the Logos nature, it must take the additional step of assuming a becoming finite on the part of the Logos consciousness, in order to gain for the human nature a human consciousness (" eine Verend- lichung des Logosbewusstsein anzunehmen, um fur die men- schliche Natur ein menschlich Bewusstsein zu gewinnen "). Kahnis proceeds to make some remarks on the assertion of the negative critics, that in the Christ of the synoptical Gospels the Divine is the Holy Ghost, while in John it is the Logos. He denies the accuracy of the statement, and maintains that the Logos in fact, though not in word, is recognised in the Synoptics, and that the influence of the Holy Ghost is recognised in John. The need for that in- fluence is explained by the effect of the Incarnation on the Logos. In becoming flesh the Logos became subject to the laws of the flesh, therefore needed to be protected by the Spirit from taint in His human nature, so that He might be born free from sin. As a citizen of the divine kingdom, He needed the Spirit to consecrate Him to be Messias. As perfect man, He required to have, not sim- ply a finite Ego, but a life for the infinite in which all religion consists. This infinite life, for which the finite Ego exists, dwelt in Him from the conception as Holy Spirit. Out of the Holy Spirit, who pervaded the human nature more and more, the lost glory of the Logos came into con- sciousness, somewhat as Plato conceives of all spirit-life as a recollection. If we are to believe in an intimate mutual pervasion of the divine and human natures in Christ, the intermediate link must be found in the Holy Spirit, who condescends to finitude and weakness in order to form it into the divine image. Note B. — Page 153. To the Gessian type may be referred Gaupp, Hahn, Schmieder, Reuss, Godet, and (but with hesitation) Liebner and Hofmann, also Goodwin, an American theologian. Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note B. 397 Gaupp {Die Union, Breslau 1847, PP- 1 12— 1 17) finds the solution of the problem of the Incarnation, the union of the divine and human natures in one person, in the idea of the self-exinanition of the Logos, and the trichotomy of human nature into body, soul, and spirit; the Logos, by a voluntary kenosis, constituting Himself a human spirit, and assuming a soul and body, and thus subjecting Himself to a purely human development. " Happily the idea of the kenosis comes to our aid, and under the assumption of the biblical trichotomy of spirit, soul, and body, in the one human in- dividual, makes a conception of the Incarnation of the Logos possible, according to which the Logos, by that act of infinite love, could constitute Himself into a human spirit, assume soul and body in His conception through the Holy Ghost in the virgin's womb, and so subject Him- self to a purely human development." [" Da kommt uns gliicklicherweise die Idee der Selbstentausserung des Sohnes Gottes zu Hiilfe, und macht, unter Voraussetzung der biblischen Trichotomie von Geist, Seele, und Leib, in dem einen Menschen-Individuum, eine Auffassung der Incarna- tion des Logos moglich; nach welcher dieser, mittelst jener unendlich liebreichen Entausserungsthat, sich selbst zum Menschengeiste konstituiren, Seele und Leib bei seiner geheimnissvollen Empfangniss durch den heiligen Geist im Liebe der Jungfrau von aussen annehmen und hiermit einer rein menschlichen Entwickelung sich unterziehen konnte " (p. 113).] The kenosis Gaupp, like Gess, bases on a Subordinatian view of the Trinity. The Son has His eternal life from the Father, who alone is the original ground {Urgrund) of all being, and therefore can declare, not merely with reference to His humanity, but with refer- ence to His divine nature, "The Father is greater than I." The Son, therefore, unlike the Father, is capable of self- exinanition; He can, so to speak, estrange Himself from His own divine nature, and divest Himself of His bright- ness and majesty, and all divine properties, depositing them, so to speak, with the Father, that He may be wholly man, and be subject to the law of growth as a child, knowing no more of Himself than other children, and attain- ing only gradually to His human self-consciousness, and 39S The Humiliation of Christ. meriting by a life of obedience the restitution of the glory He had voluntarily abnegated. To Christ, in the state of humiliation, Gaupp ascribes a moral likeness to God, due to the influence of the Holy Spirit communicating to Him gradually divine properties; the natural properties of God- head, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence he repre- sents Christ as attaining only in the state of exaltation, and even then only in the relativity which the idea of human nature demands (in derjenigen Relativitat die die Idee der Menschennatur erfordert, d. h. in den Ring der Mensch- heit gefasst, p. 1 16). To the glorified body of Christ, Gaupp ascribes circumscribedness; yet he thinks that from the humanity of the glorified Son a sphere of power rays forth pervading all space, after the analogy of the sensible at- mosphere which some anthropologists, as he thinks rightly, ascribe even to men living on earth, in order thereby to solve certain riddles of human nature. Hahn {Die Theologie des Nenen Testaments, Leipzig 1854, Erster Band, pp. 195-210) takes a similar view of the constitution of Christ's person, the Logos taking therein, according to him, the place of the human spirit. The change of condition which the Son of God underwent in becoming man had a positive and a negative side; He assumed something, and He gave away something. What He assumed was the <5dpl, that is, the material, human corporeality, and the condition which goes along therewith (" die materielle menschliche Lciblichkeit und der mit dieser verbundene Zustand "). What He gave up was the condi- tion of His premundane absoluteness (seiner vorweltlichen Absolutheit). The son of God entered into the flesh emptied of all His divine prerogatives, in a state of limita- tion corresponding to the human tidp'i, retaining, indeed, the essence of Godhead, but reduced to a potence, in which the divine majesty lay only as a germ. [" Das absolute itvEvna ist zum beschrankten icvevfia eines sinnlichen Men- schen geworden, es hat sich bis zu dem Grade der Keim- artigkeit, beschrankt, dass es gleich geworden ist dem noch unentwickelten itvEvua jedes Menschen im Momente seiner Entstehung, so dass alles gottliche Bewusstsein und alle gottliche Krafte in ihm vollig gebunden waren, und erst Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note B. 399 der Entwickelung bedurften, wenn er sich als Sohn Gottes manifestiren sollte, und als solches beschranktes itvsvjua ist er in die tidp% eingegangen " (p. 199).] This truth is most plainly expressed in the words 6 y6\os 6dpi kye'vero, which mean, not merely that the Logos appeared in the flesh (eqxxvepGjQji kv 6apui, I Tim. iii. 16), but that in His con- sciousness and spiritual power He entered into the limits of a sensuous existence (" dass er ganz und gar zu einem fleischlichen d. h. sinnlichen Wesen geworden sei ") (p. 200). In thus limiting Himself to the dimensions of a human spirit, and uniting Himself as a human spirit to human flesh, the Son of God became a full and true man, foi human nature consists of two parts, 6dp% and nvevfia. Yet three things distinguished Christ from all other men: 1. His supernatural birth; 2. His spirit, while human, was yet not of temporal origin, like that of other men, except indeed as to form of being, but in its essence was eternal at&viov; and, moreover, it was a nvsv/ia in which dwelt in germ the fulness of Godhead. The former attribute of Christ's spirit the author finds attested in such passages as Heb. ix. 14 {did nvevf-iazoi atooviov), I Tim. iii. l6 {kcpavepajQij Iv dapui), I John iv. 2 {kv dapui kyr}\vS6za), Heb. ii. 14 {kexoiv oovrjKEv a'ifiaroz xai dapno?)', the expressions quoted showing that, according to the view of the N. T., the In- carnation of the Son of God did not consist in His assuming an entire human nature consisting of body and soul, but in this, that He assumed a human body [" dass der schon vorhandene (praexistirende) Geiste Christi (natiirlich in einem Ziistande der Beschrankung) in einen menschlichen Leib eingegangen sei" (p. 206)]. The third distinctive feature of Christ's humanity is its sinlessness, which is explained by the fact that His spirit was not derived from sinful humanity, was therefore pure and strong, and could keep the 6ap% in its own place, though from its nature the latter supplied- material for temptation, especially as it was reinforced by the power emanating from the close connection in which He stood to His heavenly Father. [" Ein Princip (die ddpc) von dem zwar Vesuchungen ausgingen, die aber Jesus, vermoge des Lebens seines nvEvua, und vermoge def unmittelbaren Verbindung, in welcher er mit seincm 400 The Humiliation of Christ. himmlischen Vater stand, und der von diesem ausgehenden Kraftigung stark genug war, in jedem Momente zu uberwinden " (p. 210).] Schmieder {Das hohcpricstcrlichc Gcbet unsers Herrti Jcsu C/iristi, Hamburg 1848) expresses his view in these terms (pp. 36-42): " The Son of God became man; that is. He renounced His self-conscious divine personal being and took the form of a spiritual potence, which self-forgotten, as unconscious formative power worked in the womb of Mary, and formed a body which was fitted so to serve the development of this spiritual potence that it could use it as its own property and become conscious, could develop itself therein, and by means thereof put forth its energy. The spiritual power works in the beginnings of the forma- tion of the body simply on nature, as unconscious force, later in the body as spiritual nature, as soul, which becomes conscious of its sensations and conceptions, and self-active, but does not yet with full self-consciousness react against it; lastly, in the soul or spirit as self-conscious, self-deter- mining, self-activity. The spirit is the first and the last; it forms the body, it moves the soul, but it can be named spirit properly only when it has come to itself, when it knows its power, and fully wields it." [" Der Sohn Gottes ward Mensch: das heisst, er begab sich seines selbstbe- wussten gottlichen Personseyns und nahm die Gestalt eines geistigen Vermogens an, das selbstvergessen als bewusstlose bildende Kraft im Eingeweide der Maria wirkt und aus den belebten Saften einer menschlichen Mutter einen Leib bildet, der geeignet ist, der Entwickelung dieses bestimmten geistigen Vermogens so zu dienen, dass dasselbe sich dessen als seines zugehorigen Eigenthums bedienen und bewusst werden, sich selbst darin und mittelst desselben selbstthatig entwickeln kann. Das geistige Vermogen wirkt in den Anfangen der Leibbildung bloss als Natur, als bewusstloses Vermogen, spater in dem Leibe als geistige Natur, als Seele, die sich ihrer Empfindungen und Vorstel- lungen bewusst wird und selbstthatig, aber noch nicht vollig selbstbewusst dagegen zuriickwirkt, endlich in der Seele als Geist, als selbstbewusst sich selbst bestimmende Selbstthatigkeit. Der Geist ist das Erste und das Letste; Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note B. 401 er bildet den Leib, er bewegt die Seele; aber Geist verdient er erst genannt zu werden, wenn er zu sich selbst gekom- men ist, wenn er sein Vermogen erkennt und frei daruber schaltet " (p. 38).] The Logos becomes an unconscious power, producing a body in the Virgin, working first as nature, then in the formed body as soul, then in the soul as spirit self-conscious and self-determining. Jesus on earth was, according to this author, the divine genius of the human race, knowing Himself to be the same person as before the kenosis, but taking up into His self-conscious- ness the body with its sensitive soul (empfindende Seele), and using this animated body as the servant of His divine spirit, till, in the state of exaltation, body and soul become spiritualized (nvev/uariHov), when Christ is no longer simply a divine genius, but the God of humanity in constant fellowship with the Father. REUSS (Histoire de la The'ologie Chre'tienne ait Steele Apos- tolique, 1864), speaking of the Pauline view of Christ's person, indicates briefly his opinion as to the meaning of the passage in Phil, ii., in these terms: " II est dit expres- sement que l'element divin est l'essentiel; l'element humain, quelque chose d'adopte, d'ajoute, d'exterieur. Cela im- plique l'idee d'un abaissement, d'une espece de privation, d'un depouillement, et nous conduit directement a nous representer l'union des deux natures comme l'alliance d'un esprit divin avec un corps humain, explication qui se re- commande par sa simplicite meme; mais qui n'a jamais ete du gout des theologiens. II est vrai qu'elle n'est pas ainsi formulee dans les textes, mais ceux-ci ne contiennent pas un mot qui lui soit contraire " (vol. ii. p. 71). That is to say, the most natural construction of the apostle's state- ment is to find in it Gess's theory of the kenosis, the Logos, as a human soul, assuming a human body. On the other hand, Reuss finds no trace of a status exinanitionis in John's writings. The Incarnation for John is not a humiliation, but a glorification — even in His death the Son of man is glorified; and this idea is held to be quite incompatible with the scholastic view, according to which Christ's death was the lowest degree of abasement. This is very super- ficial theology (see tome ii. p. 455). 402 The Humiliation of Christ. GODET {Comment aire sur VEvangile de Saint Jean, Paris- 1864) expresses the opinion that the Church doctrine of the two natures does not perfectly set forth the sense of the Scriptures, and that both Reformed and Lutheran theories fail to solve the problem of reconciling the real humanity with the pre-existence, and says that the Scriptures do not teach the presence of the divine nature with its divine at- tributes in Jesus on earth. The expression in John i. 14 conveys the idea of a divine subject reduced to a human state, but not of two states, divine and human, co-existing. Paul teaches the same idea in Phil. ii. 6. The words of the apostle {Ih£vqo6z, etc.) can only mean, " qu'il a depose son etat divin pour prendre l'etat humain; il ne les a done pas combines en s'incarnant, mais il a echange celui-la pour celui-ci." The glory referred to in John xvii. is " l'etat divin avec tous ses attributs, sa forme de Dieu, selon l'ex- pression de Saint Paul, dont il s'etait depouille en se faisant homme." This self-exinanition implies, to begin with, the loss of self-consciousness. "II faut ensuite que le sujet divin consente a perdre pour un temps la conscience de lui- meme, comme tel. La conscience d'une relation si par- ticuliere avec Dieu et le souvenir d'une vie anterieure a cette existence terrestre seraient incompatibles avec l'etat d'une veritable enfant et avec un developpement reellement humain." But at His baptism Jesus at length attained to the consciousness of His being the Logos. His ministry required this, because "pour temoigner de lui meme, il doit se connaitre." This self-consciousness, however, did not restore the divine state, the form of God. He had the use of the treasures of wisdom and power which are in God. But He possessed nothing. He could therefore say: " Pere rends-moi ma gloire." After the ascension He regained His divine state. " Des ce moment il est mis en posses- sion, et cela comme Fils de l'homme, de tous les attributs divins, de l'etat de Fils de Dieu, tel qu'il le possedait avant son Incarnation: Tonte la plenitude de la divinite' habite CORPORELLEMENT en lui" (Col. ii. 9). Godet refers to Gess, and expresses his general agreement with the view presented by the latter: " dans son bel ouvrage (Lehre von der Person Chris ti, 1856) dont (he adds) j'ai eu l'honneur Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note B. 403 de rendre compte a 1'epoque de son apparition," Revue dire"' tienne, 1857-58. (See Comment aire, tome premier, 247-265.) LlEBNER (Christologie oder die christologische EinJieii des dogmatischen Systems dargestellt, Erste Abtheilung [all that has appeared], Gottingen 1849) mav be classed under the Gessian type, because, so far as appears, he does not recognise any human soul in Christ distinct from the Logos, and because he teaches a Subordinatian view of the Trinity as the foundation of an absolute kenosis of the Son, whereby He empties Himself of divine contents, and becomes, as it were, a mere form or empty vessel to be re-filled by a process of human development. Liebner's speculations, Trinitarian and Christological, while extremely interesting and suggestive, are rather abstruse; but the following sketch, it is hoped, may afford a clear and sufficient outline of his system. The doctrine of the Trinity is based on the idea of personality, which is not a solitary, but a social thing. Not merely self-assertion over against another, as conceived by Strauss and Fichte and many modern philos- ophers, but — and this is the positive moment — it is reach- ing beyond self, including another, and allowing itself to be included, in a word, love (not mere " Selbstheit gegen Anderes, Fiirsichsein gegen Anderes, Anderes von sich Ausschliessen," but "das iiber sich Uebergreifende, das Andere Einschliessende, und sich Einschliessenlassende, und das ist die Liebe," p. 115). The Trinitarian process turns upon the nature of love as self-communication. God wills to realize Himself as absolute love, or, what is the same thing, to be real absolute personality; hence the ten- dency to transpose Himself, as it were to lose Himself in His own Other — God the Son. But this second, in order to realize Himself in turn as love, tends to lose Himself again in the first as His absolute object. Thus, on the one side, God the Father goes forth from Himself, and posits the Son, transposes Himself into the latter, makes Him- self, after the nature of love, dependent with respect to the Son, empties Himself into the Son. On the other, side the Son, moved by the same impulse, makes Himself in turn dependent on the Father, empties Himself into the Father. But as this process of love makes Father and Son mutually 404 The Humiliation of Christ. dependent on each other, and so tends to repeat itself ad infinitum, a necessity arises for a third hypostasis, who pre- serves the distinction in unity, and vice versa, and brings the process of the absolute life and love to rest, and com- pletes it. Without the third person the mutual love of Father and Son would resolve itself into an everlasting seesaw, an eternal unrest — each in turn losing Himself in the other. In order that the two first persons in their mutual self-communication should be at the same time eternally independent, there is needed a third object-subject of their love, whom they love in common, and by whom they are both beloved, as the principle of absolute equi- poise, of true union in distinction (p. 127). In this trinita- rian process the initiative lies with the Father, and in this respect there is a certain element of subordination in the relation of the Son to the Father. This element may be called an eternal kenosis, which is at the same time posited and cancelled, but is still there as a cancelled moment (die Subordination des Sohnes als Sohnes nach seinem character Jiypostaticus ist ewig trinitarisch gesetzt und aufgehoben, iiberwunden: doch ist sie eben an sich da, namlich als aufgehobene, als uberwundenes Moment, p. 150). This eternal element of kenosis is the eternal possibility of In- carnation (p. 150). In the Incarnation that eternal kenosis becomes temporal. The self-emptying of the Son, and His being re-filled from the fulness of the Father, which are simultaneous in the trinitarian life, in the incarnate state are unfolded into a succession of moments, first the self- emptying, then the being re-filled. This temporal kenosis, in abstract language, may be defined as the Son of God entering into Becoming {We r den), becoming a mere form to be gradually filled with divine contents. This entering into Werden, according to Liebner, cannot take place in any other way than by Incarnation; God cannot enter into the creation except as man. The entrance of the Logos into Werden is co ipso Menschwerden. Hence the problem of Christology is to exhibit the process by which the Logos, reduced to a form by becoming flesh, becomes as a man progressively filled with divine contents. The interest in this process turns mainly on the moral and the Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note B. 4o5 intellectual growth of Christ. As to the former, Liebner, as his theory requires, recognises the distinction in reference to Christ between formal and real freedom — the former consisting in liberty of choice, and involving the possibility of a wrong choice; the latter, in the free yet necessary doing of the good, excluding the possibility of sin. By the kenosis, the will of Christ became a form to be filled by a process of ethical development, involving temptation, with ethical contents, perfect holiness. But Liebner differs from Gess in treating the possibility of sinning involved in for- mal freedom as a mere abstraction in the case of Christ. He could be tempted, but He could not sin. The personal peculiarity of Christ consists in the marvellous identity of the posse non peccare, the posse peccare, and the non posse peccare (p. 295). In answer to the objection, that on this view Christ is after all not truly human, Liebner remarks that He is divine- human — that is His peculiarity; and asks, " Is it not the highest possible form of humanity — das gott- menschliche Urbild der Menschheit — this complete ethical infallibility ? " (p. 298). To justify the ascription of the non posse peccare to Christ, he lays stress on the considera- tion, that in His case an ethical existence preceded His entrance into time, whereas in the case of man (Adam) only an ethical idea preceded his existence (Seinem Werden geht ein (ethisches) Sein voraus; unserm Werden nur die Idee, die ideelle Bestimmung, p. 303). With regard to the intellectual development of Christ, Liebner thinks that his theory enables him to resolve the difficulties very simply. The doctrine of the Logos entered into Werden, as to self- consciousness, takes the following shape: In infancy the Logos had no actual self-consciousness, only the divine- human Potenz. He had His consciousness in the Father, He was lost in the Father, and came only in the course of development through the mediation of the Spirit to self-consciousness, which from the very first was divine-human. It took the form of presentment in the boy of twelve. The baptism was a critical point in the self-consciousness of Jesus, at which He became fully acquainted with Himself (p. 311). Liebner further discusses the development of Christ on what he calls 406 The Humiliation of Christ. the nature-side. He says, Christ as the Head is the sum of human nature, of the whole organic system of the nat- ural gifts of humanity, an individual and yet a universal man. Not, however, as if in Christ all human gifts attained to actual development. His vocation as Redeemer demanded the actualization only of the highest moments. Never- theless in these, in His holiness, all possible human gifts were sanctified. In Christ lay the principle of the true artist, statesman, etc. ; though He was neither actu, because He did not need to be. This doctrine of a pleromatic hu- manity is connected in Liebner's case, as in the case of many other German theologians {e.g. Ebrard), with the theory that the Incarnation was destined to take place irrespective of sin. Sin affected the accidental conditions, but not the fact of Incarnation. The Christological theory of Liebner is summed up by himself in these terms: " Christ was the Logos entering into Werden, which eo ipso is to become man. Hereby a theanthropic personality is formed with the to it adequate universal nature, as condition of its realization in the world, which personality, at first pure Potence, in successive developments under the form of human knowledge and will (reason and freedom), at each stage of human life, as it came in natural course, infallibly, and yet in a truly human ethical process, identified itself with the divine element. This is the notion which alone helps to solve the problem of the union of the two moments, which irresistibly press themselves upon our view as we survey the Christological contents of Scripture; on the one hand, that Christ receives all in truly human ethical activity from the Father, and yet, at the same time, on the other hand, is conscious of all as originally and essentially His own." [" Christus war der Logos ins Werden eingegangen, was eo ipso Menschwerden ist. Hiemit ist eine gott- menschliche Personlichkeit gesetzt mit der ihr adaquaten universalen Natur als Bedingung ihrer Realisirung in der Welt; welche Personlichkeit, zunachst reine Potenz, in suc- cessiver Entwickelung unter der Form des menschlichen Wissens und Wollens (Vernunft und Freiheit) auf jedei menschlichen Lebensstufe, wie sie mit der natiirlichen Ent- wickelung gegeben war, unfehlbar und doch in einem Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note B. 407 wahrhaft menschlich ethischen Process sich mit dem gott- lichen Inhalt wieder zusammenschloss. Dieses ist der allein losende Begriff fur die Verbindung der beiden Momente, die aus dem Totaleindruck des christologischen Schriftin- halts sich unwiderstehlich aufdrangen: das Christus Alles in wahrer menschlicher ethischer Arbeit von seinem himm- lischen Vater empfangt und doch zugleich Alles urspriing- lich und wesentlich sich zugehorig weiss " (p. 345)-] Liebner repels the charge of Apollinarism which, he imagines, many- may be ready to bring against his theory, by pointing out that in the Apollinarian theory the sinlessness of Christ is guaranteed by the exclusion of freedom: Christ's holiness is a physical thing, there is no ethical development. He also remarks, that the idea of the Head of humanity, by which the doctrine of God-manhood is completed, is strange- to the Apollinarian system. At the same time, he attaches- high value to Apollinaris in the history of Christology, and ; says that the great questions he raised were not answered in his age by the Church, and have not even yet been truly answered (p. 372). Having ranged Liebner under the Gessian type, it is necessary in justice to him to add, that he condemns the Zinzendorfian metamorphic kenosis as exaggerated, unscriptural, monstrous, and beset with the greatest difficulties. The Christological image in Scripture, he thinks, shows, along with true humanity, a surplus of the superhuman, superadamitic, which cannot be recon- ciled with the fiction of the transformation of the Logos into a man (pp. 338-340). HOFMANN discusses the Incarnation in the second vol- ume of his work, Der Schriftbeweis, ein theologischer Ver- such (pp. 1-43, Zweite Auflage). His Christology is of the kenotic type, but it is not easy to fix his precise where- abouts, as on some points he does not explain himselfclearly. This is especially the case in reference to the question whether Christ had a rational soul distinct from the depo- tentiated Logos. In reply to Doiner, who classed him among those who supported that view of the kenosis, ac- cording to which the Logos became a human soul, he says: " What good can it do to bring together texts in which, in an accidental way, mention is made of the body, soul, 408 The Humiliation of Christ. and spirit of Jesus ? After it has once been said that He became man, it is self-evident that to Him all that belongs whereby a man is a man. And I think I may leave the matter thus, after Dorner has made the discovery, that I evidently, not altogether without design, avoid expressing myself concerning the soul of Christ, on which account he forthwith reckons me among those who patronize the form of the kenosis, according to which the Logos became a hu- man soul. All that he says on that score does not affect me in the least, and only in the one point is he right, when he says: the thesis that God in reducing His actuality to a Potence thereby becomes man, or inversely that man is God potentially, God standing in need of development, lies out- side of my range of vision. But the question which lately Gess has propounded in order to answer it in the negative, whether there was in Jesus, beside the Logos, a soul derived from Mary, has not for me any sense at all, as every one will understand who from this book knows what the soul and what the Incarnation means for me. The case stands for Christ's soul-life not otherwise than with that of every one born of woman." [" Was kann es niitzen, solche Schriftstellen zusammen-zutragen, in welchen zufalliger Weise von Jesu Leib oder Seele oder Geist die Rede ist ? Nachdem einmal gesagt ist, dass er Mensch geworden, versteht sich von selbst, dass ihm alles das geeignet hat, was dazu gehort damit ein Mensch Mensch sei. Und hie- bei, meine ich, kann ich es auch jetzt lassen, nachdem Dor- ner die Entdeckung gemacht hat, dass ich uber Christi Seele mich auszusprechen offenbar nicht ganz absichtlos vermeide, weshalb er mich sofort denen beizahlt, welche diejenige Wendung der Kenosis vertreten, wornach durch sie der Logos menschliche Seele geworden. Alles das, was er dort ausfuhrt, geht mich auch nicht das Mindeste an, und nur in dem Einem hat er das Rechte getroffen, -dass er sagt, der Satz, dass der seine Actualitat zur Potenz herabsetzende Gott eben damit an ihm selbst Mensch, oder umgekehrt, der Mensch potenzieller, entwikelungsbediirf- tiger Gott sei, liege ausserhalb meines Gesichtskreises. Die Frage aber welche sich neuerlich Gess gestellt hat, um sie zu verneinen, ob in Jesu neben dem Logos eine aus Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note B. 409 Maria stammende Seele gewesen, hat fur mich gar keinen Sinn, wie'Jeder begreifen wird, der aus diesem Buche kennt. was mir die Seele und was mir Christi Menschwerdung ist. Es verhalt sich mit Christi seelischem Leben nicht anders. als mit dem eines jeden vom Weibe Geborenen " (p. 43).] Instead of distinctly answering the question whether the Logos and the human soul of Christ were the same or dis- tinct, Hofmann here tells us it has no meaning for him, and for the rest refers us to his representation of the Incarna- tion. Turning to that, we find him interpreting Phil. ii. 6 f. as teaching an exchange of the form of God for the form of a servant, and extracting from John i. 14 the idea that the Word exchanged His previous form of being for another which is its opposite (Widerspiel), giving up His Godhead and assuming our nature. " We are flesh, He became it." [" Wir sind <5<*7>l, er ist es geworden " (p. 26).] In accor- dance with this view, we are told that all the formulae must be given up which are derived from a conception of the incarnation as a union of the divine and human natures (p. 22). Yet we are not to suppose that the incarnate Lo- gos has ceased to be God. " He remains who He was, though He has ceased to be what He was: " [" Allerdings aber ist er der geblieben, der er war (oder besser gesagt, der er ewiger Weise ist). Dies liegt schon darin, dass er, derselbe, welcher Gott bei Gott gewesen, Fleisch gewor- den, hiezu in die Welt gekommen ist. Nur das, was er war (namlich geschichtlicher Weise war), hat er aufgehort zu sein, um etwas Anderes zu werden " (p. 26)]. The two clauses put within brackets in the above extract (by me, not by the author) contain hints of the view taken by Hof- mann of the bearing of the Incarnation on the doctrine of the Trinity. The Logos remains in an eternal manner {ewiger Weise} God after He has become man. That does not mean, however, that the incarnate Logos has a double historical existence, one in the flesh, the other as world- governing Logos. The one form of existence has been ex- changed for the other (p. 23). It is true, indeed, that even on earth, even in His mother's womb, as a child growing in wisdom and stature, sleeping and waking, working and suf- fering, the Son of God took part in the government of the 410 The Humiliation of Christ. world, because in all these He was fulfilling the eternal pur- pose of God for the salvation of men, in which the divine government of the world has its unity. But the incarnate Logos in His state of exinanition takes part in the govern- ment of the world, not as a Lord, but as a servant (pp. 26, 27). In this part of his scheme of thought, Hofmann substantially agrees with Gess, who makes Christ cease from the govern- ment of the world during His life on earth; only he does not agree to call the fact a cessation from such government, because he holds that even in serving, Christ was, in a new way, ruling (p. 27, where Gess's view is referred to). Hof- mann declines Ebrard's way of stating the case, that the eternal form of existence was exchanged for the temporal. He maintains that the right way to put the matter is to say that the Logos, retaining throughout the eternal form of existence, exchanges one form of historical existence for another. For he holds that the Logos was a historical person before He became man. Previous to the Incarna- tion, He occupied the historical position of a supramundane, omnipotent, world-governing Power and Will. In the In- carnation He entered into an intramundane state of being, — into the human finitude of existence, knowledge, and power. [" Aber so ist es nicht, dass er die Ewigkeitsform mit der Zeitlichkeitsform vertauscht hat, sondern aus geinem geschichtlichen Stande der Ueberweltlichkeit, des weltbeherrschenden Konnens und Wollens und Gegen- wartigseins, ist er, der hier und dort gleich Ewige, in die Innerweltlichkeit, in die menschliche Umschriinktheit des Daseins und Wissens, und Konnens eingegangen, die eine geschichtliche Bethatigung seines ewigen Wesens mit der andern vertauschend " (p. 24).] The import of this view, in its bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity, is, that the Incarnation affected not the essential, but only the eco- nomical Trinity. Hofmann's doctrine with reference to the Trinity is as follows: — The names Father, Son, and Spirit express an interdivine relation, — that is to say, there is such a thing as an essential Trinity, but the essential Trinity is only the presupposition of God's historical self- manifestation. As it is of this self-manifestation alone that the Scriptures directly speak, the interdivine relations are Appendix. — Lechire IV. — Note B. \\\ always represented as involving inequality. Christ is God's, and God is the Head of Christ, and the Spirit is spoken of in the neuter gender (vol. i. p. 200). The interdivine rela- tion is one of equality: all three persons are equal in power and glory; but the relation becomes one of inequality as soon as it enters on a process of self-fulfilment (i. 268). This process began with the creation, and was completed by the Incarnation. In the creation the interdivine rela- tion entered into its lowest degree of inequality, the three persons of the Godhead becoming respectively the Father, the supramundane Creator; the Son, the original world-aim, " urbildliches Weltziel " (i. 270); and the Holy Spirit, the intramundane active Life-ground, " der inweltliche wirk- same Lebensgrund " (i. 190). In the Incarnation the inter- divine relation between Father and Son entered into its highest degree of inequality, becoming as great, in fact, as it could, without involving a self-negation of God [Da ward die Ungleichheit des innergottlichen Verhaltnisses in sei- ner geschichtlichen Gestaltung so gross, als sie ohne Selbst- verneinung Gottes werden konnte, ii. 24]. But even in this extreme inequality the relation remained essentially the same. Though Christ, not partially only, but completely, unreservedly, renounced all supramundane self-manifesta- tion, yet He did not cease to be God, ewiger Weise. He entered into human finitude, but He did not become a finite creature [Nicht theilweise, sondern vollig und ohne Vorbehalt hat sich Christus in seiner Menschwerdung aller uberweltlichen Selbsterweisung begeben, ohne dass er darum aufhorte, was ja nicht aufhoren kann, weil es auch nicht angefangen hat, ewiger Weise Gott zu sein. Er hat sich in die menschliche Umschranktheit dahingegeben, ohne da- durch ein endliches Geschopf zu werden. Die Art und Weise seiner Selbsterzeigung ist eine andere geworden, aber was er erzeigt, ist nachher wie vorher seine nicht zum blossen Sein der Potenz reducirte, sondern ewige, also ihrer selbst und damit der Welt machtige Gottheit, ii. 24]. Hof- mann characterizes Gess' Subordinatian view of the Trinity as an error, and ascribes Gess' mistake to a neglect of the distinction on which he (Hofmann) insists between the his- torical inequality and the eternal equality of the interdi- 412 The Humiliation of Christ. vine relation (i. p. 271). On another point this instructive writer differs from Gess, viz. in reference to the moral de- velopment of Christ. He says, with reference specially tc Ebrard's view, that it is false to say of Jesus in His earthly life only potnit non peccare, reserving the non potest peccare for the glorified state. The true distinction between the two states is, that in the status exinanitionis Christ could be tempted, while in the glorified state He cannot be tempted (ii. 65). Hofmann holds that the sinlessness of Christ's human nature is a matter of course (ii. 31), and that it was impossible for the man Jesus to sin, because the everlasting God, become man, could not deny Himself. His human historical will could not enter into contradiction with His eternal divine will, which dwelt within the former, and the eternal God became man just because that was the sure way to victory over sin. [Der menschgewordene ewige Gott konnte nicht sich selbst verneinen, der Mensch Jesus also konnte nicht siindigen, sein menschlich geschichtliches Wollen nicht in Widerspruch treten mit seinem demselben innewohnenden ewig gottlichen Wollen, und der ewige Gott ist eben deswegen Mensch geworden, weil dies der gewisse Sieg iiber die Sunde war. Es ist also falsch von Jesu in seinem Fleischesleben nur zu sagen, potuit non pec- care, und erst von dem Verklarten, non potest peccare. Der Unterschied allein ist zu setzen, dass er dort hat versucht werden konnen, hier aber unversuchbar ist, ii. p. 65.] It remains to add that Hofmann is substantially at one with Liebner in regard to the sense in which the exchange of forms implied in the kenosis is to be understood. Liebner makes the ^.opcprj dovXov signify the human existence-form as one of dependence and subjection to God, the existence- form of the creaturely ethico-religious personality. The nopq>h 0eou, on the other hand, signifies the existence- form of absolute independence, freedom, absolute person- ality (p. 327). Hofmann says the apostle's meaning is, that Christ deprived Himself of the appearance in divine self-glorious might, in which He existed over against the world, in order to assume the appearance of intramundane servitude and dependence; not, indeed, of servitude to men, but of creaturely dependence on God; and in this exchange Appendix. — Lecttire IV. — Note C. 413 of the one m°pna of human powers, the exaltation of humanity to God, the absolute communication of God to humanity. That is, He knew Himself as the God-man, as the Logos of the Father (the eternal hypostatic thought of the Father concerning the world) come to manifestation, as the incarnate Logos who before Abraham — is. In short, the eternal Logos knows Himself as the Logos appearing in time, the incar- nate Logos knows Himself as the incarnate eternal Logos. The consciousness of both is perfectly coincident. It is the consciousness of the eternal Essence destined to appearance in time, the consciousness of the time-form 4i 8 The Humiliation of Christ. filled with the eternal Essence; in a word, the neither extra-temporal eternal, nor the relative temporal conscious- ness, but the consciousness of the perfect interpenetration of time and eternity, the festive consciousness of the marriage of time and eternity. Note E. — Page 164. Under the Martensen type of kenosis may be reckoned Schoberlein {Die Grundlehren des Heils entwickelt aus dem Princip der Liebe, von Ludwig Schoberlein, Berlin 1 851) and Mr Hutton {Essays Theological and Literary). Schoberlein represents Christ as becoming, in the Incar- nation, a single human personality. The Ego of this hu- man being is not a new one, having a beginning as a crea- ture, above which His own eternal Ego hovers as a higher, or with which the latter was united as the Spirit of God with our soul, but is His own eternal Ego in full reality. In time He is wholly Himself, the Ego of the Son of God remains. But, nevertheless, in virtue of the human indi- vidual nature received from the Virgin, He lives here below wholly as man, and only as man, as p?ieumatico-corporeal (geistig-leibliche) human soul; that is, He has at once nat- ural human feelings and impulses, and human self-con- sciousness and will, in a word, complete human per- sonality. The Son of God is become completely like us, truly emptied of His S6ia, His nopcpti Qiov, though not of His dEovr/i. In respect of this pure human existence in time, He is distinguished from us only by this, that He is not, as we are, simply a single man among others, but — seeing that in Him from eternity the whole of humanity is fore-ordained by love to its holy destiny — although living as single personality, yet bears in Himself the fulness of the whole human race, is the second Adam, made for the spiritual life, as the first was for the natural — is the per- sonal centre, the blossom of humanity, the man xa5' &£oxrfr. As the Son of God became a truly human personality, Christ had a truly human development. There is noth- ing in His life which exceeds the limits of human nature, and which we through Him cannot attain to. Yet while Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note E. 419 emptied of His divine Sola (seiner gottlichen Sola ganz und gar entaussert) with purely human consciousness and will, perfectly like us, His divine, trinitarian being and govern- ment suffered no interruption. " The love remains in all its humility exalted: really sharing the life of the Beloved, it preserves the specific peculiarity of its being. Such a pe- culiarity in the Son of God is His trinitarian Being and Rule. Action and Being in God, who is Spirit xatf kfrxrfv, the essence of which is energy, are inseparable." [" Die Liebe bleibt in all ihrer Demuth erhaben: das Leben des Geliebten wirklich theilend, bewahrt sie die spezifische Eigenthumlichkeit ihres Wesens. Eine solche ist aber beim Sohne Gottes sein trinitarisches Seyn und Walten. Wirken, und Seyn lasst sich bei Gott, dem Geiste xaQ' Ikoxijv dessen Wesen kvspysia ist, nicht trennen " (p. 65).] In the Son, therefore, there is a union of two ways of being and existence. He wills and knows Himself double. " He, the same Ego, who is from eternity to eternity, is also in time, there eternal, here temporal, there without beginning and end, here during the span of a human life, there as the unlimited, here as the emptied, there with eternal conscious- ness and divine will, here with temporal consciousness and human will, but so that He, existing in the one, knows Himself one with the other, and vice versa." [" Er, das- selbe Ich, das von Ewigkeit ist und bis in Ewigkeit, ist auch in der Zeit, dort ewig, hier zeitlich, dort ohne Anfang und Ende, hier wahrend der Spanne eines Menschenlebens, dort als der Unumschrankte, hier als der Entausserte, dort mit ewigem Bewusstsein und gottlichem Willen, hier mit zeitlichem Bewusstsein und menschlichem Willen, so aber, dass er, in jenem seyend, sich Eins mit diesem weiss und umgekehrt."] The author admits that this double life wears an appearance of a double personality. This appear- ance disappears, however, " as soon as we consider more closely the relation of eternity and time, of heaven and earth, into which the life of the Son of God appears di- vided. We must not combine therewith the representation as if the Son of God, during the time of His earthly sojourn, had a life in eternity parallel to that in time, a life of tem- poral succession during some thirty odd years, and within 4-20 The Humiliation of Christ. the same space of time in which He here walks after the flesh, there governs the world, or as if He existed in part here on earth, in part in heaven, spatially separated from the earth. Eternity stands not to time in a temporal, nor heaven to earth in a spatial relation ; but the relation between them is causal. Eternity is the cause of time, the endur- ing life-ground out of which all time proceeds, and to which it returns. Doubtless it also has its process of de- velopment or unfolding, but not as time, and therefore not temporally parallel with time. It is the existence-form of the idea, of the complete life, which as life is as far as pos- sible from being stagnant; whilst time is the form in which development runs through the momenta of incompleteness (in a succession of stages mutually exclusive). Time is only a special mode of appearing, characteristic of creature- ly being, which breaks forth out of the eternity of the idea, and enters into it again without causing therein a temporal interruption. One may therefore not properly say that eternity is before time or after time, as little as during time, understanding during in a temporal sense. Time is for eternity and for the eternal consciousness a moment, and that again not a temporally measurable, although it unfolds itself in time and for the temporal consciousness as an unending succession" [" sobald wir das Verhaltniss von Ewigkeit und Zeit, von Himmel und Erde, in welche das Leben des Sohnes Gottes getheilt erscheint, naher be- trachten. Man darf nicht die Vorstellung damit verbin- den, als ob der Sohn Gottes die Zeit seines irdischen Auf- enthaltes auch in der Ewigkeit, parallel mit jenem, als ein gleiches Nacheinander von etlichen und dreissig Jahren durchlebe, und innerhalb desselben Zeitraums, in welchem er hier nach dem Fleische einhergeht, dort die Welt re- giere, als ob er zum Theil hier unten auf der Erde, zum Theil oben im Himmel raumlich getrennt von der Erde existire. Die Ewigkeit steht zur Zeit nicht in einem zeit- lichen, noch der Himmel zur Erde in einem raumlichen Verhaltniss, sondern das Verhaltniss zwischen ihnen ist ein causales. Die Ewigkeit ist die causa der Zeit, der wahrende Lebensgrund, aus welchem alle Zeit aus- und eingeht. Wohl hat auch sie einen Entwickelungs oder Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note E. 421 vielmehr Entfaltungsprozess, aber nicht wie die Zeit, und darum nicht irgend zeitlich-parallel mit der Zeit. Sie ist die Existenzform der Idee, des vollkommenen Lebens, das als Leben eben nichts weniger denn stagnirt, wahrend die Zeit die Form ist in welcher die Entwicklung durch die Momente der Unvollkommenheit (in einem auschliessen- den Nacheinander) verlauft. Die Zeit ist nur eine besond- ere Erscheinugsweise des creatiirlichen Seyns, welche aus der Ewigkeit der Idee hervorbricht und in sie wieder ein- geht, ohne in ihr selbst eine zeitliche Unterbrechung zu verursachen. Man kann desshalb im Grunde auch nicht sagen, dass die Ewigkeit vor der Zeit oder nach der Zeit sei, ebenso wenig als wahrend, nemlich zeitlich-wahrend der Zeit. Die Zeit ist fur die Ewigkeit und fur das ewige Bewusstsein ein Moment, und zwar wiederum nicht ein zeitlich messbarer, wiewohl er sich in der Zeit und fur das zeitliche Bewusstseyn als eine unubersehbare Folge aus- einanderlegt " (p. 67)]. Having further elaborated this doc- trine of the relation of eternity to time and of heaven to earth, Schoberlein goes on to apply the doctrine to Christ, thus: " Transferring this now to the Son of God, who as Son of man lives here below, we understand how His di- vine Being existed neither temporally nor spatially out- side His earthly personality, but His eternal glory and His temporal self-exinanition, His dwelling in heaven and conversation on earth, His eternal and His temporally un- folding love were equally included in it. But this eternal heavenly being and activity never entered into His experi- ence in so far as He entered into the world with temporal human consciousness, not to mention that He never used it for Himself or for His redemption work. But even as, to our mind, the eternal life appears as a life purely be- yond, although we through faith bear it within us here be- low, so was it with Him; only with the difference that it represented itself to Him not simply as future, but as past, because He had already had a place as an Ego in the Trinity before the Incarnation. Therefore when He spoke out of His own immediate consciousness, He spoke of a glory which He had with the Father, and which the Father will give Him again; and yet at other times He re- 422 The Humiliation of Christ. ferred very distinctly to a presence and immanence of this heavenly being and rule in His person, when He spoke as a teacher, and not out of immediate experience, so that we must maintain a real Hivoo6i6is, und doch zugleich die ht>76is, ja xp>J6 li > ohne upvipn, von der gottlichen 86za des menschgewordenen Gottessohnes be- haupten miissen " (pp. 69, 70).] The EnglisJi Essayist keeps clear of the metaphysics by which the German theologian endeavours to justify the theory of a double life — that is, a real yet relative kenosis. He simply asserts its possibility in the following terms: ''And this brings me to the supposed metaphysical con- Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note E. 423 tradiction in the fact of Incarnation, which I used to think fatal. That difficulty was, that an infinite being could not become finite, or take up a human form, except as a mere simulated appearance. To me it would be far more painful to believe in the unreality of Christ's finite nature and human condition, than to give up Christianity alto- gether; in fact, it would involve giving up Christ to believe it for a moment. But this metaphysical contradiction, which once seemed so formidable, does not now exist for me at all. That the Son of God, even though eternal, co- eternal with the Father, may pass through any changes through which any derived being may pass, seems unde- niable. When we note how little the powers which we ourselves possess, and which seem to belong to us, are identified with our personality, — how, by a stroke of paraly- sis, for example, a man of genius is stripped of all his richest qualities of mind, and reduced to a poor solitary Ego, — or, if that be not so, how he lives in two worlds, in one of which he is feeble, helpless, isolated will, and in the other (if there be another in which he is still his old self) a man of genius still, — when we note this, it seems to me to be simply the most presumptuous of all presumptuous assump- tions to deny that the Son of God might have really become what He seemed to be, a finite being, a Jew of Jewish thought and prepossessions, and liable to all the intellec- tual errors which distinguished the world in which He lived. If there is an indestructible moral individuality which con- stitutes self, which is the same when wielding the largest powers and when it sits alone at the dark centre, which, for anything I know, may even live under a double set of conditions at the same time, I can see no metaphysical contradiction in the Incarnation" (pp. 259, 260). Mr. Hut- ton, in speaking of Christ's temptation, represents His superiority to all temptations as arising out of the predom- inant passion of His will, which " prevented the slightest trembling in the balance" (p. 261). It will be observed that the author goes a considerable length in the assertion of Christ's ignorance, making Him share the prejudices of a Jew and the intellectual errors of His time. The state- ment of opinion here does not seem sufficiently guarded 424 The Humiliation of Christ. Does not the all-important limit without sin exclude pre- judices into which a moral element enters, and all errors, even intellectual ones, which would influence conduct ? Note F.— Page 166. I am acquainted with the theological views of Zinzendorf only through J. A. Bengel's Abriss der so genannten Brilder- gemeine, and the recently published work of Plitt, Zinzen- dorf 's Tlieologie dargestcllt von D. Hermann Plitt, Gotha 1869-74. In the first volume of the last-named work the author gives an account of the original sound doctrine of Zinzendorf, as taught by him during the period 1723-1742; in the second he gives the history of the time of morbid malformations in Zinzendorf s doctrinal system (1743-1750); and in the third he exhibits that system in its restored final form, as set forth in works published between 1750 and 1760. Plitt disputes the accuracy of the representation given by Schneckenburger and others of the Zinzendorfian Christology, as of a purely metamorphic character. He admits, of course, that the Christ of Zinzendorf, especially during the second period, is to all intents and purposes a man whose Godhead, far from being apparent to others, was for the most part hidden from Himself. But he denies that the Zinzendorfian Christ is one who has ceased to be God, and quotes passages to show that Zinzendorf con- ceived of the Incarnation as the assumption of a human soul with a body, and taught an indissoluble hypostatic union of the humanity so assumed and the Godhead. He thinks that the idea present to Zinzendorfs mind was, that in the Incarnation an intimate union was freely formed by the divine Ego with a human soul, and through it with a body, in virtue of which the God-man in the ground of His faeing continued to be God, but completed His collective outward and inward life in human form. Therein was in- volved not an essential and central, but a modal peripheral alteration of His Godhead. [In Zinzendorfs own words: Ji Der Heiland hat von seinen Schatzen und Herrlichkeiten, die er als Sohn und rechtmassiger Besitzer rov itdv hatte, schon disponirt, da er seine Gottheit verlassen hat bei dei Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note F. 425 xivco6ii, beim Hingang in die Zeit, in der Mutter Leib als das erste Grab. Sie blieben ein depositum in der Hand des Vater, sowie er hernach am Kreutze seine Seele auch deponirte bis zur Wiedervereinigung mit der menschlichen Hulle" (ii. p. 166).] The kenosis is here asserted in strong terms; yet Zinzendorf guards himself against a view of the kenosis which excludes the Unto hypostatica, as when he says: " In the kenosis the reference is not to the inhesive divinity, zoo Beia>: He was God throughout. One cannot conceive of a finger, hair, or morsel of skin which stood not in a unione hypostatica with His Godhead." [" Die Rede ist bei der Kenosis nicht von seiner inhasiven Gottlichkeit, tgd Qeicq: er ist Gott gewesen alle Augenblicke. Man kann sichkeinen Finger, kein Harlein,kein Hautlein vom Heilande concipiren, das nicht in einer unione hypostatica mit seiner Gottheit stiinde " (ii. p. 166).] Plitt cites one passage in which Zinzendorf seems inclined even to entertain the idea of a double life of the Logos, one of passivity of qui- escence in the man Jesus, and one of full activity in relation to the world. [The words are: " Es ware fur den Schopfer der Welt nicht zu viel wenn er zugleich die ganze Welt regiert hatte und ware zugleich Zimmermann in Nazaret gewesen. Denn es ist bekannt, dass es Leute gibt, die zugleich schreiben und dictiren und zugleich horen konnen " (ii. p. 174).] The truth appears to be, that Zinzendorf had tio carefully thought out consistent theory of Christ's per- son, but expressed himself in strong unqualified language on whatever aspects of the subject were congenial to his religious feelings, and so gave utterance to views not easily reconcilable with each other, and referable to different types of the kenotic theory. Plitt remarks: " Ontologically and psychologically considered, Zinzendorf is not the ade- quate representative of his own fundamental views (Grund- anschauung). But we know that properly speculative ques- tions are not his affair, and that escapade (Auschreitung, i.e. the double life of the Logos), in a psychological respect, is only a hasty thought thrown out hypothetically as a meta- physical possibility which he has no wish to make his own " (ii. p. 174). The kenosis seems to have been conceived by Zinzendorf habitually as absolute, not relative, as in the 426 The Humiliation of Christ. following passage: " kxevaxjsv iavr6v\ with His whole heart He disengaged Himself from the work and activity of His proper Godhead, when He had to enter, and wished to enter, into time. He delivered over to His Father the government of the world so heartily, so directly, so plenarie, that all things whereof He was the sole Lord and Master appeared to Him when on earth not otherwise than as His Father's business . . . and He had received all out of His Father's hand, into which He had Himself previously placed all " [" kuivoo6Ev iavrov; er hat sich von ganzen Herz- en, da er in die Zeit gehen sollte und gehen wollte, von der Wirkung und Activitat seiner eigenen Gottheit losgesagt. Er hatte seinem Vater das Regiment liber die Welt so herzlich, so gerade, so ptenarie iibertragen, dass alle Dinge, davon er doch allein der Herr und Meister war, zu der Zeit, da er auf Erden wandelte, ihm nicht anders vorgekommen sind, als seines Vaters Geschafte. . . und er Alles aus seines Vaters Hand genommen hat, in die er zuvor Alles erst selbst gestellet hat " (ii. p. 172).] How complete the kenosis was in Zinzendorf's view may be gathered from such a statement as this, that as the man Jesus Christ was ignorant of all sorts of things, He, at least at times, did not know, or had it not present to His thoughts, that He was God (ii. p. 172). Also from the graphic descriptions given of the psychological life and human development of Jesus as a boy, a youth, and a man; and in His various relations to the Jewish hierarchy, the political authorities, and so- ciety; and in His work as Redeemer. As a child, Jesus was a diligent scholar, and got His head filled with Bible texts, but also with much Rabbinical rubbish; for He was no spiritus particidaris, He had a spiritus universalis cathol- iats; He was a man who from earliest childhood practised obedience, and whose work was not to inquire whether His parents or the Rabbis in Nazareth were right or wrong. [" Er war von einer viel zu simplen Art und ordinairem Naturell, als dass er sich sollte die Miihe gegeben haben, in seiner Vorfahren Anordnung zu storen, zu raffiniren, und zu scrupuliren, oder objectiones gegen seine Anfuhrer zu machen; sondern ich glaube von Herzen, was sie ihm vorgelegt haben zu lernen das hat er gelernt."] But the Appendix. — Lecture IV. — Note F. 427 Holy Spirit helped Him, expounding the true to Him, making Him forget the superfluous, gathering for Him the quintessence, aumni ex stercore, and writing it on His heart (ii. pp. 175, 176). The description of the Temptation is very graphic. Jesus had been weakened in body and mind by forty days' fasting, so that " when Satan came upon Him with all his angelic power and panurgy, the Saviour was directly, as we say, a man without head, did not know where His head stood, and the Holy Spirit, whose foster- child and Jesulein (little Jesus) He was, had to suggest to Him at the moment three little words, which might meet the exigencies of the hour." [" Da der Satan ihm mit aller seiner Engelskraft und Panurgie auf den Hals trat, der Heiland gerade, wie man redt, ein Mensch ohne Kopf sein, nicht mehr hat wissen sollen, wo ihm der Kopf steht, und der heilige Geist, dessen Pflegekind und Jesulein er wai. ihm zu der Stunde hat miissen drei Spruchelchen einfallen lassen, die da haben ausrichten konnen, was zu der Stunde auszurichten war " (ii. p. 183).] Even in working miracle* — as in raising Lazarus — the human weakness of Jesus ap- pears. The rising of Lazarus was, according to Zinzendorf. the only instance of bringing a dead person back to life Therefore, when Jesus learned that Lazarus was dead and buried- — therefore really dead, — He was troubled in spirit (lest He should not be able to raise him). Arrived at the grave, He prayed, "as a child can pray now, a prayer which sounded like the answers which He had given in the desert and on the pinnacle of the temple. All ordinary authority, all His cheerful manner ceased; He behaved quite humanly, and as one quite disheartened. He might also mark that that was His last miracle, and that the wickedness of the people would become so great over the present miracle that it would certainly cost Him His life. The full status exinanitionis was therefore there. And when the deed was done, and the dead man raised, and God had heard Him, He went away at length to His own predestined death, with passion- and death-fear." ["Wie ein Kind beten kann heutzutage, ein Gebet, das naturlich klang, wie die Antworten, die er in der Wusten und auf der Zinne des Tempels gegeben. Alle gewohnliche Autoritat. 428 The Humiliation of Christ. alle seine muntere Art cessirte, es ging ganz menschlich zu ganz kleinlaut. Er mochte auch merken, dass das sei-n letztes Wunder sein und die Bosheit der Leute so gross werden wiirde liber dem itzigen Wunder, dass es ihm nun gevviss sein Leben kosten wiirde. Es war also der voile status exinanitonis da. Und da es nun geschehen war, und er den Todten auferweckt, und Gott ihn erhort hatte, so ging er endlich an seinen bestimmten Tod mit Liedens- und Todesfurcht " (ii. p. 184).] Note G.— Page 169. Cyril refers to the metamorphic theory of the Incarnation in his work Adverstis Nestorium, lib. i. cap. i. , where he expresses the opinion, to put it briefly, that kenosis in the metamorphic sense, or in the sense of dopotentiation, is excluded by the skenosis. Having quoted John i. 14, he says: "The Word became flesh, manifesting the power of the true union, that, of course, which is conceived xaQ' vit66xa6iv; but because He also says that He sojourned among us, He does not allow us to think of the Logos, by nature from God, as passing over into earth-born flesh. I fancy an ill-instructed person might think that the divine uncreated nature was susceptible of change, and could part with its essential properties and be transformed into some- thing different from what it is, and by alterations be subjected to the measures of the creature." ["2«'p«a«iv e'q>t] toy Xoyov, rrji dXtj^ovi svoodsaoi, 8fjXov Se oti viji xaV vnd6ra.6iv voovuivrji, £/uirj6i voelv e£? ddpxa tt}v and yr}$ tov £h Qeov xctTd cpvdiv jnsTaxoopi}dai Xoyov. ' ' Ch'firj juev dv oif.iai, tiS tqov ov Xi'av r/xpifiaaxoToov o ri itoxi 16tiv t? Oeia te xai yswr/Tov navToi krtEHEiva q>v6iS, ra'^a itov xai TpoTtijS sivai SsxTixrjv avTJjv, xat xa.Tapq.fjvufjo'ai uev Svva60ai tgov iSioov, xai ov6iooSr}xE zovS ovpavovi, C. xix.); that Christ could sin, because He was made in the likeness of men, c xxiii. In c. xviii. of this treatise, Cyril discusses at some length another form of the kenotic theory, viz. that the Son, as to the dignity of His divinity, was still with the Father when He became man and was on the earth; but that, as to His hypostasis, He was not [Kekevooto ydp ndda, w? avroi qxxtfi, xai vioriHr/ vTt66ra6iS eh te rdov ovpavdov, nod avrcSv zwv TtazpiHcov k6\tiqov~\. In the former form of the theory the kenosis affects both nature and person of the Logos; in the latter, the person only. LECTURE VI. Note A.— Page 263. THE question has been discussed by writers on Chris- tology, whether Christ had any particular temperament. The advocates of the ideality of Christ's humanity, whether those who believe Christ to be more than man, or only man, agree in answering the question in the negative. Thus Ebrard maintains that the pleromatic man was, on the one hand, endowed with all natural as well as spiritual gifts, though these gifts might not be all developed, His vooation not requiring it ; and on the other, was free from all one-sided- ness of endowment, and also of temperament {Dogmatik, ii. 23). Martensen, to the same effect, remarks: " As every man has in his temperament for his development not only a sup- porting foundation, but a confining limit, it belongs to the sinlessness of the second Adam that He is not bound in the sinful one-sidedness of temperament, as it belongs to His ideal perfection that no single temperament can be regarded as predominating in Him. We find in the new Adam, as well the careless light mind, which lets every day have its own trouble, who is unconcerned as the lily in the field and the bird under the heaven, as also the deep pain-fraught sensibility, out of whose inmost heart, in a much wider sense than out of the old prophet, the com- plaint resounds: ' Where is there a sorrow like my sorrow ?' We find in Him, as well the quiet spirit unmoved by the world, as the powerfully-stirred, vehement, and zealous spirit, while none of these contrasts is perverted into one- sidedness " {Dogmatik, p. 259). Liebner takes a similar view {Christologic, p. 315). On the other hand, Keim finds Appendix. — Lectttre VI. — Note A. 431 in the gospel records clear traces of individual idiosyncrasy. He ascribes to Jesus a combination of the choleric, san- guine, and melancholic temperaments, and regards Him in this combination as a genuine Jew, a Jew of the strongest southern melancholy type. [" In der Wahrnehmungslust ein Sanguiniker, im Feuereifer ein Choleriker, in Beidem ein achter Galilaer, ist er durch seinen Frommigkeitszug, wie er ihn durch Erziehung anlernte und von Natur immer schon im Vollmass besass, ein achtester Jude schlechthin, ja ein Jude vom kraftigsten sudlichen melancholischen Typus gewesen "] (Geschichte Jesu, Dritte Bearbeitung, 1873, pp. Ill, 112). Of the melancholy religious disposi- tion, Keim finds proof in the love of solitude and of re- ligious devotion. He discovers no trace of the phlegmatic temperament (vid. Jesu von Nasara, i. 442). It is proba- bly not advisable to enter into minute discussions on such a question; but I confess I see no evidence in the gospel of that generalized humanity which the advocates of the Ideal Man theory are so fond of ascribing to Jesus. I see in Him traces of a strongly marked, though not one-sided, individuality — poetry, passion, intensity, vehemence, all that gives pathos, power, and human interest to character, even humour not excepted. Generally speaking, the reality, not the ideality, of the humanity is the thing that lies on the surface; although the latter is not to be denied, nor the many-sidedness which is adduced in proof of it by Martensen and others. Note B. — Page 268. In the text I have made no reference to the views enter- tained on the subject of the flesh by those whose theolog- ical opinions are controlled by a naturalistic philosophy. I propose to give a brief account and criticism of these in this note. Theologians of this school, then, bluntly deny the possibility of a real, thoroughgoing experience of temptation without the presence in the flesh of sinful pro- clivity. They maintain that such sinful proclivity did exist in Christ's flesh, and that to teach anything else is to give a doketic view of His humanity, in this agreeing with the Adoptianists, Menken and Irving. They maintain further, 432 The Humiliation of Christ. and in this they go beyond the theologians just referred to, that sinful proclivity is inseparable from the flesh, is nc mere accident of the/rt//, but an essential characteristic of the 6dpi. In fact, they do not believe in a fall at all, or in any change in the physical constitution of human nature. They regard the " fall " as a fiction of church theology, arrived at by an illegitimate combination of Paul's doctrine concerning the 6dpi in the 7th chapter of Romans with his doctrine of sin coming into the world through Adam in the 5th. The true origin of sin is the proclivity to sin in- herent in the flesh; it was this that gave rise to sin in Adam, it is this which gives rise to sin in all men. When it said that sin came into the world through Adam, it is merely meant that he was the first person in whom the sinful propensity of the 6dpi manifested itself. This doctrine of the inherent sinful proclivity of the 6dpi it is maintained, is the doctrine taught in the New Testament, and especially in the Epistles of [Paul. In this opinion Baur, Pfleiderer, and Holsten concur. In proof, Baur points to the peculiar phrase employed by Paul to describe our Lord's humanity in Rom. viii. 3: " God sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh" {iv 6/uoioojuan 6apx6i djuapnai), which he says is an attempt to cover an antinomy between the sinlessness of Christ's character and the sinfulness in- separable from corporeal life. Even Christ's flesh was sinful, but reverence would not permit Paul to say so; therefore, in- stead of saying in the flesh of sin, he adopts the milder phrase: "in the likeness of the flesh of sin; " so saving Christ's per- sonal holiness by the adoption of a virtually doketic view of His humanity ( Vorlesungcn iiber neiitestamentlicJie Theologie, p. 189). Pfleiderer seeks to prove the same position by laying stress on the epithet 6dpuivoi in Rom. vii. 14. Assuming that adjectives in ivos always denote the material out of which anything is made, he interprets the passage thus: I am made of flesh, I have a material body, therefore I am sold under sin. That is, man is 6apHix6s, opposed to good in his life tendency, because he is 6dpKivos; that is, " because he has flesh-matter for His substance, in the fact of his being physically flesh lies the inevitable ground of his moral fleshliness " (Paulinismus, p. 56). Pfleiderer agrees Appe?idix. — Lecture VI. — Note B. 433 with Baur in the interpretation of the phrase already quoted from Rom. viii., finding in it traces of one of the antinomies with which Paulinism abounds. And along with this, it is interesting to note, goes a construction put by him and others of the same school on the death of Christ, similar to that given by the Adoptianists and Irving. Christ's death was the crucifixion of His own sinful flesh, and by way of type and first-fruits, of the sinful flesh of His people. The condemnation of sin in the flesh, spoken of in Rom. viii. 3, signifies the judicial execution of sin as centred in Christ's own flesh. Holsten expresses similar views in his work, Zum Evangelium dies Petrus und des Paulus. Now there arc several facts which raise a strong pre- sumption against the truth of this Manichaean interpre- tation of Paul's teaching on the subject of the flesh. In the first place, it is decidedly un- Hebrew. Secondly, accord- ing to this theory the flesh must be regarded as unsancti- fiable, whereas in Paul's Epistles it is not so regarded. Sometimes, indeed, it might seem as if the apostle did regard the flesh as hopelessly evil, as when he speaks of killing the deeds of the body, and in the phrase: " this body of death." But in other places the body is represented as the subject of sanctification not less than the soul or spirit, as in I Cor. vi., where the body is called the temple of the Holy Ghost, and it is set forth as a duty arising directly out of the consciousness of redemption to glorify God in the body; and in 2 Cor. vii. 1, in which it is set forth as a Christian duty to cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit — the same need and the same pos- sibility of sanctification being implied in both cases. In proof that this text bears against the theory of the essential sinfulness of the flesh being Pauline, it may be mentioned that Holsten disputes its genuineness, the whole passage from vi. 14 to vii. 1 being, he thinks, foreign to the Pauline mode of thought {Zum Evangel, p. 387). Yet, again, against this Manichaean interpretation is the consideration that such a doctrine, teaching a dualistic opposition be- tween flesh and spirit, and implying that the flesh, as dis- • inct from the spirit, is essentially evil, ought to be accom- panied by a pagan Eschatology, that is, by the doctrine 434 The Humiliation of Christ. that the life after death will be a purely spiritual disem- bodied one. Such, however, was not the view of Paul; the object of his hope being not the immortality of the naked soul, but the immortality of man, body and soul, implying a resurrection of the dead, — a noteworthy fact, whatever difficulties may beset the distinction taken by Paul between the natural body and the spiritual body. The exegetical argument in support of the interpretation in question is by no means unassailable. Granting that 6dpxivos in Rom. vii. 14 means fleshy, " of flesh," not carnal in the ethical sense, the text does not necessarily mean every man who possesses a material organism is inevitably a slave to sin. We can assign a definite meaning to 6dpxivoz with- out going that length, and that whether we take the sentence as containing a personal statement about Paul himself, or as a statement about humanity at large, per- sonal in form, universal in scope. Take it as a personal statement, we can easily see why Paul should here prefer tidpxivoz to 6apxix6i. The latter epithet conveys the idea of a man whose whole character and conduct are under the dominion of the fleshly mind. But he could not consist- ently characterize himself thus, and at the same time rep- resent himself as he does immediately after as with his mind serving the law of God. He must divide himself into two parts, vous and 6d.pi, and indicate distinctly the side of his double self on which he is open to the influence of evil. This he does by the use of 6apxivoz. It is as if he had said: I am vovs voijriHoi, and so far I am on the side of good; but I am also 6dpi, 6dpHivo$, and on that side of my nature I am on the side of evil. The statement certainly implies that for some reason or other the 6dp\ has an evil bias, but it conveys no hint as to the cause of this bias. It is a fact of consciousness, not a philosophico-anthropological doctrine that is enunciated. Take the statement, again, as a univer- sal one, the I who speaks being not the individual ego of Paul, but the ego of the race: in this case also we can see the appropriateness of the term 6dpxivoz as serving to give universality to the proposition. It may be or it may not be true of every man that he is 6apxix6s, ca.ma.\\y-minded — that is a proposition to be proved, not assumed; but it is Appendix. — Lecture VI. — Note B. 435 certainly true of every man that he is 6dpuivos. And this being certain, it is further certain that every man is more or less in bondage to sin. That seems to be what Paul means to convey in this verse. It is in effect a syllogism. Wherever there is flesh there is sin; I am partaker of flesh, therefore I am under law to sin. But does this syllogism imply a metaphysical doctrine, to the effect that flesh, organized matter, from its own inherent nature involves for all associated with it enslavement to sin ? No; it implies that sinful bias is universal in the human race, but not that it is absolutely necessary. The categories of universality and necessity are not co-extensive. After it has been ascertained that as a matter of fact sinful bias inheres in human nature viewed as ensouled flesh, all the world over, it remains to be determined whence comes this universal bias. It may arise from the nature of matter, or it may be an accident, a vice of nature, introduced at a given time, and transmitted by inheritance. Both of these explanations have been given, and we are not entitled to assume that either of them is, as a matter of course, the correct one. Passing now to the other text, Rom. viii. 3. With refer- ence to the phrase: kv ouok&ju. 6. d., there are two questions — (1) Is the emphasis to be laid on the likeness or on the implied unlikeness ? (2) Do the words 6dpi duapria? con- stitute a single idea, implying that sin is an essential at- tribute of the flesh, or are they separable, so that duapriai points at an accidental, though it maybe universal, property of the 6dpi ? As to the former, the implied unlikeness is regarded as the thing to be emphasized by Baur, Zeller, and Hilgenfeld, and the interpretation they put on the clause is, that Paul regarded sin as an essential property of flesh (thus making 6dpi df-iapriaz a single idea); but he hesitated to ascribe to Christ sinful flesh, and therefore said not that Christ was made sinful flesh, but that He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, implying likeness in all re- spects, sin excepted. Others, among whom may be specially mentioned Ludemann (Die Anthropologic des Ap. Paulus), agreeing with the fore-mentioned writers in taking 6dpi d/uaprias as one idea, differ from them in regard to Smoigj/u., emphasizing not the unlikeness, but the likeness, and hold- 436 The H7imiliatio7i of Christ. ing that it is Paul's purpose boldly to teach that God furnished His Son with a flesh made exactly like ours, in this special respect that it, too, was a flesh of sin. Not that Liidemann means to say that Paul did not believe in the sinlessness of Christ. He contends that this does not follow, and that there is no antinomy involved, such as Pfleiderer asserts. For though duapria was immanent in the flesh of Christ, as in that of other men, it was only objective sin, not subjective — it never came to napdfiatiis; it was prevented from doing so by the ayiov nvev/xa, who guided all Christ's conduct, and kept the flesh in perfect subjection. A third class of interpreters, such as Weiss and Hofmann, follow the old orthodox view, which treats 6d.p\ and duapria as expressive of separable ideas, and take oMoiaJjua as implying a limitation of likeness in respect of the sinfulness of ordinary human nature. Now, none of these three interpretations is exegetically self-evident. They are all exegetically admissible, and our decision must turn upon other considerations. I may observe that, assuming Baur's view of ev 6/iioiayju. to be correct, it is an argument in favour of the separability of py<3i