Immagini della pagina
PDF

haps, that in the use of this title we lose sight somewhat of the humanity of the Saviour, as we do not when we use the word Christ, which, though it be an official title, never realized the object for which it stood until it found the Godhead and manhood united in one person. But while there was a Son * of God before, there was no Christ until the incarnation; therefore no other word can so well symbolize the union of the two natures, whereof is one Christ, as this we have named. At this point we present the decision of the Council of Chalcedon in the fifth century: “That in Christ there is one person; in the unity of the person two natures, the divine and the human; and that there is no change, or mixture, or confusion of these two natures, but that each retains its own distinguishing properties.” With this formula agrees the Athanasian creed: “Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting—who, although he be God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ: one, not by the conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God; one altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person ; for as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ.” The creed of our own Church, copied almost verbatim from that of the Church of England, comports most happily with those ancient symbols of believers in Christ. “The Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed virgin; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man.” At the union of these two natures the name Logos is dropped as no longer applicable to the new personality. Christ is never called the Logos, and the Logos is never called Christ. As at present existing, we are not at liberty to think of the Logos separately from humanity—Christ is never to be divided. Now whatever is the difference between the Logos and the Logos made flesh, is the difference between the Logos and Christ. Christ is the Logos and something more; namely, that which was born of the virgin united with the Logos. And as until ' the incarnation there was no Christ, no union of the Godhead and manhood, whereof is one Christ, so after that event, though

the Logos remained, the union of God with man, forming a new hypostasis, rendered that name (we speak reverently) inadequate to describe the person as now existing. To call the person Christ the Logos is to affirm the divinity of Christ's humanity, because that humanity helps to constitute the personality. To constitute such a personality each nature is essenfial; and whatever is done or suffered by either nature is done and suffered by the person Christ; and whatever is affirmed of either nature is affirmed of the person, to the extent that each nature constitutes the personality. But it does not follow, nor is it true, that what is done and suffered by and affirmed of each nature is done and suffered by and affirmed of the other also. The two natures, though united, are distinct—they are neither mixed nor blended. This person is divine; the character of the personality being determined by and in favor of the higher nature, which is a divine nature. Or, perhaps, to speak with greater theological accuracy, we should say that impersonal humanity was taken up by the hypostatic union into the person of the Son of God, and this person is divine. But because this person is . divine, we may not hence conclude that he is all divinity—he is, humanity as well. This subject finds, perhaps, its most adequate illustration in the hypostatical union of the human soul and body. Man is a spiritual being, yet he is not all spirit; he is also said to be mortal, yet the better part of him never dies. So we say that Christ was born and that he died, but we do not understand either that divinity was born or that it could die; and though truly enough affirmed, it is true only in so far as humanity constitutes the person Christ. Christ suffered death, but clearly he suffered it in his human nature. We therefore broadly distinguish between this nature of the divine person and the divine nature of that person. If it be true that both the divine and human natures are essential in order to constitute the person Christ, it will follow that if either the Godhead or manhood be taken away the person would no longer exist. Take away the divinity, and we have a man; take away the manhood, and we have the Logos; unite the two, and we have the divine person Christ; yet not all of that person is God, though the Godhead constitutes by far the greater part of the personality. To affirm compre

hensively of the whole person Christ that he is God, is to affirm the divinity of his humanity. But the apostle says, not that Christ is God, but that “Christ is God’s.” If the person Christ be God, then the blood of God was shed, and God suf. fered and died. The difference between God and Christ is precisely the difference, whatever that may be, there is between the God and “God manifest in the flesh.” Christ is not usually called God, but the “Son of God.” In those instances where he is called “God,” “The mighty God,” “The everlasting Father,” it is as evident that respect is had to his divinity, as that his humanity alone is intended when he is presented to our minds as a “child born,” a “Son given,” and is called “vine,” “door,” and “servant.” The chemistry which thus resolves this person into his primary or constituent elements is divine. The laboratory is the Bible. And we trust we have not presumed to take upon ourselves the high office of determining anything beyond what is written therein, or fairly deducible therefrom. Christ, says the Athanasian symbol, is one; one, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. In respect to personality, Christ is undivided. In a good sense Christ was born in Bethlehem, and grew in stature, and in favor with God and man. It was Christ who was tempted, and it is Christ who is able to succor them that are tempted. It was Christ who wept at the grave of Lazarus, and it was he who raised Lazarus from the dead. It was Christ who died, and it was Christ who plucked the sting from death, and robbed the grave of its victory. And, blessed be God! it is Christ who ever liveth to make intercession for us. But from this absolute unity of personality it does not follow that we may not refer the things said of and done by Christ, some to one nature and some to the other. The doctrine of unity is not at all contravened by saying that this . affirmation made by Christ refers to his divine nature, and that to his human nature; that Godhead did this, and that manhood suffered that ; for what the Godhead did was done by Christ, and what the manhood suffered was suffered by Christ. Take the passage already referred to, Isaiah ix, 6: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given: his name shall be called The mighty God, The everlasting Father.”

Now as it was only the humanity that was born of the virgin, so of Christ it is the divine nature alone that can sustain the wondrous names, The mighty God, The everlasting Father. The same necessity is upon us of distinguishing between the natures of Christ, if we consider what he did and suffered, and what he said concerning himself. Take, for example, his temptation. The doctrine of the “unity of the person’’ justifies the declaration that Christ was tempted; and yet we have she authority of an apostle for saying that God cannot be tempted of evil, neither tempteth he any man. In the temptation, therefore, we must count out the diviné nature, and the humanity. of Christ, as exposed to it, is what there is remaining. Take again those two declarations of Christ concerning himself: “I and my Father are one”—“My Father is greater than I.” Now it is philosophically impossible that any essence should be one with and yet inferior to the same thing. But what is affirmed is true of Christ, because in the unity of his person there is not oneness or confusion of substance, but two dissimilar natures, concerning which, as in this case, opposite things, and things seemingly in conflict, may be truly and justly affirmed. In respect to his divine nature Christ and his Father were one—the “Logos was God;” but his humanity alone being regarded, and his Father was greater than he. Christ wept at the grave of Lazarus;"but can the divine nature weep . On the cross Christ exclaimed, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Did the divine nature join with the human in this cry? or can divinity forsake itself? Christ died on the cross; but did the divine Logos die? Who would hesitate to say that Christ suffered death on the cross And yet who would claim that he suffered it in more than his human nature Again Christ is declared to be both the “root and offspring of David”—“David's Lord and David's son.” Of the undivided person, Christ, this is strictly true; but it is true only of his divinity that he is David's root and Lord, as it is true only of his humanity that he is the offspring and son of David.

This just distinction, and method of interpretation based upon it, have had the almost unanimous support of the great masters in theology. “Does any one ask,” says Mr. Watson, “if Jesus Christ was truly God, how he could be born and die 2

Fou RTH SERIES, Vol. XVI.-31

[ocr errors]

how his soul could be exceeding sorrowful even unto death?” be “forsaken of his father o' purchase the Church with “his own blood s” etc., etc. The answer is, that he was also man. If, on the other hand, it be a matter of surprise that a visible man should heal diseases at his will, and without referring to any higher authority, as he often did, be associated with the Father in solemn ascriptions of glory and thanksgiving, and bor even the awful names of God, names of description and revelation, names which express divine attributes, what is the answer . The only hypothesis explanatory of all these

statements is, that Christ is God as well as man. He says

again, “This distinction is expressed, in modern theological language, by considering some things which are spoken of Christ as said of his divine, others of his human nature; and he who takes this principle of interpretation along with him will seldom find any difficulty in apprehending the sense of the sacred writers, though the subjects themselves be often, to human minds, inscrutable.” Says Bishop Burnet, “A man is called tall, fair, and healthy, from the state of his body; and learned, wise, and good, from the qualities of his mind: so Christ is called holy, harmless, and undefiled; is said to have died, risen, and ascended up into heaven, with relation to his human nature: he is also said to be in ‘the form of God, to have created all things, to be the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express image of his person,’ with relation to his divine nature.” Calvin, Knapp, and others might be quoted to the same effect; but Paul, a greater than any of these, makes precisely this distinction, when he says of Christ, that he was “made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” The objection that this view of the subject divides Christ, is quite too shallow to merit a labored reply. We see in a piece of machinery, for instance, iron and wood combined; we say that the iron is used for this purpose, and the wood for that; but we do not have to separate them, nor divide nor destroy the machinery in order to distinguish between their properties, and the uses to which those properties are put. It is thus we are compelled to distribute to the two natures of Christ the properties belonging to each, rendering to God the things that are God's, and to humanity the things belonging to humanity, not failing to observe mean

« IndietroContinua »