« AnteriorContinuar »
pleased not the Word or Wisdom of God the A. V. “among us” against to take to itself some one person, amongst Hooker's “ in us.” But, is it the men, for then should that one have been advanced and no more, but Wisdom, to
usage of the sacred writers, is it St. the end she might save many, built her John's usage, to express the idea of house of that Nature, which is common man, as a universal, by the“plural” unto all ; she made not this or that man
of the first personal pronoun ? “God her habitation, but dwelt in us. The
made man upright;
» 66 The Sabbath seeds of herbs and plants at the first are not in act, but in possibility, that
was made for man;
» 66 Unto the which they afterwards grow to be. If angels hath He not subjected this the Son of God had taken to Himself
world to come... buti .. what is a man, now made and already perfected,
man;" and St. John, in the very next it would of necessity follow there are in Christ two persons, the one assuming and chapter to that quoted “ He knew the other assumed; whereas the Son of what was in man. Would not the God did not assume a man's person, unto Evangelist have naturally said, His own, but a man's nature to His own Person, and therefore took semen (the
“dwelt in man,” if he had meant italics are Hooker's own), the seed of
human nature as an abstraction or Abraham, the very first original element logical universal? Again "the Aposof our nature, before it was come to have tle, denying the assumption of Angeliany personal human subsistence. The flesh
cal nature, saith likewise in the plural and the conjunction of the flesh with God, began both at one instant, His making
number · He took not Angels, but the and taking to Himself our flesh was but seed of Abraham.'” But “the seed one act, so that in Christ there is no of Abraham " is not “in the plural personal subsistence but one, and that
number” as it surely ought to have from everlasting. By taking only the nature of man, He still continueth one
been, according to Hooker's canon, person, and changeth but the manner of if the antithesis had been “ the His subsisting, which was before in the nature of angels” and the nature of mere glory of the Son of God, and is now
The seed of Abraham differin the habit of our flesh.” (Hooker Eccl, Pol., Bk. 5, Chap. iii. 5.)
entiates and individualizes it. If
He took upon Him impersonality or As an exquisite specimen of
prepersonality, it was an individuaElizabethan word-architecture, this lized and differentiated impersonality is charming, in its quaint and mas
or prepersonality, namely, that “of sive picturesqueness; its
Abraham.” “ The Hebrews,” to "Rich windows, that exclude the light, whom this was written, could never
And passages, that lead to nothing.” understand “ the seed of Abraham ” But as an exegetical, scientific as a circumlocution for “ impersonal and logical tangle, it is most ad- human nature.” Besides, this is a monitory. Even Hooker's proverbial direct quotation from the Book of judiciousness declined to accompany
Genesis. When God said to Abrahim into such a region as this; for ham, “In thy seed shall all the there are speculative heights where nations," “ all the families of the the firmest intellects must falter, as
earth be blessed,” did He mean, In there are atmospheric elevations thy impersonality or in thy prepersonwhere the stoutest aeronauts find
5 shall all the nations, etc. ” ? their breathing and their brain most So much for pure exegesis ; now painfully affected. Let us glance
the blended science and first at the exegesis ; “• The Word exegesis of the passage : “ The seeds dwelt in us.' The Evangelist useth of herbs and plants at the first are the plural number, men for manhood, not in act, but in possibility, that us for the nature whereof we con- which they afterwards grow to be. sist.” We will not stay to defend ... The Son of God did not assume
a man's person unto His own, but a did not stay in posse, but rose to the man's nature to His own person, and most palpable and perfect esse. “ The therefore took semen, the seed of seed of Abraham” the Son of Abraham, the very first original | Abraham.” element of our nature, before it was When a theological theory can come to have any personal human neither hold out nor retreat without subsistence.”-Not before “the trespassing on the region of clondy very first original element of our metaphysics and pseudo-physics, it nature” had become individualized as has manoeuvered itself to a theolo“the seed of Abraham.” Moreover, gical Sedan, and must give " the seeds of herbs and plants” are its sword as gracefully as it may. as individual as the herbs and plants Dr. Hodge, however, (" Systematic of which they are the seeds. It is Theology." Vol. ii. P. 391,) does true that an acorn is an oak " not not scruple to summon up a dead in act, but in possibility;" but, for and buried philosophy to help a all that, no one individual oak could bewildered theological theory in its by “possibility” have grown from sorest straits. Having affirmed any other acorn than that particular « The Son of God did not unite acorn from which it " in act” did Himself with a human person, but grow. The
from which with a human nature," he perceives Deborah’s oak, Absalom's oak, the that he is talking in a dead philosoBoscobel oak respectively sprang, was phical dialect; so he adds: “Realevery whit as individual and defi- ists believe that generic humanity, nite as the oak itself. And so as although intelligent and voluntary, to all seeds. The grand Pauline is impersonal, existing personally, physiology luminously assigns “to only in individual men. Although every seed his own body.” Thus realism may not be a correct philosopersonality, in its common sense phy, the fact of its wide and longof definite individuality, cannot be continued prevalence may be taken disposed of by any such analogies ; as a proof that it does not involve but the contrary is greatly any palpable contradiction. Human strengthened by them. Further nature, therefore, although endowed more,
the human nature of our with intelligence and will, may be, Blessed Lord did not stop in an and in fact, is, in the person of arrested“ possibility;” but rose “in Christ impersonal." act” to the highest and most abso- 66 Hear him but reason in dilutely perfect development which is vinity !” to our nature possible.
6. The root “ Realism may not be a correct and the offspring of David” sprang philosophy up into the strong and stately stem, But Realism “ does not involve and His“ branch,” is “beautiful and any palpable contradiction.” * glorious," and His "fruit" though, "Human nature, therefore, in fact is, in one most precious sense “ of the in the person of Christ impersonal”! earth” is “ excellent and comely." This is as if theorizer in « The man Christ Jesus," or as Mr. astronomy, finding that his hypoPope emends, “Jesus Christ,"man* thesis will not fit in with the
Copernican system, should bring up 'Compendium of Christian Theology." P. 274 ; as also in his “ Person of Christ." The acute and learned author does not * Realism involves nothing palpable, explain this direct reversal of the order of impalpability being its main charac. the words in the Greek.
accurate to say
the Ptolemaic system, not to per- , affirm. They all devoutly maintain manent possession, but to meet a that nothing was wanting to the particular emergency and then retire human nature of Christ which goes into the shade. But this argu- to constitute personality in the mentative necromancy
will give human nature of any other human neither aid nor comfort to those who being. The fact is, they are necesresort to it in their extremity. The sitated to treat the Impersonality disquieted philosophy will yield to the dogma, as the Romanists treat the perplexed speculation no more en- Infallibility dogma. Historical facts couraging response than "To-morrow are very impracticable, but then, it shalt thou be with me.” But may
is necessary to their theory. The not even Realism itself complain of only writer we have met with, on a little exaggeration in the state- that side, who gives an, at first sight, ment of its tenets ? Is it quite forceful anticipatory reply to this
“Realists believe objection is Dr. Hodge : “ To perthat generic humanity, although sonality, both rational substance intelligent and voluntary, is imper- and distinct subsistence are essensonal” ? Do they not rather say
this means that that generic intelligence and generic the human nature of Christ having will included in generic
no separate existence from the humanity ? But the intelligence
Eternal Son of God, His personand the will of our Blessed Lord ality is precluded by that very fact. were not generic, but particular, as
But does not this prove infinitely Dr. Hodge, along with all orthodox too much ? The Second Person in divines, maintains. The“ Realists” the Trinity is no more separate or as well as the Nominalists would separable from “the man Christ tell you that the moment“ generic Jesus,” than “ the man is separate humanity
comes within the condi- or separable from the Son of God. tions of time and space, it ceases to If then separateness of existence be be generic, and becomes personal. necessary to personality, the Person A“ generic humanity" can scarcely of Christ has no personality whathave national, tribal, family distinc- ever,
either human or divine. tions : Be an Israelite “ a Jew," as So practically untenable is this our Blessed Lord
theory, that its advocates cannot tribe of Judah," and trace a long possibly adjust their language to it, genealogy of personal human beings, excepting in the act of asserting it. and own a cousin in the flesh of such Thus Dr. Hodge immediately after palpable personality as John the denying to our Lord any other than Baptist. How sad, if the Christ of a generic humanity,” quietly proTheology must present such a glar- ceeds to call Him 66 a man,” just ing contrast to the Christ of His- like any simple Christian who reads tory! the Jesus of the Evangelists his New Testament unembarrassed to the Jesus of the systematic / by any of these subtleties. Divines ! And this brings us to
V.-As to the perilousness of the another, in our view, fatal objection phrase, its hazardous proximity to to the impersonality theory as to the error, its superior adaptation to human nature of our Blessed Lord. many forms of misbelief than to the
IV.-Its advocates are obliged to not very clear conception to which concede in equivalent words what its advocates would affix it, we need they deny in the particular term, and not do more than refer our readers in like manner to surrender what they to our notice of the first edition of
Mr. Pope's noble Lecture.* We absent. Christ, speaking out of His will only add that a theological own consciousness, says “ I the Son term is very inconvenient of which of man,” as well as “ I and My Father that may with truth be spoken are one. The New Testament reprewhich the Egyptian peasant said of sentation of the Person of Christ is Cleopatra's " pretty worm of Nilus,” not the personal Son of God-plus “ Look you,” it “is not to be trusted an impersonal human nature—whatbut in the keeping of wise people.” that may imaginably be. We will add with the cautious clown, Christ's own modes of expression We “would not be the party that should surely outweigh all the expeshould desire you to touch ” it. dients, arising out of the exigences,
VI.—This phrase is at once too ex- of speculative theology. The object plicit and too vague. It is historically of these able and reverential divines the result of an attempt to map is plain. They are anxious to guard out the mystery of the Incarnation against a dualistic theory of the and to expose the anatomy of the Person of Christ, and to secure, as union of the two natures in the One Mr. Pope well puts it, “the indiindivisible Person of Christ. The viduality of the Person Who unites historical objection to the term, the two natures." (P. 157.) But seems to us very grave.
It is how indivisibility is guaranteed, by surely impossible to read the details drawing the line of personality round of those mediæval and modern the Divine nature, leaving the human speculations which have led on the nature outside that line, we cannot phrase, as given by Dorner, (Doctrine conceive. of the Person of Christ, passim,) What then is Theological science without being struck with the end- to do when it finds itself at a loss less confusions, oscillations and for a word to express a fact revealed contradictions into which the acutest in Scripture, but not named ?
It dogmaticians have been driven by must content itself with using a this unwise attempt to articulate short, clear, safe sentence, instead of the unspeakable, and to define the a long, vague, easily misleading inscrutable, the attempt to lay bare word, which fits error more closely the point of connection (the Wisus) than it fits the truth. Theological between the two natures in the science, like all other science, must One Person of Christ.
know its limits and respect them. strongest objection is the absence It must set the physical science of the of any firm Scripture warrant for nineteenth century an example of the phrase. The clear Scripture that modesty and humility of which doctrine is that the personality of
the latter, in the mouths and pens the God man is a Divine-human of some of its most ingenious setters personality. Is it possible to with- forth, is so deplorably and discreditdraw the personality from ably deficient. Hooker has given a nature and confine it to the other, simple statement of the mysterious without coming into collision with verity as taught in Scripture; but Christ's consciousness, unhappily was not content to stop revealed in His own modes of speak- at the point where Scripture stops. ing of Himself ? Surely where the He says "His making and taking to "I” is the personality cannot be Himself our flesh was but one act."
That is true; and a quite sufficient * See this Magazine, for November,
barrier against the Nestorian heresy, 1871.
the recoil from which has made the
theological pendulum swing so and His unbelieving fellow-townsstartlingly in the misty direction of men at Nazareth ? Or did He Who Scotus Erigena, Schleiermacher, submitted to baptism, disturb the Schelling and Hegel. Hooker had, worship of the synagogue, there and but two paragraphs before, both elsewhere, by going in and out to described and rebuked his own ex- avoid the prayers, which were intertravagance. On the very subject mingled with the reading and the of the Person of Christ, he says expositions ? The Epistle to the “ Because this Divine mystery is Hebrews points especially to His free more true than plain, divers, having participation in public worship, as framed the same to their own con- well as His fraternal instructions, as ceits and fancies, are found in their amongst the strongest proofs of the expositions thereof, more plain than reality and completeness of His true.”
holy manhood, “ Saying, I will deIt must not be supposed that this clare Thy name unto my brethren, question is remote from personal in the midst of the Church will I experience. One of the strongest sing praise unto Thee.” consolations of our holy religion is Against the promulgation of the that expressed in the living oracle dogma of a merely generic,” “not " In all things it behoved Him to definite, individual human nature,” be made like unto His brethren.” our Lord might Himself protest : The time-honoured reservation has
“I was born of woman, and drew milk been “sin only excepted.” But if As sweet as charity from human the dogma of the impersonality of breasts ; our Lord's human nature be admitted I think, articulate, I smile and weep,
And exercise all functions of a man. as true, we must substitute for
Why then should I and any man that "only"" and personality :" sin and lives personality excepted. The tendency Be strangers to each other. Pierce my of the doctrine to distance Christ vein, from His people is traceable in the
Take of the crimson stream meandering
there, best writers who have lent it any And catechise it well; apply thy glass, countenance. We cannot but think Search it, and prove now if it be not that even Mr. Pope presses too far
blood, a solitary incident in the Gospel
Congenial with thine own." narrative, when he says“He(Christ) We regret that our limits will prays; but does not kneel with His not admit of reference to other disciples, who stand apart. We recent writers on the Person of meet with nothing in the Gospels Christ, especially Liddon's superb which could support such a state- Bampton Lecture and the
well ment as this. And, a priori, what an written, but not so well reasoned, unlikely supposition. Why should work of our acute old friend the Rev. He make such a marked difference Nathan Rouse, on The Humanity of between His own intimate disciples Christ.
NOTES ON THE SCIENCE OF THE MONTH.
BY THE REV. W. H. DALLINGER, F.R.M.8. A DISCOVERY of great importance been made by the finding of an in relation to the history of science Egyptian Medical Treatise written generally, but especially to that fifteen hundred years before the of medicine and chemistry, has birth of Christ. The papyrus on