Chapter I--Christology, or the Redemption Wrought by Christ






Since God Lad from eternity determined to redeem mankind, the history of the race from the time of the fall to the coming of Christ was providentially arranged to prepare the way for this redemption. This preparation was two-fold:

I. Negative Preparation,—in the history of the heathen world.

This showed (1) the true nature of sin, and the depth of spiritual ignorance and of moral depravity to which the race, left to itself, must fall; and (2) the powerlessness of human nature to preserve or regain an adequate knowledge of God, or to deliver itself from sin by philosophy or art.

Why could not Eve have been the mother of the chosen seed, as she doubtless at the first supposed that she was? (Gen. 4 :1—" tnd she conceired ud hire Cain [i.e.' gotten ', or 'acquired '], snd aid I hi?e gotten i nun, eren Monk"). Why was not the cross set up at the gates of Eden? Scripture Intimates that a preparation was needful (Gil. * : 4—"but when the fulness of the time cine. God sent forth his Son "). Of the two agencies made use of, we have called heathenism the negative preparation. But it was not wholly negative; it was partly positive also. "Justin Martyr spoke of a A6yof <rirepMaT(«6? among the heathen. Clement of Alexandria called Plato a Miuo-Jji in-nm^x—a Greek-speaking Moses. Notice the priestly attitude of Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Pindar, Sophocles. The Bible recognizes Job, Balaam, Melchisedek, as instances of priesthood, or divine communication, outside the bounds of the chosen people. Heathen religions either were not religions, or God had a part in them. Confucius, Buddha, Zoroaster, wore at least reformers, raised up in God's providence. Gil. 4 : 3 classes Judaism with the "rudiments of the world," and Rom. 5 : 20 tells us that "the lew cune in beside," as a force cooperating with other human factors, primitive revelation, sin, efc"

But the positive clement in heathenism was slight. Her altars and sacrifices, her philosophy and art, roused cravings which she was powerless to satisfy. Her religious systems became sources of deeper corruption. There was no hope, and no progress. "The Sphynx's moveless calm symbolizes the monotony of Egyptian civilization." Classical nations became more despairing, as they became more cultivated. To the best minds' truth seemed impossible of attainment, and all hope of general well-being seemed a dream. The Jews were the only forward-looking people: and all our modern confidence 1n destiny and development comes from them. They, In their turn, drew their hopefulness solely from prophecy. Not their "genius for religion," but special revelation from God, made them what they were.

Although God was in heathen history, yet so exceptional were the advantages of the Jews, that we can almost assent to the doctrine of the New Englander, Sept., 1883: 576— "The Bible does not recognize other revelations. It speuks of the 'hot of the covering that is cast over all peoples, and the Tail that is spread over all nations' (Is. 25:7); lets 14:16,17—' who in the generations gone bj suffered all the nations to walk in their own ways. And jet he left not himself without witness — not an Internal revelation in the hearts of sages, but an external revelation in nature, 'in that ha did good, and gave Ton from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling jour hearts with food and gladness.' The convictions of heathen reformers with regard to divine inspiration were dim and intangible, compared with the consciousness of prophets and apostles that God was speaking through them to his people."

On heathenism as a preparation for Christ, see Tholuck, Nature and Moral Influence of Heathenism, in Bib. Repos., 1832 : 80, 246, 441; DoiUnsjer, Gentile and Jew; Pressense, Religions before Christ; Max MUller, Science of Religion, 1-128; Cocker, Christianity and Greek Philosophy; Ackermann, Christian Element In Plato; Farrar, Seekers after God; Renan, on Rome and Christianity, in Hibbert Lectures for 1880.

LT. Positive Preparation,—in the history of Israel.

A single people was separated from all others, from the time of Abraham, and was educated in three great truths: (1) the majesty of God, in his unity, omnipotence, and holiness; (2) the sinfulness of man, and his moral helplessness; (3) the certainty of a coming salvation. This education from the time of Moses was conducted by the use of three principal agencies:

A Law.—The Mosaic legislation, (a) by its theophanies and miracles, cultivated faith in a personal and almighty God and Judge; (b) by its commands and threatenings, wakened the sense of sin; (c) by its priestly and sacrificial system, inspired hope of some way of pardon and access to God.

The education of the Jews was first of all an education by Law. In the history of the world, as in the history of the individual, law must precede gospel, John the Baptist must go before Christ, knowledge of sin must prepare a welcome entrance for knowledge of a Savior.

B. Prophecy.—This was of two kinds: (a) verbal,—beginning with the protevangelium in the garden, and extending to within four hundred years of the coming of Christ; (6) typical,—in persons, as Adam, Melchisedek, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Jonah; and in acts, as Isaac's sacrifice, and Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness.

Christ was the reality, to which the types and ceremonies of Judaism pointed; and theso latter disappeared when Christ had come, just as the petals of the blossom drop away when the fruit appears. Many promises to the O. T. saints, which seemed to them promises of temporal blessing, were fulfilled in a better, because a more spiritual, way than they expected. Thus God cultivated in them a boundless trust—a trust which was essentially the same thing with the faith of the new dispensation, because it was the absolute reliance of a consciously helpless sinner upon God's method of salvation, and so was implicitly, though not explicitly, a faith in Christ.

The protevangelium (Gen. 3 :15) said "it [this promised seed] shall bruise thj head." The "it" was rendered in some Latin manuscripts "ipsa." Hence Roman Catholic divines attributed the victory to the Virgin. Notice that Satan was cursed, but not Adam and Eve; for they were candidates for restoration. The promise of the Messiah narrowed Itself down as the race grew older, from Abraham to Judah, David, Bethlehem, and the Virgin. Prophecy spoke of "the sceptre" and of "the seventy weeks." Hnsrgal and Molacbi foretold that the Lord should suddenly come to the second temple. Christ was to be true man and true God; prophet, priest, and king; humbled and exalted. When prophecy had become complete, a brief interval elapsed, and then he, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, actually came.

C. Judgment.—Repeated divine chastisements for idolatry culminated in the overthrow of the kingdom, and the captivity of the Jews. The exile had two principal effects: (a) religious,—in giving monotheism firm root in the heart of the people, and in leading to the establishment of the synagogue-system, by which monotheism was thereafter preserved and propagated; (6) civil,—in converting the Jews from an agricultural to a trading people, scattering them among all nations, and finally imbuing them with the spirit of Soman law and organization.

Thus a people was made ready to receive the gospel and to propagate it throughout the world, at the very time when the world had become conscious of its needs, and, through its greatest philosophers and poets, was expressing its longings for deliverance.

The scattering of the Jews through all lands bad prepared a monotheistic starting* point for the gospel in every heathen city. Jewish synagogues had prepared places of assembly for the hearing of the gospel. The Greek language—the universal literary language of the world—had prepared a medium in which that gospel could be spoken. "Ctesar had unified the Latin West, as Alexander the Greek East": and universal peace, together with Roman roads and Roman law, made it possible for that gospel, when once it had got a foothold, to spread iteelf to the ends of the earth. The first dawn of missionary enterprise appears among the proselyting Jews before Christ's time. Christianity laid hold of this proselyting spirit, and sanctified it, to conquer the world to the faith of Christ. In all these preparations, we see many lines converging to one result, in a manner Inexplicable, unless we take them as proofs of the wisdom and power of God preparing the way for the kingdom of his Son.

On Judaism, as a preparation for Christ, see DOllinger, Gentile and Jew, 2 : 291-419; Martensen, Dogmatics, 224-236; Hengstcnberg, Christology of the O. T.; Smith, Prophecy a Preparation forChrist; Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 458-485; Fairbairn, Typology; MacWhorter, Jahveh Christ; Kurtz, Christliche ReHgionslehre, 114; Edwards, History of Redemption, in Works, 1:297-395; Walker, Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, 1:1-37; Luthardt, Fundamental Truths, 257-281; SchafT, Hist. Christian Ch., 1: 32-49; Butler's Analogy, Bonn's ed., 228238; Bushnell, Vicarious Sac, 63-65; Max MUUer, Science of Language, 2 : 443; Thoinasius, Christ! Person und Werk, 1: 463-485; Fisher, Beginnings of Christianity, 47-73.


The redemption of mankind from sin was to be effected through a Mediator who should unite in himself both the human nature and the divine, in order that he might reconcile God to man and man to God. To facilitate an understanding of the Scriptural doctrine under consideration, it will be desirable at the outset to present a brief

I. Historical Survey Op Views Respecttno The Person Op Christ.

1. The Ebionitea (pOX = 'poor'; A. D. 107?) denied the reality of Christ's divine nature, and held him to be merely man, whether naturally or supernaturally conceived. This man, however, held a peculiar relation to God, in that, from the time of his baptism, an unmeasured fulness of the divine Spirit rested upon him. Ebionism was simply Judaism within the pale of the Christian church, and its denial of Christ's godhood was occasioned by the apparent incompatibility of this doctrine with monotheism.

FUrst (Heb. Lexicon) derives the name ' Eblonite' from the word signifying ' poor': sec Is. 25 : 4—" I hwi hut ha a stronghold to the poor "; Mat 5 : 3—" Blessed an ihe poor in spirit." It means "oppressed, pious souls." Epiphanius traces them back to the Christians who took refuge, A. D. 66, at Pclla, just before the destruction of Jerusalem. They lasted down to the 4th century. Dorncr can assign no age for the formation of the sect, nor any historically ascertained person as its head. It was not Judaic Christianity, but only a fraction of this. There were two divisions of the Ebionites:

(o) The Nazarenes, who held to the supernatural birth of Christ, while they would not go to the length of admitting the preexisting hypostasis of the Son. They had the gospel of Matthew, in Hebrew.

(6) The Cerlnthian Ebionites, who put the baptism of Christ in place of his supernatural birth, and made the ethical sonsbip the cause of the physical. It seemed to them a heathenish fable that the Son of God should be born of the Virgin. There was no personal union between the divine and human In Christ. Christ, as distinct from Jesus, was not a merely impersonal power descending upon Jesus, but a preexisting hypostasis above the world-creating powers. The Cerlnthian Ebionites, who on the whole best represent the spirit of Ebionlsm, approximated to Pharisaic Judaism, and were hostile to the writings of Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews, in fact, Is intended to counteract an Ebionltic tendency to overstrain law and to underrate Christ. In a complete view, however, should also be mentioned:

(c) The Gnostic Ebionlsm of the pseudo-Clementines, which in order to destroy the deity of Christ and save the pure monotheism, so-called, of primitive religion, gave up even the best part of the Old Testament. In ail Its forms, Ebionisin conceives of God and man as external to each other. God could not become man. Christ was no more than a prophet or teacher, who, as the reward of his virtue was from the time of his baptism specially endowed with the Spirit. After his death he was exalted to kingship. But that would not justify the worship which the church paid him. A merely creaturcly mediator would separate us from God, Instead of uniting us to him. See Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2 : 305-307 (Syst. Doct., 3 : 201-304), and Hist. Doct. Person Christ, A. 1:187217; Reuss. Hist. Christ. Theol., 1:100-107; Schaff, Ch. Hist., 1: 212-215.

2. The Docetce (dwu—'to seem,"to appear'; A. D. 70-170),like most of the Gnostics in the second century and the Manichees in the third, denied the reality of Christ's human body. This view was the logical sequence of their assumption of the inherent evil of matter. If matter is evil and Christ was pure, then Christ's human body must have been merely phantasmal. Docetism was simply pagan philosophy introduced into the church.

The Gnostic Basilldes held to a real human Christ, with whom the divine vovt became united at the baptism; but the followers of Basilldes became Docetae. To them, the body of Christ was merely a seeming one. There was no real life or death. Valentinus made the JEoo, Christ, with a body purely pneumatic and worthy of himself, pass through the body of the Virgin, as water through a reed, taking up into itself nothing of the human nature through which he passed; or as a ray of light through colored glass which only imparts to the light a portion of its own darkness. Christ's life was simply a theophany. The Patripassians and Sabellians, who are only sects of the Docetae, denied all real humanity to Christ.

That Docetism appeared so early, shows that the impression Christ made was that of a superhuman being. Among many of the Gnostics, the philosophy which lay at the basis of their Docetism was a pantheistic apotheosis of the world. God did not need to become man, for man was essentially divine. This view, and the opposite error of Judaism, already mentioned, both showed their Insufficiency by attempts to combine with each other, as in the Alexandrian philosophy. See Dorner, Hist. Doct. Person Christ, A. 1:218-252, and Glaubenslehre, 2 :307-310 (Syst. Doct., 3 : 204-206); Neander, Ch. Hist., 1:387.

3. The Arians (Arius, condemned at Nice, 325) denied the integrity of the divine nature in Christ. They regarded the Logos who united himself to humanity in Jesus Christ, not as possessed of absolute godhood, but as the first and highest of created beings. This view originated in a misinterpretation of the Scriptural accounts of Christ's state of humiliation, and in mistaking temporary subordination for original and permanent inequality.

Arianlsui is called by Dorner a reaction from Sabelllanlsm. Sabelllus had reduced tbe incarnation of Christ to a temporary phenomenon. Arius thought to lay stress on the hypostasis of the Son, and to give it fixity and substance. But, to his mind, the reality of Sonship seemed to require subordination to the Father. Origin had taught the subordination of the Son to the Father, in connection with his doctrine of eternal generation. Arius held to the subordination, and also to the generation, but this last, he declared, could not be eternal, but must bo in time. See Dorner, Person Christ, A. 2: 227-344, and Glaubenslehre, 2 : 307, 312, 313 (Syst. Doct., 3 : 203, 207-210); Herzog, Encyclopadle, art.: Arianismus.

4. The Apollinarians (Apollinaris, condemned at Constantinople, 381) denied the integrity of Christ's human nature. According to this view, Christ had no human voir or irvevua, other than that which was furnished by the divine nature. Christ had ouly the human oufia and fvxv', the place of the human vovr or nvcifia was filled by the divine Logos. Apollinarism is an attempt to construe the doctrine of Christ's person in the forms of the Platonic trichotomy.

Lest divinity should seem a foreign element, when added to this curtailed manhood, Apollinaris said that there was an eternal tendency to the human in the Logos himself; that in God was the true manhood; that the Logos is the eternal, archetypal man. But here is no hemming man—only a manifestation in flesh of what the Logos already tras. So we have a Christ of great head and dwarfed body. Justin Martyr preceded Apollinaris in this view. In opposing it, the church Fathers said that" what the Son of God has not taken to himself, he has not sanctified "—to an-poo-A^n-rop xai adtp^vevror. See Dorner, Jahrbuch f. d. Theol., 1 : 397-408—" The Impossibility, on the Arian theory, of making two finite souls into one, finally led to the [Apolllnarian] denial of any human soul in Christ": see also, Dorner, Person Christ, A. 2 :352-399, and Glaubenslehre, 2:310 (Syst. Doct., 3 : 208, 207); Shedd, Hist. Doctrine, 1 : 394.

5. The Nestorians (Nestorius, removed from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, 431) denied the real union between the divine and the human natures in Christ, making it rather a moral than an organic one. They refused therefore to attribute to the resultant unity the attributes of each nature, and regarded Christ as a man in very near relation to God. Thus they virtually held to two natures and two persons, instead of two natures in one person.

Nestorius disliked the phrase: "Mary, mother of God." The Chalccdon statement asserted its truth, with the significant addition: "as to bis humanity." Nestorius made Christ a peculiar temple of God. He believed in not ivutrit—Junction and in

dwelling, but not absolute union. He made too much of the analogy of the union of the believer with Christ, and separated as much as possible the divine and the human. The two natures were, in his view, iAAot «ai aAAot, instead of being »>Ao «ai oAAo, which together constitute «tt—one personality. The union which he accepted was a moral union, which makes Christ simply God apd man, instead of tbe God-man.

John of Damascus compared the passion of Christ to the felling of a tree on which the sun shines. The axe fells the tree, but does no hann to the sunbeams. So the blows which struck Christ's humanity caused no harm to his deity; while the flesh suffered, the deity remained impassible. This leaves, however, no divine efficacy of the human sufferings, and no personal union of the human with the divine. The error of Nestorius arose from a philosophic nominalism, which refused to conceive of nature without personality. He believed in nothing more than a local or moral union, like the marriage union, in which two become one; or like the state, which is sometimes called a moral person, because having a unity composed of many persons. See Dorner, Person Christ, B. 1: 53-79, and Glaubenslehre, 2 :315, 316 (Syst. Doct., 3: 211-213); Phillppi, Glaubenslehre, 4 :210; Wilberforce, Incarnation, 152-154.

6. The Eulychians (condemned at Chalcedon, 451) denied the distinction and coexistence of the two natures, and held to a mingling of both into one, which constituted a tertium quid, or third nature. Since in this case the divine must overpower the human, it follows that the human was really absorbed into or transmuted into the divine, although the divine was not in all respects the same, after the union, that it was before. Hence the Eutychians were often called Monophyaites, because they virtually reduced the two natures to one.

They were an Alexandrian school, which Included monks of Constantinople and Egypt. They used the words ovyx<""*> ncTaSoAij—confounding, transformation—to describe the union of the two natures in Christ. Humanity joined to deity was as a drop of honey mingled with the ocean. There was a change in either element, but as when a stone attracts the earth, or a meteorite the sun, or when a small boat pulls a ship, all the movement was virtually on the part of the smaller object. Humanity was so absorbed in deity, as to be altogether lost. The union was illustrated by electron, a metal compounded of silver and gold. A more modern illustration would be that of the chemical union of an acid and an alkali, to form a salt unlike either of the constituents.

In effect this theory denied the human element, and, with this, the possibility of atonement, on the part of human nature, as well as of real union of man with God. Such a magical union of the two natures as Eutyches described is inconsistent with any real hecomingman on the partof the Logos—the manhood Is well-nigh as illusory as upon the theory of the Docetse. See Dorner, Person Christ, B. 1:83-93, and Olaubenslehre, 2 :818, 319 (Syst. Doct., 3:214-216); Guericke, Ch. History, 1: 366-360.

The foregoing survey would seem to show that history had exhausted the possibilities of heresy, and that the future denials of the doctrine of Christ's person must be, in essence, forms of the views already mentioned. All controversies with regard to the person of Christ must, of necessity, hinge upon one of three points: first, the reality of the two natures; secondly, the integrity of the two natures; thirdly, the union of the two natures in one person. Of these points, Ebionism and Docetism deny the reality of the natures; Arianism and Apollinarism deny their integrity; while Nestorianism and Eutychianism deny their proper union. In opposition to all these errors,

7. The Orthodox doctrine (promulgated at Chalcedon, 451) holds that in the one person Jesus Christ there are two natures, a human nature and a divine nature, each in its completeness and integrity, and that these two natures are organically and indissolubly united, yet so that no third nature is formed thereby. In brief, to use the antiquated dictum, orthodox doctrine forbids na either to divide the person or to confound the natures.

That this doctrine is Scriptural and rational, we have yet to show. We may most easily arrange our proofs by reducing the three points mentioned to two, namely: first, the reality and integrity of the two natures; secondly, the union of the two natures in one person.

The formula of Chalcedon Is negative, with the exception of its assertion of a iv<nrt<; vjro<rT(iTi<t*j. It proceeds from the natures, and regards the result of the union to be the person. Each of the two natures is regarded as In movement toward the other. The symbol says nothing of an awnoaTatria of the human nature, nor does it say that the Logos furnishes the ego in the personality. John of Damascus, however, pushed forward to these conclusions, and his work, translated into Latin, was used by Peter Lombard, and determined the views of the Western church of the middle ages. Dorner regards this as having given rise to the Mariolatry. saint-Invocation, and transubstantiation of the Roman Catholic church. See Philippi, Olaubenslehre, 4:189 sq.; Dorner, Person Christ, B. 1:93-119, and Glaubenslehre, 2:320-328 (Syst. Doct., 3 : 216-223), in which last passage may be found valuable matter with regard to the changing uses of the words

irpoawnov, un-offTairis, ovaia, etc.

EL The Two Natures Of CHeist,—Their Reaijty And Integrity.

1. The Humanity of Christ.

A. Its Reality.—This may be shown as follows.

(a) He expressly called himself, and was called, "man."

John 8:40—"yo seek n kill a*, a nun that hath told jou the truth "; lets 2 : 22— "Jesus of Kasareth, s man approved of God onto you "; Rom. 5 :15 — "the one man, Jesus Christ"; 1 Cor. 15 : 21 — " by mau came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead "; 1 Tim. 2:5 — "one mediator also between God and men, himself man. Christ Jesus." Compare the genealogies in Mat. 1:1-17 and Luke 3 : 23-38, tbe former of which proves Jesus to be in the royal line, and the latter of which proves him to be in the natural line, of succession from David; the former tracing back his lineage to Abraham, and the latter to Adam. Christ Is therefore the son of David, and of the stock of Israel. Compare also the phrase "Son of man," e. y. in Hat. 20 : 28. which, however much It may mean in addition, certainly Indicates the veritable humanity of Jesus. Compare, finally, the term "lesh" ( ^ human nature), applied to him in John 1:14 —"and the Word became leak," and in 1 John 4:2—" Every spirit which oonfeawth that Jesus Christ is come in the lesh is of God."

(6) He possessed the essential elements of human nature as at present constituted — a material body and a rational soul.

Hat 26 : 38 — "My soul is exceeding sorrowful"; John 11: 33 — "ho groaned in the spirit"; Mat. 26 : 26 — " this is my body"; 28 — "this is my blood"; Luke 24 :39— "a spirit hath not lesb and bones, as ye behold me haying "; Hob. 2 :14 — " Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same "; 1 John 1:1 — " That which we hare heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life "; 4:2 — " Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is corns in the flesh is of God."

(c) He was moved by the instinctive principles, and he exercised the active powers, which belong to a normal and developed humanity ( hunger, thirst, weariness, sleep, love, compassion, anger, anxiety, fear, groaning, weeping, prayer).

Mat 4 : 2 — "he afterward hungered "; John 19 : 28 — " I thirst"; 4:6 — " Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus by the well''; Mat. 8:24 — "the boat was covered with tbe wares: tat he was asleep''; Mark 10 : 21 — "Jesus looking upon bim loved him "; Mat. 9 : 36 — " when he saw the multitudes, he wsa moved with compassion for them "; Mark 3:5 — " looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart"; fleb. 5:7 — "supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death "; John 12 : 27—"Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour "; 11:33 — "ha groaned in the spirit"; 35— "Jesus wept"; Mat 14 : 23 — "he went up into tbe mountain apart to pray."

(d) He was subject to the ordinary laws of human development, both in body and soul (grew and waxed strong in spirit; asked questions; grew in wisdom and stature; learned obedience; suffered being tempted; was made perfect through sufferings).

Luke 2 : 40 — " the child grew, and waxed strong, filled with wisdom "; 46 — " sitting in tbe midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions" (here, at his twelfth year, he appears first to become fully conscious that he Is the Sent of God, the Son of God; 49 — " wist ye not that I must be in mj Father's house?" lit. 'in the things of my Father'); 52— " advanced in wisdom and stature "; Heb. 5 : 8 — "learned obedience by the things which he suffered "; 2 :18 — "in that he himself hath suffered being tempted,

he is able to succor them that are tempted "; 10 — "it became him to make the author of their salvation perfect

through sufferings."

(e) He suffered and died (bloody sweat; gave up his spirit; pierced his side, and straightway there came out blood and water ).

Luke 22 : 44 — " being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became as it were great drops of blood falling down upon the ground "; John 19 : 30 — " he bowed his head, and gave up bis spirit"; 34 — " one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and straightway there came ont blood and water" — held by Stroud, Physical Cause of our Lord's Death, to be proof that Jesus died of a broken heart.

Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, 1: 9-19—"The Lord is said to have (frown in wisdom and favor with God, not because it was so, but because he acted as if it were so. So he was exalted after death, as if this exaltation were on account of death." But we may reply: Resolve all signs of humanity into mere appearance, and you lose the divine nature as well as the human; for God is truth and cannot act a lie. The babe, the child, even the man, in certain respects, was ignorant. Jesus, the boy, was not making crosses, as in Overbeck's picture, but rather yokes and plows, as Justin Martyr relates—serving a real apprenticeship in Joseph's workshop: Mirk 6:3— '• Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?"

See Holman Hunt's picture, "The Shadow of the Cross" —in which not Jesus, but only Mary, sees the shadow of the cross upon the wall. He lived a life of faith, as well as of prayer (Heb. 12 : 2 — "Jesus the author [ captain, prince ] and perfoctor of our faith ") dependent upon Scripture, which was much of it, as Pa. 16 and 113, and Is. 49, 50, 61, written for him, as as well as about him. See Park, Discourses, 297-327; Deutsch, Remains, 131 —"The boldest transcendental flight of the Talmud is its saying: 4God prays.'" In Christ's humanity, united as it is to deity, we have the fact answering to this piece of Talmudio poetry.

B. Its Integrity.—We here use the term 'integrity' to signify, not merely completeness, but perfection. That which is perfect is, a fortiori, complete in all its parts. Christ's human nature was:

(a) Supernaturally conceived.

Lake 1: 35 — " And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee," The "seed of the woman" (Gen. 3 :15) was one who had no earthly father. "Ire" = life, not only as being the source of physical life to the race, but also as bringing into the world him who was to be its spiritual life. Julius Mtiller, Proof-texts, 29—Jesus Christ "had no earthly father; his birth was a creative act of God, breaking through the chain of human generation." Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2 : 447 (Syst. Doct., 3:346) — "The new science recognizes manifold methods of propagation, and that too even In one and the same species."

(6) Free, both from hereditary depravity, and from actual sin.

Lake 1: 35 — " Wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God "; John 8 : 46 — "Vhieh of you oonvicteth me of sin?" 14 : 30 — "the prince of the world eometh: and he hath nothing in me" = not the slightest evil inclination upon which his temptations can lay hold; Rom. 8: 3 — "in the likeness of sinful nosh " = In flesh, but without the sin which, in other men, clings to the flesh; 2 Cor. 5 : 21 — "him who knew no sin "; Heb. 4:15 — "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin "; 7: 26 —" holy, guileless, undenled. separated from tinners" — by the fact of his Immaculate conception; S: 14 — " through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God "; I Pet 1 :19 — " precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ"; 2 : 22 — " who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth "; 1 John 3 : 5, 7 — "in him is no sin ... he is righteous."

Julius Mil Her, Proof-texts, 29 —"Had Christ been only human nature, he could not have been without sin. But life can draw out of the putrescent clod materials for Its own living. Divine life appropriates the human." Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:448 (Syst. Doct., 3:344) —"What with us is regeneration, is with him the Incarnation of God." In this origin of Jesus' sinlessness from his union with God, we see the absurdity, both doctrinally and practically, of speaking of an Immaculate conception of the Virgin, and of making her sinlessness precede that of her Son. On the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate conception of the Virgin, see H. B. Smith, System, 389-392. "Christ took human nature, in such a way that this nature, without sin, bore the consequences of sin." That portion of human nature which the Logos took Into union with himself was, In the very instant and by the fact of his taking It, purged from all Its Inherent depravity.

But if in Christ there was no sin, or tendency to sin, how could he be tempted? In the same way, we reply, that Adam was tempted. Christ was not omniscient: Mark 13 : 32 — "of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Only at the close of the first temptation does Jesus recognize Satan as the adversary of souls; Mat. 4 :10 — "Got that hence. Satan." Jesus could be tempted, not only because he was not omniscient, but also because he bad the keenest susceptibility to all the forms of innocent desire. To these desires temptation may appeal. Sin consists, not in these desires, but in the gratification of them out of God's order, and contrary to God's will. So Satan appealed (Hat 4 : 1-11) to the desire for food, for applause, for power; to "ITeberglaube, Aberglaube, Cngloube" ( Kurtz); cf. Mat 28 : 39; 27 : 42; 26 : 53. All temptation must be addressed either to desire or fear; so Christ "»u in all pointa tempted like as we we" (Heb. 4 : IS). The first temptation, in the wilderness, was addressed to desire; the second, in the garden, was addressed to fear. Satan, after the first, "departed from kirn for a season" (lake 4 :13); but he returned. In Gethsemane — " the pnnce of the world cometh: and be haLo nothing in mo" (John 14 : 30) — if possible, to deter Jesus from his work, by rousing- within him vast and agonizing- fears of the suffering and death that lay before him. Yet, In spite of both the desire and the fear with which his holy soul was moved, he was "without«in" (Heb. 4 : IS). Even in Gethsemane and on Calvary, Christ never prays for forgiveness —he only Imparts It to others. See UUman, Slnlessness of Jesus; Thomasius, Christl Person und Werk, 2 : 7-17, 128-138, esp. 135, 136; Schaff, Person of Christ, 51-72.

(c) Ideal human nature, — furnishing the moral pattern which man is progressively to realize.

Psalm 8:4-8 — " thou hut made him bat little lower than God. Ind crownest him with glory and honor. Thou madest him to hare dominion over the works of thy hands; Thou halt put all things under hit feet" — a description of the ideal man, which finds Its realization only in Christ. Heb. 2:6-10 — " But now we see not jet all thing! subjected under him. But we behold him who hath been made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus.

because of the suffering of death crowned with glorj and honor." 1 Cor. 15 : 45 — " The first.... Adam The last

Adam" —Implies that the second Adam realized the full concept of humanity, which failed to be realized in the first Adam; so Terse 40 —" as we hare borne the image of the earthy [ man ], we shall also bear the image of the heavenly" [ man ]. 1 Cor. 3 :18 — " the glory of the Lord" Is the pattern, into whose likeness we are to be changed. Phil. 3 : 21 — " who shall fashion anew the body of oar humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory "; Col. 1:18 — " that in all things he might hare the pre-eminence "; 1 Pet. 2 : 21 — " Suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow bis stops "; 1 John 3:3 — " Every one that hath this hope set on him purifleth himself, even as he is pure."

The phrase "Son of man" (John 5:27; cf. Ban. 7:13, Com. of Pusey, in loco, and Westcott, In Bible Com. on John, 32-35) seems to Intimate that Christ answers to the perfect Idea of humanity, as it at first existed In the mind of God. Not that he was surpossingly lieautif ul In physical form : for the only way to reconcile the seemtnirly conflicting intimations Is to suppose that in all outward respects he took our average humanity—at one time appearing without form or comeliness (Is 53 : 2), and aged before his time (John 8: 57 — " Thou art not yet fifty years old "), at another time revealing so much of his inward grace and glory that men were attracted and awed (Ps. 45 : 2 — " Thou art fairer than the children of men ": Luke 4 : 22 — "the words of grace which proceeded out of his mouth"; Mark 10 : 32 — "Jesus was going before them: and they were amazed; and they that followed were afraid "; Mat 17 :1-8 — the account of the transfiguration). Compare the Byzantine pictures of Christ with those of the Italian painters.

But in all spiritual respects Christ was perfect. In him are united all the excellences of both the sexes, of all temperaments and nationalities and characters. He possesses, not simply passive innocence, but positive and absolute holiness, triumphant through temptation. Ho Includes in himself all objects and reasons for affection and worship; so that, in loving him, "love can never love too much." Christ's human nature, therefore, and not human nature as It Is in us, is the true basis of ethics and of theology. This absence of narrow Individuality, this ideal, universal manhood, could not have been secured by merely natural laws of propagation—It was secured by Christ's miraculous conception; see Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2 : 448 (Syst. Doct., 3 :344).

On Christ's ideal manhood, see F. W. Robertson, Sermon on the Glory of the Divine Son; Wilberforce, Incarnation, 22-90; Ebrard, Dogmatlk, 2 : 25; Moorhousc, Nature and Revelation, 37; Tennyson, Introduction to In Memoriam; Farrar, Life of Christ, 1:148154, and 2: excursus Iv; Bushnell, Nature and the Supernatural, 276-332; Thomas Hughes, The Manliness of Christ; Hopkins, Scriptural Idea of Man, 121-145; Tyler, in Bib. Sac., 22 :51, 620; Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2, 451 aq.

(d) A human nature that found its personality only in union with the divine nature,—in other words, a human nature impersonal, in the sense that it had no personality separate from the divine nature, and prior to its union therewith.

By the Impersonality of Christ's human nature, we mean only that it had no personality before Christ took it, no personality before its union with the divine. It was a human nature whose consciousness and will were developed only in union with the personality of the Logos. The Fathers therefore rejeoted the word iwnoaraaia, and substituted the word iyvnoaraaia—they favored not impersonality but impersonality. In still plainer terms, the Logos did not take into union with himself an already developed human person, such as James, Peter, or John, but human nature before It had become pergonal or was capable of receiving a name. It reached its personality only in union with his own divine nature. Therefore we see in Christ not two persons—a human person and a divine person—but one person, and that person possessed of a human nature as well as of a divine. For proof of this, see note on the Union of the two Natures in one Person.

(e) A human nature germinal, and capable of self-communication, —so constituting him the spiritual head and beginning of a new race.

In Is. 9 : 6, Christ is called "Era-lasting Father." In Is. 53 :10, it is said that "he shall see bis seed." In Rev. 22 :16, he calls himself "the root" as well as "the offspring of Darid." See also John 5 : 21— "the Son also quickeneth whom he will"; 15:1—"I am the true Tine"—whose roots are planted in heaven, not on earth; the vine-man, from whom as its stock the new life of humanity is to spring, and Into whom the half-withered branches of the old humanity are to be grafted that they may have life divine. See Trench, Sermon on Christ, the True Vine, in Hulsean Lectures. John 17 : 2—"thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that whatsoever thou hast given him, to them he should gire eternal life"; 1 Cor. 15 : 45—"the last idam became a life-firing spirit" — here "spirit" =, not the Holy Spirit, nor Christ's divine nature, but " the ego of his total divinehuman personality."

Eph. 5 : 23—" Christ also is the head of the church " —- the head to which all the members are united, and from which they derive life and power; Col. 1:18—"who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead "; in Heb. 2 :13, Christ says: "Behold, I and the children which God hath given me." The new race is propagated after the analogy of the old; the first Adam is the source of physical, the second Adam of spiritual, life; the first Adam the source of corruption, the second of holiness. Hence John 12 ; 24—"if it die, it beareth much fruit"; Mat. 10 : 37 and Luke 14 : 26— "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me" = none Is worthy of me, who prefers his old natural ancestry to his new spiritual descent and relationship. Thus Christ is not simply the noblest embodiment of the old humanity, but also the fountain-head and beginning of a new humanity, the new source of life for the race. See Wllberforce, Incarnation, 227-241; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 638-664; Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2: 461 sq. (Syst. Doct., 3 : 349 *}.).

The passages here alluded to abundantly confute the Docetic denial of Christ's veritable human body, and the Apollinarian denial of Christ's veritable human soul. More than this, they establish the reality and integrity of Christ's human nature, as possessed of all the elements, faculties, and powers essential to humanity.

2. The Deity of Christ.

The reality and integrity of Christ's divine nature have been sufficiently proved in a former chapter of these lectures (see pages 145-150). We need only refer to the evidence there given, that, during his earthly ministry, Christ:

(a) Possessed a knowledge of his own deity.

John 3 :13—"the Son of man. which is in heaven"—a passage which clearly indicates Christ's consciousness, at certain times in his earthly life at least, that he was not confined to earth, but was also In heaven [ here, however, Westcott and Hort, with K and B, omit 6 •>» «V nf ovpavy] ; 8 : 58—" Before Abraham was born, I am "—here Jesus declares that there Is a respect in which the idea of birth and beginning does not apply to him, but in which he can apply to himself the name "I em" of the eternal God; 14 : 9,10—" Hare I been so long time with you, and dost thou not know me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; how say est thou, Shew us the father? Believest thou not that I am in the father, and the Father in me?"

(b) Exercised divine attributes and prerogatives.

John 2 ; 24, 25—" But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that ho knew all men, and because he needed not that any one should bear witness concerning man; for ha himself knew what was in man "; Mark 4 : 39—"He awoke, and rebuked the wind, and laid onto the sea, Peace, be still. Ind the wind ceased, and there was a great calm "; Mat * : 6 —"bat that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins < tben salts he to the sick of the peisy), arise, and take up thy bed, and go unto thy home "; Mark 2 : 7—" Why doth this man thus speak? he blaspbemeth: who oan forgive sins but one, even God,"

But this is to say, in other words, that there were, in Christ, a knowledge and a power such as belong only to God. The passages cited furnish a refutation of both the Ebionite denial of the reality, and the Arian denial of the integrity, of the divine nature in Christ.

Napoleon to Count Montholon (Bcrtrand's Memoirs): "I think I understand somewhat of human nature, and I tell you all these [heroes of antiquity] were men, and I am a man; but not one is like him: Jesus Christ was more than man." See other testimonies in Schaff, Person of Christ. Even Channlng speaks of Christ as more than a human being—as having exhibited a spotless purity which is the highest distinction of heaven. F. W. Robertson has called attention to the fact that the phrase "Son of man" (John 5 : 27; cf. Kan. 7 :13) itself implies that Christ was more than man; it would have been an impertinence for him to have proclaimed himself Son of man, unless he had claimed to be something more; could not every human being call himself the same? When one takes this for his characteristic designation, as Jesus did, he implies that there is something strange in his being Son of man; that this is not his original condition and dignity; in other words, that he is also Son of Ood.

It corroborates the argument from Scripture, to find that Christian experience lnstlnctively recognizes Christ's Godhead, and that Christian history shows a new conception of the dignity of childhood and of womanhood, of the sacredness of human life, and of the value of a human soul—all arising from the belief that, In Christ, the Godhead honored human nature by taking it Into perpetual union with Itself, by bearing its guilt and punishment, and by raising It up from the dishonors of the grave to the glory of heaven. We need both the humanity and the deity of Christ: the humanity—for, as Michael Angelo's Last Judgment witnesses, the ages that neglect Christ's humanity must have some human advocate and Savior, and find a poor substitute for the ever-present Christ in Mariolatry, the invocation of the saints, and the ' real presence' of the wafer and the mass; the deity—for, unless Christ is God, he cannot offer an infinite atonement for us, nor bring about a real union between our souls and the Father. Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2 : 325-327 (Syst. Doct., S: 221-223)—" Mary and the saints took Christ's place as Intercessors in heaven: transubstantiation furnished a present Christ on earth"). See also Shedd, Hist. Doctrine, 1: 282,351; Liddon, Our Lord's Divinity, 127,207, 458; Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 1; 61-64; Hovey, God with Us, 17-23; Bengel on John 10 : 30.

m. The Union Of The Two Natures In One Person.

Distinctly as the Scriptures represent Jesus Christ to have been possessed of a divine nature and of a human nature, each unaltered in essence and undivested of its normal attributes and powers, they with equal distinctness represent Jesus Christ as a single undivided personality in whom these two natures are vitally and inseparably united, so that he is properly, not God and man, but the God-man. The two natures are bound together, not by the moral tie of friendship, nor by the spiritual tie which links the believer to his Lord, but by a bond unique and inscrutable, which constitutes them one person with a single consciousness and will—this consciousness and will including within their possible range both the human nature and the divine.

1. Proof of this Union.

(a) Christ uniformly speaks of himself, and is spoken of, as a single person. There is no interchange of 'I' and 'thou' between the human and the divine natures, such as we find between the persons of the Trinity {John 17 : 23). Christ never uses the plural number in referring to himself, unless it be in John 3 : 11—"we speak that we do know," and even here "we" is more probably used as inclusive of the disciples. 1 John 4 : 2— ■"is come in the flesh"—is supplemented by John 1 : 14—'*became flesh"; and these texts together assure us that Christ so came in human nature as to make that nature an element in his single personality.

John 17 : 23—" I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that then 'didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou loiedst me "; 3 :11—" We speak that we do know, and bear witness of that we hare seen; and ye receive not our witness "; 1 John 4 : 2—" Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God"; John 1:14—"and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among u»" = he so came In human nature that human nature and himself formed, not two persons, but one person.

(6) The attributes and powers of both natures are ascribed to the one Christ, and conversely the works and dignities of the one Christ are ascribed to either of the natures, in a way inexplicable, except upon the principle that these two natures are organically and indissolubly united in a single person ( examples of the former usage are Kom. 1 : 3 and 1 Pet. 3 : 18; of the latter, 1 Tim. 2 : 5 and Heb. 1 : 2, 3). Hence we can say, on the one hand, that the Qod-man existed before Abraham, yet was born in the reign ■of Augustus Caesar, and that Jesus Christ wept, was weary, suffered, died, jet is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever; on the other hand, that a divine Savior redeemed us upon the cross, and that the human Christ is present with his people even to the end of the world (Eph. 1 : 23; 4:10; Mat. 28 : 20).

Rom. 1: 3—"his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh "; 1 Pet. 3 : IS—"Christ also suffered for sins once .... being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit": 1 Tim. 2:5—"one Mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus"; Heb. 1: 2, 3—" bis Son, whom he appointed heir of all things

who being the effulgence of bis glory when he had nude purification of sins, sat down on the right hand

of the Majesty on high "; Eph. 1: 22, 23—" put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all"; 4 :10—" he that descended is the same also that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things": Mat 28 : 20—"lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."

(c) The constant Scriptural representations of the infinite value of Christ's atonement and of the union of the human race with God which has been secured in him are intelligible only when Christ is regarded, not as a man of God, but as the God-man, in whom the two natures are so united that what each does has the value of both.

1 John 2 : 2—" He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world "; Eph. 2: 16-18—" might reconcile them both [ Jew and Gentile ] in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby; and he came and preached peace to you that were far off. and peace to them that were nigh: for through him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father"; 21: 22—"in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit"; 2 Pet. 1: 4—"that through these [promises] ye may become partakers of the divine nature."

(d) It corroborates this view to remember that the universal Christian ■consciousness recognizes in Christ a single and undivided personality, and ■expresses this recognition in its services of song and prayer.

The foregoing proof of the union of a perfect human nature and of a perfect divine nature in the single person of Jesus Christ suffices to refute both the Nestorian separation of the natures and the Eutychian confounding of them. Certain modern forms of stating the doctrine of this union, however — forms of statement into which there enter some of the misconceptions already noticed — need a brief examination, before we proceed to our own attempt at elucidation.

Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2 : 409-411 (Syst. Doct., 3 : 300-308) —" Three ideas are Included In incarnation: (1) assumption df human nature on the part of the Logos (Heb. t: 14 —

'partook of flesh and blood'; 2 Cor. 5 :19—' God was in Christ'; Col. 2 : 9—' in him dwelleth all the fulness of

the Godhead bodily'); (21 new creation of the second Adam, by the Holy Ghost and power of the Highest (Rom. 5 :14—' Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come'; 1 Cor. 15 : 22—' Is in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive *; 15 : 45—' the first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a iife-gmng spirit1; Lake 1 : 35—'the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Host High shall overshadow thee'; Mat 1: 20—' that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost' 1; (3) becoming flesh, without contraction of deity or humanity (1 Tim. 3 :16—'who was manifested in the flesh1; 1 John 4:2—' Jesus Christ is come m the flesh ; John 6 : 41, 51—' 1 am the bread which came down from heaven ... I am the living bread '; 2 John 7—' Jesus Christ comelh in the flesh'; John 1 : 14—' the Word became lash.' This last text cannot mean: The Logos ceased to be what he was, and began to be only man. Nor can it be a mere theophany. In human form. The reality of the humanity is intimated, as well as the reality of the Logos."

The Lutherans hold to a communion of the natures, as well as to an impartation of their proi>erties: (1) gcmui vliomatimm = irnpartution of attributes of both natures to the one person; (2) ytrntit apotelzxmalicum (from airoT«'Aeo>a,'that which is finished or completed,' (. e. Jesus' work) — attributes of the one person imparted to each of the constituent natures. Hence Mary may be called "the mother of God," as the Chaieedon symbol declares, "as to his humanity," and what each nature did has the value of both; (3) genua inajcaktticum = attributes of one nature imparted to the other, yet so that the divine nature imparts to the human, not the human to the divine. The Lutherans do not believe in a genus tapeiiwticon, i. c, that the human elements communicated themselves to the divine. The only communication of the human was to the person, not to the divine nature, of the God-man. Examples of this third genm majcutatkum are found in John 3 : 3 — " Ho man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven" [here, however, Westeott and Hort, with N and B, omit o wv iv Tu» oipwu]; 5 : 27 — " he gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man." Of the explanation that this is the figure of speech called "allirmls." Luther says: "Allirmls est larva quiedam diaboli, secundum cujus rationes ego eerte nolim esse Ohristianus."

The genu* mtijestaticiim is denied by the Reformed Church, on the ground that it does not permit a clear distinction of the natures. And this is one great difference between it and the Lutheran church. So Hooker, in commenting upon the Son of man's "ascending up where he was before," says: "By the 'Son of man' must be meant the whole person of Christ, who, being man upon earth, filled heaven with his glorious presence; but not according to that nature for which the title of man is given him." For the Lutheran view of this union and its results in the communion of natures, see Hase, Hutterus Redivivus, 11th ed., 195-197; Thomasius, Christ! Person und Werk, 2 :24, 25. For Reformed view, see Turretin, loo, 13, qutest. 8; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:387-397. 407-418.

2. Modern misrepresentations of this union.

A. The theory of Gess and Beecher, that the humanity in Christ is a contracted and metamorphosed deity.

The advocates of this view maintain that the divine Logos reduced himself to the condition and limits of human nature, and thus literally became a human soul. The theory diners from ApoUinarism, in that it does not necessarily presuppose a trichotomous view of man's nature. While ApoUinarism, however, denied the human origin only of Christ's wvev/ia, this theory extends the denial to his entire immaterial being — his body alone being derived from the Virgin. It is held, in slightly varying forms, by the Germans, Hofmann and Ebrard, as well as by Gess; and Henry Ward Beecher is its chief representative in America.

Gess holds that Christ gave up his eternal holiness and divine self-consciousness, to become man, so that he never during his earthly life thought, spoke, or wrought as God. but was at all times destitute of dlvino attributes. See Gobs, 8crlpture Doctrine of the Person of Christ; and synopsis of his view, by Reubelt, in Bib. Sao., 1870 :1-32; Hofmann, Schrlftbewels, 1: 334-241, and 2 ; 20; Ebrard, Dogmatik, 2 :144-151, and in Herzog, Encyclopttdie, art.: Jesus Christ, der Oottmensch; also Liebner, Chrlstliche Dogmatik. Henry Ward Beecber, in his Life of Jesus tho Christ, chap. 3, emphasizes the word "flesh." in John 1:14, and declares the passage to mean that the divine Spirit enveloped himself in a human bitty, and in that condition was subject to the indispensable limitations of material laws. All these advocates of the view hold that Deity was dormant, or paralyzed, in Christ during his earthly life. Its essence is there, but not its efficiency at any time.

Against this theory we urge the following objections:

(a) It rests upon a false interpretation of the passage John 1 : 14— 6 Myus odpf iyhero. The word irdpf here has ite common New Testament meaning. It designates neither soul nor body alone, but human nature in its totality (cf. John 3 : 6 — rb ytyewTiptvav tx rye aapnoc nap% ianv ■ Rom. 7: 8 — Ovk oiKel iv ifioi, Tovt Ianv ev ry oapni fiov, ayaiiov). That iylvero does not imply a transmutation of the Myoc into human nature, or into a human soul, is evident from lon^vuatv which follows — an allusion to the Shechinah of the Mosaic tabernacle; and from the parallel passage 1 John 4 : 2 — hi aapxl ehtXvdora—where we are taught not only the oneness of Christ's person, but the distinctness of the constituent natures.

John 1:14—"tho Word became flesh, and dwelt [tabernacled] among us, and we beheld his glorj ";3:6— "that which ii bom of the flesh is lash "; Rom. 7 :13—" in me, that is, in mj flesh, dwelleth no good thing "; 1 John 4 : 2—"Jems Christ is come in the flesh." Since "flesh," in Scriptural usage, denotes human nature in its entirety, there is as little reason to infer from these passages a change of the Logos into a human body, as a change of the Logos into a human soul.

(6) It contradicts the two great classes of Scripture passages already referred to, which assert on the one hand the divine knowledge and power of Christ and his consciousness of oneness with the Father, and on the other hand the completeness of his human nature and its derivation from the stock of Israel and the seed of Abraham (Mat. 1 : 1-16; Heb. 2 : 16). Thus it denies both the true humanity, and the true deity, of Christ.

See the Scripture passages cited In proof of the Deity of Christ, pages 145-150. Gess himself acknowledges that, if the passages in which Jesus avers his divine knowledge and power and his consciousness of oneness with the Father refer to his earthly life, his theory is overthrown. "Apolllnarism had a certain sort of grotesque grandeur, in giving to the human body and soul of Christ an infinite, divine irnGjia. It maintained at least the divine side of Christ's person. But the theory before us denies both sides." While It so curtails deity that it Is no proper deity. It takes away from humanity all that is valuable In humanity; for a manhood that consists only In body is no proper manhood. 8uch manhood is like the "half-length" portrait which depicted only the lower half of the man. Mat. 1:1-16, the genealogy of Jesus, and Heb. 2 :16—"taketh hold of tho seed of Abraham "—intimate that Christ took all that belonged to human nature.

(c) It is inconsistent with the Scriptural representations of God's immutability, in maintaining that the Logos gives up the attributes of godhead, and his place and office as second person of the Trinity, in order to contract himself into the limits of humanity. Since attributes and substance are correlative terms, it is impossible to hold that the substance of God is in Christ, so long as he does not possess divine attributes. The only exit from this difficulty is through the pantheistic hypothesis that God and man are not two, but one, in essence. To pantheism, therefore, this theory actually tends.


See Dorner, Unverltnderlichkeit Gottes, in Jahrbuch fUr deutsche Theologie, 1: 381; 2 : 440; 3 : 579; esp. 1 : 390-412—" firae holds that, during the thirty-three years of Jesus' earthly life, the Trinity was altered; the Father no more poured his fulness into the Son; the Son no more, with the Father, sent forth the Holy Spirit; the world was upheld and governed by Father and Spirit alone, without the mediation of" the Son; the Father ceased to beget the Son. He says the Father alone has awltii; he is the only Monas. The Trinity is a family, whose head is the Father, but whose number and condition is variable. To Gess, it is indifferent whether the Trinity consists of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or (as during Jesus' life) of only one. But this is a Trinity in which two members arc accidental. A Trinity that can get along without one of its members Is not the Scriptural Trinity. The Father depends on the Son, and the Spirit depends Od the Son, as much as the Son depends on the Father. To take away the Son is to take away the Father and the Spirit. This Riving up of the actuality of his attributes, even of his holiness, on the part of the Logos, |g jn order to make it possible for Christ to sin. But can we ascribe the possibility of sin to a being who Is really God? The reality of temptation requires us to postulate a veritable human soul."

That the theory naturally tends to pantheism, can be seen In Goodwin, Christ and Humanity, who takes the ground that man and God are of the same essence. Beecher, too, says that man and God are of the same nature, and that man is to become divine. So Gess calls the human soul a spark of the divine flame. But we cannot believe either in a man changed to a God, or in a God changed to a man. In the one case God ceases to be God, in the other man ceases to be man. If God's Spirit constitutes Christ's human soul, and In like manner every other human soul also, then there is no difference between Christ and us but one of degree, and we may justify William Blake's blasphemous saying to Crabbe Hobinson: "Jesus Christ is the only God, and so am I, and so are you."

(d) It is destructive of the whole Scriptural scheme of salvation, in that it renders impossible any experience of human nature on the part of the divine, — for when God becomes man he ceases to be God; in that it renders impossible any sufficient atonement on the part of human nature, — for mere humanity, even though its essence be a contracted and dormant deity, is not capable of a suffering which shall have infinite value; in that it renders impossible any proper union of the human race with God in the person of Jesus Christ, — for where true deity and true humanity are both absent, there can be no union between the two.

See Dorner, Jahrbuch f. d. Theologie, 1 : 390—" Upon this theory only an exhlbltory atonement can be maintained. There Is no real humanity t hat, in the strength of divinity, can bring a sacrifice to God. Not substitution, therefore, but obedience, on this view, reconciles us to God. Even if it Is said that God's Spirit is the real soul in all men, this will not help the matter; for we should then have to make an essential distinction between the indwelling of the Spirit in the unregenerate, the regenerate, and Christ, respectively. But in that case we lose the likeness between Christ's nature and our own—Christ's being prefxistont, and ours not. Without {his pantheistic doctrine, Christ's unlikeness to us is yet greater; for he is really a wandering God, clothed in a human body, and cannot properly be called a human soul. We have then no middle-point between the body and the Godhead; and In the state of exaltation, we have no manhood at all—only the infinite Logos, In a glorified body as his garment."

Isaac Watts's theory of a prefc'xistent humanity in like manner Implies that humanity is originally in deity; it does not proceed from a human stock, but from a divine; between the human and the divine there is no proper distinction: hence there can be no proper redeeming of humanity; see Bib. Sac, 1875 : 421. On the theory in general, see Hovey, God with Us, 62-89; Hodge, Syst. Thool., 2 : 430-440; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 4: 388-408; Biedermann, Christliche Dogmatik, 356-359; Bruce, Humiliation of Christ, 187, 280.

B. Theory of Domer and Bothe, that the union between the divine and the human natures is not completed by the incarnating act.

The advocates of this view maintain that the union between the two natnreH is accomplished by a gradual communication of the fulness of the divine Logos to the man Christ Jesus. This communication is mediated by the human consciousness of Jesus. Before the human consciousness begins, the personality of the Logos is not yet divine-human. The personal union completes itself only gradually, as the human consciousness is sufficiently developed to appropriate the divine.

Dorner, Glaubenslehre,2 : 860 (Syst. Doot., 4 :125) —" In order that Christ might show his high-priestly love by suffering and death, the different sides of his personality yet stood to one another in relative separableness. The divine-human union in him, accordingly, was before his death not yet completely actualized, although its completion was from the beginning divinely assured." 2 : 431 (S3'st. Doct., 3 : 328)—" In spite of this hemming. Inside of the I7nio, the Logos is from the beginning united with Jesus in the deepest foundation of his being, and Jesus' life has ever been a divine-human one, in that

a present receptivity for the Godhead has never remained without its satisfaction

Even the unconscious humanity of the babe turns receptively to the Logos, as the plant turns toward the light. The initial union makes Christ already the God-man, but not in such n way as to prevent a subsequent brcomina; for surely he did become omniscient and incapable of death, as he was not at the beginning."

2 : 484 (Syst. Doct., 8 : 383)—" The actual life of God, as the logos, reaches beyond the beginnings of the divine-human life. For if the Unto is to complete itself by growth, the relation of impartation and reception must continue. In his personal consciousness, there was a distinction between duty and being. The will had to take up practically, and turn into action, each new revelation or perception of God's will on the part of Intellect or conscience. He had to maintain, with his will, each revelation of his nature and work. In his twelfth year, he says: 'I must be about my Father's business.' To Satan's temptation: 'Art thou God's Son?' he must reply with an affirmation that suppresses all doubt, though he will not prove it by miracle. This moral growth, as it was the will of the Father, was his task. He hears from his Father, and obej"s. In him, imperfect knowledge was never the same with false conception. In us, ignorance has error for its obverse side. But this was never the case with him, though he grew in knowledge unto the end." Dorner's view of the Person of Christ may be found in his Hist. Doct. Person Christ. 5:248-281; Glaubenslehre, 2 : 347-474 (Syst. Doct., 3 : 243-373).

A summary of his views is also given in Princeton Rev., 1873 : 71-87 — Dorner Illustrates the relation between the humanity and the deity of Christ by the relation between God and man, in conscience, and in the witness of the Spirit. "So far as the human element was immature or incomplete, so far the Logos was not present. Knowledge advanced to unity with the Logos, and the human will afterwards confirmed the best and highest knowledge. A resignation of both the Logos and the human nature to the union is Involved In the incarnation. The growth continues until the Idea, and the reality, of divine humanity perfectly coincide. The assumption of unity was gradual, in the life of Christ. His exaltation began with the perfection of this development." Rothe's statement of the theory can be found In his Dogmatik, 2 : 49-182; and in Bib. Sac, 27 :388.

It is objectionable for the following reasons:

(a) The Scripture plainly teaches that that which was born of Mary was as completely Son of God as Son of man ( Luke 1 : 35) ; and that in the incarnating act, and not at his resurrection, Jesus Christ became the Godman ( Phil. 2:7). But this theory virtually teaches the birth of a man who subsequently and gradually became the God-man, by consciously appropriating the Logos to whom he sustained ethical relations—relations with regard to which the Scripture is entirely silent.

In Lake 1: 35 — "the hoiy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God"— and Phil. 2:7 — "emptied himself, taking the form of a serrant, being made in the likeness of men "—we have evidence that Christ was both Son of God and Son of man from the very beginning of his earthly life. But, according to Dorner, before there was any human consciousness, the personality of Jesus Christ was not divine-human.

(b) Since consciousness and will belong to personality, as distinguished from nature, the hypothesis of a mutual, conscious, and voluntary appropriation of divinity by humanity and of humanity by divinity, during the earthly life of Christ, is but a more subtle form of the Nestorian doctrine of a double personality. It follows, moreover, that as these two personalities do not become absolutely one until the resurrection, the death of the man Jesus Christ, to whom the Logos has not yet fully united himself, cannot possess an infinite atoning efficacy.

Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 2 : 68-70, objects to Dorner's view, that it " leads us to a man who is in intimate communion with God—a man of Ood, but not a man who is God." He maintains, against Dorner, that the union between the divine and human in Christ exists before the consciousness of it." 193-195—Dorner's view "makeseach element, the divine and the human, long for the other, and reach its truth and reality only in the other. This, so far as the divine is concerned, is very like pantheism. Two uilliiia personalities are presupposed, with ethical relation to each other—two persons, at least at the first. Says Dorner: 'So long as the manhood is yet unconscious, the person of the Logos Is not yet the central Ctfo of this man. At the beginning, the Logos does not impart himself, so far as he is person or self-consciousness. He keeps apart by himself, Just in proportion as the manhood fails in power of perception." At the beginning, then, this man is not yet the God-man; the Logos only works in him, and on him. *The n/ifo pcrno»taii8 grows and completes itself — becomes ever more allsided and complete. Till the resurrection, there is a relative separability still.' Thus Dorner. But the Scripture knows nothing of an ethical relation of the divine to the human in Christ's person. It knows only of one divine-human subject." See also Thomasius, 2 : 80-92.

(c) While this theory asserts a final complete union of God and man in Jesus Christ, it renders this union far more difficult to reason, by holding it to be a merging of two persons in one, rather than a union of two natures in one person. We have seen, moreover, that the Scripture gives no countenance to the doctrine of a double personality during the earthly life of Christ. The God-man never says: "I and the Logos are one "; "he that hath seen me hath seen the Logos "; "the Logos is greater than I"; "I go to the Logos." In the absence of all Scripture evidence iu favor of this theory, we must regard the rational and dogmatic arguments against, it as conclusive.

Liebner, in Jahrbuch f. d. Theologie, 3 : 349-366, urges, against Dorner, that there is no sign in Scripture of such communion between the two natures of Christ as exists between the three persons of the Trinity. Phillppi also objects to Dorner's view: (1) that it implies a pantheistic identity of essence in both God and man; (2) that it makes the resurrection, not the birth, the time when the Word became flesh: (3) that it does not explain how two personalities can become one: see Phillppi, Glaubenslehre, 4: 364-380. The merging of two personalities in one seems at first sight to be made easier by the pantheistic assumption that God and man are essentially one; and Dorner, though strenuously denying that he Is a pantheist, is quoted as saying: "The unity of essence of God and man is the great discovery of this age." He doubtless thinks that he excludes pantheism by his earnest assertion of personality. But not only is one nature and two persons the direct opposite of the Scripture doctrine; but it is difficult, upon the assumption of a single essence, to see how there can bo any such thing as distinct personalities at all. See also Biedermann, Dogmatik, 351-353; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2 : 428-430.

3. The real nature of this union.

(a) Ite great importance.—While the Scriptures represent the person of Christ as the crowning mystery of the Christian scheme (Matt. 11 : 27; Col. 1 : 27; 2:2; 1 Tim. 3 : 16), they also incite us to its study (John 17 : 3; 20 : 27; Luke 24 : 39; Phil. 3 : 8, 10). This is the more needful, since Christ is not only the central point of Christianity, but is Christianity itself—the embodied reconciliation and union between man and God. The following remarks are offered, not as fully explaining, but only as in some respects relieving, the difficulties of the problem.

Mat. 11: 27 — " No one knoveth the Son. save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son wiUeth to reveal him." Here it seems to be Intimated that the mystery of the nature of the Son is even greater than thut of the Father. Sliedd, Hist. Doct., 1 :408 — The Person of Christ is in some respects more baffling to reason than the Trinity. Yet there is a profane neglect, as wel 1 as a profane curiosity: Col. 1: 27 — " the riehes of the glory of this mystery ... which is Christ in yon the hope of glory "; 2:2 — " the mystery of God, eren Christ, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden "; 1 Tim. 3 :16 — " great is the mystery of godliness; he who was manifested in the flesh " — here the Vulgate, the Latin Fathers, and Iiuttmann make >iuo-T>ipioithe antecedent of <k, the relative taking the natural gender of Its antecedent, and >iv<rT7jpioi. referring to Christ; Eeb. 2 :11 — " both he that sanctifleth and they that are sanctified are all of one [not father, but race ]" (cf. lets 17 : 26 — " he made of one every nation of men ")— an allusion to the solidarity of the race and Christ's participation In all that belongs to us.

John 17 : 3 — " this is Life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jems Christ"; 20 : 27 — "Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing "; Luke 24 : 39 — " See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me having "; Phil. 3:8,10 — "I count all things to bo loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord ... that I may know him "; 1 John 1:1 — " that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life."

The chief problems with regard to the person of Christ are: (1) one personality and two natures; (2) human nature without personality; (3) relation of the Logos to the humanity during the earthly life of Christ; (4) relation of the humanity to the Logos during the heavenly life of Christ. Luther said that we should need "new tongues" before wo could properly set forth this doctrine —particularly, a new language with regard to the nature of man.

(£>) Reason for myBtery.— The union of the two natures in Christ's person is necessarily inscrutable, because there are no analogies to it in our experience. Attempts to illustrate it on the one hand from the union and yet the distinctness of soul and body, of iron and heat, and on the other hand from the union and yet the distinctness of Christ and the believer, of the divine Son and the Father, are one-sided and become utterly misleading, if they are regarded as furnishing a rationale of the union and not simply a means of repelling objection. The first two illustrations mentioned above lack the essential element of two natures to make them complete : soul and body are not two natures, but one, nor are iron and heat two substances. The last two illustrations mentioned above lack the element of single personality: Christ and the believer are two persons, not one, even as the Son and the Father are not one person, but two.

The two illustrations most commonly employed are the union of soul and body, and the union of the believer with Christ. Each of these Illustrates one side of the great doctrine, but each must be complemented by the other. The former, taken by itself, would be Eutychian; the latter, taken by Itself, would be Nestorian. Like the doctrine of the Trinity, the Person of Christ Is an absolutely unique fact, for which we can find no complete analogies. See Blunt, Diet. Doct. and Hist. Theol., art.: Hypostasis: Sartorius, Person and Work of Christ, 27-05; Wilberforce, Incarnation, 39-77; Luthardt, Fund. Truths, 281-334.

(c) Ground of possibility.— The possibility of the union of deity and humanity in one person is grounded in the original creation of man in the divine image. Man's kinship to God, in other words, his possession of a rational and spiritual nature, is the condition of incarnation. Brute-life is incapable of union with God. But human nature is capable of the divine, in the sense not only that it lives, moves, and has its being in God, but that God may unite himself indissolubly to it and endue it with divine powers, while yet it remains all the more truly human. Since the moral image of God in human nature has been lost by sin, Christ, the perfect image of God after which man was originally made, restores that lost image by uniting himself to humanity and filling it with his divine life and love.

2 Pat. 1:4 — " partakers of the dirine nature." Creation and providence do not furnish the last limit of God's indwelling. Beyond these, there is the spiritual union between the believer and Christ, and even beyond this, there is the unity of God and man in the person of Jesus Christ. Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2 : 283 (Syst. Doct., 3 :180) — " Humanity in Christ is related to divinity, as woman to man in marriage. It is receptive, but it is exalted by receiving:. Christ is the offspring' of the [ marriage] covenant between God and Israel."

Ib., 2 : 403-411 (Syst. Doct., 3 : 301-308) — " The question is: How can Christ be both Creator and creature? The Logos, as such, stands over against the creature as a distinct object. How can he become, and be, that which exists only as object of his activity and inworking? Can the cause become its own effect? The problem Is solved, only by remembering- that the divine and human, though distinct from each other, are not to be thought of as foreign to each other and mutually exclusive. The very thing that distinguishes them binds them together. Their essential distinction is that God has aseity, while man has simply dependence. 'Deep calleth unto deep' (Ps. 42 : 7) — the deep of the divine riches, and the deep of human poverty, call to each other. God's infinite resources and man's Infinite need, God's measureless supply and man's boundless receptivity, attract each other, until they unite in him in whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. The mutual attraction is of an ethical sort, but the divine love has 'fait loved' (1 John 4 :19).

"The new second creation Is therefore not merely, like the first creation, one that distinguishes from God, — it is one that unites with God. Nature is diBtinct from God, yet God moves and works in nature. Much more does human nature And its only true reality, or realization, in union with God. God's uniting act does not violate or unmake it> but rather first causes it to be what, in God's Idea, it was meant to be." Incarnation is therefore the very fulfilment of the idea of humanity. The supernatural assumption of humanity is the most natural of all things. Man is not a mere tangent to God, but an empty vessel to be filled from the infinite fountain. NHtura humana in Christo capax divinie. See Talbot, in Bap. Quar., 1868: 128; Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, 270.

(d) No double personality. — This possession of two natures does not involve a double personality in the God-man, for the reason that the Logos takes into union with himself, not an individual man with already developed personality, but human nature which has had no separate existence before its union with the divine. Christ's human nature is impersonal, in the sense that it attains self-consciousness and self-determination only in the • personality of the God-man. Here it is important to mark the distinction between nature and person. Nature is substance possessed in common; the persons of the Trinity have one nature; there is a common nature of mankind. Person is nature separately subsisting, with powers of consciousness and will. Since the human nature of Christ has not and never had a separate subsistence, it is impersonal, and in the God-man the Logos furnishes the principle of personality. It is equally important to observe that self-consciousness and self-determination do not belong to nature as such, but only to personality. For this reason, Christ has not two consciousnesses and two wills, but a single consciousness and a single will. This consciousness and will, moreover, is never simply human, but is always theanthropic — an activity of the one personality which unites in itself the human and the divine (Mark 13 : 32; Luke 22 : 42).

The theory of two consciousnesses and two wills, first elaborated by John of Damascus, was an unwarranted addition to the Orthodox doctrine propounded at Chalcedon. Although the view of John of Damascus was sanctioned by the Council of Constantinople (681), "this Council has never been regarded by the Greek Church as ecumenical, and its composition and spirit deprive its decisions of all value as Indicating the true sense of Scripture"; see Ilruce, Humiliation of Christ, 90. Nature has consciousness and will, only as It is manifested in permn. The one person has a single consciousness and will, which embraces within its scope at all times a human nature, and sometimes a divine.

Sartorius uses the Illustration of two concentric circles: the one ego of personality in Christ is at the same time the centre of both circles, the human nature and the divine. Or, still better, illustrate by a smaller vessel of air Inverted and sunk, sometimes below its centre, sometimes above, in a far larger vessel of water. See Mark 13 : 32 — "Of that day or that hoar knoveth Do one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son ": Lake 22 : 42 — " Father, if thoa be Tilling, remove this cap from me: nevertheless not my will, bat thine, be done." To say that, although in his capacity as man he was ignorant, yet at that same moment in his capacity as God he was omniscient, is to accuse Christ of unveracity. Whenever Christ spoke, it was not one of the natures that spoke, but the person in whom both natures were united.

We subjoin various definitions of personality : Boethlus, quoted In Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:415 (Syst. Doct., 3 : 813) —" Persona est anirmv rationalls lndlvldua substantia"; F. W. Robertson, Lect. on Gen., p. 3— " Personality ■-self-consciousness, will, character"; Porter, Human Intellect, 626 —" Personality' distinct subsistence, either actually or latently self-conscious and self-determining"; Harris, Philos. Basis of Theism, 408 — " Person = being, conscious of self, subsisting in Indlvuality and Identity, and endowed with intuitive reason, rational sensibility, and free-will." Dr. E. G. Robinson defines "nature" as "that substratum or condition of being which determines the kind and attributes of the person, but which is clearly distinguishable from the person Itself." For the theory of two consciousnesses and two wills, see Phillppi, Giaubenslehre, 4 :129, 234; Kahnts, Dogmatik, 2 ; 314; Rldgelcy, Body of Divinity, 1 : 476; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2 : 378-391. Per emitra, see Hovey, God with Us, 66; Schaff, Church Hist., 1:757, and 3:751; Calderwood. Moral Philosophy, 12-14; Wilberforee, Incarnation, 148-169; Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 512-518.

(e) Effect upon the human.—The union of the divine and the human natures makes the latter possessed of the powers belonging to the former; in other words, the attributes of the divine nature are imparted to the human without passing over into its essence — so that the human Christ even on earth had power to be, to know, and to do, as God. That this power was latent, or was only rarely manifested, was the result of the selfchosen state of humiliation upon which the God-man had entered. In this state of humiliation, the communication of the contents of his divine nature to the human was mediated by the Holy Spirit. The God-man, in his servant-form, knew and taught and performed only what the Spirit permitted and directed (Mat. 3 : 16; John 3 : 34; Acts 1 :2; 10 : 38; Heb. 9 :14). But when thus permitted, he knew, taught, and performed, not, like the prophets, by power communicated from without, but by virtue of his own inner divine energy (Mat. 17:2; Mark 5 : 41; Luke 5 : 20, 21; 6: 19; John 2 : 11, 24, 25; 3 : 13; 20 : 19).

Kahnis, Dogmatik, 2nd ed., 2:77 —"Human nature does not become divine, but(as Chemnitz has said) only the medium of the divine: as the moon has not a light of her own, but only shines in the light of the sun. So human nature; may derivatively exercise divine attributes, because it is united to the divine In one person."

Phillppi, Glaubenslehre, 4 :131 — " The union exalts the human, as light brightens the air, heat gives glow to the iron, spirit exalts the body, the Holy Spirit hallows the believer by union with his soul. Fire gives to Iron its own properties of lighting and burning; yet the Iron does not become lire. Soul gives to body its life-energy: yet the body does not become soul. The Holy Spirit sanctifies the believer, but the believer does not become divine; for the divine principle is the determining one. We do not speak of airy light, of iron heat, or of a bodily soul. So human nature possesses the divine only derivatively. In this sense it is imr destiny to become 'partaken of the divine nature' < 2 Pet. 1: +)." Even in his earthly life, when he wished to be, or more correctly, when the Spirit permitted, he was omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, could walk the sea, or pass through closed doors. But, in his state of humiliation, he was subject to the Holy Spirit.

In Mil 3 :16, the anointing of the Spirit at his baptism was not the descent of a material dove ("as a dove"). The dove-like appearance was only the outward sign of the coming forth of the Holy Spirit from the depths of his being and pouring itself like a flood into his divine-human consciousness. John 3 : 34 — " for he giveth not the Spirit bj measure"; leu 1:2—" efter thit he hid given commandment through the loir Ghost onto the ipostles "; 10 : 38 — "Jesus of Nazareth, how thit God anointed htm with the Holy Ghost uid with power: who went about doing good and healing ill thit were oppressed of the devil; for God wis with him "; Heb. 9 :14 — " the blood of Christ, who through the eterul Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God."

When permitted by the Holy Spirit, he knew, taught, and wrought as God: Mil 17:2 — " he wis transfigured before them "; Mark 5 : 41 — " Damsel, I say unto thee, arise "; Luke 5 : 20, 21 — " Man. thy sns are forgiven thee .... Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" Lake 6 :19 —"power came forth from him, and healed them all"; John 2:11 — " This beginning of signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory ";

24,25 — " he knew all men he himself knew what was in man "; 3 :13 — " the Son of man, which is in heaven"

[here, however, Westcott and Hort, with K and B, omit i «» i» rj ovpary ]; 20 :19 — "when the doors were shut.... Jesus came and stood in the midst."

Christ is the "servant of Jehovah" (Is. 42:1-7; 49:1-12; 52:13; 53:12) and the meaning of trait <lets 3 :13. 26; 4 : 27, 30) Is not "child" or " Son"; it is "servant," as in the Revised Version. But, in the state of exaltation, Christ is the "Lord of the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3 :18 — Meyer), giving the Spirit (John 16 : 7 — " I will send him unto you " ). present in the Spirit (John 14 :18 — "I come unto yon "; Mat. 28 : 20 — " I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world " ), and working through the Spirit (1 Cor. 15 : 45 — " the last Idsffl became a life-giving spirit "; 2 Cor. 3 : 17 — " Now the Lord is the Spirit" ). On Christ's relation to the Holy Spirit, see John Owen, Works, 282-287; Kobins, in Bib. Sac, Oct., 1874 : 615; Wilberforce, Incarnation, 208-341.

(/) Effect upon the divine. —This communion of the natures was such that, although the divine nature in itself is incapable of ignorance, weakness, temptation, suffering, or death, the one person Jesus Christ was capable of these by virtue of the union of the divine nature with a human nature in him. As the human Savior can exercise divine attributes, not in virtue of his humanity alone, but derivatively, by virtue of his possession of a divine nature, so the divine Savior can suffer and be ignorant as man, not in his divine nature, but derivatively, by virtue of his possession of a human nature. We may illustrate this from the connection between body and soul. The soul suffers pain from its union with the body, of which apart from the body it would be incapable. So the God-man, although in his divine nature impassible, was capable, through his union with humanity, of absolutely infinite suffering.

Just as my soul could never suffer the pains of fire if It were only soul, but can suffer those pains in union with the body, so the otherwise impassible God can suffer mortal pangs through his union with humanity, which he never could suffer if he had not joined himself to my nature. The union between the humanity and the deity is so close, that deity itself is brought under the curse and penalty of the law. Because Christ was God, did he pass unscorched through the fires of Gethsemane and Calvary? Rather let us say, because Christ was God, he underwent a suffering that was absolutely infinite. Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 4 : 300 «/.; Lawrence, in Bib. Sac, 24 : 41; Schiiberleln, in Jahrbuch ftlr deutsche Theologie, 1871 : 439-501.

(g) Necessity of the union. —The union of two natures in one person is necessary to constitute Jesus Christ a proper mediator between man and God. His two-fold nature gives him fellowship with both parties, since it involves an equal dignity with God, and at the same time a perfect sympathy with man (Heb. 2 : 17, 18; 4 : 15, 16). This two-fold nature, moreover, enables him to present to both God and man proper terms of reconciliation: being man, he can make atonement for man; being God, his atonement has infinite value; while both his divinity and his humanity combine to move the hearts of offenders and constrain them to submission and love (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7 : 25).

Heb. 2 :17,18 — " Wherefore it behoved him in all things to bo made like onto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people, For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to sneeor them that are tempted "; 4:15,16—"For we have not an high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, jet without sin. Let us therefore draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and may find grace to help us in time of need "; 1 Tim. 2:5 — "One God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus "; leb. 7 : 25 — " Wherefore also he is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them."

Because Christ is man, he can make atonement for man and can sympathize with man. Because Christ is God, his atonement has Infinite value, and the union which he effects with God is complete. A merely human 8avior could never reconcile or reunite us to God. But a divine-human Savior meets all our needs. See Wilberforee, Incarnation, 170-208.

(h) The union eternal. — The union of humanity with deity in the person of Christ is indissoluble and eternal. Unlike the avatars of the East, the incarnation was a permanent assumption of human nature by the second person of the Trinity. In the ascension of Christ, glorified humanity has attained the throne of the universe. By his Spirit, this same divinehuman Savior is omnipresent to secure the progress of his kingdom. The final subjection of the Son to the Father, alluded to in 1 Cor. 15 : 28, cannot be other than the complete return of the Son to his original relation to the Father; since, according to John 17 : 5, Christ is again to possess the glory which he had with the Father before the world was ( cf. Heb. 1 : 8; 7 : 24, 25).