Page images

born from the dead, as he is the life, and the giver of life, as God, let him be anathema." *

But when this writer comes to explain himself, it appears that what he said was nothing better than a quibble. is God the word,” he says, “ was free from passion ; but he appropriated to himself what was done to his own body." + “ Christ is palpable and impalpable, visible and invisible.” I “We ascribe to him human properties on account of the dispensation of the flesh, and divine ones on account of his ineffable generation from the Father.” He also says expressly, “ We all acknowledge that the word of God is impassible.”|| Theodoret likewise says, “ Because the body which was assumed is called the body of the only-begotten Son of God, the sufferings of that body are referred to him.”

The doctrine of the union between the divine and human nature of Christ seems to have been carried to its greatest height by Damascenus, who says, “ The flesh of Christ, on account of its union with the logos, has a life-giving property, is endued with a knowledge of futurity, and may even be said always to have been." **

For this he quotes Gregory Nazianzen. “ The orthodox believe the deification of the flesh of Christ, though without any change of its properties. The one brought, and the other received divinity.”tt

The nature of the body of Christ was one part of the Apollinurian controversy. Apollinarius held an opinion on this subject, which very much resembles that of some of the

* “ Si quis non confitetur verbum Dei carne esse passum, carne crucifixum, et mortem carne gustasse, primogenitum ex mortuis factum, quemadmodum et vita est, et vivificans, sicut Deus, anathema esto." Epist. Opera, II. p. 27. (P.)

† “ Tum cogita quod Deus verbum passionis quidem mavserit expers, verum hæc omnia proprio corpori facta sibi appropriarit.” Hom. Opera, II. p. 75. (P.)

1“ Dicimus itaque eundem palpabilem cuni sit impalpabilis, visibilem cum sit invisibilis.” Ibid. p. 96. (P.)

§ “ Et huic adscribimus tam humana, propter dispensationem illius cum carne susceptam, quam divina propter inenarrabilem illius quam ex Patre habet generationem.” Hom. Opera, II. p. 97. (P.)

ll “ Præterea et impassibile esse verbum Dei confitemur omnes.” Epist. xxviii. Opera, II. p. 44. (P.)

Και επειδη παρ' αυτο μονογενες υιε τε Θεου σωμα το ληφθεν προσηγορευθη σωμα, EIS ŠAUTOY avapepet TO TE OWLATOS Wantos. Epist. cxliv., Opera, 1II. p. 1019. (P.)

** “Serva et ignorans Christi caro dicitur. Verum ob personæ identitatem, atque indivulsam conjunctionem, Domini anima rerum futurarum cognitione, quemadmodum et reliquis miraculis, locupletata est.” Orthod. Fid. L. iii. C. xxi. Opera, p. 421. (P.)

tt “Ut enim incarnationem citra mutationem et conversionem confitemur : sic item carni deificationem factam esse censemus. Sic enim Theologus Gregorius

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Gnostics; for he said that it came from heaven," * " that it was eternal,” † and that “it was consubstantial with the divinity.” Some who were called Gainites, also held that “the body of Christ was incorruptible.”

That the body of Christ was naturally incorruptible was an opinion very prevalent among the orthodox after the Council of Nice. Athanasius says, that “the body of Christ suffered according to the nature of bodies, but that it had the property of incorruptibility from the logos inhabiting it."| Fulgentius says, that “ the body of Christ had no corruption in the grave, and his soul no pain in hell.” This he ascribes to the body and soul being free from sin. The Emperor Justinian adopted this opinion some time before his death. But it was afterwards generally condemned. Agobard attributed even a vivifying power to the flesh of Christ. **

In favour of his opinion, that the body of Christ came from heaven, Apollinarius urged John's saying " the word was made flesh.” tt And it is observed by Athanasius, that this was a text which both the ancient and modern heretics took advantage of.”#1 To this scheme it was answered, that “ by making the body of Christ consubstantial with the logos, they made a fourth person in the Deity, and so composed a Quaternity, and not a Trinity.”SS

Τινες μεν γαρ αυτων ελολμησαν λεγειν, ανωθεν τον Χριςον το σωμα κατενηνοχεναι: Epiphanius, H. lxxvii. p. 996. (P.)

* Ωςε ειπειν μη νεωθερον ειναι το σωμα της το λογα θεοτητο, αλλα συναϊδιον αυτα διαπαντος γεγενησθαι, επειδη εκ της σοφιας συνεση.

Ibid. p. 999. Εξ αρχης εν τω υιω την σαρκωδη εκεινην φυσιν ειναι. . G. Nazianzen, Or. xlvi. Opera, p. 722. (P.)

1 Τινες δε και ομοεσιον το σωμα τα Χριςου τη θεοτητι λεγειν ετολμησαν. Epiphanius, H. Ixxvii. Opera, I. p. 997. (P.)

" Confitentur Gainitæ Deum sermonem è virgine naturam humanam adsumpsisse perfectè ac verè, sed post unionem esse corpus incorruptibile dicunt.” Leontius de Sectis, Bib. Pat. App. p. 1873. (P.)

| Πασχαν μεν γαρ το σωμα καλα την των σωμαίων φυσιν επασχεν ειχε δε της αφθαρσιας την φυσιν εκ το συνοικησανθος αυτω λογα. Scrmo Major de Fide in Montfaucon, Π. p. 7. (P.)

" Sic tamen, ut nec Christi caro in sepulchro corrumperetur, nec inferni doloribus animna torqueretur. Quoniam anima, immunis à peccato non erat subdenda supplicio, et carnem sine peccato non debuit vitiare corruptio." Ad Trasimundum, L. ii. C. xxx. p. 476. (P.)

**.“ Felix soli divinitati tribuit vivificationem, dicens Dominum secundum divinitatem vivificantem quos vult; et non recordans quod et caro vivificatoris verbi, vivificatrix credenda est, beato Cyrillo docente ita." Adversus Felicem, Sect. xxxii. p. 40. (P.)

ft“ Quemadmodum argumentantur Apollinaristæ vel quicunque sunt alii, adversus auimam Domini, quam propterea pegant quia scriptum legunt, verbum caro factum est. Si enim et anima inquiunt, ibi esset, debuit dici, verbum homo factus est." Austin de Anima, Opera, VII. p. 1159. (P.)

11 To δε ο λογος εγενείο σαρξ ειρημενον, υπερφυως τε και υπερεπαινον, εξελεξαντο και δε παλαι κατα τας αιρεσεις πολεμιοι και οι νυν αντιδικοι. Opera, ΙΙ. p. 296. (P.)

SS Ουτως το ομοεσιον σωμα το λογο ουκ εςιν αυτος ο λογο», αλλ' έτερον προς τον λογον TE28 DE QYTOS KATTUTO TICO TITO

Einbanins. Haor lyxvü Onera.

CHAPTER VIII. Of the Use of the Incarnation, and the Objections that were

made to the Doctrine. It is not my design in this work to treat largely concerning the use of the doctrine of the incarnation, as I have already done it in what I have advanced concerning the doctrine of Atonement, in my “ History of the Corruptions of Christianity.” * But having selected a few passages which may throw some farther light on the subject, from the works which have lately gone through my hands, it may not be amiss to insert them in this place.

The great and immediate object of the doctrine of the incarnation of the logos was the exaltation of the person of Christ; but it was soon found to answer another purpose, and this was to enable the philosophizing Christians to conceive how man should conquer death and the devil which they say he could not have done, without the assistance of divinity. For this purpose, they supposed that the divine nature of Christ was so mixed with the human, that the actions of the one were attributed to the other; and they also conceived the human nature of Christ to be, as it were, the representative of mankind in general. They were likewise struck with the idea of the same being that made the world coming to restore it. “ There is nothing absurd,” says Athanasius, “in supposing that the Father saved the world by the same person by whom he made it.” + “ It was necessary,” says Job, the monk, " that the Maker of the world should reforin and renew his own workmanship, which had received injury.”

Equal stress was laid both upon the divinity and the humanity of Christ, in order to accomplish this end. “ God,” says Irenæus, “ shall judge the Ebionites; for how can they be saved, unless it be God who works out their salvation upon earth; and how can man go to God, if God do not come to man?” But it was equally necessary that Christ

• Vol. V. pp. 122–144.

+ Ουδεν γαρ εναντιον φανησεται, ει δι' ου ταυλην εδημιεργησεν ο Πατηρ, εν αυτω και την Tauins cuinpocis Eipyaralo. De Incarnatione, Opera, I. p. 54. (P.)

Η “Ως εχρην τον δημιεργον και πλασης, ανθον και αναπλασαι και ανακαινισαι συνδροβεν Enuseppua. Phot. Bib. Sect.ccxxii. p. 582. (P.)

5 Ανακρινει δε και τας Hβιωνες σως δυναναι σωθήναι ει μη ο Θεος ην á την σωτηριαν αυλων επι γης εργασαμενος" η σως ανθρωπος χωρησει εις Θεον, ει μη ο Θεος εχωρηθη εις AYAT PWTOV; L. iv. C. lix. p. 358. (P.)

should have a proper human nature, that it might be a man who conquered his own enemies. “Man,” says Athanasius,

was corrupted and destroyed; wherefore the logos made use of man as an instrument, and conformed himself in all things.”* “ The human nature of Christ,” says Gregory Nyssen, “by which the whole of human nature was mixed with the Deity, is taken out of all human nature, as the first-fruits of the common mass.”+ Also Gregory Nazianzen speaks of Christ as “representing human nature, when he hung upon the cross, and says, that in this capacity he said, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' Not meaning that he himself was deserted either by the Father, or by his own divinity, but only that human nature was in a deserted and despised state.”

Chrysostom, speaking of Christ bidding his disciples to handle and feel bim, that they might be satisfied that he was no spirit, and of his reproof to Peter about his suffering death, says, that “ his human nature was that on which our salvation chiefly depended; for thus death and sin are destroyed, the curse abolished, and a thousand blessings introduced. He therefore chose that his humanity should be believed in the first place, this being the root and foundation of innumerable good things.” He also says, that “when Christ was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, and conquered the devil, it was not his divinity that did it; for that it would have been disgraceful to the Deity to say, I have conquered."|| He also says, that “ Christ saves us, and makes intercession, as a man.”[

Theodoret makes it the strongest objection to the doctrine of Eutyches, that, upon his scheme, - We have no advantage

Αλλ' ο ηδη γενομενος ανθρωπος εφθειρείο και παραπολλυτο δεν εικοτος ανθρωπινο κεχρηται καλως οργανω, και εις παντα εαυτον ηπλωσεν ο λογος. De Incarnatione, Opera, 1. p. 98. (P.)

* Εκ πασης δε της ανθρωπινης φυσεως ή κατεμιχθη το θειον, διον απαρχη τις τα κοινά φυραματος και κατα Χριςον ανθρωπος υπεςη, δι' ου προσεφυρη τη θεοτητι σαν το ανθρωπινον. Opera, I. p. 844. P.)

1 Ου γαρ αυτο εγκαταλελειπται η υπο το ταιρος, η υπο της εαυτο θεοτητο... Εν εαυτω δε, όπερ ειπον, τυποι το ημετερον ημεις γαρ ημεν οι εγκαταλελειμμενοι και παρεωραμενοι προτερον, ειτα νυν προστειλημμενοι και σεσωσμενοι τους τα απαθες παθεσιν. Οr. xxxvi. Opera, p. 581. (P.)

και Μαλλον δε της υπερ ημων σωληριας το κεφαλαιον (τετο) και δι' ου παντα γεγενηται και κατορθωται· ουτω γαρ και θανατος ελυθη, και αμαρτια ανηρεθη, και καταρα ηφανισθη, και τα μυρια εισηλθεν εις τον βιον ημων αγαθα διο μαλιςα εβελετο πιςευεσθαι την οικονομιαν, την ριζαν και τηγων ημιν των μυριων γενομενην αγαθων οικονομων δε τα θεια συσKiaseo jau noiet. In Johan. Hom. xxx. Opera, VIII, p. 155. (P.)

Η Ανηχθη υπο τα πνευματος πειρασθήναι, και ενικησε τον διαβολον, εχ ή θεολης. Υβρις γαρ ην τη θεολη: το ειπειν Ενικησα. De Sp. S. VI. p. 216. (Ρ.)

Τ Πως σωζει; Παν7ο7ε ζων, εις το ενθυγχανειν υπερ αυτων ορας ανθρωποληλα. In Heb. vii. Opera, X. p. 1846. (P.)


from the incarnation, nor any pledge of our own resurrection. For it will not follow, that because God rose from the grave, therefore man will, the difference of the natures is so great. Arguing against the Apollinarians, he says, that " if Christ had a logos, instead of a human soul, it was God and not man that overcame in the temptation; and therefore, that man could derive po benefit from it. The devil,” he also says, “ would exult, as having been overcome, not by man, but by God. For it was a great thing to him to be conquered by God.”+

Origen's idea on this subject was somewhat peculiar, but sufficiently agreeable to his doctrine of the logos, as the universal agent of the Deity operating through all nature. For he says, “Christ died not for man only, but for all rational creatures, even for the stars," which, as a Platonist, he supposed to be animated.-For, says he, “the stars are not clean in his sight, as we read in the book of Job." I Still, however, he retained the idea of the logos serving men in the character of a man, and other beings in their peculiar characters. For, he says, “ Christ was a man for men, and an angel to angels," as he infers from his appearances in the Old Testament. It is evident, however, from this, that Origen did not consider suffering as necessary to redemption. For though, according to him, Christ assumed the forin of an angel, he could not suppose that he suffered in that form.

Though the doctrine of the incarnation of the logos served to cover the reproach of the cross, and to make the religion of Christ appear more respectable, which no doubt it did with many, it did not answer this end universally; for the thing itself was so monstrous and absurd, that it was much ridiculed by those who did not embrace it. Of this we have many instances, almost from the time that it was started, to a very late period, In Justin's dialogue with Trypho, the latter says,

6. You * Ινα δε την της μανιας υπερβολην καταλιπωμεν, εκεινο σκοπησωμεν, ώς εδεν ήμιν αφελος εκ της ενανθρωπήσεως γεγονε, και της ημείερας αναςασεως εδεν εχεγγυον εχομεν εδε γαρ, ει Θεος εκ νεκρων εγηγερίαι, παντως και ανθρωπος αναςησείαι παμπολυ γαρ των φυσεων To diapopor. Hær. Fab. L. iv. C. xii. Opera, IV. p. 373, ed. Hala. (P.)

+ Εγω μεν εδενα αποναμης της νικης, ως εδεν εις ταυτην εισενεγκων" αλλα και της ελευθεν ευφροσυνης γεγυμνωμαι επι τροπαιοις γαυριων αλλοθριοις. Opera, V. p. 47. A more particular account of the use of the Incarnation, but all proceeding upon the same idea, may be seen in Eusebius, De Laudibus Constantini, C. xiv. p, 759, and in Austin, De Civitate Dei, L. x. C. xxix., Opera, V. p. 590. (P.)

: Ου μονον υπερ ανθρωπων απεθανεν, αλλα και υπερ των λοιπών λογικων ειλε χαριτι Θεου εγευσαίο τε υπερ πανίος θανατε.-“Oιον υπερ ας ρων: εδε των αςρων πανίως καθαρων ονλαν ενωπιον τα Θεου, ως εν τω Ιωβ ανεγνωμεν. Comment. ΙΙ. p. 59. (Ρ.)

& Kau cadweneousy avtomac aveam.xai anticore que Ibid. p. 92. (P.)

« PreviousContinue »