« PreviousContinue »
8 ECOND DIVISION.
CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY.
(INCLUDING THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING BAPTISM AND THE
THE PERSON OF CHRIST.
4. A. Weisse, Die Christologie Luther's, Lpz., 1852, 2te Auf., 1855. Schneckenburger,
Die orthodoxe Lehre vom doppelten Stande Christi, nach lutherischer und reformir. ter Fassung, Pforzheim, 1848; comp. Zeller's Jahrbücher, 1844. [J. A. Dorner, History of the Development of the Doctriue of the Person of Christ. Transl. by Dr. W. Simon, vol. i., Edinb. 1861.]
Not merely the doctrine of the Trinity, as we have already seen, but also that of the two natures of Christ, remained unaffected by the contests between Protestants and Roman Catholics.' In reference to the Communicatio idiomatum and the Unio personalis, however, a deep rooted difference of opinion arose between Lutherans and Calvinists, in connection with the controversy concerning the sacraments. And here old reminiscences about the strife between Nestorianism and Eutychianism were revived ;' while among the sects various notions respecting the person of Christ made their appear
Thus Caspar Schwenkfeld revived the doctrine, condemned as Eutychian, concerning the “glorified and deified flesh” of Christ.' Melchior Hofmann and Menno Simonis, as well as other Anabaptists, supposed (like the Valentinians in the first period), that our Lord's birth was a mere phantom.' Michael Servetus maintained that Christ was a mere man, filled with the divine nature, and rejected all further distinctions between his two natures as unscriptural and founded upon scholastic definitions alone.' Faustus Socinus went so far as to return in full to the view entertained by the Ebionites and Nazarenes, since, in his opinion, Jesus of Nazareth was by nature, notwithstanding his supernatural birth, a mere man, on whom God bestowed extraordinary revelations, and elevated him to heaven after his death, and to whom he committed the government of the church founded by him. The mystics in general and the Quakers in particular, attached less importance to the historical Christ, than to the manifestation of Christ in us, though they were far from denying the former ; several of them even espoused various Gnostic theories concerning his humanity and incarnation.'
· It is well known how firmly Luther clung to the doctrine of the divinity and incarnation of Christ : “He whom the universe could not contain, lies in Mary's lap," etc. Compare his Auslegung des Evangeliums am heili. gen Christfest (Walch, T. 11, p. 171. 76.) See Dorner, pp. 192, 193. He even uses such expressions as these, Mary nursed God, cradled God, made pap for God: see Schenkel, i, 316 (reference to Walch, xx. 1191, where however, the passage is not verbally the same). So, too, he did not scruple to say, God suffered, God died. Comp. his Letters (De Wette), vi. 291, (to Gross of Mitweida): Vera ecclesia credit, non tantum humanam naturam, sed etiam divinam seu verum Deum pro nobis passum esse et mortuum. Et quamquam mori sit alienum a natura Dei, tamen quia natura divina sic induit paturam humanam, ut inseparabiliter conjunctæ sint hæ duæ naturæ, ita ut Christus sit una persona Deus et homo, ut quidquid accidat Deo et homini, ideo fit, ut hæ duæ naturæ in Christo sua idiomata inter se communicent, h. e. quod unius naturæ proprium communicatur quoque alteri propter inseparabilem cohærentiam, ut nasci, pati, moci, etc. sunt humanæ naturæ idiomata seu proprietates, quarum divina natura quoque fit particeps propter inseparabilem illam et tantum fide comprehensibilem conjunctionem. Itaque non tantum homo, sed etiam Deus concipitur, nascitur ex Maria Virgine, patitur, moritur. * Zwingle expresses himself more soberly and scripturally when he says that Christ " was born without sin of the pure Virgin Mary,"
“ and that he was “ both true man and true God.” In Christ alone he found redemption, the beginning and end of all salvation ; see his Uslegung des 5 Artikels (Works i. p. 187).-For Calvin's views respecting the person of Christ see his Instit., Lib. ii., c. 12 ss., especially c. 14 (8 5 is directed against Servetus). The authors of the symbolical books adopted the definitions of the ecumenical symbols : Conf. Aug., p. 10: [Item docent quod verbum, hoc est, Filius Dei, assumpserit humanam naturam in utero beatæ Mariæ virginis, ut sint duæ naturæ, divina et humana, in unitate personæ inseperabiliter conjunctæ, unus Christus, vere Deus, ut vere homo, natus ex virgine Maria......] Apolog. p. 50, Art. Smalc., p. 303. [Filius ita factus est homo, ut a Spiritu Sancto sine virili opere conciperetur, et ex Maria pura, sancta, semper virgine nasceretur.] Catech. Major, p. 493, ss. Form. . Concord., Art. 8. De persona Christi, p. 605, ss.-Conf. Bas. I., Art. 4. Helv. II., Art. 11. Belg. 19. Gal. 14, Angl. 2. Conf. Remonstr., 8.3, etc. With this agree Catech. Roman. i. 3, 8, iv. 5, ss., and the symbols of the Greek Church.
Concerning the connection between the said difference and the controversy respecting the sacraments, see Dorner, 1st ed., p. 166; Schenkel, i. 223; Ebrard, ii. 635; Schneckenburger, 31 sq.; it was not merely acci. dental. The difference consisted in this, that the Calvinists tenaciously re
* The passage adduced in proof from Romans i., has not God (absolutely) for its subject, but the Son of God.
tained the doctrine of two natures in one person, and therefore confined the human nature of the Redeemer to heaven (i. e. as his present abode), while the Lutherans supposed (on the basis of the trepixópnous of John Damascenus) a real communication of one nature to the other, on which they rested their belief in the ubiquity of Christ's body. “Where you put God," says Luther, “there you must put the humanity (of Christ) : they can not be sundered and riven; it is one person, and the humanity is not to be separated, as master Jack draws off his coat and lays it aside, when he goes to bed.... The humanity is more closely united with God, than is our skin with our flesh, yea, more intimately than body and soul.”—Zwingle in order to set aside such Scriptures as appeared favourable to this view, had recourse to what is called the Alloosis, * concerning which he expressed himself as follows (Exeges. Euch. Negot. Opera, iii. p. 525): Est allæosis, quantum huc attinet, desultus vel transitus ille, aut si mavis permutatio, qua de altera in Christi natura loquentes alterius vocibus utimur. Ut cum Christus ait : Caro mea vere est cibus, caro proprie est humanæ in illo naturæ, attamen per commutationem h. l. pro divina ponitur natura. Qua ratione enim filius Dei est, ea ratione est animæ cibus. ... Rursus cum perhibet filium familiâs a colonis trucidandum, cum filius familiâs divinitatis ejus nomen sit, pro humana tamen natura accipit; sec. enim istam mori potuit, sec. divinam mimine. Cum, inquam, de altera natura prædicatur, quod alterius, id tandem est allæosis aut idiomatum communicatio aut commutatio. [The meaning of allæosis in this connection, is, that the identification of the two natures is only fignrative and nominal.] Comp. the “ Wahrhaftiges Bekenntniss der Diener der Kirche von Zurich, 1545," quoted by Winer, p. 68: Christ's true human body was not deified (after his ascension into heaven) together with his r&e tional human soul, i. e. transformed into God, but only glorified. But this glorification did not annul the essence of the human body, it only freed it from its weakness, and rendered the body glorious, shining, and immortal.t Conf. Helv, II. 11: Non docemus, veritatem corporis Christi a clarificatione desiisse, aut deificatam adeoque sic deificatam esse, ut suas proprietates, quoad corpus et animam, deposuerit ac prorsus in naturam divinam abierit unaque duntaxat substantia esse cæperit. Comp. Conf. Gall. 15., Angl. 19 ss., Belg. 19, and other passages quoted by Winer, p. 69. Heidelb. Catechism, Qu. 47: “But will Christ not be with us to the end of the world, as he has promised ? Answ. Christ is true man and true God. He is not now on earth according to his human nature, but his divinity, majesty, mercy, and spirit, never forsake us. Qu. 48 : But are the two natures not then separated from each other, so that the human nature is not in all places where the divine is ? Answ. By no means : for, as the latter is incomprehensible and everywhere present, it follows, that though it may exist out of the human nature which it has assumed, it nevertheless exists as much in it, and remains personally united with it."
* Luther in his Grosses Bekenntniss (Walch, XX., p. 1180, 81), called the Alloosis, the devil's mask, and the old witch, mistress Reason, its grandmother: he then continues : “We here condem and curse the alleosis to hell itself, as the devil's own suggestion." He would prefer the term synecdochy to the word allæosis. But he will allow neither the one nor the other to militate against the theory of the ubiquity of Christ's body, p. 1185.
+ In opposition to this idea of Christ's body being confined to heaven, Luther observed (Walch, xx., p. 1000), that it was a childish notion: "In the same manner we used to represent heaven to children with a golden throne in it, and Christ seated on the right band of his Father, clothed in a surplice, and wearing a golden crown on his head, as we often see in pictures." Zwingle earnestly protested against this.
The difference between the Lutheran and the Calvinistic doctrine is expressed in the Form. Concord. p. 767: Postquam Christus non communi ratione, ut alius quispium sanctus, in cælos ascendit, sed ut Apostolus (Eph. iv. 10) testatur, super omnes cælos ascendit, et revera omnia implet et ubique non tantum ut Deus, verum etiam ut homo, præsens dominatur et regnat a mari ad mare, et usque ad terminos terræ, quemadmodum olim prophetæ de ipso sunt vaticinati, et apostoli (Marc. xvi. 20) testantur, quod Christus ipsis ubique cooperatus sit, et sermonem ipsorum sequentibus signis confirmaverit. The right hand of God is everywhere : Non est certus aliquis et circumscriptus in cælo locus, sed nihil aliud est, nisi omnipotens Dei virtus, quæ cælum et terram implet.—The unio personalis does not merely consist in this, that they (viz. the two natures of Christ) have the same appellations in common, but it is essential ; p. 768: [Et ex hoc fundamento, cujus jam facta est mentio, et quod unio personalis docet, quomodo videlicet divina et humana natura in persona Christi sint unitæ, ut non modo nomina communia, sed realiter etiam et re ipsa inter se, sine omni confusione et exæquatione essentiarum, communicent, promanat etiam doctrina illa de communicatione idiomatum duarum in Christo naturarum, de quo infra aliquid amplius dicetur.] Lest they might be charged with monophysitic errors, the authors of the Form. Conc. added, p. 778: [Et quidem eis vocabulis (realis communicatio, realiter communicari) nunquam ullam physicam communicationem, vel essentialem transfusionem (qua naturæ in suis essentiis, aut essentialibus proprietatibus confunderentur) docere voluminus, ut quidam vocabula et phrases illas astute et malitiose falsa interpretatione, contra consentiam suam, pervertere non dubitarunt. ... sed vocabula et phrases illos verbali communicationi opposuimus, cum quidam fingerent, communicationem idiomatum nihil aliud, nisi phrasin et modum quendam loquendi, hoc est, mere tantum verba, nomina, et titulos inanes esse.] Nor is the unio hypostatica merely external and mechanical: quasi duæ illæ naturæ eo modo unitæ sint, quo duo asseres conglutinantur, ut realiter, seu re ipsa et vere, nullam prorsus communicationem inter se habeant (p. 764); on the other hand the effusio of the divine nature into the human is not so, quasi cum vinum aqua aut oleum de uno vaso in aliud transfunditur (p. 780.) The Roman Catholics, so far from adopting the doctrine of the unio hypostatica, rejected it. Thus, Forer, Gregory of Valentia, and Petavius. Comp. Cotta, Dissert. de Christo Redemtore, in Gerhard, Loci Theolog. T. iv. p. 57. [“The real difference between the two is this, that the one put the substantial self of the person of Christ in the divine part of his essence, the other in the human. Hence, the one held that Christ must be, even in bodily presence, wherever he was as a divine being, and the other, that the real Christ could be only where his body was.” “The Reformed maintained, that the divine properties could be attributes of the human nature only so far as the limits of the finite allowed ; that no nature could combine contradictory properties, could be at the same time finite and infinite. The general canon at the basis of the Reformed Christology is—finitum non est capax infiniti." Baur, Dogmengesch. 321–2.]
• Christology forms the centre of the system of Schwenkfeld. Among his writings, he develops his views especially in the following : Quæstiones vom Erkantnus Jesu Christi und seiner Glorien, 1501.-Von der Speyse des ewigen Lebens, 1547.-Vom Worte Gottes, dass kein ander Wort Gottes sei, eigentlich zu reden, denn der Sohn Gottes, Jesus Christus.—He defended himself against the imputation of destroying the humanity of Christ, but asserted, that Christ's human nature in its glorified state ought to be called divine. Accordingly in his opinion “the flesh of Christ is not that of a creature: for it is not derived from God in the same manner as God is the creator of all that is bodily, but in a higher manner; as regards other men, God creates them outside of himself, but not so Christ.” On this account Christ is the natural Son of God (also according to his humanity); for “God not only imparted his Word to the man Christ, and united it with his flesh, but from the beginning he also bestowed upon him his own nature, being, and independence, divine treasures and riches." (Vom Fleisch Christi, p. 140–46, Dorner, pp. 207, 208.) “All that by which Christ is David's son, is laid aside and lost (in his divine nature); bis whole nature is renewed and deified (Ibid. p. 176, Dorner, p. 210.) Nevertheless he rejected the idea of a twofold body of Christ, but admitted only one flesh-viz., the mortal flesh of Mary assumed by him : "this mortal flesh, however, is, in his opinion, not the nature, but only the temporal form of Christ's flesh in his state of humiliation ; but he does not succeed in giving us a clear idea of what he means. We shall best understand him, if we suppose, that, though the flesh of Christ has a twofold origin—viz. on the one hand in the divine nature, on the other in the flesh of Mary, yet it is essentially only one, inasmuch as it may be considered in a twofold aspect-viz. as divine and as hnman.” Dorner, I. c. “In his struggle after a clear echibition of his views, we ought not to overlook the truly speculative element, which manifests itself in his attempt to overcome the separation of the divine and the human.” Ibid. p. 213. Schwenkfeld formally protests (see Erbkam, 455) against the identification of his doctrine with that of Valentinus, Marcion, etc., or with that of the Anabaptist, Melchior Hofmann. On his (polemical) relation to Sebastian Frank, who taught that the seed of God is in all the elect from youth, and thus abolished the specific difference between Christ and other men, see ibid. p. 447. Schwenkfeld opposes both Docetism and Ebionitism : “Both errors are from one truth, as the spider sucks poison from a noble flowers (Epist. i. 292; in Erbkam, 448). He is most earnest in maintaining the undivided oneness of the person of Christ, which did not seem to him to be enough guarded by the orthodox doctrine of two natures. Comp. G. L. Hahn, Schwenckfeldii Sententia de Christi Persona et Opere exposita, Vratislav. 1847, and Erbkam, p. 443, 89. [“ Schwenkfeld's idea is that of a fioite nature, which, as finite, at the same time embraces the principle of the infinite. This finite is the flesh of Christ, so far forth as, in itself above