Page images

the created, it is glorified and deified;" Baur, p. 320. Comp. Gieseler, iv. 8 33. Baur's Dreieinigkeit, iii. 219, 244.]

This is referred to in the Form. Conc. p. 828: Christum carnem et sanguinem suum non e Maria virgine assumsisse, sed de cælo attulisse. Conf. Belg. Art. 18. On Menno Simonis, see Schyn. Plen. Deduct. p. 164. At an earlier period Melchior Hofmann (died 1532) had propounded similar opinions. Hofmann laid great stress upon the word, éyéveto, in John i. : the Logos did not merely assume our nature, but he became flesh, hence his blasphemous expression : Maledicta sit caro Mariæ! Comp. Trechsel,

pp. 34, 35.

. Comp. 8 263, on the doctrine of the Trinity; and the work of Servetus, Christianismi Restitutio, 1553. Schlüsselburg, Catal. Haeres. Lib. xi. It may be said that Michael Servetus developed the idea of Schwenkfeld more harmoniously, but with some essential modifications.... Resting on a pantheistic basis, he could say, that the flesh of Christ was consubstantial with God, but the same would be true in reference to all ;" Dorner, p. 215. Nevertheless he did not say it in reference to all flesh: “In his opinion Christ alone is the Son of God, nor is that name to be given to any one else.” Ibid. He calls Christ (in distinction from all other men) naturalis filius, ex vera Dei substantia genitus, De Trinit. i. p. 13. It appears to us, that after a candid examination of his theory, more would be found in it than “a mere divine or religious glimmer" (Dorner, p. 216) shed upon the person of Christ, though we admit that this pantheistic Unitarianism might easily take a deistic direction (ibid. p. 217.)

• Cat. Racov. p. 45 : Quænam sunt, quæ ad Christi personam referuntur! Id solum, quod natura sit homo verus, olim quidem, cum in terris viveret, mortalis, nunc vero immortalis. Though the authors of this Confession denied (p. 46 of the last edition) that Jesus was “purus et vulgaris homo,” they asserted that by nature he was mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God from the moment of his birth. It was especially to Luke i. 35, that they referred in support of their opinion. This is also very distinctly stated by Ostorodt, Unterr. vi. 48: “We therefore believe, that the essentia or the nature of the Son of God was none other than the essentia of a man, i, e., a real man, nor do we know of any other essentia or nature in him. In addition we believe that he had a different beginning from all other men, i, e. that he did not receive his beginning and origin from man, but from God himself, since the Virgin Mary conceived him of the Holy Ghost, i. e., by the power of God; on which account he was also to be called the Son of God. Therefore he is God's Son, even his only-begotten Son, from the beginning of his existence, inasmuch as God never had another such Son, who was conceived in the womb, and born by his own power; for the same reason he may also be termed God's real Son, because he was neither adopted, nor the son of any one else, but altogether the Son of God." —Beside his supernatural birth, the Socinians supposed particular transportations to heaven. Cat. Rac. p. 46: Qua ratione ipse Jesus ad ipsius divinæ voluntatis notitiam pervenit? Ea ratione, quod in cælum ascenderit ibique patrem suum et eam, quam nobis annunciavit, vitam et beatitatem viderit, et ea omnia, quæ docere deberet, ab eodem patre audierit: a quo deinde e cælo in terram dimissus,


Spir. S. immensa copia perfusus fuit, cujus affilatu cuncta, quæ a patre didicit, perlocutus est.-Here again we have an instance of that external supernaturalism which is more easily inclined to believe in miracles than in the great mystery, rather in revelations which Jesus received and communicated to men, than in the one manifestation of God in the flesh; rather in a man who has, as it were, become God, than in God becoming man! The real heart of the Socinian polemics (against orthodoxy) in all its windings, is the position of the absolute difference between the infinite and the finite God and nan :" Fock, p. 529, comp. the whole section, p. 510, 8q. And yet they conceded that divine honor is due to Christ since his ascension: God committed to him power over all things. Socinianism holds fast to this notion of a delegated divinity. Racovian Catechism, 2, 120: Christus vero, etsi Deus verus sit, non est tamen ille ex se unus Deus, qui per se et perfectissima ratione Deus est, quum is Deus tantum sit Pater. The invocation of Christ is allowed, but not enjoined; it is an adiaphoron, an unessential. Fock, p. 536, 89, 543, .q.

' Luther himself combined with the orthodox doctrine concerning the person of Christ, which obtained in the Roman Catholic Church, also the mystical one he derived from the work already mentioned, Die deutsche Theologie. Comp. Dorner, p. 193.—[Theologia Germanica, Pfeiffer's edition, transl. by S. Winkworth, etc., Andover, 1856.] “ All of Luther's preaching about Christ's person and work moves in the sphere of concrete representations, like nature, and handles these with such living power, always bringing before the mental vision what is actual and essential, as prevents the constraint of dogmas, and shows the poverty of mere language in exhausting the full glory of the divine acts :" Gass, p. 36. Respecting the opinions of the Quakers, see Barclay, Apol. Thes. 13, 2, p. 288, quoted by Winer, p. 71.- According to Weigel, Christ is the Divine Spirit in man, the Word, the divine idea. Incarnations of this Word took place prior to the time of Christ; thus in the case of Adam, Abraham, etc. He also supposed (like the Quakers) two bodies of Christ. “He did not derive his flesh and blood from the mortal virgin or from Adam, but from the eternal virgin through the Holy Ghost, in order that we, by means of this heavenly flesh, might be made new creatures, that henceforth we might not be earthy, owing our existence to Adam, but heavenly, being created by Christ, and in such flesh possess heaven."....But this divine body was invisible, immortal. Christ, in order that he might dwell among us on earth, and do us good, assumed a visible body in the womb of the Virgin Mary ; “ for who could exist near the sun if it were among men upon earth P” Similar views were entertained by Jacob Böhme and Poiret. Concerning the former, see Baur, Gnosis, pp. 596–604, and the passages quoted by Wullen; respecting the latter, a full account is given by Dorner, p. 231, ss., note, after Poiret's Economie Divine on Système Universel, etc., v. Tom. Amsterd., 1687. According to ch. xi. of this treatise, the (ideal) Son of God assumed human nature soon after the creation of man, and prior to his fall, in such a manner that he (the Son of God) took from Adam his body, and a divine soul. Poiret also ascribed to Christ, previous to his incarnation in the Virgin Mary, not only various manifestations, but also human “emotions and sufferings,” and an

[ocr errors]

unwearying intercession for mankind, his brethren (his office as high-pr.est). But in the Virgin Mary he assumed mortal flesh. “The body of Jesus Christ, assuming the flesh and blood of the blessed Virgin, is as little composed of two different bodies, as a white and shining garment, dipped in a vessel dark and full of color, and coming into contact with the matter which composes this darkness, is thereby changed into a double garment, or into two garments instead of one." (Comp. Schwenkfeld, note 3.

$ 267.


Schneckenburger, Die orthodoxe Lehre vom doppelten Stande Christi, etc., 1848. [Ibid.,

Vergleichende Darstellung des lutherischen und reformirten Lehrbegriffs, ed. Gúder, 1855. Comp. Schweizer, in Theol. Jahrb., 1856, and Gass, in Studien und Kritiken, 1857.]

The doctrine respecting Christ's person was still further unfolded in the dogmatic systems of the Lutheran and the Reformed Church.' The theologians of the Lutheran Church developed this Locus de persona Christi, by distinguishing between three different genera of the communicatio idiomatum,' which were brought into connection with the two states of Christ's exaltation and humiliation (status exaltationis et inanitionis).' To this they added the presentation of the three offices of Christ-viz. the prophetical, the priestly, and the kingly office. These definitions owed their origin in part to temporary controversies within the Lutheran Church, such as the controversy between the theologians of Giessen and those of Tübingen, at the commencement of the seventeenth century, concerning the Kévwols and spúxus of the divine attributes,' and the controversy carried on by Æpinus, in a previous century, respecting the Descensus Christi ad inferos.



· The difference between the Latherans and the Reformed is as follows: (a). The Latherans made a distinction between incarnation and humiliation, while the Reformed kept both together in one conception. (6.) Consequently, according to the Lutherans, the conception and birth of the Godman is an act of his own will, he as God-man being conceived as in some way preexistent; while according to the Reformed, only the lóyos aoapkos preexisted, and as such assumed humanity, and thus the God-man came to be. (c.) According to the Latherans, the God-man in virtue of the unio personalis is received into the Collegium Trinitatis, and has part in all divine properties; while according to the Reformed the Logos continues to act, as a person of the Trinity, external to the divine-human personality. This bad the appearance, as though the Reformed taught that there was only a gratiosa inhabitatio of the Logos in Christ; while the Lutherans, did not escape the accusation of Docetism. See Schneckenburger, ubi supra, and the next note. [In further illustration of the Reformed doctrine, compare Olevianus,



Fæd. Gratiæ, 38: Unio personalis dnarum naturarum in Christo est assumptio non hominis sed humanæ naturæ in unitatem personæ æterni filii Dei, salvis utriusque naturæ proprietatibus, ita ut licet naturæ hæ sint diversissimæ et maneant in æternum suis proprietatibus distinctæ (quando quidem creator in æternum vult manere distinctus ab omnibus creaturis, etiam ab illa massa, quam assumpsit), tamen ita sint copulatæ, ut ambæ hæ sint unus Christus. The communicatio idiomatum (Mastricht, v. 4, 12) is that effect of the personal union, qua proprietates utriusque naturæ coincidunt in una eademque persona, eoque etiam de persona enuntiantur. Keckermann, 315: Humana Christi natura est distinctum individuum a natura divina, etsi non sit distincta persona. Wollebius, 66 : Unionis personalis tria sunt effecta : communicatio idiomatum, excellentia naturæ humanæ ; et utriusque naturæ in operibus theandricis cooperatio. Comp. Heppe, Dogmatik der evang. Reform. Kirche, 1861, Locus xvii.]

: 1. Genus idiomaticum, according to which both natures so communicato their properties to the person [of Christ), that itself has both. 2. Genus apotelesmaticum, which consists in this, that the person so communicates itself to the two natures, that certain works which belong to the whole person (such as redeeming) are conferred upon one nature alone, and carried out through it. 3. Genus auchematicum (majestaticum), mutual communication of the natures to each other by means of the communication of their properties. But inasmuch as the divine nature can neither receive anything from the human, nor suffer any loss, we can only speak of the communication of divine properties to the human nature, whence the name (from aŭxnua).—The Genus idiomaticum itself was subdivided into three species -viz. : α. αντίδοσις (alternatio); b. κοινωνία των θείων; c. ιδιοποίησις. (On the defects of this division, see Hase, Hutterus Redivivus, p. 241.)

• The theory had its origin in the controversy mentioned note 5, and was more precisely defined by the theologians of Saxony as follows: Status exinanitionis (humiliationis) est ea Christi conditio, in qua sec. humanum naturam, in unione personali consideratam, a majestatis divinæ perpetuo usu abstinuit atque obedientiam usque ad mortem præstitit. Status exaltationis, quo Christus sec. humanum naturam, depositis infirmitatibus carnis, plenarium divinæ majestatis usam obtinuit. See also passages from Gerhard, in Gass, p. 276, 89. [Gerhard, Tom. iii. p. 562–569 : Exinanitio, quam apostolas Christo secundum humanam naturam tribuit, non est omnimodo carentia vel absentia divinæ potentiæ.... sed retractio usus et intermissio, qua Christus homo in forma servili constitutus et infirmitate tectus, divinam potentiam, gloriam et majestatem vere et realiter sibi communicatam non semper exseruit, sed retraxit et retinuit, donec tempus exaltationis sequeretur. Comp. Schneckenburger, Zur kirchlichen Christologie, p. 3.]—The theologians of the Reformed Church simply referred the two states to the two natures. According to the Lutherans, the birth of Christ, his circumcision, his subjection to his parents, his intercourse with men who were unworthy of it, his sufferings, death, and burial, belong to the state of humiliation; the Descensus ad inferos (Art. 9 in the Form. Concord. directed against Æpinus and the Calvinists, see note 6), his resurrection from the dead, bis ascension into heaven, and sitting down at the right hand of God, belong to the state


of exaltation. On the contrary, the Calvinists, denying that Christ actually descended to hell, and interpreting the passages bearing upon this point of his mental sufferings and dreadful anguish, or as an equivalent for his real death, maintained that the Descensus ad inferos belongs to the status exinanitionis. See Schneckenburger, ubi supra, second division. .

• The Munus propheticum has reference to Christ's office as a teacher and messenger sent by God to reveal his will; the Munus sacerdotale has respect to his atoning death (comp. the next $), and priestly intercession (satisfactio et intercessio); the object of the Munus regium is, in the first instance, the foundation and government of the church; but it also includes the government of the world; on which account a distinction was made between a kingdom of power and a kingdom of grace (the heavenly kingdom). Ger. hard: Regnum potentiæ est generale dominium super omnia, videlicet gubernatio cæli et terræ, subjectio omnium creaturarum, dominium in medio • inimicorum, quos reprimit, coërcet et punit. Regnum gratiæ est specialis operatio gratiæ in ecclesia, videlicet missio, illuminatio ac conservatio apostolorum, doctorum et pastorum, collectio ecclesiæ per prædicationem evangelii et dispensationem sacramentorum, regeneratio, etc. Regnum gloriæ conspicietur. in resuscitatione mortuorum et universali judicio ejusque executione. Comp. Thummius (Theod.) De triplici Christi Officio. Tub. 1627, 4.-On the different interpretation of the Reformed, see Schneckenburger, 3d division. In particular, the Reformed limited the regal office to the regnum gratiæ. (Prayers to Christ.) [The doctrine of the three offices was taught from the very first by the Reformed divines, while the Lutheran divines for a long time spoke of only two offices, the regal and priestly. See Heppe, Dogmatik des deutschen Protest. ii. 222. Calvin, Inst. ii. 15, 1: Tribus partibus constat quod ei injunctum a patre munus fuit, et propheta datus est, et rex, et sacerdos.]

"The theologians of Tubingen (Luke Osiander, Theodore Thummius, and Melchior Nicolai), supposed that Christ, during his state of humiliation, continued to possess the divine properties of omnipotence, omnipresence, etc., but concealed them from men; the divines of Giessen (Menzer and Feuerborn) asserted that he voluntarily laid them aside. For further particulars, see Dorner, p. 179, ss. Schröckh, iv. p. 970, ss. Comp. Thummii TATTELvwolypapía sacra, Tub., 1623, 4, and Nicolai Consideratio Theolog. IV. Quæstionum controversarum de profundissima KevúcEL Christi, ibidem 1622, 4. Gass, p. 277.

Æpinus (John Höck, or Hoch, in Greek, altelvós, died 1533), in a criticism published in 1544, on an exposition of Ps. xvi, by his colleague Feder, (Höck's critique published, Francof. 1644), taught that Christ's descent to hell belonged to his state of humiliation, because his soul suffered the punishments of hell, while his body remained in the grave. He denied that 1 Pet. iii. 18, 19, has a reference to the descensus ad inferos, but was opposed by his colleagues in Hamburg. Flacius defended Höck. The Formula Concordiæ cut short further questions by declaring the article in question to be one, qui neque sensibus, neque ratione nostra comprehendi queat, sola autem fide acceptandus sit. See Planck, v. 1, p. 251, ss. Schröckh, 1. c. p. 541,




« PreviousContinue »