7. § 41. The Person of the Mediator.

7. § 41. The Person of the Mediator.

§ 41. The Person of the Mediator.

. The covenant of grace is distinguished from the covenant of works also in this, that it has a mediator, not of union but of reconciliation, in order to restore again the broken communion between God and man. Also with this doctrine of a mediatorship Holy Scripture does not stand alone, but is supported and confirmed on all sides by the analogies which occur thereof in the religions among the peoples. In general the words and deeds of great men are of the richest significance for the history and the life of the peoples; but specifically this holds true in the religious sphere. Almost everywhere there occur holy persons, who effect and maintain communion with God for others. Prophets appear as interpreters of the Deity and make known its will; priests represent men in their approach to God, convey their sacrifices and prayers and distribute to them God's blessing; kings are many times regarded as sons of the gods, as bearers of their wisdom and power.

The origin of all these holy persons is not related to us by history; but their universality proves that we have here to do with a phenomenon that is not accidental but is connected with the essence of religion itself and with a

deep need of humanity. Many historical religions are moreover connected to the names of particular founders, who are then later raised above the rank of ordinary men, or even, as in Buddhism, wholly and entirely deified; apotheosis and incarnation occur almost in all religions. The distinction that Tiele makes between theocratic and theanthropic religions is also according to his own admission not strictly to be maintained [229] and only a difference of more or less, Introduction to the science of religion. Amst.

1897 p. 141v., 221v. Finally there is even in all religions not only in general an expectation that evil will once be overcome by good, but more than once that expectation also attaches itself to a particular person, such as e.g. to Krishna in the Indian and Baldur in the Norse religion. Also the myth of Heracles, the well-known statement of Plato about the righteous man in Rep. VII, the fourth eclogue of Vergil are in this respect noteworthy. In its most beautiful and noblest expressions Heathendom points unconsciously toward Christianity; cf. part I 238-240 and furthermore also still Lamennais,

Essai sur l'indifférence III 408 s. Tholuck, Lehre v. d. Sünde, 4te Beilage.

R. Ch. Trench, The Hulsean Lectures for 1845. 1846. 4th ed. Cambr. 1859 p. 153: Christ the desire of all nations or the unconscious prophecies of Heathendom. Pfleiderer, Religionsphilos.3 1896 S. 714 f.

But what among the Heathen was no more than an unconscious and indeterminate longing, that became in Israel the object of a firm faith and ardent hope. God gave his promises to that people. He did not let humanity begin its history without the hope that the woman's seed would one day triumph over the serpent's seed. Yes, it has been Christ himself who, as Angel of the covenant, led the people of God in the day of the O. T., through Israel prepared his own coming in the flesh, and by his Spirit caused his own image to be drawn in history and prophecy, Joh. 5:39, 1

Petr. 1:11, Op. 19:10. Therefore the O. T. also does not contain a few, selfcontained Messianic texts, which in a Christology of the O. T. are atomistically gathered together; but the whole O. T. dispensation with its persons and events, its offices and institutions, its laws and ceremonies is a pointing and movement toward the fulfilment in the N. T. There is a "Symbolik der Schöpfung", a typology in nature, which, as is evident from Jesus' parables, attains its realization in him and in his kingdom. There is an unconscious expectation and hope in the religion and in the history of the peoples, which comes to its truth in Christianity. There is a direct and intentional preparation and foreshadowing of the λογικη λατρεια in the institutions and events of the O. T. [230] Temple and altar, priest and offering, Zion and Jerusalem, prophet and king, all are examples and shadows of a higher, spiritual, true reality. And especially the kingship received under Israel such a typical significance. The theocratic king, who was embodied especially in David with his humble origin, his rich lifeexperience, his noble nature, his deep feeling, his poetic disposition, his great gifts, his unbroken courage, his brilliant victories, Smend, Altt. Rel.

Gesch. 58, was a son of God, 2 Sam. 7:14, Ps. 2:6, 7, Ps. 89:27, the anointed one par excellence, Ps. 2:2, 18:51, to whom all kinds of bodily and spiritual blessings were wished, Ps. 2:8v., 21, 45, 72, who was even addressed as Elohim, Ps. 45:7. The king is bearer of the highest, of the divine dignity on earth. In David the theocratic king found his purest image; therefore the kingship will also remain in his house, 2 Sam. 7:8-16. This promise of God to David is then the foundation, the centre of all subsequent expectation and prophecy. The prophecy, which is added to the typology for explanation, looks from the past and present toward the future and delineates the expected Davidide ever more clearly in his person and work.

The opinion, e.g. of Paul Volz, Die vorexilische Jahweprophetie und der Messias, Göttingen 1897, that the Messianic idea is foreign to the pre-exilic prophets, is refuted by the facts and can be maintained only by an arbitrary criticism. In proportion as the kingship in Israel and Judah corresponded less to its idea, prophecy took up the promise of 2 Sam. 7 and clung fast to it, Am. 9:11, Hos. 1:11, 3:5, Mich. 5:1, 2, Jes. 9:5, 6, 11:1, 2, 10, Jer. 23:5,

30:9, 33:17, 20-22, 26, Ezech. 34:23, 24, 37:22-24. This anointed king will come forth from David's house, when this shall have fallen into lowliness, been thrust from the throne, become like a hewn-down stump, Jes. 11:1, 2,

Mich. 5:1, 2, Ezech. 17:22; God will cause him to spring forth as a shoot from David's house, Jer. 23:5, 6, 33:14-17, so that he even bears the name of Shoot, Zach. 3:8, 6:12. But despite his humble birth, he will nevertheless be the genuine, true, theocratic king. Although originating from the small, despised Bethlehem, where the Davidic royal house has its origin and, driven out of dominion, withdraws, [231] Mich. 5:2, cf. 3:12, 4:9, 14, the Messiah will nevertheless be a Ruler over Israel, whose goings forth and origins as Ruler, from God, are all from of old, from the days of eternity, deel II 243. He is given by God, is an eternal king, bears the names of Wonderful Counsellor, mighty God, cf. 10:21, Deut. 10:17, Jer. 32:18, everlasting Father (for his people), Prince of Peace, Jes. 9:5, 6, is anointed with the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, of counsel and of might, of knowledge and fear of the Lord, 11:5, is laid as a tried precious cornerstone in Zion, 28:16, is a righteous, victorious, gentle and therefore riding on a she-ass king, who is not proud of his power but is supported by God, Jer.

33:17, 20, 22, 26, Zach. 9:9v., whom the people call and acknowledge as the Lord our righteousness, Jer. 23:6, cf. 33:16, where Jerusalem is so called as the city in which Ihvh causes his righteousness to dwell; who will be a

hero like David and whose house will be like God, like the Angel of God, who once went before Israel's host at the exodus, Zach. 12:8, cf. Mal. 3:1, who will reign eternally, establish a kingdom of righteousness, peace and prosperity, and will extend his dominion also over the Heathen, to the ends of the earth, Ps. 2, 45, 72, Ezech. 37:25, Zach. 6:13, 9:10 etc. This glorious

Messianic image is then further completed by the fact that this future king is also depicted as prophet and priest. To be sure, these features do not come to the foreground, for in the kingdom of God the Spirit of God will be poured out upon all, Joël 2:28, Zach. 12:10, 13:2v., Jer. 31:34, and all the people will be priestly and holy to the Lord, Jes. 35:8, Joël 3:17, Zach.

14:20, 21; but nevertheless the Messiah is also presented as prophet, upon whom in a special measure the Spirit of the Lord rests, and who will bring a glad message to Israel and the Heathen, Deut. 18:15, Jes. 11:2, Jes. 40-66,

Mal. 4:5; and he will unite the priestly and the royal dignity in himself, Jer.

30:21, Zach. 3, 6:13, Ps. 110. In the servant of the Lord in Isaiah all three offices clearly come to light; he is priest, who by his suffering atones for the sins of his people, he is prophet, who anointed with God's Spirit proclaims the acceptable year of the Lord, he is king, who is glorified and enjoys the fruit of his labour. How deeply this Messianic expectation has penetrated into Israel, the psalms show us; many proceed from the Davidic kingship and are in the narrower sense messianic, Ps. 2, 18, 20, 21, 45, 61, 72, 89,

132, others speak only of God or Jahveh as King, Ps. 10, 24, 29, 44, 47, 48, 66, 68, 87, 93, 95-100, 145-150. Cf. the works on the Christology of the O.

T. by Hengstenberg, 2e Ausg. 1854, by Oosterzee, 1859-61, Bade, 2 Bde, 2e Aufl. Münster 1858, Böhl 1882, R. Gordon, Christ as made known to the ancient Church, 4 vol. Edinburgh 1854; further works on the O. T. predictions such as by Riehm, Die messian. Weissagung, Gotha 1875.

Hofmann, Weissagung und Erfüllung 1841, '44. Schriftbeweis, 2e Aufl.

1859, Orelli, Die alttest. Weissagung von der Vollendung des Gottesreiches in ihrer gesch. Entw. 1882; then works on the theology of the O. T. by Schultz, Oehler, Smend, Dillmann, Riehm, Kayser, Kuenen, De profeten I 234v., Duhm, Die Theologie der Propheten 1875. König, Die Theologie der

Psalmen 1857. Dornstetter, Das endzeitliche Gottesreich nach der Prophezie, Würzburg 1896. Stade, Die mess. Hoffnung im Psalter, in Gottschick's Zeits. f. Th. u. K. II 1895 S. 369-413. Boehmer, Das Reich

Gottes in den Psalmen, Neue Kirchl. Zeits. VIII 1897, Heft 8-10; and finally also still dogmatic textbooks, such as by Dorner Chr. Gl. I 702. Grétillat,

Exposé IV 95. Runze, Katech. der Dogm. Leipzig Weber 1898 § 75.

2. Even after the extinction of prophecy, the Messianic expectation continued to live in the heart of Israel's people. In the apocryphal literature we do indeed find the expectation of Israel's future deliverance and dominion, but without therewith any mention of the Messiah occurring otherwise than a few scant indications, 1 Makk. 2:57, 4:46, 9:27, 14:41.

Philo too has nothing about the Messiah. In general the self-righteousness of Judaism was not favorable to the Messianic expectation; Israel after all had the law, was righteous through its observance, and therefore had no need of a deliverer; at most there was room for an earthly king, who repaid the Jews according to their merits and brought them to dominion over the peoples of the world. The Messiah became solely and only a political person. But among the people the Messianic expectation nevertheless remained alive and repeatedly came to the surface again, especially in times of oppression. It was maintained and nourished by [233] the reading of the O. Testament; many passages were declared Messianic, as the LXX proves; the Jews found in the Scriptures even 456 Messianic promises, 75 in the

Pentateuch, 243 in the Prophets, and 138 in the Hagiographa; and especially the apocalyptic literature of Enoch, the Psalterium Salomonis, Baruch, the Sibyl, 4 Ezra took up the Messianic expectation again and elaborated it.

One expected in general that He would appear at the end of the ‎‏‏ ֹעָלם ַהֶּזה‎, after anxious times, the so-called Messianic birth-pangs and Elijah or also another prophet like Moses or Jeremiah had preceded. He was usually designated as Messiah, Son of Man, Chosen One, Son of David, a few times also as Son of God, and was conceived as a man who already existed beforehand and was hidden with God, who would come forth to appear from Bethlehem, righteous, holy, and equipped with many gifts by God, and who would establish the kingdom of God on earth. In the main this corresponds with the expectation which, according to the testimony of the N. T., Luk. 1:38, 74, 2:25 etc., was encountered in popular circles, Schürer,

Neutest. Zeitgesch. 613. Weber, System 333. Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu im Lichte der Mess. Hoffnungen seiner Zeit,

Strassb. 1888, 2e Aufl. 1892. Herzog2 9, 653. Marti, Gesch. d. isr. Rel. 289.

Holtzmann, Lehrb. der neut. Theol. I 68. Ludwig Paul, die Vorstellungen vom Messias u. vom Gottesreich bei den Synopt. Bonn 1895.

Amid these expectations Christ himself appears, and in his preaching he immediately attaches himself to them. The kingdom of God, which was foretold and expected by the prophets, in which God will be king and his will will be everyone's delight, which by origin and nature is a heavenly kingdom and is now already present in the heavens, Mt. 6:10, that kingdom also comes on earth, it is near, Mk. 1:15. But, connecting with those expectations, Jesus immediately introduces a great change into them; from the Jewish tradition he goes back to Scripture, and understands by the kingdom not in the first place a political, but a religious-ethical dominion.

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Mk. 12:26, the God of Israel, Mt.

15:30, whom Jesus acknowledges and confesses as his God, is certainly also and above all King, Mt. 5:35, 18:23, 22:2, the Lord of heaven and of earth, Mt. 11:25, but he is also the Father in [234] the heavens, who in his kingdom wishes to rule as a Father over his children; his kingdom is also a family, a congregation, Mt. 6:4, 6, 9, 7:11, Mk. 3:34, 35; and these two thoughts of the kingship and the fatherhood of God do not harm but promote one another. Further: entrance into that kingdom is not by Pharisaic observance of the law, but by conversion, faith, regeneration, Mt.

18:3, Mk. 1:15, Joh. 3:3, and therefore it is precisely open to the poor, the lost, the publicans and sinners, Mt. 5:3, 9:11, 12, 11:5, 28-30, Luk. 19:10.

That kingdom, which on the one hand must above all be sought and presupposes another and better righteousness than that of the Pharisees, Mt.

5:20, 6:33, 13:44-46 and is then presented as a reward, kept in the heavens, Mt. 5:12, 6:20, 19:21, 20:1-7, 24:45, is nevertheless on the other hand, with its whole content, forgiveness of sins, Mt. 9:2, 26:28, Luk. 1:77, 24:47, righteousness, Mt. 6:33, eternal life, Mt. 19:16, 25:46, Mk. 8:43 a gift far surpassing all work and merit, Mt. 19:29, 23:12, 24:47, 25:21, 25:34, Luk.

6:32v., 12:32, 37, 17:10, 22:29. Insofar as salvation is not yet enjoyed here in full, the kingdom is thus still indeed future; but insofar as it is already initially planted here in the hearts through regeneration, forgiveness, renewal, it is present, Mt. 11:11, 12:28, 23:13, Mk. 4:26-29, 10:15, Luk.

10:18, 17:21. Schmoller, Die Lehre vom Reiche Gottes in den Schriften des N. T. Leiden 1891 and others, such as Joh. Weiss, Gunkel, have wrongly denied this latter. The kingdom of God with Jesus is not only a good lying ready in heaven, bestowed on righteousness as a reward, and thus only a religious concept; but it is also initially realized on earth in the benefits of

conversion, faith, regeneration, renewal, it gradually grows and permeates everything, it is at the same time an ethical concept. That is, Jesus takes over the concept of the kingdom of God, as it had been developed in Scripture and especially later in apocalyptic literature in an eschatological sense. But he connects with it the thought later neglected by Judaism, that, although the kingdom of God in an eschatological sense will only at the end of days be realized by an act of God intervening in the world, it nevertheless must be preceded and prepared by a religious-ethical [235] renewal, by the kingdom of God in this sense. With the prophets of the O.

T. these thoughts go together and are interwoven. They know only one coming of the Messiah. The kingdom of God is the sum of all spiritual and natural benefits; it brings at the same time conversion and return

(restoration of Israel as people and kingdom); it is at the same time an ethical and a religious concept. But Jesus distinguishes between these. The kingdom exists in a religious-ethical sense, it comes in an eschatological sense. The one idea of the kingdom of God is realized in two great moments. The one coming of the Messiah splits into a double one, for salvation and for judgment, for preparation and for completion. Das

Messiaswerk wird Heilswerk, es entwindet sich der Eschatologie und mündet ein in die Soteriologie, Baldensperger, Das Selbstbew. Jesu 114.

Leaving aside the question how long a time, for Jesus' consciousness and that of the apostles, would elapse between his present and his future kingdom; the fact stands firm that both are also temporally distinct. Cf.

Holtzmann I 215-225, and further the literature on the kingdom of God, which is to be found in Frédéric Krop, La pensée de Jésus sur le royaume de Dieu d'après les évangiles synoptiques avec un appendice sur la question du fils de l'homme. Paris Fischbacher 1897 p. 7. s. Cf. also A. Ritschls Idee

des Reiches Gottes im Lichte der Gesch., kritisch untersucht von Dr. Rich.

Wegener, Leipzig Deichert 1898.

Jesus did not arrive at this distinction because his labor, begun hopefully in Galilee, later remained without result and he could now remain faithful to his calling in no other way than by at the same time revealing his

Messiahship and the program of suffering, Holtzmann, I 284. For from the beginning Jesus' place in that kingdom, whose Gospel he preached, was perfectly clear and distinct to him. Apart from the indication in the baptism by John, Mt. 3:11v., Joh. 1:26v., this is evident from the fact that Jesus immediately appeared with the names Son of man and Son of God. The first name Jesus derived, as is now, especially after Baldensperger's important study on Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, Strassb. 1888, 2e Aufl. 1892, fairly generally recognized, with awareness from Dan. 7:13, in order thereby to indicate both that he was the Messiah, [236] without whom the kingdom of God could not come, and that he was so in an entirely different sense than his contemporaries imagined this in their earth-minded expectations. The name son of man is thus not a symbol for the future kingdom of God

(Hoekstra), nor a designation of Jesus as the true, ideal man (Herder, Schleiermacher, Neander, Lange, Ebrard, Thomasius, Godet, Beyschlag etc.) or as the humble, weak man (Grotius, de Wette, Ewald, Baur, Strauss,

Kuenen, Schenkel, Stier, Nösgen etc.), but is a definite indication of his Messianic dignity exalted above all, in the sense as he himself understood it. Now, just as earlier already the rationalist Paulus, Comm. über das N. T. op Mt. 8:20 and Uloth in de Godg. Bijdragen 1862, so in the most recent time Lagarde, Wellhausen, Brandt, Oort and especially Lietzmann have indeed asserted that Jesus never called himself in the Aramaic ‎‏‏בר נוש‎ or used it only to designate himself in the third person as the man; that the Aramaic

words were later wrongly translated by ὑιος του ἀνθρωπου and in Christian apocalyptic, in connection with Dan. 7:13, were understood of the Messiah, and in that meaning then were put into Jesus' mouth. But this hypothesis is nevertheless very improbable; it lacks any explanation of when and why the Aramaic expression was thus rendered in Greek, was understood in a Messianic sense, and without any reason was put into Jesus' mouth, cf.

Schulze, Die Religion Jesu und der Glaube an Christus, Halle 1897 S. 7-13.

Fréd. Krop, La pensée de Jésus sur le royaume de Dieu 124 s. Kähler, Zur Lehre v. d. Versöhnung, Leipzig 1898 S. 78. Rather it is probable that the expression ‎‏‏בר נוש‎ already in Jewish apocalyptic designated the Messiah, or that Jesus himself intentionally derived that title from Daniel, in order to designate himself clearly and yet in another sense than his contemporaries thought, as Messiah. In any case, Jesus calls himself so where, by his humble life, Mt. 8:20, 11:19, by his serving, Mt. 20:28, by his seeking and saving of the lost, Mt. 18:11, by his forgiveness of sins, Mk. 2:10, by his power over the Sabbath, Mk. 2:18, by his suffering, Mk. 8:31, 9:12, 31,

10:33, by his return, Mk. 13:26, 14:62, he founds, extends and [237] completes the kingdom of heaven on earth. With this claim and this name

Jesus did not first appear toward the end of his life; he was conscious of his Messiahship from the first moment of his public activity onward and began it by virtue of that consciousness. Already at twelve years of age he knew that he had to be in the things of his Father, Luk. 2:49. In the baptism by John he received the divine sign and seal of his calling, Luk. 3:21. And immediately he appeared with the name Son of man, long before the event in Caesarea Philippi, Mk. 2:10, 28. From the beginning he gives himself a special and wholly unique place in the kingdom of God, does works that presuppose his Messiahship, and demands an honor that belongs to him

only if he is the Messiah, Mt. 5:11, 10:18, 32, 37, 12:6, 41, 19:29. But it is indeed true that he uses the name Son of man sparingly in the first period, and that he employs it all the more frequently when, after the event at Caesarea, he can connect with the Messianity also the program of suffering.

Jesus had to educate his disciples in such a way that they would recognize him as Messiah and yet would not transfer to him all those earthly political expectations that in Jesus' time were connected with the Messianic idea.

Literature on the expression Son of Man in Oort, De uitdrukking ὁ υἱος του ἀνθρωπου in het N. T. Leiden 1892 bl. 5v. H. Lietzmann, Der

Menschenson, Freiburg Mohr 1896. Holtzmann, Neut. Theol. I 246. H.

Appel, Die Selbstbezeichnung Jesu, Der Sohn des M. Stavenhagen 1896.

Also Theol. Tijdschr. Nov. 1894. Mei 1895. Theol. Stud. van Dr. Daubanton enz., Mei 1895. Kähler, Zur Lehre v. d. Versöhnung 1898 S. 75 f. Fréderic

Krop, La pensée de Jésus etc. p. 118-132. With this it is said that Jesus' selfconsciousness as Messiah cannot be explained historically or psychologically. It is immediately present at Jesus' appearance; it is not to be derived from the influence of apocalyptic literature, which without doubt is overestimated by Baldensperger in general and also in relation to Jesus.

Therefore he also sees himself compelled to go further back, namely to the religious consciousness of Jesus, to his consciousness of God, and to say that at the baptism, together with his consciousness of God, his Messianity became immediately conscious to him; then he perceived God's nearness as never before, then he heard inwardly within himself the voice: You are my

Son, Baldensperger, Das Selbstbew. [238] Jesu S. 160. To a certain extent this is correct. Jesus' consciousness that he was the Messiah flowed from the knowledge that he stood in a wholly unique relation to God. He called himself Son of man but also Son of God, cf. part II 243. In the O. T. thus

either the people Israel, or the king and especially the Messiah were designated. This theocratic meaning the name Son of God perhaps still has in the mouth of the demoniacs, Mt. 8:29, the Jews, Mt. 27:10, the High

Priest, Mt. 26:63, and even of the disciples in the first period, Joh. 1:50, 11:27, Mt. 16:16. But Jesus places in this name another and deeper sense.

He is Son of God, not because he is Messiah and King, but he is the latter because he is the former, because he is Son of the Father. God is his Father,

Luk. 2:49; he is the one Son whom the Father loved and whom he sent at last, Mk. 12:6; at the baptism Mt. 3:17, and later at the transfiguration, Mt.

17:5, God calls him his beloved Son, in whom he has all his good pleasure; and in Matth. 11:27 he says that everything that is necessary for the execution of God's εὐδοκια has been handed over to him and that only the Father knows the Son and the Son the Father. This Sonship is the source of all his life, thinking and acting. In that consciousness he places himself above the ancients, Mt. 5:18v., above Jonah and Solomon, Luk. 11:31, 32, above even the angels, Mk. 13:32. Knowing that he stands in a wholly unique relation to the Father and is king of the kingdom of God, he pronounces blessed, Mt. 5:3v., Luk. 10:23, he forgives the sins, Mk. 2:20, he demands to leave everything for his sake, Mt. 5:11, 10:18, 22 etc., and connects with that the entrance into eternal life. The Synoptics already contain in germ everything that later was taught by the apostles and also by the Christian church about the person of Christ. It is true that the disciples before Jesus' resurrection still had no right insight into his person and work.

The gospels tell us that themselves. Hence Jesus in his instruction also reckoned with the capacity of his young men, gradually led them to the knowledge of his Sonship and his Messianity and left much to the instruction of the Spirit, Joh. 16:12. But the resurrection already caused a

wondrous light to dawn over the person and the work of Christ; from then on he counted for all disciples as ein himmlisches Wesen; the doctrine of Paul [239] and John about the being of Christ found with none of the disciples opposition, Weiszäcker, Das apost. Zeitalter2 16. 110. What they add to it is nothing new, but only expansion and development. Jesus is true man, become flesh and come in the flesh, Joh. 1:14, 1 Joh. 4:2, 3, from the fathers, as far as the flesh is concerned, Rom. 9:5, seed of Abraham, Gal.

3:16, from the tribe of Judah, Hebr. 7:14, from the lineage of David, Rom.

1:3, born of a woman, Gal. 4:4, Hebr. 2:14, man in full, true sense, Rom.

5:15, 1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Tim. 2:15, who was weary, thirsty, sorrowful, joyful as we are, Joh. 4:6v., 11:33, 38, 12:27, 13:21, Hebr. 4:15, was under the law,

Gal. 4:4, learned obedience unto death, Phil. 2:8, Hebr. 5:8, 10:7, 9, suffered, died and was buried etc. But this same man was at the same time free from all sin, Mt. 7:11, 11:29, 12:50, Joh. 4:34, 8:29, 46, 15:10. Hd.

3:14, 2 Cor. 5:21, Hebr. 4:15, 7:26, 1 Petr. 1:19, 2:26, 1 Joh. 2:1, 3:5; he has also risen, been glorified, seated at God's right hand, Hd. 2:34, 5:31, 7:55 etc. He existed already before his incarnation, Joh. 1:1, 17:5, 1 Cor. 10:4, 9,

Hebr. 11:26, was then in the form of God, Phil. 2:6, firstborn of all creation, Col. 1:15, higher than the angels, Hebr. 1:4, through whom God created all things and in whom all things subsist, Joh. 1:3, 1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16, Ef.

3:9, Son of God in a wholly unique sense, Joh. 1:14, 5:18, Rom. 8:3, 32, Gal. 4:4, and himself God, Joh. 1:1, 20:28, Rom. 9:5, 2 Thess. 1:1, Tit.

2:13, Hebr. 1:8, 9. (1 Joh. 5:20), 2 Petr. 1:1. Cf. art. Christologie, Schriftlehre van Kähler in Herzog3 4, 4 with the literature cited there.

3. This apostolic testimony concerning Jesus the Christ was too comprehensive for it to be immediately taken up into the Christian consciousness and to be expressed in a clear formula cutting off all error.

With the apostolic fathers there is therefore as yet no mention of this, although they assign to Christ an altogether unique place and although they call Him by all manner of glorious and exalted names, part II 250. Only through the errors arising on the left and on the right side, of Ebionitism and Gnosticism, was Christian thinking first awakened, [240] to appropriate the apostolic testimony to itself in its many-sidedness and to bring to clarity the relation of Christ, both to God and to humanity. Ebionitism did indeed regard Jesus as the Messiah, sometimes also believed that He was conceived in a supernatural manner and at baptism was equipped with a divine power, but otherwise it saw in Jesus nothing but a man, from David's lineage, anointed with God's Spirit and appointed as king over an earthly kingdom to be established at His return. Gnosticism, despising matter and ascribing the creation of the world to a δημιουργος, also made in the case of Christ a sharp separation between the divine and the human; the highest aeon, namely Christ, had descended from heaven and had united Himself for a time with the earthly man Jesus, or brought with Him from heaven a psychic body or temporarily assumed a phantom body, in order to free humanity from the bonds of matter. Harnack indeed thinks that the recognition of Jesus as a man chosen by God and equipped with the Spirit was not ebionitic but Christian, D. G. I 245, and also says that the doctrine of the two natures of Christ was originally gnostic, I 220, 516, but he must nevertheless concede that in the oldest tradition Jesus was also confessed as Son of God and was never held to be a ψιλος ἀνθρωπος, I 153-168, cf.

Loofs in Herzog3 4, 18 f. There may have been different conceptions of how one and the same subject could at the same time be Son of God and man; but thus Christ was recognized by all from the beginning. This confession had to lead and did lead under Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian, cf.

part II 250-256, to the doctrine of the two natures. The expression δυο οὐσιαι χριστου occurs for the first time in a fragment of Melito, the authenticity of which, however, is doubted, Harnack, D. G. I 165, according to Loofs, Herzog3 4, 31 wrongly. Irenaeus does not yet have the formula of the two natures, but teaches clearly that Christ is truly the Son, the Logos, and Himself God, that He as such became man, and that this incarnate

Logos is an indissoluble unity. He is vere homo et vere deus, adv. haer. IV 6, 7, it is one and the same Christ who created the world and who was born and died, III 9, 3. 16, 6. 19, 1 etc. Tertullian teaches likewise and speaks still more strongly of two substances in Christ, carnea and spiritalis, of two conditiones, divina et [241] humana, de carne Chr. 5, and assumed in Him duplicem statum, non confusum sed conjunctum in una persona, Deum et hominem verum, adv. Pr. 27. Soon thereafter in the West, for this doctrine of Christ the formula was used that He was una persona with duo naturae.

Augustine regularly expresses himself thus; ita vero inter Deum et homines mediator apparuit, ut in unitate personae copulans utramque naturam, et solita sublimaret insolitis et insolita solitis temperaret, Ep. ad Volus. 3. In the East, however, the terminology, as in the doctrine of the Trinity, remained for a long time unstable and therefore susceptible to all manner of misunderstanding. The words οὐσια, φυσις, ὑποστασις, προσωπον still lacked strict definition and were therefore used interchangeably; even Cyril still often designates the human nature of Christ as ὑποστασις instead of as φυσις, and then yet again speaks of one nature in Christ, μια σεσαρκωμενη φυσις; the union of both natures was designated by Gregory Naz. and Nyss. as a μιξις, ἀνακρασις, and by Cyril as a ἑνωσις φυσικη or κατα φυσιν; and that which came about through the hypostatic union was more than once called not εἱς but ἑν, Schwane, D. G. II 294 f. 341 f. The epistola dogmatica

of Pope Leo the Great to Flavianus, however, contributed much to promote also in the East clear insight and precise usage of language in the doctrine of Christ, Halm, Bibl. der Symbole u. Glaubensregeln3 321-330. And at Chalcedon, after rejection of Nestorianism, Patripassianism, Eutychianism etc., the confession of Christ was established as of one and the same Son and Lord, τελειον τον αὐτον ἐν θεοτητι και τελειον τον αὐτον εν ανθρωποτητι, θεον αληθως και ἀνθρωπον αληθως τον αυτον,..... ἑνα και τον αὐτον χριστον, υἱον, κυριον, μονογενη, ἐν δυο φυσεσιν (according to the original reading; not ἐκ δυο φυσεων) ἀσυγχυτως, ἀτρεπτως, ἀδιαιρετως, ἀχωριστως γνωριζομενον, Hahn, ib. 166.

4. Therewith the boundaries were sharply and clearly drawn, within which the ecclesiastical doctrine of Christ could be further developed. But it was far from the case that by this agreement was obtained earlier and later. The question: what think ye of the Christ? has in Christian life and also in theology elicited all manner of answers; it has divided the heads and hearts of men through all centuries [242]. Even within those churches which together accept the Chalcedonense, in spite of all agreement there is nevertheless also still considerable difference. In the theology of the East the fundamental thought remained this, that God himself had to become man, in order that man might become partaker of the Divine nature, immortality, eternal life, the θεωσις. The consequences of sin are much more physical than ethical in nature, and therefore alongside rationalism in the Greek church mysticism always runs. This mysticism had to lead to this, that, even if the human nature of Christ was also acknowledged, the strongest emphasis nevertheless fell on his Godhead, on the entering of the Divine nature into the human, on the unity of both, on the essence of Christ more than on his historical appearance, on his incarnation more than on his

satisfaction. With the person of Christ, therefore, it depended especially on his Divine essence, which was communicated in human form and thus is received and enjoyed by man. For a strict distinction of the two natures, therefore, there was by no means any need felt; it is lacking in Athanasius, the Cappadocians, indeed even still in part in Cyril; the Greek reading of the Chalcedonense is a correction of the original text; the expression ἐν δυο φυσεσιν has been replaced by ἐκ δυο φυσεων. Monophysitism was in the East a power; however much condemned and suppressed, it nevertheless kept coming to the surface again, in the doctrine of the theopaschites, of the aphthartodocetes, of the aktistetes and of the monotheletes; it contributed to wiping out the boundary line between the Divine and the human and to making the churches in the East more and more ripe for destruction in Heathendom, cf. deel II 292. 293.

In contrast, the West strictly distinguished between the divine and the human nature of Christ; the terminology of una persona and duo naturae had already been fixed since Tertullian; the emphasis lay more on the ethical than on the physical, more on satisfaction, suffering, and death than on the incarnation. Yet here, too, not every danger of the deification of the human nature of Christ was avoided. The East took almost no notice of the West and in particular did not at all undergo the influence of Augustine. But conversely, the West did adopt the theology and specifically also the mysticism of [243] the East. Thereby, in the Latin church and theology as well, the thought of a deification of the human penetrated. Mystical contemplation, the doctrine of the donum superadditum, transubstantiation, all rest on the thought that the finite can have a share in the infinite. This could not remain without influence on Christology, for the human nature was united with the Godhead more closely than any other creature. If Adam

through the donum superadditum, if the believers through the gratia infusa, if the mystics through contemplation already became partakers of the divine nature and in a certain sense were deified, cf. part I 220v. 276v. II 152v.

518. 522v., then this had to be the case in a much stronger measure still in the case of the man Christ. Entirely in agreement with Joh. Damascenus, de fide orthod. III 3. 7. 17. 19, cf. Dorner, Lehre v. d. Person Christi II 267 f., scholastic and Roman theology therefore taught that each nature in Christ indeed remains itself and that the communication of the divine properties to the human nature is not to be thought of as real, but that nevertheless the divine nature wholly penetrates and permeates the human, as heat does iron, and makes it partaker of the divine glory and wisdom and power

(περιχωρησις, θεωσις). From that it is then inferred that Christ as man already here on earth possessed the scientia beata, the visio Dei; Jesus was already on earth a comprehensor ac viator, walking by sight and not by faith; of faith and hope there can and may be no question in His case.

Further, all the gifts for which the human nature of Christ was capable were granted to Him not gradually, but immediately, all at once at His incarnation. As man He did indeed remain finite and limited; He also had in the state of His humiliation all kinds of defects (susceptibility to suffering and death) and affects (affections of sorrow, hunger, cold, etc.). But He nevertheless received at His incarnation all at once all the wisdom of which His human nature was capable. His increase therein, Luke 2:52, is to be understood not objectively but subjectively; it seemed so to others; He also did not pray out of need, but only for our sake, to give us an example. Jesus was actually never a child; He was immediately a man. And because His human nature is thus so glorified and deified by the divine, therefore it too has a right to and is also a [244] object of worship; indeed every part of the

human nature of Christ, such as in particular the sacred heart, is worthy of divine veneration. Cf. Lombardus, Sent. III dist. 9. 13 sq. 23. Thomas, S.

Theol. III qu. 7-15. 25. 33. 34. Bonaventura, Brevil. IV 6. Bellarminus, de Christo III. IV. Petavius, de incarn. X. XI. Theol. Wirceb. IV 260 sq.

Scheeben, Dogm. III 1-261. Kleutgen, Theol. d. Vorz. III 213 f. Pesch, Prael. IV 86 sq. 111 sq. Jansen, Prael. II 669. C. v. Schaezler, Das Dogma v. d. Menschw. Gottes 1870 S. 164 f. Simar, Dogm. 420 f.

The same fundamental idea we encounter in Lutheran theology. But it is nevertheless worked out and applied differently here. Greek and Roman theology did indeed teach a communication of divine gifts, but not of divine attributes to human nature; and they also did indeed teach a true and essential communication of the divine attributes, but then not to human nature as such, but to the hypostasis of both natures. Luther, however, taught that already in the state of humiliation the humanity of Christ was where the divinity was, and that both natures were united and mixed with one another with their attributes not only in the person but also mutually,

Köstlin, Luthers Theol. II 392. f. Therefore the Roman theologians could unanimously combat the Lutheran Christology and especially the doctrine of ubiquity, Bellarminus, de Christo III 9. Petavius, de incarn. X 7-10 etc.

But yet there is, here as in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, affinity. The Lutherans do indeed expressly teach that the two natures in Christ are never mixed or changed into one another, but that each of the two remains itself unto eternity and retains its essential attributes and never receives the attributes of the other nature as its own, Form. Conc. ed. Müller 675.676.

Nor do they say that all divine attributes are communicated to human nature in the same sense and in the same degree; the quiescent attributes of infinity etc. were not bestowed upon it itself directly, but only through mediation of

the other attributes; the operative ones, however, such as omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, became directly and immediately the portion of human nature; and one even often ascribed to it not only the multivolipraesentia or ubiquitas in the sense of Chemniz [245] but specifically the omnipraesentia, ib. 685 sq. And in substance Roman and Lutheran theology agree in this, that they elevate human nature above the limits set for it and dissolve the human development of Jesus together with the state of his humiliation into appearance. In Lutheran theology that has already emerged very clearly. At the incarnation, namely, a distinction was indeed made not temporally but logically between the incarnatio (assumtio carnis) and the exinanitio (conceptio in utero). Of the former the Logos alone is the subject; and it consists in this, that he makes the human nature, finite in itself, capable of the indwelling of the fullness of the Godhead and communicates to it the above-mentioned divine attributes. But in this way not only the distinction between divine and human nature but also that between the state of humiliation and of exaltation threatened to be lost entirely. Therefore it was assumed that in the second moment, in the exinanitio, of which not the Logos but the God-man was the subject, he had again in a certain sense laid aside the attributes first communicated. But about the nature of this exinanitio there was great difference and there was even waged between the Giessen and Tübingen theologians a protracted

(1607-1624) struggle. According to the Tübingen theologians Christ laid aside only the public use of those attributes; he did indeed retain them and he also used them, for the distinction between potentia and actus does not apply to the divine attributes; a potential omnipresence, omniscience etc. is absurd; but Christ used those communicated attributes in the state of his humiliation only in a latent, hidden way (κρυψις χρησεως); the state of

exaltation is nothing other than a visible display of what invisibly already existed from the hour of conception onward. In this way, however, the whole human development of Jesus, his increase in knowledge and wisdom, his hungering and thirsting, his suffering and dying, became mere appearance. And therefore the Giessen and the later Lutheran theologians preferred to say that Christ in the moment of the exinanitio had laid aside the whole use of the communicated attributes (κενωσις χρησεως); he did indeed retain them, but only potentia, not actu; only at the exaltation did he also take them into use. Cf. Chemniz. de duabus naturis in Christo 1570.

[246] Gerhard, Loc. IV c. 11-14. Quenstedt III 79 sq. Hollaz 765 sq.

Buddeus, Inst. theol. IV c. 2 and further Dorner, Entw. II 771-847. Gesch. der prot. Theol. 569 f. Frank, Theol. der Concordienformel III 165-396.

Schneckenburger, Vergl. Darst. § 26 Id. Zur kirchl. Christologie. Die orthodoxe Lehre vom doppelten Stande Christi nach luth. und ref. Fassung

1868. Sartorius, Christi Person und Werk I3 520 f. Philippi, Kirchl. Gl. IV 1 S. 243 f. Herzog1 art. Double state of Christ. Herzog2 art. Kenotiker und

Kryptiker. Herzog3 art. Comm. idiom.

The Reformed were from the beginning in a much more favorable condition; they have also in the doctrine of Christ in principle overcome the Greek, Roman, and Lutheran mingling of the divine and the human.

Although maintaining the unity of the person in the strictest manner, they have also applied to the human nature of Christ the rule: finitum non est capax infiniti and have maintained this not only in the state of humiliation but even also in that of exaltation. Thus Reformed theology obtained room for a purely human development of Christ, for a successive communication of gifts, for an essential distinction between humiliation and exaltation. And yet in doing so it has earnestly avoided Nestorianism, of which it was

always accused. And that came about because in Greek, Roman, and Lutheran theology the emphasis always fell on the incarnation of the divine being, of the divine nature. If that nature does not become flesh, the work of salvation, communion with God, seems to be endangered. But Reformed theology places in the foreground that the person of the Son became flesh; not the substance but the subsistentia of the Son assumed our nature. In that person the unity of the two natures, in spite of the strict distinction of both, is immovably established. As in the doctrine of the Trinity, of man as the image of God, and of the covenants, so also here in the doctrine of Christ the Reformed thought of personal, conscious life as the richest and highest life comes very clearly to the foreground. Cf. Calvin, Inst. II c. 12-14. Beza, de hypostatica duarum in Christo naturarum unione, Tract. Theol. I 625-645

II 74-101. Ursinus, Tract. theol. 652-663. Martyr, Loci Comm. loc. 17 p.

212. Zanchius, de incarnatione Filii Dei, Op. VIII p. 15-296. Polanus, Synt.

VI c. 12 sq. [247] Owen, Declaration of the glorious mystery of the person of Christ, God and man, Works, Edinb. I. and more literature in Walch,

Bibl. theol. sel. I 259. M. Vitringa V p. 45. 202.

5. All these developments of the doctrine of Christ proceed from and move within the boundaries of the symbolum Chalcedonense. But by no means could all Christians find themselves in this confession. At all times there were those who deviated to the right or to the left and followed in the footsteps of the old Ebionitism or Gnosticism. On the one side stand

Arianism, Nestorianism, Socinianism, Deism, Rationalism etc., cf. deel II 260-264, and on the other side Patripassianism, Sabellianism, Monophysitism, medieval Pantheism, Anabaptism, Theosophy etc., cf. deel

II 264-268 and further Petavius, de incarnatione I c 1: synopsis haeresum omnium, quae cath. in carnationis fidem oppugnarunt. Forbesius à Corse,

Instruct. hist. theol. lib. 2. 3. 5. 6. M. Vitringa V 46 sq. Baur, Lehre v. d.

Dreiein. u. Menschw. Gottes 1841-43. Dorner, Entw. der Lehre v. d. Person Christi2 1851-54. Réville, Histoire du dogme de la divinité de Jésus-Christ

1869. Münscher-v. Coelln, D. G. Art. Christologie, Kirchenlehre van Loofs in Herzog3 4, 16. Especially in more recent theology the thought has become dominant that the doctrine of the two natures did indeed fit with Greek theology and church, but has now lost for us all religious value, that it has also under the criticism of Socinianism and Rationalism irrevocably fallen and therefore now, in an entirely new, religious-ethical sense, ought to be modified. This new Christology has its principal representatives in Kant, Schleiermacher, and Ritschl.

Kant could not accept the biblical and ecclesiastical doctrine of Christ, because he denied the knowability of the supernatural and, reasoning from the du sollst to the du kannst, had no need of a Redeemer. Christ therefore could for Kant remain only an example of morality and a teacher of virtue.

All that Scripture and church further still pronounced of that Christ had only symbolic value. The ecclesiastical Christ is the symbol of the humanity well-pleasing to God; this is the true, only-begotten, much-beloved Son, for whose sake God created the world. The incarnation of Christ symbolizes the arising [248] of the true moral life in man; his vicarious suffering signifies that the moral man in us must atone for the evil of the sensuous man; faith in Christ indicates that man, for his salvation, must believe in the idea of the humanity well-pleasing to God. In one word, the historical man Jesus is no mediator or saviour, but all that the church confesses of that person applies in full to the idea of humanity, Religion ed. Rosenkranz, 69 f. Kant began in the new philosophy with, just like the ancient Gnostics, separating the historical Christ from the ideal one; and others have continued that. Fichte

proceeded from the thought that God and man were absolutely one. But Christ first recognized this unity in himself and clearly expressed it; that is his great, historical significance; thousands have through Him come to this recognition, to this communion with God. But even if this has historically been so, yet it is not thereby said that man cannot from himself, not otherwise than through Christ, come to that communion. If Jesus came back, He would be completely satisfied that Christianity ruled in hearts, even if his person were entirely forgotten. Only the metaphysical, eternal truth, the recognition of unity with God, makes blessed; the historical is a self-standing, transitory fact, Anweisung zum seligen Leben, especially 6th

Vorl. With Schelling in his first period the absolute is not an unchangeably existing being but an eternal becoming, which thus in the world comes to revelation as its logos and son. Theology thinks that Christ is the onlybegotten and incarnate Son of God. That is incorrect; God is eternal and cannot at a definite moment in time have assumed human nature;

Christianity as a historical fact has transitory significance. But the idea remains eternal; the world is the son of God; the incarnation of God consists in this, that the absolute, in order to be itself, comes to revelation in a world, in a multiplicity of individuals, in a rich history, in a historical process. The world is thus God himself in his becoming; the incarnation of God is the principle of all life and history; the finite is the necessary form for the becoming manifest of God; everything must be understood from the idea of the incarnation. And this is also the esoteric truth of Christianity; the historical clothing is only a temporal [249] form for this eternal idea,

Vorles. über die Methode des akad. Studiums, 1803, Werke I 5 S. 286 f.

Likewise Hegel said that what theology represented symbolically in presentations was converted by philosophy into concepts; Christ is not the

only God-man, but man is essentially one with God and also becomes conscious of this at the highest standpoint of his development,

Religionsphilos., Werke XII 235 f. From these philosophical praemisses Marheineke, Rosenkranz, Göschel, Daub, Conradi e. a. did indeed still seek to maintain the incarnation of God in Christ, but Strauss drew the consequences and said in his Leben Jesu, 1835 II 716 f. 734 f., that the idea does not pour out its fullness in one specimen but only in a multiplicity of individuals; humanity is the God become man, who is conceived of the H.

Spirit, lives sinlessly, rises from the dead, ascends to heaven etc. In modern dogmatics, which proceeds from this philosophical thought, there therefore remains no place any longer for Christ, other than a religious genius, a teacher of virtue, a prophet, who has understood religion most deeply, has most clearly revealed God's love and has most clearly expressed the unity and communion of God and man; but the person of Christ itself in fact stands outside the essence of Christianity, Strauss, Dogm. II 214 f. Alte u. neue Gl.2 24 f. Schweizer, Chr. Gl. § 116 f. Pfleiderer, Grundriss § 128.

Biedermann, Chr. Dogm. II2 580 f. Lipsius, Dogm.2 § 588. Scholten, Initia c. 4 p. 171. Kielstra, Het godsd. leven 1890 bl. 39. Not without reason did von Hartmann, with a view to this modern theology, speak of a crisis and a Selbstzersetzung des Christendoms, Die Krisis des Christ. u. die moderne

Theologie 1880. Die Selbstzersetzung des Christ. u. die Religion der Zukunft3 1888. And Dr. Boekenoogen, Christol. Beschouwingen, Theol.

Tijdschr. March, May, Sept. Nov. 1892 Nov. 1897, attempted in vain to maintain the doctrine of Christ in modern dogmatics still as symbolic imagining of religious ideas.

Another direction was taken by Schleiermacher. Although decidedly rejecting the ecclesiastical doctrine of Christ, he nevertheless tried to avoid

the error of speculative philosophy, namely, to seek the essence of Christianity in an abstract idea and to detach this from the historical person

[250] of Christ. To that end he proceeded from the experience of the congregation, from the Christian consciousness, which has as its content reconciliation and communion with God. The ultimate cause of this is to be found nowhere else than in the founder of the Christian congregation, in whom therefore the God-consciousness must have been present in absolute power. And this strength of his God-consciousness was the being of God in Him, so that He is the religiöse Urbild der menschheid, sinless, perfect, highest product of the human race and at the same time brought forth by a creative act of God as the perfect subject of religion. Not on his doctrine but on his person, not on what He did but on what He was, not on his ethical example but on his religious life does it depend in the first place, Chr. Gl. §

91 f. By thus seeking the realization of the religious idea not in humanity but in the person of Christ, Schleiermacher exercised a powerful influence and again secured for Christology a place in dogmatics. First,

Schleiermacher's influence became noticeable in that, in contrast with Kant, Fichte, Hegel, one tried to maintain in Christ a wholly special and entirely unique revelation of God. If the God-consciousness in Christ had been absolute and never disturbed by any sin, God must also have dwelt in Him in a wholly unique way. Naturally one could attempt this in different ways, according as one thought differently about the Trinity. Those who reject the ontological Trinity assume in Christ a special manifestation of God, a perfect indwelling of God, the realization of God's eternal world-thought or human-idea, Rothe, Ethik § 533 f. Weisse, Philos. Dogm. I 437-556.

Schenkel, Dogm. II 2 S. 717. 724. Ewald, Göschel, Redepenning, Beyschlag etc. Others do indeed acknowledge an ontological Trinity but

think the relation of the Son to the Father as subordinatian, and therefore arrive at an Arian Christology, Thomasius, Kahnis, Gess, Keerl, Hofstede de Groot, Doedes etc. Still others coordinate the Son with the Father and therefore approach the ecclesiastical doctrine, K. I. Nitzsch, Twesten,

Müller, Martensen, Sartorius, Liebner, Lange, Voigt, Philippi, Vilmar, Ebrard, Oosterzee e. a. Subsequently, through Schleiermacher there arose in newer Christology an interest, previously unusual, in the human, historical

[251] development of the person of Christ. The doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum was therefore all but abandoned; the human nature of Christ was brought to the foreground; the doctrine of the two states was changed into a life of Jesus, and that life was traced in its preparation, development, and influence. Therefore the history of Israel, of the classical world, and especially of Jesus' own time (Neutest. Zeitgesch. of Hausrath, Schürer etc.) became very popular; further, the incarnation had to be regarded as not accidentally necessary on account of sin but as flowing from the idea of God and given with creation itself (Steffens,

Göschel, Baader, Nitzsch, Martensen, Liebner, Lange, Rothe, Ehrenfeuchter etc.); and then the development of Jesus as man had to be traced in its historical development, until He became second Adam, head of humanity,

Centralindividuum (Rothe, Liebner, Schneckenburger, Martensen, Lange, Neander, Kahnis, Beyschlag, Keerl). Finally, in newer Christology, which still held fast to the confession of Christ as God-man, there arose the striving to maintain the unity of these two in another and better way than had occurred in the confession of Chalcedon and ecclesiastical dogmatics.

To that end, in part to God himself but then especially to the God-man, the idea of becoming was applied. Schelling began with that in his second period, cf. part II 304 f. The Son was in a certain sense indeed eternal in the

Father, but as generated by the Father, as Son outside (praeter) the Father, He first appears in creation. Even then, however, the Son does not exist as actual, but as a Potenz, which can and must actualize itself. Through the sin of man, however, the world becomes an aussergöttliches Sein, and the Son, who is generated for that world and remains bound to it, acquires a being not inwardly but outwardly independent of the Father, Werke II 3 S. 317 f.

He was in an intermediate state, ἐν μορφῃ θεου, He becomes Christ, remains bound to the fallen world, which the Father leaves over to Him, leads it back to the Father himself in the way of self-annihilation and obedience, and thus at the end of the world becomes himself Son in the full sense, II 4 S. 35 f. This thought about the becoming of the God-man had in theosophical circles, e.g. on Baader, Steffens, etc., great influence. And even Rothe and [252] Dorner adopted the thought that God or the Logos came to dwell more in the historical person of Jesus in that same measure as this one developed himself into religious personality, into spirit; the incarnation of God increases with the deification of man. In another and yet related way the explanation of the God-man has been attempted by the doctrine of the κενωσις, i.e. by the supposition that the Logos at the incarnation emptied himself of all or of some properties down to the level of human development and then gradually regained these in the way of development, cf. Gess, Die Lehre v. d. Person Christi 1856 S. 281 f. 309 f.

Liebner, Die Chr. Dogm. aus d. christol. Princip, 1849 and Jahrb f. d. Theol.

1858. Thomasius, Christi Person u. Werk I3 409-445. Sartorius, Lehre v. d. heiligen Liebe II2 21. Lange, Dogm. II 594 f. Ebrard, Dogm. § 350 f.

Schöberlein, Prinzip u. System der Dogm. 167 f. Martensen, Dogm. § 133.

Hofmann, Schriftbeweis II 1 S. 20 f. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych.2 326 f. Kahnis, Dogm. II 83. Frank, Chr. Wahrheit II 137 f. Kübel, Ueber den Unterschied

zw. der posit. u. d. liber. Richtung in der mod. Theol.2 1893 S. 124. H.

Schmidt, Zur Lehre v. d. Person Christi, Neue Kirchl. Zeits. VII 1896 S.

972-1005, especially 982 f. Godet, Comm. op Joh. 1:14. Grétillat, Exposé IV 180 s. Recolin, La personne de J. C. et la théorie de la kenosis Paris

1890. Saussaye, cf. my Theol. van Ch. d. l. S. 44. Oosterzee, Chr. Dogm. II 494. Kähler, Herzog3 4.

Finally, Schleiermacher's Christology agrees with that of Ritschl; only it, attaching itself more closely to the philosophy of Kant, lays more emphasis on the work than on the person of Christ and assigns, in the essence of Christianity, a greater place to the ethical. Ritschl too rejects, in the doctrine of Christ, all metaphysics and everything that is condemned by natural science and by historical criticism, e.g. the pre-existence, the supernatural conception, the resurrection, ascension, return. Christ is in that respect an ordinary man. But his peculiarity lay in his calling, in the work that he has done, namely the founding of a kingdom of God. As an ethical person

Christ stands high above all men; his will was perfectly one with the will of God, with the plan and the goal, which God, in relation to world and humanity, had [253] set before himself. But for that reason Christ also has great religious significance; in Him God himself, his grace and faithfulness, his will and intention with humanity, has come to revelation; Christ has shown it to us and confirmed with his death, that the kingdom of God is the destination of all men, that his will must become the will of the whole of humanity. Therein consists the royal power, the world-dominion of Christ; and therein also consists his Godhead. Christ is not God in a metaphysical sense, but the name God indicates in Him his rank and station, is not a name of essence but an official name; Christ may be called God because He, with respect to us, takes the place of God and the value of God, Ritschl, Rechtf.

u. Vers III2 358 f. Kaftan, Wesen der chr. Rel. 1881 S. 295 f. Id. Brauchen wir ein neues Dogma, 1890 S. 49-72. Id. Dogmatik 1897 S. 404 f. Schultz, on Rom. 9:5, Jahrb. f. d. Theol. XIII 1868 S. 462-507 Die Lehre v. d.

Gottheid Christi 1881. Gottschick, Die Kirchlichkeit der s. g. kirchl.

Theologie 1890 S. 207. Nitzsch, Ev. Dogm. 513. Lobstein, Etudes Christologiques, Strassb. 1892. Chapuis, La transformation du dogme christol. au sein de la théol. moderne, Lausanne Bridel 1893.

6. The doctrine of Christ is not the point of departure but indeed the centre of the whole of dogmatics. All other dogmas prepare for it or are derived from it. In it, as the heart of dogmatics, the whole religious-ethical life of Christendom beats. It is the μυστηριον εὐσεβειας, 1 Tim. 3:16. From this all doctrine of Christ has to proceed. If, however, Christ is the Word become flesh, then the incarnation is also the central fact of the whole of world history, then it must be prepared from the times of the ages and continue to work after and through into all eternity. Schelling rightly says that it must be difficult for someone, einer Persönlichkeit, die ihm nicht eher als von dem Augenblick an bekannt ist, wo sie in menschlicher Gestalt erschienen ist, die für ihn eine bloss historische ist, es muss ihm ungemein schwer fallen, einer solchen Persönlichkeit nachher eine vormenschliche, ja vorweltliche Existenz zuzuschreiben; er wird sich natürlich geneigt finden, diess nur als eine Vorstellung anzusehen, mit der im weiteren Fortgang die

Person des grossen Religionsstifters umgeben und verherrlicht worden, Werke II 4 [254] S. 35. Quite different does this become, if, like every fact of revelation, so also the person of Christ is in the first place considered theologically. In the first place, the incarnation then has its presupposition and foundation in the trinitarian being of God. In deism and pantheism, there is no place for an incarnation of God; there God is separated from

world and man in an abstract manner, here God loses himself in the creatures and has no being and life of his own. It is therefore quite natural, if from this standpoint the incarnation is rejected as absurd. The Socinians came out openly for this and made their exegesis serviceable to this dictum rationis, Cat. Rac. qu. 98. 111; they called the incarnation a human dreamimage and a monstrous dogma, and considered it easier that a man should be a donkey than that God became man, Fock, Der Socin. 525. Likewise

Spinoza said that the becoming-man of God was just as absurd as that circulus naturam quadrati induerit, Ep. 21, cf. also Bretschneider II 195.

Wegscheider § 128. Schleiermacher § 96. Strauss II 153 etc. Only the theistic and trinitarian confession of God's being opens the possibility for the fact of the incarnation. For here God remains who he is and yet can communicate himself to others. If, according to the word of Vinet, one must first have oneself in order to give oneself, then absolute love is only to be conceived as perfection of a triune Divine being. For then alone is there a distinction between being and person, and therefore communion of man through the person with the being of God, without this being being identified with man or overflowing into him. The Trinity, in a word, makes it possible that there be a mediator, who himself partakes of both the Divine and the human nature and thus connects God and man with one another.

However much, then, the theosophy of Böhme and Schelling went astray when it attempted to derive the becoming-man from the being of God, yet the trinitarian being is the presupposition and condition of the incarnation of God, Dorner, Gl. II 394.

It is therefore also important to maintain that not the Divine nature as such, but specifically the Person of the Son became man. The patripassianism of Praxeas, Hermogenes, Noëtus, Beron, Beryllus,

Sabellius, cf. M. Vitringa V 52. Dorner, Entw. I 518, has been condemned by the church at all times, e.g. [255] at the synod of Aquileia, and no longer occurs in this form. But according to its basic idea it is proper to all pantheistic systems, especially those of Hegel, Schelling, von Hartmann etc., which conceive the absolute not as being but as becoming and let the Divine pour itself out into the world and come to an end; the world and humanity with all its pain and misery is then a moment in the life of God, the history of revelation is then the history of the suffering of God, cf. also

A. von Oettingen, Das göttliche noch nicht, Leipzig 1895. Although in this now also, as will appear presently, a component of truth can be recognized, yet Holy Scripture always ascribes the incarnation to the Son, Joh. 1:14,

Phil. 2:6, Hebr. 2:14, 15. Indeed the Reformed preferred to speak of the fact that the person of the Son, rather than with the Lutherans, that the Divine nature in Christ had become man. By that they did not wish to deny that the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Christ, Col. 2:9, that the Son partakes of the same Divine essence with the Father and the Spirit, and thus insofar also the Divine nature had assumed our flesh. But yet, against all mixing, they emphasized that the person of the Son, in whom the Divine nature existed in a particular manner, had assumed the human nature. The difference is certainly not of great significance, as Mastricht V 4, 15, Moor

III 480 remark, but yet it is noteworthy that many Lutherans prefer to express themselves thus, that the Divine nature in the person of the Son has become man; it undoubtedly stands in connection with their basic idea. But the Reformed gave preference to the manner of speaking that the person of the Son immediately and the Divine nature in Him mediately was united with the human nature, Zanchius VIII 47. Polanus VI c. 13. Synopsis XXV

8. Alting, Loci Comm. p. 74. Maresius, Syst. IX 12. M. Vitringa V 51. 63.

Thus it had also earlier been taught by the patres and confessed by the church. The 6th Synod at Toledo 638 declared: although the whole trinity cooperates in the incarnation, because all works of the trinity are inseparabilia, solus (Filius) tamen accepit hominem in singularitate personae, non in unitate divinae naturae, in id quod est proprium Filii, quod non commune trinitati, Hahn, Bibl. d. Symbole u. Glaubensregeln3 237; cf. also Anselmus with Dorner II 376. [256] Lombardus, Sent. III dist. 5.

Thomas, S. Theol. III qu. 3 art. 4. Bellarminus, Contr. I lib. 3 c. 8. Becanus, Theol. schol. III 1 c. 4 qu. 1 etc. Questions, such as were treated in scholasticism on Sent. III dist. 1, whether also the Father and the H. Spirit could have become man, therefore need not cease. The Father could not be sent, for He is the first in order and exists of himself; the H. Spirit proceeds from the Son, follows after Him and is sent by Him. But the Son is the one designated for the incarnation. He occupies in the Divine being the place between Father and Spirit, is Son and Image of God by nature, was already

Mediator in the first creation and could as Son restore us again to children of God, Lombardus, Sent. III dist. 1. Thomas, S. Th. III qu. 3 art. 8.

Petavius, de incarn. II 15. Kleutgen, Theol. der Vorz. III 180 f. Turretinus, Th. El. XIII qu. 4. Shedd, Dogm. Theol. II 266. Dorner, Gl. II 394. Yet, although the incarnation is subjective and terminative only proper to the Son, it is nevertheless originaliter, principiative, quoad efficientiam a work of the whole trinity; Christ is sent by the Father and conceived of the H.

Spirit. Reformed theology already gave expression to this in its doctrine of the pactum salutis. The whole work of re-creation is not merely a decree of God, it rests on the free, conscious deliberation of the three persons; it is an opus personale, not naturale. The Father is eternally in the Son the Father of His children; the Son is eternally their Surety and Mediator; the H. Spirit is

eternally their Comforter. Not only after the fall, not even only at the creation, but in eternity the foundations of the covenant of grace have been laid. And the incarnation is no accidental decision that arose later; it is intended and determined from eternity. There was no time when the Son was not. There was also no time when the Son did not know and was not willing to assume the human nature from the fallen race of Adam. The incarnation is prepared from eternity; it does not rest in the essence but in the persons; it is not a necessity as in pantheism but also not an arbitrariness or chance as in pelagianism.

7. Apart from the Trinity, the incarnation further has its presupposition and preparation in creation. Creation gives [257] existence to finite, limited beings; it is absolutely impossible that God would create something which in essence was like Him and were God. God has therefore eternally conceived finite creatures and has also given them existence within the necessary limits of space and time. In those creatures He has thus, as it were, limited His eternal thoughts, His infinite omnipotence. Specifically, the creation of man after God's image is a presupposition and preparation of the becoming-man of God. Under the influence of the pantheistic doctrine of identity and also in connection with the Lutheran communicatio idiomatum, more recent theology has made much misuse of this. In place of the old finitum non est capax infiniti it set the rule: homo divinae naturae capax, pointed to the affinity of God and man, erased the distinction of both, and proceeded from the thought that for the perfection of both the becoming-man was necessary, Dorner, Entw. II 1227. This is forbidden by Christian theism. But yet, man is akin to God, His image, His son, His offspring; and therefore the becoming-man of God is possible, Thomas,

Bonaventura e. a. on Sent. III dist. I, so that questions whether God can also

assume the nature of a stone, a plant, or an animal, Sent. III dist. 2, as Occam answered affirmatively, Stöckl, Philos. d. M. A. II 1620, are out of place. And if God then creates man after His image, and in that man dwells and works with His Spirit, causes influences to go out upon his heart and head, speaks to him and makes Himself known and understood to him, then that is a descent of God to, an accommodation to His creature, an anthropomorphizing of God, and thus in a certain sense and insofar a becoming-man of God. With and in creation the possibility of revelation and also of the becoming-man is given. Whoever deems the incarnation impossible must, upon reflection, also come to the denial of creation; whoever accepts the latter has in principle lost the right to combat the former. Earlier, part II 310. 401, it has appeared that the possibility of creation is given with the generation of the Son; if God were incommunicable, He would have been able to give life neither to the Son nor to any creature. Now it must be added that, if God has been able to create and has been able to reveal Himself to beings essentially distinct from Him, then He must also be able to become man. For the [258] becoming-man is certainly indeed distinct from all other revelation, but it is nevertheless also related to it, it is its point, its crown, its completion, cf.

Athan. and Greg. Nyss. with Harnack, D. G. II 167. All revelation works toward and groups itself around the incarnation, as the highest, richest, most perfect revelation. Generation, creation, incarnation stand in close connection, even though the following does not proceed necessarily from the preceding. But there is more. Creation itself is already to be thought infralapsarian and Adam was already a type of Christ. This is unacceptable from the standpoint of those who think that God proceeded to creation without counsel and decision and in creation passively awaited what man

would do. But Scripture teaches otherwise. In the creation of Adam God already reckoned on the Christ. Creation itself in this sense already prepared the incarnation. The world is so created that it, falling, could be raised up again; humanity is so organized under one head that it, sinning, could be gathered together again under another head; Adam is so appointed as head that Christ could immediately take his place; and the covenant of works is so arranged that it, broken, could be healed in the covenant of grace. Therefore one has wrongly thought that the incarnation of God's Son would also have taken place without sin. Among the church fathers this opinion does not yet occur clearly, cf. only Tertullianus, de resurr. carnis 6. adv. Prax. 12. But in scholasticism this question was much discussed; apart from the Trinity the incarnation was an article of faith also before the fall and necessary, in order to bring man to his supernatural goal, cf. part I 518

II 528. The question was therefore answered affirmatively by Rupert v.

Deutz, Duns Scotus, Sent. III dist. 7 qu. 3, Alexander Halesius, Albertus Magnus, Joh. Wessel, Catharinus, Pighius, Suarez, cf. also Bellarminus, de

Christo V c. 10, who does not decide; further by Osiander, Socinus, Praelect. theol. c. 10; and then by many more recent theologians, Steffens,

Göschel, Baader, Nitzsch, Martensen, Liebner, Lange, Rothe, Schöberlein, Ebrard, cf. Dorner, Entw. II 1243-1260, Chr. Gl. I 642; many English theologians, who try to explain everything by the incarnation, such as Westcott, Christus Consummator, London 1886 p. 99v. Illingworth, The incarnation in relation to development, 5 essay in Gore's Lux [259] Mundi, also Van Oosterzee, Christol. III 85v. Dogm II 107. 495 etc. It is understandable how, by reasoning, one came to this opinion. A fact such as the becoming-man of God cannot be accidental, and cannot have its cause in sin as an accidental and arbitrary act of man; sin may be able to modify

God's plan, it could not destroy it; and therefore the becoming-man must stand fast abstracted from sin; sin only caused that that becoming-man had to take place for the redemption of the sinner. There is then added to that still, that religion before and after the fall cannot differ essentially; if a mediator is now necessary, then such a one was also necessary in religion before the fall; Christ's person and work then also by no means are exhausted in the reconciling of sins, in the acquiring of salvation; He is not only mediator but also head; He is not a means but also an end,

Selbstzweck, 1 Cor. 15:45-47, Ef. 1:10, 21-23, 5:31, 32, Col. 1:15-17. He is not there only for the church, the church is also there for Him; the predestination of Christ to glory precedes that of man. These considerations contain so much truth that the assent which the hypothesis of the becomingman of God outside sin has found cannot be surprising. If the Pelagian freedom of the will is taught and sin is thus for God a contingency and disappointment, there is no better means to unite free will and God's plan with one another than by saying that the becoming-man was nevertheless determined and has only been altered in something subordinate. On the standpoint of Augustine and still more closely of Reformed theology, however, there is no need at all for this whole hypothesis. There is only one plan and decree of God; for another reality than the existing one there is, with a view to God's counsel, no place. However much sin then also came into the world through the will of the creature, it is nevertheless from eternity included in God's counsel and is for Him not contingent or unforeseen. In that eternal counsel the incarnation also has a place on account of sin; it does not depend on man but only on God's good pleasure.

Yes more still, the Son was also abstracted from sin for man mediator unionis; many Reformed persons acknowledged this with Calvin, Inst. II

12, 4. 6. Because this was not well understood by Quenstedt, Theol. did. pol. I 110 cf. [260] Schneckenburger, Vergl. Darst. II 190, he could count

Zanchius, Bucanus, Polanus among the proponents of the incarnation outside sin. The intention was only that religion in covenant of works and covenant of grace was essentially one and the same, and salvation thus must always consist in communion with the triune God. Only Comrie, by his strictly maintained supralapsarianism, came to the doctrine that the predestination of man in Christ preceded that of the fall, part II 339. But otherwise most theologians adhered to Scripture, which always and only brings the incarnation of Christ into connection with sin and in it sees the greatest proof of God's mercy, Mt. 1:21, 9:13, 20:28, Luk. 1:67, 2:30, Joh.

1:29, 3:16, Rom. 8:3, Gal. 4:4, 5, 1 Tim. 3:16, Hebr. 2:14, 1 Joh. 3:8 etc.

The opposite opinion also so easily leads to the thought that the becomingman is in itself fitting and necessary for God, that is, to the pantheistic doctrine of the eternal self-revelation of God in the world. Cf. Iren., adv. haer. V c. 14. Greg. Naz., Or. 36. August., de verbis Apost. 8, 2. 7. Thomas,

S. Theol. III qu. 1 art. 3, but otherwise Sent. III 1 qu. 1 art. 3. Bonaventura,

Sent. III dist. 1 art. 2 qu. 2. Petavius, de incarn. II c. 17. Schaezler, Das Dogma v. d. Menschw. Gottes 307. Kleutgen, Theol. III 400. Quenstedt II 108-116. Calovius, Isag. ad theol. 59-99. Calvijn, Inst. II 12, 4-7. Mastricht

V 4, 17. Turretinus, Theol. El. XIII 3. Moor III 759. M. Vitringa V 47. J.

Müller, Dogm. Abh. 1870 S. 66-126. Philippi, K. Gl. IV 376. Frank, Chr.

Wahrh. II2 80. Heraut 264. 265. Orr, Chr. View 319-327.

8. A third and final preparation for the incarnation is the history of revelation from paradise onward. The incarnation did not take place immediately after the fall; but many centuries elapsed from the first sin until the coming of Christ in the flesh. Scripture points this out, when it

speaks of the fullness of time, Ef. 1:10, Gal. 4:4, that this was no accident or arbitrariness, but had thus been determined by God in his wisdom. The incarnation first had to be prepared in the preceding history by all manner of means and along all manner of ways. Just as the incarnation presupposes generation and creation [261], so now there is added yet another presupposition and preparation, namely, revelation. It is especially John in his prologue who sets this preparation of the incarnation in the preceding history before us in the light. Not only was the Logos in the beginning with God and himself God; and not only are all things made through him. But this Logos has also, from the moment of creation onward, communicated his life and light to the creatures. For in him was life and the life was the light of men. Even after the fall this revelation did not cease. On the contrary, the light of that Logos shone in the darkness and enlightened every man, coming into the world. In particular he revealed himself in Israel, which he had chosen for himself as an inheritance, and as Angel of the Covenant led and blessed. He continually came to his own, in theophany, prophecy, and miracle. Thus the Son prepared and made ready the whole world, Jews and Gentiles together, for his coming in the flesh.

World and humanity, land and people, manger and stable, Bethlehem and Nazareth, parents and blood relatives, nature and environment, society and civilization, it is all a moment in the fullness of the times, in which God sent his Son in the flesh. It was the Son himself, who thus immediately after the fall as Logos and as Angel of the Covenant made ready the world of the Gentiles and of the Jews for his coming. He was coming from the beginning of the times onward and finally came for good into humanity and by his incarnation made his dwelling in it. Cf. Baldensperger, Der Prolog. des vierten Evangeliums, Freiburg Mohr 1898. The incarnation connects with

the preceding, both general and special revelation. It stands and falls with this. For if God has been able to reveal himself in such a way as Scripture testifies with respect both to the Gentile world and to Israel, then the possibility of the incarnation lies therein of itself enclosed; and if the latter were not possible, the former also would not be maintainable. Revelation, after all, rests on the same thought as the incarnation, i.e. on the communicability of God, both within the being of God to the Son

(generation) and outside the being of God to the creatures (creation). This whole preparation of the incarnation in the preceding centuries now, as it were, concentrates itself and is completed in the election and bestowal of grace upon Mary as mother of Jesus. Mary is the blessed [262] among women. She has received an honor which has fallen to no other creature.

High in unmerited grace, bestowed upon her, she surpasses all men and angels. Rome has rightly maintained this; whoever denies it is not in earnest about the incarnation of God. Only, the Roman church has, without any ground, proceeded from this acknowledgment to the doctrine of the immaculata conceptio B. Virginis, see above 211v. What has guided it therein and brought it thereto is not the authority of Scripture or of tradition; nor is it the attempt to explain and to guarantee thereby the sinlessness of Jesus, for this rests causally in his divine nature and instrumentally in the conception by the Holy Spirit. But the driving force for this dogma lies again for Rome in the hierarchical idea. In proportion as a creature stands nearer to God, it must also all the more have a share in his nature and in all his attributes; it must all the more share in the θεωσις, in the deificatio. Now above Mary no creature stands; she is united with God in the closest manner, she is θεοτοκος, Deipara, she has carried God's own Son under her heart, God himself has dwelt in her. Whether there are proofs from

Scripture and tradition is not the main point; but the Roman cannot think of the mother of the Savior otherwise than above all children of men and above all angels of heaven, pleasing to God, pure and spotless. Was she not bound to the God-man, and thus also to the Divine Person of the Word, to holiness itself, by the closest and tenderest relations? Has God, by the fact itself of her election to so high a dignity and so intimate a familiarity, not shown most clearly that he loved that pure virgin above all creatures? And is it therefore also, apart from the proofs from Scripture and tradition, not very plausible that God has endowed the holy virgin above all creatures with his gifts of grace? The honor of the Savior demanded that his chosen mother remain free from every trace and shadow even of sin. It is fitting that a creature which had to associate so intimately with God, stood in so intimate and tender a relation to him, should remain preserved from the least stain of sin. It is fitting that the house of the Lord was holy. Thus

Bensdorp in the Katholiek, CXII 1897 bl. 429. 445. 447. In the hierarchical [263] system of the Roman church and theology the doctrine of the immaculate conception, the sinlessness of Mary, fits, and therefore this has gradually been incorporated into it; even the doctrine of her assumption is a question of time. Therefore the predicates ascribed to Mary increase more and more, both in number and in quality; she is daughter of the Father, bride of the Son, temple and organ of the H. Spirit, complementum, Ergänzung der Dreieinigkeit, die instrumentale und theilweise die meritorische Ursache unserer ewigen Auserwählung, the principal reason of natural and supernatural creation, the wise one, working all miracles, equipped with unlimited dominion, almighty ruler of the church, as God rules the world etc., see e.g. Wörnhart, Maria die wunderbare Mutter Gottes und der

Menschen, Innsbrück 1890 S. 13. 19. 244. 289, also Petavius, de incarn.

XIV. Scheeben, Dogm. 69. 93, a Jesuit Salazar in Rivetus, Op. III 681.

Mariolatry with Rome displaces true, Christian worship of God entirely and completely. Prof. Schoeler, Das vatik. Bild, Gütersloh 1898 sees this superstition typically expressed in a wall painting in the Vatican, which represents the Madonna, placed high in the middle, while Father and Son, as instruments of her almighty will, are seated on the right and left side. It is against this deification of man that the Reformation rose in protest. It would not be surprising if, out of fear of such an idolatry, it had not always shown to Mary the honor due to her. But that too is not the case, although it was of course cautious in its praise. Mary also stands in high honor with all

Protestants who confess the incarnation of the Word. She has been chosen and prepared by God to be the mother of his Son. She is the graced one among women. She has been desired by Christ himself as his mother, who received him from the H. Spirit, who bore him under her heart, who nursed him at her breast, who instructed him in the Scriptures, in whom, in one word, the preparation of the incarnation was completed.

9. Yet, although Christ in his incarnation connects with the preceding revelation and by nature and history prepared his own coming, He is not a product of the past, no fruit of Israel or of humanity. Up to [264] a certain extent it holds true of every human being, that he cannot be fully explained from his parents and environment. Therefore Kuenen too, G. v. I. II 506v.,

Volksgodsd. en Wereldgodsd. 158. 193, after he had indicated the conditions and building materials for Christianity, could acknowledge that thereby the person of Christ is still not understood. But it holds true of Christ in another and higher sense than was meant by him. For according to Scripture, in Christ that Word has become flesh, which in the beginning was with God and itself was God. At all times and from all sides this divinity of

Christ has been denied and contested. But 1o Scripture teaches nothing else, above bl. 231, 238. We are, as Ch. de la Saussaye once said, accustomed to the superlatives of Holy Scripture and often no longer understand the force of its expressions. But if a human being spoke of himself as Jesus always did, if others so venerated a human being as prophets and apostles do the Christ, then everyone would hold that for insane fanaticism or dreadful blasphemy. Scripture ascribes to Christ, not in a single place but repeatedly, a personal eternal pre-existence, Joh. 1:1, 8:58, 17:5, Rom. 8:3, 2 Cor. 8:9,

Gal. 4:4, Phil. 2:6, a divine Sonship in a supernatural sense, Mt. 3:17, 11:27, 28:19, Joh. 1:14, 5:18, Rom. 8:32, the creation and the preservation of all things, Joh. 1 3, 1 Cor. 8:6, Ef. 3:9, Col. 1:16, 17, Hebr. 1:3, Op. 3:14, the acquisition for all and each of all salvation and blessedness, Mt. 1:21,

18:11, Joh. 1:4, 16, 14:6, Hd. 4:12, 1 Cor. 1:30, the kingship in the church, Mt. 3:2, 5:11, 10:32, 37, Joh. 18:37, 1 Cor. 11:3, Ef. 1:22, Col. 1:18, the dominion over all things, Mt. 11:27, 28:18, Joh. 3:35, 17:2, Hd. 2:33, 1 Cor.

15:27, Ef. 1:20-22, Phil. 2:9, Col. 2:10, Hebr. 2:8, the judgment over the living and the dead, Joh. 5:27, Hd. 10:42, 17:31, Rom. 14:10, 2 Cor. 5:10; it calls Him directly and unambiguously by the name of God, Joh. 1:1, 20:28,

Rom. 9:5, 2 Thess. 1:12, Tit. 2:13, 2 Petr. 1:1, Hebr. 1:8, 9, cf. Cremer, s. v. θεος. 2o It is true that all contesting of the divinity of Christ begins with an appeal to Scripture against the confession. But this illusion lasts only a very short time. Impartial exegesis soon shows that the doctrine of the church has far more ground in Scripture than one [265] originally had expected.

Thus one then sees oneself compelled to go back again from the Christ of the apostolic proclamation to the Jesus of the Synoptics and then to criticize this for so long until all the supernatural disappears from it. The divinity of Christ can then be declared to be a fruit of profound theological or

philosophical speculation, originally wholly foreign to the church, Nitzsch, Ev. Dogm. 522. Schultz, Gottheit Christi 417 f. 438. 468. This, however, always lasts only so long as one sets store by it and has an interest in presenting one's own faith as the original, pure Christianity. As soon as that standpoint is abandoned, impartiality resumes its voice and gives the ecclesiastical confession its due. Negari nequit, in dictis eorum (scriptorum s.) semina quaedam doctrinae ecclesiasticae vere inesse, Wegscheider §

128. Es ist unleugbar, dass auch dasjenige, was die Kirchenlehre über die göttliche Natur Christi lehrt, Stützpunkte im N. T. besitzt, Nitzsch ib. 518.

521, cf. also Holtzmann, Neut. Theol. I 353. 418. Baldensperger, Der Prolog. des vierten Ev. 4 f. Thereby the explanation of this dogma from later, theological or philosophical speculation again falls away. 3o. Just as the study of Scripture, so dogma-historical research also again and again sets the seal of truth upon the ecclesiastical confession of the divinity of Christ. The development of the Christological dogma shows a logical course, which in the end is noticed and acknowledged by every investigator, v. Hartmann, Die Krisis des Christ. 6. Simple was the faith with which the church stepped forth into the world. But it knew one thing, that in Christ

God himself had come to it and had taken it up into his communion. That stood firm, that it did not allow to be taken from it, that it defended against all manner of contesting and formulated clearly and distinctly in its confession. In the doctrine of the divinity of Christ it maintained the absolute character of the Christian religion, the reality of its communion with God. In Christianity Christ occupies a wholly different place than

Buddha, Zarathustra, Mohammed in their religions. Christus ist nicht der Lehrer, nicht der Stifter, er ist der Inhalt des Christenthums, Schelling,

Werke II 4 S. 35, cf. v. Hartmann, Die Krisis des Christ. 1880 S. 1. Strauss,

Dogm. II 174. Therefore, judged according to the doctrine of Scripture and the faith of the church, [266] in the end men such as Irenaeus, Athanasius,

Augustine are again and again put in the right over against their opponents.

Everyone counts agreement with them as an honor; no one is gladly named after Arius, Pelagius, or Socinus. 4o. It is clear that the Christian religion, i.e. the true communion of God and human being, cannot be maintained otherwise than by the confession of the divinity of Christ. For if Christ is not true God, then He is only a human being. And however highly He may then be placed, He can be neither in his person nor in his work content and object of the Christian faith. Whether Christ then for himself stood in unbroken communion with God (Schleiermacher), first pronounced the unity of God and human being (Hegel), fully realized the sonship of God in himself (Lipsius), revealed God's love and founded the kingdom of God

(Ritschl); Christianity is now nevertheless, now that it once exists, independent of Him; He is its founder, historically his significance remains great, and his example continues to work, but He himself stands outside the essence of Christianity. The Arian Christology, the moral Christology of rationalism, the symbolic of Kant, the ideal of Hegel, the aesthetic of de

Wette, the anthropological of Feuerbach, none of them leave to Christ in dogmatics a place. Wird die Persönlichkeit Christi als eine menschliche, wenn auch noch so sehr idealisirte, festgehalten, so kann nicht sie selbst als

Persönlichkeit die erlösende Kraft für den Gläubigen sein, v. Hartmann ib.

15. 5o. Ritschl and his followers, however, still try to maintain for Jesus, although only human, the title of God, because He for the church takes the place of God and possesses the value of God. Formerly this was attempted in the same way by the Socinians. They contested the divinity of Christ as strongly as possible and said that Christ, in those few Scripture passages

where He was called God, such as Joh. 1:1, 20:28, Rom. 9:5, was thus called on account of his rank, dignity, and dominion, to which He especially after his resurrection was exalted, Cat. Rac. qu. 94-190. Christ works by divine power those same things, quae ipsius Dei sunt, tanquam Deus ipse, ib. 120. 164. Hoc nomen Deus non est nomen substantiae cujusdam proprium vel personae, sed auctoritatis, potentiae, just as also angels and authorities in Scripture [267] according to Jesus' own word, Joh. 10:34, are sometimes called Gods, Socinus, on Joh. 1:1. The same is now taught by Ritschl and his school; the name of God is indeed used in Scripture and in the church for Christ, but is then an office-name, not an essence-name. This representation, however, is wholly untenable. Indeed angels and authorities are sometimes called God in Scripture, but then the figurative, official sense is clear and strikes everyone's eye. With Christ that is a wholly different case. To Him a personal, eternal continuance is ascribed; of Him it is said that He was God, existed in his form, was the radiance of God's glory, onlybegotten Son of God, Image of the invisible God, indeed God above all to be praised unto eternity—who can possibly understand this of a human being, who only on account of the office that he bore and the work that he did received the honorary title of God? Further, the Christian church, in calling Jesus God, never meant thereby an office-name but always an essence-name. When one begins to use that same word and that same name in a wholly different sense, one intentionally gives occasion for misunderstanding and confusion and makes oneself guilty of dishonesty toward the church. Further, if Christ is not God in an essential sense, then

He may also not be so called and venerated. Even if one says that He has perfectly revealed God's love, that He has wholly taken up into himself

God's plan with world and humanity, that He has fully made God's will his

own, all this does not justify, on a scriptural, Christian standpoint and also logically and philosophically, for the human being Jesus the designation of God. To be one with God in a religious and ethical sense is something wholly different than to be it in a metaphysical sense. A Werthurtheil is untrue if it does not have its ground in a Seinsurtheil. Finally, the designation and veneration of Jesus as God, while He is only a human being, is a pantheistic mixing of Creator and creature, a pagan idolatry, a return to Roman creature-deification, in direct conflict with the essence of Christianity and with the principle of Protestantism. If Jesus, although only a human being, may be invoked and venerated as God, then thereby in principle also the Roman veneration of Mary, the saints and the angels, and all pagan idolatry [268] is justified. In contesting that God can become human, one at the same time teaches that a human being can indeed raise himself to the rank and dignity of God, Schultz, Gottheit Christi 386 f. 389.

407. 411. 454. 463. Incarnation is impossible, but apotheosis will be able to exist very well. The becoming-human of God is absurd, but the becomingGod of the human being will be reasonable; as if what proceeds from development could ever be God. Το γαρ προκοπτον οὐ θεος, Greg. Naz. bij

Schaezler t. a. p. 56, and cf. further Fock, Der Socin. 538 f. Lipsius, Theol.

Jahresbericht X 378, Pfleiderer, Jahrb. f. prot. Theol. 1889 S. 168 f.

Dieckhoff, Die Menschw. des Sohnes Gottes. Ein Votum über die Theol.

Ritschl's, Leipzig 1882. Stählin, Kant, Lotze, Albr. Ritschl, Leipzig 1888 S.

165 f. Hoensbroech, Christ u. Widerchrist. Ein Beitrag zur Vertheidigung der Gottheit Christi u. zur Char. d. Unglaubens in der prot. Theol. Freiburg

1892.

10. This Son of God became man according to the doctrine of Holy Scripture through conception by the Holy Spirit and through birth from the

virgin Mary. The supernatural conception was already denied in ancient times by the Jews, Eisenmenger, Entd. Judenthum I 105 f., by the Ebionites, by Cerinthus, Carpocrates, Celsus, cf. Moor III 722, deists and rationalists in the previous century, such as Morgan, Chubb, cf. Bretschneider, Entw.

567, by the more recent critics such as Strauss, Bruno Bauer, Renan etc., and in the most recent time by Harnack, Das apost. Glaubensbekenntniss,

Berlin 1892; his judgment, that the words: conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary did not constitute a component part of the original proclamation of the gospel, gave occasion for a serious struggle, in which many ranged themselves on his side, such as Achelis, Zur Symbolfrage

Berlin 1892, Herrmann, Worum handelt es sich in dem Streit um das Apostolikum? Leipzig 1893. Hering, Die dogm. Bedeutung und der relig.

Werth der übernat. Geburt Christi, Zeits. f. Th. u. Kirche von Gottschick, 1895, S. 58-91. Lobstein, Die Lehre v. der übernat. Geburt Christi, 2e Aufl.

1896, but others also decidedly set themselves over against him, especially Wohlenberg, Empfangen vom h. Geist, geboren von der Jungfrau Maria

1893. Cremer, Zum Kampf um das Apostolikum, Berlin 1892, Th. Zahn, Das apost. Symbolum, Erl. u. Leipzig 1893. This struggle [269] gained still more importance through the discovery of a Syriac translation of the gospels by Mrs. Lewis and her sister Mrs. Gibson in a palimpsest of the Katharinenkloster on Sinai in the summer of 1892, The four gospels in Syriac, transscribed from the Sinaitic palimpsest. By the late Robert L.

Bensley and by J. Rendel Harris and by F. Crawford Burkitt. With an introd. by Agnes Smith Lewis, Cambridge 1894. Mt. 1:16 indeed reads in this

Syriac translation as follows: Joseph, to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed, begot Jesus, who is called Christ, cf. Theol. Tijdschr. May 1895 bl. 258v. Gids, July 1895 bl. 88-104. But even if this Syr. translator were

thereby to deny the supernatural conception of Christ, this fact would stand entirely by itself in the history of the gospel among the Syrians and would have remained without influence. The Syriac diatessaron of Tatian, the Syriac Gospel fragments, published by Cureton in 1858, and all later Syriac editions of the Gospels teach it clearly. Further, the newly found translation in Mt. 1:16 calls Mary virgin and betrothed to Joseph; v. 18 reads likewise as in our Gr. text and thus teaches the conception of the Holy Spirit, likewise v. 20, and with Luke 3:23 it is the same case. There is not the least proof that the Syr. translator by his text of Mt. 1:16 intended to deny the conception of the Holy Spirit, Th. Zahn, Theol. Lit. Blatt 1895 col. 28. But further, the supernatural conception by the Holy Spirit was certainly a component part of the original proclamation of the gospel. The old Roman symbol, which certainly existed before the middle of the second century and probably already toward the end of the first century, already contained the words: qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto et Maria virgine, (τον γεννηθεντα ἐκ πνευματος ἁγιου και Μαριας της παρθενου), later somewhat altered for clarification. The opponents of the supernatural conception, including

Cerinthus, a contemporary of John, never appealed to the fact that this doctrine had arisen later; in their time this must therefore have been content of the general Christian faith; there is not a single ground and it is moreover also strange, to hold the heretics Cerinthus etc., with Harnack, for the pure bearers and preservers of the faith of the first Christian congregation.

Further, this doctrine is found in the letters of Ignatius, ad [270] Smyrn. I 13, ad Eph. VII 1-2, who suffered martyrdom about the year 117, and in the Apology of the philosopher Aristides of Athens found some time ago, which he presented in the year 125 to Emperor Hadrian. It must all the more have been content of the apostolic preaching, because the pagan fables of

sons of gods would otherwise certainly have deterred the Christians from a doctrine that seemed so closely related to them. Of an influence of those pagan fables on the origin of the evangelical narrative of the supernatural conception, as Usener, Religionsgesch.

Untersuchungen, I Das Weihnachtsfest Bonn 1880 S. 69 f. and Hillmann, Die Kindheitsgesch. Jesu nach Lukas, Jahrb. f. prot. Theol., 1891 S. 192 f. assumed, there is nowhere any trace; Harnack, Theol. Lit. Z. 1889 No 8 therefore explains it only from Jewish data, specifically from an incorrect exegesis of Isa. 7:14, cf. also

Weiss, Leben Jesu I 217 f. Finally, it occurs indeed in the N. T. directly only in Matthew and Luke, but that which it comes down to in these narratives in Matthew and Luke is the doctrine of all evangelists and apostles. Jesus is namely, in the first place, genealogically a son of David; for that he was generally held, by the crowd that surrounded Him time and again, and by all

His disciples, Mt. 1:1, 20, 9:27, 12:23, 15:22, 20:30, 31, 21:9, 15, 22:42-45, Mk. 10:47, 11:10, 12:35-37, Luke 1:27, 32, 69, 18:38, 39, 20:41-44, John

7:42, Acts 2:30, 13:23, Rom. 1:3, 9:5, 2 Tim. 2:8, Hebr. 7:14, Rev. 3:7, 5:5, 22:16. Further, He is the Holy One, who has never done or known any sin,

Mt. 7:11, 11:29, 12:50, Mk. 1:24, Luke 1:35, John 4:34, 6:38, 8:29, 46, 15:10, 17:4, Acts 3:14, 22:14, Rom. 5:12v., 1 Cor. 15:45, 2 Cor. 5:21, Hebr.

4:15, 7:26, 1 Petr. 1:19, 2:21, 3:18, 1 John 2:1, 3:5. And finally He, the one born of Mary, is the Son of God in an altogether unique sense, Mt. 1:23,

4:3, 8:29, 14:33, 16:16, 26:63, Mk. 1:1, 3:11, 5:7, 14:61, 15:39, Luke 1:32, 35 etc. In order that this might now be obtained, that a son of David, born from his lineage, would nevertheless be free from all sin and would be

God's Son, for that the supernatural conception was necessary; for that it occurred; and therefore it also has a high religious and ethical importance.

This is, however—to dispose of this point here briefly—not the case [271]

with the theologoumenon that Mary remained a virgin in and after the birth.

The virginity of Mary in partu and post partum is not yet encountered among the church fathers before Nicaea; Tertullian, de carne Christi c. 23,

Origen, hom. 14 in Luc., Irenaeus, adv. haer. IV 66 do not yet know the virginitas in partu, and Tertullian, de carne Christi 7 also denies the virginitas post partum. The virginitas in partu occurs for the first time in the apocryphal Evang. Jacobi c. 19 and was also, as some persons' opinion, already known to Clemens Alex., Strom. VII c. 16. But after Nicaea the virginitas of Mary both in partu and post partum in connection with her

Gottesmutterschaft (θεοτοκος, deipara) is taught ever more clearly, by Epiphanius, Hieronymus, Greg. Nyss., Ephraim, Ambrosius, Augustinus etc., and defended against the Apollinarians, Helvidius, Jovinianus,

Bonosus, cf. Bellarminus, de sacr. euch. III c. 6. Petavius, de incarn. XIV c.

3 sq. Lehner, Die Marienverehrung S. 120 f. The fifth ecumenical council can. 6 adopted the title ἀειπαρθενος of Epiphanius for Mary, and the Lateran synod of 649 established in can. 3 her virginity also in and after the birth of Jesus, cf. Cat. Rom. I 4, 8. The semper virgo was also included in the Art. Smalc. I 4, Form. Conc. II 7, 100 and 8, 24. Zwinglii Expos. Chr. fidei 5, but Lutherans and Reformed nevertheless taught that the birth of Jesus had taken place in the ordinary way and that the virginitas of Mary, post partum, although acceptable for piety's sake, was nevertheless not an article of faith and in no case had been undertaken by Mary by way of a vow. That Mary bore Jesus utero clauso, Scripture teaches with not a single word. That she bound herself by vow to virginity is not to be derived from Gen. 3:15, Isa. 7:14, Luke 1:34 and from so-called types, Judg. 6:36, 11:29,

Dan. 2:34, Ezek. 44:2. And that she later brought forth no more children is difficult to maintain in the face of Mt. 1:18, 25, 12:46, 13:55, Mk. 3:31, 6:3,

Luke 2:7, 8:19, John 2:12, 7:5, Acts 1:14, 1 Cor. 9:5. Cf. Calvin, on Luke 1:34. Polanus, Synt. VI c. 17. Rivetus, Apol. pro S. Virgine Maria, Op. III 601-744. Chamier, Panstr. Cath. II 4 c. 3. Turretinus, Theol. El. XIII 10.

Mastricht, Theol. V 10, 12. Moor III 563. 716. Quenstedt, Theol. III 401.

[272] 11. The case is quite different with the supernatural conception. This is of the highest significance for the person of Christ and therefore also of religious importance. Scripture ascribes Jesus' conception to the Holy Spirit or to the power of the Most High. The Holy Spirit, who is the author of all physical, psychical, and pneumatical life, part II 230, is in Mt. 1:18, 20, as is evident from the prep. ἐκ, conceived as the causa efficiens of that conception, while this in Luke 1:35 is ascribed to the power that will go forth from God, the Most High, and will come upon Mary. Clearly it appears from this that the activity of the Holy Spirit in this conception did not consist in the pouring out of any heavenly, divine substance into Mary, but in a manifestation of power, which made her womb fruitful, in an overshadowing as with a cloud, cf. Ex. 40:34, Num. 9:15, Luke 9:34, Acts

1:8. If the old dispute between spermatists and ovists were decided in favor of the latter, which, however, is by no means yet the case, Schäfer, Die

Vererbung, Berlin 1897 S. 74-80; then this activity of the Holy Spirit would thereby also be physiologically elucidated. But however this may be, what is conceived in Mary, το ἐν αὐτῃ γεννηθεν is ἐκ πνευματος ἁγιου, from the Holy Spirit as causa efficiens, has its cause in the activity of the Holy Spirit and not in the will of man or of the flesh. Besides this making fruitful of Mary's womb, the Holy Spirit also effected the sanctification of the little child, that would be born from her. It is a ἁγιον, that is born from her; it will be called Son of God, Son of the Most High, Luke 1:35. It is now of

importance to note that this activity of the Holy Spirit with respect to the human nature of Christ by no means stands by itself; it did indeed begin at the conception but did not end; it continued throughout his whole life, even into the state of exaltation. In general, the necessity of this activity can already be inferred from the fact that the Holy Spirit is author of all life in the creatures and in particular of the religious-ethical life in man. The true man, who bears God's image, is not conceivable for a moment without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, part II 540. Furthermore, the human nature in Christ had to be prepared for union with the person of the Son, i.e. for a unity and communion with [273] God, as to which no other creature has ever been deemed worthy. If man in general already cannot have communion with God except through the Holy Spirit, then this applies in an even stronger measure to Christ's human nature, which had to be united with the Son in an altogether unique way. This special union, which far surpasses and essentially differs from the immanence of God in his creatures, the revelation of God in the prophets, the indwelling of God in his people, makes an altogether special activity of the Holy Spirit already a priori probable and even necessary. But Holy Scripture also teaches this expressly. Prophecy already proclaimed that the Messiah would in a special sense be anointed with the Holy Spirit, Isa. 61:1, and the N. T. relates that Christ received that Spirit without measure, John 3:34. Not only was he conceived by him, but that Spirit descends upon him at baptism, Mt. 3:16, fills him wholly and entirely, Luke 4:1, 18, leads him away to the wilderness and to Galilee, Mt. 4:1, Luke 4:14, gives him the power to cast out devils, Mt. 12:18, to offer himself to God without blemish, Heb. 9:14, in order, just as he became David's Son in the way of the flesh, so through the resurrection to be appointed as Son of God in power, as Lord, with a

glorified body, Rom. 1:4, to justify himself as such before all eyes, 1 Tim.

3:16, to depart from the earth and to ascend into heaven, 1 Pet. 3:19, 22, and to reveal himself as life-giving Spirit, whose the Spirit is and who works through the Spirit, to his own, 1 Cor. 15:45, 2 Cor. 3:17, 18, cf.

Gloël, Der H. Geist, Halle 1888 S. 113 f.

Placed in this context, the conception by the Holy Spirit acquires a rich significance. Jesus had, according to his human nature, from the first moment onward, through his whole life, even unto the state of exaltation, to be formed into Messiah, Christ, Son of God of the Most High. He could not become this except κατα σαρκα, in the way of the flesh, through birth from a woman, Rom. 1:3, 9:5, Gal. 4:4, but at the same time, in order to be that, he could not be the fruit of the will of man or of the flesh. What is born of flesh is flesh. Jesus would then perhaps have been David's son and heir of his earthly kingdom, but not David's Lord, the Messiah, the Son of God, who is appointed to [274] be king in the Kingdom of God. And that he nevertheless was. Paul does indeed say that he was appointed Son of God and Lord by the resurrection, Rom. 1:4, but this does not exclude that he already at and before his conception was Son of God, Rom. 1:3; any more than the υἱοθεσια, expected by believers in the future, Rom. 8:23, excludes that they already possess it now, Rom. 8:15. Christ was Son of God from eternity; he was in the beginning with God; he is the firstborn of all creatures. Thus he also could not be begotten and brought forth by the will of man; he himself was the acting subject, who by the Holy Spirit prepared for himself a body in Mary's womb. In the O. T. he is therefore especially promised as the seed of the woman, Gen. 3:15, as the one given by God,

Jes. 9:5, as the one begotten by the Lord, Jer. 23:5, 6, 33:14-17, as a shoot from the hewn-down trunk of Jesse, Jes. 11:1, as the son of an ‎‏‏ַעְלָמה‎, in

general a young woman, and especially an unmarried one, Gen. 24:43, Ex.

2:8, Ps. 68:26, Song of Songs 1:3, 6:8, Prov. 30:18, 19, who shall bear the name Immanuel, Jes. 7:14. In the O. T. nothing further is said about the manner of his conception; only, he shall be the son of a woman and at the same time a gift and revelation of God. This has thus been fulfilled in Christ. Leaving aside the difficult question whether Luke gives the genealogy of Mary and Mary herself was also of David's lineage, cf. Luk.

1:30-33, 35, 48; not according to Mary but according to Joseph was Jesus a Davidide. Even if he was not from Joseph, he nevertheless was, through Mary, who was betrothed to Joseph, civilly and legally the son of Joseph,

Luk. 2:27, 41, 48, and inherited from him the rights to David's throne.

Therefore Joseph was also admonished by God to take Mary to himself as his lawful wife, to act as head and father of the family, and as such to give the child the name Jesus, Mt. 1:18-21. Thus Christ became David's son and at the same time remained David's Lord. This exclusion of the man in his conception at the same time brought about that Christ, as not included in the covenant of works, also remained free from inherited guilt and therefore also according to his human nature could be preserved before and after his birth from every stain of sin. As subject, as I, he was not from Adam, but he was the Son of the Father, who from eternity had been chosen as Head of a new covenant. Not Adam but God was his Father. [275] As person he did not come forth from humanity but he himself came to it from outside and entered into it. And because he thus, according to God's righteous judgment, remained free from all inherited guilt, therefore he could be conceived by the Holy Spirit and by that Spirit remain freed from every stain of sin. The conception by the Holy Spirit was not the deepest ground and final cause of Jesus' sinlessness, as many assert, Ebrard, Dogm. II 4-10.

Rothe, Ethik § 533 f. Müller, Sünde II 535, but it was the only way in which he, who as person already existed and had been appointed Head of a new covenant, now also in a human way, in the flesh, could be and remain what he was, the Christ, the Son of God of the Most High. Cf. Polanus, Synt. XI.

13. Frank, Chr. Wahrh. II 109 f.

12. Through this conception by the Holy Spirit and birth from Mary the Son of God became a true and perfect man. But no less strongly than his

Godhead, his manhood has been contested. The Gnostics could not acknowledge it by virtue of their dualism, and therefore said that the aeon

Christ had assumed only an apparent body (Saturninus, Marcion), or that He had brought with Him a glorious, spiritual body from heaven and had only passed through Mary as water through a pipe (Valentinus, Bardesanes), or that at His descent to the earth He had indeed formed for Himself a body out of the elements and had suffered in it, but at His return to heaven had dissolved and abandoned it (Apelles), or that He had only temporarily at baptism descended upon the man Jesus and had left him before the suffering

(Cerinthus), or had, before the suffering, exchanged Himself with Simon of Cyrene and had delivered him over to death on the cross (Basilides), or that Christ, the Jesus impatibilis, who from the world of light already descended to Adam and only appeared on earth in an apparent body, is indeed to be distinguished from the Jesus patibilis, who was the son of a poor widow and an envoy of the devil, and, because he set himself against Christ, was struck by Him on the cross (Mani). All these ideas propagated themselves in the medieval sects and, under the influence of pantheistic mysticism, kabbalistic theosophy, and the more recent philosophy of nature, in the century of the Reformation among the Anabaptists came to a new, extensive dominion. They too [276] taught that Christ could not assume his human

nature from Mary, from Adamic humanity, because then He would necessarily have had to be a sinner; but He assumed it from eternity out of Himself, thus brought His body with Him from heaven and passed through Mary as through a channel (Hofmann, Menno Simons; cf. related representation of an eternal corporeality of God in the kabbala with its

Adam Kadmon, in Swedenborg, Dippel, Oetinger, Petersen); or He formed for Himself this heavenly, invisible corporeality from eternity out of the eternal virgin, the Divine Eve, the wisdom of God, dwelt with it already immediately after the fall in Adam, Abel, etc., and then made it visible and mortal through the conception and birth from Mary (Weigel); or He assumed that glorious human nature already at once at the creation from Adam before the fall, who then still had a fine, heavenly corporeality, in order later to clothe it from Mary with a weak, mortal humanity (Ant.

Bourignon, Poiret, Barclay); or also He formed for Himself his human nature from Mary, but not from the fleshly, rather from the regenerated

Mary, who through her union with the Divine wisdom had received a holy, Divine element in herself and had regained the virginal being of Adam before the fall (Schwencfeld e. a.), cf. the works of Dorner, Schwane,

Harnack etc. cited earlier. These thoughts seem to us very strange. Yet in other forms they express nothing other than what the more recent philosophy since Kant and Hegel with its separation of the ideal and historical Christ has presented. The ideal Christ is the eternal Logos, the absolute reason, the one substance which in the world realises itself eternally and cannot pour out its fullness in a single man but in humanity as the Son of God assumes human nature. But the historical Jesus is not the true, essential Christ; in the process of incarnation He indeed forms an important but nevertheless only a transient moment; He has been a weak,

mortal, sinful man, who has indeed revealed the idea of the true Christ, but by no means coincides with him and is one with him, cf. Runze, Dogm. §

78.

Now it needs no lengthy argument that Holy Scripture here stands in direct opposition. Under the O. T. promised as the Messiah, who will proceed from a [277] woman, from Abraham, Judah, David, He is in the fullness of time conceived in Mary, ἐν αὐτη, Mt. 1:20 by the H. Spirit, and born from her, ἐκ γυναικος, Gal. 4:4. He is her son, Luk. 2:7, fruit of her womb, Luk. 1:42, according to the flesh from David and Israel, Hd. 2:30,

Rom. 1:3, 9:5, partaking of our flesh and blood and like us in all things, except sin, Hebr. 2:14, 17, 18, 4:15, 5:1, a true man, the Son of man, Rom.

5:15, 1 Cor. 15:21, 1 Tim. 2:15, growing up as a little child, Luk. 2:40, 52, hungering, Mt. 4:2, thirsting, Joh. 19:28, weeping, Luk. 19:41, Joh. 11:35, troubled, Joh. 12:27, sorrowful, Mt. 26:38, wrathful, Joh. 2:17, suffering, dying, etc. For Scripture it is so certain that Christ has come in the flesh, that it calls the denial of that antichristian, 1 Joh. 2:22. And not only does it teach that Christ has assumed a true, but also that He has assumed a perfect human nature. Arius denied this and said that the Logos, who after all was a creature, could not become man but had only appeared in human form and to that end had assumed only a body, but no soul. In contrast, Apollinaris wished precisely to maintain that Christ was not merely a man illumined by the Logos, an ἀνθρωπος ἐνθεος, as Paul of Samosata said, but that He

Himself was God and His work divine; and thus he came to the doctrine that the Logos had assumed an ensouled human body, without pneuma, and Himself filled the place of that pneuma, cf. art. Apoll. in Herzog3 1, 671.

But Scripture says clearly that Jesus was a complete man and ascribes to Him all the constituent parts of human nature, not only a body, Mt. 26:26,

Joh. 20:12, Phil. 3:21, 1 Petr 2:24, flesh and blood, Hebr. 2:14, bones and side, Joh. 19:33, 34, head and hands and feet, Mt. 8:20, Luk. 24:39, but also a soul, Mt. 26:38, spirit, Mt. 27:50, Luk. 23:46, Joh. 13:21, consciousness,

Mk. 13:32, will, Mt. 26:39, Joh. 5:30, 6:38 etc. Apollinarianism was therefore condemned by the Christian church and theology at all times; they understood the importance that was at stake here: totus enim Christus totum assumpsit me, ut toti mihi salutem gratificaret; quod enim inassumptibile est, incurabile est, Damasc., de fide orthod. III 6. Lombardus, Sent. III 2.

Petavius, de incarn. V c. [278] 11. The denial of the true and the perfect human nature always proceeds from a certain dualism. The σαρξ, matter, is by nature sinful and therefore cannot be a constituent part of the true Christ; therefore this one has not derived his substance from the sensible, material world, but from the invisible, heavenly essence in God, in himself, in the divine wisdom, in the unfallen Adam or the reborn Mary. The connection between this ideal Christ and the historical Jesus can therefore only be accidental, mechanical; it does not come to a true unity, that is, therefore also to no true communion of God and man. God and world, creation and re-creation, nature and grace, the eternal and the temporal, the heavenly and the earthly remain eternally alongside and over against one another. Among the Gnostics and the Anabaptists all this is clear. But however strange it may sound, this same dualism is also proper to the more recent pantheistic philosophy, which so gladly adorns itself with the name of monism. For indeed, it is an axiom of this philosophy that the idea cannot pour itself out fully in one individual; that is, no unity, no communion of God and man is possible. In order to come to communion with God, the individual must lose himself, erase his personality, sink away like a wave into the ocean of the all. God and man, eternity and time, and in particular holiness and

finitude stand over against one another; the finite is in its nature defective, imperfect; sin is necessary. Hence, Hegel, in Dorner, Entw. II 1115 f.,

Strauss, Gl. II 164, Leben Jesu 1835 II 716-718, Baur, Dreieinigkeit III 963 f. e. a. cannot maintain the sinlessness of Jesus; a finite individual cannot be perfect and enjoy full communion with God. Now this pantheism thinks to be able in another way to compensate what it first has taken away. It ascribes to the whole what it takes away from the parts; not one single man, but humanity is the true Christ, the son of God, it enjoys the highest unity and communion with God, in it God assumes human nature. But this compensation is apparent and gives nothing. Not only does humanity exist only in the individuals and is the all nothing other than the sum of the parts; but it is also not true that [279] the all, that humanity stands nearer to God than the individual human beings. Goethe did indeed say, willst du ins

Unendliche schreiten, so geh' ins Endliche nach allen Seiten; but the endless is something wholly different from the infinite, eternity something wholly different from the unspeakable sum of all moments of time, and perfection something wholly different from the total of all imperfections.

Even if pantheism exchanges the individual for humanity and the part for the whole, it thereby advances not a step; it leaves the transition from the infinite to the finite, from eternity to time, from God to the world completely unexplained and gives for explanation nothing but words and images, part II 392. If God cannot become man in one, then He also cannot become it in all. Over against this dualistic and atomistic view Scripture now places the organic. In one God comes to all, not in appearance but in truth. There is one Mediator of God and of men, the man Christ Jesus. But therefore it depends just as much on His Godhead as on His true and perfect human nature. If one essential constituent part in the human nature of Christ

is excluded from the true unity and communion with God, then there is an element in creation that remains standing dualistically alongside and over against God. Then there is an eternal ὑλη. Then God is not the Almighty,

Creator of heaven and earth. Then the Christian religion is not truly catholic. Quod enim inassumptibile est, incurabile est.

13. Thus in Christ God and man are united with one another. Scripture does not speak in the language of later theology, but in substance contains that same thing which has been confessed by the Christian church in its doctrine of the two natures. The Pauline christology, says Holtzmann, Neut.

Theol. II 75, ist allerdings ein erster Ansatz zur kirchlichen Lehre von der Doppelnatur. For according to Scripture the Word, which was with God and itself was God, became flesh, ὁ λογος σαρξ ἐγενετο, Joh. 1:14. He, who was ἀπαυγασμα της δοξης και χαρακτηρ της ὑποστασεως του θεου, partook of our flesh and blood and became like us in all things, Hebr. 1:3, 2:14, God sent his own, only-begotten Son into the world, who was born of a woman,

Gal. 4:4. He, who [280] ἐν μορφῃ θεου existed, ἑαυτον ἐκενωσε μορφην δουλου λαβων, Phil. 2:7. From the fathers κατα σαρκα, He is nevertheless ὁ ὠν ἐπι παντων θεος εὐλογητος εἰς τους αἰωνας, Rom. 9:5. Although image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creatures, Creator of all things, He is nevertheless also πρωτοτοκος ἐκ των νεκρων, Col. 1:13-18; David's son,

He is nevertheless at the same time David's Lord, Mt. 22:43; walking about on earth, He is also thus still always εἰς τον κολπον του πατρος, Joh. 1:18, ὁ ὠν ἐν τω οὐρανῳ, Joh. 3:13, being before Abraham, Joh. 8:58; in one word, the fullness of the Godhead dwells σωματικως in Him, Col. 2:9. At every moment in Scripture divine and human predicates are ascribed to the same personal subject, a divine and a human being, omnipresence and limitation, eternity and time, creative omnipotence and creaturely weakness.

What is all this other than the ecclesiastical doctrine of the two natures, united in one person? The more recent theology, however, feels for a part of this doctrine of the two natures a deep aversion, finds it the height of absurdity, and replaces it by the Doppelseitigkeit, Holtzmann, Neut. Theol.

II 65. 94, by the Doppelheit von Gesichtspunkten, Pfleiderer, Grundriss § 129. Nitzsch, Ev. Dogm. 513, by the doctrine of two successive states before and after the resurrection, Schultz, Gottheit Christi 417, or by that of idea and appearance, Schweizer, Chr. Gl. II 12 etc. It is clear that in these considerations the doctrine of Scripture concerning the person of Christ does not at all come into its own. Even if it is true that Christ, especially in Paul, only through his resurrection enters into the full Sonship, Rom. 1:4, becomes Lord from heaven and life-giving Spirit, 1 Cor. 15:45, 2 Cor. 3:17 and receives a name above every name, Phil. 2:9, thereby Paul in the least does not deny that Christ also before his incarnation already had a personal, divine existence, 2 Cor. 8:9, Phil. 2:6, Col. 1:15-17 and was God's own

Son, Rom. 1:3, 8:32, Gal. 4:4. The doctrine of the two natures is something altogether different from the doctrine of two sides to or two states in the life of Christ. Jesus in Scripture bears all those glorious predicates not because

He on the one hand as man devoted himself completely to God and therefore was truly man, and because He on the other hand as that same man completely revealed God's love to us, Schultz, Gottheit [281] Christi

338, but because He truly was God and man in one person. A man, however highly placed in religious and ethical sense, can and may nevertheless, precisely according to the strict monotheism of Holy Scripture, not bear those divine predicates which are precisely by it attributed to Christ. It then also appears convincingly that they who replace the doctrine of the two natures by that of the two sides or that of the two states nevertheless can

and dare by no means speak of Christ in such a way as Scripture does. The names of God, Son of God, Logos, Image of God, firstborn of all creatures etc. are therefore all deprived of their scriptural meaning and understood in a wholly different sense. Modern theology, assuming in Jesus only a human nature, can honor Him neither according to his religious side, as revelation of God's love, nor also in the state of exaltation, in which He would have become Lord, with the names which Scripture ascribes to Him. Its exegesis, supposing that it were correct, would give it not the least gain for its own

Christology. For this is no longer there, if Jesus is only a man, and not also the eternal and only Son of God.

In order to maintain all the data of Scripture concerning the person of Christ, theology gradually arrived at the doctrine of the two natures. It did not set this up by way of hypothesis and did not intend by it a explanation of the mystery of Christ's person either; in it it only summed up, unmaimed and undiminished, the whole doctrine of Scripture concerning Christ and by that maintained it over against the errors which, on the left-hand and on the right-hand side, appeared in ebionitism and gnosticism, arianism and apollinarism, nestorianism and eutychianism, adoptianism and monotheletism, and in more recent times in the doctrine of Rothe and Dorner concerning the becoming God-man and in the doctrine of Gess e. a. concerning the kenosis. Nestorianism arose from the Antiochene school, had its preparation in Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and was then developed by Nestorius in such a way that the eternal, natural Son of God was distinct from and was another than the Son of David, who was born from Mary; for there is, after all, a distinction between the temple and him who dwells therein; between Him who was in the form of God, and him who walked about in the form of a servant; between the God and the

man in Christ, who both exist personally [282]. Mary therefore cannot be called θεοτοκος, and the man who was born from her is not the eternal Son of God but his adopted son (adoptianism). The union of God and man in Christ is not a natural but a moral one, as between man and woman in marriage, not an ἑνωσις but a συναφεια; the indwelling of God in Christ is not specifically but only gradually distinct from that in believers, and it increases, in proportion as the man Jesus advances in virtue and more and more becomes organ and instrument, temple and garment of the Godhead, in proportion as he is more θεοφορος, cf. Schwane, D. G. II 317 f. To that, in the most recent time, the doctrine of Dorner is related, according to which the Logos gradually communicates himself more to the man and grows together with Him more intimately, in proportion as this one develops morally under his influence, Chr. Gl. § 102 f. This whole conception is condemned by Scripture. This ascribes all kinds of and very different predicates to Christ, but always to one and the same subject, the one, undivided I, that dwells in Him and speaks out of Him. Specifically it also says that the Logos has not dwelt in a man but has become flesh, Joh.

1:14. What someone has become, that he is. If the Son of God has become man, then He himself is man. Of a person many things can be predicated, but never another person. Of many people it can be said that they are one, in one respect or another; but never can it be said of the one person that he is the other person. Man and woman are one flesh, but never is the man the woman or conversely. If, therefore, in Christ the man was another subject than the Logos, then Scripture could never have said that the Logos has become flesh and thus is. With Nestorius, therefore, the union between God and man in Christ is not a personal and natural one, but a moral one; they always remain two distinct subjects, however much they may also morally

become more and more one. And even this moral union is not point of departure but final goal and result; it is not even, as with Origen, fruit of the merit of the pre-existent soul, which has not fallen but has acquired for itself the union with the Logos in its pre-existence, de princ. II 6, 3. c. Cels.

VI 47; but it comes about gradually in the earthly life of Jesus and depends on all kinds of conditions, it is only gradually distinct from the [283] union of God with other people; that is, Christ loses his wholly unique place, He is only a man, in whom God reveals himself more than in others; the idea of the God-man is lost and the work of redemption is undermined.

Nestorianism is related to deism and pelagianism.

Chalcedon therefore rightly declared that the union of the divine and human nature in Christ was ἀδιαιρετος and ἀχωριστος. But just as much it maintained, over against the other direction, that it was ἀτρεπτος and ἀσυγχυτος. Over against Nestorius Cyril defended that the union in Christ was not a moral one, but a ἑνωσις κατα φυσιν or καθ' ὑποστασιν, a ἑνωσις φυσικη; but because he did not yet distinguish the words προσωπον, ὑποστασις, φυσις as clearly as later writers, he hesitated to speak of δυο φυσεις in Christ and also sometimes said that Christ has become one ἐκ δυο φυσεων, that He is μια φυσις, and that divine and human nature are united in Him εἰς ἑν τι, εἰς μιαν οὐσιαν. This could be misunderstood, and was misunderstood by Eutyches, according to whom both natures through and after the union lose each their particular properties and were changed and melted down into one new divine-human nature, cf. Schwane, D. G. II 351 f. To this monophysitism, in more recent times, the doctrine of the κενωσις is related. It was prepared by the Lutheran doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum, above p. 245, was further developed by Zinzendorf, Plitt,

Zinzendorf's Theology II 166 f., and then in this century, under the

influence of the philosophy of Schelling and Hegel, which took up the idea of becoming in God, was by many warmly defended as the only possible explanation of the person of Christ. It holds that the Logos at His incarnation has divested Himself of all His divine attributes, also the immanent ones, or at least of His transient attributes, has descended to the standpoint of a pure potency, and then from there in union with the human nature has again gradually developed Himself into a divine-human person, above p. 252. But this theory too is just as unacceptable as that of Dorner.

Scripture knows only one person, one subject, one Christ, but nevertheless ascribes to that a double kind of attributes, divine and human. He is [284]

Logos and became flesh; He is according to the flesh from Israel and yet God above all to be praised etc., above p. 239. Whether one now more, as formerly, lets the human nature be changed into the divine, or, as now, more lets the divine empty itself down to the human, or also lets both natures wholly or in part flow together into a third, into a mixtum quid; always, in a pantheistic way, the boundary between God and man is erased and the idea of the God-man is falsified. The monophysite and kenotic doctrine is in conflict with immutability, with all attributes, with the essence of God, and likewise also with the nature of the creature and of finite man. A deity or a divine attribute that is only potentia and not actu is unthinkable; and a man who by development can make the divine nature his own ceases to be a creature and passes from time into eternity, from finitude into infinity.

Indeed, the whole thought of a God-man, in whom the union of both natures is replaced by the mixing of both, is a monstrum, of which no one can form any conception. Such a one cannot be the Mediator of God and of men, because He is neither of the two; He does not truly bring about the union, the reconciliation, the communion of God and man, because He himself, by

his mixing of both natures, is distinguished from both and is a tertium genus. Cf. Form. Conc. ed. Müller 550, which rejects the kenotic theory.

Dorner, Entw. II 1261-1276. Id. Gl. II 337 f. Id. Gesammelte Schriften 207241. Vilmar, Dogm. II 54. Philippi, Kirchl. Gl. IV 386. Kähler, Wiss. d. chr.

Lehre II 348. Lipsius, Dogm. § 579. Schultz, Gottheit Christi 277 f. Bruce, The humiliation of Christ, Edinb. 1870. Orr, Chr. view 280. Lobstein,

Revue de théol. et de philos. Mars 1891 p. 186 s. Id. Etudes christol., Paris Fischbacher 1891. Chapuis, Revue de théol. et de philos. Sept. 1891 p. 426 s. Scholten, L. H. K. II 385v.

14. For the time being, theology, if it truly wishes to be Scriptural and Christian theology, cannot do better than to maintain the doctrine of the two natures. In doing so it must deeply impress upon itself the defective character that clings to its language, specifically also in the doctrine of Christ. But all other attempts, [285] which up to now have been employed to formulate the Christological dogma and to bring it closer to our consciousness, fall short of the richness of Scripture and of the honour of Christ. And against this theology has, in the first place, to be on its guard.

Whatever objections to the doctrine of the two natures have been raised earlier and later, it nevertheless has this in its favour, that it neglects no data of Holy Scripture, maintains the name of Christ as the only Mediator of God and of men, and in the end also gives the clearest and most lucid conception of the mystery of the incarnation. For this incarnation does not stand isolated in history. It is indeed essentially distinct from all facts and occupies an entirely unique place, but it nevertheless stands in close connection with all that has taken place before and alongside and after it. It has, as became clear to us earlier, as preparation and presupposition generation, creation, revelation, and inspiration. Finally, it must still be

added here that it also stands in connection with the essence of religion.

Religion is communion with God; without it a human being can be no true, perfect human being; the image of God is no donum superadditum but belongs to his nature. That communion with God is a unio mystica; it far surpasses our understanding; it is a most intimate union with God through the Holy Spirit; it is a unio personarum, an indissoluble and eternal covenant of God and man, which is far too weakly described by the designation ethical and is therefore indicated as mystical; it is so intimate that it transforms man according to God's image and makes him a partaker of the divine nature, 2 Cor. 3:18, Gal. 2:20, 2 Petr. 1:4. If this communion of God and man is now truly understood, not as an imagination but as genuine reality, then its affinity and analogy with the incarnation is evident.

Whoever truly confesses generation, creation, immanence, revelation, inspiration, religion, i.e. whoever truly confesses the communicability of God, has in principle also acknowledged the incarnation. Not in the sense as though the incarnation would of itself follow from the essence of religion, but indeed in such a way that the recognition of the one removes all right to deny the other. For if the incarnation is not possible either on God's side or on that of man, then religion also cannot truly exist [286] in communion of God and man. But religion in this sense has been disturbed by sin; there is no true, blessed communion of God and man. Therefore the union that in Christ was concluded between divine and human nature had to bear an altogether special character. It could not be identical with the religious relation between God and man, for it had to be precisely the beginning, the principle, the objective realization of true religion again. A covenant cannot be improvised; it must be concluded with a people in its king or representative. And so also God, in order to make his communion with

humanity a reality again, in Christ as its Head united himself with it.

Therefore Christ is not an individual alongside others, but Head and Representative of humanity, the second and last Adam, the Mediator of God and of men. The union of divine and human nature in Christ is therefore essentially distinct from the indwelling of God in his creatures and in believers. It is not a unio personarum but a unio personalis et substantialis; it is not a moral union, which finds its image in marriage, no agreement of disposition and will, no communion of love alone. But it is a ἑνωσις φυσικη, as Athanasius, c. Apoll. I 8 and Cyrillus, Anathem. 3 called it.

Thereby it is not made known that that union was necessary and of itself proceeded from one of the two or from both natures, but it is called so because it is not moral in nature, but a union of the natures in the person of the Son, a unio naturarum, not naturalis but personalis, Petavius, de incarn.

III 4. Turretinus, Theol. El. XIII 6, 3. And the result of that union is not a new nature nor also a new personality, but only the person of Christ as Christ. He who was in the form of God, from now on also existed in the form of a man.

By virtue of this its wholly unique nature, the union cannot be conceived otherwise than as a union of the person of the Son with an impersonal human nature. For if the human nature in Christ had had an own, personal existence, no other union than a moral one would have been possible. Then

Christ also would not have been personally God, but [287] only a man, living in close communion with God. Then also Christ would have been a definite man with an own individuality, but not the second Adam, head of the human race. He, however, had to be not an individual alongside others; his work did not consist in this, that he brought back to communion with God one single man, with whom he united himself. But he had to assume

the seed of Abraham, be Head of a new humanity and firstborn of many brethren. To that end he had to assume an impersonal human nature. This is not, with the Anastasius Sinaita and others, to be understood thus, that Christ assumed the human nature in its generality, in the sense of the Platonic idea, for this indeed exists in humanity but not in itself, in a numerical unity, Schwane, D. G. II 369. The human nature in Christ was, on the contrary, insofar indeed thoroughly an individual one, that he thereby was distinguished from all men, though partaking of the same nature, by definite properties. Yet Christ is therefore no individual alongside others, for the human nature had in him no own, personal existence alongside the Logos but was from the beginning by the H. Spirit so prepared for the union with the Logos and for his work, that it in that Logos could represent the whole human race and for all men of all generations and estates and ages, of all centuries and places could be the Mediator of God. Cf. Greg. Nyss.,

Hilarius, Basilius, Ephraem, Apollinaris e. a. bij Dorner, Entw. I 958 f.

Damascenus, de fide orthod. III 3. 6. 11. Thomas, S. Theol. III qu. 4 art. 4.

Petavius, de incarn. V 5. Moor III 776. Pictet, Christ. Godg. I 552.

Schneckenburger, Zur kirchl. Christol. 74 f. Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers. III2 405. Shedd, Dogm. Theol. II 295.

It is, however, precisely this distinction between nature and person which both in the Trinity and in the doctrine of Christ encounters the greatest objection and therefore in both doctrines is also the cause of most errors.

Both Nestorius and Eutyches could not allow this distinction to stand and therefore concluded from the two natures to two persons or from the one person to one nature. Christian theology, however, was led to this weighty distinction in the doctrine of God and of Christ. In God there was one nature and three persons; in Christ [288] one person and two natures. The

unity of the three persons in the divine being is in the full sense naturalis, συνουσιωδης, coessentialis; the unity of the two natures in Christ is personalis. This distinction is also philosophically justified. Nature and person do not relate, as in Hegel's philosophy, as essence and appearance, as potentia and actus, so that nature, in all creatures essentially one, in man develops into person by immanent power. But nature is the substrate, the suppositum, that whereby something is what it is, principium quo; and person is the subject, not of a nature in general, but of a rational nature, individua substantia rationalis naturae, principium quod. Person is that which is in and for itself, which is the owner, possessor, and lord of nature, a complementum existentiae, sustentans et terminans existentiam naturae, the subject, which by nature with its whole rich content lives, thinks, wills, acts, etc., whereby nature becomes one existing for itself and is no accidens of another, Schwane, D. G. II 369 f. Kleutgen, Theol. d. Vorzeit III 71 f.

Schaezler, Das Dogma v. d. Menschw. Gottes 3 f. Thus now the human nature in Christ is united with the person of the Son. The Son does not first become person in and through the human nature, for He was this from eternity; He needed neither the creation nor the incarnation in order to come to Himself and to become personality, spirit. But the incarnation does include that the human nature, which was formed in and from Mary, did not exist for a single moment on and for itself but from the very first moment of conception was united with and taken up into the person of the Son. The Son created it in Himself, in se ipso creavit et creando assumsit. Therefore that human nature is nevertheless not incomplete, as Nestorius and now still

Dorner, Entw. II 1225 asserts. For although by an own personality and Iness it did not close itself off within itself, it was nevertheless from the beginning personal in the Logos, who as subject in and through it, with all

its constituent parts, faculties and powers lived, thought, willed, acted, suffered, died, etc. That it did not receive in an independent I-ness its own, separate complementum existentiae, did not proceed from a defect, but precisely from this, that it had to be the human mode of existence of the Logos. [289] Naturae assumptae non deest propria personalitas propter defectum alicujus, quod ad perfectionem humanae naturae pertineat, sed propter additionem alicujus, quod est supra humanam naturam, quod est unio ad divinam personam, Thomas, S. Theol. III qu. 4 art. 2 ad 2.

Therefore the human nature in Christ is not coordinated with the Logos by a personal subsistence of its own, but subordinated to Him. Both natures are and remain indeed ἀλλο και ἀλλο, but not ἀλλος και ἀλλος. It is always the same person, the same subject, the same I, that lives and thinks, speaks and acts through the divine and the human nature. The human nature is the tabernacle in which the Son has gone to dwell; the garment which He

Himself has prepared and put on; the μορφη in which He has appeared to us; the instrument and organ which He has sanctified for Himself and of which He makes use with divine wisdom for His office and work. In Christo humanitas quasi quoddam organum divinitatis censetur, Thomas,

Comp. Theol. c. 212, cf. S. Theol. III qu. 19 art. 1. Petavius, de incarn. IV 8,

6. Turretinus, Theol. XIII 6, 7. In this, now, there is nothing that deserves our contradiction. Without thereby doing anything short of the self-activity of the creature, we confess that the whole world is an instrument of the revelation of God, a garment in which He at the same time reveals and conceals Himself to us. The congregation and every believer desires nothing higher than to stand with soul and body and all powers in the service of God and to be an instrument in His hand. What, then, would be against it, that in a much richer measure, in an absolute sense, the human

nature in Christ is the glorious, willing organ of His Godhead? High above all our speaking and thinking goes the union of divine and human nature in Christ. Every comparison fails us, for it is without any equal. But it is then also the μυστηριον εὐσεβειας, into which the angels are eager to look and which the congregation admiringly marvels at in worship.

15. Yet this is always again brought forward as a weighty objection against the doctrine of the two natures, that it does not allow the human nature of Christ to come into its own and makes a human development in Him impossible. Roman Catholic and Lutheran Christology do indeed [290] give occasion for this misgiving. The union of the two natures in Christ, namely, entailed in earlier dogmatics three consequences, communicatio idiomatum, apostelesmatum and charismatum. The first implied that in the incarnation both natures with all their properties were communicated to the one person and the one subject, which therefore can be designated with Divine and human names; one may thus say, the Son of God was born, suffered, died, Acts 20:28, 1 John 1:7, and also the man Christ Jesus exists from eternity, has descended from heaven, etc., John 3:13. By the second it was understood that the proper mediatorial or redemptive works all bear a Divine-human character, i.e., that they all have as efficient cause the one undivided, personal subject in Christ; that they have been brought to pass by Christ with the cooperation of both His natures and with a double ἐνεργεια, and that they nevertheless again form an undivided unity in the result, because they are the work of one person. The third indicated that the human nature of Christ from the first moment of its existence was adorned with all manner of glorious and rich gifts of the H. Spirit. Over these three effecta unionis there arose an important difference, above pp. 242-246. The Lutherans construe the communicatio idiomatum in such a way that the

properties of both natures were communicated not only to the one person, but those of the Divine nature also to the human. The human nature was by the union elevated to Divine omnipotence and omnipresence, Symb. Bücher ed. Müller 679. 680; it received singulares, excellentissimas, maximas, supernaturales, impervestigabiles, ineffabiles atque coelestes praerogativas majestatis, gloriae, virtutis ac potentiae, which are not merely created and finite gifts, ib. 685, but Divine and infinite such as vivificare, omnipotentia, omniscientia, omnivolipraesentia, 686. 689. 691. 692. It is clear that this conception of the communication of the properties deprives the communication of the gifts of its entire significance; what gifts are still needed, if Divine properties are communicated. Lutheran Christology does indeed still speak of gifts, ib. 686, but it really does not know what to do with them, cf. Dorner, Entw. II 914-916, and has even no place any longer for the anointing of Christ with the H. Spirit, Schneckenburger, [291] Zur kirchl. Christol. 30. On the other hand, the Roman Catholics do indeed teach a communication of gifts and also combat the Lutheran doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum, but they say that the human nature of Christ by virtue of the unio hypostatica immediately in the first moment of its conception uberrimam Spiritus Dei copiam atque omnem charismatum abundantiam accepit, Cat. Rom. I 4, 4. Both, Lutheran and Roman Catholic

Christology, thus contain within themselves a docetic element; the purely human development of Christ does not here come into its own; in reaction one in this century swung over to the other extreme and failed to recognize the Godhead of the Lord. The Reformed, however, have understood the communication of the gifts in such a way that a human development of Jesus was thereby possible. Although the second Adam, Christ was nevertheless another than Adam. Adam was created adult, received as

dwelling-place a paradise and was not subject to any suffering and death.

Christ, however, was conceived in Mary of the H. Spirit and born as a helpless little child; He was not placed in a paradise but came into a world that lies in the evil one; He was exposed to temptation from every side; He bore a nature that was susceptible to suffering and death. His was not the human nature of Adam before the fall, but God sent His Son ἐν ὁμοιωματι σαρκος ἁμαρτιας, i.e. in such flesh as in form and appearance was like the σαρξ ἁμαρτιας, Rom. 8:3.

By this fine doctrine of the communicatio charismatum the Reformed theology, better than any other, was in a position to maintain in Christ, alongside the Godhead, also the true, genuine humanity. It is of incalculable value for that purpose. 1o Among the Reformed there was still a difference over whether the incarnation in itself, abstracted from the state of sin in which it took place, was already an act of humiliation. On the one side one could appeal to the fact that the distance between God and man is so great that the assumption of human nature without more is already humiliating.

But on the other side one could object to this that Christ would then now still, while He is glorified at the Father's right hand, be in the state of humiliation, Heraut 284, 285. The struggle is easily ended thus, that the incarnation in itself, [292] without more, always is and remains an act of condescending goodness, but is not in the narrower sense a step in the state of humiliation. It was that by the fact that it was an enfleshment, assumption of a weak, human nature. About this there was, after all, no struggle, that Christ assumed a weak human nature, subject to suffering and death, and that this was an act of humiliation for the Son of God. Scripture also establishes this beyond all doubt, Isa. 53:2, 3, John 1:14, 17:5, 1 Cor.

2:8, 2 Cor. 8:9, Phil. 2:7, 8 etc. 2o As soon as, however, we try to give

ourselves an account of what is enclosed in that weak human nature, the question becomes more difficult. For very certainly Jesus had all kinds of needs for food, drink, rest, sleep etc., but these were nevertheless also proper to Adam before the fall. And conversely it is difficult to think that Jesus according to his human nature was of himself susceptible to sickness, infirmity, death; He nevertheless himself had the power to lay down his life,

John 10:17, but was not of himself, without his will, subject to death. From of old the opinions about this were therefore divided. About Jesus' outward appearance there was difference; some such as Origen, Chrysostom,

Hieronymus and others ascribed to Him a beautiful form with appeal to Ps.

45:3, others such as Justin, Clement, Tertullian etc. thought that He was bodily without form or glory, Ps. 22:7, Isa. 53:2, 3; still others held the middle between these two representations or refrained from a judgment, cf.

Vitringa V 501. Walch, Bibl. theol. III 439. Menzel, Symbolik 1855 I 177 f.

Schotel, Iets over de uitwendige gedaante van Jezus Christus, Bosch 1852.

Riehm, Handw. I 724 and art. Christusfiguren in Herzog3. And so also with respect to susceptibility to suffering and dying the aphthartodocetes and the phthartolatri stood over against one another. There is now no doubt that the Son of God assumed a human nature that was susceptible to suffering and dying, otherwise these would have been appearance and no truth; even

Roman Catholics and Lutherans must acknowledge this. Further, on the other side it is also true that Christ assumed this human nature wholly voluntarily and in the abstract always retained the right to lay aside this weak human nature or to change it into a glorious one exalted above all suffering and death [293]. Insofar suffering and dying always remained his free act. He had and retained the power to take up and to lay down his life.

No one could inflict any pain on Him nor take away his life, unless he

himself gave the power thereto. He disposed the hour and the power of darkness. But this his will presupposed, suffering and dying were for Him naturally given with the nature of the human nature which He assumed.

Hilary, in Schwane, D. G. II 269 and others have often represented it precisely the other way around and have seen in the pain, the suffering etc. of Christ the non-natural, the miracle, and in the miracles of Christ precisely the natural. Although this can be taken in a good sense, it nevertheless does not sufficiently reckon with the fact that Christ assumed the weak human nature and in it was distinguished from Adam. From that it may not be inferred that Christ was also susceptible to all kinds of sickness and infirmity; for He did indeed take upon himself the general consequences of sin, suffering and death, which now belong to human nature, but not every particular infirmity that proceeds from particular circumstances, weak bodily constitution, disordered or imprudent manner of life, Thomas, S. Th. III qu. 14. Moor III 591. IV 26. Ebrard § 417. Nor was the human nature in Christ unfolded much more richly than in Adam; for in the status integritatis there was for many emotions, anger, sorrow, compassion, mercy etc. no occasion. But Christ has not only visited us with the inner movements of God's mercy; He has in his human nature opened to us that rich world of the heart, which in Adam did not yet exist and could not exist. 3o There has been in Christ a human knowing, an intellectual development, an increase in wisdom and knowledge. The Arians and Apollinarians, according to whom in Christ the Logos takes the place of the pneuma, could not assume a human knowing in Christ. The Monophysites also had to oppose this, but could just as well teach an omniscience of Christ when namely the human nature had been absorbed into the divine, as in the opposite case an ignorance (Themistius, head of the Agnoëten), with

appeal to texts such as Mt. 20:32, 21:19, Mk. 5:9, 13:32, Luke 2:52, 8:30, John 11:34, Schwane, D. G. II 366. Over against these parties the church fathers came, the longer the more, to posit the human knowledge of Christ from the first moment as perfect and not susceptible to any increase; and from them this opinion passed over into the scholastic and Roman and also into the Lutheran Christology. By this they came into conflict with the above-mentioned clear statements of Scripture, and had to take refuge in a docetic explanation. The true ground for this doctrine is therefore only the convenientia, that God to a human nature that was so closely united with Him must indeed grant this gift of knowledge, Kleutgen, Theol. III 251; the Scripture passages on which one appeals, such as John 1:14, 2:24, 25, 6:64,

13:3, Col. 2:3, 9 do not prove the contrary, because they speak of the whole Christ and not specifically of his human nature, and still much less of this in its historical development. The Reformed said over against this, first, that the scientia infusa and acquisita in Christ was not at once complete, but gradually increased and multiplied, and second, that Christ here on earth was not a comprehensor but viator, that He walked by faith and hope and not by sight, that the scientia beata was not yet his portion here on earth.

Naturally the faith in Christ was not as in us a leaning on the grace and mercy of God, but this peculiarity faith has received only through the state of sin in which we are; by nature faith in Adam and in Christ is nothing but a clinging fast to the word and promise of God, a holding fast of the Invisible. And that Jesus also did, Mt. 27:46, Heb. 2:17, 18, 3:2. That faith and that hope were in Christ also not wavering and doubting, but firm and strong; they kept Him, who in us awakens and perfects faith, standing in the temptation and made Him, for the joy awaiting Him as reward for his labor, endure the cross and despise the shame, Heb. 12:2. Thus there was therefore

an increase in wisdom and knowledge in Christ; the human consciousness in Him, although having the same subject as the divine consciousness, knew that subject, that I, only very partially, indeed ὁλον but not ὁλως. Behind our limited consciousness there lies in us still a world of being; so behind the human consciousness of Christ there lay still the depth of God, which could shine through that human consciousness only gradually and always in a limited [295] way, Gomarus, Op. I 196. Voetius, Disp. II 155 sq.

Turretinus, Theol. El. XIII 12. 13. Moor III 804. M. Vitringa V 246. Heppe, Dogm. d. ev. ref. K. 315. Shedd, Dogm. Theol. II 281. 307. 329. Kuyper,

Het werk v. d. H. Geest II 281v. C. Lucassen, Der Glaube Jesu Christi, Neue Kirchl. Zeits. VI 1895 S. 337-347. From this, however, it may not be inferred that Jesus could err on different terrains. Indeed this is nowadays taught in wide circles, in order specifically to escape Jesus' authority in the matter of the O. Test. But one thereby attacks Christ himself. For it is indeed true that Jesus gave no instruction in any human science and also did not come to earth for that. He came to declare the Father to us and to accomplish his work. But for that purpose He also had to know that Father in his revelation and works, and thus also to know whether the O.

Testament was God's Word or not. This was not knowledge of a purely scientific but of a religious nature, and for the faith of the congregation of the highest importance. Whoever in this respect ascribes error to Jesus comes into conflict not only with his divine nature but also with his prophetic office, cf. part I 333. Herzog1 21, 204. Herzog2 6, 27. Voigt,

Fundamentaldogm. 527 f. Tholuck, Das Alte Test. im N. 4e Aufl. 1854.

Caven, Presb. and Ref. Review, July 1892. Schwartzkopff, Konnte Jezus irren? Giessen, Ricker 1896. Id. Die Irrthumslosigkeit Jesu Chr. und der chr.

Glaube ib. 1897. 4o There is in Christ a moral development. Theodore of

Mopsuestia, Nestorius and all who proceed from the human nature of Christ assume that He has perfected himself through all kinds of struggle and temptation. Jesus was not positively holy, He did not bring with him the non posse peccare; on the contrary such an inborn holiness is impossible and ethically worthless. But Jesus was a man who brought with him the possibility of sinning yet by moral exertion and struggle has in fact kept himself free from all sins, has developed himself ethically to the highest standpoint and has made himself worthy of the union with God, cf.

Schwane, D. G. II 319, 325 etc. This representation rests on a factual not reckoning with the Godhead of Christ; it proceeds from the erroneous thought that there is no other virtue than that which was acquired through struggle and it at most only attains to [296] a historical, factual sinlessness, which is insufficient for Jesus as Mediator. The attempts to prove Jesus' sinlessness historically such as by Ullmann, De zondeloosheid van Jezus,

Tiel 1851, Dorner, Ueber Jesu sündlose Vollkommenheit, Jahrb. f. d. Theol.

VII 1862 S. 49-107. Art. Sündlosigheit Jesu in Herzog1 suppl. Gouda Quint, De zondeloosheid des Heeren 1862. Schaff, Jezus Christus, het wonder der geschiedenis 1866. van Oosterzee, Leven v. Jezus I 569v.

Dogm. § 93. Chapuis, La sainteté de Jésus, Revue de théol. et de philos., Juillet, Sept. Nov. 1897 etc., are insufficient, Philippi, K. Gl. IV 161. We do not have enough with historical certainty, which presently is again made uncertain by others. However much it deserves appreciation that so many, from whom according to their principle otherwise would be expected, still have a deep sense of Jesus' moral perfection, such as Daub, Marheineke,

Rosenkranz, Vatke, Schleiermacher, Beyschlag, Hase, Schenkel, Lipsius etc., yet the faith is wavering that does not rest on the testimony of Scripture and therefore is always pressed and distressed by all kinds of

philosophical and historical objections. Scripture, however, makes us recognize in Christ not only an empirical sinlessness but also a necessary impeccability. He is the Son of God, the Logos, who in the beginning was with God and himself was God; He is one with the Father and always accomplishes his will and work etc. For whoever confesses this of Christ, the possibility of sinning and falling is an Ungedanke, Holtzmann, Neut.

Th. II 446. Frank, Chr. Wahrh. II2 178. Therefore Christian theology maintained over against Arians, Pelagians, Nominalists, such as Scotus,

Biel, Durandus, Molina etc., that Christ could not sin. For then either God himself would have had to be able to sin— which is blasphemy; or the union of divine and human nature is regarded as breakable and in fact denied, Augustine, Enchir. c. 36. 40. 41. Lombardus, Sent III dist. 12 and comm. by Thomas and Bonaventura. Moor III 692. Shedd, Dogm. Theol. II 330. Philippi IV 161 f. etc. But thereby the essential distinction is nevertheless not abolished that exists between the holiness of God and the holiness of Christ as man. Taking note of that, Jesus could say that no one is good, goodness itself, except God alone, Mt. 19:16, 17, Mk. 10:17, 18,

Luke 18:18, 19. The goodness or holiness of Christ according to his human [297] nature is not a divine, original one, but it is a bestowed one, infusa; and therefore it also had to reveal itself, hold itself upright, and confirm itself in the way of struggle and temptation. The bonitas infusa does not exclude the bonitas acquisita. The latter presupposes the former; no good fruits except from a good tree; but the virtue of the tree must nevertheless come out in the soundness of the fruits. And so Christ also had to reveal his inborn holiness through temptation and struggle; these are not made superfluous or idle by the non posse peccare. For although actual temptation could come to Jesus not from within but only from without, He

nevertheless had a human nature that looked up against suffering and death.

Thus He was then tempted in all kinds of ways throughout his whole life, by Satan, his enemies, even by his disciples, Mt. 4:1-11, Mk. 1:13, Luke

4:1-13, Mt. 12:29, Luke 11:22, Mt. 16:23, Mk. 8:33. And in those temptations He had to keep himself standing in struggle; the non prosse peccare was not compulsion but was ethical in nature and therefore also had to come to manifestation in an ethical way. 5o The same holds for the power of Christ. Although as the Son of God omnipotent, He was nevertheless limited as regards the power of his human nature. The Monophysites do not distinguish these two, and let the two natures, the two wills and the distinct power merge into one another. But Scripture and church made distinction between the two and let the two natures be so connected that in the one divine-human work each nature does what is its own. And therefore the doing of miracles, the forgiving of sins, the granting of eternal life and all that belongs to the work of mediation belongs not only to his Godhead but also to his manhood. Therefore Christ precisely as Son of man, as Messiah, ascribes to himself this power of forgiveness and of judgment, Mt. 9:2-8, John 5:27. At touch power goes out from Him, Luke

6:19. His flesh is the bread that gives the world life, John 6:51. The Father has given Him all things into his hand, John 3:35, 13:3, 17:2. No one can snatch the sheep out of his hand any more than out of the hand of the Father, John 10:28-30. Just as the Father does, He hears prayer, John 14:13, cf. 16:23, he sends the Spirit, 15:26, cf. 14:26, he grants eternal life, 10:28,

17:2. But all this nevertheless does not exclude that his power, as human, is susceptible to increase. He is born as a little child, weak and helpless; He had need of food and drink, He was weary from the journey and sat down by the well, John 4:6; even in the doing of miracles He was dependent on

the faith of men, Mt. 13:58; in the garden He was strengthened by an angel, Luke 22:43. Only after the resurrection does He say that all power is given to Him in heaven and on earth, Mt. 28:8, Mk. 16:20, Luke 24:19. Then He receives back the glory that He as Son already previously had with the Father, John 17:5, and in it also makes his human nature share. By the resurrection Christ has also as man become Lord over living and dead, has

He received a name above every name and power over all creatures, Mt.

28:18, Col. 2:3, 9, Phil. 2:9, Heb. 2:7, 8.

16. The confession concerning Christ finds its practical application in the veneration which is rendered to Him, in the honor adorationis. With those who, with Arius, deny the Godhead of Christ, or, with Nestorius, separate it from the human nature, or, with Socinus, see in Jesus only a man, every ground for the worship of the Mediator falls away. Yet one then still attempts to maintain this in all manner of ways. Nestorius said that the man

Jesus also, as confessor and defender of the divine honor, might be worshiped: separo naturas, conjungo reverentiam, Schwane, D. G. II 349.

Socinus defended it by this, that Christ had been exalted to Lord and had received all power and thus in need and misery could help us; many of his party, however, such as Davidis, Francken e. a. contested it, because God alone might be worshiped and the power of Christ in any case was a limited one; Socinus then also saw himself compelled to make a distinction between the veneration of God as prima causa and that of Christ as causa secunda of our salvation, Vitringa V 252. Fock, Der Socin. 538 f. The Remonstrants also derived the ground for the worship of Christ chiefly from this, that He was Mediator, King, Lord and as such had received from the Father a honor adorationis, which indeed was verus and divinus but yet not supremus, Apol. Conf. c. 2 p. 39. c. 3 p. 50. c. 16 p. 153. Arminius, [299]

Op. 436. Limborch, Theol. Christ. V 18. Episcopius, Inst. theol. IV 35 VII 27, 6, cf. against that Censura in conf. Rem. c. 2. 3. 12. Trigland, Antapol. c.

44. Heydanus, Causa Dei V 12. Vitringa V 268. The defense of the worship of Christ by Ritschl and his school essentially agrees with that of Socinus:

Christ, as man in relation to God, may indeed be venerated but not worshiped, but Christ, religiously considered, as revelation of God, as that person in whom the congregation has God, is indeed to be worshiped, for then we do not worship Him alongside God, but God in Him. This worship of Christ then further belongs indeed in the public religion of the congregation but not in the prayer of private persons; the latter is unhealthy, makes Christ into a subject distinct from God, fosters a sentimental tendency and leads to creature-worship, Schultz, Gottheit Christi 1881 S.

706 f. Just as among the Socinians, so among the followers of Ritschl there are those who reject the worship of Christ entirely, and indeed call Him an object of faith and an example for imitation but not an object of religious veneration, Chapuis, Revue de théol. et de philos. Nov. 1895 p. 560-586, Id.

Die Anbetung Christi in Gottschick's Zeits. f. Theol. u. Kirche 1897 S. 2879. Socinianism and Ritschlianism thus end up with Unitarianism, which deprives Christ of all religious veneration. Insofar as they nevertheless still attempt to maintain a worship of the man Christ, they are related and offer support to those who, although acknowledging Christ's Godhead, nevertheless also derive from his human nature a ground of worship. To these belong in the first place the monophysites, against whom the fifth oec.

Council c. 9, in Denzinger n. 180, determined that the worship of Christ does not rest on a συγχυσις της θεοτητος και της ἀνθρωποτητος but must be directed to God, the incarnate Logos with his flesh. But the scholastic and Roman theologians also have gradually come to venerate the human nature

of Christ in itself religiously. The point of departure was thereby the general doctrine of the church fathers, that the person of Christ in the undivided unity of her two natures, as incarnate Word, as God and man together, had to be venerated with one worship. From that it was inferred that the human nature of Christ itself, in itself, in se, might and must also be an object of divine veneration (λατρεια); however not for its own sake, per se and propter se, but on account of its hypostatic union with the Son of God. To that it was then further added that, although the human nature is in itself to be worshiped and thus objectum materiale of the adoratio, it nevertheless is always an objectum partiale and not totale; i.e. whoever worships it, worships with it always Him who has united himself with that human nature; and thus it was thereby permitted and made possible not only to make the human nature of Christ in itself, but even a part of it, such as e. g. the sacred heart of Jesus, into an object of worship; the worship nevertheless does not apply to that heart alone but applies to the whole

Christ, who caused his divine love to dwell in that heart. And finally many theologians still said that the human nature of Christ not only on the ground of its hypostatic union with the Logos is an object of λατρεια, but also on the ground of the many gifts bestowed upon it without measure might be an object of δουλεια, and then more specifically again an object of ὑπερδουλεια, according to the hierarchical rule: adoratio est diversa pro diversitate excellentiae, quae est ejus objectum formale. Cf. Damascenus, de fide orthod. III c. 8. Lombardus and other comm. on Sent. III dist. 9.

Thomas, S. Theol. III qu. 25. Bellarminus, de imag. sanct. II c. 12 sq.

Petavius, de incarn. XV c. 1-4. Theol. Wirceb. IV 330. Perrone, Prael. theol.

IV 274. Scheeben, Dogm. III 51 f. Pesch, Prael. theol. IV 97 sq. Simar, Dogm. 411. By virtue of their doctrine of the communication of the divine

properties to the human nature, the Lutherans also teach that the human nature of Christ is to be worshiped, Gerhard, Loc. IV § 23. Quenstedt,

Theol. III 199-208 V 353. Buddeus, Inst. theol. p. 771 sq. And finally among the Herrnhutters the man Christ has almost entirely taken the place of God; He is not the mediator but the substitute of God and almost the only object of religious veneration, Plitt, Zinzendorfs Theol. III 20 f. Römheld,

Theol. sacrosancta 1888.

Wholly in accordance with their doctrine of Christ the Reformed now said that the Mediator was indeed an object of worship, but that the ground for that worship lay in his divine nature. Yet among them there was still [301] some difference of opinion. All were agreed in this, that Christ also as Mediator had to be worshiped and honored, but some thought that the ground for that worship lay only in the Godhead of Christ, Voetius, Disp. I 520 sq. II 304 sq. Maccovius, Coll. theol. I 369 sq. Macc. Redivivus c. 91.

Hoornbeek, Socin. confutatus I 36 sq. Mastricht V 2, 26 etc.; others judged that the objectum formale was not only the Godhead but the Mediatorship of Christ, Amesius, de adoratione Christi. Walaeus, Loci Comm. Op. I 389.

Trigland, Antapol. c. 46. Alting, Theol. problem. XII 20. Cloppenburg, Op.

I 461. Bucanus, Inst. XXXV qu. 9. Turretinus, Theol. El. XIV qu. 18.

Hottinger, Heidanus, Burman, Heidegger, Moor III 829. Vitringa V 247.

Now Scripture leaves no doubt about it, that Christ, just as he is the object of our faith and trust, Joh. 14:1, 17:3, Rom. 14:9, 2 Cor. 5:15, Ef. 3:12,

5:23, Col. 1:27, 1 Tim. 1:1 etc., so also may be the object of our religious veneration and worship, Joh. 5:23, 14:13, Hd. 7:59, 9:13, 22:16, Rom.

10:12, 13, 1 Cor. 1:2, 2 Cor. 12:8, Phil. 2:9, Hebr. 1:6, Op. 5:12, 13, 22:17, 20, cf. Loofs in Herzog3 4, 21. Th. Zahn, Die Anbetung Jesu im Zeitalter der Apostel, Stuttgart 1885, also in Skizzen aus dem Leben der alten Kirche

1898 S. 271-308. But nevertheless the ground of the worship of Christ according to Scripture can be derived from nothing other than his Godhead.

For the word of Scripture stands firm: the Lord your God you shall worship and Him alone serve. That is the commandment which in principle condemns all pagan and Roman creature-worship. If in addition the royal power of Christ or also his mediatorship is still adduced as a ground for religious worship, then this commandment of God is weakened and violated. As mediator, king, priest, prophet, Christ is not absolute summus, but subordinated to God; in that capacity he has a different glory and a different power than that which he as Son shares with the Father and the Spirit; in that quality he is not the causa efficiens, which God alone is, but the causa instrumentalis of our salvation. If therefore the ground for the worship of the Mediator, besides in his Godhead, also still lies in his

Mediatorship, then the ground also in fact lies in his human nature, for as Mediator [302] Christ cannot be conceived without this; then the Father and the Spirit, who are not Mediator, have one ground for their worship less than the Son and this one thus comes to stand above the Father and the H.

Spirit; then there are two grounds for adoration, one which is derived from the Godhead, another which is derived from something else, that is from something creaturely, and then in principle the Roman distinction of λατρεια and δουλεια is brought in and creature-worship is legitimized.

Christ therefore is most certainly to be worshiped as our Mediator, just as God is also honored and invoked as Creator etc., but the ground for that lies only in his Godhead. He is not God because he is Mediator, but he is

Mediator because he is God, with the Father and the Spirit one single God, to be praised above all unto eternity. The mediatorial worthiness and the mediatorial works can and may be motives of worship, just as all kinds of

benefits compel us to worship God. They can also insofar be called grounds of worship, as the divine being works and reveals itself therein; but the foundation of worship is the being-God alone.

↑ Back to top