Gibson on Article II: Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man

2 This word is wanting in the Latin edition published by Wolfe m 1563, by the express authority of the Queen. It is, however, found in the editions of 1553, in the Parker MS. of 1563, and in the editions of 1571. The omission was therefore probably due to an accidental error of the

press.

its turn, was taken entirely from the Confession of Augsburg/

The clause on the eternal generation and Divinity of the Son was inserted in the edition of 1563 by Archbishop Parker, being suggested by the correspondincr article in the Confession of Wurtemburg. *^

This article, like the previous one, was aimed against the Anabaptists, many of whom were unsound on the cardmal doctrine of our Lord’s Divinity, reviving the Arian heresy, while others had adopted peculiar and heretical notions of the Incarnation,^ and others again rejected altogether the doctrine of the Atonement, denying that Christ is the Messiah and Saviour of the world, and actually venturing to speak of Him as “a mischievous fellow and deceiver of the world.”*

So early as 1535 we find that fourteen Anabaptists were condemned to the stake, for maintaining, among other things, that « in Christ is not two natures, God and man ; and that Christ took neither flesh nor blood of the Virgin Mary”;* and as late as 1579, one Matthew Hamant was burnt at Norwich for teaching that ” Christ is not God nor the Saviour of the world but a mere man, a sinful man, and an abominable idol.” ^

[…]

-^ee the passage from the JUformatio Legum Eeclesiasticanm “De haresibus, ch. 5, quoted below on Article IV. p. 182.

See the striking letter of Bishop Hooper, quoted above in the Introduction, p. 22.

• Stow’s Chronicle.

[…]

There are three principal subjects considered in this article, which falls accordingly into three principal clauses —

1. The Divinity and eternal generation of the Son.

2. The Incarnation.

3. The Atonement.

I. TJic Divinity and eternal generation of the Son.

”The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with

the Father.” Each expression in this clause requires careful consideration.

The Son. Bishop Pearson ^ points out that there are four subordinate senses in which this title is given to our Lord. He is the Son —

(a) As born of the Holy Ghost, of the Virgin Mary. See S. Luke i. 35 : “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee : wherefore also that which is to be born shall be called holy, the Son of God.”

(Jb) As designed by God’s special will to His high office. See S. John x. 34-36: “If He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), say ye of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world. Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God ? ”

(c) As raised by God from the dead. See Kom. i. 4 : Declared to be the Son of God with power, according to

the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead.” Of. Acts xiii. 33.

(d) As appointed heir of all things. See Heb. i. 2—5 : ” His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things …

^ Pearson On the Creed, Art. II. ch. iii.

C(

■!*■:: I

having become by so much better than the angels, as He hath inherited a more excellent name than they.”

But though in all these senses it may be said that the title Son belongs to Him, they are, however, but inferior and improper senses ; for the title is properly given to Him, not for anyone of the reasons just given, but because He has the divine essence communicated to Him by the Father from all etetmity. In this sense He is God’s “own Son,” and God is His “own Father.” The title belongs to Him, therefore, in His divine nature. Prior to the Incarnation, prior to the creation. He has from all eternity been the Son in this sense, in that He derives His Divinity from the Father, who, as was shown under the last article, is alone unoriginate avapyp) the Son being indeed God, but (as the Nicene Creed reminds us) by proceeding from God. “God of God, Light 0/ Light, very God of very God ” (Beo? U Seov, m €K ((WTo?, Gecx; oKrjeLvo €k Seov d\7)0ivov).

Which is the Word of the Father. The personal title of Word, or Logos, is given to the Second Person of the Holy Trinity only in S. John i. 1, 14, and Rev. xix. 13 (” the Word of God,” cf. however Heb! iv. 12 and 1 John i. 1). The reader will scarcely expect a discussion of its meaning and significance here. For this he will naturally turn to the Commentaries on S. John’s Gospel.^ It will be sufficient for our purpose here to point out how this title at once suggests the eternity of Him to whom it is appHed, for it is impossible to conceive of the Father as ever dXoyo^^ without that eternal Thought or Reason, which is the Son. Thus the two titles, Son and Word, as it has often been pointed out, supplement and reinforce each other ; and, taken

[…]

together, guard and protect the full truth concerning the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Either of them standing alone might have seemed to sanction error. While the title Son suggests personal distinction, it might, if it stood alone, have been pressed into the service of Arianism, as if it implied that the Son was of more recent origin than the Father. ” The Word,” on the contrary, although of necessity conveying the idea of eternity^ does not necessarily suggest Personality, and thus might have been appealed to as sanctioning Sabellianism. But when the two titles are combined, the possible misapplication of either of them is at once avoided. The Son, who is also the Word, must be eternal. The Word, who is also the Son, must be a distinct Person.^

Begotten from everlasting of the Father (ab

ceterno a Poire genitus\ If the Second Person of the Holy Trinity is from all eternity the Son, it follows that He is ” begotten from everlasting ” ; and thus eternal generation is the term used by the Church to express the manner in which the divine essence is communicated by the Father to the Son. It must never be understood as if it referred to an ” event ” which ” once ” took place, for it is intended to denote not an act but an eternal and unchangeable fact in the divine nature. The precise term is apparently due to Origen, who says 6 ScoTr)p ael yevvaTai, the Saviour is ever begotten ; ^ and similarly Augustine says : ” Semper gignit Pater, et semper nascitur Filius.”^ Such expressions are, however, founded on the language of revelation, for Holy Scripture

not only speaks of the Second Person of the Trinity as ” the Son,” but also applies to Him the terms ” begotten ” and ” only begotten.” i The latter term (jiovoyevri<:) is used several times by S, John (i. 14, 18 ; iii 16, 18 ;

1 John iv. 9), but by no other writer of the New Testament. Elsewhere S. John also speaks of Him as ” begotten ” (yeyeimffiepo and y€vvr)e€t<; ; see 1 John v. 1, 18.) S. Paul employs another phrase to express the same idea, when he speaks of Him as ” the First-born of all creation” irpfororoKo 7rda7j<i KTia-eax:, Col. i. 15).2

The very and eternal God ( Vems et cetemus Deus),

It became necessary to use such adjectives after the rise of the Arian heresy in the fourth century, for the Arians were willing to allow that in some sense Christ might be termed God, though they denied that He was of one substance with the Father, and maintained that ” once ” He did not exist Tjv Trore ore ovk v kuI irplv y€vvv6rjvai ovK v). Thus, on the Arian hypothesis. He is neither true verus, very), nor eternal God. Hence in the Nicene Creed it was found necessary to state emphatically that He is ” very God of very God,” and the use of the similar phrase in the article before us is probably due to the revival of the Arian heresy by the Anabaptists. To the same cause we may also trace the need for the next expression employed in the article.

Of one substance with the Father {Patri Con-

suhstantialis = ofioovaw tw iraTpC). This is the distinctive symbol of the Catholic faith against Arianism, first inserted in the Creed at the Council of Nica^a (325)! Not that the adoption of the term marked any change in the faith of the Church. The faith was ” once for all

tyivvneti. S. John Damascene.

2 On this passage and its true meaning, see Lightfoot’s Commentary,

delivered to the saints ” (S. Jude, 3), and there can be no change in it, nor addition to it. The only ” development ” of which it admits is a development by explanation, not a development by addition. The old faith may need restating in new terms and a somewhat fuller definition, in order to guard against misinterpretation. But this is all ; and nothing more than this was attempted at Nicaea. “The Nicene divines,” says Liddon, ” interpreted in a new language the belief of their first Fathers in the faith. They did not enlarge it ; they vehemently protested that they were simply preserving and handing on what they had received. The very pith of their objection to Arianism was its novelty ; it was false because it was of recent origin. They themselves were forced to say what they meant by their Creed, and they said it. Their explanation added to the sum of authoritative ecclesiastical language, but it did not add to the number of articles in the Christian faith : the area of the Creed was not enlarged. The Nicene Council did not vote a new honour to Jesus Christ, which He had not before possessed : it defined more closely the original and unalterable basis of that supreme place which, from the days of the apostles, He had held in the thought and heart, in the speculative and active life of Christendom.” ^ After what was said under the first article on the history and meaning of the terms Ousia and IfypostasiSy there is no need to explain further the meaning of the word Ifomoo7(sios, ” of one substance.” But it may be

V>’^

well to emphasise the fact that it was not adopted at Nicaea without anxious consideration. It was open to several objections, which the Arians were not slow to urge. The following were the principal ones : —

1. It was said to be a novelty, and not found in Scripture.

2. It was a philosophical term ; as such it had been used by heretics, and it implied a divine substance distinct from God, of which the persons partook.

3. It had been rejected at the Council of Antioch against Paul of Samosata, a.d. 268.

4. It was of a Sabellian tendency.

Of these objections the first was met by pointing out that, even if the term were novel, its meaning was not ; and though it was not actually found in Scripture, yet it did but sum up the doctrine of Scripture on the nature of the Son of God. “In it,” says Athanasius, “the Bishops concentrated the sense of the Scriptures” ^ As a matter of fact, however, the term was not such a novelty as the Arians tried to make out, and precedents for its use were quoted from early writers, notably Dionysius of Rome and his namesake of Alexandria in the third century.^

With regard to the second objection, it was made abundantly clear that the Church was not using the term in the sense in which it had been used by philosophers. She did not intend to imply that there was any substance distinct from God. She only used the term ” to express the real Divinity of Christ, and that as being derived from and one with the Father’s.” ^

^ Athanasius, Def, Nie. defin. ch. v. § 20.

The third objection was disposed of by showing that if the Fathers at Antioch rejected the word it was because Paul of Samosata had attempted sophistry, and taking the word in its philosophical sense had argued that it implied that there were three substances, one the previous substance, and the other two derived from it. Its rejection, if a fact, was due to the desire to guard against this. At Nicaea, on the contrary, its adoption was necessitated by the evasions of the Arians. At Antioch it would have obscured the truth and led to misconception, whereas at Nicaea it was required to protect the faith from error of a different character.^

The fourth and last objection was removed by a careful explanation of the sense in which the word was really used, and by the gradual adoption of the word Hypostasis, to express the real distinctions within the Godhead, in which the Church believed.

In this manner all the objections raised to the use of the term were met, and it was insisted upon and clung to by the orthodox party, not from any feeling of obstinacy or prejudice, but simply because experience taught them that it was the one term which the subtlety and ingenuity of the Arians was unable to pervert or explain away, and which expressed without ambiguity the truth that needed to be so jealously guarded, the truth, that is, of the absolute and essential Divinity of the Son of God.

We have now considered separately each expression in the first part of the article. Before, however, proceeding to our second subject it is necessary to give a brief summary of the scriptural evidence of the Divinity of tJie Son.

1. In the first place, it may be shown that our Lord’s own claims are such that it is impossible to think of Him except as one who is God. At first, no doubt, this

[…]

would not have been realised by those around Him ; but as they listened to His teaching, heard Him set His claims above those of the nearest and dearest of personal relations/ assume as of right a power to extend or even to abrogate the provisions of the Mosaic law, assert Himself as “greater than Jonah,” “greater than Solomon,” “greater than the temple,”* claim Himself to give rest to the weary and heavy-laden, speak of a knowledge of the Father possessed by none other, declare that He would come again “in His glory and the glory of the holy angels,” and sit on the throne of judgment, they must have wondered with an increasing wonder who it was who could make such tremendous claims.

Nor was this all. They saw Him work His miracles, and as He healed the sick, or cast out devils, they heard Him in His own name bid the sick arise or the devils depart.^ Miracles had been wrought by others before. They were wrought by the apostles themselves. But it was in their Master’s name that the devils were subject unto them.8 And when they bade the sick arise it was again in His name, “^neas, Jesus Christ maketh thee whole” (Acts Lx. 34). Very striking is it to contrast tlie Turd’s words to the evil spirit, ” Thou deaf and dumb spirit, I command thee (iyco aoc einTda-crQ)) come out of him” (S. Mark ix. 25), with St. Peter’s disclaimer in Acts iii. 12, ” Why marvel ye at this ? or why look ye on us as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk.” So again, they saw that He accejjted icorship, by whomsoever it was offered to Him ; »

’ […] 37. 2 s. Matt. V. 22 s^q., xix. 8 seq.

S. Matt. xii. 41, 42. 4 g, ^att. xii. 6.

5 S. Matt. xi. 27-30. « S. Matt. xxv. 31.

J S. Mark ix. 25 ; S. Luke vii. 14. » S. Luke x. 17. » S. Matt viii. 2 (the lei)er) ; ix. 18 (the ruler of the synagogue) ; xiv.

though “worship” as every Jew was taught from his childhood was the prerogative of God alone, and must be rejected not only by men (see Acts x. 25, xiv. 15), but even by angels (see Rev. xix. 10, xxii. 9).

Again, when He spoke of His relation to the Father, they heard Him distinctly assert His union with Him (“I and the Father are one,” S. John x. 30), and speak of the ” glory which ” He ” had with ” Him ” before the world was ” (S. John xvii. 5). They heard Him claim a timeless pre-existence before Abraham had come into being, and in so doing appropriate as His own the special title of Jehovah under the Old Covenant ” I am ” (irplp ^A^paafi yeviaOai, eyco el/jLc, S. John, viii. 58). Very instructive also is the discourse in S. John v., in connection with which the Jews sought to kill Him, ” because He not only brake the Sabbath, but also called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God” Thus His opponents understood Him to claim Divinity, and He did not utter a single word that would lead them or His own disciples to suppose that their inference was wrong. ” Intelligunt Judaei quod non intelligunt Ariani ” is the striking and suggestive comment of Augustine on the passage. Thus, as the apostles listened to such language, and heard such claims advanced as those which have been very briefly summarised here, it must gradually have dawned upon them that their Master was not only as one of the prophets of old ; they realised at last that He was the Messiah for whom all Jews were looking, and that He was in a unique and special sense the Son of God. Peter was but the mouthpiece of them all when

33 (those with Him in the boat) ; xv. 25 (the Syro-Phoenician woman) ; XX. 20 (the mother of Zebedee’s children) ; xxviii. 9. 17 (the women and disciples after the resurrection) ; St. Mark v. 6 (the Gadarene demoniac). The force of the argument is best seen by contrasting these passages with those referred to in the text where apostles and angels refuse with horror the “worship ” offered to them.

,ii

He confessed, ” Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (S. Matt. xvi. 16). Even this confession, however, great as it is, falls short of the full acknowledgment of His eternal Godhead, for in spite of indications which may to us appear not obscure,^ it does not seem that the Jews were looking for a divine Messiah.^ But when the crowning proof of divine power was given by the resurrection from the dead, then there came the conviction, never afterwards lost, expressed in the words of Thomas, which were accepted by our Lord as the true expression of faith in Him, ” Thomas saith unto Him, My Lord and my God” (S. John xx. 28).*

2. In considering the evidence for the Divinity of our Lord the first place must always be given to His own words and claims. Although, as Bishop Westcott says, ” He never speaks of Himself directly as God,” yet ” the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him.” * That the apostles did thus finally apprehend the aim of His revelation is shown by the words of Thomas quoted above ; but the full proof that they had grasped the bearing of His teaching and recognised His Eternal Godhead must be sought in their teaching and language concerning Him, preserved in the Acts and Epistles, as well

^ £.g., not only are such names as “Immanuer* (Isa. vii. 14), and ’* Jehovah is our righteousness” (Jer. xxiii. 6) given to Him. These need not denote more than the fact that through Hira Jehovah would manifest Himself, but in Isa. ix. 6 He is spoken of as “the mighty God,” El Gibbor, a title given to Jehovah Himself, in the very next chapter (x. 21), and in Micah v. 2 it is said that “His goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.”

• Commentary on S. JohrCs Gospel, note on St, John xx. 28,

as in the Gospels. The summary of the evidence for this will be best presented under separate heads, as follows :

(a) The great dogmatic passages in the Pauline Epistles in which the person and nature of Christ are fully dwelt upon. Three such are of special importance.

Phil. ii. 6-8 : ” Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God : but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of man : and being found in fashion as a man. He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, yea the death of the cross.”

The main subject of this passage is the Incarnation ; but the apostle states very clearly who He was who became incarnate. He was One who was, to begin with, in the form of God (eV tiop<ifi Qeov virdpxv), and yet such was His humility, that He did not consider His equality with God (to elvac laa Sew), a thing to be grasped at, to be claimed at all hazards, but he ” emptied Himself.” etc. The /xo/3</ Qeov, as Bishop Lightfoot points out, denotes the reality, the characteristic attributes of the Godhead, exactly as the ” form of a servant ” iiop(\ynv BovXov), which he “took,” indicates the reality of the human nature. And the whole passage implies very clearly that He who was incarnate in time, existed before the worlds in the eternal Godhead.

Col. i. 15-18: “Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation ; for in Him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, … all things have been created through Him ( Bl clvtov) and unto Him ; and He is (avro? eVrt) before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the Church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead ; that in all things He might have the pre-eminence.” Here the apostle is claiming for the

[…]

• I

;l!

\n

Son absolute supremacy in relation to the universe (vers. 15-17), and the Church (ver. 18), and He starts by speaking of His relation to the invisible God, of whom He is the ” image ” (eUcov)^ a term which implies not mere likeness, but actual representation and manifestation. He then attributes to Him the work of creation of all things, both visible and invisible, and finally claims for Him a pre-existence before all time. ” He is before all things.” ^ Such claims could not, without blasphemy, be made on behalf of any creature, however glorious. He, of whom the apostle makes such assertions, can only be Himself God.

A similar passage, the witness of which is not less clear, is found in Hebrews L 2 seq., where the work of creation is again attributed to the Son, who is also said to be ” the effulgence of the Father’s glory and the very image of His substance” airavyaafia t? ho koX j(apO’fCTrjp T? v7ro<7Ta<refi)9 auToO), and contrasted with the angels, none of whom is ever addressed in Scripture as Lord, or God, as is the Son in Ps. xlv. 7 and ciL 25, as quoted by the writer of the epistle.

(b) The last-mentioned reference to the Old Testament (Ps. cii. 25) leads us naturally to another point, which brings out, in a most striking fashion, how completely the apostles assumed the Divinity of Christ. In Ps. cii. there is no reference to the Messiah. It is Jehovah of whom the Psalmist is speaking, and yet the writer of the epistle applies his words to Christ. Nor does the passage stand alone, for it will be found that several passageSy which in the Old Testament are directly spoken of Jehovah, are in the New Testament cited as re/erring to Christy a fact which implies that the writers who thus cited them identified Christ with Jehovah, E.g. Isaiah (ch. vi.) saw the glory of Jehovah. S. John, after speaking of Christy says definitely, ” These things

said Isaiah, when he saw His (viz. Christ’s) glory, and spake of Him ” (xiL 4 1 ). Zech. xii. 1 0 is quoted in S. John xix. 37 of the crucifixion of Jesus, but on turning to the prophet we discover that Jehovah is the speaker, who says, “They shall look unto ife, whom they have pierced.” And once more S. Peter (1 Pet. iil 15) takes up the words of Isaiah viii 13 (“Sanctify the Lord of Hosts ”), and says directly, ” Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts” Kvpiov he rov xParov aitaaare ev ral Kaphiav vfia)v)y where Lord is, without the shadow of a doubt, intended to represent the sacred name of Jehovah, of the Old Testament. It has been said, not without truth, that if the word Lord had been written in capital letters in the New Testament, wherever it represents Jehovah, as it is written in the Old Testament, Socinianism would have been an impossibility.

(c) Further, an appeal may be made to those passages in which Christ is directly termed God, Foremost among these will stand the opening verses of S. John’s Gospel ” In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (irpb^ top Seov), and the Word was God (Oeof;) … the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” Here He who was incarnate is expressly identified with that ” Word ” which ” was God,” and a few verses lower down, according to a very probable reading (noted in the margin of the Revised Version), S. John calls Him God again, for in the 18th verse, where we read, ” No man hath seen God at any time ; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him,” many very ancient authorities read ” God only begotten ” for ” only begotten Son.^ Next to this

1 It is possible, however, that with many Hebrew MSS. we ought to read ” Him,” and not “Me.” 3 Cf. Rom. X. 9-13 with Isa. xxviii. 16 and Joel ii. 32. » See Westcott’s Commentary, in loc.y and Hort’s Two Dissertations,

fi

\i

may stand Romans ix. 5 : ” Of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” For though, as the margin of the Revised Version tells us, ” some modern interpreters place a full stop after flesh, and read He who is God over all be (is) blessed for ever,” yet such a rendering appears to be nothing but an evasion of the plain meaning of the words, for, as so careful and accurate a scholar as Dean Vaughan says, it introduces ” a harsh and abrupt transition, for which there is no cause and no parallel” Other passages to which reference may be made are the following : Acts XX. 28, “The Church of God, which He purchased with His own blood ” (here, however, the text cannot be regarded as certain, some ancient authorities reading ” the Lord ” for ” God ”). Titus ii. 13, where the natural rendering of the words, tov /leydXov Seov Kal aoDTtjpo rjtav ‘Irjaov ;to-Tou is that of the Revised Version, ” Our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,” applying to Him the titles, God and Saviour. So also in 2 Pet. i. 1 , TOV Geov /icop koI acorrjpo Irjaov pto-ToO, it is difficult to think any rendering correct except that of the Revised Version, ” Our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” (d) Lastly, we have the incidental witness of passing statements, in which divine attributes and actions are ascribed to Christ, and prayers and doxologies are addressed to Him. See Acts vii. 59 ; 2 Cor. v. 10 (where the office of judging the world is assigned to Christ) ; xii. 8, 9 (where St. Paul prays to Him, o Kvpiof;

The reading fiovoyevrji Qeos is definitely accepted in W^estcott k Hort’s Greek Testament.

^ Commentary on Romans. See also note in Speaker* s CommeTitary^ in loc. , and Sanday and Headlam’s exhaustive note in T?ic Internatimal Covimentary.

^ In 1 Tim. iii. 16 it seems quite clear that the reading 0e6y is not genuine, but even so, the prc-existence of Christ is implied in the word i<pav€pw$ri. In 1 John V. 20 the words 6 d\r}0Lv6i 6c6$ may refer to “Jesus Christ,” but their reference is not certain. See Westcott’s Commentary t in loc.

from the context can only be Christ whose ” strength ” is to “rest upon” the apostle); Eph. i. 20-23; Heb. vii. 3, xiii. 8 ; and the doxologies in Rev. i. 5, v. 9-14.

II. TJic Incarnation.

” The Son … took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance, so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say the Godhead and the manhood, were joined together in One Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man,”

As in the earlier part of the article so here the exact expressions used require careful notice. They are selected so as to exclude the three principal forms of heresy which have arisen on the doctrine of the Incarnation. Of the four great ” Christological ” heresies of the fourth and fifth centuries, the earliest, that of Arius, denying the true Divinity of Christ, has been already excluded by the opening words of the article. The three remaining ones, those of ApoUinaris, Nestorius, and Eutyches, are effectually guarded against by the section before us. Of these three heresies, that of Apollinaris, Bishop of Laodicea, was the earliest, following close upon the Arian, and being condemned at the Coimcil of Constantinople in 3 8 1. It ” maimed ” the humanity of Christ. Adopting the threefold division of man’s nature (body, soul, and spirit, 1 Thess. v. 23) Apollinaris admitted that Christ possessed both body and soul, by which latter term he meant the anirrui animans, the lower faculties common to man with the brute creation, but he denied to Him the anima rationalis, the higher ” spirit,” including the intellectual and spiritual powers. Of this he said He had no need, for its place was supplied by the divine Logos. Thus, on this theory, Christ could not be said to be perfect man, for an essential part of manhood, the

lilr

higher spiritual nature, was wanting. Such teaching obviously affects the whole conception of Christ’s redemptive work. If the humanity was incomplete and imperfect, the redemption would be incomplete, and imperfect, too, for the nobler part of man’s nature, although needing redemption no less than the body, should have no part nor share in it.

The heresy of Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, which was condemned at the Third General Council at Ephesus, 431, involved the assertion that there were two persons in Christ. According to Nestorius, the blessed Virgin could not rightly be termed Thcotocos (mother of God), for she gave birth only to a human person, who was conjoined with the divine Son of God. ” He who was formed in the womb of Mary,” said Nestorius, ” was not Himself God, but God * assumed ’ Him, and on account of Him who assumed. He who is assumed is also called God.” This heresy involves, even more than ApoUinarianism, the virtual destruction of the atonement, for if in Christ there be two persons, one divine and the other human, it was only ” a man ” who died on the cross, and not a divine Person, whereas it is really ” the infinite worth of the Son of God,” that is ” the very ground of all things believed concerning life and salvation, by that which Christ either did or suffered as man in our behalf.”^

Eutychianism, the last of these heresies, was condemned at the Fourth General Council, held at Chalcedon in 451. Historically it was a reaction against Nestorianism. Eutyches, from whom it takes its name, was a monk of Constantinople, who in his anxiety to avoid maintaining anything approaching to a twofold personality in Christ, was led to assert that after the Incarnation there was but one nature in Him, for he thought that the human nature became so merged in the divine, as to be absorbed

^ Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, bk. v. ch. lii. § 3.

by it, and no longer to remain distinct. Thus he denied that two whole and perfect natures remained in Christ, and so did away altogether, not only with the value of Christ’s example, but also with all possibility of acknowledging the redemption of man, because, according to him, He who suffered and died was in no way qualified to represent man, as being in no true sense human.

It was in the course of the controversies called forth by these heresies that the Church was led to formulate the doctrine of the Incarnation, in the terms which are adopted in the article. The Person of the Son of God is from all eternity. At the Incarnation no new person came into being. But He who as God the Son had existed from all eternity, ” took man’s nature upon Him in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance,” and from henceforth has existed not only as God, but also as man, ” two whole and perfect natures, the Godhead and manhood,” being inseparably united in His single Personality. This union of the two natures in one Person is termed the hypostatic union, a union, that is, in a single hypostasis, or personal self. That the two natures are thus united in one Person is plainly taught in Holy Scripture, for it is solely owing to the unity of person in Christ that in speaking of Him divine and human titles can be freely interchanged. St. Paul speaks of “the Church of God which He purchased with His own Mood (Acts XX. 28), thus sanctioning by implication the phrase, ” the blood of God.” Our Lord Himself while on earth described Himself as ” the Son of Man, which is in Jieaven” (St. John iii. 13),^ and St. Paul charges the Jews with having ” crucified tJie Lord of Glory ” (1 Cor. ii. 8). In such expressions there is attributed to Christ, spoken of by a divine title, that which belongs only to

1 It ought to be added that the last words, ” which is in heaven,” are of doubtful genuineness. They are omitted iu the llevised Version.

fill

II

humanity, and conversely, when a human title is employed, a divine attribute is ascribed to Him.

” A kind of mutual commutation there is, whereby these concrete names, God and man, when we speak of Christ, do take interchangeably one another’s room, so that for truth of speech it skilleth not whether we say that the Son of God hath created the world, and the Son of Man by His death has saved it, or else that the Son of Man did create, and the Son of God die to save the world. Howbeit, as oft as we attribute to God what the manhood of Christ claimeth, or to man what His deity hath right unto, we understand by the name of God and the name of man neither the one nor the other nature, but the whole person of Christ, in whom both natures are. When the apostle saith of the Jews that they crucified the Lord of Glory, and when the Son of Man being on earth affirmeth that the Son of Man was in heaven at the same instant, there is in these two speeches that mutual circulation before mentioned. In the one there is attributed to God, or the Lord of Glory, death, whereof divine nature is not capable ; in the other, ubiquity unto man, which human nature admitteth not. Therefore by the Lord of Glory we must needs understand the whole Person of Christ, who being Lord of Glory was indeed crucified, but not in that nature, for which He is termed the Lord of Glory. In like manner, by the Son of Man the whole Person of Christ must necessarily be meant, who, being man upon earth, filled heaven with His glorious presence, but not according to that nature for which the title of man is given Him,”^

This interchange of titles is termed the ” Communicatio Idiomatum,” and by the Greeks avriBoai^;. It is only possible because the two natures are united in one Person, for it is only the jpersoTial titles, God and man, that can

^ Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, bk. v. ch. liii. § 4.

be thus interchanged. The abstract terms of nature, Godhead, and manhood, cannot be interchanged, because the natures remain distinct. It is true, then, to say that ” God died for man,” though the Godhead died not. If, however, Nestorianism were true, and if there were in Christ two persons, then it would be impossible to say that God died, or that the Jews “crucified the Lord of Glory.” But while the Church thus maintains, as against Nestorianism, the unity of person, she maintains also against Apollinarianism and Eutychianism that the two ” whole and perfect natures ” remain distinct, and that each retains its own essential properties. ” Whatsoever is natural to deity the same remaineth in Christ uncommunicated to His manhood, and whatsoever is natural to manhood His deity thereof is incapable.” The true properties and operations of His deity are summed up by Hooker under six heads : — (1) To know that which is not possible for created natures to comprehend ; (2) To be simply the highest cause of all things, the well-spring of immortality and life ; (3) To have neither end nor begmning of days ; (4) To be everywhere present and enclosed nowhere ; (5) To be subject to no alteration nor passion ; (6) To produce of itself those effects which cannot proceed but from infinite majesty and power. To assert that any of these was communicated to Christ’s manhood is practically to confuse the natures, to give to the finite nature that which belongs to the infinite, and so to destroy the perfection of the manhood, i.e. to fall into the error of ApoUinaris or of Eutyches. Against such errors we may appeal to the witness of the Gospels, which set before us Christ’s manhood as real and perfect, taken indeed by Him in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance, ” by the operation of the Holy Ghost,” without the intervention of any human father, yet subject to those limitations which essentially belong to a finite

:li

created nature. The evidence of Scripture for the birth from a virgin is clear and precise. Although popular language is freely used, so that Joseph and Mary are termed ” His parents ” (S. Luke ii. 2 7, 4 1 ), and ” His father and His mother ” (ibid. ver. 33), and even the blessed Virgin speaks to Him of Joseph as His ” father ” (ibid. ver. 48), yet both the Evangelists who record the nativity make it perfectly clear that it was from a virgin that He was born, without the intervention of any human father. The two accounts in S. Matthew and S. Luke are written from different points of view, the first evangelist giving us the narrative from Joseph’s side, the third from the side of the mother ; but they are capable of being easily harmonised, and there are strong grounds for thinking that S. Luke i. and ii. are based on an account which came from the blessed Virgin herself.^ In the Epistles of S. Paul, it must be admitted that there is no direct reference to the birth from a Virgin, but not only is it ” obviously unsafe to argue from S. Paul’s silence, when he is equally silent on many other matters, which certainly formed part of the apostolic teachmg,” but also ” there are portions of his teaching where the event may well have been in the background of his thoughts, as when he speaks of our Lord as ” the heavenly man,” insists on His absolute sinlessness, and describes Him as ” made of a woman,” in a context where it would have been at least as natural to represent Him as the son of Joseph had he believed Him to be such.”^

That the humanity thus taken was real and complete is shown by numerous passages in the Gospels. He hungered and thirsted (S. Matt. xxi. 18; S. John xix. 28) ; He was weary (S. John iv. 6) ; He slept (S. Mark iv. 38); He was grieved (S. Mark iii. 5); He wept (S. Luke xix. 41 ; S. John xL 35); He “increased in wisdom ” as well as ” in stature ” (S. Luke ii. 52) ; His soul (^yxn) was exceeding sorrowful even unto death (S. Matt. XX vi. 38); He “sighed deeply in His spirit” (to) TTvevfiaTL avTov, S. Mark viii. 12); He “groaned in spirit” (S. John xL 33); He was troubled in spirit (S. John xiii. 21); and at the moment of death He commended His spirit into the Father’s hands (S. Luke xxiii 46 ; cf. S. John xix. 30, wapiBaKe to irvevfia). He, of whom such terms as these are used, must have possessed a true and proper human nature, consisting of body, soul, and spirit, nor can the properties of Deity have been transfered to that nature of which these expressions are used.

It is this union of the two whole and perfect natures in the one Person, which alone enables us to explain and do justice to all the features in the representation of Christ in the Gospel narratives. On the one hand, we have to account for the fact that He acts with powers far beyond those of ordinary men, and is endowed with knowledge far exceeding that of others. In His human body He was able to walk on the water. He could turn the water into wine, multiply the loaves and fishes so as to feed the hungry crowds that followed Him, heal the sick, give sight to the blind, cast out devils, and raise the dead. He saw Nathanael under the fig-tree (S. John i 50), read the hearts of His disciples, and knew their thoughts before they were expressed (S. Matt. xvii. 25); ” needed not that any should bear witness concerning man : for He Himself knew what was in man ” (S. John ii 25); He “knows the Father as the Father knows”

Him (S. John x. 15 ; cf. S. Matt. xi. 27). This is one side of the truth concerning the Person of Christ, as disclosed in the Gospel narrative. It is explained by the fact that though the essential properties of Deity are not communicable to man’s nature, yet the supernatural gifts, graces, and effects thereof are,” ^ and by what Hooker calls ” the gift of unction,” ^ as a consequence of the close union of the two natures in a single Personality, supernatural gifts and graces flowed in from the higher upon the lower nature united to it, infinitely ennobling and exalting it, but not in any way destrojdng its true and perfect human character, nor endowing it with the properties of Deity. Thus the body of Christ was a true human body, enabled by a divine gift to walk upon the water, but not able to be in two places at once, which would be contrary to the properties of human nature. The power of working miracles was, in the same way, a supernatural effect of Deity, as was also the enlightenment of the human soul with the knowledge of ” what was in man.” But there is another side as well to the portrait drawn in the Gospels, and from many passages we can see that, though for all purposes of His divine mission and work our Lord’s manhood was thus supernaturally enlightened and endowed with divine powers, yet in ordinary matters, outside the sphere of the special work He had come to do. He accepted the limitations common to men in general, and natural to His position as born in a particular spot, at a particular time in the world’s history. Though He miraculously

[…]

• The expression is justified by S. Peter’s words in Acts x. 38 : ” How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with power ; who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil: for God was with Hira.” Cf. also S. Luke iv. 18. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed me, etc,”

fed the five thousand in the wilderness, yet when He was Himself an hungered, He was content to wait while His disciples went into the city to buy food to supply His needs (S. John iv. 8). In reference to His human intellect, it is said that He ” increased in wisdom ” (S. Luke ii. 52). Of the day and hour of the last judgment He Himself tells us that He did not know. ” Of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the SoUj but the Father” (S. Mark xiii 32). He raised the dead to life, but when His hour was come. Himself submitted to the power of death. Both classes of passages to which attention has been drawn refer to one and the same Person, and that Person the Eternal Son of God. That which explains them is the fact that in taking upon Him our nature He voluntarily limited Himself. In S. Paul’s phrase, ifcivaxrev kaxnov (Phil. iL 7), He ” emptied Himself ” — not of His Godhead, for that were an impossibility, but of the exercise of His divine prerogatives. He condescended ” in all things to be made like unto His brethren” (Heb. ii. 17), sin only excepted (Heb. iv. 15 ; 2 Cor. v. 21 ; 1 Pet. il 22).^

• Since peculiar difficulty is sometimes felt with regard to the question of the limitation of knowledge in the human soul of Christ, it may be well to add a brief note on the subject. Infinite knowledge, in the strictest sense of the word, can only belong to an infinite mind. It is, therefore, a ’* property” of the Godhead (cf. Hooker, EcclesiasticcU Polity, V. liii. § 1), and to say that the knowledge possessed by Christ’s soul was infinite is practically to fall into the heresy of Apollinaris. Though, however, the finite human soul could not be possessed of infinite knowledge, yet, short of this, there is nothing of which we should be justified in saying that Christ “could not have known it” Each ** piece of information” is finite, and, as a supernatural gift, not a property of the Godhead, might therefore have been communicated to the manhood. Had He so willed, He might have known it. Of one fact we have the express warrant of His own word for saying that He did not know it (S. Mark xiii. 32), What further limitations of knowledge there may have been beyond this can only be a matter of reasonable inference from the Gospel narrative.

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES III. The Atonement

Who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.

Whatever they were, they were purely voluntary. If there were matters which He did not know, it was not because He could not have known them, but because He condescended not to know. Theologically, there is no greater difficulty in believing that He was ignorant of a hundred things than in believing that He was ignorant of one. If otu fact was hidden from His human intellect we are forced to admit the co-existence of ignorance and infinite knowledge in a single Personality. But this, as the late Dr. Liddon has pointed out in his Bamptcm Lectures^ is but one of the many contrasts which, in accepting the Incarnation at all, we are bound to admit ; nor is it really more mysterious than many ” other and undisputed contrasts between the divine and human natures of the

incarnate Son — e.g. the co-existence of local presence and omnipresence

of absolute blessedness, and intense suffering ” (see Liddon’s Bampton Lectures, p. 463). Dr. Liddon urges that we have no right to infer from St Mark xiii. 32 ignorance on Christ’s part on any other subject. It is true that we are never directly told of anything else that He did not know. But there are various expressions in the Gospels which appear to indicate that there were limitations of knowledge beyond this, and that on ordinary matters He willed to be dependent on ordinary means of information. He “increased in wisdom.” Seeing the fig-tree with leaves— the usual sign of fruit— He came to it, ” if haply He might find anything thereon ” (S. Mark xi. 13). Again and again we read that He “marvelled” at something. Moreover, His questions, though doubtless often asked to ” prove ” His disciples, yet sometimes appear to have been called forth by a desire for information, e.g., ” Where have ye laid him ?” (S. John xi. 34). “How many loaves have ye?” (S. Mark vi. 38, yiii. 5). ” How long time is it since this hath come unto him ? ” (S. Mark ix. 21). See further. Gore’s Bampton Lectures, Lect. vi., and “An Inquiry into the Nature of our Lord’s knowledge as Man,” by W. S. Swayne. It may be added (in order to avoid misconception) that no argument can justly be drawn from limited knowledge to error or fallibility on the part of our blessed Lord, for, as the late Bishop Harold Browne pointed out, ” Ignorance does not of necessity involve error. Of course in our present state of being, with our propensity to lean on our wisdom, ignorance is extremely likely to lead to error. But ignorance is not error ; and there is not one word in the Bible which could lead us to suppose that our blessed Lord was liable to error in any sense of the word, or in any department of knowledge.”— Pen/o/ewc^ and Elohistic Psalms, p. 13.

In the wording of this portion of the article four expressions are worthy of especial notice.

1. “Who truly suffered.”— So in Article IV. we read, ” Christ did truly arise again from death.” There is evidently a special emphasis upon the word ” truly ” in each case. And there can be no doubt that it was designedly added to guard against a Docebic view of the Incarnation, which had recently been revived by some among the Anabaptists. The heresy of the Docetse {Aoicnral) appeared in very early days. Its advocates mamtamed that our blessed Lord’s body was like ours only in appearance, and not in reality. According to S. Jerome, “while the apostles were still surviving while Christ’s blood was still fresh, in Jud^, the Lord’s’ body was asserted to be but a phantasm.” i This view which it is almost needless to say, contradicts the whole tenor of Scripture, was very prevalent among the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century, many of whom demed altogether that Christ really took flesh in the womb of the blessed Virgin,^ and thus were led on to deny the realUy of both His passion and His resurrection. Hence the insertion of the word ” truly ” here and also in Article IV. J *

2. To reconcile His Father to us. — Exception is sometimes taken to this phrase, on the ground that It 18 unscriptural; for the Bible speaks of the need for men to be reconciled to God, but says nothing of God bemg reconcHed to man. As far as the mere form of expression is concerned it must be admitted that the objection can be sustained. The following are

• Adv. Lueif. 23.

[…]

lO

the only passages in the canonical books of Scripture in which the word ” reconcile ” occurs in this connection, and in none of them does the phrase used in the article occur.

Kom. V. 10, 11 : For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God (KaTrjXKdy7)iJL€v tw Bew), through the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled (/caTa\a7€i/T€9), shall we be saved by His life. And not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation” KaraWayi]), 2 Cor. v. 18-20: “But all things are of God, who reconciled us to Himself (rov KaraXKdavTo r)fjLd<: iavTw) through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation (t?)9 KardXXayrjf;) ; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation. We are ambassadors, therefore, on behalf of Christ, as though God were intreating by us : we beseech you, on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God.” Eph. ii. 1 6 : ” That He might reconcile them (diroKaTaWdfy) both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.” CoL i. 19-22 : “For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in Him should all the fulness dwell; and through Him to reconcile airoKa- raXKaai) all things unto Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things upton the earth, or things in the heavens. And you, being in time past alienated and enemies in your mind in your evil works, yet now hath He reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish and unreproveable before Him.”

The Socinians, and those who with them object to the language of our article point to the form of expression

in all these passages, as indicating that the need for reconciliation was all on man’s side, and hence they infer that there was no need for Christ “to reconcile His Father to us.” The atonement revealed God’s love, and so influenced men, but it had no “objective” value. Such an objection at first sight may appear to be plausible. But it is believed that a careful examination of the teaching of Scripture wUl show that it is quite untenable, and that the language of the article is perfectly justifiable. Though undoubtedly the prominent thought in all the passages quoted above is that of the removal of the enmity on man’s part, yet the clause in 2 Cor. V. 19, “not reckoning unto them then-trespasses,” is sufficient to show that there is another aspect under which the atonement may be viewed. As Bengel ex- ceUently says, “/caTaX\a7’ est BirXevpo, et tollit (a) indignationem Dei adversus nos (2 Cor. v. 19; (h) nostramque abalienationem a Deo (2 Cor. v. 20).” This is bonie out by an examination of other passages in Scripture, in which the same word, fcaraXXdaao) (or the kindred BiaXKdaao)) is used. The word merely means the reestablishment of friendly relations between persons who have been at variance : on which side the antagonism exists 18 not to be determined by the word itself, or by Its grammatical construction.” 2 So in S. Matt v 24 our Lord says : ” If thou art off”ering thy gift at the altar! and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and ofifer thy gift.” The brother, who has some cause of complaint, is, according to our idiom, the one who needs reconcUiation. But our Lord puts it the

J Bengel on Rom. iiL 24.

[…]

l

other way. Not ” first reconcile thy brother,” but ” first he reconciled to thy brother.” ^

But the real justification of the language of the article lies deeper than this. Even if the particular passages in which the word ” reconcile ” occurs could all be shown to refer entirely to the removal of man’s alienation from God, yet that the atonement effected something which may truly be described as the reconciliation of God to man would seem to follow from those other passages in which the death of Christ is regarded as a ” propitiation ” and a sacrifice. Such passages are Eom. iii. 25: “Whom God set forth to be a propitiation (IXaanjpiov) through faith, by His blood ” ; 2 1 John ii 2 : ” He is the propitiation (t\a<r/Lto9) for our sins ” ; 1 John iv. 10: God ” sent His Son to be the propitiation (/Xao-fto?) for our sins.” Such language as this is amply sufficient to justify the phrase that is used in our article, for it clearly implies that God ” changed His relation of antagonism to the world into a relation of friendship, by sending His Son *to be the propitiation for our sins.’ His own love for the world moved Him to do this ; but until He did it there was antagonism, which, according to the apostolic thought, would have ultimately issued in * wrath.’ ” ^

3. ” Not only for original guUt, hut also for all actual

^ Cf. also 1 Sam. xxix. 4 and 1 Cor. vii. 11. It is noteworthy that in the Second Book of Maccabees three times God is said to be reconciled {KaraWayTjvat) to man (2 Mace. i. 5, vii. 33, viii. 29 ; cf. v. 20, where the remarkable phrase ”the reconciliation of the great Lord” occura. i] roO fuydXov deair&rov KaTaWayi^).

• ” The Greek word properly means “that which renders propitious.” Here “that which renders God propitious.” In some way, which is not explained at all in this passage, and imperfectly explained elsewhere, the death of Christ did act so as to render God “propitious” towards men. He became more ready to pardon as they became more anxious to be pardoned.”— Dr. Sanday in Bp. Ellicott’s Neio Testament far English Headers (Note on Rom. iii. 25).

^ Dale on the Atone^nent, ubi supra.

sins of men:’— The careful specification of both ” origmal guilt ” and also ” actual sins ” is remarkable. We meet with it again in Article XXXI., where it is said that “the offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual.” It is accounted for by the fact that teachers were found within the Roman communion who, following the guidance of some among the schoolmen,^ actually taught that, though Christ suffered on the cross for original sin, the sacrifice of the altar was daily offered for actual sin. The language of the article, as we have already seen, is drawn from the Confession of Augsburg, which directly mentions this terrible perversion of the truth in the following passage : —

” Accessit opinio, quae auxit privatas missas in infinitum, videlicet quod Christus sua passione satisfecerit pro peccato originis, et instituerit missam, in qua fieret oblatio pro quotidianis delictis, mortalibus et venialibus.” 2

4. « For all actual sins of men.” — Attention is drawn to this assertion of the universality of redemption, because in various editions of the Articles the important word “all” has been, without the slightest authority, omitted, in order to force the article into agreement with the Calvinistic theory of “particular redemption,” i,e. the doctrine that Christ died not for all but only for ” the elect.” According to Hardwick, the

Notably Albertus Magnus. ” Secunda causa institutionis hujus sacramenti est sacrificium altaris, contra quandam quotidianam delictorum nostrorum rapinam. Ut sicut corpus Domini semel oblatum est in cruce pro debito originali : sic offeratur jugiter pro nostris quotidianis delictis in altan et habeat in hoc ecclesia munus ad placandum sibi Deum super omnia legis sacramenta vcl sacrificia pretiosum et s^ce^tum.” -De SS, £uch Sacr. Serm. i.

» Confessio August, pt. ii. art. iii.

\i\

omission is found as early as 1630. It appears also in the article as revised by the Assembly of Divines in 1643, the whole clause being there rewritten in the interests of Calvinism, and standing as follows : ” Who for our sakes truly suffered most grievous torments in His smil from God, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of

men.

The special phrases of the article which appear to require some explanation have now been noticed. But nothing has yet been said on the general subject of the atonement. The subject is too vast to receive anything like adequate treatment in the narrow limits within which it must be confined in such a work as this. All that can be attempted here is to give in briefest form a summary of the teaching of Scripture on the sacrifice of Christ; and in connection with it to suggest a few considerations which may be found helpful in removing the objections which are sometimes raised against the doctrine.

(a) That the article is only following the language of Scripture when it says that Christ suffered ” to be a sacrifice ” for sin, may be shown from numerous passages, such as the following : —

1 Cor. v. 7 : ” Our passover also hath been sacrificed (irvdrj), even Christ.”

Eph. V. 2 : ” Walk in love, even as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice (‘!rpo(T<f>opav Kal Ovalav) to God for an odour of a sweet smelL”

Heb. vii 26, 27: “For such an high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens ; who needeth not daily like those high priests to offer up sacrifice, first for his

own sins and then for the sins of the people : for this He did once for all, when He offered up Himself {kavrov dv€P€yKa<;).”

Heb. ix. 26 : ” Now once at the end of the world hath He been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (3ta t?}? Ovalaf; axnov)” Compare also Heb. x. 10 seq., and the passages quoted above, concerning propitiation (Rom. iii. 25 ; 1 John ii. 2, iv. 10).

Again (6) the vicarious character of His suffering seems to be plainly implied in such passages as these :

S. Matt. XX. 28 : ” The Son of Man came … to give His life a ransom for many (Kvrpov avrl ttoW&v)”

S.John X. 11-18: See especially ver. 15, “I lay down my life for (inrep) the sheep.”

1 Tim. iL 6 : ” Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all {amtKvrpov inrep ttclvtodv)”

See also 1 Pet. iL 21-25, iii 18 1 John iii. 16, and Rom. viii. 3, where the Revised Version renders irepl cLfiapTia^ by the words ” as an offering for sin.”

Elsewhere we read of the Church as purchased with the blood of Christ (Acts xx. 28, r)v ‘jrepieTroiija’aTo) ; of ” redemption {a7ro\vTpa)aL<:) through the blood ” (Eph. L 7 and 1 Pet. 118 (iXvrpcoerjre).

(c) For the universal character of redemption and the fact that it was for all men that Christ died, appeal may be made to S. John iii 16: “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” The breadth of such language is quite inconsistent with narrower theories that would limit the saving work of Christ to ” the elect.” So in 1 John ii. 2 we read ” He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world,” while in the words of S. Paul quoted above we are expressly told that He gave himself a ransom for all ” (1 Tim. ii. 6), as elsewhere the

n\

same apostle states that He is ” the Saviour of all men, especially of them that believe” (1 Tim. iv. 10).^

Language such as that quoted under the two former heads (a and h) is surely incompatible with any theory that denies the objective value of the atonement. To maintain that the whole value of the death of Christ lies in its effect upon the minds and hearts of men by the supreme revelation which it makes of the love of God is to evacuate the words of Scripture of their plain meaning, and to introduce a method of interpretation which, if permitted, will enable men to evade the force of the clearest declarations. That grave difficulties can be raised with regard to the doctrine of vicarious sacrifice cannot be denied. But they are largely due, not to the doctrine itself as set forth in Scripture, but to the way in which it has been presented by divines.

It is a fact to which everyday experience bears witness that mediation is a law of this life, that repentance and amendment are of themselves often wholly insufficient to prevent the penal consequences of misconduct, and that vicarious suffering does contribute largely to the relief of others. The argument, as stated by Butler in the fifth chapter of the second part of the Analogy is unanswerable; and therefore to a theist, who accepts the order of nature and the existing constitution of things as coming from the hand of God, there will be no difficulty in admitting that the same method holds good in regard to man’s salvation, which he finds to obtain in regard to his temporal welfare. Difficulties concerning details may fairly be raised ; but to the general principle no exception can fairly be taken.

Nor must it be forgotten that while vicarious suffering in the natural order of things is often compulsory and involuntary, the sacrifice of Christ was purely voluntary.

» Cf. 1 Tim. ii. 4.

He gave Himself, Ohlatus est quia ipse voluit} This does away altogether with any “injustice” as against the victim. There can be no injustice in laying on one that which He Himself wills to undertake. And, on the other hand, it must be carefully borne in mind that Holy Scripture is in no way responsible for those coarse and crude forms of presenting the doctrine, which give colour to the notion that it was an act of arbitrary substitution, the innocent suffering, and the guilty being let off scot-free. Throughout, Holy Scripture ever insists on the need of repentance on the part of the sinner, if he is to obtain the benefit of Christ’s redemptive work. It teaches also that it was not merely ” a man ” who suffered. Had this been the case there might have been some ground for the notion that it was a purely arbitrary substitution of the innocent for the guilty. But the sufferer was ” the man,” the ” Second Adam,” the Head and Representative of the whole race, for which He is thereby qualified to become the sponsor (€yyvo<;). In the words of S. Irenseus: “As a man caused the fall, so a man must cause the restoration. He must be a man able to sum up (recapitulare) all the human species in Himself, so as to bear the punishment of all, and to render an obedience that will compensate for their innumerable acts of disobedience.” ^

• Isa. liii. 7, in the Vulgate. As a translation the words cannot be defended, but they give grand expression to a truth of Scripture.

‘^IreniEUS, v. i. 1 ; cf. Norris, liudimcnts of Theology, p. 59 : ** When the mystery of the Redeemer’s Person is borne in mind, it almost ceases to be a mystery that His death should affect the whole human race. Every act of Christ miLst vibrate through humanity ! If, in a plant, an injury to the root is felt in every branch ; if in an army, it is not the captain only who conquers or is conquered, but every soldier with him ; if in all organic societies, when one member suffers, all the members suffer with it ; if in the great family of mankind, the fall of one entailed the fall of all—then is it a strange thing that S. Paul thus judged, that if Christ died for all, then all died in Him ? ” See also Wilberforce on the Incamationf ch. ii.

Again, objections of another kind, which are frequently raised, are only valid against an entire perversion of the scriptural doctrine. The atonement has sometimes been represented as if it involved a discordance of will between the First and Second Persons of the blessed Trinity. Christian preachers have not always been careful in their language, and their teaching has sometimes given countenance to the idea that the Father was vengeful and longing to punish, while the Son was all mercy and tenderness; whereas Holy Scripture consistently represents the atonement as an act of love on the part of the Father equally with the Son. ” God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have eternal life ” (S. John iiL 1 6). God ” spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all” (Rom. viii. 32). And while we read of the ” wrath ” of God, we read also of ” the wrath of the Lamb ” (Rev. vi 16).

These considerations may prove helpful in meeting some of the most obvious objections which are brought against the doctrine. It may not be possible out of the various notices of the atonement in Scripture to form a complete and consistent theory that shall be entirely free from all difficulty. Nor is it necessary that the attempt to form such a theory should be made. From time to time various ” schemes ” have been advanced, and explanations offered which have been more or less widely accepted by divines. But none of them can claim the formal sanction of the Church as a whole. That which perhaps has been the most widely held of all is the patristic theory that by the fall Satan gained a ” right ” over man, and that man could therefore only be released by a satisfaction of Satan’s just claim. According to this view the death of Christ was regarded as the ” price ” or “ransom” paid to Satan to satisfy his claim. It has

been said that S. Irenaeus was the first to suggest this view, which is further developed by Origen, and that it is the common explanation of the necessity for the death of Christ, which prevailed for nearly a thousand years in the Church, till the days of S. Anselm, in whose work Cur JDeus Homo, it is for the first time expressly and unreservedly rejected. ^ There is, perhaps, some exaggeration in this statement, ^ but there can be no doubt that at one time the theory was very widely held. It rests, however, on an entire misunderstanding of the scriptural use of such figurative expressions as ” ransom ” and ” purchase.” It is quite certain from numerous passages in the Old Testament that to the Jew these terms would never have suggested the question ” To whom was the the ransom paid ? ” as they suggested it in later days to Greek and Latin writers. The great event in their national history, which fixed for the Jews once for all their conception of redemption or ransom, was the exodus from Egypt. Then it was that God redeemed His people, delivered them from the house of bondage, purchased them, ransomed them. All these terms are freely used in Holy Scripture of the event. So in the Song of Moses we read :

” Thou in Thy mercy hast led forth Thy people whom Thou hast redeemed )\ ; LXX., iXvrpcoao), … All the inhabitants of Canaan shall melt away. Fear and dread shall fall upon them ; by the greatness of Thine arm they shall be still as a stone ; till Thy people pass over, 0 Lord ; till the people pass over which Thou hast purchased, m); LXX., e/cTifcro) (Ex. xv. 13-16).

’ In the LXX. Xvrpbu occurs about seventy times of God’s redemption of His people collectively or individually, occurring first in Ex. vi. 6. *’ I will redeem you with a stretched-out ami ” ; and representing the two Hebrew words ^t<j and .Tip. Krdo/tai is of much rarer occurrence. Besides

Again, objections of another kind, which are frequently raised, are only valid against an entire perversion of the scriptural doctrine. The atonement has sometimes been represented as if it involved a discordance of will between the First and Second Persons of the blessed Trinity. Christian preachers have not always been careful in their language, and their teaching has sometimes given countenance to the idea that the Father was vengeful and longing to punish, while the Son was all mercy and tenderness; whereas Holy Scripture consistently represents the atonement as an act of love on the part of the Father equaUy with the Son. « God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have eternal life ” (S. John iii 1 6). God ” spared not His own Son, but deHvered Him up for us all” (Rom. viii. 32). And while we read of the ” wrath ” of God, we read also of ” the wrath of the Lamb ” (Rev. vl 16).

These considerations may prove helpful in meeting some of the most obvious objections which are brought against the doctrine. It may not be possible out of the various notices of the atonement in Scripture to form a complete and consistent theory that shall be entirely free from all difficulty. Nor is it necessary that the attempt to form such a theory should be made. From time to time various ” schemes ” have been advanced, and explanations offered which have been more or less widely accepted by divines. But none of them can claim the formal sanction of the Church as a whole. That which perhaps has been the most widely held of all is the patristic theory that by the fall Satan gained a ” right ” over man, and that man could therefore only be released by a satisfaction of Satan’s just claim. According to this view the death of Christ was regarded as the ” price ” or “ransom” paid to Satan to satisfy his claim. It has

been said that S. Irenaeus was the first to suggest this view, which is further developed by Origen, and that it is the common explanation of the necessity for the death of Christ, which prevailed for nearly a thousand years in the Church, till the days of S. Anselm, in whose work Cur Deus Homo, it is for the first time expressly and unreservedly rejected. ^ There is, perhaps, some exaggeration in this statement, 2 but there can be no doubt that at one time the theory was very widely held. It rests, however, on an entire misimderstanding of the scriptural use of such figurative expressions as ” ransom ” and ” purchase.” It is quite certain from numerous passages in the Old Testament that to the Jew these terms would never have suggested the question ” To whom was the the ransom paid ? ” as they suggested it in later days to Greek and Latin writers. The great event in their national history, which fixed for the Jews once for all their conception of redemption or ransom, was the exodus from Egypt. Then it was that God redeemed His people, delivered them from the house of bondage, purchased them, ransomed them. All these terms are freely used in Holy Scripture of the event. So in the Song of Moses we read :

” Thou in Thy mercy hast led forth Thy people whom Thou hast redeemed ^^\ ; LXX., eKvTpdaaa), … All the inhabitants of Canaan shall melt away. Fear and dread shall fall upon them ; by the greatness of Thine arm they shall be still as a stone ; till Thy people pass over, 0 Lord ; till the people pass over which Thou hast purchased, mp\ LXX., UTqato (Ex. xv. 13-16).^

’ In the LXX. \vTp6<a occurs about seventy times of God’s redemption of His people collectively or individually, occurring first in Ex. vi. 6. *’ I will redeem you with a stretched-out ami ” ; and representing the two Hebrew words Vki and .“n^. Erdo/iat is of much rarer occurrence. Besides

This was the deliverance which fixed decisively the idea of redemption. God redeemed, ransomed, purchased His people ; but there was nothing paid to Pharaoh or to the Egyptian taskmaster. Any thought of a sum of money or ransom, received by the power from which the captive is delivered, is wholly absent from the Old Testament conception of redemption. ” It cannot be said,” writes Bishop Westcott, ” that God paid to the Egyptian oppressor any price for the redemption of His people. On the other hand, the idea of the exertion of a mighty force, the idea that the redemption costs much is everywhere present.” ^ Though there was no compensation of any kind paid to the Egyptian bondmaster there was clearly the interposition of something as a condition of deliverance— the people were redeemed. Thus, when we remember how, all through the Old Testament, this great act of deliverance is spoken of as God’s redemption or ransom of His people, we see at once that writers of the New Testament would naturally use similar language of its ” perfect spiritual Antitype,” the great act of deliverance from Satan’s bondage which they connected with the cross of Jesus Christ ; and that they would speak of the Church as redeemed or ransomed, by the precious blood of Christ, without any thought occurring to them of the question which disturbed men’s minds in later times, to whom was the ransom paid — a question which has only arisen from a misconception, and from bringing in to the interpretation of Holy Scripture ideas which are totally foreign to it.

We shall be right, then, if we dismiss from our minds once for all the notion of a ransom paid to Satan. Nor need we shrink from resting content without attempting

Ex. XV. 16 (where Coilex A has Aur/>t6o-w) it is used of God in Ps. Ixxiii. (Ixxiv.) 2, and Ixxvii. (Ixxviii.) 54 […] On the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 296.

to construct a complete theory of the atonement. The subject is best left where Scripture leaves it. While, on the one hand, we refuse to explain it away, or to do violence to the passages quoted above which attribute an atoning value to the suffering of Christ, and regard it as a ” sacrifice ” and ” propitiation,” on the other hand we may well decline to speculate too closely on the precise manner in which it was efficacious. The fact that it was efficacious is clearly taught in Scripture, and that is enough for us. The conclusion which forced itself on the mind of Bishop Butler in the eighteenth century is one which we shall do well to make our own.

” How and in what particular way it had this efficacy, there are not wanting persons who have endeavoured to explain, but T do not find that the Scripture has explained it… . And if the Scripture has, as surely it has, left this matter of the satisfaction of Christ mysterious, left somewhat in it unrevealed, all conjectures about it must be, if not evidently absurd, yet at least uncertain. Nor has anyone reason to complain for want of farther information, unless he can show his claim to it.

” Some have endeavoured to explain the efficacy of what Christ has done and suffered for us, beyond what the Scripture has authorised; others, probably because they could not explain it, have been for taking it away, and confining His office as Eedeemer of the world to His instruction, example, and government of the Church. Whereas the doctrine of the gospel appears to be, not only that He taught the efficacy of repentance, but rendered it of the efficacy which it is by what He did and suffered for us ; that He obtained for us the benefit of having our repentance accepted unto eternal life ; not only that He revealed to sinners that they were in a capacity of salvation, and how they might obtain it, but,

moreover, that He put them into this capacity of salvation by what He did and suffered for them, put us into a capacity of escaping future punishment and obtaining future happiness. And it is our wisdom thankfully to accept the benefit, by performing the conditions upon which it is offered on our part, without disputing how it was procured on His.” ^

^ Analogy ^ pt. ii. cli. v.

Notes

• See especially Westcott on S. John’s Oospd Introd. p. xv.
• See Liddon*s Bampton Lectures, p. 234, and cf. Robertson’s AtJuina- 8itis, p. 472, Note 1.
• Opera, vol. iy. ; S. Pamphili Martyris, Apologia, oh. iii. ; of. Routh, Eeliquioi Sacra’, vol. iv. p. 354. 3 Ep. 238.
• Bampton Lectures, p. 429 ; cf. Gore’s Bampton Lectures, p. 96. “These decisions do, it is contended, simply express in a new form, without substantial addition, the apostolic teaching as it is represented in the New Testament. They express it in a new form for protective purposes, as a legal enactment protects a moral principle. They are developments only in the sense that they represent the apostolic teaching worked out into formulas by the aid of a terminology which was supplied by Greek dialectics.”
• Athanasius, uhi supra. Eusebiiis of Caesarea himself confesses the antiquity of the word (“Epistola Eusebii in Socrates,” IT. E. I. viii.). Origan apparently had made use of the word {Pamphili Apol. 6), and so had Theognostus, while so early a writer as Tertullian has ita Latin equivalent *’ unius mhdaMicR” (see above, p. 107).
• Newman’s Arians^ p. 191.
• See Ryle and James on the Paalins of Solomon, p. Iv.
• The argument from the claims of our Lord and His “self-assertion ” is sometimes put in the form of the dilemma, “Aut Deusaut homo non bonus,” a dilemma from which there appears no way of escaping. See Liddon’s Bampton Lectures, Lect. iv. ; cf. Gore’s Bampton Lectures, pp. 9-17 ; and for a good popular statement of the position, The Great Dilemma, by the Rev. H. B. Ottley.
• Lightfoot on ColossianSy p. 209 seq.
• Reference may be permitted to an article on “The two Accounts of our Lord’s Infancy ” in the Expositor, 2nd series, vol. iii. p. 16.
• Swete, The Apostles’ Creed, p. 54. Cf. also Knowling, WUrwss of the Epistles, p. 274 seq. Dr. Swete fully proves op. cU. p. 43 scq.) that the birth from a Virgin formed part of the belief of the Church from the very first, referring not only to Irenaeus (i. x. 1) and Tertullian (Ze Fel. Virg, 1 ; Adv. Prax. 2 ; De Prmcript. 13), but also to Justin Martyr Apol. I. xxi. xxii. xxxii. xxxiii. Ixiii. ; Dial, xliil xlviii. c), Aristides, and Ignatius Eph. 19, Trail. 9, Smym. 1).
• See Oxeiiham’s Catholic Doctrine of tfic Atonement, p. 126, and cf. p 167.
• See Norris’s Hudivieyits of Theology, p. 274 seq,
• See Oxenham’s Catholic Doctrine ofthcAtonementj p. 126, and cf. p 167.
• See Norris’s JiudivierUs of Theology , p. 274 seq.