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

As the first Article, in assertins’ the being and attributes of the Deity, dwells more immediately on the character which the Scriptures furnish of the first person in the Trinity, this is devoted to the nature of the second person^ and the atonement wrought by him for lost mankind.

De Verba, sive FUio Dei, iferus homojaeiui eat.

Filius, qui est verbum Patris, ab eetemo a Pati*e genitus, verus et setemus Deus ao Patri consubstan- tialis, in utero beatse Yii^nis ex illius substantia naturam humanam assumpsit : ita ut duee naturae, divina et hu- mana, integre atque perfecte in unitete personse fuerint inseparabiliter conjunotee, ex quibus est unus Ghristus, verus Deus et verus homo ; (^ui vere passus est, cruci- hxus, mortuus, et sepultus, ut Patrem nobis reconodiaret, essetque hostia, non tantum pro culpa originifi, verum etiam pro omnibus actualibus hominum peccatis.

10 QUSSTIOirS AND AUfSWSBS OV

2. Do the tdtleis of Father and Son, as applied to the two first persons in the Trinity, indicate any superiority of nature in the one over the other ?

The distmotive appellations F€Uh€r and Son, by which our Lord himself and his Apostles continually designate the unrevealed God whom no man hath seen, and tifie tncarnate Saviour, imply no superiority in the nature of tibe one above that of the other ; but they are merely expressive of that mysterious relationship which exists between tue first and second persons in the Godhead. In its ordinary sense, the term Father may im^j priority qf existence without supe- riority qf nature ; and it is manifest from the whole tenor of the Scriptures that, though the Father is greater than the Son (John xiv. 28.) as touching his manhood, tiiey are otherwise co-eternally and co-equally one; so that what

• we believe of the glory of the Father, the same we believe ’ of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, without any difference ’ or inequality.’ (Commun, Serv.)

3. Whence did St. John adopt the term Logos ?

It has been thought that the term WoBD, as applied to the Son of God by St. John (i. 1.), was boiTowed from the writings of Philo Judseus ; and doubtless there is a striking resemblance between the operations assigned to the Logos by the Platonic philosopher and by the holy evangelist. The Gnostics, however, and other neretics, against whom St. John wrote, had equally adopted the title ; and it is there- fore probable that he applied it to the Son of God, in order to prove that the person so called was not an inferior eman- ation from the Deity, but very and eternal God,

4. Whence is it evident that the Evangelist applies the term to the Son of God ; and is it else- where employed in the same personal acceptation ?

There can be no doubt as to whom the expression is ap- plied, for he forthwith assigns it distinctly to the ’ only be-

• gotten of the Father’ (John i. 14.^ ; and not only is it again employed in the personal sense in the opening of his sLrst Epistie and in the Apocalypse (xix. 11.), but perhaps by St. Luke also in the Preface to his Gospel. In other passages (Heb. iv. 12, 13. James i. 18. 1 Pet. i. 23.), it has also been supposed to have the same meaning, but the interpretation is less apparent.

5. In what sense do you understand the word A6yo9 as applied to Christ ; what reason do you give for the meaning which you assign to it ; and can you illustrate your answer by a reference to the tenets of any antient philosophical sect ?

Some would render it Word, others Seasim ; but the former meaning is certainly more conformable with the lang^uage in which Scripture, from first to last, represents Christ as the channel by which Gtod has revealed his will to mankind. Compare John iii. 34. Heb. i. 2. At Uie same time he is also tne ’ Wisdom which Gtod possessed in the be- ’ ginning of his way’ (Prov. viii. 22.) ; and therefore the term may properly be preserved untranslated, so as to ex- press both the \6yo9 evSioBeTog and the Xoyog voo^optKOQ of the Stoics : i. e. Reason as conceived in thougntf and as embodied in gpeeoh, respectively.

6. What are the opinions of the Church respect- ing the eternal generation of the Son of Grod ?

Christ was necessarily begotten qfthe Father, or he could not be his Son ; and jrom everUutingy or he could not be God, He was however not only begotten, but fiovoyevfjt, onlff’begotten ; and consequently, the Son of God in a re* stnctive sense, excluding any ouier, such as those who are called God’s children by adoption and gprace.

7. Does not the sonship of Christ involve the admission of his divinity I

That the Jews affixed a peculiar and excellent meaning to the eontihip of Christ is manifest : for they sought to kiu him because he called GK)d tov Xciov varepa, and thus made himte^ God fJohn v. 18. x. 33.). He is also very and eternal God, for ne was before the Baptist, and before Abraham, and before the flood, and the worlds were made by him, and he was in glory with the Father before the world was (John i. 1. 16. viii. 50. xvii. 5. Heb. i. 2. 1 Pet. iii. 18.). Hence the beloved disciple calls him o oKriQivot 0606 (1 John V. 20.) ; and he himself has said, * I and the ’ Father are one* (John x. 30.), not elc but ev, indicating perfect identity of substance, nature, and essence.

8. Had not Christ two natures ; and by what designation is the union of these two natures tech- nically known T

The Article asserts the humanity of Christ as well as his divinity ; and the union of the two natures in the person of the incarnate Saviour is known by the name of the Hypos- tatic Union, i. e. the cmnbined mbttanee of two natures in one person without confusion of substance.

9. Does not this union explain many passages in Scripture which would be otherwise unintelli- gible ?

Althoufl^h the character of this union is as utterly incom- prehensible to man’s understanding^ as that of the human soul and body, its reality is not only fully established bv Scripture, but there are many passages in the Bible which can only be explained in accordance with this doctrine. Hence it is, that by a commutation of idioms, God is said to have shed his blood (Acts zx. 280* and the man Christ Jesus to be worshipped by angels (Heb. i. 6.).

10. What were the errors of Nestorius and

Eutychius with respect Co the nature of Christ ; in

what general Council were they condemned ; and in

what terms ?

Nestorius seems to have understood a distinction of per- sons as well as nature in the Son of God and the Son of man, asserting that the Yirffin Mary should not be called Mother

gf Godfiixit Mother qf Christ ; and Eutychius, on the other and, maintained that Christ was not only one person, but had only one nature. Both errors were condemned in the Council of Chalcedon, which taught that Christ was one and the same in two natures, dovyxvTiin, dr^eitTiaQf dStaipi’ row, dxtofuffTutQ.

11. What opposite opLoions have been held re- specting Christ’s Humanity ?

The human nature in Christ consisted of body and soul, as in mankind in general. While some of the early heretics, as the Doceta, denied him a real body, regarding him a man in appearance only ; others, as the Apollinarians, assarted

that his divinity supplied the place of the soul. Heaoe the Athanasian Creed declares him to he not only * perfect * God, but * perfect man, of a reasonable soul and numan ’ flesh subsisting.*

12. Whence does it appear that Christ was per^

feet man, composed of soul and body X

That Christ had a body is manifest from his endurance of the corporeal feelings of hunger and thirst, from the men- tion of his flesh and bones (Luke xxiv. 39.), and other bodily properties. That he enerea^&d in wisdom as well as in stature (Luke ii. 52.), and that he speaks of the wrrom of his soul, are equally proofs that he was endowed with the ^iritual part of man’s nature.

13. Why was it necessary that Christ should he

both God and Man ?

In order to make atonement for the sins of the whole world, it was necessary that Christ should be sinlessy and therefore Crod ; while none but Man could suffer. It was therefore foretold that the seed qf the woman, who 4should bruise the serpenf-e head, should be miraculously conceived and bom of a Virspn (Gen. iii. 16. Isai. viL 14.) ; and ac- cordingly ’ in the nilness of time the Vii^n Maiy was de- ‘liyered of her first-bom son.’ ‘Qod sent forth his son, ’ made of a woman ; and the Word was made flesh, and in ’ all things like imto his brethren, yet without sin.’ (Matt. i. 22, 23. John i. 5. Gal. ix. 4.).

14. Were the sufferings of Christ foretold, and

in what did they consist ; why is it said that he truly

suffered ; and how could he suffer being in his divine

nature impassible f

• The Spirit of Christ which was in the prophets testified ’ beforehand of the suffering of Christ’ (1 Pet. i. 11.) ; and if hunger, thirst, revilines, agonies mental and oodily, Btnpes, insults, and orucinzion are sufferings, Jesus truly 8ufired. It is said truly, because there have been those who maintained that he sttffered in appearance onl : but though in his divine nature he was incapable of suffering, he ’ suffered for us in the flesh’ (1 Pet. iv. 1.) not in his m- passible divinity, but in his passible humanity. His human nature suffered as much as if it were alone; his divine nature as little, as if it had not been present.

14 QUBSTIONS Aim A3XBWEBS OIT

15. Shew that Christ was crueifiedf dead, and

buried.

The crucifixion of Christ is related hy all the four Evan- l^lists ; and that he really expired upon the cross, was manifest not only to his friends but to his enemies. A soldier also ’ pierced his side/ thereby fulfilling a prophecy of Zechariah (xii. 10.), and his death was provea by the re- suIt : — * forthwith came there out blood and water.* His burial also was not only a fulfilment of a most remarkable prediction (Isai. liii. 9.), but a yet more convincing proof of the certainty of his death ; and as such it is minutely re- corded by St. Matthew (xxvii. 60. sqq.).

16. Point out the necessity, nature, and extent, of Christ’s atonement.

Mankind are represented in Scripture as being at enmity with GKd, but reconciled to him by the death of his son. The ceremonies and sacrifices of the Jewish dispensation are emblematical throughout of the at final sacrifice of the Son of God, and of the expiation to be eventually wrought by his blood. Hence it is said that Qod * made ’ him to be sin, that is, a gin-offering, for us, who knew no sin, ’ that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (2 Cor. V. 21.) ; and that ’ he gve his life a ransom for many,” Xorpov dvrl voKKHv, Compare Matt. xx. 28. Eph. ii. 16.. 1 Tim. ii. 6. The redemption thus purchased is moreover universal, iroWHv bein? used for Travrwv, as in many pas- sa of Scripture ; and extends to ever species of guilt, with one exception, both actual and original. See John i. 29. Rom. ▼. 14. 19. 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. Col. i. 21, 22. Heb, ix. 13, U. 26—28. 1 John u. 2.

17. What do you mean by Original Sin ; and what is the sin for which there is no remission ?

See Articles ix. and xvi.

18. What is the testimony which the early

Fathers afford to the doctrines asserted in thiS’

Article t

Justin M. Apol. I. o. 63. The Word, being thejirst begotten of Ood, is also God. Iren. i. 1. 20. Jesus, wlur suffered for us, and dwelt among us, is the Word qf God*

fenatius ad Sipyrn. c. 1. Jems Chri$tf qf the seed qf Viwid a4)cording to tJieJlesh, is God ;—the Son qf God, ae- cording to the will and power qf God, truly bom qf a Virgin, Ad Polycarp. c. 3. Expect him who is htfore aU time, eternal, invisime, vet visible for our sokes; impassible, yet for our saAes passible, Chrysostom de Cruce i-ifot God only, or man only, but both together, IatiuB, ubi supra : — Sis flesh was truly pierced with nails for us, under Pontius Pilate. Justin Martyr, ubi supra i—Jae endured to be set at nought, and to suffer, for those who believe in him, Clem. Alex. Quis dives scUv, c. 37. He cams down from heaven, and was made man ; and being sacrificed for us, and qffer ing himself a* the price qf our 8alvatio7i, he ?tas ft us a new covenant.