THE PERSON OF CHRIST

Our historical approach to the subject of Christology shows that the doctrine of the Person of Christ has not always been properly limited and defined. We have seen that a sharp distinction must be made between the two ""natures" and the one ""Person," and that there must be neither a division of the person nor a confusion of the natures. We have seen, also, that the Church through its councils sought to carefully guard the orthodox teaching from heretical opinions - the Chalcedonian Christology, and the Athanasian or Third Ecumenical Creed being the authoritative conciliar statements. The right faith according to the Athanasian symbol is That our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the substance of the Father; begotten before the worlds: and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world; perfect God, and perfect Man: of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; equal to the Father, as touching His Godhead: and inferior to the Father, as touching His Manhood; Who although He be God and Man: yet He is not two but one Christ; One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh: but by taking the Manhood into God; One altogether, not by confusion of substance: but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man: so God and Man is one Christ. The doctrine, therefore, involves the following truths which must be given proper consideration, (I) The Deity of Christ; (II) The Manhood of Christ; (III) The Unity of Christ's Person; and (IV) The Diversity of the Two Natures.

THE DEITY OF CHRIST

The deity of the Son, as eternal in the essence of the Godhead, was considered at length in our discussion of the Trinity; now we have to do with a consideration of the deity of the Son in the Person of Christ. Two avenues of approach to this subject are found in the history of doctrine - the textual and the historical. The textual method approaches the subject through the numerous proof texts, classified in various ways but usually including those scriptures which refer to His Divine Titles, Divine Attributes, Divine Acts and Divine Worship. With its many advantages, this method has one distinct disadvantage - the reliance upon proof texts is always open to the objection that they may be interpreted in a wrong manner by those whose minds are biased or prejudiced against the proper deity of Christ. It is the historical method, however, by which men have been convinced of the supernatural character of Christ and have been led to the persuasion that He is very God. This is the method of the Gospels, and any attentive reader may share the wonderment of the disciples, their insight and their conclusions as to the deity of their Lord. Dr. Johnson points out that any idea formed of Christ in this manner, "will neither be wavering nor vague, but as our conception of His personality grows clear and firm, insight into His nature deepens, and His divinity is revealed before our eyes" (Johnson, Outline of Systematic Theology, pp. 159, 160). Rothe likewise points out the necessity of apprehending the divine nature of Christ from the study of the picture of His human life. ""To speak of recognizing and acknowledging the divine element in Christ," he says, "without having observed it shine forth from what is human in Him, or having caught its reflection in the mirror of His humanity, is merely to bandy idle words." We shall not attempt, therefore, any elaborate system of proof texts in this connection, but will refer the reader to the collation of scriptures concerning the deity of Christ, which has already been furnished in connection with our discussion of the Trinity. It is sufficient here to consider only those points which involve the incarnation and its relation to the redemptive work of Christ.

The Pre-existence of Christ. The Church in all ages has affirmed the doctrine of the true deity of Christ, and hence His eternal existence - the Messiah of the Old Testament, and the Christos of the New Testament. Was Jesus of Nazareth the Christ? Did the Christ of the Gospels have an eternal personal existence before His birth of the Virgin Mary? If so, what was the nature of this existence? Did He exist as man or as God? If the latter, did He exist as the sole God - a simple and absolute personal unity; or did He exist as one of the essential and infinite Persons of the Triune Godhead? The Holy Scriptures and the conciliar actions of the Church, both affirm that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus speaking of Himself said, Before Abraham was, I am (John 8:58); and No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven (John 3:13). Isaiah called Him the everlasting Father (Isa. 9:6), and St. Paul declares that he is before all things, and by him all things consist (Col. 1:17).

The mere fact of existence, however, does not necessarily carry with it the evidence of deity. It does not furnish a proof against Arianism which maintains that Christ was of like essence with the Father, but no identical in essence and therefore not truly God. Nor does the fact of pre-existence furnish proof against the modern so-called "idealistic theories." One of these theories maintains that Christ's pre-existence was only ideal - an impersonal principle or potency, which became personalized in Jesus. Another of these theories maintains that Christ was not an eternal being, but a premundane, created being, a perfect spiritual image of God and the prototype of humanity. Thus Pfleiderer, who held that Christ existed in another form previous to His earthly state, regarded this pre-existence not as an abstract, impersonal principle, but as a concrete personality, an image of God and thus a created Son of God. But this

[Whenever the attempt is made to bring Christology to a logical conclusion, and formulate it, the difficulty of avoiding Ebionism or Docetism, Nestorianism or Monophysitism, which stand on either side like Scylla and Charybdis, will present itself, and the history of doctrines will require, to defend itself against the attacks of various forms of heresy, the manner best suited to repel the antagonizing error. The reason for this fact does not, however, lie in the doctrine itself, with its infinite significance, but in the human limitations which affect the dogmatics of each particular age. - Crooks and Hurst, Encycl. and Meth., p. 431.]

pre-existent Christ he did not regard as true deity in any sense, but as man - a pre-existent "spiritual" man. It is evident that these theories are closely related to ancient Arianism, and must therefore be classified among the forms of modern Unitarianism. The fact of preexistence does, however, refute Socinianism and all the purely humanitarian conceptions of Christ.

The Holy Scriptures teach, and the Church has believed that the pre-existent One was none other than the eternal Son of God, the second Person of the Trinity. Christology is, therefore, vitally related to Trinitarianism. "The anti-Trinitarian movements of recent times," says Dorner, "have made it perfectly clear that there consequently remains only the choice either to think of God in a Unitarian manner, and in that case to see even Jesus as a mere man; or if He is supposed to be the God-man, to hold eternal distinction in God, and therefore undertake to prove that the unity of God is quite consistent with such distinctions" (Dorner, Syst. Chr. Doct., I, p. 415). This the Church does by maintaining that in the Trinity there are three Persons subsisting in one divine essence or nature; and that it was not that which was common to the three persons who assumed our human nature, but that which marks the distinctions in the Trinity. It was not the Godhead which became incarnate, but one of the persons of the Godhead. It was not the Father or the Spirit who became incarnate, but the Son - the Second Person of the Trinity. The preexistent One, therefore, is not a mere abstraction or idealization; He is not a pre-existent creature, whether human or divine; He is "the only begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made." The Church finds its ground for this position in the Holy Scriptures. The classic passage is found in the prologue to John's Gospel (John 1:1-5), In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. Here the Word or Logos is identified with Jesus, and to the description of this Logos the whole Gospel is devoted. This Logos was eternal - He existed in the beginning. But in the eternal world He was not alone, He was proV ton qeon, existing with God, whom as the incarnate Word He came to reveal. Furthermore, this Logos was not only eternal, existing in the beginning with God, but He was God. The locus classicus of St. Paul is to be found in his Epistle to the Philippians, where he distinctly declares that Christ, prior to His existence on earth as Jesus of Nazareth, existed to all eternity "in the form of God," and ""equal with God" (Phil. 2:5). Likewise, also, the Epistle to the Hebrews places Christ as the Son above the angels (Heb. 1:5); and furthermore identifies the priestly office as coeternal with the Son himself. Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec (Heb. 5:6). As the priesthood was considered to have no end, neither did it have a beginning. The two were coeternal - the Sonship and the priesthood.

Christ was the Jehovah of the Old Testament. The deity of Christ finds abundant support in the Old Testament Scriptures, as previously pointed out in our discussion of the Trinity. In order, however, to show the continuity of the redemptive mission of the Son, it seems necessary to point out the fulfillment of two prophetic utterances concerning the Messiah. The first is the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the New Covenant. It will be recalled, that the Mosaic law was given by the dispensation of angels, referring more especially to the ""angel of Jehovah," who was at once servant and Lord, angel and Jehovah; and that this law was given in His own name (Exod. 23:20, 21). Later Moses declared that The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken (Deut. 18:15). Still later Jeremiah prophesied saying, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt (Jer. 31:31, 32). The first of these prophecies was specifically declared by Stephen in his last address, to have been fulfilled in Christ; and he refers also to the law given by the dispensation of angels, a subject which receives its full development by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews in his discussion of the New Covenant (Cf. Acts 7:53 with Heb. 8:6-13, 10:16-18). Closely related to this, but referring more specifically to the temple than to the covenant, is the prophecy of Malachi. Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in; behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts (Mal. 3:1). As the Lord of a temple is the Deity to whose worship it is consecrated, the act of our Lord in entering the temple makes it evident that He was the Jehovah of the Old Testament to whom it was consecrated.

The Unique Claims of Jesus for Himself. The highest testimony to the deity of Christ must, of necessity, be His own claims. If it be argued that a man's claims for himself are worthless, it must be answered that this depends upon the prior question as to who the man is. This was the objection of the Pharisees who said to Jesus, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, Vet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go....It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me (John 8:13-18). It is possible here to enumerate only a few of the claims of Jesus - one of the most profound subjects that can engage the mind of man. Jesus claimed for Himself, (1) the possession of divine attributes, such as eternity (John 8:58, 17:5), omnipotence (Matt. 28:20, 18:20, John 3:13), omniscience (Matt. ii 27, John 2:23-25, 21:17), and omnipresence (Matt. 18:20, John 3:13). (2) He claimed, and manifested the power to work miracles, or to empower others to perform wonderful works (Matt. 10:8, ii 5, 14:19-21, 15:30, 31, Mark 6:41-44, Luke 8:41-56, 9:1,

2). (3) He claimed divine prerogatives, such as being Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28); the power to forgive sins and to speak as God or for God (Matt. 9:2-6, Mark 2:5-12, Luke 5:20-26). (4) He claimed to know the Father in a direct and perfect manner, as no other being can; (Matt. 11:27, Luke 10:22) and to be the Son of God in a unique manner (Matt. 10:32, 33, 16:17, 27). (5) He spoke words of infinite wisdom, for He spake as never man spake. (6) He accepted the homage of worship (Matt. 14:33). And (7) He claimed to be the final judge of all men (Matt. 7:21-23, 13:41-43, 19:28, 25:31-33, Mark 14:62, Luke 9:26, 26:69, 70).

THE MANHOOD OF CHRIST

Christ became incarnate in a manner that made Him man. The Scriptures tell us that the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (John 1:14); and that as children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same (Heb. 2:14). We must, then, regard His human nature as true and entire, admitting no defect in any of its essential elements, nor acquiring any additions by virtue of its conjunction with Deity. Furthermore, our Lord's human nature was assumed under conditions which properly belong to man, and underwent a process of development in common with other men, sin only excepted. Hence in Him development was natural and normal, being free from the bias of inherited depravity or the blighting influence of

[Here the prophet describes the coming Messiah, not only as the messenger of the covenant, but also as the Lord and Owner of the Jewish temple; and consequently, as a divine prince or governor - he shall "come to his temple." The Lord of any temple is the divinity to whose worship it is consecrated. The temple at Jerusalem of which the prophet here speaks, was consecrated to the true and living God; and we have therefore the express testimony of Malachi that the Christ, the Deliverer, whose coming he announced, was no other than the Jehovah of the Old Testament. - Raymond, Chr. Theology, p. 194.]

sin. For this reason He is called the ""Son of man" the perfect realization of the eternal idea of mankind.

The Human Nature of Christ. The Incarnation did not mean merely the assumption of a human body; for human nature does not consist in the possession of a body only, but in the possession of body and soul. Two facts stand out clearly. First, our Lord had a human body. This was at first denied by the Docetæ on the ground that matter is essentially evil, but this heresy soon disappeared. The Scripture proofs of His human nature are many and varied. There is the account of His birth, His circumcision, His visit to the temple, His baptism and temptation (Matt. 2:1 - 4:11, Luke 2:1 - 4:13). He was hungry (Matt. 4:2), thirsty (John 19:28), and weary (John 4:6). We are told of His bodily pain and of His bloody sweat in the garden (Luke 22:44); of His sinking under the weight of the cross (Luke 23:26); of the piercing of His hands and feet, His agony on the cross, His death and burial (Matt. 27:33-66, Mark 15:22-47, Luke 23:33-56, John 19:16-42). Second, our Lord had a human soul. The evidence for this is regarded as almost equally conclusive. It was called in question by Apollinarius, who substituted the divine Logos in place of the human soul; and it has appeared in various forms from time to time, but has never been an accepted doc-

[There are several ancient accounts of the personal appearance of our Lord, but none of them can be accounted thoroughly trustworthy. The first is reported to be composed by Publius Lentulus, a Roman officer; while another, discovered by Tischendorf, is said to have been written by Epiphanius in Greek. We give the first only as translated from the Latin. "A man of tall stature, good appearance, and a venerable countenance, such as to inspire beholders with love and awe. His hair, worn in a circular form and curled, rather dark and shining, flowing over the shoulders, and parted in the middle of the head, after the style of the Nazarenes. His forehead, smooth and perfectly serene, with a face free from wrinkle or spot, and beautiful with a moderate ruddiness, and a faultless nose and mouth. His beard full, of an auburn color like his hair, not long but parted. His eyes quick and clear. His aspect terrible in rebuke, placid and amiable in admonition, cheerful without losing its gravity: a person never seen to laugh, but often to weep" (For both accounts Cf. Potts, Faith Made Easy, pp. 206, 207).

Find us a better answer to the questionings of our spirits than Christ has furnished! Show us a better ideal of manhood than He has given! Bring us a better testimony to the life beyond the grave than He has borne! Ah! for four thousand years the world has tried in vain to return to God, and now that He has come Himself to be the way, we wifi not give him up for any negation. - William M. Taylor, D.D.]

trine of the Church. In anticipation of His passion, Jesus said to His disciples, Now is my soul [yuxh] troubled (John 12:27); and again in the garden, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death (Matt. 26:38). Jesus said of Himself, I am meek and lowly in heart (Matt. 11:29) and He rejoiced in spirit (Luke 10:21) when the disciples returned from their successful mission. Christ, therefore, had a human soul as well as a human body. To deny that the attributes, acts and experiences natural to a human soul are not evidences of a complete humanity is to lay the ground for a denial of His deity, as based on the divine acts, attributes and names ascribed to Him.

The Sinlessness of Christ. There was no original sin in Christ. Inherited depravity is the result of a natural descent from Adam; but Christ's birth was miraculous and hence He was born without the natural or inherited corruption which belongs to other men. Having God alone as His Father, the birth of Christ was not a birth out of sinful human nature, but a conjoining of human nature with Deity which in the very act sanctified it. Sin is a matter of the person, and since Christ was the preexistent Logos, the Second Person of the adorable Trinity, He was as such, not only free from sin but from the possibility of sin. Christ was, from His birth, perfect in His relation to His heavenly Father, and absolutely free from the sinful bias which characterizes every natural son of Adam. Christ was also free from actual sin. He did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth (1 Peter 2:22). His earthly life was free from fault or blemish. As a child He was filial and obedient (Luke 2:51); as a youth, respectful and docile (Luke 2:52); and as a man was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens (Heb. 7:26).

But Christ was made also in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3). The best expositors have always agreed that this passage means that Christ's flesh is like that which in us is sinful. ""Neither the Greek nor the argument requires that the flesh of Christ shall be regarded as sinful flesh, though it is His flesh, His incarnation, which brought Him into contact with sin (SANDAY, Com. on Romans). We may argue, with sin (Sanday-Headlam, Com. on Romans). We may argue, with Debose, that since the holiness of Jesus Christ was by Holy Ghost, in Him, and not merely in His nature, He therefore the cause of His own holiness and His sinlessness was His own (Cf. Dubose, Soteriology of the New Testament). The mystery is that Christ should take our nature in such a manner, that while without He bore the consequences of our sin. Furthermore, Christ had immortality in Himself. In him was life (John

1:4). This right to the immortality of His body He surrendered and of Himself laid down His life, that He might take it again. And while we may say that Christ, being divine Son incarnate and not born after the manner other men, was lifted above all those infirmities which exist in man as a consequence of sin, yet He voluntarily made Himself the partaker of human weaknesses and infirmities, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath Fered being tempted, he is able to succour them that tempted (Heb. 2:17, 18).

THE UNITY OF CHRIST'S PERSON

We have considered the scriptural proofs of the deity of Christ, and of His perfect manhood, and must now give attention to the union of these two natures in one person. S union was effected by the incarnation; and the result is a theanthropic person, or God-man, (who unites in Himself all the conditions of both the divine and the human existence. This one personality is the pre-existent Logos, or the divine Son, who assumed to Himself human nature, and in this assumption both personalized and redeemed it. Four things are involved in our study, (1) The Nature of the Incarnation; (2) The Hypostatic ion; (3) The Incarnation and the Trinity; and (4) Incarnation as a Permanent Condescension.

The Nature of the Incarnation. The Incarnation in sense in which we shall now consider it, was not rely a stage in the mediatorial ministry of Christ, but the necessary basis of all. As it applies to "the Word made flesh," the incarnation must be distinguished from every form of transubstantiation. The apostle does not teach that the second Person of the Trinity ceased to be God when He became man. The expression is equivalent to saying that Christ came in the flesh, thereby assuming a human nature, that He might enter redemptively into the experiences of men. A scriptural view of the Incarnation involves the following facts. First, it was the Word, or second Person of the Trinity alone who became incarnate. One trinitarian Person may become incarnate, and yet that incarnation will not be of the whole Godhead, because the Godhead represents the divine essence in three modes; and the essence in all three modes did not become incarnate. Since the whole essence or divine nature exists in each of the three modes, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we may say that when the Son became incarnate, there dwelt in Him all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, but only in the mode of the second Person, or the divine Son. Second, the Incarnation was the union of a divine Person with human nature and not with a human person. The human nature which He assumed acquired personality by its union with Him. The Redeemer is therefore said to have laid hold on "the seed [sperma] of Abraham" (Heb. 2:16); and further, was known both as the ""seed of the woman" (Gen. 3:15), and the ""seed of David" (Rom. 1:3). These expressions can only mean that the nature our Lord as-

[While the Incarnate Person is the God-man, or manifestation of God in the flesh, the divine personality is only that of the Son, the second Person in the Trinity. As a distinct Person in the Godhead He brings the entire divine nature into humanity, and continues His eternal personality through all the processes of His development and mediatorial work forever - Pope, Chr. Th., II, p. 113.

The full truth of the Incarnation is not contained in the notion of a union of the divine nature, simply as such, with the human nature. The subject of the Incarnation was not a mere nature, but a person - the personal Son. The divine nature is common to the persons of the Trinity: therefore any limitation of the Incarnation to the divine nature would deny to the Son any distinct or peculiar part therein. This would contradict the most open and uniform sense of Scripture. The Father and the Holy Spirit had no such part in the Incarnation as the Son. Nor could any union of the divine nature, simply as such, with the human nature give the profound truth and reality of the incarnation. It could mean nothing for the unique personality of Christ; nothing for the reality and sufficiency of the atonement. - Miley, Syst. Th., II, p. 17.]

sumed was as yet not individualized. Christ's human nature was not impersonal except in this sense - it was not personalized out of the race by natural birth, but by becoming a constituent factor of the one theanthropic Person. Third, the body which the Son assumed was prepared for Him by the Holy Ghost. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me (Heb. 10:5). The Son in the trinitarian sense, is the "only begotten" of the Father; but He is also that "holy thing" which was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary. The Socinians supposed that some of the elements of His body were furnished by the Virgin, and some by the Holy Spirit, hence He was called the Son of God. Bishop Pearson says, that "As He was so made of the substance of the Virgin, so was He not made of the substance of the Holy Ghost, whose essence cannot at all be made. And because the Holy Ghost did not beget Him by communication of His essence, therefore He is not the father of Him, though He were conceived by Him. There were no material elements in the person of Christ except those He received from her." "There is nothing on which the Scripture is more explicit than this," says Dr. Summers, "that as His divinity was begotten without a mother, from eternity, so His humanity was begotten without a father. He was conceived by the Holy Ghost: not by any communication of His essence, as in human paternity, but by a miraculous operation which enabled the Virgin to perform the functions of maternity, and be a virgin still" (Summers, Syst. Th., I, p. 203).

The Hypostatic Union. The union of the divine and human natures in Christ is a personal one - that is, the union lies in their abiding possession of a common Ego or inner Self, that of the eternal Logos. In theology, this is termed the hypostatical union, and is derived from the use of the word hypostasis, a term which marks the distinction between personal subsistences in the Godhead, and their common substance or essence. The two natures meet and have communion with each other, solely through the self which is common to both. The term is understood, therefore, to guard against two errors - that of a confusion of the two natures in a third essence, neither divine nor human; and that of a loose conjunction or affiliation of natures which may be considered in separation from each other. The possession of the two natures does not involve a double personality, for the ground of the person is the eternal Logos and not the human nature. Christ, therefore, uniformly speaks of Himself in the singular person. Always and everywhere, the Agent is one. There is never any interchange of the "I" and the "thou" as in the Trinity. The varying modes of consciousness pass quickly from the divine to the human, but the Person is always the same. Hence He says, I and my Father are one (John 10:30), and again, I thirst (John 19:28). In the first instance, the form of the consciousness is divine; in the latter, human. Frequently there are passages where the person is designated by a divine title, and yet human attributes are ascribed to Him, such as feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28); He spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all (Rom. 8:32); had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (I Cor. 2:8); and in whom we have redemption through his blood (Col. 1:14). Divine attributes are also predicated of the person designated by a human title. No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven (John 3:13); What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before (John 6:62); and Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing (Rev. 5:12).

The Incarnation and the Trinity. The question sometimes arises as to the relation existing between the Incarnation and the Trinity. Prior to the Incarnation the Trinity consisted of the Father, the unincarnate Son (logoV asarkoV ) and the Holy Spirit; subsequent to the Incarnation, it consisted of the Father, the incarnate Son (logoV ensarkoV ) and the Holy Spirit. But the incarnation makes no change in the Trinity, for the Son's assumption of human nature is not the addition of another Person to Him. The second Person of the Trinity was modified by the Incarnation, but the Trinity was not so modified; for neither the Father nor the Spirit became divine-human Persons. In becoming man, the Son remained God, for He still subsisted in the divine nature.

The Incarnation as a Permanent Condescension. The union of the two natures in the one theanthropic Person is indissoluble and eternal. Marvelous as it may seem, and mysterious beyond compare, our Lord took His human nature with Him into the depths of the Godhead. In His ascension, He carried His glorified humanity to the throne of God. ""He became man once for all: our manhood is a vesture which he will not fold and lay aside. Immanuel is His name forever." His glorified human nature is now united with the eternal Son, so that the God-man is the middle Person of the Trinity. For

[We must consider that the divine nature did not assume a human person, but the divine Person did assume a human nature; and that of the three divine Persons, it was neither the first nor the third that did assume this nature, but it was the middle person who was to be the middle one (mediator) that must undertake the mediation between God and us. For if the fullness of the Godhead should have thus dwelt in any human person, there should have been added to the Godhead a fourth kind of person; and if any one of the three persons besides the second had been born of a woman, there should have been two Sons in the Trinity. Whereas, now, the Son of God and the Son of the blessed virgin, being but one Person, is consequently but one Son; and so no alteration at all made in the relations of the persons to the Trinity. - Usher, Incarnation, I, p. 580.

It is the infinite condescension of the Son of God and the glory of man that the union of the two natures in Christ is permanent. He became man once for all: our manhood is a vesture which we will not fold and lay aside. Immanuel is His name forever. This being so, it is scarcely right to speak of our Lord's alliance with our race as a part of His mediatorial humiliation: were it such, His humiliation would never terminate. It is true that the effect of His condescension will never cease. He will be one with mankind to all eternity: as it were expressly to declare this, to keep it in the minds of His people and prevent misconception, that one profound saying was placed on record: "Then shall the Son also himself be subject," or subject himself (I Cor. 15:28). His union with us, which is the same thing as His kingdom or His tabernacle with us, shall have no end. We know Him only as Immanuel. - Pope, Chr. Th., II, pp. 141, 142.]

It is the doctrine of the Church, as definitely formulated in the Chalcedonian symbol, that the union of the two natures in Christ is forever an inseparable one. - Miley, Syst. Th., II, p. 23.]

this reason the Son stands in the closest possible relation to the redemption of mankind, and by His Spirit is ever present to secure the progress of His kingdom. Hence the Scriptures declare of Christ that He is over all, God blessed forever (Rom. 9:5); that in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead, bodily (Col. 2:9); Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and forever (Heb. 13:8); and above all, We have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens (Heb. 4:14, 15).

THE DIVERSITY OF THE TWO NATURES

The Unity of Christ's Person finds its complementary truth in the Diversity of the Two Natures. That the Godhead and the manhood each retains its respective properties and functions, without either alteration of essence or mutual interference is as necessary to a true conception of the Incarnation as is their hypostatic union in Jesus Christ. While the acts and qualities of either the divine or the human nature of Christ may be attributed to the theanthropic Person, it may not be said that they can be attributed to each other. The properties which belong to a nature are necessarily confined to it. A material substance can have only material properties, and an immaterial substance can have only immaterial or spiritual qualities. So, also, human nature can have only human properties, and the divine nature only divine properties. Natures, on the other hand, however heterogeneous, may belong to the same person. Thus, in the Trinity, three Persons or Hypostases subsist in one nature. In man, one person subsists in two natures - one immaterial or spiritual, the other material or physical. In Christ as a theanthropic Being, the one person subsists in two natures - the divine and the human; or, if we analyze more minutely, in three natures - the divine, the spiritual and the physical.

The Chalcedonian Creed. The Chalcedonian statement, previously mentioned in connection with the development of Christology in the Church, furnishes us with a true guide to the orthodox belief concerning the two natures. "This one and same Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son (of God) must be confessed in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably (united) and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and Hypostasis." Dr. Shedd in his "History of Christian Doctrine" (Vol. I, p. 399ff) gives us a somewhat simpler translation as follows: ""He is one Christ, existing in two natures without mixture, without change, without division, without separation - the diversity of the two natures not being at all destroyed by their union in the person." Here the two natures of Christ are not only affirmed, but their relations adjusted to each other in four main points - without mixture (or confusion); without change (or conversion); without division; and without separation. If then we would hold to the orthodox or catholic faith, (1) we must believe that the union of the two natures in Christ does not confuse or mix them in a manner to destroy their distinctive properties. The deity of Christ is as pure deity after the Incarnation as before it; and the human nature of Christ is as pure and simple human nature as that of His mother or of any other human individual - sin excluded. (2) We must reject as unorthodox any theory that would convert one nature into the other, either an absorption of the human nature by the divine as in Eutychianism; or the reduction of the divine nature to the human, as in some of the kenotic theories. (3) We must hold the two natures in such a union that it does not divide the person of Christ into two selves, as in Nestorianism, or such a blending of the two natures into a composite which is neither God nor man as in Apollinarianism. The resultant of the union is not two persons, but one person who unites in Himself the conditions of both the divine and human existence. (4) We must hold to a union of the two natures that is inseparable. The union of humanity with Deity in Christ is indissoluble and eternal. It is a permanent assumption of human nature by the second Person of the Trinity.

The Incarnation and the Redemptive Work of Christ. We have seen that the incarnation is the basic fact in the mediatorial economy; we must now indicate briefly its relation to the redemptive work of Christ. The primary purpose of our Lord's assumption of "flesh and blood" was to provide atonement by sacrificial death. It was the purpose of the Father, that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man (Heb. 2:9). By this death He effected three things - the abolishment of death itself, the reconciliation of offenders, and the propitiation necessary for both. This it is further stated, He accomplished by "taking hold on" or "rescuing" the "seed of Abraham," thereby becoming a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people (Heb. 2:16, 17). Thus the primary purpose of the Incarnation was to provide an atonement. But the "seed of Abraham" refers also to a more remote purpose of the Incarnation. The atonement while perfected in Christ, requires to be applied by the Spirit. By taking to Himself the "seed of Abraham" it is implied that He assumed human nature in its capacity for development, or continuity as a race. Christ was, therefore, a racial man, the true Representative of the human race, and consequently is Himself called "the seed of Abraham," to whom the promises were made. (Gal. 3:16). Hence, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us . . . . that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through

[This passage with its entire context (Heb. 2:10-18) impressively shows that the Incarnation was the way to the cross. Three terms are used, each of great importance. It was to abolish death, by taking his power from its representative and lord, that is, the devil. This, however, required that He should take our flesh in order that He might taste death for every man, and thus deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage: this deliverance being accomplished by His sacrifice of reconciliation, as the words apallaxh and enocoi sufficiently prove. Only as man could He be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God to make expiation for the sins of the people, eiV to ilaskesqai. In order to accomplish these results - the destruction of death, the reconciliation of the offenders subject to death, and the propitiation required in order to both - He taketh hold of the seed of Abraham: He taketh to Himself epolambanetai humanity, or the blessed with faithful Abraham, and the seed of Abraham my friend. But it was that He might taste of death uper mantoV . - Pope, Chr. Th., II, p. 144.]

Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith (Gal. 3:13, 14). St. Paul expresses this purpose with an ethical emphasis when he declares that he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. Christ then is the "seed" or vital center from which shall spring a redeemed and holy people, characterized by St. Peter as a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people (I Peter 2:9). But this remote purpose is to be succeeded by a final or ultimate purpose. Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him (Eph. 1:9, 10). Here then the Incarnation is related, first, to the finished work of Christ, or the Atonement; second, to the more remote purpose found in the work of the Spirit, or the Administration of Redemption; and third, to the last things, or Eschatology.