Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| He Does Not Yet Fully Understand the Saying of John, that ‘The Word Was Made Flesh.’ PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
Chapter XIX.—He Does Not Yet
Fully Understand the Saying of John, that “The Word Was Made
Flesh.”
25. But I thought differently, thinking only of my
Lord Christ as of a man of excellent wisdom, to whom no man could
be equalled; especially for that, being wonderfully born of a
virgin, He seemed, through the divine care for us, to have attained
so great authority of leadership,—for an example of contemning
temporal things for the obtaining of immortality. But what mystery
there was in, “The Word was made flesh,”557
557 We have already seen, in note 1, sec. 13, above,
how this text (1) runs counter to Platonic beliefs as to the Logos. The following passage from Augustin’s
De Civ. Dei, x. 29, is worth putting on record in this
connection:—“Are ye ashamed to be corrected? This is the vice
of the proud. It is forsooth, a degradation for learned men to pass
from the school of Plato to the discipleship of Christ, who by His
Spirit taught a fisherman to think and to say, ‘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 any thing 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’ (John i.
1–5). The old saint
Simplicianus, afterwards Bishop of Milan, used to tell me that a
certain Platonist was in the habit of saying that this opening
passage of the holy Gospel entitled, ‘According to John,’
should be written in letters of gold, and hung up in all churches
in the most conspicuous place. But the proud scorn to take God for
their Master, because ‘the Word was made flesh and dwelt among
us’ (John i. 14). So that with these miserable
creatures it is not enough that they are sick, but they boast of
their sickness, and are ashamed of the medicine which could heal
them. And doing so, they secure not elevation, but a more
disastrous fall.” This text, too, as Irenæus has remarked, (2)
entirely opposes the false teaching of the Docetæ, who, as
their name imports, believed, with the Manichæans, that Christ
only appeared to have a body; as was the case, they said,
with the angels entertained by Abraham (see Burton’s Bampton
Lectures, lect. 6). It is curious to note here that Augustin
maintained that the Angel of the Covenant was not an anticipation,
as it were, of the incarnation of the Word, but only a created
angel (De Civ. Dei, xvi. 29, and De Trin. iii. 11),
thus unconsciously playing into the hands of the Arians. See
Bull’s Def. Fid. Nic. i. 1, sec. 2, etc., and iv. 3, sec.
14. | I could not even imagine. Only I
had learnt out of what is delivered to us in writing of Him, that
He did eat, drink, sleep, walk, rejoice in spirit, was sad, and
discoursed; that flesh alone did not cleave unto Thy Word, but with
the human soul and body. All know thus who know the
unchangeableness of Thy Word, which I now knew as well as I could,
nor did I at all have any doubt about it. For, now to move the
limbs of the body at will, now not; now to be stirred by some
affection, now not; now by signs to enunciate wise sayings, now to
keep silence, are properties of a soul and mind subject to change.
And should these things be falsely written of Him, all the rest
would risk the imputation, nor would there remain in those books
any saving faith for the human race. Since, then, they were written
truthfully, I acknowledged a perfect man to be in Christ—not the
body of a man only, nor with the body a sensitive soul without a
rational, but a very man; whom, not only as being a form of truth,
but for a certain great excellency of human nature and a more
perfect participation of wisdom, I decided was to be preferred
before others. But Alypius imagined the Catholics to believe that
God was so clothed with flesh, that, besides God and flesh, there
was no soul in Christ, and did not think that a human mind was
ascribed to Him. And, because He was thoroughly persuaded that the
actions which were recorded of Him could not be performed except by
a vital and rational creature, he moved the more slowly towards the
Christian faith. But, learning afterwards that this was the error
of the Apollinarian heretics,558
558 The founder of this heresy was Apollinaris the
younger, Bishop of Laodicea, whose erroneous doctrine was condemned
at the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381.
Note 4, sec. 23, above, on the “trichotomy,” affords help in
understanding it. Apollinaris seems to have desired to exalt the
Saviour, not to detract from His honour, like Arius. Before his
time men had written much on the divine and much on the human side
of our Lord’s nature. He endeavoured to show (see Dorner’s
Person of Christ, A. ii. 252, etc., Clark) in what the two
natures united differed from human nature. He concluded that our
Lord had no need of the human
πνεῦμα, and that its place was supplied by the divine
nature, so that God “the Word,” the body and the ψυχή, constituted the being of the
Saviour. Dr. Pusey quotes the following passages hereon:—“The
faithful who believes and confesses in the Mediator a real human,
i.e. our nature, although God the Word, taking it in a
singular manner, sublimated it into the only Son of God, so that He
who took it, and what He took, was one person in the Trinity. For,
after man was assumed, there became not a quaternity but remained
the Trinity, that assumption making in an ineffable way the truth
of one person in God and man. Since we do not say that Christ is
only God, as do the Manichæan heretics, nor only man, as the
Photinian heretics, nor in such wise man as not to have anything
which certainly belongs to human nature, whether the soul, or in
the soul itself the rational mind, or the flesh not taken of the
woman, but made of the Word, converted and changed into flesh,
which three false and vain statements made three several divisions
of the Apollinarian heretics; but we say that Christ is true God,
born of God the Father, without any beginning of time, and also
true man, born of a human mother in the fulness of time; and that
His humanity, whereby He is inferior to the Father, does not
derogate from His divinity, whereby He is equal to the Father”
(De Dono Persev. sec. ult.). “There was formerly a
heresy—its remnants perhaps still exist—of some called
Apollinarians. Some of them said that that man whom the Word took,
when ‘the Word was made flesh,’ had not the human, i.e.
rational (λογικόν)
mind, but was only a soul without human intelligence, but that the
very Word of God was in that man instead of a mind. They were cast
out,—the Catholic faith rejected them, and they made a heresy. It
was established in the Catholic faith that that man whom the wisdom
of God took had nothing less than other men, with regard to the
integrity of man’s nature, but as to the excellency of His
person, had more than other men. For other men may be said to be
partakers of the Word of God, having the Word of God, but none of
them can be called the Word of God, which He was called when it is
said, ‘The Word was made flesh’ ” (in Ps.
xxix., Enarr. ii. sec. 2). “But when they reflected that,
if their doctrine were true, they must confess that the
only-begotten Son of God, the Wisdom and Word of the Father, by
whom all things were made, is believed to have taken a sort of
brute with the figure of a human body, they were dissastisfied with
themselves; yet not so as to amend, and confess that the whole man
was assumed by the wisdom of God, without any diminution of nature,
but still more boldly denied to Him the soul itself, and everything
of any worth in man, and said that He only took human flesh”
(De 83, Div. Quæst. qu. 80). Reference on the
questions touched on in this note may be made to Neander’s
Church History, ii. 401, etc. (Clark); and Hagenbach,
History of Doctrines, i. 270 (Clark). | he rejoiced in the Catholic faith,
and was conformed to it. But somewhat later it was, I confess, that
I learned how in the sentence, “The Word was made flesh,” the
Catholic truth can be distinguished from the falsehood of
Photinus.559 For the
disapproval of heretics makes the tenets of Thy Church and sound
doctrine to stand out boldly.560
560 Archbishop Trench’s words on this sentence in the
Confessions (Hulsean Lectures, lect. v. 1845) have a
special interest in the present attitude of the Roman
Church:—“Doubtless there is a true idea of scriptural
developments which has always been recognised, to which the great
Fathers of the Church have set their seal; this, namely, that the
Church, informed and quickened by the Spirit of God, more and more
discovers what in Holy Scripture is given her; but not this, that
she unfolds by an independent power anything further therefrom. She
has always possessed what she now possesses of doctrine and truth,
only not always with the same distinctness of consciousness. She
has not added to her wealth, but she has become more and more aware
of that wealth; her dowry has remained always the same, but that
dowry was so rich and so rare, that only little by little she has
counted over and taken stock and inventory of her jewels. She has
consolidated her doctrine, compelled to this by the challenges and
provocation of enemies, or induced to it by the growing sense of
her own needs.” Perhaps no one, to turn from the Church to
individual men, has been more indebted than was Augustin to
controversies with heretics for the evolvement of truth. | For there must be also heresies,
that the approved may be made manifest among the weak.561
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|