De incarnatione Verbi Dei, together with three essays subsidiary to the same

Front matter

m

m

I i chap. Copxgghyroj_..„_

Chapter I

The Incarnation, being the complement of all natural truths and ideals, in Nature, and in man; and that both individually, and racially; must also be, and is the vital heart of Christianity.

Chapter II

Is, then, the Supreme Mystery; only comparable, even in a measure, to the incomprehensible "modification" that certainly took place at Prime Creation — ''A priori" objections either "Deistic" or "Theological." — Their several consideration, and refutation.

— The Incarnation a "local manifestation" — Illustrative analogies.

Chapter III

Heretical theories considered, and confuted — Gnosticism, and Doketism — Arianism — Apollinarianism — Nestorianism — Eutychianism — Monophysitism — Theory of Gess, and Godet

— Monothelitism — Adoptionism.

The Catholic doctrine of Chalcedon — The "Hypostatic Union" — The humanity "impersonal;" and, therefore, "never to be divided."

Chapter IV

The Logos, being the "Archetypal Man," He, and He only, both could, and should be Incarnate in man — As He could not have been in an animal, or an angel.

The Virgin Birth, its necessity, nature, and "secretness."

Chapter V

The "Kenosis," not an abrogation of Essence, but a "local limitation" — Our Lord's passibility, ''ignorance," and growth — Yet His humanity perfect — And, therefore, inerrant, and im-

(vii;

viii ANALYTICAL SUMMARY

peccable — Relation of temptation to humanity, and its resistance — Christ, then, could be tempted; but could not sin — The "Two Wills" of our Lord.

Chapter VI

Christ our "Example;" for He lived as "Very Man" — His Inspiration by the Holy Spirit — His prayers, and the several varieties of prayer — The Agony in Gethsemane; and Cry upon the Cross.

Chapter VII

The Atonement, and its corporate nature — The "descent into Hell" — The estate of the dead — The Resurrection; and the "spiritual body."

Chapter VIII

The Ascension, and Session — The Priesthood of our Lord, His gift of the Holy Spirit, His Church, and her Sacraments, all dependent on His Manhood. — The Incarnation, therefore, a primary intention, even apart from the "fall."

The Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation is, then, coherent and logical, and is also in agreement with all known facts — Some instances of this — Conclusion.

NOTE 14. ON THE " LOCAL MANIFESTATION.

Illustrative quotations from the Fathers and Schoolmen — Neglect of the doctrine of late years — ''Communicatio idiomatum" a misleading phrase.

NOTE 31. ON THE HYPOSTATIC UNION IN CHRIST.

Distinction between the Trinitarian and the Christological "hypostasis."

ANALYTICAL SUMMARY ix

THREE SUBSIDIARY ESSAYS

Erroneous identification of "Sin" with "Sensuousness" — Leading to Dualism — And Buddhistic Nihilism — And again appearing in Puritanism.

Sin, not material, but spiritual — And is a "falling short," in spite of, and in opposition to Divine guidance — Is, therefore, illogical, hateful, and damning — Bearing of all this upon the doctrine of the Incarnation.

Spirit ctnb ITtatter.

Theories concerning the inter-relation — Dualism — Materialism — -

Idealism — Pantheism.

The Catholic theory — "Matter" simply a "catena of phenomena" — But yet possesses an objective origin — Which origin we can only conceive of as "Spirit" — An analysis of our personality — The Ultimate Prime Origin, then, is the Absolute Spirit — Who must, at the least, be Personal. — Summary — Bearing of all this upon the doctrine of the Incarnation.

Oje Primary Criterion of Crutfy,

We can, and do know truth; not absolutely, but relatively. — For both our intellectual "prime data," and the testimonies of our senses, are, and must be valid — Objections to these statements refuted.

Se 3ncamatiom Perbt Set

Chapter I

HE glorious fact of the Incarnation — that the Logos of God took our nature upon Him, and became man, — this fact, I say, is not only the central and vital one of Christianity, differentiating it from all other faiths, and being the radiating source of all its teaching and Sacramental grace, but it is also the crown and complement to the truths of Natural Religion and Philosophy, — the point towards which they all tend, and in which, and in which alone, they find their satisfaction and fulfillment.

And this, indeed, must be so ; for He, Who was there made manifest, is the Creator and Upholder of the Universe — the '• Logos," in Whom " all things consist ; " — and the being, therefore, and ultimate reason of all things, must, of necessity, so center in, and only be knowable through Him.

And yet furthermore : this inherence of all things in our Lord, as the " Logos," is not only theoretically, but also actually true ; for the more closely we study the prime laws of being, both as we may observe them in Nature, and especially as we may learn them in the depths of our own individuality, and yet again discover them by observation in the souls of our fellowmen (thus proving them to be, not mere personal idiosyncrasies, but undoubtedly basic elements of humanity), the more closely, I say, we study these prime laws of being, the more will we also be struck by their (so to speak) incomplete and prophetic character ; or in other words, by the testimony that they bear, if we will but hearken, to that Logos Who is ever Immanent in them, and Who has also been explicitly revealed to us as the Incarnate Christ of God.

Thus, considering first the vast Universe around us, we find everywhere the reign of order and of reason : all our science, all our knowledge, and our very capability for existence itself, is ultimately based upon this fundamental fact, namely that the world is no fortuitous and illogical chaos — a causeless " concourse of atoms ; " — but is, on the contrary, an orderly and logical Cosmos, which we, as intelligent beings, are able, in some measure, to comprehend. To use, then, philosophical language, we may say that the underlying "noumena" of all things are " ideas," or \6yoi of God; which X6yoi y again, are ever i (i)

grouped under wider and higher categories, until at last they finally center in Him Who is, in an especial manner, " the Supreme'* Aoyoe, of God — the "Express Image" of the Father, and " First born of every creature."

Then, turning from this Cosmos around us to the depths of our own being, we again find this same centering in, and pointing upwards of our nature to Him : for we, each and all, philosopher, or savage, find both ourselves, and our fellows in general, to be possessed of certain primal intuitions, or axioms of truth —sensational, intellectual, moral, and religious ; — axioms that we have in no sense acquired, but have, on the contrary, universally inherited as the essential marks of our being. 1 Such, for instance, are those sensational axioms that give us the certainty of the existence of an external "Non-ego " — the Universe around us ; — such, again, are those axioms of intellectual truth — mathematical or logical, — that give us the capabilities of reasoning, and of knowledge ; and such, still again, are those axiomatical laws of the conscience, and those spiritual intuitions, that give us the truths of morality, and of Natural Religion.

Now all these axioms are, I repeat, innate and universal; and must therefore be accepted and used as undoubtedly true and valid, if we are to have any foundation, not only for our religion, or morality, or even for our thought, but also, as I have said, for our very existence itself.

And yet as we carefully study, as far as may be, these necessary and basic laws of our being, we are continually confronted with the fact that they are not complete in themselves — are not self-satisfied, and self explanatory, — but that they, equally with the"Ao^oz" of Nature, point forward to an ideal knowledge and experience (i. e. of their " Logos ") that ought to be, and must be attained. For the axioms of the intellectual, and even of the sensational nature, all demand a Great Prime Cause — a Creator and God of all; — and even more clearly do the instincts of the conscience, and of the spiritual intuitions, cry out for Him.

But if this be true of the individual soul, no less is it also true of the organic consciousness of our Race. For who, with the record of history before him, can deny that men, in all ages, have ever sought after their God — sought Him by religions and philosophies innumerable — sought Him through bitter agony and toil — sought Him, even despite of their ever present sense of their own sinfulness and of judgment — if only they might find Him for Whom their souls did yearn. The saying of St. Augustine " cor nostrum inquietum est donee requiescat in Te [Conf. lib. i, cap. i]," is, then, abundantly true ; and St. Philip

(i) That there are any such "prima data," and faculties for reasoning, inherited, and not personally acquired, is disputed by many psychologists ; yet surely, in the first place, all reasoning, and therefore the acquiring of experience itself, necessitates some "prime data" for the mind ; and secondly, are not these '"prima data"— these '•innate powers"— the very qualities that give us, as I state in the text, our essential being itself? They are not, therefore, in any sense, extra gifts to the man, concerning the possession of which there might reasonably be doubts; but are rather the essential qualities of his Ego qua Ego. " Est Deus in nobis, agitante calescimus illo."

in his cry to the Christ, " Lord, show us the Father'' (St. John, xiv, 8), was but voicing" humanity's deepest need.

The knowledge, then, of God — the Great Father of all — is imperatively demanded, both by Nature, as its Creator and Reason, and by our own being, as our Enlightener and Guide ; and yet that Father — that great Prime Cause of all, — because Primal and Infinite, must, in His Essence, be ever unknowable to man ; and even in His relations to us as the Creator and Upholder of Nature, and of our own being, He can be but dimly and uncertainly apprehended; for our intellects are so finite, and our knowledge of things, necessarily, so partial and imperfect, that men have ever been tempted to think of their God, rather as an Irresistible Fatality, or even as an Irresponsible Despot, than as a loving Father of all.

As the Inspirerof our souls — the Logos- Giver of instinctive " light " — He can, it is true, be more freely and fully known ; and that both because He is, in some measure, manifesting Himself to us therein as the True and the Holy; and is therefore, again, also more personally related to us. More personally related, I say, for His relation to us as the Creator is, evidently, more impersonal and non-individual in its character, than His relation to us as the Logos " Lightener " of our souls; for in the latter case we stand to Him rather as one taught does to his Teacher; but in the former case — or in creation — rather as a phenomenon (so to speak) does to its " Noumenal Reality " and Creator.

We can, then, know Him both more freely, and more fully, as the " Lightener and Inspirer" of our souls; and yet even this Divinity working in the soul, no less than the Divinity working in the world, can only be certainly known to man — can only, in other words, rise from being a mere philosophical theorem, to the place of an absolute and undoubted fact — by reason of that supreme revelation of our God, made to us in His Incarnation: for from that manifestation we first learn to think of Him, not so much as Power (for that we know before), nor yet as Wisdom (for that, too, Nature could teach us), but as Love, Tender and Infinite; and that is a lesson by no means clear from Natural Religion.

To use, then, the words of our Lord's reply to Philip " he that hath seen Me " — the Incarnate Logos of God — he, and he only, "hath seen the Father."

True, even before Christ came, men could, in some measure, feel and recognizing this Divine indwelling (vide Acts xiv, 17; and xvii, 27, 28); and were thereby, as I have said, moved to seek after Him, by their religions, and their philosophies, if haply they might find Him. Yet it was not, I repeat, until that supreme revelation of our God made to us in Christ, that men had any certain clue through the labyrinth of being; their philosophies, therefore, before that time, and still more their religions, were, at the best, but tentative, partial, and uncertain; and contained, even under the most favorable conditions, more or less of extraneous and hurtful admixture. 2

But when Wisdom came unto His own, all that was best and purest in those heathen philosophies and religions — Pythagorean, Magian, Stoic, and Platonic — was fulfilled and completed in Him; so that the truly religious man, or philosopher, became now the true Christian, and brought the treasures of his wisdom to help unfold the Faith, even as the Magi brought their offerings to the cradle of their Lord. The heathen philosophies, in short, and philosophical religions, as the Fathers again and again insisted, 3 bore the same relation to the Gentiles that the Mosaic dispensation bore to the Jews, in that they acted as " pedagogues " to lead men to, and prepare them for the Christ; this was their high office, and this their testimony to the Messiah Who should come.

And not only is all this theoretically true, but history, with its record of the preparation of mankind for, and their wonderful anticipations of that Advent, bears its subtle testimony to the same point, and shows us that Christianity was no mere afterthought — no illogical intrusion from without upon the Universe of God, — but that it was, in very truth, the Crown of the Ages — the ideal for which mankind had been preparing long before.

As, then, we study the heathen faiths, and heathen wisdom, we may well be struck, and perhaps even surprised, by their wonderful, even if fragmentary knowledge of the suffering Messiah Who should come. Thus we find in Classic Greece those intense longings for, and anticipations of an Incarnate Deliverer, which were, more or less clearly, voiced in the various " mysteries" — "Orphic," " Eleusinian," &c; and which ran, like a fundamental chord, through the deepest tragedies of her poets. Such, again, were those expectations of a coming Deliverer and Restorer of the "Golden Age,'' universal in the Roman world of Augustus, and of which the famous "IV Eclogue" of Virgil is but a well known example. And such, yet again, were those Magian prophesies in Persia concerning the coming of "Soshyos,"

(2) In thus classing the Pre-Christian religions with philosophies, I need scarcely say that I by no means include in this category the Jewish Covenant [which was, I believe, properly a "Pre-Christian Christianity"]; but am merely referring to those great heathen faiths— such as Zoroastrianism, Brahminism, Buddhism, or Hellenism— that are, properly speaking, nothing else than the natural, if sometimes crude, expression of the philosophical and religious consciousness of the race, reaching out after God.

(3) Thus, to give two instances only, St. Augustine says [Retract: I, 13, 3.] " Res ipsa quae nunc Christiana religio nuncupatur, erat apud antiquos, nee defuit ab initio generis humani quousque ipse Christus veniret in carne, unde vera religio quae jam erat, coepit appellari Christiana." And St. Clement of Alexandria says [" Stromata." Book I, chap. V.] '• Before the advent of the Lord philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness." * * * For God is the cause of all good things; but of some primarily, as the Old and New Testaments; and of others by consequence, as philosophy. Perchance, though, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily, till the Lord should call the Greeks. And thus was a scnoolmaster to bring the Hellenic mind, as the Law the Hebrew, to Christ." Vide also chap, xvi; and Book VI, chaps, v, vi, viii, xvii, &c.

With all this agrees St. Paul's appeal to the natural religious consciousness in Acts xiv, T5-17, and xvii, 22-31, as already quoted, and especially the reference on "Mar's Hill " to "one of your poets " as a prophetic or rel?jpous authority. And, in fact, how could it well be otherwise; unless, indeed, Christianity were an unnatural religion, foisted in upon the revolting mind.

or"Honofer" — the Incarnate " Word," — Who should both redeem mankind, and unite them with Himself.

In short, whatever part, or period we study of the pre-Christian world, we find these prophecies, and anticipations of the Christ Who should come; from Egypt to Scandinavia, from India or China to the Celts of the West, even in pre-Christian America — Mexico and Peru — we everywhere find, I repeat, this dim foreknowledge of Him.

When the Angels, then, sang over Bethlehem, on that first Christmas morn, it was over the supreme mystery of humanity — the revelation in flesh of Him towards Whom all the lines of our being, personal and racial, converge; and in Whom, and in Whom alone, they find their satisfaction and fulfillment.

But the Incarnation of the Logos being, thus, the crown and complement of all natural truth, it evidently must also be, as I have said, the central and vital fact of Christianity — its differential and causal doctrine, and the well spring of all its teaching and grace.

For the essential doctrine of Christianity — that which makes it Christianity — is, manifestly, not in its ethical teaching; nor in the truths it teaches concerning man's being and nature, and the immortality of his soul; nor, yet again, in the truths of our Creator's Being and Essence — even of His Triune Nature, — and His government of the world; and that because these truths are part of the religious "prime data " inspirational in the heart of every man, as man (vide note i page 2); and therefore belong rather to "Natural Religion": this being so, then Christianity, evidently, only possesses these truths in common with all other faiths; and can, therefore, in short, only especially claim them as establishing and making them certain, or in other words, as lifting them out of the category of more or less tentative beliefs, into that of basic and undoubted facts.

But it is the truth that both completes and interweaves all these "natural" truths of the Being of God, and the being of man — namely the truth of the Incarnation of God in man — that is, as I have said, both the differential and causal doctrine of the Christian Faith, and the plenary fountain head of all its teachings and Sacramental grace. For it is, evidently, from this prime fact, and it alone, that the subsidiary facts of our Lord's life — such as His Atonement, Resurrection, and Ascension — derive ail their meaning and validity; and it is also this fact, as I will hereafter show, that underlies and gives significance to both our Lord's gift of the Holy Spirit to His Church, and that Church's Sacramental system as a whole — her claim of Commission from her Head, her Priesthood, Baptisms, and Eucharists, and the Gospel of Redemption that she preaches to the world.

Thus the Incarnation of our Lord is, if we may use the simile, like a gold ring, to which all the truths of our nature converge, in which they are made secure, and/rom which, in turn, radiate all the special doctrines of our most Holy Faith.

Chapter II

HE Incarnation, then, in man of the Logos of God is, as I have shown, the crown and necessary complement of all natural truths, as it is also the living- and vivifying heart of Christianity; and yet, because it is this supreme and central truth, it is also (as, indeed, might be expected) the most deeply mysterious of all; so that, from the very first preaching of the Faith, men — believers, as well as unbelievers — have not ceased to wonder and surmise how, in reality, God could become man.

" The Incarnation of the Logos of God ! " Surely, as we say these words, and endeavor to realise, in some slight degree, their import, we can well stagger at the tremendous meaning they convey. For what else in human history — even the fall of empires, or of nations — can compare, for one moment, with such an event ? One that is certainly the greatest, not only that humanity, or this earth, but that the Universe itself has ever seen. For this Incarnation of the Logos is, surely, speaking with all solemnity and reverence, a stupendous and all important event in the Being of the Godhead Himself — even, in some sense, a modification of His previous existence, — affecting profoundly, not only the Logos, but also the Father, in Whose Bosom He is, and the Holy Spirit, Who Eternally deriveth Plenitude from the Father through Him.

There is, then, we may say, but one other event that can be even faintly comparable to this incomprehensible "modification" in the Divine Existence, and that is in the apparent, and yet again incomprehensible "modification** that took place at the beginning of the Creation of God. This, I say, was certainly an apparent "modification," for a previously non-existent Universe was then brought into actual being, and became, in brief, an entity that was, and is, in some real sense, external to, and distinct from, its Creator and God. And that there was this beginning — that this external Universe is not eternally existent, — is, I think, evident from the following lines of thought.

In the first place we have the empirical evidence of our senses that all things in the Cosmos are transient, and temporary; and therefore must once have had a beginning; and still further our sciences of physical phenomena — our geology, physics, astronomy, etc, — all assure us that there was a time when this world was not; and if not this world, then presumably neither the Universe.

And these conclusions are still further enforced by the following philosophical arguments. If the Universe be thought eternally existent, then it must also be thought either self existent, or else a necessary production from the Eternal God.

But if we hold it to be self existent apart from God, then it ■must itself be a God; 4 and we are thus driven either to a theory of two mutually exclusive Infinities (which is absurd); or else to a theory of an Infinity consisting in an atheistic Universe (the deductions from which are equally absurd) ; and as we may further add, under either of these suppositions, whether it be that of a self existent world with a self existent God, or that of a self existent world alone, any change or decay, such as our senses give us cognisance of, would be utterly and entirely incongruous.

But on the other hand, if the Universe be thought to be a necessary production from God (as Pantheism teaches), then we would have something that would be, not a finite creation of God, but (in theological language) rather something that would be best described as an "Infinite Logos," Begotten of His Essence; and therefore also something that would be, in a sense, " Sjuoovdiog" with Him, and be God; and ought, then, to be worshipped as Him; while in this case, again, the observed change and decay in Nature would be utterly incompatible.

So, then, both from empirical, and philosophical considerations we are sure that the Universe is not eternal, but once began to be; yet this, I say, entails upon us the recognition of an incomprehensible "modification," at the moment of prime creation, in the existence of the Eternal One.

And this is true, even if we adopt the apparently tenable idea, advocated by some eminent theologians, that although the actual entity of the Universe had a definite beginning, yet the ideals of that entity had no such beginning, but were eternally pre-existent in the Divine Logos; for even granting this as probably true, yet the "preciptation" (so to speak) of the Universe of God, from its eternally pre-existent ideality, to its finite, created, and historical existence, was certainly, I repeat, an apparent, although incomprehensible " modification " in the Being of the Eternal. Before that time He was all in all; but since that time He has, in a real and true sense, been self limited by His world — has, in short, given it EX-istence, where previously was only SUB-sistence in Him.

Thus although the Infinite Godhead is, by His very Essence, the Everlasting and Unchangeable, yet still we have this incomprehensible, yet none the less evident, " modification " of existence and relation in that Unchangeable.

But even this wonder of Creation, great as it is, manifestly falls far short of that supreme wonder of all — the Incarnation. Nay! it is even, as I have shown, in relation to the "Xbyoz" of the Universe, an entirely subsidiary fact, centering upon, leading up to, and preparing for, that great Central Mystery.

The Incarnation, then, being this stupendous antinomy — this

(4) And, as St. Athanasius further argues [De Incar; Verbi Dei § 2. 4.] God would then be, not a creator \_Kzi6zyi^\ but a mere artizan \TExyiTU<Z\, working with pre-existent material.

(p) This argument from change has alrsadv been mentioned among the empirical evidences ; but yet it, manifestly, has also a place here.

41 modification " in the Unchangeable — although an antinomy that is, in some degree, paralleled and illustrated by an only less stupendous one, namely Creation itself, it ought not to greatly surprise us if men, now as ever, feel some difficulty in realising and believing in that supreme Wonder; and in truth, if we do not find this feeling of difficulty, and perhaps even of doubt, it will, in most cases, be only because they have never fairly considered it, and are either stupid and thoughtless, or else careless and indifferent.

Let us, then, as briefly, and yet as clearly and accurately as may be, endeavor to explain, and show the logical sequences of the Church's doctrine of the Incarnation. But as to her beliefs in matters of fact — namely that the Logos was so Incarnate, that Jesus of Nazarath was that Incarnate Logos, and the various events in His Blessed Life and Teaching, — all these will not be expounded in this present treatise; unless, indeed, it be in the way of passing and necessary reference; and that for two reasons.

In the first place, it is "imprimis " necessary to demonstrate that this doctrine of the Incarnation is logically coherent and possible, before any arguments can be validly advanced as to its actual existence in fact; for any "proofs" derived from history, human testimony, or internal evidence can only avail to establish something that is, at least, not "a priori" incredible.

And in the second place, experience will also, I think, show us that it is precisely in this direction of supposed " a priori " incredibility that the doubts and difficulties of the majority, if not all, of the stumblers at this doctrine lie.

Let us, then, I repeat, take the Church's doctrine of the Incarnation — that doctrine that is to her, as I have said, the center and foundation of all her faith and ritual, — and showing the logical coherence and reasonableness of it, thereby strengthen the hands of our brethren; and also, in so doing, provide the necessary primary foundation for any historical argument as to the facts of the Gospel narrative.

To begin, then, it may be said that the " a priori " objections to the Incarnation may all be summed up under two chief heads, first what I may call the class of " Deistic " objections, and secondly what, for want of a better term, I may term the " theological " class.

First, then, as to the "Deistic" objections. Men, for many ages past, have pointed to the mighty Universe around us, with all its evidences of o'erwhelming wisdom and power, and have asked how it could be possible, or credible, that the Creator and God of all should so condescend as to come into this petty world of ours, and be born as a man among men ?

This objection is as old as Christianity itself ; and, as derived from the old Epicurean Deism, was one of the first difficulties raised by the philosophers of Greece and Rome. It was, again, especially congenial to the Deists of the last century; and although Deism, as a philosophy, is now dead, yet the objection is still advanced; our greatly developed acquaintance with both the vastness, and the intricacy of Nature being supposed, by some, to have even increased its force.

And yet all that is necessary to abundantly expose its sophistry is to bring forward a very elementary theological and philosophical axiom, namely, that God is necessarily Infinite and Absolute, — not merely " magni-finite " (to coin a new word) as Deism supposes, — and is therefore omnipresent at all times to all His Creation. This simple, and yet most effective reply is again as old as Christian theology itself ; and was powerfully urged by the great St. Athanasius himself, in refutation of this very objection to the Incarnation, namely, that "God was too great." «

It is, in fact, only so long as Deistic habits of thought prevail, and God is anthropomorphically pictured as a kind of magnified emperor, utterly dissevered from, and outside of His Creation — a Creation, it is true, that had once been formed by the " Great Artizan" 7 in the past; but yet one that had been then abandoned by Him to take care of itself ; while He rarely, if ever, interfered with its working; and then only capriciously — it is, I say, only while this strange type of thought prevails that men can think of God as " too great " to care for His Universe; and as, certainly, " too great " to become Incarnate in man.