These explanations of an intelligence that writhed under its own obvious inconsistencies, served only to bring in doubt the reality of Christ's human life, and more moderate views at length prevailed. The Saxon Decision of 1624 expressed a view favour- able to the Giessen theologj'^ ; ' We constantly affirm that He u.sed His royal majesty most freely when, how, and Avhere He would ; but we deny that Christ as a man, immediately from His in- carnation, always, fully, and universally exerted His Divine majesty of omnipotence and omni- presence, . . . since Christ could not have been taken, crucified, and put to death had He willed to use fully and universally His omniiiotence and omnipresence.' The Tiibingen theologians adhered to their views till neai'ly tlie end of the century, but they became more and more isolated in their opinion. The common Lutheran view was that represented by Quenstedt, the Lutheran Aquinas, who completely systematized the Lutheran doc- trine. He helif that, from the first moment of the Incarnation, Christ was, even in His human nature, in possession of the Divine majesty, and did exer- cise it occasionally when His work made it ex- pedient to do so ; but He alxlicated its plenary use. The human Christ on earth emptied Himself by giving up for the time the glory of the /xopcpr] deov, i.e. the 'divina; majestatis plenarius, universalis, et
866
CHRIST m THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
noil interniptus sive indesinens usus.' He thus reduced the possession by the human Christ of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience to a mere potentiality. Christ was omnipresent while on earth, but not actu ; He was everywhere pre- sent in fact, but not in act. He was omnipotent, but He preferred usually to act according to His natural powers. He had the primum actuin of omniscience, but not the secundum actum ; He had the potentiality of absolutely Divine knowledge, but ordinarily He willed not to »ise it.
On the wliole it must be admitted that the Lutheran theologians had little success in their efforts to unify tlie God-manhood of Christ. Their well-meant endeavour to supplement the defects of the two - natures theory by a doctrine of inter- communication brought only more prominently into relief the contradictions involved. The further development of doctrine in this century shows that the Lutherans themselves were becoming less sure of their own principles. The old axiom that the human Avas susceptible of the Divine (Jinitum capax infinili) was still maintained in its non- ethical sense, but it was surrounded with more definite cautions and limitations. Thus, in order to meet the charge made against them by G. Calixtus, and still more forcibly by the Reformed and the Roman Catholic Churches, that by their doctrine of Communicatio idiomatuin they over- threw the distinction between the human and the Divine, they distinguished more carefully than hitherto between a, personal and an essential com- munication of properties. It was insisted that the Divine properties communicated did not become the essential properties of the human nature, but . were only personally possessed and exercised. Or, as it was otherwise expressed, the human nature of Christ possessed the Divine powers, not by absolute appropriation (/x^^e|ts), but by conjunc- tion (/cttTo, ffvv8ca<T/x6v, per unionern et conjunctionem, Meisner, Hollaz, Buddeus). Still further, it was held that the principle finitum capax infiniti was applicable in the case of Christ alone. It was admitted that human nature was naturally and in general incapable of receiving the Divine powers, and that the human nature of Christ had been endowed with this capacity by a special act of the Divine power. When the principle of the Com- municatio idiomatum is thus narrowed down on this side and on that, the old dualism reappears, and the Lutheran doctrine of the thorough union of the Divine and the human is in a state of col- lapse. Later attempts to rescue the Communicatio idiomatum from oblivion by removing it from its basis, the doctrine of the two natures (Dorner, and still more elaborately H. Schultz, Lehre von der Gottheit Christi), only repeat the mistake of pour- ing new wine into old bottles ; for, as Baur says, when once the duality of natures is abandoned, there can be no further talk of a Comimmicatio idiomatum. Schultz tries to revitalize the doctrine in its triple form by an infusion of new ideas which have little historical connexion with it, and which could be better expressed in less scholastic forms.
The different kinds of Communicatio as given by Quenstedt may be here tabulated : —
I. Genus idiomaticum, where the qualities of either nature are attributed to the person : (a) when the person is the sub- ject : Christ is eternal : Christ has died ; (b) when the concrete human nature is subject : the Son of Man is from heaven ; (tf) when the concrete Divine nature is subject : God has suffered.
II. Genus apotelesmaticum, marking some activity in the redemptive work in which both natures concur : God is redeemer (i.e. God incarnate) : the Son of Man is redeemer (i.e. He who is Son of Man and Son of God): the blood of Christ cleanses (i.e. the blood of Him who is both God and man).
III. Genus inajestaticum., the attribution of Divine properties to the human nature : (a) Divina nomina ; (b) Opera divina ; (c) Ciiltus dirinua ; (d) Essentialia Dei attributa : e.g. omni- potence, omnipresence, omniscience. The main controversy raged around this last genus.