or things, in contradistinction to one thing (ima res'). In response, Ansehn argued that, as every universal is a mere abstraction, and particidars alone have reality, so " if only the essence of God in the Trinity was called U7ia. res, and the three persons not tres res, the latter coidd not be considered as anything real. Only the one God woidd be the real; all besides would become a mere nominal distinction, to which nothing real corre- sponded ; and so, therefore, along with the Son, the Fa- ther and the Holy Ghost woidd also have become man" (Neander, \'iii, 92). " The daring assertions of Roscel- inus exposed him to the charge of Tritheism, while those of Abelard exposed him to that of Sabellianism. The distinction which Gilbert of Poitiers dre;v between the quo est and the quod est gave to his doctrine the semblance of Tetratheism" (see Hagenbach, Jlistor;/ of Doct. i, sec. 170). Though his starting-point was Real- ism, he arrived at the same goal as the Nominalist Ros- celinus. " The Scholastics had much to say of the re- lation of number to the divine luiity. Since Boethiua had put forth the canon, ' Yerc unum esse, in quo nullus sit numerus,' Peter the Lombard sought to avoid the difficulty by saying that number, m its application to God and divine things, had only a negative meaning ; ' these are rather said to exclude what is not in God than to assert what is'" {Theol. Led. by Dr. Twesten, transl. in Bib. Sac. iii, 770). " Considered as an act, according to Thomas Aquinas, the incarnation is the work of the whole Trinity ; but in respect to its termi- nus, that is, the personal union of the divme and human nature, it belongs only to the Son ; since, according to the doctrine of the Church, it is first and properly not the nature, but a person, and that the second person, Avhich has assumed humanity." (For the accordance of this with the confession of faith of the eleventh Council at Toledo, A.D. 675, see Bib. Sac. iv, 50, note.) " Duns Scotus ascribed to the human nature of Clrrist a proper if not an independent existence. This funda^ mental view of the Middle Ages Luther also adopted, and designated the divinity and humanity as t\vo ' parts ;■ ^nd upon this he built his theory of the impar- tation of the divine attribute to the human" (Herzog). The age of the Reformation contributed nothuig or but little new on the subject of the incarnation. Tlie most that it did was to repeat some of the more pesti- lent errors of the past, and in the mean time, through the conflicts of mind, bring into bolder relief the linea- ments of truth. " Thus Caspar Schwenkfield revived the docetico-monophysitic doctrine concerning the 'fflo- rijied and deified flesK of Christ. Menno Simonis, as well as other Anabaptists, supposed (like the Talentin- ians in the first period) that oiur Lord's birth was a mere phantom. Michael Servetus maintained that Clnist was a mere man, filled with the divine nature, and re- jected aU further distinctions between his two natures as unscriptiu-al, and founded upon scholastic definitions alone. Faustus Socinus went so far as to return to the view entertained by the Ebionites and Nazarenes" (Hagenbach, Histor;/ of Doct. sec. 265). According to Dorner, " Servetus, resting on a pantheistic basis, could say that the flesh of Christ was consubstantial \\\t\\ God, but the same would hold true in reference to all flesh." Nevertheless, he did not say it in reference to all flesh. " In his opinion, Christ alone is the Son of God; nor is that name to be given to any one else" (Hagenbach, sec. 265). The controversies between Cal- vin and Servetus, in which were comprehended the er- roneous ^^e^v's of the latter on the subject of the in- carnation, at last culminated in his death at the stake. Much, however, as Calvin was blamed for calling the Son, considered in his essence, uvto^ioq, still he was right, and is supported by Lutheran theologians. In another point of view, that is, considered in his personal subsistence, the Son cannot be called ahro^eoc.hnt only the Father, since he alone is aykvvi]TOQ ; but the aytv- vTjffia of the person is not to be confounded •n-ith the absoluteness of the essence." (See further, Twesten, in
INCARNATION
534
INCARNATION
the Bib. Sac. iv, 39. For the differences, as respects the incarnation, between Lutlier and Zwingle, in which each failed to comprehend the stand-point of the other, see Herzog, Eeal-Encz/Ho^iddie, art. Jesus Christ.)
VI. Theophanies.—lt miglit have been expected, from a consideration of an event of such moment to our race as the incarnation, that, delayed so long in the history of the world, it woidd not have been without its adum- brations, like types in nature, mute prophecies of arche- typal existence. The first prophecy of the incarnation was coeval with the fall. In terms succinct and yet clear, the ai7nouncement was made that from the seed of the woman should rise the hope of man. In analogy with nature the typical form was thus given, from which the grand archety]ihal idea shoidd be elaborated, until in the fulness of time that idea should be permanently embodied, and God become manifest iii the flesh. " No sooner had the first Adam appeared and fallen than a new school of prophecy began, in which tyjie and sym- bol were mingled Avith what had now its first existence on the earth— verbal enunciations ; and all pointed to the second Adam, ' the Lord from heaven.' In him cre- ation and the Creator meet in reality and not in sem- blance. On the very apex of the finished pyramid of being sits the adorable Monarch of all — as the Son of Mary, of David, of the first Adam, the created of God ; as God and the Son of God, the eternal Creator of the universe; and these — the two Adams — form the main theme of all prophecy, natural and revealed. That type and symbol shoidd have been employed w ith reference not only to the second, but, as held by men like Agas siz and Owen, to the first Adam also, exemplifies, we are disposed to think, the unity of the style of Deity, and serves to show that it was he who created the worlds that dictated the Scriptures" (Hugh Miller, in Fairbairn's Typolorjij, vol. i, append, i). See also Hugh Miller, Test, of Rocks, lect. v; M-Cosh, Typical Forms; Agassiz, Princ. of Zoology, pt. i.