M-liereas tlie essence common to all men is only specifically tho same, i. e., of the same kind, although numerically different. The theory which leads to the opposite conclusion must therefore be false. It cannot be true that all mankind are one essence, substance, or organic life, existing or manifesting itself in a multitude of individ- ual persons. This is a difficulty so obvious and so fatal that it could not fail to arrest the attention of realists in all ages and of every class. The great point of dispute in the Council of Nice between the Arians and orthodox was, whether the persons of the Trinity are o/^oi- or o/AoouVtoi, of a like or of the same essence. If o/xoovtrtoi, it was on both sides admitted that they are one God ; because if the same in substance they are equal in power and glory. Now it is expressly asserted that all men are not 6/xot- but oixoovatoi, and therefore, by parity of reasoning, they must constitute one man in the same sense as there is one God, and all be equal in every attri- bute of their nature. ^ Of course it is admitted that there is a legitimate sense of the word in which all men may be said to be o/iooucrtot. when by 6/i,o? (^same^ is meant similar, or of a like kind. In this sense the Greeks said that the bodies of men and of other animals were consubstantial, as all were made of flesh ; and that angels, demons, and human souls, as spiritual beings, are also 6/xo jucrioi. But this is not the sense in which the word is used by realists, when speaking either of the persons of the Trinity or of men. In both cases the word same means numerical oneness ; men are of the same numerical essence in the same sense in which the Father and the Son and the Spirit are the same in substance. The difference, it is said, between the two cases does not relate to identity of essence, which is the same in both, but is found in this, that " the whole nature or essence is in the divine person ; but the human person is only a part of the common human nature. Gen- eration in the Godhead admits no abscission or division of substance ; but generation in the instance of the creature implies separation or division of essence. A human person is an individualized portion of humanity."^ It must, however, be remembered that humanity is declared to be a spiritual substance. It is the same in nature with the soul, which is called an individualized portion of human nature, possessing consciousness, reason, and will. But, if si)irit- ual, it is indivisible. Divisibility is one of the primary properties of matter. Whatever is divisible is material. If therefore human- ity, as a generic substance, admits of " abscission and division," it
1 See History of Christian Doctrine, by Dr. Shedd, vol. ii. p. 120.
2 Ibid. vol. i. p. 343, note.
(>o PART II. ch. n. -nature of man.
must be material. A part of reason, a piece of consciousness, or a fragment of will, are contradictory, or unintelligible forms of expression. If humanity is of the same essence as the soul, it no more admits of division than the soul. One part of a soul cannot be holy and another unholy ; one part saved and the other lost. The objection to the theory under considei'ation, that it makes the relation between individual men identical with that between the persons of the Trinity, remains, therefore, in full force. It is not met by the answer just referred to, which answer supposes mind to be extended and divisible.
Realism Inconsistent with what the Bible teaches of the Person and
Work of Christ.
6. It is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile the doctrine in question with what the Scriptures teach of the person and work of Christ. According to the Bible, the Son of God became man by taking to himself a true body and a reasonable soul. According to the realistic doctrine, he did not assume a reasonable soul, but generic humanity. What is this but the whole of humanity, of which, according to the advocates of this doctrine, individual men are the portions. Human nature as a generic life, humanity as a substance, and a whole substance, was taken into personal union with the Son of God. The Logos became incarnate in the race. This is certainly not the Scriptural doctrine. The Son of God became a man ; not all men. He assumed an individual rational soul, not the general principle of humanity. Besides this, it is the doctrine of those who adopt thts theory that humanity sinned and fell in Adam. The rational, moral, voluntary substance called human nature, is, or at least was, an agent. The sin of Adam was the sin not of an individual, but of this generic substance, which by that sin became the subject both of guilt and of depravity. By reason of this sin of human nature, the theory is, that all individual men, in their successive generations, in whom this nature is revealed, or in whom, as they express it, it is individualized, came into the world in a state of guilt and pollution. We do not now refer to the numerous and serious difficulties connected with this theory as a method of accounting for original sin. We speak of it only in its relation to Christ's person. If human nature, as a generic life, a substance of which all men partake, became both guilty and pol- luted by the apostasy; and that generic humanity, as distinguished fiom a newly created and holy rational soul, was assumed by the Son of God, how can we avoid the conclusion that Christ was, in
§4.] AJS^OTHER FOllM OF REALISM. 61
his liuman nature, personally guilty and sinful? This is a legiti- mate consequence of this theory. And this consequence beino- not only false but blasphemous, the theory itself must be false. As the principle that humanity is one substance, and all men are o/y-oouo-tot ill the sense of partaking of the same numerical essence, involves consequences destructive of the Scriptural doctrines of the Trinity and of the person of Christ, so it might easily be shown that it overthrows the common faith of the Protestant churches on the doctrines of justification, regeneration, the sacraments, and the Church. It is enough for our present purpose to remark that, as a historical fact, the cou'^istent and thorougli-going advocates of this doctrine do teach an entirely different method of salvation. Many men adopt a principle, and do not carry it out to its legitimate consequences. But others, more logical, or more reckless, do not hesitate to embrace all its results. In the works of Morell and of Dr. Nevin, above referred to, the theological student may find a fearless pressing of the genuine principle of realism, to the utter overthrow of the Protestant, and, it may be added, of the Christian faith.
7. Other objections to this theory may be more appropriately considered when we come to speak of the several doctrines to which it is applied. It is sufficient in the conclusion of the present discussion to say that what is said to be true of the genus homo, is assumed to be true of all genera and species in the animal and veg- etable worlds. The individual in all cases is assumed to be only the manifestation or modus existendi of the generic substance. Thus there is a bovine, an equine, and a feline substance, having an ob- jective existence of which all oxen, all horses, and all animals of the cat-race, are the manifestations. And so of all species, whether of plants or animals. This is alrtiost inconceivable. Compared to this theory, the assumption of a naturgeist, or anima mu7idi, or of one universal substance, is simplicity itself. That such a theory should be set forth and made the foundation, or rather the con- trolling principle of all Christian doctrines, is most unreasonable and dangerous. This realistic doctine, until recently, has been as much exploded as the eternal ideas of Plato or the forms of Aris- totle.
§ 4. Another form of the Realistic Theory.
There is, however, another phase of this doctrine, which it is necessary to mention. The doctrine that genera and species are real substance^ existing prior to individuals, and independent of them, is the old, genuine, and most intelligible form of Realism.
62 PART n. Ch. it. — nature of man.