tantum ut Deus, verum etiam ut homo, praesens dominatur et regnat, a mari ad mare." ^ " Cliristus .... etiam secundum assumptam humanam naturam omnia novit et potest." ^ " Earn majestatem statim in sua conceptione, etiam in utero matris liabuit: sed ut Apostolus loquitur se ipsum exinanivit, eamque, ut D. Lu- therus docet, in statu suse humiliationis secreto liabuit, neque eam semper, sed quoties ipsi visum luit, usurpavit." ^
In the seventeenth century there was an earnest and protracted dispute among the Lutherans as to the question, whether the hu- miliation of Christ was a mere /cpvi/^ts (or conceaHng) of the divine majesty of his Iniman nature ; or whether it was an actual KeVwo-ts, an emptying himself for the time being of the divine attributes which belonged to his humanity in virtue of the liypostatical union. According to the former view, Christ, as man, was from the mo- ment of his conception, everywhere present, omnipotent, and omnis-. cient, and actually in his human nature governed the universe. The only difference, therefore, between the state of humiliation and tliat of exaltation, concerns the mode in which this universal dominion was exercised. While on earth it was in a way not to be apparent and recognized ; whereas after liis ascension, it was open and avowed. According to the opposite view both these points were denied. That is, while it was admitted that the human nature was entitled to these divine attributes and prerogatives, from the moment of its conception, nevertheless it is said that they were not claimed or exercised while He was on earth ; and there- fore during his humiliation although there was a KTijai'i or j)ossession of the attributes, yet there was not the XPW'-^ ^f them, and conse- quently during that period He was not as man omnipresent, omnis- cient, and everywhere dominant. The exaltation, therefore, was not a mere change in the mode of exercising his divine preroga- tives, but an entering on their use as well as on their manifesta- tion. The theologians of Tiibingen maintained the former view, those of Giessen the latter. The question having been referred to the Saxon theologians they decided substantially in favour of the latter doctrine, and this was the view generally ad()|)ted by tlie Lutheran divines. The precise point of dispute between the par- ties was " An homo Cliristus in Deum assumtus in statu exinani- tionis tanquam rex praesens cuncta licet latenter gubernarit?" This the one party affirmed and the other denied. The one made ■•mnipresence and dominion the necessary consequence of the \\y*
1 Formula Conc.ordm, Art. vin. 27 ; Hase, Lihri SymhoUci, p. 768.
2 Art. vni. 74; Ibid. p. 782. 8 Art. viii. 26; Md. p. 767.
624 PART III. Cji. XII. — humiliation OF CHRIST.
postatical union ; the other, while admitting the actual potential possession of the divine attributes by the human nature as a conse- quence of its union with the divine, regarded their use as depend- ent on the divine will. It is conceivable that poAver should be dependent on the will, and therefore in relation to that attribute the distinction between the possession and use might be admitted ; but no such distinction is possible in reference to the attribute of omnipresence. If that perfection belonged to the human nature of Christ (to his body and soul), in virtue of the hypostatical union, it must have been omnipresent from the moment that this union was consummated. This is involved in the very statement of the doctrine of the hypostatical union as given by the Lutheran divines. Thus Gerhard ^ says, " Neque enim pars parti, sed totus Aoyos toti carni et tota caro toti Adyu est unita ; ideo propter vTroo-Tao-ews ravro- TTjTa Koi Twv cfivaiwv TrepLxi^prjo-Lv, Xdyo5 ita praesens est carni et caro ita preesens est tw Xdyw, ut nee Adyo? sit extra carnem nee caro extra Adyoi', sed ubicunque est Adyos, ibi etiam praesentissimam sibi habet caniem, quii)pe quam in personse unitatem assumsit : et ubicun- que est caro, ibi praisentissimum sibi habet rov Adyor, quippe in cujus hypostasin est assumta. Quemadmodum Adyos non est extra suam deitatem, cujus est hypostasis: sic etiam non est extra suam car- nem, essentia quidem finitam, in Adyw tamen personaliter subsisten- tem. Ut enim tw Adyw propria est sua deltas per aeternam a Patre generationem : sic eidem tw Adyw propria facta est caro per unionem personalem."
According to the Lutheran system, therefore, the subject of the humiliation was the human nature of Christ, and consisted essen- tially in the voluntary abstaining from the exercise and manifesta- tion of the divine attributes with which it was imbued and inter- penetrated. According to the Reformed doctrine it was He who was equal with God wlio emptied Himself in assuming the fashion of a man, and this divine person thus clothed in our nature hum- bled Himself to be obedient even unto death. It is therefore of the eternal Son of whom all that is taught of the humiliation of Christ is to be predicated. This is clearly the doctrine of the Aj)ostle in Philippians ii. 6-8. It is the person who thought it no i-obbery to be equal with God, of whom it is said, (1.) That He made Him- self of no reputation (cauroi' eVcVoo-e). (2.) That this was done by his takino- upon Himself the form of a servant, being made in the like- ness of men. (3.) That being thus incarnate, or found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself by being obedient unto death, even 1 Loci Theolo(/ici, iv. vii. 121; edit. Tubingen, 1764, vol. iii. p. 428.
§5.] mS DEATH AND BURIAL. C25
the death of the cross. In this matter, as characteristically on all other points of doctrine, the Reformed Church adheres to the sim- ple statements of the Scriptures, and abstains from the attempt to bring those doctrines within the grasp of the understanding.
The modern theologians, of whom Ebrard is a representative, in discarding the Church doctrine of two natures (in the sense of substances) in Clirist, and in making the incarnation consist in a voluntary self-limitation, are necessarily led into a theory as to th.- humiliation of Christ at variance with both the Lutheran and Re- formed views on that subject. According to this modern doctrine the Eternal Son of God did not assume a human nature, in the Church sense of those words, but He became a man. His infinite intellect was reduced to the limits of the intellect of human intel- ligence, to be gradually developed as in the case of other men. His omnipotence was reduced to the limits of human power. His omnipresence was exchanged for limitation to a definite portion of space. He did not, however, as stated above, when treating of the doctrine of Christ's person, cease to be God. According to thi.'- theory the incarnation resulted, as Ebrard says,i " In Christ's being a man. (1.) So far as his will is concerned, in statu integ- ritatis, i. e., as Adam was before the fall, in a state to choose be- tween good and evil. (2.) So far as natural endowments are con- cerned, with all the powers pertaining to humanity, which lay
undeveloped in the first Adam (3.) And as concerns his
ability dominant over the laws of nature in the present disordered state of nature. Thus the eternal Son of God," he says, " had reduced himself, so that as God he willed, having assumed the form of man, to exert his activity only as man The exer- cise of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, .... had been
to renounce his humanity His act of self-limitation in thus
reducing himself to the limitations of humanity, is the KeVwo-ts ; his voluntary submission to pain, shame, and death, is the TaTretVwo-ts spoken of by the Apostle in Philippians ii. 6-8 : but both are iu eluded in the wider sense of his humiliation."
1 Dogmatik, ii. ii. 359; edit. Eonigsberg, 1852, vol ii- p 32. VOL. a. 40