« EelmineJätka »
tion distorting into a crime an affair so purely accidental as the missorting of some slips of paper : but we assure him that this is the whole mystery of the disarrangement of the extracts from Tertullian : we did not transcribe them, but sent to the printer the slips of paper on which they were first written. The second of these charges is quoting one line from Hilary, whose orthodoxy our antagonist calls in question : but it is quite notorious that the general orthodoxy of both the Hilaries is beyond a question, and to both of them the Athanasian Creed has been at different times attributed. Besides, in all our quotations we meant to impute nothing more to the Fathers than what the words quoted justified; but if it will please this gentleman better, we have no objection to say that even Hilary is against him. We pointed out in a former Number the blunder of translating ov fios av@pwroc“ no common man :" the mistake our corrector has not been able to discover, though he calls the knowledge of the true meaning of the word only a "school-boy attainment” (p. 638). We will tantalize him no longer, but tell him that it means
no mere man ;” and lest he should not perceive the difference, even in English, we will illustrate it by a parallel : it is just as if we should say of this gentleman, “he is no common reviewer;" which some might understand, a superior kind of reviewer; when we ought to have said “no mere reviewer,” meaning that he might be better in other things. But ignorance of the meaning of this word becomes characteristic, for it proves an ignorance of the controversies of the third and fourth centuries, in which tilos occurs in every page: and not only so, but the Protestants, particularly Beza and Glassius, retain the Greek word, as more expressive than any. Latin term. Such ignorance does the mistake of one word involve.
We cannot attempt to follow this opponent in his irregular and desultory mode of attack. It reminds us of the battle of the Pyramids, when the Moslem, having exhausted their ammunition, hurled their discharged pistols at the Europeans, frantic with rage at not being able to break their ranks. We have store of ammunition left, and now take up one of these discharged weapons of our adversary, and mean to try whether it will not carry a bullet to reach the heresy itself, and put to flight the herd of its partisans. At p. 628 he quotes a passage from Tertullian, of which we had given the principal part, and writes, “ Out of this condemnation of their doctrine....as explicit and unequivocal as mortal language can express, have they picked a few lines,” &c. Now it is our certain conviction that Tertullian in this passage does most clearly and strongly maintain our doctrine, and, consequently, that this is a “condemnation” of our opponents “ as explícit and unequivocal as mortal language can express."
We should be content to rest
the issue on this passage alone, and are confident that every competent scholar cannot but decide in our favour. But we think it right, for the sake of those who are not acquainted with Latin, to shew what really is the meaning of Tertullian; and we demand for ourselves the common justice of taking the doctrines we maintain from our own acknowledged statements, and not from the insinuations or perversions of our opponents. The doctrine which we maintain is stated in our First Number, p. 75: “ We believe that the Eternal Son of God, in becoming Son of man, took our very nature into union with himself, with all the infirmities brought upon it by the Fall; but upheld it from sinning, and sanctified it wholly, and constrained it (in his person) to do the entire will of God.” This is our doctrine ; and if any one imputes to us notions not expressed or necessarily implied herein, he wrongs us. The error we mean to oppose is also stated in the same page : it“consists in maintaining that Christ took not our present nature, but took the nature of Adam before the Fall; or, in other words, that Christ, to recover fallen man, became an unfallen man; that to redeem us, he took a nature which is no more ours than the nature of angels is ours.” Such is our doctrine; and such its opposite, which our opponent maintains. Against us he quotes the passage from Tertullian, which we now print, merely beginning our quotation two lines higher, to complete the sense; and this passage of Tertullian our antagonist calls a "condemnation of our doctrine as explicit and unequivocal as mortal language can express.”
To this we subjoin a translation, which we have endeavoured to make quite literal ; but, peccatrix being a feminine noun, we know not of any single word which exactly expresses its meaning:
“Peccatum enim carni supra ascripsit, et illam fecit legem peccati habitantem in membris suis, et adversantem legi sensus : ob hoc igitur missum Filium in similitudinem carnis peccati, ut peccati carnem simili substantia redimeret; id est carnea, quæ peccatrici carni similis esset quum peccatrix ipsa non esset. Nam et hæc erit Dei virtus, in substantia pari perficere salutem. Non enim magnum, si Spiritus Dei carnem remediaret ; sed si caro consimilis peccatrici, dum caro est, sed non peccati. Ita similitudo ad titulum peccati pertinebit non ad substantiæ mendacium. Nam nec addidisset, peccati, si substantiæ similitudinem vellet intelligi, ut negaret veritatem. Tantum enim carnis posuisset, non et peccati. Quum vero tunc sic struxerit, carnis peccati, et substantiam confirmavit; id est, carnem; et similitudinem ad vitium substantiæ retulit, id est, ad peccatum.”-“ For he (the Apostle) had above ascribed sin to the flesh, and made it the law of sin dwelling in his own members, and warring against the law of the mind : on this account therefore that the Son was sent in the likeness of flesh of sin, that he might redeem flesh of sin in a similar substance ; that is, a fleshly substance, which might be like to the flesh (which was) an instrument of sin [or a sincommitting thing *], though itself (Christ's flesh) was not an instrument of sin (or a sin-committing thing *]. For this, too, would shew the power of God, to accomplish salvation in a like substance (pari, equal]. For it were no great thing if the Spirit of God should recover (remedy] flesh : but (it were great) if the flesh be like to an instrument of sin for a sin-committing thing *], while it is flesh, but not of sin. Thus the likeness will belong to the expression [title] of sin, not to a falsifying of the substance. For he would not have added of sin, if he had wished the likeness of the substance to be understood, so as to deny its reality (truth). For (in that case) he would only have put (likeness) of flesh, not also (flesh) of sin. But since, then, he hath so expressed it,' flesh of sin,' he hath both established the substance, that is, the flesh; and hath referred the likeness to the vitiation of the substance, that is, to sin.”
And Tertullian a little further on remarks, “Ceterum similitudo in contrariis nulla est:" “ There is no likeness between contraries.”
Now we are most positive in asserting that the above, so far from being any "condemnation" of our doctrine, does most unequivocally and fully declare it: That his body was a fleshly substance, like to that which in us is an instrument of sin, though his body never was a sin-committing thing; for he was that “ holy thing” appointed to shew forth the power of God by accomplishing our salvation in a substance in all respects precisely the same as ours ;—the likeness referring, not to the substance of the flesh, as if his body were not a substance, not real flesh, only its likeness; but referring to the quality of the substance, to its vitiation-its “ likeness to the vice of the substance, that is, to sin,” as our opponent himself translates it : there being no likeness between contraries.
His own translation we now transcribe :-" For this purpose, therefore, the Son was sent, in the likeness of flesh of sin, that he might redeem the flesh of sin, in a similar, that is, a fleshy substance, which might be like to sinful (peccatrici) flesh, while itself was not sinful (peccatrir). For this will shew the power of God, to accomplish our salvation in a similar substance. For it would be no great matter were the Spirit of God to remedy flesh; but if flesh, like to sinful flesh, while it is flesh, but not of sin, should do so. Thus the likeness will belong to the words of sin, and not infer a denial of the substance. For he would not have added of sin, if he had intended the likeness of the sub
* We have no English word answering to peccatrir : “ sinner," with us, de-ysi; notes a person; but peccatrix refers to the flesh, which does constitute the person of a natural man, not of Christ.
VOL. II.-NO, IV.
stance to be understood, so as to deny its reality. In that case, he would only have said, the likeness of flesh, and not of flesh of sin. When, therefore, he hath thus expressed it,' in the likeness of flesh of sin,' he hath both established the substance, that is, the flesh; and hath referred the likeness to the vice of the substance, that is, to sin.” These are the very words of our opponent; and, taking even these alone, without reference to the original, it is to us a matter of pure astonishment how any one could be so blinded by prejudice as not to see that they assert a doctrine quite in agreement with ours, and condemnatory of that of our opponent.
But we have a little point of scholarship to settle with our censor, before we come to his argument; and as his supply of books is scanty, the Eton Grammar may not be among them, which we therefore request him to procure with all convenient speed ; and at the beginning of that very useful book he will find it written, that a noun substantive declares its own meaning, and requires not another word to be joined with it to shew its signification;" while“ a noun adjective always requires to be joined with a substantive, of which it shews the nature or quality.” If our antagonist had known these definitions, he would not have translated peccatrir, a substantive, by the word sinful, an adjective. Nor is this blunder a slight one; nor are we to be regarded as hypercritical in noticing it; for it is characteristic of the turn of mind in the party, and, being transferred from grammar to reasoning, is in reality the error which pervades all the arguments of our opponents. Our humanity is our whole personality : speak of a man, you mean his whole being: like a substan. tive, it requires not another word to be joined with it to shew its signification. Not so in Christ : his personality is God-Man: speak of manhood in him, and you express but half his being. Manhood in Him is like an adjective, incomplete without the Godhead: man alone does not describe His person. He cannot be spoken of now as man alone : Christ is God and Man inseparably united. But though this is the truth of the fact since the incarnation, it is necessary, in order to understand the great work which the Son of God accomplished by becoming Son of Man, to carry back our thoughts to the state of man before our Lord took flesh: and what this flesh was before he took it, is the point in discussion between us and our opponents. The Apostle says (Rom. viii.), that “ God sent his Son in the likeness of sin. ful flesh.” It is on this text that Tertullian reasons in the passage above quoted. Our opponent himself translates the words “ He” (the Apostle) “ hath referred the likeness to the vice of the substance” (a stronger expression than we have ever used); and yet he reprobates us, in the strongest terms he can find, for saying “ that the eternal Son of God, in becoming Son of man,
took our very nature into union with himself, with all the infirmities brought upon it by the Fall; but withheld it from sinning, and sanctified it wholly, and constrained it, in his person, to do the entire will of God.”
All the other passages from Tertullian and the Fathers express the same truth, that the humanity of our Lord was a nature, not a person ; that this nature was the same as ours, but that he, the God-Man, by the power of the Holy Ghost became in his generation " holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners;” becoming thereby the perfect pattern and example of the regenerate man;-a condition which we are commanded to strive after, through the power of the Holy Spirit working in us to produce regeneration, as he possessed it without measure by generation.
And now, in parting from our antagonist, we request him again to read over, not only this one passage, but all the others; and if he doubts his own learning, as we think he must, let him apply to some friend who “ hath the tongues," and then tell us whether he still has the confidence to say that Tertullian and the Fathers condemn the doctrine we have maintained—that we may know the proper epithet for designating such an antagonist. But if he be, as we would fain hope, a sincere though a prejudiced inquirer, he may rise from a re-consideration of the question convinced of his mistake in appealing so confidently to the Fathers; and, finding all orthodoxy to be against him, may abandon the heresy which he has stepped forward to abet and promulgate. We say " promulgate,” because many of his errors seem peculiar to himself; at least we have not met with them elsewhere ; and may, if we feel it necessary, take some future opportunity of exposing them. But we have no pleasure in such an office: we have not sought it now, but it has been forced upon us by this forward opponent. We have endeavoured to avoid expressions which might bave the appearance of a bitterness which we do not feel : we would wish to deal gently with one who lies so entirely in our power, and of whom we think his best friends must by this time be somewhat ashamed; for Edinburgh has not been often the scene of such an exposure--never, so far as we know, since the time when Huntley Gordon the Jesuit made himself the laughingstock of every scholar in Europe.
In conclusion, we would call upon all those who enter upon controversy, and especially our opponents, as they love truth, as they would not be false accusers, as they would escape condemnation, to make themselves well acquainted with both sides of the question; with what may be said against, as well as for, their own opinion. Our antagonists in this question have not well understood even their own doctrines, and have wholly misunderstood ours. We took the Athanasian Creed for our basis, and grounded all our arguments on the point of faith therein asserted, that Christ is “God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man, of the sub