Part I Chapter I: The Divinity of Christ

Part I: Duality in Unity — The Constitutive Elements of Christ

Chapter I: The Divinity of Christ

CHAPTER I THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST i. State of the Question.- — Having given a full dogmatic demonstration of the Divinity of Jesus Christ in our treatise on the Trinity,1 we here confine ourselves to showing how that demonstration is to be regarded for the purposes of Christology. In our treatise on the Blessed Trinity we had merely to establish the fact that there are Three Divine Persons in one Divine Nature, viz.: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. That the Son of God became man did not concern us there. In expounding the dogma of the Trinity, therefore, it would not have been necessary to deal with the historic fact of the Incarnation were it not for the circumstance that nearly all the Scriptural and Patristic texts which can be adduced to prove the existence of the Divine Logos (Aoyos ao-apico?) are based on the existence of Jesus Christ as the Godman or Word Incarnate (Aoyos ivaapKos). St. John the Evangelist, in describing the Logos as He existed before all time in His eternal Godhead,2 did not fail to add the significant statement: “And the 1 Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Trin- man, Tracts Theological and Ecity, pp. 63-96, St. Louis 1 91 2. clesiastical, pp. 228 sq., new ed., 2 John I, x sqq. Cfr. J. H. New- London 1895. ii Word was made flesh.” 8 Following his example the Fathers invariably identified the Divine Logos, or Son of God, with Jesus of Nazareth. Accordingly, nearly all the texts which can be gathered from Patristic literature in favor of the dogma of the Divine Trinity, have a Christological as well as a Trinitarian bearing. In other words, the Scriptural and Patristic teaching on the Divinity of Christ proves the existence of a Second Person in the Blessed Trinity (and therefore the dogma of the Trinity) quite as clearly and stringently as the Scriptural and Patristic teaching on the Incarnation of the Logos demonstrates the dogma of Christ’s Divinity. It is due to this close interrelation of the two dogmas that the fundamental Christological thesis with which we are here concerned has really, for the most part, been already established in the treatise on the Divine Trinity.4 Generally speaking, the Divinity of Christ may be demonstrated either dogmatically or apologetically. The dogmatic argument rests on the inspiration of Holy Scripture and the dogmatic validity of the evidence furnished by Tradition. The apologetic argument has a much broader basis. It is both historical and philosophical. It takes the Bible as a genuine and credible document and from it, in connection with pagan and Jewish sources, proves that Jesus Christ is true «Ka2 b A6yos o4p£ iydvero. Cfr. Pohle-Preuu, The Divine God. John I, 14. 2 Trinity, 1. c. For the apologetic argument in proof of Christ’s Divinity we may refer the reader to any approved text-book of Christian Apologetics.6 The dogmatic argument, as we have already noted, is set forth with considerable fulness in our own treatise on the Divine Trinity. We will merely recapitulate it here. 2. The Dogmatic Argument. — Holy Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He is true God and the Divine Logos. With this teaching Ecclesiastical Tradition is in perfect accord. The contrary doctrine was rejected as heretical very early in the Church’s history, and we may therefore truly say that modern Rationalism stands condemned at the bar of Primitive Christianity. a) The Scriptural doctrine concerning the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity culminates in these three propositions : ( I ) Christ is truly and properly the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father; therefore (2) He is not an ordinary man, but true God as well as man; (3) “Logos” is merely another name for the Second Person of the Divine Trinity, who became incarnate in Jesus Christ. 5 For instance, Devivier-Sasia, Revealed Religion, pp. 130 sqq., 2nd Christian Apologetics, or A Rational ed., London s. a.; P. Schanz, A Exposition of the Foundations of Christian Apology, 4th ed., New Faith, Vol. I, pp. 33 sqq., San York s. a.; O. R. Vassall-Phillips, Jos6, Cal., 1903. Cfr. also Bou- The Mustard Tree. An Argument gaud-Currie, The Divinity of Christ, on Behalf of the Divinity of Christ, New York 1906; Hettinger-Bowden, London 191 2. o) The Biblical argument for the Divinity of Christ rests upon the fact that Scripture describes and declares Him to be really and truly the Son of God. How absolutely conclusive this argument is, appears from the desperate efforts made by contemporary Rationalists and Modernists to weaken its force by attributing to Christ a divine sonship wholly foreign to that meant by the inspired writers. Thus Harnack writes : ” The Gospel, as Jesus proclaimed it, has to do with the Father only and not with the Son.” 6 According to this Rationalist theologian ” the whole of the Gospel is contained ” in the formula : ” God and the soul, the soul and its God.” 7 But did not Christ Himself put His Divine Sonship prominently in the foreground — so much so that our belief in the existence of the Father as the First Person of the Blessed Trinity, in its last analysis really rests upon this emphatic self-assertion of the Son?8 Harnack cannot deny that ” this Jesus who preached humility and knowledge of self, nevertheless named himself, and himself alone, as the Son of God.” 9 But he prefers to call this astonishing fact a psychological riddle and pleads ignorance of its meaning. ” How he [Jesus] came to this consciousness of the unique character of his relation to God as a Son … is his secret, and no psychology will ever fathom it.” 10 To solve this enigma, if 6 A. Harnack, Das We sen des 8 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Christ entums, p. 91, Leipzig 1902 Trinity, pp. 44. (English translation, What is Chris- 0 Das Wesen des Christ entums, p. tianity? by T. B. Saunders, 2nd 81 (English translation, p. 139). ed., p. 154, London 1908). 10 Ibid,, p. 81 (English transla 7 Ibid,, p. 90 (English translation, tion, p. 138). P. 153). DUALITY IN UNITY Harnack’s theory were true, would be the business of psychiatry rather than of psychology, for in that case Jesus Christ was either a fool or a knave. Unwilling to take either horn of the dilemma, Harnack can find no other way out of the difficulty than the assumption that ” The sentence ’ I am the Son of God ’ was not inserted in the Gospel by Jesus himself, and to put that sentence there side by side with the others is to make an addition to the Gospel.,, 11 It is difficult to imagine a more frivolous asseveration. Even the superficial reader can easily see that to obliterate this sentence would be to take away an essential part of the Gospel. Cfr. John IX, 35 sqq.: ” Dost thou believe in the Son of God ? He answered, and said : Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him ? And Jesus said to him: Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.” 12 To realize the hollowness of Harnack’s contention we need but reflect that Jesus suffered torture and death deliberately and with a solemn oath in confirmation of His claim that He was the Son of God.18 The appellation ” Son of man,” 14 which Jesus applied to Himself with predilection, and which in no wise detracts from His other name, ” Son of God,” was no doubt designed to safeguard the doctrine of His humanity against future errors, such as that of the Docetae.15 We should remember, however, that in calling Him11 Ibid., p. 92 (English transla- burgh 1897. Cfr. also H. P. Lidtion, p. 156). don, The Divinity of Our Lord and 12 On the teaching of St. John Saviour Jesus Christ, pp. 311 sqq., and St. Paul concerning the Logos, 454 sqq., and J. Lebreton, Les Orisee Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Trin- gines du Dogme de la Trinity, pp. ty, pp. 88 sqq., St. Louis 1912; on 291 sqq., 364 sqq., 495 sqq., 515 that of St. Paul in particular, F. sqq., Paris 19 10. Prat, La ThSologie de Saint Paul, 18 Pohle-Preuss, op. cit., pp. 54 Vol. II, pp. 67 sqq., 165 sqq., Paris sqq. 1912; D. Somerville (Prot), St. 14 6 vlbs rov dvBp&irov, Paul’s Conception of Christ, Edin- 15 See infra, pp. 41 sqq. THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST self * Son of Man/’ Jesus evidently had in mind the famous prophecy of Daniel, which heralded the Messias by this very name. * Aspiciebam ergo in visione noctis, et ecce cum nubibus coeli quasi Films hominis (B^K 152) veniebat et usque ad antiquum dierum pervenit: et in conspectu eius obtulerunt eum. Et dedit ei potestatem et honor em et rtgnum, et omnes populi, tribus et linguae ipsi servient; potestas eius potestas ae~ term, quae non auferetur, et regnum eius, quod non corrumpetur — I beheld therefore in the vision of the night, and lo, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and he came even to the Ancient of days: and they presented him before him. And he gave him power, and glory, and a kingdom : and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve him : his power is an everlasting power that shall not be taken away: and his kingdom that shall not be destroyed.” 16 With unmistakable reference to this prophecy Christ tells His Apostles that ” the Son of man shall be betrayed” and delivered to the Gentiles, “to be mocked, and scourged, and crucified, and the third day he shall rise again. 17 With this same text in mind He assures Caiphas that he * shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” 18 P) If Christ is truly the Son of God, it logically follows that He is true God.19 For He 16 Dan. VII, 13 sqq. burg 1907; A. Seitz, Das Evanit Matth. XX, 18 sq. geliutn votn Gottessohn, eine Apo18 Matth. XXVI, 64. Cfr. B. logie der wesenhaften GottessohnBartmann, Das Hxmmelreich und schaft Christi, pp. 3x0 sqq., Freisein Konig nack den Synoptikern, burg 1908. pp. 85 sqq., Paderborn 1904; H. i» Cf r. Pohle-Preuss, God: His Schell, Jahwe und Ckristus, pp. Knoivability, Essence, and Attri332 sqq., Paderborn 1905; Fr. butes, pp. 63 sqq. Tillmann, Der Menschensohn, Freii6 DUALITY IN UNITY who originates in the substance of God must be consubstantial with God, because He participates in the Divine Nature by eternal generation. In the mouth of Christ, therefore, “Son of God” signifies nothing less, but rather something more than “God,” because it is through our Lord’s Sonship rather than through His Divinity that we arrive at a knowledge of the truth that there are three Persons in one Godhead.20 The Divinity of Christ can also be proved from the various divine attributes ascribed to Him in Sacred Scripture, the divine worship (latria) which He exacted and received,21 and the application to Him of the predicate “God.”22 The arguments based on the divine attributes ascribed to Jesus and the latreutic adoration offered to Him, sufficiently disprove the Rationalist contention that He is called “God* in a metaphorical sense only, as, e. g., Moses was called the *god of Pharaoh.” 23 Moreover, Christ is called “God” in precisely the same sense in which the Old Testament applies the term to Yahweh Himself.24 Our main proof rests upon the ascription to Christ by Holy Scripture of such distinctively divine attributes as self-existence, eternity, immutability, creative power, om20 Cfr. J. Kleutgcn, Theologie 22 Sec Pohle-Preuss, The Divine der Vorseit, Vol. Ill, pp. 38 sq., Trinity, pp. 63 sqq. 2nd ed., Mfinster 1870. 23 Ex. VII, 1. 21 V, infra, pp. 282 sq. 24 Pohle-Preuss, /. c, pp. 79 sqq. niscience, universal dominion, etc., rather than upon the fact that it applies to Him the abstract predicate of ” God.” In our treatise on the Blessed Trinity we cited five New Testament texts in which Christ is expressly called ” God.” 25 There is a sixth, which would be even more conclusive, were it not for the fact that textual criticism throws a doubt upon its authenticity. A few Greek codices, and several of the Fathers,26 interpret this obscure passage as referring to the * apparition of God in the flesh/’ It reads as follows: * Et manifeste magnum est pietatis sacramentum, quod manifestatum est in came.” Our English Bible renders it thus: “And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh/’ 27 The textus receptus has: Kat OfiokoyovfUvo)^ fiiya cort to ttJs cwc/Jctas fivar^piov ’ os [®co«] iav€p

tant step that was ever taken in the domain of Christian doctrine was when the Christian apologists at the beginning of the second century drew the equation: the Logos = Jesus Christ.* 48 In matter of fact St. John drew this equation” long before the apologists. He employed the term ” Logos * in a higher sense than that of * a mere predicate,” 44 by ascribing to Him a variety of indisputably divine attributes.45 b) Because of the importance of this dogma we proceed to develop the argument from Tradition.46 o) The belief of the Primitive Church is clearly recorded in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. St. Clement of Rome,47 who was a disciple and fellowlaborer of St. Paul,48 and the third successor of St. Peter in the See of Rome,49 invariably refers to Christ as ” the Lord,” 50 — a title proper to God alone.51 He furthermore expressly teaches that ” The scepter of the 48 Das Wesen des Chris tent urns, p. 127 (English translation, p. 218). 44 Harnack, /. c. 45 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Trinity, pp. 91 sqq. For a detailed refutation of Harnack’s denial of the genuinity of the Fourth Gospel, see Al. Schafer, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, pp. 255 sqq., Paderborn 1898. We need hardly add that the above argument abundantly refutes the contention of the Modernists, that ” the Divinity of Christ cannot be demonstrated from the Gospels.” (Cfr. Syllabus of Pius X, apud Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 2027). On the teaching of the Modernists see F. Heiner, Der neue Syllabus Pius X., pp. 114-159, Mainz 1907. 46 On certain difficulties connected with the Patristic argument cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Trinity, pp. 142 sqq. 47 Died about the year 96. 48 Phil. IV, 3. 49 Cfr. St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., HI, 3, 3. 60 Dominus, b Kvpios. 51 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss,’ God: His Knowability, Essence and Attributes, pp. 140 sqq. THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST majesty of God,52 the Lord Jesus Christ, did not come with arrogance of pride and overbearing, which He might have done, but with humility.” While this text does not embody an explicit profession of faith in the Divinity of Christ, it involves such a profession, inasmuch as no mere creature, whether man or angel, could without blasphemy be called ” the scepter of the majesty of God."" Had St. Clement not believed in the Divinity of Christ, he could not reasonably have asserted that our Lord, had He so desired, instead of coming ” with humility,” might have come * cum iactantia superbiae, that is, with a just claim to divine honors. The so-called Second Letter of St. Clement, though now generally admitted to be the work of a writer living in. the middle of the second century,63 may yet, because of its antiquity and the high esteem in which it has always been held in the Church,64 claim considerable dogmatic authority. It begins with the significant exhortation: “Brethren, thus we must think of Jesus Christ as God, as the Judge of the quick and the dead.”66 The so-called Epistle of St. Barnabas, though reckoned among the non-canonical writings by Eusebius,66 is as old as, if not older than St. Clement’s undoubtedly genuine First Letter to the Corinthians.67 As a witness 52 rb fficijirrpov rijs fieydkoffivrfs tioned by Eusebius (Hist. EccL, III, rov 9eou. x Cor. XVI, 2 (ed. 38, 1) as purporting to be the SecFunk, I, 41, Tubingen 1887). ond Letter of St Clement. 53 This opinion is based on both 55 Patres A post olid, Ed. Funk, I, internal and external evidence. The 81. complete Greek text of this ” Sec- 56 Hist. EccL, VI, 13, 6. ond Letter,” as first published in 57 According to the most ap1875, makes it evident that it is not proved conjectures (Funk, Hilgena letter but a sermon, probably feld) this Letter was composed in preached at Corinth. Cfr. Barden- the reign of the Emperor Nerva hewer-Shahan, Petrology, p. 29. (A. D. 96-98). Cfr. Bardenhewer54 The ” Letter ” is first men- Shahan, Patrology, pp. 22 sqq. to primitive Tradition its authority is unexceptionable. It teaches : ” Jesus is not [only] the Son of man, but the Son of God, though as to form revealed in the flesh. But because they would say that He was the son of David, David himself, apprehending and foreseeing the error of impious men, prophesied : ’ The Lord spoke to my Lord ’ … Behold how David calls Him ’ Lord ’ and not son.” 68 The author of the work known as the Shepherd of Hermas was not, as he represents himself, a contemporary of St. Clement of Rome, but probably a brother of Pope Pius I (about 140-155). 59 Funk justly charges him with teaching a false Christology.60 Nevertheless he may be cited as a witness to primitive Tradition. He says: ” The Son is older than any creature, so much so that He ministered as counsellor to the Father at the creation of the creature.” 61 And again : ” The name of the Son of God is grand and immeasurable and supports the whole world.” 62 Pre-existence, the power of creation and preservation are divine attributes, and He to whom they are ascribed (the ” Son of God,” or Christ), must be Divine. However, as the phraseology of the Shepherd occasionally savors of Adoptionism, it will be well not to attach too much importance to his testimony.63 68 Ep. Barnabae, XII, 10, ed. Funk, I, 41. On the testimony of Polycarp and St. Ignatius of Antioch, cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Trinity, p. 137, and Nirschl, Die Theologie des hi. Ignatius, Mainz 1880. 69 This theory, upon which competent critics are now almost unanimously agreed, is based on a passage of the Muratorian Fragment, which the reader will find quoted in Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 40. 60 Hermas identifies the ” Son of God” with the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost, as it would seem, with the Archangel Michael. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Trinity, p. 151. 61 Pastor Hermae, 1. Ill, sim. 9, c. 12, 2. 62 Ibid., c. 14, 5. 63 Cfr. Tixeront, History of Dogmas (Engl, ed.), Vol. I, pp. 115 sqq., St. Louis 191 1. P) The Christian apologists of the second century are a unit in their Logos-teaching, though it should be borne in mind that their theory of the Aoyo* crTTcpfiaTiKosy as well as the distinction they make between1 Aoyos cvSiatfcTos and Aoyos irpo^opucds are not derived from Revelation but from the philosophical systems of the Platonists and Stoics.64 A most important witness to primitive Christian belief in the Divinity of Jesus is Aristides of Athens. His Apology, already mentioned by Eusebius,66 was regarded as lost until the year 1878, when the Mechitarists of San Lazzaro published a fragment of an Armenian translation. In 1891, Rendel Harris made known a complete Syriac translation, and a Greek recension of the text was simultaneously edited by Armitage Robinson.66 The original of this Apology was probably offered to the Emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161). ” The Christians,,, says Aristides,67 ” date the beginning of their religion from Jesus Christ. He, Himself, is 64 ” The view of the Logos as ivdtdOeros and as irpocpop i/cds, as the Word conceived and the Word uttered, the Word mental and the Word active and effectual — to distinguish the two senses of Logos, thought and speech — came from the Stoics, and is found in Fhilo, and was, under certain limitations, allowed in Catholic theology. (Damasc, F. O., II, 21). To use, indeed, either of the two absolutely and to the exclusion of the other, would have involved some form of Sabellianism, or Arianism, as the case might be; but each term might correct the defective sense of the other. That the use was not oversafe would appear from its history in the Church, into which the above theologians [Tatian, Tertullian, Novatian, etc.], by their mode of teaching the yivvrjais of the Word, introduce us.” (Newman, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, Vol. II, p. 340, 9th impression, London 1903.) On the history of these terms see the same eminent author’s Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical, pp. 209 sqq., new ed., London 1895. 65 Chron. ad a. Abrah. 2140; cfr. Hist. Eccl., IV, 3, 3. 66 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 46. 07 ApoL, IL 6.

called the Son of God the Most High, and they teach of Him that God descended from heaven and assumed flesh from a Hebrew virgin. Therefore the Son of God hath dwelled in a daughter of man.” To the same Emperor Antoninus Pius, and to his adopted sons, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, is addressed the ” First ” Apology of St. Justin Martyr, composed about A. D. 150.68 Justin attempts to demonstrate from the Old Testament69 that “Jesus Christ is the Son of God,” and thereupon continues : ” Who, being the first-born word of God, is also God.”70 On the authority of Sacred Scripture he rejects the contention of the Ebionites that Christ is a “mere man,“71 and declares that He is ” alone ” called ” Son of God ” in “the proper sense.” 72 St. Justin concludes his argument against the Jew Trypho with the remark : ” That Christ the Lord, therefore, is both God and the Son of God,73 … has been repeatedly proved.” He accordingly does not hesitate to assign to Jesus Christ, as Second Person of the Divine Trinity, a place in the baptismal form, saying that all Christians are baptized * in the name of the Parent of all things, the Lord God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost.* 74 08 On St. Justin’s teaching concerning the Logos cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Trinity, p. 144. MApol., I, n. 63 (Migne, P. G., VI, 423 sq.). 70 Ibid. (Migne, P. G., VI, 426): 8s Kal A6yos vptaroroKos &v rov Oeovf Kal 9e6f vnapxet. 11 Dial. c. Tryph., 48 (Migne, I. c, 579). 72Apol., II, n. 6 (Migne, J. c, 453): 6 fUvos \«y6fievos Kvplm vl6s, 6 A070J irp6 rStv votjjfidrwv* 73 Dial. c. Tryph., 128 (Migne, /. c, 774): Kal 9e6y Beov vlbs VTf6.p\av, liApo’l., I, n. 61 (Migne, /. c, 419) : * In nomine Parentis universorum ac Domini Dei, ac Salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi, et Spiritus Sancti.* On the Christological teaching of St. Justin consult A. L. Feder, S.J., lustins des Martyrers Lehre von Jesus Christus, Freiburg 1906. t THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST 25 One of the most beautiful professions of faith in the Divinity of Christ that has come down to us from the early days is contained in the Letter to Diognetus, which on internal evidence is commonly ascribed to the era of the persecutions.75 The author of this Letter76 devotes an entire chapter (the seventh) to Christ as ” the Logos sent upon this earth by the invisible Creator,” and who is ” no angel,” but the ” Creator of the Universe ” Himself.77 y) An important doctrinal role in the tradition of our dogma must be assigned to St. Irenaeus of Lyons (born about 140). He was a disciple of St. Polycarp of Smyrna (d. 155), who had received the faith from St. John, the Apostle. St. Irenaeus emphasizes the fact that Christ is truly the Son of God, and consequently true God. ” No one else, therefore,” he writes, …” is called God or Lord, except He who is the God and Lord of all [i. e., the Father] … and His Son Jesus Christ, our Lord.”78 75 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 68. 70 The authorship of the Letter to Diognetus has been variously attributed: by Bunsen to Marcion, by Draseke to Apelles, by Doulcet, Kihn, and Krtiger to Aristides of Athens. Bardenhewer says that ” the latter hypothesis alone merits attention.” (Bardenhewer-Shahan, /. c.) 77 Ep. ad Diognef., VII, 2, 4 (ed. Funk, I, 32 1 ) : ” Ipse vere omnium regenerator et omnium conditor et invisibilis Deus (= Pater) ipse e coelis veritatem et Verbum sanctum et incomprehensibile (t6v K6yov rbv iytov ical dwepivdriTov) inter homines locavit et cordibus eorum infixit; non quemadmodum aliquis coniicere possit, hominibus ministrum aliquem mittens aut angelum aut principem, … sed ipsum opificem et creatorem omnium (rbv rtxviry\v koX drffiiovpyby rdv 5Acw), per quern coelos condidit. … In dementia et lenitate ut rex mittens Filium regem misit eum, ut Deum misit, ut hominem ad homines misit/’ 78 ” Nemo igitur alius, … Deus nominatur aut Dominus appellatur nisi qui est omnium Deus et Dominus [i. e., Pater] … et huius Filius Iesus Christus Dominus noster.* Contr. Haer., Ill, 6, 2 (Migne, P. C, VII, 861). 26 DUALITY IN UNITY * He [i. e., Christ] alone of all men who lived up to that time is properly called God, and Lord, and Eternal King, and Only-Begotten, and Word Incarnate, by all the prophets and Apostles, and by the [Holy] Spirit Himself, as any one can see who has attained to even a modicum of truth. The Scriptures would not give such testimony of Him if He were a mere man like the rest of us.” 79 In virtue of this belief St. Irenaeus unhesitatingly identifies Christ with the Second Person of the Divine Trinity : ” The Church received from the Apostles and their disciples that faith which is in one God, the Father Almighty … and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was made Flesh for our salvation, and in the Holy Ghost.” 80 As for Origen (185-255), he is quite orthodox in his Christological teaching when he speaks as a simple witness to ecclesiastical Tradition. It is only when he engages in philosophical speculation that he seems to deviate from the truth. In his first-mentioned capacity he says in the preface to his famous work Uepl *kpx

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST things were made — He emptied Himself in recent days, became man and assumed flesh, notwithstanding He was God, and having become man, He nevertheless remained what He was, namely God.” 81 Of the author of the Johannine Gospel Origen observes : ” None of the Evangelists has proclaimed the Divinity of Christ so clearly as John.”82 8) Among the ecclesiastical writers of the West, Tertullian taught and defended the Divinity of Christ and the dogma of the Trinity. In his Apologeticum (or Apologeticus)3 he says: “Verum neque de Christo erubescimus, quum sub nomine eius deputari et damnari iuvat, neque de Deo aliter praesumimus. Necesse est igitur pauca dicamus de Christo ut Deo… . Hunc ex Deo prolatum didicimus et prolatione generatum et idcirco Filium Dei et Deum dictum ex unitate substantiae; nam et Deus spiritus… . Quod de Deo profectum est, Deus est et Dei Filius et unus ambor 84 81 Orig., De Princ, Praef., 5. 82 Tract, in Ioa., 6 (Migne, P. C, XIV, 29). On the controversy between Dionysius the Great of Alexandria (d. 265) and Pope Dionysiu8, cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Trinity, pp. 121 sqq., 142. On Origen’s Christological teaching cfr. Liddon, The Divinity of Christ, pp. 573 sqq»; Tixeront, History of Dogmas, I, 264 sqq. 88 The most ancient text-witnesses do not agree with regard to the precise title of this famous book. 84 A polo get., 21. Bardenhewer ob3 serves that Tertullian ” in his defense of the personal distinction between the Father and the Son … does not, apparently, avoid a certain Subordinationism, although in many very clear expressions and turns of thought he almost approaches the decision of the Nicene Council.” (Otto Bardenhewer, Patrologie, 2nd ed., p. 162, Freiburg 1 90 1. Shahan’s translation, p. 185. We have slightly altered Dr. Shahan’s wording, in order to bring out our point more effectively). The difficulty is one of terminology 28 DUALITY IN UNITY The writings of St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (about AD. 200-258), who was a countryman of Tertullian, abound in passages affirming the Divinity of Christ and the dogma of the Trinity. “If he has obtained forgiveness of his sins …,” Cyprian says in one place, ” he has been made a temple of God. I ask : Of which God? Not of the Creator, because he does not believe in Him. Not of Christ, because he denies that Christ is God. Not of the Holy Ghost, because, if the Three are One, how can the Holy Ghost be pacified in regard to him who is an enemy of either the Father or the Son?“85 The Patristic texts which we have quoted show how utterly groundless is the Modernist assertion, solemnly condemned in the ” Syllabus of Pius X,” that ” the Christ of history [i. e., Jesus as depicted in the four Gospels] is far inferior to the Christ who is the object of faith."" 3. The Apologetic Argument. — Apologetically, the Divinity of Christ can be demonstrated in a twofold manner : ( 1 ) against the Jews, by showing that the Messianic prophecies were fulfilled in Christ; (2) against unbelievers, from internal and external criteria furnished by His life and teaching and by the testimony of His rather than real. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Trinity, pp. 141 sqq.; also, Tixeront, History of Dogmas, Vol. I, p. 312 85 Ep. ad Iubaian., 23, 12. 80 * Concedere licet Christum, quern exhibet historia, multo inferiorem esse Christo, qui est obiectum fidei. Cfr. Heiner, Der neue Syllabus, pp. 121 sqq., Mainz 1907. On the Nicene decision see PohlePreuss, The Divine Trinity, pp. 125 sqq. On the testimony of the martyrs to the Divinity of Christ, ibid., pp. 137 sqq. On the teaching of the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers, ibid., pp. 153 sqq. \ THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST Apostles. It belongs to Fundamental Theology to develop this argument fully; in the present, purely dogmatic treatise we shall merely sketch its outlines. a) Against the Jews we must prove that Jesus Christ is the ” Messias” 87 promised in the Old Testament. If He is the Messias, He is true God, for as such the prophets predicted that He would appear.88 If He were not the Messias, the Jewish religion would be based on fraud, because the idea of the Messias forms its very foundation-stone.89 All the Messianic prophecies were fulfilled in that historic personage known as Jesus of Nazareth, who proved Himself by word and deed to be the true Messias.90 The well-known prediction of Jacob (Gen. XLIX, 10 sqq.) : “The sceptre shall not be taken away91 from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that is to be sent, etc.,,, either has not yet been fulfilled, and must forever remain unfulfilled, or it is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.92 The same holds good of the famous prophecy 87 ITfcto’ ■ e- ^ctus, 6 Xpwrot. — • T 88 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Trinity, pp. 15 sq. 89 Cfr. F. Hettinger, Fundamentaltheologie, 2nd ed., pp. 321 sqq., Freiburg 1888; Hettinger-Bowden, Revealed Religion, pp. 149 sqq., 2nd ed.; A. J. Maas, S. J., Christ in Type and Prophecy, 2 vols., New York 1893. 00 On the Messianic expectations of the Jews and Gentiles at the time of Christ cfr. Hettinger, Fundament altheologie, pp. 339 sqq.; C. Gutberlet, Lehrbuch der Apologetik, Vol. II, pp. 192 sqq., Minister 1895; H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, pp. 109 sqq., London, Oxford, and Cambridge 1867; Maas, Christ in Type and Prophecy, Vol. I, pp. 56 sqq., New York 1893; H. J. Coleridge, S. J., The Preparation of the Incarnation, pp. 59 sqq., 2nd ed., London 1894. 91 On this rendering of the Hebrew text, as well as on the whole passage, see Maas, Christ in Type and Prophecy, Vol. I, pp. 288 sqq. 92 On certain strange Jewish at3Q DUALITY IN UNITY of Daniel (Dan. IX, 24-27: “Seventy weeks are shortened upon thy people, etc.”). No matter how we may interpret it in detail, as a whole it was either realized in Christ or must remain forever unfulfilled.98 Now there can be no reasonable doubt that the Danielic prediction has found its consummation in Christ, for since His time the Jewish sacrifices have ceased and the city of Jerusalem with its Temple has been destroyed. Similar arguments can be constructed from the prophecies of the “virgin birth” (Is. VII, 14), the passion (Ps. XXI; Is. LIII, 1 sqq.), the “clean oblation” (Mai. I, II sqq.), and so forth.94 Furthermore, all Old Testament types, both personal and real, have been fulfilled in Christ and His Church.95 Hence, for an orthodox Jew to deny the Messiahship and consequently the Divinity of Christ, means to reject the Jewish religion as an empty superstition. b) Against unbelievers the Divinity of Jesus Christ can be demonstrated : ( 1 ) from internal criteria such as the divine character of His teaching and the superhuman majesty of His Person; and (2) from external evidence, especially His tempts at evading this dilemma cfr. Childhood of Jesus Christ Accord’ Billuart, De Incarn., diss. 2, art. 2, ing to the Canonical Gospels, Phil|i. adelphia 1910, and G. Oussani, * The •8 Cfr. Fraidl, Die Exegese der Virgin Birth of Christ and Modern TO Wochen Daniels in der alteren Criticism * in the New York Reund mittleren Zeit, Graz 1883; view, Vol. Ill (1907), No. 2-3 Dusterwald, Die Weltreiche und das (1908), No. 4-5. Gottesreich nach den Weissagungen 95 Cfr. J. Selbst, Die Kirche Jesu des Propheten Daniel, Freiburg Christi nach den Weissagungen der 1890; Maas, Christ in Type and Propheten, Mainz 1883; A. SchopProphecy, Vol. I, pp. 299 sqq. fer, Geschichte des Alten Testa»4 These arguments are well de- mentes, 4th ed., pp. 370 sqq., Brixen veloped by G. B. Tepe, S. J., Instit. 1906; A J. Maas, S. J., Christ in TheoU, Vol. I, pp. 132 sqq., Paris Type and Prophecy, New York 1894. On the dogma of the virgin 1893. birth consult Durand-Bruneau, The THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST prophecies and the miracles wrought by Him in confirmation of His mission and teaching. This argument derives additional force from the admission of modern Rationalists, that * the historical criticism of two generations has resulted in restoring the credibility of the first three Gospels * (which had been impugned by David Friedrich Strauss),96 and that St. Paul ” understood the Master, and continued His work.” 97 «) The Rationalists are forced to admit that Christ’s religious and moral teaching was as sublime as it was simple, and that not the slightest moral taint attaches to His Person. ” That Jesus’ message is so great and so powerful,” says, e. g., Harnack,98 ” lies in the fact that it is so simple and on the other hand so rich; so simple as to be exhausted in each of the leading thoughts which he uttered; so rich that every one of these thoughts seems to be inexhaustible and the full meaning of the sayings and parables beyond our reach. But more than that — he himself stands behind everything that he has said. His words speak to us across the centuries with the freshness of the present. It is here that that profound saying is truly verified : ’ Speak, that I may see thee/ ” Sublime indeed, born of superhuman wisdom and celestial holiness is the teaching of Jesus Christ,” and consequently, He Himself must be more than a mere man.100 06 A. Harnack, Das Wesen des o» Consider, for instance, the Chrtstentums, p. 14. (English edi- Lord’s Prayer and the Sermon on 98 Ibid., p. 33. (English transla- Hake in his Handbuch der allgetion, pp. 55 sq.) tion, p. 22). •7 Ibid., p. 110. (English ed., p. 189.) the Mount. 100 The student will find this thought forcefully developed by P. By the compelling majesty of His Person Jesus looms as the ideal ” Superman/’ His very features, His words and actions, are so human and yet at the same time so exalted, that we instinctively feel He is a superior being. We are justified in asking Professor Harnack whether his own description of Christ would fit a mere man : ” The sphere in which he lived, above the earth and its concerns, did not destroy his interest in it ; no, he brought everything in it into relation with the God whom he knew, and he saw it as protected in him : ’ Your Father in heaven feeds them.’ The parable is his most familiar form of speech. Insensibly, however, parable and sympathy pass into each other. Yet he who had not where to lay his head does not speak like one who has broken with everything, or like an heroic penitent, or like an ecstatic prophet, but like a man who has rest and peace for his soul and who is able to give life and strength to others. He strikes the mightiest notes; he offers men an inexorable alternative; he leaves them no escape; and yet the strongest emotion seems to come naturally to him, and he expresses it as something natural ; he clothes it in the language in which a mother speaks to her child.” 101 There is another characteristic which, even more than those we have already mentioned, stamps the Person of Jesus Christ with the seal of Divinity, — His absolute exemption from error and sin. No mere man is immune from sin and error. If any man really enjoyed these prerogatives, he could not proclaim the fact to his fellow men without making himself the butt of ridicule. Jesus, the Godman, speaking ”as one havtneinen Religionsxvissenschaft, Vol. pp. 23 sq. (English translation, pp. II, pp. 131 sqq., Freiburg 1887. 39-40.) 101 Das Wesen des Christentums, THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST ing power,” 102 fears not error, nor doubt, nor contradiction. He bases His instructions on a categorical : ” I tell you,” and meets the objections of His opponents in the majestic posture of a true sovereign. Still more marvellous is His freedom from sin. Neither His friends108 nor His enemies,104 including Judas the traitor, were able ” to find a cause ” in Him. Nay, more — He Himself was in a position to say without the slightest conceit : ” I am meek and humble of heart,” 10 and to ask : ” Which of you shall convince me of sin?“106 — the same Jesus who taught His Apostles to pray : ” Father … forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.” 107 Christ thus stands before us both in the intellectual and the moral order as a wondrous apparition, a superhuman, heavenly Being of divine origin. Qosely bound up with His character and teaching is His own assertion of His Divine Sonship and Divinity. It puts all men face to face with the terrible dilemma : ” Either Jesus Christ is true God, or the Christian religion is a blasphemous deception, and its Founder a knave or a fool. This alternative ought to convince all who are able and willing to use their reason, that Christ is true God and that the Christian religion is a divine institution.* 108 In vain does Harnack declare it unevangelical to *put a Christological creed in the forefront of the Gospel ” and to ” teach that before a man can approach [the Gospel] he must learn to think rightly about Christ.” 109 Christ i02Matth. VII, 29. 108 J. Kleutgen, Theologie der 103 Cfr. Acts III, 14; XIII, 35; Vorzeit, Vol. Ill, p. 17, 2nd ed., Heb. IV, 15; 1 Pet. I, 19; 1 John Munster 1870. Cfr. M. Lepin, Christ III, 7; II, 1. and the Gospel, English tr., pp. 128 104 Cfr. Luke XXIII, 4. sqq., Philadelphia 1910. lOsMatth. XI, 29. 100 Das Wesen des Christentums, 106 John VIII, 46. p. 93. (English translation, p. 158.) 107 Matth. VI, 12, Himself imposed ” a Christological profession of faith on His Apostles,” 110 and confronted the Jews with the categorical question: “What think you of Christ? whose son is he?” 111 In proof of His own conviction and of His assertion that He is the Messiah and the true Son of God, He suffered ignominious death.112 Upon a right conception of the Person of Christ, therefore, depends the truth or falsity of the Christian religion. It is a question of eternal life or death.118 P) External proofs for the Divinity of Christ’s Person and mission are the prophecies He uttered and the miracles He performed. His prophecies concern partly His own future,114 partly the fate of His Church,115 partly the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple,116 and the dispersion of the Jews.117 The fact that these predictions were fulfilled to the letter, furnishes a sufficient guaranty that those which still remain unfulfilled (e. g., the resurrection of the dead and the last judgment), will also come no Matth. XVI, 1 6 sqq. ill Matth. XXII, 42. H2Matth. XXVI, 23 sqq.; Luke XXII, 66 sqq.; John XIX, 7. us Cfr. K. Hennemann, Die Hiiligkeit Jesu als Beweis seiner Cottheit, Wfirzburg 1898; A. Seitz, Das Evangelium vom Cottessohn, Freiburg 1908, pp. 171 *qq>, 343 sqq.; H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of Christ, pp. 243 sqq.; F. Sawicki, Die Wahrheit des Christentums, pp. 355 sqq., Paderborn 191 1. 114 As, #. g., His betrayal at the hands of Judas, the denial of Peter, the Passion and the Resurrection. lis For instance, the sending of the Holy Ghost, the heathen persecutions, the conversion of the Gentiles, the indestructibility of His Church. lie Cfr. Matth. XXIV, 5; Luke XIX, 43 sqq. 117 Cfr. Luke XXI, 24. On the literal fulfillment of these prophecies cfr. P. Hake, Handbuch der allgemeinen Religionswissenschaft, Vol. II, pp. 193 sqq.; G. B. Tepe, Instit, Theol., Vol. I, pp. 193 sqq. On the destruction of Jerusalem in particular, see Josephus, Bell, lud., II, 13; VI, 3 qq-; VII, 1; Tacitus, Hist., I, 2; Amraian. Marcellin., Rer. Cest., XXIII, x sqq. (Kirch, Enchiridion Fontium Historiae Ecclesiasticae, n. 606, Friburgi 1910). THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST 35 true. Meanwhile the Catholic Church resides among us as a living tangible proof of Christ’s prophetic power. Her existence, teaching, character, and indefectibility supply the earnest inquirer with a sufficiently strong argument for the Godhead of her Founder.118 The historicity of the Gospel miracles cannot be brushed aside on Harnack’s frivolous pretext that ” what happens in space and time is subject to the general laws of motion, and that in this sense, as an interruption of the order of Nature, there can be no such thing as ’ miracles/ ” If the Gospels are authentic and genuine documents, — and Harnack admits that at least three of them are, — the wonderful events which they record must be accepted as historic facts, because they are inseparably bound up with the narrative as a whole. The moral character of Jesus stands or falls with His miracles, to which He so frequently appeals in proof of His doctrine and mission.110 In matter of fact tEese miracles were wrought before the eyes of the whole Jewish nation, their genuineness is attested alike by friend and foe, and at least one of them was established by a searching legal investigation.120 Harnack arbitrarily disrupts the texture of the Gospel miracles when he says : ” That the earth in its course stood still, that a she-ass spoke, that a storm was quieted by a word, we do not believe and we shall never again believe; but that the lame walked, the blind saw, and the deaf heard, will not be so summarily dismissed as an illu118 This argument is well devel- 4, 5; XII, 25 sqq.; Luke V, 23 oped by O. R. Vassall-Phillips, C. sqq.; John V, 21, 36; VI, 30; X, 37 SS. R., The Mustard Tree: An Ar- sq.; XI, 42; XIV, 10 sq., etc., etc. gument on Behalf of the Divinity of On the historic character of the Christ, London 19 12. Gospels see P. Batiffol, The Credi119 Harnack, Das Wesen des bitity of the Gospel, tr. by G. C. H. Christentums, p. 17 (English trans- Pollen, S. J., London 1912. lation, pp. 28 sq.) Cfr. Matth. XI, 120 Cfr. John IX, 1 sqq. sion.” 121 The miracles of the Gospel cannot be divided off into credible cures and incredible interruptions of the order of Nature without destroying the harmonious unity of the sacred narrative. Furthermore, such unwarranted discrimination would cast a slur on the moral character of Jesus, who in His sermons constantly appeals to both classes of miracles. If some of them were unreal, Christ would be a contemptible impostor.122 And now to the final question: What attitude does modern Rationalism take with regard to the Resurrection, that pivotal miracle which constitutes the climax of our Lord’s earthly career and the foundation stone of Christian belief?128 Will Harnack here too make the reservation : ” We are not yet by any means acquainted with all the forces working in it [i. e., the order of Nature] and acting reciprocally with other forces”?124 It is here that the unbeliever meets with his final Waterloo. The hypothesis that the death of Christ was merely apparent, and that His disciples were impostors, has now been universally abandoned. The so-called vision theory is flatly contradicted by the facts.125 Therefore our Lord’s triumphant Resurrection forms the pillar and groundwork of the Christian dispensation and the test and touchstone of true belief.126 121 Das Wesen des Christ entums, p. 1 8 (English translation, pp. 30 sq.>. 122 Cfr. Luke VII, 13 sqq.; Matth. VII, 18 sqq.; John XI, 43. 128 ” If Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.” (1 Cor. XV, 14.) 124 Dor Wesen des Christ entums, p. 18 (English translation, p. 30). 125 The doubting Thomas was surely neither a visionary nor a day-dreamer. 126 The student will find this subject more fully developed in Tepe, Instit, TheoL, Vol. I, pp. 97 sqq. He may also consult with profit: P. Hake, Handbuch der allgemeinen Religionswissenschaft, Vol. II, pp. 171 sqq.; F. Hettinger, Fundamentaltheologie, 2nd ed., pp. 368 sqq., Freiburg 1888; Fl. Chable, Die Wunder Jesu in ihrem inner en THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST 37 Readings :— * St. Thomas Aquinas, Contr. Gent, IV, 2 sqq. (Rickaby, Of God and His Creatures, pp. 340 sqq., London 1905). — Suarez, De Incarnatione, disp. 2. — Prudentius Maranus, Be Divinitate Domini Nostri Iesu Christi, ed. Wirceb., 1859. — P. Hake, Handbuch der allgemeinen Religionswissenschaft, Vol. II, §§ 30 sqq., Freiburg 1887.— C. Gutberlet, Apologetik, 2nd ed., Vol. II, 2, §§ 5-10, Minister 1895.-— Fr. Hettinger, Apologie des Christentums, I, 1, Vortr. 14-18, 9th ed., Freiburg 1906. (English tr. by H. S. Bowden, Revealed Religion, pp. 130 sqq., 2nd ed.,*London s. a.) — J. Bade, Christotheologie oder Jesus Christus, der Sohn Gottes und wahre Gott, 2nd ed., Paderborn 1870. — L. Reinke, Die messianischen Psalmen, 2 vols., Giessen 1857-58. — Idem, Die messianischen Weissagungen hex den Propheten, 4 vols., Giessen 1859-62. — M. Lendov?ek, Divina Maiestas Verbi Incarnati Elucidata ex Libris Novi Testamenti, Graz 1896. — Endler, Apologetische Vortr age iiber die Gottheit Iesu, Prague 1900. — W. Capitaine, Jesus von Nazareth, eine Prufung seiner Gottheit, Ratisbon 1904. — H. Schell, Jahwe und Christus, Paderborn 1905. — G. W. B. Marsh, Messianic Philosophy, an Historical and Critical Examination of the Evidence for the Existence, Death, Resurrection, Ascension, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, London 1908. — Idem, Miracles, London 1906. — Idem, The Resurrection of Christ, Is it a Fact? London 1905. — Devivier-Sasia, Christian Apologetics, Vol. I, pp. 33 sqq., San Jose, Cal., 1903. — Bougaud-Currie, The Divinity of Christ, New York 1906. — J. H. Newman, An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent, New York ed., 1870, pp. 420 sqq. — Freddi-Sullivan, S. J., Jesus Christ the Word Incarnate, pp. 12 sqq., St. Louis 1904. — V. Rose, O. P., Studies on the Gospels, English tr. by R. Fraser, London 1903. — * H. Felder, O. M. Cap., Jesus Christus, Apologie seiner Messianitdt und Gottheit gegeniiber der neuesten unglaubigen Jesus-Forschung, Vol. I, Paderborn 191 1. — M. Lepin, S. S., Christ and the Gospel, Engl, tr., Philadelphia 1910.— O. R. Vassall-Phillips, C. SS. R., The Mustard Tree: An Argument on Behalf of the DiZusammenhang, Freiburg 1897; H. Christ, pp. 232 sqq., London, OxSchell, Jahwe und Christus, pp. 278 ford, and Cambridge 1867; J. B. sqq., Paderborn 1905; L. Fonck, Disteldorf, Die Auferstehung S. J., Die W under des Herrn im Christi, Trier 1906; G. W. B. Evangelium, 2nd ed„ Innsbruck Marsh, The Resurrection of Christ, 1907; H. P. Liddon, The Divinity London 1905; £. Mangenot, La of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Resurrection de Jisus, Paris 191 o. trinity of Christ, London 1912. — F. X. Kiefl, Der geschichtliche Christus und die moderne Philosophie, Mainz 191 1. — P. Batiffol, The Credibility of the Gospels (tr. by G. C. H. Pollen, S. J.), London 1912. — H. Schumacher, Die SelbstoWenbarung Jesu bei Mat. 11, 27 (Luc 10, 22), Freiburg 1912. Additional literature in Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Trinity, pp. 95 sqq., St. Louis 1912.