Imágenes de página

“ dispensation,” any form he pleased, but he did not ground the ubiquity upon this, (and exactly upon this he could have founded an objection against Ursinus' materialistic representation,) but upon the “sessio ad dexteram.” By his ascension into heaven, Christ has withdrawn his visible, not his bodily presence, altogether. It is just of this that Matt. speaks, 28: 6.

Independently of the exegetical untenableness of this distinction, Andreas involved himself in an essential contradiction. For, according to what he had already said, the “majestas” of Christ identical with his ubiquity, even here in his state of humiliation, appeared as a correlative of the personal union of the natures; but according to what he then said, it would only be in his state of exaltation, as the result of his ascension into heaven. Upon this Ursinus inquired, whether Jesus in his mother's womb was already omnipresent? No, said Andreas, only since the "sessio.” Before he had only the right to the “sessio," without making use of it. To a certain extent, however, he was already, when in his mother's womb, setting at the right hand of God. He then admitted: “Habuit omnem divinam gloriam ab initio, sed tum non fuit ubique." But was it not here admitted, that the ubiquitas" did not belong to the "majestas,” or “gloria ?" Ursinus urged this upon him, “ If already in his mother's womb, he was “ad dexteram," and if it was true, " qui est ad dexteram Dei, ubique est,” he was then in his mother's womb "ubique.” Andreas replied, that until his ascension Christ refrained from the exercise of ubiquity; this is what Paul meant by zevwOi5.* Ursinus, however, did not let him escape so easily. He asked him properly: “Quando ergo coepit ubique esse?" Andreas : “Quando coepit exserere majestatem suam.” Olevian: thus he yielded his previous argument of “commun. idiom.” The new argument, however, would not hold good; for his exaltation commenced already with his resurrection, and not just with his ascension. Andreas now asserted, that he wished to prove from the commun. idiom.,” nothing more than the possibility of a ubiquity. He then came with the manifest doketic assertion that Jesus, as he “instar infantis alicujus omnis sapientiae expertis” lay in the cradle, was already omnipotent, (his childhood was a mere phantom,) and in proof of this, he relied upon Luke 2:52, where it is said that “Jesus increased in wisdom and in years.” Olevian asked him to stick to the point, and to say whether Jesus, previous to his death, was everywhere present as to the body? Andreas : “ Aperte dico, humanum in Christo naturam fuisse corporaliter in utero matris in loco et nusquam pectore quamvis secundum majestatem ubique esse, et in omnibus locis se ostendere potuissit.”* Olevian: “ Verene igitur verum Christi corpus et anima cum divinitate in utore matris unita fuerunt?" Andreas : “Fuerunt. After Olevian had received the answers to the other questions, that Jesus was then in a state of humiliation, and that the state of exaltation began with his resurrection, he drew the irrefutable inference, by which he check mated his opponent: “Sequitur unionem personalem non dissolvi, neque divinitatem ab humanitate divelli, etiamsi corpus Christi non sit ubique praesens. Id quod in nobis reprehenditis." Andreas now sought to assume another position, and tried to show, that Jesus could have exercised his “majestas” at his first supper, immediately before his death. Olevian, however, held him fast. He forced him to the confession, that by John 1: 14, he only showed that Jesus could be everywhere; Andreas admitted this; he compelled him also to acknowledge : “Personalem unionem non continuo dissolvi, si quis una vobiscum fateatur, divinitatem eodem tempore esse ubique, humanitatem vero

* Without saying anything of this false exegesis, how shallow and senseless is the idea itself! It places Christ's person and life in the category of contingency! It depended already upon his own will, even in the womb, whether he would sit at the right hand of God or not! How entirely this is in the face of the significant dio in Phil. 2: 9. If, however, we give to this 8:0 its proper force, and acknowledge an inward necessity in the history of Christ, the assertion that the sessio, and the supposed ubiquity, falsely connected with it, is an element in the union of the two natures, falls entirely to the ground and the “ sessio” must be inferred from the specific work of Christ, the free dominion of the soul over the body, (which is to be substituted for the - ubiquitas") and from the general nature of glorified humanity.

* What a Nestorian separation on the one hand, that the humanity should be local, and the divinity at the same time, omnipresent and omniscient! And what a Doketic solution on the other, that that humanity could be at pleasure everywhere! And this “commun. idiom.” was to be an advance upon and a farther development of the Chalcedon system.


nonnisi certo in loco.” When he admitted this, the Elector directed that the following syllogism should be entered upon the protocol :

“Quod re ipsa est et fit, manente personali unione naturarum personam non dissolvit.

Humanitas Christi uno in loco esse potest (atque adeo re ipsa est) divinitas autem ubique manente personali unione naturam.

Ergo : personalis unio duarum in Christo naturarum non propetera dissolvitur, quia humanitas Christi uno tantum loco, divinitas autem ubique est."*

There was now no escape left to the good Andreas, except this, that it at least belongs to the “unio personalis,” that Christ should possess the “majestas.” On the other hand he admitted again that to the "majestas” the actual ubiquity did not belong.

What now was gained? The Palatines had not as yet denied this.

April 13. Andreas sheltered himself behind distinctions, which put an end to all sound human sense, and beyond which there is nothing more to be imagined. “ Actu primo," i. e. possessione,” Christ always had ubiquity, “ actu secundo, i. e., patefactione,” he had it only after the ascension. He was naturally asked, what he meant by “possessio,” whether the possibility of ubiquity, or an invisible reality. (If the first, then he only repeated what he had said the day before, and the expression “possessio," was a subterfuge. If the last, then the “possessio" and the "patefactio” were one and the same thing, because this last is also invisible, and he thus contradicted what he said the day before.) His answer was no less dark and confused than his distinction. Christ at all times was really everywhere—but only as to “possessio.” They were as wise then as before. Did he really think that the ubiquity was something that he might have, without actually making use of it? He thought nothing about it; for he added: "Cum Christus corpore suo uno quopiam in loco fuit, eodem illo loco majestatem in se habuit, quae ubique est.” Ursinus: Then the "majestas” is every where, but not the body? Andreas : " Tantum de majestate agitur.” Dathen and Diller then inquired again, how it was with the body of Christ ? He avoided a reply, and brought against Ursinus a charge that awakened the greatest dogmatical interest.

* After this, the statement of lIartman, II, 392, is to be corrected. If Berents, as Hartman says, did really assert that the Palatines were forced into a strait, and obliged to acknowledge that according to their view, Christ became divine only after his resurrection, this plump misrepresentation does no honor to the veracity of Berents. It may be, however, that there was a misunderstanding on the part of Hartman.

He charged that he held that the divinity of Christ was everywhere diffused, but that his humanity was confined to a single point, so that the two stood related “as the ocean did

6 to Antwerp.” Ursinus asked, When he had ever expressed “tam crassas phantasias.” He never conceived of the divinity of Christ as diffused in space, so that he could say: “ Altera pars est hic, altera illic;" but in the same sense omnipresent as God himself is. In this way Christ, according to his “majestas,” is also omnipresent. This assertion is of the greatest importance as an authentic interpretation of the 48th question of the Heid. Cat. It is possible to maliciously misunderstand this question,* in a Nestorian sense, as if the divinity of Christ was self-subsisting in heaven, and from that out was every where, and amongst other places, in a very special way, was in the humanity of Christ as one particular point.† A far better sense is the following: The divinity of Christ is in the humanity, and has the germ of its subsistence in the I of the person of Christ, but from this out the divinity extends farther than the humanity, reaches far above and beyond it. I Ursinus had


* “But in this way, are not the two natures in Christ so divided, that the humanity is not always everywhere where the divinity is ? Not at all: for as the divinity is incomprehensible, and present everywhere, it follows, that though external to the humanity, it nevertheless, still remains not the less in it and personally united to it.” Not a very skilful conception, that certainly needs an authentic explanation

† Figuratively represented: the universe is a circle in which the centre is the world governing Logos in heaven. Just as the periphery of the circle is a less one, still within the ring : the humanity of Jesus.

# Figuratively represented: two concentric circles, a very small one, and one immeasurably larger; the centre of the larger, the divinity is one and the same with that of the first, the humanity. From the humanity-the individual consciousness of Jesus out-the Logos pervades the world.

not only apprehended this last as the correct authentic signification, but in addition to this, he had also given to it the more important and wider definition that this extension of the divinity beyond the humanity was not local. It was the Lutherans at Maulbrun, and elsewhere, who conceived of the omnipresence as an object of imagination, as a local every where presence of God. The Reformed there, as well as on former occasions, regarded the divine attributes as appropriate to eternity, i. e., endless duration and immensity: (Ueber zeitlichkeit und ueberraumlichkeit.) For them, omnipresence does not consist in this, that God is every where in space, but that all space is in God. Even so, they conceived of the omnipresence of the divine nature of Christ. They held that the two natures were not two existing parts, of which the one was (something like a sponge) in one place, the other (somewhat like a pond in which the sponge lies,) was also in this place, and besides in every other place; but they held that the divine nature was an eternal essence, that in itself was immense and endless, and that in relation to time and space it was the original source of all; and that the human nature was the real humanity in time and space in which the eternal essence appeared in time-form, and within the limits of duration revealed and glorified itself. The Lutherans did not elevate themselyes to this idea of eternity, but thought of it simply as endless duration in space and time; it followed, on the one hand, that they gave a false sense to the Reformed view, and on the other, that they so united the two parts of Christ, that the one by means of unlimited extension was geometrically equal to the other.

After Ursinus had in this way disposed of this charge, he passed over to the Scripture doctrine. The Scriptures say: “ Christ is not here," not: “he does not visibly appear here.”

. And when Andreas referred to his passing through the closed door, he replied : “Non sequitur, id simul pluribus locis factum esse.” Diller very shrewdly added, that the miracle explained itself in this way, that “the creature gave place to its creator,” not that the body of Christ was in more places at the same time.

« AnteriorContinuar »