Wednesday, March 20, 2024

Charge of Christological Heresies in the Eucharistic Debate Between John Williamson Nevin and Charles Hodge


REVIEW, CONTINUED [HODGE]

 

But in the other view of this matter. What was this one life (or nature) of Christ? Dr. Nevin says: “It was in all respects a true human life” (p. 167). “Christ is the archetypal man, in whom the true idea of humanity is brought to view.” He “is the true ideal man.” Our nature is complete only in him (p. 201). But is a perfect, or ideal man, anything more than a mere man after all? If all that was in Christ pertains to the perfection of our nature, he was at best, but a perfect man. The only way to escape Socinianism, on this theory, is by defying the divine and human, and making all the glory, wisdom and power, which belong to Christ the proper attributes of humanity. Christ is a perfect man? But what is a perfect man? We may give a pantheistic, or a Socinian answer to that question, and not really help the matter—for the real and infinite hiatus between us and Christ, is in either case closed. Thus it is that mysticism falls back on rationalism. They are but different phases of the tone spirit. In Germany, it has long been a matter of dispute, to which class Schleiermacher belongs. He was accustomed to smile at the controversy as a mere logomachy. Steudel objects to Schleiermacher’s Christology, that according to him “Christ is a finished man.” Albert Knapp says: “He deifies the human and renders human the divine.” We, therefore, do not stand alone in thinking that to represent Christ’s life as in all respects human, to say he was the ideal man, that human nature found its completion in him, admits naturally only of a pantheistic or Socinian interpretation. We of course do not attribute to Dr. Nevin either of these forms of doctrine. We do not believe that he adopts either. But we object both to his language and doctrine that one or the other of those heresies, is their legitimate consequence.

 

CRITICISM [NEVIN]

 

Here are two new heresies, Socinianism and Pantheism, one of the other or which, we are told, is the legitimate consequences of my doctrine. Why? Let he reader fix his eye steadily now on the point, which is made to bear the weight of this momentous charge. I make Christ the perfect idea of humanity, and say of his mediatorial person that it was in all respects truly human, and not so merely in semblance or outward show. But, says Dr. Hodge, this is either to make him a mere man, or else to deify humanity. I deny the consequences. Is a perfect, or ideal man, it is asked, anything more than a mere man after all? Without any regard to Schleiermacher’s theory, I answer unhesitatingly: Yes, the true idea of humanity involves such a union with the divine nature, as we have exhibited in the SON OF MAN, Jesus Christ. Mark well, the true idea of humanity, nor the conception of a single man separately taken. Dr. Hodge imagines plainly that the idea of man as a whole, is something proper full to the nature of each man as a solitary unit. But this is not the true force of the word humanity. It expresses the universal life of our race, as a whole, which for this very reason can never be fully at hand in any ordinary single man separately considered. And now of such a whole we say, humanity cannot be complete save in living union with God; and to this union it comes fully only in the person of Christ, who on this very account is the central, universal, archetypal MAN; not a copy of what should have place in all as dreamed by Hegel; but the actual bearer of a fact or reality in which all are required to participate through Him;, and through Him alone. Does this imply any such deification of others, as it admitted to hold in this case? Just the reverse. It makes him the universal center, for the very purpose of placing the whole world over against him, as a moral planetarium that can have no meaning or force, except as it revolves with perpetual consciousness around HIM, the Sun of Righteousness, in this character. In this way we are all called to be “partakers of the divine nature,” and so to have part in the true ideals of humanity, though it is reversed for our glorious Head alone to be at once, in his single separate personality, all that the perfection of humanity requires in this view. Is this Socinianism? Or does it land us in Pantheism Is it not rather the only right sense of the Eighth Psalm, as interpreted Heb. 2:5-9?

 

But turn not to Dr. Hodges’s theory, as we have seen it here by plain implication. For him, the constitution of Christ is not perfectly human; the divine Word has not so become flesh as to be itself, in this form, the legitimate expression of what belongs to the idea of humanity; it has not entered inwardly, organically, really into union with out human nature, in any such way as to be itself human as well as divine. The mystery of the incarnation, according to Dr. Hodge, is not any such process as can be said to bring the supernatural side of Christ’s life, into historical and abiding marriage with the natural. Divinity and humanity cannot, with him, be so married into a single personal consciousness. They are two worlds that necessarily stand out of each other; and if they seem to meet and to become one in Christ, it can only be after all in the way of outward bond; the higher nature remains still always beyond the precincts of the lower; they never become concentric circles around a single ME or I.

 

But this is Nestorianism again almost without disguise. To say that the divine has not become human, and that the supernatural has not entered into organic union with the natural, in the person of Jesus Christ, what is lost at last than to say in other terms: The WORD has not become FLESH!

 

Source: John Williamson Nevin (1803-1886) and Charles Hodge (1797-1878), Coena Mystica: Debating Reformed Eucharistic Theology, ed. Linden J. DeBie (The Mercersburg Theology Study Series 2; Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2013), 139-41