Buy The Doctrine of the Two Natures in Christ EXPOSED! for only 99 cents on Amazon by clicking here. Click here for a local listing.
THERE are, perhaps, no words in which a Unitarian of the present day could make a more exact confession of his faith, than in these of the Apostle Paul; “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim. ii. 5.) Yet we are told, that the Apostle must have meant a great deal more than he appears to have said. For if he held what is called the catholic doctrine of the Trinity, he believed that the very being, whom he so unequivocally calls “the man Christ Jesus," was, in reality, both God and man.
The Church of England professes to give us, on this as well as on other subjects, the belief of the Apostles pure and undefiled. And that Church, in the second of its articles, thus declares; “The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, &c."
All this, it must be maintained by those who thus believe, was believed also by the Apostle Paul at the very time when he wrote, “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
Now it appears a matter exceedingly to be regretted, if the Apostle really held the doctrine of two natures in Christ, that he was not more guarded in his language, on an occasion when the least hint of the doctrine would have been of so much importance. For, from the total absence of anything that can imply his belief in such a doctrine, it will, probably, continue to be inferred, by many plain understandings, that he had heard of no such compound being as one in whom "two whole and perfect natures, that is, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided.”
The absence of language in the least resembling this description of Jesus Christ, not only from the passage just quoted, but from every passage of the New Testament which makes mention of him, justifies us in considering the doctrine of his two natures as merely a human supposition. It is not an express declaration of the Scriptures, but, as the Trinitarians themselves must allow, an inference only from separate declarations of the Scriptures, and one which is thought necessary to reconcile them. It is one mode of accounting for certain expressions in reference to Jesus Christ, which, without it, are said to be unaccountable.
Let us then subject it to a calm and serious examination in this its character of a supposition or inference. Such an examination is rendered the more necessary by the very frequent use which is made of it, as a means of escaping from all the force of those numerous passages, which appear to be in favor of the Unitarian doctrine. Wherever our Lord speaks of himself, or his apostles speak of him, in a manner which the Unitarians claim as a proof of their belief, it is notorious how regularly their argument is met by the assertion that a reference must be understood to one only of his natures, and that the human.
It must be confessed, that the doctrine proposed for examination is a very ancient one. Indeed, it wants only four centuries and a half of being as old as Christianity itself. For in the council of Chalcedon, which was held A. D. 451, it was first determined by authority, "that in Christ there are two distinct natures, united in one person, but without any change, mixture or confusion." But this council was not a council of Apostles; nor is the fifth century of Christianity, a date quite early enough to satisfy one who would learn all its doctrines from its first preachers.
With the respect, therefore, which is due from one man to the opinion of his fellow men, but with no more, and with the moderation which ought to accompany the recollection of our own fallibility, let us consider this ancient and widely extended doctrine of two natures in Christ. Since it can pretend to be no more than an inference of reason from the language of Scripture, let us bring it to the test of reason and Scripture.
And first, let us attentively consider what it is which this doctrine really means.
“Two whole and perfect natures, that is, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided."
Let us endeavor to understand the terms of this proposition. What is meant by natures, and what by person?
By the nature of any being, we understand its properities or essential qualities. The nature of God, therefore, means all the properties and qualities which belong to God; the nature of man, all the properties and qualities which belong to man. By person, we usually understand a single intelligent agent; and in this sense the word seems evidently intended to be taken in the assertion, that of the two natures “is one Christ."
The meaning, then, of the doctrine which we are required to believe, is, that all the qualities of God, and all the qualities of man, were joined together in one intelligent agent; that is, that eternal existence, unlimited power, perfect knowledge, unchangeableness, exemption from pain and suffering of every kind, - and finite existence, limited powers, partial knowledge, liability to change, liability to disease, sorrow, weakness, and death, were joined together in one and the same being; that to be “without body, parts, and passions,” and to have body, parts, and passions, were attributes of the same person; that to be the source of life and energy through the whole universe, and to sink under the weight of mortal anguish, were conditions united in the same mind; that to be the sole, underived Creator of all things, and to have been himself a creature, were thoughts that mingled in the same consciousness.
Is there not here a manifest contradiction? Is not such a combination of qualities as we are called upon to suppose, absolutely impossible?
It has, however, been maintained, that the contradiction is avoided, and the supposition made possible, by the distinction of the two natures; which, according to the council of Chalcedon, and the commonly called orthodox belief, are “united in one person, but without any change, mixture, or confusion." The properties of God and the properties of man, are not, it is said, blended and confounded in the person of Jesus Christ; and, therefore, it is farther said, it is unfair to represent the Trinitarians as believing the monstrous proposition, that “these opposite and incompatible qualities” (so expressly called by Dr. Wardlaw) belong to the same mind.
We are at liberty then, it seems, to pronounce the supposition of two whole and perfect natures, or of Divine and human qualities united in one mind, an impossible supposition. Nay, we have the permission of the able and learned advocate of Trinitarianism just mentioned, if the orthodox doctrine be no other than such a supposition, to give it much worse treatment. “Let it,” he says, “be rejected and proscribed as it deserves, and branded with every epithet that implies impiety and folly."
Let us be content with calling it an impossible supposition. But we must farther ask, if the two whole and perfect natures, the Godhead and the Manhood, the properties of God and the properties of man, which were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man," if these opposite qualities must not be ascribed to the same mind, are we to believe that, in the person of Christ, there were more minds than one? Had he a Divine mind and a human mind? Had he one consciousness as God, and another consciousness as man? Are and were these two consciousness, these two minds, completely distinct? If so, however, how could there be only one person? With two minds, there must, apparently, be also two persons, no less than two natures, in Christ. And this was actually the doctrine, afterwards condemned as heresy, of the Nestorians, who, shortly before the council of Chalcedon, maintained that “in the Saviour of the world, there were two persons; of which one was Divine, even the eternal Word; and the other, which was human, was the man Jesus." Trinitarian brethren prepared to maintain the same? or will they rather adopt the more simple and intelligible belief of the Unitarians and the Apostle Paul, there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." There would really seem no other alternative for them. For if the mind of Jesus Christ was one, as well as his person, and it is allowed that the qualities of God and the qualities of man cannot belong to the same mind, the supposed combination of those opposite qualities in Jesus Christ must still be pronounced impossible.
In the Athanasian creed, there is an attempt to illustrate the union of the two natures in our Lord, by comparing it to the union of soul and body in man. “As the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ.” And this comparison may appear to some a reason for pausing before we deny the possibility of such a union. Mind and body, they may say, are of two different natures; they are distinguished by different qualities; yet the qualities of both, that is, “two whole and perfect natures,” are united in one person, that of man. May we not as well conceive the union of two other whole and perfect natures, the divine and the human, in the person of Christ ?
But, as is rightly observed by Dr. Doddridge, the union of the soul and body in man, is, plainly, “far from being a parallel case, since here are not two conscious beings united.” It is the soul, only, that is conscious. It is the soul, only, that has thought, recollection, feeling. The body does not bring distinct thoughts, recollections, and feelings of its own, to the union. It brings only, according to the usual ideas of matter, the frame which the soul is to inhabit and animate, the machinery with which it is to work. Whereas the union of the Divine and the human natures, in the person of Jesus Christ, supposes the consciousness of God and the consciousness of man, the consciousness of the Creator, and the consciousness of the creature, brought together in the same being.
Well might Dr. Doddridge say that the cases are not parallel. And well might he add, “that God and the creature should have one and the same consciousness, certainly exceeds our comprehension.” May we not add farther, that it exceeds all possibility? The supposition appears not so properly incomprehensible as clearly contradictory. It is to suppose a union of conditions and qualities, not merely different, like those of soul and body, of mind and matter, but opposite and incompatible.
The incompatibility, then, of the Divine and the human natures, presents an insuperable objection to the supposition of their union in one consciousness, and, consequently, in one person. For if unity of person do not involve unity of consciousness, the word person becomes a mere sound without meaning. But if it does involve unity of consciousness, then the Trinitarians are placed in this dilemma:— by maintaining that there is only one person in Christ, they make it impossible that he should have more than one nature; or, by maintaining that he has two natures, they in fact maintain that he has two persons, and that God and the man Jesus Christ are two distinct beings. This last position is that of the Unitarians; and they think it is also the Apostle's assertion, in the words, “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
In ordinary cases, it would be enough for setting aside a supposition, to have shown that the thing supposed is impossible. But in the case of a doctrine which is revered by so many as a sacred mystery, and for the sake of those who may be awed by the sound of that word, it is desirable and right to show, also, that the apparent impossibility of the supposition is by no means the only objection to which it is exposed.
Another, then, surely deserving the serious consideration of all sincere Christians, is, that it is inconsistent with known facts in our Lord's history, and in his own account of himself.
According to the supposition, that “two whole and perfect natures, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided," so as to form "one Christ," the wisdom with which this compound being spake, the power with which he acted, must have been strictly and originally his own. For underived existence, with all the other attributes of Deity, were, by this supposition, qualities that belonged to one of his natures. He could therefore have no need of help from any one; he could not be counselled, directed, and still less commanded, by any one. His own will must have been the original motive of all his actions; his own energy must have been the original and sufficient cause of all his mighty works.1
Now, appeal may be made to any candid reader of the New Testament, whether these consequences of the supposition be consistent with the language and conduct of Jesus Christ himself. Does he not declare, that the words which he spake were not his own, but his Father's? Does he not assert, that the Father gave commandment what he should speak? Does he not distinctly say, that of himself he could do nothing? Does he not, by his speeches and his actions, lead to an inference, in strict agreement with his frequent assertions, that he was sent, instructed, assisted, in everything directed by another?
What mean all these assertions what means all the conduct that leads to the same conclusion - what mean his prayers to the Father, his thanks to the Father, his earnest cries for help and comfort from the Father, his humble expressions of resignation to the Father's will, if he was, himself, by the union of the whole perfect nature of God with that of man, the source of all power, the giver of all help and consolation, the sovereign appointer and controller of all things?
It may be well here to recollect the exhortation of an apostle, “Brethren, be not children in understanding.” (1 Cor. xiv. 20.) With the understanding and judgment of men, let us consider whether it be enough, whether it be anything, in answer to these questions, to say that this conduct and language of Jesus are to be referred to his human nature. We must remember, that, by the very terms of the Trinitarian supposition, we are required always to believe that he was "one Christ," one person. Whatever, therefore, that one person did or said, must have been done or said by the whole person. Whatever must be referred to that one Christ, must be referred to the whole Christ. It was the whole Christ who spake and acted, as well as the whole Christ “who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried.” Whenever our Lord, therefore, speaks of his authority as given him by the Father, and especially when he expressly says, "My Father is greater than I," (John xiv. 20) he makes a clear distinction between himself as one whole person, and God as another person; he disclaims, in fact, one of the natures which the Trinitarians ascribe to him, and uses language utterly inconsistent with their supposition, that, in him, God and man formed one person. They are again reduced to the dilemma, of either denying the unity of his person, or confessing the unity of his nature, and admitting, in the strictest sense of the words, that "there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
Another objection, which seems fatal to the supposition of “two whole and perfect natures in Jesus Christ, the Godhead and Manhood," is, that it is not sufficient for its professed purpose.
Its pretensions are, that it can remove the difficulties of the language used in the New Testament respecting Jesus Christ; that it can reconcile the numerous passages, which assert, or plainly imply, his being of the same nature with ourselves, with other passages, in which it is said his attributes or offices are incompatible with a human nature.
We have already seen, that it does not explain, so as to reconcile with the Trinitarian doctrine, the uniform language and conduct of Jesus as the conscious minister of another's will. We may now consider, whether it can really be said to explain his ignorance, as solemnly professed by himself, of the time when some of his prophecies were to be fulfilled. When he says, “Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels who are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” (Mark xiii. 32), he as clearly and positively declares, as it is possible for language to declare, his own ignorance of something which yet was known to the Father. Now the Father must have known it by virtue of that omniscience which is an attribute of Deity. But if “the Godhead and Manhood were joined together in Jesus Christ, never to be divided," - if, notwithstanding these two natures, he was properly one person, possessing only one mind, one consciousness, then the same attribute of Deity, omniscience, must have belonged to him equally with the Father, and he, too, by virtue of his omniscience, must have known “that day and hour." It is idle to say, as is often said, that he spoke of himself, on this occasion, in his human nature only. His human nature could only convey certain sensations and ideas to his mind. It could not put out of his mind what existed there in consequence of his Divine nature. The same consciousness must have included all that he was and felt and knew, in both natures. For, let it never be forgotten by those who are considering the supposition of his two natures, we are required to believe that he was one Christ. Either, therefore, the Son, who knew not the day and the hour which the Father knew, was not Christ; or, if he was Christ, he was not God. This is another dilemma into which Trinitarians are driven by their favorite supposition.
It may be added farther, that this same supposition is insufficient for explaining the efficacy of our Lord's death, in agreement with either the common view, or the Scriptural account of it. The Divine nature in Christ is usually represented as that which, united to his human nature, gave value to the sacrifice which he offered for mankind. It is also one among the usual charges against Unitarianism, that this system necessarily deprives the sacrifice of its value, by making the death of Christ only the death of a man. But what more is it on the supposition of his two natures ? We are told, indeed, that of these two natures was one Christ, very God and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried.” This seems to mean that the whole Christ, God and man, suffered and died. Yet, surely, Trinitarians themselves would shrink from maintaining, even in the supposition of a moment, that God could suffer or die. Nevertheless, if Christ was one person, if the assertion of the Athanasian Creed be true, that he was not two but one," then the whole Christ both suffered and died. But if it was the whole Christ that suffered and died, Christ could not be God. The Divine nature and the human nature become, in fact, not two parts of the same person, but two separate persons; the one eternal and unchangeable, the other alone subject to death. And this again is the Unitarian doctrine.
It seems also the doctrine of Scriptural Christianity. For who is it that the Scriptures represent as dying for mankind? who is it that they declare to have been crucified and slain? “A man approved of God," says St. Peter, (Acts ii. 22.) “The man Christ Jesus,” says St. Paul. “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all.” Whatever, therefore, was the efficacy of our Lord's death, it was not, according to the apostle, more than might be made a consequence from the death of a man:-it did not require, that he who suffered and died should be “very God and very man.” Here then the supposition of two natures, the divine and the human, in Jesus Christ, is useless, even if it were possible.
It is useless also on another occasion, when yet much is often said of its necessity; that is, when we have to consider our Lord in the character of our future Judge. Who, it is asked, can fill such an office, unless one who is omniscient? But who is it, we may also ask in return, that the Scriptures represent as appointed to that office? by whom do the Scriptures declare that God will judge the world in righteousness? “By that man,” says St. Paul, “whom he hath ordained.” (Acts xvii. 31.) The same being that died, and whom God raised up, is declared also by St. Peter, to be “him who was ordained of God to be the judge of the living and the dead." (Acts x. 42.) Now the being who died, and whom God raised from the dead, was, confessedly, the man Jesus Christ. If, therefore, we are to believe the Scriptures, his being a man did not make him incapable of being exalted to that office. And, frequent as are the charges of impiety brought against the Unitarians, they have not the impiety to question the power of Him who raised Jesus from the dead, to invest him with both authority and ample qualifications for every office to which the Scriptures represent him as appointed.
It has now been shown that the supposition of two whole and perfect natures, the Divine and the human, in the person of Jesus Christ, fails in, at least, three requisites of a reasonable and admissible supposition. The thing supposed is, apparently, impossible; even if possible, it is inconsistent with known facts; it is insufficient also, or useless, for the very purpose of the supposition.
A few only of the perplexities in which it involves those who have recourse to it, have been mentioned. Their number might easily be multiplied. But the writer's wish is to say no more on this part of his subject than justice to what he considers the cause of Christian truth requires. He wishes not to add a single word that would seem like making an amusement of the difficulties in which his Trinitarian brethren entangle themselves.
Far rather would he engage the attention of his readers in considering the simplicity and beauty of the system, which appears to him and his fellow Unitarians set forth in the apostle's declaration: "There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Here is no perplexity, no seeming contradiction, nothing to occasion a painful pause of doubt, when we consider the language and conduct of our blessed and beloved Lord. When we behold him surrounded by his disciples, the affectionate friend, the willing and patient instructor, the mild reprover, the kind comforter, - we are at no loss to settle the nature and degree of the reverence and admiration which we should feel for him. When we behold him weeping at the grave of Lazarus, or bowed down by the agony of his own sufferings in the garden of Gethsemane; when we read his earnest prayers to God; when we contemplate his humility, his resignation, his entire surrender of his own will, his devotion of his whole soul to the work of his Father; when we contemplate him bleeding on the cross, and giving with his last breath the most touching proofs of his submission to God, and compassion for man;- we are never interrupted by the perplexing questions, how are these things reconcilable with his Divine nature? how could he, who was conscious of being God as well as man, grieve, be tempted, fear, hope, suffer, pray, and die like man? We enjoy all the fulness and clearness and beauty of the belief, that he was “touched with a feeling of all our infirmities,” and “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (Heb. iv. 15.)
But, it may be said, though the Unitarians may have more distinct and satisfactory views of our Lord's character as a man, have not the Trinitarians more reason to hope in him as God, and to have confidence in him as a Saviour?
Now it is freely acknowledged, that there may be much practical benefit and comfort derived from the belief in his Divine nature. It can easily be imagined that the aspect of Jesus, the mild and the merciful, may be exceedingly attractive to those who contemplate him as God. It may even be often a subject of wonder, that, from such contemplations of him, they do not derive more cheering ideas of the Divine character, as well as kindlier feelings to their fellow men, than many of them appear to have. But why should they have more hope, more confidence, more comfort, than the Unitarians?
Whose, may these latter say, do we believe to have been the words which Jesus spake, the works which he wrought, the power which raised him from the dead, the faithfulness which fulfils his promises? Do we not believe that it was God who gave His beloved Son a commandment what he should speak? Do we not believe that it was God who sent him to be the Saviour of the world, and who was with him in all that he did, proving by his mighty and wonderful works the Divinity of the Spirit which rested on him ? Do we not believe that it was God who raised him from the dead, and exalted bim to His own right hand in heaven? And do we not believe that even so God will by Jesus raise from the dead and receive into glory all who shall prove themselves his faithful followers ?
Most assuredly the Trinitarians can have no firmer grounds for their hope and confidence, than Divine power, Divine mercy, Divine faithfulness; they can have no greater helper and friend, no mightier Redeemer, no more availing Comforter, than God. All these grounds of hope and confidence have the Unitarians also. Their helper and their friend, their Redeemer and their Comforter, their refuge and their trust, is God, the almighty and eternal God. Nor is their trust less firm, nor their faith less assured, because it is Jesus who has led them to God; who has been the means of their acquaintance with God; who has not merely spoken to them of God as their Father, but in the whole spirit and character of his own works and words, has shown this Father to their hearts.
Yes, may the Unitarians say, we believe in God, we believe also in Jesus; with reverence, gratitude, and love, we receive Jesus as Lord, though instead of believing that he was both God and man, we believe rather that “there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” We rejoice in that one mediator by whom we have been brought nigh to that one God, though we worship only Him, whom the mediator himself declared to be his God and our God, his Father and our Father. We worship Him, whom Christ himself adored as "the only true God” (John, xvii. 3.); and we think that, in so doing, we know whom we worship. With a faith and hope, learned of the Son, we put our trust in the Father who sent him; and we are "persuaded that He is able to keep that which 'we' have committed unto Him against that day." (2 Tim. i.)
On that day Christians will no longer meet one another with the words or the feelings of controversy; their differences will have ceased, their prejudices will have been removed ; the pious and virtuous will recognize, and seek, and love one another, whatever may here have been their estrangement and separation.
The Absurdity of the Trinity Doctrine: An Anthology
The Impersonality of the Holy Spirit
