During the past century them has been a great deal of huttrtst taken in Genuauy. in particular, in the ClristohngicriI prublenu, and three strenuous and distinct theories of Chris('s person have peen set forth. 1'roftssor 1)orncr of Berlin began, not with the person of Christ. but with the two natures, saving that, as the resulted from the union of the natures, it could But he understood till the natures of which it was composed were understood. 'Phe human ity of Christ is, therefore, the full human per sonality, with full self-consciousness and self-de termination. The divine nature is unchangeably the same, performilig all its divine offices after the incarnation as before, and possessing all its divine attributes. It is omnipotent and omni scient. lint the humanity is neither of these; and hence the divinity cannot impart itself com pletely to the humanity, and can, of course, less to the child Jesus than to the man. Hence the incarnation is viewed as the gradual impartation of the Logos to the man Jesus, increasing with his development, and perfect only after the as cension. This view seems to fail because it leaves us with only a man in whom God dwelt, and not with divinity and humanity in the unity of one person.
Hence the second theory, that of the ''kenosis," begins at a different point, at the one person of Christ, which person the Kenotics make to be the eternal Logos of God. This person takes upon himself humanity. and makes it so his own that its experiences become truly his experiences. He enters into all its development as his own development, so that his consciousness is a truly human elmseionsuess, while it is still the con sciousness of the divine clement in Christ. This can only be as the divine limits himself to the capacities of the humanity tvhieh he assumes. The theory of the kenosis therefore teaches that the eternal Logos. by a consc• s divine act of self-limitation, 'emptied' himself of his divine form of existence and took upon himself the human form of existence (Phil. ii. 7). Thus, while Ile was in essence unchanged. Ile did not have in exercise, and hence not in conscious' puS session, the divine attributes of omnipotence, omniscience. etc., but exercised the absolute power and knowledge under the limitations of His human form of existence. The unity of the person of Christ is thus secured because into it nothing enters of the divine which so far tran scends the human as to be irreconcilable with it, and it is the unity of the divine self-conscious ness. This theory is growing in favor with men of conservative and churchly tendencies; but it cannot be said yet to have fully established it self even among them. The possibility of such a
self-limitation of the divine has not been made indisputably clear.
The last theory, if it can be called such, is that of Iiitschl. Weary of all the long onto logical disputes of the centuries. nasal sought to render them all unnecessary by a strict limita tion of theology to that which is of 'interest' to men, that is, that which furthers the religious life. While he held, therefore, to the divinity of Christ in the true sense, he refused to attempt the explanation of its consistency with His hu manity. regarding it as great a mystery as the consistency of the divine government with human freethon. in Christ MT have God. That is enough. Whether Ile preexisted mr not, and what the na ture if the Trinity is, are questions which do not `interest' us. If we knew all about the pre existenee of Christ, it would rather separate Him from us than render faith in Him easier or more sincere. The kenosis is 'romancing.' it explains the ineredible by the more incredible. We must give up definitely the two natures and all attempts to unite them. In the true human ity of Christ we have God. flow, we do not know. This view, which falls in with the ten dencies of the times to deny the miraculous and supernatural and to seek simplicity, is also spreading rapidly among the more radical theo logians. But it scarcely seems to offer substance enough to prove a final resting-place for any one. The future lies in the hands either of Chalcedon better explained, or of pure humanitarianism.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Horner. History of the DocBibliography: Horner. History of the Doc- trine of the Person of Christ (Stuttgart, IS-15 58) ; Shall% Creeds of Christendom (0th ed., New York and London, 1890) ; Ilefele. Conzilienge schiehte (Freiburg, ; Dogni en yesehichte (Freiburg, 1893). For the Lutheran Christology: Krtuth, 7'he Conservative Reforma tion and Its Theology (Philadelphia, 1872) ; and Schmidt, Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, translated by Jacobs and Hay Philadelphia, IS7.5). For Horner, consult his 1s75.)11.). On the Kenosis consult Gess, Christi Person told lberk (3 vols., Basel, 1870-87) ; Thomasius, Doymatil: (Erlangen, IS.12-61) ; Frank, Siodent der christ lichen lFahrheit (thitersloh, 1S85-86) ;• Bruce, The II um iliation of Christ (London, 1881); Powell. Principle of the incarnation (London, 1896). On Pasch], his own Rechtfertigung nnel Versiihnung, Vol. TII. (Bonn, I888, I889) ; Orr, 7'he Hitsehlian Theology and the Evan gelical Faith (London, 1897) ; A. J. Swing, The Theology of Albrecht Hilsehl (Ne• York, 1901).