(Bk. I I , p*
848.)
. B ra c e , how ever, effco.tiV G ly aaaw ore t h i s argumont "ilas t h i s ’Fotensj’ power a t w i l l t o r a d i a t e f o r t h
to the clrooodteronoe o f Rtanifeetation i n a c t i o n , o r
i o
it
u n d era
n e c e s s i t y o f r e m l n i n g a t th e c e n tr eocmflncâ to
a
mere mathematloel point? I f thefo rm e r a lter n a tiv e be adopted *** then there ie
r e a l l y no d c p o t © s t i a t i o n , b u t o n ly a chan;?© i n th e
mode o f i m a i f e s t l n g and © k o rciein g pow er. I f th e
l a t t e r a lter n a tiv e b e ado p ted « , th e n * P o te n s ', l a
s p i t e o f th e p r o t e s t o f ‘Shosrasiuo, io p m o t i c a l l y
3 4
l i f e o f th e Logoe# b u t o n ly makes one wonder why an I n c a r n a t i o n a t a l l i f lo v e d id n o t come down a t C h ris tm a s .
T h ird s t h e r e i s some q u e s t i o n a s t o t h e e f f e o t i y c n e s s o f th e p e r s o n a l u n i t y r e s u l t i n g from t h e u n io n o f th e d e p o te n
t i a t e d Logos w ith human n a tu re * I f t r u e u n ity i s to be
o b ta in e d and t h e r e i s to be a t r u e oom m unioatio idiom atum r e s u l t i n g i n one " I , ” th e n b o th n a t u r e s m ust be o f e q u a l
m agnitude# O th erw ise# i f t h e human n a t u r e p r e v a ile d # t h e r e
w ould be no r e a l I n c a r n a t i o n , f o r a l l l i f e would be o o m n le te lv g o v ern ed by th e l i m i t s o f human n a t u r e and d e v e lo p m e n t;^ o r , i f th e D iv in e N a tu re don^inated# th e c o n v e rs e would be t r u e ,
and th e d e p o t e n t i a t i o n w ould have happened i n v a i n . T hus,
t o e f f e c t a p e r f e c t u n io n o f n a t u r e , th e human and th e D iv in e
c o u n t e r p a r t s m ust be o f e q u a l m a g n itu d e . On t h i s r e s o l u t i o n
B r u o e - c o m e n ts ; "To w hat p u rp o s e t M s d u a l i t y i n th e l i f e
b a s i s ? Why two human s o u ls to do th e work of one? f o r , ex
h y p Q th e s i, th e d e p o t e n t i a t e d Logos i s to a l l i n t e n t s and
p u rp o s e s a. human a o u l . ^ I n s t e a d of t h i s ro u n d a b o u t p r o c e s s ,
"T h is i s ; t h e . o l d M onopliysite o b je c tio n # a lth o u g h i t m ay'be urged i n , suppiort o f what amounts tp a M onpphysitism
i n v e r t e d , a c c o rd in g to w hich i t i s n o t th e Manhood w hich g iv e s way# w h o lly p r p a r t i a l l y , to th e Godhead# b u t th e
Godhead v/hioh gives; way; to th e Manhood; W th e tem porary
abandonment o f c e r t a i n
Wm* B r i g h t # The Age, o f s o - c a l le d d iv in e " a t t r i b u t e s . ” th e F a t h e r s , o . 550#
2* I n t h i s 0la i m # P r o f e s s o r a g r e e s # by d e f i n i t i o n
o f te r m s ;- "#• # He; has d iv e s te d H im self o f th e d i s t i n c t i v e l y d iv ih h a t t r i b u t e s ; which would im p ly , i f lan g u ag e means
a n y th in g t h a t i n becoming humàn He ce ased t o be d i v i n e . "
35
ào c o r d in g to v/hioh t h e Logos f i r s t re d u c e s H im self to th e d im en sio n s o f a hiiman s o u l , arid th e n a s s o c i a t e s w ith H im self a n o th e r human s o u l , why n o t say a t once th e Logos became a
human s o u l? ” ^ I n answ er , t o t h i s c r i t l o i s m ^ the, K e n .o tic ia t
m ig h t r e p l y t h a t th e above argum ent would b e - t r u e i f o n ly th e p liy s io a l a t t r i b u t e s w ere b e in g co n sid e re d -.a n d ,n o t th e . e t h i c a l a t t r i b u t e s w hich make th e r e a l D iv in e c o n t r i b u t i o n t o th e
union# B ut t h i s an sw er i s h a r d ly a c c e p ta b le ^ f o r t h e - e t h i c a l
a t t r i b u t e s m e d ia te d by th e immanence o f God a r e th e v e r y b a s i s , th e v e r y ground and p o s s i b i l i t y of th e I n c a r n a tio n ;^ * th u s ^ th e y ' would n o t ; r e a l l y be a c o n t r i b u t i o n b u t a common bond.
Y et even i f i t w ere p o s s i b l e t o ’a r g u e . t h a t a d i s t i n c t i o n e x i s t s betw een God’ s immanence an d e t h i c a l - a t t r i b u t e s , t h i s . s t i l l . would n o t s u f f i c e , fox* th e e t h i c a l a t t r i b u t e s , j u s t . a s th e p h y s i c a l , w ould have to be s c a le d down i n o r d e r n o t t o o v o r-
wheliii th e human c o u n te r p a r ts * P o s s e s s io n o f a b s o l u t e lo v e ,
h o l i n e s s , t r u t h , e t c , w o u ld -s u re ly n e v e r p e r m it norm al human
developm ent o r dcvelopmexit. a t a l l , J* 8#Lawton makes an in -r
t e r e s t i n g o b s e r v a tio n v/hich m ig h t w e ll be m en tio n ed a t t h i s
p o i n t . I n th e t h e o l o g i c a l m ethod o f b o th Thom asius and
F a i r b a i r n , t h e r e i s a h i n t o f A r i s t o t e l i a n S c h o la s tic is m w ith an a lm o s t p a r t i c u l a r p reo ed ezit i n th e T h o m iatic d o c t r i n e of T r a n s u b s t a n t i a t i o n : j u s t a s th e b re a d and wine become th e p h y s i c a l " a c c i d e n t s ” o f th e f l e s h and b lo o d , th e S ubsta n c é o f
1 , Bruce# Op* O it* # p , 177*
36
O h r i a t , so o o n v e rse ly # i n t h e K en o tio T heory ojnnipotenoe,
etc* a r e th e " a c c i d e n t s ” o f th e Godhead and c a n be s u r r e n d e r e d w ith o u t l o s s t o t h e essence* * . Thus i n u n io n w ith human n a t u r e ,
th e D iv in e Logos c o u ia d i v e s t H im self o f a l l a t t r i b u t e s and
s t i l l m a in ta in H is i n t e g r i t y . However, two t h i n g s , a t l e a s t ,
a rg u e a g a i n s t suoh an o b s e r v a t io n . f i r s t , b o th Thom asius and
f a i r b a i r n w i l l have l i t t l e to do w ith th e H o h o la s tic s .
S econd, i f t h e Logos d id so d i v e s t H im se lf o f su o h " a c c i d e n t s ”
( a t t r i b u t e s ) , He c o u ld h a r d ly be d i v e s t i n g H im self o f th o s e d i s t i n e tiv e l.v d i v i n e a t t r i b u t e s , w hich p r o t e c t th e i n t e g r i t y
o f th e human n a t u r e . S u re ly t o be j o i n e d w ith th e v e r y
e s s e n c e o f God i s t o be c o m p le te ly consum ed. B r ig h t s t a t e s
th e m a t t e r m ost c l e a r l y ; " I t i s a m is ta k e t o sa y t h a t He r e a l l y p a r t e d w ith a n y th in g t h a t was o r i g i n a l l y His} w h ile on t h e
one hand He d id n o t d e i f y H is manhood, so n e i t h e r on th e o t h e r
d id He hum anize H is Godhead. f o r He r e t a i n e d , a s th e s i x t h
G e n e ra l C o u n c il a f f i r m s , H is D iv in e w i l l and D iv in e a c t i v i t y , w h ile He to o k t o H im self th e w i l l and th e a c t i v i t y o f manhood.