No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2025
We may begin by speaking of two books recently published. The first consists of essays on various doctrinal subjects by fourteen members of the Anglican Church. One or two of the essays—for instance, Professor A. E. Taylor’s on ‘The Vindication of Religion’—reach a high level. Others have little claim to be called either Catholic or critical. The only essay, however, that concerns us here is one entitled ‘The Incarnation,’ by the Rev. J. K. Mozley. The second of the two books is a plain, useful exposition of the doctrine of the Incarnation by Dr. J. P. Arendzen.
Mr. Mozley’s essay contains statements which a Catholic could hardly accept, but as an attempt at showing the reasonableness of the definition of Chalcedon concerning the two natures in Christ it seems to us to deserve praise. As Mr. Mozley and Dr. Arendzen both remind us, that definition is nowadays held in contempt by many who would call themselves Christian theologians. The former describes the state of things mildly when he says (p. 190): ‘In the doctrine of Christ’s Person the disparagement of the formula of the Two Natures has become in some circles almost a convention.’ This attitude, of course, is not new. Just twenty years ago Holtzmann could finish a well-known book of his on Jesus Christ with the assertion that’ no Protestant theologian of note any longer professes the doctrine of the Creeds on the two natures.’
1 Essays. Catholic and Critical, by Members of the Anglican Communion. Edited by E. G. Selwyn. (London : S.P.C.K., 10s. 6d.)
Whom do YOU, Say . . .? A Study in the Doctrine of the Incarnation. By J. P. Arendzen, D.D. (London; Sands and Co., 6s.)
2 By the phrase ‘ the tradition of the Catholic Faith ’ he here means the things affirmed of Christ in Scripture, and thus handed down in the Faith.
3 Sanday, op. cit. p. 119. We are not saying that such a document is desirable. St. Thomas (Summa Theol., P. 111, Q. xlii, A. 4) holds that it is not.
4 G. K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man, p. 236 (Popular Edition).
5 Op. cit., pp. 173, 174.
6 Op. cit. pp. 54, 55.
7 Op. cit., p. 191, 192.
8 Mozley, op. cit., p. 194.
9 Contra Gentiles, Bk. iv, ch. 39.
10 Revue Biblique, 1910, p. 582.
11 In what follows we are not denying that His human nature alone is the principium quo in purely human actions. Our point is that His divine nature is never the only principium quo of any historical action attributable to Jesus.
12 Summa Theol., P. III,Q. xix, A. I.