Section II B

The Doctrine that Christ is Both God and Man, a Contradiction in Terms

Andrews Norton

With the doctrine of the Trinity is connected that of the HYPOSTATIC UNION, as it is called, or the doctrine of the union of the divine and human natures in Christ, in such a manner that these two natures constitute but one person. But this doctrine may be almost said to have pre-eminence in incredibility above that of the Trinity itself. The latter can be no object of belief when regarded in connection with that of the Divine Unity; for these two doctrines directly contradict each other. But the former, without reference to any other doctrine, does in itself involve propositions as clearly self-contradictory as any which it is in the power of language to express. It teaches that Christ is both God and man. The proposition is very plain and intelligible. The words God and man are among those which are in most common use, and the meaning of which is best defined and understood. There cannot (as with regard to the terms employed in stating the doctrine of the Trinity) be any controversy about the sense in which they are used in this proposition, or, in other words, about the ideas which they are intended to express. And we perceive that these ideas are wholly incompatible with each other. Our idea of God is of an infinite being; our idea of man is of a finite being; and we perceive that the same being cannot be both infinite, and finite. There is nothing clear in language, no proposition of any sort can be affirmed to be true, if we cannot affirm this to be true, —that it is impossible that the same being should be finite and infinite; or, in other words, that it is impossible that the same being should be man and God. ~ If the doctrine were not familiar to us, we should revolt from it, as shocking every feeling of reverence toward God; and it would appear to us, at the same time, as mere an absurdity as can be presented to the understanding. No words can be more destitute of meaning, so far as they are intended to convey a proposition which the mind is capable of admitting, than such language as we sometimes find used, in which Christ is declared to be at once the Creator of the universe, and a man of sorrows; God omniscient and omnipotent, and a feeble man of imperfect knowledge[i].

I know of no way in which the force of the statement just urged can appear to be evaded, except by a sort of analogy that has been instituted between the double nature of Christ, as it is called, and the complex constitution of man, as consisting of soul and body. It has been said or implied, that the doctrine of the union of the divine and human natures in Christ does not involve propositions more self-contradictory than those which result from the complex constitution of man; — that we may, for instance, affirm of man, that he" is mortal, and that he is immortal; or of a particular individual, that he is dead, and that he is living (meaning by the latter term, that he is existing in the world of spirits). The obvious answer is, that there is NO analogy between these propositions and those on which we have remarked. The proposition's just stated belong to a very numerous class, comprehending all those in which the same term is at once affirmed and denied of the same subject, the term being used in different senses; or in which terms apparently opposite are affirmed of the same subject, the terms being used in senses not really opposed to each other. When I say that man is mortal, I mean that his present life will terminate; when I say that he is immortal, I mean that his existence will not terminate. I use the words in senses not opposed, and bring together no ideas which are incompatible with each other. The second proposition just mentioned is of the same character with the first, and admits, as every one will perceive, of a similar explanation. In order to constitute an analogy between propositions of this sort and those before stated, Trinitarians must say, that, when they affirm that Christ is finite and not finite, omniscient and not omniscient, they mean to use the words "finite" and "omniscient" in different senses in the two parts of each proposition. But this they will not say; nor do the words admit of more than one sense.

A being of a complex constitution like man is not a being of a double nature. The very term double nature, when one professes to use it in a strict, philosophical sense, implies an absurdity. The nature of a being is ALL which constitutes it what it is; and when one speaks of a double nature, it is the same sort of language as if he were to speak of a double individuality. With regard to a being of a complex constitution, we may, undoubtedly, affirm that of a part of this constitution which is not true of the whole being; as we may affirm of the body of man, that it does not think, though we cannot affirm this of man; or, on the other hand, we may affirm of the being itself what is not true of a part of its constitution, as by reversing the example just given. This is the whole truth relating to the subject. Of a being of a complex constitution, it is as much an absurdity to affirm contradictory propositions, as of any other being.

According to those who maintain the doctrine of the two natures in Christ, Christ speaks of himself, and is spoken of by his Apostles, sometimes as a man, sometimes as God, and sometimes as both God and man. He speaks, and is spoken of, under these different characters indiscriminately, without any explanation, and without its being anywhere declared that he existed in these different conditions of being. He prays to that being whom he himself was. He declares himself to be ignorant of what (being God) he knew, and unable to perform what (being God) he could perform. He affirms that he could do nothing of himself, or by his own power, though he was omnipotent. He, being God, prays for the glory which he had with God, and declares that another is greater than himself[ii]. In one of the passages QUOTED IN PROOF OF HIS DIVINITY, he is called the image of the invisible God; in another of these passages, he, the God over all, blessed for ever, is said to have been anointed by God with the oil of glad; ness above his fellows; and in a third of them, it is affirmed that he became obedient to death, even the death of the cross[iii]. If my readers are shocked by the combinations which I have brought together, I beg them to do me the justice to believe that my feelings are the same with their own. But these combinations necessarily result from the doctrine which we are considering. Page after page might be filled with inconsistencies as gross and as glaring. The doctrine has turned the Scriptures, as far as they relate to this subject, into a book of riddles, and, what is worse, of riddles admitting of no solution. I willingly refrain from the use of that stronger language which will occur to many of my readers.

The doctrine of the Trinity, then, and that of the union of two natures in Christ, are doctrines which, when fairly understood, it is impossible, from the nature of the human mind, should be believed. They involve manifest contradictions, and no can believe what he perceives to be a contradiction. In what has been already said, I have not been bringing arguments to disprove these doctrines; I have merely been showing that they are intrinsically incapable of any proof whatever; for a contradiction cannot be proved; - that they are of such a character, that it is impossible to bring arguments in their support, and unnecessary to adduce arguments against them.