Passover; Baptism and the Holy Communion. And as the Passover had come to be regarded as purely commemorative, the Holy Communion was interpreted similarly.*

Zwingli was under grave suspicion of much worse heresy than this, however; he was accused of having adopted the Jewish view of the person of Christ under the influence of Moses of Winterthur, and expressing doctrines dangerously similar to those of Servetus. He vigorously denied the charge, but there is reason to suppose that his general semi-Pelagianism was slightly tinged with a Nestorian Christology, or at least the germs thereof.

Servetus, however, was unquestionably an Adoptianist and a Unitarian; and his Christology was derived no less from his acquaintance with Jewish interpretations of the Messianic texts than from his general rationalism. Nobody else went nearly so far as he did to show these texts in their real historical setting; and though he was prepared to admit that in one sense they might show the aspirations which were to be fulfilled in the historical Jesus, he was quite definite in his assertion that the

* Vide C. H. Smyth, Cranmer and the Reformation under Edward VI, Cambridge, 1926, p. 21: "The Body and Blood of Christ, they argued, could not have been in the Sacraments of the Old Law, because he had not yet been born: but Christ is in no other way present in the Sacraments of the Church than he was present in the Sacraments of the Mosaic Law: therefore the Sacraments of the Church and the Sacraments of the Law are both merely symbolic of his body and blood offered upon the Cross for man's redemption, the former in a commemorative, the latter in a prophetic sense, and Christ is in no way present in the Eucharist than he is present in baptism or was present in the Passover. It was a matter of profound consequence that the Church of Zurich at this period came partly under the influence of such learned Hebraists as Leo Judae, Pellican and Bibliander."

writers were referring to persons living in their own time. This interpretation of Isa. lhi, for example, was completely revolutionary, and Servetus is revealed as the first Christian higher critic.*

Nor did he hesitate to draw theological conclusions from his opinion on this point. He also believed in an immanentalist theology based on Maimonides. Combining his biblical history with his theology he determined that the pre-existence of Christ could mean no more than that the idea of Christ was in God's mind since the Creation; that His Divinity was to be interpreted entirely in terms of immanence, God's Shekinah dwelling in Him; and that we cannot construct any doctrine of the Trinity more precise than the Trinity of Wisdom, Intelligence and Knowledge which is allegorized in Proverbs. The idea of the Hypostatic Union he regarded as metaphysical nonsense; and he lamented the ease with which Jewish thinkers could destroy the Christian theories on the point. The Trinity of Calvin he described as a three-headed Cerberus.

Servetus was certainly one of the best historians of the sixteenth century. But he was certain to be con-

* On the question of the interpretation of this chapter, see the splendid pair of volumes containing a catena of commentaries (The Fifty Third Chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish Commentators, S. R. Driver and A. Neubauer, Oxford, 1877). In a scholarly introduction, Pusey evaluates these comments and compares Christian exegesis. A similar catena is Ad. Posnanski's Schiloh (on Gen. xlix, 10), Leipzig, 1904.

The use of the Jewish Messianic tradition in support of Christianity troubled even the great Catholic theologian Cardinal Cajetan. "Was not Cajetane a pillar of your Church?.. .Doth not this famous Cardinal of Rome set down in plain words that 4 the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews doth gather insufficient arguments to prove Christ to be the Son of God?'" (Whitaker, Answer to Rainold, London, 1585, cap. 1, p. 7).

0 0

Post a comment