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: 02 February 2009
What difference can there be between Anglicanism and the rest of Christendom on the doctrine of the Incarnation? None fundamentally. But each body within Christendom has its own approach and emphasis, arising out of its own ethos and attitude. My purpose is to discuss, not so much the Incarnation in itself (though inevitably I must do that also to some extent) but the presentation given to that doctrine by the Anglican Church. And this I think I can best do by assembling and presenting my subject against the background of the Bible, the Creeds, and Anglican worship. Bible and Creeds (together with the teaching of the undivided Catholic Church of the first four centuries) form the backbone of the Anglican position; though of course that position has tried to be alive to more modern trends of thought also. And worship is the living expression of belief. I think therefore that these three lines of approach will help me to cover the ground as thoroughly as possible
page 243 note 1 Ignatius, , Epistle to the Smyrnaens, VIIIGoogle Scholar: őπον 
χριστός 'Ιησος, έκεî ή καθολική έκκλησία.
page 244 note 1 Søren Kierkegaard, the well known Danish philosopher, draws special attention to the heterogeneity of Christ. See, e.g., Training in Christianity, p. 216Google Scholar, et passim.
page 244 note 2 Augustine, , Tractate on St. John, XVIIIGoogle Scholar: “Mirum non esse debet a Deo factum miraculum. Magis gaudere et admirari debemus quia Dominus noster et salvator Jesus Christus Homo factus est, quam quod divina inter homines facit.”
page 245 note 1 “Ostendit nos quidem habere carnem peccati, filium vero Dei similitudinem habuisse carnis peccati, non carnem peccati.”
page 245 note 2 Augustine, , Op. Imperf. contra Jul., IV. 0.57Google Scholar: “Christus nulla illicita concupivit, quia discordiam carnis et Spiritus quae in hominum naturam ex praevaricationi primi hominis vertit, prorsus ille non habuit, qui de Spiritu et Virgine non per carnis concupiscentiam est natus.”
page 246 note 1 Training in Christianity, p. 123Google Scholar. The Danish (Samlede Voerker, XII, 144)Google Scholar runs: “gjort Gud/Menneske til kun speculative eenhed af Gud og Menneske sub specie aeterni, eller apparent in den rene væsens intetsigende værende medium, istedfor at Gud/Mennesket er eenheden af at være Gud og et enkelt Menneske i historisk virkelig situation.”
page 246 note 2 Training in Christianity, p. 108Google Scholar. (Danish, , Vol. XII, 127).Google Scholar
page 248 note 1 They are: (i) At the Visitation of the Sick, the priest says the Creed alone for obvious reasons, (ii) In the Prayer Book of 166a the priest, in Baptism, puts the Creed interrogatively, “Dost thou believe?”, and the godparents reply, “All this I stedfastly believe”. The revised book of 1928 makes priest and godparents say the Creed together, (iii) Anent the Athanasian Creed, see later.