 |  |
essential and the eternal. Reverting to the definitions given in Lloyds dictionary, we
read:
(2)
A human being represented in fiction or on the stage, a character.
(3)
External appearance, bodily form or appearance, as in Hamlet--"If it assume
my noble father's person".
(4)
Human frame, body; as `cleanly in person'.
(5)
A human being; a being possessed of personality; a man, a human creature.
(6)
A human being, as distinguished from an animal, or inanimate object.
(7)
An individual; one, a man.
(8)
A term applied to each of the beings in the Godhead.
(9)
The parson or rector of a parish.
We have so lost the early meaning of the word `person' that some of the arguments of
the opening centuries of Christian discussion sound strange in our ears. We quote from
The Incarnation of the Eternal Word by Rev. Marcus Dods without necessarily endorsing
the writer's own attitude or argument:
"I may give an illustration of the nicety with which expressions were then sifted, out
of Facundus Hermianensis . . . . . In Book 1 chapter iii of the work which he addressed to
the Emperor Justinian, he proves that a PERSON of the Trinity suffered for us. There
were two ways of expressing this--unas de Trinitate passus est, one of the Trinity
suffered, and una de Trinitate persona passa est, one PERSON of the Trinity suffered.
At present a man would not readily discover any difference between these two modes of
expression, nor would easily detect a nearer approach to heresy in the one than in the
other. Yet the difference was clearly understood by Justinian; for while nobody felt any
scruples about the latter expression (i.e. `one of the PERSONS of the Trinity suffered')
some Catholics hesitated to make use of the former (i.e. `one of the Trinity suffered') lest
they should be supposed to ascribe suffering, not to a DIVINE PERSON, but to the
DIVINITY . . . . . A Nestorian would not say that one of the Trinity suffered, but would
say readily enough, that a person of the Trinity suffered, meaning that the Man Jesus
Christ Who suffered, bore the person of the Word, much in the same way as Paul bore it
when he said `If I forgave anything, to whom I forgave for your sakes, I forgave it in the
person of Christ'."
We have quoted this extract simply to show that the word `person' had the sense
which we have endeavoured to restore in this article. We believe the application of this
sense in the above extract is radically wrong.
Returning to the list of definitions given by Lloyd, we see that the emphasis is upon
the assumed character and not essential being, except when the dictionary gives the usual
theological usage and speaks of `three beings' in the Godhead which must inevitably lead
at last to the conception of `three gods' however the fatal step is circumscribed. We must
continue our examination of these vital themes in the next article of this series.