Chapter VI: The human nature of Christ is proved, § 79.
CHAPTER VI: ON THE HUMAN NATURE OF CHRISF
§ 78. Thesis: In Christ there is a true, complete, and perfect human nature, and hence Christ also is a true, perfect, and natural man.
The explanation follows. By the “truth” of the human nature we understand that the Word did not assume an apparition or bare external appearance of a human nature, but became man in the truth of the fact. By the “completeness” of the human nature we understand that He assumed into the unity of His person all the essential parts of the human nature—not only the body but also the rational soul—because His flesh was 
, flesh endowed with soul. We do not merely say that He was man but that He still is man, because what He once assumed He never put away nor will He ever put it away. He is said to be “true, perfect, and natural man” with regard to His essential and natural parts, though with regard to its origin (namely, its conception by the Holy Spirit) and with regard to its subsistence (namely, its assumption into the Word), His flesh is different than our flesh.
§ 79. The one humanity of Christ is proved: (I) From titles, both proper and figurative. In the proper sense, He is called “human being” (1 Tim. 2:5; Luke 23:47), “the Son of Man” (Dan. 7:13; Matt. 8:20; 16:13; Rev. 1:13), “flesh” (John 1:14), “man” (Zech. 6:12; Acts 17:31), “boy” (Isa. 9:6; Acts 4:27), “Son of Abraham” and “Son of David” (Matt. 1:1), “son of Judah” and “Shiloh” (Gen. 49:10), “the Son of Mary” (Isa. 7:14), “the firstborn of Mary” (Luke 2:7), etc. In the figurative sense, He is called “the seed of the woman” (Gen. 3:15), “the seed of Abraham” (Gen. 22:18; Heb. 2:16), “the seed of Isaac” (Gen. 26:4), “the seed of Jacob” (Gen. 28:14), “the lion of the tribe of Judah” (Rev. 5:5), “the seed of David” (2 Sam. 7:[12]), “the fruit of the loins of David” (Acts 2:30), “the fruit of the belly of David” (Ps. 89:36; 132:11), “the rod and the branch from the root of Jesse” (Isa. 11:1), “zemach or Branch” (Zech. 6:12), “the branch of David” (Jer. 23:5;
33:15), etc.
(II) From the essential parts of man, which are the rational soul and the body. Regarding His rational soul, we have clear statements. Matt. 20:28: “to give His soul as a ransom.” Matt. 26:38: “My soul is very sorrowful.” Luke 23:46: “Into Your hands I commit My spirit.” John 10:[18]: “No one takes My soul from Me,” etc. Consequently, there are attributed to Him knowledge, intelligence, wisdom, and will, which are the properties of the rational soul (Isa. 7:15; Luke 2:40; John 5:21; etc.). The following statements bear witness of the body of Christ: “Take. This is My body” (Matt. 26:26); “She has anointed My body beforehand” (Mark 14:8); “He was speaking about the temple of His body” (John 2:21); “in the body of His flesh” (Col. 1:22), etc. About His flesh: Luke 24:39; John 6:54; Rom. 1:3. About His bones: Luke 24:39; John 19:33. About His blood:
Matt. 26:28; John 6:54; 19:34; Acts 20:28. In the Gospel account and in Rev. 1:15–16, etc., His hands, feet, eyes, head, face, ears, mouth, breast, side, etc., are mentioned.
(III) From the emotions that are proper to man, both those that befit the entire composite and those that belong to the individual parts of His soul and body. The Gospel bears witness that He was truly conceived and born; that He hungered, thirsted, became weary, walked from place to place, grew in age and wisdom, wept, was sad, exulted in the Spirit, etc.
** Some properties of the human nature are said according to itself [
], and these befit the entire thing always; some are toward another [
], and these are said to be proper to Him only comparatively and with respect to something else. Belonging to this type are eating, drinking, sleeping, being hungry, suffering, etc. You see, though these are not in themselves proper to humanity—though by them the divine and human natures are distinguished and they cannot be attributed to the divinity of itself and in itself—they are called properties according to another [
]. **
(IV) From the proper works and effects of man, because not only in His state of humiliation does He understand, will, speak, preach, eat, drink, etc. (Acts 10:38ff. and ch. 13), but also in His state of exaltation He understands, wills, converses with the blessed angels and humans in His heavenly glory, etc. Several things were noticeable in Him: (1) The operations of natural life, which are proper to the nutritive faculty:1 He would hunger, thirst, eat, drink. (2) The operations of animal life, which are in the sensitive faculty: He would see, hear, and touch; or in the locomotive faculty: He would walk, stand up, lie down; or in the faculty of wrath and desire: He would rejoice, be affected by sadness, be angry, grieve, weep. (3) The operations of intellectual2 life [
]: He would understand, reason, speak.
§ 80. In regard to the first class of arguments, observe: (I) Christ is called “the Son of Man”: (1) Because of the prophetic title (Dan. 7:[13]). As the title “Messiah,” taken from Daniel, was usual at that time, so also from the same prophet the Messiah was called “the Son of Man” by common custom. This Messiah was the one whom Daniel described in his prophetic vision.
(2) To prove His true humanity. Just as the only-Begotten was called “the Son of God” because He is true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, so also He is called “the Son of Man” and, indeed, “the firstborn” because in the fullness of time He, a true man, was born of the Virgin Mary.
(3) To prove His kinship with us. He could have been true man though not being a son of man, born from man, just as Adam was a true man, though he nevertheless was formed of the earth. Instead, He wanted to be born man of man and to become the Son of Man so that a bright testimony of His true humanity and of our kinship with Him might exist.
(4) Because of His emptying [exinanitio] and humiliation. Excellent men of outstanding authority are called 
“the sons of a man [viri],” but commoners and obscure people are called 
“the children of human beings [hominum].” Therefore such nomenclature leads us down to the humiliation of Christ, because of which, established as He was in the form of a servant, He calls Himself “the Son of Man [hominis].”
(5) Because of the administration of His office. Although the prophet Ezekiel was cast aside and despised in the eyes of the people of Israel, nevertheless he is always called “son of man” because of the prophetic office and ministry committed to him by God. So also in the days of His flesh, Christ calls Himself “the Son of Man” because He had been sent by God to man for man’s sake on account of the preaching of the Gospel and the redemption of the human race.
(6) To demonstrate His love. “His delight is with the sons of men” (Prov. 8:31). By this name, which is attributed to Him so often, He calls us back to consider His supreme love for mankind, because of which He wanted to become the “Son of Man.”
Some add: To indicate His birth from the Virgin. They say that He calls Himself “the Son of Man” (namely, of one in the singular), because He does not have a father on earth but only a mother. However, those, too, are called “the sons of man” who have been born of parents in the ordinary course of nature.
§ 81. (II) The word “flesh” in John 1:14 is synecdochic and signifies the whole and perfect human nature, that is, the flesh endowed with a soul. It is taken in this sense also in other passages of Scripture, including Gen. 6:12; Isa. 40:6; Joel 2:28; Matt. 24:22; Luke 3:6; Acts 2:17; Rom. 3:20; 1 Cor. 1:29. You see, from parallel passages that discuss the incarnation of the Son of God, we gather that it must be taken in this sense: (1) From the name “man,” which includes body and soul. (2) From the manner of our salvation, which required that Christ assume not only flesh but also a soul. (3) From the explicit mention of the rational soul, as we shall show more fully below.
The apostle wanted to use the word “flesh” in describing this mystery: (1) To show that the Word did not assume a person but a human nature, because the human nature that the Son of God assumed into the unity of His person was not previously a person subsisting of itself but was at the same time flesh, at the same time the flesh of the Word, at the same time flesh endowed with a soul.
(2) To teach that the Word did not assume an apparition or spiritual substance but the true human body consisting of flesh and bones, and therefore the true substance of the human nature, for in Luke 24:39 the spirit and the flesh are opposed to each other.
(3) To set forth for our consideration the immense love of the Son of God. Although by working without means He could have created for Himself a human nature far more happy and excellent than that which was in Adam before the fall, He preferred to assume a human nature that came from man, which, because of its frailty, wretchedness, and infirmities, is called “flesh,” yet without sin. (See Isa. 40:6; Ps. 78:39.)
(4) To set forth for our consideration the very intimate kinship and consanguinity by which the Son of God wished to be joined to us. This is usually described in Scripture in this way: “This is my bone and my flesh” (Gen. 2:23; 29:14; Judg. 9:2; 2 Sam. 5:1; Eph. 5:31; etc.).
[III] It should be noted that some of the names with which we prove the true humanity of Christ are abstract and some are concrete. The former express the nature; the latter, the person who is named from the human nature.3 The abstract names are that He is called “flesh” and “the woman’s seed”; the concrete, “man,” “the Son of Man,” “the Son of Mary.”
§ 82. Regarding the third class of arguments, observe: (I) One must distinguish between essential and accidental passions [
] or emotions. The former are said to be those that befit man of himself and essentially, but the latter are those that befit him accidentally.4 Christ still retains the former in His state of glory and in eternity, but the latter are mortal difficulties and frailties that He assumed temporarily in order to be able to suffer and die for the salvation of the human race. In His state of glory, however, He put these aside along with His form of a servant. Augustine, De civ. Dei, bk. 14, ch. 9: “For as there was in Him a true human body and a true human soul, so also the human affections were not false. As He became man when He wanted, so for the sake of the certain dispensation,5 when He wanted, He experienced those emotions in His human soul. We have these emotions because of the weakness of our human condition, but it was not so for the Lord Jesus, for even His weakness came from His power.”
(II) Sin must be removed from accidental emotions and weaknesses, for not even the least stain of sin had a place in Him (Isa. 53:9; Heb. 5:2; 7:26; 1 Pet. 2:22). He is called “holy” (Luke 1:35), “the holy of holies” (Dan. 9:24). When Paul says that “He was made sin for us” (2 Cor. 5:21), this must be taken not as being inherent, for Paul adds, “He knew no sin,” but as being imputed, because the Father “laid upon Him the iniquities of us all” (Isa. 53:6); and with respect to satisfaction, because by receiving the punishments for our sins upon Himself, He offered perfect satisfaction to God for our sins (Isa. 53:5).
(III) Christ wanted to take up human weaknesses and defects (which Evagrius, bk. 4, ch. 39, calls “natural and irreprehensible passions [
]”), nevertheless free of sin. He wanted to do so especially for three reasons: First, to make satisfaction for the sin of Adam and for the sins of all his descendants. Defects of this type—death, hunger, thirst—are the punishments for sin; but whoever has taken the punishment for sin upon himself has made satisfaction for our sins. Second, to establish more strongly in our minds the truth of the assumed human nature because human nature was not known to people except as being subject to those defects. Third, to demonstrate to us an example of patience and endurance in bearing those sufferings. Therefore He undertook them for our merit, as proof of His true humanity, and as our example. We can add others: Fourth, to expiate our sinful emotions through His pure and holy emotions. Fifth, to become more like us so that we might place greater confidence in Him (Heb. 4:15). He assumed those punishments not by the necessity of the condition but by the affection of pity, for He could have been true man without that, just as Adam was true man before the fall. Bernard, Sermon 1 de resurr.: “This was not of condition but of honor.” Augustine, Letter 142: “He became a partaker of our weakness but not of our iniquity, that through that common weakness He might unloose our iniquity.”
(IV) One must distinguish among the defects of human nature. You see, some are common to the whole species, and these are found commonly in all people after the fall. In this sense they are called “natural,” such as death, thirst, and hunger. Christ took those on, though without sin because He did not take on the proclivity to do evil and the difficulty toward doing good that developed from the sin of the first man and is common to all people. On the other hand, some are common only to certain individuals; therefore they are called “personal.” These do not occur to the entire human nature because of the sin of the first man but develop from certain particular causes, such as leprosy, epilepsy, and blindness. Christ did not take on those that spring from a defect of formative power or from a defect of man, from inordinate eating, etc. (See Thomas, [ST,] p. 3, q. 14, art. 4.)
§ 83. At this point we should set forth the sweet sayings of the fathers about the truth and completeness of the human nature in Christ. Irenaeus, bk. 5, ch. 13, p. 334: “If anyone should say according to this that the flesh of Christ was different from our flesh because the former flesh did not sin, but we are sinners, then he speaks correctly. But if he attaches a different substance of flesh to the Lord, the word of reconciliation will not be established for him.” (See also Irenaeus, bk. 3, ch. 32, p. 221.) Augustine, De civ. Dei, bk. 10, ch. 27: “Therefore He took up without sin the whole man that He might heal from the pestilence of sins the whole thing of which man consisted.” Damascenus, Orth. fid., bk. 3, ch. 6: “He in His fullness took up me in my fullness and was united whole to whole that He might in His grace bestow salvation on the whole man.” Fulgentius, Ad Trasymund., bk. 1, p. 251: “Just as the devil struck down the whole man by his deceiving, so God saved the whole man by taking him up.” Leo, Letter 11: “No one can boast in that Head, if he asserts that his own nature is not in Him.”
Antithesis.
§ 84. Some people undermine the true humanity of Christ directly, some indirectly. Those who do so directly are: (I) The apparitionists and Docetists [
], who taught: “The Son of God did not assume a true human nature but only an external apparition and appearance of a body.” Such false teachers existed immediately after apostolic times, and the Marcionites and Manichaeans later renewed their error. Irenaeus (bk. 1, ch. 22, p. 77) writes about Saturninus that “he showed an unknown and nonphysical Savior, without shape, putatively appearing as a man.” Concerning Basilides, Epiphanius (bk. 1, vol. 2, haeres. 24, p. 58) writes that he taught that “Christ was an apparition in that He appeared, but He was not a man nor did He take up flesh.” In several passages, Ignatius argues against those who imagined that “Christ assumed a 
or apparition of human nature” and who said that He was a man not essentially but in appearance. Epiphanius (Haeres. 80) mentions that Leucippus and Milesius “claimed that He did all things according to His image and appearance and nothing according to reality but only in appearance.” In regard to the Cerdonians, Augustine (De haeres., ch. 21) mentions that “they taught that Christ Himself was not born of a woman nor had flesh, that He neither truly died nor suffered anything but only pretended His suffering.” Philaster (De haeres., ch. 45) relates about Marcion of Pontus that he strengthened the lie of his teacher Cerdo and taught that “Christ appeared putatively, that is, as if through a shadow, and that He suffered in a shadowy manner but not in true flesh.” With regard to the Manichaeans, Augustine writes (De haeres., ch. 46) that they taught that “Christ was not in true flesh but revealed a simulated appearance of flesh, making sport of the human senses, where He feigned not only death but even the resurrection.”
§ 85. These were their principal arguments: [A.] From the apparition of the angels who appeared in human bodies but who nevertheless were not true men. We respond. The manifestation of the Son of God in the flesh is one thing, and it is defined as “assumption and incarnation.” But the apparition of angels in human form is something else, and this is defined as “manifestation.” The angels by no means united human figures to themselves personally as the Word united the assumed human nature to Himself. Rather, they used the body only temporarily by reason of their ministry, and they were not giving form to that form but were present with it. “A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have” (Luke 24:39). Therefore He is teaching that He is not a specter or spirit but has true flesh and bones. It has never been said that an angel became flesh, took on the seed of Abraham, etc., as is said about the Son of God. Tertullian, De carn. Christi, p. 18: “Let those who set forth the flesh of Christ after the example of the angels and say that it was not born, that is, not fleshly, compare the reasons for which both Christ and the angels came into the flesh. No angel ever descended to be crucified, to experience death, to be raised again from the dead. If there never was a reason of this sort for the angels to take on bodies, we have a reason why they did not receive flesh by being born: they did not come to die. Therefore they did not come to be born. On the other hand, Christ was sent to die. Therefore He also had to be born in order to be able to die. For one does not die unless he has been born.” If you pay careful attention, you will discover that the incarnation of the Word and the manifestation of the angels differ with regard to all the causes: efficient, material, form, and end.
We can respond in almost the same way to the argument drawn from the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. You see, whatever that dove may have been—whether it was merely an appearance and likeness of a dove (which is claimed by Chrysostom, on Matthew, homily 11; Augustine, De Trinit., bk. 2, ch. 5; Ambrose, De sacram., bk. 1, ch. 5) or a true corporeal dove (as is claimed by Tertullian, De carn. Christi, ch. 3; the author of the book De agone Christi, which is contained among the works of Augustine, ch. 22; Thomas, [ST,] p. 3, q. 39, art. 7 ad 1; and which we think is the more true)—nevertheless one thing is certain: that the union by which the Holy Spirit appropriated the appearance of a dove to Himself is utterly distinct from the union of the divine and human natures in Christ: (1) With regard to its form, because the Holy Spirit appeared in that visible likeness only temporarily, but the Son of God joined the assumed nature to Himself with a constant and indissoluble bond, for which reason the former union can be called “symbolic,” while the latter is called “personal”; the former, “temporal,” but the latter, “perpetual and indissoluble.” (2) With regard to its end. The author of the book De agone Christi, loc. cit.: “The Holy Spirit did not come to deliver doves, but the Son of God put on the flesh to deliver flesh by flesh.”
§ 86. [B.] From the assertion of the apostle: “God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3); “He was found in fashion as a man” (Phil. 2:[8]). We respond. (1) The apostle is not saying simply that God sent His Son “in the likeness of flesh” but that He sent Him “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” that is, flesh liable to punishment for sin. Therefore the sense is that the flesh of Christ was indeed like the sinful flesh but was not sinful. You see, the word “likeness” has to do not with the flesh but with the added determination “sinful.” It does not exclude the reality of the human nature but the hideousness of sin. For this reason, “in the flesh” is set at the end of the verse instead of “in the likeness of flesh” [Rom. 8:3]. Tertullian, De carne Christi: “He wants us to understand that He received the likeness of sinful flesh, not the likeness of flesh, as though it were the image of a body and not of reality. That nonsinful, true flesh of Christ was equal to that of him who had the sin.” Contra Marcionem, bk. 5: “The ‘likeness’ has to do with the word ‘sin’ and not to the feigning of substance.” Ambrose, De poenit., bk. 1, ch. 3, vol. 1, p. 153: “He does not say ‘likeness of flesh,’ because Christ took on the reality of human flesh, not the likeness thereof. He does not say ‘likeness of sin,’ because He did no sin, but became sin for us. Rather, ‘He came in the likeness of flesh of sin,’ that is, He took on the likeness of sinful flesh.” In his commentary on Romans 8, p. 80: “Therefore he said ‘like’ because from the same substance of flesh He did not have the same birth, because the body of the Lord was not subject to sin.”
(2) In the second passage, the word “fashion” [
] signifies outward behavior, the gestures and actions of all of life, in which Christ wanted to be like other people. For this reason, Paul says, “He was made in the likeness of men,” that is, according to the Hebrew expression, “He was made similar to men.” Consequently, in 1 Pet. 1:14 the word 
is explained through anastrophe, since He could have shown His divine majesty in the assumed nature immediately from His birth, just as He did show it in His transfiguration. However, that “fashion” is not opposed to the reality or substance of flesh but to His later glorification. “He will change [
] our body” (Phil. 3:21), but nevertheless the substance of it will not be destroyed.
Therefore with the words “likeness” or “fashion” the apostle by no means overturns the reality of the flesh. Rather, he emphatically expresses the weaknesses to which Christ voluntarily subjected Himself and the emotions that He wished to endure in His state of humiliation no less than other people experience them. This is clear: First, from his aim. After all, the apostle’s intent was not to teach what sort of a human nature Christ had with regard to its essence, but what sort Christ had in His external behavior while He was in His state of emptying. Second, from the context. The apostle is encouraging the Philippians to humility with the example of Christ. But if Christ had not been true man and had not been obedient to the Father with true humility, surely the apostle would also be encouraging us to a feigned and pretended humility. Third, from the proper meaning of these words, for 
[“fashion”] is taken for an agreement of qualities but not directly for the nature itself. (See Rom. 1:23; 6:5.) We pass the same judgment about the word 
[“likeness”]. (See 1 Cor. 15:29.) Fourth, from the added word
[“form”], which is nowhere taken immediately for the essence itself or the substantial form but only for the external appearance or accidental form.
§ 87. (II) The heteroousiasts [
, “of another essence”] [undermine the true humanity of Christ directly]. They were of the opinion that Christ did not have or still does not have flesh consubstantial with us, but another flesh. We can establish two classes of these. Some of them taught that at no time, not even from the first moment of His incarnation, did Christ have flesh consubstantial with us. However, some dreamed that, “at first, Christ indeed did have flesh consubstantial with us, but afterward, after His union or glorification, it was changed into the divine nature.”
To the prior class belong: (1) The Valentinians, about whom Irenaeus writes (Adv. haeres, bk. 1, ch. 1, p. 22): “They claimed that Christ passed through Mary just as water passes through a channel.” Against them Irenaeus sets forth this argument (bk. 3, ch. 32, p. 220): “If He did not receive from man the substance of flesh and was not made man nor the Son of Man, and if He did not become what we were, then He was not doing a great thing by suffering,” etc.
(2) The Apellites, whose leader, Apelles, taught: “Christ indeed did not take His flesh from heaven but received it from the elements of the earth, which He gave back to the earth when He rose up without the flesh and ascended into heaven” (Augustine, De haeres., ch. 23). (Irenaeus, bk. 3, ch. 23, and Epiphanius, Haeres. 56, mention about Apelles that he said, “The Son of God did not assume His flesh from the Virgin Mary but gathered His body for Himself from the four elements.”)
(3) Eutyches taught: “The body of the Lord is not consubstantial with us, nor was it conceived of the substance of the Virgin Mary, but it was brought down from heaven.” Theodoret, Epitom. 
. 
.: “He rejected the assumption [of the body], for he said that God the Word took nothing human from the Virgin but that He changed unchangeably and became flesh.” Theodoret, Dial. 1, ch. 22: “Some have vomited up this wickedness, saying that the body is not more recent than the divinity of the Word but was always coeternal with Him.”
§ 88. In our time: (I) The Anabaptists embrace the opinion of the Valentinians about the flesh of Christ being brought down from heaven and passing through the womb of Mary like water through a channel. In the Colloquy of Emden, they said, “Jesus Christ is not of flesh and blood nor of the substance of Mary but of the Holy Spirit.” In his Fundam., Menno writes: “From top to bottom, inside and outside, visibly and invisibly, Jesus Christ is the firstborn and only-begotten Son, the incomprehensible and eternal Word through which all things were created.” Menno again, at the Colloquy of Wismar, said, “ ‘The Word became flesh’ just as the water was made wine and just as Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt.” These, too, are the words of Menno: “The Father prepared a body for His Son not from impure human blood but from His own incorruptible seed by which Mary was impregnated through the Holy Spirit.” (See Wigand, Anabapt.; Urbanus Rhegius, Contra Anabapt.; etc.) Servetus, one of the Anabaptists, teaches (De Trinit., bk. 2): “The flesh of Christ is divine and heavenly and was born of the essence of the Father.” The Anabaptist Melchior Hoffman taught: “The Word was not flesh from the Virgin but of Himself.” He declared that “the flesh of Mary was cursed.”
(II) Schwenkfeld also claimed that the flesh of Christ was of a different substance from ours. In his Confess. magna, part 1, he writes: “The flesh of Christ does not have a creaturely beginning but a new and supernatural one from the seed of His Father, that is, from the Holy Spirit.” Part 3: “The human nature of Christ is not like the human nature of the Turks.”
(III) Thammerus said that “the flesh of Christ is not natural but divine, spiritual, and created in the beginning by God in Paradise, in its own integrity and perfection.” Aretius (Loc. Theolog., p. 1, locus 9, f. 119) lists and refutes his reasons.
(IV) The Methists6 of our time follow the Anabaptists and Schwenkfeldians.
(V) Akin to those in some way are the Photinians. Schmaltz, Exam. 157 error., error 18, p. 8:
We say that Christ was born as much from the blood of Mary as from the matter brought down from God to beget the body of Christ. Holy Writ bears witness that this is utterly true when it mentions the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit upon Mary and when it names Christ “the Son of God” because of that overshadowing. You see, He could not have been named “the Son of God” from the actual conception unless something had come on the part of God to establish Him. Rather, He would be only the Son of Mary because of His conception and birth, something that is absolutely ridiculous, though all the Trinitarians are forced to assert this.
Vorstius, who is close to the Photinians, vomits up from his blasphemous mouth: “The Holy Spirit took the place of the seed of man—and, in fact, of the man himself—in forming Christ as man. There was nothing lacking in the begetting of Christ except the action and seed of a man.” They invented this terrible error in order to flee in some way the path of the argument that “Christ is the proper, only-begotten, and natural Son of God and therefore is true God.”
Against him we set forth the following argument: The material that God brought to beget the body of Christ either was of the very essence of God (by which logic God would be established as corporeal and, as a consequence, could not be a spiritual, utterly simple, and infinite essence), or it will be distinct from His essence, and thus with respect to it [His body] Christ is not the Son of God, begotten of God.
(VI) The Flacians also introduce Christ as being of a substance different from us. You see, if sin is the very substance of man, then the Son of God did not assume a nature of the same substance with ours because He did not assume sin. They respond: “The human nature of Christ is of the same species with that nature which Adam had before the fall.” Yet they are begging the question in that they are claiming the natures in Adam before and after the fall were different. Flacius, Orth. confess., p. 186, and Solid. refut., ch. 3: “The humanity of Christ is not of completely the same species with our flesh in theology.” Irenaus, in his German writing that examines Article I of the Formula of Concord, letter Y: “Christ assumed a nature that, with the exception of sin, is of the same genus, species, and substance with ours. This is true speaking naturally, but not theologically and not literally according to Scripture.” Letter aa, 3: “According to His humanity, Christ was of similar rather than of the same substance with us.”
§ 89. To the second class belongs Eutyches, who is inconsistent. About him Evagrius writes, bk. 2, ch. 4: “Eutyches said, ‘I confess that our Lord was begotten of two natures before the union, but after the union I confess one nature.’ “ (Cf. Theodoret, Dial. 2; Damascenus, Orth. fid., bk. 3, ch. 3.) In De div. majest. humanitatis Christi, Schwenkfeld teaches: “The humanity of Christ after the ascension was not creational but supercreatural.” (See Nicephorus, bk. 14, ch. 47.)
§ 90. Against the errors of the heteroousiasts, observe: (1) Christ is said to have been born not only “in” the Virgin Mary (Matt. 1:20) but also “of Mary” (v. 16); “of a woman” (Gal. 4:4); “of the seed of David” (Rom. 1:3); and for this reason He is called “the fruit of his body” (Ps. 132:11), “the fruit of his loins” (Acts 2:30), etc. Tertullian rightly stresses this in his book De carne Christi.
(2) Descriptions of the divine nature must not be opposed to the reality of the human nature. From the fact that Christ is said to have “come down from heaven” (John 3:13) as “the second man from heaven” ([1 Cor. 15:47; cf.] John 6:62), it is not proved that God put a heavenly and celestial body in the womb of the Virgin but that the Word assumed the flesh.
(3) Scripture asserts both without contradiction—that Christ was born of the seed of David and that Christ was not conceived and born of the seed of a man. The first statement describes the origin and family of Christ according to the flesh; the second denies the common efficient cause and mode of human conception.
(4) Sin does not belong to the actual nature of man but is its depraved accident and the poison that adheres intimately to our flesh. Therefore though the Son of God assumed our flesh without sin, nevertheless He did not cease being consubstantial with us on that account.
(5) In the conception of Christ, one must consider two things: the efficient cause and the material. With respect to the efficient cause there is a difference between the conception of Christ and our conception, because the Holy Spirit cleansed the little drops of blood of which the body of Christ was formed from every stain of sin and washed the poison of sin from it, while we are conceived of an unclean seed (Ps. 51:7; Job 14:4). With respect to the material there is a point of agreement, because from the blood and substance of Mary, which is consubstantial with us, the Son of God assumed true flesh. Therefore we must distinguish between that which becomes something else (in this way the human nature of Christ did not become something essentially different from our nature, though it was conceived without the intercourse of male and female, lacked every sin, and was personally united with the divinity) and that which begins to exist in another way (which can be said about the human nature of Christ). Leo, Sermon 2 de nativ., col. 38: “His origin is different, but His nature is like ours. If you are looking for the truth, recognize the material of the human nature. If you are investigating the manner of His origin, confess that it was divine in power.”
(6) The personal actuality, which the human nature received from the absolutely pure and intimate union with the Word, does not remove the natural actuality that it has from its essential principles and parts. Consequently, it does not stop being a true human nature through that very great glory of the union.
(7) The glory given in the exaltation of Christ does not kill but completes; it does not take away but elevates.
§ 91. (III) The 
[“without a soul”], who acknowledged a true body in Christ, [undermine the true humanity of Christ directly]. Those, too, came in two categories: (1) Some imagined that “Christ assumed a flesh that was without soul in every respect, lacking every sensitive and vegetative soul,” such as the Arians (according to Socrates, bk. 2, ch. 45), who claimed this that they might be able to refer the passions [
] attributed to Christ in the Scriptures to the Word, and thus be able to deny that Christ is true God.
(2) Some argue that “the Word assumed a living body, that is, one endowed with a sensitive and vegetative soul but lacking a rational soul, and that He had His divinity in place of a soul,” such as Apollinaris and his followers. (See Eusebius, Hist., bk. 11, ch. 20; Epiphanius, Haeres. 77.)
Against these errors of the 
observe: (a) The word “flesh” in John 1:14 is taken synecdochically, as we showed earlier. (b) The faculties of the rational soul are attributed to Christ, namely, the intellect and will, distinct from the will of the Father
(Luke 2:52; 23:46; Matt. 26:39; John 5:30; 6:38). (c) Not only the body but also the rational soul belongs to the essential and constitutive parts of man. Therefore because Christ is true man (John 8:40; 1 Cor. 15:47; 1 Tim. 2:5), surely there must also be a truly human soul, that is, a rational one. (d) The manner of our salvation required the Word to assume not only flesh but also a soul. “What is not assumed is not healed,” as Nazianzen writes, Letter 2 ad Cledonium. But now, the Son of God wanted to heal our whole and entire human nature, and the soul was especially corrupted through sin. Therefore He surely assumed the entire nature.
The Monothelites, who attributed just one will to Christ, can be classified with the 
.
§ 92. The human nature of Christ is undermined indirectly by: (I) The 
[“without suffering, impassible”], who thought that “the human nature in Christ, because of its personal union with the Word, was not susceptible to any sufferings. Rather, just as a spear passes through water without any sense of a wound, so Christ did not feel true pain in His sufferings” (Hilary, De Trinit., bk. 10). But with regard to him, Bonaventure writes (bk. 3, dist. 16, q. 1. art. 1, resp. to 1): “He retracted this opinion about impassibility.” The Emperor Justinian, in Evagrius, Hist. Eccles., bk. 4, ch. 38, also says that “Christ did not truly feel sadness, grief, and pains in His sufferings.” We cited similar statements from the ancients in our Harm. de pass., p. 56.
However, note: (1) The particle of emphatic assertion in Isa. 53:4:, 
truly, surely He carried our weaknesses.” (2) The emphatic descriptions of the evangelists, which, no less than the very serious complaints, bloody sweat, and angelic consolation of Christ, teach that He pretended nothing here. (3) The absurd consequence: If Christ felt those pains not in truth but in pretense, our redemption also will not be true but only pretended. Compare the outstanding passage in Ambrose, on Luke 22, bk. 10, vol. 5, p. 154: “With confidence I call it ‘grief,’ because I preach the cross. He did not take up the appearance of incarnation but its reality.”
To the 
belong the 
[“incorruptible docetists”], who denied that Christ took up the infirmities of the human nature. (See Nicephorus, bk. 17, ch. 29, and Damascenus, bk. 3, ch. 28.) (Bellarmine, De Christo, bk. 4, ch. 8, denies that Christ felt the pangs of hell, and with this charge he strongly attacked Melanchthon and Brenz because they asserted that the wrath of God had been poured out upon Him and that there was an immense grief in Him. About this, see more in its own place.)
(II) The Papists, through the dogma of transubstantiation. (See our De gloria Dei, disp. 2, § 9.)
(III) The Calvinists, through their hypothesis regarding the rotting of the blood shed on the altar of the cross. (See our De gloria Dei, disp. 7, § 8.)
(IV) The Photinians: (1) Because they deny that Christ has flesh and blood in heaven. (See Ostorodus, Inst. German., ch. 38, p. 390; Schmaltzius, De div. Christi, p. 90; Contra Frantz., p. 407; Exam. 157 error., pp. 11 and 21.) (2) Because they claim that the essence of a man requires that he be a human person. From this it follows that Christ is not true man because the assumed human nature is not a person having individual existence but subsists in the Word Himself. Schmaltzius, Exam. 157 error., p. 5: “Neither logic nor Holy Writ allows him who is not a human person to be called a man.” Page 38: “That which is not a human person we must call a monster of a man. This has appeared to be true in all individual humans from the very beginning of the world. Would that truth have failed solely in the individual Christ? Therefore Christ at least will not be a man as other men were, are, or are going to be. Why, then, is He so often called ‘human,’ ‘Son of Man,’ ‘the man’?” We find similar words in the Catech. Racov., p. 55.
§ 93. Observe: (I) With regard to His conception by the Holy Spirit, which the Photinians attribute to Christ, one can infer in the same way: “In all human individuals from the very beginning of the world this has appeared to be true: that a virgin has been unable to give birth without intercourse with a man.” (II) The verity and integrity of the human nature depends on its essential and constitutive parts, namely, the soul and body united. Because these are whole and perfect in Christ, nothing is lost from the reality of His humanity, even if it is not a hypostasis on its own. There are many individual things that do not have a peculiar subsistence of their own. Thus a part exists in the whole, an arm in a body, etc., yet not of itself and through its own subsistence but through that of another, namely, of the whole. It is not subsistence but existence that bestows the complete perfection of a nature. To be sure, subsistence is a true, external completion with regard to actual existence because it does not enter its being. Consequently, a nature can be perfect whether subsistence as a mode flows from it or is added externally to it.
(III) One must distinguish between unhindered things that constitute a person (namely, where there are two unhindered things that constitute a person, there we have two persons) and hindered things, where two persons do not immediately arise. In Christ, there are two things constituting a person, but the one, the human nature, was hindered by its assumption into the Word from constituting its own person.
(IV) According to His human nature, Christ lacked a human personality not because of the failure of something that pertains to the perfection of the human nature but rather because of the addition of the more excellent personality or personal subsistence of the Word. Thomas puts it beautifully, [ST,] p. 3, q. 4, art. 2, ad 2: “The assumed nature does not lack its own personality because of a defect but because of the addition of something that is beyond the human nature, that is, its union with the divine person.” Question 2, art. 5, ad 2: “It does not follow because of this that the union of body and soul in Christ is of lesser efficacy than it is in us, because the joining together to something more noble does not take away power or dignity but increases them.”
Questions about the human nature of Christ.
§ 94. (I) The question arises: Is Christ consubstantial with us according to His human nature? This is asserted in clear language in the Athanasian Creed, and it is utterly clear from the confession of the whole Church and especially from the reality of the human nature in Christ and from the passage of the apostle, “We are of His flesh and of His bones” (Eph. 5:30). What shall we do, then, with the statements of the ancients who deny that in humans a son can be said to be consubstantial with his father and say that the august name “son” befits only the Son of God? One must distinguish among diverse meanings of this word. “Consubstantiality” [
] sometimes denotes a unity of essence only according to species. In this sense, in humans a son is consubstantial with his father. Consequently, in this sense Christ, too, is said to be consubstantial with us according to His human nature. But, on the other hand, the fathers of Antioch have denied that in this sense the Son is consubstantial with the Father in divine matters, as is evident from Athanasius, De decret. synod. Nicen. However, sometimes “consubstantiality” denotes the unity of essence according to number,7 and in this sense a son is not consubstantial [
] with his father among humans but only of similar substance [
]. Thus also in this sense, according to His human nature, Christ is not con-substantial with us. But, on the other hand, the fathers of Nicaea claimed that in this sense the Son is consubstantial with the Father according to the divine nature.
§ 95. (II) The question arises: Did the Son of God assume the human nature as a species [
] or as an individual [
], and is the human nature of Christ an individual? “Individual” is understood in two ways: (1) For one thing that is undivided in itself. (2) For that which subsists in and through itself. In the prior sense, the human nature of Christ is an individual, but not in the latter.
Damascenus argues about this matter elegantly in Orth. fid., bk. 3, ch. 11, where he says that human nature must be considered in three ways: (1) In terms of mere contemplation, where it is separated from all individuals and is viewed alone of itself. (2) As a species. (3) As an individual. He concludes here that Christ assumed the human nature not in the first or second sense but in the third.
However, here one must note that the individuality of the human nature can be considered in two ways: First, according as it has its own, proper existence [
]; in this way, human nature is in the rest of humans. Second, according as it has its subsistence in another; in this latter way, the human nature as individual was assumed by the Son of God into His own hypostasis. The Son of God took up the human nature, considered not in its own personality but in singularity. It was complete according to its essence and individual parts, a singular mass and distinct from the nature of other humans considered as individual rather than as species. It was suitable for receiving a subsistence, and it would have constituted its own person had it not been assumed into another hypostasis. Thomas, [ST,] p. 3, q. 4, art. 3: “The word ‘man’ signifies the human nature, just as ‘was born’ signifies ‘to be in the subject [suppositum].’ “
§ 96. (III) The question arises: Are we correct in saying that the Son of God assumed man? Bellarmine, De Christo, ch. 1, accuses Brenz of Nestorianism with this charge. He says, “You will note in the wording of Brenz those Nestorian phrases: ‘The Son of God is in the Son of Mary’ and ‘The Son of God assumed the Son of Man.’ “ However: (1) Among the ancients this expression occurs quite frequently, for the following speak in this way: Cyprian (Sermon de idolor. vanitate), Irenaeus (as cited by Theodoret), Origen (on Matthew, homily 23), Hilary (De Trinit., bk. 9), Athanasius (as cited in Vigilius Martyr, Exposit. Fidei), Ambrose (De fide, bk. 4, ch. 5), Augustine (De Trinit., bk. 1, ch. 7), the author of De agone Christi (ch. 11), and quite a few others.
(2) Thomas Aquinas (whom the Roman pontiff has placed among the saints) uses this expression in his Caten. aurea super evang. and [ST,] p. 3, q. 4, art. 3: “When the fathers say that the Son of God assumed man, then the word ‘man’ signifies the human nature, just as ‘was born’ signifies ‘to be in the subject [suppositum].’ “
(3) In his commentary on De civit. Dei, bk. 9, ch. 17, Ludovicus Vives bitterly attacks those who accuse others of Nestorianism because of their use of this expression. He says:
Augustine, Jerome, and the rest of the Latin writers of our religion say that God assumed man. The Greeks say that
[“man”] is in Christ. They knew almost no other way of speaking when they speak about the man that was assumed by the Son of God. The more recent theologians, in order to seem like they alone fell from heaven, having examined the entire divinity and humanity of Christ, have found that He did not assume man but humanity, and they say that this is the safest thing against heretics, as if we would not be very safe, fortified as we are by the authority of Augustine and Jerome. They ask: “But did they mean ‘humanity’ when they said ‘man’?” Rather, let these more recent men speak as did the former, and let them think in this way. But let those who are more skillful in languages and in the entire manner of speaking correctly polish up the uneducated and ignorant antiquity of the Latin and Greek languages.
(4) Bellarmine himself, toward the end of ch. 7 of the same book, excuses that expression in Augustine. He says, “In Enchirid., ch. 36; De praedest. sanct., ch. 15; and elsewhere, Augustine says quite frequently that the Son of God assumed man, where he takes the word ‘man’ to mean ‘humanity.’ “
(5) In the same way, when Brenz explained that expression, no charge of Nestorianism should have been brought against him because of it. Meanwhile, we willingly admit with Thomas ([ST,] p. 3, q. 4, art. 3) and Bonaventure (Sent., bk. 3, dist. 5, q. 4.) that that statement “is in some way improper and must be explained devoutly. We should not imitate it rashly nor extend it more broadly.” You see, the sense is that the Word assumed the human nature so that through it He would be a man, for it is one thing to speak about the assumption with respect to its happening but another with respect to its terminus or what has been assumed.
§ 97. (IV) The question arises: Is it correct for the human nature of Christ to be called an instrument of the Word? This is very frequent in the fathers who are regarding the work of the Mediator and the activities [
] of the office that Christ works in, with, and through the flesh. We must add necessarily that the flesh is not a separate instrument of the Word but is united personally and inseparably conjoined with Him, not idle and inactive but cooperating and active, as shall become more clear in its own place. Therefore we seriously disapprove of it when Bellarmine (who is close to the Nestorians) compares the humanity of Christ with a separate, passive instrument. In De Christo, bk. 3, ch. 10, § 12, he says: “Even if the deity did absolutely all things through the humanity and even if all the attributes were to remain in action, we still could not call His humanity ‘omnipotent,’ ‘all-wise,’ for adjectives of the principal cause do not befit an instrument. Otherwise when someone would write wisely and learnedly, we would call his pen ‘wise and learned.’ “
§ 98. (V) The question arises: Is Christ a creature according to His human nature? The Arians argued that the Word according to Himself and even without the assumption of the human nature was a creature made from nothing, by no means consubstantial with the Father. Because of the Arian deceits, therefore, the ancients rejected this proposition: “Christ is a creature.” But because of Schwenkfeld, who denied that Christ is a creature as far as His human nature is concerned, this phrase was used concerning Christ according to His human nature in the Smalcald Conference of 1537. They say, “We disapprove of the madness of Schwenkfeld and say that the human nature in Christ both remains and is a creature, as John says, ‘The Word became flesh’ [John 1:14].”
§ 99. (VI) The question arises: Is it correct to say that, because of His human nature, Christ is our fellow servant, even in His state of glory? Danaeus and some other Calvinists think so. However, we set forth against them this immovable syllogism: Whoever has put aside the form of a servant and has become the Lord of all things cannot be called “our fellow servant.” Christ has put aside the form of a servant and has become the Lord of all things (Phil. 2:9; Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:36) in such a way that human beings are His ministers (1 Cor. 4:2).
§ 100. The practical use is consoling. Christ is true man. Therefore He is: (1) Our true Mediator (1 Tim. 2:[5]). (2) Our Brother. (3) Our Kinsman, flesh of our flesh, bone of our bone. (4) Our 
and Redeemer, having the properties of a redeemer perfectly, because He touches us with the nearness of His flesh and delivers us by putting forward a price. (5) Our Head, whose members we are in His mystical Body. (6) Our Helper, genuinely sympathizing with us (Heb. 4:15).
1 That is, the ability of an organism to sustain itself.
2 Read intellectiva instead of naturalis.
3 Read natura with Cotta instead of naturam.
4 That is, as an incidental property of humanity, not of its substance.
5 Read dispensationis with Cotta instead of dispensionis.
6 Followers of Ezekiel Meth (d. 1640) and of Esaias Stiefel (d. 1627). The sect had beliefs similar to the Quakers, Anabaptists, and Schwenkfeldians.
7 That is, having exactly the same substance. See Glossary, “same according to number.”