The material of the communication, or that which is communicated, is divine majesty, glory, and power; and, hence, truly

CHAPTER XII: ON THE SECOND GENUS

OF THE COMMUNICATION OF PROPERTIES

§ 201. General thesis. The second genus of the communication of properties is that by which the divine nature of the Son communicates its own, proper glory and excellence to the human nature, while it remains free of the sufferings of the flesh.

With regard to this genus, we must note: (I) Its foundation. Because the assumed nature, in and through the union, has become a partaker of the hypostasis of the Word, therefore it has truly and really become a partaker also of the divine properties. Because the Son of God assumed the human nature into the unity of His person, so that in and through it He might perfect the work of our redemption and salvation and administer His prophetic, priestly, and royal office, therefore He enriched the flesh with the divine workings [] that it might be the salutary and suitable instrument of the divine effects [], not inactive and inanimate but active [], not separate but united.

(II) Its names. In Scripture this genus is called “exaltation in the highest,” “exaltation,” “magnificence,” “glory,” “glorification,” “entrance into glory,” “coronation,” “majesty in the highest,” etc. The Greek fathers call it “theosis” [“deification”], “apotheosis.” Justin calls it “partaking of divine dignity.” Basil, “imparting and sharing divine authority.” Athanasius, “a great addition,” “improvement,” “deifying,” “endowing with the Word of God” [], “filling.” Epiphanius, “strengthening,” “strengthening together.” Gregory of Nyssa, “changing,” “elevation to the divinity’s own height through the unification.” Eustachius, “added power and glory.” Eusebius, “divine power.” Damascenus, “a sharing of divine illumination,” “riches of the divine workings [] added¹ to the flesh from the unification and joining with the highest Word,” “an imparting of divine glories.” The Latin fathers call it “a communication of majesty,” “the transformation of the assumed nature into divine glory and working,” “the advancement of the human nature,” etc.

(III) Its subject. In the subject of propositions pertaining to this genus of communication, not only the name of the person is set but also sometimes even the name of the human nature or of the flesh. However, this does not denote a separate human nature or the human nature subsisting apart (because after the incarnation the Word is not outside the flesh nor the flesh outside the Word), but according as the flesh is united with the Word and subsists in the very hypostasis of the Word. That is, it denotes the human nature not of a mere man but of that man who is personally united with the Son of God and, indeed, according as He is united. Hence here we are considering not the essential attributes in the assumed nature (attributes that belong to Him on the basis of essential principles) but the divine attributes that are conferred on Him from and through the union.

(II) (IV) Its species and examples: (1) With regard to the predicate. In some predications, divine majesty and glory given in time are predicated in general about Christ the man. In some, however, divine omnipotence, omniscience, and the power to give life are expressed in particular, as will become apparent from what follows. (2) With regard to the subject. In some predications, a concrete of the person is set as the subject, such as, “To Christ was given all power in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18). In some, a concrete of the human nature is set as the subject, such as “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28). We shall see in the questions whether an abstract of the human nature sometimes occupies the place of the subject.

(V) Reciprocation. In this genus of communication there is no reciprocation, as there is in the first. The reason is this: Because the divine nature is simply unalterable and unchangeable, therefore through the union it could be neither perfected nor diminished, neither exalted nor brought down (Mal. 3:6). However, because the human nature is humble and lacking, therefore through the union it could be exalted, raised up, and perfected. What you object is not right: that “the union is reciprocal, therefore so also is the communication.” Although the union, considered with respect to itself, is equal and reciprocal, nevertheless considered with regard to its united natures, it shows us this difference: that in the union the Word assumes, but the flesh is assumed. The Word assumed the flesh; the flesh did not assume the Word but was assumed by the Word. But now, “advancement belongs to what is assumed, not to what assumes,” as the devout ancients say.

(VI) The specifying particles. Sometimes the particles “according to” and “because” [] are used in this genus, and with regard to these we must note very carefully that their use in the first genus is not the same as in the second genus of communication. In the first genus, those particles are marks of property, namely, to which nature those properties that are expressed in the predicate belong. For example, when I say that Christ suffered according to the flesh, then the meaning is: since suffering is the property of the human nature, and it is predicated about the person in the concrete because of the personal union. In the second genus, however, they explain both the object (because they show according to which nature such things are given to Christ in time and point out that the predicate of the proposition is to be referred to the human nature of Christ considered in the union) and the cause and origin (because they show the source from which the flesh obtains that eminence and dignity that it has, namely, from the union). For example, when I say, “To Christ was given all power in heaven and on earth according to the flesh,” or, “To Christ was given the power to judge, because He is the Son of Man,” then from the first the object of the giving is to be understood, namely, that it is about Christ according as He is man, that is, about the flesh of Christ, that all power and, consequently, the power to judge has been given in time. When I say, “The flesh of Christ is life-giving and omnipotent according to the other” [], the meaning is that it is life-giving not from the property of its own nature but according to the union or because of the union, from which and through which it has received this dignity. Or, what is the same, it signifies that the union is the reason why the flesh of Christ has been endowed with the power to make alive, something that does not at all befit it on the basis of its essential principles. Pelargus (Antith. apologet. contra Bald., thesis 89) disapproves of this distinction, saying, “The distinction of the phrase ‘according to the other’ in the first and third genus is new and completely unknown to orthodox antiquity, namely, that in the first genus it indicates a property, and in the third, the cause and origin. The ancients always used it to denote the subject or nature according to which something is said about Christ.” It will appear from the statements of the ancients, however, that the foundations for this distinction exist in antiquity itself.

§ 202. Furthermore, because very serious controversies are being stirred up in the Church over this second genus of communication, therefore, that its verification may be the more evident, we proceed in this way, saying that in this genus two things must be considered: (1) The communication itself and (2) The use of the things communicated.

In the communication itself, we must look at: (a) The essential matters. (b) The circumstantial matters. The essential matters are: (α) The termini. (β) The material of the communication. There are two termini: the starting point [terminus a quo], that is, he who is communicating; and the ending point [terminus ad quem], namely, to whom this is being communicated. The material of the communication is the very thing that is being communicated. The circumstances of the communication are the manner and time. We shall speak about all of these in particular here.

He who communicates is the Word.

§ 203. Let this, then, be Specific Thesis I: He who communicates is the Word or the deity of the Word.

Explanation. As the Word assumes in the union and the human nature is assumed, so also the Word or the deity of the Word communicates and the human nature is communicated to. As the Son Himself is said to have sat at the right hand of God (Mark 16:19; Heb. 1:3; 8:1), as He is said to have “ascended into heaven with the angels and powers and authorities subject to Him” (1 Pet. 3:22), so also He elevated the assumed flesh to His own loftiness.

Cyril, Thesaur., bk. 8, ch. 1:

The Son is always the Most High as God, and as man He is exalted. He lacks nothing as God, yet as man He receives many things. It is a mark of the human nature to receive from God; therefore as man He received through grace from the deity that which He has naturally as God. For this reason, He as man takes from His very own self as God. For if the Father does all things through the Son, we must believe that He Himself gave Himself the exaltation and grace of the Father when the assumed temple was deified. Therefore grace comes to Him as a man, and He is said to be exalted because of the flesh.

 

Dial. de Trinit., bk. 6, p. 127: “As God, He is holy according to His nature. As man He has been sanctified along with us as with His own Spirit He anoints His temple.”

Athanasius, De naturae humanae susc., p. 471: “It is clear that the Father does all things through Him, and they are done in such a way that He is stirred up by the Father through His very own self. He is sanctified through Himself. He is extolled through Himself. He bestows life on Himself.” Page 465: “When He says that the Father gave life to the Son, we must understand that life was given to the flesh. The Father completed the wakening of the body of His Son through the Son.” Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunom.: “The very right hand of God elevated to His own height the man united to Himself.”

Damascenus, Orth. fid., bk. 3, ch. 7: “It (the divine nature) imparts to the flesh its own glories while remaining impassible and free from the passions of the flesh.” (Cf. our article On the Person of Christ [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 7], § 86.)

Antithesis.

§ 204. Those who deny that a communication of divine properties was made to the flesh of Christ argue that the Father is said to have exalted the Son and to have given Him all power. “The Son of Man came in the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days, and He gave Him power and honor and dominion” (Dan. 7:13–14). “All things have been given Me by My Father” (Matt. 11:[27]). “The Father loves the Son and gave all things into His hands” (John 3:35). “The Father gave the Son the power to pass judgment” (John 5:27). “God raised Christ from the dead and set Him at His right hand in the heavens” (Eph. 1:20). “Because of this, God exalted Him and gave Him a name that is above every name” (Phil. 2:9). “What is man that You are mindful of Him? You have crowned Him with glory and honor” (Heb. 2:6–7). From these and similar passages they draw this conclusion: “If the Father exalted the Son and gave Him all power, surely there must be a relationship between the Father as giver and the Son as receiver, but not between the deity of the Word as giver and the assumed humanity as receiver.”

We respond. (1) Those passages of Scripture, instead of overthrowing our thesis, much rather confirm it very powerfully. Because the Son is consubstantial with the Father according to His deity, therefore “whatever the Father does, the Son does the same things in the same way” (John 5:19). For as there is one essence of the three persons of the divinity, so also there is one power of acting. If the Father were to act without the Son, there would no longer be one action of Father and Son, and, as a consequence, there would also not be one essence. Therefore in all the statements of Scripture in which the Father is said to have exalted the Son and to have given Him all power, our thesis is being confirmed that the Son exalted Himself according to the flesh—that is, the assumed humanity—because, with the exception of the internal work alone, or begetting, as a characteristic property, “whatever the Father does, the Son does that also.”

(2) For this reason, Scripture asserts both that the Father set the Son at His right hand (Eph. 1:20), that the Son sat down at the right hand of the Father, that the Father anointed the Son with the Spirit and with power (Ps. 45:[7]; Isa. 61:1; Acts 10:38), and that by assuming the human nature, the Word anointed the same with the fullness of His own Spirit (Dan. 9:24). The Father gives the Son (John 3:16). He sends the Son (Gal. 4:4). He hands Him over into death (Rom. 8:32). And the Son hands Himself over (Gal. 2:20). The Father raises the Son, and the Son rises by His own power. The Father puts His enemies under the feet of Christ (Ps. 110:1), and Christ Himself subjects His foes to

Himself (1 Cor. 15:[25]).

(3) Although there is one exaltation, one action, and, in like manner, one action of Father and Son by which the assumed flesh of Christ has become a partaker of the divine properties, nevertheless as the terminus of the assumption is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit but the Word alone, so also the Father exalted the flesh of Christ not in His very own person but in the person of the Son. For the Word alone, by assuming the human nature into the unity of His person, anointed it as His very own flesh with the fullness of His very own Spirit.

(4) From this, some people make a distinction between giving () and communication () taken narrowly. Those glorifications are said to be given but not communicated by the Father and the Holy Spirit to Christ according to His human nature, if we wish to speak strictly and very carefully, because the communication we are discussing here is and is called “personal.” Hence, if we wish to speak accurately, it presupposes the personal union. But now, the personal union is not between the Father and the flesh of Christ nor between the Holy Spirit and the flesh of Christ, but between the Word and His assumed human flesh. Therefore, because the Son alone has been united personally with the assumed flesh, and the Father and the Holy Spirit have not been so united, the Son alone communicated personally His divine properties marked with His hypostatic character to His assumed humanity. However, this does not exclude the giving of the Father and the Holy Spirit, just as they are not excluded from the work of incarnation, as we showed earlier.

(5) We must consider the reasons because of which Holy Scripture usually refers that imparting and exaltation to the Father. (a) As God the Father is the source of the deity, in Him is the divinity as in its spring [], so also He is the source of our redemption and salvation. For that reason, Christ confesses many times that the Father sent Him into this world and that He came not to do His own but the Father’s will

(John 6:38; 8:42; etc.).

(b) Just as the Father communicated His own essence and all His essential attributes to the Word without flesh through His eternal begetting, so also He is said to give all things into the hands of the incarnate Word in respect to the hypostatic union of the Word and His flesh.

(c) Just as the sending of the Son and the confirmation of His office made from heaven by the voice of God, as well as His miracles, are usually assigned to God the Father, and as the total obedience rendered by Christ in the days of His flesh is said to have been rendered to God the Father, so also those divine glories with which He as man was enriched, through the hypostatic union and His exaltation to the right hand of God, are referred to the Father as their source.

(d) As the Father is said to have handed over the Son into death for us, so also it says that He brought Him forth from the lock and prison, adorned Him with divine glory and honor, and placed Him at His right hand in heaven, to prove by that very deed and outcome that a sufficient and full ransom had been offered to Himself. Briefly speaking, in those passages there is a relationship between the giving Father and the receiving Son, namely, in time and through the grace of the union and exaltation. From this we gather that this relationship between the Father and the Son must be understood not with respect to the divine nature of the Son, according to which He has the same essence with the Father from eternity, but with respect to the assumed human nature, according to which He received those gifts in time.

From this foundation, we respond easily to the sophism of Bellarmine, De Christo, bk. 3, ch. 8: “If the Father or the Holy Spirit communicates His properties to the human nature of Christ, a union follows from this between the Father and the flesh,” etc. We respond. (α) By the same logic I could draw this conclusion: The entire Trinity shaped the dwelling place of the body that the Word assumed into the unity of His person. Therefore the entire Trinity is incarnate. (β) The entire divine nature is said to have been united with the flesh in one of its hypostases. Therefore the human nature of Christ has been united to the Holy Spirit, but still it is not personally united to Him. (Υ) We invert the argument. If the hypostasis of the Word has been communicated to the flesh (which nevertheless is especially proper to the Word), how will the divine attributes common to the entire Trinity not be able to be communicated?

He to whom the communication has been made is Christ according to His human nature.

§ 205. [Specific] Thesis II: He to whom the communication has been made is Christ according to His human nature or, what is the same, the assumed human nature of Christ.

In our description of the subject of these predications, we already pointed out that it is the same whether one says that that communication was made to Christ according to His human nature or that it happened to the human nature of Christ. That communication was made to the person of Christ, but because there are two distinct natures in that person, therefore we must immediately explain according to which nature that communication is said to have been made to Him. Here we respond clearly that it was according to the human nature.

We proved this thesis in our article On the Person of Christ [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 7], §§ 89ff.: (1) From the clear expression of “the flesh” (John 6:51, 54, 55). The flesh of Christ is life-giving. Our adversaries make the exception (Danaeus, Contra Chemnic., pp. 285 and 305, the Herborners, and the rest of the Calvinists) that “nowhere is the flesh of Christ said to be life-giving but that it is given for the life of the whole world and that he who eats this flesh has eternal life.” We respond. Subordinates² are not opposites; rather, they posit each other mutually. Whoever eats the flesh of Christ has life because the flesh of Christ was given for the world. The flesh of Christ could be given for the life of the world because it is the proper flesh of the Word, of the Word who wished to give life to all things, as the Council of Ephesus (c. 11) correctly declared against Nestorius. In his Defens. contra Theod. of this anathema, Cyril writes: “Because the flesh became the Word’s own, therefore it is also life-giving.” Application requires acquisition; acquisition requires or presupposes a communication; and communication, a union. For this reason, Christ concludes, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Therefore if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the whole world” (John 6:51). And later, “Whoever eats My flesh has life” (v. 54). “For My flesh truly is food, and My blood truly is drink” (v. [55]), that is, life-giving food and drink, because it is “My flesh and My blood.”

(2) From the addition of the determinative particle. “The Father gave the Son the power to execute judgment, because () He is the Son of Man” (John 5:27). [This is added] in order that we may note the object, namely, that that power was given to Christ as He is the Son of Man or according to His human nature. Therefore, properly speaking, that conjunction “because” is not etiological, because the human nature is not the cause of that giving. (Otherwise all human beings would have this power, because once the cause has been posited and is not hindered, the effect follows.) Instead, it is distinguishing and demonstrative, showing the nature with respect to which that giving happened to Christ in time, which is “just as” [] or “inasmuch as” []. This is clear also from the following verse: Christ, with His own human voice, will be able to call forth the dead from the grave because to Him as man the power to execute judgment and, hence, also to call forth the dead was given. Pelargus writes in his commentary on this passage: “Some of the ancients, such as Tertullian (Contra Prax., ch. 16), Ambrose (De fid., bk. 2, ch. 4), and Chrysostom (on John, homily 38), refer this to the eternal begetting by which the Father bestowed all things on the Son. Nevertheless the evangelist expressly determines that this power was given to Him because He is the Son of Man, that is, because of and according to His humanity.” Cyril, In Johan., bk. 2, ch. 144: “Christ adds the reason why He said that the Father gave Him life and the power of judgment: ‘because He is the Son of Man,’ that we may understand that all things were given to Him as man. The only-begotten Son, however, is not a partaker of life but is life naturally.” Chapter 140: “According as He is the Word of God and is God, He has this power naturally. But according as He became man, He confesses openly that He received this power.” Tossan. Calvin. explains this as follows: “ ‘Because He is the Son of Man,’ that is, because He humbled Himself in the assumed form of a servant and was obedient to the Father unto death (Phil. 2:9).” We do not reject this interpretation. However, we add that the Father gave Christ the power to execute judgment according to the same nature according to which He was humiliated, because that granting of judging authority belongs to His exaltation, which followed His emptying and humiliation. But now, Christ was humiliated according to His human nature. Therefore He received that power according to the same nature, and as a consequence, the object of the giving is connoted. Some of the Calvinists explain it in this way: “ ‘Because He is the Son of Man,’ that is, because He will come to the judgment in visible form.” Yet in what passage of Scripture does “being the Son of Man” signify a visible return to judgment? The cause of this giving is not a visible coming but the hypostatic union and His exaltation to the right hand of God. Therefore we correct this interpretation: Because Christ will return for the judgment in visible form and will raise the dead with His own voice and summon them to His judgment seat, therefore it is also understood that the power to execute judgment was given to Him as man, so that in this regard His return to execute judgment is not being established as the cause but as the consequence of this giving, etc.

(3) From the notation of the circumstances, which point a finger at the human nature. (See Rev. 1:13; 5:5–6, 12; Ps. 8:[6]; John 3:35; Eph. 1:22.) They make the exception that “descriptions of this kind merely express the unity of the nature, because He to whom such things are being attributed is also true man and the Son of Man.” We respond. On the contrary, not only the unity of the person but also that object, that nature, is being expressed, according to which such a communication was made to Christ. What would this description of presence be? The Son of Man, walking amid the gold lampstands, was clothed in a long robe. His head and hair were white like snow. That is, Christ only, as God, is present to His Church. But can the human nature—according to which head, hair, feet, etc., befit Him—dwell in a place very far distant from us? What would this analysis be? The Lamb, standing as slain, is worthy to receive power; that is, Christ, slain according to His human nature, received such things according to His divine nature. “All things were given into the hands of Christ,” that is, were all things given to His divinity, according to which having hands and feet does not befit Him?

(4) From the connection of the emptying and exaltation. The exaltation is described as the immediate consequence of His emptying. Therefore the exaltation, too, befits Christ according to that nature by which He was emptied, that is, according to the human nature. (See Ps. 8:[5–6]; 110:7; Luke 24:26; Rom. 14:9; Eph. 1:20; Phil. 2:9; Heb. 2:9.)

(5) From the conferring of a more excellent name. According to the nature by which Christ was made higher than the angels and was given a more excellent name, according to the same nature He was also exalted and received divine glory. But now, the former befits Him according to the human nature (Heb. 1:4; Phil. 2:9).

(6) From a determination of the time. Whatever things are said to have been given to Christ in time cannot be understood to have been given to Him according to His divinity (according to which He has all things from eternity). But now, those things are said to have been given to Christ in time (Dan. 7:13; 9:24; John 17:1).

(7) From the condition of deity. The divine nature is immutable, utterly perfect, self-sufficient. Therefore nothing could have been added to it through a union made in time and through the exaltation that followed the days of the flesh.

(8) From a consideration of the purpose. The things that were given to Christ in time were given to this end: that Christ might carry out the office of mediator. But now, according to His deity, through His essence, from eternity, Christ received the divine power and working [] required for the works of the office of mediator. Therefore there was no need for anything to be given to Him in time according to His divine nature.

§ 206. To these arguments that have explained in greater detail the aforementioned passage, the following should be added: (I) From the indwelling of the divinity in the assumed flesh of Christ. In whatever nature the whole fullness of the Godhead dwells, to it divine glory and majesty were truly and really communicated. The reason is that the whole fullness of the Godhead is not and cannot be without divine glory and majesty, and the indwelling of this whole fullness is not and cannot be without communication, as we showed in ch. 8, On the Communication of the Natures [§§ 148–54]. But now, the whole fullness of the Godhead dwells in the human nature, as we showed in the same place on the basis of the words [“to dwell within”] and [“bodily”]. If we explain the word as “bodily,” the mode of indwelling will not be able to be described by it (which indeed is not bodily). Instead, the subject (so to speak) is being marked, that is, the nature that is the temple and dwelling place of the indwelling fullness of the Godhead. The same thing is concluded from Col. 1:19: “It well pleased the Father that all the fullness dwell () in Him.” In the same place, this indwelling is related to “good pleasure” []. But now, the fact that Christ is from eternity full and perfect God does not pertain to good pleasure but to His nature. Therefore this concerns the indwelling of the fullness in the assumed nature, according to which nature He is also established as the Head of the Church, after He had reconciled all things through His blood (vv. 18 and 20).

(II) From the anointing of the Holy Spirit. According to whichever nature Christ was anointed in time by the Holy Spirit, according to that same nature He also received divine and infinite power, which revealed itself through divine miracles (Acts 10:38). But now, it was according to the human nature that Christ was anointed in time by the Holy Spirit. Therefore. The minor premise is proved: From the personal property of the deity, because, according to the divine nature, the Holy Spirit proceeded from all eternity from Christ the Son of God no less than from the Father, and He is the Anointer according to the divine nature. Also, from the time of the anointing, because in Dan. 9:24 the time is expressly fixed when the Holy of Holies was to be anointed. (Cf. Isa. 61:1; John 3:31, 35;

Acts 10:38.)

The devout ancients teach the same thing with great consensus. Irenaeus, bk. 3, ch. 10, p. 180: “According to the Word of God being man from the root of Jesse and the Son of Abraham, according to that, the Holy Spirit rested on Him, and He was anointed to preach the Gospel to the lowly.” Cyril, on Isaiah 11: “Although Christ sometimes is said to receive the Spirit, nevertheless because He Himself is the choragus and provider of the Holy Spirit and because He does not give according to measure but imparts to the worthy out of His own fullness, He must be understood to receive this in proportion to the measure of His emptying.” Chrysostom, Homily de sanct. et ador. Spir.: “No one is so wicked as to believe that the divinity receives the Holy Spirit. Therefore the flesh had the Holy Spirit, not a part of His gifts as we have—since sacred wisdom is given to one—but He had all the gifts.” Oecumenius, on Hebrews 1: “Your God has anointed You with what was Yours because of the flesh. The humanity is anointed with the Holy Spirit, but the anointing is, as it were, the whole presence of the Anointer.” Damascenus, Orth. fid., bk. 4, ch. 1: “The flesh was anointed with deity, for the anointing itself refers to the humanity.”

(III) From His placement at the right hand of God. According to whichever nature Christ was placed at the right hand of God, according to that nature did He also receive divine majesty, as we shall prove later. But now, He was placed at the right hand of God according to His human nature, and this we prove: First, from the nature of the deity. The very right hand of God and His might are according to His divine nature (Luke 1:35; 1 Cor. 1:24).

We prove it, second, from the time of the placement. Christ was placed at the right hand of God in time: “After He spoke, He was taken up into heaven and sat at the right hand of God” (Mark 16:19). “From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the power of God” (Matt. 26:64). In this statement we should note four things: (a) Christ is named from His human nature. (b) A definition of the time is assigned. (c) His sitting at the right hand is connected with His coming in the clouds of heaven. (d) According to His deity, the Son is the right hand of God itself. One cannot say, then, that He sits at the right hand of God according to His deity.

We prove it, third, from the apostle’s manner of drawing conclusions. In 1 Cor. 15:8[ff.], Paul proves the resurrection of Christ from His sitting at the right hand of God. From this, we draw the following inference: Of whatever nature that which is being proved is, of the same nature also must the argument be. (Otherwise it would not be drawn from its proper [premises] but from foreign [premises], nor would there be a suitable logical connection of the thing proved and the proving middle terms.) But now, the resurrection belongs to the human nature, and it is proved³ from His sitting at the right hand of the Father. Therefore.

We prove it, fourth, from the description of that placement. Ephesians 1:19[–20] asserts that God “exerted the working of all His great might () in raising Christ and setting Him on high.” But this cannot be understood about Christ according to His deity.

(IV) From the addition of grace. In Phil. 2:9 Paul uses the verb [“gave graciously”]: “God graciously gave Him a name.” But now, according to His deity, Christ has nothing by grace; otherwise He would not be God by nature.

(V) From the bestowal of lordship. In Acts 2:36 Christ is said to have become Lord in time. But now, this statement cannot be taken as a reference to Him according to His divine nature, since according to that nature He was born Lord from eternity, namely, through His begetting from the Father.

§ 207. The sayings of the fathers are cited in great number in the Apol. Form. Concord. and in Chemnitz’s De duabus naturis, ch. 25, p. 370. We have cited some of them in our article On the Person of Christ [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 7], § 98, and to those the following should be added:

Theodoret (Dial. 2) sets forth the rule approved by the common judgment of antiquity: “Whenever Scripture says that the Son received and was glorified, it says this according to His humanity and not according to His deity.”

Athanasius, Contra Arian., orat. 4, p. 279: “He says that He received this power as a man, a power that He always has as God. He says, ‘Glorify Me’ (but He glorified others), to show that His flesh had a need for those things. For this reason, when His flesh receives the glorification of His humanity, He speaks in such a way as if He Himself had received it.”

Eusebius of Emesa, Homil. post Dom. Pass.: “We confess that Christ is full of all power and grace according to His humanity.”

Basil, Contra Eunom., bk. 2, vol. 2, p. 322, on Acts 2: “He is speaking openly not about the very essence of the Word of God, which in the beginning was with God, but about Him who emptied Himself in the form of a servant and became similar to the body of our humility and was crucified out of weakness.” Contra Eunom., bk. 4: “ ‘All power is given to Me. Glorify Me with that glory,’ etc. We must take these things as a reference to His incarnation and not to His deity.” Jerome, commentary on Philippians 2: “He is teaching that we must relate the humiliation and exaltation to the human nature of Christ.”

Cyril, Thesaur., bk. 4, ch. 2, f. 36: “Because the Son is life according to His nature, He is said to receive life from the Father not according as He is the Word or image of the Father” (for in this way He, too, is life by nature) “but according as He became man.” Letter 1 ad success.: “If anyone calls that body of Christ ‘divine,’ just as he calls the body of a man ‘human,’ he does not deviate from proper reason, because the body has been illumined with the ineffable glory of God.”

Chrysostom, on the Epistle to the Hebrews, homily 4, col. 1687 of the Basel edition: “ ‘You have put all things under His feet.’ This properly is applied to Christ according to the flesh.”

Augustine, vol. 6, Contra serm. Arian., ch. 12: “ ‘Sit at My right hand’ was completed effectually in the flesh, and at His time in the flesh He sat at the right hand of the Father.” Contra Maximin., bk. 2, ch. 5: “In what form He was crucified, that form was exalted. A name was given to Him that is above every name so that when the very form of a servant is named, the only-begotten Son of God may be understood.” Tractate 111 on John: “That form of a servant that He took from the Virgin was lifted up and placed at the right hand of the Father.” (See Theophylact, on Matthew 28, p. 906.)

Basil: “Because the human nature that was first condemned and now is united with the Word of God personally is seated in heaven and is being worshiped by the angels, He rightly says, ‘All power is given to Me in heaven,’ because the human nature first was serving, but now it commands all things in Christ.” On Hebrews 7, on the words “Made higher than the heavens”: “It is clear, on the other hand, that ‘being made’ is said about Him according to the flesh, for as God the Word, He was always higher than the heavens.”

Theodoret, Dial. 2: “The body was glorified with divine glory and is being worshiped by the heavenly powers.”

Primasius, on Hebrews 2: “In being man, He received the inheritance of the world. He was crowned with honor in the confession of eternal majesty. Just as all things were created by the Word, so also that man, assumed by the Word, possesses all things with the Word.”

Leo, Sermon 3 de pass., speaking in the persona of Christ: “To you this ascension is revealed, and your humility in Me is elevated above all the heavens to be placed at the right hand of the Father.” Letter 41: “Whatever Christ receives in time, He receives according to His human nature; it is to the human nature that those things that it did not have are conferred, and the things that He received in the form of a servant, those He Himself gave in the form of God.”

Vigilius, Contra Eutych., bk. 4: “Which nature is it to which He said, ‘Sit at My right hand, share My seat with Me’? It was that nature that had heard: ‘You are earth, and to the earth you shall return.’ “

Dacius Clarus, Advers. Varimund., in Haeres. col., p. 258: “If the Arians oppose to you those words of Acts [2:36], ‘God made the Lord and Christ,’ answer: ‘The Son is said to have been made Lord not according to the nature of His deity but according to the form of the assumed man.’ “ (Cf. Damascenus, throughout his entire book De orth. fid.)

Antithesis.

§ 208. Opponents of the truth go off here in different directions. (I) Some concede that those things “which are said to have been given to Christ in time are said to have been given according to the human nature” (Beza, Resp. ad act. Coll., part 1, pp. 237, 144–46, 148, 161, 164, 170; Danaeus, Exam. Chemnic., p. 361, Geneva edition.) However, they deny that those are truly divine and infinite gifts. We shall argue against these with the thesis following.

(II) Some acknowledge that “truly divine and infinite gifts were given to Christ, but they deny that these were given to Him as man or according to the human nature,” for they argue that “they were given to the person of the Mediator and must remain there.” (See Trelcatius, Loc., pp. 58–59.) In our article On the Person of Christ [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 7], § 100, and in our Harm. de resurrect., ch. 12, p. 438, we produced the following rule against these people: Whatever is predicated about the person of Christ, that is attributed to Him either according to His divine nature alone or according to His human nature alone or according to both natures.

Sadeel sets forth a contrary theorem in his book De veritat. humanae naturae: “Some things are said about Christ that must be understood only according to His person, that is, which do not belong separately and properly to one of the natures.” However, we deny that this theorem can be confirmed with a suitable example. Sadeel produces the following arguments: First, from Matt. 17:5: “This is My beloved Son.” We respond. This is a personal proposition and, therefore, pertains to the description of the hypostatic union. It does not speak about gifts given in time. Second, from the words “The Son of God descended from heaven.” We respond. These words describe the incarnation and that “bending down” [inclinatio], as the ancients say, by which the divine majesty of the Son in His incarnation stooped down into the weakness of our flesh. For this reason, the Nicene Creed immediately adds the explanation “and was made man.” Third, from the propositions in which Christ is said to be our king and priest. We respond. Those have to do with the third genus of communication, for they are the names of the office that belongs to Christ according to both natures.

Others add this sophism: “Whatever was given to Christ in time, that was given to Him according to His human nature. The union was given to Him in time; therefore it was given Him according to His human nature. The conclusion is absurd. Therefore one of the premises is absurd. It is not the minor; therefore it is the major.” We respond. The union, properly and accurately speaking, was not “given to” Christ, but the union of the divine and human natures is said to have “happened” in time. The union does not belong to the communication of properties but is the foundation of that communication. The flesh received the divine excellences because it was united personally with the Word and was placed at the right hand of God.

The exception of Bellarmine is akin to this opinion of Sadeel and Trelcatius, by which Bellarmine argues, De Christo, bk. 3, ch. 15: “The sitting at the right hand of God was given to the humanity, not to it in itself, but in the subject [suppositum]. For it did not happen that the humanity in itself sits at the right hand of God, but as it is the humanity of that person who sits at the right hand of God.” Chapter 16: “The glory of God the Father was given to the humanity of Christ, not in itself but in the subject.” We respond. Bellarmine is making conflicting points out of subordinates. We draw the following conclusion: To whatever the divine hypostasis was communicated, to that the sitting at the right hand of God happened and truly divine gifts were communicated. But the divine hypostasis was communicated to the assumed flesh of Christ. Therefore. Hence that opposition is faulty: “Those things have been given to the flesh according as it subsists in the hypostasis of the Word. Therefore they have not been given to the flesh itself.” (See our De Gloria Dei, disp. 3, § 14.)

(III) The things given in time are referred by some to Christ according to His deity in a certain respect, because of the preceding emptying and the following manifestation of glory. Beza, Resp. ad Coll., part 1, pp. 96–97: “The deity somehow emptied itself.” Page 145: “No one denies that this omnipotence of the Word, to some extent, has been temporarily hidden under the veil of the flesh and, as far as the manifestation is concerned, somehow seems to have been able to have been restored to the Word with regard to His deity, because also in this flesh, after the days of His weakness were completed, Christ was exalted above every name.” Sohnius, Exeg., p. 120: “Christ actually had equal glory with God the Father, but for a while He resigned from it, so to speak.”⁴ We have argued against those people in our article On the Person of Christ [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 7], § 101.

Here we draw the following conclusion: According to the nature by which Christ was emptied, according to that nature He was also exalted. Yet He was emptied not according to the divine but only according to the human nature, as the definition of the emptying has been given by the apostle (Phil. 2:9), that it is of Christ the God-man, humble in the form of a servant, who was obedient⁵ even unto the death of the cross.

Some counter by saying, “When the glorification and exaltation are attributed to the deity, this is not understood as the restoration of His majesty and glory but merely the manifestation and revelation.” Tossanus, notes on John 17: “Grant that, when I am taken up to You in heaven after winning the victory against the devil, the world, and sin, the whole world may know that I am Your only-begotten Son, the true God along with You.” Tilenus, part 2, Disput. 7, § 2: “The divine nature has been exalted in some respect by the revelation of its majesty, which somehow had concealed itself in the state of emptying.”

We respond. We willingly confess that the exaltation attributed to God in some passages of Scripture signifies the recognition of the divine majesty and the preaching, glorification, and celebration of God’s name. However, we deny that the exaltation and glorification that happened to Christ in time denotes merely the external⁶ manifestation that is to happen only with respect to us. We deny this, moved as we are by the following arguments. (1) Christ asks to be glorified “before the Father” (, John 17:5). However, the glory of the deity that belongs to Christ was never hidden to the Father. Therefore the glorification for which Christ is asking cannot be explained as a reference merely to the manifestation of the glory of the deity hitherto hidden before men. (Cf.

John 12:28, 30.)

(2) The exaltation and glorification of Christ are described as follows in Heb. 1:4: Through it, Christ in Himself was made (“better and more superior”). Therefore it does not signify a mere manifestation.

(3) Amid His state of emptying, Christ asserts—and He asserts truly—that the Father gave Him all things (Matt. 11:27; John 17:2). (Cf. John 3:35, where one cannot argue a manifestation with any appearance of truth, because the divine glory given to Christ was still concealing itself under the veil of the flesh.)

(4) The fullest manifestation of the divine glory given to Christ will finally follow on the Last Day: “Now we do not yet see all things subjected to Him” (Heb. 2:8). For that reason, the day of His coming is called the “revelation of His glory” (1 Pet. 4:13). Therefore the glorification that happened to Christ a long time ago cannot be understood as mere manifestation.

(5) In Eph. 1:19 the apostle says that God revealed the “working of the might of His power in raising Christ” and placing Him at His right hand on high. However, if the exaltation must be taken only with respect to humans, then we shall have to say that God exercised that power in human beings rather than in Christ, namely, in causing that recognition of the glory of Christ.

(6) That explanation about the manifestation of glory in the presence of people cannot be applied to all the passages of Scripture that speak about things given in time, as will become clear from the following thesis. Therefore it struggles under the fault of particularity.

(7) All the fathers who argued against the Arians and Photinians refer those things that were given to Christ in time to His human nature, but by no means do they explain that glory as a manifestation of the deity.

(8) That manifestation of glory can only be referred to the assumed human nature and understood with respect to it. Otherwise the Father and the Holy Spirit also would have been glorified in the same way in the glorification of Christ by which Christ is said to have been glorified in His own exaltation. Just as there is one deity and one essence of the Father and of the Son, so also there is one power of working. The deity of the Son, therefore, even amid its humiliation, exerted [exserit] itself no less in the governing of heaven and earth than did the deity of the Father (John 5:17). But in the flesh it did not show [exserit] itself, that is, it did not always strew its rays through the flesh in the state of emptying with full light. But if, because of this, we wanted to say that Christ was emptied according to His deity, the consequence will be that God is emptied as often as He does not clearly show [exserit] the presence of His majesty in some creature.

(9) Christ was exalted and glorified in such a way that in that exaltation He “was made Lord” (Acts 2:36), and “by grace received a name that is above every name” (Phil. 2:9), and “all things have been put under His feet” (Eph. 1:22). These cannot be taken as a reference to only the mere manifestation.

(10) If the glorification of Christ had to be evaluated merely on the basis of the recognition and preaching of human beings, we could not say that He was exalted in the resurrection and ascension because the resurrection and ascension were known to only a few in Judea at that time. It ought to be said that He was finally exalted when, in the passage of time, He was acknowledged as the Son of God and Lord of heaven and earth by as many peoples as possible through the preaching of the Gospel to all nations.

(11) Finally, as Christ was conceived and born, as He suffered, died, was raised again, and was lifted up into heaven not only with respect to human recognition but also with respect to Himself, so also He is said to have been placed at the right hand of the majesty in heaven with respect not to human beings but to Himself.

(IV) Some people claim that these were given to Christ according to both natures and assert that Christ was exalted according to both natures, though in one way with respect to His humanity, in another way with respect to His deity. The Anhalt theologians, Apolog. opposita Electoralib., p. 463, in defens. arg. 38: “In some passages, Scripture speaks about the exaltation of the entire person according to both natures to His perpetual rule and priesthood, through which the property of each nature is not removed, just as in ‘All power is given to Me,’ ‘God placed Him over all things.’ “ Polanus, Syntagm., bk. 6, ch. 22, p. 415: “Christ has been exalted not only according to His human nature but also according to His divine nature. This thesis is orthodox, catholic, and devout.” We argued against these in our article On the Person of Christ [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 7], § 102.

Here we shall explain their usual argument in favor of that hypothesis about the exaltation of both natures: “To sit at the right hand of God is to rule. Christ rules according to both natures. Therefore He sits at the right hand of God according to both natures.” We respond. There is ambiguity in the word “rule.” Christ as God rules through His natural or essential omnipotence, which He received through His eternal begetting by the Father. Christ as man rules from the time of His exaltation not through an essential omnipotence of His humanity but through His sitting at the right hand of God. For this reason, the sitting at the right hand of God does not simply and absolutely signify “ruling,” but it also connotes the cause from which that has been accomplished, as Nazianzen points out ([Orat.] 4 de theol.). Christ as God does not sit at the right hand of God, properly and accurately speaking; rather, He is the right hand of God. As man, however, He was exalted to the right hand of God in time, and by the power of that sitting He governs all things in heaven and on earth.

That which is communicated is divine majesty and glory.

§ 209. [Specific] Thesis III: That which is communicated, or the material of the communication, is the divine majesty, glory, and power. Hence the gifts are truly infinite and divine.

We do not deny that in addition to the essential properties of the human nature, some habitual gifts also inhere subjectively in Christ the man. Nevertheless even if these are very excellent and surpass by a great distance the gifts of all men and angels, they are and continue to be finite. However, we add that besides these habitual and finite gifts, truly infinite and immense [or limitless] gifts have been communicated to Christ the man through the personal union and His exaltation to the right hand of the Father. Hence the thing communicated [] is the divine majesty and glory of the Word, which we shall discuss, first, in general and, second, in particular about the things communicated, in order that this topic may become clearer.

§ 210. In general, we prove that divine majesty and glory and even truly infinite gifts have been given to Christ according to His human nature on the basis of the following foundations: (I) From the communication of the hypostasis. If the Word communicated to the assumed flesh His whole self and His person and nature, surely not only some finite gifts but also truly infinite glorifications were communicated to the flesh, because the nature and person of the Word are not something finite but truly infinite and immense. The former is true, as we proved in its own place. Therefore the latter is also true. If you should counter: “The communication of the hypostasis has to do with the personal union, not with the communication of properties,” we respond that we will gladly concede this. Meanwhile, it is correct to prove from the communication of the hypostasis that not only finite gifts habitually inhering in the flesh have been communicated to Christ as man but also the majesty and truly divine properties, because the hypostasis of the Word contains truly divine and immense properties within it, just as it itself is divine and immense.

(II) From the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Whoever has been anointed with the fullness of the Holy Spirit and has received the Holy Spirit “not in measure” or without measure, to him truly divine and infinite gifts have been given. The reason is that “to be given without measure” necessarily infers that the gift which has been given is without measure. On the other hand, however, these are opposed to each other as contradictory: that the gifts given to Christ are finite and that, nevertheless, the Holy Spirit has been given to Him without measure. But now, Christ was anointed with the fullness of the Holy Spirit and received the Holy Spirit without measure.

We prove this: (1) From Ps. 45:[7] as quoted in Heb. 1:9: “God has anointed You with the oil of gladness beyond Your companions,” where the anointing of the Holy Spirit is distinguished not only by grades but even in species from the anointing that occurs to Christ’s members because of Him, as will become more clear from the following.

(2) From John 3:34: “God does not give His Spirit by measure.” (In his Tract. de Deo, Christo et Spiritu s., p. 16, Socinus doubts “whether this passage should be referred to Christ. Because no mention of Christ is made in these words,” he thinks that “it is more appropriate to relate these words to the entire ministry of preaching the Gospel.” However, it is clear from the whole context that this discussion is only about Christ. Cf. vv. 30–33 and 35. The matter itself shows the same thing, because the Holy Spirit is given to the members of Christ, indeed, “richly,” Titus 3:6, and, nevertheless, according to measure, Rom. 12:3; 1 Cor. 12:7; for which reason they are said to receive the first-fruits of the Spirit, Rom. 8:23). If, then, Christ receives the Holy Spirit not by measure, surely the gifts that He receives are immense. In the Syriac paraphrase, the word (“in measure”) is used, from the root , which signifies “to measure.” Therefore the meaning is that the Holy Spirit is not given to Christ by a measure that can be exhausted, “but with all superabundance,” as Tertullian says, De Trinit. He says, “The Holy Spirit dwells totally and completely in Christ alone, not mutilated in some measure or portion but granted abundantly with all His superabundance, so that the others might obtain a delivering of graces from Him, as the fount of the entire Holy Spirit remains in Christ, so that, as the Holy Spirit dwells richly in Christ, the channels of those gifts and works might flow to Him.” Alcuin, De trinit., bk. 2, ch. 11: “He gives to human beings according to measure, but He did not give to the only Son according to measure, because the whole fullness of the deity dwells in Him. For it is He who gives to the saints. It is He who receives. Because He has the power to give according to measure, He should not have received according to measure.” It is empty prattling and, in fact, contradictory when Martinius explains this as “a reference to the good things of the Holy Spirit given without measure, yet not immensely” (Incis., p. 23). Polanus (Syntagm., p. 160) and Piscator (commentary on this passage, observation 17) contradict him. They confess that “this means immense gifts of the Holy Spirit.” Tossanus, marginal notes: “Not according to measure as to believers, but perfectly, abundantly.” If they want to object, saying, “The Holy Spirit is said to be given to Christ not ‘by measure,’ because the source from which the Spirit’s giving proceeds is immense and infinite,” we respond that John is expressing not only the starting point but also the ending point, that the Holy Spirit has been given to Christ without measure, as the context shows, for he quickly adds, v. 35: “The Father loves the Son and has put all things into His hands.”

(3) From John 1:16: “From His fullness we have all received.” Because that fullness of the Spirit—which dwells in Christ, “rests” on Him (Isa. 11:[2]), and “remains” in Him (John 1:32)—flows to the members of His mystical Body, so that they run “in the fragrance of His perfumes” (Song 1:[3–4]), it was necessary, then, that all the superabundance of the Holy Spirit dwell in that head. Whatever is finite and measured is diminished if you take something away from it.

(4) From Acts 10:38: “Anointed with the Spirit and power, He healed those who were oppressed by the devil.” The anointing of the Spirit was connected with divine and immense power, which exerted itself through miracles. In order that the human nature of Christ might be suitable to perform miracles, to cast out demons, and to administer His royal office, it was necessary that He be anointed not with the limited power of the Holy Spirit but with His immense and infinite power.

(5) From a deduction to the absurd: If the human nature of Christ through the personal union with the Word attains only a communion in finite gifts of the Holy Spirit, the consequence is that it has been united with the Word likewise at a certain level and partially or according to measure, so to speak, so that between the union of the Word with His own flesh and His indwelling in the saints there is a certain proportion. But that is Nestorian.

§ 211. (III) From the indwelling of the whole fullness of the godhead. The whole fullness of the Godhead includes not only some finite glorifications but truly divine and infinite ones. But now, it is “the whole fullness of the Godhead” that “dwells in Christ” according to His human nature (Col. 2:9). Therefore truly divine and infinite gifts also belong to Him according to His human nature, for that indwelling, we showed earlier (ch. 8 [§§ 148–54]), is not without communication.

(IV) From the description of the glory given to Christ. The glory that was given to Christ in time: (1) Was the same as He had from eternity with the Father (John 17:5). (2) Was essentially common to Him with the Father in His deity (Matt. 16:27; 24:30; 25:31; 2 Pet. 1:17; Rev. 5:13). (3) Showed itself through divine miracles (John 2:11). (4) Is “the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father” (John 1:14), where the adverb [“as”] is “one of confirmation and indubitable definition,” as Chrysostom points out (on John, homily 11), which corresponds to the Hebrew , which is called “the of truth.” Yet such glory is not finite, but infinite, divine, and immense.

§ 212. (V) From His placement at the right hand of God. According to whichever nature Christ was exalted to the right hand of God, according to that nature did He receive truly divine and infinite gifts and become a partaker of divine majesty, glory, and power. The logic of the connection is clear from all the passages of Scripture that describe the right hand of God as divine power and the sitting at the right hand of God as rule and dominion, about which we shall say more in its own place. But now, it was according to His human nature that Christ was carried up to the right hand of God. Therefore.

(Bellarmine, De Christo, bk. 3, ch. 45: “Many people understand the right hand of God as eternal blessedness but not as divine majesty and power. Eph. 2[:6]: ‘He made us sit together in the heavenly places with Christ.’ “ We respond. Sitting together in the heavenly places, which is common to all the blessed, is one thing, but the sitting at the right hand of God, which is proper to Christ alone, is another, Heb. 1:5. In addition, Bellarmine later rejects this, § Nec etiam, where he says, “In Ephesians 2, the sense is not that we shall all sit together at the right hand of God in our own persons, but in Christ, because all of Scripture attributes to Christ alone the sitting at the right hand.”)

(VI) From an inference from the lesser to the greater. If we shall be sharers in the divine nature in the life to come when God “will be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28), indeed, even inchoatively in this life, much more have the divine majesty and truly divine properties been communicated to the flesh of Christ. But the former is true (2 Pet. [1:]4; 1 John 1:6). The logical connection is proved, because God is present to us only proximately and spiritually, but the Word has united the assumed flesh to Himself hypostatically.

§ 213. In particular, some people arrange the communicated things according to three kinds: (1) Some are properties of the Word, properly and specifically speaking, such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. (2) Some are divine effects [] communicated to Christ as man, namely, (a) the efficacy of His word; (b) the performing of miracles; (c) the work of redemption; (d) justification and sanctification; (e) the gathering, governing, and protecting of the Church; (f) the sending of the Holy Spirit; (g) the power to execute judgment; (h) making alive. (3) In the third class, the worthiness of divine worship [] has its place.

Some include all the things communicated with the expression “divine glory and power” and divide the omnipotence communicated to Christ according to His human nature into three “sprouts,” so to speak: (a) life-giving power, (b) miracle-working power, and (c) judicial power.

Because something is left to be desired in these distributions, however, we proceed here in this way. The arguments from which we proved the true deity of Christ are divided into four classes, the first of which contains the divine names; the second, the divine attributes; the third, divine works; and the fourth, divine worship. In the same way, we can also declare all these with reference to Christ the man in a certain way: not essentially but hypostatically, because the assumed human nature, exalted into the very hypostasis of the Word, constitutes one person with Him. (1) Several passages of Scripture make it clear that Christ according to His human nature was given a truly divine name. (1) Luke 1:[35]: “That holy thing which will be born of the Virgin Mary will be called the Son of God.” According to whichever nature Christ was born in time of the Virgin Mary, according to that same nature He also was supposed to be called the Son of God. But now, Christ was born of the Virgin Mary according to His human nature. Therefore. Bernard, De laud. virg., homily 1: “Not only will He who is in the bosom of the Father and is now coming into your womb overshadow you,⁷ but also that which He will join from your substance to Himself, from this He now will be called the Son of God.” (Compare what we said earlier in ch. 7 [§§ 101–47] and 9 [§§ 155–73].)

(2) Acts 2:36: “God made this Jesus both Christ and Lord.” A little earlier, we proved that this must be taken as a reference to the human nature of Christ because Christ in time is said to have been made Lord, namely, in His ascension and placement at the right hand of God, as is clear from v. 34. But now, He was not made Lord according to His divine nature in time; rather, He was born from eternity as Lord through His begetting from the Father. Athanasius, Contra Arian., orat. 4, p. 540: “The Word was always the Lord. Therefore He made His humanity both Christ [and Lord].” Basil, Contra Eunom., bk. 1: “He is not speaking about the very essence of the Word but is indicating His humanity with a demonstrative word and saying that the Father has committed rule and dominion to Him.” The scholiast notes that [“he made”] is used here instead of [“he appointed”] and [“he ordained”], but not instead of [“he endowed with being”]. However, the dominion given to Christ is not some inferior dominion distinct from the divine and confined either by certain objects or limits, but is truly divine and infinite, as we shall prove below. Therefore even the name “Lord,” which was given to Him, is a truly divine name. Consequently, according to both natures He is the Lord, through whom all things exist, and we through Him (1 Cor. 8:6).

(3) Phil. 2:9: “God has highly exalted Him and given () Him a name that is above every name.” But what is that name? Dr. Chemnitz responds, De duabus naturis, p. 173:

The ancients interpret this name as follows: (a) That this man, or the Son of Mary, is called God and the Son of the Most High. Epiphanius, Haeres. 69, p. 341: “That the man, along with God the Word, be called the Son of God.” (b) With regard to redemption: Mediator, King, and High Priest, because the names of the office befit Christ according to both natures. (c) They interpret the name as the glory, majesty, and power given to the assumed nature, because all creatures are compelled to acknowledge Him as the Lord and to submit themselves to Him, because he immediately adds, v. 10: “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow.”

 

Compare what we said earlier (ch. 9, in the last part of the antithesis [§ 167]).

To Christ the man is given, first, omnipotence.

§ 214. (II) It is clear that truly divine properties have been given to Christ according to His human nature, since: (1) Omnipotence is said to have been given to Him. “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to Me” (Matt. 28:18). In our Harm. de resurrect., ch. 12, p. 431, we confirmed in detail that this is neither a finite and circumscribed power nor a mere authority [] lacking power [], but is a truly infinite and divine power. Here we note that this “authority” is called “the power of God” (Luke 22:69). But now, it is evident that power and authority are not distinguished in God. Therefore the authority given to Christ in time is not distinct from power.

The same thing is clear: (a) From the following passages of Scripture: Dan. 7:13–14: “The Son of Man came to the Ancient of Days, and He gave Him power and honor and dominion, and let all peoples, nations, and languages serve Him. His power is an eternal power that will not be taken away, and His kingdom is one that will not be destroyed.” It is clear that this is a description of divine power; this is clear from those passages of Scripture in which the power of God the Father is described in this way (Dan. 4:[34]; 6:26; etc.). John 17:2: “You have given Him authority of all flesh []” or toward all flesh. It is clear that this is a description of truly divine and infinite power; this is clear from Num. 16:22; 27:16; Jer. 32:27; etc. Rev. 5:12: “The Lamb that was slain is worthy to receive power [] and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.” Note here that the same power is being attributed to the one sitting on the throne and to the Lamb, that is, to God the Father and to the Son according to the human nature (v. 13).

(b) From the description of that power which was given to Christ. Ps. 8:[6]; 1 Cor. 15:27; Heb. 2:8: “All things have been put under His feet.” Matt. 11:[27]: All things have been given Him by the Father. John 3:35: The Father gave all things into His hands. Eph. 1:20–23: “He set Him at the right hand in the heavens, over every power, rule, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this age but also in that which is to come, and He has put all things under His feet.” Heb. 2:8: “In that He subjected all things to Him, He left nothing that was not subject to Him.”

(c) From the effects of that power. Luke 4:36: “In authority and power He commands the spirits,” etc. Luke 9:1: He gives the apostles “power and authority over all demons,” etc. Through this power of His, Christ will one day call all people to judgment and will execute judgment most powerfully. Acts 10:38: “God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and with power, and He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil.” But now, this might that showed itself in Christ by the performing of miracles and the casting out of demons is a truly divine and infinite might. Phil. 3:21: “By the efficacy of His power, Christ can subject all things to Himself.” Therefore surely the omnipotence given Him was truly divine.

(d) From His sitting at the right hand of God. The right hand of God includes truly divine and infinite power, and for this reason it is also called “the right hand of power” (Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69). But now, Christ was exalted to the right hand of God according to His human nature. Therefore.

Chemnitz lists the statements of the ancients in De duab. natur., ch. 25. We cited some of them in our article On the Person of Christ [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 7], § 105. To those we should add: Cyril, Dial. 6: “With His flesh, the Only-Begotten rules all things.” On John, bk. 2, ch. 140: “According as He is God, He has this power naturally, but according as He became man, He confessed openly that He had received this power.” Basil, on Psalm 2: “Although by nature, as God, He is Lord of all, nevertheless as man He received from the Father the lordship over these.” Theophylact, on John 3: “He put all things into the hands of His Son according to His humanity.” Sedulius, on Ephesians 1: “ ‘He put all things under His feet,’ that is, under the dominion of His humanity.” Nicephorus, Hist., bk. 18, ch. 36: “The disciples saw Christ on the mountain in Galilee, and there He confirms that the Father gave Him, according to His human nature, power over heaven and earth.”

See also the approval of our adversaries, which the brightness and force of the truth have squeezed out of them. (1) Of the Papists: Thomas, on John 3: “He put all things into His hands according to His humanity, for He has dominion over all those things that are in heaven and on the earth.” Lyra, on Luke 2: “Not only as God but also as man, Christ will rule forever, not only over men but also over the angels.” Matthias Bredenbachius, commentary on Matthew, p. 270, Cologne edition of 1560: “This power was given to Christ as man because, as God, He had it from eternity.” Bellarmine, De Christo, bk. 3, ch. 16: “The humanity of Christ was granted power over all creatures.” (2) Of the Calvinists: Zanchi (De incarnat., bk. 2, q. 12, p. 400) refutes the distinction between “power” and “authority.” De natur. Dei, bk. 2, ch. 6, p. 117: “We say that the human nature in Christ has infinite might, and that by this infinite might, it happened that the sins of the world have been expiated. But how does He have infinite might? Not of Himself and of His own nature but by accident and through another thing, that is, because of the deity to which He is hypostatically united.” Vorstius, Resp. 2. part. discept. Slad., p. 70: “Although in Matt. 28:[18] ‘all authority’ is not exactly same thing as ‘all power,’ nevertheless the latter must be contained under the former here, because otherwise the former would be empty and in vain unless it could exert itself through that in actuality.”

Second, omniscience.

§ 215. (2) Omniscience was given to Him. Luke 2:40: Because Christ “grew in (habitual) wisdom,” He was “filled with wisdom,” which was divine and infinite and dwelt within Him personally, and it is denoted by “the fullness of wisdom.” Col. 2:3: “In Christ all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden.” Socinus (Defens. anim., p. 222) takes the words “wisdom and knowledge” to mean that which we can and should know and understand.

(Piscator, in his commentary, gathers from the connection of this verse with the preceding ones that the meaning is: “True and perfect wisdom is in the knowledge of Christ, that is, that we correctly acknowledge Christ according to His person and office.” And, to be sure, Luther explained the apostle’s text in the same way: Jena edition, vol. 6, f. 200, and Wittenberg edition, vol. 3, fol. 237, fac. a.⁸ But this interpretation should not be opposed to the one in which this passage is understood to mean the divine wisdom personally dwelling in Christ Himself and hidden under the veil of His flesh. Hilary, De Trinitat., bk. 9: “The treasures of wisdom are within Him, but they would not have been hidden if they were there by manifestation. For perfect wisdom is in the knowledge of Christ because all the treasures of wisdom have been hidden in Christ. And all the riches of wisdom and knowledge have been hidden in Christ because the whole fullness of the

Godhead dwells in Him bodily, [Col. 2:]9.”)

Col. 1:19: “In Christ all the fullness was pleased to dwell,” not only of power but also of wisdom and knowledge; on account of this He also “knew all things” (John 21:17). “He knew what was in man” (John 2:25), “because the Spirit of wisdom, knowledge, and understanding rested on Him” (Isa. 11:[2]). He was given to Him not according to measure but “without measure” (John 3:34). Therefore the wisdom and knowledge given Him were infinite.

We prove this: (a) From the judiciary power given to Christ, for which there has to be a manifestation and, consequently, also a looking at the secret things of the heart (1 Cor. 4:5). (b) From worship, for this presupposes that Christ, even as man, looks into and understands the hidden groanings of our heart. (c) From a comparison. In Acts 5:3, Peter looks into the heart of Ananias. Through the revelation of the Spirit, Elisha sees what his servant Gehazi, being absent, is doing (2 Kings 5:26). But if the gracious presence, the gift of prophecy, and the revelation of the Spirit, could accomplish this in holy men of God, how much greater a light of wisdom and knowledge shall we think must be established from the personal presence of the omniscient Word? The saints⁹ who see God face-to-face in eternal life know Him no longer partially in an enigma but with full and perfect vision (1 Cor. 13:10). Therefore who would wish to deny omniscience to the soul of Christ, with which divine Wisdom itself has been personally united?

See the statements of the fathers in our article On Christ [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 7], § 109. In addition: the judgment of Lyra, on John 3: “In His divine nature Christ has the same knowledge as the Father. In His human nature He knows all things that God knows by means of the knowledge of vision.” Dionysius Carthusianus writes, on Revelation 1, f. 194: “The knowledge of all things and the revelation of all secrets were made to the soul of Christ at the first instant of the incarnation.”

Third, vivifying.

§ 216. (3) The power to make alive (vis ) has been given to Him, and that is a truly divine and infinite attribute. John 5:26: “Just as the Father has life in Himself, so He has given the Son to have life in Himself.” (Some of the ancients take this as a reference to the divine nature according to which the Son has received from the Father a divine essence and life through His eternal begetting. Alcuin, De trinit., bk. 1, ch. 15: “ ‘He gave the Son to have life in Himself,’ that is, He begot the Son who had life within Himself,” etc. This interpretation can be approved from the Syriac paraphrase, which rendered it , ¹⁰ “in His own essence.” Meanwhile, we ought not deny that this passage can be explained also as a reference to a temporal giving through the personal union, which happened to Christ according to His human nature, which is how Athanasius and Cyril explain this passage. You see, life and the power to give life are given to Him; by His voice and preaching people who are spiritually dead in their sins are made alive (v. 25), and by His voice the physically dead will one day be called forth from their graves (v. 28). But now, people who are dead in their sins are made alive by the voice and preaching of Christ the man, because the human voice declares the human nature. Therefore. Furthermore, just as the Father gave the Son the power of judgment, so also He gave Him life and the power to vivify (vv. 26–27). But now, He gave the Son the power to render judgment according to the flesh, as is clear from the further specification in v. 27: “because He is the Son of Man.” Therefore. John 6:55: “My flesh truly is food, and My blood truly is life-giving drink,” namely, because His flesh is given for the life of the world, and whoever eats of this bread will live forever.

We prove the same thing: (a) From the opposition that the apostle uses in 1 Cor. 15:21: “As by a man came death, by man also came the resurrection of the dead. Just as in Adam all die, so in Christ all are made alive.” Verse 45: “The first man became a living soul; the last, a life-giving spirit.” The assumed flesh of Christ was not changed into a spirit, but the Son of Man became spirit through the personal union. This happened in such a way that He not only became spiritual through His resurrection with regard to His body—that is, adorned with spiritual properties and freed from earthly difficulties—but He also gives life to all things and will give life to our bodies.¹¹ The first Adam was endowed with a living soul; the Second Adam was anointed with the life-giving Spirit. And just as the body of Adam became formally living because of its union with a living spirit or soul, so the assumed man because of the purest union with the Word became a life-giving spirit. That is, the assumed man became God because of the union with the life-giving Spirit, having been anointed, and even was equipped with life-giving power. Lyra, on this passage: “The fullness of the vivifying Spirit was not only in Christ for sufficiency but also even for superabundance toward others.” (b) From its effects. With His voice He arouses the dead [Mark 5:41]. With His hand He touches the bier [Luke 7:14] that He may show that the assumed human nature has been enriched with the power to vivify.

See the statements of the fathers in our article, On the Person of Christ [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 7], § 111, to which the following should be added. Athanasius, De nat. hum. susc.: “The life-giving spirit is the flesh of the Lord, because He was conceived from the life-giving Spirit.” Cyril, De incarn., ch. 7: “He makes the workings of His divine majesty common, as with His flesh, so that He can also give life to the dead and preserve the weak.” In De rect. fid. ad Regin., he calls the flesh of Christ “life-giving.” Theophylact, on Luke 7: “Not only does Christ work miracles with His word (resuscitating someone from the dead), but He also touches the bier that we may learn that His body is life-giving. You see, because His flesh became all things that are proper to the life-giving Word, as a consequence it, too, was made alive and takes away death and corruption.”

Fourth, the power to execute judgment.

§ 217. (4) To Him was given the power to execute judgment, which is a truly divine and infinite attribute. John 5:26–27: “The Father gave to the Son to have life in Himself, and He also gave Him the power to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.” It is clear that this power to execute judgment is: (a) A truly divine attribute, because it includes both omniscience and omnipotence. Omniscience shines forth from the manifestation of all things, even the most hidden things. 1 Cor. 4:5: “He will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts,” in which respect the Day of Judgment is called “Manifestation” []. Omnipotence shines forth from His raising of the dead prior to the judgment, the summoning and gathering of all people to His judgment seat, the promulgation of the decisive sentence, and the effectual execution of it. In order that we may understand that the human nature of Christ is to be assumed for the participation in these truly divine works, Scripture asserts that Christ will return for the judgment in the glory, power, and might that befit the true God alone.

(b) It is clear that this power befits Christ also according to His human nature. This is clear: (α) From His name. The judge here is called “the Son of Man” (Dan. 7:13; Matt. 16:27; 19:28; 24:30; 26:64). But now, the Son of Man is named from His human nature, without which the title “Son of Man” does not at all befit Him. He is called “Christ” (Acts 10:42; Rom. 2:16; 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10). But now, the name “Christ” includes both the anointing deity and the anointed humanity, as we showed above. He is called “man” (Acts 17:31). But now, the name “man” befits Him properly according to His humanity. He is called “Lord” (1 Thess. 4:16; 2 Thess. 1:7; Jude 14). But now, not only was He born Lord from eternity by the Father according to His divinity, but He also “was made Lord” in time according to His humanity (Acts 2:36). (β) From the description of this judge. This judge “will come in the clouds of heaven” (Dan. 7:13; Matt. 24:30; 26:64). “He will sit on the throne of glory” (Matt. 25:31). He will be seen by all (Zech. 12:10; Matt. 24:30; Rev. 1:7). He will assemble the elect and the damned (Matt. 25:34; etc.). He is said to have been “designated” or “appointed as judge” (Acts 10:[42]; 17:31). He “will come down from heaven” (1 Thess. 4:16). “All people will be placed before His judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10). All of these passages show that the power to execute judgment belongs to Christ according to His human nature. (Υ) From the determination of time. This judicial power is said to have been given to Christ in time (Dan. 7:13; Luke 22:69; John 5:22, 27). But now, whatever has been given to Christ in time has been given to Him according to His human nature. (δ) From the addition of a distinguishing and demonstrative particle. John 5:27: “He gave Him power to execute judgment because He is the Son of Man.” We noted the emphasis of this specification earlier. (ε) From the emptying that preceded. The administration of judgment belongs to His state of exaltation. But now, the exaltation opposed to emptying befits Christ according to His human nature (Phil. 2:9). Therefore so does the administration of judgment. (ζ) From a comparison of His ascension and return to judgment. Christ will return to judge in the same way as He ascended into heaven (Acts 1:11). But now, He ascended visibly according to His human nature. Therefore He will administer judgment visibly according to the same nature. (η) From the condition of this duty. Executing judgment belongs to the royal office of Christ. But now, the things that belong to the office of Christ befit Him according to both natures.

The devout ancients teach the same thing. Cyprian, Sermon de ascens.: “The humility of our flesh has been honored by the throne of judgment.” Cyril, on John, bk. 2, ch. 144: “Christ added the reason why He said that the Father had given Him the power to execute judgment, adding, ‘Because He is the Son of God,’ that we may understand that all things were given to Him as man.” Augustine, on Psalm 74: “Because He, as the Son of Man, receives the power to judge, therefore He says in the Gospel, ‘He gave Him the power to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.’ According as He is the Son of God, He never received the power to judge because He never lacked the power to judge.” Of the Papists, Thomas acknowledges this very thing in his Comment. theol., treatise 2, ch. 57: “Because the judiciary power pertains to the exaltation of Christ, just as does also the glory of the resurrection, therefore Christ will appear in the judgment not in humility, which pertained to merit, but in a glorious form pertaining to the reward.” Of the Calvinists, Tilenus says (part 3, Disput. 67, thesis 5): “The judiciary authority and power that is in God through nature is in Christ as man through grace” (of the union and exaltation). Thesis 6: “Christ will not judge as a delegated judge but entirely as the Chief Judge, because He is the God-man.” We cited more in support of this position in our treatise On the Last Judgment [Commonplace XXXI], § 30.

[Christ as man does truly divine works. First], omnipresence befits Christ as man.

§ 218. (III) It is clear that Christ accomplishes truly divine works also according to His human nature, because: [A.] According to His human nature, being truly present, He governs all things in heaven and on earth most powerfully; this present and powerful dominion of Christ is called omnipresence. It should be observed that the omnipresence that is attributed to Christ according to His human nature is taken by some orthodox theologians in two meanings: First, that it denotes the presence of the flesh to the Word and of the Word to the flesh through nondistance [, indistantia], flowing forth immediately from the personal interpenetration and union. You see, because the flesh of Christ, at the first moment of the incarnation, instantly was made into the hypostasis of the Word and was personally united therewith, therefore after the incarnation the Word is not outside the flesh nor the flesh outside the Word, and consequently the Word never and nowhere is separated from the flesh nor is the flesh torn away from the Word. Rather, wherever you place the Word, there you must also place the flesh, lest you introduce the Nestorian sundering of the person subsisting of both natures, as blessed Luther says in his book Quod verba adhuc firmiter stent: Hoc est corpus meum. The flesh subsists in the Word nonlocally and nondistantly. For this reason, intervals of places cannot hinder or turn aside the presence of the flesh to the Word. Rather, just as the Word is omnipresent on the basis of the infinity and immensity of His deity, so the assumed flesh that subsists nonlocally in the infinite hypostasis of the Word is omnipresent on the basis of the personal union. That is, the flesh is most present to the Word and is never separated therefrom by any time or place, since all creatures and all the machinery of heaven and earth in comparison with the Word and His hypostasis, in which the assumed flesh subsists, are like the tiniest point and, in fact, like nothing at all (Isa. 40:12, 15, 17; Dan. 4:[35]; Wisdom 11:[22]).

Some do not want this presence through nondistance, which flows forth immediately from the personal interpenetration, to be called “omnipresence,” though they nevertheless do not at all deny the actual thing. Therefore they are taking the word “omnipresence” only in the second meaning, by which it indicates the most present and most powerful lordship by which Christ, exalted to the right hand of God, preserves and governs all things in heaven and on earth with the full exertion of His majesty. To be sure, one cannot deny that the presence of Christ the God-man to all creatures must be distinguished from the hypostatic presence of the flesh to the Word and of the Word to the flesh, that is, the presence of the united natures to each other. This is because: (a) The hypostatic presence of the natures to each other, considered precisely and formally, infers no respect to creatures, because if you remove all creatures and if you remove the entire system of heaven and earth, the presence of the Word to the flesh and of the flesh to the Word nonetheless remains indissoluble after the union has taken place. In fact, as its substantials or essentials it has the person of the Word and the human nature without any respect to place or time. However, the omnipresence of Christ taken in the second meaning is related necessarily to creatures, since it is a relative attribute; for what is omnipresence but a presence to all creatures? Therefore the former can be called “most inward,” but the latter, “most outward.”

(b) The former began from the first moment of the incarnation and remains the same both permanently and immutably, but the latter did not follow until the exaltation with regard to its plenary use. You see, though amid the state of emptying, Christ was able to exercise the full light of this majesty that had been communicated to Him, and He actually showed some rays of it. Nevertheless the plenary use of it and the full use of His lordship did not follow until His exaltation.

(c) The former depends uniquely, immediately, adequately, and simply on the hypostatic union and personal interpenetration, but the latter in a certain respect depends also on the exaltation, namely, as regards the plenary use of the divine majesty already communicated to the flesh previously through the personal union with the Word and because of it. The hypostatic union, considered in and of itself, is the sufficient and adequate beginning of omnipresence, taken in the latter sense as the plenary use of the conferred lordship. However, because the state of emptying intervened, through which Christ voluntarily emptied Himself and took on the form of a servant, omnipresence did not follow until the state of exaltation.

(d) The former excludes all respect to place because the union took place nondistantly and because the hypostasis of the Word into which the flesh was assumed through the union is neither a place nor is subjected to intervals of places. The latter, on the other hand, does have a relation to places (for what else is omnipresence but presence in all places?), though it may not be local; for it is one thing to be present in a place and another to be present locally. The first expresses the object; the second, the mode of presence.

(e) The former can be without the latter, as the state of emptying shows, in which Christ did not always and everywhere in and through the flesh show His divine majesty that was communicated to Him through the hypostatic union. But the latter is never and nowhere without the former, nor can it be. After all, Christ, present to all creatures in and through the flesh, could not have had dominion unless the flesh, exalted into the hypostasis of the Word, had been made a partaker of divine majesty and glory. From this one also understands in what sense and respect omnipresence is deduced from the hypostatic union.

Although all these things are so, nevertheless one can and should reduce the opinion of those who use the word “omnipresence” with two meanings to a sound sense. Through the word “omnipresence” they understand not only the plenary use of His lordship in heaven and on earth but also the supremely present presence of the flesh to the Word amid the state of emptying by which the Word, present to all creatures, was not separated from the flesh but had it supremely present to Himself—in fact, more present than any other creature in heaven and on earth. In fact, the Word was personally united with it, and we cannot affirm or think this about any other creature in heaven or on earth. They themselves acknowledge, or certainly are compelled to acknowledge, that the total and full use of the divine majesty communicated to the flesh through the union did not follow until the exaltation and, consequently, that such omnipresence, that is, the plenary use of His dominion, did not yet take place in His emptying.

§ 219. Furthermore, we prove the omnipresence of Christ the man, that is, His present and powerful dominion in heaven and on earth: (1) From the personal union. Although Christ, in and through the flesh, began after His exaltation to govern all things in heaven and on earth with regard to plenary use, nevertheless amid the state of emptying, He had the majesty of omnipresence that had been personally communicated. And had He not voluntarily emptied Himself for our salvation, He could have shown the plenary use of His universal dominion, in and through the flesh, at the very first moment of His incarnation. As testimony of this fact, He sometimes showed some rays of that majesty, and this proves clearly that the personal union is not at all to be separated from the foundations of omnipresence, because it is the first and principal foundation thereof. However, if the word “omnipresence” is used in its first sense as the nondistance of the flesh and Word arising from the personal interpenetration, then the union is not just the first and principal foundation but also the unique, immediate, and adequate foundation thereof. After the union of the natures occurred, it cannot afterward ever be dissolved or taken apart. Hence the Word is never and nowhere absent from His flesh nor the flesh absent from the Word. Rather, wherever the Word is, there it is not without flesh but is incarnate, dwelling in His own flesh, which has been personally united to Himself. And wherever the hypostasis of the Word is, there also is the human nature that has been exalted into that hypostasis, because it is the hypostasis not only of the divine nature but also of the assumed human nature. The assumed flesh is the Word’s own temple, outside of which the Word never and nowhere is, nor can be, after the union has taken place; otherwise the union would be dissolved and the Word would be more present to other creatures than to His assumed flesh. The Word has communicated His entire self (with all His fullness) and His entire hypostasis to the flesh. Therefore one cannot think that a part of the hypostasis is present to creatures outside of the flesh and a part is present to the flesh. Rather, wherever the hypostasis of the Word is, there also the hypostasis of both natures is present, and as a consequence, I cannot place one nature there outside the other.

(2) From the promise. Matt. 18:20: “Where two or three are gathered in My name, there am I in the midst of them.” Matt. 28:20: “Lo, I am with you until the end of the world.” John 14:23: “If anyone loves Me … I and the Father will come to him and make Our dwelling with him.” Verse 18: “I will not leave you orphans. I will come to you.” Here Christ the God-man is speaking. Therefore He is promising His gracious presence not just according to the divine nature but also according to the human nature. The pronoun “I” is the name of the entire person. Therefore it brings in the presence of the entire person according to both natures.

They make the exception that “this promise is to be understood as referring to the deity alone.” Piscator, Schol. on Matthew 2, p. 185: “That which is attributed to the whole does not immediately befit each part, because is one thing, but is another, as Damascenus teaches, De orth. fid., bk. 3, ch. 7. Therefore, as it does not follow to say, ‘The whole man understands; therefore so does his belly,’ so also one cannot infer that ‘the whole Christ is omnipresent; therefore so, too, is His human nature.’ “ (See also Keckermann, System. log., bk. 1, chs. 20 and 22; System. theol., bk. 3, ch. 2, p. 318.)

We respond. The disciples were especially saddened because they heard that Christ was going to leave them according to His human nature (John 16:7). Therefore against these thoughts about His total absence according to His human nature, this promise was set forth, which is based on the immediately preceding words about power in heaven and on earth being given to Christ. But now, that power was given to Him according to His human nature. Therefore this promise also includes His human nature.

This can be proved from Matt. 18:20. (a) The name of the whole person is used: “I.”

(b) He adds: “It will be done to them by My Father.” According to whatever nature Christ is the Son of God, according to that same nature He is also in the midst of those who pray, as the conjunction “for” [] shows. But now, He is the Son of God according to both natures.

(c) The name “Christ” notes not only the divine nature but also the command and confidence of the whole Christ, God and man, our Mediator and our Savior. According to whatever nature Christ is our Mediator and has ordered us to pray and has promised to hear us and is apprehended by us confidently, according to that same nature He is also present to us as we pray. But now, He is our Mediator, etc., according to both natures.

The supremely intimate union of the natures proves this. We cannot say that the entire person of the God-man is present where the humanity is absent, since after the incarnation the humanity is like a “part” of the person. Therefore as often as presence is predicated about the incarnate Christ, those predications befit Him according to both natures, though not in the same way and not on the basis of the same principle. Wherever the human nature of Christ is not present, there also Christ is not man unless someone should wish to say that Christ is man somewhere without His human nature. Therefore we must note this distinction: When the question involves the sufferings, workings, and affections of the whole, there an inference from the whole to the individual parts is not always valid, because the whole sometimes acts and suffers some things according to one part and some according to the other. Thus a whole man understands, but with respect to one part, namely, the soul. A whole man is wounded, but with respect to one part, namely, the body. However, when the question involves the presence of the whole, then it is correct to proceed from the whole to the parts, because the parts as such always are and remain united with the whole, and this union brings with it the real presence of the things united. Thus soul and body are united in essence in man; therefore while that union endures, wherever the whole man is, there also is not only the soul but also the body. By equal logic, because the divine and human natures have been united in Christ personally, therefore while that union endures, wherever the whole Christ is, there is not only the divine but also the human nature, since they are like parts of the whole person, and this person subsists of and in both natures. But if Christ were present to us according to only one nature, we would not have the whole and complete Christ present to us. If He were present to us only according to the divine nature, then He would be present to us by that nature according to which He is a consuming fire, but He would be very far away from us according to that nature by which He is our brother. Therefore what comfort could be drawn from that promise?

“Yet,” they say, “in John 8:55 the pronoun ‘I’ is taken as a reference to the divine nature alone.” We respond that the manner is different. For there the subject concerns the Word without the flesh, not yet incarnate or the simple person; but here the discussion involves the incarnate Word and the composite person, which includes both natures. There the conversation is about the eternal existence of the Word, even before the incarnation; but here it is about the presence of the incarnate Word among the devout. (Cf. our Harm. de resurr., ch. 12, p. 474.)

§ 220. (3) From His ascension. Christ ascended into the heavens in such a way that “He was made higher than the heavens” (Heb. 7:26), that “He ascended above all the heavens” (Eph. 4:[10]). Therefore His ascension was very different from the assumption of Enoch and Elisha. I can infer correctly about Enoch and Elisha: They ascended into heaven; therefore they are no longer present on earth (except through the extraordinary and miraculous act of God, as Elisha was present at the transfiguration of Christ). But it is not permissible to make the same inference about Christ, because the terminus of His ascension is not a circumscribed place but the infinite right hand of God.

For this reason we add: (4) The argument from His sitting at the right hand of God. According to whatever nature Christ sat at the right hand of God, according to that same nature He is present in heaven and on earth and governs all things. But now, Christ sat at the right hand of God according to His human nature. Therefore. We confirmed the minor premise earlier in our second thesis on the basis of Ps. 110:1; Mark 16:19; Eph. 1:20; Heb. 1:13; 10:12; and Rev. 3:21. The confirmation of the major premise can be taken both from an explanation of the simple term “the right hand” and from that of the composite phrase given in Scripture, namely, “sitting at the right hand of God.”

From this comes a double syllogism that serves to confirm the major proposition. The first is this: However the right hand of God is to be understood, that is how the sitting at the right hand of God is also to be understood. But now, the right hand of God is not a corporeal, circumscribed, limited, defined place but is rather the infinite power of God and His supremely present majesty in heaven and on earth; it is the supremely present and supremely powerful lordship by which God preserves and governs all things. In Holy Writ, the right hand of God is described in this way: It “is glorious in power and shatters the enemies” (Exod. 15:6). It “supports the devout” (Ps. 18:[35]). It “saves” or “delivers” (Ps. 44:[3]; 108:[6]). It “sustains” (Ps. 63:[8]). “It can change all things” (Ps. 77:[10]). “It does valiantly” (Ps. 118:16). It is present in heaven, in hell, in the farthest reaches of the sea (Ps. 139:[8–10]). It “spanned the heavens” (Isa. 48:13). From these and similar passages of Scripture we gather this kind of description of the divine right hand: It is the infinite power of God, governing, regulating, and administering all things everywhere in heaven and on earth most presently and powerfully. For that reason it is also called “the right hand of power ()” (Matt. 26:64; Luke 22:69), “the right hand of majesty” (Heb. 1:3), “the throne of majesty” (Heb. 8:1), “the right hand of the throne of God” (Heb. 12:2), “the throne of glory” (Matt. 25:31). Therefore sitting at the right hand of God must also be explained and understood in such a way as to mean participation in divine power, majesty, and dominion in heaven and on earth.

The second is as follows: In whatever manner and sense Scripture itself explains the sitting at the right hand of God, that is the most correct and simple manner and sense in which to take it. But now, Scripture itself explains the sitting at the right hand of God as a reference to the supremely present and supremely powerful dominion over heaven and earth. Therefore. We prove the minor premise from a comparison of passages. Ps. 110:[1]: “The Lord said to my Lord: ‘Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies Your footstool.’ “ The apostle quotes this passage in 1 Cor. 15:25, 27, and draws this inference: “He must rule until He places His enemies under His feet … for He has subjected all things under His feet.” What to David was “sitting at the right hand of God,” to the apostle was “ruling and having all things subject.” Thus Mark 16:19: “The Lord Jesus was taken up into heaven and sits at the right hand of God.” With this passage we compare the apostle’s words in Eph. 4:10: “Christ ascended above all the heavens to fill all things.” Therefore “sitting at the right hand of God” and “filling all things,” namely, by the presence of majesty, are equivalent in meaning. And because that power and presence of majesty exerts itself especially through works of grace in the gathering, preservation, protection, etc., of the Church, therefore the final verse follows in Mark: “The apostles preached everywhere, the Lord working with them.” Paul follows with v. 11: “He gave some prophets, some apostles, some evangelists,” and precedes with v. 8: “He gave gifts to men.” In Acts 2:33, Peter claims the miraculous pouring out of the Holy Spirit as the fruit and consequence of this sitting at the right hand of God: “Being exalted at the right hand of God and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, He has poured out this that you see.”

Especially we must note the emphatic description of the sitting at the right hand of God that Paul provides (Eph. 1:[19]–22) and that Peter gives (1 Pet. 3:22). The words of Paul are: “God exerted the might of His power in Christ, raising Him from the dead and setting Him up at His right hand in the heavens above every principality and power and might and dominion and everything that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. He has put all things under His feet, and He has made Him the Head over all things to the Church.” Note here that with those last words (“He has made Him the Head over all things to the Church”) he is not limiting or restricting that power to the Church, but with them is describing the effect and fruit of that dominion over all things that was granted to Christ. You see, as God preserves the whole world for the sake of the Church, so also He has communicated this divine majesty and power to Christ according to His human nature that He may be the King and Protector of the Church. The words of Peter are: “Christ is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to Him.” Finally, we must also note that when Christ will come in the clouds of heaven to the judgment, nonetheless He will “sit on the throne of His majesty and at the right hand of the power of God” (Matt. 24:30; 25:31; 26:64). Therefore the right hand of God is not a finite, circumscribed place in heaven; otherwise, as Christ comes in the clouds to judge, He would no longer be sitting at the right hand of God. Note also that as they stand before His judgment seat, all people will look upon Christ the Judge (Zech. 12:10; Matt. 24:30; Rev. 1:7). Yet if Christ, with His glorified body united to the Word personally and exalted to the right hand of God, were restricted to a determined place in heaven in such a way that He could be present and looked upon in only that one place, how would all men, countless in multitude, be able to look at Him in that one place all at the same time? If the throne of majesty on which Christ will sit when He comes to judge had been removed so many thousands of intervals from the earth, how could all people see Him with one and the same view?

§ 221. Against this argument that we have formed in favor of omnipresence from the sitting at the right hand of God, they make the exception: (a) “Christ is said to sit at the right hand of God ‘on high’ (Heb. 1:3) and ‘in the heavens’ (Eph. 1:20). Therefore the right hand of God signifies a fixed place in heaven” (Piscator, Schol. on 1 Pet. 3:22). We respond. God is said to “dwell on high,” to “be in the heavens,” to “look down from heaven upon the sons men.” This all is said about God Himself, who is enclosed in no place and is excluded from no place. Nevertheless one does not and cannot conclude from this that He has dominion only in a fixed place in heaven. The Holy Spirit defines the height of God and of the right hand of God not by an elevation of place, but by the inexpressible loftiness of celestial glory and majesty. Athanasius, Cyril, Augustine, Philip, and Calvin himself explain “in heaven” and “on high” as references to heavenly sublimity and glory, as the introduction to the Lord’s Prayer also proves: “Our Father, who art in heaven.” Christ is said to sit at the right hand of God “in heaven” because His kingdom is heavenly and divine, not earthly, and is administered in a heavenly way, not an earthly way. He who is coming in the clouds is said to sit at the right hand of God “in heaven,” but not in heaven alone; nonetheless He will sit at the right hand of God, not as in a fixed, circumscribed place (because the right hand of God is neither local nor circumscribed), but in heaven, that is, in heavenly, divine, and lofty glory, above every principality and power (Eph. 1:20), “far above all the heavens” (Eph. 4:10), so that “He is higher than the heavens themselves” (Heb. 7:[26]). Chrysostom, on Ephesians 1: “He encloses Himself at the right hand of the majesty on high, not in a place. Rather, He shows Himself as more eminent than all because He has reached the throne of His Father’s splendor.” Oecumenius, on Hebrews 1: “The image of the throne means equality of honor.”

(b) “In Col. 3:1, He is said to be seated above at the right hand of God.” We respond. A highness not of place but of majesty is being described, and a loftiness of glory, something that is clear from opposition. “Seek the things that are above” (that is, heavenly, spiritual, divine), “not that are on earth” (that is, carnal, earthly, mundane) [Col. 3:2]. “Therefore mortify your members that are on the earth” [Col. 3:5].

(c) “In Acts 7:[56], Stephen sees Christ standing at the right hand of God in only one place.” We respond. This does not follow: “Christ is seen or is viewed standing in one place at the right hand of God; therefore He sits in only one place at the right hand of God.” The topic here involves a special revelation and vision revealed to Stephen, which does not undermine nor limit the majesty of Christ, who rules everywhere most powerfully and most presently, but rather confirms it. But if, according to the hypothesis of our adversaries, the body of Christ is only in heaven, and heaven is just above the firmament, how could Christ, who was standing at the right hand of God, be seen by Stephen, since the body of Christ has a quantity incomparably less than the smallest star? Therefore, as Christ stands at the right hand of God, He appears visibly in one place; meanwhile, He sits invisibly everywhere at the right hand of God. He appears standing, that is, ready to bring aid and to punish His foes. Ambrose, bk. 10, Letter 82: “Jesus was standing as though an advocate, He was standing as though concerned, to help Stephen, His competing athlete. He was standing as though ready to crown His martyr.” The same, Sermon 60: “On account of His power as King, He is said to sit. On account of His goodness as intercessor, He is set forth as standing. Christ is the Judge when He sits down, the Advocate when He stands up. Clearly, He is Judge for the Jews, Advocate for the Christians.” Gregory, Homily ascens.: “A judge is characterized by sitting; but a fighter and helper, by standing. Therefore in the hardship of his struggle, Stephen rather sees Him standing whom he considers his Helper. But then, after His ascension, Mark describes Him as sitting, because after the glory of His ascension, He shall be seen at the end as Judge.” (However, “to stand” in the Hebrew manner of speech sometimes is used simply for “to exist.” See 2 Sam. 24:16; 1 Chron. 21:15.)

(d) “In Wisdom 3:1, the souls of the just are said to be in the hand of God, and yet they are not omnipresent” (Bellarmine, De Christo, bk. 3, ch. 15). We respond. To be in the hand of God is one thing; to sit at the right hand of God is another. The “hand” and “right hand” of God signify: First, divine majesty and omnipotence; it is the present and powerful lordship in heaven and earth. It is used in this sense when Christ is said to sit at the right hand of God, for the apostle explains this as ruling and filling all things. Second, divine vengeance and judgment (Exod. 3:19; 1 Sam. 5:6). Third, the glorious protection, defense, guardianship of God, a most happy and blessed state (Deut. 33:3; John 10:29). In this sense the souls of the just are said to be in the hand of God, namely, in that hand about which Ps. 16:11 says: “Your delights are in Your right hand forever” and “Into Your hands I commend my spirit” (Ps. 31:[5]; Luke 23:46). The arguments cited earlier, and especially a comparison of passages of Scripture, show that when Christ is said to sit at the right hand of God, more is contained in those words than when the souls of the devout are said to be in the hand of God.

(e) “In Rev. 3:21, sitting on the throne of Christ has been promised the devout, and yet they are not omnipresent.” We respond. A clear distinction is established there between the throne of the Father to which the heavenly Father has exalted Christ, and the throne of Christ to which Christ exalts the saints. On the throne of God the Father, there sits no angel, much less a saint (Heb. 1:13), but the saints sit on the throne of Christ. The throne of the Father is His infinite majesty, power, and glory; the throne of Christ, which He shares with the saints, is a distinct honor in the judgment and eternal blessedness in heaven. The former is infinite and everywhere; the latter, finite and in paradise. The former is one; the latter, many (Matt. 19:28; Rev. 4:4; 20:4). The former is eternal and uncreated; the latter seems to have been prepared (Matt. 25:34) and set up (Dan. 7:9).

(d) § 222. (5) From the filling of all things. “Christ ascended above all the heavens to fill all things” (Eph. 4:10), namely, with His omnipresent majesty and omnipotent dominion. It is clear from Jer. 23:[24] and Wisdom 1:7 that this is the sense of that expression.

They make the exception: (a) “This filling of all things must be referred to Christ’s divine nature.” Drusius, Praeterit. 7, p. 281: “ ‘Christ ascended above all the heavens to fill all things’ as true God who, as a result, is called ‘Place,’ because He fills all things and there is no place that is not filled by Him.” We respond. We accept what is conceded, that “filling all things” must be explained as a reference to His omnipotence, but we deny that this predication is to be referred only to the divine nature of Christ, because His ascension and His filling of all things are connected immediately, as the context shows. Therefore according to whatever nature the ascension befits Christ, according to that same nature the filling of all things must be attributed to Him. After all, what kind of a logical connection would this be: “Christ ascended into heaven according to His human nature in order to fill all things according to His divine nature”? In fact, on the contrary, because the end and consequence of His ascension is the filling of all things, therefore the filling of all things must indeed be attributed to Christ according to that nature by which the ascension itself, as antecedent and purposed (or an act ordained for this end), befits Him. Moreover, even before His ascension Christ already had filled all things with His deity. Therefore with what appearance of truth can one say that Christ ascended so as to begin to fulfill all things with His deity? All the more correctly does Theophylact express this in his commentary on this passage: “For this reason He accomplishes all these things that He may fill all things with His dominion and working, and this He does in His flesh, because He had already filled all things with His divinity.” Oecumenius, ibid.: “He once filled all things with His bare divinity. But He, incarnate, descended and ascended to fill all things with flesh [].”

(b) “This passage should be understood with regard to the fulfillment of prophecies.” (See Bellarmine, De Christo, bk. 3, ch. 16, from Jerome, Bernard, and Sedulius.) We respond. [“filling of all things”] is the very definition of divine omnipresence that the Holy Spirit has handed down (Jer. 23:[24]; Wisdom 1:7). Now, when the topic involves the fulfillment of the Scriptures, then clear mention of Scripture or of the prophetic statement is always added (Matt. 1:22; 2:17, 23; 4:14; etc.). Here, however, there is no mention of Scripture. In fact, it rather appears from the context that the apostle is giving the reason why Christ had to ascend above all the heavens, namely, to fill all things. Thereby he makes a very great distinction between the ascension of Christ and the ascension of Elijah. If Christ had ascended only into the heavens, as did Elijah, He would not have been able to fill all things with His majesty and dominion. But because He ascended not only into the heavens but “above all the heavens,” He was “made higher than the heavens” and was placed at the infinite right hand of God in and through His ascension; therefore He was able to fill all things. Moreover, not all the prophecies had yet been fulfilled through His ascension, because there still remain to be fulfilled those which the prophets published about His return to judgment. Finally, even if we conceded that the apostle is speaking about the fulfillment of the Scriptures, one still could not yet infer from this that the words of the apostle cannot and ought not be taken to mean omnipresence. We invert the argument. Because the prophets also prophesied about the presence and dominion of Christ as man (Ps. 8:[6]; Dan. 7:14; etc.), this prophecy also had to be fulfilled.

(c) “This passage should be explained as a reference to the filling through granting the gifts of the Holy Spirit.” Piscator, Schol.: “This is what the apostle means to say: that Christ ascended into heaven so that, the Holy Spirit having been sent from there, He might fill all the members of the Church with those gifts, as is clear from the verses following.” Tossanus follows Piscator in this passage, as he also does in others, and urges Hilary and Ambrose: “… that He might adorn the Church, His Bride, with the heavenly gifts of the Holy Spirit” (Not. margin., [on Eph. 4:]8). We respond. When Scripture uses the verb “fill” with reference to the granting of gifts, it also expressly mentions “gifts” (Col. 1:9; Phil. 1:11). But here the apostle is speaking in general, “… to fill all things,” not to fill all the Church or all the members of the Church. We concede that the filling of all the members of the Church which has happened through the granting of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is a consequence and effect of the filling of all things, that is, of the divine majesty granted to Christ the man, as is clear from [Eph. 4]:8, 10–12; Acts 2:33; Eph. 1:23. But we deny that this filling of all things is to be limited and restricted to the filling of all the members of the Church, since the specific is inferred from the general, and the specific does not limit the general. Moreover, it is a truly divine work and one of infinite power to adorn all the members of the Church with the gifts necessary for salvation and, in this way, to fill all things. But if they truly believe from the heart that this work belongs to Christ the man, let them acknowledge that this truly divine work of infinite power is attributed to Him as man.

(d) “In Eph. 1:23 the apostle himself restricts this filling of all things to the Church.” We respond. The Church is called the “fullness () of Christ,” not because the filling of all things about which Eph. 4:10 speaks is to be restricted only to the Church, but because Christ is the Church’s Head, which would be maimed and mutilated unless it had the Church as its mystical Body, joined most closely, just as the natural body is not full and whole unless the other members along with the head are present. Although Christ is perfect in and of Himself and does not need us in any way, yet because He wanted to be the Head of the Church out of His immense love, therefore in this respect the Church¹² belongs to His fullness.

What is added, [“who fills all in all,” Eph. 1:23], can be taken in two ways: First, passively, as Chrysostom interprets it, so that the meaning is that Christ is filled in all, that is, individual believers as members of the Church belong to the fullness of Christ because the Church is the Body of Christ, the Head, joined together with the faithful as His members. Second, actively, that it be understood as being placed in the middle voice. This explanation seems to fit the text more appropriately because of the addition of [the direct object] “all things” (). The apostle had said that the Church is the fullness of Christ; then, lest anyone think that Christ needed this supplement of Himself, he adds, “Christ fills all in all,” that is, He is supremely present to all things through His divine majesty and working, He accomplishes all things in all, and as Head united with His Body He works all things in the Church. (e) “This can be understood about a filling of places, yet only one that is through His effects, for Christ wanted to fill all things with His glory and to work marvelous things in all people,” as Bellarmine says, op. cit. We respond. His substantial presence must not be excluded from those effects, because the divine power that was communicated to Christ according to His human nature is not absent as it exercises dominion and works, but present.

(f) “This can be understood as a successive filling of places, by taking ‘places’ to mean ‘categories of places.’ Christ had been on earth, had walked on the sea, had been in the air, on the cross, and had been beneath the earth in hell. Therefore He had to go up into heaven to illumine and fill all things with His presence.” We respond. One cannot say that all things are filled through a successive and local progression. Rather, this requires a simultaneous presence in all places. Why should we want to depart from the interpretation of Scripture (Jer. 23:24)?

(g) “This passage teaches that Christ did not fill all things with the presence of His flesh. For descending and afterward ascending conflicts with filling. He ought to spread Himself about rather than descend and ascend, if He wanted to fill all things at the same time,” Bellarmine, op. cit. We respond. Let the thoughts of human reason be removed. God needs neither expansion nor diffusion for His presence.

§ 223. (6) From the subjection of all things. All things¹³ are subject to Christ according to His humanity. Ps. 8:[6]; 1 Cor. 15:27; Eph. 1:22; Heb. 2:8: “He has put all things beneath His feet.” Paul explains this universality in his Epistles to the Corinthians and to the Hebrews in the aforementioned passages, saying that “nothing at all” has been excepted from that universality “except Him who subjected all things to Christ.” He says: “In that He subjected all things to Him, He left nothing not subject to Him,” and, “When he says that all things are subject to Him, it is plain that He is excepted who subjected all things to Him.” But if all things are subject to Christ, then all places and all intervals of places also are subject, so that they can in no way keep Him from being able to fulfill His promise and to be present with us. To Christ is subject “whatever can be named in this age and in that which is to come” (Eph. 1:21). Among those things that can be named are also the intervals of places. Aristotle (De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 4) asserts that “place” befits bodies only because of “mortal weakness.” But if all things have been subjected to Christ, who has been exalted to the right hand of the Father, surely He is no longer subject to that mortal weakness in which He could not be present except in a single place and would be circumscribed by a corporeal place.

(7) From His dominion. According to His human nature, Christ was “made Lord” (Acts 2:36), and, having been exalted to the right hand of the Father, “He rules in the midst of His enemies” (Ps. 110:2; 1 Cor. 15:25). “He has dominion from sea to sea” (Ps. 72:8; Zech. 9:10). Therefore He is also present in heaven and on earth.

They make the exception: “Presence is not immediately required for dominion.” Bellarmine, De Christo, bk. 3, ch. 16: “The humanity of Christ presides over all creatures and has authority over all people. From this it does not yet follow that He is everywhere. For why could He not have power over something absent? Do we not see this ordinarily among men, that a king has authority over his entire realm yet does not occupy it with his presence except for a tiny corner of a house or of one little room?” We respond. The former dominion is not earthly or mundane but heavenly and divine. Therefore we should not think or declare about it according to the custom of this age and of earthly kings. It is a part of human weakness that earthly kings cannot be present to all their realms and provinces but rule instead through their deputies. But, on the contrary, it is a mark of divine majesty and power that God, being truly and essentially present, governs and administers all things. Because this majesty and power has been given to Christ according to His human nature, we must certainly not exclude substantial presence from His dominion.

So, then, we draw this conclusion: The dominion with which Christ rules as God and man is one, not multiple and diverse. Therefore just as He exercises dominion not being absent but present according to His divinity, so also He administers all things being present according to His humanity.

§ 224. (8) From the condition of the Head. Christ is Head of the Church not only according to the divine nature but also according to the human nature, as the homogeneity of head and members shows (Eph. 5:[23], 30). And this is proved from the fact that through His placement at the right hand of God and the subjection of all things, Christ was “given” or established as “Head over all things to the Church,” that is, for the salvation of the Church (Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:18). This placement at the right hand of God and subjection of all things befit Christ according to His human nature, as we showed above. But now, it is not fitting for the head to be divided and separated from its members through intervals of places. “Surely,” says Chemnitz (De duab. natur., ch. 30, p. 507), “the Head of the Church has not been pulled apart nor separated from His members but is very intimately united with them. Christ is our Head not only according to the divine nature but also according to that nature according to which He is kin to us and consubstantial with us, His members. Even the Scholastics teach correctly that this pertains to the definition of a head.”

They make the exception: (a) “Christ dwells in our hearts through faith, Eph. 3:17.” We respond. Faith is not being contrasted to the presence of the humanity of Christ but to the open vision of God (2 Cor. 5:7).

(b) “Christ, existing in heaven with His body, by His Spirit unites to Himself the faithful as members of His own body.” We respond. When Christ bestows that Spirit on the faithful, He is present, not absent. Otherwise a monstrous body would be born from this, whose head would be separated from its members by a very long distance. Just as balsam ran down from the head of Aaron on his members [cf. Ps. 133:2]—not separated or disjoined but most closely and presently united with their head—so the oil of the Holy Spirit runs down from Christ, as Head, on the faithful, as members of His mystical Body, which are not separated from the Head but most closely and presently united with Him. Therefore far be it from us to wish to separate the human nature of Christ, according to which He earned the giving of the Holy Spirit to the faithful, from that distribution of the Spirit.

§ 225. (9) From the administration of the royal office. According to the canon of the Council of Chalcedon, the names of “the office befit Christ according to both natures.” To be present to the Church, to govern and defend it, to rule in the midst of enemies, etc., are names and works of the office—the royal office, to be precise. Therefore they befit Christ according to both natures.

They make the exception: “This canon adds that ‘each nature does what is its own.’ But now, it does not belong to the human nature to be present with the Church everywhere.” We respond. It clearly adds: “Each nature doing what is its own with the communication of the other ().” Therefore because being present everywhere is not proper to human nature and yet is required for the administration of the royal office, therefore through the hypostatic union and glorious exaltation to the right hand of God, the Word communicates this glory and honor to it. We shall deal in greater detail with this subject in the third genus of the communication of properties.

(10) From invocation. According to whichever nature Christ must be invoked by us, according to that same nature He is also present with us, because the object of religious invocation requires the presence of the same (Deut. 4:7; Ps. 91:15; 145:18; Isa. 55:6; etc.). But now, Christ must be invoked religiously by us according to both natures, as we shall demonstrate later. Therefore.

(11) From the appearance of Christ. On the road to Damascus, Paul “sees Jesus” (Acts 9:27). “The following night the Lord stood by him and said, ‘Take courage’ “ (Acts 23:11). “The Lord stood by me and strengthened me” (2 Tim. 4:17). The apostle proves the resurrection from these appearances (1 Cor. 15:8), something that he could not have proved in any way unless he had seen Christ on earth according to His human nature. Stephen “sees Jesus standing at the right hand of God in heaven” (Acts 7:[55]). John sees Christ “walking in the midst of the gold lampstands,” that is, of the churches (Rev. 1:13), to which type an antitype certainly must correspond.

Zanchi makes the exception, De natura Dei, bk. 2, ch. 6, p. 138: “With His deity by which He is everywhere, Christ shaped a new body for Himself and appeared on earth in it. Meanwhile, He left His natural body in heaven.” By this logic, however, he imperils the verity of the human nature, introduces a duality of bodies, and undermines the argument for the resurrection drawn from these appearances. Hence Zanchi himself was admonished by others and corrected this opinion later.

§ 226. (12) From the institution of the Holy Supper. Christ is present on earth according to whichever nature a testimony of His presence is given in the Holy Supper. Yet in the Holy Supper testimony is given of His presence not only according to the divine nature but also according to the human nature, because by means of the blessed bread He distributes to us His body and by means of the blessed wine He distributes to us His blood, and for this reason John relates among the “witnesses testifying on earth” not only “the Spirit and water” but also “blood,” namely, of Christ, who is presented to the communicants in the Holy Supper and offers the testimony of grace to believers (1 John 5:8). Therefore Christ is also truly present on earth also according to His human nature.

Bellarmine makes the exception, De Christo, bk. 3, ch. 13: “Ubiquity conflicts with the sacrament of the Eucharist, even though it was devised to support it. For if the flesh of Christ is everywhere, we surely shall not need the Eucharist because at home we would have the body of Christ in bread and wine and all other foods.” We respond. He confuses the sacramental presence with the majestic presence. The body and blood of Christ are in the Holy Supper through sacramental presence, which properly and accurately speaking does not depend on the majestic presence or omnipresence but on the institution and will of Christ. Meanwhile, we are correct in saying that the Holy Supper is a clear witness that Christ is present on earth also according to His human nature and hence that what the Calvinists repeat so often is false, that “the body of Christ is only in heaven until the day of the last judgment.”

§ 227. These are the unshakable foundations from which we assert that Christ the man has omnipresent dominion in heaven and earth. Power and will are the two necessary and sufficient principles of actions. The will of Christ, that He wishes to be present with us on earth, is clear from His promises (Matt. 18:20; 28:20). Power or ability depends: on the personal union, which is indivisible and inseparable; and on the communication of properties, for because the Word communicated His entire self to the assumed flesh, He also communicated that divine majesty and glory by which He can be omnipresent; and on His placement at the infinite and omnipotent right hand of God. Whoever does not believe the omnipresence of the flesh to creatures will never sincerely believe the intimate, indivisible, and indissoluble presence of that flesh to the Word or with the Word. To this power and will of Christ is added the need of the Church. For it is necessary that Christ be present with us according to that nature by which He is our brother, because we cannot deal with the bare divinity, which is a consuming fire. The dignity of the office of Christ is also added, because being present with the Church befits Christ as King and, in fact, also as Prophet and Priest.

§ 228. We cited the statements of the fathers about omnipresence in our treatise On the Person of Christ [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 7], § 122, to which we must add these: Jerome, Adv. Vigilant.: “Will you put chains on the apostles so that they are held in custody until the Day of Judgment and are not with their Lord? It is said about these that they follow the Lamb wherever He goes. If the Lamb is everywhere, so, too, must they who are with the Lamb be believed to be everywhere.” (Here Jerome wanders from the path of truth because he attributes omnipresence to the dead saints on the basis of the passage from Revelation wrongly explained, as we showed in our treatise On Death [Commonplace XXIX], § 341. He thinks correctly, however, in attributing omnipresence to the Lamb according to the human nature.)

Ambrose, on Luke 10, bk. 7, ch. 47: “Although You are everywhere, and though we do not see You standing in our midst, there will still be a time when all flesh will see You returning.” On Hebrews 4: “Because He is offered in many places, are there many Christs? Not at all, but one Christ is everywhere. He is complete here, complete there.”

Chrysostom, Homily de Joh. Bapt: “Christ is beyond the heavens, beyond earth. Wherever He wishes to be, He is there. Wherever He is, He is there wholly. Wherever He is and wherever you are who seek Him, you are in Him whom you seek.”

Theophylact, on John 19: “And so the holy, indivisible body of Christ is divided and shared in the four corners of the earth, for it is distributed to each one and sanctifies the soul of each person with his flesh through His flesh. It is whole and undivided, existing everywhere in all.”

See also these hypotheses of the fathers: (a) They claim that the flesh of Christ is truly present in the Supper administered in many places at the same time on earth. (b) They deny that the Word is outside the assumed flesh (Athanasius, Contra Arian., orat. 2 and 4; Cyril, Ad Regin., bk. 2). (c) They assert that the natures in Christ are united (“inseparably, nondistantly”). (See the Council of Chalcedon and Damascenus, De orth. fid., bk. 3, ch. 3.) (d) They teach that the hypostasis of the Word has been communicated to the flesh. (e) They acknowledge that a communication of infinite majesty and glory has been made to the flesh. (f) They defend the exaltation of the flesh to the infinite right hand of God. (g) They acknowledge the universal lordship of Christ the man in the whole world.

§ 229. Some of our adversaries seem to have been convinced by the brightness of the truth to acknowledge in some way this same thing: (1) The Papists. Among the ancient ones, Hugh of St. Victor, De sacram., bk. 2, part 8, ch. 12: “The body of Christ has this dignity from the nature of its union with the divinity: that it is in many places at the same time.”

Biel, Sent., 4, dist. 11: “Not only can the body of Christ be in diverse places definitively and sacramentally, but also both itself and another body, through divine power, can be in many places circumscriptively.” Furthermore, many of the Scholastics claim that “any natural body can be present in many places at the same time through divine power,” as we shall see later.

Among the more recent Papists: Jacobus Faber Stapulensis: “Indeed, wherever Christ is, He is incarnate. He is not incarnate without His body. Great is the faith that acknowledges that Christ is present corporeally where He is sacramentally. But that is a greater faith to recognize that He is present everywhere corporeally. The latter is to recognize without limit; the former, with limit. Faith without limit is greater than that which has limit.” On 1 Corinthians 12: “The body of Christ is wherever the Word is, for the Word was made flesh. The Word is nowhere without the flesh nor the flesh without the Word.”

Paul Kemerius writes in his Propositiones: “It is very easy to prove with many firm reasons that Christ is everywhere with His body.” He deduces this from “the assumption of Christ into the glory of God, from the indivisible unity of the person, and from the communication of omnipotence.”

Johannes Ertlius and Caspar Francus make the same claim. The latter, in his essay in which he explains the reason for his defection, cites the words of Jerome (“If the Lamb is everywhere”) to prove the invocation of the saints.

Barradius, Harm. evang., commentary on Matt. 28:20: “Just as the humanity of Christ united with the divinity is worshiped and adored in heaven by the blessed angels and humans, so He wanted the same humanity united with the divinity to be on earth and to be worshiped and adored on earth by human beings who are on earth.”

(2) The Calvinists. Beza, Quaest., part 1, p. 24, Geneva edition of 1573 (in his Opera, f. 659): “If you wish, I shall even concede that the humanity of Christ is also present, but according to another [], that is, not in itself nor in its essence but insofar as it coheres by hypostatic union with the Word, who is everywhere.” (I add the minor premise: The hypostasis of the Word that is present everywhere has been communicated really to the flesh through the personal union. Therefore the flesh of Christ is also supremely present everywhere by force of the hypostatic union with the Word.)

Bucer, on John 12: “The fringes of the Lord, or tapestries, fill the temple with His majesty [cf. Isa. 6:1] because all things in the Church are full of this man, and the power of His kingdom comes to all.”

Zanchi, preface to his book De relig., in the letter to the reader: “I said that the flesh of Christ can be called omnipotent and not omnipotent without contradiction, everywhere present and not everywhere present, namely, in different respects. For it is not present by means of its own essence [sua propria ] but by means of the hypostasis [], which it has in common with the divine nature.” De incarnat., bk. 2, f. 201: “I surely would not contradict this, and all devout and learned people concede that the human nature of Christ is personally omnipotent and omnipresent because, though it is not so really in itself, it is so in the person.”

The preachers of Zürich in their Apologia, p. 108: “Therefore we say that Christ, that is, that person who is true God and true man at the same time, is present to all things and rules in heaven and earth, and this according to both natures. For after assuming the human nature, the Son of God is everywhere and acts as the Christ, that is, He is present and acts as the person who is God and man at the same time.” (This very thing they later corrupted very much, and what they gave with one hand they snatched away with the other: “We claim that He is present according to the divine nature indeed in essence; according to His human nature, in efficacy and consent. For the Word does all these things with the knowledge and consent of the human or assumed nature, so that the action is of the whole person.”)

Sohnius, Opera, vol. 2, p. 398: “If the humanity is not everywhere, the divinity is, namely, personally or in personal subsistence—that is, if the one person of two natures is not everywhere or if these two natures are not united everywhere, then there must be two persons.” Page 399: “If they take ‘personally’ to mean that the human nature is said to be present everywhere insofar as it subsists in the person of the Son of God and has its own personal being while preserving its natural properties, such an opinion can be stated and, at times, it is given by our people.” (However, later, through great perversity, he twists this so that he denies that the human nature of Christ is present on earth. Nevertheless we draw this conclusion firmly from what they conceded: The human nature truly subsists in the person of the Son of God; therefore it is also truly present.)

Martinius, Incis. contra D. Mentzer., p. 33: “If Christ wished to be present with His body, who would deny that He could?” (We sum up. Christ wants to be present with us with His body, as is clear from the institution of the Supper. Therefore He can be.)

Finally, because our foes appeal to the agreement of Philip Melanchthon and Tilemann Hesshusius, we must note these statements of theirs. Philip, Letter ad Mart. Görlic.: “I would rather die than affirm what they affirm, that the body of Christ can be in only one place. Therefore I rebuke them constantly.” The same, Letter ad Oecolampad.: “In the promises about the presence of Christ there is no need to pull the humanity apart from the divinity.” Pappus, Defens. 3. contra Sturm., p. 105:

Once I saw and wrote down from the psaltery of a certain Mr. Johannes Galenus of Wittenberg, who was at Strasbourg to study in 1563, the following words: “Dr. Philip Melanchthon wrote in his own hand these words about the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ on Palm Sunday, 1560, in the book of Dr. Major: ‘The true body and blood are presented in the cup. But the question now arises: How can Christ be corporeally in the Sacrament, because His body cannot be in diverse places? I answer: Christ said that He would be present. Therefore He is truly present in the Sacrament, even corporeally. We must not look for another reason. That is how the word is spoken; therefore it necessarily takes place. However, as far as the body is concerned, Christ can be wherever He wishes whenever He wishes. Therefore His body is now of a different sort than ours. We must not argue about ubiquity in this controversy, and the Scholastics are not speaking about this ubiquity. Rather, they are reciting the simple statement about the corporeal presence of Christ. The deity has neither body nor blood and is united with the humanity of Christ, and the humanity of Christ is most intimately united with His divinity everywhere, and the deity and humanity in Christ are inseparable. Therefore the body and blood of Christ are everywhere in the Sacrament and in its action, according to the word, “This is My body, this is My blood” and “I shall be with you until the end of the age.” ‘ ”

 

Hesshusius, commentary on 1 Corinthians:

 

The sixth prerogative of the flesh of Christ is that it is the Head of the whole Church, scattered in many places throughout the world and gathered by the ministry of the Word at all times; that it fosters, sustains, guards, rules, preserves, and watches over the individual members and fills and accomplishes all things in all. Also, this glorious property befits no creature. No apostle nor prophet can be present to the Church and each of her members in such a way. No angel can bring help to each of her members, drive away all perils, help in every necessity. But the humanity of Christ, because it is united with the Word in a personal union and because it is established as the Head of the whole Church, is present to all members of His Body, fosters each of the devout with His Spirit, etc. Also, He has all creatures present in His hand according to His promise in Matthew 18[:20] and 28[:20]. Although these promises were declared in the concrete, we still must not imagine that He promised the presence of only His divinity, but rather of the person and also of His flesh, though we do not comprehend this with our external senses. Lest we have doubts about the presence of His flesh, He instituted the most holy Supper, etc. Paul says, Ephesians 1[:22]: “He put all things under His feet.” Therefore all creatures are present and subject to Christ’s human nature, which has been raised from the dead, etc. In Ephesians 4[:10] the apostle affirms that this Christ, who ascended above all the heavens, fills all things. He is speaking not only about His working or efficacy but also about His presence. Therefore he adds, “He ascended above all the heavens to fill all things.” How this can be done—that Christ’s human nature, which is finite, fills all things—we cannot comprehend with our own abilities, just as we cannot grasp or understand with regard to His divinity how that fills all things, for we must imagine no mass, no extension. But because the Holy Spirit truly revealed these mysteries in the Church through the apostles, we certainly are obligated to assent to Him.

 

Second, working miracles.

§ 230. [B.] Christ works miracles through, in, and with the flesh. Working miracles is a truly divine work, as is evident. But now, the assumed flesh is not an idle or purely passive instrument, but a cooperating, effectual, and active instrument; not separated but united, through which Christ worked miracles. Therefore truly divine work belongs to Christ’s assumed flesh.

We prove the minor premise: (1) From the origin [principium] of miracles. The origin of acting [principium agendi], from which miracles proceed, is miracle-working power, a truly divine might and authority. But now, that truly divine miracle-working power, might, and authority are communicated to Christ according to His human nature. Acts 10:38: “God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and with power, and He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with Him.” From this we draw the following inferences: According to whichever nature Christ was anointed with the Holy Spirit, according to that same nature was He endowed with miracle-working power, as the context shows. But now, the Holy Spirit anointed Christ according to the human nature. Therefore. According to whichever nature Christ was given all power in heaven and earth, according to that same nature He is also effectual in working miracles. But now, He was given all power in heaven and on earth according to His human nature (Matt. 28:[18]). Therefore. According to whichever nature God was with Christ, according to that same nature did He work miracles and heal all who were oppressed by the devil, as the context shows. But now, God was with Christ according to the human nature. Therefore. This is why He “commands the unclean spirits according to authority, in authority, and with power” (Mark [1]:27; Luke 4:36), namely, in that authority which He confesses was given Him according to the flesh. This power “goes out from Him, healing all the people” (Mark 5:30; Luke 6:19), namely, that power which was given to Him as “the Lamb that was slain” (Rev. 5:12). The humanity of Christ acts in miracles not only through the might that is naturally and essentially His own but also through the truly divine power communicated to Him from the united deity—or, as the apostle says, the humanity of Christ acts according to the anointing of the Spirit and of power.

(2) From the condition and state of Him who acts. Christ’s voice calling the dead to life is not only human but also a divine voice. Christ’s hand touching the lepers is not only human but also a divine hand, because He who speaks with His mouth and touches with His hand is not only man but also God in the unity of the person. The words “Lazarus, come out!” (John 11:43) are not only a human voice beating the air and striking the ears of bystanders, like the voice of all other men, but the omnipotent voice of the very Son of God calling the dead Lazarus back to life (John 5:28). Christ’s hand touching the leper (Matt. 8:3) is not only a human hand touching the leper in the same way as the hand of other people also could have touched, but it is the omnipotent hand of the very Son of God healing the leper by touching him. Now if the hand of a living man can accomplish works proper to its soul-endowed substance because it belongs to the soul-endowed man, why could not Christ’s hand perform truly divine works—miracles? It is, after all, the hand belonging to the omnipotent Son of God.

(3) From His universal dominion. According to whichever nature Christ became Lord of all, all things were made subject to Him, He was established over every authority and dominion, etc., according to that same nature He can also work miracles. But it was according to His human nature that Christ “became Lord of all” (Acts 2:36), that “all things were subjected to Him” (Ps. 8:[6]), that “He was established over every authority and dominion” (Eph. 1:[21]). Therefore. The major premise is one of obvious truth, because if Christ is Lord of all, therefore also in miracles He can act beyond and contrary to the usual sequence of things, effectually change their nature, and arrange all things according to His choice.

(4) From the ministry of the human nature used in miracles. When Christ worked miracles, He used a physical ministry and touch, for He aroused the dead with His voice, healed lepers with the touch of His hand, opened the eyes of the blind by smearing mud on them, etc., to show that His human nature shared His miracle-working power. If He had wished to exclude and separate His human nature from the working of miracles, He would have done them with only a divine willing and would not have used the ministry of the human nature.

Athanasius, Contra Arian., orat. 5: “Reaching out His hand, the Word healed the person ill with fever. Uttering a human voice, He raised Lazarus. Reaching out His hands on the cross, He felled the prince of the air.” Orat. de blasph. in Spiritum: “To be sure, He was spitting as a man, but that spit was divine, because He healed the eyes of the blind man with that saliva.” De Trinit., dial. 5, p. 184: “The Word united to the man did miracles not separately from the assumed nature, but rather it pleased Him to exert His divine power through it, in it, and with it.” De incarnat. Verbi, p. 50: “Christ’s flesh is the instrument that His divinity used in miracles.”

Cyril, De incarn. unigenit., ch. 7: “The Word makes the workings of divine majesty common with His flesh so that with a touch He raises the dead, heals lepers, gives light to the blind, and performs the rest of His miracles.”

Augustine, Enarr. Psal. 56: “Christ worked miracles through the flesh.”

Damascenus, bk. 3, ch. 15: “The divinity worked divine signs, but not without the flesh.” Same book, ch. 17: “Not according to its own working [], but because of the Word united with it, the Lord’s flesh does divine works, while the Word shows and reveals its own working through the flesh.”

Theophylact, on Luke 5: “Meanwhile, I shall also indicate this, that His holy flesh has divine power, that it purifies and gives life, since it is God’s flesh.” On Luke 7: “He works miracles not just with a word, but He also touches the bier that we may learn that His body is the body of Life.” (Cf. Leo, Letter 10 ad Flavian.)

Thomas, [ST,] part 3, q. 43, art. 2: “The soul of Christ is considered in two ways: first, according to its own power, either natural or gratuitous (inhering in Him habitually and subjectively). Second, as it is the instrument of the Word of God personally united to itself, for in this way it had an instrumental power to make miraculous changes.”

Gerson, Sermon de quat. domib., Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost: “Because of its hypostatic union with the Word, the humanity, as a secondary cause, shared in all of Christ’s miracles.”

Paraeus, in Iren., p. 268: “If, then, Christ the man is God, surely He did miracles with His own power, not with that of someone else, as did Peter. However, we teach that this power belonged formally to the deity and personally to the humanity because of the unity of the hypostasis.”

Third, the work of redemption.

§ 231. [C.] He completed the work of redemption in and through the flesh. The work of redemption is a truly divine work (Ps. 49:[7]; Isa. 59:16; etc.). But now, Christ’s human nature was not excluded from the work of redemption, but Christ completed that divine work in it, through it, and with it. The following passages prove this: “In the blood of Your covenant, You have freed the captives from the pit,” etc. (Zech. 9:11). “The Son of Man has come to give His life a ransom [ ] for many” (Matt. 20:28). “This is the blood of the new covenant, which will be shed for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). “This is My body, which is given for you” (Luke 22:19). “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). “The bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world” (John 6:51). “He bore our sins in His body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24). In these and similar passages of Scripture, the ransom for redemption is attributed to the offering of Christ’s body and the shedding of His blood that happened on the altar of the cross. Therefore, surely, in and through the assumed nature that truly divine work was done.

Fourth, the establishment of the ministry and the gathering of the Church.

§ 232. [D.] The establishment of the ministry and the gathering of the Church is also attributed to Christ as man. The establishment of the ministry and the gathering of the Church is a truly divine work (Ps. 68:[11]; 147:15; Isa. 6:8; 41:27; Hosea 12:10; etc.). But now, this work is attributed to Christ also as man. “All power has been given to Me in heaven and earth. Therefore go and teach all nations …. And, lo, I am with you all the days until the end of the age” (Matt. 28:18–20). Note here the inferential particle [“therefore”]: “To Me is given all power; therefore go and teach.” Note also the promise added: “I shall be with you.” From this we draw a conclusion as follows: According to whichever nature Christ was given all power in heaven and earth, and according to whichever nature He is present with us until the end of the age, according to that same nature He also established and preserves the ministry and gathers to Himself from the human race a perpetual Church. But now, it is according to His human nature that Christ was given all power. Therefore. (Cf. our Harm. de resurr., ch. 12, p. 448.) “After our Lord Jesus said these things to the apostles, He was taken up into heaven and sits at the right hand of God. And they went about everywhere preaching, the Lord working with them,” etc. (Mark 16:19–20). These words describe the fulfillment of the promise offered in Matthew: “I am with you.” The meaning is this: Because after His ascent Christ sat down at the right hand of God, being present everywhere and ruling powerfully, therefore He was able to be present with the apostles everywhere and to work with them as they preached the Gospel, by virtue and power of His sitting at the infinite right hand of God. “Christ ascended above all the heavens to fill all things. And He gave some prophets, others apostles, others evangelists, others teachers, that the saints might be prepared for the work of the ministry” (Eph. 4:10–12). Thus the fruit of the Lord’s ascension is the establishment and preservation of the ministry. Therefore as He ascended into heaven according to His human nature, so also He instituted and preserves the ministry according to the human nature. Here we should place the prophecies of the Old Testament. Ps. 22:[22]: “I shall tell Your name to my brothers; in the midst of the Church I shall praise You.” That is, “Freed from suffering and death, I shall establish and preserve the ministry of the Word, through which the benefits from My suffering and death are distributed in the Church.” Isa. 53:10: “When He sets down His soul for sin, He will see His long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord will be directed in His hand.”

Fifth, the sending and outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

§ 233. [E.] The sending and outpouring of the Holy Spirit also belongs to Christ as man. The outpouring and sending of the Holy Spirit is a truly divine work, as is evident. But now, Christ poured out the Holy Spirit on the apostles and sent Him into the hearts of believers also according to the human nature, which we prove: (1) From the personal union. Through the personal union, Christ’s human nature was “anointed with the oil of gladness,” or with the Holy Spirit, “beyond His companions” (Ps. 45:[7]). “He received the Holy Spirit without measure” (John 3:34). According to the human nature, Christ is “full of the Holy Spirit” (Luke 4:1). Therefore “of this fullness we have all received”

(John 1:16).

(2) From the title “Head.” Just as anointing ran down from Aaron’s head to his members [cf. Ps. 133:2], so from Christ our Head the vigor of the Spirit flows down to all the members of His mystical Body. But now, Christ is the Head of the Church also according to the human nature; therefore He bestows the Holy Spirit on believers also according to His human nature.

(3) From Christ’s prayer, “I shall ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete” (John 14:16). Whoever asks the Father to give the Holy Spirit teaches by asking that He does not of Himself have this power and authority to send the Holy Spirit but receives it from the Father. But now, this cannot be understood as a reference to Christ’s divine nature, because Christ as God has this power and authority by nature, through His eternal begetting from the Father. Therefore it is as man that Christ asks and receives from God the Father the power to send the Holy Spirit.

(4) From Christ’s breathing on the apostles. Through a physical breath, Christ distributed the Holy Spirit to the apostles (John 20:22) to show that the power to give the Holy Spirit had been given to Him also as man.

(5) From His exaltation. The sending of the Holy Spirit is the salutary end and effect of the exaltation of Christ and His sitting at the right hand of God. “If I go away, I shall send you a Paraclete” (John 16:7). “Being exalted at the right hand of God and receiving the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, He poured out this which you see” (Acts 2:33). But now, Christ was exalted and placed at the right hand of God according to the human nature. Therefore.

[6] From the administration of Christ’s office. The sending of the Holy Spirit belongs to the prophetic and royal office of Christ because when He was exalted to the right hand of God, He established the Holy Spirit as the teacher of the Church. Through Him He is effectual for conversion and salvation in the hearts of human beings, and He strengthens them against all the attacks of Satan and the world. The administration of the prophetic and royal office, however, befits Christ according to both natures.

Cleansing from sins.

§ 234. [F.] Cleansing from sins is also attributed to Christ as man. The remission of sins and cleansing from sins is a truly divine work (Isa. 43:25; Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21). But now, these works are attributed to Christ also as man. Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24: “The Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins.” Note here the emphasis of the expression “on earth.” If the Son of Man has the power to forgive sins on earth, then surely as man He was not removed from the power of the Keys, which is exercised on earth in forgiving sins. Because the salutary eating of His body and drinking of His blood ought to result in the forgiveness of sins in believers, therefore He presents His body not in heaven but on earth along with the bread and wine to those who eat and drink as a confirmation of the promise of the forgiveness of sins. In Luke 24:47 He commands that they “preach in His name the forgiveness of sins.” But now, Christ’s name includes not only the divine but also the human nature. “The blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, cleanses us from all sins” (1 John 1:7). Therefore surely Christ’s blood has the power to wash and cleanse us of our sins. “If the sprinkled blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sanctify defiled persons for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who offered Himself to God through the eternal Spirit, purify our conscience from dead works” (Heb. 9:13–14).

The raising of the dead.

§ 235. [G.] The raising of the dead also befits Christ as man, and this, as is evident, is a truly divine work. John 5:[28–]29: “Those who are in the tombs will hear the voice of the Son of Man, and those who hear it will come forth.”

The administration of judgment.

[H.] The administration of judgment is attributed to Christ as man, and this, too, is a divine work. “He gave Him the power to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man” (John 5:27). Compare what we said about the power to give life and the power to execute judgment in the second part [§ 230]. You see, to the extent that the resurrection from the dead and the administration of judgment are considered with regard to their origin [ principium], namely, of the power to act effectually, to that extent they pertain to the second class of gifts. But to the extent that they are considered with regard to the effect and work, to that extent we can refer them to this third class of gifts.

The glorification of the devout.

[I.] Finally, the salvation and glorification of the devout [ pii] also befit Christ as man. “You will call His name Jesus, because He will save His people” (Matt. 1:[21]). But now, Christ is our “Jesus” not only with regard to the divine nature but also with regard to the human nature. “No other name is given under heaven,” etc. (Acts 4:12). But this name includes not only the divine but also the human nature.

The worship of religious adoration.

§ 236. (IV) Until now we have been showing that divine names, attributes, and works belong to Christ the man. It remains for us to show that we also owe Him, according to His human nature, the divine worship of religious adoration. Note here that we are claiming that Christ is to be worshiped by us neither according to His divine nor His human nature alone, but according to both natures, and that His human nature or assumed flesh is and is said to be “deserving of worship” []: (1) Not in and of itself with regard to its essential properties, because it does not subsist of itself. Therefore it is also not to be adored of itself. (2) Nor by accident, just as when the king is honored, his purple robe is also honored by accident. Because it does not subsist in the Word as an accident but is part of the person, it is not to be adored according to accident. (3) Nor because of a habitual excellence subjectively inherent in it by which it is superior to the angels, in which sense and respect the Papists attribute hyperdulia¹⁴ to it. (4) Nor because it had been changed in substance into the divine nature or had been absorbed by the divine nature, which was the heresy of Eutyches and Schwenkfeld. (5) Nor in the sense that it constitutes its own person distinct from the Word, which opinion in Nestorius the Council of Ephesus condemned, anathema 8: “If anyone dares to say that the assumed man ought to be worshiped together with God the Word, and glorified together with Him, and called ‘God’ together with Him, as one with another—for the added preposition ‘together with’ compels this to be understood—and does not rather venerate Emmanuel with one adoration and pay to Him one glorification, according to the passage ‘the Word became flesh,’ let him be accursed.” But Christ, God and man, is adored with one and the same adoration, because there is one undivided hypostasis of both natures.

§ 237. We prove our position: [A.] From clear passages of Scripture. Ps. 72:11: “All kings will worship Him, all nations will serve Him.” The entire context and the New Testament’s quoting make it clear that this psalm must be taken not as a reference to Solomon, the type, but to Solomon’s antitype, namely Christ, who was “far more excellent than Solomon” (Matt. 12:[42]). He is said to be deserving of worship even according to the human nature, in respect to which He is said to “come down like rain on wool and like drops [that] water the earth,” [Ps. 72]:6, that is, in regard to which He will come down from heaven, assume true flesh from the Virgin Mary, and with respect to which He is said to “rule from sea to sea,” v. [8]. However, these befit Him also according to His human nature. So, too, does adoration.

Ps. 97:7: “Let all the angels worship Him.” The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (1:6) applies these words to Christ, the God-man, as the firstborn of the heavenly Father, who was brought into the world. Theophylact, on Hebrews 1: “The Father brings the Son into the world in no other way than in the flesh.”

Ps. 118:[25–]26: “Hosanna! O Lord, give prosperous success. Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.” With this rejoicing, blessing, and invoking the people of Jerusalem receive Christ, the Son of David (Matt. 21:9; Mark 11:9; Luke 19:38), something that Christ holds and defends as valid and pleasing against the Pharisees. Therefore invocation and blessing befit Christ as the Son of David.

Isa. 11:1–2, 10: “A shoot will come forth from the root of Jesse, and a branch will grow out of his root, and the Spirit of the Lord will rest on Him…. The nations will entreat Him.” Therefore Christ is owed the worship of adoration even according as He is a shoot come forth from the root of Jesse and so as true man. Paul cites that prophecy with these words: “The root of Jesse will come” (namely, the famous root), “and He will rise to rule the nations, and the nations will hope in Him” (Rom. 15:12). Therefore the nations will hope in Christ according as He is the man who will rise from the root of Jesse, and they will invoke Him.

Isa. 45:23: “I have sworn by Myself, the word of righteousness will go forth from My mouth, because every knee will bend to Me, and every tongue will swear.” In Rom. 14:11, Paul refers this passage to Christ, who will come as the Judge of the world on the Last Day. But now, Christ will execute that judgment not only according to the divine nature but also according to the human nature. Therefore. We also add this argument from the text: According to whichever nature Christ is our righteousness, according to that same nature also must every knee bow to Him, as the immediate context shows: “To Me every knee will bow and every tongue swear: ‘My righteousness [is] in the Lord.’ “ But now, Christ is our righteousness not only according to the divine nature but also according to the human nature (Jer. 23:5; 33:15; 1 Cor. 1:30). Therefore.

Dan. 7:13–14: “I saw in a vision at night, and behold, with the clouds of heaven came one like the Son of Man, and He came to the Ancient of Days, and they made Him come into His sight. And He gave Him power and glory and kingship, and all peoples, tribes, and languages will serve Him.” According to whichever nature the Messiah is the Son of Man, came in the clouds of heaven, and received from the heavenly Father power and kingship, according to that same nature we must serve Him religiously. Yet He is the Son of Man, etc., according to the human nature. Therefore.

Joel 2:32: “He who invokes the name of the Lord will be saved.” Paul applies this to Christ the God-man in Rom. 10:13.

John 5:22[–23], 27: “The Father has given the Son all judgment in order that all may honor the Son just as () they honor the Father … And He gave Him power also to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.” According to whichever nature the Father gave the Son all judgment—that is, the whole governance over the whole world and especially the kingdom of grace—and the power to execute judgment, according to the same nature He is also to be adored religiously and is to be given equal worship of honor with the Father. The logic of the connection depends on the word [“in order that”], which expresses the end because of which the Father gave the Son all judgment, and on the word [“just as”], which shows the equality of honor. But now, it was according to the human nature that the Father gave the Son all judgment and power to execute judgment, as is clear from the specification in v. 27, “because () He is the Son of Man,” and from the word [“a”] in the same verse, which joins Christ’s human nature with the divine with an undivided connection. Therefore.

Phil. 2:9–11: “Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him a name that is above every name, that at the name Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and on earth and beneath the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of the Father.” According to whichever nature Christ was emptied and exalted and received by grace a name that is above every name, according to that same nature every knee must bow to Him, that is, all creatures must worship Him religiously. But it was according to His human nature that He was emptied and exalted. Therefore.

Rev. 5:12–14: “The angels and the twenty-four elders,” that is, the entire church triumphant, “say: ‘Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.’ And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth, in the sea, and all things that are in them, saying, ‘To Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever.’ And they adored the Living One forever.” According to whichever nature Christ is the Lamb who was slain and has been placed on the Father’s throne, according to that same nature does the church triumphant adore Him. But now, He was the slain Lamb, etc., according to the human nature. Therefore.

§ 238. [B.] From rational arguments: (1) From the personal union. The worship of religious adoration is due to that nature which forms one person with the Son of God. Christ’s assumed human nature forms one person with the Son of God. Therefore. Both premises are deduced from Heb. 1:4–6, where it is said of Christ: “He was made as much superior to the angels” (that is, according to the human nature) “as the name is more excellent that was appointed to Him” (, again according to the human nature). “For to which of the angels did He say, ‘You are My Son?’ … Again, when He brings His firstborn into the world, He says, ‘Let all angels adore Him.’ “ From these it follows clearly that, because of the majesty of His person, the angels are supposed to worship Christ not only according to the divine but also according to the human nature. Now, whatever honor is presented to Christ by the angels should be presented to Him all the more by human beings. But the angels present the honor of religious adoration to Christ according to the human nature (Heb. 1:6), for the angels adore Him according to that nature in which He has been given a more excellent name. Therefore. The Word with His flesh is the Second Person of the Trinity. Therefore we must worship the Word with His flesh. The hypostasis of the Word after the incarnation is the hypostasis not only of the divine but also of the human nature, and the person of the incarnate Son of God does not subsist in only one nature and of one nature, but in two and of two natures. Therefore whoever worships and adores just one nature and passes over and excludes the other does not worship and adore the whole person but dissolves the union.

(2) From the communication of divine glory and majesty. According to whichever nature divine majesty and glory, all power in heaven and earth, omniscience, omnipresence, etc., were communicated to Christ, according to that same nature He is also to be worshiped and invoked religiously. The logic of the connection is clear: From Dan. 7:[13–]14: “The Ancient of Days gave the Son of Man power and kingship that all tribes and languages might serve Him.” And it is clear from the fact that the foundation for religious invocation is the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence of Him who is to be invoked religiously. Ursinus, commentary on Isaiah 2, f. 81: “Adoration attributes [to Him] a looking into hearts, presence in all places, and infinite power to help all who call upon Him.” Junius, De invoc. sanct., f. 1703 of his Opera: “Whoever is to be adored with the devout affection of our heart, three things must be in him: to know, to will, to be able.” But now, it is according to His human nature that divine majesty and glory, all power in heaven and earth, etc., have been communicated to Christ. Therefore.

(3) From the administration of His office. According to whichever nature Christ is our Mediator, Redeemer, Savior, our Jesus, Judge of the living and the dead, King, and Lord, according to that same nature He is also to be invoked religiously by us. The logic is that according to whichever nature He confers spiritual and heavenly benefits on us, according to the same we must also call on Him and ask Him for spiritual benefits. And according to whichever nature Christ has acquired and earned spiritual and heavenly benefits for us, according to the same He is to be invoked religiously and asked to distribute the heavenly benefits. But now, it is according to His human nature that Christ is our Mediator, Redeemer, Savior, etc. Therefore.

(4) From His exaltation. According to whichever nature Christ was exalted and placed at the right hand of God, according to that same nature He is also to be invoked religiously. The logic of the connection depends on the apostle’s words: “He has highly exalted Him and given Him a name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow” (Phil. 2:9[–10]), and from the doxology of the church triumphant: “The Lamb that was slain is worthy to receive power and blessing” (Rev. 5:12). But now, it was according to His human nature that Christ was exalted. Therefore.

(5) From the institution and conferring of Baptism. In whosesoever name we are baptized, He must also be invoked religiously. (The logic is taken: From Acts 22:16: “Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, having called upon His name.” From the genuine interpretation of the phrase [“in the name,” Matt. 28:19], given in our treatise On Baptism [Commonplace XXIII], § 80. And from the elegant statement of Basil, Letter 78: “As we are baptized, so we worship; as we worship, so we believe.”) But now, we are baptized into Christ’s name also according to the human nature: Because the name “Son” includes not only the divinity but also the assumed humanity, because the Son is not two but one. Because we are said to be baptized “into Christ’s death” (Rom. 6:4). Because Christ was given all power in heaven and earth according to the human nature, and from that power Baptism was instituted. Because the power of Baptism depends on the merit of the God-man Christ. Because we are said to be baptized “in the name of Christ” (Acts 2:38) and “of Jesus” (Acts 19:5), which includes both natures, etc. Therefore we must devoutly call on Him also according to the human nature.

(6) From the connection of faith and invocation. In whomever we believe and hope, Him we also invoke religiously (Rom. 10:14). But now, we believe and hope in Christ the God-man not as God alone but also as man: “Blessed are all who trust in Him” (Ps. 2:[12]). “Whoever believes will not be in haste” (Isa. 28:16), which Paul applies to Christ the God-man: “Everyone who believes in Him will not be confounded” (Rom. 10:11). “You believe in God; believe also in Me” (John 14:1). Therefore.

§ 239. [C.] From examples. Christ as God and man, even in His state of emptying, was adored by the Magi (Matt. 2:11), by the disciples on the ship (Matt. 8:25), by Peter (Matt. 14:30), by the Canaanite woman (Matt. 15:22; Mark 7:25), by the father of the lunatic (Matt. 17:15; Mark 9:24), by the blind men (Matt. 20:[30]; Mark 10:47; John 9:[38]), by a leper (Luke 17:[15]), by the thief on the cross (Luke 23:[42]). He was adored in His state of exaltation after the resurrection by the disciples (Matt. 28:17; Luke 24:52), by Thomas (John 20:28). He was adored after His ascent into heaven by Stephen (Acts 7:60). In the introductions of his Epistles, Paul asks for “grace, peace, and mercy” not only from God the Father but also from Christ for the churches. Calvin, Conc. evang. and commentary on John, cites very many of these examples, as of the Magi, the centurion, the blind man (John 9), Thomas, etc., but he takes this as “merely civil honor.” However, the circumstances of the text, the quality of the petition, and the commendation of faith attributed by Christ to such worshipers bear witness that these examples describe religious adoration, something that many of the followers of Calvin acknowledge.

§ 240. [D.] We cited statements of the fathers in our treatise On the Person of Christ [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 7], § 115, to which the following should be added. Cyprian, Sermon de asc. Christi, f. 475: “With festive affections, the heavenly host of angels venerates the man raised above them, whom the Father had crowned with glory and honor, placed at His right hand, and given this unique privilege, that at His name every knee should bow.”

Athanasius, Letter ad Adelphium contra Arian., p. 133: “We adore the incarnate Word of God. For though His flesh is of itself a part of created things, nevertheless it has been made the body of God, and we do not bestow adoration on a body divided and apart from the Word.”

Cyril, De rect. fid. ad Regin., col. 286, and in Defens. anathem. 8: “If anyone says that the flesh of our Lord is not worthy of worship, as of a man, and that we must not adore it as the flesh of our Lord and God, the holy catholic Church declares him accursed.”

Ambrose, De Spiritu s., bk. 3, ch. 12, f. 149: “Let us see, lest the prophet be saying that we must worship that earth which the Lord Jesus took into the assumption of the flesh. So we take ‘footstool’ to mean ‘the earth,’ but we take ‘the earth’ to mean the flesh of Christ, which we worship today in the mysteries and which the apostles worshiped in the Lord Jesus. Christ, you see, has not been divided.” Ibid.: “Surely the angels worship not only Christ’s divinity but also His footstool.”

Leo, Sermon 8 quadrages.: “Do not think that there is only divinity or only humanity in Christ, but believe both faithfully, and worship faithfully.”

Theodoret, on Hebrews 1: “Christ has always received worship and adoration from the angels, for He was always God. But now they also adore Him as man.” Ibid.: “The Lord’s body, glorified with divine glory, is adored by the heavenly powers.”

Theophylact, on Matthew 28, f. 51: “Because the human nature that was condemned at first has now been united with the Word of God personally and sits in heaven and is worshiped by the angels, He says justly, ‘All power has been given to Me.’ ”

Oecumenius, on Hebrews 1, f. 804, in the Greek: “With the flesh, let the angels worship the Son, and let them worship Him who is with flesh.” Philippians 2, f. 66: “We must consider these things, then, in regard to His incarnation and not in regard to the divinity,” namely, that Christ has been given such a name.

Bede, on Philippians 2, f. 856: “ ‘He gave Him a name that is above every name.’ To Christ, according to humanity; to Christ, dead according to the flesh, rising and ascending, He gave a name that is above every name,” etc.

Damascenus, bk. 3, ch. 8:

 

The one Christ is perfect God and perfect man whom we worship along with the Father and the Spirit with one worship, worshiping even His spotless flesh. We do not say that the flesh is undeserving of worship, for we worship it in the one hypostasis of the Word, which indeed became its hypostasis. When we do this, we do not worship the creature, for we worship Him not as mere flesh but as flesh united with divinity, and because His two natures are brought into one person and one hypostasis of the Word of God.

 

Ibid.: “I fear to touch the coal because of the fire joined together with the wood. I worship both together, belonging to Christ, because of the divinity united with the flesh.” (Cf. the same, bk. 4, ch. 2.)

§ 241. [E.] Some of our adversaries seem to support the truth, though they later twist it into an alien sense. (1) Of the Papists, Busaeus writes (Disp. contra Gerlach., thesis 78): “By reason of the Word with which it is personally united, the flesh, together with the divinity, is to be adored with one adoration.” (Later, however, he explains or rather perverts this very thing. According to him, the sense is not that the flesh, according as it is personally united with the Word, is the object of religious adoration, but that “it is the flesh of Him who is the object of adoration.” You see, he explains this with the metaphor taken from the king’s purple robe, which is honored when the king is honored, not because it is the object of the honor but because it is the purple robe of him who is honored.)

(2) Of the Calvinists, Beza, Ad quartam Brentiani libri partem de adorat. Christi, f. 619: “We admit that we fully agree with those words that he cites from Augustine: In Christ the Lord, the humanity not just alone but united with the divinity, one Son of God, true God and true man—whoever despises worshiping will suffer the eternal penalty of death.” And a little later: “Indeed, let it be the flesh of God, not God, and hence let it be adored not bare or considered in itself, but as the flesh of Him who, because He is God, cannot fail to be adored without final destruction.” Resp. ad act. coll., part 1, p. 162: “Also to the very flesh, that is, to the humanity of Christ, adoration and invocation are directed, yet not simply but in a certain respect, that is, not according as it is simply and in itself a creature—for that would be pure idolatry—but according as it is the humanity of the Son of God.” (It will become clear in the antithesis how he perverts in other places these things that seem to be said rightly.)

P[eter] Mart[yr], Loc. comm., class 4, ch. 10, § 49: “We do not at all deny that Christ’s flesh must be worshiped because of the conjunction that it has with the divine nature.” Orat. de morte Christ., f. 202: “Do we give this worship to the humanity or the divinity? To the whole Christ. We do not divide the natures (for when we show respect to the king, we do not command him to put aside his purple robe), though the manner of adoration is taken from the divinity.” Defens. de Euch. contra Gardiner., fol. 365: “What, then, do they say? That the flesh of Christ is worshiped in the mysteries. We do not deny that this ought to be done.”

Zanchi, De trib. Eloh., bk. 2, ch. 1, p. 28: “Also, every knee shall bow to the man Christ, not simply but because that human nature is united hypostatically with the divine nature.” The same, on Philippians 2, f. 128:

The name “Jesus” is the name of one person who consists of two natures, divine and human. If, then, at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, it follows that this whole person is to be adored, and thus the flesh with the deity—with one adoration—as the Council of Ephesus has defined it and as the apostle here expressly asserts it. For adoration is due to the entire person. The adoration must not be divided, because the person cannot be divided. Rather, just as the person is one and the same, so He must be adored with one and the same adoration. It is true that the deity is worshiped of itself, but Christ’s human flesh only in the person and because of the deity. But because the apostle teaches that adoration is to be directed to the whole person, there is no reason why the flesh would be separated from the adoration of the deity.

 

The same, De Filii Dei incarnat., bk. 2, f. 199: “Along with Athanasius, the Synod of Ephesus, Cyril, and other fathers, we believe that God’s flesh (that is, Christ’s flesh) is to be worshiped, because it is part of His person since it was assumed into the unity of the person.”

Franciscus Junius, Theses de person. Patris et Filii, f. 1631: “Sixth, the deity of the Word is proved by His glory and majesty, which we are to worship with religious worship. I am speaking about the natural and essential glory that belongs to the person according to His divinity of itself, but according to His humanity, by grace of the union.” Disp. de oratione, p. 170: “Religious prayer must be offered to the Son as our mediator and only intercessor before the Father—not as man or man only, but as He is God and man by the unity of the person, as the two natures are inseparably united.”

Ursinus, De sacramentis, ch. 5, f. 435: “In every place that we know Christ is physically present, there we owe Him the honor of adoration. We freely assert with Augustine, on Psalm 98, that no one should eat the flesh of Christ unless he have first worshiped [it]. Not only do we not sin by worshiping it, but we sin by not worshiping it.”

Sohnius, Opera, vol. [3], explanation of Psalm 65, p. 231: “Some orthodox fathers such as Cyril, Contra Nestorium, have said that Christ’s flesh is to be worshiped not with regard to the essence but with regard to the hypostasis or subsistence, and because it is the flesh not of some man of himself but of the Son of God through the hypostatic union.” (These words were unable to please the editor of the works of Sohnius, so he noted in the margin: “Scripture says the man Christ is to be worshiped, not the flesh of Christ.”)

Hospinian, De orig. et progressu Form. Concord., fol. 293b:

 

It is outside of controversy among the orthodox that we must worship the whole Christ as God and man with a single invocation and that His humanity cannot and should not be separated from the divinity in worship because it is the humanity of God and has been united with the Word. The former is properly adored in the humanity as in its own temple, and for this reason Cyril calls it the “adorable nature.” For because of the union, the whole Christ, and even the flesh along with the Word, is adored.

 

Folio 295: “No one denies that the whole Christ, God and man, must be worshiped and that the human nature is a partaker of this worship. The reason for this honor or adoration is solely the adorable union of the flesh with the Word, which is properly worshiped.” (However, the union itself is not worshiped but the united natures.)

Bucanus, Locus 28, f. 267: “The human nature in Christ, considered in itself, cannot be worshiped because it is a creature but only according as it has been inseparably united with the person of the Son of God, for, as Damascenus says, the one hypostasis is worshiped along with the flesh with one worship by every creature.” Folio 371: “Christ is to be invoked under two names, first, as God, the author of all goodness, and, second, as Mediator and Intercessor.”

↑ Back to top