Chapter XIII. Christ's Assumption Of Real Humanity.

The arguments for the Divinity of Christ, which has already been proved by clear and irrefragable testimonies, it would, I conceive, be unnecessary to reiterate. It remains, then, for us to examine, how, after having been invested with our flesh, he has performed the office of a Mediator. Now, the reality of his humanity was anciently opposed by the Manichæans and by the Marcionites. Of whom the latter imagined to themselves a visionary phantom instead of the body of Christ; and the former dreamed that he had a celestial body. But both these notions are contrary to numerous and powerful testimonies of [pg 429] Scripture. For the blessing is promised, neither in a heavenly seed, nor in a phantom of a man, but in the seed of Abraham and Jacob; nor is the eternal throne promised to an aërial man, but to the Son of David and the fruit of his loins.1140Wherefore, on his manifestation in the flesh, he is called the Son of David and of Abraham, not because he was merely born of the virgin after having been formed of some aërial substance; but because, according to Paul, he was “made of the seed of David according to the flesh;” as the same apostle in another place informs us, that “according to the flesh” he descended from the Jews.1141Wherefore the Lord himself, not content with the appellation of man, frequently calls himself also the Son of Man—a term which he intended as a more express declaration of his real humanity. As the Holy Spirit has on so many occasions, by so many instruments, and with such great diligence and simplicity, declared a fact by no means abstruse in itself, who could have supposed that any mortals would have such consummate impudence as to dare to obscure it with subtilties? But more testimonies offer themselves, if we wished to multiply them; such as this of Paul, that “God sent forth his Son made of a woman;”1142and innumerable others, from which he appears to have been liable to hunger, thirst, cold, and other infirmities of our nature. But from the multitude we must chiefly select those, which may conduce to the edification of our minds in true faith; as when it is said, that “he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham;” that he took flesh and blood, “that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death;” for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren; that “in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest;” that “we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities;”1143and the like. To the same purpose is what we have just before mentioned, that it was necessary for the sins of the world to be expiated in our flesh; which is clearly asserted by Paul.1144And certainly all that the Father has conferred on Christ, belongs to us, because he “is the head, from whom the whole body is fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth.”1145There will otherwise be no propriety in the declaration, “that God giveth the Spirit not by measure unto him, that we may all receive of his fulness;”1146 since nothing would be more absurd, than that God should be enriched [pg 430] in his essence by any adventitious gift. For this reason also Christ himself says in another place, “For their sakes I sanctify myself.”1147

II. The passages which they adduce in confirmation of this error, they most foolishly pervert; nor do their frivolous subtilties at all avail them in their endeavours to obviate the arguments which I have advanced in defence of our sentiments. Marcion imagines that Christ invested himself with a phantom instead of a real body; because he is said to have been “made in the likeness of men,” and to have been “found in fashion as a man.”1148But in drawing this conclusion, he totally overlooks the scope of Paul in that passage. For his design is, not to describe the nature of the body which Christ assumed, but to assert that whilst he might have displayed his Divinity, he manifested himself in the condition of an abject and despised man. For, to exhort us to humility by the example of Christ, he shows, that being God, he might have instantaneously made a conspicuous exhibition of his glory to the world; yet that he receded from his right, and voluntarily debased himself, for that he assumed the form of a servant, and content with that humble station, suffered his Divinity to be hidden behind the veil of humanity. The subject of this statement, without doubt, is not the nature of Christ, but his conduct. From the whole context also it is easy to infer, that Christ humbled himself by the assumption of a real human nature. For what is the meaning of this clause, “that he was found in fashion as a man,” but that for a time his Divine glory was invisible, and nothing appeared but the human form, in a mean and abject condition? For otherwise there would be no foundation for this assertion of Peter, that he was “put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit,”1149if the Son of God had not been subject to the infirmities of human nature. This is more plainly expressed by Paul, when he says, that “he was crucified through weakness.”1150The same is confirmed by his exaltation, because he is positively asserted to have obtained a new glory after his humiliation; which could only be applicable to a real man composed of body and soul. Manichæus fabricates for Christ an aërial body; because he is called “the second Adam, the Lord from heaven.”1151But the apostle in that place is not speaking of a celestial corporeal essence, but of a spiritual energy, which, being diffused from Christ, raises us into life. That energy we have already seen that Peter and Paul distinguish from his body. The orthodox doctrine, therefore, concerning the body of Christ, is firmly established [pg 431] by this very passage. For unless Christ had the same corporeal nature with us, there would be no force in the argument which Paul so vehemently urges, that if Christ be risen from the dead, then we also shall rise; that if we rise not, neither is Christ risen.1152Of whatever cavils either the ancient Manichæans, or their modern disciples, endeavour to avail themselves, they cannot succeed. Their nugatory pretence that Christ is called “the Son of man,” because he was promised to men, is a vain subterfuge; for it is evident that in the Hebrew idiom, the Son of man is a phrase expressive of a real man. And Christ undoubtedly retained the phraseology of his own language. There is no room for disputing what is meant by the sons of Adam. And not to go any further, it will be fully sufficient to quote a passage in the eighth psalm which the apostles apply to Christ: “What is man, that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man, that thou visitest him?” This phrase expresses the true humanity of Christ; because, though he was not immediately begotten by a mortal father, yet his descent was derived from Adam. Nor would there otherwise be any truth in what we have just quoted, that Christ became a partaker of flesh and blood, that he might bring many sons to glory—language which clearly styles him to be a partaker of the same common nature with us. In the same sense the apostle says, that “both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one.” For the context proves that this refers to a community of nature; because he immediately adds, “for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.”1153For if he had already said that the faithful are of God, what reason could Jesus Christ have to be ashamed of such great dignity? But because Christ, of his infinite grace, associates himself with those who are vile and contemptible, it is therefore said that he is not ashamed. It is a vain objection which they make, that on this principle the impious will become the brethren of Christ; because we know that the children of God are born, not of flesh and blood, but of the Spirit through faith; therefore a community of nature alone is not sufficient to constitute a fraternal union. But though it is only to the faithful that the apostle assigns the honour of being one with Christ, yet it does not follow that unbelievers are not, according to the flesh, born of the same original; as, when we say that Christ was made man, to make us children of God, this expression extends not to all men; because faith is the medium by which we are spiritually ingrafted into the body of Christ. They likewise raise a foolish contention respecting the appellation of first-born. They plead that Christ ought to [pg 432] have been born at the beginning, immediately of Adam, in order “that he might be the first-born among many brethren.”1154But the primogeniture attributed to him refers not to age, but to the degree of honour and the eminence of power which he enjoys. Nor is there any more plausibility in their notion, that Christ is said to have assumed the nature of man, and not of angels, because he received the human race into his favour. For the apostle, to magnify the honour with which Christ has favoured us, compares us with the angels, before whom in this respect we are preferred.1155And if the testimony of Moses be duly considered, where he says that the Seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent,1156it will decide the whole controversy. For that prediction relates not to Christ alone, but to the whole human race. Because the victory was to be gained for us by Christ, God pronounces, in general, that the posterity of the woman should be superior to the devil. Whence it follows, that Christ descended from the human race; because the design of God, in that promise to Eve, was to comfort her with a good hope, that she might not be overcome with sorrow.

III. Those passages, where Christ is called “the seed of Abraham,” and “the fruit of the body of David,” they with equal folly and wickedness involve in allegories. For if the word seed had been used in an allegorical sense, Paul certainly would not have been silent respecting it, where, without any figure, he explicitly affirms, that there are not many sons of Abraham who are Redeemers, but Christ alone.1157Equally unfounded is their notion, that Christ is called the Son of David in no other sense, but because he had been promised, and was at length manifested in due time. For after Paul has declared him to have been “made of the seed of David,” the immediate addition of this phrase, “according to the flesh,”1158is certainly a designation of nature. Thus also in another place he calls him “God blessed for ever,” and distinctly states that he descended from the Jews “as concerning the flesh.”1159Now, if he was not really begotten of the seed of David, what is the meaning of this expression, “the fruit of his loins?”1160What becomes of this promise, “Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne?”1161They likewise trifle in a sophistical manner with the genealogy of Christ, as it is given by Matthew. For though he mentions the parents of Joseph, and not of Mary, yet as he was treating of a thing then generally known, he thought it sufficient to show that Joseph descended from the seed of David, while there could be no doubt that [pg 433] Mary was of the same family. But Luke goes further, with a view to signify, that the salvation procured by Christ is common to all mankind; since Christ, the author of salvation, is descended from Adam, the common parent of all. I grant, indeed, that from the genealogy it cannot be inferred that Christ is the Son of David, any otherwise than as he was born of the Virgin. But the modern Marcionites, to give a plausibility to their error, that Christ derived his body from nothing, contend that women have no generative semen; and thus they subvert the elements of nature. But as this is not a theological question, and the arguments which they adduce are so futile that there will be no difficulty in repelling them, I shall not meddle with points belonging to philosophy and the medical art. It will be sufficient for me to obviate the objection which they allege from the Scripture, namely, that Aaron and Jehoiada married wives of the tribe of Judah; and thus, if women contain generative semen, the distinction of tribes was confounded. But it is sufficiently known, that, for the purposes of political regulation, the posterity is always reckoned from the father; yet that the superiority of the male sex forms no objection to the coöperation of the female semen in the process of generation. This solution extends to all the genealogies. Frequently, when the Scripture exhibits a catalogue of names, it mentions none but men; is it therefore to be concluded that women are nothing? Even children themselves know that women are comprehended under their husbands. For this reason women are said to bear children to their husbands, because the name of the family always remains with the males. Now, as it is a privilege conceded to the superiority of the male sex, that children should be accounted noble or ignoble, according to the condition of their fathers, so, on the other hand, it is held by the lawyers, that in a state of slavery the offspring follows the condition of the mother. Whence we may infer, that the offspring is produced partly from the seed of the mother; and the common language of all nations implies that mothers have some share in the generation of children. This is in harmony with the Divine law, which otherwise would have no ground for the prohibition of the marriage of an uncle with his sister's daughter; because in that case there would be no consanguinity. It would also be lawful for a man to marry his uterine sister, provided she were begotten by another father. But while I grant that a passive power is ascribed to women, I also maintain that the same that is affirmed of men is indiscriminately predicated of them. Nor is Christ himself said to be “made” by a woman, but “of a woman.”1162Some of these persons, casting off all modesty, [pg 434] impudently inquire, whether we choose to say that Christ was procreated from the menstrual seed of the Virgin. I will inquire, on the other hand, whether he was not united with the blood of his mother; and this they must be constrained to confess. It is properly inferred, therefore, from the language of Matthew, that inasmuch as Christ was begotten of Mary,1163he was procreated from her seed; as when Booz is said to have been begotten of Rahab,1164it denotes a similar generation. Nor is it the design of Matthew here to describe the Virgin as a tube through which Christ passed, but to discriminate this miraculous conception from ordinary generation, in that Jesus Christ was generated of the seed of David by means of a Virgin. In the same sense, and for the same reason that Isaac is said to have been begotten of Abraham, Solomon of David, and Joseph of Jacob, so Christ is said to have been begotten of his mother. For the evangelist has written the whole of his account upon this principle; and to prove that Christ descended from David, he has contented himself with this one fact, that he was begotten of Mary. Whence it follows, that he took for granted the consanguinity of Mary and Joseph.

IV. The absurdities, with which these opponents wish to press us, are replete with puerile cavils. They esteem it mean and dishonourable to Christ, that he should derive his descent from men; because he could not be exempt from the universal law, which concludes all the posterity of Adam, without exception, under sin.1165But the antithesis, which we find in Paul, easily solves this difficulty: “As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, even so by the righteousness of one, the grace of God hath abounded.”1166To this the following passage corresponds: “The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.”1167Therefore the same apostle, in another place, by teaching us that Christ was “sent in the likeness of sinful flesh”1168to satisfy the law, expressly distinguishes him from the common condition of mankind; so that he is a real man, and yet free from all fault and corruption. They betray their ignorance in arguing that, if Christ is perfectly immaculate, and was begotten of the seed of Mary, by the secret operation of the Spirit, then it follows that there is no impurity in the seed of women, but only in that of men. For we do not represent Christ as perfectly immaculate, merely because he was born of the seed of a woman unconnected with any man, but because he was sanctified by the Spirit, so that his generation was pure and holy, such as it would have been before the fall of Adam. And it [pg 435] is a fixed maxim with us, that whenever the Scripture mentions the purity of Christ, it relates to a real humanity; because to assert the purity of Deity would be quite unnecessary. The sanctification, also, of which he speaks in the seventeenth chapter of John,1169could have no reference to the Divine nature. Nor do we, as they pretend, imagine two kinds of seed in Adam, notwithstanding Christ was free from all contagion. For the generation of man is not naturally and originally impure and corrupt, but only accidentally so, in consequence of the fall. Therefore we need not wonder, that Christ, who was to restore our integrity, was exempted from the general corruption. But what they urge on us as an absurdity, that if the Word of God was clothed with flesh, it was therefore confined within the narrow prison of an earthly body, is mere impudence; because, although the infinite essence of the Word is united in one person with the nature of man, yet we have no idea of its incarceration or confinement. For the Son of God miraculously descended from heaven, yet in such a manner that he never left heaven; he chose to be miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin, to live on the earth, and to be suspended on the cross; and yet he never ceased to fill the universe, in the same manner as from the beginning.