Chapter 13. That Christ Took Upon Him the True Substance of the Flesh of Man

Now, unless I am deceived, it were superfluous to treat again of the godhead of Christ, which has already in many other places been proved with plain and strong testimonies. It remains therefore to be seen, how he being clothed with our flesh, has fulfilled the office of Mediator. The truth of his human nature has in the old time been impugned both by the Manichees and the Marcionites: of whom, the Marcionites feigned a ghost in stead of the body of Christ, and the Manichees dreamed that he had a heavenly flesh. But both many and strong testimonies of the Scripture do stand against them both. For the blessing is promised neither in a heavenly seed, nor in the counterfeit shape of man, but in the seed of Abraham and Jacob. Neither is the eternal throne promised to a man made of air, but to the son of David and to the fruit of his womb. Therefore being delivered in the flesh, he is called the son of David and Abraham: not because he is only born of the womb of the Virgin, and created in the air, but because (as Paul expounds it) he is according to the flesh made of the seed of David: as in another place the Apostle teaches, that he descended of the Jews. For which cause the Lord himself, not contented with the bare name of man, does oftentimes call himself the son of man, meaning to express more plainly that he was man truly issued of the seed of mankind. Since the Holy Ghost has so often by so many means with so great diligence and simplicity declared a thing not obscure of itself, who would have thought any men to be so shameless as to presume yet to spread mists to darken it? And yet we have other testimonies at hand, if we wished to heap up more of them. As is that saying of Paul: that God sent his son made of woman. And innumerable other places, whereby it appears that he was subject to hunger, thirst, cold, and other infirmities of our nature. But out of many these are chiefly to be chosen, that may most avail to edify our minds in true confidence. As, where it is said, that he gave not so great honor to the angels, as to take their nature upon him: but took our nature, that in flesh and blood he might, by death, destroy him that had the power of death. Again, that by benefit of that communion we are reckoned his brethren. Again, that he ought to have been made like to his brethren, that he might be made a merciful and faithful intercessor: that we have not a bishop that cannot be a companion of our infirmities. And such like. And for the same purpose serves that which we touched a little before, that it behooved that the sins of the world should be cleansed in our flesh: which Paul plainly affirms. And truly, whatever the Father has given to Christ, it does therefore belong to us, because he is the head, from which the whole body being knit together, grows into one. Indeed, and otherwise that will not agree together, which is said: that the Spirit was given him without measure, that all we should draw of the fullness thereof. For as much as there is no greater absurdity than to say, that God is enriched in his essence by any accidental gift. And for this cause Christ says in another place: I do sacrifice myself for them.

As for the places that they bring forth to confirm their error, they do inaptly wrest them, and they nothing prevail by their trifling subtleties, when they go about to wipe away those things that I have alleged for our part. Marcion imagines that Christ did put on a fantastical body instead of a true body, because in some places it is said, that he was made after the likeness of man, and that he was found in shape as a man. But so he nothing weighs what is Paul's purpose in that place. For his meaning is not to teach what manner of body Christ took upon him, but that whereas he might have showed forth his godhead, he made no other show of himself, but as of an abject and unregarded man. For, to exhort us by his example to submission, he shows, that for as much as he was God, he might have by and by set forth his glory to be seen to the world: but yet that he gave over some of his own right, and of his own accord abased himself, because he did put on the image of a servant and contended with that humility, suffered his godhead to be hidden with the veil of the flesh. He does not here teach what Christ was, but how he behaved himself. And also by the whole process of the text it is easily gathered, that Christ was abased in the true nature of man. For what does this mean, that in shape he was found as man, but that for a time the glory of his godhead did not shine forth, but only the shape of man appeared in base and abject estate? For otherwise that place of Peter could not stand together, that he was dead in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit, if the son of God had not been weak in the nature of man: which Paul expresses more plainly in saying, that he suffered by reason of the weakness of the flesh. And hereunto serves the exaltation: because it is expressly said, that Christ attained a new glory after that he abased himself, which could not well agree to be spoken of any, but of a man having flesh and soul. Manichees framed Christ a body of air, because Christ is called the second Adam, heavenly of heaven. But neither in that place does the Apostle bring in a heavenly essence of the body, but a spiritual force which being poured abroad by Christ, does quicken us. Now, as we have already seen, Peter and Paul do separate the same from his flesh. But rather that doctrine which is received among the true teachers, concerning the flesh of Christ, is very well proved by that place. For if Christ had not all one nature of body with us it were a very vain argument, that Paul with such vehemence follows: that if Christ be risen again, we shall also rise again: and that if we do not rise, then that Christ also is not risen. By whatever cavillations either the old Manichees or their new disciples go about to escape, they shall not wind themselves away. It is a foul shift, that they foolishly say, that Christ is called the son of man, in so much as he is promised of men. For it is plain, that after the Hebrew phrase, very man indeed is called the son of man. And Christ without doubt kept the phrase of his own tongue. Also it ought to make no question, what ought to be understood by the children of Adam. And (not to go far off) the place of the eighth Psalm, which the Apostles apply to Christ, shall be sufficient enough: What is man that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you visit him? In this figure is expressed the true manhood of Christ. For though he were not immediately begotten of a mortal father, yet his race came from Adam. For else that place could not stand which we have already alleged, that Christ is made partaker of flesh and blood, that he might gather to him young children to the service of God. In which words it is plainly determined, that Christ is made fellow and partaker of all one nature with us. In which meaning also he says, that both the author of holiness and they that are made holy, are all of one. For it is proved by the process of the text, that the same is referred to the fellowship of nature: because he by and by adds, Therefore he is not ashamed to call them brethren. For if he had said before, that the faithful are of God in so great dignity, what cause should there be to be ashamed? But because Christ of his infinite grace does join himself to the base and ignoble, therefore it is said, that he is not ashamed. But in vain they object, that by this means the wicked shall become the brethren of Christ: because we know that the children of God are not born of flesh and blood, but of the Holy Spirit by faith. Therefore only flesh does not make a brotherly joining. But although the Apostle gives this honor to the faithful only, to be of one with Christ, yet it does not follow, but that the wicked may be born of the same origin. As when we say that Christ was made man, to make us the sons of God: this saying extends not to all men, because faith is the means which spiritually grafts us into the body of Christ. Also they foolishly move a quarrel about the name of firstborn. They say that Christ should have been born of Adam straight at the beginning, that he might be the firstborn among brethren. For the title of firstborn, is not referred to age, but to the degree of honor, and excellence of power. And more color has that which they babble, that Christ took to him man and not angels, because he received mankind into favor. For, to set out more largely the honor which God vouchsafed to give us, he compared the angels with us, which were in this behalf set behind us. And if the testimony of Moses be well weighed, where he says that the seed of the woman shall break the serpent's head, it shall utterly end the controversy. For only Christ is not there spoken of, but all mankind. Because the victory was to be gotten by Christ for us, he generally pronounces that the posterity of the woman should get the upper hand of the devil. Whereupon follows, that Christ issued of mankind, because it was God's purpose there to raise up Eve, whom he spoke to with good hope, that she should not faint with sorrow.

They do no less wickedly than foolishly entangle with allegories these testimonies where Christ is called the seed of Abraham, and the fruit of the womb of David. For if the name of seed had been spoken in an allegory, truly Paul would not have left it untold, where he plainly and without figure affirms, that there are not many sons of Abraham as redeemers, but one Christ. Of like sort is it that they allege: that he is no otherwise called the son of David, but because he was promised and at length in his due time delivered. For after that Paul had once named him the son of God: in that he by and by adds, According to the flesh, he truly means of nature. And so in the 9th chapter calling him the blessed God, he says separately besides, that according to the flesh he descended from the Jews. Now if he were not truly begotten of the seed of David, to what purpose shall be this saying, that he is the fruit of his womb? What does this promise mean? Out of your loins shall he descend, that shall abide in your seat. Now in the genealogy of Christ, as it is recorded by Matthew, they do sophistically mock. For though he does not recount the parents of Mary but of Joseph, yet because he speaks of a thing sufficiently known abroad among the people, he reckons it enough to show that Joseph came of the seed of David, when it was well known that Mary was of the same stock. But Luke presses them more in teaching that salvation brought by Christ is common to all mankind: because Christ the author of salvation proceeded from Adam the common parent of all. I grant indeed, that by the genealogy it can none otherwise be gathered that Christ was the son of David, but in so much as he was begotten of the Virgin. But the new Marcionites to color their error do too proudly, in this that to prove that Christ took his body of nothing, they affirm that women are seedless, and so they overthrow the principles of nature. But because that is no question of divinity, and the reasons that they bring are so fickle, that they may very easily be confuted: therefore I will not touch those things that belong to Philosophy and Physics, and will hold me contented to wipe away those things that they allege out of Scripture: that is, that Aaron and Joiada took wives of the tribe of [reconstructed: Judah], and so the difference of tribes had then been confounded, if woman had engendering seed in her. But it is well enough known, that as touching civil order, the kindreds are reckoned by the seed of the man, and yet the excellency of the kind of man above woman proves not the contrary, but that in generation the seed of woman [reconstructed: must participate]. And this solution extends to all the genealogies. Oftentimes when the Scripture reckons up a genealogy, it names the men only: shall we therefore say, that the women are nothing? But very children know, that women are comprehended under the name of men. And after this sort it is said, that women bring forth to their husbands, because the name of the household always remains with the males. Now as this is granted to the excellency of the male kind, that the children are counted noble or ignoble, according to the estate of their fathers: so also in the state of bondage the issue follows the womb, according to the judgment of the civil lawyers. Whereby we may gather, that the issue is engendered of the seed of the woman. And it has of long time been received in common use of all nations, that the mothers are called Genitrices, that is, engenderers. With which God's law also agrees, which else should wrongfully forbid the marriage of the uncle with his sister's daughter, because there were no consanguinity between them: and also it were lawful for a man to marry his sister by the mother's side, so that she were begotten of another father. But as I grant that there is a passive power ascribed to women, so do I answer that the same thing is indifferently spoken of them that is of men. And Christ himself is not said to be made by the woman, but of the woman. But some of their company shaking off all shame do too lewdly ask, whether we will say that Christ was engendered of the menstrual seed of the Virgin, for I will likewise ask of them, whether he did not congeal in the blood of his mother, which they shall be constrained to confess. Therefore it is fitly gathered from Matthew's words, that because Christ was begotten of Mary, he was engendered of her seed: as a like engendering is meant when it is said, that Boaz was begotten of Rahab. Neither does Matthew here describe the Virgin as a conduit pipe through which Christ passed: but he separates this marvelous manner of generation from the common manner, for that by her Christ was begotten of the seed of David. For even in the same sort, that Isaac was begotten of Abraham, Solomon of David, and Joseph of Jacob, likewise it is said, that Christ was begotten of his mother. For the evangelist so frames the order of his speech, and willing to prove that Christ came from David, is contented with this one reason, that he was begotten of Mary. Whereby it follows, that he took it for a matter confessed, that Mary was of kin to Joseph.

The absurdities with which they would charge us, are stuffed full of childish cavillings. They think it a shame and dishonor to Christ, if he should have taken his original of men: because so he could not be exempt from the universal law that encloses all the offspring of Adam, without exception, under sin. But the comparison that we read in Paul does easily resolve this doubt: that as by one man came sin, and by sin death, so by the righteousness of one man grace has abounded (Romans 5:12). With which also agrees another comparison of his: the first Adam of earth, earthly and natural, the second of heaven, heavenly (1 Corinthians 15:47). Therefore in another place, the same Apostle, where he teaches that Christ was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh to satisfy the law, does so expressly sever him from the common estate of men, that he be very man without fault and corruption (Romans 8:3). But very childishly they trifle in reasoning thus: If Christ be free from all spot, and was by the secret working of the Holy Spirit begotten of the seed of Mary, then is not the woman's seed, but only the man's seed unclean. For we do not make Christ free from all spot, for this cause that he is only engendered of his mother without copulation of man, but because he is sanctified by the Holy Spirit, that the generation might be pure and uncorrupted, such as should have been before the fall of Adam. And this always remained steadfastly determined with us, that so often as the scripture puts us in mind of the cleanness of Christ, it is meant of his true nature of manhood: because it were superfluous to say that God is clean. Also the sanctification that he speaks of in John 17, could have no place in the nature of God. Neither are their feigned two seeds of Adam, although there came no infection to Christ: because the generation of man is not unclean or vicious of itself, but accidental by his falling. Therefore it is no marvel, if Christ, by whom the estate of innocence was to be restored, were exempt from common corruption. And whereas also they thrust this upon us for an absurdity, that if the Word of God did put on flesh, then was it enclosed in a narrow prison of an earthly body: this is but mere waywardness: because although the infinite essence of the Word did grow together into one person with the nature of man: yet do we feign no enclosing of it. For the Son of God descended marvelously from heaven, so as yet he left not heaven, it was his will to be marvelously born in the Virgin's womb, to be conversant in earth, and hang upon the cross, yet that he always filled the world even as at the beginning.

Unless I am mistaken, it would be superfluous to treat the divinity of Christ again here, since it has already been proved in many other places with clear and strong testimonies. What remains is to see how He, clothed in our flesh, fulfilled the office of Mediator. The truth of His human nature was attacked in ancient times by both the Manichees and the Marcionites. The Marcionites invented a phantom in place of Christ's body, while the Manichees dreamed that He had a heavenly flesh. But many strong testimonies of Scripture stand against them both. The blessing was not promised in a heavenly seed or in a counterfeit human form, but in the seed of Abraham and Jacob. The eternal throne was not promised to a man made of air, but to the son of David and to the fruit of his body. Therefore being born in the flesh, He is called the son of David and Abraham — not merely because He was born from the Virgin's womb and formed in the air, but because, as Paul expounds it, He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. The apostle likewise teaches elsewhere that He descended from the Jews. For this reason the Lord Himself, not content with the bare title 'man,' frequently calls Himself 'the Son of Man' — meaning to express more plainly that He was truly a man who had come forth from the seed of humanity. Since the Holy Spirit has so often, through so many means, with such diligence and simplicity declared a thing that is not obscure in itself, who would have thought anyone would be so shameless as to try to cloud it with confusion? And we have still other testimonies at hand if we wished to heap more up — such as Paul's statement that God sent His Son born of a woman. And countless other passages show that He was subject to hunger, thirst, cold, and the other weaknesses of our nature. But out of many, those are especially to be chosen that most build up our minds in genuine confidence. For instance, where it is said that He did not take on the nature of angels, but took on our nature, so that in flesh and blood He might destroy through death the one who had the power of death. Again, that through the benefit of that shared nature we are counted as His brothers. Again, that He had to be made like His brothers in every way, so that He might be a merciful and faithful intercessor — and that we do not have a High Priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses. And similar passages. To the same purpose is what we touched on a moment ago: that it was necessary for the sins of the world to be cleansed in our flesh — which Paul plainly affirms. And truly, whatever the Father has given to Christ belongs to us because He is the head from which the whole body, joined together, grows into one. Otherwise, what is said would not cohere: that the Spirit was given to Him without measure, so that we all might draw from His fullness. For it would be the greatest absurdity to say that God is enriched in His essence by any accidental gift. That is why Christ says elsewhere: 'I consecrate Myself for them.'

As for the passages the opponents bring forward to support their error, they twist them poorly, and their petty subtleties accomplish nothing when they try to do away with what I have put forward on our side. Marcion imagines that Christ put on a phantom body rather than a real one, because in some places it is said that He was made in the likeness of men and found in human form. But he does not at all weigh Paul's purpose in those passages. Paul's intention is not to teach what kind of body Christ took on, but that although He could have displayed His divinity openly, He made no such show — He appeared as a lowly and unremarkable man. To urge us to humility by His example, Paul shows that since Christ was God, He could have immediately displayed His glory to the world; but instead He voluntarily surrendered some of His own rights and humbled Himself, taking on the form of a servant, content with that humility, allowing His divinity to be hidden under the veil of flesh. He is not teaching what Christ was, but how He conducted Himself. And from the whole flow of the passage it is easy to gather that Christ was humbled in the true nature of man. For what does it mean that He was found in human form, except that for a time the glory of His divinity did not shine out, and only the form of a man in lowly and humble condition appeared? Otherwise Peter's statement could not stand: that He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the Spirit — if the Son of God had not been weak in human nature. Paul expresses this more plainly by saying that He suffered through the weakness of the flesh. And the exaltation confirms this: it is expressly said that Christ attained a new glory after He had humbled Himself, which could not properly be said of anyone but a man having flesh and soul. The Manichees devised a body of air for Christ because He is called the second Adam — heavenly, from heaven. But the apostle in that passage is not referring to a heavenly substance of the body but to a spiritual power that, poured out by Christ, gives us life. As we have already seen, Peter and Paul distinguish this spiritual power from His flesh. In fact, the doctrine received among the true teachers concerning Christ's flesh is very well confirmed by that passage. For if Christ did not share the same bodily nature with us, Paul's argument — which he presses with such force — would be completely empty: that if Christ is risen, we also will rise; and that if we do not rise, then Christ has not risen either. Whatever twists and evasions the old Manichees or their modern disciples attempt, they will not wriggle out of this. It is a poor excuse when they foolishly claim that Christ is called the Son of Man only because He was promised from among men. For it is plain that in Hebrew idiom, 'son of man' means a true and real human being — and Christ without doubt kept the phrase of His own language. And there should be no question about what 'children of Adam' means. Without going far afield, the passage from Psalm 8 that the apostles apply to Christ is sufficient: 'What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You visit him?' In this figure the true humanity of Christ is expressed. For although He was not immediately begotten by a mortal father, His lineage came from Adam. Otherwise the passage we already cited could not stand: that Christ was made partaker of flesh and blood, in order to draw children to the service of God. In these words it is plainly established that Christ was made a fellow and sharer of the same nature as we are. In the same sense He also says that both the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all of one. The text itself makes clear that this refers to sharing in nature, because He immediately adds: 'Therefore He is not ashamed to call them brothers.' For if He had first said the faithful were of God in such great dignity, why would there be any shame? But because Christ in His infinite grace joins Himself to the lowly and the ignoble, it is said He is not ashamed. The objection that by this reasoning even the wicked would become brothers of Christ is pointless, since we know that the children of God are born not of flesh and blood but of the Holy Spirit through faith. Flesh alone does not make a brotherly union. And although the apostle grants this honor of being one with Christ only to the faithful, it does not follow that the wicked cannot be born from the same origin. When we say Christ was made man to make us sons of God, this does not extend to all people, because faith is the means by which we are spiritually grafted into the body of Christ. They also raise a pointless quarrel over the title 'firstborn.' They say Christ would have had to be born of Adam from the very beginning to be the firstborn among His brothers. But the title of firstborn refers not to age but to rank of honor and excellence of authority. Their additional chatter — that Christ took on man and not angels because He received mankind into favor — has somewhat more color to it. For to highlight more fully the honor God was pleased to give us, He compared angels with us, who in this respect were placed behind us. But if Moses's testimony is rightly considered — where he says the seed of the woman will crush the serpent's head — it settles the whole controversy. For it is not spoken of Christ alone but of all humanity. Because the victory was to be won by Christ on our behalf, He speaks generally: that the offspring of the woman would overcome the devil. From this it follows that Christ came from humanity, because it was God's purpose there to raise up Eve — speaking to her with good hope, so that she would not faint in her grief.

The opponents are no less wicked than foolish when they entangle with allegory the testimonies that call Christ the seed of Abraham and the fruit of David's body. For if the word 'seed' were used allegorically, Paul would certainly not have left this unexplained where he plainly and without figure affirms that there are not many sons of Abraham as redeemers, but one Christ. Similarly, they claim He is called the son of David only because He was promised and in due time delivered. But when Paul, after naming Him the Son of God, immediately adds 'according to the flesh,' he is clearly speaking of nature. And in Romans 9, after calling Him the blessed God, he separately states that according to the flesh He descended from the Jews. Now if He were not truly begotten from the seed of David, what would be the point of the statement that He would be the fruit of David's womb? What else can this promise mean: 'One from your own body will sit on your throne'? As for the genealogy in Matthew, the opponents raise sophisticated objections. Matthew does not name Mary's parents but Joseph's — yet because he was speaking of something well known throughout the community, he considered it sufficient to show that Joseph came from David's line, since it was common knowledge that Mary came from the same stock. But Luke presses them more directly by teaching that the salvation Christ brings is common to all humanity, because Christ the author of salvation descended from Adam, the common ancestor of all. I grant that from the genealogy one can only conclude Christ was the son of David insofar as He was born of the Virgin. But the new Marcionites, in trying to cover their error, argue too brazenly that women contribute no seed, which would overturn the basic principles of nature. Since this is not a theological question, and the arguments they bring are so weak they can easily be refuted, I will not pursue the philosophical and natural-science aspects but will only dispose of what they allege from Scripture. They claim that Aaron and Joiada took wives from the tribe of Judah, and that the distinction between tribes would have been confused if women carried generative seed. But it is well enough known that in civil matters, family lines are traced through the male seed — yet the priority of the male over the female does not disprove that the woman's seed participates in generation. And this answer covers all the genealogies. Scripture often in tracing a genealogy names only the men — does that mean women are nothing? Every child knows that women are included under the names of men. It is also said in this sense that women bear children to their husbands, because the family name remains with the males. Just as the preeminence of the male means children's rank follows the father's status, so in the matter of slavery the condition follows the mother, according to civil law — from which we may conclude that children are conceived from the mother's seed as well. It has long been accepted among all nations that mothers are called genitors — that is, generators. God's law agrees with this, for otherwise it would wrongfully forbid a man's marriage to his sister's daughter on the grounds of kinship, if no such kinship actually existed through the woman. And it would be permissible for a man to marry his half-sister if she had a different father. While I grant that a passive generative role is attributed to women, the same generative language is applied to them as to men. And Christ Himself is said to be made not by the woman but of the woman. Some of them shamelessly ask whether we will say that Christ was conceived from the menstrual seed of the Virgin. I will ask them in turn whether He was not formed from His mother's blood — which they will be forced to admit. Therefore it is rightly concluded from Matthew's words that since Christ was begotten of Mary, He was conceived from her seed, just as a similar act of generation is meant when it is said that Boaz was born of Rahab. Matthew here does not describe the Virgin as a mere channel through which Christ passed — he sets this remarkable form of generation apart from the ordinary kind, for it was through her that Christ was begotten from the seed of David. In the very same way that Isaac was begotten of Abraham, Solomon of David, and Joseph of Jacob, Christ is said to have been begotten of His mother. The evangelist frames his account this way, and in proving that Christ came from David, he is content with this single demonstration: that He was begotten of Mary. From which it follows that he took it as an established fact that Mary was a relative of Joseph.

The objections they raise against us are full of childish quibbling. They think it a shame and dishonor to Christ that He should have descended from human beings — because then He could not be exempt from the universal law that binds all the offspring of Adam under sin without exception. But Paul's comparison easily resolves this doubt: just as sin came through one man and death through sin, so grace has abounded through the righteousness of one man (Romans 5:12). This agrees with his other comparison: the first Adam was of the earth, earthly and natural; the second Adam was from heaven, heavenly (1 Corinthians 15:47). Elsewhere the same apostle teaches that Christ was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh to satisfy the law — and he carefully sets Christ apart from the common condition of humanity, showing that He was truly a man yet without fault or corruption (Romans 8:3). But they reason childishly when they say: if Christ is free from all stain, and was conceived by the secret working of the Holy Spirit from Mary's seed, then it is the man's seed that is unclean, not the woman's. We do not hold that Christ was free from all stain simply because He was conceived of His mother without a human father — but because He was sanctified by the Holy Spirit, so that His generation was pure and uncorrupted, as it would have been before Adam's fall. It remains firmly established that whenever Scripture speaks of Christ's purity, it refers to His true human nature — for it would be unnecessary to say that God is clean. The sanctification He speaks of in John 17 also could not apply to the divine nature. Nor does Adam's fall necessarily infect Christ, even though Christ descended from him — for human generation is not unclean in itself, but only became so as an accident of the Fall. It is no wonder, therefore, that Christ, through whom the state of innocence was to be restored, was exempt from the common corruption. As for the objection they press on us as an absurdity — that if the Word of God put on flesh, He was then confined in the narrow prison of an earthly body — this is mere stubbornness. Although the infinite essence of the Word was joined together into one person with human nature, we do not teach that He was enclosed or confined. For the Son of God descended from heaven in a marvelous way, yet never left heaven. It was His will to be miraculously born in the Virgin's womb, to live on earth, and to hang on the cross — and yet He always filled the world, just as He had from the beginning.