Chapter 14. How the Two Natures of the Mediator Make One Person

Now where it is said, that the Word was made flesh: that is not so to be understood, as though it were either turned into flesh or confusedly mingled with flesh, but because he chose himself a temple of the Virgin's womb to dwell in: he that was the Son of God, became also the son of man, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For we so affirm the Godhead joined and united to the manhood, that either of them have their whole property remaining, and yet of them both is made one Christ. If anything in all worldly things may be found like to so great a mystery, the similitude of man is most fitting, whom we see to consist of two substances, of which yet neither is so mingled with the other, but that either keeps the property of its own nature. For neither is the soul the body, nor the body the soul. Therefore both that thing may be separately spoken of the soul, which can no way agree with the body: and likewise of the body that thing may be said, which can by no means agree with the soul: and that may be said of the whole man, which can but unfitly be taken neither of the soul nor of the body separately. Finally, the properties of the soul are sometimes attributed to the body, and the properties of the body sometimes to the soul, and yet he that consists of them is but one man and not many. But such forms of speech do signify both that there is one person in man compounded of two natures knit together, and that there are two diverse natures which do make the same person. And so do the Scriptures speak of Christ: sometimes they give to him those things that ought singularly to be referred to his manhood, and sometimes those things that do peculiarly belong to his Godhead, and sometimes those things that do comprehend both natures, and do agree with neither of them separately. And this conjoining of the two natures that are in Christ, they do with such religiousness express, that sometimes they do put them in common together: which figure is among the old authors called, Communicating of properties.

These things were but weak, unless many phrases of Scripture, and such as are everywhere ready to find, did prove that nothing hereof has been devised by man. That same thing which Christ spoke of himself, saying: Before Abraham was, I am: was far disagreeing with his manhood (John 8:58). Neither am I ignorant of what cavilry the erroneous spirits do deprave this place: for they say that he was before all ages, because he was already foreknown as the Redeemer, as well in the counsel of the father, as in the minds of the godly. But whereas he openly distinguishes the day of his manifestation from his eternal essence, and on purpose pronounces to himself an authority by antiquity in which he excels above Abraham, he does undoubtedly challenge to himself that which is proper to the Godhead. Whereas Paul affirms that he is the firstborn of all creatures, which was before all things, and by whom all things keep their being (Colossians 1:15; John 17:5): and whereas he himself reports that he was in glory with the father before the creation of the world, and that he works together with the father (John 5:17): these things do nothing more agree with the nature of men. It is therefore certain, that these and such like are peculiarly ascribed to the Godhead. But whereas he is called the servant of the father: and whereas it is said, that he grew in age, wisdom and favor with God and men: that he seeks not his own glory: that he does not know the last day: that he speaks not of himself: that he does not his own will: where it is said, that he was seen and felt (Isaiah 42:1; Luke 1:52; John 8:50; Matthew 13; John 14:10; John 6:36; Luke 24:39): this wholly belongs to his only manhood. For in respect that he is God, neither can he increase in anything, and he works all things for his own sake, neither is anything hidden from him, he does all things according to the free choice of his own will, and can neither be seen nor felt. And yet he does not separately ascribe these things to his nature of man only, but takes them upon himself, as if they did agree with the person of the Mediator. But the communicating of properties is in this that Paul says, that God did by his own blood purchase to himself a Church (Acts 20:28): and the Lord of glory crucified (1 Corinthians 2:6). Again, where John says, that the Word of life was felt (1 John 1:1). Truly God neither has blood, nor suffers, nor can be touched with hands. But because he who was both very God and man, Christ being crucified, did shed his blood for us: those things that were done in his nature of man, are improperly, and yet not without reason given to his Godhead. A like example is, where John teaches that God gave his soul for us (1 John 3:16): therefore there also the property of the manhood is communicated with the other nature. Again, when Christ said being yet conversant on earth, that no man has ascended into heaven, but the son of man that was in heaven (John 3:13): truly according to his manhood, and in the flesh that he had put on, he was not then in heaven: but because himself was both God and man, by reason of the unity of both natures, he gave to the one that, which belonged to the other.

But most plainly of all do these places set forth the true substance of Christ, which comprehend both natures together: of which sort there are very many in the gospel of him. For that which is there read is singularly belonging neither to his Godhead nor to his manhood, but both together: that he has received of his father power to forgive sins, to raise up whom he will, to give righteousness, holiness and salvation, to be made judge over the quick and the dead, to be honored even as the father is. Finally, that he is called the light of the world, the good shepherd, the only door, the true Vine. For such prerogatives had the son of God, when he was showed in the flesh: which although he enjoyed with his father before the world was made, yet he had them not in the same manner or the same respect, and which could not be given to such a man as was nothing but man. In the same meaning ought we to take that which is in Paul: that Christ after the judgment ended, shall yield up the kingdom to God and the father. Even the kingdom of the son of God, which had no beginning, nor shall have any ending: but even as he lay hid under the baseness of the flesh, and abased himself taking upon him the form of a servant, and laying aside the port of majesty, he showed himself obedient to his father. And having performed all such subjection, at length is crowned with honor and glory, and advanced to the highest dominion, that all knees shall bow before him. So shall he then yield up to his father both that name and crown of glory, and whatever he has received of his father, that God may be all in all. For to what purpose is power and dominion given him, but that the father should govern us by his hand? In which sense it is also said, that he sits at the right hand of the father. But this is but for a time, till we may enjoy the present beholding of the Godhead. And here the error of the old fathers cannot be excused, which while they took no heed to the person of the Mediator, have obscured the natural meaning of almost all that doctrine that is read in the gospel of John, and have entangled themselves in many snares. Let this therefore be to us the key of right understanding, that such things as belong to the office of the Mediator, are not spoken simply of the nature of God, nor of the nature of man. Therefore, Christ shall reign till he come forth to judge the world, in so much as he joins us to his father, according to the small measure of our weakness. But when we being made partakers of the heavenly glory, shall see God such as he is, then he having performed the office of Mediator, shall cease to be the ambassador of his father, and shall be contented with that glory which he enjoyed before the making of the world. And the name of Lord does in no other respect peculiarly agree with the person of Christ, but in this, that it signifies the mean degree between God and us. For which purpose makes that saying of Paul: One God, of whom are all things, and one Lord, by whom are all things, even he to whom the dominion for a time is committed by the father, until his divine majesty be to be seen face to face. Far from him is it that anything shall decay, by yielding up the dominion to his father, that he shall become so much the more glorious. For then shall God also cease to be the head of Christ, because Christ's Godhead shall then shine of itself, whereas yet it is covered with a certain veil.

And this observation shall do no small service to resolve many doubts, if the readers do fitly apply it. For it is marvelous how much the unskilled, indeed some not utterly unlearned, are troubled with such forms of speech, which they see spoken by Christ, which do well agree neither with his Godhead nor with his manhood: because they consider not that they do agree with his person wherein he is showed both God and man, and with the office of Mediator. And it is always easy to see, how well all things hang together, if they have a sober expositor, to examine so great mysteries with such devout reverence as they ought to be. But there is nothing that these furious and frantic spirits trouble not. They catch hold of those things that are spoken of his manhood, to take away his Godhead: and likewise of those things that are spoken of his Godhead to take away his manhood: and of those things that are so jointly spoken of both natures, that they severally agree with neither, to take away both. But what is that else but to say, that Christ is not man, because he is God: and that he is not God, because he is man: and that he is neither man nor God, because he is both man and God? We therefore determine that Christ, as he is both God and man, consisting of both natures united, though not confounded, is our Lord and the true son of God, even according to his manhood, though not by reason of his manhood. For the error of Nestorius is to be driven far away from us, which when he went about rather to draw asunder, than to distinguish the nature, did by that means imagine a double Christ. Whereas we see that the Scripture cries out with loud voice against it, where both the name of the son of God is given to him that was born of the Virgin, and the Virgin herself is called the mother of our Lord. We must also beware of the madness of Eutyches, lest while we go about to show the unity of the person, we destroy either nature. For we have already alleged so many testimonies, and there are everywhere so many other to be alleged, where his Godhead is distinguished from his manhood, as may stop the mouths even of the most contentious. And a little hereafter I will adjoin some testimonies, to confute better that feigned device, but at this present, one place shall content us. Christ would not have called his body a Temple, unless the Godhead did distinctly dwell therein. Therefore as Nestorius was worthily condemned in the synod at Ephesus, so also was Eutyches afterward condemned in the synods of Constantinople and Chalcedon: for as much as it is no more lawful to confound the two natures in Christ, than it is to draw them asunder.

But in our age also there has risen up no less pestilent a monster, Michael Servetus, who thrust in place of the son of God, a feigned thing made of the essence of God, of spirit, flesh and three elements uncreated. And first he denies that Christ is by any other way the son of God, but in this that he was begotten of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin. But to this end tends his subtlety, that the distinction of the two natures being once overthrown, Christ might be thought to be a certain thing mingled of God and man, and yet neither God nor man. For in his whole process he travails toward this point, that before Christ was openly shown in the flesh, there were only certain shadowy figures in God, whereof the truth or effect then at length was in being, when that Word which was ordained to that honor, began truly to be the son of God. And we indeed do confess that the Mediator who is born of the Virgin, is properly the son of God. For Christ in that he is man, could not be the mirror of the inestimable favor of God, unless this dignity were given him to be, and be called the only begotten son of God. But in the meantime the definition of the Church stands steadfastly grounded, that he is counted the son of God, because he being the Word begotten of the Father before all worlds, did by hypostatical union take upon him the nature of man. Now the hypostatical union is called with the old fathers, that which makes one person of two natures, which phrase of speech was devised to overthrow the doting error of Nestorius, because he feigned that the son of God did so dwell in flesh, that yet he the same was not man. Servetus slanders us, that we make two sons of God, when we say that the eternal Word was already the son of God before that it was clothed with flesh, as if we did say anything else but that he was manifested in the flesh. Neither does it follow, that if he were God before that he was man, he began to be a new God. And no more absurdity it is to say, that the son of God appeared in the flesh, who yet had this always from eternal begetting to be the Son, which the Angel's words to Mary do secretly show, 'That holy thing that shall be born of you, shall be called the son of God:' as if he should have said, that the name of the Son which was obscure in time of the law, should now become famous and everywhere known abroad. Wherewith agrees that saying of Paul, that now by Christ we are the children of God, freely and with boldness to cry Abba, Father. But were not the holy fathers in the old time also accounted among the children of God? Indeed: and bearing them bold upon that interest, they called upon God by name of their Father. But because since the only begotten son of God was brought forth into the world, the heavenly fatherhood has become more plainly known: therefore Paul assigns this, as it were, a privilege to the kingdom of Christ. But yet this is steadfastly to be held, that God never was father either to Angels or men, but in respect of the only begotten son: and that men specially, whom their own wickedness makes hateful to God, are his children by free adoption, because he is the son of God by nature. And there is no cause why Servetus should cavil, that this hangs upon filiation or becoming a son, which God had determined with himself: because our purpose is not here to speak of the figures how the expiation was shown in the blood of beasts: but because they could not indeed be the children of God, unless their adoption were grounded upon the head, it is without reason to take that from the head which is common to all the members. I go yet further: Whereas the Scripture calls the Angels the sons of God, whose so great dignity did not hang upon the redemption to come: yet it must be, that the son is in order before them, which makes the father to be their father. I will repeat it again shortly, and add the same of mankind. Since from their first beginning both Angels and men were created, with this condition, that God should be common father to them both, if that saying of Paul be true, that Christ was always the head and the first begotten of all creatures, to have the first degree in all: I think I do rightly gather that he was also the son of God before the creation of the world.

But if his Filiation (if I may so term it) began since he was manifested in the flesh, it shall follow, that he was also Son in respect of his nature of man. Servetus and other such frantic men would have it, that Christ who appeared in the flesh, is the Son of God, because out of the flesh he could not be called by that name. Now let them answer me whether he be the Son according to both natures, and in respect of both. So indeed they prattle, but Paul teaches far otherwise. We grant indeed, that Christ is in the flesh of man called the Son, but not as the faithful are, that is by adoption only and grace, but the true and natural, and therefore only Son, that by this mark he may be discerned from all other. For God vouchsafes to give the name of his sons to us, that are regenerate into a new life: but the name of the true and only begotten Son, he gives to Christ only. How can he be the only Son in so great a number of brethren, but because he possesses that by nature, which we have received by gift? And the honor we extend to the whole person of the Mediator, that he be truly and properly the Son of God, who was also born of the Virgin, and offered himself for sacrifice to his Father upon the cross: but yet in respect of his Godhead, as Paul teaches, when he says, he was separated out to preach the Gospel of God, which he had before promised of his Son, who was begotten of the seed of David according to his flesh, and declared the Son of God in power. But why, when he names him distinctly the Son of David according to the flesh, should he separately say, that he was declared the Son of God, unless he meant to show that this did hang upon some other thing, than upon the very flesh? For in the same sense in another place he says, that he suffered by the weakness of the flesh, and rose again by the power of the Spirit, even so in this place he makes a difference of both natures. Truly they must needs grant, that as he has that of his mother for which he is called the Son of David, so he has that of his Father for which he is called the Son of God: and the same is another thing and separate from the nature of man. The Scripture gives him two names, calling him here and there sometimes the Son of God, and sometimes the Son of Man. Of the second there can be no contention moved: but according to the common use of the Hebrew tongue he is called the Son of Man, because he is of the offspring of Adam. By the contrary I affirm, that he is called the Son of God in respect of the Godhead and eternal essence: because it is no less fitting that that be referred to the nature of God, that he is called the Son of God, than to the nature of man, that he is called the Son of Man. Again, in the same place that I cited, Paul does mean that he who was according to the flesh begotten of the seed of David, was no otherwise declared the Son of God in power, than he teaches in another place, that Christ who according to the flesh descended of the Jews, is God blessed forever. Now if in both places the distinction of the double nature be touched, by what right will they say, that he who according to the flesh is the Son of Man, is not also the Son of God, in respect of the nature of God?

They do indeed disorderly enforce, for the maintenance of their error, the place where it is said that God spared not his own Son; and where the Angel commanded that the very same he that should be born of the Virgin should be called the Son of the highest. But, lest they should glory in so fickle an objection, let them weigh with us a little how strongly they reason. For if it be rightly concluded that from his conception he began to be the Son of God, because he that is conceived is called the Son of God, then shall it follow that he began to be the Word at his manifesting in the flesh, because John says that he brings them tidings of the Word of life, which his hands have handled. Likewise that which is read in the Prophet: "You, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are a little one among thousands of Judah; out of you shall be born to me a guide to rule my people Israel, and his coming forth from the beginning, from the days of eternity" (Micah 5:2). How will they be compelled to expound this, if they will be content to follow such manner of reasoning? For I have declared that we do not agree with Nestorius, who imagined a double Christ; whereas by our doctrine, Christ has made us the sons of God with him, by right of brotherly conjoining, because he is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh which he took of us. And Augustine does wisely admonish us that this is a bright glass, wherein to behold the marvelous and singular favor of God, that he attained honor in respect that he is man which he could not deserve. Therefore Christ was adorned with this excellence, even according to the flesh from the womb of his mother, to be the Son of God. Yet there is not in the unity of person to be feigned such a mixture as may take away that which is proper to the Godhead. For it is no more absurdity that the eternal Word of God and Christ, by reason of the two natures united into one person, be in diverse ways called the Son of God, than that he be according to diverse respects called sometimes the Son of God and sometimes the Son of Man. And no more does that other caviling of Servetus encumber us: that before Christ appeared in the flesh he is nowhere called the Son of God but under a figure, because although the describing of him then was somewhat dark, yet whereas it is already clearly proved that he was no otherwise eternal God but because he was the Word begotten of the eternal Father, and that this name does no otherwise belong to the person of the Mediator which he has taken upon him but because he is God openly showed in the flesh, and that God the Father had not been called Father from the beginning if there had not then been a mutual relation to the Son, by whom all kindred or fatherhood is reckoned in heaven and in earth — hereby it is easy to gather that even in the time of the law and the Prophets he was the Son of God, before that this name was commonly known in the Church. But if they strive only about the word itself, Solomon, discoursing of the infinite highness of God, affirms as well his Son as himself to be incomprehensible. "Tell his name if you can," says he, "or the name of his son" (Proverbs 30:4). Yet I am not ignorant that with the contentious this testimony will not be of sufficient force; neither do I much ground upon it, saving that it shows that they do maliciously cavil who deny Christ to be the Son of God but in this respect that he was made man. Besides that, all the oldest writers with one mouth and consent have openly testified the same; so that their shamelessness is no less worthy to be scorned than to be abhorred, which dare object Irenaeus and Tertullian against us, both of whom do confess that the Son of God was invisible, who afterward appeared visible.

But although Servetus has heaped up horrible monstrous devices, which perhaps the others would not allow: yet if you press them hard, you shall perceive that all they that do not acknowledge Christ to be the Son of God but in the flesh, do grant it only in this respect, that he was conceived in the womb of the Virgin by the Holy Ghost, just as the Manicheans in old time did foolishly affirm, that man has his soul (as it were) by derivation from God, because they read that God breathed into Adam the breath of life. For they take so fast hold of the name of Son, that they leave no difference between the natures, but babble disorderly, that Christ being man, is the Son of God, because according to his nature of man, he is begotten of God. So the eternal begetting of Wisdom, that Solomon speaks of, is destroyed, and there is no account made of the Godhead in the Mediator, or a fantasized ghost is thrust in place of the Manhood. It were indeed profitable to confute the grosser deceits of Servetus, with which he has bewitched himself and some others, to the end that the godly readers admonished by this example, may hold themselves within the compass of sobriety and modesty: except that I think it should be superfluous, because I have already done it in a book by itself. The sum of them comes to this effect, that the Son of God, was a form in mind from the beginning, and even then he was before appointed to be man that should be the essential image of God. And he does acknowledge no other Word of God, but in outward show. This he expounds to be the begetting of him, that there was begotten in God from the beginning a will to beget a Son, which also in act extended to the nature itself. In the meantime he confounds the Spirit with the Word, for that God distributed the invisible Word and the Spirit into flesh and soul. Finally the figuration of Christ, has with them the place of begetting, but he says, that he who then was but a shadowy son in form, was at length begotten by the Word, to which he assigns the office of seed. Whereby it shall follow that hogs and dogs are as well the children of God, because they were created of the original seed of the Word of God. For although he compounds Christ of three uncreated elements, to make him begotten of the essence of God, yet he feigns that he is so the firstborn among creatures, that the same essential Godhead is in stones, according to their degree. And lest he should seem to strip Christ out of his Godhead, he affirms that his flesh is consubstantial with God, and that the Word was made man by turning the flesh into God. So while he cannot conceive Christ to be the Son of God, unless his flesh came from the essence of God, and were turned into Godhead, he brings the eternal person of the Word to nothing, and takes from us the son of David, that was promised to be the Redeemer. He often repeats this, that the Son was begotten of God by knowledge and predestination, and that at length he was made man of that matter which at the beginning shone with God in the three elements, which afterward appeared in the first light of the world, in the cloud and in the pillar of fire. Now how shamefully he sometimes disagrees with himself, it were too tedious to recount. By this short recital the readers that have their sound wit may gather, that with the circumstances of this unclean dog the hope of salvation is utterly extinguished. For if the flesh were the Godhead itself, it should cease to be the temple thereof. And none can be our redeemer, but he that begotten of the seed of Abraham and David, is according to the flesh truly made man. And he wrongfully stands upon the words of John, that the Word was made flesh, for as they resist the error of Nestorius, so they nothing further this wicked invention, of which Eutyches was author, forasmuch as the only purpose of the Evangelist was to defend the unity of persons in the two natures.

When Scripture says the Word was made flesh, this does not mean the Word was turned into flesh or confused with flesh. Rather, He chose the Virgin's womb as a temple to dwell in — the one who was the Son of God also became the Son of Man, not by mixing the two substances together, but by the union of one person. We affirm that the Godhead was joined and united to the humanity, so that each nature retains its full properties, yet from both one Christ is formed. If any earthly comparison can shed light on so great a mystery, the nature of man is the most fitting. We see that a human being consists of two substances — soul and body — yet neither is mixed with the other in such a way that either loses its own distinct nature. The soul is not the body, and the body is not the soul. Therefore some things may be said specifically of the soul that could never apply to the body, and some things may be said of the body that could never apply to the soul. And some things may be said of the whole person that would not fit either the soul or the body taken separately. Sometimes the properties of the soul are attributed to the body, and the properties of the body to the soul — yet the person who consists of both is one man, not many. Such ways of speaking show both that there is one person in man composed of two natures knit together, and that there are two distinct natures that make up the same person. Scripture speaks of Christ in the same way. Sometimes it attributes to Him things that belong specifically to His human nature, sometimes things that belong specifically to His divine nature, and sometimes things that encompass both natures and do not belong to either one in isolation. This joining of two natures in Christ is expressed with such care that sometimes the properties of one are shared with the other — a figure that the ancient writers called the communication of properties.

These points would carry little weight if many passages of Scripture — passages that anyone can easily find — did not prove that none of this was invented by human minds. What Christ said of Himself — 'Before Abraham was, I am' — clearly goes beyond anything that could be said of His human nature (John 8:58). I am aware of the clever twisting that erroneous teachers use to distort this passage. They say He existed before all ages because He was already foreknown as the Redeemer, both in the Father's purpose and in the minds of the faithful. But Christ openly distinguishes the day of His appearing from His eternal existence, and deliberately asserts for Himself an antiquity that exceeds Abraham's. He is undoubtedly claiming what belongs to the Godhead alone. When Paul says He is the firstborn of all creation, that He existed before all things and all things hold together in Him (Colossians 1:15), and when Christ reports that He shared glory with the Father before the world was made and works together with the Father (John 5:17; John 17:5) — none of these things can apply to human nature. These and similar statements belong specifically to the Godhead. But when He is called the servant of the Father; when it is said He grew in age, wisdom, and favor with God and men; that He does not seek His own glory; that He does not know the last day; that He does not speak on His own authority; that He does not do His own will; and when He is said to have been seen and touched (Isaiah 42:1; Luke 1:52; John 8:50; Matthew 13; John 14:10; John 6:38; Luke 24:39) — all of this belongs solely to His human nature. As God, He cannot grow in anything, He works all things for His own purposes, nothing is hidden from Him, He acts according to His own free will, and He can neither be seen nor touched by human hands. Yet He does not assign these things separately to His human nature alone — He takes them as belonging to Himself as the Mediator. The communication of properties is what Paul refers to when he says God purchased the church with His own blood (Acts 20:28), and what is meant when the Lord of glory is said to have been crucified (1 Corinthians 2:8). Similarly, John says that the Word of life was touched with hands (1 John 1:1). God in His divine nature has no blood, does not suffer, and cannot be touched. But because the one who was both truly God and truly man shed His blood for us when Christ was crucified, the things done in His human nature are — in an improper but legitimate sense — attributed to His Godhead. A similar example is when John says God laid down His life for us (1 John 3:16) — there the property of the human nature is communicated to the divine. Again, while Christ was still living on earth, He said that no one had ascended into heaven except the Son of Man who was in heaven (John 3:13). According to His human nature and the flesh He had taken on, He was not in heaven at that moment — but because He was both God and man, He attributed to one nature what belonged to the other, by virtue of the union of both.

Most clearly of all, the passages that encompass both natures together express the true substance of Christ — and there are many such passages in the Gospel. What we find there belongs neither specifically to His Godhead nor to His humanity alone, but to both together: that He has received from the Father authority to forgive sins, to raise up whomever He will, to grant righteousness, holiness, and salvation, to be made judge over the living and the dead, and to be honored just as the Father is honored. He is also called the light of the world, the good shepherd, the only door, and the true vine. The Son of God possessed these prerogatives when He appeared in the flesh. Although He had enjoyed them with the Father before the world was made, He did not exercise them in the same manner or in the same respect — and they could not have been given to one who was merely a man. We should understand Paul's statement in the same way: that after judgment is complete, Christ will deliver the kingdom to God the Father. His kingdom as the Son of God had no beginning and will have no end. But in that He lay hidden under the lowliness of flesh, humbled Himself by taking on the form of a servant, and set aside the display of majesty, He showed Himself obedient to His Father. Having accomplished this complete obedience, He is at last crowned with honor and glory and exalted to the highest sovereignty, so that every knee will bow before Him. He will then yield up to the Father both that name and crown of glory, and everything He received from the Father, so that God may be all in all. For what purpose was power and authority given to Him, if not so that the Father would govern us by His hand? In this same sense it is said that He sits at the Father's right hand. But this is only for a time, until we are able to enjoy the direct sight of the Godhead. Here the error of the early fathers cannot be excused: by failing to pay attention to the person of the Mediator, they obscured the plain meaning of nearly all the teaching in the Gospel of John and entangled themselves in many difficulties. Let this therefore be the key to right understanding: things that belong to the office of the Mediator are spoken neither simply of the divine nature nor simply of the human nature. Christ will therefore reign until He comes to judge the world, in that He unites us to His Father according to the limited measure of our weakness. But when we are made partakers of heavenly glory and see God as He is, Christ, having fulfilled the office of Mediator, will cease to act as the Father's ambassador and will rest in the glory He had before the world was made. The title of Lord belongs specifically to Christ only in the sense that it describes His intermediate position between God and us. Paul captures this purpose: one God, from whom are all things, and one Lord, through whom are all things — the one to whom the Father has entrusted dominion for a time, until His divine majesty is seen face to face. Far from losing anything by yielding up the dominion to His Father, He will then be all the more glorious. For then God will also cease to be the head of Christ, because Christ's Godhead will shine on its own — whereas now it is covered by a kind of veil.

This observation will be of great help in resolving many difficulties, if readers apply it carefully. It is remarkable how troubled many people — including some who are not entirely ignorant — become over the statements they see Christ make, which seem to fit neither His Godhead nor His humanity. They fail to see that such statements fit His person — in whom He is shown as both God and man — and fit the office of the Mediator. When a reverent and careful interpreter examines these great mysteries as they deserve, it is easy to see how everything fits together. But there is nothing that reckless and frantic minds will not disturb. They seize on what is said of His human nature to deny His Godhead; they seize on what is said of His Godhead to deny His humanity; and they seize on what is said jointly of both natures — belonging separately to neither — to deny both. But what is that except to say Christ is not man because He is God, is not God because He is man, and is neither God nor man because He is both? We therefore affirm that Christ — being both God and man, consisting of two natures united though not confused — is our Lord and the true Son of God, even according to His human nature, though not by reason of His human nature. We must keep far from us the error of Nestorius, who, attempting to separate rather than distinguish the two natures, ended up imagining two Christs. Scripture cries out loudly against this, for the name Son of God is given to the one born of the Virgin, and the Virgin herself is called the mother of our Lord. We must also guard against the madness of Eutyches, lest in trying to demonstrate the unity of Christ's person we destroy either nature. We have already cited many testimonies, and there are many others throughout Scripture, that distinguish the Godhead from the humanity — enough to silence even the most contentious. A little later I will add more testimonies to refute that invented error more fully, but for now one passage is enough. Christ would not have called His body a temple unless the Godhead distinctly dwelt within it. Therefore, just as Nestorius was rightly condemned at the Council of Ephesus, Eutyches was afterward rightly condemned at the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon — for it is no more lawful to confuse the two natures in Christ than it is to tear them apart.

But in our own age, a no less dangerous heretic has arisen: Michael Servetus, who substituted for the Son of God a fabricated being made of the essence of God, of spirit, flesh, and three uncreated elements. First, he denies that Christ is the Son of God in any other way than that He was begotten by the Holy Spirit in the Virgin's womb. The aim of his subtlety is this: once the distinction between the two natures is overthrown, Christ might be thought of as a confused mixture of God and man -- yet neither truly God nor truly man. His whole argument drives toward this point: that before Christ was openly revealed in the flesh, there were only certain foreshadowing figures in God. The truth and reality of these figures did not actually exist until the Word, ordained for that honor, truly began to be the Son of God. We do indeed confess that the Mediator who was born of the Virgin is properly the Son of God. Christ as man could not be the mirror of God's immeasurable favor unless He were given the dignity of being -- and being called -- the only begotten Son of God. But meanwhile, the church's settled definition stands firm: He is counted the Son of God because the Word, begotten of the Father before all ages, took on human nature through a personal union. This personal union is what the early fathers called the "hypostatic union" -- the union that makes one person out of two natures. This term was coined to overthrow the foolish error of Nestorius, who imagined that the Son of God dwelt in human flesh yet was not Himself man. Servetus slanders us by claiming that we make two Sons of God when we say that the eternal Word was already the Son of God before He was clothed with flesh. It is as if we said anything other than that He was manifested in the flesh. It does not follow that if He was God before He was man, He began to be a new God. And it is no more absurd to say that the Son of God appeared in the flesh -- having always been the Son from His eternal begetting -- as the angel's words to Mary quietly show: "That holy thing that shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God." It is as if he said that the name of Son, which was obscure during the time of the law, would now become famous and known everywhere. Paul's statement agrees with this: that now through Christ we are the children of God, freely and with boldness crying "Abba, Father." But were not the holy fathers in the old covenant also counted among God's children? Indeed, and relying on that relationship, they called upon God by the name of Father. But since the only begotten Son of God has been brought forth into the world, the heavenly fatherhood has become more plainly known. Therefore, Paul assigns this as a special privilege to the kingdom of Christ. Yet this must be firmly held: God was never Father, either to angels or to people, except in relation to the only begotten Son. People especially, whom their own wickedness makes hateful to God, are His children by free adoption, because Christ is the Son of God by nature. There is no reason for Servetus to object that this depends on becoming a son, which God had determined within Himself. Our purpose here is not to discuss the figures through which atonement was shown through the blood of animals. Rather, since people could not truly be children of God unless their adoption was grounded in Christ the head, it is unreasonable to take away from the head what is shared with all the members. I go further: since Scripture calls the angels sons of God -- whose great dignity did not depend on a future redemption -- it must be that the Son is in rank before them. It is He who makes the Father their Father. I will state it again briefly and add the same point about humanity. Since from the very beginning, both angels and humans were created with the condition that God would be their common Father -- and if Paul's statement is true that Christ was always the head and the firstborn of all creation, holding the first rank in everything -- I think I am right to conclude that He was also the Son of God before the creation of the world.

But if His Sonship began only when He appeared in the flesh, it would follow that He was Son only in respect of His human nature. Servetus and other such deluded people would have it that Christ who appeared in the flesh is the Son of God only because He could not be called by that name apart from the flesh. Now let them answer me: is He the Son according to both natures, and with respect to both? This is what they claim, but Paul teaches something very different. We do grant that Christ in human flesh is called the Son -- but not in the way the faithful are, through adoption and grace alone. He is the true, natural, and only Son, and by this distinction He is set apart from everyone else. God graciously gives the title of sons to us who are born again into new life, but He gives the title of the true and only begotten Son to Christ alone. How can He be the only Son among so many brothers, unless He possesses by nature what we have received as a gift? We extend this honor to the whole person of the Mediator: that He is truly and properly the Son of God, who was also born of the Virgin and offered Himself as a sacrifice to His Father on the cross -- yet with respect to His deity, as Paul teaches when he says Christ was set apart to preach the Gospel of God, which He had promised beforehand concerning His Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh and declared the Son of God in power. But why, when Paul distinctly names Him the Son of David according to the flesh, would he separately say that He was declared the Son of God -- unless he meant to show that this depended on something other than the flesh itself? In the same way that Paul says elsewhere that He suffered through the weakness of the flesh and rose again through the power of the Spirit, so here he distinguishes between the two natures. They must certainly admit that just as He received from His mother what makes Him the Son of David, so He received from His Father what makes Him the Son of God -- and this is something distinct and separate from human nature. Scripture gives Him two names, calling Him sometimes the Son of God and sometimes the Son of Man. There can be no debate about the second title. According to common Hebrew usage, He is called the Son of Man because He is of Adam's offspring. Conversely, I affirm that He is called the Son of God with respect to His deity and eternal essence. It is no less fitting to refer the title "Son of God" to the divine nature than it is to refer the title "Son of Man" to the human nature. Again, in the same passage I cited, Paul means that He who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh was declared the Son of God in power in no other way than Paul teaches elsewhere: that Christ, who descended from the Jews according to the flesh, is God blessed forever. Now, if in both passages the distinction between the two natures is being marked, what right do they have to say that He who according to the flesh is the Son of Man is not also the Son of God with respect to the divine nature?

They do indeed twist the passage, in defense of their error, where it says that God did not spare His own Son, and where the angel commanded that the one born of the Virgin should be called the Son of the Most High. But so that they do not boast about such a weak objection, let them weigh with us how strongly they reason. If it is valid to conclude that He began to be the Son of God at His conception because He who was conceived is called the Son of God, then it would also follow that He began to be the Word only at His appearance in the flesh, since John says he brings them news of the Word of life, which his hands have touched. Likewise, the passage in the prophet: "You, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are a small one among the thousands of Judah; out of you shall come forth a ruler to govern My people Israel, and His going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity" (Micah 5:2). How will they be forced to explain this if they insist on following such reasoning? I have made clear that we do not agree with Nestorius, who imagined a double Christ. By our teaching, Christ has made us sons of God together with Himself by right of brotherly union, because He is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh He took from us. Augustine wisely reminds us that this is a bright mirror in which to see God's marvelous and unique favor: Christ attained an honor as man that He could not have deserved. Therefore, Christ was adorned with this distinction even in His human nature from His mother's womb: to be the Son of God. Yet we must not imagine such a blending in the unity of His person as would destroy what properly belongs to the deity. It is no more absurd that the eternal Word of God and Christ, because of the two natures united in one person, should be called the Son of God in different ways, than that He should be called sometimes the Son of God and sometimes the Son of Man. Nor does Servetus' other objection trouble us: that before Christ appeared in the flesh, He is nowhere called the Son of God except in a figurative way. Although the descriptions of Him were somewhat unclear at that time, it has already been clearly proven that He was the eternal God only because He was the Word begotten of the eternal Father; that this name belongs to the person of the Mediator He has taken on only because He is God openly revealed in the flesh; and that God the Father would not have been called Father from the beginning unless there had been a mutual relationship to the Son, through whom all fatherhood is reckoned in heaven and on earth. From all this, it is easy to conclude that even during the time of the law and the prophets, He was the Son of God, before this name was commonly known in the church. But if they quarrel only about the word itself, Solomon -- in discussing the infinite greatness of God -- affirms that His Son, as well as Himself, is beyond comprehension. "Tell His name if you can," he says, "or the name of His Son" (Proverbs 30:4). I am aware that contentious people will not accept this testimony as sufficient proof, and I do not heavily rely on it. But it does show that those who deny Christ is the Son of God apart from His becoming man are arguing dishonestly. Besides this, all the most ancient church fathers have openly and unanimously testified to the same truth. So the shamelessness of those who dare to cite Irenaeus and Tertullian against us is worthy of both scorn and disgust, since both of these fathers confess that the Son of God was invisible before He later appeared in visible form.

Although Servetus has piled up horrible and monstrous ideas that the others might not accept, if you press them hard, you will find that everyone who refuses to acknowledge Christ as the Son of God apart from His human flesh only grants Him that title because He was conceived in the Virgin's womb by the Holy Spirit. This is like the ancient Manichean error of claiming that the human soul comes by derivation from God, because they read that God breathed the breath of life into Adam. They cling so tightly to the name "Son" that they leave no distinction between the natures. Instead, they babble in a confused way that Christ as man is the Son of God because He was begotten of God according to His human nature. This destroys the eternal begetting of Wisdom that Solomon speaks of. It also either dismisses the deity of the Mediator or substitutes a phantom in place of His true humanity. It would indeed be profitable to refute Servetus' cruder deceptions in detail -- the ones with which he has deceived himself and some others -- so that godly readers, warned by this example, might keep themselves within the bounds of sober and humble thinking. But I believe this would be unnecessary, since I have already done so in a separate book. The sum of his ideas amounts to this: the Son of God was an idea in God's mind from the beginning, and even then He was foreordained to be the man who would be the essential image of God. Servetus recognizes no other Word of God than one that exists only in outward appearance. He explains the begetting this way: there was a will begotten in God from the beginning to beget a Son, and this will eventually extended to actual creation. Meanwhile, he confuses the Spirit with the Word, claiming that God distributed the invisible Word and the Spirit into flesh and soul. In his system, the forming of Christ takes the place of begetting. He says that the one who was only a shadowy Son in idea was at length begotten through the Word, which he treats as a kind of seed. If that were true, it would follow that pigs and dogs are equally children of God, since they too were created from the original seed of the Word of God. Although he assembles Christ from three uncreated elements in order to make Him begotten from the essence of God, he still claims that Christ is the firstborn among creatures in such a way that stones possess the same essential divinity in proportion to their rank. And to avoid seeming to strip Christ of His deity, he claims that Christ's flesh is of the same substance as God, and that the Word was made man by turning the flesh into God. So while he cannot conceive of Christ being the Son of God unless His flesh came from God's essence and was turned into deity, he destroys the eternal person of the Word and takes from us the Son of David who was promised as Redeemer. He often repeats that the Son was begotten of God through knowledge and predestination, and that He was ultimately made man from the matter that originally shone with God in three elements -- which afterward appeared in the first light of the world, in the cloud, and in the pillar of fire. It would be too tedious to recount how shamefully he contradicts himself at times. From this brief summary, readers of sound mind can see that the teachings of this corrupt man completely destroy the hope of salvation. If the flesh were the Godhead itself, it would cease to be His temple. And no one can be our Redeemer unless He was truly made man, begotten from the seed of Abraham and David according to the flesh. Servetus wrongly presses the words of John -- "the Word was made flesh" -- because while those words resist the error of Nestorius, they do not at all support the wicked idea of Eutyches. The evangelist's only purpose was to defend the unity of the person in the two natures.