CHAPTER XIV.02

IV. And this observation, if the reader make a judicious application of it, will be of great use towards the solution of many difficulties. For it is surprising how much ignorant [pg 439] persons, and even some who are not altogether destitute of learning, are perplexed by such forms of expression, as they find attributed to Christ, which are not exactly appropriate either to his Divinity or to his humanity. This is for want of considering that they are applicable to his complex person, consisting of God and man, and to his office of Mediator. And indeed we may see the most beautiful coherence between all these things, if they have only a sober expositor, to examine such great mysteries with becoming reverence. But these furious and frantic spirits throw every thing into confusion. They lay hold of the properties of his humanity, to destroy his Divinity; on the other hand, they catch at the attributes of his Divinity, to destroy his humanity; and by what is spoken of both natures united, but is applicable separately to neither, they attempt to destroy both. Now, what is this but to contend that Christ is not man, because he is God; that he is not God, because he is man; and that he is neither man nor God, because he is at once both man and God? We conclude, therefore, that Christ, as he is God and man, composed of these two natures united, yet not confounded, is our Lord and the true Son of God, even in his humanity; though not on account of his humanity. For we ought carefully to avoid the error of Nestorius, who, attempting rather to divide than to distinguish the two natures, thereby imagined a double Christ. This we find clearly contradicted by the Scripture, where the appellation of “the Son of God” is given to him who was born of the Virgin, and the Virgin herself is called “the mother of our Lord.”1191 We must also beware of the error of Eutyches, lest while we aim to establish the unity of Christ's person, we destroy the distinction of his two natures. For we have already cited so many testimonies, where his Divinity is distinguished from his humanity, and the Scripture abounds with so many others, that they may silence even the most contentious. I shall shortly subjoin some, in order to a more complete refutation of that notion. At present one passage shall suffice us; for Christ would not have styled his body “a temple,”1192 if it had not been the residence of the Divinity, and at the same time distinct from it. Wherefore, as Nestorius was justly condemned in the council of Ephesus, so also was Eutyches afterwards in the councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon; for to confound the two natures in Christ, and to separate them, are equally wrong.

V. But in our time also there has arisen a heretic equally pestilent, Michael Servetus, who in the place of the Son of God has substituted an imaginary being composed of the [pg 440] essence of God, spirit, flesh, and three uncreated elements. In the first place, he denies Christ to be the Son of God, in any other respect than as he was begotten by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin. But his subtlety tends to subvert the distinction of the two natures, and thereby to represent Christ as something composed of God and man, and yet neither God nor man. For this is the principal point which he constantly endeavours to establish, that before Christ was manifested in the flesh, there were in God only some shadowy figures; the truth or effect of which had no real existence till the Word, who had been destined to this honour, actually began to be the Son of God. Now, we confess that the Mediator, who was born of the Virgin, is properly the Son of God. Nor indeed could the man Christ be a mirror of the inestimable grace of God, if this dignity had not been conferred on him, to be, and to be called, “the only begotten Son of God.” The doctrine of the Church, however, remains unshaken, that he is accounted the Son of God, because, being the Word begotten by the Father before all ages, he assumed the human nature in a hypostatical union. By the “hypostatical union” the ancients expressed the combination of two natures constituting one person. It was invented to refute the error of Nestorius, who imagined the Son of God to have dwelt in flesh in such a manner as, notwithstanding that, to have had no real humanity. Servetus falsely accuses us of making two Sons of God, when we say that the eternal Word was the Son of God, before he was clothed with flesh; as though we affirmed any other than that he was manifested in the flesh. For if he was God before he became man, it is not to be inferred that he began to be a new God. There is no more absurdity in affirming that the Son of God appeared in the flesh, who nevertheless was always the Son of God by eternal generation. This is implied in the words of the angel to Mary: “That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God;”1193 as though he had said, that the name of the Son, which had been in obscurity under the law, was about to be celebrated and universally known. Consistent with this is the representation of Paul; that through Christ we are the sons of God, and may freely and confidently cry, Abba, Father.1194 But were not the holy patriarchs in ancient times numbered among the children of God? Yes; and depending on this claim, they invoked God as their Father. But because, since the introduction of the only begotten Son of God into the world, the celestial paternity has been more clearly revealed, Paul mentions this [pg 441] as the privilege of the kingdom of Christ. It must, however, be steadily maintained, that God never was a Father, either to angels or to men, but with reference to his only begotten Son; and especially that men, whom their own iniquity renders odious to God, are his sons by gratuitous adoption, because Christ is his Son by nature. Nor is there any force in the cavil of Servetus, that this depends on the filiation which God has decreed in himself; because we are not here treating of figures, as expiation was represented by the blood of the sacrifices: but as they could not be the sons of God in reality, unless their adoption were founded on this head, it is unreasonable to detract from the head, that which is common to all the members. I go further: since the Scripture calls angels “the children of God,”1195 whose enjoyment of such high dignity depended not on the future redemption, yet it is necessary that Christ should precede them in order, seeing it is by him that they are connected with the Father. I will briefly repeat this observation, and apply the same to the human race. Since angels and men were originally created in such a condition, that God was the common Father of both, if there be any truth in the assertion of Paul, “that Christ was before all things, the head of the body, and the first-born of every creature, that in all things he might have the preëminence,”1196 I conceive I am right in concluding, that he was also the Son of God before the creation of the world.