On the Person & Human & Divine Natures of Christ

.

.

Subsections

On the Communication of the Properties of Christ’s Natures

The Grounds of Christ the Mediator Receiving Divine Worship

On the Doctrine of Appropriations

.

.

Contents

Articles
Books
Historical Theology
Latin
On the Person of Christ
On the Divinity of Christ
On Christ’s Human Nature
Against the Ubiquity (Everywhere-ness) of Christ’s Human Nature
On the Son of God Assuming an Impersonal Human Nature, & Subsistence
That Christ’s Human Nature was from Mary
That Christ has a Human Will & a Divine Will
On the Extra Calvinisticum
On the Theology of Union
Was Christ Morally Able to Sin?  No
Whether Christ would have been Incarnated Apart from Sin & Redemption?


.

.

Articles

Early Church

Fathers of Antioch – ‘On the Incarnation of the Word: a Confession made…  Paul Samosota’  excerpted from the acts of the 1st Ephesian Council  in Zachary Ursinus, A Collection of Certain Learned Discourses…  (Oxford, 1600), pp. 88-91

Cyril of Jerusalem – Catechetical Lectures  in NPNF2, vol. 7

Lecture 10, ‘Of the One Lord, Jesus Christ’, pp. 57-63  on 1 Cor. 8:5-6

Lecture 11, ‘Of the Only-Begotten Son of God, Begotten from the Father before all Worlds, True God, through whom All Things were Made’, pp. 64-71

Lecture 12, ‘Of Christ Incarnate’, pp. 72-81

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313–386) was a bishop of Jerusalem who was exiled numerous times due to the religious controversies of the era.  Cyril was an eastern Father (this showing in his teachings about baptism, chrism and the Eucharist), however, as argued at length by Edwin H. Gifford (see pp. xlvi-liii of the Introduction in NPNF2), Cyril was keenly orthodox in his teachings about the Trinity and Christ’s Mediatorial Person, despite his not using the Nicean term homoousion (‘the same substance’) in these lectures for baptismal candidates.

Possible reasons why Cyril did not use the term homoousion, according to Gifford, include: (1) that it was ambiguous from the inception of the term in Greek philosophy, (2) it had some ambiguity amongst the Christian Fathers before Nicea, including in sometimes being equivelent to hypostasis, (3) it was used by other heretics, such as the Sabellians, whether in a good way, or in a bad way, they meaning by it that the Son was the same Person (hypostasis) as the Father, and (4) Cyril’s Church had not previously used it, and so they saw no need to insert a questionable and possibly confusing term into their creed.

.

Medieval

Boethius – ‘A Treatise Against Eutyches & Nestorius’  in Boethius: the Theological Tractates with an English Translation  eds. Stewart & Rand  (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1918), pp. 73-127

Boethius (c.480-c.524, also known as Severinus) was an orthodox Church father after the Council of Chalcedon.  Nestorius (386-450) held, to simplify, that Christ was two persons.  Eutyches (c. 380-c. 456) held that Christ had one mixed nature.

.

1500’s

Ursinus, Zacharias

‘Of the Office & Person of Christ the Only Mediator’  (1562)  in A Collection of Certain Learned Discourses…  (Oxford, 1600), pp. 239-49  This was Ursinus’s disputation at the University of Heidelberg “for his degree of Doctorship”.  Ursinus gives 12 propositions with Scripture proofs.

The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism  trans. George W. Williard  3rd American ed.  (d. 1583; 1591; Cincinnati, OH: T.P. Bucher, 1861), 5th Lord’s Day, of the Deliverance of Man

IV. What Kind of Mediator He ought to be?, p. 95
V. Who this Mediator is, who in one Person is both God and Man, pp. 95-96

Beza, Theodore

3rd Point, ‘Of Jesus Christ the Only Son of God’  in A Brief & Pithy Sum of the Christian Faith, made in Form of a Confession, with a Confutation of All such Superstitious Errors as are Contrary Thereunto  (London [1565?]), pp. 2-13

pp. 3-17  in A Book of Christian Questions & Answers, wherein are set forth the Chief Points of the Christian Religion (London, 1574)

‘The First Homily… 1574’  in Two Very Learned Sermons of M. Beza, together with a Short Sum of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper…  (London, 1588), pp. 1-40

This is seriously good.  The second homily in the volume applies the doctrines on the Person of Christ to the Lord’s Supper.

ch. 2, ‘Concerning the Person of Christ’, pp. 244-435  in Lutheranism vs. Calvinism: the Classic Debate at the Colloquy of Montbeliard, 1586  ed. Jeffery Mallinson  trans. Clinton J. Armstrong  (Concordia, 2017)

In the chapter (p. 235 ff.) the Lutheran theologians, headed by Jacob Andreae, first give 21 theses on the person of Christ, and then 8 points (characterizing the reformed) which they say contradict Scripture.  Then on p. 244 Beza and his reformed companions respond to each thesis one by one.  On p. 258, the reformed respond to each of the 8 points.  P. 262 starts the discussion between Andreae and Beza, each going back and forth for 170 pp.

The volume itself leans Lutheran as it was originally published after colloquy by the Lutherans, they often giving the last word on the issues.  Beza, however, responded to all of that commentary, with further detail into the issues, in a Latin volume below on this page.

Beza, Faius & Students – ch. 20, ‘Principles Concerning the Personal Union of the Two Natures in Christ’  in Propositions & Principles of Divinity Propounded & Disputed in the University of Geneva by Certain Students of Divinity there, under Mr. Theodore Beza & Mr. Anthony Faius… Wherein is Contained a Methodical Summary, or Epitome of the Common Places of Divinity…  (Edinburgh, 1591), pp. 43-45

Zanchi, Girolamo – Confession of the Christian Religion…  (1586)

ch. 11, ‘Of Christ the Redeemer’, pp. 54-74

‘Upon the 11th Chapter, Aphorisms 6-12’, pp. 277-291  in ‘Obseruations of the same Zan­chius upon his own Confession’

‘Appendix to the 11th Chapter’, pp. 350-68

‘Of the Dispensation of Salvati­on by Christ. Out of the First Chapter of the Ephesians’ (1580), pp. 419-24

‘Of the Resurrection of Christ Jesus from the Dead, his Ascension into Heaven & Sitting at God’s Right Hand, out of the First of Paul to the Ephesians’  (1581), pp. 397-418  This is specifically combatting Lutheran errors regarding the Asencsion and Ubiquity, and the relations of the natures of Christ, etc.

‘Of those things which are spo­ken of our Lord Jesus Christ, after the Union: & in what sort they are spoken.  Out of the 1st to the Ephesians’ (1582), pp. 424-42

.

1600’s

Leiden Synopsis (Thysius) – Disputation 25, ‘On the Incarnation of the Son of God & the Personal Union of the Two Natures in Christ’  in Synopsis Puris Theologiae, Synopsis of Pure Theology: Latin Text & English Translation  ed. Henk van den Belt, trans. Riemer A. Faber  (Leiden: Brill, 2016), vol. 2, pp. 66-99  See section 24 for the human nature subsisting in the Son of God; otherwise the disputation speaks of the union as an assuming.

Heidegger, Johann H. – ch. 17, ‘On the Person of Jesus Christ’  in The Concise Marrow of Theology  trans. Casey Carmichael  (RHB, 2019), pp. 117-23

The translation is very poor.  The English frequently does not even make sense; translation mistakes which change and obscure the meaning of the Latin are frequent.

Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology  ed. James Dennison, Jr.  (P&R), vol. 2, 13th Topic

Question 6, ‘Did the Son of God assume human nature into the unity of his person?  We affirm against the Socinians’, pp. 310-17

Question 7, ‘Was the hypostatical union of the two natures in Christ such that neither the person is divided nor the natures confounded?  We affirm against Nestorius and Eutyches.’, pp. 317-21

van Mastricht, Peter – bk. 5, ch. 4, ‘The Person of the Mediator’  in Theoretical Practical Theology  (RHB, 2022), vol. 4

.

1800’s

Bavinck, Herman – ‘The Divine & Human Natures of Christ’no date or source info

Cunningham, William – ‘Evidence for the Divinity of Christ’, p. 213 ff.  23 pp.  from his Historical Theology, vol. 2

Plumer, William – The Rock of Our Salvation: A Treatise Respecting the Natures, Person, Offices, Work, Sufferings & Glory of Jesus Christ  Buy  (American Tract Society, 1880)

1. ‘Christ All in All’

2. ‘The Divinity of Christ’

3. ‘The Sonship of Christ’

4. ‘The Incarnation of Christ’

6. ‘Christ the Mediator’

16. ‘Christ’s Ascension & Session’

17. ‘Christ in Heaven’

18. ‘Christ’s Personal Absence from this World’

.

1900’s

Berkhof, Louis – ‘The Names & Natures of Christ’  21 paragraphs  from his Systematic Theology  (1950)

Boettner, Loraine – ch. 4. ‘The Person of Christ’  in Studies in Theology  Buy  (P&R, 1984)


.

.

Books

1500’s

Vermigli, Peter Martyr – A Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ  ed. & trans. John Donnelly  in The Peter Martyr Library, vol. 2  Buy  (Truman State Univ. Press, 1995; Davenant Institute, 2018)  214 pp.

“In this last work of Vermigli’s distinguished career as a theologian, he uses a dialogue to discuss the disagreement among Christians about the Eucharist and Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper.”

.

1600’s

Owen, John – Works  (ed. Goold), vol. 1

Christologia, or a Declaration of the Glorious Mystery of the Person of Christ’, pp. 1-272  ToC

‘Meditations & Discourses on the Glory of Christ’, pp. 274-417  ToC

‘Meditations & Discourses Concerning the Glory of Christ Applied, etc.’, pp. 418-463  ToC

.

1700’s

Fleming, Robert – Christology: a Discourse Concerning Christ: Considered: I. In Himself, II. In his Government, and III. In Relation to his Subjects & their Duty to Him…  (London: Andrew Bell, 1705)  Detailed ToC 1, 2  Only three books (out of 6 planned) in two volumes ever seem to have been published.

Bk. 1, A General View of Christology  in vol. 1, pp. 1-126

Bk. 2, The Logos, or a Discourse Concerning Christ as Such  in vol. 1, pp. 127-354

Bk. 3, The Loganthropos: or a Discourse Concerning Christ, as He is the Logos made Man  in vol. 2, after 192 pp., separate pagination, 2-697

.

1800’s

Miller, Samuel

Letters on the Eternal Sonship of Christ: Addressed to the Rev. Professor Stuart, of Andover  (1823)  308 pp.  8 letters specifically aimed at Unitarianism

Letters on Unitarianism: Addressed to the mMmbers of the First Presbyterian Church, in the City of Baltimore  (1821)  328 pp.  this specifically addresses the person and divinity of Christ

Brown, Charles – The Divine Glory of Christ  (1868) 134 pp.

This short book collects the teachings of the scriptures regarding the divinity and glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, while aiming at heart-stirring devotion.

.

1900’s

Warfield, Benjamin B. – The Person & Work of Christ  Buy

.

2000’s

Wellum, Stephen J. – God the Son Incarnate: the Doctrine of Christ  in Foundations of Evangelical Theology  Pre  (Crossway, 2016)


.

.

Historical Theology

Articles

On the Early Church

Cunningham, William – ‘The Person of Christ in the Early Church, Including the Eutychian & Nestorian Controversies’, p. 307 ff., 12 pp., from his Historical Theolgoy, vol. 1

Wellum, Stephen J. – chs. 7-9  of God the Son Incarnate: the Doctrine of Christ  in Foundations of Evangelical Theology  Pre  (Crossway, 2016)  Ch. 7 surveys up to Nicea; ch. 8 surveys up to Chalcedon and ch. 9 surveys post-Chalcedon history.


.

.

Latin Articles

Early Church

Cyril of Jerusalem – Catechetical Lectures  in PG 33

Lecture 10, ‘Of the One Lord, Jesus Christ’, cols. 657-90  on 1 Cor. 8:5-6

Lecture 11, ‘Of the Only-Begotten Son of God, Begotten from the Father before all Worlds, True God, through which All Things were Made’, cols. 690-724

Lecture 12, ‘Of Christ Incarnate’, cols. 723-770

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313–386) was a bishop of Jerusalem who was exiled numerous times due to the religious controversies of the era.  Cyril was an eastern Father (this showing in his teachings about baptism, chrism and the Eucharist), however, as argued at length by Edwin H. Gifford (see pp. xlvi-liii of the Introduction in NPNF2), Cyril was keenly orthodox in his teachings about the Trinity and Christ’s Mediatorial Person, despite his not using the Nicean term homoousion (‘the same substance’) in these lectures for baptismal candidates.

Possible reasons why Cyril did not use the term homoousion, according to Gifford, include: (1) that it was ambiguous from the inception of the term in Greek philosophy, (2) it had some ambiguity amongst the Christian Fathers before Nicea, including in sometimes being equivelent to hypostasis, (3) it was used by other heretics, such as the Sabellians, whether in a good way, or in a bad way, they meaning by it that the Son was the same Person (hypostasis) as the Father, and (4) Cyril’s Church had not previously used it, and so they saw no need to insert a questionable and possibly confusing term into their creed.

Cyril of Alexandria – in PG 75

‘Of the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten, & that Christ is One & the Lord according to the Scriptures’, cols. 1190-1254

‘That there is One Christ, of Himself’, cols. 1254-1363

‘Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten’, cols. 1363-1414

‘On the Incarnation of the Word of God, of the Son of the Father’, cols. 1414-19

‘On the Incarnation of the Lord’, cols. 1419-78

Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376–444)

.

1500’s

Beza, Theodore – Pt. 1, ‘On the Person of Christ’  in The Response of Theodore Beza to the Acts of the Colloquy of Montisbelgard, the Tubingen Edition  Parts 1 (2nd ed.) & 2 (1st ed.) bound together  (Geneva, 1588), pp. 78-186

First is given one or several written theses of Jacob Andrea and the Lutheran, Wurttemberg, Germany theologians.  Then the response of Beza to each of these is given in Antitheses.

After the colloquy Andrea had published a volume commenting on Beza’s Antitheses; these remarks are given in the margin of this volume.  Beza then gives his extended response to these margin remarks of Andreae in the main body of the text of this volume.  This cycle continues for a total of 21 Lutheran theses up to p. 167.

The next section (pp. 167-86) is of the 8 dogmas (characterizing reformed tenets) that the Lutheran theologians condemned at the colloquy.  For each dogma, the response of Beza at the colloquy is given in an antithesis, with the later commentary of Andreae provided in the margin.  Then follows Beza’s response to Andreae’s marginalia.

Bullinger, Heinrich – An Orthodox Assertion of Each Nature in Christ, even the Divine as much as the Human, Contra the Various Heresies, for the Catholic Confession of Christ  (Zurich, 1534)  62 pp.  This has a dedicatory epistle to the minister of Zurich, but otherwise no subdivisions; margin notes indicate the outline.

Beza, Theodore – Theological Tracts, in which many of the Doctrines of the Christian Religion are Restored to Whole and Defended from the Word of God Against the Heretical Sects of our Times  (Geneva, 1570)

vol. 1

12. ‘Of the Hypostatic Union in Christ of the Two Natures, an Assertion Against Jacob Andreae [a Lutheran]’, pp. 625-45

.

vol. 3

3. ‘A Mild & Christian Dispute with Dr. Johann Pappus [a Lutheran], a Doctor of the Church of Strassburg [Germany], on the Hypostatic Union of the Two Natures in Christ & its Effects’  74  (1574), pp. 74-100

Arguments of Beza with Responses Following

1.  74
2.  76
3.  77
4.  78
5.  79
6.  81
7-9  83
10.  84
11.  86
[sic] 13.  91
14.  92
15-16  93
17-19.  94
20.  95
21-22.  96
23-24.  97
25-26.  98-101

.

vol. 4

12. A Short Book of Theodore the Presbyter of Rhaithu Against Some Heresies Now & Formerly Opposing the Hypostatic Union of the Two Natures in Christ, now set forth First in Greek & Made into Latin [in Parallel Columns] by Theodore Beza of Vezel, to which is Adjoined a Collation of the Same Heresies with the Recently Agitated Controversies on the Same Thing, pp. 390-401

Theodore of Raithu (fl. late 6th or early 7th century) was a Christian theologian, considered the last of the Neo-Chalcedonians.  The book translated here is Προπαρασκευή, The Preparation, also sometimes known as Basic Indoctrination.

Intro  390
The Opinion of Mani  391
The Opinion of Paul of Samosota  391
The Opinion of Apollinarius  391
The Opinion of Theodore of Mopsuestia  392
The Opinion of Nestorius  392
The Opinion of Eutyches  392

The [True] Definition of the Church [about Christ]  393
An Explication of the Definition  393

The Opinion of Julian  396
The Opinion of Severus & the Definition of the Church  396-8

To the Reader  398
A Sum [Collation] of the Orthodox Doctrine on the Two Natures in Christ by the Hypostatic Union [by Beza]  399-401

.

1600’s

Martinius, Matthew – A Brief Confession on the Person of Christ, in which is Vindicated the Illustrious Testimonies of Scripture (even from the Corruptions of the Adversaries) which are against the Dogma of the Omnipresence of the Flesh of Christ which they are Accustomed to Agitate: so it is proposed to the Chuch of Christ to judge which is orthodox, or whether they are contaminated with the heresies of Nestorius and many others, the Arians, Marcionites & Eutycheans, as some vociferate daily, chiefly those slaves of Dr. Balthasar Mentzerus in Frankfurt [Germany]  (Herborne, 1604)  63 pp.

Table of Contents

Dedicatory Epistle  3

A Sum of Sound Doctrine on the Person of Christ  8

The Doctrine of the Adversaries, which they defend, of the
.     Omnipresence of the Flesh of Christ, is this…  12

The Principle Testimonies of Scripture Against the Omnipresence of
.     the Flesh of Christ & All Each of those Three Modes of the
.     Communication of Properties  14

The Testimonies Respecting the State of Exaltation  18

Of the Predictions of Leaving out of this World, they say these sayings  22

Of his Leaving for Heaven, of the Mansion in Heaven and returning from there, the testimonies are these  24-63

Voet, Gisbert – I. ‘Of the Person of Christ the Mediator’  in Tract 2, ‘Of the Person, Offices & States of Christ the Mediator’ in A Syllabus of Theological Problems, which, for the Needed Thing to be Proposed or Pressed, are Accustomed to be Used in Private & Public Exercises of Disputations, Examinations, Gatherings & Consultations…  (Utrecht, 1643)  13 pp.  no page numbers  Abbreviations

Table of Contents
I. Of the Person of Christ the Mediator

1. Of the Assumption & Union of the Human Nature

Of the Person Assuming
Of the Human Nature Assumed
Of the Mode of the Assumption, as far as the
.      Order
Of the Conception & Bearing
Of the Incarnation
Of the Hypostatic Union
Of the Birth & Nativity
Of Mary the Mother of Christ
Of the Circumstances of the Nativity of Christ
Of the Concomitants, Antecedents &
.      Especially of the Magi
Of the Star of the Magi

2. On the Consequences & Effects of the Union

Of Christ, Theanthropos
Of the Communication of Properties
Of Those Things which are Convenient to Christ by Reason of the Human Nature

Of the Knowledge [Scientia] of Christ &
.      his Ignorance
Of the Power of the Soul of Christ
Of the Defects of the Body
Of the Defects of the Soul
On the Will of Christ

Of Those Things which are Convenient to Christ by Reason of the Union: Of the Subjection & Obedience of Christ

Alting, Henry – 3. ‘Christ’  in An Exegesis of the Augsburg Confession  in A Logical & Theological Exegesis of the Augsburg Confession…  (Amsterdam, 1647), pp. 20-32

Hoornbeek, Johannes – ch. 9. ‘Of Christ’  in Theological Institutes, Harmonized from the Best Authors  (Leiden, 1658), pp. 270-339

Maccovius, Johannes – Johannes Maccovius Revived, or Manuscripts of his…  ed. Nicolaas Arnoldi  (Amsterdam, 1659)

4. ‘The Personal Union & the Communication of Properties’  in ‘An Examination of the Lutheran Controversies’  in The False First-Principles of the Papists, Socinians, Lutherans, Arminians, Anabaptists…, pp. 581-85

‘Anti-Eckhardus’

3. Human Nature of Christ  636
4. The Personal Union  637
5. On Personal Propositions  639

7. On Some Other Articles of the Apostles’ Creed Concerning Christ  651

1. On the Nativity  651
2. On the Obedience of Christ  651
3. On the Descent to Inferos  651
4. On the Resurrection  652
5. Of the Ascension to Heaven  652
6. Of the Session at the Right Hand  652

Wendelin, Marcus Friedrich – 3. ‘Two Natures & of Their Hypostatic Union in the One Person of Christ the Savior’  in A Collation of the Christian Doctrine of the Reformed & Lutherans Set Forth in Theological Places & Explicated & Asserted by Questions & Responses to the Lutherans, by which the Judgment of the Reformed is Submitted & thus the Consensus & Disagrement of Both Parties in the Christian Religion is Demonstrated…  (Kassel: Schadewitzius, 1660), pp. 57-101 (Irregular Numbering)

van Mastricht, Petrus – section 2, ch. 34, ‘On the Person of Christ the Mediator’  in the Gangrene of the Innovations of the Cartesians…  (Amsterdam, 1677), pp. 513-33

Heidegger, Johann H.

Bk. 2, Place 17, ‘Of the Person of Jesus Christ’  in The Marrow of Christian Theology  2nd ed.  (d. 1698; Zurich: Henry Bodmer, 1713), separate pagination, pp. 1-22.  Heidegger argues against the Lutheran paradigm of the Person of Christ with reference to a communicated subsisting in section 35.

Place 17, ‘The Person of Jesus Christ’  in A Body of Christian Theology…  (Tigur, 1700), vol. 2, pp. 1-34.  Heidegger argues against the Lutheran paradigm of the Person of Christ with reference to a communicated subsisting in section 59.

.

1700’s

Vitringa, Sr., Campegius – The Doctrine of the Christian Religion, Summarily Described through Aphorisms  (d. 1722), vol. 5

Of the Person of the Messiah & his Twofold Nature  45

Of the Incarnation of the Son of God  45-69
Of the Two Natures in Christ  70-202
Of the Union of the Two Natures  202-244
Of the Effects of the Personal Union  245-314

De Moor, Bernard – ch. 19, ‘Of the Person of Jesus Christ’  in A Continuous Commentary on John Marck’s Compendium of Didactic & Elenctic Christian Theology  (Leiden, 1761-71), vol. 3, pp. 621-837.  His treatment of the hypostatic union is in section 17, and is even more detailed in section 20, especially pp. 794-99.  His discussion of the apotelesmatum, or the unified effects from both Christ’s natures, is in section 21 & 23.  He describes the Lutheran view of the Union on p. 814, section 4.

.

.

Latin Books

1500’s

Zanchi, Jerome – On the Incarnation of the Son of God, in Two Books, in which the Whole of this Mystery is Solidly Explained…  (Heidelberg: Harnisch, 1593)  875 pp.  ToC

Table of Contents

Bk. 1, in which is Explained the Words of the Apostle, Philippians 2:5-8 & the Doctrine of the Same, the Eternal Deity of Him, & of the True & Perfect Human Nature Assumed by Him in Time, is Confirmed & the Contrary Heresies are Refuted  1

Ch. 1, the Scope of the Apostle 1 the twofold interpretation of the words is indicated 2-3 the text divided in three parts 4 on verse 5, may it be an affection in you all 5-6 Whether it was an affection in the Son of God 7 on verse 6, Christ is a divine and eternal hypostasis homoousion [of the same substance] with the Father 7-8 heresies against the Deity of Christ refuted, so those of Cerinth and Ebion 9 those of Servetus, Arius, Photinius, Carpocratus 10 those of Sabellius, the practical Tritheists, the gentiles 11

Ch. 2, ‘Form’, what it is 12,13,18,21 this is that nature of God with glory 16 so it is distinguished from ousia (substance) and phusi (nature) 17 ‘He thought it not robbery’, what that means 19 these words of Paul are not to be understood of Christ-incarnate 21 Erasmus is refelled 21-22 the interpretation of the Greeks 23 Bullinger & Brentius 25 of the Latins & Calvin, Beza 26-27 of verse 7, or on the Emptying [exinanitione] 30-35 the term ’emptying’ [evacuandi] refells the Ubiquitarians 38 in what way He was made a servant 39 assuming the form of a servant 41 in the similitude of men ‘He was made’, this connotes true humanity and the hypostatic union 43-45 the form [figura] has been clearly ascertained, thus a man 46

Ch. 3, gathers the Heads of Doctrine out of the Text 49 it refutes the heretics: Paul of Samosata, Arius, the Patripassians, Nestorius, Eutyches, Apollinarius, Cerd., Marcion, Valentinus, the Anabaptists, the Monothelites 51-57 the certian error of the Fathers who supposed that Christ did not feel anguish of suffering 58 He emptied Himself, not laying aside the form of God, but it was hidden, not revealing the majesty, so it was fitting for Him to endure 61

Bk. 2, Heresies on the Incarnation of Christ are Refuted  64

Ch. 1, Recounts Heresies on the Incarnation, especially those of Nestorius & Eutyches 64-66 of Swenckfeld 68,71 of Paul the Acephalite and those who are Monophysites 69 Theopaschites, Severus, the Armenians, Agnostics [Agnoetae], Aphthartodocites, Tritheists, the Monothelites 70 Melchior Hoffman the Anabaptist and the Ubiquitarians 71  the cause of these errors: a quasi-nature of whatever has a proper subsistence  71

Ch. 2, The Incarnation, what it is 73-76 the union is substantial & personal 81 of Mary the God-Bearer (Theotokos) 83 of Christ as the reason that the natures and their properties and actions are really predicated 84 the end of the Incarnation 89

Ch. 3, Propounds 12 Questions  91

Q. 1, Who assumed the Form of a Servant?  True God, even the 2nd Person of the Trinity, not the 1st or the 3rd, proved out of the end of the incarnation 92-94 reasons why it was fitting for the Son to be incarnate 95-96 Why conceiving was solely of the Holy Spirit, nor yet is He called his Son 98-100 Why three persons are not simultaneously incarnate since the nature of God was incarnate 101-03 a Person assumed a nature; a nature did not, properly speaking, assume a nature 106

Q. 2, What was assumed? 107 The true body of Christ is asserted 108 contrary objections from apparitions are dissolved 109 out of Rom. 8, ‘in the likeness of flesh’ 110 He assumed a truly human flesh and soul 111-12 why He is called a heavenly man 112 ‘flesh’ signifies also a soul 113 what essential and natural properties are 113 the defects which He assumed 116 even of the soul, so ignorance 119 the affections: anguish, fear, wonder, wrath 120 the discrimination of the affections in Christ and us 121 four causes why he also assumed defects 122 He did not assume a person but a nature 124 a person and a hypostasis, what it is 125 what a nature is 127 12 arguments against Nestorius 130-40 the fundamentals and reasons of Nestorius 141 other arguments out of Thomas 147 Ubiquitarians badly conclude the human nature to be everywhere because in it subsists the Person of the Word 148 the humanity is not in the Word as an accident 153

Q. 3, Christ assumed a human nature immune from sin 154 Mary was infected with sin 155 in what way Christ was in Adam, nor did he sin 157

Q. 4, By which way He was born of a mother, in a new way He ought to be born, why He was born solely of a mother 161 in what way He was from the Father 162, the sanctification of Mary 163 the absurdities of Ambrose the Cathar being for the purity of Mary from Original Sin 165 why He was begotten in betrothal 166 of the virginity of Mary 167 whether she vowed? 168

Q. 5, Of what kind of material was the soul of Christ created, that it works against traducianism 169 it was created in the womb of the Virgin in the person of the Logos, and that most purely 170 the body of Christ was from the seed of David and Abraham 171 why the genealogy of Christ by the Evangelists leads all the way to Adam 171 the heresies of Valentinus, that the flesh of Christ was from Heaven 173

Q. 6, Of the time of the Incarnation, which is the Last Days 174 the discordance of chronologies 175 why He did not assume the flesh earlier or later 177-80

Q. 7, Of the order of the assumption 181 the conception was made in the virgin with consent [or knowingly] 182 Christ assumed to Himself a soul and a body simultaneously, but a soul immediately 184

Q. 8, Of the perfection of assuming the living body 188 it was not formed gradually 189 a twofold union of the Word and of the human nature (soul and body) was in Christ 191 the union of the soul and body proved 193

Q. 9, Of the mode of union 194 the collation of the union of the three persons of the Deity and of the two natures of Christ 195 the explication of the apostles of the mode 196 the Fathers are brought to more accurately explain from the heretics 199 what the union is, and how it is twofold, out of Nyssa, Bernard and Thomas 199 the dogma of Nestorius is refuted, that the union made was by inhabiting, assisting, affection, dignity, grace 203 the union made was not by conversion or comixture, contra Apollinarus, Eutyches, Dioscorus 208 the 6 reasons of John Damascus 211 the cause of the errors of Nestorius, Eutyches and the Ubiquitarians, that He is a quasi-person with the same natures 215 the whole Christ and the whole of Christ are distinguished by the Fathers 216,223 5 other arguments against Eutyches 216-17 the objections of Eutyches 220 of the simile of the human body and soul and of the natures of Christ, how far it ought to be used 222 how far the person of Christ may be said to be composit 224 of the worship of the human Christ 226 of the double will and double operating faculty of Christ contra Macarius and the Monothelites 232 the Ubiquitists are Monothelites 233 the arguments of John of Damascus against the Monothelites 234,247 the distinction of actions & properties does not divide the union 240-44 the will and energy is taken for the power or for the act 244 autotheleton [self-willing] was in Christ 245 as well as a human will besides the divine will 247 nor was one will conflated from the divine and human 250 objections of the Monothelites 254 the Paulicians are refuted 256 two other false opinions on the union 257 Christ put on flesh, but not simply as clothes 261,265 the simile of flesh and clothes explained 262 the union was not made by the mode of an accident 268 objections to the contrary are solved 270 the error of Brentius [a Lutheran] 272 the true judgment of the mode of the union 273 to assume into the unity of the person, what it means 275 the union was made atreptos (unchangeably), adiairetos (indivisibly), asugkutos, ousiodos 277-78 this is proved out of Phil. 2 280 and other places of Scripture on the Incarnation, as John 1, Heb. 2 & Col. 2 286 in what way the whole fulness of Deity is in Christ bodily 293 Col. 2 is explicated out of the Greek scholastics 295 the saying of Ecumenius that He fills all with the flesh is in no way for the Ubiquitarians 296 the creed of Chalcedon proves this mode of union and refutes the Ubiquitarians 297 the testimony of John of Damascus 300 Adiastatos [without division] what it means, contra Chemnitz 302 the testimony of Justin 303 the simile of the union of the soul with the body explained and accommodated 305 how insofar it is dissimilar 307 the impudence of the Ubiquitarians 308 the simile of Justin and others of primal light, the same of Emperor Justinian, Boethius, Cassian, Gelasius, [Pope] Vigilius, Fulgentius, Rusticus, Maxentius, of the Roman Church, of Lombard and the testimony of the scholastics 310 of Thomas Aquinas 315

Q. 10, Of the hypostatic union 321 by what names it has been expressed by the Fathers, even: a ‘combination’ (crasis), a ‘mixture’, a ‘copulation’, an ‘economy’, an ‘incarnation’, a ‘coporation’, an ‘advent’, ‘perichoresis’, a ‘communion’ 322-25 its definition and explanation 326

Q. 11, What consequences follow from the union 332 opposite things are to be predicated of Christ 333 names of the person and natures 334 the man, not the humanity is properly called God 337 what the grace of union is 341 Chemnitz and the Book of Concord do not badly define the communication of properties 347 in that which they err 348 how and by what gifts the human nature is endowed or deified 351 by which supernatural things 353 the habits of grace and the gifts of the Spirit which are given to Christ 354 places of Scripture, so Isa. 11, ‘The Spirit of Jehovah rests upon Him…’ explained 355 Lk. 2, ‘The child increased…’ 356 in what way He advanced 357 the sayings of the Fathers are not able to be taken of the real communication of divine properties 359 whether in the soul of Christ there was faith or hope 360 or love 362 of the threefold knowledge of the soul of Christ 362 whether by uncreated wisdom He saw God 364 whether He saw the whole essence of God 366 whether He saw all that is in God 367 whether the soul of Christ maintained equality with the wisdom of the Logos, reasons for the negative 371 it is not properly omniscient 372 the objection of the Ubiquitarians 373 whether through infused knowledge He knew all things 373 whether the infused knowledge rose above the angels 375 why habitual knowledge is so-called 376 the habitual knowledge of Christ is multifold 377 the kind of the acquired knowledge of the soul of Christ 378 whether He advanced or learned from angels 379 whether and what from men he learned 380 all He learned pertains to the perfection of the human intellect 381 of the power of the human Christ 382 what power and omnipotence is 383 howsofar Christ the man is omnipotent 384 the testimony of Lombard 385 the arguments of Thomas Aquinas 387 his response to that place, ‘All power is given unto Me’ [Mt. 28:18] 390 how great is the power of Christ’s soul 391 habitual graces, so they differ from the grace of union 393 of those testimonies of the Fathers, the simile of a grain ignited, the simile of the body and soul 394 this union made Christ the perfect Mediator 399 the office of the Mediator 401 Christ is the one Head of the Church 402 of the actions of Christ 405 what are the completed effects (apotelesmata) 405 in the one movement [agente] there are two principles of action 407 John of Damascus contra the Monothelite arguments 408 what energy is 409 the differences of the actions 411 the completed effects (apotelesmata) are threefold 412 the soul is the principle agent 413 miracles were of the divine nature, not the human 414-16 reasons for the double actions of Christ 418 exception one, according to Apollinarius 421 Christ-incarnate worked up to this point with the Father 423 exception two of the Monophysites 425 the plurality of actions does not infer plural persons 426 the simile of an ignited sword works against the Ubiquitarians 429 other arguments for the plurality of actions in Christ 432 the cause of the error of the Monothelites 437 their arguments 441 what theandric actions are and why they are so-called 444 how the actions of one nature are common to the other nature 448,455 the words of Leo, ‘Each nature works with the other in common,’ this is rightly explained contra the Ubiquitarians 457 Christ is the natural Son as God and man 462 Mary is the God-Bearer 464 from what is the efficacy of the blood of Christ? 465

Q. 12, Of what they [Ubiquitarians] call ‘real communication’ 466 what communication is and in what ways it occurs 467 properties, essentials, naturals or personals 472, which properties may be communicated: not personal but natural ones 472 the true state of the controversy 475 Ubiquitarians concede things out of which they are convicted 477 they are Monothelites 480 they contradict themselves grossly 480 a real communication is everted, the first argument: because it is not given in Scripture 483 by what sort of sayings they seek to confirm Ubiquity 484, they are examined, so Jn. 1, ‘the Word was made flesh’ 485 the hypostatic union does not infer such a communion 488 Jn. 17, ‘Glorify Me with that glory…’ 490 the interpretation of Augustine 492 of Cyril, to glorify through the glory to be revealed 495 a twofold glorification of Christ 495 Col. 2, ‘In whom dwells all the fulness of the Deity bodily’ 497 the simile of a glowing iron 500 ‘In whom are all the treasures of wisdom…’ 502 Mt. 28, ‘All power is given unto Me’ 506 2 Cor. 10, ‘the weapons of our warfare are mighty’ 512 a certain grace of union and certain habitual grace has been given to Christ 515 Jn. 5, ‘Has given Him power to execute judgment because He is the Son of Man’ 518 places on the anointing of Christ 520 Jn. 5, ‘and I work with the Father simultaneously’ 524 Jn. 5 on the resuscitation of the dead 527, the proper life of God is not communicated to the flesh of Christ 530 multifold-life is in Christ 532 vivification is attributed to each nature, but in a diverse respect 536 Jn. 6, ‘He who eats my flesh has life’ 540 1 Jn. 1, ‘The blood of Christ cleanseth us from sins’ 542 Mt. 9, ‘But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power to forgive sins 544 places on the exaltation of Christ, so sitting at the right hand 546 the judgment of Chemnitz 546 that sitting is unto nothing according to the Ubiquitarians 549 what sitting (the session) is, is explained out of Heb. 1 and other places 553 the judgment of John of Damascus on the sitting (session) 558 the false consequences of the Ubiquitarians shown forth 560 the inconstancy of Chemnitz & others 563 of what sort the glory of Christ was in Mt. Tabor [the mount of Transfiguration] 567 places on the vision of God and Christ, so Jn. 14, ‘Who sees me sees the Father’ 568 of the worship of the man-Christ 571 the second argument against the Ubiquitarians from the testimonies of the Fathers 576 Chemnitz alleges Fathers for himself, but perversely 578 his scope, defects and frauds 582-87 predications of Christ proper or improper 589 communion is a unity, not a real communication 592 the testimony of Leo evidenced 594 whether all given to Christ in time are given to the humanity 597 the 6th [Ecumenical] Synod and the sayings of Justin, Cyril, Athanasius, Sophronius against the Ubiquitarians 606 the Ubiquitarians badly cite the 6th Synod and its fathers, Athanasius, Euphem., Sophronius 609 the 7th Synod 612 Justin 613 of the coming in of Christ with the closed doors 618,671,716,724,729,743 Tertullian 620 Origen 621 of the simile of the glowing iron 624 the judgment of Basil on it, and why it was used by him [pp. 626-39 are repeated after p. 629] 630 the judgment of John of Damascus on this simile 638 the judgments of Athanasius and Cyril on the same 640 the saying of Esuebius of Caesarea 647 a man so is said to have been deified 652,694 Athanasius to Arius (and in another place he condemns the Ubiquitarians) does not support 656, 663 Eustath. 668 Hippolytus 669 Amphiloch. 670 Cyprian 671 Hilary on the glory of Christ, Jn. 17 674 Emisen., Didymus, Gregroy of Nyssa 689 Basil 691 Gregory of Nazianzen 693 Epiphanius 698 is opposed to the Ubiquitarians [after p. 707, pp. 704-07 are repeated] 709 the heresies of the Dimaeritites on ubiquity 710 Ambrose is the enemy of ubiquity 710 Jerome 716 Augustine 719 Chrysostom and Theophylact 725,729 Ecumenius and Aretius 727 Cyril opposes the ubiquitarians and is explained [after p. 729, pp. 716-29 repeats] 730 Paul Emisen. 766 Theodoret 768 Primas. 776 Leo the Great 778 Vigilius 786 Cassiodorus 787 Sedulius, Nicephorus 788 the Golden Chain 788 Severian. 788 the Agnoets which were 789 Gregory the Great 789 Bernard 790 John of Damascus is examined 791 the third argument: a real communication fights with the Scriptures, it is proved by multiple testimonies, so on the union 811 of the properties of the natures, of actions 819 of the passion 822 the fourth argument is from the consensus of the Fathers against a real communication 828 proofs out of the 6th Synod 828 by Justin, Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Cyril 829 Eusebius, Athanasius 830 Ambrose 834 Cyril 834 Theodoret 837 Leo 838 Vigil 842 John Damascus 844 Fulgentio 855 Ignatius 862 Irenaeus 863 Clement of Alexandria, Severian, Eustathio 864 Epiphanius 865-75 Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssa, Didymus of Alexandria, Jerome, Cassiodorus, Gregory, Niceta, Bede, Gelasius, Justin, Lombard, Thomas, Bonaventura

.

1600’s

Martinius, Matthew – A Theology on the Singular Person of our Lord Jesus Christ in Two Natures, holding, intimately indeed, but unconfusedly, as indivisible, in unity and in a true communion between them, being eternally exalted after the temporal emptying out, opening sayings out of the holy Scriptures with suitable reasons and ancient testimonies, contra the blasphemies, errors and slanders of heretics, especially of the Samosatenians, Socinians and Arians, even particularly Dr. Balthasar Mentzerus of the Ubiquitarians, professor in Giessen…  (Bremen, 1614)  1,472 pp.  ToC 1, 2

Table of Contents

To the Christian Reader  3

Bk. 1, on the True Divine Nature of Christ  17

Pt. 1, Things Building Up  17

Tract 1, the True Deity of our Lord is Demonstrated out of the Scriptures, 17 chs.  17

Tract 2, The True Deity of our Savior is Furthered by Suitable Reasons, 28 chs.  90

Tract 3, Human Authorities for the True Deity of Christ, 10 chs.  233

Pt. 2, Things Tearing Down

Tract 1, Things that Heretics Allege out of the Scriptures as directly against the deity of Christ are considered, 5 chs.  319

Tract 2, Reasons against the deity of Christ are cut in pieces, 18 chs.  348

Tract 3, Human Authorities which the Adversaries adduce for their dogma are weighed, 8 chs.  437

Bk. 2, Of his true, & Homoousias [Same-Substance] with Us, Humanity, for the Orthodox Doctrine, contra the Ubiquitarians…  521

Preface to the Christian Reader  521

Pt. 1, Of the True Human Nature of our Lord Jesus Christ

Tract 1, The Doctrine of the True Church is Briefly Premised, & the Union of his [Human] Nature with the Hypostasis [Person] of the Son of God is described in full in certain, clear articles for it…  526

ch. 1  The necessity of this doctrine, that Christ is a man  526

ch. 2  That Jesus Christ is a true & perfect man  527

ch. 3  A forewarning of the flights of them to these arguments that have been asserted   527

ch. 4  1st Proof: out of that, that He is openly called a man  530

ch. 5  2nd Proof: out of Reasons  532

ch. 6  3rd Confirmation: out of the Authority of the Ecumenical Councils & the Athanasian Creed  537

ch. 7  That Christ was a Holy Man  539

ch. 8  In what way Christ was Made Man  541

ch. 9  Wherefore was Christ made Man  545

ch. 10  That though there are two natures in Christ, yet his self is not but one person  547

ch. 11  The doctrine of the personal union of two natures in Christ, collected in 20 theses, is explained  548

ch. 12  What is similar & different between the human nature of Christ & ourselves  619

ch. 13  The controversy is that will be drawn on with the Ubiquitarians is picked  625

ch. 14  Of the State of the controversy between us & the Ubiquitarians  627

ch. 15  The division of the arguments contra ubiquity  629

ch. 16  1st Artgument for the true, and therefore finite, flesh of Christ, contra its presence in all places 630

ch. 17  A Siezing Beforehand of their Flights by which the Ubiquitarians seek to enervate the sayings of the sacred letters which are adduced against themselves  631

Distinction 1: Per Se vs. Following Another  632
Distinction 2: To Exist vs. To Maintain  637
Distinction 3: Natural vs. Supernatural  643
Distinction 4: Possession vs. Use  697
Distinction 5: Through an Apparition vs. a Disparity  704
Distinction 6: Through Abdication  713

Of the Emptying Out  718
Of Exaltation  733

Distinction 7: Naturally vs. Personally  760
Distinction 8: Of Majesty  824

ch. 18  The Disputation is Concluded on 8 Distinctions of the Ubiquitarians  897

The 8 Distinctions  899-900

ch. 19  The omnipresence of Christ will be refuted out of the profession proceeding, & indeed that which first disproves it is out of the circumstances of the conception & nativity  902

ch. 20  Ubiquity is refelled out of the sayings of the whole life of Christ in the state of emptyness  908

ch. 21  Ubiquity is confuted out of the predicted leaving of the Lord from this world  975

What then is the genus of Heaven?  1,032

Of the Time Heaven was Founded  1,038

Where the Heaven of the Blessed is?  1,040

The Third Heaven is the Place of Whom?  1,041

Whether the Supreme Heaven, or of the Blessed, will perish or be burned?  1,045

In what way the world will perish?  1,070

What may the character of the future state of the world be after the Last Judgment?  1,078

Whether in Heaven life is temporally successive?  1,090

ch. 22  Ubiquity is everted out of the State of Exaltation  1,111

ch. 23  Conclusion of the Tract, of the True Humanity of Christ, where is a Demonstration out of the Propositions & a Vindicating of the Collected Sayings  1,430-72

.

1700’s

Lampe, Friedrich Adolph – Commentary on Jn. 1:1-18  in An Analytical-Exegetical Commentary, even as much Literal as of Real Things, on the Gospel According to John…  (Amsterdam, 1724), vol. 1, pp. 287-401

Lampe (1683–1729) was a pietist,Cocceian, Dutch and German professor of theology in the reformed tradition.  He is known as the first Pietist leader from a reformed rather than a Lutheran background.


.

.

On the Person of Christ

Articles

On Reformed Theology in the Post-Reformation

Heppe, Heinrich – ch. 17, ‘The Mediator of the Covenant of Grace or the Person of Christ’  in Reformed Dogmatics  ed. Ernst Bizer  (1950; Wipf & Stock, 2007), pp. 410-447

.

1800’s

Girardeau, John – ‘The Person of Christ’  in his Discussions of Theological Questions  Buy

.

1900’s

Berkhof, Louis – ‘The Uni-Personality of Christ’  27 paragraphs  in Systematic Theology  (1950)

.

2000’s

Mathis, David – ‘Enhypostasis: What Kind of Flesh Did the Word Become?’  2010  9 paragrpahs  at DesiringGod.org  Mathis quotes Donald Macleod and Fred Sanders.

.

.

On the Divinity of Christ

Warfield, Benjamin B. – The Lord of Glory: a Study of the Designations of our Lord in the New Testament with Especial Reference to his Deity  Buy  (American Tract Soceity, 1907)  304 pp.  ToC

An exhaustive book-length, Biblical defense of the divinity of Christ from nearly every N.T. passage that relates to it.


.

.

On Christ’s Human Nature

.

.

Against the Ubiquity (Everywhereness) of Christ’s Human Nature

Latin

Beza, Theodore – Theological Tracts, in which many of the Doctrines of the Christian Religion are Restored to Whole and Defended from the Word of God Against the Heretical Sects of our Times  (Geneva, 1570)

vol. 1

11. ‘A Response to the Arguments of Johannes Brent & the Theses of Jacob Andreae [who were Lutherans] which seek to Confirm the Omnipresence of the Body of Christ, that is, [a Response] against the Renewed Errors of Nestorius & Eutyches’, pp. 507-624

Nestorius (386-450) held, to simplify, that Christ was two persons.  Eutyches (c. 380-c. 456) held that Christ had one mixed nature.

.

vol. 3

4. ‘A Response for the Truth for the Body of Christ Against the Fiction of Ubiquity & the Clamor of William Holder’, pp. 101-122

Pseudo-Truths  110
Of Falsehoods  118
Of Calumnies  121

.

Martinius, Matthew – A Brief Confession on the Person of Christ, in which is vindicated the illustrious testimonies of Scripture (even from the corruptions of the adversaries) which are against the dogma of the omnipresence of the flesh of Christ which they are accustomed to agitate: so it is proposed to the Chuch of Christ to judge which is orthodox, or whether they are contaminated with the heresies of Nestorius and many others, teh Arians, Marcionites and Eutycheans, as some vociferate daily, chiefly those slaves of Dr. Balthasar Mentzerus in Frankfurt [Germany]  (Herborne, 1604)  63 pp.

Table of Contents

Dedicatory Epistle  3

A Sum of Sound Doctrine on the Person of Christ  8

The Doctrine of the Adversaries, which they defend, of the
.     Omnipresence of the Flesh of Christ, is this…  12

The Principle Testimonies of Scripture Against the Omnipresence of
.     the Flesh of Christ & All Each of those Three Modes of the
.     Communication of Properties  14

The Testimonies Respecting the State of Exaltation  18

Of the Predictions of Leaving out of this World, they say these sayings  22

Of his Leaving for Heaven, of the Mansion in Heaven and returning from there, the testimonies are these  24-63

 

.

.

On the Son of God Assuming an Impersonal Human Nature

Articles

On Reformed Theology in the Post-Reformation

Heppe, Heinrich – ch. 17, ‘The Mediator of the Covenant of Grace or the Person of Christ’, sections 3-9 & 13-20  in Reformed Dogmatics  ed. Ernst Bizer  (1950; Wipf & Stock, 2007), pp. 411-21 & 427-35

Muller, Richard – ‘anhypostasis’ & ‘enhypostasis’  in Dictionary of Latin & Greek Theological Terms  (Baker, 1985), pp. 35 & 103

.

1600’s

Riissen, Leonard – ch. 11, ‘Christ’, Controversies 1-2, pp. 115-6  in A Complete Summary of Elenctic Theology & of as Much Didactic Theology as is Necessary  trans. J. Wesley White  MTh thesis  (Bern, 1676; GPTS, 2009)

Turretin, Francis – 13th Topic, Question 6, ‘Did the Son of God assume human nature into the unity of his person?  We affirm against the Socinians.’  in Institutes of Elenctic Theology  (P&R), vol. 2, pp. 310-17

.

2000’s

Mathis, David – ‘Anhypostasis: What Kind of Flesh Did Jesus Take?’  2010  9 paragraphs  Mathis quotes Donald Macleod and Heinrich Heppe.

.

Quotes, 1600’s

Leonard Riissen

A Complete Summary of Elenctic Theology & of as Much Didactic Theology as is Necessary  trans. J. Wesley White  MTh thesis  (Bern, 1676; GPTS, 2009), ch. 11, ‘Christ’, p. 114

“§V. This Son was made man. The divine person assumed a human nature, lacking its own personality (persona), not a divine nature assuming a human nature or person, nor a person assuming a person.  Therefore, Christ remains only one person, a divine one (1 Tim. 3:16).

§VII. This union is not a conjunction of parts, like soul and body, but an assumption of the human nature into unity with the person without change, confusion, division, or separation.

.

Francis Turretin

Institutes of Elenctic Theology  (P&R), vol. 2

Question 5, section 13, p. 309

“The consubstantiality (homoousion) of Christ with us consists in identity of nature and essential properties, but not in the relation of subsistence which was wanting to the human nature.  Therefore, the singular human nature of Christ was complete physically in its substantial being as to its integral parts, but not metaphysically as to the mode of subsistence.”

.

Question 6, section 5, p. 311

“Now although the human nature may rightly be said to be substantial with the Logos (enypostatos Logo) (because it was assumed into the unity of the person and is sustained by it, yet less accurately is it said to subsist with the subsistence of the Logos (Logou) because then the human nature would be a divine person.”

.

Latin Article

Sachse, Karl – A Disquisition on the Essential Attributes of God, Infinite & Uncreated, None of a Finite & Created Nature by a Participative Communication, Against Balthasar Meisner  (Frankfurt, 1616)

Sachse (1558-1616) is listed as reformed by PRDL, though it is also noted there that this is uncertain.  Meisner (1587-1626) was Lutheran.

Sachse argues against the Lutheran position that the hypostasis of the Word is communicated to the human nature, and that the human nature properly subsists in the divine Person (though it is affirmed that the human nature subsists in the Word in an improper sense).  Meisner argues the Lutheran position in, Disputation 10, on the Communication of the Hypostasis (Wittenberg, 1619).

 


.

.

That Christ’s Human Nature was Wholly from Mary  (and not created ex nihilo, either wholly or in part)

Articles

1500’s

Hooper, John – ‘A Lesson of the Incarnation of Christ’  in Later Writings (Parker Society), pp. 1-18

.

1600’s

Turretin, Francis – Institutes (P&R), vol. 2, 13th Topic,

Q. 5, ‘Was the human nature assumed by the Logos like ours in all respects (sin excepted) and his flesh taken from the substance of the blessed virgin; or did it come down from heaven?  The former we affirm; the latter we deny against the Anabaptists.’, pp. 306-310

sections 10-12  of Q. 11, ‘How was Christ conceived from the Holy Spirit and born of the blessed virgin?’, pp. 342-3

Heidegger, Johann – Locus 17, section IV, pp. 118-19  in The Concise Marrow of Theology  trans. Casey Carmichael  (RHB, 2019), pp. 117-23

.

Quotes

Heppe, Heinrich – Reformed Dogmatics  ed. Ernst Bizer  (1950; Wipf & Stock, 2007), ch. 17

sections 10 & 11, pp. 421 & 424

“‘It is the conception of Christ, by which without male ation and with the sole blood of the Virgin Mary his human nature was formed, sanctified by the operation of the H. Spirit, assumed by the Son of God and united personally to Himself.’ (a Diest, p. 178)”

“Rissen (XI, 25): ‘By the aid of the Holy Spirit the Son assumed human nature from the blood of the Virgin Mary…  Further, the Spirit’s attitude here is not material but efficient only, δημιουργικὸς not σπερματικος; so that He might be conceived by the Spirit’s power, not substance; not by generation but by benediction and consecration; so that the preposition ἐκ is the mark of efficient cause, as often elsewhere, Rom. 11:36 (‘of Him and through Him and to Him are all things’), since all things are said to be of God and 1 Jn. 3:9, the good are born ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ.  From this it is clear that the ἐκ in Mt. 1:18, 20 is used for ἀπό.’ (Cf. Alting, p. 996).

In this sense must be answered the question raised by the Socinians, whether the Holy Spirit is to be described as the Father of Jesus Christ.  ‘For since the title of father requires generation from the substance of him who generates and the generation of a nature like itself, and neither occurs here, it is evident that the Holy Spirit cannot be called the Father of Christ.’ — Wolleb 63.  ‘The Holy Spirit is not the material but the efficient cause of the conception of Christ.  He was conceived not of his substance but of his power, not by generation but by command and blessing.’ (Aug.)”

.

section 12, p. 425

“Keckermann 323f.: (2) ‘Of the seed and blood of the Virgin Mary was formed Christ’s flesh, the Holy Spirit adding quickening force to this material.  Of course the seed and blood of the Virgin Mary also possessed their own vital and animal spirits, as other men’s seed usually has.  But these were by no means sufficient for the plastic or formative force of the foetus in question.  And so the Holy Spirit’s extraordinary shadowing and quickening were added: whence also it is said to have been conceived of the Holy Spirit, a phrase and manner of speaking which is human and metaphorical, not strictly appropriate.–(3) Thus Christ’s incarnation was at once ordinary and extraordinary: ordinary as regards the material supplied by the Virgin Mary, extraordinary as regards the formative force added to this material…'”

.

Leonard Riissen

A Complete Summary of Elenctic Theology & of as Much Didactic Theology as is Necessary  trans. J. Wesley White  MTh thesis  (Bern, 1676; GPTS, 2009), ch. 11, ‘Christ’

pp. 113-4

“Controversy – Is Jesus Christ the natural Son of God because He was generated from eternity from the Father by a communication of the nature and not called “Son” on account of His conception by the Holy Spirit or anything else? We affirm against the Socinians.  Arguments:


2. He is God’s own (proprius) Son (Rom. 8:32), but he who has not been generated from His substance is only more loosely speaking (improprius) a son.”

.

p. 117

ҤX. The Son assumed the human nature from the blood of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit.

§XI. And although the Holy Spirit can be said to have formed Christ’s body, created His soul, and joined them together, the Holy Spirit is not, however, the father of Christ, since nothing is generated from Him.”

.

p. 118

“Controversy 2 – Did Christ have his flesh from the substance and blood of the Virgin Mary?  We affirm against the Anabaptists.

Arguments

1. He is the seed of the woman, Abraham, and David; therefore, He has His substance from them (Gen. 3:15, 22:18; Rom. 1:3).

2. He is from the fathers according to the flesh (Rom. 9:5), from Judah (Heb. 7:16), and from the loins of David (Acts 2:30).

3. He is the Son of man (Mt. 9:6) and David (21:9), the fruit of the womb of Mary (Lk. 1:42), and just like other infants (Heb. 2:14).

4. He has a genealogy from the Fathers (Mt. 1, Lk. 3).

5. He is a shoot from the root of Jesse (Is. 11:1).

Objections

1. Women do not have seed.  Reply.  Nonsense (Lev. 18:9-10, 12).

2. He would be a sinner.  Reply.  No, He is from Adam as to nature, not as to moral state, because He is another Adam (1 Cor. 15:45).

3. He is from heaven (Jn. 3).  Reply.  Sent by the God whose throne is in heaven like the baptism of John (Mt. 21:25).

4. He is not from earth but heaven (1 Cor. 15:48).  Reply.  In holiness and power.

5.  The Word became flesh (Jn. 1:14).  By assuming flesh from Mary.


.

.

That Christ has a Human & a Divine Will

Intro

This controversy, whether Christ has one will (monothelitism) or two wills (dyothelitism) was decided in the early Church at the Third Council of Constantinople (the 6th ecumenical council) in A.D. 681.

It was (rightly) determined that ‘will’ is a property of ‘nature’, and not of ‘person’.  Hence, as Christ has two natures, so He has two wills, one human, creaturely and finite, and one divine, uncreated and infinite; both are willed by his one and the same Person.

.

Quotes

Leonard Riissen

A Complete Summary of Elenctic Theology & of as Much Didactic Theology as is Necessary  trans. J. Wesley White  MTh thesis  (Bern, 1676; GPTS, 2009), ch. 11, ‘Christ’, pp. 114 & 117

“§VI. In this person, a divine and human nature, each with their own intellect and will, were united.”

“§XII. Consequently, Christ had a true soul (Mt. 26:38) and true body (Heb. 10:5) but without any blemish.”

.

Francis Turretin

Institutes (P&R), vol. 2, 13th Topic, Q. 7, ‘Was the hypostatical union of the two natures of Christ such that neither the person is divided nor the natures confounded?  We affirm against Nestorius & Eutyches.’, pp. 320-21

“XIII.  A second rock to be avoided here is Eutychianism…  who…  confounded the two natures into one…  one nature is neither changed nor converted by the hypostatical union into the other.  Nor are the natures so confounded or mixed with each other that each of them does not retain its own properties and conditions.

XIV.  The reasons are: (1) the opposition of the two natures in Christ is frequent in Scripture (Rom. 1:3; 1 Pet. 3:18; Heb. 9:14; Jn. 1:14; Phil. 2:6-7, 11); (2) two wills are ascribed to Him (‘not my will, but thine, be done,’ Lk. 22:42).  Nor does it follow that there are two [persons] willing because the will belongs to the nature, while willing belongs to the person; nor is it evident that the will follows personally forthwith because in God there are three persons, but only one will.  (3) Contraries are ascribed to Christ, which could not be if there were not two natures in Him (as that He would depart from the world and remain with us forever; that a child was born, who is the Father of eternity; that He suffered death and was made alive; in the form of God and in the form of a servant, etc.).

XV.  Although the efficient cause of the operations of Christ is one alone, still the exciting cause is twofold–the divinity and humanity.  The work upon which both exciting (egergema) causes exert their power is one, but the action (energeia) is twofold.”

.

.

On the Extra Calvinisticum

Intro

.

Article

DeYoung, Kevin – ‘Theological Primer: The Extra Calvinisticum’  (2017)  at The Gospel Coalition

This is a very good, concise summary of the doctrine, giving its significance, in under 500 words.

.

Books

Zachariades, Theodore – The Omnipresence of Jesus Christ: A Neglected Aspect of Evangelical Christology  in Paternoster Theological Monographs  Pre  Buy  (Paternoster, 2015)  An excerpt of the work on God’s omnipresence is here.

“…reassesses the classic Chalcedonian view of Jesus: “one person, two natures”.  It carefully rejects all forms of kenotic Christology and affirms that Jesus possessed and used all the divine attributes, in particular, that of omnipresence, arguing that evangelical scholars have abandoned this important truth…  It challenges us to read the Scriptures again and to live in the presence of Jesus.”

Gordon, James R. – The Holy One in Our Midst: An Essay on the Flesh of Christ  Pre  (Fortress Press, 2016)  240 pp.

“…aims to defend the doctrine of the extra Calvinisticum…  by arguing that it is logically coherent, biblically warranted, catholically orthodox, and theologically useful.  It shows that none of the standard objections are devastating to the extra, that the doctrine is rooted in the claims of Christian Scripture and not merely a remnant of perfect being philosophical theology, and that the doctrine plays an important role in contemporary theological discussion.”

.

Historical Theology

In All of Church History

Book

McGinnis, Andrew M. – The Son of God Beyond the Flesh: a Historical & Theological Study of the extra Calvinisticum  Pre  (Bloomsbury, 2014)

McGinnis furthers the research of Willis and evidences the doctrine in Cyril of Alexandria.

.

Article

Habets, Myk – ‘Putting the ‘extra’ back into Calvinism’  Ref  in Scottish Journal of Theology, vol. 62, Issue 4 (Nov. 2009), pp. 441-56

“Through an examination of the history of the doctrine and its constituent features the present article advocates the reclamation of the doctrine as a necessary component for a contemporary theology of the atonement…  The extra Calvinisticum is then adopted to refute contemporary theologies of a suffering God.”

.

On the Early Church

Articles

Hutchinson, E.J.

‘The Extra Calvinisticum in Athanasius’  (2016)  An excerpt from On the Incarnation, 17.

‘The Real Absence & the Extra Calvinisticum: The Patristic Roots of the Reformation’  (2017)  Provides quotes from Augustine (Tractates on the Gospel of John 50.4) and John Chrysostom (Homily 24 on 1 Cor.).

Drake, K.J. – ‘Behold Something Marvelous: The Chalcedonian Logic of the Extra Calvinisticum  (2020)  12 paragraphs

Drake is a published author on the subject.

.

On the Post-Reformation

Book

Drake, K.J. – Etiam extra carnem: The Flesh of the Word: The extra Calvinisticum from Zwingli to Early Orthodoxy  Pre  (Oxford Univ. Press, 2021)

“This book explores the emergence and development of the extra Calvinisticum in the Reformed tradition by tracing its first exposition from Ulrich Zwingli to early Reformed orthodoxy.  Rather than being an ancillary issue, the questions surrounding the extra Calvinisticum were a determinative factor in the differentiation of Magisterial Protestantism into rival confessions.

…Over time, Reformed theologians, such as Peter Martyr Vermigli and Antione de Chandieu, articulated the extra Calvinisticum with increasing rigor by incorporating conciliar christology, the church fathers, and scholastic methodology to address the polemical needs of engagement with Lutheranism.”

.

Article

Muller, Richard A. – ‘extra calvinisticum’ in Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms…  (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), p. 111, as quoted in Derek Rishmawy, ‘Luther’s Extra Calvinisticum? (Updated)’ (2015)

The article by Richmawy also includes a significant quote by Luther from Works, vol. 22, Sermons on the Gospel of John, 1-4, pp. 324-325.  An appendix to the article includes two possible Lutheran interpretations of this quote, as related by Kyle Drake, a published author on the issue.

.

On Calvin

Articles

Zachariades, Theodore – ch. 4, ‘Reformation Christology: a Look at Calvin’s Extra Calvinisticum’  (2002)

Peters, David G. – ‘The ‘Extra Calvinisticum’ & Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology’  13 pp.

Peters provides an historical account of the development and meaning of aspects of Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.

.

Books

Willis, E. David – Calvin’s Catholic Christology: the Function of the so-called Extra Calvinisticum in Calvin’s Theology  Pre  (Leiden: Brill, 1966)  180 pp.

Willis demonstrates the existence of the doctrine in the writings of Augustine, John of Damascus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Peter Lombard, Gabriel Biel and Jacques LeFevre d’Estaples.

Lee, Daniel Y.K. – The Holy Spirit as Bond in Calvin’s Thought: Its Functions in Connection with the Extra Calvinisticum  Ref  (Peter Lang, 2011)

.

On the 1500’s

eds. Kirby, Campi & James – p. 342  of A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli  (Leiden, Brill, 2009)

Littlejohn, W. Bradford – ch. 3, ‘A Reformed Irenic Christology: Richard Hooker’s Account of Christ’s ‘Personal Presence Everywhere’ in 16th Century Context’  in Beyond Calvin: Essays on the Diversity of the Reformed Tradition  Buy  (Davenant Press, 2017), pp. 63-107

Lindholm, Stefan – 5.3, ‘Two Reformed Principles Revisited’, pp. 124-39  in pt. 3, ch. 5 of Jerome Zanchi (1516–90)
& the Analysis of Reformed Scholastic Christology  (V&R, 2016)

.

Quotes

John Calvin

John in Crossway Classic Commentaries, eds. Alister McGrath & J. I. Packer (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), on Jn. 3:13, pp. 74-75

“It may seem absurd to say that he ‘is in heaven’ while he still lives on earth. If it is answered that this is true about his divine nature, then this expression would mean something else—-namely, that while he was man he was ‘in heaven.’ I could point out that no place is mentioned here and that only Christ is distinguished from everybody else as far as his state is concerned, since he is the heir of the kingdom of God, from which the whole human race is banished. However, as very frequently happens, because of the unity of the person of Christ, what correctly applies to one of his natures is applied to another of his natures, and so we need seek no other solution. So Christ, who ‘is in heaven,’ has clothed himself in our flesh, so that by stretching out his brotherly hand to us he may raise us to heaven with himself.”

.

Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, 2 vols.  (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 1.481

“For even if the Word in his immeasurable essence united with the nature of man into one person, we do not imagine that he was confined therein.  Here is something marvelous: the Son of God descended from heaven in such a way that, without leaving heaven, He willed to be borne in the virgin’s womb, to go about the earth, and to hang upon the cross; yet He continuously filled the world even as He had done from the beginning!”


.

.

On the Theology of Union

1500’s

Junius, Francis – ch. 6, ‘The Theology of Union in Christ’  in A Treatise on True Theology…  trans. David Noe  (RHB, 2014)

.

Reformed Theology in the Post-Reformation

Heppe, Heinrich – ch. 17, section 20, pp. 435-38  in Reformed Dogmatics  ed. Ernst Bizer  (1950; Wipf & Stock, 2007)


.

.

Was Christ Morally Able to Sin?  No

Quotes

Compilation

Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics  ed. Ernst Bizer  (1950; Wipf & Stock, 2007), ch. 17, section 20, p. 438

“Burmann (V, viii, 24): ‘With this is also connected the grace by which Christ could never sin, since in such great light of knowledge and perfect love of will and holy motions it was quite impossible for him to fall away.’

Maresius (XI, 20): ‘Christ could never sin.’  (21): ‘Nor did Christ’s impeccability stand in the way of his free judgment, since freedom of judgment does not necessarily involve the faculty of sinning, i.e., of falling short of perfection.'”

.

Leonard Riissen

A Complete Summary of Elenctic Theology & of as Much Didactic Theology as is Necessary  trans. J. Wesley White  MTh thesis  (Bern, 1676; GPTS, 2009), ch. 11, ‘Christ’, pp. 121-22

“Controversy 3 – Was Christ on account of the personal union so holy that He was not able to sin?  We affirm against the scholastics and Arminians.

Arguments

1. The devil could not do anything against Him (Jn. 14:30).

2. Everything He does, He does by the person (hypstasi) of the divine nature, although the actions are of the natures (suppositorum) (Acts 20:28), but that person cannot sin.

3. Then the union could be dissolved, since God has no communion with sin (Is. 59:2, 2 Cor. 6:14).

4. Christ, as a sinner, could be damned (Gal. 3:10).

5. Then God could lie in promises and predictions contrary to Heb. 6:17.

6. Then Christ could be cut off from the mediatorial office, and thus the foundation of salvation could be overturned contrary to Acts 2:25.

Objection

1. He was free; therefore He was able to sin.  Reply.  So God and the angels in heaven are free, and we will be free after the judgment.”


.

.

Whether Christ would have been Incarnated Apart from Sin & Redemption?

No

Articles, 1600’s

Heppe, Heinrich – ch. 17, ‘The Mediator of the Covenant of Grace or the Person of Christ’, section 2  in Reformed Dogmatics  ed. Ernst Bizer  (1950; Wipf & Stock, 2007), p. 410

Heppe quotes Sohn and references Riissen.

Turretin, Francis – 13th Topic, Question 3, ‘Was it necessary for the Son of God to become incarnate?  We affirm’  in Institutes of Elenctic Theology  (P&R), vol. 2, pp. 299-304

.

Quote

Leonard Riissen

A Complete Summary of Elenctic Theology & of as Much Didactic Theology as is Necessary  trans. J. Wesley White  MTh thesis  (Bern, 1676; GPTS, 2009), ch. 11, ‘Christ’, pp. 112-3

“Controversy 3 – Would Jesus Christ have been made man and come into the world if men had not sinned? We deny against the Socinians and Scholastics.

Arguments:

1. He was only promised after the fall (Gen. 3:15), and He could not have been born of a virgin except in virtue of the promise.

2. Those who are well have no need of a physician (Mt. 9:13). He only came to save sinners (2 Tim. 1:15).

3. He has been sent on the basis of the love of God toward fallen man (Jn. 3:16), which could not exist in that case. [That is, He would not have had compassion on fallen man, if man had not fallen. This compassion and love for fallen man is given as the reason for the Father sending the Son.]

4. It would not have been necessary for God to be man; therefore, He would have come in vain.

5. Nor would humanity have had any obligation (obligatio) to Him as incarnate.

Objections:

1. Christ is the firstborn of all creatures (Col. 1:15).  Reply. ‘Firstborn’ means generated from eternity before all creatures.

2.  In all things, He is preeminent (primus) (v. 19).  Reply. In dignity and position.

3. All things have been created in Him (meaning “on account of Him”).  Reply.  All things have been created on account of Him as God not as man.

4. Then we have not been made on account of Christ, but He was made on account of us.  Reply. Yes, as man.  Objection. Then we should be given thanks since it is on account of us.  Reply. That’s ridiculous.”

.

Yes

Goodwin, Thomas –

.

.

.

“Remember that though it was not the eternal Godhead that suffered, but the humanity, it was a person and not a nature that suffered – God-man.”

“The Son of Man is the Son of God.”

“Human excellency in its perfection united to eternal Godhead.”

John ‘Rabbi’ Duncan

.

.

.

Related Pages

Christ