Eleventh Council of Toledo (A. D. 675) taught that "Christ exists in two natures, but in three substances." 38 But when the Fourteenth Council of Toledo, held only nine years later, repeated this phrase, Pope Sergius the First demanded an "explanation." The demand was complied with by St. Julian of Toledo, and His explanation satisfied the Pope.39 A century later (A. D. 794) the formula was expressly disapproved by a provincial council held at Frankfort against the Adoptionists. The decrees of this council, which are vested with special authority on account of their formal approbation by Pope Hadrian I, contain the following passage: "In professione Nicaeni symboli non invenimus dictum, in Christo 'duas naturas et tres substantias' et 'homo deificatus' et 'Deus humanatus. Quid est natura hominis nisi anima et corpus? Vel quid est inter naturam et substantiam, ut 'tres substantias' necesse sit nobis dicere? . . . Consuetudo ecclesiastica solet in Christo duas substantias nominare, Dei videlicet et hominis." 40 In spite of this reprimand, however, the formula of the "three substances" continued in use and ultimately became part of the approved Scholastic terminology. St. Bonaventure unhesitatingly speaks of a "threefold substance" in Christ, and St. Thomas Aquinas teaches: “The name 'man,' applied to Christ, also signifies His Divine Person, and thus implies three substances." 41 The orthodoxy of the formula, therefore, when used in the sense which we have explained, cannot be questioned.42

...

de Christo, dicit etiam divinam personam, et sic dicit tres substantias." (Comment. in Quatuor Libros Sent., III, dist. 6, qu. 1, art. 3.)

42 Cfr. L. Janssens, De DeoHomine, I, 156 sqq., Friburgi 1901; De Lugo, De Myst. Incarn., disp. 13, sect. I (ed. Paris. 1890, t. II, pp. 636 sqq.).

SECTION 2

THE ADAMIC ORIGIN OF THE HUMAN NATURE

OF CHRIST

The dogma that Christ is true man, implies not only the reality and integrity of His human nature, but likewise the origin of that nature from Mary. It is this latter fact which beyond aught else guarantees the reality and integrity of our Lord's sacred manhood. In other words, Christ is truly and integrally a man because, by maternal generation from the Virgin-mother Mary, He is a "Son of Adam " according to the flesh, and consequently our " Brother." To establish unity of species between Himself and us it would have been sufficient for the Logos to have brought His humanity with Him from Heaven. But his humanity is specifically identical with ours. It is founded upon kinship of race and blood relation. By His "real incorporation with our kind" in Adam, Jesus Christ is "bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh."

I. HERETICAL DOCTRINES ON THIS SUBJECT VS. THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH.-a) Certain Gnostics of the second century, notably Valentinus and Apelles, a disciple of Marcion,2 who held an attenuated Docetism, admitted

1

1 Valentinus flourished about A. D. 150. His false teaching (see Burt, Dictionary of Sects, pp. 612 sqq.) was refuted by St. Irenæus.

2 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 80; Tixeront, History of Dogmas, Vol. I, pp. 183 sqq.

the reality and integrity of Christ's human nature only after a fashion. Their theory was that He possessed a “celestial body." This teaching involved a denial (1) of the earthly origin of Christ's manhood, and (2) of His conception and birth by the Virgin Mary. In describing the latter Valentinus employed the simile of "water flowing through a channel." Similar errors were harbored by the Paulicians of Syria, and, in modern times, by the Anabaptists, the Quakers, and certain pseudo-mystics of the sixteenth century.

4

b) The Church never for a moment left her faithful children in doubt as to the true origin and descent of Jesus. The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) defined: "Docemus, eundemque [Christum] perfectum in deitate et eundem perfectum in humanitate, Deum verum et hominem verum, eundem ex anima rationali et corpore, consubstantialem Patri secundum deitatem, consubstantialem nobis eundem secundum humanitatem (ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, καὶ ὁμο ούσιον ἡμῖν τὸν αὐτὸν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα), per omnia nobis similem absque peccato; ante saecula qui

3 ὡς διὰ σωλῆνος ὕδωρ. Cfr. Epiphanius, Haer., XXXI, 7.

4 The Paulicians were "but the Priscillianists of the East." For an account of their curious beliefs see Alzog-Pabisch-Byrne, Manual of Universal Church History, Vol. I,

pp. 761 sqq.; cfr. also Funk-Cappadelta, A Manual of Church History, Vol. I, pp. 265 sq., London 1910; Conybeare, The Key of Truth, London 1898.

5 Weigel, Petersen, Dippel, and others.

dem de Patre genitum (yevlévra) secundum deitatem, in novissimis autem diebus eundem propter nos et propter nostram salutem, ex Maria Virgine Dei genitrice (ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου τῆς θεοτόκου) secundum humanitatem We teach that He [Christ] is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, being truly God and truly man; that He is of a rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father as touching the Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching His manhood, being like us in all things, sin excepted; that, as touching His Godhead, He was begotten of the Father before the worlds; and, as touching His manhood, He was for us and for our salvation born of Mary, the Virgin, Mother of God." "

This is a most important dogmatic definition, and in order to grasp its full import the student should ponder the following points:

(1) Christ's homoousia with the Father and His consubstantiality with the human race are not co-ordinate relations. The divine homoousia is based on "numerical identity" or "tautousia," whereas Christ's consubstantiality with man rests on a purely "specific identity," which, however, in consequence of our common descent from Adam, is a true blood-relationship.

(2) This blood-relationship arises formally and immediately from the fact of Christ's being engendered in the Virgin Mary. Had He merely passed through her virginal womb, as Valentinus and his fellow sectaries 7 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Trinity, pp. 255 sqq.

6 Denzinger-Bannwart, dion, n. 148.

Enchiri

held, no blood-relationship would have been established between Him and us. Hence the need of accentuating the phrase: γεννηθέντα ἐκ Μαρίας.

(3) In order to show that Christ's temporal generation from His mother is equally true and real with His divine generation from the Eternal Father, the Council applies to both the one word yevvnévra, without, of course, thereby denying the fundamental distinction between divine and creatural generation.

(4) The dogma would not be complete without a distinct reference to the purpose of the Redemption, inasmuch as the Adamic origin of Christ is intimately bound up with His mediatorial office and the redemption of the human race. The creeds, including that of Chalcedon, bring out this soteriological relation by the typical additament: Propter nos et propter nostram salutem (δι' ἡμᾶς καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν)."

66

2. THE TEACHING OF REVELATION.-Holy Scripture teaches that Christ became consubstantial with man by descent from Adam, for the purpose of redeeming the human race, of which He is a member and a scion.

a) In the Old Testament the Redeemer was promised, first as "the seed of the woman, later as "the seed of Abraham," and in fine as "the seed of David." The New Testament frequently refers to Him as "the Son of David." 9

8 Gen. III, 15 (the "Protevangelium"). Cfr. H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, pp. 109 sqq.

9" Filius David." Matth. I, 1;

IX, 27; XII, 23; Luke I, 32; Rom. I, 3; Apoc. V, 5. Cfr. H. J. Coleridge, S. J., The Preparation of the Incarnation, pp. 209 sqq., London 1894.