Chapter VII.
The one who added this to the previous books is excused: then, when he demonstrated the foolish arguments of those who denied that the soul is received from Christ, he establishes the same reception of the soul with testimonies from Scripture; then, after explaining why the soul should not be overlooked by the Lord, he shows that they are troubled by empty fear. How Christ is said to fear or to make progress; and yet there is no danger of being divided or of appearing wicked: this last point is turned against them themselves.
I could pursue this more extensively, but I fear that these very things may seem superfluous or prolix to some. For perhaps someone might say: Did you not promise that you would conclude in the five books you wrote about the divinity of the Father and the Son? But what should I do when new and diverse questions arise daily? The promise is not overlooked, but the objection constrains. For how can there be a limit to the response if there is no limit to the objection?
And yet, in the previous book, I had promised to fulfill the response to the divinity of the Father and the Son. However, in this book on the sacrament of the Lord's incarnation, a fuller discussion has been made, as it should be. For when the Lord says, 'My soul is sorrowful even unto death' (Matt. 26:38), and later, 'Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me. Nevertheless, not as I will but as you will' (ibid., 39), this is not referring to the compassion of the Holy Spirit, but to the rational assumption of the soul and human nature. Therefore, it is necessary to assert that the sacrament of the Lord and the fullness of human nature were accomplished in Christ, and that we distinguish them from any weakness of the Spirit. For he is not subject to weakness who is not subject to passion.
Therefore, I inquire by what reasoning certain individuals believe that the soul is not received from the Lord Jesus; is it because of the fear that Christ would be corrupted by human sensation? Indeed, they say that the desire of the flesh is contrary to the law of the mind (Rom. VII, 23). But whoever says this, is so far from thinking that Christ, under the law of the flesh, should have been led into the bonds of sin; that he himself, in the heat of human frailty, believed that he could be helped by Christ, saying: Wretched me, a man! Who will free me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 7:24). So he who freed others from the slippery flesh, could he possibly fear being overcome by the dominion of that same flesh?
But he was afraid of the allurements of that flesh, as they wished. Therefore, he should have avoided the acceptance of flesh, so that he would not be drawn into the slippery slope of error. But how could he fear the slippery slope of sin, who had come to forgive sin? And therefore, when he assumed human flesh, it follows that he received the perfection and fullness of the incarnation; for there is nothing imperfect in Christ. Therefore, he assumed flesh in order to resurrect: he took on a soul, but a perfect soul, endowed with reason, he assumed and received a human soul.
For who can deny that he received his soul, since he himself says: I lay down my life for my sheep? And again: Therefore the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again (John 10:15). This is not said in a parable, nor with a superficial meaning, in which one thing is said and another is understood, as in this: My soul hates your New Moons and your Sabbaths (Isaiah 1:13); although this can also be referred to the soul of Christ, which was laid down in order to abolish the error of Jewish superstition and establish the truth of one sacrifice.
But let them doubt about this prophecy, they cannot refute this statement about the property of the soul; since it is about the death and resurrection of the Lord; finally he adds: No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again (John 10:18). Therefore, he lays down the same soul that he took up. I say he took it up; for the Word itself, the living God, was not made in his own flesh in place of our soul: but just as he took up our flesh, so he took up our complete soul by the assumption of human nature. He assumed my soul in order to bless it with the sacrament of his incarnation; He accepted my affection in order to mend it.
But what need was there for taking on flesh without a soul; when surely flesh that is insensible and without reason neither is subject to sin nor worthy of reward? Therefore, He took on for us that which was more in danger among us. But what profit is it to me if He has not redeemed the whole of me? But He has redeemed the whole of me, who says: 'You make me unworthy, who have made the whole man sound on the Sabbath' (John 7:23)? He has redeemed the whole of me, because in a perfect man, faithful not in part but in entirety, He rises again.
Therefore, let those who are compassionate not fear that Christ, who even controlled the foal of a donkey that no one had ridden before, could not govern his own flesh, soul, and human understanding. The one who planted the ear, will he not hear? The one who governed others could not govern himself? The one who forgave sins committed sin himself? Let those overly worried individuals, like the tutors of Christ, cease to fear that the law of the mind, which did not oppress Paul but only resisted, will also oppress desire for the flesh in Christ himself. The athlete of Christ counts the victories of his mind. Do they tremble lest the flesh waver in the Lord, which conquered in a servant?
Christ does not want us to fear for Himself, the Lord does not want us to weep for Himself. Finally, He says: Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, weep for yourselves (Luke 23:28). And to those, He says: Do not fear for me, fear for yourselves. Have you not heard David saying: The LORD is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear? The LORD is the strength of my life, of whom shall I be afraid? (Psalm 27:1). And elsewhere: I shall not fear what man can do to me (Psalm 118:6); and elsewhere: I shall not fear what flesh can do to me (Psalm 56:5).
Therefore He says: I could fear the fall of human nature which man himself did not fear: and so, before flesh, God took on the perfection of human nature: I took on the senses of man, but I am not inflated by the sense of the flesh. By the sense of man I said that my soul was troubled: by the sense of man I hungered: by the sense of man I prayed, as I always heard the prayers of those who pray: by the sense of man I made progress, as it is written: And Jesus advanced in age and wisdom and grace with God and men (Luke 2:52).
How did the Wisdom of God progress? Let the order of words teach you. It advanced in age and wisdom, but in a human way. Therefore, it preceded age so that you would believe the statement according to a human being. Age belongs to the body, not to divinity. Therefore, if it advanced in the age of a human, it advanced in the wisdom of a human. Wisdom, however, progresses through the senses, because wisdom comes from the senses. But Jesus advanced in both age and wisdom. Who was making progress in understanding? If human, then he himself underwent change: if divine, then he is mutable by progress. For whatever makes progress, certainly changes for the better: but what is divine does not change: therefore, what changes is not necessarily divine. Therefore, human understanding was making progress; therefore, it assumed a human understanding.
And so that we may know that he was speaking according to the human, he added above, saying: But the boy grew and was strengthened and filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was with him (ibid., 40). And the boy, it is the name of our age: neither the power of God could be strengthened, nor God could grow, nor the height of God's wisdom, nor the fullness of God's divinity could be fulfilled. Therefore, what was being fulfilled was not God's wisdom, but our own. For how could he be fulfilled, who descended to fulfill all things (Ephesians 4:10)?
But how did Isaiah say it, that the child did not know his father or mother? For it is written: Before the child knows his father or mother, he will receive the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria (Isaiah 8:4). For the wisdom of God, which is to come and is hidden, does not deceive; but through human imprudence, infancy lacks knowledge and remains ignorant of what it has not yet learned.
But, you say, we must be cautious lest if we attribute two primary senses or a twofold wisdom to Christ, we divide Christ. When we worship both his divinity and his flesh, do we divide Christ? When we venerate in him the image of God and the cross, do we divide him? Surely the Apostle, who said of him: For although he was crucified through weakness, yet he lives by the power of God (2 Corinthians 13:4); he himself said that Christ is not divided. Do we also divide Him when we say that He received a rational and intellectual soul capable of our understanding? (I Cor. I, 13)
For God himself, the Word, in his flesh, was not a rational and intelligent soul, but a rational and intelligent soul, and the same human, and of the same substance as our souls, and a flesh similar to our own, and of the same substance as our flesh. The Word of God, assuming this, was also a perfect man, without any stain of sin; for he himself did not sin, but was made sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him (2 Cor. 5:21). Therefore, the flesh is of the same essence as the soul, and our soul and flesh are of the same substance.
Nor do I fear that I may appear to introduce a quaternity, for we truly adore the Trinity, we who assert this. For I do not divide Christ when I distinguish the substance of His flesh and His divinity, but I proclaim one Christ with the Father and the Spirit of God, and I will demonstrate that those who say that the flesh of Christ is of the same substance as His divinity introduce a quaternity. For it is not that which is of the same substance that is one, but one is, for surely those who confess the Son of the same substance as the Father in the treatise of the Council of Nicaea did not believe in one person, but in one divinity in the Father and the Son.
Therefore, when they say that the flesh of Christ, which was also the Son of God, was of the same substance, they themselves incur the folly of a vain assertion, as they seek to divide Christ. Thus, they introduce a fourth uncreated entity, which we adore, even though only the uncreated divinity of the Trinity exists.