Chapter 30 — The error of Valentine about the Incarnation

The opinion of Valentine about the mystery of the Incarnation was somewhat akin to the foregoing. He said that Christ’s body was not earthly but brought by him from heaven, and that he received nothing from his Virgin Mother, but merely passed through her as water through an aqueduct. He seems to have been led into this error by certain passages of Sacred Scripture. Thus it is said: No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man, who is in heaven . . . He who comes from above is above all (John 3:13, 31). And our Lord said: I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me (John 6:38). And: The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven (1 Cor 15:47). They want to take all these texts to mean that we must believe Christ to have come down from heaven even as regards his body.

Now this opinion of Valentine, like that of the Manicheans mentioned above, comes from a false principle, for they believed that all earthly things were created by the devil. Therefore, since the reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), it was not fitting that he should take a body formed from a creature of the devil. In fact, Paul says: What fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? (2 Cor 6:14–15) And, since like fruits come from the same root, this view leads to the same false issue as the preceding.

Every species has fixed essential principles (namely, its matter and form) which go to constitute the specific nature in things composed of matter and form. Now, just as human flesh and bone and the like are matter proper to a man, so fire, air, water, earth, and like objects of the senses are the matter of flesh and bone and the parts thereof. Hence, if Christ’s body were not earthly, neither had he real flesh and bone, and he was wholly an apparition: consequently, he was not a real, but an imaginary man. And yet, as we have observed, he said: A spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have (Luke 24:39).

Again. A heavenly body is naturally incorruptible and unchangeable, and cannot be moved from its connatural position. Now it was unbecoming that the Son of God should detract from the dignity of the nature he assumed—nay, rather was it becoming that he should raise it. Therefore, he did not bring down from heaven a heavenly or incorruptible body. Rather was it an earthly and passible body which he assumed, and rendered incorruptible and heavenly.

Again. The Apostle says that the Son of God was descended from David according to the flesh (Rom 1:3). Now David’s body was of the earth. Therefore, Christ’s body was also.

Moreover. The same Apostle says that God sent forth his Son, born of woman (Gal 4:4); and it is said that Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. (Matt 1:16). But he would not be described as made or born of her if he only came through her as through a channel, taking nothing from her. Therefore, he took his body from her.

Further. Mary could not be called his mother, as the Evangelist declares her to have been, unless he had received something from her.

Again. The Apostle says: He who sanctifies, namely Christ, and those who are sanctified, namely Christians, have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying: ‘I will proclaim thy name to my brethren’ (Heb 2:11–12); and further on: Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature (Heb 2:14). Now, if Christ had but a heavenly body, it is plain that, since we have an earthly body, we do not have all one origin with him. Consequently, we cannot be called his brethren, nor was he a partaker of flesh and blood. For it is well known that flesh and blood are composed of the lower elements, and are not of a heavenly nature. Clearly, therefore, this opinion is opposed to the statement of the Apostle.

As to the arguments on which that view is based, they are evidently absurd. For Christ came down from heaven, not as to his body and soul, but as God. We may gather this from our Lord’s very words. Thus, after saying: No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, he added: the Son of Man, who is in heaven (John 3:13). By this he shows that he came down from heaven in such a way as not to cease to be there. Now it is proper to God to be on earth and yet fill heaven also, according to the saying of Jeremias, I fill heaven and earth (Jer 23:24). Therefore, the Son of God did not, as God, come down from heaven by local movement, since that which is moved locally approaches one place in such a way as to leave another place. Consequently, the Son of God is said to come down from heaven inasmuch as he united an earthly substance to himself. Even so the Apostle says that he emptied himself inasmuch as he took the form of a servant, although he did not forfeit his divinity by so doing.

As to the principle on which this view is based, we have already proved it to be erroneous, for it has been shown (Bk. 2, cc. 6, 15.) that bodies were created not by the devil, but by God.