Chapter 37 — Refutation of those who maintained that Christ’s body and soul were not united together

In the foregoing chapters we have refuted the opinions of Nestorius and Eutyches by proving that there is but one person and two natures in Christ, as laid down by our faith. Seeing, however, that this would seem to be in contradiction with natural reason, certain later writers propounded the following view of the union. Man consists of a soul and body united together: this particular soul together with this particular body constitutes this particular man, which signifies not only a hypostasis or a person, but a hypostasis and a person. Therefore, lest they should have to admit in Christ a hypostasis or person of the Word, they maintained that his body and soul were not united so as to form one substance, and in this way they hoped to avoid the heresy of Nestorius. Again, it would seem impossible for that which was not part of a thing’s nature to become part of its substance without a change taking place in that thing. Now the Word is altogether unchangeable. And so, lest they should be constrained to admit that the assumed body and soul belonged to the nature which the Word had from all eternity, they contended that the Word assumed a human soul and body accidentally, just as a man puts on his clothes. In this way they wished to avoid the error of Eutyches. This view, however, is utterly contrary to faith.

Soul and body constitute a man by being united, because the form, when added to the matter, makes the species. Consequently, if soul and body were not united in Christ, he was not a man. Against this, the Apostle says: There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5).

Again. Each one of us is said to be a man in the sense that a rational soul forms part of our being. Hence, if Christ is said to be a man not in that sense, but merely because he had a soul and body without their being united, it would be an equivocation to call him a man, and he would not belong to the same species as we do. This is contrary to the saying of the Apostle that he had to be made like his brethren in every respect (Heb 2:17).

Further. Not any kind of body, but only a human body, belongs to human nature. Now a body is not human unless it be quickened by union with the soul; and it is an equivocation to speak of eyes, hands, feet, flesh, and bone when they are no longer united to the soul. Consequently, it would not be true to say that the Word assumed human nature if he assumed a body and soul that were not united together.

Again. The human soul is naturally disposed to be united to the body. Hence a soul that is never united to a body so as to constitute a being is not a human soul, because that which is natural must be always. Hence, if Christ’s soul is not united to the body so as to constitute a being, it follows that it is not a human soul, and that human nature was not in him.

Further. If the Word was accidentally united to the soul and body, as though it were clothed with them, human nature was not the nature of the Word. Consequently, after the union, the Word did not subsist in two natures, as neither does a man, when clothed, subsist in two natures. Eutyches was condemned in the Council of Chalcedon for saying this.

Moreover. That which happens to a man’s clothes does not happen to him: thus he is not said to be born when he puts his clothes on, nor to be wounded if his coat is torn. If, then, the Word donned a soul and body as a man puts on his clothes, we cannot say that God was born or suffered by reason of the body he assumed.

Again. If the Word took human nature merely as a cloak, so as to be seen by human eyes, it was useless for him to take a soul, which is naturally invisible.

Moreover. According to this view, the Son would have taken human flesh in the same way as the Holy Spirit assumed the form of a dove, in which he appeared. Now, this is clearly false, since we say neither that the Holy Spirit was made a dove, nor that he is less than the Father in respect of the nature assumed.

Again. If we regard the matter carefully, it is evident that this view leads to the absurdities involved in various heresies. Insofar as it asserts that the Son of God was accidentally united to soul and flesh, as a man to his clothes, it agrees with the opinion of Nestorius, who held this union to signify the indwelling of the Word of God in man, since God could not clothe man by bodily contact, but only by his indwelling grace. Insofar as it holds the union of the Word with human soul and flesh to be accidental, it follows that the Word was not subsistent in two natures after the union, which was the opinion of Eutyches, since a thing does not subsist in that which is united to it accidentally. Insofar as it maintained that soul and flesh were not united so as to constitute a being, this view agrees partly with Arius and Apollinaris, who said that Christ’s body was not animated by a rational soul, and partly with the Manicheans, who contended that Christ was not a real man, but only an imaginary one. For if the soul be not united to the body, so as to constitute a being, whatever appeared in Christ to make him like other men, made of soul and body, was merely imaginary.

This view seems to have been based on the words of the Apostle: In habit found as a man (Phil 2:7), for they did not realize that this was said metaphorically. Now we must not look for likeness in every detail in metaphorical expressions. Accordingly, the assumed human nature bears a certain resemblance to a man’s clothes, insofar as the Word was made visible in the flesh as man is seen in his clothes. But the comparison does not imply that in Christ the union of the Word with human nature was accidental.