View Volume II - In Today's Catholic World

AND THEIR REFUTATION. 179
16. They object, fourthly, if the humanity
of Christ con
sisted of both soul and body, it was complete and perfect ;
there
was, therefore, in him a human person, besides the Divine Person.
We answer, that the humanity of Christ was complete by reason
of nature, for it wanted nothing, but not by reason of the Person,
because the Person in which the Nature subsisted and was com
prised was not a human but a Divine Person, and, therefore, we
cannot say that there were two Persons in Christ, for one Person
alone, that of the Word, sustains and comprises both the Divine
and human Nature.
17. They object, fifthly, that St. Gregory of Nyssa and St.
Athanasius have sometimes called the humanity of Christ the
house, the domicile, and the temple of God the Word. Besides
that, St. Athanasius, Eusebius of Ceserea, and St. Cyril himself,
have spoken of it as the instrument of the Divinity. St. Basil
"
calls Christ Deiferous," the bearer of God. St. Epiphanius and
St. Augustin,
" Hominem Dominicum," and St. Ambrose and St.
Augustin, in the
" Te Deum," say that the Word assumed man.
We answer, that the Fathers, as we have already seen, have
clearly expressed that Christ is true God and true man, so that
if there be any obscure passage in these words it is easily cleared
up by many others. St. Basil calls Christ the God-bearing man,
not because he admits a human person in Christ, but to quash the
error of Apollinares, who denied that Christ had a rational soul,
and the Holy Father only intended, therefore, to show by this
expression that the Word assumed both a body and soul ; when
St. Ambrose and St. Augustin say that the Word assumed man,
"
assumpsit hominem," they only use the word "
human nature.
hominem" for
18. We may as well also here refute the errors of the Bishops
Felix and Elipandus, who taught (ch. v, n. 39), that Jesus Christ
as man was not the natural, but only the adopted Son of God.
This opinion was condemned by several Councils, and also by the
Popes Adrian and Leo X. The learned Petavius (1) says that it
is not actually heretical, but at all events it is rash, and ap
proaching to error, for it is more or less opposed to the unity of
the Person of Christ, who, even as man, should be called the
(1) Petav. L 7, c. 4, n. 11, et c. 5, n. 8.