that in Christ the divine and human natures are united in such a way that Christ is only one person, as well as on the commonality of the peculiar characteristics of both.
1) This is the true common Christian faith, if we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and man.
2) From this truth of a double substance (essence, nature) and a simple person in Christ follows the so-called sharing and commonality of the idioms (i.e. the properties peculiar to a being).
3. so that what is proper to man may be properly said of God, and again what is proper to God may be properly said of man.
4 Thus it is rightly said: this man created the world, and: this God suffered, died and was buried.
5) However, this is not valid from the so-called abstracts of human nature, †).
(6) For it must not be said that Christ is thirsty, a servant, has died, consequently he is thirst, bondage, death.
7 Therefore also the sentence is rejected: Christ is the humanity; although one can say: Christ is the Godhead.
8. if otherwise man and mankind are just as synonymous as God and Godhead.
(9) No such distinction is made between concretem and abstractem in the propositions and attributes of the divine nature.
(10) Although the Scriptures and some of the Fathers make no distinction between concretem and abstractem in many attributes of human nature.
For example, the Symbolum*) sings: "You wanted to accept man for our redemption," as Augustine often does.
12) Since the rule rather seems to prescribe to say: You wanted to take humanity or human nature for our salvation.**)
(13) Thus some have no hesitation in saying that Christ is a creature, while it seems necessary to say that Christ is created.
14. and Joh. 1. says: "The word became flesh"; while one - according to
1142 iv. 462.463. B. Of the Christian faith in particular - Second article. W. x. 1374-1376. 1143
in our opinion - should more correctly say: the word has become inveterate or fleshy.
15 It is rightly taught that in this matter the expressions used in Scripture and by the orthodox fathers are valid.
(16) Yes, even the fathers, who are known to be orthodox, are given expressions that we are not permitted to imitate.
Therefore, one must beware of any derivation, similarity, inference, and examples.
18) Just as in grammar, certain different and irregular words do not permit derivation, similarity, or example.
And in general, in every science and art the use often makes an exception against the rule.
20 But it is certain that all expressions, applied to Christ, take on a new meaning than they otherwise have in the same matter.
21 For "creature" in the use of the old language and in other things means something that is separated from the Godhead in an immeasurable way.
In the new language, it means something that is inseparably united with the Godhead into one person in an ineffable way.
Therefore the words: man, humanity, suffered, and everything that is said about Christ must be new words.
24 Not that they express something new or different, but the same thing in a new and different way, unless one also wanted to call this something new.
25 It is therefore foolish when Schwenckfeld and his pompous followers make the sophistical excuse that Christ is called a creature according to His humanity.)
A man without science, without knowledge, yes, even without common sense can not distinguish between equivoken**) (same-named) words.
*I.e. not as a person, but only as human nature, by which he tore the natures apart. D. Red.
**Aequivoke or homonymous words are those that have the same name but different meanings, e.g. hat (garment) and hat (protection). D. Red.
27 For those who say that Christ is a creature, according to the use of the old language, that is, a creature that is separate, have never been considered Christians.
(28) Yes, all of them have most vehemently disputed the proposition in this view that Christ is a creature, which the Arians had taught.
It is therefore obvious that Schwenckfeld is barking into the empty air against his own dreams of the creature in Christ.
(30) Forgetting himself, man again admits that God became flesh, since he does not yet dare to deny that flesh is a creature.
31) But there is a secret Eutyches *) in such heretics who are ready to deny even that the Word became flesh.
32. for appearance they admit that the Word became flesh; but later, when they have claimed the field after the denial of the creature in Christ, they will deny that also.
(33) Therefore, in all these unmentionable things, it must be insisted that the expressions of the fathers be interpreted in a proper and correct manner, as is necessary.
34 It is criminal to want to establish an error from someone's inaccurate expressions when one knows that he had the right and sound mind to do so.
For there have never been fathers or teachers who did not speak inauthentically, if their expressions were to be put on the gold scale.
Thus sings Sedulius, a thoroughly Christian poet **):
The blessed Creator of all things
Pulled to a servant's body low ; †)
as is customary throughout the Church.
†) According to Luther's own translation in the well-known Christmas carol: Christum wir sollen loben already etc.
D. Red.
37 While there cannot be a more heretical expression than that human nature is the garment of the Godhead.
For the garment and the body do not together form One Person, as God and man together form One Person.
But that Sedulius nevertheless had quite the right idea, his other songs prove in the most obvious way.
In the same way, that well-known sentence would be heretical: The whole Trinity has worked the Incarnation of the Son, as two maidens dress a third, while the latter at the same time lends a hand.
41 Thus one would not be allowed to defend some scholastics who have imagined the relationship of Godhead and mankind as similar to the union of form with matter.
Others again, who have imagined this relationship as similar to the union of matter with form, would have spoken much more inconsistently, if one wanted to judge them by a hair's breadth.
(43) Nor could that similitude be maintained, comparing the Godhead with fire and mankind with iron, though it is a most glorious similitude.
44. also, one should no longer tolerate the comparison that Athanasius made: Just as a rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ.
(45) For they all deny that Christ is composed of various things, and yet claim that he is composed of various things.
But none of them speak in a more insipid manner than the so-called moderns, who pretend to speak of everything in the most acute and real way.
These say: The human nature is supported by the divine, or by the divine suppositum, or is held by it, as by its support.
This is also a monstrous expression and almost forces to assume as if God lifts and carries mankind.
49. all these alone have the right and
The words are not truly Christian, so they are forgiven for their clumsy expression.
50 For they would speak an unspeakable thing; but then also every likeness limps and never walks, as they say, on four feet.
(51) If anyone does not like or understand the expression, Christ, inasmuch as he is man, is a creature, let him go to the grammarians.
Those who are taught to express the same thing in different ways, let it be expressed as simply as possible.
53. for example, a grammarian may render the sentence: a Moor is white in respect to his teeth, in still another way, namely: a Moor is white in the teeth; or: is of white teeth; or: is furnished with white teeth.
(54) If he does not like all this, say: a Moor has white teeth; or: with a Moor the teeth are white, or simply: the Moor's teeth are white.
Since with all these expressions the author wants to express one and the same thing, it is useless to start a dispute for the sake of words.
(56) In the same way it is with the expressions: Christ, in so far as he is man, or: after his humanity, or: in his humanity, or: through his humanity, is a creature, which mean nothing else than: that he has a creature, or has taken on a human nature, or, what is the simplest: the humanity of Christ is a creature; therefore one should let those stupid chatterers go, who want to attribute different interpretations to the different ways of expressing themselves grammatically.
Therefore, heresy does not lie in the words, but in the sense and understanding that one associates with them, as St. Jerome already quite rightly countered his detractors.
58. Otherwise Moses would be the greatest heretic, who himself executes the ten commandments in different ways, Ex 20, and Ex 5, 5.
(59) On the other hand, one who is rejected in spirit, even though he uses right expressions and speaks even with the Scriptures, must not be tolerated.
60 For even Christ did not let the devils speak, since they testified to him as the Son of God, when they disguised themselves as angels of light.
(61) So great is the simplicity and goodness of the Holy Spirit, that His own, when they speak falsities according to grammar, nevertheless speak truths according to sense.
62. so great is the wickedness and malice of the devil that his own, though they may be
To speak the truth - grammatically, that is, according to the words, yet to speak lies - theologically, that is, according to the sense.
63. the saying applies here: he who lies also lies when he tells the truth; again, he who tells the truth speaks true even when he says something false.
64 This is when it is said: Whoever understands the Scriptures differently than the Holy Spirit requires is a heretic.
Several interpretations of this can be read in:
III. part, appendix to 1. B. Mos., sermon about 1 Mos. 3, 15, § 6-23, as well as the following one about 1 Mos. 22, 18, § 19-28, about the person of Christ and his two natures.
- Interpretation of the last words of David, 2 Sam. 23, 1-7, § 36-148, about the correspondences of the testimonies of A. and N. Test, the two natures in Christ.
VII. part, interpretation of the 1. and 2. chap. Joh., Cap. 1, § 1-51, of the testimony of John of Christ's divinity, as well as § 83-298, of the testimony of John of Christ's humanity.
VII. part, interpretation of the Gospel of John; another interpretation of John 1, 1-14, of Christ's divinity and humanity.
XI. Theil, Pred. in der hohen Christmesse, von Christi Gottheit.
XII. Theil, Kirchenpostille, Pred. am 3. Christtage, in der hohen Messe, von Christi Gottheit.
- XXVI Sermon on the 18th of Sunday, Trinity, on how Christ is true God and man.
XIIIb. Theil, 2. Predigt am Sonntag Judica, § 10-14, ein Bekenntniß Christi von seiner Gottheit.
5. of the threefold ministry of Christ.
a. In general.
XI. Theil, 1. Pred. am andern Sonnt, n. Ostern, von Christi Amt.
XI. Theil, 3. Pred. am andern Sonnt, n. Ostern, von Christi Amt.
b. Of the high priestly mediation of Christ.
V. Theil, XXVI. 2. Ausleg. d. 110. Ps., § 178 ff, von Christo und seinem Priesterthum.
VII. part, interpretation of the Ev. Joh., v, Sermon v. Lamme GOttes, über Joh. 1, 29.
Part VIII, Interpretation of the 17th Chap. John, about the prayer of Christ.
IX. Part II, Explanation of Gal. 1, 4. 5, Christ gave Himself for our sin.
XII. Theil, Kirchenpostille, Pred. am Sonnt. Judica, about the difference of the priesthood of A. Test. and Christ.
- XXIX. 21 sermons; 11th sermon, about the high priest JEsu Christo, as well as the same 12th sermon about Rom. 5, 10, about Christ's satisfaction; furthermore 13th sermon about Rom. 8, 31, about Christ's intercession.