4. The Communion of Natures.

4. The Communion of Natures.

(De communione naturarum.) The reason for special treatment of the Communion of Natures. It should not be necessary, after having explained the personal union of God

2:2; 1 Petr. 4:11. man in Christ, to deal especially with the communication of natures (communio naturarum). The communion of natures is nothing but and beside the personal union. When we have so far said on the basis of Scripture that in Christ God and man are personally united, we never meant anything other than that the two natures, the divine nature and the human nature, are united in Christ. There could only be no talk of a communion of natures in Christ if "God" and "man", used by Christ, were merely titles, that is, if God merely described a so-called God and man merely a so-called man. In this case not two natures but only two titles or names would be connected in Christ. But just as it is certain that God and man are not to be taken in this case in an improper, but in the actual or essential sense, so it is also certain that in all scriptural statements in which the connection between God and man in one person is stated, that is, in the so-called "personal propositions" (propositiones personales), the connection or communion of the two natures is directly stated. Teachers of the Lutheran Church rightly observe that, to be precise, communio naturarum does not follow from unio personalis, but coincides with it and can only be distinguished from it conceptually. Thus Baier says: Dicitur communicatio naturarum fluere ex unione personali nostro modo concipiendi. Quod enim realiter ab ea differat, non appare But why should the Christian doctrine of faith be burdened with a special treatise on the communion of natures? This is because the Reformed theologians in particular, while wanting to admit that in Christ God and man form one person, reject with great determination any real communion (realis communio) between divine and human nature. They want to admit a communion of human nature with the Person of the Son of God, but they declare a communion with the divine nature of the Son of God to be impossible, because finite human nature is not capable of an actual communion with infinite divine nature (Finitum non est capax infiniti). Thus Heidegger says: Assumptio haec (namely, of the human t 261)

nature) facta est non ad naturam, sed ad personam Filii. (This assumption [namely, of the human nature] took place not with relation to the nature, but with relation to the Person of the Son.] 7°?) George Sohn says at first quite correctly: Filius solus factus est homo, non Pater aut Spiritus S.. [The Son alone was made man, not the Father or the Holy Ghost.] But in order not to be in a position to admit a communion of the divine nature with the human nature, he separates the Son of God from his divine nature by adding: atque iterum persona Filii, non natura divina (factus est homo), si proprie loqui volumus. 7°) The Calvinist Lambert Danean (Danaeus) writes against Chemnitz: Nihil quidquam, quod deitatis ipsius proprium et essentiale est, ulli omnino rei creatae, qualis est humana et assumta a Christo natura, realiter communicari potest. [But the Person of the Son, not the divine nature (was made man), if we wish to speak accurately.] 7° The Reformed theologians are so serious about denying the communion of natures in Christ that they accuse the Lutherans who teach this communion of Eutychianism, that is, of the transformation of human nature into divine. In this—one must say fanatical—fight against the realis communio naturarum, the old and the newer Reformed theologians are united. Also Hodge rebukes Lutheran doctrine: "The capacity of human nature for divinity became the formative idea in the Lutheran doctrine of the person of Christ. 7 Roman theologians make common cause with the Reformed on this point. 7 The Reformed and Roman theologians must therefore be held responsible for ensuring that in dogmatics the communio naturarum is still treated in particular according to the doctrine of the unio personalis. It is in the nature of things that annoying repetitions occur here. In fact, both this section on the communion of natures and the following section on the communion of characteristics do not deal with anything new, but rather with one and the same thing three times, from different points of view. The personal union cannot be described without

Theol. the F. C. IIL, 324.

communicari potuisse naturas earumque proprietates (Disp, de pers. Christi, th. 14; in Quenstedt II, 206.) Bellarmin also wants to limit the unio personalis to the communication of personality. (Lib. III de Christo, c. 8. 16.) Also A. J. Maas denies the communion of natures in Catholic Encyclopedia Ill, 169. the community of natures and the communication of the attributes are described. Neither can we speak of the communion of natures and the communication of attributes without constant recourse to the unio personalis. This is, as I said, tiresome. Teachers and students rightly complain about the accumulation of material in the doctrine of Christ's Person. But this state of affairs cannot be changed as long as there are people who, while wanting to admit the unio personalis, fight against the communio naturarum and the eommunieatio idiomatum as false doctrine. Assessment of the denial of the communion of natures. By denying the communio naturarum the Reformed theologians contradict both themselves and the statements of Scripture. They contradict themselves. It really stands as Seeberg reminded us: Whoever admits and believes the personal union of God and man in Christ has lost the right to speak out against the communion of natures and the communication of attributes. 7° That all Unitarians so resolutely reject the communio naturarum in Christ, is, from their point of view, quite consistent. Since they call Christ only God, but deny him the divine nature, their Christology cannot speak of a communion of divine and human nature. They know only one nature in Christ, the human nature. Likewise it is only consistent that all newer theologians who let Christ's human nature exist as a person in its own right do not want to know anything about the communio naturarum or the "two natures doctrine". By attributing to Christ's human nature its own personality, they have, like the Unitarians, a Christ who has only one nature, the human one. The divine in their Christ is not the divine nature, but only 'a uniquely enhanced divine activity, revelation, etc. But it is different with the Reformed theologians. They do not want to call Christianity merely God, as the Unitarians did, but they attribute to Christ the essential divinity. 7°? They also do not want, like the newer theologians, to let the human

consubstantialis, Deus verus, non nuncupatione aut adoptione aut ulla dignatione, sed substantia atque natura. 137 = Assessment of the denial of the communion of natures. [English ed. ~ 121] nature of Christ exist in its own right, but hold to the union of the divine and the human nature in one person, that is, to the doctrine of two natures. 7 If they nevertheless deny the real communion of divine and human nature and speak of a merely nominal communion, as far as the natures are concerned, we have before us a clear example of self-contradiction. Of course, they believe they have a sufficient reason for the rejection of the communion of natures, namely the axiom: Finitum non est capax infiniti. [The finite is not capable of the infinite] They point out that divine and human nature are incommensurable quantities. The infinity of divine nature is intended to make real communion with finite human nature impossible. But now it is stated that the person of the Son of God is also infinite, no less infinite than the divine nature. If the infinity of the divine nature makes its communion with the human nature impossible, then the same infinity of the divine Person of the Son of God makes its communion with the human nature of Christ impossible, and thus the incarnation of the Son of God is then declared impossible at all. The Reformed theologians must either abandon their opposition to the Lutheran doctrine of communion of natures, or else declare the real communion of human nature with the Person of the Son of God impossible. Every word they speak against the Lutheran doctrine of communion of natures according to the principle Finitum non est capax infiniti, they speak at the same time against themselves, namely against the still claimed communion of human nature with the Person of the Son of God. Already the Apology of the Formula of Concord [composed by Chemnitz, Selnecker, and Kirchner in 1583; or The Apology of the Book of Concord, CPH 2018] has clearly and sharply demonstrated the Reformed self- contradiction when it speaks against the Admonitio Neostadiensis: Tf the Son of God could make it (human nature) capable of the glory which it assumed from Him in the unity of His person without the destruction of its nature, why should He not also have made it capable of participating in His majesty and glory without being destroyed? If it is not erased by the personal union, how should it be erased by the communication of the Majesty?

naturas, divinam et humanam. [We recognize in one and the same Lord Jesus Christ two natures, divine and human] Indeed, the personal union is just as unbelievable as the sharing of majesty if one looks at the principle Finitum non est capax infiniti, that is, The finite may not contain the infinite.’ If from that principle one could deny the sharing of majesty, from the same principle one could deny the Incarnation itself, since the conclusion follows in one place as firmly as in the other. 7 This argument of the Apology of the Formula of Concord is irrefutable. The same argument is rightly put forward by Frank against Danaeus. If Danaeus wrote with such great confidence against Chemnitz: Nihil quidquam, quod deitatis ipsius proprium et essentiale est, ulli omnino rei creatae, qualis est humana et assumta a Christo natura, realiter communicari potest, Frank quite rightly remarks: "Nor, therefore, the personality of the Logos, which, if anything, deitatis ipsius propria est. [it is proper to the deity himself] 7 But above all, the Reformed theologians, with their denial of the communion of natures, are in direct contradiction with Scripture. The communio naturarum is directly expressed in all scriptural statements that deal with the Incarnation. If according to John 1:14 the Logos is described as He was described in the preceding (v. ff.), namely as the eternal God and the almighty Creator of all things, that is to say including his divine nature, odpé eyéveto, not by transformation into but by entering into odpé, ev oapkt énAv9ac; 7 eo ipso, through this act of entering into the flesh, is taught the communion of the divine nature of the Son of God with the human nature into which he has entered. Furthermore: If the Epistle to the Hebrews, instead of the Johannine odpé eyévet o and ev oapkt nAdev says of the Son of God: petéoys tov avtov, scil, oapKdc Kai Kai aipatoc,? he has become partaker of the flesh and blood of men, then this also directly indicates the communion of natures. No less is the communion of nature expressed in the words that follow directly from the words of John: 6 Adyoc odpé eyéveto. John says namely of the Logos become flesh and living among humans: ka EIeaodpEsa tThv S66Eav avtov Wc povoysevovs napa natpdc. If the divine d6fa [doxa] was visible in and upon the flesh,

p. 130]; cp. Frank, op. cit. III, 324.

139 = Assessment of the denial of the communion of natures. [English ed. ~ 122-123] radiating through the flesh, the divine nature was in true communion (realis communio) with the flesh. Furthermore: The 2av 16 zAnpw@pa tis SEdtTNTOG, Col. 2:9, is certainly a direct and emphatic designation of the divine nature or the divine being. The term does not denote a person without nature or essence, but the divine person of the Logos with all the fullness of the divine nature. But this entire fullness of the divine nature has entered into the human nature of Christ when the apostle testifies: Ev avtw - namely in Christ according to human nature—katoucet Tav To TANPOLA THs Sedt wos om@patucacs. If the divine nature of Christ "dwells" in his human nature, as in his o@ua, it is thus stated as clearly as possible that the divine nature has not only nominal but real communion with the human nature. The Reformed indignation, as expressed in Danaeus' words: Quid obsecro plenitudinis Dei praeter Deum ipsum capax esse potest? [What, I implore you, can be capable of the fullness of the Godhead other than God Himself?’’] is an indignation directed against Scripture. The detailed nature of the communio naturarum. * But not only the fact, but also the closer nature of the communio naturarum is abundantly expressed in Scripture. Scripture describes the communion of natures as an interpenetration without mixing and transformation. When Scripture says that in Christ's human nature dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily, ompatikas, it uses the connection of soul and body in man as an image to show the connection of the fullness of the Godhead, that is, the divine nature of Christ, with his human nature. Just as soul and body in man are not side by side but within one another, and in such a way that the soul penetrates the body, so too, on the basis of Scripture, the communion of natures in Christ is to be thought of not as a coexistence (ovvéigeta) but as an intimacy, and in such a way that the divine nature penetrates the human (meptympnotc). The penetration of the human nature of Christ on the part of the divine one has been recognized and believed by Christians on the basis of the Scripture statement Col. 2:9, before the expression mepty@pyots was accepted by the Damascene as church terminus. The intertwining of natures and the zep1y@pnoic also comes to the point when John, both in his Gospel and in his first letter [John 1:14 and 1 John 1:1-3] reports that he and his fellow disciples experienced the divine glory (tv 56€av ws Lovoyevots mapa matpoc [a glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father’’]) in the Word made flesh, when it dwelt among them, that is, when they dwelt among them in His human nature (sisaodueia), heard Him with their ears (4knkdapEv), saw it with their eyes (Empakapev) and touched Him with their hands (al yeipes nov éynAdenoav). 7 This seeing of the divine glory and this hearing, seeing and touching of the eternal God in the human nature of Christ implies that the human nature of Christ was_permeated by his divine nature. But as clearly as the scripture teaches the intertwining of natures and TEP1Y@pNotc [permeation], it also teaches on the other hand that both natures remain intact, i.e. no mixing or transformation of natures takes place. When it says of the fullness of the Godhead the "dwelling" («atotkei) in the human nature of Christ, it teaches us that in this union neither the fullness of the Godhead was transformed into human nature, nor was human nature also absorbed by the fullness of the Godhead, but both factors remained unchanged and undiminished in this wonderful union, just as the soul of man dwells in him, without a transformation of the soul into the body or of the body into the soul taking place. The complete integrity of both natures in Christ, despite the most intimate penetration, is also expressed in Jn 1:14 and 1 Jn 1:1-3. The humanity in which the Logos dwelt on earth (Eoxjv@oev) was not a phantasm, but a real human being, whom the disciples not only saw but also touched, who even after the resurrection still had flesh and bone. 7’° The complete integrity of the divine nature is expressed by the fact that John and fellow disciples saw in the human nature of the Logos not just an offshoot of the divine doxa or unique finite gifts (dona finita extraordinaria), but the real, true, divine glory, d6Eav a> Lovoyevovcs mapa. matpoc. According to this, two things are certain:. The constant assertion of Reformed theology that in a true communion of natures (realis communio naturarum) neither the divine nor the human nature could remain unchanged is not taken from Scripture, but contrary to Scripture, it is

141 = Assessment of the denial of the communion of natures. [English ed. ~ 124-15] taken from man's own thoughts; 2. The presentation of the Lutheran Confessions, on the other hand, according to which a real communion of natures is allowed in Christ and yet the natures remain unchanged in their essence, only reflects the statements of Scripture. To the presentation of the communion of natures also belongs the reference to a question that will be discussed in more detail later in the doctrine of the omnipresence of Christ according to His human nature. This is the question of whether the Son of God, after His incarnation, wherever He is, is in His human nature or has His human nature with Him everywhere. The answer to this question has indeed become characteristic of the various Christological trends. The Lutheran Church answers this question with a firm yes. It teaches that the Son of God, after the Incarnation, is man wherever He is, evoapkoc, incarnatus. This is expressed in the axiom: Neque caro extra hoyov neque Adyoc extra carnem. [Neither is the flesh outside the Word nor the Word outside the flesh] The Reformed theologians answer this question with the equally decisive no. They teach that the Son of God, even after his Incarnation, does not have his human nature with him everywhere, but only in one place. After his incarnation, the Son of God is as much within his human nature as he is within it, and even completely outside it.? Lutheran theologians call this assertion briefly the "extra Calvinisticum". What does Scripture teach? If Scripture tells us about the Son of God that odpé eyéveto, we have no right to imagine the Son of God other than evoapkoc, incarnatus, as being everywhere in his human nature. The same idea forces Col. 2:9. If (katouxet) the whole fullness of the Godhead dwells in human nature as in his, then the divine nature is not to be thought of outside (extra), but in human nature, just as the human soul is not to be thought of outside, but in the human body. On the other hand, the Reformed side has noted that Scripture also speaks of God's "dwelling" in every believing person and yet at the same time allows God to remain completely outside (extra) the believers. Admittedly, Scripture often speaks in this way. 8 But Scripture does not speak of believers either, for example of Paul or Peter, as it does of Christ according to His human nature,

that God became man in them, and that the whole fullness of the Godhead dwells in them ompatikac. So there is no other way: the scriptural statements about the Incarnation of the Son of God read as follows: wherever the Son of God is, he is to be thought of as evoapkos, in carne. As soon as one allows oneself the extra carnem with the Reformed, one lets the unio personalis go and puts it into the unio mystica and sustentativa. The Reformed theologians of old and new take this criticism very badly and call it unjust. But it is precisely by their defense that they prove the accusation to be perfectly just. In fact, their defense goes like this: even if the Son of God does not have his human nature with him wherever he is, he maintains his human nature in the one place where it is. The defense therefore maintains the unio personalis in such a way that it makes the unio personalis identical, that is, completely dismissed, with the being of God in all believers and the being of God in all creatures. Thus it has already been pointed out above,’ that it is precisely the Heidelberg Catechism which defends the unio personalis by giving it up. Alting does indeed say that neither human nature outside the Logos nor the Logos is anywhere without human nature. But at the same time he reduces this connection to the mere sustentatio when he writes: Unio ista personalis in Christo facta est dd1aipétas, indivise respectu loci, ut nuspiam natura humana sit non sustentata a Ady, nuspiam Adyos¢ non sustentans humanam naturam, nec illa extra A6yov, nec A0yoc absque illa.[Google] *°° In contrast, the Lutheran Confessions state that the unio personalis does not merely imply the maintenance of human nature, but that it implies that the Son of God, wherever he is, does indeed have the human nature with him. Thus the Formula of Concord reads: Wherever you can say, Here is God, there you must also say, Then Christ the man is also there. And if you would point out a place where God is, and not the

non sit humanitas, tamen etiam ibi Verbum est homo, quia Verbum ibi existens sustentat humanitatem uti suam et propriam, licet alibi existentem. (Lib. III; De incarnat., c. 17. [Google] Bei Quenstedt II, 192) The Jesuit Busdus: Divinitas infinitis locis est, ubi non est humanitas. [Divinity is an infinite place, where there is no humanity.] (Apolog., c. 7, p. 211; Cp. Quenstedt II, 200.) 143 = Assessment of the denial of the communion of natures. [English ed. ~ 126-127] man, the person would already be divided, because I could then say with truth: Here is God, who is not man and who never as yet has become man.

If one objects to this that the human nature of Christ is then to be thought of as very great and extensive, the answer is that the human nature of Christ as o@t1a [body] does not need to be one inch larger than the divine nature, since the divine nature does not have any spatial extension (moles [amount]). However, we can be taught by Scripture that the human nature of Christ, through its existence in the Person of the Son of God, has attained a divine, invisible mode of being, transcending the barriers of space, in addition to its natural, spatial and visible mode of being. Scripture clearly teaches this different mode of being. For example, when it tells of Christ that he left Judea, went back to Galilee and traveled through Samaria,* it attributes to him the spatial mode of being (localis subsistendi modus). But when it says of the same Christ that he came to the disciples tv Ovpav KekAgstopévev [when the doors were shut] 7°?) and agavtoc éyéveto éyéveto an', ovtov [He vanished out of their sight],7*’ it attributes to Christ an illocal, invisible mode of being that is elevated above space. ** In order to be able to deny the invisible, above-space

dicunt post factam incarnationem tov Adyov esse vel subsistere extra suam carnem, quocunque colore pingant, solvunt, quantum in ipsis est, unionem hypostaticam, quippe cujus definitionem (determination of essence) tollunt. Si enim unio hypostatica est,inhabitatio' totius plenitudinis divinitatis tov Adyov in assumta carne..., consequens est, solvi unionem personalem, quam primum statuitur 0 Adyog extra suam carnem. (Disp, theol. de praecip. controv. in Academ. Giess. 1, 36; with Baier Ul, 37.)

The Lutheran teachers execute according to Scripture: The human nature of Christ is subject to two acts: those which are common to it with all other people (actus naturales), such as being local and visible, moving locally and visibly, etc, and those acts which are due only to the human nature of Christ, because only it is personally united with the Son of God (actus personales), such as being elevated above space and invisible, etc. — Gerhard: Quia Aoyov vadotaaic facta est carnis vadotaaic, ideo caro per unionem modum subsistendi illocalem est sortita. Et quia Aoyov vadotaaic eo modo facta est carnis vadotaaic, ut non desierit esse quod erat, videlicet humana natura, inde jam oritur distinctio inter actum naturalem et personalem. Quaedam enim de Christo homine praedicantur mode of being of Christ's human nature, Reformed theologians looked to John 20 for an opening in the closed doors, or in the window, or in the roof, or in the walls, to make it possible for Christ to come into the room where the disciples were gathered. 7®° It is obvious, however, that this reverses the scriptural statement into its opposite, because according to the context the emphasis lies precisely on the closed doors. Even Meyer, although he interferes with unseemly things, correctly remarks at this point: The text "points to a wonderful appearance which did not require the doors to be open and which happened while they were closed. 7° f course, the Reformed theologians assure us with great agreement that an invisible, supernatural mode of being of Christ's human nature is not possible without destroying the reality of human nature. Lutheran theologians, on the other hand, rightly remind us that we can leave the care for the preservation of Christ's human nature to God, who in his Word reveals both the illocal mode of being and the reality of Christ's human nature. To the benefit of Reformed theologians, it is not surprising that someone might think that the illocal mode of being is not compatible with the truth of Christ's human nature. The disciples also had thoughts secundum actum naturalem, quae sci. ex principiis naturae constitutivis oriuntur et quae cum omnibus hominibus habet communia; quaedam secundum actum personalem, quae sci. ratione unionis personalis ipsi competunt. [Google] (De pers., § 121.)

interpretations of embarrassment in Quenstedt II, 634 ff. Cf. also K6cher, Analecta, p. 1281. Barnes (on Joh. 20, 19) says par excellence: "There is no evidence that Jesus came into their assembly in any miraculous manner", while Calvin still speaks of an admirabilis modus of entering in so far as Christ divina virtute removed the solida materia that stood in the way of his entering.

anything for the "Lutheran ubiquitous doctrine", Holtzmann expresses the view: "Lutheran ubiquitousness probably comes even closer to the presupposed facts than the Calvinist assumption of a miraculous opening of the doors. But here it is not first of all about the "ubiquity", but about the illocal way of being of the human body of Christ, and that is clearly taught here, if one does not want to reinterpret the closed doors into open doors. ~ 128-129] when the Lord suddenly entered their midst with the doors closed. They thought they saw a spirit. They supposed that they had seen a spirit (xvebpa. 78%), But the Lord corrects their Christology with the words, Why are ye troubled? And why do thoughts arise in your hearts? and he convinces them that he has a true human nature, despite His entering with the doors closed cdpKa kai dotéa. The disciples believed Christ. All theologians, including the Reformed, should do the same. The Formula of Concord rightly reproaches the Reformed theologians that according to their thoughts or from their own argumentations [argumentationibus] or proofs, they wish to measure and calculate of what the human nature in Christ could or should be capable or incapable without becoming annihilated. [Zrigl. 1033, 52] In positive terms, the Formula of Concord adds: The best, most certain, and surest way in this controversy is this, namely, that what Christ has received according to His assumed human nature through the personal union, glorification, or exaltation, and of what His assumed human nature is capable (praetor et supra) beyond the natural properties, without becoming annihilated, no one can know better or more thoroughly than the Lord Christ Himself; and He has revealed it in His Word, as much as is needful for us to know of it in this life. Now, everything for which we have in this instance clear, certain testimonies in the Scriptures, we must simply believe, and in no way argue against it, as though the human nature in Christ could not be capable of the same."8 The illocal nature of Christ's human nature needs further consideration in the question of whether the praesentia divina is communicated to Christ's human nature. But it is fair to remind at the end of this section that the Reformed theologians themselves are taking back their fight against the realis communio naturarum. They do so where they teach that the divine nature of Christ gives infinite redemptive value to the suffering of His human nature. Thus even the Neustadt Admonition says not only of the divine person, but of the divine nature of the Son of God: Addit hanc dignitatem suae victimae, quam offert Patri pro nobis, ut sit Avtpov et pretium sufficiens pro totius

mundi peccatis, aequipollens poenis aeternis. [Google] 7 This conferring of value by divine nature naturally presupposes the realis communio of divine nature with human nature. Thus practice drives to the withdrawal of false theory. The so vehement official fight of the Reformed theologians against the real communion of natures, while at the same time accepting the unio personalis, is one of the strangest aberrations of the human mind that has arisen from the party spirit.