The Human Nature of Jesus Christ.The Gospel story of the birth, upbringing, public life,private life, suffering and death of Jesus would all be a lie, were he not a Man with human nature such as ours. "For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus" ( 1 Timothy ii, 5). He is the "seed of Abraham" (Galatians iii, 16), the son of David (Matt. i, 1), the fruit of the loins of David (Acts ii, 30), made of the seed of David according to the flesh (Romans i, 3). To prove the human nature of the post-Resur rection Christ, Jesus even takes pains to enu merate the parts of his body: "See my hands and feet, that it is I myself ; handle and see; for a spirit bath not flesh and bones as ye see me to have') (Luke xxiv, 39).
The Hypostatic Union of the Divine Na ture with the Human ix the Divine Person Jesus Christ. New Testament Christology teaches not only that the Christ is true God and true Man, i.e., has divine and human nature, but that the two natures are physically united in one hypostasis or person, and that Person is divine. The very same Person, the Logos, the Christ, was God in the beginning (John i, 1), was in Personal relation with God the Father from eternity (ibid. i, 2), created all things (ibid. i, 3), and was made flesh,i.e., became Man in time (ibid. i, 14). The same divine Person, the Christ, "although he was in the nature of God, yet . . . emptied himself by taking the nature of a slave and becoming like men. And having appeared among us in out ward .bearing as mere man" (Philippians ii, 6-7), he was "in every way tempted, exactly as we have been, yet without sinning" (Hebrews iv, 15). During the beginnings of the Church in Jerusalem, Saint Peter told the people, at the Gate of Solomon: "The Author of life ye have put to death, but God raised him from the dead" (Acts iii 15). It is always one and the J same Person, Jesus Christ, who is said to be God and Man, or is given predicates that de note divine and human nature.
The literature of New Testament Christology is enormous. A few of the works most worthy of note are: Fathers of the Church: Saint Irenmus, 'Adversus Hacreses' ; Saint Athanasius, Incarnatione Verbi' ; id., 'Contra Arianos); Saint Ambrose, Incarnatione); Saint Gregory of Nyssa, 'Antirrhcticus contra id., 'Trac tatus ad Thcophilum' ; Saint Gregory of Nazi anzen, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, who wrote explicitly against the Arians, Nestorians, Mo nophysites and Monothelites. Scholastics: Saint Thomas, 'Summa) (III. qq. 1-59) ; Saint Bona venture, 'Brevil) (IV); id., 'In iii Sent.' ; Bellarmine, Christo Capite totius Ec clesim Controversim' ; Suarez, Dc Lugo, Petau, Franzelin, Hurter, Stentruii, Billot, Pesch, Bil luart, in the treatise (De Verbo.' Lives of
Christ; Saint Bonaventurc, Ludolph of Sax ony, Veuillot, Coleridge, Grimm, Farrar, Fou ard, Didon, Maas, Plumptre, Geikie, Edersheim. Dogmatic Works: Liddon, 'Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ' (1866) ; Roh, 'Who and What is Christ?' (1890) ; Gore, 'In carnation of the Son of God' (1891); Mathews, 'Messianic Hope in the New Testament' (1905); Prat, (Thiologie de St. Paul' (1909); Briggs, 'Messiah of the Gospels' (1894); 'Messiah of the Apostles' (1895); 'New Light on the Life ,of Jesus' (1909); 'Incarnation of the Lord' (1902); Drum, 'Divinity of Christ' (1918).
III. Christology of the Early Church. Of little import are the early heresies of Basili des, Marcion, Valentinus, the Manichzeans and Apollinaris. They were combated by the Fathers of the time. First to attack effectively the conservative Christology of the early Church was Arius. He set the heresy agog that the Christ was not of one essence, nature or substance with God, not a divine Person, was at most a half-way between the human and the divine. This heresy was condemned by the declaration of the Church in the Coun cil of Nicma, A.D. 325, which defined the divinity of the single Person, Jesus Christ, and his twofold nature, human and divine. Later Nestorius started a new form of heresy. He taught that, in Jesus, there were the human na ture, and therefore a human person; and also a divine Person with a divine nature. This heresy was condemned by the Church, which in the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, defined the oneness and divinity of the single Person, the Christ; and the physical unity in this divine Person, of the double nature, human and di vine, of the Word made Flesh. Later another heresy i took rise. By the anathema of Nicma, the Church had made it impossible to teach, in the sense of Arius, that, in Jesus, there is no divine Person and no divine nature. In the Council of Ephesus the Church had condemned the opinion of Nestorius that, in Jesus, there were two persons and two natures. Was there room for more heresy? Yes, Eutyches saw a loophole. He taught that, in Jesus, there was only one Person, the divine, and only one na ture. The followers of Eutyches, Monophy sites, taught either an intermingling of the two natures of Christ into one; or some sort of a conversion of the human nature into the divine. The Council of Chalcedon, A.n. 451, launched an anathema against all Monophjsites; and defined still more clearly that. in Jesus, there were two distinct natures, the divine and the human, physically united in one divine Person, and yet not merged into one nature.