Paraeus:

And first the Holy Scripture itself teaches us plainly this kind of distinction, and forces us thereunto For you shall find in Scripture sometimes absolutely spoken that Christ “tasted death for all men”; “that he gave himself a ransom for all men,” (Heb. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:6), “that he is the reconciliation for the sins of the whole world” (1 Joh. 2:2). Again you shall read that Christ “prayed, not nor satisfied himself,” that is offered up himself for the world, but “for the elect which were given him”: “that he laid down his life for his sheep” (Joh. 17:9, 10:15). That “he gave his life to for the ransom of many”: that “he shed his blood for many” (Mat. 26:28; Rom. 8:9): that “the world cannot receive the Holy Spirit, because it sees him, neither knows him”: and “because it has not the purity [?], therefore it is not CHRIST’S. These places carry some show of contrariety, were it not that the former are understood by us of the sufficiency of satisfaction, and the latter of the efficacy and working virtue thereof.

David Paraeus, Certain learned and excellent discourses: treating and discussing divers hard and difficult points of Christian Religion: Collected, and published in latin, by D. David Parreus, out of the writings of that late famous and worthy light of God’s church, D. Zachary Ursine. Faithfully translated (At London: Imprinted by H.L. and are to be sold by John Royston, at his shop at the great North Dore of Paul’s, at the signe of the Bible, 1613), 136-137.

Vermigli:

1) Ambrose writes in his On Faith to Gratian, book 2, chapter 4: “We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death so that he might without God taste death for all men,” and so forth (Heb 2:9). Ambrose seems to have read “without God” [chariti theou] for what is written in Greek as “by the grace of God” [choris tou theon]. In fact, Vigilius in his second book against Eutyches read the passage the same way as Ambrose, “that he might without God taste death:” so that we would not think that his suffering referred to his divinity and not his flesh . Therefore, death is not communicated to the Godhead. Peter Martyr Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, by John Patrick Donnelly, (Kirksville, Missouri: Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, 1994), 2:70.

2) But I return to Cyril. In his Exposition of the Nicene Creed, which was part of the Council of Ephesus, he says on page 546, “We will find the divine Baptist saying, ‘After me comes a man who was ranked above me, because he was before me’ (John 1:30). How then was he before him if he was after him? Because Christ came later than John according to the time of the flesh; is not that clear to every one? Has any one something to say to this problem? Our Savior gives us the answer when asked. He said, speaking to the Jews, ‘before Abraham was, I am,’ (John 8:58). For he did indeed exist even before Abraham, in a divine way,” and so forth. Here also bear in mind that that property in no way is communicated to the human nature. He adds, “How then did he become the first born of the dead?A nd the first fruits of them that sleep? (Col 1:18; 1 Cor 15:20). Because by God’s grace he made his own the flesh that was subject to death, for as Paul says most wisely, he tasted death for all men in the flesh (Heb. 2:9), in which he could suffer but without discarding that by which he himself was life. So even if it were said that he suffered in the flesh. the nature of the Godhead did not undergo suffering but, as I already said, it is his own flesh which undergoes and so forth. From this vou can understand how suffering was communicated to the Word, not because the Word suffered itself but because the flesh that the Word had made its own underwent suffering. Peter Martyr Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, by John Patrick Donnelly, (Kirksville, Missouri: Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, 1994), 2:73.

3) Now my remaining task is to answer your questions about our communion with Christ. I pass over the judgment on that subject by John a’ Lasco, a gentleman equally renowned in letters and endowed with godliness. I will only make clear in a few words what I believe about this mystery. I strive for brevity, especially since your learning and acumen are such that you understand from a few words what I am after. The conjunction of the same nature that we share with Christ from his incarnation is not nothing, seeing that it is mentioned in the second chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews, where it is written, “Since therefore the children share in the flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature,” (Heb 2:14). But this is not restricted to Christians, for Jews, Turks, and everyone included in a census of human beings are joined with Christ in this way. Peter Martyr Vermigli, “Letter No. 114: To Beza at Lausanne,” in Life, Letters and Sermons, trans., by John Patrick Donnelly, (Kirksville, Missouri: Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, 1999), 5:135.

4) For in the body which suffered was God, who could not suffer. We understand his death in a similar way. God the Word was naturally immortal and incorruptible; he was both life and the giver of life. But because his own proper body by the grace of God, in Paul’s phrase, tasted death for all men (Heb. 2:9), he therefore is said to have suffered death for us, not that he himself experienced death as regards his nature (it would be madness to think or say that) but that, as we said, his own true flesh tasted death…

The Lord of glory is said to have been crucified (1 Cor. 2:8) because the Word of God had united to it that nature that underwent suffering and death on the cross. God redeemed his church in his blood (Eph. 1:7), because he assumed that nature from which the blood was shed for all of us. Christ is called our brother (Mark 3:35), clearly because he has assumed the flesh of our race. Then there is that sentence which sounds most sweetly in the church, “Christ is the only begotten son of God born of the Father before all ages” (From the Nicene Creed), surely because in him was the divine person and hypostasis which came forth from the Father before all eternity. Peter Martyr Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, by John Patrick Donnelly, (Kirksville, Missouri: Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, 1994), 2:74.

5) But while I write to you like this about N. N., something else occurs to me about which there is reason enough urging me to write you, both by way of inquiry and also to state my own opinion. As I do this with all freedom, so will it be up to you whenever you have leisure to indicate your own opinion. I do not press for an answer, being well aware that you are overwhelmed by important matters.

Men do not all agree concerning the communion which we have with the body of Christ and the substance of his nature; for what reason, I suppose you will hear. It is so important that he that is Christ’s should understand the mode (ratio) of his union with him.

First, it seems to me that he was pleased (as is said in the Epistle to the Hebrews [2.14] to communicate with us, in flesh and blood, by the benefit of his incarnation. ‘Since the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same’.

But unless some other kind of communion were offered us, this would be very general and feeble; for the whole human race already has communion with Christ in this manner. They are in fact men, as he was man.

So besides that communion this is added, that in due season faith is breathed into the elect whereby they may believe in Christ. Thus are they not only forgiven their sins and reconciled to God (in which the true and solid method of justification consists) but further there is added a renewing power of the spirit, by which our bodies also–flesh, blood and nature–are made capable of immortality, and become daily more and more in Christ’s form (Christiformia) as I may say. Not that they cast aside the substance of their own nature and pass into the very body and flesh of Christ, but that they no less approach him in spiritual gifts and properties than at birth they naturally communicated with him in body, flesh and blood.

Here, then, we have two communions with Christ (duas communiones cum Christo), the one natural, which we draw from our parents at birth, while the other comes to us by the Spirit of Christ. At the very time of regeneration we are by him made new according to the image of his glory.

I believe that between these two communions there is an intermediate one which is fount and origin of all the heavenly and spiritual likeness which we have with Christ. It is that by which, as soon as we believe, we obtain Christ himself our true Head, and are made his members. Whence, from the Head himself as Paul says [Eph. 4.16] his Spirit flows and is derived through the joints and ligaments into ourselves as his true and legitimate members. Wherefore this communion with our Head is prior, in nature at least though perhaps not in time, to that later communion which is introduced through regeneration. And here, it seems to me, natural reason helps us. We are taught that in things engendered the heart itself is formed first in infants. From it by a certain vein a spirit flows from the heart and in some way pierces the prepared matter of the living creature and there shapes the head. Thus by that vein through which spirit proceeds from heart, the head is joined to the heart. Again, by another vein spirit flows from the head and afterwards forms the liver, an organ that communicates with head and heart, by the arteries or veins which knit together. From the liver, moreover, and the other principal members there are other arteries or veins reaching to the other parts of the whole, by which the same engendering spirit passing through, fashions the other members. Thus it happens that they all communicate together, and are joined especially to the heart, that is to the fountain of life-not indeed in place or immediate contact (as they call it) but because from thence they draw the quickening spirit and life, by the wondrous workmanship of the highest artificer. Peter Martyr, “Calvin, Strasbourg 8 March 1555,” in The Life, Early Letters & Eucharistic Writings of Peter Martyr, ed., by J.C. McLelland and G.E. Duffield (Sutton Courtney Press, 1989), pp., 345-347.

6) Third, whenever they say that we communicate with Christ ‘carnally’, so that the body also is nourished in the eucharist, we should take it in the same way as we understand that when he was conceived of a virgin and assumed human nature, the Son of God communicated with us carnally. Moreover we abide in him and he in us, when we believe his words and receive the sacraments with faith, because in so communicating the spirit is given us, and our flesh and body which were already of the same nature with Christ, are made of the same qualities (earundem conditionum) with him: they become capable of immortality and resurrection, and when they obey and serve the spirit, are truly nourished to eternal life. So in the eucharist our body is fed in two ways. First it is fed by symbols, second by this renewal to eternal life, and thus Christ is said to abide in us through this sacrament. Of the first communication that we have with him through nativity and incarnation, you have witness from the Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 2: ‘Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature.’ Peter Martyr “The Oxford Disputation and Treatise, 1549,” in The Life, Early Letters & Eucharistic Writings of Peter Martyr, ed., by J.C. McLelland and G.E. Duffield (Sutton Courtney Press, 1989), p., 228.

7) The heretics added that we have no union with Christ except by consent and will, and from this inferred that between the Son of God and the Father no other union occurs than this. Hilary therefore had to demonstrate that we are united to Christ naturally in order to conclude that the Son also if naturally joined to the Father. His proof is as follows, If the Word of God truly assumed human nature, he communicates naturally with us in his flesh, and we are said to abide in him, because he himself has our nature in him. And in turn, in the Lord’s supper, if we truly receive his flesh, we participate in him naturally, and he truly abides in us. And so Hilary argues from the truth of sacraments, which we do not deny. Peter Martyr “The Oxford Disputation and Treatise, 1549,” in The Life, Early Letters & Eucharistic Writings of Peter Martyr, ed., by J.C. McLelland and G.E. Duffield (Sutton Courtney Press, 1989), pp., 240-241.

8) They have mentioned two unions with Christ: one by faith when we apprehend his body nailed to the cross and his blood shed for our salvation. The other is the fact that the Son of God himself took our true nature and so there is a natural communion between us and Christ, of which mention is made in Hebrews 2. But there is a third kind of union, on which we enter with Christ by eating him spiritually. Peter Martyr “The Oxford Disputation and Treatise, 1549,” in The Life, Early Letters & Eucharistic Writings of Peter Martyr, ed., by J.C. McLelland and G.E. Duffield (Sutton Courtney Press, 1989), pp., 274-275.

9) 12. Through the incarnation of the Son of God we communicate with him in flesh and blood, inasmuch as we believe that through it he assumed our nature. On the other hand, when we communicate and embrace through faith its body and blood given to death for us, we become partakers of them spiritually. Peter Martyr “Epitome of the Book Against Gardiner, 1,” in The Life, Early Letters & Eucharistic Writings of Peter Martyr, ed., by J.C. McLelland and G.E. Duffield (Sutton Courtney Press, 1989), p., 294.

10) Now must we see, what it is to be in Christ. First comes in place, that which is common unto all mortal men: for the Son of God, because he took upon him the nature of man, is joined with all men. For seeing they have fellowship with flesh and blood, as testified in the epistle to the Hebrews, he also was made partaker of flesh and blood. But this conjunction is general, and weak, and only (as I may term it) according to the matter: for the nature of man far differs from that nature which took upon him. For the human nature in Christ, is both immortal, and exempted from sin, and adorned with all pureness: but our nature is impure, corruptible, and miserably polluted with sin: but if the same be indued with the Spirit of Christ, it is so repaired, as it differs not much from the nature of Christ. Peter Martyr, “The Union with Christ,” in The Common Places, trans., and compiled by Anthonie Martin, 1583, part 3, pp., 77-78.

Taken from Athanasius on the Incarnation

(10) This great work was, indeed, supremely worthy of the goodness of God. A king who has founded a city, so far from neglecting it when through the carelessness of the inhabitants it is attacked by robbers, avenges it and saves it from destruction, having regard rather to his own honor than to the people’s neglect. Much more, then, the Word of the All-good Father was not unmindful of the human race that He had called to be; but rather, by the offering of His own body He abolished the death which they had incurred, and corrected their neglect by His own teaching. Thus by His own power He restored the whole nature of man. The Savior’s own inspired disciples assure us of this. We read in one place: ” For the love of Christ constraineth us, because we thus judge that, if One died on behalf of all, then all died, and He died for all that we should no longer live unto ourselves, but unto Him who died and rose again from the dead, even our Lord Jesus Christ.” [2 Cor. v. 14 f.] And again another says: “But we behold Him Who hath been made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He should taste of death on behalf of every man.” The same writer goes on to point out why it was necessary for God the Word and none other to become Man: “For it became Him, for Whom are all things and through Whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Author of their salvation perfect through suffering. [Heb. ii. 9 ff.] He means that the rescue of mankind from corruption was the proper part only of Him Who made them in the beginning. He points out also that the Word assumed a human body, expressly in order that He might offer it in sacrifice for other like bodies: “Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, He also Himself assumed the same, in order that through death He might bring to nought Him that hath the power of death, that is to say, the Devil, and might rescue those who all their lives were enslaved by the fear of death.” [Heb. ii. 14 f.] For by the sacrifice of His own body He did two things: He put an end to the law of death which barred our way; and He made a new beginning of life for us, by giving us the hope of resurrection. By man death has gained its power over men; by the Word made Man death has been destroyed and life raised up anew. That is what Paul says, that true servant of Christ: For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. Just as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,” [1 Cor. xv. 21 f.] and so forth. Now, therefore, when we die we no longer do so as men condemned to death, but as those who are even now in process of rising we await the general resurrection of all, “which in its own times He shall show,” [1 Tim. vi. 15.] even God Who wrought it and bestowed it on us.

Aquinas:

Summa Theologica

1) Objection 1. It would seem that Christ’s Passion did not bring about our salvation by way of atonement. For it seems that to make the atonement devolves on him who commits the sin; as is clear in the other parts of penance, because he who has done the wrong must grieve over it and confess it. But Christ never sinned, according to 1 Pt. 2:22: “Who did no sin.” Therefore He made no atonement by His personal suffering.

Objection 2. Further, no atonement is made to another by committing a graver offense. But in Christ’s Passion the gravest of all offenses was perpetrated, because those who slew Him sinned most grievously, as stated above (47, 6). Consequently it seems that atonement could not be made to God by Christ’s Passion.

Objection 3. Further, atonement implies equality with the trespass, since it is an act of justice. But Christ’s Passion does not appear equal to all the sins of the human race, because Christ did not suffer in His Godhead, but in His flesh, according to 1 Pt. 4:1: “Christ therefore having suffered in the flesh.” Now the soul, which is the subject of sin, is of greater account than the flesh. Therefore Christ did not atone for our sins by His Passion.

On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 68:5) in Christ’s person: “Then did I pay that which I took not away.” But he has not paid who has not fully atoned. Therefore it appears that Christ by His suffering has fully atoned for our sins.

I answer that, He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above (46, 6). And therefore Christ’s Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2: “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”

Reply to Objection 1. The head and members are as one mystic person; and therefore Christ’s satisfaction belongs to all the faithful as being His members. Also, in so far as any two men are one in charity, the one can atone for the other as shall be shown later (XP, 13, 2). But the same reason does not hold good of confession and contrition, because atonement consists in an outward action, for which helps may be used, among which friends are to be computed.

Reply to Objection 2. Christ’s love was greater than His slayers’ malice: and therefore the value of His Passion in atoning surpassed the murderous guilt of those who crucified Him: so much so that Christ’s suffering was sufficient and superabundant atonement for His murderer’s crime.

Reply to Objection 3. The dignity of Christ’s flesh is not to be estimated solely from the nature of flesh, but also from the Person assuming it–namely, inasmuch as it was God’s flesh, the result of which was that it was of infinite worth. Summa Theologica, Part 3, Q 48.2.

Read the rest of this entry »