The Incarnation

 "THE need of man preceded His becoming man," says Athan., "apart from which He had not put on flesh. And what the need was for which He became man, He Himself thus signifies, I came down from heaven ... to do the will of Him that sent Me. And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me, I should lose nothing; but, etc. etc. (John vi. 38-40), and again, I am come a Light into the World, etc., and again, To this end was I born, etc., that I should bear witness unto the truth (John xviii. 37), and John hath written, For this was manifested the Son of God, that he might destroy the works of the devil (1 John iii. 8). To give a witness, then, and for our sakes to undergo death, to raise men up and loose the works of the devil, the Saviour came, and this is the reason of His Incarnate Presence." Orat. ii. § 54.

 However, there are theologians of great name, who consider that the decree of the Incarnation was independent of Adam's fall; and certainly by allowing that it was not absolutely necessary (vid. infra) for the divine forgiveness of sin, and that it was the actual and immediate means of the soul's renewal and sanctification, as we shall see presently, Athan. goes far towards countenancing that belief. "Dico ex vi præentis decreti," says Viva (Curs. Theol. de Incarn. p. 74,) "Adamo non peccante Verbum fuisse incarnatum; atque adeo motivum Incarnationis non fuit sola redemptio, sed etiam et principalius ipsa Christi excellentia ac humanæ naturæ exaltatio . Ita Scotistæ, Suar. Martinon. et alii contra Thomistas. Angelicus vero qu. 1 a. 3 sententiam nostram censet probabilem, quamvis probabiliorem putet oppositam."

 It is the general teaching of the Fathers in accordance with Athan., that our Lord would not have been incarnate had not man sinned. "Our cause was the occasion of His descent, and our transgression called forth the Word's love of man. Of His incarnation we became the ground." Athan. de Incarn. V. D. 4. vid. Thomassin, at great length, de Incarn. ii. 5-11, also Petav. de Incarn. ii. 17, 7-12. Vasquez. in 3 Thom. Disp. x. 4 and 5.

 "Without His sojourning here at all, God was able to speak the word only and undo the curse ... but then the power indeed of Him who gave command had been shown, but man, though restored to what Adam was before the fall, would have received grace only from without, not had it united to his body ... Then, had he been again seduced by the serpent, a second need had arisen of God's commanding and undoing the curse; and this had gone on without limit, and men had remained under guilt just as before, being in slavery to sin; and ever sinning, they had ever needed pardon, and never been made free, being in themselves carnal, and ever defeated by the Law by reason of the infirmity of the flesh." Orat. ii. 68. And so in Incarn. 7, he says that repentance might have been pertinent, had man merely offended, without corruption following (supra Freedom ). vid. also 14. Athan. is supported by Naz. Orat. 19. 13; Theod. adv. Gent. vi. p. 876-7. Aug. de Trin. xiii. 13. The contrary view is taken by St. Anselm, but St. Thomas and the Schoolmen side with the Fathers. vid. Petav. Incarn. ii. 13.

 On the subject of God's power, as contrasted with His acts, vid. Petav. de Deo, v. 6.

 There were two reasons then for the Incarnation, viz. atonement for sin, and renewal in holiness, and these are ordinarily associated with each other by Athanasius.

 These two ends of our Lord's Incarnation, that He might die for us, and that He might renew us, answer nearly to those specified in Rom. iv. 25, "who was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification." The general object of His coming, including both of these, is treated of by Athanasius in Incarn. 4-20, or rather in the whole Tract, and in the two books against Apollinaris. It is difficult to make accurate references under the former head, (vid. supr. art. Atonement,) without including the latter. "Since all men had to pay the debt of death, on which account especially He came on earth, therefore after giving proofs of His Divinity from His works, next He offered a sacrifice for all," etc., and then the passage runs on into the other fruit of His death. Incarn. 20. Vid. also Orat. ii. § 7-9, where he speaks of our Lord as offering Himself, as offering His flesh to God; also Decr. § 14. And Orat. iv. § 6, he says, "When He is said to hunger, to weep and weary, and to cry Eloi, which are human affections, He receives them from us and offers to His Father, interceding for us, that in Him they may be annulled." And so Theodoret, "Whereas He had an immortal nature, He willed according to the law of equity to put a stop to death's power, taking first on Himself from those who were exposed to death a first-fruit; and, preserving this nature immaculate and guiltless of sin, He surrenders it for death to seize upon as well as upon others, and to satiate its insatiableness; and then on the ground of its want of equity against that first-fruit, He put a stop to its iniquitous tyranny over others." Eran. iii. p. 196, 7. Vigil. Thaps. contr. Eutych. i. § 9, p. 496 (Bibl. Patr. ed. 1624).

 And S. Leo speaks of the whole course of redemption, i.e. incarnation, atonement, regeneration, justification, etc., as one sacrament, not drawing the line distinctly between the several agents, elements, or stages in it, but considering it to lie in the intercommunion of Christ's person and ours. Thus he says that our Lord "took on Him all our infirmities which come of sin without sin;" and "the most cruel pains and death," because "none could be rescued from mortality, unless He, in whom our common nature was innocent, allowed Himself to die by the hands of the impious;" "unde," he continues, "in se credentibus et sacramentum condidit et exemplum, ut unum apprehenderent renascendo, alterum sequerentur imitando." Serm. 63, 4. He speaks of His fortifying us against our passions and infirmities, both " sacramento susceptionis " and "exemplo." Serm. 65, 2, and of a "duplex remedium cujus aliud in  sacramento, aliud in exemplo." Serm. 67, 5, also 69, 5. Elsewhere he makes the strong statement, "The Lord's passion is continued on [producitur] even to the end of the world; and as in His Saints He is honoured Himself, and Himself is loved, and in the poor He Himself is fed, is clothed Himself, so in all who endure trouble for righteousness' sake, does He Himself suffer together [compatitur]," Serm. 70, 5. vid. also more or less in Serm. pp. 76, 93, 98, 99, 141, 249, 257, 258, 271, fin. and Epist. pp. 1291, 1363, 1364. At other times, however, the atonement is more distinctly separated from its circumstances, pp. 136, 198, 310; but it is very difficult to draw the line. The tone of his teaching is throughout characteristic of the Fathers, and very like that of S. Athanasius. vid. arts. Atonement and Freedom .

 THE Two natures, the divine and human, both perfect, though remaining distinct, are in the Christ intimately and for ever one.

 "Two natures," says S. Leo, "met together in our Redeemer, and, while what belonged to each remained, so great a unity was made of either substance, that from the time that the Word was made flesh in the Blessed Virgin's womb, we may neither think of Him as God without that which is man, nor as man without that which is God," etc. Vid. art. Two Natures .

 And the principle of unity, viz. that in which they were united, was the Person of the Son. From this unity of Person it comes to pass, first, that one and the same act on the part of our Lord may be both divine and human; (e.g. His curing with a touch, this is called the [ theandrike energeia ];) and secondly, that the acts and attributes of one nature may safely be ascribed as personal to the other; this is called the [ antidosis idiomaton ]. Thus it is true that "the Creator is the Lamb of God," though there can be no intrinsic union of attribute or act in Him who both in the beginning created and in the fulness of time suffered.

 That Person which our Lord is after the Incarnation, He was before; His human nature is not a separate being; that is the heresy of the Nestorians. vid. Unity, etc. It has no personality belonging to it; but that human nature, though perfect as a nature, lives in and belongs to and is possessed by Him, the second Person of the Trinity, as an attribute or organ or inseparable accident of being, not as what is substantive, independent, or co-ordinate. Vid. articles [ organon ] and [ parapetasma ].

 Personality is not necessary in order to a nature being perfect, as we see in the case of brute animals.

 Nothing then follows from the union of the two natures, which circumscribes or limits the Divine Son; so to teach was the heresy of the Monophysites, who held that the Divinity and Manhood of Christ made up together one nature, as soul and body in man are one compound nature; from which it follows that neither of them is perfect. Vid. article [ Mia physis ].