Preparen - Apunten - Fuego:

There are two other biblical unions that must be distinguished from the mystical union. First, there is the unio personalis (personal union). This union refers to the union between the divine nature and the human nature o f Christ. The personal union is distinct from the mystical union in that it is a union o f two natures that form one person. The mystical union is neither personal (in the theological sense) nor does it form one person (υφιστάμενον). Furthermore the human nature o f Christ does not

31

“subsist in itse lf’ (άνυττόστοαον), but “subsists in something else” (ένυπόστατον) namely the personality o f the preincamate λόγος (Chemnitz. TNC. 31). In contradistinction to the mystical union, the humanity o f Christ in the personal union also receives the divine characteristics or attributes o f God as well as created gifts (FC SD VIII, 48-52). Man in the mystical union receives only created gifts (FC SD VIII, 48-52). The purpose o f the personal union is the salvation o f man, although it also functions as a cause and paradigm for the mystical union. The mystical union is the effect o f Christ’s saving work which images or reflects the personal union although distinct by nature and purpose. Moreover the personal union has occurred only in the person o f Christ.

In the following citation, Johannes Brenz explains some of the similarities and differences between the personal union and mystical union.

What is the difference between the humanity o f Christ and all the saints as far as the indwelling o f God is concerned? For God actually lives in the humanity o f Christ, in this manner He lives also in Peter and Paul. God lives in Christ

essentially, in this manner He also lives in Peter and Paul. God lives powerfully in Christ, in this manner He also lives in Peter and Paul, by virtue o f the former passage. And further, God lives in Christ with manifold grace and gifts, in this way He also lives in Peter and Paul. In what way is the indwelling o f God

different? Thus it is also true, while God according to His essence is most simple, quite simple, undividable, thus He is everywhere where He is, whole and

completely together. How than can He be different in Christ than in another man?

Concerning this manner, the ancients have given this opinion. That God lives and is in the humanity o f Christ not only actually, essentially, powerfully, and

graciously as in the other saints, but also personally, namely that the Son o f God, true, eternal God with humanity, which He assumed from Mary, thus has united (Himself with), however not that the divine nature is transformed into the human but out o f God and man one undivided person has come into existence (Brenz.

Christologische Schriften. I, 121)

In the next citation, Martin Chemnitz distinguishes the personal union from the general union and the mystical union by designating the personal union as personal and hypostatic.

For the presence o f the Logos in the assumed flesh and in turn the presence o f the assumed nature in the Logos (by and with the assuming divine nature) differs completely in kind from the presence in which either the Logos is present with other creatures or other creatures are present in the Logos. For the nature or form

whole fullness, and not only a part o f the deity of the Logos is united with the assumed nature, not in a way that it is entirely in the saints, but personally and forming one hypostasis (υφιστάμενον׳). And the assumed nature is attached to the complete fullness, not just to some portion o f the deity o f the Logos, somewhere, in a manner that a nail clings to a wheel, a planet to its orbit, a finger to the body, a city to a sea, or as a line touches a circle at only one point. But this union which took place was a personal one and formed one hypostasis (υφιστάμενον)

(Chemnitz. TNC. 78).

The Formula o f Concord distinguishes these two unions in FC SD VIII, 16, 34, 67-70. It should also be noted that the ancient church made a point o f distinguishing the unio mystica and the unio personalis throughout their Christological writings as do the Lutheran fathers (e.g. Hesshusius. Postilla. 53-54).

This is evident at the council o f Chalcedon 451 A.D. (NPNF. Series 2 . 14:243ff). Moreover St. Cyril o f Alexandria points out that Nestorius’ error was that he really confused the mystical union and the personal union.

For the fullness o f the consubstantial Trinity dwells within us through the Holy Spirit. This is why Paul says: “ Do you not know that you are a temple o f God and that the Spirit o f God dwells within you” (I Corinthians 3:16)? Indeed Christ Himself says: “If anyone loves me he will keep my Word and my father will love him, and we shall come to him and make our abode with him” (John 14:23). But neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit have ever been called a man because o f the fact that they dwell within us. These people are making mockery o f the mystery o f the incarnation (Cyril o f Alexandria. On the Unity o f Christ. 96-97).

Second, there is a unio sacramentalis (sacramental union). This union takes place between the earthly elements and the heavenly elements o f the Lord’s Supper. This union is also different from the mystical union. The sacramental union is not meant to convey gratia infusa to bread and wine. Rather it is meant to transport gratia imputata (imputed grace) and gratia infusa to the recipient o f the sacrament.

Nevertheless the unio sacramentalis serves the mystical union in the following capacity. The

sacramental union is the form o f the Eucharist. The Eucharist is a means or causa instrumentalis o f the mystical union.