ave to assume that this too
happened in one of two ways; either Christ was conceived and did
_not_ assume a body from Mary or He _did_ assume flesh from
her, and there were (until indeed He rose) two Natures which became one
after the Resurrection. From these alternatives a dilemma arises which
we will examine as follows: Christ who was born of Mary either did or
did not take human flesh from her. If Eutyches does not admit that He
took it from her, then let him say what manhood He put on to come among
us--that which had fallen through sinful disobedience or another? If it
was the manhood of that man from whom all men descend, what manhood did
divinity invest? For if that flesh in which He was born came not of the
seed of Abraham and of David and finally of Mary, let Eutyches show from
what man's flesh he descended, since, after the first man, all human
flesh is derived from human flesh. But if he shall name any child of man
beside Mary the Virgin as the cause of the conception of the Saviour, he
will both be confounded by his own error, and, himself a dupe, will
stand accused of stamping with falsehood the very Godhead for thus
transferring to others the promise of the sacred oracles made to Abraham
and David[71] that of their seed salvation should arise for all the
world, especially since if human flesh was taken it could not be taken
from any other but Him of whom it was begotten. If, therefore, His human
body was not taken from Mary but from any other, yet that was engendered
through Mary which had been corrupted by disobedience, Eutyches is
confuted by the argument already stated. But if Christ did not put on
that manhood which had endured death in punishment for sin, it will
result that of no man's seed could ever one have been born who should
be, like Him, without punishment for original sin. Therefore flesh like
His was taken from no man, whence it would appear to have been new-
formed for the purpose. But did this flesh then either so appear to
human eyes that the body was deemed human which was not really human,
because it was not subject to any primal penalty, or was some new true
human flesh formed as a makeshift, not subject to the penalty for
original sin? If it was not a truly human body, the Godhead is plainly
convicted of falsehood for displaying to men a body which was not real
and thus deceived those who thought it real. But if flesh ha