(2.) Christ is farther described, as having taken to himself a reasonable soul, to which his body was united. This is maintained against the Arians, who deny that he had an human soul, concluding that the divine nature, such an one as they will allow him to have, was, as it were, a soul to his body; which is founded partly on their misunderstanding the sense of those scriptures, in which it is said, _The Word was made flesh_, John i. 14. and _God was manifest in the flesh_, 1 Tim. iii. 16. and, _Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same_, Heb. ii. 14. and, _Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came_, &c. Rom. ix. 5. But the principal argument, by which this opinion is supported, is, because they suppose, that, if he had an human soul, distinct from his divine nature, he must have had two understandings and wills, to wit, a divine and an human, and then it would have been possible for him to have had contrary ideas in his mind, and determinations in his will, as man, to what he had as God, which would infer a sort of confusion of thought, and irregularity of actions: but to this it may be answered, _1st_, As to the former, relating to his assuming flesh, it is a very common thing, in scripture, by a _synecdoche_, of the part for the whole, for _flesh_ to signify the whole man, consisting of soul and body, of which we have many instances in scripture; as when it is said, _All flesh had corrupted his way_, Gen. vi. 12. that is, all men had corrupted their way; and the prophet speaking concerning the vanity of man, as mortal, says, _All flesh is grass_, Isa. xl. 6.