part which the Mediator had to perform; namely, to restore us to the
Divine favour, so as, of children of men, to make us children of God; of
heirs of hell, to make us heirs of the kingdom of heaven. Who could
accomplish this, unless the Son of God should become also the Son of man,
and thus receive to himself what belongs to us, and transfer to us that
which is his, and make that which is his by nature ours by grace?
Depending, therefore, on this pledge, we have confidence that we are the
children from God, because he, who is the Son of God by nature, has
provided himself a body from our body, flesh from our flesh, bones from
our bones,(1101) that he might be the same with us: he refused not to
assume that which was peculiar to us, that we also might obtain that which
he had peculiar to him; and that so in common with us he might be both the
Son of God and the Son of man. Hence arises that holy fraternity, which he
mentions with his own mouth in the following words: “I ascend unto my
Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”(1102) On this
account we have a certainty of the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven,
because the only Son of God, to whom it exclusively belonged, has adopted
us as his brethren; and if we are his brethren, we are consequently co‐
heirs to the inheritance.(1103) Moreover it was highly necessary also for
this reason, that he who was to be our Redeemer should be truly both God
and man. It was his office to swallow up death; who could do this, but he
who was life itself? It was his to overcome sin; who could accomplish
this, but righteousness itself? It was his to put to flight the powers of
the world and of the air; who could do this, but a power superior both to
the world and to the air? Now, who possesses life or righteousness, or the
empire and power of heaven, but God alone? Therefore the most merciful
God, when he determined on our redemption, became himself our Redeemer in
the person of his only begotten Son!
III. Another branch of our reconciliation with God was this—that man, who
had ruined himself by his own disobedience, should remedy his condition by
obedience, should satisfy the justice of God, and suffer the punishment of
his sin. Our Lord then made his appearance as a real man; he put on the
character of Adam, and assumed his name, to act as his substitute in his
obedience to the Father, to lay down our flesh as the price of
satisfaction to the justice of God; and to suffer the punishment which we
had deserved, in the same nature in which the offence had been committed.
As it would have been impossible, therefore, for one who was only God to
suffer death, or for one who was a mere man to overcome it, he associated
the human nature with the Divine, that he might submit the weakness of the
former to death, as an atonement for sins; and that with the power of the
latter he might contend with death, and obtain a victory on our behalf.
Those who despoil Christ, therefore, either of his Divinity or his
humanity, either diminish his majesty and glory, or obscure his goodness.
Nor are they, on the other hand, less injurious to men, whose faith they
weaken and subvert; since it cannot stand any longer than it rests upon
this foundation. Moreover, the Redeemer to be expected was that Son of
Abraham and David, whom God had promised in the law and the prophets.
Hence the minds of the faithful derive another advantage, because from the
circumstance of his ancestry being traced to David and to Abraham, they
have an additional assurance that this is the Christ, who was celebrated
in so many prophecies. But we should particularly remember, what I have
just stated—that our common nature is a pledge of our fellowship with the
Son of God; that, clothed in our flesh, he vanquished sin and death, in
order that the victory and triumph might be ours; that the flesh which he
received from us he offered up as a sacrifice, in order to expiate and
obliterate our guilt, and appease the just wrath of the Father.
IV. The persons who consider these things, with the diligent attention
which they deserve, will easily disregard vague speculations which attract
minds that are inconstant and fond of novelty. Such is the notion, that
Christ would have become man, even though the human race had needed no
redemption. I grant, indeed, that at the original creation, and in the
state of integrity, he was exalted as head over angels and men; for which
reason Paul calls him “the first‐born of every creature;”(1104) but since
the whole Scriptures proclaim, that he was clothed in flesh in order to
become a Redeemer, it argues excessive temerity to imagine another cause
or another end for it. The end for which Christ was promised from the
beginning, is sufficiently known; it was to restore a fallen world, and to
succour ruined men. Therefore under the law his image was exhibited in
sacrifices, to inspire the faithful with a hope that God would be
propitious to them, after he should be reconciled by the expiation of
their sins. And as, in all ages, even before the promulgation of the law,
the Mediator was never promised without blood, we conclude that he was
destined by the eternal decree of God to purify the pollution of men;
because the effusion of blood is an emblem of expiation. The prophets
proclaimed and foretold him, as the future reconciler of God and men. As a
sufficient specimen of all, we refer to that very celebrated testimony of
Isaiah, where he predicts, that he should be smitten of God for the
transgressions of the people, that the chastisement of their peace might
be upon him; and that he should be a priest to offer up himself as a
victim; that by his stripes others should be healed; and that because all
men had gone astray, and been dispersed like sheep, it had pleased the
Lord to afflict him and to lay on him the iniquities of all.(1105) As we
are informed that Christ is particularly appointed by God for the relief
of miserable sinners, all who pass these bounds are guilty of indulging a
foolish curiosity. When he himself appeared in the world, he declared the
design of his advent to be, to appease God and restore us from death to
life. The apostles testified the same. Thus John, before he informs us
that the Word was made flesh, mentions the defection of man.(1106) But our
principal attention is due to Christ himself speaking of his own office.
He says, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life.”(1107) Again: “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall
hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.”(1108) “I
am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were
dead, yet shall he live.”(1109) Again: “The Son of man is come to save
that which was lost.”(1110) Again: “They that be whole need not a
physician.”(1111) There would be no end, if I meant to quote all the
passages. The apostles with one consent call us back to this principle;
for certainly, if he had not come to reconcile God, the honour of his
priesthood would have been lost, for a priest is appointed as a Mediator
to intercede between God and men:(1112) he could not have been our
righteousness, because he was made a sacrifice for us, that God might not
impute sins to us.(1113) Finally, he would have been despoiled of all the
noble characters under which he is celebrated in the Scripture. This
assertion of Paul would have no foundation: “What the law could not do,
God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin,
condemned sin in the flesh.”(1114) Nor would there be any truth in what he
teaches in another place, that “the kindness and love of God our Saviour
towards man appeared”(1115) in the gift of Christ as a Redeemer. To
conclude, the Scripture no where assigns any other end, for which the Son
of God should choose to become incarnate, and should also receive this
command from the Father, than that he might be made a sacrifice to appease
the Father on our account. “Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ
to suffer; and that repentance should be preached in his name.”(1116)
“Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life. This
commandment have I received of my Father.”(1117) “As Moses lifted up the
serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted
up.”(1118) Again: “Father, save me from this hour; but for this cause came
I unto this hour.”(1119) “Father, glorify thy Son.”(1120) Where he clearly
assigns, as the end of his assumption of human nature, that it was to be
an expiatory sacrifice for the abolition of sins. For the same reason,
Zacharias pronounces that he is come, according to the promise given to
the fathers, “to give light to them that sit in the shadow of
death.”(1121) Let us remember that all these things are spoken of the Son
of God, “in whom,” according to the testimony of Paul, “are hidden all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge,”(1122) and besides whom he glories in
knowing nothing.(1123)
V. If any one object, that it is not evinced by any of these things, that
the same Christ, who has redeemed men from condemnation, could not have
testified his love to them by assuming their nature, if they had remained
in a state of integrity and safety,—we briefly reply, that since the
Spirit declares these two things, Christ’s becoming our Redeemer, and his
participation of the same nature, to have been connected by the eternal
decree of God, it is not right to make any further inquiry. For he who
feels an eager desire to know something more, not being content with the
immutable appointment of God, shows himself also not to be contented with
this Christ, who has been given to us as the price of our redemption. Paul
not only tells us the end of his mission, but ascending to the sublime
mystery of predestination, very properly represses all the licentiousness
and prurience of the human mind, by declaring, that “the Father hath
chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world, and predestinated
us to the adoption of children according to the good pleasure of his will,
and made us accepted in his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption
through his blood.”(1124) Here the fall of Adam is certainly not
presupposed, as of anterior date; but we have a discovery of what was
decreed by God before all ages, when he determined to remedy the misery of
mankind. If any adversary object again, that this design of God depended
on the fall of man, which he foresaw, it is abundantly sufficient for me,
that every man is proceeding with impious presumption to imagine to
himself a new Christ, whoever he be that permits himself to inquire, or
wishes to know, concerning Christ, any more than God has predestinated in
his secret decree. And justly does Paul, after having been thus treating
of the peculiar office of Christ, implore, on behalf of the Ephesians, the
spirit of understanding, “that they may be able to comprehend what is the
breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of
Christ, which passeth knowledge;”(1125) as though he would labour to
surround our minds with barriers, that wherever mention is made of Christ,
they may not decline in the smallest degree from the grace of
reconciliation. Wherefore, since “this is” testified by Paul to be “a
faithful saying, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save
sinners,”(1126) I gladly acquiesce in it. And since the same apostle in
another place informs us, that “the grace, which is now made manifest by
the gospel, was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,”(1127) I
conclude that I ought to persevere in the same doctrine with constancy to
the end. This modesty is unreasonably censured by Osiander, who in the
present age has unhappily agitated this question, which a few persons had
slightly touched before. He alleges a charge of presumption against those
who deny that the Son of God would have appeared in the flesh, if Adam had
never fallen, because this tenet is contradicted by no testimony of
Scripture; as if Paul laid no restraint on such perverse curiosity, when,
after having spoken of the accomplishment of our redemption by Christ, he
immediately adds this injunction: “Avoid foolish questions.”(1128) The
frenzy of some, that have been desirous of appearing prodigiously acute,
has proceeded to such a length as to question whether the Son of God could
assume the nature of an ass. This monstrous supposition, which all pious
persons justly abhor and detest, Osiander excuses under this pretext, that
it is nowhere in Scripture expressly condemned; as if, when Paul esteems
nothing valuable or worthy of being known but Christ crucified, he would
admit an ass to be the author of salvation! Therefore he who in another
place declares that Christ was appointed by the eternal decree of the
Father as “the head over all,”(1129) would never acknowledge any other who
had not been appointed to the office of a Redeemer.
VI. But the principle which he boasts is altogether frivolous. He
maintains that man was created in the image of God, because he was formed
in the similitude of the future Messiah, that he might resemble him whom
the Father had already decreed to clothe with flesh. Whence he concludes
that if Adam had never fallen from his primitive integrity, Christ would
nevertheless have become man. How nugatory and forced this is, all who
possess a sound judgment readily perceive. But he supposes that he has
been the first to discover wherein the Divine image consisted; namely,
that the glory of God not only shone in those eminent talents with which
man was endued, but that God himself essentially resided in him. Now,
though I admit that Adam bore the Divine image, inasmuch as he was united
to God, which is the true and consummate perfection of dignity, yet I
contend that the similitude of God is to be sought only in those
characters of excellence, with which God distinguished Adam above the
other creatures. And that Christ was even then the image of God, is
universally allowed; and therefore whatever excellence was impressed on
Adam proceeded from this circumstance, that he approached to the glory of
his Maker by means of his only begotten Son. Man, therefore, was made in
the image of God, and was designed to be a mirror to display the glory of
his Creator. He was exalted to this degree of honour by the favour of the
only begotten Son; but I add, that this Son was a common head to angels as
well as to men; so that the angels also were entitled to the same dignity
which was conferred on man. And when we hear them called the “children of
God,”(1130) it would be unreasonable to deny that they have some
resemblance to their Father. But if he designed his glory to be
represented in angels as well as in men, and to be equally conspicuous in
the angelic as in the human nature, Osiander betrays his ignorance and
folly in saying that men were preferred to angels, because the latter did
not bear the image of Christ. For they could not constantly enjoy the
present contemplation of God, unless they were like him. And Paul teaches
us that men are no otherwise renewed after the image of God, than that if
they be associated with angels, they may be united together under one
head.(1131) Finally, if we give credit to Christ, our ultimate felicity,
when we shall be received into heaven, will consist in being conformed to
the angels. But if Osiander may infer, that the primary exemplar of the
Divine image was taken from the human nature of Christ, with the same
justice may any other person contend, that Christ must have been a
partaker of the nature of angels, because they likewise possess the image
of God.
VII. Osiander, then, has no reason to fear, that God might possibly be
proved a liar, unless the decree concerning the incarnation of his Son had
been previously and immutably fixed in his mind. Because, though Adam had
not fallen from his integrity, yet he would have resembled God just as the
angels do; and yet it would not have been necessary on that account for
the Son of God to become either a man or an angel. Nor has he any cause to
fear this absurdity, that if God had not immutably decreed, before the
creation of man, that Christ should be born, not as a Redeemer, but as the
first man, he might lose his prerogative; whereas now he would not have
become incarnate but for an accidental cause, that is, to restore mankind
from ruin; so that he might thence infer, that Christ was created after
the image of Adam. For why should he dread, what the Scripture so plainly
teaches, that he was made like us in all things, sin excepted?(1132)
whence also Luke hesitates not in his genealogy to call him “the son of
Adam.”(1133) I would also wish to know why Paul styles Christ “the second
Adam,”(1134) but because he was destined to become man, in order to
extricate the posterity of Adam from ruin. If he sustained that capacity
before the creation, he ought to have been called “the first Adam.”
Osiander boldly affirms, that because Christ was already foreknown as man
in the Divine mind, therefore men were formed in his likeness. But Paul,
by denominating him “the second Adam,” places the fall, whence arises the
necessity of restoring our nature to its primitive condition, in an
intermediate point between the first original of mankind and the
restitution which we obtain through Christ; whence it follows that the
fall was the cause of the incarnation of the Son of God. Now, Osiander
argues unreasonably and impertinently, that while Adam retained his
integrity, he would be the image of himself, and not of Christ. On the
contrary, I reply, that although the Son of God had never been incarnate,
both the body and the soul of man would equally have displayed the image
of God; in whose radiance it always appeared, that Christ was truly the
head, possessing the supremacy over all. And thus we destroy that futile
subtilty raised by Osiander, that the angels would have been destitute of
this head, unless God had decreed to clothe his Son with flesh, even
without any transgression of Adam. For he too inconsiderately takes for
granted, what no wise man will concede, that Christ has no supremacy over
angels, and that he is not their Prince, except in his human nature. But
we may easily conclude, from the language of Paul, that, as the eternal
Word of God, he is “the first‐born of every creature;”(1135) not that he
was created, or ought to be numbered among creatures, but because the holy
state of the world, adorned as it was at the beginning with consummate
beauty, had no other author; and that afterwards, as man, he was “the
first begotten from the dead.” For in one short passage he proposes to our
consideration both these points—that all things were created by the Son,
that he might have dominion over angels; and that he was made man, that he
might become our Redeemer.(1136) Another proof of Osiander’s ignorance is
his assertion, that men would not have had Christ for their King, if he
had not been incarnate; as though the kingdom of God could not subsist, if
the eternal Son of God, without being invested with humanity, uniting
angels and men in the participation of his glorious life, had himself held
the supreme dominion! But he is always deceived, or rather bewilders
himself, in this false principle, that the Church would have been
destitute of a head, if Christ had not been manifested in the flesh; as
if, while he was head over angels, he could not likewise by his Divine
power preside over men, and by the secret energy of his Spirit animate and
support them, like his own body, till they should be exalted to heaven,
and enjoy the life of angels! These impertinencies, which I have thus far
refuted, Osiander esteems as incontrovertible oracles. Inebriated by the
charms of his own speculations, he is accustomed to express himself in the
language of ridiculous triumph, without any sufficient cause. But he
quotes one passage more, which he asserts to be conclusive beyond all the
rest; that is, the prophecy of Adam, who, when he saw his wife, said,
“This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.”(1137) But how does
he prove this to be a prophecy? Because Christ, according to Matthew,
attributes the same language to God; as though every thing that God has
spoken by men contained some prophecy! Then Osiander may seek for
prophecies in each of the precepts of the law, of which it is evident God
was the author. Besides, Christ would have been a low and grovelling
expositor, if he had confined himself to the literal sense. Because he is
treating, not of the mystical union, with which he has honoured his
Church, but only of conjugal fidelity; he informs us, that God had
pronounced a husband and wife to be one flesh, that no one might attempt
by a divorce to violate that indissoluble bond. If Osiander be displeased
with this simplicity, let him censure Christ, because he did not conduct
his disciples to a mystery, by a more subtile interpretation of the
language of the Father. Nor does his delirious imagination obtain any
support from Paul, who, after having said that “we are members of Christ’s
flesh,” immediately adds, “this is a great mystery.”(1138) For the
apostle’s design was, not to explain the sense in which Adam spoke, but,
under the figure and similitude of marriage, to display the sacred union
which makes us one with Christ. And this is implied in his very words; for
when he apprizes us that he is speaking of Christ and the Church, he
introduces a kind of correction to distinguish between the law of marriage
and the spiritual union of Christ and the Church. Wherefore this futile
notion appears destitute of any solid foundation. Nor do I think there
will be any necessity for me to discuss similar subtilties; since the
vanity of them all will be discovered from the foregoing very brief
refutation. But this sober declaration will be amply sufficient for the
solid satisfaction of the children of God; that “when the fulness of the
time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the
law, to redeem them that were under the law.”(1139)
Chapter XIII. Christ’s Assumption Of Real Humanity.
The arguments for the Divinity of Christ, which has already been proved by
clear and irrefragable testimonies, it would, I conceive, be unnecessary
to reiterate. It remains, then, for us to examine, how, after having been
invested with our flesh, he has performed the office of a Mediator. Now,
the reality of his humanity was anciently opposed by the Manichæans and by
the Marcionites. Of whom the latter imagined to themselves a visionary
phantom instead of the body of Christ; and the former dreamed that he had
a celestial body. But both these notions are contrary to numerous and
powerful testimonies of Scripture. For the blessing is promised, neither
in a heavenly seed, nor in a phantom of a man, but in the seed of Abraham
and Jacob; nor is the eternal throne promised to an aërial man, but to the
Son of David and the fruit of his loins.(1140) Wherefore, on his
manifestation in the flesh, he is called the Son of David and of Abraham,
not because he was merely born of the virgin after having been formed of
some aërial substance; but because, according to Paul, he was “made of the
seed of David according to the flesh;” as the same apostle in another
place informs us, that “according to the flesh” he descended from the
Jews.(1141) Wherefore the Lord himself, not content with the appellation
of _man_, frequently calls himself also _the Son of Man_—a term which he
intended as a more express declaration of his real humanity. As the Holy
Spirit has on so many occasions, by so many instruments, and with such
great diligence and simplicity, declared a fact by no means abstruse in
itself, who could have supposed that any mortals would have such
consummate impudence as to dare to obscure it with subtilties? But more
testimonies offer themselves, if we wished to multiply them; such as this
of Paul, that “God sent forth his Son made of a woman;”(1142) and
innumerable others, from which he appears to have been liable to hunger,
thirst, cold, and other infirmities of our nature. But from the multitude
we must chiefly select those, which may conduce to the edification of our
minds in true faith; as when it is said, that “he took not on him the
nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham;” that he took
flesh and blood, “that through death he might destroy him that had the
power of death;” for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren;
that “in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that
he might be a merciful and faithful high priest;” that “we have not a high
priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities;”(1143)
and the like. To the same purpose is what we have just before mentioned,
that it was necessary for the sins of the world to be expiated in our
flesh; which is clearly asserted by Paul.(1144) And certainly all that the
Father has conferred on Christ, belongs to us, because he “is the head,
from whom the whole body is fitly joined together, and compacted by that
which every joint supplieth.”(1145) There will otherwise be no propriety
in the declaration, “that God giveth the Spirit not by measure unto him,
that we may all receive of his fulness;”(1146) since nothing would be more
absurd, than that God should be enriched in his essence by any
adventitious gift. For this reason also Christ himself says in another
place, “For their sakes I sanctify myself.”(1147)
II. The passages which they adduce in confirmation of this error, they
most foolishly pervert; nor do their frivolous subtilties at all avail
them in their endeavours to obviate the arguments which I have advanced in
defence of our sentiments. Marcion imagines that Christ invested himself
with a phantom instead of a real body; because he is said to have been
“made in the likeness of men,” and to have been “found in fashion as a
man.”(1148) But in drawing this conclusion, he totally overlooks the scope
of Paul in that passage. For his design is, not to describe the nature of
the body which Christ assumed, but to assert that whilst he might have
displayed his Divinity, he manifested himself in the condition of an
abject and despised man. For, to exhort us to humility by the example of
Christ, he shows, that being God, he might have instantaneously made a
conspicuous exhibition of his glory to the world; yet that he receded from
his right, and voluntarily debased himself, for that he assumed the form
of a servant, and content with that humble station, suffered his Divinity
to be hidden behind the veil of humanity. The subject of this statement,
without doubt, is not the nature of Christ, but his conduct. From the
whole context also it is easy to infer, that Christ humbled himself by the
assumption of a real human nature. For what is the meaning of this clause,
“that he was found in fashion as a man,” but that for a time his Divine
glory was invisible, and nothing appeared but the human form, in a mean
and abject condition? For otherwise there would be no foundation for this
assertion of Peter, that he was “put to death in the flesh, but quickened
by the Spirit,”(1149) if the Son of God had not been subject to the
infirmities of human nature. This is more plainly expressed by Paul, when
he says, that “he was crucified through weakness.”(1150) The same is
confirmed by his exaltation, because he is positively asserted to have
obtained a new glory after his humiliation; which could only be applicable
to a real man composed of body and soul. Manichæus fabricates for Christ
an aërial body; because he is called “the second Adam, the Lord from
heaven.”(1151) But the apostle in that place is not speaking of a
celestial corporeal essence, but of a spiritual energy, which, being
diffused from Christ, raises us into life. That energy we have already
seen that Peter and Paul distinguish from his body. The orthodox doctrine,
therefore, concerning the body of Christ, is firmly established by this
very passage. For unless Christ had the same corporeal nature with us,
there would be no force in the argument which Paul so vehemently urges,
that if Christ be risen from the dead, then we also shall rise; that if we
rise not, neither is Christ risen.(1152) Of whatever cavils either the
ancient Manichæans, or their modern disciples, endeavour to avail
themselves, they cannot succeed. Their nugatory pretence that Christ is
called “the Son of man,” because he was promised to men, is a vain
subterfuge; for it is evident that in the Hebrew idiom, _the Son of man_
is a phrase expressive of a real man. And Christ undoubtedly retained the
phraseology of his own language. There is no room for disputing what is
meant by _the sons of Adam_. And not to go any further, it will be fully
sufficient to quote a passage in the eighth psalm which the apostles apply
to Christ: “What is man, that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man,
that thou visitest him?” This phrase expresses the true humanity of
Christ; because, though he was not immediately begotten by a mortal
father, yet his descent was derived from Adam. Nor would there otherwise
be any truth in what we have just quoted, that Christ became a partaker of
flesh and blood, that he might bring many sons to glory—language which
clearly styles him to be a partaker of the same common nature with us. In
the same sense the apostle says, that “both he that sanctifieth and they
who are sanctified are all of one.” For the context proves that this
refers to a community of nature; because he immediately adds, “for which
cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.”(1153) For if he had
already said that the faithful are of God, what reason could Jesus Christ
have to be ashamed of such great dignity? But because Christ, of his
infinite grace, associates himself with those who are vile and
contemptible, it is therefore said that he is not ashamed. It is a vain
objection which they make, that on this principle the impious will become
the brethren of Christ; because we know that the children of God are born,
not of flesh and blood, but of the Spirit through faith; therefore a
community of nature alone is not sufficient to constitute a fraternal
union. But though it is only to the faithful that the apostle assigns the
honour of being one with Christ, yet it does not follow that unbelievers
are not, according to the flesh, born of the same original; as, when we
say that Christ was made man, to make us children of God, this expression
extends not to all men; because faith is the medium by which we are
spiritually ingrafted into the body of Christ. They likewise raise a
foolish contention respecting the appellation of _first‐born_. They plead
that Christ ought to have been born at the beginning, immediately of Adam,
in order “that he might be the first‐born among many brethren.”(1154) But
the primogeniture attributed to him refers not to age, but to the degree
of honour and the eminence of power which he enjoys. Nor is there any more
plausibility in their notion, that Christ is said to have assumed the
nature of man, and not of angels, because he received the human race into
his favour. For the apostle, to magnify the honour with which Christ has
favoured us, compares us with the angels, before whom in this respect we
are preferred.(1155) And if the testimony of Moses be duly considered,
where he says that the Seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the
serpent,(1156) it will decide the whole controversy. For that prediction
relates not to Christ alone, but to the whole human race. Because the
victory was to be gained for us by Christ, God pronounces, in general,
that the posterity of the woman should be superior to the devil. Whence it
follows, that Christ descended from the human race; because the design of
God, in that promise to Eve, was to comfort her with a good hope, that she
might not be overcome with sorrow.
III. Those passages, where Christ is called “the seed of Abraham,” and
“the fruit of the body of David,” they with equal folly and wickedness
involve in allegories. For if the word _seed_ had been used in an
allegorical sense, Paul certainly would not have been silent respecting
it, where, without any figure, he explicitly affirms, that there are not
many sons of Abraham who are Redeemers, but Christ alone.(1157) Equally
unfounded is their notion, that Christ is called the Son of David in no
other sense, but because he had been promised, and was at length
manifested in due time. For after Paul has declared him to have been “made
of the seed of David,” the immediate addition of this phrase, “according
to the flesh,”(1158) is certainly a designation of nature. Thus also in
another place he calls him “God blessed for ever,” and distinctly states
that he descended from the Jews “as concerning the flesh.”(1159) Now, if
he was not really begotten of the seed of David, what is the meaning of
this expression, “the fruit of his loins?”(1160) What becomes of this
promise, “Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne?”(1161) They
likewise trifle in a sophistical manner with the genealogy of Christ, as
it is given by Matthew. For though he mentions the parents of Joseph, and
not of Mary, yet as he was treating of a thing then generally known, he
thought it sufficient to show that Joseph descended from the seed of
David, while there could be no doubt that Mary was of the same family. But
Luke goes further, with a view to signify, that the salvation procured by
Christ is common to all mankind; since Christ, the author of salvation, is
descended from Adam, the common parent of all. I grant, indeed, that from
the genealogy it cannot be inferred that Christ is the Son of David, any
otherwise than as he was born of the Virgin. But the modern Marcionites,
to give a plausibility to their error, that Christ derived his body from
nothing, contend that women have no generative semen; and thus they
subvert the elements of nature. But as this is not a theological question,
and the arguments which they adduce are so futile that there will be no
difficulty in repelling them, I shall not meddle with points belonging to
philosophy and the medical art. It will be sufficient for me to obviate
the objection which they allege from the Scripture, namely, that Aaron and
Jehoiada married wives of the tribe of Judah; and thus, if women contain
generative semen, the distinction of tribes was confounded. But it is
sufficiently known, that, for the purposes of political regulation, the
posterity is always reckoned from the father; yet that the superiority of
the male sex forms no objection to the coöperation of the female semen in
the process of generation. This solution extends to all the genealogies.
Frequently, when the Scripture exhibits a catalogue of names, it mentions
none but men; is it therefore to be concluded that women are nothing? Even
children themselves know that women are comprehended under their husbands.
For this reason women are said to bear children to their husbands, because
the name of the family always remains with the males. Now, as it is a
privilege conceded to the superiority of the male sex, that children
should be accounted noble or ignoble, according to the condition of their
fathers, so, on the other hand, it is held by the lawyers, that in a state
of slavery the offspring follows the condition of the mother. Whence we
may infer, that the offspring is produced partly from the seed of the
mother; and the common language of all nations implies that mothers have
some share in the generation of children. This is in harmony with the
Divine law, which otherwise would have no ground for the prohibition of
the marriage of an uncle with his sister’s daughter; because in that case
there would be no consanguinity. It would also be lawful for a man to
marry his uterine sister, provided she were begotten by another father.
But while I grant that a passive power is ascribed to women, I also
maintain that the same that is affirmed of men is indiscriminately
predicated of them. Nor is Christ himself said to be “made” by a woman,
but “of a woman.”(1162) Some of these persons, casting off all modesty,
impudently inquire, whether we choose to say that Christ was procreated
from the menstrual seed of the Virgin. I will inquire, on the other hand,
whether he was not united with the blood of his mother; and this they must
be constrained to confess. It is properly inferred, therefore, from the
language of Matthew, that inasmuch as Christ was begotten of Mary,(1163)
he was procreated from her seed; as when Booz is said to have been
begotten of Rahab,(1164) it denotes a similar generation. Nor is it the
design of Matthew here to describe the Virgin as a tube through which
Christ passed, but to discriminate this miraculous conception from
ordinary generation, in that Jesus Christ was generated of the seed of
David by means of a Virgin. In the same sense, and for the same reason
that Isaac is said to have been begotten of Abraham, Solomon of David, and
Joseph of Jacob, so Christ is said to have been begotten of his mother.
For the evangelist has written the whole of his account upon this
principle; and to prove that Christ descended from David, he has contented
himself with this one fact, that he was begotten of Mary. Whence it
follows, that he took for granted the consanguinity of Mary and Joseph.
IV. The absurdities, with which these opponents wish to press us, are
replete with puerile cavils. They esteem it mean and dishonourable to
Christ, that he should derive his descent from men; because he could not
be exempt from the universal law, which concludes all the posterity of
Adam, without exception, under sin.(1165) But the antithesis, which we
find in Paul, easily solves this difficulty: “As by one man sin entered
into the world, and death by sin, even so by the righteousness of one, the
grace of God hath abounded.”(1166) To this the following passage
corresponds: “The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the
Lord from heaven.”(1167) Therefore the same apostle, in another place, by
teaching us that Christ was “sent in the likeness of sinful flesh”(1168)
to satisfy the law, expressly distinguishes him from the common condition
of mankind; so that he is a real man, and yet free from all fault and
corruption. They betray their ignorance in arguing that, if Christ is
perfectly immaculate, and was begotten of the seed of Mary, by the secret
operation of the Spirit, then it follows that there is no impurity in the
seed of women, but only in that of men. For we do not represent Christ as
perfectly immaculate, merely because he was born of the seed of a woman
unconnected with any man, but because he was sanctified by the Spirit, so
that his generation was pure and holy, such as it would have been before
the fall of Adam. And it is a fixed maxim with us, that whenever the
Scripture mentions the purity of Christ, it relates to a real humanity;
because to assert the purity of Deity would be quite unnecessary. The
sanctification, also, of which he speaks in the seventeenth chapter of
John,(1169) could have no reference to the Divine nature. Nor do we, as
they pretend, imagine two kinds of seed in Adam, notwithstanding Christ
was free from all contagion. For the generation of man is not naturally
and originally impure and corrupt, but only accidentally so, in
consequence of the fall. Therefore we need not wonder, that Christ, who
was to restore our integrity, was exempted from the general corruption.
But what they urge on us as an absurdity, that if the Word of God was
clothed with flesh, it was therefore confined within the narrow prison of
an earthly body, is mere impudence; because, although the infinite essence
of the Word is united in one person with the nature of man, yet we have no
idea of its incarceration or confinement. For the Son of God miraculously
descended from heaven, yet in such a manner that he never left heaven; he
chose to be miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin, to live on
the earth, and to be suspended on the cross; and yet he never ceased to
fill the universe, in the same manner as from the beginning.
Chapter XIV. The Union Of The Two Natures Constituting The Person Of The
Mediator.
When it is said that “the Word was made flesh,”(1170) this is not to be
understood as if the Word was transmuted into flesh, or blended with
flesh. Choosing from the womb of the Virgin a temple for his residence, he
who was the Son of God, became also the Son of man, not by a confusion of
substance, but by a unity of person. For we assert such a connection and
union of the Divinity with the humanity, that each nature retains its
properties entire, and yet both together constitute one Christ. If any
thing among men can be found to resemble so great a mystery, man himself
appears to furnish the most apposite similitude; being evidently composed
of two substances, of which, however, neither is so confounded with the
other, as not to retain its distinct nature. For the soul is not the body,
nor is the body the soul. Wherefore that is predicated separately of the
soul, which cannot be at all applied to the body. On the contrary, that is
predicated of the body, which is totally incompatible with the soul. And
that is predicated of the whole man, which cannot with propriety be
understood either of the soul or of the body alone. Lastly, the properties
of the soul are transferred to the body, and the properties of the body to
the soul; yet he that is composed of these two parts is no more than one
man. Such forms of expression signify that there is in man one person
composed of two distinct parts; and that there are two different natures
united in him to constitute that one person. The Scriptures speak in a
similar manner respecting Christ. They attribute to him, sometimes those
things which are applicable merely to his humanity; sometimes those things
which belong peculiarly to his Divinity; and not unfrequently those things
which comprehend both his natures, but are incompatible with either of
them alone. And this union of the two natures in Christ they so carefully
maintain, that they sometimes attribute to one what belongs to the other—a
mode of expression which the ancient writers called a communication of
properties.
II. These things might be liable to objection, if the Scripture did not
abound with passages, which prove that none of them is of human invention.
What Christ asserted concerning himself, “Before Abraham was, I am,”(1171)
was very inapplicable to his humanity. I am aware of the cavil with which
erroneous spirits would corrupt this passage,—that he was before all ages,
because he was even then foreknown as the Redeemer, as well in the decree
of the Father, as in the minds of the faithful. But as he clearly
distinguishes the day of his manifestation from his eternal essence, and
professedly urges his antiquity, in proof of his possessing an authority
in which he excels Abraham, there is no doubt that he challenges to
himself what is peculiar to the Deity. Paul asserts him to be “the first‐
born of every creature, that he is before all things, and that by him all
things consist:”(1172) he declares himself, that he “had a glory with the
Father before the world was,”(1173) and that he coöperates with the
Father.(1174) These things are equally incompatible with humanity. It is
certain that these, and such as these, are peculiar attributes of
Divinity. But when he is called the “servant” of the Father;(1175) when it
is stated that he “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God
and man;”(1176) that he seeks not his own glory; that he knows not the
last day; that he speaks not of himself; that he does not his own will;
that he was seen and handled;(1177) all this belongs solely to his
humanity. For as he is God, he is incapable of any augmentation whatever;
he does all things for his own glory, and there is nothing concealed from
him; he does all things according to the decision of his own will, and is
invisible and intangible. And yet he ascribes these things not to his
human nature separately, but to himself, as though they belonged to the
person of the Mediator. But the communication of properties is exemplified
in the assertion of Paul that “God purchased the Church with his own
blood,”(1178) and that “the Lord of glory” was “crucified.”(1179) Also in
what John says, that they had “handled the Word of life.”(1180) God has no
blood; he is not capable of suffering, or of being touched with hands; but
since he, who was at once the true God and the man Christ Jesus, was
crucified and shed his blood for us, those things which were performed in
his human nature are improperly, yet not without reason, transferred to
the Divinity. There is a similar example of this, where John teaches us,
that “God laid down his life for us.”(1181) There also the property of the
humanity is transferred to the other nature. Again, when Christ, while he
still lived on the earth, said, “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he
that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven:”(1182)
as man, and in the body which he had assumed, he certainly was not at that
time in heaven, but because he was both God and man, on account of the
union of both natures, he attributed to one what belonged to the other.
III. But the clearest of all the passages declarative of the true
substance of Christ are those which comprehend both the natures together;
such as abound in the Gospel of John. For it is not with exclusive
reference to the Deity or the humanity, but respecting the complex person
composed of both, that we find it there stated; that he has received of
the Father power to forgive sins, to raise up whom he will, to bestow
righteousness, holiness, and salvation; that he is appointed to be the
Judge of the living and the dead, that he may receive the same honour as
the Father;(1183) finally, that he is “the light of the world,” “the good
shepherd,” “the only door,” “the true vine.”(1184) For with such
prerogatives was the Son of God invested at his manifestation in the
flesh; which although he enjoyed with the Father before the creation of
the world, yet not in the same manner or on the same account; and which
could not be conferred on a mere man. In the same sense also it is
reasonable to understand the declaration of Paul, that after the last
judgment Christ “shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the
Father.”(1185) Now, the kingdom of the Son of God, which had no beginning,
will never have any end. But as he concealed himself under the meanness of
the flesh, and humbled himself by assuming the form of a servant, and laid
aside his external majesty in obedience to the Father,(1186) and after
having undergone this humiliation, was at length crowned with glory and
honour, and exalted to supreme dominion,(1187) that before him “every knee
should bow;”(1188) so he shall then surrender to the Father that name and
crown of glory, and all that he has received from the Father, “that God
may be all in all.”(1189) For why has power and dominion been given to
him, but that the Father may rule us by his hand? In this sense he is also
said to sit at the right hand of the Father. But this is only temporary,
till we can enjoy the immediate contemplation of the Deity. And here it is
impossible to excuse the error of the ancients, who, for want of
sufficient attention to the person of the Mediator, obscure the genuine
sense of almost all the doctrine which we have in the Gospel of John, and
involve themselves in many difficulties. Let this maxim, then, serve us as
a key to the true sense, that those things which relate to the office of
the Mediator, are not spoken simply of his Divine or of his human nature.
Christ therefore will reign, till he comes to judge the world, forasmuch
as he connects us with the Father as far as is compatible with our
infirmity. But when we shall participate the glory of heaven, and see God
as he is, then, having fulfilled the office of Mediator, he will cease to
be the ambassador of the Father, and will be content with that glory which
he enjoyed before the creation of the world. Nor is the title of Lord
peculiarly applied to the person of Christ in any other respect, than as
it marks an intermediate station between God and us. This is the meaning
of that expression of Paul, “One God, of whom are all things; and one
Lord, by whom are all things;”(1190) namely, to whom the Father has
committed a temporary dominion, till we shall be admitted to the immediate
presence of his Divine majesty; which will be so far from sustaining any
diminution by his surrender of the kingdom to the Father, that it will
exhibit itself in far superior splendour. For then also God will cease to
be the head of Christ, because the Deity of Christ himself, which is still
covered with a veil, will shine forth in all its native effulgence.
IV. And this observation, if the reader make a judicious application of
it, will be of great use towards the solution of many difficulties. For it
is surprising how much ignorant persons, and even some who are not
altogether destitute of learning, are perplexed by such forms of
expression, as they find attributed to Christ, which are not exactly
appropriate either to his Divinity or to his humanity. This is for want of
considering that they are applicable to his complex person, consisting of
God and man, and to his office of Mediator. And indeed we may see the most
beautiful coherence between all these things, if they have only a sober
expositor, to examine such great mysteries with becoming reverence. But
these furious and frantic spirits throw every thing into confusion. They
lay hold of the properties of his humanity, to destroy his Divinity; on
the other hand, they catch at the attributes of his Divinity, to destroy
his humanity; and by what is spoken of both natures united, but is
applicable separately to neither, they attempt to destroy both. Now, what
is this but to contend that Christ is not man, because he is God; that he
is not God, because he is man; and that he is neither man nor God, because
he is at once both man and God? We conclude, therefore, that Christ, as he
is God and man, composed of these two natures united, yet not confounded,
is our Lord and the true Son of God, even in his humanity; though not on
account of his humanity. For we ought carefully to avoid the error of
Nestorius, who, attempting rather to divide than to distinguish the two
natures, thereby imagined a double Christ. This we find clearly
contradicted by the Scripture, where the appellation of “the Son of God”
is given to him who was born of the Virgin, and the Virgin herself is
called “the mother of our Lord.”(1191) We must also beware of the error of
Eutyches, lest while we aim to establish the unity of Christ’s person, we
destroy the distinction of his two natures. For we have already cited so
many testimonies, where his Divinity is distinguished from his humanity,
and the Scripture abounds with so many others, that they may silence even
the most contentious. I shall shortly subjoin some, in order to a more
complete refutation of that notion. At present one passage shall suffice
us; for Christ would not have styled his body “a temple,”(1192) if it had
not been the residence of the Divinity, and at the same time distinct from
it. Wherefore, as Nestorius was justly condemned in the council of
Ephesus, so also was Eutyches afterwards in the councils of Constantinople
and Chalcedon; for to confound the two natures in Christ, and to separate
them, are equally wrong.
V. But in our time also there has arisen a heretic equally pestilent,
Michael Servetus, who in the place of the Son of God has substituted an
imaginary being composed of the essence of God, spirit, flesh, and three
uncreated elements. In the first place, he denies Christ to be the Son of
God, in any other respect than as he was begotten by the Holy Spirit in
the womb of the Virgin. But his subtlety tends to subvert the distinction
of the two natures, and thereby to represent Christ as something composed
of God and man, and yet neither God nor man. For this is the principal
point which he constantly endeavours to establish, that before Christ was
manifested in the flesh, there were in God only some shadowy figures; the
truth or effect of which had no real existence till the Word, who had been
destined to this honour, actually began to be the Son of God. Now, we
confess that the Mediator, who was born of the Virgin, is properly the Son
of God. Nor indeed could the man Christ be a mirror of the inestimable
grace of God, if this dignity had not been conferred on him, to be, and to
be called, “the only begotten Son of God.” The doctrine of the Church,
however, remains unshaken, that he is accounted the Son of God, because,
being the Word begotten by the Father before all ages, he assumed the
human nature in a hypostatical union. By the “hypostatical union” the
ancients expressed the combination of two natures constituting one person.
It was invented to refute the error of Nestorius, who imagined the Son of
God to have dwelt in flesh in such a manner as, notwithstanding that, to
have had no real humanity. Servetus falsely accuses us of making two Sons
of God, when we say that the eternal Word was the Son of God, before he
was clothed with flesh; as though we affirmed any other than that he was
manifested in the flesh. For if he was God before he became man, it is not
to be inferred that he began to be a new God. There is no more absurdity
in affirming that the Son of God appeared in the flesh, who nevertheless
was always the Son of God by eternal generation. This is implied in the
words of the angel to Mary: “That holy thing which shall be born of thee
shall be called the Son of God;”(1193) as though he had said, that the
name of the Son, which had been in obscurity under the law, was about to
be celebrated and universally known. Consistent with this is the
representation of Paul; that through Christ we are the sons of God, and
may freely and confidently cry, Abba, Father.(1194) But were not the holy
patriarchs in ancient times numbered among the children of God? Yes; and
depending on this claim, they invoked God as their Father. But because,
since the introduction of the only begotten Son of God into the world, the
celestial paternity has been more clearly revealed, Paul mentions this as
the privilege of the kingdom of Christ. It must, however, be steadily
maintained, that God never was a Father, either to angels or to men, but
with reference to his only begotten Son; and especially that men, whom
their own iniquity renders odious to God, are his sons by gratuitous
adoption, because Christ is his Son by nature. Nor is there any force in
the cavil of Servetus, that this depends on the filiation which God has
decreed in himself; because we are not here treating of figures, as
expiation was represented by the blood of the sacrifices: but as they
could not be the sons of God in reality, unless their adoption were
founded on this head, it is unreasonable to detract from the head, that
which is common to all the members. I go further: since the Scripture
calls angels “the children of God,”(1195) whose enjoyment of such high
dignity depended not on the future redemption, yet it is necessary that
Christ should precede them in order, seeing it is by him that they are
connected with the Father. I will briefly repeat this observation, and
apply the same to the human race. Since angels and men were originally
created in such a condition, that God was the common Father of both, if
there be any truth in the assertion of Paul, “that Christ was before all
things, the head of the body, and the first‐born of every creature, that
in all things he might have the preëminence,”(1196) I conceive I am right
in concluding, that he was also the Son of God before the creation of the
world.
VI. But if his filiation (so to speak) commenced at the time of his
manifestation in the flesh, it will follow that he was the Son also in
respect of his human nature. Servetus and other heretics maintain that
Christ, who appeared in the flesh, was the Son of God; because out of the
flesh he could not be entitled to this appellation. Now, let them answer
me, whether he be the Son according to both natures, and in respect of
both. So indeed they idly pretend; but Paul teaches us very differently.
We confess that Christ is called “the Son” in his human nature, not as the
faithful are, merely by adoption and grace, but the true and natural, and
therefore the only Son; that by this character he may be distinguished
from all others. For we, who are regenerated to a new life, are honoured
by God with the title of sons; but the appellation of “his true and only
begotten Son” he gives to Christ alone. But among such a multitude of
brethren, how can he be the only Son, unless he possess by nature what we
have received as a gift? And we extend this honour to the whole person of
the Mediator, that he who was born of the Virgin, and offered himself on
the cross as a victim to the Father, is truly and properly the Son of God;
but nevertheless with respect to his Deity, as Paul suggests, when he says
that he was “separated unto the gospel of God, which he had promised
afore, concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the
seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God
with power.”(1197) When he distinctly denominates him the Son of David
according to the flesh, why should he particularly say that he was
declared to be the Son of God with power, unless he intended to suggest
that this dignity depended not on that flesh, but on something else? For
in the same sense in which he says in another place that “he was crucified
through weakness, yet that he liveth by the power of God,” so in this
passage he introduces the difference between the two natures. They
certainly must be constrained to admit, that as he has received of his
mother that which causes him to be called the Son of David, so he has from
his Father that which constitutes him the Son of God, and that this is
something distinct and different from his humanity. The Scripture
distinguishes him by two names, calling him sometimes “the Son of God,”
sometimes “the Son of man.” With respect to the latter, it cannot be
disputed that he is styled the “Son of man,” in conformity to the common
idiom of the Hebrew language, because he is one of the posterity of Adam.
I contend, on the other hand, that he is denominated “the Son of God” on
account of his Deity and eternal existence; because it is equally
reasonable that the appellation of “Son of God” should be referred to the
Divine nature, as that that of “Son of man” should be referred to the
human nature. In short, in the passage which I have cited, “that he, who
was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, was declared to be
the Son of God with power,” Paul intends the same as he teaches us in
another place, that “Christ, who as concerning the flesh came of the Jews,
is God blessed for ever.” But if the distinction of the two natures be
expressed in both these passages, by what authority will they deny that he
is the Son of God in respect of his Divine nature, who according to the
flesh is likewise the Son of man?
VII. They clamorously urge in support of their error that God is said “not
to have spared his own Son,”(1198) and that the angel directed that the
very same who was to be born of the Virgin, should be called “the Son of
the Highest.”(1199) But to prevent their glorying in so futile an
objection, let them accompany us in a brief examination of the validity of
their reasoning. For if it be rightly concluded, that he began to be the
Son of God at his conception, because he that is conceived is called his
Son, it will follow that he began to be the Word at his manifestation in
the flesh, because John tells us that “he declares that, which his hands
have handled, of the Word of life.”(1200) So when they read the following
address of the prophet, “Thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little
among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me
that is to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old,
from everlasting, or from the days of eternity,”(1201) what interpretation
will they be obliged to adopt, if they determine to pursue such a mode of
argumentation? For I have declared that we by no means coincide with
Nestorius, who imagined two Christs. According to our doctrine, Christ has
made us the sons of God, together with himself, by the privilege of a
fraternal union, because he is, in our nature which he assumed, the only
begotten Son of God. And Augustine judiciously apprizes us, “that it is an
illustrious mirror of the wonderful and singular grace of God, that Jesus
Christ, considered as man, obtained honour which he could not merit.” From
his very birth, therefore, was Christ adorned, even in his human nature,
with the dignity of being the Son of God. Yet in the unity of person we
must not imagine such a confusion, as to destroy that which is peculiar to
Deity. For it is no more unreasonable, that the eternal Word of God and
the man Christ Jesus, the two natures being united into one person, should
be called the Son of God in different senses, than that he should be
styled, in various respects, sometimes the Son of God, sometimes the Son
of man. Nor are we any more embarrassed with the other cavil of Servetus,
that before Christ appeared in the flesh, he is no where called the Son of
God, but in a figurative sense. For though the description of him then was
rather obscure, yet since it has now been clearly proved, that he was the
eternal God no otherwise than as he was the Word begotten of the eternal
Father, and that this name is applicable to him in the character of
Mediator which he has assumed, only because he is God manifested in the
flesh; and that God the Father would not have been thus denominated from
the beginning, unless there had even then been a mutual relation to the
Son, who is the source of all kindred or paternity in heaven and in
earth;(1202) the inference is clear, that even under the law and the
prophets he was the Son of God, before this name was commonly used in the
Church. If the contention be merely about the word, Solomon, in speaking
of the infinite sublimity of God, affirms his Son to be incomprehensible
as well as himself: “What is his name,” says he, “and what is his Son’s
name, if thou canst tell?”(1203) I am aware that this testimony will not
have sufficient weight with contentious persons, nor indeed do I lay much
stress on it, only that it fixes the charge of a malicious cavil on those
who deny that Christ is the Son of God, any otherwise than because he has
become man. It must also be remarked that all the most ancient writers
have with one accord so unequivocally asserted the same doctrine, that it
argues impudence equally ridiculous and detestable in those who dare to
represent us as opposing Irenæus and Tertullian, who both acknowledge that
Jesus Christ, who at length made a visible appearance, was always the
invisible Son of God.
VIII. But although Servetus has accumulated many horrible and monstrous
notions, to which some of his brethren, perhaps, would refuse to
subscribe, yet, whoever they are that acknowledge not Christ to be the Son
of God, except in the human nature, if we press them closely, we shall
find that this title is admitted by them on no other ground than because
he was conceived of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin; as the
Manichæans formerly pretended that man received his soul by emanation from
God, because it is said that God breathed into Adam the breath of
life.(1204) For they lay such stress on the name of Son, that they leave
no difference between the two natures, but tell us, in a confused manner,
that Christ is the Son of God, considered as man, because his human nature
was begotten by God. Thus the eternal generation of Wisdom, of which
Solomon speaks,(1205) is destroyed, and no notice is taken of the Deity in
the Mediator, or a phantom is substituted instead of his humanity. It
might indeed be useful to refute the grosser fallacies of Servetus, with
which he has fascinated himself and others, that the pious reader,
admonished by this example, may preserve himself within the bounds of
sobriety and modesty; yet I conceive this will be unnecessary here, as I
have already done it in a separate treatise. The substance of them all is,
that the Son of God was from the beginning an ideal existence, and that
even then he was predestinated to be a man who was to be the essential
image of God. Nor does he acknowledge any other word of God than what
consists in an external splendour. His generation he explains thus: that
there existed in God from the beginning a will to beget a Son, which was
carried into effect by his actual formation. He likewise confounds the
Spirit with the Word, by asserting that God distributed the invisible Word
and Spirit into body and soul. In short, he puts the prefiguration of
Christ in the place of his generation; and affirms that he who was then in
external appearance a shadowy Son, was at length begotten by the Word, to
which he attributes the properties of seed. Whence it will follow, that
the meanest animals are equally the children of God, because they were
created of the original seed of the Word of God. For though he compounds
Christ of three uncreated elements, to countenance the assertion that he
is begotten of the essence of God, yet he pretends him to have been the
first‐born among creatures in such a sense, that even inanimate
substances, according to their rank, possess the same essential Divinity.
And that he may not seem to despoil Christ of his Deity, he asserts that
his flesh is coëssential with God, and that the Word was made flesh by a
conversion of the humanity into Deity. Thus, while he cannot conceive
Christ to be the Son of God, unless his flesh proceeded from the essence
of God, and were reconverted into Deity, he annihilates the eternal
hypostasis of the Word, and deprives us of the Son of David, the promised
Redeemer. He frequently indeed repeats this, that the Son was begotten of
God by knowledge and predestination, but that at length he was made man of
those materials, which in the beginning appeared with God in the three
elements, and which afterwards appeared in the first light of the world,
in the cloud, and in the pillar of fire. Now, how shamefully he
contradicts himself, it would be too tedious to relate. From this summary
the judicious reader will conclude, that by the subtle fallacies of this
heretic, the hope of salvation is completely extinguished. For if the body
were the Deity itself, it would no longer be the temple of it. Now, we can
have no Redeemer, except him who became man, by being really begotten of
the seed of Abraham and David according to the flesh. Servetus makes a
very improper use of the language of John, that “the word was made flesh;”
for while it opposes the error of Nestorius, it is as far from affording
the least countenance to this impious notion, which originated with
Eutyches. The sole design of the evangelist was, to assert the union of
the two natures in one person.
Chapter XV. The Consideration Of Christ’s Three Offices, Prophetical,
Regal, And Sacerdotal, Necessary To Our Knowing The End Of His Mission
From The Father, And The Benefits Which He Confers On Us.
It is a just observation of Augustine, that although heretics profess the
name of Christ, yet he is not a foundation to them in common with the
pious, but remains exclusively the foundation of the Church; because, on a
diligent consideration of what belongs to Christ, Christ will be found
among them only in name, not in reality. Thus the Papists in the present
age, although the name of the Son of God, the Redeemer of the world, be
frequently in their mouths, yet since they are contented with the mere
name, and despoil him of his power and dignity, these words of Paul, “not
holding the head,”(1206) are truly applicable to them. Therefore, that
faith may find in Christ a solid ground of salvation, and so may rely on
him, it is proper for us to establish this principle, that the office
which was assigned to him by the Father consists of three parts. For he
was given as a Prophet, a King, and a Priest; though we should derive but
little benefit from an acquaintance with these names, unaccompanied with a
knowledge of their end and use. For they are likewise pronounced among the
Papists, but in a frigid and unprofitable manner, while they are ignorant
of what is included in each of these titles. We have before observed, that
although God sent prophets one after another in a continual succession,
and never left his people destitute of useful instruction, such as was
sufficient for salvation, yet the minds of the pious were always
persuaded, that the full light of understanding was not to be expected
till the advent of the Messiah. And that this opinion had even reached the
Samaritans, notwithstanding they had never been acquainted with the true
religion, appears from the speech of the woman: “When Messias is come, he
will tell us all things.”(1207) Nor had the Jews entertained this
sentiment without sufficient ground, but believed as they had been taught
by infallible oracles. One of the most remarkable is this passage of
Isaiah: “Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader
and commander to the people;”(1208) just as he had before styled him “the
Wonderful Counsellor.”(1209) In the same manner the apostle, with a view
to display the perfection of the evangelical doctrine, after having said,
that “God at sundry times and in divers manners spake unto the fathers by
the prophets,” adds, that he “hath in these last days spoken unto us by
his Son.”(1210) But because it was the office of all the prophets to keep
the Church in a state of suspense and expectation, and also to support it
till the advent of the Mediator, we therefore find the faithful
complaining, in their dispersion, that they were deprived of this ordinary
blessing: “We see not our signs: there is no more any prophet: neither is
there among us any that knoweth how long.”(1211) At length, when Christ
was at no great distance, a time was prefixed for Daniel to seal up the
vision and prophecy, not only to authenticate the prediction it contained,
but in order that the faithful might patiently bear for a time the want of
prophets, because the plenitude and conclusion of all revelations was near
at hand.(1212)
II. Now, it is to be observed, that the appellation of “Christ” belongs to
these three offices. For we know that under the law not only priests and
kings, but prophets also, were anointed with holy oil. Hence the
celebrated title of “Messiah” was given to the promised Mediator. But
though I confess that he was called the Messiah with particular reference
to his kingdom, as I have already shown, yet the prophetical and
sacerdotal unctions have their respective places, and must not be
neglected by us. The former is expressly mentioned by Isaiah in these
words: “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath
anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind
up the broken‐hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, to proclaim
the acceptable year of the Lord.”(1213) We see that he was anointed by the
Spirit, to be a preacher and witness of the grace of the Father; and that
not in a common manner; for he is distinguished from other teachers, who
held a similar office. And here again it must be remarked, that he
received this unction, not only for himself, that he might perform the
office of a teacher, but for his whole body, that the preaching of the
gospel might continually be attended with the power of the Spirit. But it
remains beyond all doubt, that by this perfection of doctrine which he has
introduced, he has put an end to all prophecies; so that they who, not
contented with the gospel, make any extraneous addition to it, are guilty
of derogating from his authority. For that voice, which thundered from
heaven, “This is my beloved Son; hear ye him,”(1214) has exalted him by a
peculiar privilege above all others. From the head this unction is
afterwards diffused over the members, according to the prediction of Joel:
“Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy and see visions.”(1215) But
the declarations of Paul, that “he is made unto us wisdom,”(1216) and that
“in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,”(1217) have
rather a different meaning; namely, that beside him there is nothing
useful to be known, and that they who by faith apprehend him as he is,
have embraced the whole infinitude of celestial blessings. For which
reason he writes in another place, “I determined not to know any thing
among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified;”(1218) which is perfectly
just, because it is unlawful to go beyond the simplicity of the gospel.
And the tendency of the prophetic dignity in Christ is, to assure us that
all the branches of perfect wisdom are included in the system of doctrine
which he has given us.
III. I come now to his kingdom, of which it would be useless to speak,
without first apprizing the reader, that it is of a spiritual nature;
because thence we may gather what is its use, and what advantage it
confers upon us, and in short all its power and eternity. The eternity,
which the angel in Daniel ascribes to the person of Christ, the angel in
Luke justly applies to the salvation of the people. But this also is
twofold, or is to be considered in two points of view; one extending to
the whole body of the Church, the other belonging to every individual
member. To the former must be referred the following passage in the
Psalms: “Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.
His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It
shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in
heaven.”(1219) There is no doubt that God here promises to be the
everlasting Governor and Defender of his Church, through the medium of his
Son. For the truth of this prophecy will only be found in Christ; since
immediately after the death of Solomon, the dignity of the kingdom
sustained a considerable degradation, the greater part of it, to the
disgrace of the family of David, being transferred to a private man, and
afterwards was diminished more and more, till at length it fell in a
melancholy and total ruin. The same sentiment is conveyed in this
exclamation of Isaiah: “Who shall declare his generation?”(1220) For when
he pronounces that Christ will survive after his death, he connects his
members with him. Therefore, whenever we hear that Christ is armed with
eternal power, let us remember, that this is the bulwark which supports
the perpetuity of the Church; that amidst the turbulent agitations with
which it is incessantly harassed, and amidst the painful and formidable
commotions which menace it with innumerable calamities, it may still be
preserved in safety. Thus, when David derides the presumption of the
enemies who attempt to break the yoke of God and of his Christ, and says,
that the kings and the people rage in vain, since he that dwelleth in the
heavens is sufficiently powerful to repel their violence,—he assures the
faithful of the perpetual preservation of the Church, and animates them to
entertain a cheerful hope, whenever it happens to be oppressed.(1221) So,
in another place, when, speaking in the name of God, he says, “Sit thou at
my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool,”(1222) he
apprizes us that though numerous and powerful enemies conspire to assault
the Church, yet they are not strong enough to prevail against that
immutable decree of God, by which he has constituted his Son an eternal
King. Whence it follows that it is impossible for the devil, with all the
assistance of the world, ever to destroy the Church, which is founded on
the eternal throne of Christ. Now, with respect to its particular use to
each individual, this same eternity ought to encourage our hope of a
blessed immortality; for we see that whatever is terrestrial and worldly
is temporary and perishable. Therefore, to raise our hope towards heaven,
Christ declares that his “kingdom is not of this world.”(1223) In a word,
whenever we hear that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, excited by this
declaration, we ought to penetrate to the hope of a better life, and as we
are now protected by the power of Christ, let us expect the full benefit
of this grace in the world to come.
IV. The truth of our observation, that it is impossible to perceive the
nature and advantages of the kingdom of Christ, unless we know it to be
spiritual, is sufficiently evident from a consideration of the hardship
and misery of our condition in the state of warfare under the cross, in
which we have to continue as long as we live. What advantage, then, could
accrue to us from being collected under the government of the heavenly
King, if the benefit of it were not to extend beyond the present state? It
ought therefore to be known, that whatever felicity is promised us in
Christ, consists not in external accommodations, such as a life of joy and
tranquillity, abundant wealth, security from every injury, and numerous
delights suited to our carnal desires, but that it is peculiar to the
heavenly state. As in the world the prosperous and desirable state of a
nation consists partly in domestic peace, and an abundance of all
blessings, and every good, and partly in strong bulwarks to secure it from
external violence, so Christ enriches his people with every thing
necessary to the eternal salvation of their souls, and arms them with
strength to enable them to stand invincible against all the assaults of
their spiritual foes. Whence we infer that he reigns rather for us than
for himself, and that both internally and externally; that being
replenished, as far as God knows to be necessary for us, with the gifts of
the Spirit, of which we are naturally destitute, we may perceive from
these first‐fruits that we are truly united to God, in order to our
perfect happiness; and in the next place, that, depending on the power of
the same Spirit, we may not doubt of being always victorious over the
devil, the world, and every kind of evil. This is implied in the answer of
Christ to the Pharisees, that as “the kingdom of God is within” us, it
“cometh not with observation.”(1224) For it is probable, that in
consequence of his having professed himself to be that King, under whom
the highest blessing of God was to be expected, they ludicrously desired
him to display the insignia of his dignity. But to prevent them, who had
otherwise too great a propensity to the world, from directing all their
attention to external pomp, he commands them to enter into their own
consciences, “for the kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in
the Holy Ghost.”(1225) Here we are briefly taught what advantage results
to us from the kingdom of Christ. For since it is not terrestrial or
carnal, so as to be liable to corruption, but spiritual, it elevates us
even to eternal life, that we may patiently pass through this life in
afflictions, hunger, cold, contempt, reproaches, and other disagreeable
circumstances; contented with this single assurance, that our King will
never desert us, but will assist our necessities, till having completed
the term of our warfare, we shall be called to the triumph; for the rule
of his government is, to communicate to us whatever he has received of the
Father. Now, since he furnishes and arms us with his power, adorns us with
his beauty and magnificence, and enriches us with his wealth, hence we
derive most abundant cause for glorying, and even confidence, to enable us
to contend with intrepidity against the devil, sin, and death. In the last
place, since we are clothed with his righteousness, we may boldly rise
superior to all the reproaches of the world; and as he liberally
replenishes us with his favours, so we ought on our part to bring forth
fruit to his glory.
V. His regal unction, therefore, is not represented to us as composed of
oil and aromatic perfumes; but he is called “the Christ of God,”(1226)
because “the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and
might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord,”(1227) rested
upon him. This is the “oil of gladness,” with which the Psalmist declares
him to have been “anointed above” his “fellows;”(1228) because, if he were
not possessed of such excellence, we should be all oppressed with poverty
and famine. And, as we have observed, he was not enriched on his own
private account, but that he might communicate his abundance to them who
are hungry and thirsty. For as it is said that the Father “giveth not the
Spirit by measure unto him,”(1229) so another passage expresses the
reason—“that of his fulness we might all receive, and grace for
grace.”(1230) From this source proceeds the munificence mentioned by Paul,
by which grace is variously distributed to the faithful, “according to the
measure of the gift of Christ.”(1231) These passages abundantly confirm
what I have said—that the kingdom of Christ consists in the Spirit, not in
terrestrial pleasures or pomps; and that, therefore, in order to be
partakers of it, we must renounce the world. A visible emblem of this
unction was displayed at the baptism of Christ, when the Holy Spirit
rested on him in the form of a dove. That the Holy Spirit and his gifts
are designated by the word unction, ought not to be esteemed either novel
or absurd, because we have no other support even for our animal life; but
especially as it respects the heavenly life, we have not a particle of
vigour in us, but what we have received from the Holy Spirit, who has
chosen his residence in Christ, that those heavenly riches, which we so
greatly need, may from him be copiously distributed to us. Now, as the
faithful stand invincible in the strength of their King, and are enriched
with his spiritual blessings, they are justly denominated Christians. But
to this eternity, of which we have spoken, there is nothing repugnant in
these expressions of Paul: “Then he shall deliver up the kingdom to God,
even the Father,” and “Then shall the Son himself be subject, that God may
be all in all.”(1232) He only intends, that in that perfect glory the
administration of the kingdom will not be the same as it is at present.
For the Father has given all power to the Son, that he may guide, nourish,
and sustain us by his hand, may guard us by his protection, and aid us in
all our necessities. Thus, during the period of our pilgrimage, while we
are absent from God, Christ interposes between us, to bring us by degrees
to a perfect union with him. His being said to sit at the right hand of
the Father, is equivalent to his being called the Father’s vicegerent,
intrusted with all the power of the government; because it is the will of
God to govern and defend his Church through the mediation of his Son. This
is the explanation given by Paul to the Ephesians, that he was “set at the
right hand of the Father, to be the head over all things to the Church,
which is his body.”(1233) To the same purpose is what he states in another
place, that there has been “given him a name which is above every name;
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow; and that every tongue
should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the
Father.”(1234) For even in these words he displays the order in the
kingdom of Christ necessary for our present infirmity. Thus Paul rightly
concludes, that God himself will then be the only head of the Church,
because the functions of Christ in the preservation and salvation of the
Church will be fully discharged. For the same reason the Scripture often
styles him Lord, because the Father has given him authority over us, that
he may exercise his own dominion by the agency of his Son. “For though
there be” many authorities celebrated in the world, “to us there is but
one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord
Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him,”(1235) says Paul.
Whence it may justly be concluded, that he is the same God, who by the
mouth of Isaiah has asserted himself to be the King and Lawgiver of his
Church.(1236) For though he every where ascribes all the authority he
possesses to the free gift of the Father, yet he only signifies that he
reigns in the majesty and power of God; because he assumed the character
of Mediator, in order to approach to us by descending from the bosom and
incomprehensible glory of his Father. Wherefore it is the more reasonable
that we should all with one consent be ready to obey him, and with the
greatest alacrity conform all our services to his will. For as he combines
the offices of a King and a Shepherd towards the faithful who yield a
voluntary obedience, so, on the contrary, we are informed, that he bears
“a rod of iron” to “break” all the stubborn and rebellious, and to “dash
them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”(1237) It is likewise predicted
that “he shall judge among the heathen; he shall fill the places with the
dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.”(1238) Of this
there are some instances to be seen in the present state, but the complete
accomplishment of it will be at the last judgment, which may also with
propriety be considered as the last act of his reign.
VI. Concerning his priesthood, we have briefly to remark, that the end and
use of it is, that he may be a Mediator pure from every stain, and by his
holiness may render us acceptable to God. But because the righteous curse
prevents our access to him, and God in his character of Judge is offended
with us,—in order that our Priest may appease the wrath of God, and
procure his favour for us, there is a necessity for the intervention of an
atonement. Wherefore, that Christ might perform this office, it was
necessary for him to appear with a sacrifice. For even under the law the
priest was not permitted to enter the sanctuary without blood; that the
faithful might know, that notwithstanding the interposition of the Priest
as an intercessor, yet it was impossible for God to be propitiated without
the expiation of sins. This subject the apostle discusses at large in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, from the seventh chapter almost to the end of the
tenth. But the sum of the whole is this—that the sacerdotal dignity
belongs exclusively to Christ, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he
has abolished our guilt, and made satisfaction for our sins. The vast
importance of this we are taught by that solemn oath which “the Lord hath
sworn, and will not repent; Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of
Melchisedec.”(1239) For there is no doubt that God intended to establish
that capital point, which he knew to be the principal hinge on which our
salvation turns. And as we have observed, there is no access to God,
either for ourselves or our prayers, unless our Priest sanctify us by
taking away our sins, and obtain for us that grace from which we are
excluded by the pollution of our vices and crimes. Thus, we see, it is
necessary to begin with the death of Christ, in order to experience the
efficacy and utility of his priesthood. Hence it follows, that he is an
eternal intercessor, and that it is by his intervention we obtain favour
with God. Hence proceeds not only confidence in prayer, but also
tranquillity to the consciences of the faithful; while they recline in
safety on the paternal indulgence of God, and are certainly persuaded,
that he is pleased with whatever is consecrated to him through the
Mediator. Now, as under the law God commanded victims to be offered to him
from the flock and the herd, a new and different method has been adopted
in the case of Christ, that the sacrifice should be the same with the
priest; because it was impossible to find any other adequate satisfaction
for sins, or any one worthy of so great an honour as to offer to God his
only begotten Son. Besides, Christ sustains the character of a Priest, not
only to render the Father favourable and propitious to us by an eternal
law of reconciliation, but also to associate us with himself in so great
an honour. For we, who are polluted in ourselves, being “made
priests”(1240) in him, offer ourselves and all our services to God, and
enter boldly into the heavenly sanctuary, so that the sacrifices of
prayers and praise, which proceed from us, are “acceptable,” and “a sweet‐
smelling savour”(1241) in the Divine presence. This is included in the
declaration of Christ, “For their sakes I sanctify myself;”(1242) for
being arrayed in his holiness, he having dedicated us, together with
himself, to the Father, we, who are otherwise offensive in his sight,
become acceptable to him, as pure, unpolluted, and holy. This is the
meaning of the “anointing of the Most Holy,”(1243) which is mentioned in
Daniel. For we must observe the contrast between this unction and that
shadowy unction which was then in use; as though the angel had said, that
the shadows would be dissipated, and that there would be a real priesthood
in the person of Christ. So much the more detestable is the invention of
those, who, not content with the priesthood of Christ, have presumed to
take upon themselves the office of sacrificing him; which is daily
attempted among the Papists, where the mass is considered as an immolation
of Christ.
Chapter XVI. Christ’s Execution Of The Office Of A Redeemer To Procure Our
Salvation. His Death, Resurrection, And Ascension To Heaven.
All that we have hitherto advanced concerning Christ is to be referred to
this point, that being condemned, dead, and ruined in ourselves, we should
seek righteousness, deliverance, life, and salvation in him; as we are
taught by this remarkable declaration of Peter, that “there is none other
name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”(1244) The
name of JESUS was given him, not rashly or by a fortuitous accident, or by
the will of men, but was brought from heaven by the angel, the herald of
the supreme decree, and also with this reason annexed to it: “for he shall
save his people from their sins;”(1245) in which words may be remarked,
what we have before hinted, that the office of a Redeemer was assigned to
him in order that he might be our Saviour. Nevertheless, the redemption
would be incomplete, if he did not by continual advances carry us forward
to the ultimate end of salvation. Therefore, as soon as we deviate from
him, though but in the smallest degree, we gradually lose sight of
salvation, which resides entirely in him; so that those who are not
satisfied with him, voluntarily deprive themselves of all grace. And the
following observation of Bernard is worthy of recital: “that the name of
Jesus is not only light, but also food; that it is likewise oil, without
which all the food of the soul is dry; that it is salt, unseasoned by
which, whatever is presented to us is insipid; finally, that it is honey
in the mouth, melody in the ear, joy in the heart, and medicine to the
soul; and that there are no charms in any discourse where his name is not
heard.” But here we ought diligently to examine how he has procured
salvation for us; that we may not only know him to be the author of it,
but, embracing those things which are sufficient for the establishment of
our faith, may reject every thing capable of drawing us aside to the right
hand or to the left. For since no man can descend into himself and
seriously consider his own character, without perceiving that God is angry
with him and hostile to him, and consequently he must find himself under a
necessity of anxiously seeking some way to appease him, which can never be
done without a satisfaction,—this is a case in which the strongest
assurance is required. For sinners, till they be delivered from guilt, are
always subject to the wrath and malediction of God, who, being a righteous
Judge, never suffers his law to be violated with impunity, but stands
prepared to avenge it.
II. Before we proceed any further, let us examine, by the way, how it
could be consistent, that God, who prevents us with his mercy, should be
our enemy, till he was reconciled to us by Christ. For how could he have
given us a special pledge of his love in his only begotten Son, if he had
not previously embraced us in his gratuitous favour? As there is some
appearance of contradiction, therefore, in this representation, I shall
solve the difficulty. The Spirit speaks in the Scriptures nearly in this
manner—That God was an enemy to men, till by the death of Christ they were
restored to his favour;(1246) that they were under the curse till their
iniquity was expiated by his sacrifice;(1247) that they were separated
from God, till they were restored to union with him by the body of
Christ.(1248) Such modes of expression are accommodated to our capacity,
that we may better understand how miserable and calamitous our condition
is, out of Christ. For if it were not clearly expressed, that we are
obnoxious to the wrath and vengeance of God, and to eternal death, we
should not so fully discover how miserable we must be without the Divine
mercy, nor should we so highly estimate the blessing of deliverance. For
example; let any man be addressed in the following manner: “If, while you
remained a sinner, God had hated you, and rejected you according to your
demerits, horrible destruction would have befallen you; but because he has
voluntarily, and of his own gratuitous kindness, retained you in his
favour, and not permitted you to be alienated from him, he has thus
delivered you from that danger;” he will be affected, and will in some
measure perceive how much he is indebted to the Divine mercy. But if, on
the contrary, he be told, what the Scripture teaches, “that he was
alienated from God by sin, an heir of wrath, obnoxious to the punishment
of eternal death, excluded from all hope of salvation, a total stranger to
the Divine blessing, a slave to Satan, a captive under the yoke of sin,
and, in a word, condemned to, and already involved in, a horrible
destruction; that in this situation, Christ interposed as an intercessor;
that he has taken upon himself and suffered the punishment which by the
righteous judgment of God impended over all sinners; that by his blood he
has expiated those crimes which render them odious to God; that by this
expiation God the Father has been satisfied and duly atoned; that by this
intercessor his wrath has been appeased; that this is the foundation of
peace between God and men; that this is the bond of his benevolence
towards them;” will he not be the more affected by these things in
proportion to the more correct and lively representation of the depth of
calamity from which he has been delivered? In short, since it is
impossible for the life which is presented by the mercy of God, to be
embraced by our hearts with sufficient ardour, or received with becoming
gratitude, unless we have been previously terrified and distressed with
the fear of the Divine wrath, and the horror of eternal death, we are
instructed by the sacred doctrine, that irrespective of Christ we may
contemplate God as in some measure incensed against us, and his hand armed
for our destruction, and that we may embrace his benevolence and paternal
love only in Christ.
III. Now, though this is expressed according to the weakness of our
capacity, yet it is strictly true. For God, who is the perfection of
righteousness, cannot love iniquity, which he beholds in us all. We all,
therefore, have in us that which deserves God’s hatred. Wherefore, in
respect of our corrupt nature, and the succeeding depravity of our lives,
we are all really offensive to God, guilty in his sight, and born to the
damnation of hell. But because the Lord will not lose in us that which is
his own, he yet discovers something that his goodness may love. For
notwithstanding we are sinners through our own fault, yet we are still his
creatures; notwithstanding we have brought death upon ourselves, yet he
had created us for life. Thus, by a pure and gratuitous love towards us,
he is excited to receive us into favour. But if there is a perpetual and
irreconcilable opposition between righteousness and iniquity, he cannot
receive us entirely, as long as we remain sinners. Therefore, to remove
all occasion of enmity, and to reconcile us completely to himself, he
abolishes all our guilt, by the expiation exhibited in the death of
Christ, that we, who before were polluted and impure, may appear righteous
and holy in his sight. The love of God the Father therefore precedes our
reconciliation in Christ; or rather it is because he first loves, that he
afterwards reconciles us to himself.(1249) But because, till Christ
relieves us by his death, we are not freed from that iniquity which
deserves the indignation of God, and is accursed and condemned in his
sight; we have not a complete and solid union with God, before we are
united to him by Christ. And therefore, if we would assure ourselves that
God is pacified and propitious to us, we must fix our eyes and hearts on
Christ alone, since it is by him only that we really obtain the non‐
imputation of sins, the imputation of which is connected with the Divine
wrath.
IV. For this reason Paul says, that the love which God had for us before
the creation of the world, was founded on Christ.(1250) This doctrine is
clear, and consistent with the Scripture, and admirably reconciles the
different passages, where it is said, that God manifested his love to us
by the gift of his only begotten Son,(1251) and yet that he was our enemy
till he was reconciled by the death of Christ.(1252) But for a further
confirmation of it, to such as require the testimony of the ancient
Church, I will cite a passage from Augustine, which expressly maintains
the same. “The love of God,” says he, “is incomprehensible and immutable.
For he did not begin to love us when we were reconciled to him by the
blood of his Son, but he loved us before the creation of the world, that
we might be his children, together with his only begotten Son, even before
we had any existence. Therefore our reconciliation by the death of Christ
must not be understood as if he reconciled us to God, that God might begin
to love those whom he had before hated; but we are reconciled to him who
already loved us, but with whom we were at enmity on account of sin. And
whether my assertion be true, let the apostle attest. ‘God,’ says he,
‘commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us.’(1253) He loved us, therefore, even when we were in the
exercise of enmity against him, and engaged in the practice of iniquity.
Wherefore, in a wonderful and Divine manner, he both hated and loved us at
the same time. He hated us, as being different from what he had made us;
but as our iniquity had not entirely destroyed his work in us, he could at
the same time in every one of us hate what we had done, and love what
proceeded from himself.” This is the language of Augustine.
V. Now, in answer to the inquiry, how Christ, by the abolition of our
sins, has destroyed the enmity between God and us, and procured a
righteousness to render him favourable and propitious to us, it may be
replied in general, that he accomplished it for us by the whole course of
his obedience. This is proved by the testimony of Paul. “As by one man’s
disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many
be made righteous.”(1254) And indeed in another place he extends the cause
of the pardon, which exempts us from the malediction of the law, to the
whole life of Christ. “When the fulness of the time was come, God sent
forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that
were under the law.”(1255) Thus he himself affirmed even his baptism to be
a branch of his righteousness, because he acted in obedience to the
command of the Father.(1256) In short, from the time of his assuming the
character of a servant, he began to pay the price of our deliverance in
order to redeem us. Yet more precisely to define the means of our
salvation, the Scripture ascribes this in a peculiar manner to the death
of Christ. He himself announces, that he “gives his life a ransom for
many.”(1257) Paul teaches that “he died for our sins.”(1258) John the
Baptist exclaims, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of
the world!”(1259) Paul in another place declares, that we are “justified
freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom
God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.”(1260)
Also that we are “justified by his blood,” and “reconciled by his
death.”(1261) Again: “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;
that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”(1262) I shall not
proceed with all the proofs, because the catalogue would be immense, and
many of them must hereafter be cited in their proper order. Wherefore, in
what is called the Apostles’ Creed, there is very properly an immediate
transition from the birth of Christ to his death and resurrection, in
which the sum of perfect salvation consists. Yet there is no exclusion of
the rest of the obedience which he performed in his life; as Paul
comprehends the whole of it, from the beginning to the end, when he says,
that “he made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a
servant, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the
cross.”(1263) And indeed his voluntary submission is the principal
circumstance even in his death; because the sacrifice, unless freely
offered, would have been unavailable to the acquisition of righteousness.
Therefore our Lord, after having declared, “I lay down my life for the
sheep,” expressly adds, “No man taketh it from me.”(1264) In which sense
Isaiah says, “As a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not
his mouth.”(1265) And the evangelical history relates, that he went forth
to meet the soldiers,(1266) and that before Pilate he neglected making any
defence, and waited to submit to the sentence.(1267) Nor was this without
inward conflict, because he had taken our infirmities, and it was
necessary to give this proof of his obedience to his Father. And it was no
mean specimen of his incomparable love to us, to contend with horrible
fear, and amid those dreadful torments to neglect all care of himself,
that he might promote our benefit. Indeed we must admit, that it was
impossible for God to be truly appeased in any other way, than by Christ
renouncing all concern for himself, and submitting and devoting himself
entirely to his will. On this subject the apostle appositely cites the
testimony of the Psalmist: “Then said I, Lo, I come; in the volume of the
book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law
is within my heart.”(1268) But since terrified consciences find no rest
but in a sacrifice and ablution to expiate their sins, we are properly
directed thither, and the death of Christ is exhibited to us as the source
of life. Now, because our guilt rendered us liable to a curse at the
heavenly tribunal of God, the condemnation of Christ before Pontius
Pilate, the governor of Judea, is stated in the first place, that we may
know that on this righteous person was inflicted the punishment which
belonged to us. We could not escape the terrible judgment of God; to
deliver us from it, Christ submitted to be condemned even before a wicked
and profane mortal. For the name of the governor is mentioned, not only to
establish the credit of the history, but that we may learn, what is taught
by Isaiah, that “the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his
stripes we are healed.”(1269) For to supersede our condemnation it was not
sufficient for him to suffer any kind of death; but, to accomplish our
redemption, that kind of death was to be chosen, by which, both sustaining
our condemnation and atoning for our sins, he might deliver us from both.
Had he been assassinated by robbers, or murdered in a popular tumult, in
such a death there would have been no appearance of satisfaction. But when
he is placed as a criminal before the tribunal,—when he is accused and
overpowered by the testimony of witnesses, and by the mouth of the judge
is condemned to die,—we understand from these circumstances, that he
sustained the character of a malefactor. And we shall remark two things
which were foretold in the predictions of the prophets, and afford
peculiar consolation and confirmation to our faith. For when we are told,
that Christ was sent from the tribunal of the judge to the place of
execution, and suspended between two thieves, we see the completion of
that prophecy, which is cited by the Evangelist, “He was numbered with the
transgressors.”(1270) For what reason? to sustain the character of a
sinner, not of a righteous or innocent person. For he died, not for his
innocence, but on account of sin. On the contrary, when we hear him
absolved by the same mouth by which he was condemned, (for Pilate was
constrained repeatedly to give a public testimony of his innocence,)(1271)
let it remind us of what we read in another prophet: “I restored that
which I took not away.”(1272) Thus we shall behold Christ sustaining the
character of a sinner and malefactor, while from the lustre of his
innocence it will at the same time evidently appear, that he was loaded
with the guilt of others, but had none of his own. He suffered, then,
under Pontius Pilate, after having been condemned as a criminal by the
solemn sentence of the governor; yet not in such a manner, but that he was
at the same time pronounced to be righteous, by the declaration of the
same judge, that he found in him no cause of accusation. This is our
absolution, that the guilt, which made us obnoxious to punishment, is
transferred to the person of the Son of God. For we ought particularly to
remember this satisfaction, that we may not spend our whole lives in
terror and anxiety, as though we were pursued by the righteous vengeance
of God, which the Son of God has transferred to himself.
VI. Moreover, the species of death which he suffered, is fraught with a
peculiar mystery. The cross was accursed, not only in the opinion of men,
but by the decree of the Divine law. Therefore, when Christ is lifted up
upon it, he renders himself obnoxious to the curse. And this was necessary
to be done, that by this transfer we might be delivered from every curse
which awaited us, or rather was already inflicted upon us, on account of
our iniquities. This was also prefigured in the law. For the victims and
expiations offered for sins were called אשמות, a word which properly
signifies sin itself. By this appellation the Spirit intended to suggest
that they were vicarious sacrifices, to receive and sustain the curse due
to sin. But that which was figuratively represented in the Mosaic
sacrifices, is actually exhibited in Christ, the archetype of the figures.
Wherefore, in order to effect a complete expiation, he gave his soul אשם,
that is, _an atoning sacrifice for sin_,(1273) as the prophet says; so
that our guilt and punishment being as it were transferred to him, they
must cease to be imputed to us. The apostle more explicitly testifies the
same, when he says, “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;
that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”(1274) For the Son
of God, though perfectly free from all sin, nevertheless assumed the
disgrace and ignominy of our iniquities, and, on the other hand, arrayed
us in his purity. He appears to have intended the same, when he says
concerning sin, that it was “condemned in the flesh,”(1275) that is, in
Christ. For the Father destroyed the power of sin, when the curse of it
was transferred to the body of Christ. This expression therefore
indicates, that Christ at his death was offered to the Father as an
expiatory sacrifice, in order that, a complete atonement being made by his
oblation, we may no longer dread the Divine wrath. Now, it is evident what
the prophet meant, when he said, “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity
of us all;”(1276) namely, that when he was about to expiate our sins, they
were transferred to him by imputation. The cross, to which he was fixed,
was a symbol of this, as the apostle informs us: “Christ hath redeemed us
from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written,
Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree; that the blessing of Abraham
might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ.”(1277) Peter alluded to
the same, where he said, “He bare our sins in his own body on the
tree;”(1278) because from the visible symbol of the curse, we more clearly
apprehend, that the burden, with which we were oppressed, was imposed on
him. Nor must we conceive that he submitted to a curse which overwhelmed
him, but, on the contrary, that by sustaining it, he depressed, broke, and
destroyed all its power. Wherefore faith apprehends an absolution in the
condemnation of Christ, and a benediction in his curse. It is not without
reason, therefore, that Paul magnificently proclaims the triumph which
Christ gained for himself on the cross; as though the cross, which was
full of ignominy, had been converted into a triumphal chariot. For he
says, that “he nailed to his cross the hand‐writing, which was contrary to
us, and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them
openly.”(1279) Nor should this surprise us; for, according to the
testimony of another apostle, “Christ offered himself through the eternal
Spirit.”(1280) Hence arose that change of the nature of things. But that
these things may be deeply rooted and firmly fixed in our hearts, let us
always remember his sacrifice and ablution. For we certainly could have no
confidence that Christ was our (απολυτρωσις,(1281) και αντιλυτρον,(1282)
και ἱλαστηριον,)(1283) redemption, ransom, and propitiation, if he had not
been a slaughtered victim. And for this reason it is, that when the
Scripture exhibits the method of redemption, it so often makes mention of
blood; though the blood shed by Christ has not only served as an atonement
to God, but likewise as a laver to purge away our pollutions.
VII. It follows in the Creed, “that he died and was buried;” in which may
be further seen, how in every respect he substituted himself in our room
to pay the price of our redemption. Death held us in bondage under his
yoke; Christ, to deliver us from it, surrendered himself to his power in
our stead. This is the meaning of the apostle, when he says, that “he
tasted death for every man.”(1284) For by his death he prevented us from
dying, or, which comes to the same thing, by his death recovered life for
us. But in this respect he differed from us—he surrendered himself to
death to be, as it were, overcome by it, not that he might be absorbed in
its abysses, but rather that he might destroy that, by which we should
have been at length devoured; he surrendered himself to death to be
subdued, not that he might be overwhelmed by its power, but rather that he
might overthrow that which threatened us, which indeed had already
overcome us, and was triumphing over us. Lastly, he died, “that he might
destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver
them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to
bondage.”(1285) This is the first benefit we have received from his death.
The second is, that, by a communication of himself, he “mortifies” our
“members which are upon the earth,”(1286) that they may no longer perform
their own actions; and slays our old man, that it may not flourish and
bear fruit any more. The burial of Christ has the same tendency, namely,
that being made partakers of it, we may be buried to sin. For when the
apostle teaches us that “we have been planted in the likeness of the death
of Christ, and buried with him,”(1287) to the death of sin; that “by his
cross the world is crucified” unto us, and we “unto the world;”(1288) and
that we “are dead with him;”(1289) he not only exhorts us to imitate the
example of his death, but declares that it contains such an efficacy, as
ought to be conspicuous in all Christians, unless they wish to render that
death ineffectual and useless. In the death and burial of Christ,
therefore, we have a twofold benefit proposed to our enjoyment—deliverance
from the thraldom of death, and the mortification of our flesh.
VIII. But it is not right to omit his “descent into hell,” which is of no
small importance towards the accomplishment of redemption. For though it
appears from the writings of the ancients, that this article of the Creed
was not always in common use in the churches, yet in discussing a system
of doctrine, it is necessary to introduce it, as containing a mystery
highly useful, and by no means to be despised. Indeed, there are some of
the ancients who do not omit it. Hence we may conjecture that it was
inserted a little after the days of the apostles, and was not immediately
but gradually received in the churches. This at least cannot be
controverted, that it was agreeable to the general opinion of all the
faithful; since there is not one of the fathers, who does not mention in
his writings the descent of Christ into hell, though they explain it in
different senses. But by whom, or at what period, it was first inserted,
is of little consequence; it is of more importance that the Creed should
present us a full and complete summary of faith, into which nothing should
be inserted, but what is taken from God’s most holy word. Yet if any
morosely refuse to admit it into the Creed, it shall presently be proved
to be so necessary to the perfection of our redemption, that the omission
of it considerably lessens the benefit of the death of Christ. Some,
again, are of opinion, that this clause contains nothing new, but is only
a repetition, in other words, of what had before been said respecting his
burial; because the word here rendered “hell” is frequently used in the
Scriptures to signify the grave. I admit the truth of their observation
respecting the signification of this word, that it is frequently to be
understood of the “grave;” but their opinion is opposed by two reasons,
which easily induce me to dissent from them. For what extreme carelessness
it would betray, after a plain fact had been stated in the most explicit
and familiar manner, to assert it a second time in an obscure combination
of words calculated rather to perplex than to elucidate it! For when two
phrases expressive of the same thing are connected together, the latter
ought to be an explanation of the former. But what an explanation would
this be, if one were to express it thus: “When Christ is said to have been
buried, the meaning is, that he descended into hell!” Besides, it is not
probable that such a superfluous tautology could have found its way into
this compendium, in which the principal articles of faith are summarily
expressed with the utmost possible brevity. And I doubt not, that all who
have considered this point with any attention will easily assent to what I
have advanced.
IX. Others give a different interpretation; that Christ descended to the
souls of the fathers who had died under the law, for the purpose of
announcing the accomplishment of redemption, and liberating them from the
prison in which they were confined. To this purpose they pervert a passage
in the psalms, that “he hath broken the gates of brass, and cut the bars
of iron in sunder;”(1290) and another in Zechariah, “I have sent forth thy
prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.”(1291) But since the
Psalmist celebrates the liberation of those who are suffering captivity
and imprisonment in distant countries; and Zechariah compares the
destruction in which the people had been overwhelmed in Babylon, to a dry
pit or abyss; and at the same time suggests, that the salvation of the
whole Church is a deliverance from the abysses of hell; I know not how it
came to pass, that posterity should imagine a subterraneous cavern, to
which they have given the name of Limbus. But this fable, although it is
maintained by great authors, and even in the present age is by many
seriously defended as a truth, is after all nothing but a fable. For to
confine the souls of the dead in a prison, is quite puerile; but what
necessity was there for Christ to descend thither in order to liberate
them? I freely confess, indeed, that Christ illuminated them by the power
of his Spirit; that they might know that the grace, which they had only
tasted by hope, was then exhibited to the world. And probably to this we
may accommodate that passage of Peter, where he says, that Christ “went
and preached unto the spirits who were keeping watch as in a tower.”(1292)
This is generally rendered “the spirits in prison,” but I conceive
improperly. The context also gives us to understand, that the faithful who
had died before that time, were partakers of the same grace with us. For
the apostle amplifies the efficacy of the death of Christ from this
consideration, that it penetrated even to the dead; when the souls of the
faithful enjoyed the present view of that visitation which they had been
anxiously expecting; whilst, on the contrary, it was more clearly
discovered to the reprobate, that they were excluded from all salvation.
But since Peter has not spoken in this distinct manner of the pious and
the impious, we must not understand him as confounding them all together,
without any discrimination. He only designs to inform us, that the
knowledge of the death of Christ was common to them both.
X. But laying aside all consideration of the Creed, we have to seek for a
more certain explanation of the descent of Christ into hell; and we find
one in the Divine word, not only holy and pious, but likewise replete with
singular consolation. If Christ had merely died a corporeal death, no end
would have been accomplished by it; it was requisite, also, that he should
feel the severity of the Divine vengeance, in order to appease the wrath
of God, and satisfy his justice. Hence it was necessary for him to contend
with the powers of hell and the horror of eternal death. We have already
stated from the prophet, that “the chastisement of our peace was upon
him,” that “he was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our
iniquities;”(1293) the meaning of which is, that he was made a substitute
and surety for transgressors, and even treated as a criminal himself, to
sustain all the punishments which would have been inflicted on them; only
with this exception, that “it was not possible that he should be holden of
the pains of death.”(1294) Therefore it is no wonder, if he be said to
have descended into hell, since he suffered that death which the wrath of
God inflicts on transgressors. It is a very frivolous and even ridiculous
objection to say that by this explanation the order of things is
perverted, because it is absurd to make that subsequent to his burial,
which really preceded it. For the relation of those sufferings of Christ,
which were visible to men, is very properly followed by that invisible and
incomprehensible vengeance which he suffered from the hand of God; in
order to assure us that not only the body of Christ was given as the price
of our redemption, but that there was another greater and more excellent
ransom, since he suffered in his soul the dreadful torments of a person
condemned and irretrievably lost.
XI. In this sense Peter says, that “God raised him up, having loosed the
pains of death; because it was not possible that he should be holden of
it.”(1295) He does not say simply “death;” but tells us, that the Son of
God was involved in “the pains of death,” which proceed from the Divine
wrath and malediction, which is the origin of death. For what a little
thing it would have been for Christ to appear in order to suffer death,
without any distress or perplexity, and even with pleasure! But this was a
true specimen of his infinite mercy, not to evade that death which he so
much dreaded. Nor can it be doubted, but the apostle means to suggest the
same in the Epistle to the Hebrews, when he says, that Christ “was heard
in that he feared.”(1296) Some, instead of fear, translate it reverence or
piety; but how improperly, is evident from the subject itself, and also
from the form of expression. Christ, therefore, “when he offered up
prayers with strong crying and tears, was heard in that he feared;” not
that he might obtain an exemption from death, but that he might not be
swallowed up by it as a sinner; for he was then sustaining our character.
And it is certainly impossible to imagine any more formidable abyss, than
to perceive ourselves forsaken and abandoned by God, and not to be heard
when we call upon him, as though he had conspired to destroy us. Now, we
see Christ was so deeply dejected, that in the urgency of distress, he was
constrained to exclaim, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”(1297)
For the idea of some, that he spoke rather according to the opinion of
others than from his own feelings, is utterly improbable; since he
evidently appears to have spoken from the anguish of his inmost soul. We
do not admit that God was ever hostile to him, or angry with him. For how
could he be angry with his beloved Son, “in whom his soul
delighted?”(1298) or how could Christ, by his intercession, appease the
Father for others, if the Father were incensed against him? But we affirm,
that he sustained the weight of the Divine severity; since, being “smitten
and afflicted of God,”(1299) he experienced from God all the tokens of
wrath and vengeance. Wherefore, Hilary argues, that by this descent we
have obtained the destruction of death. And in other places he accords
with our opinion; as when he says, “The cross, death, and hell, are our
life.” Again, in another place, “The Son of God is in hell, but man is
raised to heaven.” But why do I cite the testimony of a private person,
when the apostle asserts the same thing, mentioning, as the reward of
Christ’s victory, the deliverance of them “who, through fear of death,
were all their lifetime subject to bondage?”(1300) It was necessary,
therefore, that he should overcome that fear, which naturally and
incessantly harasses all men; which he could not do without contending
with it. Now, that his was not a common or trivial sorrow, will soon be
more clearly evinced. Thus, by contending with the power of the devil,
with the dread of death, and with the pains of hell, he obtained the
victory, and triumphed over them, that in death we may no longer dread
those things which our Prince has destroyed.
XII. Here some contentious, though illiterate men, impelled rather by
malice than by ignorance, exclaim against me, that I am guilty of an
atrocious injury to Christ; because it is utterly unreasonable that he
should have any fear concerning the salvation of his soul. And then they
aggravate the cavil, by pretending that I attribute despair to the Son of
God, which is contrary to faith. In the first place, it is presumptuous in
them to raise a controversy concerning the fear and consternation of
Christ, which is so expressly asserted by the evangelists. For, before the
approach of his death, he experienced a perturbation of spirit and
depression of mind; but, in the actual struggle with it, he began to feel
a greater degree of consternation. If they say that this was only
pretence, it is a most paltry subterfuge. We ought, therefore, as Ambrose
justly advises, fearlessly to acknowledge the sorrow of Christ, unless we
are ashamed of his cross. And, indeed, if his soul had experienced no
punishment, he would have been only a Redeemer for the body. It was
necessary for him to combat, in order to raise up those who lay prostrate
on the earth; and his heavenly glory is so far from being diminished by
this, that his goodness, which is never sufficiently celebrated, is
conspicuous in his voluntary and unreluctant assumption of our
infirmities. Hence that consolation which the apostle offers us under our
anxieties and sorrows, that this Mediator has experienced our infirmities,
in order that he might be the more ready to succour the wretched.(1301)
They pretend, that what is intrinsically bad cannot be justly attributed
to Christ; as though they were wiser than the Spirit of God, who connects
these two things together, that Christ “was in all points tempted like as
we are, yet without sin.” We have no reason, therefore, to be alarmed by
the infirmity of Christ, to which he was not compelled by violence or
necessity, but induced merely by his mercy and love for us voluntarily to
submit himself. But none of his voluntary sufferings for us have been any
diminution of his power. These captious objectors, however, are deceived
in one point; they do not perceive that this infirmity in Christ was
perfectly free from every stain of guilt, because he always kept himself
within the limits of obedience. For, because no moderation can be
discovered in the corruption of our nature, where all our passions
transgress all bounds with impetuous violence, they erroneously measure
the Son of God by this standard. But he being innocent, and free from
every defect, all his affections were governed by a moderation which
admitted of no excess. Whence it was very possible for him to resemble us
in sorrow, fear, and dread, and yet, in this respect, to be very different
from us. Refuted here, they proceed to another cavil; that, although
Christ was afraid of death, yet he was not afraid of the malediction and
wrath of God, from which he knew himself to be safe. But let the pious
reader consider how much honour it reflects on Christ, that he was more
delicate and timorous than the generality of mankind. Robbers and other
malefactors obstinately rush forward to death; many men nobly despise it;
others calmly submit to it. But what constancy or magnanimity would the
Son of God have discovered, in being astonished and almost struck dead
with the fear of it? For it is related of him, what might generally be
accounted a prodigy, that through the vehemence of his agonies, drops of
blood flowed from his face. Nor did he exhibit this spectacle to the eyes
of others; he sent up his groans to his Father, in the secrecy of
retirement. And every doubt is removed by the necessity that there was for
angels to descend from heaven, to support him with unusual consolation.
What disgraceful effeminacy, as I have suggested, would this have been, to
be so distressed by the fear of a common death, as to be in a bloody
sweat, and incapable of being comforted without the presence of angels!
What! does not this prayer, which he repeated three times, “O my Father,
if it be possible, let this cup pass from me,”(1302) proceeding from an
incredible bitterness of soul, demonstrate that Christ had a more severe
and arduous conflict than with a common death? Whence it appears, that
those triflers, with whom I am now disputing, presumptuously chatter about
things which they know not; because they never seriously considered the
nature or the importance of our redemption from the Divine judgment. But
it is our wisdom to have a clear understanding how much our salvation cost
the Son of God. If any one inquire whether Christ was then descending to
hell, when he deprecated death, I reply, that this was the prelude to it;
whence we may conclude what dreadful and horrible agonies he must have
suffered, while he was conscious of standing at the tribunal of God
accused as a criminal on our account. But, although the Divine power of
the Spirit concealed itself for a moment, to give place to the infirmity
of the flesh, yet we know, that the temptation arising from a sense of
grief and fear was such as was not repugnant to faith. And thus was
fulfilled what we find in the sermon of Peter, “that it was not possible
that he should be holden of the pains of death;”(1303) because, when he
perceived himself, as it were, deserted by God, still he relaxed not in
the least from his confidence in his Father’s goodness. This is evident
from his celebrated invocation, when, through the vehemence of grief, he
exclaimed, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”(1304) For
notwithstanding his extreme agony, yet he continues to call God _his_ God,
even when he complains that he is forsaken by him. Now, this serves to
refute the error of Apollinaris, and also of those who were called
Monothelites. Apollinaris pretended that the eternal Spirit supplied the
place of a soul in Christ, so that he was but half a man, as though he
could expiate our sins without obedience to the Father. But where was the
disposition or will, requisite to obedience, but in his soul? which we
know was “troubled,”(1305) in order to dissipate all our fears, and obtain
peace and rest for ours. Moreover, in opposition to the Monothelites, we
see, that what was contrary to his will as man, was agreeable to his will
as God. I say nothing of his overcoming the fear of which we have spoken,
by a contrary disposition. For there is a manifest appearance of
contrariety when he says, “Father, save me from this hour: but for this
cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name.”(1306) Yet, in this
perplexity, there is no such want of moderation as is evident in us, even
while we are exerting our most strenuous endeavours to conquer ourselves.
XIII. Next follows his resurrection from the dead, without which all that
we have said would be incomplete. For, since there appears nothing but
infirmity in the cross, death, and burial of Christ, faith must proceed
beyond all these things, to be furnished with sufficient strength.
Wherefore, although our salvation is perfectly accomplished by his death,
because by that we are reconciled to God, a satisfaction is given to his
righteous judgment, the curse is removed, and the punishment sustained,
yet we are said to have been “begotten again to a lively hope,” not by his
death, but “by his resurrection from the dead.”(1307) For as at his
resurrection he appeared the conqueror of death, so it is on his
resurrection that our faith principally rests. This is better expressed in
the words of Paul, when he says, that Christ “was delivered for our
offences, and was raised again for our justification;”(1308) as though he
had said, that sin was removed by his death, and righteousness renewed and
restored by his resurrection. For how was it possible for him by dying to
liberate us from death, if he had himself remained under its power? how
could he have obtained the victory for us, if he had been vanquished in
the contest? Wherefore we ascribe our salvation partly to the death of
Christ, and partly to his resurrection; we believe that sin was abolished,
and death destroyed, by the former; that righteousness was restored, and
life established, by the latter; yet so that the former discovers its
power and efficacy in us by means of the latter. Therefore Paul asserts
that he was “declared to be the Son of God, by the resurrection from the
dead;”(1309) because he then displayed his heavenly power, which is both a
lucid mirror of his Divinity, and a firm support of our faith. So, in
another place, he says, that “he was crucified through weakness, yet he
liveth by the power of God.”(1310) In the same sense, in another place,
treating of perfection, he says, “that I may know him, and the power of
his resurrection.”(1311) Yet, immediately after, he adds, “the fellowship
of his sufferings, and conformity to his death.” In perfect harmony with
this, is the following declaration of Peter: “God raised him up from the
dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God:”(1312)
not that faith totters when it rests on his death; but because “the power
of God,” which “keeps us through faith,”(1313) chiefly discovers itself in
his resurrection. Let us remember, therefore, that whenever mention is
made of his death alone, it comprehends also what strictly belongs to his
resurrection; and that the same figure of speech is applied to the word
_resurrection_, whenever it is used without any mention of his death, so
that it connects with it what is peculiarly applicable to his death. But
since it was by rising from the dead that he obtained the palm of victory,
to become the resurrection and the life, Paul justly contends, that, “if
Christ be not risen, then is” the “preaching” of the gospel “vain, and”
our “faith is also vain.”(1314) Therefore, in another place, after having
gloried in the death of Christ in opposition to all the fears of
condemnation, he adds, by way of amplification, “Yea, rather, that is
risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh
intercession for us.”(1315) Besides, as we have before stated, that the
mortification of our flesh depends on communion with his cross, so it must
also be understood, that we obtain another benefit, corresponding to that,
from his resurrection. The apostle says, “If we have been planted together
in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his
resurrection: even so we also should walk in newness of life.”(1316)
Therefore, in another place, as, from our being dead with Christ, he
deduces an argument for the mortification of our members which are upon
the earth,(1317) so also, because we are risen with Christ, he thence
infers that we should seek those things which are above, and not those
which are on the earth.(1318) By which expressions we are not only invited
to walk in newness of life, after the example of Christ raised from the
dead, but are taught that our regeneration to righteousness is effected by
his power. We derive also a third benefit from his resurrection, having
received, as it were, a pledge to assure us of our own resurrection, of
which his clearly affords the most solid foundation and evidence. This
subject the apostle discusses more at large in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians.(1319) But it must be remarked by the way, that when he is
said to have “risen from the dead,” this phrase expresses the reality both
of his death and of his resurrection; as though it were said, that he died
the same death as other men naturally die, and received immortality in the
same body which he had assumed in a mortal state.
XIV. His _resurrection_ is properly followed in the Creed by his
_ascension to heaven_. For though Christ began to make a more illustrious
display of his glory and power at his resurrection, having now laid aside
the abject and ignoble condition of this mortal life, and the ignominy of
the cross, yet his ascension into heaven was the real commencement of his
reign. This the apostle shows, when he informs us, that he “ascended that
he might fill all things.”(1320) Here, in an apparent contradiction, he
suggests to us that there is a beautiful harmony, because Christ departed
from us, that his departure might be more useful to us than that presence,
which, during his continuance on earth, confined itself within the humble
mansion of his body. Therefore John, after having related that remarkable
invitation, “If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink,”
subjoins, that “the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was
not yet glorified.”(1321) This the Lord himself also declared to his
disciples: “It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away,
the Comforter will not come unto you.”(1322) Now, he proposes a
consolation for his corporeal absence, that he “will not leave them
comfortless, or orphans, but will come again to them,” in a manner
invisible indeed, but more desirable; because they were then taught by a
more certain experience that the authority which he enjoys, and the power
which he exercises, is sufficient for the faithful, not only to procure
them a blessed life, but to insure them a happy death. And, indeed, we see
how largely he then increased the effusions of his Spirit, how greatly he
advanced the magnificence of his reign, and what superior power he exerted
both in assisting his friends, and in defeating his enemies. Being
received up into heaven, therefore he removed his corporeal presence from
our view; not that he might no longer be present with the faithful who
were still in a state of pilgrimage on earth, but that he might govern
both heaven and earth by a more efficacious energy. Moreover, his promise,
that he would be with us till the end of the world, he has performed by
this his ascension; by which, as his body was elevated above all heavens,
so his power and energy have been diffused and extended beyond all the
limits of heaven and earth. In representing this, I would prefer the
language of Augustine to my own. “Christ,” says he, “was about to go by
death to the right hand of the Father, whence he will hereafter come to
judge the living and the dead; and this by a corporeal presence, according
to the rule of faith and sound doctrine. For in his spiritual presence
with them, he was to come soon after his ascension.” And elsewhere he
treats this subject in a manner still more diffuse and explicit. By his
ineffable and invisible grace, Christ has fulfilled his declaration, “Lo,
I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.”(1323) But with
respect to the body which the Word assumed, which was born of the Virgin,
which was apprehended by the Jews, which was fixed to the cross, which was
taken down from the cross, which was folded in linen, which was laid in
the sepulchre, which was manifested at the resurrection, there has been an
accomplishment of this prediction: “Ye shall not have me always with you.”
Why? Because in his corporeal presence he conversed with his disciples for
forty days, and while they were attending him, seen but not followed by
them, he ascended into heaven; and he is not here, for he sits there at
the right hand of the Father; and yet he is here, for he has not withdrawn
the presence of his majesty. In the presence of his majesty, therefore, we
have Christ always with us; but with respect to his corporeal presence, he
said with truth to his disciples, “Me ye have not always.” For the Church
enjoyed his corporeal presence for a few days; now she enjoys him by
faith, and does not behold him with her eyes.
XV. Wherefore it is immediately added, _that he is seated at the right
hand of the Father_; which is a similitude borrowed from princes, who have
their assistants, to whom they depute the exercise of the government. So
Christ, in whom the Father determines to be exalted, and by whose medium
he chooses to reign, is said to have been received to his right hand; as
though it were said, that he had been inaugurated in the government of
heaven and earth, and had solemnly entered on the actual administration of
the power committed to him; and not only that he has entered on it, but
that he continues in it, till he descends to judgment. For so the apostle
explains it, in the following words: “The Father hath set him at his own
right hand, far above all principality, and power, and might, and
dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also
in that which is to come; and hath put all things under his feet, and gave
him to be the head over all things to the church,” &c.(1324) We see the
end of this session; it is, that all creatures, both celestial and
terrestrial, may admire his majesty, be governed by his hand, obey his
will, and be subject to his power. And the only design of the apostles in
their frequent mention of it, is to teach us that all things are committed
to his government. Wherefore they who suppose that nothing but blessedness
is signified in this article, are not right in that opinion. It affects
not our argument, that Stephen declares that he sees Christ
“standing,”(1325) because the present question relates, not to the posture
of his body, but to the majesty of his dominion; so that _sitting_
signifies no other than presiding at the tribunal of heaven.
XVI. Hence faith receives many advantages. For it perceives, that by his
ascension the Lord has opened the way to the kingdom of heaven, which had
been stopped by Adam. For since he entered there in our nature, and as it
were in our names, it follows that, as the apostle expresses it, we now
“sit together” with him “in heavenly places,”(1326) because we not only
hope for heaven, but already possess it in our Head. Besides, faith knows
that his residence with his Father conduces greatly to our advantage. For
being entered into a sanctuary, which is not of human erection,(1327) he
continually appears in the presence of the Father as our advocate and
intercessor;(1328) he attracts the eyes of the Father to his
righteousness, so as to avert them from our sins; he reconciles him to us,
so as to procure for us, by his intercession, a way of access to his
throne, which he replenishes with grace and mercy, but which otherwise
would be pregnant with horror to miserable sinners.(1329) In the third
place, faith has an apprehension of his power, in which consists our
strength, our fortitude, our wealth, and our triumph over hell. For “when
he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive,”(1330) spoiled his
enemies, and enriched his people, and daily loads them with spiritual
favours. He sits, therefore, on high, that from thence he may shed forth
his power upon us, that he may animate us with spiritual life, that he may
sanctify us by his Spirit, that he may adorn his Church with a variety of
graces, and defend it by his protection from every calamity, that by the
strength of his hand he may restrain the ferocious enemies of his cross
and of our salvation; finally, that he may retain all power in heaven and
in earth; till he shall have overthrown all his enemies, who are also
ours, and completed the edification of his Church. And this is the true
state of his kingdom, this the power which the Father has conferred on
him, till he completes the last act by coming to judge the living and the
dead.
XVII. Christ gives his servants unequivocal tokens of the presence of his
power; but because on earth his kingdom is in some measure concealed under
the meanness of the flesh, faith is, for a very good reason, called to
meditate on that visible presence which he will manifest at the last day.
For he will descend from heaven in a visible form, in the same manner in
which he was seen to ascend;(1331) and will appear to all with the
ineffable majesty of his kingdom, with the splendour of immortality, with
the infinite power of Deity, and with a host of angels.(1332) From thence,
therefore, we are commanded to expect him as our Redeemer at the last day,
when he will separate the sheep from the goats, the elect from the
reprobate; and there will not be an individual of either the living or the
dead that can escape his judgment. For from the most remote corners of the
world they will hear the sound of the trumpet, with which all mankind will
be summoned to his tribunal, both those whom that day shall find alive,
and those whom death shall previously have removed from the society of the
living. There are some who understand the words _quick_, or _living, and
dead_, in a different sense. And indeed we find that some of the fathers
hesitated respecting the exposition of this clause; but the sense we have
given, being plain and clear, is far more consistent with the design of
the Creed, which appears to have been composed for the common people. Nor
is this repugnant to the assertion of the apostle, that “it is appointed
unto men once to die.”(1333) For although they who shall survive in this
mortal life till the last judgment, shall not die in a natural manner and
order, yet that change, which they shall experience, since it will
resemble death, may without impropriety be designated by that appellation.
It is certain indeed that “all shall not sleep, but all shall be
changed.”(1334) What is that? In one moment their mortal life will be
extinguished and absorbed, and will be transformed into a nature entirely
new. This extinction of the flesh no man can deny to be death.
Nevertheless it remains a truth, that the living and the dead will be
summoned to judgment; for “the dead in Christ shall rise first: then they
which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the
clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.”(1335) And it is very probable that
this article was taken from the sermon of Peter,(1336) and from the solemn
charge of Paul to Timothy.(1337)