Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 1 of 2)

XVI. Nor can what he frequently says concerning the prosperity of the faithful be understood in any other sense than as referring to the manifestation of the glory of heaven. Such are the following passages: “The Lord preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked. Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart.”[1018 - Psalm xcvii. 10, 11.] Again: “The righteousness of the righteous endureth for ever; his horn shall be exalted with honour. The desire of the wicked shall perish.”[1019 - Psalm cxii. 9, 10.] Again: “Surely the righteous shall give thanks unto thy name; the upright shall dwell in thy presence.”[1020 - Psalm cxl. 13.] Again: “The righteous shall be had in everlasting remembrance.”[1021 - Psalm cxii. 6.] Again: “The Lord redeemeth the soul of his servants.”[1022 - Psalm xxxiv. 22.] For the Lord frequently leaves his servants to the rage of the impious, not only to be harassed, but to be torn asunder and ruined; he suffers good men to languish in obscurity and meanness, while the impious are almost as glorious as the stars; nor does he exhilarate the faithful with the light of his countenance, so that they can enjoy any lasting pleasure. Wherefore David does not dissemble that, if the faithful fix their eyes on the present state of things, they will be most grievously tempted with an apprehension lest innocence should obtain from God neither favour nor reward. So much does impiety in most cases prosper and flourish, while the pious are oppressed with ignominy, poverty, contempt, and distress of every kind. “My feet,” says he, “were almost gone; my steps had well nigh slipped. For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.”[1023 - Psalm lxxiii. 2.] At length he concludes his account of them: “When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me; until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end.”[1024 - Psalm lxxiii. 16, 17.]

XVII. We may learn, then, even from this confession of David, that the holy fathers under the Old Testament were not ignorant, that God rarely or never in this world gives his servants those things which he promises them, and that, therefore, they elevated their minds to the sanctuary of God, where they had a treasure in reserve which is not visible amid the shadows of the present life. This sanctuary was the last judgment, which, not being discernible by their eyes, they were contented to apprehend by faith. Relying on this confidence, whatever events might befall them in the world, they, nevertheless, had no doubt that there would come a time when the Divine promises would be fulfilled. This is evident from the following passages: “I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness.”[1025 - Psalm xvii. 15.] Again: “I am like a green olive-tree in the house of God.”[1026 - Psalm lii. 8.] Again: “The righteous shall flourish like the palm-tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. Those that be planted in the house of the Lord shall flourish in the courts of our God. They shall still bring forth fruit in old age; they shall be fat and flourishing.” He had just before said, “O Lord, how great are thy works! and thy thoughts are very deep. When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish, it is that they shall be destroyed for ever.”[1027 - Psalm xcii. 12-14, 5, 7.] Where can this beauty and gracefulness of the faithful be found, but where the appearance of this world has been reversed by the manifestation of the kingdom of God? When they could turn their eyes towards that eternity, despising the momentary rigour of present calamities, they securely broke forth into the following expressions: “The Lord shall never suffer the righteous to be moved. But thou, O God, shalt bring them” (wicked men) “down into the pit of destruction.”[1028 - Psalm lv. 22, 23.] Where, in this world, is the pit of destruction, to absorb the wicked, as an instance of whose felicity it is mentioned in another place that without languishing for any long time “they go down to the grave in a moment?”[1029 - Job xxi. 13.] Where is that great stability of the saints, whom David himself, in the language of complaint, frequently represents as not only troubled, but oppressed and consumed? He certainly had in view, not any thing that results from the agitations of the world, which are even more tumultuous than those of the sea, but what will be accomplished by the Lord, when he shall one day sit in judgment to fix the everlasting destiny of heaven and earth. This appears from another psalm, in which he gives the following beautiful description: “They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; none of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him. For he seeth that wise men die, likewise the fool and the brutish person perish, and leave their wealth to others. Their inward thought is, that their houses shall continue for ever, and their dwelling-places to all generations; they call their lands after their own names. Nevertheless man being in honour abideth not: he is like the beasts that perish. This their way is their folly: yet their posterity approve their sayings. Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; and their beauty shall consume in the grave from their dwelling.”[1030 - Psalm xlix. 6, &c.] In the first place, this derision of fools, for placing their dependence on the mutable and transitory blessings of the world, shows that the wise ought to seek a very different felicity. But he more evidently discloses the mystery of the resurrection, when he establishes the reign of the pious after the ruin and destruction of the wicked. For what shall we understand by “the morning” which he mentions, but the revelation of a new life commencing after the conclusion of the present?

XVIII. Hence arose that reflection, which served the faithful as a consolation under their miseries, and a remedy for their sufferings: “The anger of the Lord endureth but a moment; in his favour is life.”[1031 - Psalm xxx. 5.] How did they limit their afflictions to a moment, who were afflicted all their lifetime? When did they perceive so long a duration of the Divine goodness, of which they had scarcely the smallest taste? If their views had been confined to the earth, they could have made no such discovery; but as they directed their eyes towards heaven, they perceived, that the afflictions with which the Lord exercises his saints are but “for a small moment,” and that the “mercies” with which he “gathers” them are “everlasting.”[1032 - Isaiah liv. 7, 8.] On the other hand, they foresaw the eternal and never-ending perdition of the impious, who had been happy, as in a dream, for a single day. Hence the following sentiments: “The memory of the just is blessed; but the name of the wicked shall rot.”[1033 - Prov. x. 7.] “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.”[1034 - Psalm cxvi. 15.] Also in Samuel: “The Lord will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness.”[1035 - 1 Sam. ii. 9.] These expressions suggest to us, that they well knew, that whatever vicissitudes may befall the saints, yet their last end will be life and salvation; and that the prosperity of the impious is a pleasant path, which gradually leads to the gulf of everlasting death. Therefore they called the death of such the “destruction of the uncircumcised,”[1036 - Ezek. xxviii. 10; xxxi. 18.] as of those from whom all hope of resurrection had been cut off. Wherefore David could not conceive a more grievous imprecation than this: “Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.”[1037 - Psalm lxix. 28.]

XIX. But the following declaration of Job is remarkable beyond all others: “I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; and though after my skin, worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God; whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another.”[1038 - Job xix. 25, &c.] Some, who wish to display their critical sagacity, cavil that this is not to be understood of the final resurrection, but even of the first day on which Job expected God to be more propitious to him. Though we partly concede this, we shall extort an acknowledgment from them, whether they are willing or not, that Job could never have attained to such an enlarged hope, if his thoughts had been confined to the earth. We must, therefore, be obliged to confess that he, who saw that his Redeemer would be present with him even when lying in the sepulchre, must have elevated his views to a future immortality. For to them, who think only of the present life, death is a source of extreme despair, which, however, could not annihilate his hope. “Though he slay me,” said he, “yet will I trust in him.”[1039 - Job xiii. 15.] Nor let any trifler here object, that these were the expressions of a few persons, and are far from furnishing proof that such a doctrine was current among the Jews. I will immediately reply, that these few persons did not in these declarations reveal any recondite wisdom, in which only superior understandings were separately and privately instructed; but that the Holy Spirit having constituted them teachers of the people, they publicly promulgated the Divine mysteries which were to be generally received, and to be the principles of the popular religion. When we hear the public oracles of the Holy Spirit, therefore, in which he has so clearly and evidently spoken of the spiritual life in the Jewish church, it would be intolerable perverseness to apply them entirely to the carnal covenant, in which no mention is made but of the earth and earthly opulence.

XX. If we descend to the later prophets, there we may freely expatiate as quite at home. For if it was not difficult to prove our point from David, Job, and Samuel, we shall do it there with much greater facility. For this is the order and economy which God observed in dispensing the covenant of his mercy, that as the course of time accelerated the period of its full exhibition, he illustrated it from day to day with additional revelations. Therefore, in the beginning, when the first promise was given to Adam, it was like the kindling of some feeble sparks. Subsequent accessions caused a considerable enlargement of the light, which continued to increase more and more, and diffused its splendour through a wide extent, till at length, every cloud being dissipated, Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, completely illuminated the whole world. There is no reason to fear, therefore, if we want the suffrages of the prophets in support of our cause, that they will fail us. But as I perceive it would be a very extensive field, which would engross more of our attention than the nature of our design will admit, – for it would furnish matter for a large volume, – and as I also think that by what has been already said, I have prepared the way even for a reader of small penetration to proceed without any difficulties, I shall abstain from a prolixity which at present is not very necessary. I shall only caution the reader to advance with the clew which we have put into his hand; namely, that whenever the prophets mention the blessedness of the faithful, scarcely any vestiges of which are discernible in the present life, he should recur to this distinction; that in order to the better elucidation of the Divine goodness, the prophets represented it to the people in a figurative manner; but that they gave such a representation of it as would withdraw the mind from earth and time, and the elements of this world, all which must ere long perish, and would necessarily excite to a contemplation of the felicity of the future spiritual life.

XXI. We will content ourselves with one example. When the Israelites, after being carried to Babylon, perceived how very much their dispersion resembled a death, they could scarcely be convinced that the prophecy of Ezekiel concerning their restitution[1040 - Ezek. xxxvii.] was not a mere fable; for they considered it in the same light, as if he had announced, that putrid carcasses would be restored to life. The Lord, in order to show that even that difficulty would not prevent him from displaying his beneficence, gave the prophet a vision of a field full of dry bones, which he instantaneously restored to life and vigour solely by the power of his word. The vision served indeed to correct the existing incredulity; but at the same time it reminded the Jews, how far the power of the Lord extended beyond the restoration of the people, since the mere expression of his will so easily reanimated the dry and dispersed bones. Wherefore you may properly compare that passage with another of Isaiah: “Thy dead men shall live; together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead. Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast. For, behold, the Lord cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain.”[1041 - Isaiah xxvi. 19-21.]

XXII. It would be absurd, however, to attempt to reduce every passage to such a canon of interpretation. For there are some places, which show without any disguise the future immortality which awaits the faithful in the kingdom of God. Such are some which we have recited, and such are many others, but particularly these two; one in Isaiah: “As the new heavens and the new earth which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord. And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched.”[1042 - Isaiah lxvi. 22-24.] And another in Daniel: “At that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time; and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.”[1043 - Dan. xii. 1, 2.]

XXIII. Now, the two remaining points, that the fathers had Christ as the pledge of their covenant, and that they reposed in him all their confidence of the blessing, being less controvertible and more plain, I shall take no pains to prove them. We may safely conclude, therefore, what all the machinations of the devil can never subvert, that the Old Testament, or covenant which the Lord made with the Israelitish nation, was not limited to terrestrial things, but contained a promise of spiritual and eternal life; the expectation of which must have been impressed on the minds of all who truly consented to the covenant. Then let us drive far away from us this absurd and pernicious notion, either that the Lord proposed nothing else to the Jews, or that the Jews sought nothing else, but an abundance of food, carnal delights, flourishing wealth, external power, a numerous offspring, and whatever is esteemed valuable by a natural man. For under the present dispensation, Christ promises to his people no other kingdom of heaven, than where they may sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;[1044 - Matt. viii. 11.] and Peter asserted the Jews of his time to be heirs of the grace of the gospel, when he said that “they were the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with their fathers.”[1045 - Acts iii. 25.] And that this might not only be testified in words, the Lord also proved it by a matter of fact. For on the day in which he rose from the dead, he honoured many of the saints with a participation of his resurrection, and caused them to appear in the city;[1046 - Matt. xxvii. 52.] thus furnishing a certain assurance that whatever he did and suffered for the acquisition of eternal salvation, belonged to the faithful of the Old Testament as much as to us. For, as Peter declares, they also were endued with the same Spirit, who is the author of our regeneration to life.[1047 - Acts xv. 8.] When we are informed that the same Spirit, which is as it were a spark of immortality in us, and is therefore called in one place “the earnest of our inheritance,”[1048 - Eph. i. 14.] dwelt in a similar manner in them, how can we dare to deprive them of the inheritance of eternal life? It is therefore the more surprising, that the Sadducees formerly fell into such stupidity as to deny the resurrection, and the immortality of the soul, since they had proofs of these points from such clear testimonies of Scripture. And the folly of the whole nation of the Jews in the present age, in expecting an earthly kingdom of the Messiah, would be equally extraordinary, had not the Scriptures long before predicted that they would thus be punished for their rejection of the gospel. For it was consistent with the righteous judgment of God to strike with blindness the minds of those, who, rejecting the light of heaven when presented to them, kept themselves in voluntary darkness. Therefore they read Moses, and assiduously turn over his pages, but are prevented by an interposing veil from perceiving the light which beams in his countenance;[1049 - 2 Cor. iii. 14-16.] and thus it will remain covered and concealed to them, till they are converted to Christ, from whom they now endeavour as much as they can to withdraw and divert it.

Chapter XI. The Difference Of The Two Testaments

What, then, it will be said, will there be no difference left between the Old Testament and the New? and what becomes of all those passages of Scripture, where they are compared together as things that are very different? I readily admit the differences which are mentioned in the Scripture, but I maintain that they derogate nothing from the unity already established; as will be seen when we have discussed them in proper order. But the principal differences, as far as my observation or memory extends, are four in number; to which if any one choose to add a fifth, I shall not make the least objection. I assert, and engage to demonstrate, that all these are such as pertain rather to the mode of administration, than to the substance. In this view, they will not prevent the promises of the Old and New Testament from remaining the same, and the promises of both Testaments from having in Christ the same foundation. Now, the first difference is, that although it was always the will of the Lord that the minds of his people should be directed, and their hearts elevated, towards the celestial inheritance, yet, in order that they might be the better encouraged to hope for it, he anciently exhibited it for their contemplation and partial enjoyment under the figures of terrestrial blessings. Now, having by the gospel more clearly and explicitly revealed the grace of the future life, he leaves the inferior mode of instruction which he used with the Israelites, and directs our minds to the immediate contemplation of it. Those who overlook this design of God, suppose that the ancients ascended no higher than the corporeal blessings which were promised them; they so frequently hear the land of Canaan mentioned as the eminent, and indeed the only, reward for the observers of the Divine law. They hear that God threatens the transgressors of this law with nothing more severe than being expelled from the possession of that country, and dispersed into foreign lands. They see this to be nearly the whole substance of all the blessings and of all the curses pronounced by Moses. Hence they confidently conclude, that the Jews were separated from other nations, not for their own sakes, but for ours, that the Christian Church might have an image, in whose external form they could discern examples of spiritual things. But since the Scripture frequently shows, that God himself appointed the terrestrial advantages with which he favoured them for the express purpose of leading them to the hope of celestial blessings, it argued extreme inexperience, not to say stupidity, not to consider such a dispensation. The point of controversy between us and these persons, is this: they maintain that the possession of the land of Canaan was accounted by the Israelites their supreme and ultimate blessedness, but that to us, since the revelation of Christ, it is a figure of the heavenly inheritance. We, on the contrary, contend, that in the earthly possession which they enjoyed, they contemplated, as in a mirror, the future inheritance which they believed to be prepared for them in heaven.

II. This will more fully appear from the similitude which Paul has used in his Epistle to the Galatians.[1050 - Gal. iv.] He compares the Jewish nation to a young heir, who, being yet incapable of governing himself, follows the dictates of a tutor or a governor, to whose charge he has been committed. His application of this similitude chiefly to the ceremonies, is no objection against the propriety of its application to our present purpose. The same inheritance was destined for them as for us; but they were not of a sufficient age to be capable of entering on the possession and management of it. The Church among them was the same as among us; but it was yet in a state of childhood. Therefore the Lord kept them under this tuition, that he might give them the spiritual promises, not open and unconcealed, but veiled under terrestrial figures. Therefore, when he admitted Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with their posterity, to the hope of immortality, he promised them the land of Canaan as their inheritance; not that their hopes might terminate in that land, but that in the prospect of it they might exercise and confirm themselves in the hope of that true inheritance which was not yet visible. And that they might not be deceived, a superior promise was given them, which proved that country not to be the highest blessing which God would bestow. Thus Abraham is not permitted to grow indolent after having received a promise of the land, but a greater promise elevates his mind to the Lord. For he hears him saying, “Abram, I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.”[1051 - Gen. xv. 1.] Here we see that the Lord proposes himself to Abraham as his ultimate reward, that he may not seek an uncertain and transitory one in the elements of this world, but may consider that which can never fade away. God afterwards annexes a promise of the land, merely as a symbol of his benevolence, and a type of the heavenly inheritance. And that this was the opinion of the saints, is plain from their own language. Thus David rises from temporary blessings to that consummate and ultimate felicity. “My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth, for the courts of the Lord.”[1052 - Psalm lxxxiv. 2.] “God is my portion for ever.”[1053 - Psalm lxxiii. 26.] Again: “The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot.”[1054 - Psalm xvi. 5.] Again: “I cried unto thee, O Lord: I said, Thou art my refuge and my portion in the land of the living.”[1055 - Psalm cxlii. 5.] Persons who venture to express themselves thus, certainly profess that in their hopes they rise above the world and all present blessings. Nevertheless the prophets frequently describe this blessedness of the future world under the type which the Lord had given them. In this sense we must understand the following passages: “The righteous shall inherit the land;”[1056 - Psalm xxxvii. 29.] “But the wicked shall be cut off from the earth;”[1057 - Prov. ii. 22.] and various predictions of Isaiah, which foretell the future prosperity of Jerusalem, and the abundance that will be enjoyed in Zion. We see that all these things are inapplicable to the land of our pilgrimage, or to the earthly Jerusalem, but that they belong to the true country of the faithful, and to that celestial city, where “the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.”[1058 - Psalm cxxxiii. 3.]

III. This is the reason why the saints, under the Old Testament, are represented as holding this mortal life with its blessings in higher estimation than becomes us now. For although they well knew that they ought not to rest in it as the end of their course, yet when they recollected what characters of his grace the Lord had impressed on it, in order to instruct them in a manner suitable to their tender state, they felt a greater degree of pleasure in it than if they had considered it merely in itself. But as the Lord, in declaring his benevolence to the faithful by present blessings, gave them, under these types and symbols, a figurative exhibition of spiritual felicity, so, on the other hand, in corporal punishments he exemplified his judgment against the reprobate. Therefore, as the favours of God were more conspicuous in earthly things, so also were his punishments. Injudicious persons, not considering this analogy and harmony (so to speak) between the punishments and rewards, wonder at so great a variety in God, that in ancient times he was ready to avenge all the transgressions of men by the immediate infliction of severe and dreadful punishments, but now, as if he had laid aside his ancient wrath, punishes with far less severity and frequency; and on this account they almost adopt the notion of the Manichæans, that the God of the Old Testament is a different being from the God of the New. But we shall easily get rid of such difficulties, if we direct our attention to that dispensation of God, which I have observed; namely, that during that period, in which he gave the Israelites his covenant involved in some degree of obscurity, he intended to signify and prefigure the grace of future and eternal felicity by terrestrial blessings, and the grievousness of spiritual death by corporal punishments.

IV. Another difference between the Old Testament and the New consists in figures, because the former, in the absence of the truth, displayed merely an image and shadow instead of the body; but the latter exhibits the present truth and the substantial body.[1059 - Col. ii. 17.] And this is generally mentioned wherever the New Testament is opposed to the Old, but is treated more at large in the Epistle to the Hebrews than in any other place.[1060 - Heb. x. 1, &c.] The apostle is there disputing against those who supposed that the observance of the Mosaic law could not be abolished, without being followed by the total ruin of religion. To refute this error, he adduces the prediction of the psalmist concerning the priesthood of Christ;[1061 - Heb. vii. 17. Psalm cx. 4.] for since he has an eternal priesthood committed to him, we may argue the certain abolition of that priesthood, in which new priests daily succeeded each other.[1062 - Heb. vii. 23, 24.] But he proves the superiority of the appointment of this new Priest, because it is confirmed with an oath.[1063 - Heb. vii. 20, 21.] He afterwards adds that this transfer of the priesthood implies also a change of the covenant.[1064 - Heb. vii. 12.] And he proves that this change was necessary, because such was the imbecility of the law, that it could bring nothing to perfection.[1065 - Heb. vii. 19.] Then he proceeds to state the nature of this imbecility; namely, that the law prescribed external righteousnesses, consisting in carnal ordinances, which could not make the observers of them “perfect as pertaining to the conscience,” that by animal victims it could neither expiate sins nor procure true holiness.[1066 - Heb. ix. 13, 14; x. 4.] He concludes, therefore, that it contained “a shadow of good things to come, but not the very image of the things;”[1067 - Heb. x. 1.] and that consequently it had no other office, but to serve as an introduction to “a better hope,”[1068 - Heb. vii. 19.] which is exhibited in the gospel. Here we have to inquire in what respect the Legal covenant is compared with the Evangelical, the ministry of Christ with the ministry of Moses. For if the comparison related to the substance of the promises, there would be a great discordance between the two testaments; but as the state of the question leads us to a different point, we must attend to the scope of the apostle, in order to discover the truth. Let us, then, bring forward the covenant, which God has once made, which is eternal, and never to be abolished. The accomplishment, whence it derives its establishment and ratification, is Christ. While such a confirmation was waited for, the Lord by Moses prescribed ceremonies, to serve as solemn symbols of the confirmation. It came to be a subject of contention, whether the ceremonies ordained in the law ought to cease and give place to Christ. Now, though these ceremonies were only accidents or concomitants of the covenant, yet being the instruments of its administration, they bear the name of the covenant; as it is common to give to other sacraments the names of the things they represent. In a word, therefore, what is here called the Old Testament is a solemn method of confirming the covenant, consisting of ceremonies and sacrifices. Since it contains nothing substantial, unless we proceed further, the apostle contends that it ought to be repealed and abrogated, in order to make way for Christ, the Surety and Mediator of a better testament,[1069 - Heb. vii. 22.] by whom eternal sanctification has been at once procured for the elect, and those transgressions obliterated, which remained under the law. Or, if you prefer it, take the following statement of it; that the Old Testament of the Lord was that which was delivered to the Jews, involved in a shadowy and inefficacious observance of ceremonies, and that it was therefore temporary, because it remained as it were in suspense, till it was supported by a firm and substantial confirmation; but that it was made new and eternal, when it was consecrated and established by the blood of Christ. Whence Christ calls the cup which he gives to his disciples in the supper, “the cup of the New Testament in his blood;”[1070 - Matt. xxvi. 28.] to signify that when the testament of God is sealed with his blood, the truth of it is then accomplished, and thus it is made new and eternal.

V. Hence it appears in what sense the apostle said, that the Jews were conducted to Christ by the tuition of the law, before he was manifested in the flesh.[1071 - Gal. iii. 24.] He confesses also that they were children and heirs of God, but such as, on account of their age, required to be kept under the care of a tutor.[1072 - Gal. iv. 1, &c.] For it was reasonable that before the Sun of Righteousness was risen, there should be neither such a full blaze of revelation, nor such great clearness of understanding. Therefore the Lord dispensed the light of his word to them in such a manner, that they had yet only a distant and obscure prospect of it. Paul describes this slenderness of understanding as a state of childhood, which it was the Lord's will to exercise in the elements of this world and in external observances, as rules of puerile discipline, till the manifestation of Christ, by whom the knowledge of the faithful was to grow to maturity. Christ himself alluded to this distinction, when he said, “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached.”[1073 - Luke xvi. 16.] What discoveries did Moses and the prophets make to their contemporaries? They afforded them some taste of that wisdom which was in after times to be clearly manifested, and gave them a distant prospect of its future splendour. But when Christ could be plainly pointed out, the kingdom of God was revealed. For in him are discovered “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,”[1074 - Col. ii. 3.] by which we penetrate almost into the furthest recesses of heaven.

VI. Nor is it any objection to our argument, that scarcely a person can be found in the Christian Church, who is to be compared with Abraham in the excellency of his faith; or that the prophets were distinguished by such energy of the Spirit as, even at this day, is sufficient to illuminate the whole world. For our present inquiry is, not what grace the Lord has conferred on a few, but what is the ordinary method which he has pursued in the instruction of his people; such as is found even among the prophets themselves, who were endued with peculiar knowledge above others. For their preaching is obscure, as relating to things very distant, and is comprehended in types. Besides, notwithstanding their wonderful eminence in knowledge, yet because they were under a necessity of submitting to the same tuition as the rest of the people, they are considered as sustaining the character of children as well as others. Finally, none of them possessed knowledge so clear as not to partake more or less of the obscurity of the age. Whence this observation of Christ: “Many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.”[1075 - Luke x. 24.] “Blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear.”[1076 - Matt. xiii. 16.] And, indeed, it is reasonable that the presence of Christ should be distinguished by the prerogative of introducing a clearer revelation of the mysteries of heaven. To the same purpose also is the passage, which we have before cited from the First Epistle of Peter, that it was revealed to them, that the principal advantage of their labours would be experienced in our times.[1077 - 1 Peter i. 12.]

VII. I come now to the third difference, which is taken from Jeremiah, whose words are these: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband to them, saith the Lord; but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”[1078 - Jer. xxxi. 31, &c.] From this passage the apostle took occasion to institute the following comparison between the law and the gospel: he calls the former a literal, the latter a spiritual doctrine; the former, he says, was engraven on tables of stone, but the latter is inscribed on the heart;[1079 - 2 Cor. iii. 6, &c.] the former was the preaching of death, but the latter of life; the former was the ministration of condemnation, but the latter of righteousness; the former is abolished, but the latter remains. As the design of the apostle was to express the sense of the prophet, it will be sufficient for us to consider the language of one of them, in order to discover the meaning of both. There is, however, some difference between them. For the apostle speaks of the law in less honourable terms than the prophet does; and that not simply with respect to the law itself, but, because there were some disturbers, who were full of improper zeal for the law, and by their perverse attachment to the ceremonies obscured the glory of the gospel, he disputes concerning the nature of the law with reference to their error and foolish affection for it. This peculiarity in Paul, therefore, will be worthy of our observation. Both of them, as they contrast the Old and New Testaments with each other, consider nothing in the law, but what properly belongs to it. For example, the law contains frequent promises of mercy; but as they are borrowed from another dispensation, they are not considered as part of the law, when the mere nature of the law is the subject of discussion. All that they attribute to it is, that it enjoins what is right, and prohibits crimes; that it proclaims a reward for the followers of righteousness, and denounces punishments against transgressors; but that it neither changes nor corrects the depravity of heart which is natural to all men.

VIII. Now, let us explain the comparison of the apostle in all its branches. In the first place, the Old Testament is literal, because it was promulgated without the efficacy of the Spirit; the New is spiritual, because the Lord has engraven it in a spiritual manner on the hearts of men. The second contrast, therefore, serves as an elucidation of the first. The Old Testament is the revelation of death, because it can only involve all mankind in a curse; the New is the instrument of life, because it delivers us from the curse, and restores us to favour with God. The former is the ministry of condemnation, because it convicts all the children of Adam of unrighteousness; the latter is the ministry of righteousness, because it reveals the mercy of God, by which we are made righteous. The last contrast must be referred to the legal ceremonies. The law having an image of things that were at a distance, it was necessary that in time it should be abolished and disappear. The gospel, exhibiting the body itself, retains a firm and perpetual stability. Jeremiah calls even the moral law a weak and frail covenant, but for another reason; namely, because it was soon broken by the sudden defection of an ungrateful people. But as such a violation arises from the fault of the people, it cannot be properly attributed to the Testament. The ceremonies, however, which at the advent of Christ were abolished by their own weakness, contained in themselves the cause of their abrogation. Now, this difference between the “letter” and the “spirit” is not to be understood as if the Lord had given his law to the Jews without any beneficial result, without one of them being converted to him; but it is used in a way of comparison, to display the plenitude of grace with which the same Legislator, assuming as it were a new character, has honoured the preaching of the gospel. For if we survey the multitude of those, from among all nations, whom, by the influence of his Spirit in the preaching of the gospel, the Lord has regenerated and gathered into communion with his Church, we shall say that those of the ancient Israelites, who cordially and sincerely embraced the covenant of the Lord, were extremely few; though, if estimated by themselves without any comparison, they amounted to a considerable number.

IX. The fourth difference arises out of the third. For the Scripture calls the Old Testament a covenant of bondage, because it produces fear in the mind; but the New it describes as a covenant of liberty, because it leads the heart to confidence and security. Thus Paul, in the eighth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, says, “Ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.”[1080 - Rom. viii. 15.] To the same purpose is that passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the faithful now “are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,” where nothing can be either heard or seen, but what must strike terror into the mind; so that even Moses himself is exceedingly afraid at the sound of the terrible voice, which they all pray that they may hear no more; but that now the faithful “are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem,”[1081 - Heb. xii. 18, &c.] &c. What Paul briefly touches in the passage which we have adduced from the Epistle to the Romans, he explains more at large in his Epistle to the Galatians, when he allegorizes the two sons of Abraham in the following manner – that Agar, the bond-woman, is a type of mount Sinai, where the people of Israel received the law; that Sarah, the free-woman, is a figure of the celestial Jerusalem, whence proceeds the gospel. That as the son of Agar is born in bondage, and can never attain to the inheritance, and the son of Sarah is born free, and has a right to the inheritance,[1082 - Gal. iv. 22, &c.] so by the law we were devoted to slavery, but by the gospel alone are regenerated to liberty. Now, the whole may be summed up thus – that the Old Testament filled men's consciences with fear and trembling; but that by the benefit of the New Testament, they are delivered, and enabled to rejoice. The former kept their consciences under a yoke of severe bondage; but by the liberality of the latter they are emancipated and admitted to liberty. If any one object to us the case of the holy fathers of the Israelitish people, that as they were clearly possessed of the same spirit of faith as we are, they must consequently have been partakers of the same liberty and joy, we reply, that neither of these originated from the law; but that, when they felt themselves, by means of the law, oppressed with their servile condition, and wearied with disquietude of conscience, they fled for refuge to the gospel; and that therefore it was a peculiar advantage of the New Testament, that they enjoyed an exception from the common law of the Old Testament, and were exempted from those evils. Besides, we shall deny that they were favoured with the spirit of liberty and security, to such a degree as not to experience from the law some measure both of fear and of servitude. For notwithstanding their enjoyment of that privilege, which they obtained by the grace of the gospel, yet they were subject to the same observances and burdens as the people in general. As they were obliged, therefore, to a diligent observance of these ceremonies, which were emblems of the state of pupilage similar to bondage, and the hand-writing, by which they confessed themselves guilty of sin, did not release them from the obligation, they may justly be said, in comparison with us, to have been under a testament of bondage and fear, when we consider the common mode of procedure which the Lord then pursued with the Israelitish nation.

X. The three last comparisons which we have mentioned are between the law and the gospel. In these, therefore, “the Old Testament” denotes the law; and “the New Testament,” the gospel. The first comparison extends further, for it comprehends also the promises, which were given before the law. When Augustine denied that they ought to be considered as part of the Old Testament, he gave a very proper opinion, and intended the same that we now teach; for he had in view those passages of Jeremiah and Paul, in which the Old Testament is distinguished from the word of grace and mercy. He very judiciously adds also in the same place, that the children of the promise, from the beginning of the world, who have been regenerated by God, and, under the influence of faith working by love, have obeyed his commands, belong to the New Testament; and that, in hope, not of carnal, terrestrial, and temporal things, but of spiritual, celestial, and eternal blessings; especially believing in the Mediator, through whom they doubted not that the Spirit was dispensed to them to enable them to do their duty, and that whenever they sinned they were pardoned. For this is the very same thing which I meant to assert: That all the saints, whom, from the beginning of the world, the Scripture mentions as having been peculiarly chosen by God, have been partakers of the same blessing with us to eternal salvation. Between our distinction and that of Augustine there is this difference – that ours (according to this declaration of Christ, “the law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached;”)[1083 - Luke xvi. 16.] distinguishes between the clearness of the gospel and the more obscure dispensation of the word which preceded it; whilst the other merely discriminates the weakness of the law from the stability of the gospel. Here it must also be remarked concerning the holy fathers, that though they lived under the Old Testament, they did not rest satisfied with it, but always aspired after the New, and thus enjoyed a certain participation of it. For all those who contented themselves with present shadows, and did not extend their views to Christ, are condemned by the apostle as blind and under the curse. For, to say nothing on other points, what greater ignorance can be imagined than to hope for an expiation of sin by the sacrifice of an animal? than to seek for the purification of the soul by an external ablution with water? than to wish to appease God with frigid ceremonies, as though they afforded him great pleasure? For all these absurdities are chargeable on those who adhere to the observances of the law, without any reference to Christ.

XI. The fifth difference, which we may add, consists in this – that till the advent of Christ, the Lord selected one nation, to which he would limit the covenant of his grace. Moses says, “When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, – the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.”[1084 - Deut. xxxii. 8, 9.] In another place he thus addresses the people: “Behold, the heaven, and the heaven of heavens is the Lord's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is. Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people.”[1085 - Deut. x. 14.] Therefore he favoured that people with the exclusive knowledge of his name, as though they alone of all mankind belonged to him; he deposited his covenant as it were in their bosom; to them he manifested the presence of his power; he honoured them with every privilege. But to omit the rest of his benefits, the only one that relates to our present argument is, that he united them to himself by the communication of his word, in order that he might be denominated and esteemed their God. In the mean time he suffered other nations, as though they had no business or intercourse with him, to walk in vanity;[1086 - Acts xiv. 16.] nor did he employ means to prevent their destruction by sending them the only remedy – the preaching of his word. The Israelitish nation, therefore, were then as darling sons; others were strangers: they were known to him, and received under his faithful protection; others were left to their own darkness: they were sanctified by God; others were profane: they were honoured with the Divine presence; others were excluded from approaching it. But when the fulness of the time was come,[1087 - Gal. iv. 4.] appointed for the restoration of all things,[1088 - Matt. xvii. 11.] and the Reconciler of God and men was manifested,[1089 - Eph. ii. 14.] the barrier was demolished, which had so long confined the Divine mercy within the limits of the Jewish church, and peace was announced to them who were at a distance, and to them who were near, that being both reconciled to God, they might coalesce into one people. Wherefore “there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, but Christ is all and in all;”[1090 - Col. iii. 11.] “to whom the heathen are given for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession;”[1091 - Psalm ii. 8.] that he may have a universal “dominion from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.”[1092 - Psalm lxxii. 8.]

XII. The vocation of the Gentiles, therefore, is an eminent illustration of the superior excellence of the New Testament above the Old. It had, indeed, before been most explicitly announced in numerous predictions of the prophets; but so as that the completion of it was deferred to the kingdom of the Messiah. And even Christ himself made no advances towards it at the first commencement of his preaching, but deferred it till he should have completed all the parts of our redemption, finished the time of his humiliation, and received from the Father “a name which is above every name, before which every knee shall bow.”[1093 - Phil. ii. 9, 10.] Wherefore, when this season was not yet arrived, he said to a Canaanitish woman, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel:”[1094 - Matt. xv. 24.] nor did he permit the apostles, in his first mission of them, to exceed these limits. “Go not,” says he, “into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”[1095 - Matt. x. 5, 6.] And though this calling of the Gentiles was announced by so many testimonies, yet when the apostles were about to enter upon it, it appeared to them so novel and strange, that they dreaded it, as if it had been a prodigy: indeed it was with trepidation and reluctance that they at length engaged in it. Nor is this surprising; for it seemed not at all reasonable, that the Lord, who for so many ages had separated the Israelites from the rest of the nations, should, as it were, suddenly change his design, and annihilate this distinction. It had indeed been predicted in the prophecies; but they could not pay such great attention to the prophecies, as to be wholly unmoved with the novelty of the circumstance, which forced itself on their observation. Nor were the specimens, which the Lord had formerly given, of the future vocation of the Gentiles, sufficient to influence them. For besides his having called only very few of them, he had even incorporated them into the family of Abraham, that they might be added to his people; but by that public vocation, the Gentiles were not only raised to an equality with the Jews, but appeared to succeed to their places as though they had been dead. Besides, of all the strangers whom God had before incorporated into the Church, none were ever placed on an equality with the Jews. Therefore it is not without reason that Paul so celebrates this “mystery which was hidden from ages and from generations,”[1096 - Col. i. 26.] and which he represents as an object of admiration even to angels.[1097 - Eph. iii. 10.]

XIII. In these four or five points, I think I have given a correct and faithful statement of the whole of the difference between the Old and the New Testament, as far as is sufficient for a simple system of doctrine. But because some persons represent this variety in the government of the Church, these different modes of instruction, and such a considerable alteration of rites and ceremonies, as a great absurdity, we must reply to them, before we proceed to other subjects. And this may be done in a brief manner, since the objections are not so strong as to require a laborious refutation. It is not reasonable, they say, that God, who is perpetually consistent with himself, should undergo so great a change as afterwards to disallow what he had once enjoined and commanded. I reply, that God ought not therefore to be deemed mutable, because he has accommodated different forms to different ages, as he knew would be suitable for each. If the husbandman prescribes different employments to his family in the winter, from those which he allots them in the summer, we must not therefore accuse him of inconstancy, or impute to him a deviation from the proper rules of agriculture, which are connected with the perpetual course of nature. Thus, also, if a father instructs, governs, and manages his children one way in infancy, another in childhood, and another in youth, we must not therefore charge him with being inconstant, or forsaking his own designs. Why, then, do we stigmatize God with the character of inconstancy, because he has made an apt and suitable distinction between different times? The last similitude ought fully to satisfy us. Paul compares the Jews to children, and Christians to youths.[1098 - Gal. iv. 1-3.] What impropriety is there in this part of the government of God, that he detained them in the rudiments which were suitable to them on account of their age, but has placed us under a stronger and more manly discipline? It is a proof, therefore, of the constancy of God, that he has delivered the same doctrine in all ages, and perseveres in requiring the same worship of his name which he commanded from the beginning. By changing the external form and mode, he has discovered no mutability in himself, but has so far accommodated himself to the capacity of men, which is various and mutable.

XIV. But they inquire whence this diversity proceeded, except from the will of God. Could he not, as well from the beginning as since the advent of Christ, give a revelation of eternal life in clear language without any figures, instruct his people by a few plain sacraments, bestow his Holy Spirit, and diffuse his grace through all the world? This is just the same as if they were to quarrel with God, because he created the world at so late a period, whereas he might have done it before; or because he has appointed the alternate vicissitudes of summer and winter, of day and night. But let us not doubt what ought to be believed by all pious men, that whatever is done by God is done wisely and righteously; although we frequently know nothing of the causes which render such transactions necessary. For it would be arrogating too much to ourselves, not to permit God to keep the reasons of his decrees concealed from us. But it is surprising, say they, that he now rejects and abominates the sacrifices of cattle, and all the apparatus of the Levitical priesthood, with which he used to be delighted; as though truly these external and transitory things could afford pleasure to God, or affect him in any way whatever. It has already been observed, that he did none of these things on his own account, but appointed them all for the salvation of men. If a physician cure a young man of any disease by a very excellent method, and afterwards adopt a different mode of cure with the same person when advanced in years, shall we therefore say that he rejects the method of cure which he before approved? We will rather say, that he perseveres in the same system, and considers the difference of age. Thus it was necessary, before the appearance of Christ, that he should be prefigured, and his future advent announced by one kind of emblems; since he has been manifested, it is right that he should be represented by others. But with respect to the Divine vocation, now more widely extended among all nations since the advent of Christ than it was before, and with regard to the more copious effusion of the graces of the Spirit, who can deny, that it is reasonable and just for God to retain under his own power and will the free dispensation of his favours; that he may illuminate what nations he pleases; that wherever he pleases he may introduce the preaching of his word; that he may give to his instruction whatever kind and degree of profit and success he pleases; that wherever he pleases, in any age, he may punish the ingratitude of the world by depriving them of the knowledge of his name, and when he pleases restore it on account of his mercy? We see, therefore, the absurdity of the cavils with which impious men disturb the minds of the simple on this subject, to call in question either the righteousness of God or the truth of the Scripture.

Chapter XII. The Necessity Of Christ Becoming Man In Order To Fulfil The Office Of Mediator

It was of great importance to our interests, that he, who was to be our Mediator, should be both true God and true man. If an inquiry be made concerning the necessity of this, it was not indeed a simple, or, as we commonly say, an absolute necessity, but such as arose from the heavenly decree, on which the salvation of men depended. But our most merciful Father has appointed that which was best for us. For since our iniquities, like a cloud intervening between us and him, had entirely alienated us from the kingdom of heaven, no one that could not approach to God could be a mediator for the restoration of peace. But who could have approached to him? Could any one of the children of Adam? They, with their parent, all dreaded the Divine presence. Could any one of the angels? They also stood in need of a head, by a connection with whom they might be confirmed in a perfect and unvarying adherence to their God. What, then, could be done? Our situation was truly deplorable, unless the Divine majesty itself would descend to us; for we could not ascend to it. Thus it was necessary that the Son of God should become Immanuel, that is, God with us; and this in order that there might be a mutual union and coalition between his Divinity and the nature of man; for otherwise the proximity could not be sufficiently near, nor could the affinity be sufficiently strong, to authorize us to hope that God would dwell with us. So great was the discordance between our pollution and the perfect purity of God. Although man had remained immaculately innocent, yet his condition would have been too mean for him to approach to God without a Mediator. What, then, can he do, after having been plunged by his fatal fall into death and hell, defiled with so many blemishes, putrefying in his own corruption, and, in a word, overwhelmed with every curse? It is not without reason, therefore, that Paul, when about to exhibit Christ in the character of a Mediator, expressly speaks of him as a man. “There is one Mediator,” he says, “between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.”[1099 - 1 Tim. ii. 5.] He might have called him God, or might indeed have omitted the appellation of man, as well as that of God; but because the Spirit, who spake by him, knew our infirmity, he has provided a very suitable remedy against it, by placing the Son of God familiarly among us, as though he were one of us. Therefore, that no one may distress himself where he is to seek the Mediator, or in what way he may approach him, the apostle, by denominating him a man, apprizes us that he is near, and even close to us, since he is our own flesh. He certainly intends the same as is stated in another place more at large – “that we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”[1100 - Heb. iv. 15.]

II. This will still more fully appear, if we consider, that it was no mean 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 - Eph. v. 30.] 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 - John xx. 17.] 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 - Rom. viii. 17.] 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 - Col. i. 15.] 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 - Isaiah liii. 4, &c.] 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 - John i. 9, &c.] 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 - John iii. 16.] 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 - John v. 25.] “I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.”[1109 - John xi. 25.] Again: “The Son of man is come to save that which was lost.”[1110 - Matt. xviii. 11.] Again: “They that be whole need not a physician.”[1111 - Matt. ix. 12.] 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 - Heb. v. 1.] he could not have been our righteousness, because he was made a sacrifice for us, that God might not impute sins to us.[1113 - 2 Cor. v. 19.] 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 - Rom. viii. 3.] 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 - Titus iii. 4.] 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 - Luke xxiv. 46, 47.] “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life. This commandment have I received of my Father.”[1117 - John x. 17, 18.] “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.”[1118 - John iii. 14.] Again: “Father, save me from this hour; but for this cause came I unto this hour.”[1119 - John xii. 27.] “Father, glorify thy Son.”[1120 - John xvii. 1.] 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 - Luke i. 72, 79.] 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 - Col. ii. 3.] and besides whom he glories in knowing nothing.[1123 - 1 Cor. ii. 2.]

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 - Eph. i. 4, &c.] 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 - Eph. iii. 18, 19.] 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 - 1 Tim. i. 15.] 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 - 2 Tim. i. 9.] 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 - Titus iii. 9.] 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 - Eph. i. 22.] 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 - Psalm lxxxii. 6.] 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 - Col. ii. 10.] 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 - Heb. iv. 15.] whence also Luke hesitates not in his genealogy to call him “the son of Adam.”[1133 - Luke iii. 38.] I would also wish to know why Paul styles Christ “the second Adam,”[1134 - 1 Cor. xv. 45, 47.] 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 - Col. i. 15.] 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 - Col. i. 16, 18.] 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 - Gen. ii. 23.] 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 - Eph. v. 30, 32.] 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 - Gal. iv. 4.]

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 - Gen. xii. 3; xviii. 18; xxii. 18; xxvi. 4. Acts iii. 25; ii. 30. Psalm cxxxii. 11. Matt. i. 1.] 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 - Rom. i. 3; ix. 5.] 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 - Gal. iv. 4.] 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 - Heb. ii. 14, 16, 17; iv. 15.] 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 - Rom. viii. 3.] 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 - Eph. iv. 15, 16.] 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 - John iii. 34; i. 16.] 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 - John xvii. 19.]

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 - Phil. ii. 7, 8.] 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 - 1 Peter iii. 18.] 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 - 2 Cor. xiii. 4.] 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 - 1 Cor. xv. 47.] 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 - 1 Cor. xv. 13, 14.] 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 - Heb. ii. 10, 11, 14.] 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 - Rom. viii. 29.] 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 - Heb. ii. 16.] 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 - Gen. iii. 15.] 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 - Gal. iii. 16.] 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 - Rom. i. 3.] 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 - Rom. ix. 5.] 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 - Acts ii. 30.] What becomes of this promise, “Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne?”[1161 - Psalm cxxxii. 11.] 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 - Gal. iv. 4.] 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 - Matt. i. 16. εξ ἦς εγεννηθη Ἰησους.] he was procreated from her seed; as when Booz is said to have been begotten of Rahab,[1164 - Matt. i. 5. Σαλμων δε εγεννησεν τον βοες εκ της Ῥαχαβ.] 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 - Gal. iii. 22.] 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 - Rom. v. 12, 15, 18.] To this the following passage corresponds: “The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.”[1167 - 1 Cor. xv. 47.] Therefore the same apostle, in another place, by teaching us that Christ was “sent in the likeness of sinful flesh”[1168 - Rom. viii. 3.] 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 - John xvii. 19.] 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 - John i. 14.] 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 - John viii. 58.] 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 - Col. i. 15.] he declares himself, that he “had a glory with the Father before the world was,”[1173 - John xvii. 5.] and that he coöperates with the Father.[1174 - John v. 17.] 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 - Isaiah xlii. 1.] when it is stated that he “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man;”[1176 - Luke ii. 52.] 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 - John viii. 50. Mark xiii. 32. John xiv. 10; vi. 38. Luke xxiv. 39.] 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 - Acts xx. 28.] and that “the Lord of glory” was “crucified.”[1179 - 1 Cor. ii. 8.] Also in what John says, that they had “handled the Word of life.”[1180 - 1 John i. 1.] 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 - 1 John iii. 16.] 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 - John iii. 13.] 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 - John i. 29; v. 21-23.] finally, that he is “the light of the world,” “the good shepherd,” “the only door,” “the true vine.”[1184 - John ix. 5; x. 9, 11; xv. 1.] 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 - 1 Cor. xv. 24.] 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 - Phil. ii. 8.] and after having undergone this humiliation, was at length crowned with glory and honour, and exalted to supreme dominion,[1187 - Heb. ii. 7.] that before him “every knee should bow;”[1188 - Phil. ii. 10.] 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 - 1 Cor. xv. 28.] 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 - 1 Cor. viii. 6.] 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 - Luke i. 35, 43.] 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 - John ii. 19.] 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 - Luke i. 35.] 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 - Rom. viii. 15. Gal. iv. 5, 6.] 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 - Psalm lxxxii. 6.] 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 - Col. i. 15-18.] 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 - Rom. i. 1-4.] 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 - Rom. viii. 32.] 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 - Luke i. 32.] 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 - 1 John i. 1.] 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 - Micah v. 2.] 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 - Eph. iii. 15.] 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 - Prov. xxx. 4.] 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 - Gen. ii. 7.] 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 - Prov. viii. 22, &c.] 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 terror 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 - Col. ii. 19.] 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 - John iv. 25.] 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 - Isaiah lv. 4.] just as he had before styled him “the Wonderful Counsellor.”[1209 - Isaiah ix. 6.] 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 - Heb. i. 1, 2.] 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 - Psalm lxxiv. 9.] 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 - Dan. ix. 24.]

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 - Isaiah lxi. 1, 2.] 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 - Matt. xvii. 5.] 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 - Joel ii. 28.] But the declarations of Paul, that “he is made unto us wisdom,”[1216 - 1 Cor. i. 30.] and that “in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,”[1217 - Col. ii. 3.] 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 - 1 Cor. ii. 2.] 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 - Psalm lxxxix. 35-37.] 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 - Isaiah iii. 8.] 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 - Psalm ii. 1, &c.] 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 - Psalm cx. 1.] 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 - John xviii. 36.] 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 - Luke xvii. 20, 21.] 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 - Rom. xiv. 17.] 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.