Institutes of the Christian Religion

IV. The persons who consider these things, with the diligent attention which they deserve, will easily disregard vague speculations which attract minds that are inconstant and fond of novelty. Such is the notion, that Christ would have become man, even though the human race had needed no redemption. I grant, indeed, that at the original creation, and in the state of integrity, he was exalted as head over angels and men; for which reason Paul calls him “the first‐born of every creature;”(1104) but since the whole Scriptures proclaim, that he was clothed in flesh in order to become a Redeemer, it argues excessive temerity to imagine another cause or another end for it. The end for which Christ was promised from the beginning, is sufficiently known; it was to restore a fallen world, and to succour ruined men. Therefore under the law his image was exhibited in sacrifices, to inspire the faithful with a hope that God would be propitious to them, after he should be reconciled by the expiation of their sins. And as, in all ages, even before the promulgation of the law, the Mediator was never promised without blood, we conclude that he was destined by the eternal decree of God to purify the pollution of men; because the effusion of blood is an emblem of expiation. The prophets proclaimed and foretold him, as the future reconciler of God and men. As a sufficient specimen of all, we refer to that very celebrated testimony of Isaiah, where he predicts, that he should be smitten of God for the transgressions of the people, that the chastisement of their peace might be upon him; and that he should be a priest to offer up himself as a victim; that by his stripes others should be healed; and that because all men had gone astray, and been dispersed like sheep, it had pleased the Lord to afflict him and to lay on him the iniquities of all.(1105) As we are informed that Christ is particularly appointed by God for the relief of miserable sinners, all who pass these bounds are guilty of indulging a foolish curiosity. When he himself appeared in the world, he declared the design of his advent to be, to appease God and restore us from death to life. The apostles testified the same. Thus John, before he informs us that the Word was made flesh, mentions the defection of man.(1106) But our principal attention is due to Christ himself speaking of his own office. He says, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”(1107) Again: “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.”(1108) “I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.”(1109) Again: “The Son of man is come to save that which was lost.”(1110) Again: “They that be whole need not a physician.”(1111) There would be no end, if I meant to quote all the passages. The apostles with one consent call us back to this principle; for certainly, if he had not come to reconcile God, the honour of his priesthood would have been lost, for a priest is appointed as a Mediator to intercede between God and men:(1112) he could not have been our righteousness, because he was made a sacrifice for us, that God might not impute sins to us.(1113) Finally, he would have been despoiled of all the noble characters under which he is celebrated in the Scripture. This assertion of Paul would have no foundation: “What the law could not do, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.”(1114) Nor would there be any truth in what he teaches in another place, that “the kindness and love of God our Saviour towards man appeared”(1115) in the gift of Christ as a Redeemer. To conclude, the Scripture no where assigns any other end, for which the Son of God should choose to become incarnate, and should also receive this command from the Father, than that he might be made a sacrifice to appease the Father on our account. “Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer; and that repentance should be preached in his name.”(1116) “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life. This commandment have I received of my Father.”(1117) “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.”(1118) Again: “Father, save me from this hour; but for this cause came I unto this hour.”(1119) “Father, glorify thy Son.”(1120) Where he clearly assigns, as the end of his assumption of human nature, that it was to be an expiatory sacrifice for the abolition of sins. For the same reason, Zacharias pronounces that he is come, according to the promise given to the fathers, “to give light to them that sit in the shadow of death.”(1121) Let us remember that all these things are spoken of the Son of God, “in whom,” according to the testimony of Paul, “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,”(1122) and besides whom he glories in knowing nothing.(1123)

V. If any one object, that it is not evinced by any of these things, that the same Christ, who has redeemed men from condemnation, could not have testified his love to them by assuming their nature, if they had remained in a state of integrity and safety,—we briefly reply, that since the Spirit declares these two things, Christ’s becoming our Redeemer, and his participation of the same nature, to have been connected by the eternal decree of God, it is not right to make any further inquiry. For he who feels an eager desire to know something more, not being content with the immutable appointment of God, shows himself also not to be contented with this Christ, who has been given to us as the price of our redemption. Paul not only tells us the end of his mission, but ascending to the sublime mystery of predestination, very properly represses all the licentiousness and prurience of the human mind, by declaring, that “the Father hath chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world, and predestinated us to the adoption of children according to the good pleasure of his will, and made us accepted in his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption through his blood.”(1124) Here the fall of Adam is certainly not presupposed, as of anterior date; but we have a discovery of what was decreed by God before all ages, when he determined to remedy the misery of mankind. If any adversary object again, that this design of God depended on the fall of man, which he foresaw, it is abundantly sufficient for me, that every man is proceeding with impious presumption to imagine to himself a new Christ, whoever he be that permits himself to inquire, or wishes to know, concerning Christ, any more than God has predestinated in his secret decree. And justly does Paul, after having been thus treating of the peculiar office of Christ, implore, on behalf of the Ephesians, the spirit of understanding, “that they may be able to comprehend what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge;”(1125) as though he would labour to surround our minds with barriers, that wherever mention is made of Christ, they may not decline in the smallest degree from the grace of reconciliation. Wherefore, since “this is” testified by Paul to be “a faithful saying, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,”(1126) I gladly acquiesce in it. And since the same apostle in another place informs us, that “the grace, which is now made manifest by the gospel, was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,”(1127) I conclude that I ought to persevere in the same doctrine with constancy to the end. This modesty is unreasonably censured by Osiander, who in the present age has unhappily agitated this question, which a few persons had slightly touched before. He alleges a charge of presumption against those who deny that the Son of God would have appeared in the flesh, if Adam had never fallen, because this tenet is contradicted by no testimony of Scripture; as if Paul laid no restraint on such perverse curiosity, when, after having spoken of the accomplishment of our redemption by Christ, he immediately adds this injunction: “Avoid foolish questions.”(1128) The frenzy of some, that have been desirous of appearing prodigiously acute, has proceeded to such a length as to question whether the Son of God could assume the nature of an ass. This monstrous supposition, which all pious persons justly abhor and detest, Osiander excuses under this pretext, that it is nowhere in Scripture expressly condemned; as if, when Paul esteems nothing valuable or worthy of being known but Christ crucified, he would admit an ass to be the author of salvation! Therefore he who in another place declares that Christ was appointed by the eternal decree of the Father as “the head over all,”(1129) would never acknowledge any other who had not been appointed to the office of a Redeemer.

VI. But the principle which he boasts is altogether frivolous. He maintains that man was created in the image of God, because he was formed in the similitude of the future Messiah, that he might resemble him whom the Father had already decreed to clothe with flesh. Whence he concludes that if Adam had never fallen from his primitive integrity, Christ would nevertheless have become man. How nugatory and forced this is, all who possess a sound judgment readily perceive. But he supposes that he has been the first to discover wherein the Divine image consisted; namely, that the glory of God not only shone in those eminent talents with which man was endued, but that God himself essentially resided in him. Now, though I admit that Adam bore the Divine image, inasmuch as he was united to God, which is the true and consummate perfection of dignity, yet I contend that the similitude of God is to be sought only in those characters of excellence, with which God distinguished Adam above the other creatures. And that Christ was even then the image of God, is universally allowed; and therefore whatever excellence was impressed on Adam proceeded from this circumstance, that he approached to the glory of his Maker by means of his only begotten Son. Man, therefore, was made in the image of God, and was designed to be a mirror to display the glory of his Creator. He was exalted to this degree of honour by the favour of the only begotten Son; but I add, that this Son was a common head to angels as well as to men; so that the angels also were entitled to the same dignity which was conferred on man. And when we hear them called the “children of God,”(1130) it would be unreasonable to deny that they have some resemblance to their Father. But if he designed his glory to be represented in angels as well as in men, and to be equally conspicuous in the angelic as in the human nature, Osiander betrays his ignorance and folly in saying that men were preferred to angels, because the latter did not bear the image of Christ. For they could not constantly enjoy the present contemplation of God, unless they were like him. And Paul teaches us that men are no otherwise renewed after the image of God, than that if they be associated with angels, they may be united together under one head.(1131) Finally, if we give credit to Christ, our ultimate felicity, when we shall be received into heaven, will consist in being conformed to the angels. But if Osiander may infer, that the primary exemplar of the Divine image was taken from the human nature of Christ, with the same justice may any other person contend, that Christ must have been a partaker of the nature of angels, because they likewise possess the image of God.

VII. Osiander, then, has no reason to fear, that God might possibly be proved a liar, unless the decree concerning the incarnation of his Son had been previously and immutably fixed in his mind. Because, though Adam had not fallen from his integrity, yet he would have resembled God just as the angels do; and yet it would not have been necessary on that account for the Son of God to become either a man or an angel. Nor has he any cause to fear this absurdity, that if God had not immutably decreed, before the creation of man, that Christ should be born, not as a Redeemer, but as the first man, he might lose his prerogative; whereas now he would not have become incarnate but for an accidental cause, that is, to restore mankind from ruin; so that he might thence infer, that Christ was created after the image of Adam. For why should he dread, what the Scripture so plainly teaches, that he was made like us in all things, sin excepted?(1132) whence also Luke hesitates not in his genealogy to call him “the son of Adam.”(1133) I would also wish to know why Paul styles Christ “the second Adam,”(1134) but because he was destined to become man, in order to extricate the posterity of Adam from ruin. If he sustained that capacity before the creation, he ought to have been called “the first Adam.” Osiander boldly affirms, that because Christ was already foreknown as man in the Divine mind, therefore men were formed in his likeness. But Paul, by denominating him “the second Adam,” places the fall, whence arises the necessity of restoring our nature to its primitive condition, in an intermediate point between the first original of mankind and the restitution which we obtain through Christ; whence it follows that the fall was the cause of the incarnation of the Son of God. Now, Osiander argues unreasonably and impertinently, that while Adam retained his integrity, he would be the image of himself, and not of Christ. On the contrary, I reply, that although the Son of God had never been incarnate, both the body and the soul of man would equally have displayed the image of God; in whose radiance it always appeared, that Christ was truly the head, possessing the supremacy over all. And thus we destroy that futile subtilty raised by Osiander, that the angels would have been destitute of this head, unless God had decreed to clothe his Son with flesh, even without any transgression of Adam. For he too inconsiderately takes for granted, what no wise man will concede, that Christ has no supremacy over angels, and that he is not their Prince, except in his human nature. But we may easily conclude, from the language of Paul, that, as the eternal Word of God, he is “the first‐born of every creature;”(1135) not that he was created, or ought to be numbered among creatures, but because the holy state of the world, adorned as it was at the beginning with consummate beauty, had no other author; and that afterwards, as man, he was “the first begotten from the dead.” For in one short passage he proposes to our consideration both these points—that all things were created by the Son, that he might have dominion over angels; and that he was made man, that he might become our Redeemer.(1136) Another proof of Osiander’s ignorance is his assertion, that men would not have had Christ for their King, if he had not been incarnate; as though the kingdom of God could not subsist, if the eternal Son of God, without being invested with humanity, uniting angels and men in the participation of his glorious life, had himself held the supreme dominion! But he is always deceived, or rather bewilders himself, in this false principle, that the Church would have been destitute of a head, if Christ had not been manifested in the flesh; as if, while he was head over angels, he could not likewise by his Divine power preside over men, and by the secret energy of his Spirit animate and support them, like his own body, till they should be exalted to heaven, and enjoy the life of angels! These impertinencies, which I have thus far refuted, Osiander esteems as incontrovertible oracles. Inebriated by the charms of his own speculations, he is accustomed to express himself in the language of ridiculous triumph, without any sufficient cause. But he quotes one passage more, which he asserts to be conclusive beyond all the rest; that is, the prophecy of Adam, who, when he saw his wife, said, “This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.”(1137) But how does he prove this to be a prophecy? Because Christ, according to Matthew, attributes the same language to God; as though every thing that God has spoken by men contained some prophecy! Then Osiander may seek for prophecies in each of the precepts of the law, of which it is evident God was the author. Besides, Christ would have been a low and grovelling expositor, if he had confined himself to the literal sense. Because he is treating, not of the mystical union, with which he has honoured his Church, but only of conjugal fidelity; he informs us, that God had pronounced a husband and wife to be one flesh, that no one might attempt by a divorce to violate that indissoluble bond. If Osiander be displeased with this simplicity, let him censure Christ, because he did not conduct his disciples to a mystery, by a more subtile interpretation of the language of the Father. Nor does his delirious imagination obtain any support from Paul, who, after having said that “we are members of Christ’s flesh,” immediately adds, “this is a great mystery.”(1138) For the apostle’s design was, not to explain the sense in which Adam spoke, but, under the figure and similitude of marriage, to display the sacred union which makes us one with Christ. And this is implied in his very words; for when he apprizes us that he is speaking of Christ and the Church, he introduces a kind of correction to distinguish between the law of marriage and the spiritual union of Christ and the Church. Wherefore this futile notion appears destitute of any solid foundation. Nor do I think there will be any necessity for me to discuss similar subtilties; since the vanity of them all will be discovered from the foregoing very brief refutation. But this sober declaration will be amply sufficient for the solid satisfaction of the children of God; that “when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.”(1139)

Chapter XIII. Christ’s Assumption Of Real Humanity.

The arguments for the Divinity of Christ, which has already been proved by clear and irrefragable testimonies, it would, I conceive, be unnecessary to reiterate. It remains, then, for us to examine, how, after having been invested with our flesh, he has performed the office of a Mediator. Now, the reality of his humanity was anciently opposed by the Manichæans and by the Marcionites. Of whom the latter imagined to themselves a visionary phantom instead of the body of Christ; and the former dreamed that he had a celestial body. But both these notions are contrary to numerous and powerful testimonies of Scripture. For the blessing is promised, neither in a heavenly seed, nor in a phantom of a man, but in the seed of Abraham and Jacob; nor is the eternal throne promised to an aërial man, but to the Son of David and the fruit of his loins.(1140) Wherefore, on his manifestation in the flesh, he is called the Son of David and of Abraham, not because he was merely born of the virgin after having been formed of some aërial substance; but because, according to Paul, he was “made of the seed of David according to the flesh;” as the same apostle in another place informs us, that “according to the flesh” he descended from the Jews.(1141) Wherefore the Lord himself, not content with the appellation of _man_, frequently calls himself also _the Son of Man_—a term which he intended as a more express declaration of his real humanity. As the Holy Spirit has on so many occasions, by so many instruments, and with such great diligence and simplicity, declared a fact by no means abstruse in itself, who could have supposed that any mortals would have such consummate impudence as to dare to obscure it with subtilties? But more testimonies offer themselves, if we wished to multiply them; such as this of Paul, that “God sent forth his Son made of a woman;”(1142) and innumerable others, from which he appears to have been liable to hunger, thirst, cold, and other infirmities of our nature. But from the multitude we must chiefly select those, which may conduce to the edification of our minds in true faith; as when it is said, that “he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham;” that he took flesh and blood, “that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death;” for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren; that “in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest;” that “we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities;”(1143) and the like. To the same purpose is what we have just before mentioned, that it was necessary for the sins of the world to be expiated in our flesh; which is clearly asserted by Paul.(1144) And certainly all that the Father has conferred on Christ, belongs to us, because he “is the head, from whom the whole body is fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth.”(1145) There will otherwise be no propriety in the declaration, “that God giveth the Spirit not by measure unto him, that we may all receive of his fulness;”(1146) since nothing would be more absurd, than that God should be enriched in his essence by any adventitious gift. For this reason also Christ himself says in another place, “For their sakes I sanctify myself.”(1147)

II. The passages which they adduce in confirmation of this error, they most foolishly pervert; nor do their frivolous subtilties at all avail them in their endeavours to obviate the arguments which I have advanced in defence of our sentiments. Marcion imagines that Christ invested himself with a phantom instead of a real body; because he is said to have been “made in the likeness of men,” and to have been “found in fashion as a man.”(1148) But in drawing this conclusion, he totally overlooks the scope of Paul in that passage. For his design is, not to describe the nature of the body which Christ assumed, but to assert that whilst he might have displayed his Divinity, he manifested himself in the condition of an abject and despised man. For, to exhort us to humility by the example of Christ, he shows, that being God, he might have instantaneously made a conspicuous exhibition of his glory to the world; yet that he receded from his right, and voluntarily debased himself, for that he assumed the form of a servant, and content with that humble station, suffered his Divinity to be hidden behind the veil of humanity. The subject of this statement, without doubt, is not the nature of Christ, but his conduct. From the whole context also it is easy to infer, that Christ humbled himself by the assumption of a real human nature. For what is the meaning of this clause, “that he was found in fashion as a man,” but that for a time his Divine glory was invisible, and nothing appeared but the human form, in a mean and abject condition? For otherwise there would be no foundation for this assertion of Peter, that he was “put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit,”(1149) if the Son of God had not been subject to the infirmities of human nature. This is more plainly expressed by Paul, when he says, that “he was crucified through weakness.”(1150) The same is confirmed by his exaltation, because he is positively asserted to have obtained a new glory after his humiliation; which could only be applicable to a real man composed of body and soul. Manichæus fabricates for Christ an aërial body; because he is called “the second Adam, the Lord from heaven.”(1151) But the apostle in that place is not speaking of a celestial corporeal essence, but of a spiritual energy, which, being diffused from Christ, raises us into life. That energy we have already seen that Peter and Paul distinguish from his body. The orthodox doctrine, therefore, concerning the body of Christ, is firmly established by this very passage. For unless Christ had the same corporeal nature with us, there would be no force in the argument which Paul so vehemently urges, that if Christ be risen from the dead, then we also shall rise; that if we rise not, neither is Christ risen.(1152) Of whatever cavils either the ancient Manichæans, or their modern disciples, endeavour to avail themselves, they cannot succeed. Their nugatory pretence that Christ is called “the Son of man,” because he was promised to men, is a vain subterfuge; for it is evident that in the Hebrew idiom, _the Son of man_ is a phrase expressive of a real man. And Christ undoubtedly retained the phraseology of his own language. There is no room for disputing what is meant by _the sons of Adam_. And not to go any further, it will be fully sufficient to quote a passage in the eighth psalm which the apostles apply to Christ: “What is man, that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man, that thou visitest him?” This phrase expresses the true humanity of Christ; because, though he was not immediately begotten by a mortal father, yet his descent was derived from Adam. Nor would there otherwise be any truth in what we have just quoted, that Christ became a partaker of flesh and blood, that he might bring many sons to glory—language which clearly styles him to be a partaker of the same common nature with us. In the same sense the apostle says, that “both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one.” For the context proves that this refers to a community of nature; because he immediately adds, “for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.”(1153) For if he had already said that the faithful are of God, what reason could Jesus Christ have to be ashamed of such great dignity? But because Christ, of his infinite grace, associates himself with those who are vile and contemptible, it is therefore said that he is not ashamed. It is a vain objection which they make, that on this principle the impious will become the brethren of Christ; because we know that the children of God are born, not of flesh and blood, but of the Spirit through faith; therefore a community of nature alone is not sufficient to constitute a fraternal union. But though it is only to the faithful that the apostle assigns the honour of being one with Christ, yet it does not follow that unbelievers are not, according to the flesh, born of the same original; as, when we say that Christ was made man, to make us children of God, this expression extends not to all men; because faith is the medium by which we are spiritually ingrafted into the body of Christ. They likewise raise a foolish contention respecting the appellation of _first‐born_. They plead that Christ ought to have been born at the beginning, immediately of Adam, in order “that he might be the first‐born among many brethren.”(1154) But the primogeniture attributed to him refers not to age, but to the degree of honour and the eminence of power which he enjoys. Nor is there any more plausibility in their notion, that Christ is said to have assumed the nature of man, and not of angels, because he received the human race into his favour. For the apostle, to magnify the honour with which Christ has favoured us, compares us with the angels, before whom in this respect we are preferred.(1155) And if the testimony of Moses be duly considered, where he says that the Seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent,(1156) it will decide the whole controversy. For that prediction relates not to Christ alone, but to the whole human race. Because the victory was to be gained for us by Christ, God pronounces, in general, that the posterity of the woman should be superior to the devil. Whence it follows, that Christ descended from the human race; because the design of God, in that promise to Eve, was to comfort her with a good hope, that she might not be overcome with sorrow.

III. Those passages, where Christ is called “the seed of Abraham,” and “the fruit of the body of David,” they with equal folly and wickedness involve in allegories. For if the word _seed_ had been used in an allegorical sense, Paul certainly would not have been silent respecting it, where, without any figure, he explicitly affirms, that there are not many sons of Abraham who are Redeemers, but Christ alone.(1157) Equally unfounded is their notion, that Christ is called the Son of David in no other sense, but because he had been promised, and was at length manifested in due time. For after Paul has declared him to have been “made of the seed of David,” the immediate addition of this phrase, “according to the flesh,”(1158) is certainly a designation of nature. Thus also in another place he calls him “God blessed for ever,” and distinctly states that he descended from the Jews “as concerning the flesh.”(1159) Now, if he was not really begotten of the seed of David, what is the meaning of this expression, “the fruit of his loins?”(1160) What becomes of this promise, “Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne?”(1161) They likewise trifle in a sophistical manner with the genealogy of Christ, as it is given by Matthew. For though he mentions the parents of Joseph, and not of Mary, yet as he was treating of a thing then generally known, he thought it sufficient to show that Joseph descended from the seed of David, while there could be no doubt that Mary was of the same family. But Luke goes further, with a view to signify, that the salvation procured by Christ is common to all mankind; since Christ, the author of salvation, is descended from Adam, the common parent of all. I grant, indeed, that from the genealogy it cannot be inferred that Christ is the Son of David, any otherwise than as he was born of the Virgin. But the modern Marcionites, to give a plausibility to their error, that Christ derived his body from nothing, contend that women have no generative semen; and thus they subvert the elements of nature. But as this is not a theological question, and the arguments which they adduce are so futile that there will be no difficulty in repelling them, I shall not meddle with points belonging to philosophy and the medical art. It will be sufficient for me to obviate the objection which they allege from the Scripture, namely, that Aaron and Jehoiada married wives of the tribe of Judah; and thus, if women contain generative semen, the distinction of tribes was confounded. But it is sufficiently known, that, for the purposes of political regulation, the posterity is always reckoned from the father; yet that the superiority of the male sex forms no objection to the coöperation of the female semen in the process of generation. This solution extends to all the genealogies. Frequently, when the Scripture exhibits a catalogue of names, it mentions none but men; is it therefore to be concluded that women are nothing? Even children themselves know that women are comprehended under their husbands. For this reason women are said to bear children to their husbands, because the name of the family always remains with the males. Now, as it is a privilege conceded to the superiority of the male sex, that children should be accounted noble or ignoble, according to the condition of their fathers, so, on the other hand, it is held by the lawyers, that in a state of slavery the offspring follows the condition of the mother. Whence we may infer, that the offspring is produced partly from the seed of the mother; and the common language of all nations implies that mothers have some share in the generation of children. This is in harmony with the Divine law, which otherwise would have no ground for the prohibition of the marriage of an uncle with his sister’s daughter; because in that case there would be no consanguinity. It would also be lawful for a man to marry his uterine sister, provided she were begotten by another father. But while I grant that a passive power is ascribed to women, I also maintain that the same that is affirmed of men is indiscriminately predicated of them. Nor is Christ himself said to be “made” by a woman, but “of a woman.”(1162) Some of these persons, casting off all modesty, impudently inquire, whether we choose to say that Christ was procreated from the menstrual seed of the Virgin. I will inquire, on the other hand, whether he was not united with the blood of his mother; and this they must be constrained to confess. It is properly inferred, therefore, from the language of Matthew, that inasmuch as Christ was begotten of Mary,(1163) he was procreated from her seed; as when Booz is said to have been begotten of Rahab,(1164) it denotes a similar generation. Nor is it the design of Matthew here to describe the Virgin as a tube through which Christ passed, but to discriminate this miraculous conception from ordinary generation, in that Jesus Christ was generated of the seed of David by means of a Virgin. In the same sense, and for the same reason that Isaac is said to have been begotten of Abraham, Solomon of David, and Joseph of Jacob, so Christ is said to have been begotten of his mother. For the evangelist has written the whole of his account upon this principle; and to prove that Christ descended from David, he has contented himself with this one fact, that he was begotten of Mary. Whence it follows, that he took for granted the consanguinity of Mary and Joseph.

IV. The absurdities, with which these opponents wish to press us, are replete with puerile cavils. They esteem it mean and dishonourable to Christ, that he should derive his descent from men; because he could not be exempt from the universal law, which concludes all the posterity of Adam, without exception, under sin.(1165) But the antithesis, which we find in Paul, easily solves this difficulty: “As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, even so by the righteousness of one, the grace of God hath abounded.”(1166) To this the following passage corresponds: “The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.”(1167) Therefore the same apostle, in another place, by teaching us that Christ was “sent in the likeness of sinful flesh”(1168) to satisfy the law, expressly distinguishes him from the common condition of mankind; so that he is a real man, and yet free from all fault and corruption. They betray their ignorance in arguing that, if Christ is perfectly immaculate, and was begotten of the seed of Mary, by the secret operation of the Spirit, then it follows that there is no impurity in the seed of women, but only in that of men. For we do not represent Christ as perfectly immaculate, merely because he was born of the seed of a woman unconnected with any man, but because he was sanctified by the Spirit, so that his generation was pure and holy, such as it would have been before the fall of Adam. And it is a fixed maxim with us, that whenever the Scripture mentions the purity of Christ, it relates to a real humanity; because to assert the purity of Deity would be quite unnecessary. The sanctification, also, of which he speaks in the seventeenth chapter of John,(1169) could have no reference to the Divine nature. Nor do we, as they pretend, imagine two kinds of seed in Adam, notwithstanding Christ was free from all contagion. For the generation of man is not naturally and originally impure and corrupt, but only accidentally so, in consequence of the fall. Therefore we need not wonder, that Christ, who was to restore our integrity, was exempted from the general corruption. But what they urge on us as an absurdity, that if the Word of God was clothed with flesh, it was therefore confined within the narrow prison of an earthly body, is mere impudence; because, although the infinite essence of the Word is united in one person with the nature of man, yet we have no idea of its incarceration or confinement. For the Son of God miraculously descended from heaven, yet in such a manner that he never left heaven; he chose to be miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin, to live on the earth, and to be suspended on the cross; and yet he never ceased to fill the universe, in the same manner as from the beginning.

Chapter XIV. The Union Of The Two Natures Constituting The Person Of The Mediator.

When it is said that “the Word was made flesh,”(1170) this is not to be understood as if the Word was transmuted into flesh, or blended with flesh. Choosing from the womb of the Virgin a temple for his residence, he who was the Son of God, became also the Son of man, not by a confusion of substance, but by a unity of person. For we assert such a connection and union of the Divinity with the humanity, that each nature retains its properties entire, and yet both together constitute one Christ. If any thing among men can be found to resemble so great a mystery, man himself appears to furnish the most apposite similitude; being evidently composed of two substances, of which, however, neither is so confounded with the other, as not to retain its distinct nature. For the soul is not the body, nor is the body the soul. Wherefore that is predicated separately of the soul, which cannot be at all applied to the body. On the contrary, that is predicated of the body, which is totally incompatible with the soul. And that is predicated of the whole man, which cannot with propriety be understood either of the soul or of the body alone. Lastly, the properties of the soul are transferred to the body, and the properties of the body to the soul; yet he that is composed of these two parts is no more than one man. Such forms of expression signify that there is in man one person composed of two distinct parts; and that there are two different natures united in him to constitute that one person. The Scriptures speak in a similar manner respecting Christ. They attribute to him, sometimes those things which are applicable merely to his humanity; sometimes those things which belong peculiarly to his Divinity; and not unfrequently those things which comprehend both his natures, but are incompatible with either of them alone. And this union of the two natures in Christ they so carefully maintain, that they sometimes attribute to one what belongs to the other—a mode of expression which the ancient writers called a communication of properties.

II. These things might be liable to objection, if the Scripture did not abound with passages, which prove that none of them is of human invention. What Christ asserted concerning himself, “Before Abraham was, I am,”(1171) was very inapplicable to his humanity. I am aware of the cavil with which erroneous spirits would corrupt this passage,—that he was before all ages, because he was even then foreknown as the Redeemer, as well in the decree of the Father, as in the minds of the faithful. But as he clearly distinguishes the day of his manifestation from his eternal essence, and professedly urges his antiquity, in proof of his possessing an authority in which he excels Abraham, there is no doubt that he challenges to himself what is peculiar to the Deity. Paul asserts him to be “the first‐ born of every creature, that he is before all things, and that by him all things consist:”(1172) he declares himself, that he “had a glory with the Father before the world was,”(1173) and that he coöperates with the Father.(1174) These things are equally incompatible with humanity. It is certain that these, and such as these, are peculiar attributes of Divinity. But when he is called the “servant” of the Father;(1175) when it is stated that he “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man;”(1176) that he seeks not his own glory; that he knows not the last day; that he speaks not of himself; that he does not his own will; that he was seen and handled;(1177) all this belongs solely to his humanity. For as he is God, he is incapable of any augmentation whatever; he does all things for his own glory, and there is nothing concealed from him; he does all things according to the decision of his own will, and is invisible and intangible. And yet he ascribes these things not to his human nature separately, but to himself, as though they belonged to the person of the Mediator. But the communication of properties is exemplified in the assertion of Paul that “God purchased the Church with his own blood,”(1178) and that “the Lord of glory” was “crucified.”(1179) Also in what John says, that they had “handled the Word of life.”(1180) God has no blood; he is not capable of suffering, or of being touched with hands; but since he, who was at once the true God and the man Christ Jesus, was crucified and shed his blood for us, those things which were performed in his human nature are improperly, yet not without reason, transferred to the Divinity. There is a similar example of this, where John teaches us, that “God laid down his life for us.”(1181) There also the property of the humanity is transferred to the other nature. Again, when Christ, while he still lived on the earth, said, “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven:”(1182) as man, and in the body which he had assumed, he certainly was not at that time in heaven, but because he was both God and man, on account of the union of both natures, he attributed to one what belonged to the other.

III. But the clearest of all the passages declarative of the true substance of Christ are those which comprehend both the natures together; such as abound in the Gospel of John. For it is not with exclusive reference to the Deity or the humanity, but respecting the complex person composed of both, that we find it there stated; that he has received of the Father power to forgive sins, to raise up whom he will, to bestow righteousness, holiness, and salvation; that he is appointed to be the Judge of the living and the dead, that he may receive the same honour as the Father;(1183) finally, that he is “the light of the world,” “the good shepherd,” “the only door,” “the true vine.”(1184) For with such prerogatives was the Son of God invested at his manifestation in the flesh; which although he enjoyed with the Father before the creation of the world, yet not in the same manner or on the same account; and which could not be conferred on a mere man. In the same sense also it is reasonable to understand the declaration of Paul, that after the last judgment Christ “shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father.”(1185) Now, the kingdom of the Son of God, which had no beginning, will never have any end. But as he concealed himself under the meanness of the flesh, and humbled himself by assuming the form of a servant, and laid aside his external majesty in obedience to the Father,(1186) and after having undergone this humiliation, was at length crowned with glory and honour, and exalted to supreme dominion,(1187) that before him “every knee should bow;”(1188) so he shall then surrender to the Father that name and crown of glory, and all that he has received from the Father, “that God may be all in all.”(1189) For why has power and dominion been given to him, but that the Father may rule us by his hand? In this sense he is also said to sit at the right hand of the Father. But this is only temporary, till we can enjoy the immediate contemplation of the Deity. And here it is impossible to excuse the error of the ancients, who, for want of sufficient attention to the person of the Mediator, obscure the genuine sense of almost all the doctrine which we have in the Gospel of John, and involve themselves in many difficulties. Let this maxim, then, serve us as a key to the true sense, that those things which relate to the office of the Mediator, are not spoken simply of his Divine or of his human nature. Christ therefore will reign, till he comes to judge the world, forasmuch as he connects us with the Father as far as is compatible with our infirmity. But when we shall participate the glory of heaven, and see God as he is, then, having fulfilled the office of Mediator, he will cease to be the ambassador of the Father, and will be content with that glory which he enjoyed before the creation of the world. Nor is the title of Lord peculiarly applied to the person of Christ in any other respect, than as it marks an intermediate station between God and us. This is the meaning of that expression of Paul, “One God, of whom are all things; and one Lord, by whom are all things;”(1190) namely, to whom the Father has committed a temporary dominion, till we shall be admitted to the immediate presence of his Divine majesty; which will be so far from sustaining any diminution by his surrender of the kingdom to the Father, that it will exhibit itself in far superior splendour. For then also God will cease to be the head of Christ, because the Deity of Christ himself, which is still covered with a veil, will shine forth in all its native effulgence.

IV. And this observation, if the reader make a judicious application of it, will be of great use towards the solution of many difficulties. For it is surprising how much ignorant persons, and even some who are not altogether destitute of learning, are perplexed by such forms of expression, as they find attributed to Christ, which are not exactly appropriate either to his Divinity or to his humanity. This is for want of considering that they are applicable to his complex person, consisting of God and man, and to his office of Mediator. And indeed we may see the most beautiful coherence between all these things, if they have only a sober expositor, to examine such great mysteries with becoming reverence. But these furious and frantic spirits throw every thing into confusion. They lay hold of the properties of his humanity, to destroy his Divinity; on the other hand, they catch at the attributes of his Divinity, to destroy his humanity; and by what is spoken of both natures united, but is applicable separately to neither, they attempt to destroy both. Now, what is this but to contend that Christ is not man, because he is God; that he is not God, because he is man; and that he is neither man nor God, because he is at once both man and God? We conclude, therefore, that Christ, as he is God and man, composed of these two natures united, yet not confounded, is our Lord and the true Son of God, even in his humanity; though not on account of his humanity. For we ought carefully to avoid the error of Nestorius, who, attempting rather to divide than to distinguish the two natures, thereby imagined a double Christ. This we find clearly contradicted by the Scripture, where the appellation of “the Son of God” is given to him who was born of the Virgin, and the Virgin herself is called “the mother of our Lord.”(1191) We must also beware of the error of Eutyches, lest while we aim to establish the unity of Christ’s person, we destroy the distinction of his two natures. For we have already cited so many testimonies, where his Divinity is distinguished from his humanity, and the Scripture abounds with so many others, that they may silence even the most contentious. I shall shortly subjoin some, in order to a more complete refutation of that notion. At present one passage shall suffice us; for Christ would not have styled his body “a temple,”(1192) if it had not been the residence of the Divinity, and at the same time distinct from it. Wherefore, as Nestorius was justly condemned in the council of Ephesus, so also was Eutyches afterwards in the councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon; for to confound the two natures in Christ, and to separate them, are equally wrong.

V. But in our time also there has arisen a heretic equally pestilent, Michael Servetus, who in the place of the Son of God has substituted an imaginary being composed of the essence of God, spirit, flesh, and three uncreated elements. In the first place, he denies Christ to be the Son of God, in any other respect than as he was begotten by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin. But his subtlety tends to subvert the distinction of the two natures, and thereby to represent Christ as something composed of God and man, and yet neither God nor man. For this is the principal point which he constantly endeavours to establish, that before Christ was manifested in the flesh, there were in God only some shadowy figures; the truth or effect of which had no real existence till the Word, who had been destined to this honour, actually began to be the Son of God. Now, we confess that the Mediator, who was born of the Virgin, is properly the Son of God. Nor indeed could the man Christ be a mirror of the inestimable grace of God, if this dignity had not been conferred on him, to be, and to be called, “the only begotten Son of God.” The doctrine of the Church, however, remains unshaken, that he is accounted the Son of God, because, being the Word begotten by the Father before all ages, he assumed the human nature in a hypostatical union. By the “hypostatical union” the ancients expressed the combination of two natures constituting one person. It was invented to refute the error of Nestorius, who imagined the Son of God to have dwelt in flesh in such a manner as, notwithstanding that, to have had no real humanity. Servetus falsely accuses us of making two Sons of God, when we say that the eternal Word was the Son of God, before he was clothed with flesh; as though we affirmed any other than that he was manifested in the flesh. For if he was God before he became man, it is not to be inferred that he began to be a new God. There is no more absurdity in affirming that the Son of God appeared in the flesh, who nevertheless was always the Son of God by eternal generation. This is implied in the words of the angel to Mary: “That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God;”(1193) as though he had said, that the name of the Son, which had been in obscurity under the law, was about to be celebrated and universally known. Consistent with this is the representation of Paul; that through Christ we are the sons of God, and may freely and confidently cry, Abba, Father.(1194) But were not the holy patriarchs in ancient times numbered among the children of God? Yes; and depending on this claim, they invoked God as their Father. But because, since the introduction of the only begotten Son of God into the world, the celestial paternity has been more clearly revealed, Paul mentions this as the privilege of the kingdom of Christ. It must, however, be steadily maintained, that God never was a Father, either to angels or to men, but with reference to his only begotten Son; and especially that men, whom their own iniquity renders odious to God, are his sons by gratuitous adoption, because Christ is his Son by nature. Nor is there any force in the cavil of Servetus, that this depends on the filiation which God has decreed in himself; because we are not here treating of figures, as expiation was represented by the blood of the sacrifices: but as they could not be the sons of God in reality, unless their adoption were founded on this head, it is unreasonable to detract from the head, that which is common to all the members. I go further: since the Scripture calls angels “the children of God,”(1195) whose enjoyment of such high dignity depended not on the future redemption, yet it is necessary that Christ should precede them in order, seeing it is by him that they are connected with the Father. I will briefly repeat this observation, and apply the same to the human race. Since angels and men were originally created in such a condition, that God was the common Father of both, if there be any truth in the assertion of Paul, “that Christ was before all things, the head of the body, and the first‐born of every creature, that in all things he might have the preëminence,”(1196) I conceive I am right in concluding, that he was also the Son of God before the creation of the world.

VI. But if his filiation (so to speak) commenced at the time of his manifestation in the flesh, it will follow that he was the Son also in respect of his human nature. Servetus and other heretics maintain that Christ, who appeared in the flesh, was the Son of God; because out of the flesh he could not be entitled to this appellation. Now, let them answer me, whether he be the Son according to both natures, and in respect of both. So indeed they idly pretend; but Paul teaches us very differently. We confess that Christ is called “the Son” in his human nature, not as the faithful are, merely by adoption and grace, but the true and natural, and therefore the only Son; that by this character he may be distinguished from all others. For we, who are regenerated to a new life, are honoured by God with the title of sons; but the appellation of “his true and only begotten Son” he gives to Christ alone. But among such a multitude of brethren, how can he be the only Son, unless he possess by nature what we have received as a gift? And we extend this honour to the whole person of the Mediator, that he who was born of the Virgin, and offered himself on the cross as a victim to the Father, is truly and properly the Son of God; but nevertheless with respect to his Deity, as Paul suggests, when he says that he was “separated unto the gospel of God, which he had promised afore, concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power.”(1197) When he distinctly denominates him the Son of David according to the flesh, why should he particularly say that he was declared to be the Son of God with power, unless he intended to suggest that this dignity depended not on that flesh, but on something else? For in the same sense in which he says in another place that “he was crucified through weakness, yet that he liveth by the power of God,” so in this passage he introduces the difference between the two natures. They certainly must be constrained to admit, that as he has received of his mother that which causes him to be called the Son of David, so he has from his Father that which constitutes him the Son of God, and that this is something distinct and different from his humanity. The Scripture distinguishes him by two names, calling him sometimes “the Son of God,” sometimes “the Son of man.” With respect to the latter, it cannot be disputed that he is styled the “Son of man,” in conformity to the common idiom of the Hebrew language, because he is one of the posterity of Adam. I contend, on the other hand, that he is denominated “the Son of God” on account of his Deity and eternal existence; because it is equally reasonable that the appellation of “Son of God” should be referred to the Divine nature, as that that of “Son of man” should be referred to the human nature. In short, in the passage which I have cited, “that he, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, was declared to be the Son of God with power,” Paul intends the same as he teaches us in another place, that “Christ, who as concerning the flesh came of the Jews, is God blessed for ever.” But if the distinction of the two natures be expressed in both these passages, by what authority will they deny that he is the Son of God in respect of his Divine nature, who according to the flesh is likewise the Son of man?

VII. They clamorously urge in support of their error that God is said “not to have spared his own Son,”(1198) and that the angel directed that the very same who was to be born of the Virgin, should be called “the Son of the Highest.”(1199) But to prevent their glorying in so futile an objection, let them accompany us in a brief examination of the validity of their reasoning. For if it be rightly concluded, that he began to be the Son of God at his conception, because he that is conceived is called his Son, it will follow that he began to be the Word at his manifestation in the flesh, because John tells us that “he declares that, which his hands have handled, of the Word of life.”(1200) So when they read the following address of the prophet, “Thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting, or from the days of eternity,”(1201) what interpretation will they be obliged to adopt, if they determine to pursue such a mode of argumentation? For I have declared that we by no means coincide with Nestorius, who imagined two Christs. According to our doctrine, Christ has made us the sons of God, together with himself, by the privilege of a fraternal union, because he is, in our nature which he assumed, the only begotten Son of God. And Augustine judiciously apprizes us, “that it is an illustrious mirror of the wonderful and singular grace of God, that Jesus Christ, considered as man, obtained honour which he could not merit.” From his very birth, therefore, was Christ adorned, even in his human nature, with the dignity of being the Son of God. Yet in the unity of person we must not imagine such a confusion, as to destroy that which is peculiar to Deity. For it is no more unreasonable, that the eternal Word of God and the man Christ Jesus, the two natures being united into one person, should be called the Son of God in different senses, than that he should be styled, in various respects, sometimes the Son of God, sometimes the Son of man. Nor are we any more embarrassed with the other cavil of Servetus, that before Christ appeared in the flesh, he is no where called the Son of God, but in a figurative sense. For though the description of him then was rather obscure, yet since it has now been clearly proved, that he was the eternal God no otherwise than as he was the Word begotten of the eternal Father, and that this name is applicable to him in the character of Mediator which he has assumed, only because he is God manifested in the flesh; and that God the Father would not have been thus denominated from the beginning, unless there had even then been a mutual relation to the Son, who is the source of all kindred or paternity in heaven and in earth;(1202) the inference is clear, that even under the law and the prophets he was the Son of God, before this name was commonly used in the Church. If the contention be merely about the word, Solomon, in speaking of the infinite sublimity of God, affirms his Son to be incomprehensible as well as himself: “What is his name,” says he, “and what is his Son’s name, if thou canst tell?”(1203) I am aware that this testimony will not have sufficient weight with contentious persons, nor indeed do I lay much stress on it, only that it fixes the charge of a malicious cavil on those who deny that Christ is the Son of God, any otherwise than because he has become man. It must also be remarked that all the most ancient writers have with one accord so unequivocally asserted the same doctrine, that it argues impudence equally ridiculous and detestable in those who dare to represent us as opposing Irenæus and Tertullian, who both acknowledge that Jesus Christ, who at length made a visible appearance, was always the invisible Son of God.

VIII. But although Servetus has accumulated many horrible and monstrous notions, to which some of his brethren, perhaps, would refuse to subscribe, yet, whoever they are that acknowledge not Christ to be the Son of God, except in the human nature, if we press them closely, we shall find that this title is admitted by them on no other ground than because he was conceived of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin; as the Manichæans formerly pretended that man received his soul by emanation from God, because it is said that God breathed into Adam the breath of life.(1204) For they lay such stress on the name of Son, that they leave no difference between the two natures, but tell us, in a confused manner, that Christ is the Son of God, considered as man, because his human nature was begotten by God. Thus the eternal generation of Wisdom, of which Solomon speaks,(1205) is destroyed, and no notice is taken of the Deity in the Mediator, or a phantom is substituted instead of his humanity. It might indeed be useful to refute the grosser fallacies of Servetus, with which he has fascinated himself and others, that the pious reader, admonished by this example, may preserve himself within the bounds of sobriety and modesty; yet I conceive this will be unnecessary here, as I have already done it in a separate treatise. The substance of them all is, that the Son of God was from the beginning an ideal existence, and that even then he was predestinated to be a man who was to be the essential image of God. Nor does he acknowledge any other word of God than what consists in an external splendour. His generation he explains thus: that there existed in God from the beginning a will to beget a Son, which was carried into effect by his actual formation. He likewise confounds the Spirit with the Word, by asserting that God distributed the invisible Word and Spirit into body and soul. In short, he puts the prefiguration of Christ in the place of his generation; and affirms that he who was then in external appearance a shadowy Son, was at length begotten by the Word, to which he attributes the properties of seed. Whence it will follow, that the meanest animals are equally the children of God, because they were created of the original seed of the Word of God. For though he compounds Christ of three uncreated elements, to countenance the assertion that he is begotten of the essence of God, yet he pretends him to have been the first‐born among creatures in such a sense, that even inanimate substances, according to their rank, possess the same essential Divinity. And that he may not seem to despoil Christ of his Deity, he asserts that his flesh is coëssential with God, and that the Word was made flesh by a conversion of the humanity into Deity. Thus, while he cannot conceive Christ to be the Son of God, unless his flesh proceeded from the essence of God, and were reconverted into Deity, he annihilates the eternal hypostasis of the Word, and deprives us of the Son of David, the promised Redeemer. He frequently indeed repeats this, that the Son was begotten of God by knowledge and predestination, but that at length he was made man of those materials, which in the beginning appeared with God in the three elements, and which afterwards appeared in the first light of the world, in the cloud, and in the pillar of fire. Now, how shamefully he contradicts himself, it would be too tedious to relate. From this summary the judicious reader will conclude, that by the subtle fallacies of this heretic, the hope of salvation is completely extinguished. For if the body were the Deity itself, it would no longer be the temple of it. Now, we can have no Redeemer, except him who became man, by being really begotten of the seed of Abraham and David according to the flesh. Servetus makes a very improper use of the language of John, that “the word was made flesh;” for while it opposes the error of Nestorius, it is as far from affording the least countenance to this impious notion, which originated with Eutyches. The sole design of the evangelist was, to assert the union of the two natures in one person.

Chapter XV. The Consideration Of Christ’s Three Offices, Prophetical, Regal, And Sacerdotal, Necessary To Our Knowing The End Of His Mission From The Father, And The Benefits Which He Confers On Us.

It is a just observation of Augustine, that although heretics profess the name of Christ, yet he is not a foundation to them in common with the pious, but remains exclusively the foundation of the Church; because, on a diligent consideration of what belongs to Christ, Christ will be found among them only in name, not in reality. Thus the Papists in the present age, although the name of the Son of God, the Redeemer of the world, be frequently in their mouths, yet since they are contented with the mere name, and despoil him of his power and dignity, these words of Paul, “not holding the head,”(1206) are truly applicable to them. Therefore, that faith may find in Christ a solid ground of salvation, and so may rely on him, it is proper for us to establish this principle, that the office which was assigned to him by the Father consists of three parts. For he was given as a Prophet, a King, and a Priest; though we should derive but little benefit from an acquaintance with these names, unaccompanied with a knowledge of their end and use. For they are likewise pronounced among the Papists, but in a frigid and unprofitable manner, while they are ignorant of what is included in each of these titles. We have before observed, that although God sent prophets one after another in a continual succession, and never left his people destitute of useful instruction, such as was sufficient for salvation, yet the minds of the pious were always persuaded, that the full light of understanding was not to be expected till the advent of the Messiah. And that this opinion had even reached the Samaritans, notwithstanding they had never been acquainted with the true religion, appears from the speech of the woman: “When Messias is come, he will tell us all things.”(1207) Nor had the Jews entertained this sentiment without sufficient ground, but believed as they had been taught by infallible oracles. One of the most remarkable is this passage of Isaiah: “Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people;”(1208) just as he had before styled him “the Wonderful Counsellor.”(1209) In the same manner the apostle, with a view to display the perfection of the evangelical doctrine, after having said, that “God at sundry times and in divers manners spake unto the fathers by the prophets,” adds, that he “hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.”(1210) But because it was the office of all the prophets to keep the Church in a state of suspense and expectation, and also to support it till the advent of the Mediator, we therefore find the faithful complaining, in their dispersion, that they were deprived of this ordinary blessing: “We see not our signs: there is no more any prophet: neither is there among us any that knoweth how long.”(1211) At length, when Christ was at no great distance, a time was prefixed for Daniel to seal up the vision and prophecy, not only to authenticate the prediction it contained, but in order that the faithful might patiently bear for a time the want of prophets, because the plenitude and conclusion of all revelations was near at hand.(1212)

II. Now, it is to be observed, that the appellation of “Christ” belongs to these three offices. For we know that under the law not only priests and kings, but prophets also, were anointed with holy oil. Hence the celebrated title of “Messiah” was given to the promised Mediator. But though I confess that he was called the Messiah with particular reference to his kingdom, as I have already shown, yet the prophetical and sacerdotal unctions have their respective places, and must not be neglected by us. The former is expressly mentioned by Isaiah in these words: “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken‐hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”(1213) We see that he was anointed by the Spirit, to be a preacher and witness of the grace of the Father; and that not in a common manner; for he is distinguished from other teachers, who held a similar office. And here again it must be remarked, that he received this unction, not only for himself, that he might perform the office of a teacher, but for his whole body, that the preaching of the gospel might continually be attended with the power of the Spirit. But it remains beyond all doubt, that by this perfection of doctrine which he has introduced, he has put an end to all prophecies; so that they who, not contented with the gospel, make any extraneous addition to it, are guilty of derogating from his authority. For that voice, which thundered from heaven, “This is my beloved Son; hear ye him,”(1214) has exalted him by a peculiar privilege above all others. From the head this unction is afterwards diffused over the members, according to the prediction of Joel: “Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy and see visions.”(1215) But the declarations of Paul, that “he is made unto us wisdom,”(1216) and that “in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,”(1217) have rather a different meaning; namely, that beside him there is nothing useful to be known, and that they who by faith apprehend him as he is, have embraced the whole infinitude of celestial blessings. For which reason he writes in another place, “I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified;”(1218) which is perfectly just, because it is unlawful to go beyond the simplicity of the gospel. And the tendency of the prophetic dignity in Christ is, to assure us that all the branches of perfect wisdom are included in the system of doctrine which he has given us.

III. I come now to his kingdom, of which it would be useless to speak, without first apprizing the reader, that it is of a spiritual nature; because thence we may gather what is its use, and what advantage it confers upon us, and in short all its power and eternity. The eternity, which the angel in Daniel ascribes to the person of Christ, the angel in Luke justly applies to the salvation of the people. But this also is twofold, or is to be considered in two points of view; one extending to the whole body of the Church, the other belonging to every individual member. To the former must be referred the following passage in the Psalms: “Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven.”(1219) There is no doubt that God here promises to be the everlasting Governor and Defender of his Church, through the medium of his Son. For the truth of this prophecy will only be found in Christ; since immediately after the death of Solomon, the dignity of the kingdom sustained a considerable degradation, the greater part of it, to the disgrace of the family of David, being transferred to a private man, and afterwards was diminished more and more, till at length it fell in a melancholy and total ruin. The same sentiment is conveyed in this exclamation of Isaiah: “Who shall declare his generation?”(1220) For when he pronounces that Christ will survive after his death, he connects his members with him. Therefore, whenever we hear that Christ is armed with eternal power, let us remember, that this is the bulwark which supports the perpetuity of the Church; that amidst the turbulent agitations with which it is incessantly harassed, and amidst the painful and formidable commotions which menace it with innumerable calamities, it may still be preserved in safety. Thus, when David derides the presumption of the enemies who attempt to break the yoke of God and of his Christ, and says, that the kings and the people rage in vain, since he that dwelleth in the heavens is sufficiently powerful to repel their violence,—he assures the faithful of the perpetual preservation of the Church, and animates them to entertain a cheerful hope, whenever it happens to be oppressed.(1221) So, in another place, when, speaking in the name of God, he says, “Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool,”(1222) he apprizes us that though numerous and powerful enemies conspire to assault the Church, yet they are not strong enough to prevail against that immutable decree of God, by which he has constituted his Son an eternal King. Whence it follows that it is impossible for the devil, with all the assistance of the world, ever to destroy the Church, which is founded on the eternal throne of Christ. Now, with respect to its particular use to each individual, this same eternity ought to encourage our hope of a blessed immortality; for we see that whatever is terrestrial and worldly is temporary and perishable. Therefore, to raise our hope towards heaven, Christ declares that his “kingdom is not of this world.”(1223) In a word, whenever we hear that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, excited by this declaration, we ought to penetrate to the hope of a better life, and as we are now protected by the power of Christ, let us expect the full benefit of this grace in the world to come.

IV. The truth of our observation, that it is impossible to perceive the nature and advantages of the kingdom of Christ, unless we know it to be spiritual, is sufficiently evident from a consideration of the hardship and misery of our condition in the state of warfare under the cross, in which we have to continue as long as we live. What advantage, then, could accrue to us from being collected under the government of the heavenly King, if the benefit of it were not to extend beyond the present state? It ought therefore to be known, that whatever felicity is promised us in Christ, consists not in external accommodations, such as a life of joy and tranquillity, abundant wealth, security from every injury, and numerous delights suited to our carnal desires, but that it is peculiar to the heavenly state. As in the world the prosperous and desirable state of a nation consists partly in domestic peace, and an abundance of all blessings, and every good, and partly in strong bulwarks to secure it from external violence, so Christ enriches his people with every thing necessary to the eternal salvation of their souls, and arms them with strength to enable them to stand invincible against all the assaults of their spiritual foes. Whence we infer that he reigns rather for us than for himself, and that both internally and externally; that being replenished, as far as God knows to be necessary for us, with the gifts of the Spirit, of which we are naturally destitute, we may perceive from these first‐fruits that we are truly united to God, in order to our perfect happiness; and in the next place, that, depending on the power of the same Spirit, we may not doubt of being always victorious over the devil, the world, and every kind of evil. This is implied in the answer of Christ to the Pharisees, that as “the kingdom of God is within” us, it “cometh not with observation.”(1224) For it is probable, that in consequence of his having professed himself to be that King, under whom the highest blessing of God was to be expected, they ludicrously desired him to display the insignia of his dignity. But to prevent them, who had otherwise too great a propensity to the world, from directing all their attention to external pomp, he commands them to enter into their own consciences, “for the kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”(1225) Here we are briefly taught what advantage results to us from the kingdom of Christ. For since it is not terrestrial or carnal, so as to be liable to corruption, but spiritual, it elevates us even to eternal life, that we may patiently pass through this life in afflictions, hunger, cold, contempt, reproaches, and other disagreeable circumstances; contented with this single assurance, that our King will never desert us, but will assist our necessities, till having completed the term of our warfare, we shall be called to the triumph; for the rule of his government is, to communicate to us whatever he has received of the Father. Now, since he furnishes and arms us with his power, adorns us with his beauty and magnificence, and enriches us with his wealth, hence we derive most abundant cause for glorying, and even confidence, to enable us to contend with intrepidity against the devil, sin, and death. In the last place, since we are clothed with his righteousness, we may boldly rise superior to all the reproaches of the world; and as he liberally replenishes us with his favours, so we ought on our part to bring forth fruit to his glory.

V. His regal unction, therefore, is not represented to us as composed of oil and aromatic perfumes; but he is called “the Christ of God,”(1226) because “the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord,”(1227) rested upon him. This is the “oil of gladness,” with which the Psalmist declares him to have been “anointed above” his “fellows;”(1228) because, if he were not possessed of such excellence, we should be all oppressed with poverty and famine. And, as we have observed, he was not enriched on his own private account, but that he might communicate his abundance to them who are hungry and thirsty. For as it is said that the Father “giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him,”(1229) so another passage expresses the reason—“that of his fulness we might all receive, and grace for grace.”(1230) From this source proceeds the munificence mentioned by Paul, by which grace is variously distributed to the faithful, “according to the measure of the gift of Christ.”(1231) These passages abundantly confirm what I have said—that the kingdom of Christ consists in the Spirit, not in terrestrial pleasures or pomps; and that, therefore, in order to be partakers of it, we must renounce the world. A visible emblem of this unction was displayed at the baptism of Christ, when the Holy Spirit rested on him in the form of a dove. That the Holy Spirit and his gifts are designated by the word unction, ought not to be esteemed either novel or absurd, because we have no other support even for our animal life; but especially as it respects the heavenly life, we have not a particle of vigour in us, but what we have received from the Holy Spirit, who has chosen his residence in Christ, that those heavenly riches, which we so greatly need, may from him be copiously distributed to us. Now, as the faithful stand invincible in the strength of their King, and are enriched with his spiritual blessings, they are justly denominated Christians. But to this eternity, of which we have spoken, there is nothing repugnant in these expressions of Paul: “Then he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father,” and “Then shall the Son himself be subject, that God may be all in all.”(1232) He only intends, that in that perfect glory the administration of the kingdom will not be the same as it is at present. For the Father has given all power to the Son, that he may guide, nourish, and sustain us by his hand, may guard us by his protection, and aid us in all our necessities. Thus, during the period of our pilgrimage, while we are absent from God, Christ interposes between us, to bring us by degrees to a perfect union with him. His being said to sit at the right hand of the Father, is equivalent to his being called the Father’s vicegerent, intrusted with all the power of the government; because it is the will of God to govern and defend his Church through the mediation of his Son. This is the explanation given by Paul to the Ephesians, that he was “set at the right hand of the Father, to be the head over all things to the Church, which is his body.”(1233) To the same purpose is what he states in another place, that there has been “given him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”(1234) For even in these words he displays the order in the kingdom of Christ necessary for our present infirmity. Thus Paul rightly concludes, that God himself will then be the only head of the Church, because the functions of Christ in the preservation and salvation of the Church will be fully discharged. For the same reason the Scripture often styles him Lord, because the Father has given him authority over us, that he may exercise his own dominion by the agency of his Son. “For though there be” many authorities celebrated in the world, “to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him,”(1235) says Paul. Whence it may justly be concluded, that he is the same God, who by the mouth of Isaiah has asserted himself to be the King and Lawgiver of his Church.(1236) For though he every where ascribes all the authority he possesses to the free gift of the Father, yet he only signifies that he reigns in the majesty and power of God; because he assumed the character of Mediator, in order to approach to us by descending from the bosom and incomprehensible glory of his Father. Wherefore it is the more reasonable that we should all with one consent be ready to obey him, and with the greatest alacrity conform all our services to his will. For as he combines the offices of a King and a Shepherd towards the faithful who yield a voluntary obedience, so, on the contrary, we are informed, that he bears “a rod of iron” to “break” all the stubborn and rebellious, and to “dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”(1237) It is likewise predicted that “he shall judge among the heathen; he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.”(1238) Of this there are some instances to be seen in the present state, but the complete accomplishment of it will be at the last judgment, which may also with propriety be considered as the last act of his reign.

VI. Concerning his priesthood, we have briefly to remark, that the end and use of it is, that he may be a Mediator pure from every stain, and by his holiness may render us acceptable to God. But because the righteous curse prevents our access to him, and God in his character of Judge is offended with us,—in order that our Priest may appease the wrath of God, and procure his favour for us, there is a necessity for the intervention of an atonement. Wherefore, that Christ might perform this office, it was necessary for him to appear with a sacrifice. For even under the law the priest was not permitted to enter the sanctuary without blood; that the faithful might know, that notwithstanding the interposition of the Priest as an intercessor, yet it was impossible for God to be propitiated without the expiation of sins. This subject the apostle discusses at large in the Epistle to the Hebrews, from the seventh chapter almost to the end of the tenth. But the sum of the whole is this—that the sacerdotal dignity belongs exclusively to Christ, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has abolished our guilt, and made satisfaction for our sins. The vast importance of this we are taught by that solemn oath which “the Lord hath sworn, and will not repent; Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec.”(1239) For there is no doubt that God intended to establish that capital point, which he knew to be the principal hinge on which our salvation turns. And as we have observed, there is no access to God, either for ourselves or our prayers, unless our Priest sanctify us by taking away our sins, and obtain for us that grace from which we are excluded by the pollution of our vices and crimes. Thus, we see, it is necessary to begin with the death of Christ, in order to experience the efficacy and utility of his priesthood. Hence it follows, that he is an eternal intercessor, and that it is by his intervention we obtain favour with God. Hence proceeds not only confidence in prayer, but also tranquillity to the consciences of the faithful; while they recline in safety on the paternal indulgence of God, and are certainly persuaded, that he is pleased with whatever is consecrated to him through the Mediator. Now, as under the law God commanded victims to be offered to him from the flock and the herd, a new and different method has been adopted in the case of Christ, that the sacrifice should be the same with the priest; because it was impossible to find any other adequate satisfaction for sins, or any one worthy of so great an honour as to offer to God his only begotten Son. Besides, Christ sustains the character of a Priest, not only to render the Father favourable and propitious to us by an eternal law of reconciliation, but also to associate us with himself in so great an honour. For we, who are polluted in ourselves, being “made priests”(1240) in him, offer ourselves and all our services to God, and enter boldly into the heavenly sanctuary, so that the sacrifices of prayers and praise, which proceed from us, are “acceptable,” and “a sweet‐ smelling savour”(1241) in the Divine presence. This is included in the declaration of Christ, “For their sakes I sanctify myself;”(1242) for being arrayed in his holiness, he having dedicated us, together with himself, to the Father, we, who are otherwise offensive in his sight, become acceptable to him, as pure, unpolluted, and holy. This is the meaning of the “anointing of the Most Holy,”(1243) which is mentioned in Daniel. For we must observe the contrast between this unction and that shadowy unction which was then in use; as though the angel had said, that the shadows would be dissipated, and that there would be a real priesthood in the person of Christ. So much the more detestable is the invention of those, who, not content with the priesthood of Christ, have presumed to take upon themselves the office of sacrificing him; which is daily attempted among the Papists, where the mass is considered as an immolation of Christ.

Chapter XVI. Christ’s Execution Of The Office Of A Redeemer To Procure Our Salvation. His Death, Resurrection, And Ascension To Heaven.

All that we have hitherto advanced concerning Christ is to be referred to this point, that being condemned, dead, and ruined in ourselves, we should seek righteousness, deliverance, life, and salvation in him; as we are taught by this remarkable declaration of Peter, that “there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”(1244) The name of JESUS was given him, not rashly or by a fortuitous accident, or by the will of men, but was brought from heaven by the angel, the herald of the supreme decree, and also with this reason annexed to it: “for he shall save his people from their sins;”(1245) in which words may be remarked, what we have before hinted, that the office of a Redeemer was assigned to him in order that he might be our Saviour. Nevertheless, the redemption would be incomplete, if he did not by continual advances carry us forward to the ultimate end of salvation. Therefore, as soon as we deviate from him, though but in the smallest degree, we gradually lose sight of salvation, which resides entirely in him; so that those who are not satisfied with him, voluntarily deprive themselves of all grace. And the following observation of Bernard is worthy of recital: “that the name of Jesus is not only light, but also food; that it is likewise oil, without which all the food of the soul is dry; that it is salt, unseasoned by which, whatever is presented to us is insipid; finally, that it is honey in the mouth, melody in the ear, joy in the heart, and medicine to the soul; and that there are no charms in any discourse where his name is not heard.” But here we ought diligently to examine how he has procured salvation for us; that we may not only know him to be the author of it, but, embracing those things which are sufficient for the establishment of our faith, may reject every thing capable of drawing us aside to the right hand or to the left. For since no man can descend into himself and seriously consider his own character, without perceiving that God is angry with him and hostile to him, and consequently he must find himself under a necessity of anxiously seeking some way to appease him, which can never be done without a satisfaction,—this is a case in which the strongest assurance is required. For sinners, till they be delivered from guilt, are always subject to the wrath and malediction of God, who, being a righteous Judge, never suffers his law to be violated with impunity, but stands prepared to avenge it.

II. Before we proceed any further, let us examine, by the way, how it could be consistent, that God, who prevents us with his mercy, should be our enemy, till he was reconciled to us by Christ. For how could he have given us a special pledge of his love in his only begotten Son, if he had not previously embraced us in his gratuitous favour? As there is some appearance of contradiction, therefore, in this representation, I shall solve the difficulty. The Spirit speaks in the Scriptures nearly in this manner—That God was an enemy to men, till by the death of Christ they were restored to his favour;(1246) that they were under the curse till their iniquity was expiated by his sacrifice;(1247) that they were separated from God, till they were restored to union with him by the body of Christ.(1248) Such modes of expression are accommodated to our capacity, that we may better understand how miserable and calamitous our condition is, out of Christ. For if it were not clearly expressed, that we are obnoxious to the wrath and vengeance of God, and to eternal death, we should not so fully discover how miserable we must be without the Divine mercy, nor should we so highly estimate the blessing of deliverance. For example; let any man be addressed in the following manner: “If, while you remained a sinner, God had hated you, and rejected you according to your demerits, horrible destruction would have befallen you; but because he has voluntarily, and of his own gratuitous kindness, retained you in his favour, and not permitted you to be alienated from him, he has thus delivered you from that danger;” he will be affected, and will in some measure perceive how much he is indebted to the Divine mercy. But if, on the contrary, he be told, what the Scripture teaches, “that he was alienated from God by sin, an heir of wrath, obnoxious to the punishment of eternal death, excluded from all hope of salvation, a total stranger to the Divine blessing, a slave to Satan, a captive under the yoke of sin, and, in a word, condemned to, and already involved in, a horrible destruction; that in this situation, Christ interposed as an intercessor; that he has taken upon himself and suffered the punishment which by the righteous judgment of God impended over all sinners; that by his blood he has expiated those crimes which render them odious to God; that by this expiation God the Father has been satisfied and duly atoned; that by this intercessor his wrath has been appeased; that this is the foundation of peace between God and men; that this is the bond of his benevolence towards them;” will he not be the more affected by these things in proportion to the more correct and lively representation of the depth of calamity from which he has been delivered? In short, since it is impossible for the life which is presented by the mercy of God, to be embraced by our hearts with sufficient ardour, or received with becoming gratitude, unless we have been previously terrified and distressed with the fear of the Divine wrath, and the horror of eternal death, we are instructed by the sacred doctrine, that irrespective of Christ we may contemplate God as in some measure incensed against us, and his hand armed for our destruction, and that we may embrace his benevolence and paternal love only in Christ.

III. Now, though this is expressed according to the weakness of our capacity, yet it is strictly true. For God, who is the perfection of righteousness, cannot love iniquity, which he beholds in us all. We all, therefore, have in us that which deserves God’s hatred. Wherefore, in respect of our corrupt nature, and the succeeding depravity of our lives, we are all really offensive to God, guilty in his sight, and born to the damnation of hell. But because the Lord will not lose in us that which is his own, he yet discovers something that his goodness may love. For notwithstanding we are sinners through our own fault, yet we are still his creatures; notwithstanding we have brought death upon ourselves, yet he had created us for life. Thus, by a pure and gratuitous love towards us, he is excited to receive us into favour. But if there is a perpetual and irreconcilable opposition between righteousness and iniquity, he cannot receive us entirely, as long as we remain sinners. Therefore, to remove all occasion of enmity, and to reconcile us completely to himself, he abolishes all our guilt, by the expiation exhibited in the death of Christ, that we, who before were polluted and impure, may appear righteous and holy in his sight. The love of God the Father therefore precedes our reconciliation in Christ; or rather it is because he first loves, that he afterwards reconciles us to himself.(1249) But because, till Christ relieves us by his death, we are not freed from that iniquity which deserves the indignation of God, and is accursed and condemned in his sight; we have not a complete and solid union with God, before we are united to him by Christ. And therefore, if we would assure ourselves that God is pacified and propitious to us, we must fix our eyes and hearts on Christ alone, since it is by him only that we really obtain the non‐ imputation of sins, the imputation of which is connected with the Divine wrath.

IV. For this reason Paul says, that the love which God had for us before the creation of the world, was founded on Christ.(1250) This doctrine is clear, and consistent with the Scripture, and admirably reconciles the different passages, where it is said, that God manifested his love to us by the gift of his only begotten Son,(1251) and yet that he was our enemy till he was reconciled by the death of Christ.(1252) But for a further confirmation of it, to such as require the testimony of the ancient Church, I will cite a passage from Augustine, which expressly maintains the same. “The love of God,” says he, “is incomprehensible and immutable. For he did not begin to love us when we were reconciled to him by the blood of his Son, but he loved us before the creation of the world, that we might be his children, together with his only begotten Son, even before we had any existence. Therefore our reconciliation by the death of Christ must not be understood as if he reconciled us to God, that God might begin to love those whom he had before hated; but we are reconciled to him who already loved us, but with whom we were at enmity on account of sin. And whether my assertion be true, let the apostle attest. ‘God,’ says he, ‘commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.’(1253) He loved us, therefore, even when we were in the exercise of enmity against him, and engaged in the practice of iniquity. Wherefore, in a wonderful and Divine manner, he both hated and loved us at the same time. He hated us, as being different from what he had made us; but as our iniquity had not entirely destroyed his work in us, he could at the same time in every one of us hate what we had done, and love what proceeded from himself.” This is the language of Augustine.

V. Now, in answer to the inquiry, how Christ, by the abolition of our sins, has destroyed the enmity between God and us, and procured a righteousness to render him favourable and propitious to us, it may be replied in general, that he accomplished it for us by the whole course of his obedience. This is proved by the testimony of Paul. “As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”(1254) And indeed in another place he extends the cause of the pardon, which exempts us from the malediction of the law, to the whole life of Christ. “When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.”(1255) Thus he himself affirmed even his baptism to be a branch of his righteousness, because he acted in obedience to the command of the Father.(1256) In short, from the time of his assuming the character of a servant, he began to pay the price of our deliverance in order to redeem us. Yet more precisely to define the means of our salvation, the Scripture ascribes this in a peculiar manner to the death of Christ. He himself announces, that he “gives his life a ransom for many.”(1257) Paul teaches that “he died for our sins.”(1258) John the Baptist exclaims, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world!”(1259) Paul in another place declares, that we are “justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.”(1260) Also that we are “justified by his blood,” and “reconciled by his death.”(1261) Again: “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”(1262) I shall not proceed with all the proofs, because the catalogue would be immense, and many of them must hereafter be cited in their proper order. Wherefore, in what is called the Apostles’ Creed, there is very properly an immediate transition from the birth of Christ to his death and resurrection, in which the sum of perfect salvation consists. Yet there is no exclusion of the rest of the obedience which he performed in his life; as Paul comprehends the whole of it, from the beginning to the end, when he says, that “he made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”(1263) And indeed his voluntary submission is the principal circumstance even in his death; because the sacrifice, unless freely offered, would have been unavailable to the acquisition of righteousness. Therefore our Lord, after having declared, “I lay down my life for the sheep,” expressly adds, “No man taketh it from me.”(1264) In which sense Isaiah says, “As a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.”(1265) And the evangelical history relates, that he went forth to meet the soldiers,(1266) and that before Pilate he neglected making any defence, and waited to submit to the sentence.(1267) Nor was this without inward conflict, because he had taken our infirmities, and it was necessary to give this proof of his obedience to his Father. And it was no mean specimen of his incomparable love to us, to contend with horrible fear, and amid those dreadful torments to neglect all care of himself, that he might promote our benefit. Indeed we must admit, that it was impossible for God to be truly appeased in any other way, than by Christ renouncing all concern for himself, and submitting and devoting himself entirely to his will. On this subject the apostle appositely cites the testimony of the Psalmist: “Then said I, Lo, I come; in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart.”(1268) But since terrified consciences find no rest but in a sacrifice and ablution to expiate their sins, we are properly directed thither, and the death of Christ is exhibited to us as the source of life. Now, because our guilt rendered us liable to a curse at the heavenly tribunal of God, the condemnation of Christ before Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea, is stated in the first place, that we may know that on this righteous person was inflicted the punishment which belonged to us. We could not escape the terrible judgment of God; to deliver us from it, Christ submitted to be condemned even before a wicked and profane mortal. For the name of the governor is mentioned, not only to establish the credit of the history, but that we may learn, what is taught by Isaiah, that “the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”(1269) For to supersede our condemnation it was not sufficient for him to suffer any kind of death; but, to accomplish our redemption, that kind of death was to be chosen, by which, both sustaining our condemnation and atoning for our sins, he might deliver us from both. Had he been assassinated by robbers, or murdered in a popular tumult, in such a death there would have been no appearance of satisfaction. But when he is placed as a criminal before the tribunal,—when he is accused and overpowered by the testimony of witnesses, and by the mouth of the judge is condemned to die,—we understand from these circumstances, that he sustained the character of a malefactor. And we shall remark two things which were foretold in the predictions of the prophets, and afford peculiar consolation and confirmation to our faith. For when we are told, that Christ was sent from the tribunal of the judge to the place of execution, and suspended between two thieves, we see the completion of that prophecy, which is cited by the Evangelist, “He was numbered with the transgressors.”(1270) For what reason? to sustain the character of a sinner, not of a righteous or innocent person. For he died, not for his innocence, but on account of sin. On the contrary, when we hear him absolved by the same mouth by which he was condemned, (for Pilate was constrained repeatedly to give a public testimony of his innocence,)(1271) let it remind us of what we read in another prophet: “I restored that which I took not away.”(1272) Thus we shall behold Christ sustaining the character of a sinner and malefactor, while from the lustre of his innocence it will at the same time evidently appear, that he was loaded with the guilt of others, but had none of his own. He suffered, then, under Pontius Pilate, after having been condemned as a criminal by the solemn sentence of the governor; yet not in such a manner, but that he was at the same time pronounced to be righteous, by the declaration of the same judge, that he found in him no cause of accusation. This is our absolution, that the guilt, which made us obnoxious to punishment, is transferred to the person of the Son of God. For we ought particularly to remember this satisfaction, that we may not spend our whole lives in terror and anxiety, as though we were pursued by the righteous vengeance of God, which the Son of God has transferred to himself.