_The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church by Heinrich Schmid, D.D. Third edition, revised Translated from German and Latin by Charles A. Hay, D.D. and Henry E. Jacobs, D.D. Copyright 1875 and 1889, Charles A. Hay and Henry E. Jacobs Copyright 1899, Henry E. Jacobs and Charles E. Hay Reprinted 1961 by Augsburg Publishing House_ Pages 293-407 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHAPTER II. OF THE FRATERNAL REDEMPTION BY CHRIST, AS THE SECOND SOURCE OF SALVATION. PARA. 31. Statement of the Subject. The redemption designed by God from eternity was accom- plished in time by His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, [1] and of this we are now to treat. The subject will be dis- cussed under three heads: I. The Person of the Redeemer. II. The Work by which He accomplished Redemption. III. The severeal States in which He appeared from the time of His incarnation. [1] HOLL. (650): "The Redeemer of the human race is Jesus Christ. The Redeemer is called Jesus, i.e., Saviour, because He was to save His people from their sins, Matt. 1:21." (655): "He is called Christ, i.e., anointed, because He was anointed by the Holy Ghost as our king, priest, and prophet, John 1:41." The Dogmaticians prove that Jesus Christ is the true Messiah, in whom all the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the Messiah are exactly fulfilled. HOLL. (675): "Proof. (1) Whoever is God and man is the true Messiah. But Jesus, etc. The major premise is evident from 2 Sam 7:12, 13; Ps. 110:1; Micah 5:1; Jer. 23:5 ... (2) Whoever was born of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Judah, of the royal branch of David, and of a pure virgin, is the true Messiah. The major premise, from Gen. 22:18; 49:10; 2 Sam. 7:12; Is. 5:14. The minor, from Luke 3:23; 1:34. (3) Whatever ruler of Israel, as God, was begotten from eternity, and as man was born in the fulness of time at Bethlehem, is the true Messiah. The major premise, from Micah 5:2. The minor, from Matt. 2:6.... (4) He is the true Messiah, for whose approach a divinely-appointed herald prepared the way. The major, from Is. 40:3; Mal. 3:1. The minor, from Mark 1:2, 3.... (5) Whatever king of Zion entered Jerusalem poor and humble, riding upon an ass, is the true Messiah, Zach. 9:9....(5) Whoever is the Goel, or Redeemer, according to the law of consanguinity, Job 19:25; the prophet like Moses, Deut. 13:15; a universal king, Zach. 9:9; Ps. 72:8; a priest according to the order of Melchize- ----------------------End of Page 293----------------------------- dek, Ps. 110:4; a priest interceding for sinners, Is. 53:12; who is to pass through the extremity of suffering, Ps. 22; Is. 53; who is to die, Dan. 9:26; who is to be buried, Is. 53:9; who is to be free from corruption; to descend to the dead and to rise again, Ps. 16:10; to ascend to heaven, Ps. 68:18; to sit at the right hand of God the Father, Ps. 110:1, is the promised Messiah. All these things the New Testament declare of Jesus of Nazareth." A.--OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST. PARA. 32. Of the Personal Union. In Christ the Redeemer we recognize a duality of natures and a unity of person, as expressed in the statement: "In Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, are two natures, a divine, that of the Word (ho logos), and a human nature, so united that Christ is one person." (CHMN., Loc. Th., I, 75.) We are to treat, there- fore, in succession, first, of the two natures in Christ, and sec- ondly, of the person of Christ. I. Of the Two Natures in Christ.--Christ is God and man. This is otherwise thus expressed: He exists in two natures, the divine and the human. [1] The divine nature He has of God the Father, and from eternity; the human nature He assumed in time from the Virgin Mary. [2] Each of these natures is to be regarded as truly genuine and entire, [3] for Christ is true God and true man. [4] As true man He par- ticipates in all the natural weaknesses to which human nature is subject since the Fall--He participates therein, however, not in consequence of a natural necessity, but in consequence of His own free will, for the accomplishment of His mediatorial work; for, as He was born of a human being, the Virgin Mary, but not begotten of a human father, His human nature did not inherit any of the consequences of Adam's sin. [5] This does not prevent us from ascribing to Christ a true, complete human nature, like our own, as this is, indeed, predicated of Adam when not yet fallen, inasmuch as original sin, that we have inherited in consequence of the sin of Adam, has not given man another nature. It does, however, follow from the peculiar circumstances connected with the birth of Christ, and from the peculiar relation which the divine logos sustains to this human nature, that certain peculiarities must be predi- ---------------------End of Page 294----------------------- cated of the human nature of Christ which distinguish it from that of other men. These are (1) the anupostasia [i.e., want of personality]; (2) the anamartesia [i.e., sinlessness]; (3) the sin- gularis animae et corporis excellentia [i.e., the peculiar excellence of soul and body.] [6] The first results from the peculiar relation which the divine logos entered into with the human nature; for this latter is not to be regarded as at any time subsisting by itself and constituting a person by itself, since the logos did not assume a human person, but only a human nature. Therefore there is negatively predicated of the human nature the anupostasia, inasmuch as the human nature has no personality of its own; and there is positively predicated of it the enupostasia, inasmuch as this human nature has become pos- sessed of another hypostasis, that of the divine nature. The anamartesia (sinlessness) is expressly taught in many passsages of the Scriptures (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 7:26; Is. 53:9; Dan. 9:24; Luke 1:35; 1 Peter 1:19; 2:22), and follows also from the supernatural birth of Christ. The singular excellence of soul and body is a consequence of His sinlessness. II. Of the Person Of Christ.--The person of the Redeemer is constituted, when the logos, the Second Person of the Godhead, the Son of God, unites Himself with human nature, and this so firmly and intimately that the two natures now united con- stitute One Person, which is that of the Redeemer, the God- man. [7] The act itself by which this is accomplished is called unitio personalis. HOLL. (665): "The divine action by which the Son of God assumed human nature, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, into the unity of His own person." [8] This act is chosen and determined upon by the entire holy Trinity, by whom the substance that constitutes the human nature is prepared, and by whom this is united with the divine nature; but this act is accomplished in the second person of the Godhead, who alone has become man. [9] This Second Person of the Godhead, the logos, in the act of uniting holds such a relation to the human nature that He, the logos, imparts the personality, [10] and is in general the efficient agent through which the union is accomplished; for it is He that sustains an active relation to the human nature, which He assumes, whilst the human nature stands in a passive relation -----------------------End of Page 295--------------------------- to Him. [11] This firm union of the divine and human natures, regarded as a condition, is then called unio personalis seu hypostatica [i.e., personal or hypostatic union]. HOLL. (679): "The personal union is a conjunction of the two natures, divine and human, subsisting in one hypostasis of the Son of God, producing a mutual and an indissoluble communion of both natures." [12] And the result of this activity of the logos is, that the hypostasis of the divine nature now has become also the hypostasis of the human nature, i.e., both natures have now one hypostasis, that of the logos, and together form one person, that of the Redeemer, the God-man. [13] In conse- quence thereof the union of the two natures is so close and inseparable [14] that the one can no longer be conceived of as without or away from the other, but both are to be regarded as in all respects united, [15] yet in such a way that each of the two natures in this union retains its own essential charac- ter and peculiarities as before, and remains unmingled with the other. [16] So the Scriptures teach. But it is impossible to form a correct conception of the way and manner in which these two natures are united in the One Person, because the Scriptures teach us only the union itself, and not the mode in which it is effected. We shall have to content ourselves, therefore, with guarding against false conceptions that might be entertained in regard to this union. [17] Accordingly, we say that the union is "(1) not an essential one, by which two natures coalesce in one essence (against the Eutychians); (2) not a natural one, such as that of the soul and body in man; (3) not an accidental one, such as (a) between two or more dif- ferent qualities united in one subject (as whiteness and sweet- ness are united in milk); (b) between a quality and a substance (as we find in a learned man); (3) between two substances that are accidentally united (as between beams that happen to be fastened togetther); (4) not a merely verbal one, arising either from a sinecure title (as when a man is called a counselor of his sovereign, which title was never bestowed upon him be- cause of counsels he had given) or from the use of figurative language (as when Herod is called a fox); finally, (4) not an habitual or relative one, which may exist, although the parties to this union may be separated and far apart. (There are ----------------------End of Page 296------------------------------ many varieties of this relative union, such as moral, between friends; domestic, between husband and wife; political, between citizens; ecclesiastical, between members of the Church.)" [18] HOLL. (679). On the other hand, we may predicate of this union, positively, that "(1) It is true and real, because it exists between extremes that really adhere, there being no separation or distance be- tween them; "(2) It is a personal one (but not a union of persons), and interpenetrative (perichoristica);* "(3) It is a perpetually enduring one." (See Notes 6, 7, 8.) [1] HFRFFR. (260): "By the natures, the two sources or parts, so to speak, are understood, of which the person of Christ has been constituted, namely, a Divine nature and a human nature." Of Person it is remarked: "The Person of our Redeemer is here con- sidered, not as asarkos, or such as it was from eternity before the incarnation, but as ensarkos, or such as it began to be in the fulness of time, through the taking of our human nature into His own divine person." (HOLL., 656.) General Definition of Nature and Person. CHMN. (de duab. nat., 10: "Essence, or substance, or nature, is that which of itself is com- mon to many individuals of the same species, and which embraces the entire essential perfection of each of them." "Person or individual is something peculiar, possessing indeed the entire and perfect substance of the same species, but deter- mined and limited by a characteristic and personal peculiarity, and thus subsists of itself, separated or distinguished from the other individuals of the same species, not in essence, but in num- ber. For a person is an indivisible, intelligent, incommunicable substance, which neither is a part of another, nor is sustained in another, nor has dependence upon another object such as the sep- arated soul has upon the body that is to be raised up. Therefore, the names of the essence or natures are theotes, anthropotes, divinity, humanity, divine nature, human nature, divine essence, human substance. The designations of the person are God, man." Concerning the difference of signification, in which the term nature or essence is employed with reference to God and to man, cf. chapter, "Of the Holy Trinity," note 14, p.141. QUEN. (Of the Divine Nature of Christ (III, 75)): "The divine nature otherwise signifies the divine essence, one in number, com- -------------------------------------------------------------------- *Perichoristica. See PARA. 33, Note 2. ---------------------End of Page 297----------------------------------- mon to all three Persons, and entire in each; but, in the article `Of the Person of Christ,' this is not considered absolutely, in so far as it is common to the three persons of the Godhead, but relatively, so far as it subsists in the person of the Son of God, and, as by the manner of its exstence, it is limited to the Second Person of the Trinity. Whence it is true that the entire divine essence is united to human nature, but only in one of its persons, viz., the second." [2] QUEN. (III, 75): "The incarnate Person consists of two natures, divine and human. The divine nature He possesses from eternity, from God the Father, through eternal, true, and properly named generation of substance; whence Christ is also the true, nat- ural, and eternal God, the Son of God. A true and pure human nature He received in time, of the Virgin Mary." A twofold generation is, therefore, distingished in Christ: one "an eternal generation, through which He is the Son of God;" and another, "a generation in time through which He is man, or the Son of man. Gal. 4:4." (Br., 457.) [3] HOLL. (659): "The Council of Chalcedon: `We confess that He is true God and true man, the latter consisting of a rational soul and a body, co-essential with the Father according to the God- head, and co-essential with us according to the manhood, in all things like unto us, sin only excepted.'" SCHRZR. (177): "The antithesis of the Eutychians, who indeed admit two natures prior to the act of union, but affirm that from that time the human nature has been altogether absorbed by the Godhead." QUEN. (III, 75): "With regard to the human nature we must consider: 1, its truth; 2, its completeness; 3, its homoousia (identity of essence). The first excludes a mere appearance; the second, incompleteness; the third, contrariety of essence (eterousia)." GRH. (III, 373): "In Christ there is a true and perfect divine nature, and hence Christ is also true, natural, and eternal God. We say that in Christ there are not only divine gifts, but also a true and perfect divine nature; nor do we simply say that He is and is called God, but that He is true, natural, and eternal God, in order, by this means, to separate our confession the more distinctly from the blasphemies of the Photinians, and all opponents of the divine nature." (Id. III, 400): "In Christ there is a true, complete, and perfect human nature, and for this reason Christ is also true, perfect, and natural man. By truth of human nature is meant that the Word took upon Himself not an appearance, or mere outward form of human nature, but in reality became a man. By completeness of ---------------------End of Page 298------------------------------ human nature is meant that He took, into the unity of His person, all the essential parts of human nature, not only a body, but also a rational soul; since His flesh was flesh pervaded by soul. Nor is it said only that He was, but that He still is, a man: because He never has laid aside, nor ever will lay aside, what He has once assumed." These expressions are directed against the Monothe- letes, "who acknowledged a human mind in Christ, but denied to Christ a human will." (BRCHM.) [4] HOLL. (656): "1. The true and eternal divine nature is proved by the most complete arguments, derived (a) from the divine names (arg. honomastikois); (b) from the attributes peculiar to the true God alone (arg. idiomatikois); (c) from the personal and essen- tial acts of God (arg. energetikois); (d) from the religious worship due God alone (arg. latreutikois);" cf. chapter on the Trinity, note 34. "II. That Christ is true man, is shown (a) from human names (John 8:40; 1 Tim. 2:5); (b) from the essential parts of a man (John 2:21; Heb. 2:14; Luke 24:39; John 10:15; Matt. 26:38; Luke 2:52; John 5:21; Matt. 26:39); (c) from the attributes peculiar to a true man (Matt. 4:2; John 19:28; Matt. 25:37; Luke 19:41; John 11:33); (d) from human works (Luke 2:46, 48; Matt. 4:1; 26:55); (3) from the genealogy of Christ as a man (in the ascending line, Luke 3:23; in the descending line, Matt. 1:1)." [5] CHMN. (de duab. nat., 11):... "Christ, conceived of the Holy Ghost, took upon Himself a human nature without sin, pure. Therefore the infirmities, which as punishments accompany sin, would not have been in the flesh of Christ by necessity of the con- dition, but His body could have been kept clear and exempt from these infirmities. Sinful flesh was not necessary to His being true man, as Adam, before the Fall, without the infirmities which are punishments, was true man. But for our sakes, and for our salva- tion, the incarnate Christ, to commend His love to us, willingly took upon Himself these infirmities, that thus He might bear the punishment transferred from us to Himself, and might free us from it." HUTT. (l. c., 125): "That He took upon Himself these, not so far as they have reference to any guilt, but only as they have the condition of punishment; neither, indeed, these individually and collectively, but only such as the work of Redemption rendered it necessary for Him to take upon Himself, and which detract nothing from the dignity of His nature." But a distinction is made between natural and personal infirmities. HOLL. (657): "The natural infirmities common to men are those ---------------------End of Page 299-------------------------------- which, since the Fall, exist in all men, e.g., to hunger, to thirst, to be wearied, to suffer cold and heat, to be grieved, to be angry, to be troubled, to weep. Since they are without guilt, Christ, ac- coriding to the testimony of Holy Scripture, took them upon Him- self, not by constraint, but freely; not for His own sake, but for our sake" (QUEN. (III, 76): "that He might perform the work of a mediator, and become a victim for our sins"), "not forever, but for a time, namely, in the state of humiliation, and not retain- ing the same in the state of exaltation.... Personal infirmities are those which proceed from particular causes, and derive their origin either from an imperfection of formative power in the one beget- ting, as consumption, gout; or from a particular crime, as intem- perance in eating and drinking, such as fever, dropsy, etc.; or from a special divine judgment, as the diseases of the family of Job (2 Sam. 3:29). These are altogether remote from the most holy human- ity of Christ, because to have assumed these would not have been of ad- vantage to the human race, and would have detracted from human dignity." [6] HOLL. (657): "To the human nature of Christ there belong certain individual designations, by which, as by certain distinctive characteristics or prerogatives, He excels other men; such are (a) anupostasia, the being without a peculiar subsistence, since this is replaced by the divine person (hupostasis) of the Son of God, as one far more exalted. If the human nature of Christ had retained its peculiar subsistence, there would have been in Christ two persons, and therefore two mediators, contrary to 1 Tim. 2:5. The reason is, because a person is formally constituted in its being by a sub- sistence altogether complete, and therefore unity of person is to be determined from unity of subisistence. Therefore, one or the other nature, of those which unite in one person, must be without its own peculiar subsistence; and, since the divine nature, which is really the same as its subsistence, cannot really be without the same, it is evident that the absence of a peculiar subsistence must be ascribed to the human nature." Still, a distinction must be made between anupostasia and enupostasia. QUEN. (III, 77): "That is annupostaton which does not subsist of itself and according to its peculiar personality; but that is enupostaton which subsists in another, and becomes the partaker of the hypostasis of another. When, therefore, the human nature of Christ is said to be anupostatos, nothing else is meant than that it does not subsist of itself, and according to itself, in a peculiar personality; moreover, it is called ennupostatos, because it has become a partaker of the hypostasis of another, and subsists in the logos." ------------------------End of Page 300-------------------------------- HOLL. (658) considers the following objections: "You say, `If the human nature is without a peculiar subsistence, the same will be more imperfect than our nature, which is authupostatos, or sub- sisting of itself.' Reply: `The perfection of an object is to be determined from its essence, and not from its subsistence'" The observation of GRH. (III, 421) is also of imprtance: "Anupostaton has a twofold meaning. Absolutely, that is said to be anupostaton, which subsists neither in its own hupostasis, nor in that of another, which has neither essence nor subsistence, is neither in itself, nor in another, but is purely negative. In this sense, the human nature of Christ cannot be said to be anupostaton. Relatively, that is tsaid to be anupostaton, which does not subsist in its own, but in the hupostasis of another; which indeed has essence, but not person- ality and subsistence peculiar to itself. In this sense, the flesh of Christ is said to be anupostatos, because it is enupostatos, subsisting in the logos." "The statement of some, that the starting-point of the incarnation is the anupostasia of the flesh intervening between that subsistence, on the one hand, by which the mass whereof the body of Christ was formed subsisted as a part of the Virgin, not by its own subsistence and that of the Virgin; and the subsistence, on the other hand, whereby the huamn nature, formed from the sanctified mass by the operation of the Holy Ghost in the first moment of incarnation, began to subsist with the very subsistence of the logos, communicated to it, is not to be received in such a sense as though the flesh of Christ was at any time entirely anupostatos; but, because in our thought, such an anupostasia is regarded prior to its reception into the subsistence of the logos, not with regard to the order of time, but to that of nature. The flesh and soul were not first united into one person; but the formation of the flesh, by the Holy Ghost, from the separated and sanctified mass, the giving of a soul to this flesh as formed, the taking up of the formed and animated flesh into the subsistence of the logos, and the conception of the formed, animated, and subsisting flesh in the womb of the virgin, were simultaneous." (b) anamartesia. CHEMN. (de duab. nat., 13, 14): "For this reason Gabriel says to Mary, `The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, so that what shall be born of thee will be holy.' Therefore, the working of the Holy Ghost caused the Virgin Mary without male seed to conceive and be with child. And the Holy Ghost so sanctified, and cleansed from every spot of sin, the mass which the Son of God, in the conception, assumed from the flesh and blood of Mary, that that which is born of Mary was holy, Is. 53:9; Dan. 9:24; Luke 1:35; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 7:26; 1 Pet. 1:19; 2:22." ------------------End of Page 301------------------------------------- (QUEN. (III, 77): "I say inherent, not imputative, sinlessness; for our sins were really imputed to Him, and He was made sin for us, 2 Cor. 5:21.") SCHRZR. (189): "Christ never sinned, nor was He even able to sin. We prove the statement that He was not even able to sin, or that He was impeccable, as follows: (alpha) He who is like men, sin only excepted, cannot be peccable. For, since all men are pec- cable, Christ would be like them also with regard to sin and pecca- bility, which contradicts the apostle, Heb. 7:26. (beta) He who is both holy by His origin, and is exempt from original sin, who can never have a depraved will, and constitutes one person with God Himself, is clearly impeccable. (gamma) He who is higher than the angels is altogether impeccable. (delta) He to whom the Holy Ghost has been given without measure, is also holy and just without measure, and therefore cannot sin." (c) An eminent excellence of soul and body. QUEN. (III, 78): "A threefold perfection of soul, viz., of intellect, will, and desire." (HOLL. (658): "The soul of Christ contains excellences of wis- dom, Luke 2:47; John 7:46, and of holiness.") "The perfec- tion of body: (alpha) THe highest eukrasia, a healthful and uniform temperament of body. (beta) athanasia, or immortality" (HOLL. (ib.) "which belongs to Him, both because of the soundness of an im- peccable nature, Rom. 6:23, and through the indissoluble bond of the personal union. Christ, therefore, is immortal, by reason of an intrinsic principle, and the fact that He died arose from an ex- trinsic principle, and according to a voluntary arrangement, John 10:17, 18. Yet, in the death which was voluntarily submitted to, the body of Christ remained aphtharton, or exempt from corruption, Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:31.") (gamma) "The greatest elegance and beauty of form, Ps. 45:2." (HOLL. (ib.): "The beauty of Christ's body is inferred from the excellence of the soul inhabiting it,... and from the immediate operation of the Holy Ghost, by whose effica- cious presence the most glorious temple of Christ's body was formed." QUEN. (III, 78): "The passage, `He was despised and rejected of men,' Is. 53:3, refers to the deformity arising from the wounds of the passion.") [7] CHMN. (de duab. nat., 18): "It is not sufficient to know and to believe that in Christ there are, in some way or other, two natures, divine and human, but we must add to this that, in the hypostatic union, they are so closely joined, that there is one and the same subsistence consisting of these two natures, and subsisting in two natures." HOLL. (668): "The divine and human natures existing in the --------------------End of Page 302------------------------------------ one united person of the Son of God have one and the same hypostasis, yet have it in a diverse mode. For the divine nature has this primarily, of itself and independently; but the human nature has this secondarily, because of the personal union, and therefore by partaking of it from another (Lat. participative)." [8] BR. (461): "The union of the human nature with the divine consists in this, that the natures are so joined that they become one person." Expressions of like import are sarkosis, ensarkosis, sarkogennesia, incarnation, becoming man, becoming body (incorpo- ratio, enanthropesis and ensomatosis), assumption (proslepsis). QUEN. (III, 80): "The basis of this mystery is found in John 1:14; Gal. 4:4; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 2:14, 16; Rom. 9:5." Definition--HOLL. (665): "The incarnation is a divine act, by which the Son of God, in the womb of His mother, the Virgin Mary, took into the unity of His person a human nature, consub- stantial with us, but without sin, and destitute of a subsistence of its own, and communicated to the same both His divine person and nature, so that Christ now subsists forever, as the God-man, in two natures, divine and human, most intimately united." [9] GRH. (III, 413): "The question is asked, `How is the work of incarnation ascribed to the Father and Holy Ghost, so that, nevertheless, the Son alone is said to be incarnate?' We dis- tinguish between (1) the sanctification of the mass whereof the body of Christ was formed, which cleansed it from every stain of sin, and (2) the formation of the body of Christ from the sancti- fied mass by divine power, which twofold action is common to the entire Trinity, and (3) the assumption of that body into the person of the logos, which is peculiar to the Son of God. Whence the work of incarnation, so far as the act is concerned, is said to be com- mon to the entire Trinity; but, so far as the end of the assumed flesh, which is the person of the logos, is concerned, it is peculiar to the Son. So far as the effecting or production of the act is concerned, it is said to be a work ad extra and essential, or common to the entire Trinity. So far as its termination or relation is concerned, it is a work ad extra and personal, or peculiar to the Son.* The act of assumption proceeds from the divine virtue common to the three persons; the end of the assumption is the person peculiar to the Son. The Father sent the Son into the world. The Holy Ghost, coming upon the drops of blood from which the body of Christ was formed, sanctified and cleansed them from all sin, in order that that which would be born of Mary should be holy, and by divine power ---------------------------------------------------------------------- *Compare chapter on the Trinity, note 22. ----------------------End of Page 303---------------------------------- so wrought in the blessed Virgin that, contrary to the order of nature, she conceived offspring without male seed. The Son de- scended from heaven, overshadowed the Virgin, came into flesh, and became flesh by partaking of the same, by manifesting Himself in the same, and by taking it into the unity of His persons." (In Luke 1:35, "The power of the Highest shall overshadow thee," is generally understood as referring to the Son.) HOLL. (661): "Overshadowing denotes the mysterious and wonderful filling of the temple of the body, formed by the Holy Ghost. For the Son of God overshadowed the Virgin Mary, while He descended in an inscrutable manner into the womb of the Virgin, and by a peculiar assimilation filled and united to Himself a particle of the Virgin's blood excited by the Holy Spirit, so that He dwelt in it bodily, as in His own temple." (Id. 661 and 662): "The conception of the God-man is referred to the Holy Ghost, Luke 1:35: (a) because the entire work of fructifying is ascribed to Him, Gen 1:2; (b) in order that the purity of the particle of blood, from which the flesh of Christ grew, might be the more evident; (c) that thus the cause of the generation of Christ as a man, and of our regeneration, might be the same, viz., the Holy Ghost. The material source, and that the entire source, of the conception and production of Christ, the man, is Mary, the pure Virgin (Is. 7:14), born of the royal pedi- gree of David, and therefore of the tribe of Judah (Luke 3; Acts 2:30). The material, partial and proximate source is the quickened seed of the Virgin (Heb. 2:14, 16)." Against the above, Vorstius, following the Socinians, asserts: "That the Holy Ghost in forming Christ, the man, supplied the place of male seed, yea, even of man himself, and that nothing was absent from the generation of Christ except the agency and seed of a male." GERHARD, in reply, asks (III, 417): "Whether, because of the peculiar work of the Holy Ghost in the conception of Christ, it is right to call Him the father of Christ?" and answers: "By no means; for none of those acts which are ascribed to the Holy Ghost, in this work, confers upon Him the right and title of father. The devout old authors confine this action to three points. The first is the immediate energy which gave the Virgin the power of conceiving offspring, contrary to the order of nature, without male seed. The second is the miraculous sanctification, which santified, i.e., cleansed from sin, the mass of which the body of the Son of God was formed. The third is the mysterious union, which joined the human and divine natures into one person. The Holy Ghost was not the spermatic, but (a) the formative (demiourgike), (b) the sanctifying (agiastike), (c) the completing (teleiotike) cause of coneption... ----------------------End of Page 304----------------------------------- But, because of none of these operations can the Holy Ghost be called the father of Christ, because the flesh of Christ was not be- gotten of the essence of the Holy Ghost, but of the substance of the Virgin Mary. `Of the Holy Ghost,' does not denote the material, but the efficient cause and operation.... When we say, `Of the Holy Ghost,' the `of' is potential." [10] CHEM. (de duab. nat., 23): "The human nature did not assume the divine, nor did man assume God, nor did the divine person assume a human person; but the divine nature of the logos, or God the logos, or the person of the Son of God, subsisting from eternity in the divine nature, assumed in the fulness of time a cer- tain mass of human nature, so that in Christ there is an assuming nature, viz., the divine, and an assumed nature, viz., the human. In other cases, human nature is always the nature of a certain individual, whose peculiarity it is to subsist in a certain hypostasis, which is distinguished by a characteristic property from the other hypostases of the same nature. Thus each man has a soul of his own. But in the incarnate Christ, the divine nature subsisted of itself before this union, and indeed from eternity. Yet the mass of the assumed nature did not thus subsist of itself before this union, so that before this union there was a body and soul belonging to a cetain and distinct individual, i.e., a peculiar person subsisting in itself, which afterwards the Son of God assumed. But in the very act of conception, the Son of God assumed this mass of human nature into the unity of His person, to subsist and be sustained therein, adn, by assuming it, made it His own, so that this body is not that of another individual or another person, but the body is peculiar to the Son of God Himself, and the soul is the peculiar soul of the Son of God Himself." (Id. Loc. c. Th., I, 76): "Since in the incarnate Christ there are two intelligent, indi- vidual natures, and yet ony one person, because there is one Christ, we say that these two natures are united, not in such a manner that the human nature of Christ was conceived and formed in the womb of Mary, before the divine nature was united to it. For if, before the union, the humanity of Christ had ever by itself had a subsis- tence, there would then be in Christ two persons also, just as there are two intelligent individual natures." The communication of person or subsistence, therefore, proceeds from the logos. HOLL. (668): "The communication of person is that by which the Son of God truly and actually conferred upon His assumed human nature, destitute of proper personality, His own divine person, for communion and participation, so that the same might reach a ter- minus, be perfected in subsisting, and be established in a final hypostatic existence." ------------------------End of Page 305------------------------------- [11] QUEN. (III, 83): "Of these two extremes (the divine and the human nature), one has the relation of an agent or of one per- fecting, and the other the relation of one passive and able to be perfected. The former is the Son of God, or the simple person of the logos, or, what is the same thing, the divine nature determined by the person of the logos; the latter is the human nature.... The former extreme is the active principle of perichoresis, which acts and perfects; the latter the passive principle of the same perichoresis, which is perfected or receives the perfections." KG. (126): "Perichoresis (immission, active intermingling) is that by which the divine nature of the logos, in perfecting, pervades inwardly and all around, so to speak, the human nature, and imparts to all of it its entire self, i.e., in the totality and perfection of its essence, Col. 2: 9." Moreover its effect is, that the fulness of the Godhead dwells in the human nature, and both natures are, in the highest degree, present to each other. [12] GRH. (III, 412): "The state of the union is properly and specifically called union, hypostatic union, and is the most inti- mate perichoresis, or unmixed and unconfused pervasion in one per- son of two distinct natures, mutually present in the highest degree to each other, because of which one nature is not outside of the other, neither can it be without impairing the unity of the person. Such a distinction is made between the state and the act of the union, that the act is transient and the state is permanent; that the act is that of a simple person, i.e., of the logos, who before His incarna- tion was a simple person, upon a human nature, but the state exists between two natures, divine and human, in a complex per- son; that the act consists in the assumption of humanity, made in the first moment of incarnation, but the state, in the most intimate and enduring cohesion of natures." QUEN. (III, 86): "The form of this personal union implies: (a) The participation or communion of one and the same person, 1 Tim. 2:5; (b) the intimate personal and constant mutual pres- ence of the nature, John 1:14; Col. 2:9." [13] FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec. VIII, 6): "Although the Son of God is Himself an entire and distinct person of the eternal God- head, and therefore from eternity has been, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, true, essential, and perfect God; yet that He assumed human nature into the unity of His person, not as though there resulted in Christ two persons, or two Christs, but that now Jesus Christ, in one person, is at the same time true eternal God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and true man." CHMN. (de duab. nat., 25): "To the specific difference of the ------------------End of Page 306------------------------------------ hypostatic union belongs the fact that these two natures are joined and united, in order to constitute one personality in the incarnate Christ, i.e., the nature inseparably assumed in the union became so peculiar to the person of the Word assuming it, that although there are and remain in Christ two natures, without change and mixture, with the distinction between the natures and essential attributes unimpaired, yet there are not two Christs, but only one Christ." Hence, since the act of union, Christ is called a complex person. GRH. (III, 427): "The hypostasis is called complex, not because it became composite, by suffering in and of itself an alteration and loss of its simplicity, but because, since the incarnation, it is an hypostasis of two natures, while before it was an hypostasis of the divine nature alone. Before the incarnation the person of the logos was self-determined and simple, subsisting only in the divine nature; by the incarnation the hypostasis became complex, consist- ing, at the same time, of the divine and human nature, and thus not only His divine, but also His assumed human nature, belongs to the entireness of the person of Christ now incarnate. Because the hypos- tasis of the logos became an hypostasis of the flesh, therefore the hypostasis of the logos was imparted to the flesh," and hence there follows the impartation of personality to the human nature. [14] HFRFFR. (263): "These two natures in Christ are united (a) inconvertibly. For He became the Son of God, not by the change of His divine nature into flesh; (2) unconfusedly. For the two natures are one, not by a mingling, through which a third ob- ject (tertium quiddam) comes into being, preserving in no respect the entireness of the simple natures; (3) inseparably and uninter- ruptedly. For the two natures in Christ are so united that they are never separated by any intervals, either of time or place. There- fore this union has not been dissolved in death, and the logos can- not be shown at any place without the assumed human nature. For the Son of God took upon Himself human nature, not as a garment which He again would lay aside. Neither did the Son of God appear, as angels sometimes have appeared, in human form to men, but He made the assumed flesh His own, and since He has assumed it, never leaves it. For, according to the Council of Chalcedon: `We confess one and the same Jesus Christ, the Son and Lord only-begotten, in two natures, without mixture, change, division, or separation (en duo phusein, asungchutos, atreptos, adiairetos, achoristos).'" [15] GRH. (III, 428): "For neither has a part been united to a part, but the entire logos to the entire flesh, and the entire flesh -----------------------End of Page 307-------------------------------- to the entire logos; therefore, because of the identity of person and the pervasion of the natures by each other, the logos is so present to the flesh, and the flesh is so present to the logos, that neither the logos is without the flesh, nor the flesh without the logos, but wherever the logos is, there He has the flesh present in the highest degree with Himself, because He has taken this into the unity of His person; and wherever the flesh is, there it has the logos in the highest degree present to itself, because the flesh has been taken into His person. As the logos is not without the divine nature, to which the person belongs, so also is He not without His flesh, finite indeed in essence, yet personally subsisting in the logos. For as, by eternal generation from the Father, His own divine nature is peculiar to the logos, so through the personal union, flesh became peculiar to the same logos." FORM. CONC., Sol. Dec., VIII, 11. [16] FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., VIII, 7): "We believe that now, in this undivided person of Christ, there are two distinct natures, namely, the divine, which is from eternity, and the human, which in time was taken into the unity of the person of the Son of God. And these two natures in the person of Christ are never either sep- arated, or commingled, or changed the one into the other, but each remains in its nature and substance, or essence, in the person of Christ to all eternity. We believe... that as each nature in its nature and essence remains unmingled, and never ceases to exist, so each nature retains its natural essential properties, and to all eternity does not lay them aside." [17] GRH. (III, 422): "The mode of this union is wonderfully unique and uniquely wonderful, transcending the comprehension not ony of all men, but even of angels, whence it is called `with- out controversy, a great mystery.' There are various and diverse modes of union which are to be excluded from the mode of the personal union. For, as devout old writers say that it is better to know and be able to express what God is not, than what He is, so also of the divine and supernatural union of the two natures in Christ, we can truly affirm that it is easier to tell what is not, than what is its mode." From the Holy Scriptures, GRH. (ib.) justifies the above- mentioned presentation of this doctrine as follows: "The more prominent passages of Scripture which speak of the union of the two natures in Christ are: John 1:14; Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 2:14-16. As these are all parallel, they must be constantly connected in the explanation of the union. John says: `The Word was made flesh;' but, lest any one think that the Word was made flesh in the same sense that the water was made wine, Paul -------------------End of Page 308--------------------------------- says that God, i.e., the Son of God, `was manifest in the flesh,' and that `He took part of flesh and blood' (kekoinoneke). But now communion is between at least two distinct things, otherwise it would be interchange and coalescence. God is said by the apostle to have been `manifest in the flesh;' but, lest any one might think that it was such a manifestation as there was in the Old Testament, when either God Himself or angels appeared in outward forms, John says that the `logos became flesh,' i.e., that He so took flesh into His person as never afterwards to lay it aside. The Son of God is said to have taken on Him the seed of Abraham; but, lest any one might think that it was an assumption such as that was when angels for a time took upon them corporeal forms, it is said that, `as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same.' But now it is evident that children partake of flesh and blood in such a manner that, by birth, flesh and blood, or human nature, is imparted to them by their parents. The apostle described the union by the dwelling of the logos in assumed flesh; but, lest any one might think that the Son of God dwelt in assumed flesh in the manner in which God dwells, through grace, in the hearts of believers, he adds signifi- cantly that all the fulness of the Godhead dwells in the assumed flesh, and that, too, bodily, to denote the dwelling-place, or per- sonally, to express the mode of union." [18] The negative properties are enumerated very differently by the Dogmaticians. Besides those specified in the text, the most prominent are these: "The union occured (a) asungchutos, un- confusedly; (b) atreptos, inconvertibly; (c) adiairetos, indivisibly; (d) achoristos, inseparably; (e) analloiotos, uninterchangeably; (f) adialutos, indissolubly; (g) adiastatos, uninterruptedly." Or, "Not by reason of place (topikos), as formerly in the temple at Jerusalem; not by reason of power (energetikos), as in creatures; not by reason of grace (charientos), as in saints; not by reason of glory (doxastikos), as in the blessed and the angels." PARA. 33. Continuation. The hypostasis of the divine nature having thus, through the personal union, become at the same time that of the human nature, and thus no longer only a divine but a divine and human nature being now predicated of the person of the Re- deemer, a real communion of both natures is thereby asserted, in consequence of which the two natures sustain no merely outward relation to each other; for, as the hypostasis of the -----------------End of Page 309------------------------------------ divine nature is not essentially different from this nature itself, and this hypostasis has imparted itself to the human nature, it therefore follows that there exists between the divine and human nature a true and real impartation and communion. [1] The first effect of the personal union is, therefore, the "communion (also communication) of natures." QUEN. (III, 87): "The communion of natures is that most intimate partic- ipation (koinonia) and combination (sunduasis) of the divine nature of the logos and of the asssumed human nature, by which the logos, through a most intimate and profound perichoresis, so permeates, perfect, inhabits, and appropriates to Himself the human nature that is personally united to Him, that from both, mutually inter-communicating, there arises the one in- communicable subject, viz., one person." As, however, in the act of union, the divine nature is regarded as the active one, and the divine logos as that which asssumed the human nature, so the intercommunion of the two natures must be so under- stood as that, between the two natures, the active movement proceeds from the divine nature, and it is this that permeates the human. [2] It is, indeed, just as difficult for us to form an adequate conception of this as in the case of the personal union, and we must be satisfied with analogies, which furnish us with at least an approximate conception of it. Such we may find, e.g., in the union of soul and body; in the relation in which the three persons of the Godhead stand towards each other; or in the relation between iron and fire in red-hot iron. Just as the soul and body do not stand outwardly related to each other, as a man to the clothing that he has put on, or as an angel to the body in which he appears, but as the union between soul and body is a real, intimate and perfect one, so is also the union and communion of the two natures. As body and soul are inseparably united, and constitute the one man, so are also the human and divine natures most insepar- ably united. As the soul acts upon the body and is united with it, without there being any mingling of the two, the soul remaining soul and the body remaining body, so are we also to regard the communion of the two natures in such a light, that each abides in its integrity. As, finally, the soul is never without the body, so also the logos is to be regarded as always in the flesh and never without it. [3] ----------------End of Page 310--------------------------------- If, now, there really exists such a communion of natures, it follows-- I. That the personal designations derived from the two na- tures must be mutually predicable of each other; that we must therefore just as well be able to say, "The man (Christ Jesus) is God," as "God is man," which expressions, of course, do not signify that God, having become man, has ceased to be God, but rather, that the same Christ, who is God, is at the same time man (HOLL. (686): "The Son of God, personally, is the same as the Son of man: and the Son of man, person- ally, is the same as the Son of God"); whence the predicate "man" belongs just as much to the subject God as the predi- cate "God" belongs to the subject man. [4] For, if we refuse to say this, we would betray the fact that we conceive, not of two natures in Christ, but rather of two persons, each remain- ing as it originally was, which would be Nestorianism. From the communion of natures are, therefore, deduced the personal designations, i.e., statements in which the concrete of one nature (as united) is predicated of the concrete of the other nature; i.e., the two essences really (alethos) different, the divine and the human, are in the concrete reciprocally predi- cated of one another, really and truly, yet in a manner very singular and unusual, in order to express the personal union. [5] To guard against a misunderstanding of these personal designations, it may be more particularly stated that they are (1) not merely verbal, i.e., they are not to be understood as if only the name, but not the nature thereby designated, were predicated of the subject, as Nestorius does, when he says of the son of Mary, He was the Son of God, ascribing to the sub- ject a title, as it were, but altogether refusing to acknowledge that He who was the son of Mary was also really the Son of God; (2) not identical (when the same thing is predicated of itself); i.e., the predicates that are ascribed to the subject dare not be so explained as if they applied to it only in so far as the predicate precisely corresponds to the nature from which the designation of the subject is derived. The proposition, "The Son of God is the son of Mary," dare not, therefore, be inter- preted, "The man who is united with the Son of God is the son of Mary;" (3) not metaphorical, figurative, or tropical; as ----------------End of Page 311------------------------------------ when, in the predicate that is applied to a subject, not the es- sential nature itself of the subject is ascribed to it, but only partiuclar qualities of this predicate are appropriated to the subject, so that it might be said, in a figurative sense, God is man, as we understand the expression when it is applied to a picture: "This is a man," "a woman;" or, when it is said of Herod, "He is a fox;" (4) not essential and univocal; as if the subject, in its essential nature, were that which the predicate ascribes to it (the expression, "God is man," would then mean, The nature of God is this, that it is the nature of man). The personal designations are rather-- (1) Real; i.e., that which is ascribed to the subject really and truly belongs to it. (2) Unusual and singular; for, as there is no other example of the personal union, so there are no other examples of the personal designations. But from the communion of natures it follows also-- II. That there is a participation of the natures in the person as well as of the natures with each other. [6] This is set forth in the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum. BR. (467): "The communicatio idiomatum is that by which it comes to pass that those things which, when the two natures are com- pared together, belong to one of them per se and formally, are to be truly predicated, also, of the other nature (either as re- gards concretes, or for that which is peculiar to it.)" [7] Ac- cording to this doctrine, therefore, it is neither possible to ascribe a quality to one of the two natures, which is not a quality of the whole person, nor is it possible to predicate an act or operation of one of the two natures, in which the other nature does not participate (not, however, in such a way as if along with the qulaities or the acts proceeding from them, their underlying essence were transferred to the other nature). [8] There exists, therefore, a communicatio idiomatum between the natures and the person, and between the natures recipro- -cally. [9] The communicatio idiomatum is, therefore, of sev- eral genera, of which we enumerate three (for so many are distinctly mentioned in the Scriptures), [10] the idiomatic, majestatic, and apostelesmatic. ----------------End of Page 312----------------------------------- I. THE IDIOMATIC GENUS. If the two natures are really united in one person, then every idioma (peculiarity) that originally belongs to one of the two natures must be predicated of the entire person; the idio- mata (peculiarities) of the divine nature, as well as those of the human nature, must belong to the person of the Redeemer. If, therefore, to be born or to suffer is an idioma of the human nature, then we must just as well be able to say, "Christ, the God-man, was born, suffered," as it is said of Him, "by Him were all things created," although creation is an idioma of the divine nature. [11] For, if we will not say this, but maintain that an idioma of the human nature can be predicated only of the concrete of the human nature, and an idioma of the di- vine nature only of the concrete of the divine nature, so that we would say: "The man, Jesus Christ, was born," "by Christ, who is God, all things were created;" then the personal union would be set aside, and it would appear that two per- sons and not two natures are recognized. [12] But it is just in this that the personal union shows itself to be real, that all the idiomata which belong to the one or the other nature are equally idiomata of the person. As, further, in virtue of the communion of natures, and of the personal designations re- sulting therefrom, it is all the same whether we designate Christ by both of His natures or only by one of them, an idioma of one of the two natures can be just as readily predi- cated of the concrete of the one as of the other; we can, there- fore, just as well say, "God is dead," as, "the man, Jesus Christ, is Almighty." [13] While, however, the idiomata of the two natures are attri- buted to the concrete of both natures (to Christ, the God-man) or to the concrete of one of the two natures (God--the man, Christ Jesus), it by no means follows from this that therefore the idiomata of the one nature becomes those of the other; for the two natures are not in substance changed by the personal union, but each of them retains the idiomata essential and na- tural to itself. Therefore it is only to the person that, withou further distinctions, the idiomata of the one or of the other nature can be ascribed; but this can in no wise happen be- tween the natures themselves, in such a sense as though each --------------End of Page 313--------------------------------- of them did not retain the idiomata esesential to itself. [14] To avoid such a misunderstanding in statements of this kind, it is usual to designate particularly from which nature the idiomata predicated of the person are derived. [15] General Definition.--HOLL. (693): "The first genus of com- municatio idiomatum is this, when such things as are peculiar to the divine or to the human nature are truly and really as- cribed to the entire person of Christ, designated by either nature or by both natures." [16] This genus the later Dogmaticians divide into three species, according as the different idiomata are predicated of the concrete of the divine nature, or of the concrete of both natures. These species are "(a) idiopoiesis (ap- propriation), or oikeiosis (indwelling), when human idiomata are ascribed to the concrete of the divine nature. Acts 3:15; 20: 28; 1 Cor. 2:8; Gal. 2:20. (b) koinonia ton theion (participation of the divine), when the divine idiomata are predicated of the person of the incarnate Word, designated from His human nature. John 6:62; 8:58; 1 Cor. 15:47, (c) antidosis or sunam- photerismos, alteration, or reciprocation, in which as well the di- vine as the human idiomata are predicated concerning the concrete of the person, or concerning Christ, designated from both natures. Heb. 13:8; Rom. 9:5; 2 Cor. 13:4; 1 Pet. 3: 18." (HOLL. 694) II. THE MAJESTATIC GENUS. As the divine logos has assumed human nature, so that by the personal union the hypostasis of the divine nature has be- come also that of the human nature, a further and natural consequence of this is, that thereby the human nature has become partaker of the attributes of the divine nature, and therefore of its entire glory and majesty: [17] for, by the per- sonal union, not only the person, but, since person and nature cannot be separated, the divine nature also has entered into communion with the human nature; and the participation in the divine attributes by the human nature occurs at the very moment in which the logos unites itself with the human nature. [18] But there is no reciprocal effect produced; for, while the human nature can become partaker of the idiomata of the divine, and thus acquire an addition to the idiomata essential ------------------------End of Page 314----------------------------- to itself, the contrary cannot be maintained, because the di- vine nature in its essence is unchangeable and can suffer no increase. [19] The attributes, finally, which, by virtue of the personal union and of the communion of natures, are commu- nicated to the human nature, are truly divine, and are there- fore to be distinguished from the special human excellences possessed by the human nature which the logos assumed, over and above those of other human natures. [20] Definition.--(HOLL. 699): "The second genus of communi- catio idiomatum is that by which the Son of God truly and really communicates the idiomata of His own divine nature to the assumed human nature, in consequence of the personal union, for common possession, use and designation." [21] III. THE APOSTELESMATIC GENUS. The whole design of the incarnation of Christ is none other than that the logos, united with the human nature, may accom- plish the work of redemption. From the communion of the two natures, resulting from the personal union, it follows that none of the influences proceeding from Christ can be attributed to one only of the two natures. [22] The influence may, in deed, proceed from one of the two natures, and each of the two natures exerts the influence peculiar to itself, but in such a way that, while such an influence is being exerted on the part of one of the natures, the other is not idle, but at the same time active; that, therefore, while the human nature suffers, the divine, which indeed cannot also suffer, yet in so far par- ticipates in the suffering of the human nature that it wills this suffering, permits it, stands by the human nature in its suffer- ing, and strengthens and supports it for enduring the imposed burden; [23] further, that the human nature is to be regarded as active, not alone by means of the attributes essentially its own, but that to these are added, by virtue of the second genus of the communicatio idiomatum, the divine attributes imparted to it, with which it operates. [24] For the divine nature could not of itself, alone, have offered a ransom for the redemp- tion of the world; to do this it had to be united with the human nature, which, consisting of soul and body, could be offered up for the salvation of men. Again, the human nature ---------------End of Page 315---------------------------------- could not have accomplished many of the deeds performed (miracles, etc.), had not its attributes been increased by the addition of the divine. [25] Definition--GRH. III, 555): "The third genus of the com- municatio idiomatum is that by which, in official acts, each nature performs what is peculiar to itself, with the participa- tion of the other. 1 Cor. 15:3; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 5:2." [26] If we now contemplate the entire doctrine of the Person of Christ, its supreme importance at once becomes manifest. Only because in Christ the divine and human natures were joined together in one person, could He accomplish the work of re- demption. [27] In order clearly to exhibit this truth, it has been necessary for us to develop the present doctrine at such length. [28] [1] QUEN. (III, 87): "IF the hypostasis of the logos has been truly and really imparted to the assumed flesh, undoubtedly there is a true and real participation between the divine and the human nature, since the hypostasis of the logos and the divine nature of the logos do not really differ. But as the former is true, so also must be the latter." FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., VIII, 14): "But we must not regard this hypostatic union as though the two natures, divine and human, are united in the manner in which two pieces of wood are glued together, so as really, or actually and truly, to have no participation whatever with each other. For this is the error and heresy of Nestorius and Paul of Samosata, who thought and taught heretically that the two natures are altogether separate or apart fom one another, and are incapable of any participation whatever. By this false dogma, the natures are separated, and two Christs are invented, one of whom is Christ, but the other God, the logos, dwelling in Christ." QUEN. (III, 143): "THe antithesis of the Calvinists, some of whom teach that it is only the person of the logos, and not, at the same time, His divine nature that has been united to human nature, unless by way of consequence and accompaniment, because of its identity with personality, which alone was at first united. Thus they invent a double union, mediate and immediate; that the natures are united, not immediately, but through the medium of the person of the logos." [2] HOLL. (680): "The communion of natures in the person of Christ is the mutual participation of the divine and human nature of Christ, through which the divine nature of the logos, having be- ----------------End of Page 316------------------------------------- come participant of the human nature, pervades, perfects, inhabits, and appropriates this to itself; but the human, having become par- ticipant of the divine nature, is pervaded, perfected, and inhabited by it." BR. (463): "From the personal union proceeds the participation of natures, through which it comes to pass that the human nature belongs to the Son of God, and the divine nature to the Son of man. For marking this, the word perichoresis, which, according to its orig- inal meaning, denotes penetration, or the existence of one thing in another, began to be employed, so that the divine nature might indeed be said actively to penetrate, and the human nature passively to be penetrated. Ye this must be understood in such a manner as to remove all imperfection. For the divine nature does not penetrate the human so as to occupy successively one part of it after another, and to diffuse itself extensively through it; but, because it is spiritual and indivisible as a whole, it energizes and perfects at the same time every part of the human nature and the entire nature, and is and remains entire in the entire human nature, and entire in every part of it. Here belongs the passage, Col. 2:9. HOLL. (681): "Perichoresis is not indeed a biblical term; never- theless it is an ecclesiastical term, and began especially to be em- ployed when Nestorius denied the communion of natures. But they did not understand perichoresis as local and quantitative, as an urn is said to contain (chorein) water, but as illocal and metaphori- cally used." [3] FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., VIII, 18, 19): "Learned antiquity has indeed declared this personal union and communion of natures by the similitude of the soul and body, and likewise, in another manner, by that of glowing iron. For the soul and body (and so also fire and iron) have a participation with each other, not merely nominally or verbally, but truly and really; yet in such a manner that no mingling or equalizing of the natures is introdueced, as when honey-water is made of honey and water, for such drink is no longer either pure water or pure honey, but a drink composed of both. Far otherwise is it in the union of the divine and human natures in the person of Christ, for the union and participation of the divine and human natures in the person of Christ is far more exalted, and is altogether inexpressible." HOLL. (681): "The fathers have seen fit to describe the personal perichoresis (a) from the essential perichoreois of the persons of the Holy Trinity; (b) from the natural perichoresis of body and soul; (c) from the accidental perichoresis of fire and iron. For, as one person of the Trinity is in another, as the soul pervades the body, as fire pene- -------------End of Page 317---------------------------------------- trates all the pores of iron, so the divinity of Christ is in the humanity, which it completely fills and pervades. From this it is easy to infer that perichoresis denotes (1) that the personal union is an inner one and most complete. A union is outward and incom- plete when an angel assumes a body, a pilot stands by a ship, a garment hangs on a man. The teachers of the Church, to separate from it the idea of such an outward union, were in the habit of calling the union a personal union, and the communion proceeding from it perichoresis. For, as the soul does not outwardly stand by the body, nor merely direct its movement, but enters, moves into, and fashions it, by imparting to the body its own essence, life, and faculties; so the logos enters the flesh, and inwardly communicates to it its own divine nature. (2) That the communion of natures is mutual, yet in such a manner that the divine nature, as actual being (entelecheia), i.e., as a most absolute act, permeates and per- fects and assumed human nature, and the assumed flesh is perme- ated and perfected. (3) That the personal union and communion of natures in Christ is inseparable (achoriston). The rational soul so enters the body that it could in no way have been separated from it, if, by the divine judgment, the violence of death had not fol- lowed from the Fall accidentally intervening. It is true that the natural union of soul and body was dissolved during the three days of Christ's death; but the divine nature of the logos was not sepa- rated from the assumed humanity, but was, in the highest degree, present to it. (4) That the natural union and communion is with- out mingling, mixture, or change (asungchuton, amikton, kai atrepton). As the persons of the Trinity permeate each other without mixture; as the soul fashions the body without any disturbance, mingling, or change of either; so the logos pervades His own flesh in such manner that in essentials there is in no respect a giving way by either, and neither is mingled or mixed with the other. (5) That the natures of Christ have been united continuously (adiastatous), or are mu- tually present to each other. The persons of the Trinity enter each other so mutually that neither is outside of nor beyond the other. In like manner the rational soul is in the body so as never to be outside of or beyond it; the logos also is in the flesh, so as never to be beyond, and never to be outside of it." [4] GRH. (III, 453): "The source and foundation of the per- sonal designations consist solely and alone in the personal union and participation of natures, from which they alone and immedia- tely proceed, from which alone, also, they are to be judged and explained. For God is man, and man is God, because the human and divine natures in Christ are personally united, and because an ---------------End of Page 318-------------------------------------- inner perichoresis exists betwen these two natures personally united, so that the divine nature of the logos does not subsist outside of the assumed human nature, and the assumed human nature does not subsist outside of the divine. God is and is called man, because the hypostasis of the logos is the hypostasis not only of His divine, but also of His human nature." Scriptural examples: Jer. 23:5, 6; 33:17; Matt. 22:42-45; Luke 20:44; Ps. 110:1; 2 Sam. 7:19; Is. 9:6; Matt. 1:21-23; 16:13, 16; Luke 1:35; 2:11; 1 Cor. 15:47. [5] a. The expression "concrete" was employed when a personal designation was sought for Christ, as one who is of two natures. If the personal designation was derived from one of His two natures, the same was called the concrete of that nature; and, there- fiore, since Christ is of two natures, the concrete of the divine nature, when the designation was derived from the divine nature; the con- crete of the human nature, when the designation was derived from the human nature. To the former class belong the designations, "God," "Son of God," etc.; to the latter, "man," "Son of man," "Son of Mary." HOLL. (685): "The concrete of a nature is a term whereby the nature is expressed with a connotation of the hypostasis." BR. (465): "By the concrete, a term is understood which, in the direct sense, denotes a suppositum, but in an indi- rect sense a nature. Thus God denotes a suppositum, having a divine nature; man denotes a suppositum, having a human nature. Still, a distinction must be made between the concrete of the nature, and the concrete of the person; the latter expression is employed where the personal designation has not been derived so much from one of the two natures, as where it rather serves to designate, through an expression elsewhere derived, the particular person in whom the two natures are united as one person." BR. (466): "The concrete of a person is such a term or name, as formally signifies the person consisting of both natures, eg., Christ, Mes- siah, Immanuel; which names, in the nominative case, denote the suppositum, and, in an oblique case, neither nature alone, but rather both." In the present case, only the concrete of the nature comes into use; for the question is only in reference to the cases in which the communion of natures shall also express itself in their personal designations. To personal designations, in the proper sense, such designations do not belong, in which a concrete of the nature is predicated of a concrete of the person, as occurs in the sentences: Christ is God, is man, is God-man. GRH. (III, 453): "For this designations accurately and formally express, not so much the unity of person, as the duality of natures in Christ; for -----------------------End of Page 319----------------------------- Christ is and is called man, because in Him there is a human nature; and He is and is called God, because in Him there is a divine nature; and He is and is called the God-man, because in Him there is not only a human, but also a divine nature." It is furthermore self-evident that these designations can be em- ployed only upon the presupposition of the personal union, and that they are not universally applicable. Hence, HOLL. (685): "If the divine and human natures, or man and God, be regarded outside of the personal union, they are disparate, neither can the one be affirmed of the other. For as I cannot say: a lion is a horse, so also I cannot say: God is man. But if a union exists between God and man, and that too a real union, such as exists in Christ, between the divine and human natures, they can be cor- rectly predicated of each other in the concrete. The reason is, because, through the union, the two natures constitute one person, and every concrete of the nature denotes the person itself. Since, therefore, Christ the man is the same person who is God, or this person who is God is that very person who is man, it is also said correctly: man is God, and God is man." b. To the abstracts of nature ("an abstract is that by which a nature is considered, yet not with respect to its union, but in itself, and withdrawn from its union or the concrete, nevertheless not actually, but only in the mind." HFRFFR. (283)) the like does not apply, as to the concretes of nature; therefore it cannot be said that deity is humanity, and humanity is deity. QUEN. (III, 88): "The reason is, because the union was not made to one nature, but to one complex person, with the difference of natures unim- paired, and therefore, one nature in the abstract is not predicated of the other, but the concrete of one nature is predicated of the concrete of the other nature." [6] GRH. (III, 466): "Whatever in the assumption of human nature comes under the union, that also comes under the participa- tion. But now the properties come under the union, because no nature is destitute of its own properties, since a nature without properties is also without existence, and the two natures are united in Christ, not as alone, or stripped of their properties, but entire, without incompleteness, having suffered no loss of peculiarities. Therefore, the properties also come under the participation." HOLL. (691): "No union can be perfect and permeant (peri- choristic) without a participation of properties, as the examples of animated body show. We readily grant that a parastatic (adja- cent) union of two pieces of wood may occur without a participa- tion of properties, because that grade of union is low and imperfect. ----------------End of Page 320---------------------------------------- But, according to the definitinn of Scripture, the personal union of the two natures in Christ is most absolute, perfect and permeant (perichoristic); therefore it cannot be without a participation of properties." In like manner, proof can be produced from the communion of natures, which, just as the union, has the participa- tion of properties (commun. idiom.) as a necessary consequence. [7] HOLL. (690): "The communicatio idiomatum is a true and real participation of the properties of the divine and human natures, resulting from the personal union in Christ, the God-man, who is denominated from either or both natures." Explanation of the individual notations of the Communicatio and Idioma. --(a) GRH. (III, 465): "Communicatio (communication) is the distribution of one thing which is common to many, to the many which have it in common." QUEN. (III, 91): "Not that the properties become common, idiomata koina, but that through and be- cause of the personal union they become communicable (koinoneta)." (b) idioma, proprium, property. QUEN. (III, 92): "By idiomata are understood the properties and differences of natures, by which, as by certain marks and characteristics, the two natures (in unity of person) are mutually distinguished and known apart. The term idiomata is received either in a narrow sense, for the natural pro- erties themselves, or in a wide sense, so that it comprehends the oper- ations also, through which these properties properly so called exert themselves; in this place, properties or idiomata are received in a wider sense, so that, in addition to the properties strictly so called, they embrace within their compass actions and results, energemata kai apotelesmata, because properties exert themselves through operations and results." GRH. (III, 466): "Observe, that the notion of the divine properties is one thing and that of the human properties another. The properties of the divine nature belong to the very essence of the logos, and are not really distinguished from it. The properties of the human nature do not constitute but proceed from the essence." In regard to the authority for this doctrine, HOLL. (690): "The expression, communicatio idiomatum, is not found in the Holy Scriptures word for word, yet the matter itself has the firmest scriptural foundation. For as often as Scripture attributes to the flesh of Christ actions and works of divine omnip- otence, so often, by consequence, is omnipotence ascribed, as an immediate act, to Him, from whom the divine operation (energeia) proceeds, as a mediate act. But, although the communicatio idio- matum was first so named by the Scholastics, yet orthodox antiquity employed equivalent forms of speech in the controversies with Nestorius and Eutyches." The first complete elaboration of this ----------------End of Page 321------------------------------------ doctrine among the Dogmaticians is given by Chemnitz, in his book, De Duabus Naturis in Christo, 1580. [8] Therefore the more specific caution with regard to the com- municatio, according to which it is said that it is not a "communi- catio kata methexin, or according to the essence, by which one passes into the essence and within the definition of the other; but a com- muinicatio kata sunduasin (not essential or accidental, but) personal, i.e., a participation of the two natures, whereby one of those united is so connected with the other that, the essence remaining distinct, the one, without any mingling, truly receives and par- takes of the peculiar nature, power, and efficacy of the other, through and because of the communion that has occurred." (QUEN., III, 102.) So, also, still more extended definitions have been given, just as of the personal union. GRH. (III, 466): "As the union is not essential, nor merely verbal, neither through mingling, or change, or mixture, or adjacence, neither is it per- sonal or sacramental; so also the communicatio is not such." [9] GRH. (III, 465): "The communicatio idiomatum is of a nature to a person, or of a nature to a nature." HFRFFR. (286): "The communicatio idiomatum is a true and real participation of divine and human properties, by which, because of the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ, not only the idomata of both natures of the person (who is at the same time God and man), but also the properties of each one of the natures, are ascribed to the other, i.e., the human nature to the logos, and the divine nature to the assumed man. And because of the same com- munion, each nature works with a communication of the other, yet with their natures and properties preserved unimpaired." QUEN. (III, 155): "The antithesis of the Calvinists, who (1) state that the communicatio idiomatum is indeed real with respect to the person, designated by Deity or humanity, but that with re- spect to natures it is only verbal, i.e., that it is a communicatio of words and terms and not of properties. (2) They say that those are only verbal designations when human things are declared of God, or divine things of man." [10] QUEN. (III, 92): "Definite and distinct degrees of the communicatio idiomatum are given; but, inasmuch as the question of the number of degrees or genera of the communicatio idiomatum does not pertain to faith and its nature, but to the method of teaching, some define two, others three, and others four genera of properties. Yet the number three pleases most of our theologians, inasmuch as in the holy volume this is discussed according to a threefold method of expression. I say that Holy Scripture dis- ----------------End of Page 322------------------------------------ tinctly presents three genera, although it does not enumerate them." A few Dogmaticians assume four genera of communicatio idiomatum, since they distinguish the declarations in which the properties of the human nature are ascribed to the Son of God, from the declarations in which the properties of one of the two natures are affirmed in reference to the entire person of Christ; and, therefore, the proposition, "Christ suffered," they assign to a different genus from the proposition, "God suffered." Still, the most of the Dogmaticians express themselves against this classification. But the order also in which the three genera are given, is not the same in all the Dogmaticians. QUEN. (ib.): "Some follow the order of doctrine; others the order of nature. The former (Form. Conc., Chmn., Aegid. Hunn.) place the communication of the official actions, since this is more easily explained and less controverted, before the communication of majesty, which is especially controverted and must be explained more fully. The latter follow the order of nature, and place the communication of majesty before the communication of the official actions, because the former by nature precedes the latter." [11] GRH. (III, 472): "The foundation of this communicatio idiomatum is unity of person. For, inasmuch as, since the incar- nation, the one person of Christ subsists in two and of two natures, each of which has been clothed, as it were, with its own proper- ties, the properties of both natures, the divine as well as the human, are affirmed of the one complex (suntheto) person of Christ." FORM CONC. (Sol. Dec., VIII, 36): "Since there are in Christ two distinct natures, which in their essences and properties are neither changed nor mixed, and yet the two natures are but one person, those properties which belong only to one nature are not ascribed to it, apart from the other nature, as if separated, but to the entire person (which at the same time is God and man), whether He be called God or man." [12] CHMN. (de duab. nat., 67): "Nestorius taught such a participation as to ascribe divine properties to Christ only as God, and human properties to Christ only as man; such as that man, not God, was born of Mary, was crucified, etc. Likewise, that God, not man, healed the sick and brought to life the dead. But thus, Christ as God would be one person, and Christ as man would be another, and there would be two persons and two Christs." [13] CHMN. (de duab. nat., 69): "In order to show this most complete unity of the person, those things which are properties, whether of the divine, or human, or both natures, are ascribed to the one hypostasis, or are designated by the concrete derived from -------------End of Page 323---------------------------------------- the divine, or from the human, or from both natures." (Id., 68): "Because the union of natures occurred in the hypostasis of the Word, so that there is now one and the same person of both natures subsisting at the same time in both natures, when the concrete terms derived from the divine nature, as God the logos, the Son of God, are predicated of the incarnate Christ, although the designation is derived from the divine nature, yet they signify not only the divine nature, but a person now subsisting in two natures, divine and human. And when the concrete terms de- rived from the human nature, as man and Son of man, are predi- cated of the incarnate Christ, they designate not a merely human nature, or a human nature alone, but an hypostasis, subsisting both in the divine and human nature, or which consists, at the same time, of both a divine and a human nature, and to which both natures belong. Hence it occurs that all the properties are correctly ascribed to concrete terms, denoting the person of Christ, whether named from both or only from one of the two natures." [14] CHMN. (de duab. nat., 67): "But it" (i.e., true faith) "does not, with Eutyches and the Monotheletes, confound that communication between the natures with a change and mixture both of natures and properties, so that humanity is said to be divinity, or the essential property of one nature becomes the sub- stantial property of the other nature, considered in the abstract, whether, on the one hand, beyond the union or in itself, or, on the other, by itself in the union. But a property belonging to one nature is imparted or ascribed to the person in the concrete." Hence HOLL. (696): "(1) The subject is not the abstract, but the concrete, of the nature or person." (It cannot, therefore, be said that Deity was crucified.) "(2) The predicate" (namely, that which is affirmed of the subject, i.e., of the incarnate (complex) person) "does not mark a divine or human substance itself, but a property of one of the two natures." GRH. (III, 485): "In this genus, are the abstract expressions to be employed, `Deity suffered, Divinity died?'" He adds, "that they have indeed been em- ployed by some with the limitation, `Divinity suffered in the flesh;'" but is of the opinion "that it would be better to abstain from this mode of expression;" and he proves this "(1) From the silence of Scripture. (2) From the nature of Deity. Deity is incapable of suffering, or of change, and interchange; therefore, suffering cannot be ascribed to it. Deity pertains to the entire Trinity;... but if, therefore, Deity in itself were said to have suffered, the entire Trinity would have suffered, and the error of the Sabellians and Patripassians would be reproduced in the --------------End of Page 324------------------------------------- Church.... (3) From the conndition of the union. Through the union, the distinction of natures has not been removed, but the hypostasis of the logos became the hypostasis of the flesh, so as to constitute one complex person; therefore, something can be predi- cated of the entire person, according to the human nature, and yet it by no means follows that the same should be ascribed to the divine nature. As works and sufferings belong to the person, and not to the nature, I am correct in saying, `God suffered in the flesh;' but I cannot say, `the divinity of the logos suffered in the flesh.'" [15] FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., VIII, 37): "BUt in this class of expressions it does not follow that those things which are ascribed to the whole person are, at the same time, properties of both na- tures, but it is to be distinctly declared according to which nature anything is ascribed to the entire person." CHMN. (de duab. nat., 69): "Yet, lest the natures may be thought to be mingled, from the example of Scripture there is gen- erally added a declaration to which nature a property belongs that is ascribed to the person, or, according to which nature of the per- son it is ascribed. For the properties of one nature do not hinder the presence also of the other nature with its properties. Nor do they hinder the properties of one nature from being ascribed to the person subsisting in both natures. Nor is it necessary that what, in this genus, is predicated of the person should be applicable to both natures. But it is sufficient that it pertain to the person according to one or the other nature, whether the divine or the human. QUEN. (III, 94): "Patticles used for this purpose are en, ex, dia, kata, 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18; 4:1; Rom. 1:3; 9:5; Acts 20: 28." By this additional more specific statement, it is furthermore shown how the predicate, applied to the subject, properly belongs only to one of the two natures, although, by virtue of the union of persons, it belongs also to both natures. (HOLL. (696): "The mode of expression is true and peculiar by which divine or human properties are declared to belong to the entire theanthropic person (for the properties of humanity, because of the personal union, are truly and properly predicated of the Son of God, and vice versa), yet in such a way that, by means of discretive particles, they are claimed for the nature to which they formally belong, while they are appropriated by the other nature to which they belong, not formally, but because of the personal union.") The mode of ex- pression is illustrated by the following examples. (HOLL. (697): "The Son of God was born of the seed of David, according to the flesh, Rom. 1:3. The subject of this idiomatic proposition is the Son of God, by which the entire person of Christ, designated from --------------------End of Page 325------------------------------- the divine nature, is denoted. The predicate is, that He was born of the seed of David, which is a human property. This is predi- cated of the concrete of the divine nature, to which it does not by itself belong, but through something else, because of the unity of the theanthropic person; whence, by the restrictive particle, kata, `according to the flesh,' the human property of the human nature is asserted, to which a birth in time formally applies; yet the divine nature is not excluded or separated from the participation in the nativ- ity, inasmuch as the being born of the seed of David belongs to it by way of appropriation.") The proposition, "God suffered," is thus explained: "The Son of God suffered according to His human nature subsisting in the divine personality. As, therefore, when a wound is inflicted upon the flesh of Peter, not alone the flesh of Peter is said to have been wounded, but Peter, or the person of Peter, has been truly wounded, although his soul cannot be wounded; so, when the Son of God suffers, according to the flesh, the flesh or his human nature does not suffer alone, but the Son of God, or the person of the Son of God, truly suffers, although the divine nature is impassible." (Id., 698): "The sentence, `God has suffered,' is not then to be explained away with Zwingli into `The man, Jesus Christ, who at the same time is God, has suf- fered,' in which case the mode of expression would be no real and peculiar one." FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., VIII, 39): "Zwingli names it an allaeosis when anything is ascribed to the divine nature of Christ, which, nevertheless, is a property of the human nature, and the reverse; For example, where it is said in Scrip- ture, Luke 24:28, `Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory?' there Zwingluy trifingly declares that the term Christ, in this passage, refers to His human nature. Be ware! beware! I say of that allaeosis;... for if I permit myself to be persuaded to believe that the human nature alone suffered for me, Christ will not be to me a Saviour of great worth, but He Himself stands in need of a Saviour."... QUEN. (III, 155): "They" (the Calvinists) "explain the designations of the first genus of communicatio idiomatum either with Zwingli by allaeosis, by which they state that the name of the person, or of one of the two natures, is put in the place of the subject only for the other nature which is expressed in the predicate; or with Piscator by synechdoche, of a part for the whole, i.e., that while the entire is put in the place of the subject, yet that it is in such a mnanner that the passion is restricted and limited to only a part of it, i.e., to the flesh alone. For example, they explain the proposition, `God suffered,' in this way: `Man alone, although united to God, suffered.'" ---------------------End of Page 326----------------------------------- [16] As appelations of this first genus the following were quoted, and their origin traced back to the old Church Fathers: antidosis, alternation, tropos antidoseos (Damascenus), enallage kai koinonia onomaton, exchange and participation of names (Theodoret), idiopoiia kai idiopoiesis appropriation (Cyril), alloiosis (but used in a different sense from that of Zwingli), oikeiosis, sunamphoterismos. Examples from Holy Scripture: Heb. 13:8; 1 Cor. 2:8; Acts 7:55; Ps. 24:7, 8; Acts 3:15; John 8:58. [17] GRH. (III, 499): "That which is communicated, the holy matter of communication, is the divine majesty, glory, and power, and on this account gifts truly infinite and divine." QUEN. (III, 102): "The foundation of this communication is the communication of the hypostasis, and of the divine nature of the logos. For, inasmuch as the human nature was taken into the union, and through the union became a partaker of the person and divine nature of the logos, it became truly and really a partaker of the divine properties; for these really do not differ from the divine essence." CHMN. (de duab. nat., 97): "If the dwelling of God in the saints by grace confers, in addition to and beyond natural endow- ments, many free divine gifts, and works many wonders in them, what impiety is it to be willing to acknowledge in the mass of human nature, in which the whole fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily, only physical endowments, and to be willing to believe of that nothing which surpasses and exceeds the natural condi- tions of human nature considered by or in itself, outside of the hypostatic union?" QUEN. (III, 158) concerning the nature of the mode: "We deny that this communication is merely verbal and nominal, as the Re- formed contend" (p. 160, "who altogether deny this second genus of communicatio idiomatum. The propositions: `The flesh of Christ quickens, the Son of man is omnipotent,' the Zwinglians explain by allaeosis thus: `The Son of God who assumed flesh, quickens,' etc."); "but we maintain that it is true, peculiar, and real. Yet we do not say that there is any transfusion of divine properties into the human nature of Christ (whereby the reproach of Eutychianism is repelled), or that there is any change of the human nature into the divine, or that there is an equalization or abolition of natures, but that there is a personal communication." [18] QUEN. (III, 101): "For the communication of majesty occured in that very moment in which the personal union oc- curred. For, from the very beginning of incarnation, the divine nature, with its entire fulness, united and communicated itself to -------------------End of Page 327-------------------------------- the assumed flesh." With reference to the subsequent doctrine of the states of Christ, QUEN. however still adds: "We must here dis- tinguish between the communication, with reference to possession, and the communication, with reference to use. So far as possession and the first act are concerned, the divine properties were commu- nicated to the human nature at one and the same time with the very moment or the very act of the union, and new ones have not been superadded. And although the second act, and the full use of the imparted majesty, were withheld during the state of humiliation, yet rays of omnipotence, omniscience, etc., frequently appeared, as often as seemed good to divine wisdom. But the full exercise of this majesty began not until His exaltation to the right hand of God." [19] QUEN. (III, 159): "Reciprocation, which has a place in the first genus, does not occur in this genus; for there cannot be a humiliation, emptying or lessening of the divine nature (tapeinosis, kenosis, elattosis), as there is an advancement or exaltation (beltiosis or huperupsosis) of human nature. The divine nature is unchange- able, and, therefore, cannot be perfected or diminished, exalted or depressed. The object of the reciprocation is a nature in want of and liable to a change, and such the divine nature is not. The promotion belongs to the nature that is assumed, not to the one that assumes it." THe ground on which only the properties of the divine nature are communicated to the human and not the reverse, arises from the mode of the act of union. BR. (472): "It amounts to this, that, as on the part of the nature, although the divine is personally united to the human, and the human to the divine, yet this distinction intervenes, that the divine nature inwardly pene- trates and perfects the human, but the human does not in turn penetrate and perfect the divine, but is penetrated and perfected by it; so in the communicatio idiomatum, this distinction intervenes, that the divine nature, penetrating the human, also makes the same, abstractly considered, in its own way, partaker of its divine perfections; but not so in turn the human nature, which neither permeates nor perfects the divine nature, and does not and cannot in a like manner render this, abstractly considered, the partaker of its own properties." [20] GRH. (III, 499): "We do not deny that, in addition to the essential properties of human nature, certain gifts pertaining to this condition inhere subjectively in Christ as a man, which although they surpass, by a great distance, the most excellent gifts of all men and angels, yet are and remain finite; but we add, that, in addition to these gits which pertain to the condition and are finite, gifts truly infinite and immeasurable have been imparted to Christ the -------------End of Page 328------------------------------------------ man, through the personal union, and His exaltation to the right hand of the Father." HOLL. (702): "Through and because of the personal union, there have been given to Christ, according to His human nature, gifts that are truly divine, uncreated, infinite, and immeasurable." And, although it may be said in general "all the divine attributes have been imparted to the flesh of Christ, still a distinction should be made between attributes anenergeta and energetika." As is well known, the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum forms a main point of difference between the Lutheran and the Reformed Churches. But of most significance is the diffrerence concerning this second genus of properties, since the doctrine set forth under this head is decisive in regard to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper; for here the discussion has special reference to the attribute of omnipresence. We give, therefore, in this place, first, a summary of the difference between the two churches, and then a more specific statement of the doctrine of omnipresence. COTTA (in GRH., Loci, IV, Diss., I, 50), in the first place, groups to- gether the points in reference to the doctrine of the person of Christ, on which both sides generally agree. "They agree (1) that in Christ there is only one person, but two natures, namely, a divine and a human; (2) that these two natures have been joined in the closest and most intimate union, which is generally called personal; (3) that by this union, a more intimate one than which cannot be conceived, the natures are neither mingled, as has been condemned in the Eutychians, nor the person divided, as has been condemned in the Nestorians; but (4) that this union must be regarded as without change, mixture, division, and interruption (atreptos, asungchutos, adiairetos, achoristos); and therefore (5) that by this union neither the difference of natures nor the peculiar conditions of either have been removed: for the human nature of Christ is always human, nor has it ever, by its own natural act, ceased to be finite, extended, circumscribed, passible; but the divine nature is and always remains infinite, immeasurable, impassible; (6) that nevertheless by the power of the personal union the proper- ties of both natures have become common to the person of Christ, so that the person of Christ, the God-man, possesses divine proper- ties, uses them, and is named by them; that in addition to this (7) by means of the hypostatic union there have been imparted to the human nature of Christ the very highest gifts of acquired con- dition (habitualia), for example, the greatest power, the highest wisdom, although finite; but that (8) to the mediatorial acts of Christ each nature contributed its own part, and that the divine -------------------End of Page 329----------------------------------- nature conferred upon the acts of the human nature infinite power to redeem and save the human race. In a word (9) that the inti- mate union of God and man in Christ is so wonderful and sublime that it surpasses, in the highest degree, the comprehension of our mind." But "they" (the Reformed) "differ from us when the question is stated concerning the impartation abstractly consid- ered, or of a nature to a nature; beccause they deny that, by the hypostatic union, the properties of the divine nature have been truly and really imparted to the human nature of Christ, and that, too, for common possession, use, and designation, so that the human nature of our Saviour is truly Omnipresent, Omnipotent, and Omniscient." The controversy betweeen the Lutherans and Reformed had mainly reference, therefore, to the possession and use of the divine attributes which were ascribed to the human nature of Christ; among these the following were made especially prominent, viz., omnipotence, omniscience (which He used, how- ever, in the state of humiliation, not always and everywhere, but freely, when and where it pleased Him), omnipresence, vivific power, and the worship of religious adoration, which also were ascribed to the humanity of Christ (so that the flesh of Christ should be worshiped and adored with the same adoration as that due to the divine nature of the logos). Among these attributes, however, none was more zealously controverted than that of omni- presence, because this was the chief point in dispute between the Lutherans and Reformed with regard to ta presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. The chief objection against the real presence of Christ in the Holy Supper, Carlstadt, and after him Zwingli, had derived from the statement that Christ is sitting at the Right Hand of the Father, and therefore cannot be at the same time upon earth, in the elements of bread and wine. In opposition to this, Luther appealed to the personal union; from this, and the conse- quent communion of natures, he inferred the omnipresence of the flesh of Christ, and proved thereby the possibility of a real pres- ence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper. Thus the doctrine of the omnipresence, or, as the Reformed expressed it, the ubiquity of the flesh in Christ, became very important, and the Lutheran theologians are very accurate in its presentation. QUEN. thus states the question here at issue (III, 185): "Whether Christ, according to the humanity united with His divine and in- finite person, and exalted at the Right Hand of the divine majesty, in this glorious state of exaltation is present to all creatures in the universe with a true, real, substantial, and efficacious omnipres- ence?" From this question the others, viz., whether omnipresence -----------------End of Page 330----------------------------------- is to be ascribed to Christ, according to His divine nature, and whether it is to be at all ascribed to the person of Christ, are care- fully distinguished. The first follows, as a matter of course; and also in regard to the other question, both parties were agreed in this, namely, that "omnipresence is properly ascribed to the entire person, in the concrete, or in the divine person of Christ, in which human nature subsists, wherever it is; or, what is the same thing, that Christ is everywhere, by reason of His person." And, from the question stated above, they further distinguished the one with reference to the personal or intimate presence, which is mutual be- tween the logos and the flesh (by which the logos has the assumed nature most intimately present with itself, without regard to place, so that the logos never and nowhere is without or beyond His flesh, or this without or beyond Him, but, where you place the logos, there you also place the flesh, lest there be introduced a Nestorian disruption of the person subsisting of both natures). The contro- versy had rather to do with the outward presence, viz., that relat- ing to creatures, and the most of the Dogmaticians understood by this omnipresence, "the most near and powerful dominion of Christ in His human nature." Accordingly, the thesis of the Dogmaticians concerning the question is the following: "The majesty of the omnipresence of the logos was communicated to the human nature of Christ in the first moment of the personal union, in consequence of which, along with the divine nature, it is now omnipresent, in the state of exaltation, in a true, real, substantial, and efficacious presence. And so there is given to Christ, according to His human nature, a most near and powerful dominion, by which Christ as man, exalted at the Right Hand of God, preserves and governs all things in heaven and earth by the full use of His divine majesty." QUEN. (III, 185). "And, finally, it was protested that this omni- presence was not physical, diffusive, expansive, gross, local, cor- poreal, and divisible (as the Calvinists pretend that we hold), and it was described as majestatic, divine, spiritual, indivisible, which did not imply any locality, or inclusion, or expansion, or diffu- sion." (Id. III, 186.) And it was not thereby asserted that the body of Christ had lost its natural properties in such a manner that He had now ceased to be at any particular place. (HOLL. (712): "We must distinguish between a natural and personal act of the flesh of Christ. The flesh of Christ, by an act of nature, when Christ dwelt upon earth, was in a certain place, in the womb of His mother, upon the cross, etc., circumscribedly, or by way of occupy- ing it; and now also in the state of glory, in accordance with the manner of glorified bodies, it is in a certain celestial somewhere, -------------------End of Page 331------------------------------------ not circumscribedly, however, but definitively. But to this nat- ural act that personal act is not opposed, by which it is illocally in the logos, from which presence all local ideas or conceptions are to be abstracted.") To the proofs for the second genus of idiomata, the Dogmaticians add also, for the omnipresence especially, that derived from the sitting at the right hand of God. (HOLL. (714): "Christ rules with omnipresence according to the same nature according to which He sits at the right hand of God. But, accord- ing to His human nature, etc. Therefore, to sit at the Right Hand of God is explained by ruling. Just as, therefore, the Right Hand of God is everywhere and rules, for by this is designated in Holy Scripture the immense and infinite power and might of God, no- where excluded, nowhere inoperative; thus, to sit at the Right Hand of God is, in virtue of the exaltation, to rule everywhere with divine power, truly immeasurable, and this cannot be conceived of without omnipresence, for surely the divine dominion is not over the absent, but over the present.") The opposite statment of the Reformed was this: "Just as the body of Christ, while He moved upon earth, was not present in heaven, so now that same body, after the ascension, is not present on earth; and, exalted above the heavens, we believe it is held there." Their main arguments against the omnipresence were these: "Because thereby the reality of the body of Christ, of His death and ascension to heaven would be disproved, inasmuch as a true human nature cannot be extended infinitely; because He who is omnipresent cannot die; because He who is, by virtue of His omnipresence, already in heaven, cannot still ascend thither." To these objections HOLL. (718) answers: "1. The doctrine concerning the reality of the flesh of Christ is not overthrown by the ascription of omnipresence to it, for it is not omnipresent by a physical and extensive, but by a hyperphysical, divine, and illocal presence, which belongs to it not formally and per se, but by way of participation, and by virtue of the personal union. 2. The doctrine concerning the death of Christ is not over- turned by it, for the natural union of body and soul was indeed dissolved by death, but without disturbing the permanent hypo- static union of the divine and human natures. 3. The doctrine of the ascension of Christ is not disproved by it, for before the ascen- sion the flesh of Christ was present in heaven by an uninterrupted presence as a personal act, but He ascended visibly to heaven in a glorified body according to the divine economy (kat oikonomian), so that He might fill all things with the omnipresence of His domin- ion. For Christ, by virtue of His divine omnipotence, can make Himself present in various ways." ----------------------End of Page 332------------------------------- Notwithstanding these precise statements concerning the omni- presence of the flesh of Christ, there still was no uniform and, in all its features, settled doctrinal statement concerning it prevalent among the Lutheran Dogmaticians. The reason of this lies in the fact, that until the time of the FORM. CONC. the only aim had in view, in the development of this doctrine, was the practical one of showing through it the possibility of the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper. So far as this was necessary, all the Lutheran Dogmaticians are agreed. But this is no longer the case to such an extent, when, without reference to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, they had to do merely with the dogmatic development of the doctrine of omnipresence. As, however, the Dogmaticians were led by the right tact, to attribute no great im- portance to a difference which led to no practical result, they had no controversy about it, and the different views stood unassailed alongside of each other. There was still room enough for different views. The question, e.g., could arise: 1. Whether the omni- presence of the flesh of Christ was to be conceived of as only one by virtue of which Christ, according to His human nature, could be omnipresent when and where He wished; or, as one by virtue of which, in consequence of the communicatio idiomatum, He was always, without exception, actually omnipresent from the state of exaltation onward, and only refrained from exercising this omni- presence, during the state of humiliation, in consequence of the mediatorial work He had undertaken? 2. How the omnipresence of the flesh of Christ should be defined; whether only as one by virtue of which the human nature participates in the dominion which is exercised by the divine nature; or as one by virtue of which it is present to all creatures in such a manner as Christ is present to them by virtue of His divine nature? In regard to these questions, the views of the Dogmaticians, already before the FORM. CONC., were not alike, and the FORM. itself is so variable in its utterances on this subject that a satifactory answer to the ques- tions above stated cannot be elicited from it. Hence it happens that later Dogmaticians of different views believed themselves authorized to appeal to the FORM. CONC. in vindication of their several opinions. After the completion of the FORM. CONC., there- fore, the Dogmaticians were divided in opiniion, about as follows, viz.: the majority mentioning the omnipresence only as "a most powerful and present dominion over creatures," either not entering at all upon the questions of the absolute presence, or rejecting that doctrine entirely. This omnipresence was then called also modi- fied omnipresence. Thus QUEN., BR., the latter of whom appeals ---------------------End of Page 333------------------------------ to the FORM. CONC. (475): "(They (the authors of the Form. Conc.) manifestly describe that omnipresence not as absolute, as a mere close proximity to all creatures and without any efficacious influence, but as modified, or joined with an efficacious influence, and according to the needs of the universal dominion which Christ exercises according to both His natures.") At the same time they assert that, from the time of the exaltation onward, Christ is to be regarded as constantly omnipresent according to His human nature, i.e., as always exercising the "most powerful dominion." Others, on the other hand, as the majority of the Swabian theologians, but beside these also, HOLL., asserted, that no only the "most power- ful dominion" belonged to the human nature of Christ from the time of the exaltation onward, but also the true presence, and the latter, indeed, from the time of the conception. A short-lived con- troversy arose at the time when the theologians of Helmstadt and Brunswick refused to accept the FORM. CONC., mainly because, as they asserted, a doctrine of the omnipresence was taught in it with which they could not coincide. They admitted, indeed, that Christ, according to His human nature, can be present where He will; but they maintained that He actually willed to be present only there where it has been expressly promised concerning Him, namely, in the Holy Supper and in the Church. Besides, they characterized this presence not as an effect of omnipresence, but of omnipotence. The omnipresence maintained by them they designated the relative omnipresence. This view (which Calixtus, also, at a later date, adopted) was opposed by both classses of Dogmaticians, mainly because they wished to have the possibility of the presence of Christ in the Holy Supper deduced from His omnipresence, and this from the communicatio idiomatum, without agreeing among themselves as to the mode of stating it. This point, therefore, has remained unsettled. Another question that arose was, concerning the time in which Christ, according to His human nature, assumed the ex- ercise of the divine majesty. Cf., on that subject, the topic of the "States of Christ." [21] Scriptural Proofs--Majesty is imparted to the human nature: Matt. 11:27; Luke 1:33; John 3:13; 6:62; Phil. 2:6; Heb. 2: 7. The sitting of Christ, the man, at the right hand of Majesty, Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Heb. 7:26; 8:1. Omnipotence, Matt. 28:18; Phil. 3:21. Omniscience, Col. 1:19; 2:3, 9. Omnipresence, Matt. 18:20; 28;20; Eph. 1: 23; 4:10. Power to quicken, John 6:51; 1 Cor. 15:21, 45. Power to judge, Matt. 16:27; John 5:27; Acts 17:31. [22] FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., VIII, 46): "With respect to the ---------------------End of Page 334------------------------------- functions of Christ's office, the person does not act and operate in, or with one, or through one nature alone, but rather in, with, ac- cording to and through both natures; or, as the Council of Chalde- don declares, one nature effects and works, with impartation of the other, that which is peculiar to each. Therefore Christ is our Mediator, Redeemer, King, etc., not merely according to one nature, whether the divine or the human, but according to both natures." GRH. (III, 555): "The Son of God took upon Him- self human nature, for the purpose of performing in, with, and through it, the work of redemption, and the functions of the medi- atorial office, 1 John 3:8, etc. Hence in the works of His office, He acts not only as God, nor only as man, but as God-man; and, what is the same, the two natures in Christ, in the works of the office, do not act separately, but conjointly. From unity of person follows unity in official act." HOLL. (726): "The remote basis of this impartation is unity of person, and the intimate communion of the divine nature in Christ. The proximate basis is the commu- nicatio idiomatum of the first and second genus." [23] CHMN. (de duab. nat., 85): "When one nature in Christ does that which is peculiar to it, or, when Christ does anything, according to the property of one nature, in that action or suffering the other nature is not unemployed, so as to do either nothing or something else; but, what is a peculiarity of the one nature is effected and performed in Christ with impartation of the other nature, that difference being observed which is peculiar to each. Therefore, when Christ, according to His human nature, suffers and dies, this also occurs with impartation to the other nature, not so that the divine nature in Him also suffers and dies, for this is peculiar to the human nature, but because the divine nature of Christ is personally present with the nature suffering, and wills the suffering of its human nature, does not avert it, but permits its humanity to suffer and die, strengthens and sustains it so that it can bear the immense weight of the sin of the world and of the entire wrath of God, and renders these sufferings precious to God and saving to the world." [24] CHMN. (de duab. nat., 85): "Because the offices and bless- ings of Christ as Saviour are such that, in many or most of them, the human nature in Christ cannot co-operate with its natural or essential properties or operations alone, numberless attributes huperphusika kai paraphusika [supernatural and extraordinary] were deliv- ered and imparted to the human nature from its hypostatic union with divinity." HOLL. (726): "The mode of impartation and mutual confluence --------------------------End of Page 335--------------------------- consists in this, that the divine nature of the logos not only performs divine works, but also truly and really appropriates to itself the actions of the assumed flesh; but the human nature, in the office of the Mediator, acts, not only according to its natural strength, but also according to the divine power which it has communicated to it from the personal union." QUEN. (III, 106): "I say that by means of His person, He appropriates to Himself actions and sufferings of humanity, for it must not be said the divine nature sheds blood, suffers, dies, just as it is said that the human nature quickens, works miracles, governs all things, but God sheds His blood, suffers, dies." [25] CHMN. (de duab. nat., 86): "The testimonies of Scripture clearly show that the union of the two natures in Christ occured in order that the work of redemption, atonement, and salvation might be accomplished in, with, and through both natures of Christ. For if redemption, atonement, etc., could have been accomplished by the divine nature alone, or by the human nature alone, the logos would have in vain descended from Heaven for us men, and for our salvation, and become incarnate man." GRH. (III, 556): "The human nature indeed could have suffered, died, shed its blood. But the sufferings and bloody death of Christ would have been without a saving result, if the divine nature had not added a price of infinite value to those sufferings and that death, which the Saviour endured for us." Accordingly, the work of redemption, as well as every individual action of Christ, is considered as one in which both natures in Christ participate. The technical term for this is apotelesma ("a common work, resulting form a communica- tive and intimate confluence of natures, where the operations of both natures concur to produce this, or the work is divinely-human, because both natures here act unitedly." QUEN. (III, 105)). Yet as each individual action proceeds, first of all, from one of the two natures, namely, from that one to whose original properties it belongs, the technical term for this is energema (`a result peculiar to one nature'). Thus, the shedding of Christ's blood is an operation of the human nature, for only the human nature has shed blood; the infinite merit which belongs to this blood is an operation of the divine nature. But the atonement for our sins, which has been wrought by means of the shed blood only in view of the fact that both natures have contributed their part thereto, the human nature by shedding it, and the divine nature by giving to the blood its infinite merit, is the work (apotelesma) of both natures. HOLL. (728) further describes the apotelesmata of Christ, as of a twofold order. "The divine nature of the logos cannot effect some things except by ------------------------End of Page 336---------------------------- a union with flesh (for example, suffering as a satisfaction, a life- giving death); other things, from His free good pleasure or purpose, He does not will to effect without flesh (for example, miracles)." [26] BR. (478): "The third genus of communicatio idiomatum consists in this, that actions pertaining to the office of Christ do not belong to a nature singly and alone; but they are common to both, inasmuch as each contributes to them that which is its own, and thus each acts with the communication of the other." QUEN. (III, 209): "The antithesis of the Calvinists, who (1) deny that the communication of the apotelesmata or of official actions can be referred to the communicatio idiomatum....(2) who teach that both natures act their parts by themselves alone, each without participation of the other, and thus that the human nature of Christ is the works of the office only performs human works from its own natural properties, but must altogether be ex- cluded from divine actions.... (3) who affirm that the flesh of Christ contributed to the miracles only as a mere and passive (aergon) instrument." [27] CHMN. (de duab. nat.): "This union of the kingship and priesthood of Messiah was made for the work of redemption, for the sake of us and our salvation. But as redemption had to be made by means of suffering and death, there was need of a human nature. And it pleased God that, for our comfort, in the offices of the kingship, priesthood, and lordship of Christ, our assumed nature should also be employed, and thus the acts (apotelesmata) of Christ's offices should be accomplisehd in, with, and through both." [28] CHMN. (de duab. nat., 81): "For let not exactness be re- garded as idle, just as also accurate care in speaking. But let the question, What is the true use of this doctrine? be always in sight. For thus we will be the more inclined to cultivate care in speaking properly, and will be the more easily able to avoid falling into logomachies and quibbles." ... B.--OF THE OFFICE OF CHRIST. PARA. 34. The Threefold Office of Christ.* The doctrine of the Person of Christ is followed by that of the Work that He performed; for to accomplish this was the ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *GRH. was the first to treat of this entire doctrine under a separate head; before his day it was discussed in connection with other doctrines, usually under the head of Justification; and the form, too, in which the doctrine is now set forth, -----------------End of Page 337----------------------------------------------- very design of His incarnation. This Work is the redemption of the human race. CONF. AUG., III: "They teach, that the Word, i.e., the Son of God, assumed human nature... that He might reconcile the Father to us and become a sacrifice, not only for original sin, but also for all the actual sins of men." To ac- complish this work of redemption was the work assigned to Christ upon earth, and the undertaking that He assumed. We designate it as His mediatorial work, and understand by it all that Christ did to effect a redemption, and all that He is still doing to make it available to men. "The mediatorial office is the function, belonging to the whole person of the God-man, origi- nating theanthropic actions, by which function Christ, in, with, and through both natures, [1] perfectly executed, and is even now ac- complishing, by way of acquisition and application, all things that are necessary for our salvation." QUEN. (III, 212) [2] This work Christ undertook in its whole extent, i.e. (1) While upon earth, He Himself announces to men the divine purpose of re- demption, and provides that after His departure it shall be further announced to men. (2) He Himself accomplishes the redemption, by paying the ransom through which our recon- ciliation with God is effected. (3) After His departure He preserves, increases, guides, and protects the Church of the Redeemed thus established. As these three functions corres- pond to those of the Old Testament prophets, priests, and kings, the mediatorial office of Christ is accordingly divided into the Prophetic, Sacerdotal, and Regal offices. [3] [1] The Dogmaticians say here, expressly, that Christ is Medi- ator according to both natures, as would indeed naturally and properly follow from the topic just discussed. Erroneous opinions upon this subject, that arose even in the bosom of the Evangelical Church itself, furnished the occasion of giving prominence to it, and so we see the FORM. CONC. already denouncing existing errors upon this subject (Epit., Art. III, 2 sq.: Concerning the righteous- ness of faith before God): "For one side (Osiander) thought that -------------------------------------------------------------------- appears for the first time complete (though in brief outlines) in GRH. MEL. is the first to use the expression, Kingdom of Christ; he does this, however, in the doctrine of the resurrection. STRIGEL then annexed the Priesthood of Christ, which afterwards was developed into the sacerdotal and prophetic offices. We cannot ignore the fact, that this topic has failed to receive anything like as thorough a discussion and development as many others. ---------------End of Page 338----------------------------------------- Christ is our righteousness only according to the divine nature .... In opposition to this opinion, some others (Stancar, the Papists) asserted that Christ is our righteouness before God only according to the human nature. To refute both errors, we believe ... that Christ is truly our righteousness, but yet neither accord- ing to His divine nature alone, nor according to His human nature alone, but the whole Christ, according to both natures." ... QUEN. (III, 212): "For both natures concur for the mediatorial office, not by being mingled, but distinctly and with the properties of both remaining unimpaired, and yet not separately, but each with impartation of the other." [2] GRH. (III, 576): "The office of Christ consists in the work of mediation between God and man, which is the end of incarna- tion, 1 Tim. 2:5." HOLL. (729): "If the mediatorial office of Christ be taken in a narrower sense, it seems to coincide with His sacerdotal office, 1 Tim. 2:5, 6. Yet this does not prevent us from receiving it in a wider sense, so as to embrace His office as prophet and king. For Moses, the prophet, is likewise called mediator and it escapes the observation of no one that kings not unfrequently bear the part of mediators." [3] GRH. (III, 576): "The office of Christ is ordinarily stated as threefold, that of a prophet, a priest, and a king; yet this can be reduced to two members" (thus Hutter), "so that the office of Christ is stated as twofold, that of a priest and of a king. For the priest's office is not ony to sacrifice, pray, intercede, and bless, but also to teach, which is a work that they refer to His office as a prophet." QUEN. (III, 212): "Yet, by most, the tripartite dis- tinction is retained." "THe appropriateness of this distribution is proved according to GRH. (ib.): (1) From the co-ordination of Scripture passages. It is correct to ascribe just as many parts to the office of Christ, as there are classes to which those designations can be referred which are ascribed to Christ with respect to His office, and passages of Scripture which speak of the office of Christ. But now there are three classes to which the designations which are ascribed to Christ, with respect to office, can be referred. There- fore, etc. (2) From the enumeration of the benefits coming from Christ. Christ atones before God for the guilt of our sins... which is a work peculiar to a priest. Christ publishes to us God's counsel concerning our redemption and salvation, which is the work of a prophet. Christ efficaciously applies to us the benefit of redemption and salvation, and rules us by the sceptre of His Word and Holy Ghost, which is the work of a king." ... ------------------------End of Page 339---------------------------------- PARA. 35. The Prophetic Office. By the Prophetic Office we understand the work of Christ, in so far as He proclaims to men the divine purpose of redemp- tion, and urges them to accept the offered salvation. [1] This work Christ performed as long as He was upon the earth; He thereby acted as a prophet, for it was the business of prophets to teach and to declare the will of God; [2] and, in conse- quence of the greater dignity and power that belonged to Him as the God-man, He performed this work in a much more per- fect and effective manner than all the prophets that preceded Him. [3] But this did not cease with His departure from the earth; on the other hand, by the establishment of the sacred office of the ministry, Christ made provision that this work should still be performed, and that, too, with the same effi- ciency as before, inasmuch as He imparted to the Word and the Sacraments, the dispensation of which constitutes the work of the ministry, the same indwelling power and efficiency that belong to Himself by virtue of His divine nature; and thus, in them and through them, He is still effectively working since His departure. [4] His prophetic office is, therefore, to be regarded as one still perpetuated, and we are to distinguish only between its immediate and mediate exercise. [5] "The prophetic office is the function of Christ the God-man, by which, according to the purpose of the most holy Trinity, He fully revealed to us the divine will concerning the redemp- tion and salvation of men, with the earnest intention that all the world should come to the knowledge of the heavenly truth." (QUEN., III, 212) [6] From this prophetic office Christ is called a Prophet, Deut. 18:18; Matt. 21:11; John 6:14; Luke 7:16; 24:19; an Evangelist, Is. 41:27; a Mas- ter, Is. 50:4; 55:4; 63:1; Rabbi or Teacher, Matt. 23:8, 10; Bishop of Souls, 1 Pet. 2:25; Shepherd, Ezek. 34:23; 37:24; John 10:11; Heb. 13:20. [1] GRH. (III, 578): "The function of teaching is that by which Christ instructs His Church in those things necessary to be known and to be believed for salvation." QUEN. (III, 217): "The will of God, to reveal which Christ from eternity was chosen, and in time was sent forth as the great Prophet, embraces ---------------End of Page 340------------------------------------ primarily and principally the doctrine of the Gospel, but second- arily the Law, just as also the revealed Word of God itself is divided into Law and Gospel. Specifically considered, this office consists: (a) in the full explanation of the doctrine of the Gospel, before enveloped by the shadows and types of the Law, or in the proclamation of the gratuitous promise of the remission of sins, of righteousnesss and life eternal, by and on account of Christ; ... (b) in the declaration and true interpretation of the Law." Con- cerning the relation of Christ to the Law, HOLL. (760): "The old Moral Law Christ neither annulled, nor abated, nor perfected, since it is most perfect (Ps. 19:7), yet He delivered the same from the corruptions of the Pharisees, and fully interpreted it (Matt. 5:21, seq.). Therefore, Christ is not a new legislator, but the interpreter and maintainer of the old Law." [2] HOLL. (756): "THe office of the prophets of the Old Testa- ment was to teach the Word of God, to hand down the true worship of God, to make known secret and predict future things. As Christ also did these things, He discharged the functions of the office of prophet." Yet no stress is placed upon the latter, viz., prophecy concerning the future. Therefore, QUEN. (III, 218): "The office of prophet does not consist simply and exclusively in the revelation of future things, but generally in the announcement of the divine will." [3] HOLL. (756): "Christ is the greatest prophet (Luke 7:16; Deut. 18:18; Acts 3:22; John 1:45; 6:14; Heb. 3:5, 6); a universal prophet (John 1:9; Matt. 28:19); the most enlightened prophet (Ps. 45:7; John 3:34; Col. 2:3; John 1:18); the prophet having the most seals of authority (John 6:27; Matt. 3: 17; 17:5; John 12:28); the most powerful and exemplary (Luke 24:19)." GRH. (III, 578): "THe efficacy of the doctrine is that divine power by which Christ, through the Holy Ghost, effectually moves the hearts of men to embrace the doctrine of faith (Ps. 68: 35; John 6:45)." [4] HOLL. (759): "According to His divine nature, He has united the highest power, efficacy, and influence with the Word and Sacraments. Whence the Lord co-worked everywhere with the preaching of the apostles." [5] QUEN. (III, 218): "He revealed this divine will immedi- ately, when He himself, in His own person, for three years and a half during the time of His ministry, taught and instructed and trained His disciples to be the teachers of the Church Universal. Mediately, when He employed the vicarious labor of the apostles and their successors, through whom He perpetuated, still perpetu- -----------------End of Page 341---------------------------------- ates, and will perpetuate to the end of the world, the office of teaching. John 20:21; Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15; Eph. 4:11." GRH. (III, 578): "To this office of Christ, therefore, belong the publication, in the Gospel, of the divine counsel concerning the redemption of the human race, the appointment and preservation of the office of the ministry, the appointment of the Sacraments, the giving of the Holy Ghost, and, through Him, the effectual change, illumination, regeneration, renewal, santification, etc., of human hearts." [6] QUEN. (III, 219): "The end designed by Christ, the greatest prophet, is, in itself, the bringing of all men to the knowl- edge of heavenly truth. 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9. For all things are so arranged that the blind may be led into the way, and those who walk in darkness may be enlightened. Acts 26:18. For, although it happens with regard to some that they are thereby blinded and hardened, yet this happens not by the fault of this prophet, and His work, but through their own wickedness they bring this evil upon themselves. John 3:19; 12:39, 40." PARA. 36. The Sacerdotal Office. The second office of Christ is to accomplish the redemption itself and reconciliation with God. [1] Christ thereby per- formed the work of a priest, for it was the office of priests to propitiate God by the sacrifices they offered, and therewith to remove the guilt which men had brought upon themselves. Christ, however, did not, like the priests of the Old Testament, bring something not His own as a sacrifice, but Himself, whence He is both priest and sacrifice in one person. [2] This part of His work is called the Sacerdotal Office. "The sacer- dotal office consists in this, that Christ holds a middle ground between God and men, who are at variance with each other, so that He offers sacrifice and prayers that He may reconcile man with God." [3] (BR., 491.) Accordingly it is subdivided into two parts, corresponding to the two functions that belong to priests, i.e., the offering of sacrifice and intercessory prayer. [4] The work is, therefore, in part already accomplished, and in part is still being executed by Christ. The first part of it is called satisfaction, by which expression, at the same time, the reason is implied why reconciliation with God was possible only through a sacrifice; because thereby satisfaction -----------------End of Page 342--------------------------------- was to be rendered to God, who had been offended by our sins, and therefore demanded punishment. [5] The other part is called intercession. I. SATISFACTION.--If the wrath of God, which rests upon men on account of their sins, together with all its conse- quences, is just and holy, then it is not compatible with God's justice and holiness that He should forgive men their sins ab- solutely and without punisment, and lay aside all wrath together with its conseqences; not compatible with His justice, for this demands that He hold a relation to sinners different from that He holds towards the godly, and that He decree pun- ishment for the former; not with His holiness, for in virtue of this He hates the evil; finally, it is not compatible with His truth, for He has already declared that He will punish those who transgress His holy Law. [6] If God, therefore, under the impulse of His love to men, is still to assume once more a gracious relation to them, something must first occur that can enable Him to do this without derogating from His justice and holiness; [7] the guilt that men have brought upon themselves by their sins must be removed, a ransom must be paid, an equivalent must be rendered for the offence that has been committed against God, or, what amounts to the same thing, satisfaction must be rendered. [8] Now, as it is impossible for us men to render this, we must extol it as a spe- cial act of divine mercy [9] that God has made it possible through Christ, and that He for this end determined upon the incarnation of Christ, so that He might render this satisfaction in our stead. [10] In Him, namely, who is God and man, by virtue of this union of the two natures in one person, every- thing that He accomplishes in His human nature has infinite value; while every effort put forth by a mere man has only restricted and temporary value. Although, therefore, a mere man cannot accomplish anything of sufficient extent and value to remove the infinite guilt that rests upon the human race, and atone for past transgressions, yet Christ can do this, be- cause everything that He does and suffers as man is not sim- ply the doing and suffering of a mere man, but to what He does there is added the value and significance of a divine and therefore infinite work, [11] in virtue of the union of the di- -------------------End of Page 343------------------------------- vine and the human nature, and their consequent communion; so that, therefore, there can proceed from Him an act of in- finite value which He can set over against the infinite guilt of man, and therewith remove this guilt. In Christ, the God- man, there is therefore entire ability to perform such a work, and in Him there is also the will to do it. But a twofold work, however, is to be accomplished. The first thing to be effected is, that God cease to regard men as those who have not complied with the demands of the holy Law. This is done, when He who is to render the satisfaction so fulfils the entire Law in the place of men that He has done that which man had failed to do. Then it must be brought about that guilt no longer rests upon men for which they deserve punishment, and this is accomplished when He who is rendering satisfaction for men takes the punishment upon Himself. Both of these things Christ has done; [12] the first by His active obedience (which consisted in the most perfect fulfilment of the Law), for thereby He, who in His own person was not subject to the Law, fulfilled the Law in the place of man; [13] the second by His passive obedience (which consisted in the all-sufficient payment of the penalties that were awaiting us), for thereby He suffered what men should have suffered, and so He took upon Himself their punisment, and atoned for their sins in their stead. [14] Through this manifestation of obedience to the divine decree in both these respects, Christ rendered, in the place of man, [15] a satisfaction fully sufficient [16] and available for all the sins of all men, which is designated as the former part of the sacerdotal office by which Christ, by divine decree, through a most complete obedience, active and passive, rendered satis- faction to divine justice, [17] infringed by the sins of men, to the praise of divine justice and mercy, and for the procurement of our justification and salvation." HOLL. (735). [18] But since Christ rendered satisfaction, as above stated, He thereby secured for us forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation, which we designate as His merit that is imputed to us. QUEN. (III, 225): "Merit flows from satisfaction rendered. Christ ren- dered satisfaction for our sins, and for the penalties due to them, and thus He merited for us the grace of God, forgive- ness of sins, and eternal life." [19] ---------------End of Page 344------------------------------------ II. INTERCESSION.--For, after Christ had thus offered Him- self as a sacrifice for men, the second part of His priestly office consists in His actively interceding with the Father, when He had been exalted to His right hand, upon the ground of His merit, so that men thus redeemed may have the benefit of all that He has secured for them by His sufferings and death, of everything, in fact, that can promote their bodily, and espec- ially their spiritual welfare. "Intercession is the latter part of the sacerdotal office, by which Christ, the God-man, in vir- tue of His boundless merit intercedes truly and properly, and without any detriment to His majesty; intercedes for all men, but especially for His elect, that He may obtain for them whatsoever things He knows to be salutary for them, for the body, and especially for the soul (but chiefly those things which are useful and necessary for securing eternal life), 1 John 2:1; Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25; 9:24." (HOLL., 749.) [20] "This intercession has reference, therefore, it is true, to all men, as all men while upon earth may become partakers of salvation; but, inasmuch as Christ can give very differently and more freely to those who have by faith already become partakers of His merit than to those who still reject it, this is distinguished as to its comprehension into general intercession, in which Christ prays to the Father for all men, that the saving merit of His death may be applied to them (Rom. 8:34; Is. 53:12; Luke 23:34); and special intercession, in which He prays for the regenerate, that they may be preserved and grow in faith and holiness, John 17:9." (HOLL., 749.)[21] As to its nature, it is described as true, real, and peculiar, i.e., as such, that Christ is not content merely in silence to await the effect of His satisfaction, but that He actively, effectively, really avails Himself of His merit with the Father in such manner as becomes Him in His divine dignity. [22] Finally, as to its duration, it never ceases. [23] The effect accomplished by the priestly office, in its whole compass, is the redemption of men. [24] If they appropriate it in faith, their sins are no longer reckoned, nor is temporal or eternal punisment imposed, nor does the wrath of God any longer rest upon them; for, in the true and proper sense of the term, they are redeemed from all this by the ransom that ---------------End of Page 345------------------------------------ Christ has paid for them. "The redemption of the human race is the spiritual, judicial, and most costly deliverance of all men, bound in the chains of sin, from guilt, from the wrath of God, and temporal and eternal punisment, accomplished by Christ, the God-man, through His active and passive obe- dience, which God, the most righteous judge, kindly accepted as a most perfect ransom (lutron), so that the human race, in- troduced into spiritual liberty, may live forever with God." HOLL. (752). [25] [1] KG. (I, 150): "The end of the office of priest is to reconcile men with God, Heb. 4:16; 9:26, 28; 1 John 2:2." More specif- cally, QUEN. (III, 222): "(1) THe perfect reconciliation of man, the sinner, with God, or the restoration of the former friendship between the separated parties, God and men the sinners, Rom. 5: 10; Col. 1:20, 21; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19; Heb. 7:27. (2) Deliverance from the captivity of the devil, Luke 1:74; Heb. 2:14, 15; 1 John 3:8. (3) From sin, as well in relation to its guilt, Col. 1:14; Eph. 1:7, as its slavery, 1 Pet. 1:18; Gal. 1:4, and its inherency, Rom. 8:23." [2] HOLL.: "The material of the sacrifice is Christ Himself, Eph. 5:2." BR. (493): "While, in other sacrifices, victims are offered different from the priests, Christ sacrificed Himself, when He voluntarily subjected Himself to suffering and death, and thus offered Himself to God as victim, for expiating not His own sins, but those of the entire human race." [3] HOLL. (731): "Christ's office as a priest is that according to which Christ, the only mediator and priest of the New Testa- ment, by His most exact fulfillment of the Law and the sacrifice of His body, satisfied, on our behalf, the injured divine justice, and offers to God the most effectual prayers for our salvation." QUEN. (III, 220): "From this priestly office Christ is called a priest, Ps. 110:4 (Heb. 5:10; 6:20; 7:26; 9:11; 10:21); a great high priest, Heb. 4:14; a high priest, Heb. 4:15; 9:11; 3:1." The priesthood of Christ is adumbrated in the priesthood of Aaron and Melchisedek. The latter is related to the former, as the shadow to the very substance. APOL. CONF. (XII, 37): "As in the Old Tes- tament, the shadow is seen, so, in the New Testament, the thing signified must be sought for, and not another type, as though suffi- cient for sacrifice." HOLL. (732): "As the shadow yields in eminence to the body, so does Aaron to Christ." QUEN. (III, 221): "Hebrews 7 diligently unfolds the type set forth in Mel- -----------------------End of Page 346-------------------------- chisedek, and applies it to Christ.... This very comparison of Christ with Melchisedek is presented in the germ by Moses, Gen. 14:17, is formally declared by David, Ps. 110:4, and is specificcally explained by Paul." [4] QUEN. (III, 225): "THe priestly office of Christ is composed of two parts, satisfaction and intercession; because, in the first place, He made the most perfect satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, and earned salvation. In the second place, He anxiously interceded and still intercedes and mediates, on behalf of all, for the application of the acquired salvation. That the Messiah would perform these functions of a priest, Is. 53:12 clearly predicted." [5] HOLL. (735): "Satisfaction is not a Scriptural but an eccle- siastical term, yet its synonyms exist in the holly volume, namely, hilasmos, propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2; 4.10), (hilasterion, Rom. 3:24, 25), katallage, Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5: 18, apolitrosis, Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14, paying the ransom (ton lutron), Matt. 20:28. For this redemption denotes the payment of a suffi- cient price for the captive; and the reconciliation of God with men is described in Scripture in such a manner, that it is evident that it was made not without a ransom, which divine justice demanded of the Mediator." [6] HUTT. (Loc. Com., 418): "This threatening (Gen. 2:17) ought necessarily to have been fulfilled after the Fall of our first parents, because the truth and justice of God are immutable, and God cannot lie. But if God had remitted anything from this, His truth, as the Photinians say, i.e., from this Law, and, without any satisfaction, had embraced the human race in His mercy, then God would have lied, when He said: `Thou shalt surely die.' This truth and justice of God, therefore, remaining unmoved, the human race must either perish eternally, or could be redeemed from this penalty only by the intervention of the most complete satisfaction. But this could be provided by no mortal. Therefore it was necessary to be provided by Christ, the Son of God, as Saviour." [7] Therefore the proposition (HUTT., Loc. Com., 406): "The mercy of God is not absolute, but in Christ, and founded only in Christ and in His merit and satisfaction.... God is not only supremely merciful but also supremely just. But this justice of God required, of the whole human race, such penalties as those with which God Himself in Paradise threatened our first parents, if they should transgress the Law that had been given them.... Therefore, there could not be a place for God's mercy until sati- faction should be rendered the divine justice.... Hence, the ---------------End of Page 347------------------------------------- position remains, established, firm and immovable, that this mercy of God could have had no place, except with respect to, or in con- sideration of, the satisfaction of Christ." The love of God to men is therefore denoted accurately as ordi- nate, and not as absolute. HUTT. (Loc. Com., 415): "God indeed loved already from all eternity the whole human race, yet not abso- lutely and unconditionally, but ordinately; namely, in His beloved Son. This ordinate love includes and relates to the Son likewise not absolutely, or only in such a respect as that God willed that He should be the teacher of the human race; but also ordinately, so far as He took upon Himself the guilt of our sins, and made satisfaction on behalf of the whole human race to the divine wrath or justice. Therefore, this ordinate affection or love of God neces- sarily presupposes His wrath, so that this love in God could not have a place, unless, likewise from all eternity, satisfaction had been made to this divine wrath or justice through the Son, who from eternity, offered Himself as a mediator between God and men." [8] QUEN. (III, 227): "The object to which satisfaction has been afforded is the Triune God alone." (HOLL. (736): "Ob- serve, that, in a certain respect, Christ made satisfaction to Himself. For, as far as Christ made satisfaction as a mediator, He is regarded as the God-man; but, in so far as He likewise demanded satisfac- tion, He must be regarded as the author and maintainer of the Law, who by His essence is just.") QUEN. (III, 227 sq.): "For the entire Holy Trinity, offended at sins, was angry with men, and, on account of the immutability of its justice (Rom. 1:18), the holiness of its nature, and the truth of its threatenings, could not with impunity forgive sins, and, without satisfaction, receive men into favor. But this Triune God has not the relation of a mere creditor, as the Socinians state, but of a most just judge, re- quiring, according to the rigor of His infinite justice, an infinite price of satisfaction. For redemption itself, made for the declara- tion of righteousness (Rom. 3:25), proves the necessity of requir- ing a penalty, either from the guilty one himself, i.e., man, or from his surety, namely, Christ. If God, without a satisfaction, could have forgiven man's offence, without impairing His infinite jusctice, there would not have been need of such an expense as that of His only Son."... The chief passages in the Symbolical Books are the following: AP. CONF. (III, 58): "THe Law condemns all men; but Christ, because without sin He submitted to the punisment of sin, and became a victim for us, removed from the Law the right of accus- ----------------End of Page 348------------------------------------ ing and condemning those who believe in Him, since He is the propitiation for them for the sake of which we are now accounted righteous." Ibid. (XXI (IX), 19): "The second requirement, in a propitiator, is that his merits be presented in order to give satisfaction for others, to betow upon others a divine imputation, that, through these, they may be regarded precisely as righteous as though by their own merits. As, if a friend should pay the debt of a friend, the debtor would be freed by another's merit just as though by his own. The merits of Christ are so presented to us that, when we believe in Him, we are accounted just as righteousn, by our confidence in the merits of Christ, as though we had merits of our own." FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., III, 57): "Since this obe- dience of Christ is that not of one nature only, but of the entire person, most perfect is the satisfaction and expiation, on behalf of the human race, according to which satisfaction was made to the eternal and immutable divine justice revealed in the Law. This obedience is that righteousness of ours that avails before God."... Moreover, it was especially the Socinians against whom the Dog- maticians had to defend the doctrine above stated; and it was under the influence of the controversy with them that the doctrine as- sumed the form just presented. HUTT., who already in his Loc. TH. opposes the Socinian doctrine at great length, states it as fol- lows: "That man is justified before God, not because of the merit or satisfaction of Christ, because neither the justice of God required this, nor did Christ by His death afford it, but because alone of the forgiveness of sins, which God, not on account of any merit of His Son, but from His most free will, grants those who believe in the Word of Christ, and pursue a life of innocence." In refutation of this doctrine, HUTT. makes a distinction between three contro- versies. (402): "The first is, concerning the mercy of God, which, the Photinians contend, (1) is not natural or essential, but acci- dental to God; (2) that in respect to men, as sinners, it is alto- gether absolute, and is not based upon any satisfaction whatever, whether of Christ or of ourselves. The second is, concerning the justice of God, as avenging or punishing the sins of men, of which the Photinians imagine that there neither is, nor ever has been, any such in God; just as though in the Scriptures God were no- where read of as ever being or having been angry with sinners. The third is, concerning the satisfaction and merit of Christ our Saviour; for they absolutely deny both, contending very blasphem- ously, (1) that there was no necessity whatever for a satisfaction; ... (2) that the suffering of Christ neither was nor could have been a satisfaction or merit for our sins; ... (3) that the final -------------------End of Page 349----------------------------------- cause of Christ's suffering was nothing else than that He might be able to show us the way of life, and that, by means of His doctrine, we might embrace salvation;...(4) that the remission of sins comes to us without the shedding of Christ's blood, solely by free, unconditional, and absolute will of God's mercy, according to which He is willing to forgive us our sins, and truly forgives them if we truly repent." [9] HOLL. 736): "The wisdom and mercy of God especially shines forth from the wonderful satisfaction of the Mediator, a most precious ransom having been most wisely found, and most merci- fully determined and accepted." [10] HUTT. (Loc. Com., 408): "Wherefore, in order that the mercy of God might harmonize with His justice, it was necessary that a combination of divine justice and mercy should intervene; by reason of which, both His justice would press its right, and mercy, at the same time, would have a place. We are permitted to hold such a combination, and that, too, by far the most perfect, in one and the same work of our salvation, with respect to one and the same subject, namely, Christ our Saviour. For, when about to reconcile the world, and that, too, not without an unparalleled feeling of mercy, He saw that satisfaction must first be made to justice. Therefore, He turned upon Himself the penalties due our sins, He was made sin for us, He truly bore our griefs, and thus became obedient to God the Father, even to the death of the cross, satisfied divine justice to the exactest point, and thus reconciled the world, not only to God the Father, but also to Himself." But the price of redemption must be paid God, and to Him the satisfaction must be rendered. HUTT. (Loc. Com., 430): "Neither the devil, nor sin, nor death, nor hell, but God Himself, was the ruler holding the human race in captivity, as He delivered it to the infernal prison by this sentence, `Thou shalt surely die.' The devil bore only the part of a lictor; sin was like chains; death and hell, like a prison. Therefore, the price of the redemption was to be paid not to the devil,* not to sin, not to death or hell, but to God, who had it in His power once again to declare the human race free, ------------------------------------------------------------------------- *[Referring to the doctrine found in many of the early writers of the Church, (especially Origen, Gregory of Nyssa), and in Lombardus and other Scholastics, which represented the price of redemption as paid the devil. Men, they taught, because of sin, had been handed over to Satan's power. Christ offered Himself as man's substitute, and was gladly accepted by Satan, who overlooked Christ's omnipotence, and was thus not only defrauded of his prey, but even himself was destroyed, when the Son of God, brought within his realm, completely overthrew and ruined it. It was the work of Anselm to antagonize this perversion of Heb. 2:14, 15, and to define the doctrine that has since prevailed.] ------------------End of Page 350----------------------------------------- and to redeem it for grace; provided only a satisfaction to the ex- actest point be rendered His justice." [11] QUEN. (III, 228): "It was the infinite God that was offended by sin; and because sin is an offense, wrong, and crime against the infinite God, and, so to speak, is Deicide, it has an infinite evil, not indeed formally,... but objectively, and de- serves infinite punishments, and, therefore, required an infinite price of satisfaction, which Christ alone could have afforded." GRH. (III, 579): "The guilt attending the sins of the entire human race was infinite, inasmuch as it was directed against the infinite justice of God. An infinite good had been injured, and, therefore, an infinite price was demanded. But the works and sufferings of Christ's human nature are finite, and belong to a determined time, i.e., are terminated by the period of His humili- ation. In order, therefore, that the price of redemption might be proportionate to our debt and infinite guilt, it was necessary that the action or mediation not only of a finite, viz., a human, but also of an infinite, i.e., a divine nature, should concur, and that the suffering and death of Christ should acquire power of infinitie price elsewhere, viz., from the most effectual working of the divine nature, and thus that an infinite good might be able to be pre- sented against an infinite evil." Cf. the doctrine of the third genus of communicatio idiomatum. Christ, as the God-man, could afford such a satisfaction. QUEN. (III, 227): "The source from which" (Christ made satisfaction) "comprises both natures, the divine, as the original and formal source, and the human, as the organic source, acting from divine power communicated through the hypostatic union." Cf. FORM. CONC., Sol. Dec., III, 56. NOTE.--The passages cited prove that the Dogmaticians attached so much importance to the union of the divine and human natures for the special reason that, if the divine nature had not partici- pated with the human in suffering, in the manner indicated in PARA. 33, Note 23, this suffering would not have had an infinite value, and in this they follow the theory of Anselm. But this theory still further magnifies the importance of the union of the two natures in Christ by another consideration, stating that "if this service of infinite value had not been rendered by one who was at the same time man, it would have been of no avail for us men;" and without this addition the theory is confessedly incomplete. Although our Dogmaticians do not expressly mention this point, we may still assume that they silently included it. This assump- tion is justified by the self-consistency of the Anselmic theory, which they on this subject adopted. -------------End of Page 351--------------------------------------- [12] QUEN. (III, 244): "The means by the intervention of which satisfaction was afforded is the price of Christ's entire obedi- ence, which embraces (1) the most exact fulfilment of the Law; (2) the enduring, or most bitter suffering, of the penalties merited by us transgressors. For by His acts Christ expiated the crime which man had committed against justice, and by His sufferings He bore the penalty which, in accordance with justice, man was to endure. Hence the obedience of Christ, afforded in our place, is commonly said to be twofold, the active, which consists in the most perfect fulfilment of the Law, and the passive, which consists in the perfectly sufficient payment of penalties that awaited us. The distinction into active and passive obedience is not very accurate, as Dr. Mentzer well remarks, because the passive obedi- ence does not exclude the active, but includes it, inasmuch as the latter was wonderfully active, even in the very midst of Christ's death. Hence Bernard correctly called Christ's action passive, and His passion active. `From the Scriptures and with them we acknowledge only one obedience of Christ, and that the most per- fect,' says the already quoted Mentzer, `which, according to the will of His Father, He fulfilled with the greatest holiness and the highest perfection in His entire life, and by the action and suffer- ing of death.' The active obedience is His conformity with the very Law. And therefore, properly and acccurately, and by itself, it is called obedience. But what is ordinarily called passive obedi- ence is the enduring of a penalty inflicted upon the violator of the Law. If this is to be named obedience, it will be so called in a broad sense, or from its result, for it is certain that alone and with- out the accompaniment of active obedience, it is not conformity with the very Law.... The obedience of Christ is with less accuracy called passive, because He voluntarily did and suffered all things for us and our salvation." [13] HOLL. (737): "By His active obedience, Christ most exactly fulfilled the divine Law in our stead, in order that peni- tent sinners, applying to themselves, by true faith, this vicarious fulfilment of the Law, might be accounted righteous before God, the judge, Gal. 4:4, 5; Rom. 10:4; Matt. 5:17." In the doctrine of the active obedience, the following points come into consideration: (1) That God could not forgive us if we could not be considered as having satisfied the demands of the divine Law. QUEN. (III, 244): "For, inasmuch as man was not only to be freed from the wrath of God as a just judge, but also, in order that he might stand before God, there was a necessity for righteousness which he could not attain except by the fulfilment ------------------End of Page 352----------------------------------- of the Law, Christ took upon Himself both, and not only suffered for us, but also made satisfaction to the Law in all things, in order that this His fulfilment and obedience might be imputed to us. (2) That Christ was subject to the Law not for His own person." QUEN. (III, 246): "The cause on account of which the Son of God was subject to the Law was not His own obligation; for Christ not only as God, but also according to His human nature, was in no way subject to the Law.... For Christ, with respect to Him- self, was the Lord of the entire Law, and not its servant, Mark 2: 28. And, although He was and is the seed of Abraham, yet, be- cause in the unity of His person He was and is the Son of God, He was not subject to the Law with respect to Himself." (3) That consequently as Christ has nevertheless fulfilled the Law, He has done it in our stead. GRH.: "Rom. 8:3. Here there is ascribed to the Son of God the fulfilment of the Law, which it was impos- sible for us to render, in order that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us through faith, viz., through Christ, cf. Rom. 5:8; Phil. 3:9. The Son of God, therefore, was sent to render that which, because of weakness, was impossible for us, and it was, therefore, necessary that the Son of God Himself should fulfil the Law for us, in order that the righteousness demanded by the Law and rendered by Him might become ours through the imputation of faith, and thus, in God's judgment, according to His reckoning, might be fulfilled or be able to be regarded as fulfilled by us." Christ engaged Himself to fulfill the Law on our account, as CALOV. (VII, 424) asserts, already through "curcumcision, which to Him was not a means of regeneration or renewal, because He needed neither; wherefore, for no other reason, except for our sake, He submitted to circumcision, and through the same put Himself under obligation to render a fulfilment of the Law, that should be vicarious or in our place." Concerning the nature of the Law that Christ fulfilled, HOLL. (737): "The Law to which He was subject is understoofd both as the universal or moral, and the particular, i.e., the ceremonial and forensic." QUEN. (III, 245): "And the Law was thus fulfilled by the Lord: (1) the ceremonial, by showing its true end and scope, and fulfilling all the shadows and types which adumbrated either His person or office; (2) the judicial, both by fulfilling those things which in it belonged to common, natural, and perpetual law; (3) the moral, in so far as by His perfect obedience, and the conformity of all the actions of His life, He observed the Law without any sin and defect, reaffirmed its doctrine which had been corrupted by the Pharisees, and restored it to its native integrity and perfection." -----------End of Page 353---------------------------------------- Andr. Osiander gave occasion to the supplementing of the pas- sive by the active obedience. The doctrine was first developed by Flacius (in his work, "Concerning Righteousness vs. Osiander," 1552) in the following manner: "The justice of God, as revealed in the Law, demands of us, poor, unrighteous, disobedient men, two items of righteousness. The first is, that we render to God complete satisfaction for the transgression and sin already com- mitted; the second, that we thenceforth be heartily and perfectly obedient to His Law if we wish to enter into life. If we do not thus accomplish this, it threatens us with eternal damnation. And therefore this essential justice of God includes us under sin and the wrath of God.... Now there are often two parts of this right- eousness due to the Law: the former, the complete satisfaction of punishment for sin committed, for, since it is right and proper to punish a sinner, one part of righteousness is willingly to suffer the merited punishment; the other part is perfect obedience, which should then follow and be rendered. Therefore the righteousness of the obedience of Christ, which He rendered to the Law for us, consists in these two features, viz., in His suffering and in the perfection of His obedience to the commands of God." The FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., III, 14) states the doctrine thus: "Therefore the righteounsess which, out of pure grace, is imputed before God to faith or believers, is the obedience, the suffering, and the resurrectioon of Christ, by which, for our sake, He made satis- faction to the Law and expiated our sins. For since Christ is not only man, but God and man in one undivided person by reason of His own person, He was no more subject to the Law than He was to suffering and death, as He was the Lord of the Law. For this reason, His obedience (not ony that by which in His entire pas- sion and death He obeyed the Father, but also that by which, for our sake, He voluntarily subjected Himself to the Law and ful- filled it by His obedience) is imputed to us for righteoussness, so that because of the entire obedience which, for our sake, Christ rendered His Heavenly Father, both by doing and suffering, God forgives us our sins." Cf. III, 57. Intimations of this doctrine occur, indeed, already in the writings of earlier theologians, even in those of Luther, but before the time of the FORM. CONC., the obedience of Christ was considered mainly with reference to His sufferings. Thus MEL. (Loc. c. Th., II, 212): "Since, therefore, men did not afford obedience, it was necessary either that they should perish as a punisment, or that another one pay the pen- alty or ransom; therefore by His wonderful and unerring counsel, the Son of God, by interceding for us, paid the ransom, and drew ------------End of Page 354---------------------------------------- upon Himself the wrath which we ought to have borne; wherefore, God did not abate His Law without a compensation, but preserved His justice in demanding punishment. Christ therefore says, `I am not come to destroy but to fulfil the Law,' namely, by under- going punishment for the human race and by teaching and restoring the Law in believer." And at the time, and even after the time, of Osiander, many divines contented themselves with thus stating it, and to the passsive added a further obedience only in this sense, viz., that the obedience of Christ manifested itself not only in suf- fering, but also throughout His entire holy life. Thus GRH. states it (VII, 60), who, however, in other passages, expresses himself as favoring the active obedience in the sense of the FORM. CONC.): "It remains for us to inquire by what means Christ merited the righteousness that avails before God. We reply, from the Scrip- tures, that the entire obedience of Christ, the active as well as the passsive, that of His life as well as that of His death, concur in pro- curing this merit. For, although in many passages of Scripture the work of redemption is ascribed to Christ's death, and the shed- ding of His blood, yet this must be received by no means exclu- sively, as though by it the holy life of Christ were excluded from the work of redemption, but it must be regarded as occurring for the reason that nowhere does the fact that the Lord has loved and redeemed us, shine forth more clearly than in His passion, death, and wounds, as the devout old teachers say; and because the death of Christ is, as it were, the last line and completion, the telos, the end and perfection of the entire obedience, as the apostle says, Phil. 2:8. That it is altogether impossible in this merit to separate the active from the passive obedience, is evident, because even in the death of Christ the voluntary obedience and most ardent love concur, of which the former respects the Heavenly Father, and the latter us men, John 10:18; Gal. 2:20." Direct opposition to the distinction drawn by Osiander was first made among the Lutheran theologians by Parsimonius (1563), who soon, however, withdrew it. He said: "The Law binds to either obedience or punishement, not both at once. Therefore, because Christ endured the punish- ment for us, He thereby rendered obedience for Himself." Also: "What He rendered, that we dare not render, and are under no obligation to do it. But we must render obedience to the Law. Christ, therefore, did not render obedience to the Law for us, but for Himself, that He might be an offering unspotted and acceptable to God." (Arnold, "Kirchen und Ketzer Geschichte," vol. ii, pt. xvi, ch. xxx, PARA. 12.) On the part of the Reformed, the chief opposition to this doctrine came from John Piscator, in Herborn. ------------------End of Page 355-------------------------------- His arguments are answered at length by Grh., vii, 70, sqq.: "The suffering of penalties alone is not the righteousness of the Law, for then it would follow that the condemned most perfectly fulfill the Law; since they endure the most exquisite punishments for their sins.... The passion of Christ would not have profited had it not been combined with most full and perfect obedience to the Law.... The active obedience alone would not have been suffic- ient, because punishment was to be inflicted for the sins of the human race; the passive obedience alone would not have been suf- ficient, because if the sins were to be expiated, perfect obedience to each and every precept of the Law was required, i.e., the passive obedience had to be that of one who had most fully met every demand of active obedience.... Rational creatures not yet fallen into sin, the Law places under either punishment or obedi- ence. The holy angels it obliges only to obedience, but in no way to punishment. Adam, in the state of innocency, it obliges only to obedience, but not at the same time, except conditionally, to punishment. For, where there is no transgression, there is no punishment. But rational creatures that have fallen into sin, it obliges to both punishment and obedience: to obedience, so far as they are rational creatures; to punishment, because they have fallen into sin. Thus, since the Fall, Adam and all his posterity are under obligation at the same time both of punishment and of obedi- ence, because the obligation to obedience is in no way abated by a fall, but on the other hand, a new obligation has entered, viz., that of the endurance of punisment for sin." For the history of the doctrine of the active obedience, see Fr. H. R. Frank: "The Theology of the Form. Conc.," II, 1861. J. G. Thomasius: "The Person and Work of Christ," Part III, Division 1, second edition. 1863. [14] HOLL. 737): "By the passive obedience, Christ transferred to Himself the sins of the whole world (2 Cor. 5:31; Gal. 3:13), and besides this suffered the punishments due them, by shedding His most precious blood, and meeting for all sinners the most ignominous death (Is. 53:4; 1 Pet. 2:24; John 1:29; Rom. 4: 25; Gal. 1:4; 1 Cor. 15:3; 1 Pet. 3:18; Heb. 10:12; Rom. 6:23; Heb. 9:28), in order that, to believers in Christ the Redeemer, sins might not be imputed for eternal punishment." To the satis- factory sufferings of Christ, there are referred (QUEN. III, 253): "All the acts of Christ, from the first moment of conception to the three days of His atoning death; as, His lying hid for nine months in the womb of the Virgin, His being born in poverty, His living in constant misery, His bearing hunger, thirst and cold. For He bore -----------------End of Page 356----------------------------------- all these things for us and our sake." Nevertheless, the passive obedience is said to consist "especially of death, and the yielding up of the spirit." [15] The satisfaction which Christ has made is, therefore, a vicarous satisfaction. HOLL. (737): "To a vicarious penal satis- faction, (a) if it be formally regarded, there is required: 1. A surrogation, by which some one else is substituted in the place of a debtor, and there is a transfer of the crime, or an imputation of the charge made against another. 2. A payment of penalties, which the substitued bondsman or surety makes in the place of the debtor; (b) considered with regard to the end, the payment of the penalty, for obtaining the discharge of the debtor, occurs in such a way that he is declared free from the crime and penalty." The attacks of the Socinians against the vicarious satisfaction are re- futed by GRH. (VII, 1. xvii, c. ii, PARA. 37, sq.), and QUEN. (De officio Christi, pars polemica, qu. 6). The chief objection: "The action of one cannot be the action of another; the fulfilment of the Law is an action of Christ; therefore the fulfilment of the Law cannot be our action," HOLL. (734) refutes thus: "An action is considered either physically, as it is the motion of one acting, or morally, as it is good or evil. The action of one can be that of another by imputation, not physically, but morally." [The argument of GRH. is: 1. Christ is our mediator, 1 Tim. 2: 5; Heb. 8:6; 9:15; 12:24. 2. Our redeemer, Ps. 111:9; Luke 1:68; 2:38; Rom. 3:24; 1 Cor. 1:30; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; 1 Tim. 2:7; Heb. 9:12, 15; 1 Pet. 1:18; Rev. 5:9. 3. The ilasmos, propitiation for our sins, 1 John 2:2; 4:10; Rom. 3:24, 25. 4. By Him we are reconciled to God, Is. 63:3; cf. Rev. 19: 13; John 1:17; Rom. 5:10, 11; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19; Eph. 2:16; 5:2; Col. 1:20. 5. He gave His life a lutron kai antilutron for us, Matth. 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:5, 6, the latter meaning properly an equivalent compensation; and hence the benefit ac- quired is said to be lutrosis and apolutrosis, Luke 1:68; Tit. 2:14; 1 Pet. 1:18; Heb. 9:15. 6. He was made sin for us, 2 Cor. 5: 21; Rom. 8:3. 7. He became a curse for us, Gal. 3:13. 8. He took upon Himself our sins and their punishment, Ps. 69:4; Is. 43:24, 25; 53:4, 6, 8; Johnn 1:29; 1 Pet. 2:24. Here belongs the scape-goat, Lev. 16:20, as a type of Christ, John 1:29. 9. He shed His blood for our sins, Matth, 26:28; 1 John 1:7; Heb. 9:13, 14. 10. He blotted out the indictment, Col. 2:14. 11. He freed us from the curse of the Law, Gal. 3:13; 4:5. 12. From the wrath of God, 1 Thess. 1:10; 13. From eternal condemnation, 1 Thess. 5:9, 11. 14. In Christ we are righteous and beloved, 2 Cor. 5:21. --------------------End of Page 357------------------------------ The counter-arguments of the Socinians are then examined: e.g., Against (1) they urge, that Moses was also a mediator. This is conceded. But there is more in the antitype than in the type. The manner in which Christ is said to be mediator is especially taught in Scripture, 1 Tim. 2:4, 5, 6; Heb. 9:15. Against (2) that redemption means only simple liberation without an intervening price of satisfaction. It is conceded that the word redeem is so used in some passages, but not in those which refer to Christ as our Redeemer, 1 Cor. 6:20; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19; Gal. 3:13; Eph. 1:7; Tit. 2:14; Heb. 9:12, 15; Rev. 5:9. Against (4) that the reconciliation is not of men with God, but of men with themselves, i.e., of Gentiles with Jews, and of men with angels. It is conceded that in Eph. 2, the apostle is speaking of the antagonism between Jews and Greeks, and in Col. 1, of that be- tween angels and men; but from this it does not follow, that there is no reference to the removal of the dissent between men and God by Christ's satisfaction, for this is distinctly said, Eph. 2:16; there- fore He reconciled the Gentiles not only to the Jews, but also to God Himself, vs. 13, 18, 19. So, according to Col 1, angels are reconciled to men, because, through Christ, the human race is reconciled to God. That we are reconciled to God through Christ, Scripture clearly asserts; but from this, it neither can, nor should be inferred that God is not reconciled to us through Christ, but rather that the one follows from the other. As we could not be reconciled to God, unless God were reconciled to us, the Apostle says (Rom. 5:10): "When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son," etc. Among the general objections of the Socinians, the chief is that any satisfaction conflicts with the gratuitous remission of sins; as a creditor cannot be said to remit a debt gratuitously, for which a satisfaction is rendered. GRH. answers that there is no opposition, but only a subordination, Rom. 3:24: `Being justified freely by His grace' (gratuitous remission) `through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus' (satisfaction), Eph. 1:7: `In whom we have redemption through His blood' (satisfaction), `the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His grace' (gratuitous remission). As the grace of God does not destroy the justice of God, so gratui- tous remisision does not annul the merit and satisfaction of Christ which the Law demands. Nor was God a mere creditor, but also a most just judge and avenger of sins; nor were sins mere debts, but they conflict with the immutable justice of God revealed in the Law. In short, the particle freely excludes our worth, our merits, our satisfaction; but in no way the satisfaction of Christ ----------------End of Page 358-------------------------------------- The mercy of God remitting sins is gratuitous; but not so absolute as to exclude the merit of Christ."] [16] QUEN. (III, 246): "The form or formal mode of the satis- faction consists in the most exact and sufficient payment of all those things which we owed.... Indeed this very payment of the entire debt of another, freely undertaken by Christ, and im- puted to Him in the divine judgment, was sufficient, not merely because accepted of God. For in this satisfaction God did not, out of liberality, accept anything that was not such in itself, neither, in demanding a punishment due us and rendered by a surety, did He abate anything; but in this satisfaction Christ bore everything that the rigor of His justice demanded, so that He endured even the very punishments of hell, although not in hell, nor eternally. ... Therefore the satisfaction of Christ is most sufficient and complete by itself, or from its own infinite, intrinsic value, which value arises from the facts, (1) that the person making the satisfac- tion is infinite God; (2) that the human nature, from the personal union, has become participant of divine and infinite majesty, and therefore its passion and death are regarded and esteemed as of such infinite value and price as though they belonged to the divine nature. Acts 20:28." If men have merited eternal punisment, and Christ suffered only for a short time, yet this was nevertheless still a sufficient atonement, inasmuch as the sufferings of Christ are of infinite value. HUTT. meets the objection of the Photinians (Loc. Com., 427): "That the curse of the Law was eternal death; but now, since Christ did not undergo eternal death, therefore He has not undergone or borne for us the curse of the Law," by say- ing: "The reasoning deceives through the sophism of `non causa pro causa.' For it is not true, that the merit of Christ is not of in- finite value, for the reason that Christ met a death that is not eter- nal; for, as the sins of our disobedience are actually finite, yet in guilt are infinite, since they are committed against the infinite justice of God; so the obedience and death of Christ were indeed finite in act, so far as they were circumscribed by a period of fixed time, namely, the days of humiliation, but they are infinite with respect to merit, inasmuch as they proceed from an infinite person, namely, from the only begotten Son of God Himself. Secondly, it is not unconditionally true, that the curse of the Law is to be defined only by eternal death. For if this were true, the Apostle's definiton of the curse of the Law, by the declaration of Moses: `Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,' Deut. 21:23, would have been extremely inaccurate. Then, eternal death is defined not only by its perpetual continuance, or the enduring of the tor- -----------End of Page 359------------------------------------------ tures of hell, but also by the feeling of the sorrows of hell, united with rejection or desertion by God; so that he who even but for a moment endures such sorrows, can be said to have experienced eternal death. Thus Christ, indeed, not for a moment, or a short space of time, but through the entire period of His humiliation, truly endured the feeling of those sorrows of hell, so that at length He was constrained to exclaim, `My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?' But the reason that He did not suffer death in the latter manner is, that He himself, as an innocent man, by dying satisfied the Law." HOLL. (742) rmarks: "Christ endured a punishment equivalent to eternal punishment, inasmuch as He suffered the punishments of hell intensively as respects their power, weight, and substance, although not extensively, so far as their dur- ation and the accidents pertaining to the subject's suffering are concerned; He bore the extremity, but not eternity of tortures." [The students of the history of the doctrine of the "Active Obe- dience," have occupied themselves too exclusively with polemical treatises. In practical works, its formulation is much earlier than 1553. It is distinctly taught in the Third Homily of the Church of England (Cranmer) of 1547, in the Articles for the Reformation of Cologne (Melanchton and Bucer) of 1543, and the Branden- burg-Nuernberg Articles of 1433. What is espeicially interesting is, that this earliest document was prepared by Andrew Osiander him- self, with the assistance of Brentz. Its presentation is as follows: "This Mediator, treated thus with God: First, He directed His entire life to the will of the Father; did for us what we were under obligation to do, and yet could not do; and fulfilled the Law and all righteousness for our good, Matt. 5:17; Gal. 4:4; 1 Cor. 1:30; Phil. 3:9" (Active). "Secondly, He took upon Himself all our sins, and bore and suffered all that was due us, John 1:29; Is. 53:4-6; Rom. 8:32;" Gal. 3:13 (Passive). Nowhere, in the whole range of Lutheran theology, are these two forms of the obedience more sharply discriminated than in the above] [17] QUEN. (III, 228): "The real* object for which satisfaction was rendered is one thing; the personal object is another. I. The real object comprises (1) all sins whatever, original as well as actual, past as well as future, venial as well as mortal, yea, even the very sin against the Holy Ghost, Is. 53:4 sq.; Tit. 2:14; 1 John 1:7; Heb. 1:3; 1 John 2:2. (2) All the penalties of our sins, tem- poral as well as eternal, Is. 53:5; Gal. 3:13; Rom. 5:8, 9; Heb. 2:14, 15; 1 Cor. 15:14." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- *In the sense of pertaining to things. ----------------End of Page 360------------------------------------------- On the real object, GRH. VI, 306: "1. Scripture everywhere speaks indefinitely when it treats of the satisfaction rendered for sins by Christ. John 1:29: `The sin of the world,' i.e., sin under- stood universally, everything having the nature of sin. 2. Not only indefinitely but also universally, Is. 53:6; Rom. 3:12; Tit. 2: 14; 1 John 1:7. 3. Species of actual sins are specified, Is. 53:6; Rom. 3:12; Heb. 9:14. 4. Christ made satisfaction for every sin which the Law accuses and execrates. But the Law accuses and execrates all sins, not only original, but also actual, Gal. 3:13; Deut. 27:5. 5. Had Christ made satisfaction only for original sin, so that it would be left us to make satisfaction for actual sins, only one part of the work of redemption would be left to Christ, while the other, and that, too, the greater part, would be transferred to men. For Christ's satisfaction would be for but one sin, while men would have to render satisfaction for many sins. But Scripture ascribes the entire work of redemption to Christ, 1 Tim. 2:5; Is. 63:3; Heb. 10:14. Christ however made full satisfaction not only for actual sins, but also for the temporal and eternal punishments due our sins: 1. According to the nature of a perpetual relation, when the guilt is removed, the debt of punishment belonging to the guilt is also removed. But Christ took upon Himself our sins, Is. 53:6; John 1:29; 1 Pet. 2:24. Therefore, He also transferred to Himself the penalty due our sins, and consequently freed us from the debt of the penalty that was to be paid. 2. Scripture emphatically says that the punishment due our sins was imposed on Christ, Is. 53:5. 3. All punishments, temporal and eternal, corporeal and spiritual, are included under the name `curse,' Gal. 3:13. One punishment of sin is the curse of the Law; but `Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law.' Another punish- ment of sin is the dominion of Satan; but Christ has edelivered us from the dominion of Satan, Heb. 2:14. Another punishment of sin is the wrath of God; but Christ has delivered us from the wrath to come, 1 Thess. 1:10. Another punishment is death; but Christ has delivered us from death, Hos. 13:14. Another is hell and eternal damnation; but Christ has delivered us from hell and eternal damnation, Rom. 8:1. 4. God's justice does not allow the same sin to be punished twice; and He has `bruised' His most beloved Son for our offenses, Is. 53:4. Therefore He will not punish them in those who have become partakers of the satisfaction rendered by Christ. 5. If we had still to render satisfaction as to the penalties of sin, the satisfaction of Christ would not yet be per- fect, the work of redemption would not yet be complete, all things would not yet be finished by Him. And yet He cried on the cross, -----------------End of Page 361--------------------------------- `It is finished,' from which Heb. 10:14 infers, etc. Had He made satisfaction for original sin alone, or for guilt alone, it would be better called hemilutrosis than apolutrosis. That, by faith, men become partakers of the most perfect satis- faction rendered by Christ, we prove by the following arguments: 1. Scripture describes our reconciliation with God to be such that God no longer remembers our sins, Jer. 31:34, but casts them be- hind our backs, Is. 38:17, blots them out like a cloud, Is. 44:22, casts them into the depths of the sea, Mic. 7:19, does not impute, but covers them, Ps. 32:1. Therefore He does not hold the recon- ciled to the reckoning, or exact of them punishments. For were God still to punish, He would still impute; were He to avenge, He would still remember; were He to account, He could not keep covered; were He to examine, He could not cast away; were He to inspect, He could not blot out. 2. The complete forgiveness of sins is inconsistent with a debt of satisfaction yet to be rendered for the punishment. That for which a satisfaction is still exacted is not yet completely forgiven. No one would say that a creditor who still demands a satisfaction, had for- given a debtor. When all the debt is forgiven, the obligation to pay even the least part is removed, etc. The contrary doctrines are the various opinions of the Scholastics and Papists: (a) That "we can make satisfaction for our guilt;" (b) that while "we cannot make satisfaction for our guilt, we can for the penalty;" (C) that "eternal punishment is, by the power of the keys, commuted to temporal punishment, so as to bring it within our ability;" (D) that "while eternal guilt and punishment are remitted, the obligation to some temporal punishment remains." Thus Bonaventura: "In sinning, the sinner binds himself to eter- nal punishment. Divine mercy, in justifying, remits all the guilt and subjection to eternal punishment. But since mercy cannot prejedice justice, whose office it is to punish what is wicked, it releases in such a way that he remains under subjection to only a relatively small amount of temporal punishment." In the controversy, the very practical question arose as to how then we are to regard the temporal afflictions of the justified. These, the Papists argued, were a fulfilment of the obligation of punishment, and thus satisfactions. The Lutherans, especially CHEMNITZ in his Examen, "De Satifactione," maintained that, properly speaking, they were not punishments, but chastisements. "What before forgiveness were punishments of sinners, after for- giveness became the contests and exercises of the justified" (Chrys- ostom in GERHARD). GERH. (VI, 319): "The former are indica- ---------------------End of Page 362------------------------------ tions, testifying that the person afflicted is under the wrath of God; the latter proceed not from an enraged, but from a propitious God, Lam. 3:33. The former are testimonies, aye, beginnings of eternal punishment; the latter look towards the reformation and salvation of the godly. Where there is remission of sins, there punishment properly so called cannot occur; for what else if remission of sins, but forgiveness from punishment?" II. (QUEN., III, 238): "The personal object comprises (not angels, but) each and every sinful man, without any exception whatever. For He suffered and died for all, according to the serious and sincere good pleasure and kind intention of Himself and God the Father, according to which He truly wills the salva- tion of each and every soul, even of those who fail of salvation; not kata doxan (in appearance), but kat aletheian (in truth, i.e., not in imagination or conjecture, but in very deed, and most truly, Is. 53:6; Matt. 20:28; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15; Heb. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:6; John 1:29; 1 John 2:1, 2; Rom. 14:15; 1 Cor. 8:11; Heb. 6: 4-6; 2 Pet. 2:1." On the personal object: GRH., IV, 178: "If the reprobate are condemned because they do not believe in the Son of God, it follows that to them also the passion and death of Christ pertain. For, otherwise, they could not be condemned for their contempt of that which, according to the divine decree, does not pertain to them. The former is dis- tinclty affirmed, John 3:18, 36; 16:9. If Christ had not made satisfaction for the sins of unbelievers, it follows that they are con- demned for the very reason that they are unwilling to believe that that pertains to them, which in truth, and according to God's im- mutable decree, does not pertain to them. I add also this argu- ment: To whomsovever God offers benefits acquired by the passion and death of Christ, for them also Christ has died. For far be it from us to ascribe to God such dissembling as though by His Word, He would call the unbelieving to repentance and the kingdom of Christ, whom nevertheless He would exclude there- from by an absolute decree. But both Scripture and experience testify that God has offered and still is offering His Word and Sacraments to some reprobate and condemned, and, in these means, also the blessings acquired by the passion and death of Christ." He next shows how the Calvinists have attached another sense to the Scholastic axiom, which they have adopted: "Christ died sufficiently, but not efficiently for all." The Scholastics meant by this, that Christ potentially saved all, and that the reason that all do not partake of His grace must be found in their own guilt, in --------------------End of Page 363-------------------------------- not accepting Him by faith. The Calvinists, on the other hand, understand by it that Christ's death would not be without the powwer to expiate the sins of all, if it had been destined by God for this end, but that such was not His purpose. "The former refer the cause of the inefficiency to the men them- selves; by the latter, it is referred to the decree of God." The chief arguments in opposition to the universality of the satisfaction are recounted: 1. "Christ says, that He lays down His life for His sheep, John 10:15; sanctifies Himself for those given Him of His Father, John 17:19; His blood is given for many, Matt. 26:28. Christ, there- fore, has died only for the elect." But (a) the force of such argu- ment is: Christ died for His sheep. Therefore, for His sheep alone. He died for the elect; therefore, only for the elect. (b) The particular is included in its universal, viz., that Christ died for all; hence the universal ought not to be limited by the particular, but the partiucular extended by its universal. (c) The word "many" is frequently used in Scripture for all, Ps. 97:1; Dan. 12:2; Rom. 5:19. Hence the argument: "Christ died for many; and, therefore, not for all," is invalid. (d) In these passages "many" must necessarily be understood of the whole multitude of men. This is shown by the opposition in the argument of Rom. 5:19. For all who were rendered sinners by Adam's fall, the benefit of righteousness has been acquired. Cf. Is. 53:12 with v. 6; also Matt. 20:28, with 1 Tim. 2:6. (e) Scripture speaks in accordance with the double relation of Christ's merit, it is uni- versal, if considered apart from its application; but its application and actual enjoyment is, by man's fault, rendered particular. 2. "If Christ truly died for all, the effect and fruit of His death must pertain to all" But (a) that alms be received, there must be not only a hand to give, but also a hand to take. It is not enough that the benefits of Christ, acquired by His death, are offered; they must also be received by faith. (b) This faith God ordinarily enkindles in the heart through the Holy Spirit, working in Word and Sacraments; but they who repel the Word, and resist the Spirit, are, by their own fault, deprived of the benefits of Christ's death. (c) This is clearly shown from 2 Cor. 5:18, 19: "God hath reconciled us to Himself," etc., i.e., reconciliation has been made, viz., with respect to the acquiring of the benefit by Christ's death, and yet, v. 18: "God hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;" v. 20: "We pray you, be ye reconciled," i.e., reconciliation is still to be made, viz., with respect to its application. (d) The argument rests on the hypothesis that the death of Christ -----------------End of Page 364------------------------------------- does not belong to those who do not partake of its fruit. Were then Paul, the thief on the cross, and others, as long as they were unbelieving and impenitent, excluded from the number of those for whom Christ died? If this be denied, the universality of the proposition falls; if it be affirmed, it follows that in conversion, the justified are either without the death of Christ, or that only then does Christ die for them. (e) This may be illustrated by an ex- ample: A hundred Christian captives are in bondage to the Turkish Emperor. A Christian prince pays a certain sum for the ransom of all. If any afterwards prefer to remain longer in captivity rather than enjoy the liberty acquired and offered them, they should ascribe this to themselves. For the universality of the ransom is not thereby invalidated. 3. "Christ made no satisfaction for those for whom He does not pray. But for the reprobate He does not pray, John 17:9." But, while it is true, that the satisfaction of Christ is not for those, for whom He absolutely does not pray, this cannot be said of the reprobate, Is. 53:12; Luke 23:34. A distinction must be drawn between the general and the special intercession; also between the office of Christ, as a priest and as a prophet: as a priest, praying for all, when on the altar of the cross He offered His body as a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world; but as a prophet, pro- claiming that sins are retained against sinners impenitent and resisting. 4. "That for which there could have been no use, we must not believe to have been done by God. But there would be no use of a universal merit, since some of the reprobate for whom Christ would have then suffered were already in hell." WIth equal reason we could conclude that Christ did not suffer for Abraham, Isaac, and the other saints of the Old Testament, since they had already attained that which is said to come through Christ's pas- sion. We should rather say, according to Rev. 13:8, that the Lamb of God was slain from the foundation of the world, viz., with respect to the divine decree, the promise, the types in the sacri- fices, and the efficacy; and that the fruit of Christ's passion is not to be restricted to the moment of time in which it occurred, but extended to both past and future, whence the ancients said that "Christ's passion was before it was." We, therefore, are right in saying that Christ suffered and died also for those who, while He was suffering, were in hell; not as though Christ, by His suffering, would liberate them from hell, but because while they were still living, the promises concerning the Messiah ought to have been embraced, and the merits of His passion thus received, as patri- -------------------End of Page 365--------------------------------- archs, prophets, and the rest of the godly under the Old Testament, were saved by faith in Christ. [18] QUEN. (III, 253): "Satisfaction is an act of the sacerdotal office of Christ, the God-man, according to which, from the eternal decree of the triune God, out of His immense mercy, He cheerfully and voluntarily substituted Himself as the bondsman and surety for the entire human race, which, through sin, had been cast into incredible misery; and, having taken upon Himself each and every sin of the entire world, by His most perfect obedience and the suffering, in their place, of the penalties that men had merited, made satisfaction, on this earth, during the whole time of His humiliation, and especially in His last agony, to the Holy Trinity that had been most grievously offended; and, by thus making a satisfaction, acquired and earned for each and every man the re- mission of all sins, exemption from all penalties, grace and peace with God, eternal righteousness and salvation." [19] Concerning the relation of satisfaction and merit, HOLL. (736): "(1) Satisfaction precedes, merit follows; for Christ has merited righteousness and life eternal by rendering a satisfaction. (2) Satisfaction is made to God and His justice,; but Christ has merited salvation, not for God, but for us. (3) Merit precedes the payment of a price; satisfaction, the compensating of an injury. Therefore, by His satisfaction, Christ made a compensa- tion for the injury offered to God, expiated iniquity, paid the debt, and freed us from eternal penalties; but, by His merit, He ac- quired for us eternal righteousness and salvation. (4) The satis- faction rendered by Christ is the payment of our debts, by which we were under obligations to God; but merit arises from the fulfil- ment of the Law and the suffering that is not due." The entire obedience which Christ rendered avails for us, and Christ did not need to merit anything for His own person. This the Dogmaticians express in the following manner: "Christ, as a man, merited nothing for Himself, by His obedience; because, through the per- sonal union, Christ was given all the fulnesss of the Godhead (Col. 2:9), and was anointed with the oil of joy (the gifts of the Holy Ghost) above His fellows (Ps. 45:7). Therefore, it was not necess- ary that He should merit anything for Himself." (HOLL. (749)). [20] CONF. AUG. (XXI, 2): "The Scripture propoundeth unto us one Christ, the mediator, propitiator, high priest, and interces- sor." AP. CONF. (III, 44): "CHrist who sitteth at the Right Hand of the Father, and perpetually maketh intercession for us." QUEN. (III, 264): "Of this priestly act in the type, we may read in Lev. 16:17, 18; Ex. 28:29, 35. Christ, the God-man, is -----------------End of Page 366----------------------------------- our only intercessor, 1 Tim. 2:5." (257): "The ground of this intercession is the satisfaction and universal merit of the interceder Himself; for by and through His bloody satisfaction, or, by the virtue of His merit, Christ, as a priest, intercedes for us with God the Father." A more specific explanation of intercession is given in the following (ib.): "By the virtue of His merit, Christ truly and formally intercedes for all men, not indeed by acquiring anew for them grace and divine favor, but only according to the mode of His present state, which is that of exaltation, by seeking that the acquired blessing may be applied to them for righteousness and salvation." GRH.: "Intercession is nothing else than the applica- tion and continual force, as it were, of redemption, perpetually winning favor with God." [21] QUEN. (III, 256): "He does not indeed intercede for those who, having died in impenitence, are in hell, suffering eternal pun- ishments (for He is not their intercessor, but the judge condemn- ing and punishing them), but in general for all those who still live in the world, and still have the gate of divine grace standing open before them, whether they be elect or reprobate. For He inter- ceded for the transgressors, or His crucifiers, Is. 53:12; Luke 23: 34." HOLL. (750): "How He prays for the elect, we read, John 17:11. From which is inferred that Christ intercedes for the re- generate and elect, that they may be preserved from evil, be kept in the unity of faith, and be sanctified more and more by the Word of truth." QUEN. (III, 257): "It is evident that Christ justly does not ask the peculiar blessings that have been recounted, the actual, saving enjoyment of which belongs to the faithful and godly alone, for the ungrateful, wicked and refractory world, in so far as it is and remains such, since it is incapable of these. These special blessings, Christ has not sought for such a world, by no means out of any absolute hatred against it,... but because of its wicked- ness, ingratitude, and contumacy.... The Saviour, therefore, in His prayers, does not commend to the Father the inflexible de- spisers and violent persecutors of the Gospel, but His own beloved disciples who received His Word; yet that this does not absolutely exclude the world either from His satisfaction or from His inter- cession, is evident from John 17:21." [22] HOLL. (749): "THe intercession of Christ is not merely interpretative through the exhibition of His merits" ("as though Christ interceded for us not by prayers, but by His merit alone, and its eternal efficacy" (QUEN. III, 257)); "for the word, entungchanein, Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25, employed concerning the intercession of Christ, means more than the real yet silent presentation of merits. --------------------------End of Page 367-------------------------------- ... Therefore, the intercession of Christ is not only real, but also, vocal and oral; not abject by submission" ("as though Christ, as a suppliant, with bent knees and outstretched hands, and a vocal lamentation, should entreat the Father as in the days of His flesh, for such an entreaty conflicts with Christ's glorious state; therefore we must regard it in a manner becoming God (John 17:24), and not after the manner of the flesh or of a servant" (QUEN. III, 257), "but is expiatory and effectual for obtaining saving blessings for men (because whatever He asks of His Father is pleasing and agreeable to the Father, John 11:22). The intecession of Christ is effectual to obtain for us salvation, although those who do not believe in Christ do not enjoy the effect. Hence, it is said to be effectual, by reason of the saving intention of Christ, and not by reason of the result in the unbelieving and wicked." But BR. observes, in re- gard to the verbal intercession (498): "Whether this intercession be verbal, consisting in words and prayers presented either men- tally or vocally, or whether it be only real, consisting in this, that, by the virtue of His merit and satisfaction formerly rendered, and of His prayers formerly made, Christ moves God to remit our sins, it is not necessary to determine." [QUEN. (III, 271): "Elegantly has St. Augustine, on Ps. 85, said: `He prays for us, as our Priest; He prays in us, as our Head; He is prayed to by us, as our God. Let us, then, recognize our voices in Him and His voices in us."] [23] QUEN. (III, 258): "This intercession will not be termin- ated by the end of the world, but will continue to all eternity, Heb. 7:25; Ps. 110:4; Heb. 5:6; 7:17. For it must not be thought that after the end of the world, when the elect have passsed into life eternal, intercession is superfluous; for He prays and intercedes, not that they may not by sin fall from eternal salvation, but that they may be kept in glory, which, as it must be regarded as having been received for merit, must also be regarded as having been re- ceived for Christ's meritorious intercession." As, in Rom. 8:26, mention is made of an intercession by the Holy Spirit also, some of the Dogmaticians inquire what is to be understood by this, and how it differs from the intercession that is offered by Christ. QUEN. (III, 259): "Some receive hupereutungchanein by metalepsis and with respect to the result, so that He is said to pray and groan, because He causes us to pray and groan, shows and teaches us for what to pray and how to pray aright, and forms our prayers within us. But others also understand it literally as referring to the very person of the Holy Ghost, viz., that the Holy Ghost Himself, in His own person, prays and intercedes for us." QUEN. decides for the former interpretation. And he thus states ------------------------End of Page 368--------------------------- the difference between the two kinds of intercession: "The one in- tercession (that of Christ) is theanthropike [that of the God-man]; the other is purely theike [divine]. The one is mediatorial; the other is not. The intercession of Christ is founded upon His suffering and death, which cannot be said of the intercession of the Holy Ghost." (Ib. 260). [24] HOLL. (751): "Redemption is not simple, absolute, and metaphorical, but precious, satisfactory, and literal, 1 Cor. 6:19, 20; 1 Pet. 1:18; Matt 20:28; 1 Tim. 2:6." Id. (752): "The for- ner is liberation without any intervening price from a penalty that has been decided; the latter is that by which a guilty person is redeemed from his crime and the punishment, by the payment of a price.... For, properly speaking, to redeem signifies to buy again, just as the Greek words lutroun, agorazein, exagorazein, and the Hebrew words, XXXX, XXXX, denote purchase or repurchase, which occurs through an intervening price. Therefore, when, in the present argument, where we treat of the redemption of the fallen human race accomplised by Christ, these Hebrew and Greek words from the holy volume are employed, we receive them in a literal sense, because no necessity appears to be imposed upon us of departing from the literal sense." The expressions used in Holy Scripture to denote redemption are (a) in the Old Testament XXXX, Lev. 25:24, 26, 29, 31, 32 48, 51, 52; XXXX, Ex. 21:30; Ps. 49:8; (b) in the New Testa- ment, lutrosis, Luke 1:68; 2:38; Heb,. 9:12; apolutrosis, Luke 21: 28; Rom. 3:24; 8:23; 1 Cor. 1:30; Eph. 1:7, 14; 4:30; Col. 1: 14; Heb. 9:15; 11:35; agorasis, 2 Pet. 2:1; Rev. 5:9; 14; #; exagorasis, Gal. 3:13; 4:5. [25] The Dogmaticians KG., QUEN., and HOLL., treat still more fully of redemption, distinguishing (1) the captive (the whole human race). (2) The one holding the captive (God, Rom. 11: 32; Gal. 3:22, to whom the ransom must be paid; and the devil who holds the wicked in the snares of sins, 2 Tim. 2:26, to whom not a price, but punishment is due). (3) The one redeeming the captive (Christ, the only and the universal Redeemer of the whole human race, availing by the right, strength, and will to redeem, Rom. 3:24). (4) The chains from which Christ redeemed the human race (sins, offences against God, and temporal and eternal punishments). (5) The means of redemption. (6) The end of redemption (the final end, the glory of God; the intermediate, freedom from the guilt and dominion of sin). As, however, all the matters discussed under these heads have been included in the previous discussion their further citations could be dispensed ------------------End of Page 369--------------------------------- with, and their presentation by the Dogmaticians above named is to be regarded as a mere recapitulation of what had been given before. PARA. 37. The Regal Office. To Him, who announced to the world God's gracious pur- pose of redemption, and who Himself accomplishes the redemp- tion, the dominion over the world is committed; and, in exercising this dominion, He performs a regal function. This regal dignity belongs to Christ, as God, from eternity; but from the moment of His incarnation His humanity also participated in it. [1] Yet, as long as He tarried here upon earth, He did not exercise this regal dominion in its full extent; but rather, as long as He was in the state of humiliation, refrained, for the most part, from its use and exercise, and not until the time of His exaltation did He enter upon the complete exercise of this, His regal dominion. [2] Inasmuch as Christ is thus King and Lord of the world, His dominion extends over every- thing that is in the world and belongs to it; and there apper- tains to Him not only the preservation and government of the world in general, but also the preservation and government of the Church in particular. At the same time, this His domin- ion extends not only over the present, but equally also over the future world. This kingdom of Christ is, in itself, only one, and embraces the whole world, the present and the future, with all that it contains. Yet this one kingdom can also be distinguished as a threefold one, in the same sense in which we distinguish at present the world and the Church, and in which we distinguish the citizens of this and of the future life, of heaven and of earth. Accordingly, the world and the Church, in this life, are regarded as each a special kingdom, over which Christ rules; and those who are in the life to come constitute the third kingdom. This threefold kingdom is designated as the kingdom of power, of grace, and of glory. The first is called the Kingdom of Power, because it is the king- dom in which Christ exercises His divine power by governing and upholding the world; the second is called the Kingdom of Grace, because in this Christ operates through His saving grace; the third is called the Kingdom of Glory, because He therein unfolds, in all its perfection, His divine glory before the eyes of all who are there assembled. [3] ---------------End of Page 370---------------------------------- The regal office is accordingly defined as, "The theanthropic function of Christ, whereby He divinely controls and governs, according to both natures the divine and the human (and the latter, as exalted to the Right Hand of Majesty), all creatures whatever, in the kingdom of power, grace, and glory, by infi- nite majesty and power: as to the divinity, by virtue of eter- nal generation; as to the assumed humanity, by virtue of the personal union belonging to Him." (QUEN., III, 264.) [4] To the Kingdom of Power ("in which Christ powerfully rules over this universe, and upholds it and providentially governs it") belong all creatures in the world, visible and invisible; [5] Christ's dominion extends over them all, and all must be subject unto Him. By Him everything is upheld and gov- erned. [6] To the Kingdom of Grace ("in which Christ collects the Church Militant upon earth, governs it, furnishes it with spiritual gifts, preserves and defends it, to the praise of the divine name, to the destruction of Satan's kingdom, and the salvation of be- lievers," Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 9:9; HOLL., 763) belong those who believe in Christ, the members of His Church. To enlarge this Church, and to bestow upon its members all the blessings of the Gospel, is the regal function which Christ ex- ercises in this kingdom, [7] and the Word and Sacraments are the means which He uses for that purpose. [8] This kingdom will, it is true, come to an end in this world, but only by passing over into the kingdom of glory. [9] To the Kingdom of Glory, finally ("in which Christ most gloriously rules the Church Triumphant in heaven, and fills it with eternal felicity, to the praise of the divine name and the eternal refreshment of the saved," Matt. 25:34; John 17:24; HOLL., 763), belong all the inhabitants of heaven, the good angels and redeemed men. They behold the Lord in His glory, as He shows Himself to the dead, when He awakens them to life. [10] This glory of the Lord begins with the time of His ascension to heaven, but will not be perfectly un- folded until, after the final judgment, believers also will enter into the kingdom of His glory, to share with Him its posses- sion. Matt. 25:34. [11] [1] QUEN. (III, 260): "Just as Christ, in His prophetic and ----------------End of Page 371------------------------------------- sacerdotal offices, acts and works according to both natures, so also, according to both natures, in this regal office He acts and performs His part; for He rules over all creatures, not only as God, accord- ing to His divinity, but also as man, according to His exalted humanity." The Holy Scriptures speak of a regal dignity in Ps. 2:6; 20:9; 45:1, 3, 5; 47:7; Heb. 2:7, 8; Ps. 8:6; 97; 5; 2 Sam. 23:3; 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16. QUEN. further remarks (III, 261): "One in number is that regal power which Christ, according to His divine nature, has, and ac- cording to His human nature, possesses. Only the mode of having it varies; for what, according to His divinity, He has by eternal generation from eternity, that, according to His humanity, through and because of the personal union, He has received in time, and fully exercises now in the state of exaltation." His power to rule, even according to His human nature, is evident from Ps. 8:6; Jer. 23:5; John 17:5. [2] HOLL. (764): "Christ immediately, in His very conception, was anointed to a regal dignity, and, during His visible intercourse upon the earth, possessed the power to rule, and sometimes exer- cised it according to His pleasure. But, in the state of humillia- tion, He voluntarily refrained from the most full and uninterrupted employment of His rule." Christ, therefore, "during that time in which He visibly dwelt on this earth, was a true King. Luke 2: 11; 19:35; Mark 14:61. There is an antithesis of the Socinians, who say that Christ, before His resurrection, was not actually a King; although they do not deny that before His death, He was described as a King." (HOLL., 764.) QUEN. (III, 264): "A dis- tinction must, therefore, be made here between the appointment to this regal office and the refraining from the full administration and use of the same. Christ, as man, was King and Lord even in the womb (Luke 1:43), in the manger (luke 2:11), in bonds (John 18:37), on the cross (Luke 23:42); and yet did not actually ex- ercise that dominion." That Christ also possessed regal power in the state of humiliation, the Dogmaticians regard as proved by His performing miracles. [3] HUTT. and HFRFFR. still account, as belonging to the regal office, only His dominion over believers; and GRH., who was con- temporaneous with them, was the first to include under the regal office all the relations in which Christ is Lord and King, and in this they were imitated by all the later Dogmaticians. Of course, no doctrinal difference was hereby intended. The faith of the Church always was, that Christ was Lord and King of the world. Thus we have it stated, e.g., by CHMN. (De duab. naturis, 205): --------------------End of Page 372-------------------------------- "Scripture clearly affirms that to Christ, even according to His humanity, as Lord, all things have been made subject, not only in the Church, but all things in general;...and distinct and express mention is made of the beasts of the field, the fowls of the air, the fish of the sea, and all the works of God's hands, whether they be in heaven, or on earth, or under the earth, even of the enemies of Christ, and, therefore, the devil and death itself, as being in this subjection." The difference is ony this, that GRH. was the first to introduce the method of arranging under one head all that is to be said concerning the dominion of Christ. As to the division itself. GRH. (III, 578): "The kingdom of Christ is considered either in this or in the future life. In this life, it is called the kingdom of power or grace; ... in the life to come, it is called the kingdom of glory." BR. (498): "The regal office of Christ is threefold, according to the diverse nature of those whom He regards as His subjects, and governs diversely. For although, if you regard the words themselves, the kingdom of grace, as well as that of glory, may seem to be comprised under the kingdom of power, as both truly depend upon divine power imparted to the human nature of Christ, yet the usus loquendi requires it to be named the kingdom of grace, with respect to the spiritual blessings which are conferred in this world, and the kingdom of glory, with respect to the glory of the future world; while the kingdom of power signifies a universal government." QUEN. (III, 264): "Some say that Christ reigns in the world by power, in the Church by grace, in heaven by glory, and in hell by justice." In regard to the last, HOLL. observes (763): "You say, that `also a fourth kingdom of Christ is mentioned, viz., the kingdom of justice over the wicked angels and condemned men. Reply: We refer the kingdom of justice to the kingdom of power." On the other hand, BR. (501): "Some, referring both (the kingdom of glory and the kingdom of justrice) to the same kingdom of glory, say that the glorifying of the elect belongs by itself to the former; but the condemnation of the wicked... they refer to the latter in the manner in which under other circumstances opposites are wont to be referred to the same faculty." The threefold division is, accordingly, not to be understood as if there were three separate kingdoms over which Christ rules, but the reason of the division lies (1) partly in the different divine influences which Christ exerts. The same persons who are in the kingdom of grace are also in the kingdom of power; but in the one kingdom the divine saving grace, and in the other the divine power, is exercised; (2) partly in the difference of the places in which they ----------------------End of Page 373------------------------------------- are found, over which Christ rules, viz., in the one case upon earth, and in the other in heaven. QUEN. (III, 264): "The kingdom of grace includes, or rather presupposes, the kingdom of power; for the kingdom of power is required for the kingdom of grace, or the Church, which in this world is to be established, ruled, etc., throught the ministry of the Spirit by means of the Word and Sacraments." [4] GRH. (III, 578): "The regal office is that according to which Christ as the God-man governs all things in heaven and earth, and especially protects His Church against enemies." On the other hand, HFRFFR. (353) (see note 3): "The regal office is that ac- cording to which, to the end of the world, through the ministry of the Word, He collects His citizens, and, having furnished them with eminent gifts, vigorously defends them against enemies (in whose midst He rules), and at length crowns them with eternal glory and honor." [5] QUEN. (III, 265): "The object or matter with which this government is occupied comprises all the works of God in general, or all creatures, visible, invisible, corporeal, incorporeal, animate, inanimate, rational, irrational. Ps. 8:6, 7, 8; 1 Cor. 15:27, 28; Heb. 2:7, 8; Eph. 1:21, 22; 1 Pet. 3:22." [6] GRH. (III, 578): "The kingdom of power is the general dominion over all things, or the governing of heaven and earth, Ps. 8:6; Dan. 7:14; Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:21; the subjugation of all creatures, 1 Cor. 15:27; Eph. 1:20; Heb. 2:8; dominion in the midst of His enemies, whom He suppresses, restrains, and punishes, Ps. 2:9; 110:2; 1 Cor. 15:25." [7] HOLL. (763): "The subjects, in this kingdom of grace, are all believing men, who constitute the Church Militant. The regal acts are the collecting, governing, adorning, and preservation of the Church, His defense of it against the enemies of grace, and His ruling in their midst. John 3:5; 17:17; Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5; Matt. 28:20." When QUEN. (III, 268), on the other hand, says: "THe object of the kingdom of grace, according to the antecedent will, comprises all men universally, but the godly and believing especially," he means to say only that participation in the bless- ings of the Church is intended for, and sincerely offered to all men, and, therefore, does not contradict the statement of HOLL. [8] QUEN. (III, 267): "The Word and Sacraments are the instrumental cause, for it pleased the King in Zion, Ps. 2:6, to act here ordinarily in no other way than by the Word and Sacraments, and by these means to collect, increase, and preserve on this earth a Church for Himself. Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 24:14." ----------------End of Page 374--------------------------------------- [9] QUEN. (III, 270): "The end of the world will indeed ter- minate the mode of the kingdom of grace, but not the essence of the kingdom. That which is said in 1 Cor. 15:24, concerning the giving up of this kingdom, is to be understood, not as applying to the government itself, but only to the mode of governing, and the form and quality of the government; because Christ will govern no longer through means, namely, through the word and Sacraments, through the cross and among enemies, but, all enemies being put down, the last enemy, viz., death, being destroyed, and the wicked being cast into hell, He will deliver the kingdom to God the Father, i.e., He will hand over the captive enemies and establish the elect, among whom He hold His spiritual kingdom. There- fore there will be a triumphal handing over of subjugated enemies, and a presentation of liberated believer. By this act of handing over, Christ will not lay aside the administration of His spiritual and heavenly kingdom, but will then only enter upon another mode of ruling." QUEN. then quotes approvingly Dorschaeus: "This handling over will be not actus depositionis, sed propositionis. Christ will not at the consummation, lay down the kingdom, which, up to the consummation, He has governed in grace and in glory; but He will present it to God the Father for His inspection and glory. Just as a general, after having destroyed all his enemies, presents to the king, who through him has waged the war, the victorious and triumphant army, the saved citizens, and the free people, and tenders them to him, that he may judge and approve his deeds, and nevertheless does not lay down the power which he had over the army; so, much more, when the world is ended, and all enemies have been suppressed, shall Christ, as the Son, place His immaculate (Eph. 5:27) ecclesiastical army in the presence of God the Father, before His tribunal, Rom. 14:10, and shall say: `These are they who are not defiled, who have followed me, the Lamb, whithersoever I have gone, who are the first fruits to Thee, O God, the Father, and to me the Lamb, Rev. 14:4.'" [10] HOLL. (763): "The subjects in this kingdom of glory are both good angels and glorified men (who in faith continue in the kingdom of grace to the end. Matt. 24:13; Rev. 2:10). The regal acts are: the raising to life of the believing dead, their solemn introduction into life eternal, Matt. 25:34; Luke 22:29, 30, and the most happy and glorious rule over them." [11] QUEN. (III, 273): "Christ, the king of glory, indeed, even as a man, immediately from His first conception, was the possessor of all glory, but did not acutally rule gloriously until after His ex- altation, when His sufferings were finished. This very kingdom -----------------End of Page 375------------------------------------- of glory will truly receive its final completion in the general resur- rection of the dead, the assembling of all of the elect, and their translation to the possession of the heavenly inheritance, and thence will endure to eternity." C.--OF THE STATES OF CHRIST. PARA. 38. As the works of redemption, for whose accompolishment the logos became man, could be brought about only through suffer- ing and death, it is altogether natural that we should see Christ, through all His earthly life, even until the completion of His work of redemption, going about in the form of a ser- vant, subject to all the weaknesses and infirmities of human nature. Not until after His resurrection did He lay aside the form of a servant and appear in divine glory. Accordingly, from the time of the incarnation of Christ, we have to predi- cate of Him a two-fold condition, that of the form of a servant and that of glory. Inasmuch, however, as in consequence of the communicatio idiomatum, resulting from the unio personalis, the human nature participated in all the attributes and glory of the divine nature; and, inasmuch as, in accordance with this, a condition of divine glory would naturally have been looked for from the moment of the incarnation; we cannot comprehend the antecedent condition in the form of a servant without assuming that Christ voluntarily refrained from a glory that belonged to Him. And this indeed is the teaching of the Scriptures in Phil. 2:5-9. Accordingly we designate the former condition the State of Humiliation, a condition of self-renunciation; the other, the State of Exaltation. This self- renunciation, however, that is followed by His being in the condition of a servant, does not lie in the act of incarnation; for, although it is a gracious condescension of the logos, that He assumed human nature, yet that cannot be the fact here re- ferred to, as the condition of self-renunciation is designated as temporary, while the incarnation is permanent. [1] Neither the self-renunciation nor the exaltation, indeed, can be predi- cated of the logos, or of the divine nature; for this, remaining ever the same, is not susceptible of self-renunciation or of ex- altation. It is only, therefore, of the human nature that the ---------------------End of Page 376--------------------------- one or the other can be predicated, [2] and it is only to this that the self-renunciation and the exaltation here described refer. But, when self-renunciation is predicated of it, this is not to be so understood, as if in this condition of self-renuncia- tion the human nature were entirely stripped of the divine glory and confined entirely to itself, and as if the divine glory, as such, were not associated with the human nature until in the condition of exaltation; for this is disproved already by the fact that Christ, even in the State of Humiliation, per- formed deeds that imply the possession of divine glory. [3] Finally, the self-renunciation is not to be so understood as if the human nature, in consequence of its inalienable possession of divine glory, really exercised the dominion thence accruing to it, but concealed this exercise from the eyes of men, which would have been no real self-renunciation at all: [4] but it must be assumed that the human nature, although, in itself considered, having full right to the divine glory, and being in possession of all the dominion resulting therefrom, here upon earth voluntarily renounced the use and exercise of the same out of regard for the work of redemption that was to be accomplished, [5] and instead thereof led a life of lowliness; that, therefore, the human nature of Christ, which in virtue of the Communicatio Idiomatum was entitled to all the majesty belonging to God, renounced the same, and instead thereof assumed poverty, lowliness, and all the natural (though sin- less) weaknesses, infirmities, limitations, and wants of human nature. [6] The self-renunciation consists, therefore, in the real, though at times interrupted abnegation, by the human nature of Christ, of the glory due unto it, and the exaltation, in the assumption by this human nature, of the full use of this divine glory after the completion of the work of redemp- tion. [7] The first state commences with the incarnation and continues until the last moment of His remaining in the tomb. The other begins with the re-animation and continues in eter- nity, but develops itself in several states. [8] (BR. (482): "The State of Humiliation consists in this, that Christ for a time renounced (truly and really, yet freely) the plenary exercise of the divine majesty, which His human nature had acquired in the personal union, and, as a lowly ----------------End of Page 377---------------------------------- man, endured what was far beneath the divine majesty (that He might suffer and die for the life of the world)"). "The state of Exaltation is the state of Christ, the God-man, in which He, according to His human nature, having laid aside the infirmities of the flesh, received and assumed the plenary exercise of the divine majesty." [9] I.THE STATE OF HUMILIATION.--The following are the principal aspects in which the humiliation of Christ reveals itself: HOLL. (759, sq.) [10] "1. Conception, Luke 1:31. A supernatural act, by which the flesh of Christ, produced from the mass of the blood of the Virgin Mary, received in her womb its original being, con- substantial with our own, through the supervention of the Holy Spirit." [11] 2. Nativity; which besides was accompanied with many humiliating circumstances. "Luke 2:7. The nativity of Christ is the going forth of God, as an infant, from the ma- ternal womb into the light of day." [12] 3. Circumcision; by which Christ, at the same time, made Himself subject to the Law. "Luke 2:21. The circumcision is the bloody cutting off of the foreskin of the infant Jesus on the eighth day." [13] 4. Education; according to which Christ also subjected Himself to the laws of domestic life. "The education was His becoming accustomed, in boyhood, to the mode of life customary in Israel, and to a manual occupation." [14] 5. The visible intercourse of Christ in the world; by which He exposed Himself to all kinds of ill treatment from those who surrounded Him, and to all the discomforts of a lowly life. "The intercourse of Christ was His most holy associa- tion, in the days of His flesh, with all kinds of men, even the most contemptible, an association full of troubles, inconveni- ences, and dangers." [15] 6. The great suffering; the bodily and mental anguish which Christ endured in the last days of His earthly life. "The great suffering of Christ is the extreme anguish which our Redeemer suffered toward the end of His life, two days before His death, partly in His soul, partly in His body, by enduring to the end the most extreme and bitter sorrows." [16] ----------------End of Page 378----------------------------------- 7. The Death of Christ. "The death of Christ is His loss of life through the dissolution of the natural union of body and soul." [17] 8. The Burial. "The burial of Christ was the placing of the body of our Redeemer, who had died upon the cross, in a new tomb, in demonstration of the truth of His death." II. THE STATE OF EXALTATION.--This begins with the re- turn of Christ to life, [18] and exhibits itself to the lower world by the descent, to this world by the resurrection and ascension, attaining its completion in the session at the Right Hand of God the Father. [19] 1. The Descent to the Lower World. After Christ had been again restored to life, and before He had given to men in His resurrection from the dead the proof that He was alive, [20] He descended to hell (1 Pet. 3:18-20; Col. 2:15), and ex- hibited Himself there to Satan and the condemned spirits as the victor over death and Satan, and as Lord over death and life. [21] This descent of Christ into hell is, accordingly, not to be understood in a figurative sense, as if thereby only the greatness of the pains which Christ endured for the sake of men were indicated; or, as if thereby merely the benefits which were secured for men by the sufferings and death of Christ were set forth, namely, that men were freed from hell by them; but it is to be understood literally as a real descent into hell. [22] We are therefore to regard the whole Christ as being for awhile in hell; the act of descending is, however, to be predicated only of the human nature, since the divine nature, as filling all things, is, aside from this, to be under- stood as entirely present everywhere. [23] (1 Pet. 3:18-20; Eph. 4:9.) HOLL. (777): "The Descent of Christ to the lower world is the true, real, and supernatural movement by which Christ, having been freed from the chains of death and restored to life, in His entire person betook Himself to the lower regions, that He might exhibit Himself to the evil spirits and to con- demned men as the conqueror of death." [24] 2. The Resurrection. After His descent to hell, three days after His death, Christ appears again upon earth to a small circle of intimate friends. Along with death, however, He ---------------End of Page 379-------------------------------- had laid aside also the weaknesses and infirmities of human nature, and this is now in a glorified condition. Through the resurrection He has proven Himself conqueror of death and the devil, and, without it, our faith would be vain. (1 Cor. 15:14.) HOLL. (779): "The resurrection is the act of glorious victory by which Christ, the God-man, through the same power as that of God the Father and the Holy Spirit, brought forth His body, reunited with the soul and glorified, from the tomb, and showed it alive to His disciples, by various proofs, for the confirmation of our peace, fellowship, joy, and hope in our own future resurrection." [25] 3. The Ascension. After Christ had shown Himself to His disciples as one raised from the dead, He ascended to heaven, i.e., His human nature also betook itself into heaven, where it had not yet been. (Acts 1:9; Luke 24:51.) HOLL. (784): "The ascension is the glorious act of Christ by which, after having been resuscitated, He betook Himself, according to His human nature, by a true, real, and local motion, according to His voluntary determination (per liberam oeconomiam),* and in a visible manner unto the clouds, and thence in an invisible manner into the common heaven of the blessed, and to the very throne of God; so that, having triumphed over His enemies, He might occupy the kingdom of God (Acts 3:21), reopen the closed Paradise (Rev. 3:7), and prepare a permanent inheritance for us in heaven (John 14:2)." [26] 4. The Sitting at the Right Hand of God. This expression signifies the assumption, on the part of the human nature of Christ, of the full divine glory and dominion; for not until His ascension did the human nature of Christ assume, in all its extent, the real exercise of all the divine glory from which it had refrained in the state of humiliation. (Heb. 1:13; Eph. 1:20-22; Mark 16:19; Rom. 8:34; Rev. 3:21.) HOLL. (786): "The sitting at the right hand of God is the ----------------------------------------------------------------- *[QUEN. (III, 382): "Just as His eating, touching, etc., during the forty days occurred kat oikonomian, so also this local and visible motion occurred by the same. For we ought not to doubt that, from the gift of agility belonging to glorified bodies, Christ could, in a moment, have withdrawn Himself from the eyes of the disciples."--TR.] ------------------End of Page 380--------------------------------------------- highest degree of glory, in which Christ, the God-man, having been exalted, as to His human nature, to the throne of divine majesty, most powerfully and by His immediate presence governs all things which are in the kingdom of power, grace, and glory, for the glory of His own name, and for the solace and safety of the afflicted Church." [27] [1] HOLL. (765): "Although in an ecclesiastical and figurative sense the incarnation is sometimes said to be a self-renunciation (`where it is employed in reference to the kind inclination by which the logos inclined Himself to pity and assist us, and, de- scending from heaven, deigned to assume human nature. This self-renunciation, figuratively and in an ecclesiastical sense so termed, is called the humiliation of incarnation, GRH., III, 562'), yet properly speaking, and in accordance with scriptural usage, the incarnation must not be called self-renunciation (exinanitio). For (1) self-renunciation is predicated of the incarnate (ensarkos) Son of God, or Christ, the God-man; incarnation, of the not yet in- carnate (asarkos) Son of God; (2) when the self-renunciation is removed by exaltation, the state of incarnation remains." [2] HOLL. (767): "Christ was humbled (exinanitus est) accord- ing to His human nature considered in the personal union." Id.: "The subject (of the humiliation) is the human nature alone, but considered in the union; for (1) since the divine nature is immu- table and most perfect, it cannot be exalted and humbled; (2) the self-renunciation extended even to the death of the cross, Phil. 2:8, and the divine nature neither died nor was crucified." [3] CHMN. (de duab. nat., 216): "Neither was it only after His resurrection that the entire fulness of the divine nature began to dwell bodily in Christ; as though, after the occurrence of the huypostatic union in conception and before the ascension, and sitting at the right hand, either any empty vacancy or partialness of divine nature dwelt bodily in Christ; or as though the hypo- static union or personal indwelling of the entire fulness of the Godhead, in the assumed nature of Christ, became in the process of years constantly greater, more intimate, fuller, and more com- plete: for, from the first moment of the hypostatic union, the entire fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily, or, in ohter words, in the flesh, or assumed nature, of Christ." HOLL. (765): "The self-renunciation of Christ consists formally ... not in the entire abdication or abandonment of divine maj- esty,... for (1) this could not have occured without a disso- lution of the personal union; for, since it is a perfect and inner ------------------End of Page 381-------------------------------------- union, it cannot exist without an impartation of natures and properties; (2) during the state of self-renunciation Christ some- times produced remarkable proofs of the divine majesty dwelling in His flesh (John 2:1 sq.), although He exercised this majesty very rarely, and, as it were, extraordinarily." [4] HOLL. (765): "Self-renunciation does not consist in the mere concealment or hiding of divine majesty;" for, (1) self- renunciation does not pertain to Christ in His exaltation, although there pertains to Him in that state a hiding of majesty, 1 Cor. 1: 7; (2) the hiding of gifts is not true self-renunctiation, just as when the sun, when covered by clouds, has not been truly dark- ened; although we do not deny that Christ concealed the possession of communicated majesty and did not everywhere exert it." [GRH. III, 575; "1. If by krupsis, or hiding, there be understood a simulation, we deny that the self-renunciation should be thus described: because there was a true and real self-renunciation, embracing both arsis, i.e., abstaining from the use, not of just any, but of the plenary communicated, divine majesty and virtue, which the apostle calls kenosis; and thesis, i.e., the assumption of a servile form, and extreme humiliation, which the apostle joins to the kenosis. Just as, on the other hand, exaltation embraces both arsis, viz., the laying aside of the form of a servant and human in- firmities, which Christ had spontaneously assumed, and thesis, viz., the full use and administration of dominion in the entire universe, all of which are ascribed to Christ not feignedly or kata phantasma, but truly. 2. krupsis can be referred both to the communication of majesty, and to the employment of communicated majesty. In the former respect it is rightly so-called, because the divine maj- esty was hid in the assumed flesh, but not separated from it; and all treasures of wisdom and knowledge are said to be hid in Him, Col. 2:3. In the latter respect, it was not only krupsis, but true and real kenosis, as the assumption of the servile form, which Christ afterwards laid aside in exaltation, shows."] [5] CHMN. (de duab. nat., 216): "Self-renunciation, therefore, does not signify a deprivation, removal, despoiling, putting off, casting aside, laying down, removal, want, absence, defect, desti- tution, or vacancy of the fulness of the Godhead, which, from the very moment of conception, dwelt in Christ bodily. But it re- spects its use or employment, because, being covered by weakness during the time of self-renunciation, it did not always shine in and through the human nature of Christ, and through it fully and clearly exercise itself; for, for a short time withdrawing and with- holding from activity and divine virtue present and dwelling bodily ---------------End of Page 382----------------------------------------- in the human nature, and through the human nature of Christ, as Ambrose says, He permitted His natural properties and other assumed infirmities to prevail, predominate, and exercise them- selves, as if alone in His human nature. Yet, lest any one, be- cause of the self-renunciation of this employment, should imagine the absence and defect of the very fulness of the divine nature in the humanity of Christ, He, in the very time of self-renunciation, whenever He wished, showed that this fulness dwelt in His flesh; and, in the very time of His self-renunciation, whenever and as far as He wished, He exercised, manifested, and employed its use by means of His assumed nature. Thus in miracles He mani- fested His glory." ... HOLL. (765): Self-renunciation "consists in the abdication of the full and uninterrupted use of divine majesty, the assumption of the form of a servant, likeness to other men, and the most humble obedience." The detailed description of the state of humiliation is given by HOLL. (766): "Four requisites must be combined in order to describe fully the self-renunciation of Christ: (1) kenois" ("inter- mission, withholding, restraining of the full activity, of the con- stant and universal divine majesty and excellence really imparted to Christ as a man," QUEN. (III, 334)); "(2) lepsis morphes doulou, the taking upon Himself the condition of a servant, for Christ was treated and sold in the manner of a servant, and endured a ser- vant's punishment; (3) homoiosis anthropon, likeness to the lower and meaner class of men, especially to the Israelites, in His birth, cir- cumcision, ablactation, His trade as a carpenter, His intercourse, and mode of life; (4) tapeinosis upotaktike, most humble, active, and passive obedience." The Dogmaticians find the state of humiliation described in Phil. 2:5-8. The particular phrases occurring in this passage are thus explained by them: "Morphe theou formally and accurately de- notes not the divine essence itself, but properly the glorious divine condition, or the glory and universal use of divine majesty, which cannot exist except with a true Godhead, but presuppose the same in the same person." (QUEN., III, 333.) CHMN. (de duab. nat., 133): "A morphe is when a nature or essence is considered as en- dowed, and clothes, and furnished as it were, with properties, attributes, and conditions, either divine or human." QUEN. (III, 333): "En morphe theou huparchon. The particle huparchon is here very emphatic, showing (1) that Christ did not take upon Himself the morphe theou (as it is said that He took upon Himself the morphe doulou), but that He existed in it; (2) that with the morphe theou, Christ is said -------------------End of Page 383------------------------------------------ to have truly possessed at the same time a divine essence and nature;... (3) that Christ Jesus, when He had taken upon Himself the morphe doulou, neither laid aside the divine nature itself, nor in any way resigned the morphe theou, but that He did not entirely and fully exercise it, and did not make an ostentatious display of it, but rather that in the form of a servant He ministered to other men, yet in such a way as always to remain huparchon en morphe theou." HOLL. (766): "`Ouch horpagmou hegesato to einai isa theo.' He did not judge that a public display of the majesty of the almighty and omnipresent God would have the form of robbery, but He held the same secretly, and only when it seemed good to Him sent forth some rays of His form as God. `Isa theo,' to act as though equal in glory and majesty to God. `Eauton ekenose,' by not shedding forth His imparted majesty, but restraining and withholding its full and universal use. `Morphe doulou' is not human nature, which Christ, the God-man, not only assumed but possessed, and which by His exaltation He did not lay aside; but it is the state of a servant and a humble condition." QUEN. (II, 335) explains the whole pas- sage thus: "That Christ, from the very first moment of incarnation, could have exercised to its fullest extent the divine glory and majesty imparted to Him according to His human nature, and have acted as God, but that He withheld Himself from its full use, and showed Himself humble, and became obedient to His Heavenly Father, even to the death of the cross." [6] HOLL. (767): "Generally speaking, Christ in the state of self-renunciation abstained from the full, universal, and incessant use of eternal glory, imparted through the personal union to His assumed flesh. John 17:5." (Concerning this passage it is ob- served: "Glorification does not denote (a) the granting of the possession of glory, for Christ as man already possessed infinite glory before, John 1:14; nor (b) its special employment, which He manifested in certain miracles; (c) but it denotes the enthrone- ization and introduction of Christ as man into His kingdom, which He is to administer with Almighty power.") "Specifically, He suspended and withheld the use of omnipotence (the exercise of which would have hindered Christ's suffering and death of satis- faction for our sins), of omniscience (for He was truly ignorant of the day of final judgment, Matt. 24:36, the barrenness of the fig- tree, Matt. 21:19, the burial place of Lazarus, John 11:34), of the most abundant wealth (inasmuch as He became poor for us, 2 Cor. 8:9; Matt. 8:20), of omnipresent dominion (John 11:21), and religious worship (inasmuch as He became less than the angels, Heb. 2:7)." -------------------End of Page 384----------------------------------- GRH. (III, 575) develops the practical side of this doctrine, on the basis of 2 Cor. 8:9: "Christ was rich, because of the true and real communication of divine attributes to the flesh, Col. 2:9; He was rich, because given a name above every name, Heb. 1:4; He was rich, because of the power communicated to govern heaven and earth, Matt. 28:18; He was rich, because of His participation in inifine and divine knowledge, Col. 2:3, and because of the sub- jection of all things, Matt. 11:26; John 3:35. With these riches, Christ was endowed from the first moment of incarnation, as is shown by the personal union, the working of miracles, and every special demonstration of this majesty and power. But He became poor by His self-renunciation, humiliation, assumption of the form of a servant; hence, as a child of poverty, He is born in a stable, rest in the lap of a poor mother, lies in a poor hut, receives pres- ents of gold from the magi, is presented to the Lord with the offer- ing of doves--gifts of the poor, is brought up in poverty in the home of His parents, is regarded the son of a poor carpenter, ex- periences poverty in fasting, is without a home of His own, is stripped of His vesture on the cross, and at length is laid in the sepulchre of another--all of which pertain to the poverty and self- renunciation of Christ. But by this poverty, He has made us rich. Just as, by His death, He bought for us life, so by His poverty, He has restored to us heavenly riches; and hence, His poverty is described to us as a ground for our joy, Zech. 9:9. The poverty of Christ has earned for us our patrimony, our property in life, our passage money (viaticum) in death, heavenly riches." Then, on Phil. 2:5: "1. The example: `Thou shouldst deign to be humble for God's sake, since God deigned to be humble for they sake.' (Augustine.) Christ, without whom nothing was made, humbled Himself, so as to seem almost nothing, while thou boastest im- mensely, and thinkest thyself something when thou art nothing. How absurd and preposterous it is for the highest sublimity to be humbled, and the lowest worthlessness to want to extol itself! 2. As Christ humbled Himself, God exalted Him; so thou wilt not attain to a lofty station, unless by the path of humility. ariste hodos hupsoseos he tapeinosis. (Bernard.) As Christ, by His divine nature, was incapable of growth, but by His descent, He found that whereby He could grow; so it is only by humility that an entrance to what is high shall open to thee." [7] HOLL. (775): "Exaltation (huperupsosis, Phil. 2:9; doxasis, John 17:5; stephanosis, Heb. 2:9; enthronismos, Heb. 8:1), actively taken, is defined as the solemn enthronization and inauguration of the re- vived Christ to the full and perfect employment of the heavenly -----------------End of Page 385--------------------------------------- government and the rule of heaven and earth, especially of the Church." QUEN. (III, 368): "The form of exaltation consists in the lay- ing aside of the servile condition or the form of a servant, and in the full, universal, and uninterrupted employment of the divine majesty, received in the personal union and possessed during the period of self-renunciation. (For in exaltation there was not given to Christ new power, virtue, or majesty, which He did not have before, but there was only conferred upon Him the full power of administering His kingdom, which He had received through the union itself." The principal passage in which the State of Exaltation is described is (besides Ps. 8:6, 7; 110:4; Heb. 2:7; Acts 5:31) the same before referred to viz., Phil. 2:9-11. HOLL. (775): "(a) The particle dio does not denote a meritorious conferring, but a conse- quence in order. The dio being often cited to prove that by His humiliation, Christ procured merit for Himself, GRH., III, 584, argues that such doctrine would conflict with: 1. The dignity of Christ's person, since, at the very first moment of the incarnation, the human nature was brought into the very person of the Logos, than which nothing higher in glory and dignity can be imagined, Heb. 1:5. 2. The truth of the communication of truly divine gifts. 3. The quality of His merit. For whatever Christ merited in His office, He merited for us, Is. 45:24; Zech. 9:9; John 17: 19; 1 Tim. 1:15; 1 Cor. 1:30. 4. The worship due Him in the days of the flesh. For if it were only after the exaltation that worship was due Him, then in the days of His flesh such was not due; and yet often He did not refuse such worship when offered Him. As to the meaning of dio: 1. The humiliation is not de- scribed as the meritorious cause of the exaltation, but the exalta- tion is described as the consequent profit attending the humiliation. For the particles dio and dia touto do not always and everywhere denote the meritorious cause of a thing, but sometimes also the final cause, and more frequently the consequence, whereby one thing is conclluded from another. Cf. Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5; Mark 7:29; Rom. 2:1; 2 Cor. 4:13; 6:17; Eph. 4:8, 25; Heb. 1:9. 2. Compare the parallel passage, Luke 24:29. The order, therefore, was divinely appointed, that Christ by His passion, and after His passion, should enter into glory. Heb. 2:9, 10, where dia to pathema, daa pathematown, cannot refer to a meritorious cause. The dio, compounded of the pronoun ho and the proposition dia must be rendered wherefore, so that the order and consequence, but not the effect of the merit, are indicated. 4. Xarizesai, "to give gratuit- ------------------------End of Page 386------------------------------ ously," excludes the idea of merit. 5. The scope of the argument is not to inculcate confidence in merit, but to commend the pursuit of humility, so that we may expect from God the gratuitously be- stowed advantages consequent upon humility. (b) The betower of glory is God the Father, John 17:7; Rom. 6:4." (Yet only by way of pre-eminence, as the original source; otherwise, it is an act of the entire Trinity, and we can also say, "The Son raised Him- self from the dead." John 2:19.) "(c) huperupsosis, following self- renunciation and humiliation,... implies, in place of the empty- ing of the form of God, the full employment of the form of God; in place of the hiding of those things which are equal with God, their public manifestation; in place of the assumption of the form of a servant, the laying aside of the same, and the administration of universal dominion. (d) The giving of a name above every name, marks the conferring of the highest glory, than which none that is more lofty can be named, and which, with respect to its fullest use, has been presented to Christ by means of exaltation. (3) The con- sequence of the glory bestowed is the subjection of all creatures, repre- sented by the bowing of the knee. Ps. 97:7; Rev. 5:13; John 14: 13; James 2:19; 10:17. What was said of the humiliation is equally true of the exaltation, viz.: "(1) That this term is not employed in an ecclesiastical sense, for the bringing up of human- ity into the person of the logos, and therefore, as a consequence, the impartation of divine grounds of glorying (auchemata);" but "in a biblical sense, as it denotes the universal glorification of Christ, who has been freed from death;" (2) That the exaltation has refer- ence only to the human nature of Christ. CHMN. (de duab. nat., 218) thus contrasts the terms, incarna- tion, humiliation, and exaltation: "Accordingly it is from this also manifest, that a confusion of articles of faith cannot occur, but that they are and remain distinct, and that each contains something peculiar to itself. For in incarnation there occured a hypostatic union of the Godhead of the logos, with assumed humanity, in which the whole fulness of the Godhead dwelt per- sonally from the first moment of conception. But by reason of self-renunciation, its employment and manifestation were for a time postponed, and, as it were, suspended, so that it did not exercise itself through the assumed humanity immediately and always. Moreover, by the ascension, infirmities being laid aside and self- renunciation removed, He left the mode of life according to the conditions of this world, and departed from the world. Moreover, by sitting at the Right Hand of God, He entered upon the full and public employment and display of the power, virtue, and glory of ----------------End of Page 387---------------------------------- the Godhead, which, from the beginning of the union, dwelt per- sonally in all its fulness in the assumed nature; so that He no longer, as in self-renunciation, withholds, withdraws, and, as it were, hides Himself, but clearly, manifestly, and gloriously exer- cises it in, with, and through the assumed human nature." [8] HOLL. (768): "The state of self-renunciation lasted from the first moment of conception to the last moment of rest in the sepulchre." QUEN. (III, 367): "The beginning of the exaltation (terminus a quo), and that through which it was attained, is the preceding passion and self-renunciation. The limit to which (terminus ad quem) is infinite glory and majesty (John 17:5; Eph. 1:20; Phil. 2:9, 10), here considered with reference to their employment and distinct degrees." [9] The doctrine, as here stated is not so clearly set forth in the FORM. CONC. This asserts, indeed, very decidedly, that Christ, already here upon earth, was in possession of the divine glory, even according to His human nature; but, along with passages in which it is said that Christ, during His life upon earth, renounced the exercise of this glory, there are also others in which a renuncia- tion is not mentioned. To passages of the former kind belong the following: FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec. VIII, 26): "From this union and communion of natures, the human nature possesses, since the resurrection from the dead, that exaltation over all creatures in heaven and on earth, which is really nothing else than that Christ entirely laid aside the form of a servant, and yet did not lay aside the human nature, but retains it to all eternity, and that, according to His assumed human nature, He was raised to the full possession and use of divine majesty. Moreover, He had this majesty immedi- ately at His conception, even in the womb of His mother; but, as the Apostle (Phil. 2:8) says, `He humbled (exinanivit) Himself,' and, as Luther teaches, in the state of His humiliation He pos- sessed it secretly, and did not always make use of it, but only so often as seemed good to Him. But now, since He has ascended to heaven, not in a common manner, as any other saint, but as the Apostle (Eph. 4:10) testifies, `He ascended up far above all heavens," and really `fills all things,' and, everywhere present, not only as God, but also as man, He rules and reigns from sea to sea and to the ends of the earth." FORM. CONC. (Ep. 16): "And this majesty, by reason of the personal union, Christ always pos- sessed, but in the state of His humiliation He humbled (exinanivit) Himself, and, for this reason, truly grew in age, wisdom, and favor with God and men. Wherefore, He exercised this majesty not always, but as often as seemed good to Him, until, after His resur- ----------------------End of Page 388---------------------------------- rection, He fully and entirely laid aside the form of a servant, but not human nature, and was invested with the full employment, manifestation, and declaration of divine majesty, and in this man- ner entered into His glory. (Phil. 2:6, sq.) Therefore, now, not only as God, but as man also, He knows all things, can do all things, is present to all creatures, and has under His feet and in His hand all things that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. (Matt.28:18; John 13:3; Eph. 4:10.)" FORM. CONC. (Sol. Dec., VIII, 65): "But, in the state of humiliation, this majesty of human nature was for the greater part concealed, and, as it were, kept secret." To the second class (Sol. Dec., VIII, 73): "But this certainly does not occur in such a manner, that as man He knows and can accomplish only some things; just as other saints, by the power of the Holy Ghost, know and can accomplish certain things. For, since Christ, by reason of His Divinity, is the Second Person in the Holy Trinity, and from Him, no less than from the Father, the Holy Ghost proceeds,... undoubtedly, through the hypostatic union, the entire fulness of the Spirit has been imparted to Christ, according to the flesh, which has been personally united to the Son of God. Moreover, this exerts its entire power most freely in and with the human nature of Christ, and through it; not in such a manner as that Christ, according to His human nature, knows only some things and is ignorant of others, and can accomplish certain things yet cannot accomplish others; but even now, according to His assumed human nature, He knows and can accomplish all things... 75. Moreover, it is manifest from history that there was a sect called Agnoetae, because they imagined that the Son, as the Word of the Father, indeed knew all things, but that His assumed nature was ignorant of many things. This heresy also Gregory the Great refuted." The FORM. CONC. was still undecided in regard to this topic, be- cause the Dogmaticians of that day were not agreed upon it. Some, following BRENZ (De divina majestate Domini nostri Jesu Christi ad dextram Dei patris et de vera praesentia corporis et san- guinis ejust in coena, 1562) asserted that Christ, even in the state of humiliation, was not only in possession of the divine glory, but also exercised it here, only not openly. ("He lay dead in the sepulchre, in humiliation; living, He governed heaven and earth, in majesty; and this, indeed, during the time of His humiliation, before His resurrection.") The others followed CHMN. (De duabus naturis in Christo, 1570), who, it is true, also ascribed the posses- sion of divine glory to Christ, but taught a partial renunciation of ------------------------End of Page 389------------------------------- the use of it during His life upon earth. ("The human nature, in the first moment of the union, received and possessed the majesty, the fulness of the Deity, but during the time of the humiliation did not always exercise and use it.") The FORM. CONC. did not deem it necessary to express a decided judgment upon the question. Later (1619), the question was again started, and a controversy arose between the Theologians of Giessen and those of Tuebingen. The starting point was the omnipresence of the flesh of Christ (comp. PARA. 33, note 20, near the end). The Tuebingen theologians (L. OSIANDER, NIKOLAI, and THUMMIUS) were of the opinion that the omnipresence of Christ was so strictly an immediate consequence of the personal union, that the flesh of Christ was to be regarded as omnipresent from the moment of His conception; and they defined the omnipresence as an absolute presence (nuda adessentia) or propinquity to creatures, by which He was closely present to all creatures. They assumed, therefore, an absolute omnipresence (in the sense in which BR. (com. PARA. 33, note 20) had denied it). This opinion, then, had its influence upon the doctrine of the state of humiliation and exaltation. Omnipresence, considered as a mere nearness, was necessarily pre- dicated also of the human nature of Christ, as it was an immediate consequence of the personal union, and there could be no question as to the use or renunciation of it; and then, too, dominion could not readily be denied to the same nature to which uninterrupted nearness was ascribed. Hence, they maintained that there was a difference only in the manner in which Christ exercised this dominion, in one way in the state of humiliation, and in another in the state of exaltation. The only difference between the state of humiliation and the state of exaltation they held to be, that in the former Christ exercised this dominion in the form of a servant, hidden from the eyes of the world, and in the latter, openly and in a form corresponding to His majesty. ("They taught, that Christ in His humiliation governed heaven and earth, in the same way that He exercises this government in the state of exaltation, sitting at the right hand of the Father; with only this difference, that in the state of humiliation He covered and concealed that government under the form of a servant, but now, having laid aside that servile condition, He declares and manifests the same gloriously and majestically." According to this theory of the Tuebingen Theologians, there was, therefore, no kenosis (renunciation) in the proper sense of the word, but merely a krupsis (concealment); for the divine dominion, ac- cording to this view, was exercised also during the state of humilia- ------------------End of Page 390------------------------------------- tion by the human nature, only in a secret manner, not perceptible to men (hence also from the statement: "That Christ, according to His human nature, already from the first moment of His concep- ception sat at the Right Hand of the Father, not indeed in a glor- iously majestic manner, but without that and in the form of a servant"); and the assumption of the form of a servant and of human infirmities on the part of Christ, could not be explained, though the Tuebingen theologians wished to do so, as such a real kenosis, or self-renunciation. According to this theory, also, the same exaltation, which, according to the other, did not take place until after the resurrection of Christ, was assumed as existing at once from the moment of the incarnation ("That, most strictly speaking, there is one exaltation, and ony one, most perfectly accomplished in the moment of the assumption, which (by reason of His essence) could not be greater and more exalted; but that the later meaning of the exaltation (i.e., the exaltation of Christ following His resurrection) was not the new addition of dignity and excellence, but the majesty previously given and communicated in the moment of the assumption and union, covered over in the state of humiliation, and veiled under the form of a servant, but in the statte of exaltation abundantly revealed, uncovered, manifested, and demonstrated before the inhabitants of heaven and all other creatures"). And the only difference between the state of humil- iation and the state of exaltation was this, that in the two the manner of the exercise of the divine majesty was different. ("That the exaltation, following upon the resurrection of Christ from the dead and His ascension into heaven, did not confer any- thing upon Christ, in His humanity, but only the mode of something, i.e., that Christ, restored to life as man, and exalted at the Right Hand of God, did not indeed attain the full use of the divine majesty in the government of the world, but merely received a new mode of government, viz., one majestically glorious and manifest; for, in the state of humiliation, He had been as to His person ignominious and obscure.") This view was opposed by the theologians of GIESSEN (MENZER and FEUERBORN), who adopted that of CHEMNITZ. The question at issue was this: "Whether the man Christ, having been taken into union with God, during the state of His humiliation gov- erned, as a present king, all things, though in secret?" This question the Giessen theologians denied, and those of Tuebingen affirmed. In the case of the former, the doctrine naturally as- sumed a different aspect in consequence of a different conception of omnipresence. They rejected absolute omnipresence; therefore ----------------End of Page 391------------------------------------- they did not assume that Christ, according to His human nature, in the state of humiliation, was present to all creatures; but de- fined omnipresence as a divine work. ("They held that the idea of a work belongs to the definition of omnipresence and to its con- stitutive character, as they call it, and that the essential part is, that Christ, in His humiliation, did not exhibit Himself as present in the same sense as that held by the Tuebingen theologians." COTTA, Diss. II, in GRH., Loc. IV, 62.) According to their view, there followed from the personal union only this, that the real possession of the divine attributes belonged to the human nature of Christ; but the use which the human nature made of them they inferred, not so much from the personal union as rather from the divine will. The personal union did not, therefore, seem to them as if dissolved, when the human nature made no use of these divine attributes; just as they also believed that, without detri- ment to the personal union, they could assume that the divine nature of Christ was intimately present to creatures at all times, but not so the human nature. QUEN. (III, 187): "Although, during the whole period of the humiliation, the divine nature of the Word was present to all creatures, so that meanwhile the human nature, taken into union with God was not present, but was very far removed, even in its substantial nearness, from those creatures to whom the logos was present; nevertheless, the union is not broken, the person is not divided, the natures are not separated." They also believed themselves, therefore, not to be hindered by the previously prevalent assumption, that Christ, according to His human nature, had for a season renounced the use and exercise of the divine dominion; and they maintained that Christ, according to His divine nature, exercised dominion over the world until the completion of His work of redemption, without His human nature taking any part therein. According to their theory, moreover, the exaltation was real (as indeed the positive statements of the Holy Scriptures seemed to them to demand) in such a sense that, not until it occurred, therefore not until the resurrection, did the human nature obtain the full use and the full exercise of the di- vine dominion; whereby, however, it was not meant to deny that the human nature partially, and by way of exception, as in the performance of miracles, made use of this dominion (which feature was made especially prominent by the Saxon theologians). The difference between the state of humiliation and that of exaltation they held to be this, that the human nature did not assume the full use of the divine dominion until the introduction of the latter. ------------------End of Page 392------------------------------------- By this means, they thought to avoid the asburdities that followed from the views of the Tuebingen theologians, according to whose theory it must be held that, at the time when Christ was lying in the cradle and in the grave, or hanging upon the cross, He was also, according to His human nature, filling all things and present everwhere and to all creatures. After the decision (1624) pronounced by the Saxon theologians, which in the main was favorable to the Giessen theologians, those of Tuebingen modified their views in this direction, in this one point, that they also admitted a humiliation in a literal sense, with reference to the functions of the sacerdotal office, in accord- ance with which, therefore, Christ, in relation to these, renounced the use of the divine glory during His passion and death, and in connection with everything that He did in behalf of the work of redemption. But this difference still continued between the two parties, that the Tuebingen theologians, adhering to their former opinion, so far as the prophetic and the regal offices are concerned, regarded the humiliationn as a mere occultation, and characterized it as only exceptional, when Christ, during His life upon earth, in certain cases renounced the exercise of the dominion belonging to His human nature; while the Giessen divines, in direct opposition to this view, considered it exceptional, when Christ, during His life upon earth, made use, on the part of His human nature, of the right of divine majesty that belonged to Him. The contro- versy was interrupted by the Thirty Years' War, but the succeed- ing theologians adopted the views of the Giessen and Saxon theo- logians, as above stated, with the exception of some of those of Tuebingen, who afterwards, indeed, attached no great importance to the controversy, but still favored the doctrinal tendency of their University (comp. COTTA, Diss. II, GRH., in Loc. Th., IV). A full discussion of this doctrine and description of the controversies connected with it may be found in QUEN. III, 389, sq. and THOMASIUS: "The Person and Work of Christ," Part II, second edition, 1857, p. 429. [10] QUEN. (III, 338): "The self-renunciation of Christ in gen- eral consists of two acts, viz., the abdication of the full and uni- versal use of imparted majesty, and the assumption of the form of a servant. This form or condition of a servant, in turn, includes under it certain acts in which it was most clearly manifest." Other distributions than those given in the text are as follows: GRH. (I, 361): "Conception, the being borne about in the womb, birth, growth in age and wisdom, obedience in the form of a servant even to the death of the cross, which was followed by burial." ---------------End of Page 393--------------------------------------- KG. (161): "Conception, birth, suffering, abandonment, death, burial." QUEN., as KG., only he adds thereto: "Subjection to the Law in circumcision." BR., as HOLL., only he omits circumcision. [11] HOLL. (769): "We now are considering this not absolutely, with respect to itself, but in so far as it pertains to the state of self- renunciation, or, in so far as the flesh of Christ, although not of male seed, was nevertheless formed in the womb of woman; in connection with which it is certain that some infirmities occur." GRH. (I, 361): "From the fact which I have mentioned, that conception, and the being borne about in the womb, and birth from the womb of His mother, belong to the state of self-renunciation, if we reflect, it can be understood that Adam was a true man, who, nevertheless, was neither conceived in the womb nor born from the womb of a mother; therefore, in the same manner, the Son of God, without such a conception and birth, could have assumed human nature, but He wished in all things to be made like to His breth- ren, Heb. 2:17." [12] BR. (483): "In this" (birth) "the fact is especially con- sidered that the fruit of Mary's womb, having passed through the accustomed months of gestation, was thus at length brought to light, in accordance with the common lot of men. But the opinion of some, that Mary brought forth her son while her womb was closed, is uncertain; more certain and manifest are the lowliness of His birth and the humble condition and poverty of His parents." [13] HOLL. (769): "Circumcision is an act of most humble obedience on the part of Christ, by which He not only lay in a very low state of self-renunciation beneath the knife of the circum- ciser, but also was made subject to the divine Law, although He was the Lord of the Law, Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28." [14] HOLL. (770): "According to which, Christ voluntarily sub- jected Himself to the care of His father, Joseph, and the commands of His mother, Mary, Luke 2:51." [15] BR. (484): "He was made subject to the magistracy and regarded equal or inferior to others; for the purpose of satisfying hunger and thirst, He ate and drank ; being wearied, He slept, and endured the troubles of labors and journeys, dangers, temptations, sadness, poverty, reproaches, etc." [16] BR. (484): "Especially the aggregation of afflictions which Christ suffered during the period of two days before His death; in connection with which the forsaking, mentioned in Matt. 27:46, is especially to be regarded. Manifestly Christ was forsaken, not indeed as though either the bond of the personal union were broken, or He had been altogether rejected from the face of God, ---------------End of Page 394---------------------------------------- never to be taken back again into grace, nor that He, actually and properly speaking, despaired; but that, in that greatest accumula- tion of evils, because of the sins of men imputed to Him, He, while bearing the part of all sinners, so felt the wrath of God, or that God was estranged from Him, that He felt no comfort within Himself from the fulness of the indwelling "Godhead. In this manner, also, that must be understood which is elsewhere said, viz., that Christ bore the pains of hell." [17] QUEN. (III, 360): "Its formal nature consists in the true, voluntary and local separation of the soul from the body (Luke 23:43, 46), the bond of the personal union meanwhile remaining unimpaired. From the dissolution of the soul from the body the dissolution of the union of the two natures in Christ is not to be inferred. For, although the natural union between the soul and body was broken, yet the personal union existing between the logos and the assumed nature was not separated, but the divine nature in Christ remained truly united to the soul, which then was in heaven, and truly united to the body in the sepulchre. Even in death, the logos, I say, remained a suppositum* of parts physi- cally separated, namely of body and soul. The entire divine nature was in the separated soul, and the entire divine nature was in the body left upon earth, without any division or distention, as either of these would conflict with a divine nature." HOLL. (772): "The passion and death of Christ were true, not imagi- nary; voluntary, not forced; undertaken not by accidrent, but according to a certain plan and purpose of God; bloody and igno- minious; vicarious; meritorious, and satisfactory." [18] HOLL. (776): "Zoopoiesis, or quickening, is Christ's libera- tion from death and the reunion of soul and body, by which Christ, according to His flesh, began to come again to life. This is not a peculiar grade of exaltation, but a prerequisite condition for preparing the subject, namely, Christ, to receive the full and universal use of divine majesty." [19] HOLL. (776): "The revived Christ exercised His divine majesty through certain clearly marked grades: (1) by descending ad inferos, He exhibited Himself alive to the wicked spirits and condemned men as the conqueror of death; (2) by rising again, He declared to the apostles, and ,through them, to the entire world, that through His death He had made satisfaction to divine justice; (3) by ascending to heaven, He showed angels and blessed men that He was the conqueror not only of death, but also of wicked spirits, and the Savior of men; (4) by sitting at the Right -------------------------------------------------------------------- *[See Appendix.] ---------------End of Page 395-------------------------------------- Hand of God, He exercises most full and universal dominion over all creatures that are in the kingdom of power, of grace, and of glory." As the exaltation was completed with the sitting at the Right Hand of the Father, HFRFFR. (339), instead of assuming degrees of exaltation, as others do, distinguishes (1) "the State of Glorification into which Christ entered after His resurrection, when, laying aside the infirmities of human nature, He was transferred to the conditon of glorified bodies," and (2) "the State of Majesty of Christ as a man, into which, after His glorious ascension into heaven, He was transferred, being placed at the Right Hand of God the Father." [20] QUEN. (III, 373): "The moment of time of the descent is, according to 1 Peter 3:19, the time that intervened between the quickening and the resurrection of Christ, properly so called." To the assertion, that the descent preceded the resurrection, and therefore did not succeed the vivifying, HOLL. (668) replies: "A distinction must be made betwen an outward and an inner resur- rection. The former is the going forth from the sepulchre, and the outward appearance to men, and is described in the Apostles' Creed; the latter is the quickening itself." [21] HOLL. (778): "Christ descended into hell, not for the purpose of suffering any evil from the demons (John 19:30; Luke 24:26), but to triumph over the demons (Rev. 1:18; Col. 2:15), and to convince condemned men that they were justly shut up in the infernal prison, 1 Peter 3:19. The preaching of Christ in hell was not evangelical, which is proclaimed to men only in the king- dom of grace; but legal, accusatory, terrible, and that too, both verbal, by which He convinced them that they had merited eternal punishments, and real, by which He struck frightful terror into them." To the question, "Why did Christ preach in hell to those alone who were unbelieving in the time of Noah?" HOLL. replies (ib.): "(1) Others are not excluded, but these are pre- sented as monstrous examples of impenitence and unparralleled examples of divine judgment; (2) The Apostle especially named these to teach that even the antediluvians ought to have believed in Christ;... (3) That the Apostle might pass conveniently from the flood, as a type, to its antitype, baptism." [22] QUEN. (III, 371): "The descent of Christ ad inferos, fig- uratively taken, is understood either metaphorically, as denoting that most exquisite and truly infernal pain and anguish which, in the time of His passion, Christ felt and bore in His most holy soul, Ps. 16:10; or, by metonymy, as denoting the virtue and efficacy of Christ's passion and death, Zech. 9:11 (as though the sense were, -------------End of Page 396--------------------------------------- `Christ, by His passion and death, effected and purchased by His merit our deliverance and redemption from hell'). But neither signification pertains to this article." HOLL. (777): "But, taken literally, the descensus ad inferos denotes a true and real departure into the place of the damned, inasmuch as Peter (1 Pet. 3:19) calls it a poreia, or going, cf. Matt. 5:25; Rev. 18:2; 20:6; 2 Pet. 2:4." The observation is added: "Although the descent of Christ ad inferos was true and real, yet the motion was not physical or local, but supernatural. For physical and local motion is peculiar to natural bodies; but the revived body of Christ was a glorified body. Nor was the movement successive; it was made, en pneumati, i.e., by divine power, which knows nothing of tedious efforts." [23] QUEN. (III, 372): "Christ, the God-man, and therefore His entire person (and hence not only according to His soul, or only according to His body), after the reunion of soul and body, descended to the very place of the damned, and to the devils and the damned manifested Himself as conqueror. For the descent, since it is a personal action, cannot be ascribed otherwise than to the entire person of the God-man. And, as in the Apostles' Creed it is said of the entire God-man that He suffered, was cruci- fied, dead, and buried, so also it is said of the same that He de- scended into hell." The descent is very naturally, predicated of Christ, the God-man, i.e., it is taught that Christ, the God-man, was for a time in hell; but the descent itself is predicated only of the human nature of Christ. "Christ descended into hell, not according to His divine nature; for, according to this, He was in hell before, filling all things through His dominion.... There- fore, Christ descended, according to His human nature. For the predications thanatotheis sarki and zoopoietheis, belong to the human nature alone." (QUEN., III, 373.) [24] The doctrine as here set forth belongs to the period of the later Dogmaticians. Until the time of the FORM. CONC., no ex- planation whatever was attempted of the phrase, "Descendit ad inferos," which was found already in the Apostles' Creed. The FORM. CONC., however, was led to make a statement concerning it, mainly in consequence of controversies originating with the Ham- burg Superintendent, JOHN AEPIN (1549). According to him, the descent of Christ was "a part of that entire obedience which He rendered for our redemption." ("The simple and plain con- fession of AEPIN: I bleieve that the descent of the soul of Christ to hell was a part of Christ's passion, i.e., of the contests, dangers, difficulties, pains, and punishments, which, for our sake, He took ----------------------End of Page 397----------------------------- upon Himself and bore; for the reason that, in the Scriptures, to descend into hell means to be involved in extreme and the deepest griefs, pains, and difficulties. I believe that the descent of Christ to hell was a part of His obedience, predicted in the prophets, and imposed upon Him because of our sin.") The descent of Christ is, therefore, "one act of His humiliation, and, indeed, its final stage." ("I believe that the descent of Christ belongs to His humiliation, not to His glorification and triumph.... The final grade of this humility and self-renunciation, and the extreme part of the obedience and satisfaction imposed upon Christ by the judg- ment of God, was His descent to hell.") While the body of Christ lay in the grave, His soul descended into hell; He did not descend with body and soul after their reunion, before the resur- rection, but with the soul alone ("Peter clearly teaches, Acts 2, that the soul of Christ, while His body rested in the sepulchre, experienced the pains of death and hell"), and "the descent was not a public act of victory and triumph, but an act of suffering, to which Christ submitted in the same sense in which He subjected Himself to the condemnation of death." ("The testimonies of Scripture nowhere show, by even the least indication, that to de- scend to hell is to triumph, and that the descent itself is a joyful, glad, splendid, and manifest triumph. There is, therefore, noth- ing certain and well-established in the caviling of those who con- tend that the descent of Christ was nothing else than the fierceness, manifest force, and triumph of Christ, by which He utterly crushed, and, with violence, oppressed those in hell.") "Christ has, in- deed, destroyed hell for us, and robbed the devil of his power, not, however, by violent destruction or suppression, but by righteous- ness and obedience; as He conquered and destroyed death by His dying, so also did He the same to hell by His descent into it." ("As Christ did not vanquish death by force and manifest vio- lence, but in death by truly dying, so He overthrows those in hell, not by warlike or glorious violence, and the manifest oppression of the devil, but by righteousness, by truly dying, by descending for us to those in hell, and rising again from death.") AEPIN constantly protests against the use of the Petrine passages in the discussion of the doctrine of the descent of Christ to the lower world.... As proof passages for this article of faith, in addition to the Apostles' Creed, the following are applicable: Ps. 16:10; 68:19; 30:4; Hos. 13:14; Acts 2:27; Matt. 12:40; Eph. 4:8, 9; Rom. 10:6, 7. A question of entirely different character was agitated, in 1565, by the court chaplain, John Parsimonius, in Stuttgard. "He ------------------End of Page 398-------------------------------- called in question the locality of the lower regions. Hell was, in his opinion, no locality, no corporeal fire, no corporeal darkness." ("Scripture, indeed, calls hell a place, and says that it is situated beneath and below us; but these expressions are to be understood not according to Aristotle and mathematically, but theologically and according to the usage of Scripture.... The terms, `place,' `upward,' `downward,' `above,' `beneath,' `within,' `high,' `deep,' and the like, are not terms of the spiritual but of the bodily world; and when Scripture speaks of spiritual things and those of the other world, it borrows terms from bodily and earthly things, and uses them not literally but metaphorically.") "Hell is where God's wrath is, and the perception of this wrath. Accordingly, the descent to hell cannot be a corporeal, local move- ment, but only a change of condition, according to the measure of the conception above given of the lower regions.... Christ did not, therefore, after being made alive in the grave, before the resur- rection, descend in a corporeal and local manner to hell. How Christ descended, and when, this the Scriptures have not specially revealed to us." (Holy Scripture wishes us to believe that Christ descended to those in hell, and freed us from the kingdom of Satan, and the perpetual torments of hell; it does not wish us to know when and at what point of time He descended to those in hell, otherwise it would have revealed it to us.") "Christ, after His death, suffered nothing at all; but, during His lifetime, He endured the pains of hell and in this sense He descended, illocally, into hell. In either case, however, Christ exhibited Himself as victorious and triumphant." These two theologians were the occasion of having an article con- cerning the descensus ad inferos inserted in the FORM. CONC. This contains, however, no decisions concerning the questions agitated by them, but rather keeps aloof from useless inquiries, and limits itself to the firm adherence to the confession that Christ, by His descent, "has destroyed hell for all believers, and delivered them from the power of death, of the devil, of eternal damnation, and of the jaws of hell." FORM. CONC. (Epit., IX): "There was a con- troversy concerning this article among some theologians who pro- fess the Augsburg Confession, as to when and how our Lord Jesus Christ, as our Catholic faith testifies, descended to those in hell, whether this were done before or after His death. In addition it was asked whether He descended only by His soul alone, or His divinity alone, or indeed by soul and body, and whether this were done after a spiritual or after a bodily manner. It was also dis- puted whether this article was to be referred to the Passion, or indeed to -----------------------End of Page 399---------------------------- the glorious victory and triumph of Christ. But since this article of our faith... can be comprehended neither by our senses nor reason, but is to be received by faith alone, we unanimously advise that there be no controversy concerning this matter, but that we believe and teach this article with the greatest simplicity.... For we ought to be satisfied to know that Christ has descended to those in hell, that He has destroyed hell for all believers, that, by Him- self, He has delivered us from the power of death and of Satan, from eternal damnation, and, therefore, from the jaws of hell. But let us not curiously search into the manner in which these things have been effected, but reserve the full knowledge of this matter for another world."... For the history of this article, see FRANK: "The Theology of the FORM. CONC. (III, 1863) de descensu ad inferos," in whose words we have cited the doctrines of AEPIN (which he obtained, in part, from a manuscript in the library at Wolfenbuettel) and Parsimonius. Concerning the different explanations of the descensus ad inferos, GRH. (I, 362): "Concerning the descensus ad inferos, the opinions of the old and more recent theologians greatly vary: (1) Some have altogether omitted this article. Thus, the several Councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Toledo have not mentioned it. (2) CLement, of Alexandria, says that Christ and the apostles descended to those in hell to preach the Gospel to the minds of the damned, and to carry to believers the hope of salvation. (3) Chrysostom refers the descensus ad inferos to the power of working miracles, by which Christ raised many from the dead. (4) Some in a general manner receive the descensus ad inferos as referring to the entire state of humiliation (Sohnius). (5) Some hold that descending ad inferos is the same as being buried (Bucer, Beza). (6) Some un- derstand this descent with reference to the pains which Christ suffered in His soul (Calvin). (7) Some understand it with refer- ence to the power and virtue of Christ's death extending even to the dead. We say with Luther that this article is not to be treated with acuteness and anxious care, as to how it occurred, and what the descensus ad inferos means, but the most simple opinion must be retained, just as the words read. We believe, therefore, that Christ undoubtedly descended ad inferos, ... and that by Himself He has delivered us from the power of death and of Satan, from eter- nal damnation, and therefore, from the jaws of hell." [25] QUEN. (III, 377): "The term `resurrection' is received either comprehensively, according as it is an official meritorious act, and belongs to both natures, or restrictedly, according as it is ----------------------End of Page 400------------------------------------ a change of state of the human nature, resulting form exaltation; not the former but the latter signification has a place here. Just as Christ was nailed to the cross and delivered over to death, not according to His divine nature, which considered in itself is en- tirely free from suffering but according to His human nature; so He was raised up by God not according to His divine, but only according to His human nature. Yet the divine nature is not, therefore, altogether excluded from this act; for it has imparted to the human nature the power to rise again, and has made its resur- rection of advantage to us, i.e., that the resurrection might be victor over death, sin, and hell, and our justifier." (Id., 387): "The material is the same body in substance and number that endured the death of the cross, reunited with the soul, the same in number which before had departed from it, but clothed with new qualities, Phil. 3:21.... When the question is asked, `What is the nature of the body with which Christ rose again,' we reply: (1) Not with a psychical (psuchiko) body, or one subject to natural infirmities, but with a spiritual (pneumatiko) body, or one adorned with spiritual endowments, namely, invisibility, impalpa- bility, illocality, etc. By virtue of this endowment, Christ pene- trated the closed stone of the sepulchre, the closed door, and did not stand in need of raiment and food. "The fact mentioned in Luke 24:43, that He truly ate, occurred not from necessity but from free will; not for the nourishment of His own body, as the body neither stood in need of this nor admitted the same, but for the strengthening of the faith of the disciples. (2) Not with a weak body, but one strong and powerful. (3) Not with a corrup- tible body (such Christ's body never was), but with an incorrup- tible and immortal body, both as to act and as to power. (4) Not with a body having ignominy, but with a glorious body, and hence the body of Christ is called soma tes doxes autou, Phil. 3:21." THE DESIGN OF THE RESURRECTION, according to HOLL. (783): "Christ rose again in order to manifest the victory which He had obtained over death and the devil, Acts 2:24; and to offer and apply to all men the fruits of His passion and death." These fruits are: "The confirmation of our faith concerning Christ's full satisfaction, 1 Cor. 15:17; the application of the benefits ob- tained by the death of Christ; our justification, Rom. 4:25; the sealing of our hope concerning our preservation for salvation, 1 Pet. 1:3; our being raised again to life eternal, John 11:25; 14:19; 2 Cor. 4:14; 1 Thess. 4:14; and our renewal, Rom. 6:4; 2 Cor. 5:15." [26] QUEN. (III, 380): "The ascension is regarded either in a ------------------End of Page 401----------------------------------- wide sense, in so far as it includes the sitting at the right hand of God, as in Acts 2:33, 34; Eph. 4:10; or in a narrow sense, in so far as it denotes the visible elevation of Christ on high, as Mark 16: 19; Acts 1:9, 11. The latter is the signification in this article." QUEN. (III, 382): "Of the general goal of the ascension, the passages Mark 16:19 and Acts 1:11 speak. But the heaven into which Christ ascended is not the aerial or sidereal heaven of nature, for to think of this here is irreverent; nor the heaven of grace (HOLL. (785), which is the Church Militant upon this earth, from which Christ has withdrawn His visible presence until the day of judgment); not a glorious state, whether of infinite glory, which pertains to the succeeding article, the sitting at the Right Hand of God, or of finite glory, because He was in this state immediately after the resurrection; but the residence, and home of the blessed, where He presents Himself to the blessed for them to look upon Him face to face, and fills the souls of the saints by His most joy- ful visible presence with divine and heavenly comfort, John 14:2; Luke 23:43. The goal, properly speaking, is huperano panton ouranon (above all heavens), Eph. 4:10, viz., at the very right hand of God, at which He sat down, where hupseloteros ton ouranon genomenos (He is made higher than the heavens), Heb. 7:26. We have a great High Priestt, says Paul, Heb. 4:14, dieleluthota tous ouranous (that is passed into the heavens)." Concerning the passage just cited, GRH. remarks, "To penetrate the heavens is not to pass through a visible mechanism of the heavens diversified by distinct circuits of spheres, so as to be contained in the last heaven, as though, accord- ing to a physical sense, to be circumscribed in a certain place; but, in accordance with scriptural language, to become higher than all heavens, and to enter and take upon Himself divine glory." We have above proved that Christ ascended to the where of the blessed. But since this is not a circumscribed and physical locality, the ascension itself is not a local and physical passing over to it. Christ is also in heaven, yet not according to local circumscription, but definitively and according to the manner of a glorified body. GRH. (XIX, 152): "We in no wise affirm that the ascension of Christ was an aphanismos, disappearance or evanescence; nor any more aorasia [invisibility], just as before by divine virtue He had at different times rendered Himself invisible: but we sincerely be- lieve and confess that Christ's analepsis [being taken up] was a topike metastasis, a local transfer, a visible elevation, a true and real ascensiom, by which Christ, on Mount Olivet, was visibly lifted up on high from the earth, and, the infirmities of this life being laid aside, was transferred to heaven, and placed at the Right Hand of --------------End of Page 402--------------------------------------- God, the ultimate goal of His ascension. But what we deny is this, viz., that Christ, when the cloud had withdrawn Him from the eyes of the disciples, by a successive departure passed first through a sphere of fire, and then through circles of planets and the firmament, or the first movable and crystalline heaven, until in the progress of time He came to His Father in the empyreal heaven, in which, residing in a local and bodily manner, He is held restrained from being present upon earth in an invisible and illocal manner before the day of judgment." [27] Cf. FORM. CONC., Sol. Dec., VIII, 28. Br. (487): "God's Right Hand is not any definite place, but the omnipotent power of God itself, which fills heaven and earth, Matt. 26:64; Ex. 15;6; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 12:2; EPH. 1:20-23; Ps. 139:10." HOLL. (787): "To sit at God's Right Hand means to use fully and inces- santly the royal omnipotence and majesty imparted from the Father through the exaltation, for universal and most glorious governing in the kingdom of power, grace, and glory; or, what is the same, to sit at God's Right Hand is, by virtue of the personal union and the exaltation following this, to govern all the works of God's hands most powerfully, most efficaciously, and most glori- ously, 1 Cor. 15:25, 27; Ps. 110:1, 2; Heb. 2:7, 8." GRH. (III, 509): "(a) The Right Hand of God. The sitting at the Right Hand of God must be understood to be of like nature with the right hand of God. Now the Right Hand of God is not a bodily, circumscribed, limited, definite place, but it is the infinite power of God and His most efficacious majesty in heaven and earth; it is that most efficacious dominion by which God pre- serves and governs all things. For thus the Right Hand of God is described in Holy Scripture, that it has been magnified in power, and breaks to pieces its enemies, Ex. 15:6; Ps. 18:35; 44:3; 108:6; 63:8, etc. From these and similar passages of Scripture such a representation of God's Right Hand is inferred, as that it is the infinite power of God, everywhere, in heaven and earth, most efficaciously and most powerfully governing, controlling, and ad- ministering all things. Hence it is also called the right hand, dunameos, of power, Matt. 26:64; Luke 22:69; and the right hand of majesty, Heb. 1:3; the throne megalosunes, 8:1; the right hand of the throne of God, 12:2; the throne of His glory, Matt. 25:31. Therefore the sitting at God's Right Hand is to be explained and understood in such a manner as that through it, participation in divine power, majesty, and dominion in heaven and earth are understood." "(b) Sitting at God's Right Hand. This is most correctly and ----------------End of Page 403-------------------------------- simply explained according to the manner and sense in which Scripture itself explains the sitting at God's Right Hand. Now Scripture itself explains the sitting at God's Right Hand as the most efficacious and powerful dominion of heaven and earth. There- fore, etc. The minor premise is proved by a comparison of pas- sages. The apostle, in 1 Cor. 15:25, citing Ps. 110:1, inferrs: `He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet.' What sitting at the Right Hand of God is to David, that the reigning and having all things under Him is to the apostle. Thus Mark 16:19: `The Lord Jesus was received up into heaven, and sat on the Right Hand of God.' With this passage we compare the expression of the apostle in Eph. 4:10. Therefore to sit at the Right Hand of God and to fill all things, i.e., with the presence of majesty, are convertible terms. And because the power and presence of majesty exercise themselves in a special way through works of grace, in the collection, preservatiom, and protection of the Church, therefore, ac- cording to Mark 16:20, the consequence is, the `apostles preached everywhere, the Lord working with them,' and, according to Paul, Eph. 4:11, `He gave some apostles,' etc., and 4:8 precedes, `He gave gifts to men.' Peter, likewise, Acts 2:33, states that the miraculous outpouring of the Holy Ghost was a fruit and conse- quence of this sitting at the Right Hand of God: `Being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, He hath shed forth this which ye now see.' The emphatic description of the sitting at the Right Hand of God given by Paul, Eph. 1:20 sq., and by Peter, 1 Pet. 3:22, are especially to be noted. Take notice that in the latter words, `He gave Him to be head over all things to the Church,' this presence and power to the Church is not limited or restricted, but by these are described the effect and fruit of the dominion over all things conferred upon Christ. For, as God preserves the whole world be- cause of the Church, so also the divine power and majesty are im- parted to Christ, according to His human nature in order that He may be king and protector of the Church. Finally, this also must be noticed, that when Christ shall come in the clouds of heaven to judgment, He will nevertheless sit upon the seat of His majesty, and the Right Hand of God's power, Matt. 24; 30; 25:31; 26:64. Therefore, the Right Hand of God is not any finite and circum- scribed place in heaven; otherwise Christ coming in the clouds to judgment would no longer sit at the Right Hand of God. Likewise, all men are to be brought before His judgment-seat, and to see Christ as their judge, Zech. 12:10; Matt. 24:30; Rev. 1:7. But if Christ, with His glorified body, personally united to the logos, ----------------End of Page 404-------------------------------------- and taken up to the right hand of God, were so confined to a de- terminate place in heaven that He could not be present and be seen except in that one place, how could all men, innumerable in multitude, see Him in that one place at one and the same time? If the seat of majesty on which Christ will sit when He comes to judgment has been removed so many miles from earth, how will all men, at one and the same view, be able to see Him?" It is here to be observed that this sitting at the Right Hand of God is described as the last and highest act of the exaltation; hence CHMN. (Loc. Th.) remarks: "Scripture, therefore, explains Christ's sitting at the Right Hand of God the Father Almighty, as referring to the exaltation of the human nature in Christ to the highest majesty and power over all things." Rightly, therefore, QUEN. also, in harmony with all the Dogmaticians, remarks (III, 385): "The subject sitting at the Right Hand of God is the incarnate logos, Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69. The subject by which He sits, is human nature, Rom. 8:34; Phil. 2:8, 9; Rev. 5:9, 12, 13. This is proved ... from the preceding self-renunci- ation and subsequent exaltation of Christ. According to the same nature, in which Christ was first humbled and afterwards exalted, He sits at the Right Hand of God; but Christ was first humbled and afterwards exalted, not according to His divinity, but only according to His humanity; for ony the latter is capable of self- renunciation and exaltation." It is to this sitting, that the re- mark of HOLL. refers (788): "Holy Scripture ascribes the sitting at God's Right Hand, it is true, to Christ's entire person, but accord- ing to His human nature;" i.e., the thing itself, the sitting at the Right Hand of God, is ascribed, indeed, to the entire person; but an exaltation, such as is implieed in the conception of "sitting at the Right Hand of God," can be predicated only of the human nature of Christ, for only this is capable of it. The Dogmaticians are so in the habit of associating the conception of exaltation with that of the "sitting," that, in this connection, they make a further distinction between "sitting at God's Right Hand, and reigning." QUEN. (III, 384): "To sit at the Right Hand of God the Father, is not altogether the same as to reign with God the Father. For (1) Christ while yet asarkos [unincarnate] reigned with the Father and Holy Ghost from eternity, yet He did not then sit at God's Right Hand; for this sitting first began from the time of exaltation. (CHrist as God, together with the Father and Holy Ghost, reigns from eternity by means of His essential omnipotence; Christ as man, or according to His assumed human nature, reigns not from eternity, but from the time of His exaltation, through His sitting --------------End of Page 405----------------------------------------- at the Right Hand of God. Mentzer shows this accurately in Anti- Matin, where he admonishes that the major premise* [i.e., `to sit at the Right Hand of God is to reign,' vide note], which receives the word, to rule, in too general a sense, is to be thus restricted: to sit at the Right Hand of God is to reign, namely, in such a manner that the sitting at the Right Hand of God is the cause, manner, and mode of the reign itself, (2) To reign with the Father is an apotelesma [official act] of the royal office, issuing from the power of Christ's two natures; but to sit at the Right Hand of God the Father is not such a result." [Reformed theologians, when not treating the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, often reach the same conclusions, or closly ap- proach them (as may be seen from the following citations in Heppe's Dogmatik (1861, pp. 364, sq.): LEIDENER: "The Right Hand of God here cannot be received literally, since God is a spirit, and, accordingly, has not flesh and bones; but is taken metaphor- ically for the highest degree of glory, to which, after His passion and ascension, Christ was raised by the Father." RIIS.: "The session at the Right Hand of God can be understood not properly and literally, but figuratively and metaphorically, in order to designate the supremem dignity and power of Christ; the metaphor being derived from the custom of kings, who are wont to put at their right hands those to whom they concede a degree both of honor and power in governing next themselves. This phrase is understood of the nearest degree of honor in 1 Kings 2:19, where Solomon, to show his mother especial honor, puts her at his right hand; and in Ps. 45:10, the wife of the king, i.e., the Church, is said to stand on the right hand of the Messiah. It is also used of power, or the administration of government, Matt. 10:21, where the mother of Zebedee's sons asks that they may sit on His right and left in His kingdom, i.e., hold the highest offices. Hence, by the session at the Right Hand of God, two things especially are designated: 1. Supreme majesty and glory, whereby God supremely exalted Him, and through which He received a name above every name, Phil. 2:9, 10. 2. Supreme power, which He powerfully ex- ercises towards all creatures, and especially displays in the govern- ment and defence of the Church." HEIDEGGER: "To sit is here a sign of honor and power." BUCAN: "But did He not alway reign with the Father, and thus does He not perpetually sit at the Right --------------------------------------------------------------------- *[This cannot be understood without a reference to the context of QUEN., a portion of which Schmid here omits. It is this: "Martinius, the Calvinist, argues in this wise: `To sit at the Right Hand of God is to reign. But Christ reigns according to both natures. Therefore--'"] ---------------End of Page 406--------------------------------------- Hand of the Father? He reigned indeed, but purely as God, with- out flesh. But afterwards in time, as God clothed in flesh, after the completion of the period of His humiliation, He began to sit at the Right Hand of the Father, i.e., to reign in heaven and earth. When did He begin to sit at the Right Hand of the Father? By right, from the very first moment of the hypostatic union; but actually or in fact, since His passion, resurrection and ascension."] ---------------End of Chapter on Page 407--------------------------------- This text was converted to ascii format for Project Wittenberg by William Alan Larson and is in the public domain. You may freely distribute, copy or print this text. Please direct any comments or suggestions to: Rev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther Library at Concordia Theological Seminary. E-mail: smithre@mail.ctsfw.edu Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA Phone: (260) 452-3149 Fax: (260) 452-2126