Chapter XV: The office of Christ is commonly established as triple, § 320: 318 Prophetic, § 322. Priestly, § 323. And ro

CHAPTER XV: ON THE OFFICE OF CHRISE

§ 320. Thesis I: Christ’s office consists in the work of mediation between God and human beings, which is the goal or end of the incarnation (1 Tim. 2:5).

Until now we have been speaking about the person of Christ. It remains to discuss His saving office because the union of the divine and human natures in Christ took place so that the Son of God could perform His office of Mediator and Redeemer in the assumed nature. “The Son of God appeared for this, to destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8). “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give His life a ransom [] for many” (Matt. 20:28). “I came down from heaven not to do My will but the will of Him who sent Me” (John 6:38). “For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven and was made man” (Nicene Creed). “The Word or Son of God assumed the human nature to reconcile the Father to us and to be a sacrifice for sins, not only for the fault of origin, but also for all actual sins” (August. Confess., Art. III).

Christ’s office is threefold.

§ 321. Thesis II: Christ’s office is commonly established as threefold: prophetic, priestly, and royal. This, nevertheless, can be reduced to two parts so as to establish a twofold office of Christ: priestly and royal. It is the duty of a priest not only to sacrifice, pray, intercede, and bless but also to teach, which they refer to the prophetic office.

The sufficiency of this distribution is proved: (1) From a coordination of scriptural passages. However many classes there are into which we can refer the names that are attributed to Christ with regard to His office and into which we can refer the passages of Scripture that speak about Christ’s office, so many parts of Christ’s office are established correctly. But now, there are three classes that are attributed to Christ with regard to His office, etc. Therefore.

(a) With respect to His prophetic office, Christ is called “shepherd” (Ezek. 34:23; 37:[24]) and, with a further specification, “the one shepherd of all” (ibid.), “the Good Shepherd” (John 10:11), “the great shepherd of the sheep” (Heb. 13:20), “the chief shepherd” (1 Pet. 5:4), “prophet” (Deut. 18:15), “great prophet” (Luke 7:19; 24:19), “the apostle of our confession” (Heb. 3:1), “evangelist” (Isa. 41:27), “rabbi” (Mark 9:5; John 1:38; 3:2), “teacher, master” (Matt. 23:10), “preceptor” (Luke 17:13), “teacher of the nations” (Isa. 55:4), “our lawgiver” (Isa. 33:22), “counselor” (Isa. 9:6), “minister of the circumcision” (Rom. 15:8; etc.), “the author and perfecter of the faith” (Heb. 12:2).

[b] With respect to His priestly office, He is called our “priest” (Ps. 110:4), “the great priest over the house of God” (Heb. 10:21), “our high priest” (Heb. 3:1), “faithful high priest to make propitiation for sins” (Heb. 2:17), “the great high priest” (Heb. 5:10), “the high priest of good things to come” (Heb. 9:11), “the minister of the holy places and of the true tabernacle that God has prepared” (Heb. 8:2), “our advocate” (1 John 2:[1]), “ransom and redemption” (1 Tim. 2:6), “the Lamb of God” (John 1:[29]), “the Lamb who was slain from the beginning of the world” (Rev. 13:8), “our Passover” (1 Cor. 5:7), “the propitiation” [propitiatorium] (Rom. 3:25), “our peace” (Eph. 2:14; etc.).

[c] With respect to His royal office, He is called our “king” (Isa. 33:22; Zech. 9:9), “David, the king over His people” (Ezek. 37:24), “their prince forever” (v. 25), “King David” (Hosea 3:5), “leader” (Dan. 9:25), “leader of the nations” (Isa. 55:4), “Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6), “ruler in Israel” (Mic. 5:2), “our judge” (Isa. 33:22), “the ruler whom we seek” (Mal. 3:1), “the leader who rules the people of Israel” (Matt. 2:6), “king over the house of Jacob forever” (Luke 1:33), “leader and author of life” (Acts 3:15), “leader and author of salvation” (Heb. 2:10), “king of righteousness and king of peace” (Heb.

7:2; etc.).

Here we should note that some titles are general, and these are attributed to Christ with respect to all parts of His office, such as when He is called our “Jesus” and “Savior” (Matt. 1:21), “salvation” (Luke 2:30; Isa. 49:6), “mediator” (1 Tim. 2:[5]), “Redeemer” (Job 19:25), “desire of nations” (Hag. 2:[7]), “bridegroom” (John 3:29), “head of His body” (Col. 1:18), “foundation” (1 Cor. 3:11), “cornerstone” (Ps. 118:22), “lion of the tribe of Judah” (Rev. 5:5), etc. We explained the reasons for these and similar names earlier in ch. 2 [§§ 18–22].

(2) From the condition of our state. Because of the ignorance of our mind introduced through sin, we are in need of a teacher or prophet. “No one has ever seen God; the Son, who is in the bosom of the Father has declared Him to us” (John 1:18). Because of our sins and the penalties for sins, we need a priest to reconcile us to God, to make satisfaction for us, and to intercede before His judgment seat. “Your sins have caused a division between God and you” (Isa. 59:2), but through Christ reconciliation has taken place (2 Cor. 5:19). Because of the weakness of our will, we need a king to lead and defend us. “I have gone astray like a lost sheep. Seek out Your servant, ? Lord” (Ps. 119:176).

(3) From an enumeration of Christ’s benefits. Christ expiates the guilt of our sins before God, covers the stains of our iniquities, and gains God’s benediction for us, all of which is proper to a priest. Christ publishes the counsel of God regarding our redemption and salvation, which is the duty of a prophet. Christ effectually applies to us the benefit of redemption and salvation, which He obtained with His precious blood. He rules us with the scepter of His Word and, with the Holy Spirit, restrains our foes and glorifies us after the last judgment, all of which is the duty of a king. All these will become clearer from a specific consideration of each office of Christ.

[First, prophetic.]

§ 322. Christ’s prophetic office is that by which He reveals to us God’s secret counsel regarding our redemption and salvation. It has two parts: (1) the function of teaching and (2) the efficacy of the doctrine. The function of teaching is that by which Christ instructs His Church in those things that must be known and believed for salvation. This is either immediate or mediate. The immediate is that by which Christ Himself in His own person at the time of His ministry for three and a half years on this earth instructed His hearers, cleansed the divine Law from Pharisaic corruptions, preached the Gospel, admitted the apostles into His school, prepared them for the ministry, and performed with unflagging zeal all the duties of office that are required in a faithful teacher, as the Gospel account bears witness. The mediate is the institution and preservation of the ministry in the apostles and their successors until the Last Day. You see, Christ preached not only in His own person but He also, when He had finished the course of His ministry and wished to enter into His glory, committed the ministry of teaching, first, to His apostles (John 20:21), and then He sent them out into the whole world with the mandate to preach the Gospel (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15). Still today, exalted at the right hand of God, He “gives to His Church teachers and pastors for the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry for the edification of His mystical body” (Eph. 4:11–12).

The efficacy of doctrine is the divine power by which Christ through the Holy Spirit effectually moves people’s hearts to embrace the doctrine of faith. “He will give power to His voice” (Ps. 68:[33]). “Everyone who has heard from the Father and learned comes to Me” (John 6:45). Therefore to this office of Christ belong: the proclaiming in the Gospel of the divine counsel about the redemption of humankind; the institution and preservation of the ecclesiastical ministry; the establishing of the Sacraments; the giving of the Holy Spirit; and the effectual changing, illumination, regeneration, renewal, sanctification, etc., of human hearts through Him.

Second, priestly.

§ 323. Christ’s priestly office is that by which He placed Himself in the middle between God and sinful men, reconciled the whole human race to God by completely satisfying the divine Law, by taking on Himself the penalties for sins, and by interceding before God. There are, then, two parts of this office: (1) Satisfaction, by which Christ offered an evenly balanced ransom to His Father for the sins of the whole world and acquired righteousness and eternal life for the human race. In this satisfaction, there occurred an obedience that was both active and passive. Active obedience consists in the completely sufficient fulfillment of the Law. Passive obedience consists in the completely sufficient payment for the sins of the human race rendered to the Father. Here, however, one must note that the active and passive obedience in the satisfaction of Christ are most intimately connected, because His passion was active and His action was passive. (2) Intercession, by which Christ intercedes before the heavenly Father by virtue of the merit and satisfaction that He rendered. He does this both generally for all people and even for His foes and crucifiers (Isa. 53:12; Luke 23:34); and specifically for the faithful alone (John 17:9; Rom. 8:34; 1 John 2:1). These two kinds of intercession must not be opposed to each other.

Third, royal.

§ 324. Christ’s royal office is that by which Christ the God-man governs all things in heaven and earth and especially protects His Church against its foes. That kingdom of Christ is considered either in this life or in the future life. In this life it is called the kingdom of power or of grace. The kingdom of power is the general dominion over all things, namely, the governance of heaven and earth (Ps. 8:[6]; Dan. 7:14; Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:21); the subjection of all creatures (1 Cor. 15:27; Eph. 1:[22]; Heb. 2:8); dominion in the midst of His enemies, whom He represses, coerces, and punishes (Ps. 2:9; 110:2; 1 Cor. 15:25); etc. The kingdom of grace is the specific operation of grace in the Church, namely, the sending, illumination, and preservation of the apostles, evangelists, teachers and pastors in the Church (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8; Eph. 4:11); the gathering of the Church through the preaching of the Gospel and dispensing of the Sacraments (ibid.); regeneration, renewal, illumination, and sanctification of believers through Word and Sacraments (John 3:5; 17:17; Eph. 5:26; Titus 3:5; etc.); the application of His merit; the protection and preservation of the devout (Matt. 28:20); the outpouring of various gifts (Eph. 4:8; etc.).

In the other life it is called the kingdom of glory. It will be seen in the raising of the dead, the universal judgment and its execution, in the damnation of the reprobate and glorification of the elect (Matt. 25:46; John 5:29), when Christ “hands over the kingdom to His Father” (1 Cor. 15:24), “so that God may be all in all” (v. 28).

Christ administers His office according to both natures.

§ 325. Thesis III: Christ administers His office according to both natures.

We prove this: (1) From the explicit naming of each nature. One cannot doubt about the human nature that in and through it Christ executes the office of mediation because of the protevangelium about the woman’s Seed that would crush the serpent’s head (Gen. 3:15) and the very clear statement of the apostle: “There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:[5]). The following passages speak about the divine nature: “God Himself will come and save you” (Isa. 35:4). “I shall save them in the Lord their God” (Hosea 1:7). “God has redeemed the Church with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). “We have been reconciled to God through the death of His Son” (Rom. 5:10). “The Son of God by Himself purged our sins” (Heb. 1:3). “Through the eternal Spirit, Christ offered Himself to God” (Heb. 9:14). “The blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, cleanses us of all sin” (1 John 1:7). From these we draw this conclusion: Whatever work is attributed to God and the Son of God, from it the divine nature of the Son cannot be excluded. The work of mediation and redemption is attributed to God and to the Son of God. [Therefore.]

(2) From the incarnation of the Son of God. God’s Son assumed the human nature in time for this purpose, and the miraculous union of the divine and human natures occurred so that He might execute His office according to both natures. “The Son of God appeared for this, to destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8). From this we infer: If the working of the divine nature is removed from the effects of the mediator’s office, the goal [ finis] of the incarnation is removed. But that consequence is absurd.

(3) From the condition of the mediator. Our mediator had to be God and man, as we demonstrated above in many ways. Therefore the divine and human natures concur for the office of mediation. We prove the logical sequence: If Christ the Mediator as such had to be the God-man, then both natures concur for the office of mediation. Anselm, Cur Deus homo, bk. 2, ch. 18: “The diversity of natures and unity of person in Christ had the power to do this: that whatever work had to be done to restore human beings, if the human nature could not, the divine would do it, and if it did not befit the divine, the human would perform it. Not one person and another, but rather the very same one was both perfectly, doing through the human nature what it had to do and being able through the divine to do what was expedient.”

(2)

(4) From the necessary working of the divine nature in the mediating office. The guilt arising from the sins of the whole human race was infinite because it struck against the infinite justice of God. Infinite goodness had been injured; therefore an infinite price was required. But now, the actions and passions of the human nature are finite and restricted to the period of a certain time, namely, of the emptying. Thus, in order that the price of redemption might be analogous to our debt and infinite guilt, it was necessary for paying it that the action or mediation not only of the finite nature (that is, the human nature) but also of the infinite nature (that is, the divine nature) concur, and that Christ’s suffering and death acquire the value of an infinite price from another source—namely, from the effectual working of the divine nature—precisely so that infinite good could be opposed to infinite evil. To reconcile an angry God to the entire human race; to offer satisfaction equivalent to infinite justice; to abolish sin, which is infinite evil; to convey perfect righteousness; to overcome the devil, death, and hell; to render perfect obedience to the Law for others; to earn forgiveness of sins for others; to look into the secret counsel of God about man’s redemption and salvation; to recover the lost goodness of heaven; to gather the Church to Himself from the human race and guard it against all the attacks of spiritual and bodily foes—these are works that require infinite, divine working [], as is evident. But now, each and every one of these works is required in the office of mediator. Therefore.

(5) From the absurd conclusion. If Christ’s divine nature is excluded from the office of mediation, the consequence is: that the union of divine and human natures in the mediator was unnecessary; that Christ’s obedience, active and passive, is not of infinite value and merit because the finite nature, such as it is, cannot in and of itself be the cause of an infinite effect, and hence we are still under the dominion of sin, death, and the devil; that the work of redemption has not been finished and completed; that redemption is a merely human work; and that the church in the Old Testament did not have a mediator.

(6) From the witness of the devout ancients. In our treatise On the Person of Christ [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 7], §§ 165ff., we listed the decree of the Council of Chalcedon, the statements of Irenaeus (Adv. haeres., bk. 3, ch. 20), Augustine (De civ. Dei, bk. 9, ch. 15; Homily de ovib., ch. 12), Anselm (Cur Deus homo, bk. 2, ch. 18), Damascenus (Orth. fid., bk. 3, ch. 15). To these we must add the following: Irenaeus, bk. 3, ch. 20, p. 211: “Had a man not conquered the enemy of man, the foe would not have been conquered justly. Again, had God not granted salvation, we would not have it firmly. And had man not been united with our God, he could not have become a partaker of incorruptibility.” Cyril asserts (De rect. fid. ad Reg.): “Christ is our high priest in the assumed human nature. Those things that He did and suffered are effectual because they are works of God, not of man, because of the union.” Athanasius, Ad Maxim. philos.: “The Word offered His body for us, lest we be moved by hope and trust in man, but that we might establish our confidence in God Himself, the Word.”

** Ambrose, on Romans 7: “Although He was dead in the flesh for a time, nevertheless He lives unto eternity, by His divinity and humanity being mediator between God and men forever, to pray for us.” **

Augustine, Confess., bk. 10, ch. 42: “It was necessary for the mediator between God and men to have something similar to God and something similar to men—lest, being in both similar to men, He be far from God, and, being in both similar to God, He be far from men, and thus He would not be the mediator.” Enchir. ad Laurent., ch. 108: “Would we really be freed through the one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, if He were not also God?” Theodoret, Dial. 2: “Here the word ‘intercessor’ means both divinity and humanity.” Vigilius, Contra Eutych., bk. 5: “Such a victim was required that would be in the middle between God and man, to succumb to death through that which He had of man and to overcome death through that which He had in Himself of divinity.”

(7) From the confession of our adversaries. Thomas, [ST,] part 3, q. 48, art. 6: “I answer that efficient agency is twofold, principal and instrumental. The principal efficient cause of human salvation is God. However, because Christ’s humanity is the instrument of divinity, therefore consequently all the actions and sufferings of Christ are worked instrumentally in the power of the divinity for human salvation. According to this, the Passion of Christ efficiently causes human salvation.” Dionysius Carthusianus, commentary on 1 Timothy 2: “He is, properly speaking, the mediator of God and men; not as God nor as man, but as the God-man or as God Incarnate. So, then, making satisfaction or reconciling together with the suitability or efficacy of reconciling certainly befit Him—the first of which befits Him by reason of the assumed nature, the second by reason of the united deity, on the basis of which the works and punishments of Christ the man are in some way given infinite dignity and efficacy.” Claudius Espencaeus, commentary on 1 Timothy 2, treatise de Christo mediai., chs. 2 and 5:

We are surprised that some people think that Christ is and is called “mediator” only according to His human nature and that those who think otherwise are openly charged with Arianism and this type of heresy, etc. Some press hard the apostle’s passage in 1 Timothy 2, but I ask, in turn, why, as they explain this passage, the fathers elicit and press the point that Christ is God from the same passage and word. If the apostle here had meant that Christ is mediator only according as He is man—and the word “only” that he introduced, this the apostle did not add (and whoever adds this, let them fear the plagues declared for this evil in Revelation 22!). Not only did he not add that, but he even added the contrary. He says, “Jesus Christ,” whose name is not that of a mere man but of the man anointed by God and assumed into the union of the person (Hebrews 1; Acts 4; Psalm 44). Also, the latter name is that of the God-man, as the angel teaches in Matthew, etc.

 

And later:

From the Greeks and Latins we have by great consensus a very serious and unanimous decree about the necessary coming together of both natures to the name “mediator.” Among these, Chrysostom (as cited by Vigilius, Contra Eutych., bk. 5) speaks in this way: “He who interposes himself to dissolve a lawsuit and discord reaches out his left hand to one and his right to the other and brings both into friendship. In the same way Christ came in the middle between us and God, joined both natures by the union of the natures of divinity and humanity, and is rightly called mediator and intercessor,” as Theodoret says (Dial.) and Pope Leo the Great, the first of this name (De incarn.), states. He says, “In what way did He fulfill the verity of mediator except in the form of God, equal to the Father, and in the form of a servant, a partaker with us?” (From Cyril, Letter 86:) He is not called mediator because of the dispensation of the flesh, as other Greek fathers think that both natures belong to the definition of mediation. From Bernard (Sermon de circumc.), it can be seen that both natures of Christ belong to the definition of saving mediation, because it was necessary for the mediator not only to suffer sufficiently but also to make satisfaction, something that mere man cannot do. Christ’s action is called theandric, “of the God-man,” or “human-divine,” so to speak, as the great theologian Damascenus deduces (De orth. fid., bk. 3, ch. 19), etc. If Augustine seems to deny that Christ is mediator as regards His divine nature, he should have been reconciled to himself and not cast before us as a reproach, namely, that he denies that Christ was mediator, unless we acknowledge Him as already become man or as promised to become man, because the ancients had the same faith about the coming Christ as we have about Him who came. The same Augustine denies that Christ was mediator as God, and this, too, we recognize. But he is understanding Him as pure God with no respect to His incarnation—either accomplished or promised—but considered in His immortal and impassible nature. This is not a violent explanation but comes from the mind of Augustine, as is clear. He says (De civ. Dei, bk. 9, ch. 15): “He had to have both transient humanity and permanent blessedness.”

 

To the argument that “if Christ be established as mediator also according to His divine nature, He must be established as inferior to the Father,” he responds in very great detail from the fathers and finally adds: “The Scholastics ascribe merit, satisfaction, mediation, and redemption to the human nature but they do this according as it is such, that is, according as it is of such dignity, efficiency, sufficiency, and supersufficiency, so to speak, which they attribute to the divine nature or to the personal union with it.” Cajetan says: “To merit, to make satisfaction, to mediate are works of the assumed nature. But in order that they may be of such efficaciousness in satisfying, they have this from the divinity.” Gabriel Biel observes from the former and says: “ ‘Through Christ our Lord’: the preposition ‘through’ signifies the mediator; ‘Christ our Lord’ signifies both natures.” The gloss of Anselm has the same thing:

The greatest of all is, just as God could not pray for our salvation unless He became man, so also a man could not so pray unless he were at the same time God. We do not contemplate the tears, prayers, and the rest of the activities of mediation simply, but as redemptive, expiating, propitiating, entreating, and satisfying; and as such, no more as completed by only a man nor only by God, but by the God-man.

 

Salmeron, tome 7, treatise 25: “For salvation we needed deity and at the same time humanity, like shoulders. For though we read in Isaiah 9 in the singular, ‘The government was placed on His shoulder,’ because only the humanity bore the cross, nevertheless we can interpret ‘shoulder’ as His deity, which as a shoulder bore the burdens of our sins, though nevertheless wearing the garb or clothing of His humanity.” Maldonatus, commentary on John 10:18, does not disapprove of it if anyone claims that Christ laid down His life both as man and as God. Osorius, vol. 4, Conc. for the Third Sunday of Advent, on John 1: “A medium ought to participate in both extremes. Behold the extremes—God and man—which are as far from each other as heaven and earth. Behold the middle one, participating in those extremes, Christ the Lord, who is God and man.” Pineda, commentary on Job [9]:33:

“There is no one who might lay his hand on both.” With these words, says Tertullian toward the end of his book De patient., Job desires a mediator between God and himself and seems to be prophesying about Christ the Mediator. Truly, this Mediator lays His hand on both. For He is the right hand of the Father, through which the Father swears and magnifies Himself. And then He also gave His right hand to us when for us He united the human nature to Himself. He is the truest mediator, not only in office and duty but also in substance and nature.

 

Suarez, In Thomam, vol. 1, q. 1, art. 2, disp. 4, sect. 5, § sed hic:

This manner of speaking that denies that Christ made satisfaction for us to Himself and the entire Trinity really displeases me, for it is openly contrary to Scripture, as 2 Cor. 5[:19]: ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.’ Here, just as God is said to be in Christ by reason of the divine nature, so by reason of the same nature He is said to have reconciled the world to Himself.

 

Ibid.: “Christ is called ‘the mediator of God’ according as He is God, as Cyril discusses in detail.”

Gregorius de Valentia, De unit. et trin., bk. 1, ch. 22:

 

Christ performed the office of mediator before Himself as God because, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, He was hostile to the sinner. Instead of it being impossible for Christ—as He is God and man—to be our mediator before God, much rather it follows that, if He were not perfect God and man, He could not have been our mediator, as all the fathers demonstrate beautifully.

 

Gregory again, De Christo redempt., part 2, ch. 4, says that one must use a distinction:

For, if the question is “Through what did He carry out His office of mediator properly?” we must say that He was only mediator as man. If the question is “Through what or from whom did the performance of this office receive value?” it is the common and orthodox opinion of the fathers that He was the mediator as God and man. He did not suffer for us according to His divinity, yet He worked reconciliation with God according to both natures.

 

Bellarmine, De justif., bk. 2, ch. 5:

God accepts nothing as true satisfaction for sin except infinite righteousness, because sin is an infinite offense. But for any righteousness to be infinite, that is, of infinite price and value, it is not necessary for it to be God’s essential righteousness. Rather, it is enough that it be the righteousness of an infinite person such as is Christ, God and man. Therefore the obedience, suffering, and death of God’s Son, though in themselves and essentially they were created and finite, nevertheless by reason of the obedient, suffering, and dying person they were infinite, and, on the basis of the true rigor of justice, they were the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

 

Antithesis.

§ 326. (I) The Jews foster very serious errors about the office of the Messiah. (1) In the prophetic office they deny that the Messiah was going to publish anything else aside from the Mosaic Law, and they imagine that He was going to bring out nothing new as regards doctrine nor institute other sacraments. (2) As to His royal office, they are completely blind. They dream that the Messiah will be an earthly king who, in the fashion of other monarchs, will rule on earth, vanquish all the nations, and bring the Jews back to the land of Canaan and there be enriched with a wealth and abundance of all things. (3) They completely remove Christ’s priestly office because they are persuaded that they can earn righteousness and eternal life by their own works and reconcile themselves to God with their own satisfactions. In Disp. Gissens., vol. 4, disp. 6–7, or Elench. Judaeorum, 3–4, Dr. Helvicus argues in great detail against these errors and refutes the Jews on the basis of their own writers.

(II) Stancarus taught that Christ was mediator only according to His human nature, just as Andreas Osiander attributed to Him the work of mediation only according to the divine nature.

(III) The Papists: (1) Follow Stancarus’s error, attributing to Christ the work of mediation only according to the human nature. In his commentary on 1 John, p. 32, Lorinus writes: “This Christ can be beseeched in the Catholic manner as He prays on behalf of him who knows how to distinguish between His divinity and humanity, according to which He is our advocate and prays for us.” Busaeus, Disp. de pers. Christi, thesis 79: “Only according to His humanity did Christ obey God, sacrifice, offer, make satisfaction, pray, and gain and merit righteousness for us.” Bellarmine, De Christo, bk. 5, ch. 5, § 4: “Christ can be called ‘mediator’ according to His divine nature not in any way, that is, in no way.” (Cf. Melchior Canus, Loc. theol.; Suarez, Comm. in Thom., vol. 5, on part 3, disp. 46, sect. 2; Gregorius de Valentia, De Christo, bk. 2, part 2, ch. 4.) We weighed their arguments on the scales of truth in our treatise On the Person of Christ [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 7], §§ 179ff.

(2) They foster very serious errors regarding the individual parts of the mediating office. In general: (a) They introduce more than one mediator and savior. (b) They assert that heathen without knowledge of Christ were saved.

In particular: (a) Against the prophetic office: (α) They attribute the magisterium of the faith to the Roman pontiff. (β) They assert that Christ was the new lawgiver. (γ) They introduce new sacraments unknown to Christ and the apostles. (δ) To the integrity of Baptism they add some things that Christ certainly did not institute. (ε) They change the institution of the Eucharist, which Christ created.

(b) Against the priestly office: (α) They tear apart Christ’s obedience and satisfaction accomplished for us, and they even tear apart His most holy merit in many ways, as, for example, by denying that Christ’s satisfaction was simply necessary for redemption and salvation, by excluding the working [ ] of the divine nature from Christ’s satisfaction and merit, by setting the reckoning and price of the satisfaction offered by Christ in bare acceptation, by denying that Christ felt God’s wrath and the pains of hell in His Passion, by denying that Christ made perfect satisfaction for sins and the punishments of sins, by adding our merits to Christ’s merit, by stubbornly denying that Christ with His obedience and satisfaction earned the sort of righteousness that is imputed to us through faith, by denying that Christ’s Passion is the only and complete meritorious cause of our justification and salvation, by peddling Christ’s merit for money. “Satisfaction through the sufficiency (which Christ rendered) does not deserve the name ‘satisfaction,’ nor do redemption nor reconciliation through sufficiency deserve these names.” Tapper, Art. satisfact., p. 241: “Christ is the cause of universal salvation but not of total or complete salvation.” Miletus (Discuss.) refers the first promise in Gen. 3:15 to Mary. (β) Through the sacrifice of the Mass, they destroy Christ’s sacrifice offered on the altar of the cross. (γ) They send people to the merits and intercessions of the saints. (δ) They introduce a purgatorial fire to wash away the remnants of sins after this life.

(c) Against the royal office: (α) They exclude Christ’s human nature from His omnipresent lordship in heaven and earth. (β) They establish the pope as Christ’s vicar. (γ) They transfer to the Roman pontiff the honor, dignity, works, and names that belong to Christ the King. (δ) They transfer to the pope the temporal kingdom under the pretext of his being Christ’s vicar. (We discussed these errors of the Papists in great detail in De Gloria Dei, disp. 2–3.)

§ 327. (IV) The Calvinists: (1) Against Christ’s prophetic office: (a) Fight for an absolute decree of reprobation. (b) Teach that Baptism is not an effectual instrument and means of regeneration and renewal. (c) Teach the absence of Christ’s body and blood from the Supper.

(2) Against Christ’s priestly office: (a) They refer Christ’s Passion by a dangerous alteration [] to the human nature alone. (b) They establish the definition of merit in the mere acceptation of the Father. (c) They deny that Christ’s merit and satisfaction was earned for all people. (d) They exclude Christ’s active obedience from the rank of a meritorious cause. (e) They assert that they have earned something for themselves. (f) They attribute salvation to heathen without faith in Christ.

(3) They fight against Christ’s royal office because they exclude His human nature from His omnipresent and omnipotent lordship in heaven and earth. (Cf. our De gloria Dei, disp. 8.)

§ 328. (V) The Photinians: (1) Claim, against Christ’s prophetic office, that Christ added some new precepts to the divine Law.

(2) They fight against Christ’s priestly office because they deny that Christ made satisfaction for our sins with His death or that He died to earn our salvation. They deny that Christ reconciled us to God. They deny that Christ offered Himself in sacrifice to God for us on the altar of the cross. They deny that Christ was a priest before He entered heaven. They deny that by Christ’s sacrifice anything else is to be understood than liberation from our necessities. They deny that Christ intercedes for us properly, since by His intercession nothing else is to be understood than that He has the power through which He acts from the Father.

(3) They fight against Christ’s royal office because: (a) They say that after His ascent into heaven, Christ is not present and ruling on earth, and they limit and restrict the power given to Christ. (b) They establish an end to Christ’s kingdom. (Cf. our De gloria

Dei, disp. 10, § 31.)

Question.

§ 329. Here the question arises: Did Christ earn (or merit) something for Himself too? This is affirmed: (I) By the Papists. See Thomas ([ST,] part 3, q. 19, art. 3; q. 49, art. 6), Lombard (Sent., 3, dist. 18), and Bellarmine (De Christo, bk. 5, ch. 9). They argue that “Christ earned for Himself the glory of His body and the exaltation of His name.” Salmeron, Hebrews 1, disp. 8, § Dubium: “With His suffering Christ earned for Himself the adoration of worship.”

(II) Some of the Calvinists answer in the affirmative, such as Zanchi (Epist. ad D. Stuckium, bk. 2, p. 212). In his writings, Zanchi often repeats this: “By His obedience Christ earned for Himself eternal life.”

** Thus [Zanchi,] De rel. Christ., vol. 8, ch. 12, aphor. 15, p. 502: “We believe that by His perfect obedience, Christ earned eternal life not only for Himself but also for us.” See Piscator (on Luke 2, obs. 19). **

Likewise, [Zanchi,] commentary on Phil. 2:9, p. 173; Vorstius (Anti-Bellarm., pp. 55–56); Ravensperger (Censurae et judicii de illustrioribus theologorum quaestionibus, pentas 5, q. 2), where he cites Bullinger (on Revelation, sermon 27) in favor of his own opinion and adds:

There are two things that we claim Christ earned for Himself, namely, eternal life and the highest, unique glory by which all rational creatures recognize Him as the Son of God so that He is worshiped as true God. The former He earned by His observance of the Law according to the words, “The man who does them will live in them” (Lev. 18:5), but the latter, through His many and various sufferings and especially His death on the cross (Phil. 2:9).

 

Against this assertion we set forth: (1) The dignity of Christ’s person. In the union according to the assumed human nature, Christ was given a name much more excellent than the angels because that assumed human nature was elevated into the hypostasis of the Word. Greater glory and dignity than this cannot be conceived of (Heb. 1:5). Therefore with regard to Himself He needed no merit.

(2) The verity of the communication. At the first moment of His incarnation, truly divine and infinite gifts were truly and really communicated to Christ according to His human nature, as we showed earlier. Therefore immediately at His first conception Christ could have exerted the majesty and glory communicated to Him in full light had not the manner of our redemption and salvation required that He first empty Himself and assume the form of a servant. In His exaltation, which is the consequence of His emptying, Christ was not given some new power that He did not receive through the personal union. Rather, the full execution of that power and the administration of His kingdom were granted Him.

(3) The quality of Christ’s merit. Whatever Christ earned in His office, He earned for us, not for Himself. (See Isa. 45:24; Zech. 9:9; John 17:19; 1 Tim. 1:15.) “For us He was born, for us He was given” (Isa. 9:6). “For us He was made righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30).

(4) The resulting absurdity. If, through His suffering, Christ earned for Himself the adoration of worship, the consequence would be that in the days of His flesh Christ could not and should not have been honored with the adoration of worship. The consequence is absurd because the arguments with which we earlier proved that the adoration of worship befits Christ the man prove that even in His state of emptying He was to be adored with worship. Also, the examples of the devout show that in the days of His flesh Christ often was given the honor of worship, and this He did not at all refuse.

(2)

(5) The variety of opinions of our adversaries. Our adversaries do not agree with one another in this dogma. (a) Of the Papists, Salmeron claims: “With His suffering, Christ earned for Himself the adoration of worship [latria].” However, the rest argue that “not worship but high veneration [hyperdulia] befits Christ the man,” and they assert that this was given to Christ even in His state of emptying. The Catech. Tridentinus, explanation of the Fourth Article of the Creed: “He lists the blessings and good things from the merit of Christ’s Passion alone for us, but he does not mention anything for Christ.” Bellarmine (De Christo, bk. 5, ch. 9, from Augustine, De praedestin. sanctor., ch. 15) is correct in denying “that Christ earned the hypostatic union for Himself.” Instead, he relates it among the things that no one can merit. But the Jesuit Maximilianus Sandaeus of Würzburg argues in Castig. de prodig. liberal., p. 261: “God could have granted the humanity the grace of the hypostatic union not absolutely but as under a condition and with a dependence on future works and thus as a reward for them.” (b) Of the Calvinists, Calvin himself (Instit., bk. 2, ch. 17, § 6) deliberately refutes this error in the Papists. Franciscus Junius writes: “The Christian faith undergoes no hardship whether that dogma be approved or disapproved.”

§ 330. In favor of an affirmative answer to this question, they urge especially the apostle’s words in Phil. 2:9: [“Therefore also He has highly exalted Him”]. We respond. (1) The emptying is not being established as the meritorious cause of the exaltation. Rather, the exaltation is described as the consequent reward for the emptying. You see, the words and do not always and everywhere denote the meritorious cause for a thing but sometimes also the final cause, and more often as the consequence and reasoning by which some one thing is concluded from the other. (Cf. Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5; Mark 7:29; Rom. 2:1; 2 Cor. 4:13; 6:17; Eph. 4:8, 25; etc.) This is so obvious that the Papists themselves cannot deny it. Heb. 1:9: “You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore [] God has anointed you.” The phrase means the same thing as . But now, Thomas (notes on Hebrews 1, lect. 4), Ribera (commentary on this passage), Melchior Canus (Loci theologici, bk. 12, ch. 13, § Tertio demum), and Suarez (In Thomam, vol. 1, disp. 10, sect. 4) teach that this must be taken as a reference not to a meritorious cause but to a final cause.

(2) Therefore we compare parallel passages with this apostolic text. “Was it not necessary that Christ should suffer these things and enter into His glory?” (Luke 24:26). (In the Vulgate is added: ita intrare in gloriam [“thus to enter into glory”].) This order, then, was divinely established, that Christ should enter into glory through His suffering and after His suffering. Heb. 2:9: “We see Him who was made a little lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering [] of death.” (Some arrange the words so that Christ is said to have been made lower than the angels “because of the suffering.”) “For it was fitting that He for whom all things and through whom all things, etc., to make the author of salvation perfect through sufferings []” (Heb. 2:10). “The Spirit predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories” (1 Pet. 1:11).

(3) The Greek is composed of the pronoun and the preposition . Therefore [in Latin] we must translate it as proinde [“consequently”], quocirca [“on account of which”], to indicate the order and consequence of His suffering and glory but not the effects of merit.

(4) The verb means “to give or bestow freely.” But now, where there is grace or a gracious gift, there merit according to debt is banished.

(5) The apostle’s aim is not to teach confidence in merit but to commend the pursuit of humility, so that we await the gracious rewards of humility from God.

Practical use.

§ 331. The practical use is: (I) Consoling. Christ is our teacher and therefore leads us on the path of truth. He is our priest and therefore intercedes for us before the Father. He is our king and therefore He defends us against all enemies (John 14:6). Chrysostom, vol. 1, col. 971: “We give You thanks, O Lord, because You have provided us with three things: to know the truth, which we did not know because we were holding to falsity; to know the way, because we did not know through what way¹ we should walk; to know the life, because we were clinging to death and death had been handed down to us from that man to whom it was said, ‘You will surely die.’ He gave life to the dead, offered truth to liars, showed the way to the straying.” Hilary, De Trinit., bk. 7, p. 129: “He does not lead us into errant and pathless wastes, for He is the way. He does not lead through lies, for He is the truth. He does not leave us in the error of death, for He is life.” Augustine, De doct. Christ., bk. 1, ch. 34: “It is Christ through whom we come, to whom we arrive, and in whom we remain.” De civ. Dei, bk. 9, ch. 15: “He who is life in the upper reaches is the way in the lower places.” On John, tractate 22, col. 195: “Do you want to walk? I am the way. Do you wish not to be deceived? I am the truth. Do you wish not to die? I am the life. Your Savior says this: There is no place to go except to Me. There is no path on which to go except through Me.” Sermon 54 de verb. Dom.: “By what road do you wish to go? I am the way. Where do you wish to go? I am the truth. Where do you wish to stay? I am the life.” Bernard, Sermon 2 de ascens., at the end: “Let us follow You, through You, to You, because You are the way, the truth, and the life—the way in example, the truth in promise, the life in reward.” Gloss. interlin.: “The way without error for those who seek. The truth without falsity for those who find. Life without death for those who remain.” Gerson, preface to De vita spirit.: “He is the animating life, the moving way, the stabilizing truth.” Hugo de Prato, Sermon 1 de spin. coron.: “He is the leading way, the shining truth, the unfailing life.”

(II) Exhorting. Christ our king and priest has made us kings and priests before God the Father. Therefore let us rule over our flesh, have dominion over sin, and resist the devil as kings. Let us offer our bodies as a spiritual sacrifice to God as priests. We are called “Christians” from Christ. Therefore it is right that we conform ourselves to Christ our head. Let us consign ourselves into His protection. Let us allow ourselves to be ruled by Him. Let us commit to Him alone our salvation. He cries out to us, “I am the way.” Therefore let us imitate His example. “I am the truth.” Therefore let us have faith in His words. “I am the life.” Therefore let us commit our souls to Him in death.

To Him be praise, honor, and glory forever and ever. Amen.

1 Read quam with Cotta instead of quem.

↑ Back to top