Chapter VIII: Election Happened in View of the Merit of Christ, § 147
CHAPTER VIII: ELECTION HAPPENED IN VIEW OF THE MERIT OF CHRIST
What the reason is that not all are elect.
§ 147. Let us proceed further. If the cause for election and reprobation is not to be sought or established in the absolute will of God, the questions arise: On what does the distinction between the elect and the reprobate depend? What is the reason that some are elect from eternity but some are reprobate?
§ 148. We shall deal with reprobation later [§§ 177–89]. To the question about election we respond with the words of the apostle, Eph. 1:4: “God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world.” According to the Hebrew wording, to be chosen in Christ means to be chosen through and because of Christ, who is to be apprehended by faith. Therefore the cause of election should not be sought in some absolute good-pleasure of God by which He chose a few people. Rather, because God foresaw from eternity that Adam along with all his descendants would fall into eternal death because of his rebellion, because of the rigor of divine justice Christ had to intercede. He placated the wrath of God and turned the Father from being a stern punisher of sins to being kind. For this reason we say that Christ is the cause of election, or, what is the same, we say that God made His decree of election in view of the satisfaction to be made by Christ and to be received by faith. This is what the apostle intends when he says, “We have been chosen in Christ” [Eph. 1:4].
What does it mean to be chosen in Christ?
§ 149. You will find many things in favor of this position in Zanchi. (Concerning him, Hubert Sturm, toward the end of his treatise De praedest., judges that from all time, in accord with Augustine, [Zanchi] debated most truly, clearly, and solidly regarding this subject.) He writes (De nat. Dei, bk. 5, ch. 2, p. 626): “Election supposes love. After ourselves we love especially those whom we acknowledge as our children. So also God, after Himself and His own Son, Jesus Christ, especially loved from eternity those whom He has acknowledged as His children in Christ. In this way love supposes foreknowledge.” And later: “The good-pleasure of the will of God is the root of all things which follow the matter of our salvation, namely and first, His foreknowledge, by which He has acknowledged us from eternity as His children. Second, His love, by which He has loved us as His sons in His beloved Son, Jesus Christ.” But I add the minor premise from the nature of related things1: God has loved no one in Christ for eternal life unless he is in Christ through faith. Therefore respect for faith [intuitus fidei] cannot be excluded from this love. He writes about this later: “Third, election, by which He has selected us as His beloved for eternal life out of the filth of the rest of mankind. Fourth, predestination, by which He has prepared all the benefits with which to lead us to the goal, that is, to eternal life. Fifth, calling, by which we are effectually called to Christ. Sixth, justification, by which we are received into grace and considered righteous because of the forgiveness of sins for Christ’s sake. Finally, glorification.” Ibid., p. 676: “That in or through which and with respect to which God has made us pleasing to Himself is Christ, the beloved of the heavenly Father, and nothing else. Now, God made us pleasing to Himself not only when He justified us but also when He elected us for justification; for at that time He acknowledged us as His own and embraced us with His free love. Therefore it is Christ alone in whom, just as we are justified, so also we have been elected for justification and salvation. That is, He is the one because of whom and with respect for whom we have been elected.” Page 646: “The apostle teaches that we have been chosen in Christ as members in the Head and as secondborn in the Firstborn. For he says that the Father chose us, not according as He considered us in ourselves but according as He acknowledged us as His children in Christ according to the good-pleasure of His will, and also because He loved us in Christ, His beloved Son, as His children before the foundation of the world. Hence followed our election.” All this is from Zanchi.
§ 150. But Polanus (De praedest., p. 45) counters: “To be elect in Christ is not the same as being elect because of the merit of Christ.” Yet Zanchi admits this, as we have seen, and the context itself shows this, [Eph. 1:]5: “He predestined us for adoption as sons through Christ.” (See Chrysostom, Primasius, Theophylactus, and Haimo on this passage.)
Piscator of Herborn (Anal., p. 80) counters: “God chose us in Christ, that is, that He might save us through Christ. Clearly he means that Christ with His merit should at least be the means through which God carries out His decree of election in time, but respect for the merit of Christ is not involved in [ingredi] the actual decree of election.”
We respond. However, the apostle is speaking about election itself in clear language. He is describing the very act of election, and he includes Christ in it. Afterward he then speaks about the end goal of election. He makes a clear distinction between that blessing by which God blesses us with spiritual blessings in time and the act of election by which God elected us to eternal life before the foundation of the world. He includes Christ in both actions as their cause. “God has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing, just as He has chosen us in Him” [Eph. 1:3–4]. Draw the conclusion: We are blessed in Christ, that is, on account of Christ who merited this grace for us. Therefore it is also in Christ that we were elected, that is, on account of Christ. See also v. 7: “In Christ we have redemption.” But now, Christ is the cause of our redemption. In the same way God chose us in Christ. Therefore Christ is the cause for our election. Finally, the apostle says that election in Christ occurred “before the foundation of the world.” How can one confine this to the blessing of salvation that the faithful obtain in time? Furthermore, a little earlier Piscator himself admits that the merit of Christ is the immediate cause of our election.
As God saves people in time, in the same way He determined to save us from eternity.
§ 151. Therefore we argue thus: In the same way as God justifies and saves people in time, He also has decreed from eternity to justify and save them. But now, by the witness of all Scripture, God justifies and saves people in time because of the merit of Christ (namely, which is to be apprehended by faith). Therefore He also determined from eternity to justify and save them because of Christ (who is to be apprehended by faith), and, as a consequence, He has chosen them because of Christ, because that decree of justifying and saving is nothing other than election. The major premise is quite obvious because the things which God does in time are a manifestation of the things which He has decreed from eternity. What God does in time and how He does it—from eternity He has decreed to do that and nothing else, and in that way and in none other. Just as the immutability of the divine essence does not permit us to say that God has decided one thing from eternity and then does something else in time, so also for the same reason we cannot say that God has decided one thing from eternity in one way and then acts in a different way in time. Consider again the passage of the apostle, Eph. 1:3–4: “God has blessed us in Christ even as He chose us in Him.” Christ says, John 6:40: “This is the will of Him who sent Me, even the Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” This also was the will of God from eternity, for He did not decide to will this later in time. Consequently, respect for the merit of Christ cannot be excluded from the decree of election since it is nothing else but the eternal purpose of the will of God concerning the actual saving of men. Therefore “the Gospel” is properly defined as the open announcement of the eternal intent of God regarding the salvation of mankind for Christ’s sake. Thus Paul in Rom. 16:25[–26] calls his Gospel “the preaching of Christ according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations.” In Eph. 3:8–9 he says that grace was given to him “to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ among the Gentiles and to bring out into the light for all people what is the plan of the mystery which had been hidden from the ages in God.”
The objections of Zanchi.
§ 152. To this argument Zanchi responds (De nat. Dei, bk. 5, ch. 2, p. 631): (I) “To be sure, the preaching of the Gospel is the disclosing of eternal predestination in part, but not entirely—in part, because it discloses the will of the Father, that everyone who believes in the Son have eternal life [John 6:40]; not entirely, because it does not disclose how many nor who those are whom He wants to believe in Christ and thus have eternal life.”
We respond. On the contrary, God does offer the means of faith and salvation to all; therefore He wants all to believe and be saved. It is a preconceived notion of them all that “God has set some people aside absolutely, and for these alone has He prepared faith,” as Zanchi says. We cling to the [divine] will which the Word has revealed, namely, that God wants all to repent and be converted [cf. 1 Tim. 2:3–4]. If Zanchi and his partisans claim that God made such a decree from eternity that He did not want some to be converted, let them provide the documents of that decree!
(II) Zanchi goes on: “But not even this is simply true—that the Gospel announces salvation with the condition that he who believes will be saved, as if faith is a kind of work through which we are saved. After all, we are saved freely and for Christ’s sake, not because of our faith. Therefore the Gospel teaches what sort of people God wants those to be whom He wants to be saved, rather than demands the condition because of which we can be saved.”
We respond. The words of the Gospel are clear: “He who believes will be saved” [cf. Mark 16:16]. Although faith is accordingly not required as a sort of work and merit because of which we are justified, nevertheless the order and the manner of attaining salvation is that we believe in Christ. Consequently, what Zanchi admits about the preaching of the Gospel—that in it is taught what sort of people God wants those to be whom He wants to save—let him also think about predestination, namely, that respect for faith is involved in its act, not as a meritorious work but with regard to order. For just as it pleases God to save in time only those who believe in Christ, so it pleased Him from eternity to elect only those whom He foresaw would believe in Christ with perseverance by the efficacy of the Holy Spirit through the Word.
(III) Zanchi continues: “If election is conditional, it is not a firm decree.”
We respond. That is true. Such absolute certainty of election is not to be asserted, as our adversaries claim, namely, that the regenerate cannot fall from the grace of God nor from eternal life. Nevertheless the sort of certainty which Scripture sets out does remain, namely, that those who abide in Christ through faith cannot be snatched from His hands. But what will Zanchi respond to this argument? “If the actual inheritance of eternal life is promised to those who believe under a condition of perseverance, their salvation will not be firm.” To his own argument Zanchi should claim as his response the same response to this argument, which comes from the Word of God, namely, that there is a midpoint between absolute certainty and doubt.
(IV) Zanchi proceeds: “If election is conditional, it will not be free.”
We respond. You could conclude the same thing about justification: it is free, and yet we nevertheless are not justified except by faith.
(V) Zanchi says: “We have been elected that we may believe, and faith is the effect of predestination. 1 Cor. 7:25: ‘I received mercy that I might be faithful.’ Therefore election did not happen under the condition of faith.”
We respond. We freely admit that faith is the effect of God’s mercy, because God works faith in us out of pure grace through the Word; therefore what Paul and all the rest of the devout believe must be attributed solely to the mercy of God. Yet it still does not follow that consideration of faith is not involved in the decree of election. Our salvation depends only on the mercy of God, not on our works nor on the powers of our free will; yet we are still saved by faith.
That consideration for the merit given by Christ is involved in the decree of election.
§ 153. We continue with our argument. (I) If consideration for the merit of Christ is not involved in the decree of election but is only the means through which God decided to give that decree to its execution, it will follow that election took place outside of Christ, as it is limited within the absolute will and good-pleasure of God. But what follows is absurd (in addition to the fact that it openly contradicts the apostle, who says, Eph. 1:4: “God chose us in Christ”). We demonstrate it thus: There is no election of men corrupted by sins outside of Him since there is no forgiveness of sins outside of Him. In fact, no one becomes a partaker of eternal life unless he has his own righteousness completely conformed to God’s Law or unless his sins are forgiven and the righteousness of Christ is imputed to him through faith. Furthermore, the logical connection of this premise is clear from Eph. 1:7 and 11: “In Christ we have redemption through His blood, the remission of sins. In Him we also have received our inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose.” But now, there is no remission of sins outside of Christ, as is clear. Therefore neither did election happen outside of Christ.
§ 154. (II) Outside of Christ God is “a consuming fire” (Deut. 4:24). But now, election took place from the great mercy of God, who elects to eternal life. 2 Tim. 1:9: “God has called us with a holy calling, not because of our works but because of His own purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ before the times of the world.” You see, that holy calling is attributed to the purpose of God and the grace given to us in Christ before the times of the world. Therefore we proceed thus: Whomever God has elected, them He has also loved unto eternal life; for God has elected no one who does not actually become a partaker of eternal life. Otherwise the words of Christ would not stand, Matt. 24:24: “It is impossible for the elect to be led astray.” But now, outside of Christ, God loves no one unto eternal life—that is, He pursues no one with such an intimate love that He actually makes him a participant of eternal life—unless he believes in Christ. John 3:36: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life. Whoever does not believe in the Son will not see life, and the wrath of God remains upon him.” Therefore neither has God elected anyone outside of Christ.
The objections of our adversaries.
§ 155. [Our adversaries] do not escape the force of these arguments when they teach that, nonetheless, we have been elected in Christ (though the absolute good-pleasure of God is the cause of our election) on account of Christ being the means through which that decree is executed. For all those arguments that we produced show that consideration for the merit of Christ necessarily must be included in the very decree of election. On the basis of the opinion of our adversaries, Christ along with His merit is the effect of election, for they teach that God first elected some to eternal life with an absolute decree, and then He determined to send them His Son to save them. But now, an effect is not involved in the doing of something but is the consequence of it. Therefore how could the apostle say that we have been elected in Christ? Briefly, election occurs “according to foreknowledge” (1 Pet. 1:2), and thus2 it is not the result of the absolute will of God, because foreknowledge is a relative term and relates to things in time.
Bucanus (Locus de praedest., p. 387): “He uses the word ‘election’ in this statement as a reference to the separation which actually occurs in time through the effective calling of certain men,” etc. He also says that the meaning of the word “election” is literal, but when it is used of the eternal purpose of God’s election to salvation, he calls it “metonymy.” I am astonished that this escaped [him], since nowhere in Scripture does this word occur with this meaning (see above, § 31).
Others who follow Calvin respond: “In this article, foreknowing is nothing else than predestining.” They can provide some strength for this interpretation from Augustine (De dono perseverantiae, ch. 18). And yet: (1) The apostle in his gradation (Rom. 8:28–29) clearly distinguishes between foreknowledge and predestination. He says: “Those whom He foreknew He also predestined.” (2) Therefore there would be a tautology in the words of the apostle unless the word “foreknow” denotes the foresight of future things. (3) Whatever God does He does reasonably and as foreknowing of things to come. Far be it from us, then, to wish to remove the eye of God’s foreknowledge from the decree of election!
Testimonies of the fathers, that we have been elected in and because of Christ.
§ 156. Pertinent here are all the statements of the fathers wherein they testify that we have been elected in and because of Christ. Especially noteworthy is the statement of Ambrose (De vocat. gent., bk. 2, ch. 10):
The apostle teaches (Ephesians 1) that the gift and work of grace have always existed in eternity in the counsel of God and that all the sons of adoption were called not just in the time period when they lived but were chosen even before the world was created. In election, whatever person is not foreknown in Christ will by no means have fellowship with Him. You see, all who shall come into the kingdom of God by their calling at whatever time have been sealed in that adoption which antedates all ages. Just as no unbeliever is numbered among this lot, so also none of the devout have been separated from this lot. The foreknowledge of God, which cannot fail, loses nothing from the fullness of the members of the Body of Christ, and the whole cannot be diminished by any loss since it has been foreknown and preselected in Christ from eternity past.
The antithesis of our adversaries.
§ 157. We have already said earlier [§§ 54–56] what the opinion of our adversaries is on this point: they claim that God first made an absolute decree about saving some people and that later He decided to send His Son to those whom He had elected by the absolute decree to make satisfaction for their sins. Hence Beza (Resp. ad coll.,3 part 2): “Christ is not the cause of our election.” Martyr (on Romans 9): “We deny that Christ is the cause of our predestination, as far as His humanity or death is concerned.” Polanus (De praedest., p. 44): “God has elected some purely out of His good-pleasure without any consideration for the merit of Christ.” Page 45: “Therefore the merit of Christ is not a preceding cause for our election because it is its effect; for God did not elect us because Christ was going to die for us, but, on the contrary, Christ died for us because God had chosen us in Him.” Bellarmine is not far off from this opinion (De grat. et lib. arbit., bk. 2, ch. 9). He says, “Christ was predestined after our election had taken place.” We shall treat this matter in its own place [§§ 190–99].
Their arguments: First, the satisfaction and suffering of Christ.
§ 158. We shall take a look at their more powerful arguments. (I) “Whatever happens in time cannot be the cause of an election which had occurred from eternity. The satisfaction and suffering of Christ happened later in time. Therefore.”
We respond. (1) One must distinguish between the act of satisfaction and its consideration. Although the act of satisfaction rendered by Christ did not exist from eternity, yet it was truly present to God by virtue of His foreknowledge, because He looks upon all things in the unchangeable and utterly simple “now” of His eternity.
(2) The fall of our first parents happened later in time, and yet consideration of it must not be excluded from the decree of election. In fact, with regard to their state of innocence, all men were created after the image of God, and thus there can be no distinction there between the elect and the reprobate. Also, what else is election but a separation for eternal life from the corrupt mass of the entire human race for some, namely, for those who were going to believe? Hence Zanchi himself says (De nat. Dei, bk. 5, ch. 2, p. 672): “It is said that God chose us before the creation of the world, namely, according as He took thought for us in the common mass of lost people before we existed,” etc. Piscator of Herborn (on Ephesians 1, in Schol., p. 87): “Literally speaking, election applies to the human race as already created and fallen into death.” Therefore we proceed in this way: Just as the fall of Adam happened in time, and yet election did not take place without consideration of it, so also the satisfaction of the second Adam, namely, of Christ, happened in time, and yet neither did election happen without consideration of it.
(3) As we are told in Rev. 13:8: “The Lamb” (of God) “was slain from the beginning of the world” with regard to the divine decree, with regard to the promises, with regard to types, and with regard to efficacy. So also we can say that the satisfaction of Christ was advantageous before it happened.
(4) What else could it be? Among men quite often the adverse party is satisfied and reconciled by the certainty of future pacts, even though “all men are liars” (Ps. 116:11); all the more was God able to be placated by the promised satisfaction to be made through Christ in the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4), because “Christ is the truth” (John 14:6).
(5) Consider this argument: Either God foreknew the satisfaction of Christ or He did not foreknow it. To say the latter4 is blasphemy. If He foreknew it, either He was satisfied by the foreknowledge of it or He was not. We cannot say the latter, because the sacrificial victim offered in time was propitiatory for the sins of the world. Thus foreknowledge and consideration of it were of the same efficacy from eternity. Therefore it follows that God was placated by the consideration of the satisfaction of Christ which was to be offered in time. Therefore that consideration cannot be excluded from the decree of election.
(6) In some ways, these ideas can be illustrated by the example of a man kept in captivity who is freed by promising a ransom, even though the actual payment may follow only after a long time.
Second, [that] Christ Himself was predestined from eternity.
§ 159. (II) “Christ Himself was predestined from eternity (1 Pet. 1:20). Christ was foreknown before the creation of the world. Therefore He cannot be the cause of election.”
We respond. (1) We invert the argument. Christ, along with His merit, was foreknown before the creation of the world, and election occurred “according to foreknowledge” (1 Pet. 1:2). Therefore surely consideration for the merit of Christ is not to be excluded from the decree of election.
(2) Christ was foreknown and ordained from eternity to earn salvation for us, and we were predestined to receive salvation. Therefore these things must be distinguished.
(3) There is indeed an eternal decree of election, but God foreknew everything from eternity in one utterly simple act. Nevertheless we must consider the order which Scripture describes as it lowers itself to our weakness. We spoke about this earlier [§§ 1–18]. The first decree was about man: “Let us make man after Our image and likeness” [Gen. 1:26]. Second: “Eat of every tree except of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. On whatever day you eat of it, you will surely die” [Gen. 2:16–17]. This is followed by the third, by which man with all his descendants is condemned to eternal death. Then finally follows the evangelical decree about the Seed of the woman who would crush the serpent’s head [cf. Gen. 3:15]; whoever believes in this decree will be saved. Therefore the decree of election includes the decree of creation, foreknowledge of the fall, and the decree of the sending of the Son; for God has decreed to save whoever believes in Him.
(4) The matter can be set out more clearly in this way: God, out of pure goodness, decided from eternity to create man after His own image so that there would be someone by whom He would be acknowledged and worshiped and who would enjoy eternal blessedness with Him. However, He foresaw that man would fall and, with all his descendants who were in his loins, would turn away from his Creator. Therefore He decided in turn to help man, who had been deceived through the tricks of Satan, and thus He found remedies by which his lost wholeness [salus] could be restored to him. As a consequence, He made a decree about sending His Son into the flesh and offering the benefits obtained by His obedience and satisfaction to all the world through the preaching of the Gospel. He also foresaw that, through that Word, some would believe because of the efficacy of the Holy Spirit and that the rest, because of their own fault, would persist in their unbelief. The former He elected; the latter He reprobated.
(5) What Thomas argues ([ST,] part 3, q. 24, art. 4) can be applied here: “The predestination of Christ” (that is, that arrangement made by the eternal decree of God regarding the incarnation, suffering, and satisfaction of the Son) “is the cause of our predestination, not according to the act, because with one and the same act God predestined Christ as well as us, but according to its goal. For God foreordained our salvation such that it would be fulfilled through Christ.” Those are his words. Still, we point out that the word “predestination” is used here nonliterally. You see, when in Rom. 1:4 Christ is said to be the “predestined Son of God,” this is translated more correctly from the Greek [by saying] that He was demonstrated and declared with certainty to be the Son of God.
(6) So observe that when we say that consideration of the merit of Christ is the cause of our predestination, we are not speaking of the order of time, because all things here are eternal. Nevertheless as far as natural order is concerned, those who are going to be saved according to plan are foreknown to be saved before they were elected to salvation. Rom. 8:29: “Whom He foreknew, those He predestined.” Therefore foreknowledge is prior to election, and intent is prior to both. Yet the intent to save does include Christ, who is to be apprehended by faith; otherwise God would save differently than He had decreed to save. Therefore both foreknowledge and election, which happen according to intent, include Christ. Zanchi (De nat. Dei, bk. 5, ch. 2, p. 625): “Predestination supposes election; election, love; love, foreknowledge; foreknowledge, the good-pleasure of the divine will.”
Third, [that] the merit of Christ is not of itself sufficient for satisfaction.
§ 160. (III) Calvin writes their third argument (Instit., bk. 2, ch. 17, § 1): “Indeed, I confess that if someone would wish to set Christ simply and of Himself against the judgment of God, it would not be possible, with good cause, because in man there is not found the worth that can earn the favor of God.” His argument appears to go like this: “The merit of Christ of itself is not of such worth as to be able to pacify the irate God. Therefore it is not the cause of our election.”
We respond. (1) Now at last it is evident how important it is to have the sound and clear doctrine of the person of Christ and how dangerous it is to deviate from the truth in this article. Scripture and the truth say—and we also say along with them—that the merit of Christ is of infinite worth and efficacy because it has been gained by an infinite person. After all, we must not look upon the actions and sufferings of Christ as the actions and sufferings merely of His human nature but as the actions of the God-man, because the Word assumed this nature into the unity of His person. Vigilius (Contra Eutych., bk. 2): “The actions and sufferings belong to His person.” Aristotle (De anal., bk. 1, ch. 3): “All actions and sufferings are in the composite substance, but because of the natures of which it is composed.” Thomas ([ST,] 2.2., q. 58, art. [2]): “Actions belong to subjects [supposita] and wholes but not, properly speaking, to parts and forms or powers,” etc.
(2) Therefore regard it in this way: because the Word took upon Himself the human nature and all its properties by assuming it into the unity of His person, the Passion and death of Christ—though they do not befit His divinity according to its natural condition—nonetheless belong to the Son of God no less than if He had undergone them in His own divine nature. This is because of the intimate and ineffable communion of natures produced from their union. The outstanding passage of Luther belongs here (Jena German, vol. 7, p. 264): “If our sins and the wrath of God because of our sins are placed on one pan of a scale, and on the other pan is placed merely the death of the human nature or only a man who suffered for us, then the other pan would drop us all the way into hell. On the other hand, if God’s suffering, God’s death, God’s blood, or the God who suffered and died for us is put in the opposing pan, then that pan will be heavier and weightier than all our sins and all the wrath of God,” etc.5 Do you see on what that infinite worth and efficacy of the merit of Christ depend, that it is the balancing ransom [ἰσόρροπον λύτρον] for the sins of the world—namely, because it is the suffering of the Son of God, because it is the blood of God which is shed? This foundation is undone when one says that God suffered nominally. Cons. orth., p. 18: “Only the human nature died.” Martinius (Spic., p. 184): “Suffering is attributed to God only by a dialectic assertion without any real sharing.” Danaeus (Contra Chemn., p. 321): “Why is it so surprising if we later say that the suffering and merit of Christ cannot, simply and of themselves, be set against the judgment of God?” This statement is worthy of the hatred of every pious person.
(3) Consider how far this speculation of Calvin is from the opinion of the Jesuits, who argue that Christ is a mediator as He is a just man, but not as He is God and man. From the arguments of some Scholastics, Biel (Sent. 3, dist. 19, art. 3, dub. 2) asks: “How have we been set free through the Passion of Christ?” Later he adds: “Remission takes place through the Passion of Christ, for this will of Christ, drawn from His great love—the will of Christ who chose to die voluntarily according to His manhood—pleased God more than the sins of all men.” Thomas writes more correctly ([ST,] part 3, q. 22, art. 3): “According as the humanity of Christ was working with the power of His deity, that sacrifice was very effective for the destruction of sins,” etc. Furthermore, one should ponder this: if the merit of Christ cannot simply and of itself be set against the judgment of God, how can a devout mind be lifted up in trials, especially if you connect this statement with the dogma of the absolute reprobation of some?
(4) Therefore we must proceed in this way: The Son of God made man, or Christ, the God-man, is equal to the Father and is of one essence with the Father. In His assumed human nature He was obedient to the Father unto death, even the death of the cross [Phil. 2:8]. Therefore His merit, of itself and simply, is of infinite worth because of the infinity of His person.
1 See above, p. 143 n. 2.
2 Read ergo with Cotta instead of argo.
3 Read Resp. ad Coll. with Cotta instead of Respondemus: ad Coll.
4 Read posterius with Cotta instead of prius.
5 Cf. On the Councils and the Church (1539), AE 41:103–4 (WA 50:590); cf. FC SD VIII 44.