Chapter 12. That It Was Necessary That Christ, to Perform the Office of the Mediator, Should Be Made Man

Now, it much behooved us that he should be both God and man, who should be our Mediator. If a man asks of the necessity, it was not indeed a simple or absolute necessity, as they commonly call it, but it proceeded from the heavenly decree, whereupon hung all the salvation of men. But the most merciful father appointed that which should be best for us. For whereas our own iniquities had, as it were, cast a cloud between him and us, and utterly excluded us from the kingdom of heaven, no man could be the interpreter for restoring of our peace, but he that could attain to God. But who could have attained to him? Could any of the sons of Adam? But all they did with their father shunned the sight of God for fear. Could any of the angels? But they also had need of a head, by whose knitting together they might perfectly and inseparably cleave to God. What then? It was past all hope, unless the very majesty of God would descend to us, for we could not ascend to it. So it behooved that the Son of God should become for us Immanuel, that is, God with us: and that in this sort, that by mutual joining, his godhead and the nature of man might grow into one together. Otherwise neither could the nearness be near enough, nor the alliance strong enough for us to hope by, that God dwells with us. So great was the disagreement between our filthiness, and the most pure cleanness of God. Although man had stood undefiled without any spot, yet was his estate too base to attain to God without a Mediator. What could he then do, being plunged down into death and hell with deadly fall, defiled with so many spots, striking with his own corruption, and overwhelmed with all accursedness? Therefore not without cause, Paul, meaning to set forth Christ for the Mediator, does expressly recite that he is Man. Our Mediator (says he) of God and man, the man Jesus Christ. He might have said, God: or at the least he might have left the name of Man as well as of God. But because the Holy Ghost speaking by his mouth, knew our weakness: therefore to provide for it in time, he used a most fit remedy, setting among us the Son of God familiarly as one of us. Therefore lest any man should trouble himself to know where the Mediator is to be sought, or which way to come to him, in naming Man, he puts us in mind that he is near to us, indeed so near that he touches us, inasmuch as he is our own flesh. Truly he means there even the same thing that in another place is set out with more words: that we have not a bishop that cannot have compassion of our infirmities, inasmuch as he was in all things tempted as we are, only sin excepted.

That shall also appear more plainly, if we consider how it was no mean thing that the Mediator had to do: that is, so to restore us into the favor of God, as to make us of the children of men, the children of God: of the heirs of hell, the heirs of the kingdom of heaven. Who could do that, unless the Son of God were made also the son of man, and so take ours upon him to convey his to us, and to make that ours by grace, which was his by nature? Therefore by this earnest we trust, that we are the children of God, because the natural Son of God has shaped for himself a body of our body, flesh of our flesh, bones of our bones, that he might be all one with us. He disdained not to take that upon him which was proper to us, to make again that to belong to us which he had proper to himself, and that so in common together with us, he might be both the Son of God and the son of man. Hereupon comes that holy brotherhood which he commends with his own mouth when he says: I go up to my father and your father, my God and your God. By this means is the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven assured to us: for that the only Son of God, to whom it wholly did properly belong, has adopted us into his brothers: because if we be brothers, then are we partakers of the inheritance. Moreover it was for the same cause very profitable, that he who should be our redeemer, should be both very God and very man. It was his office to swallow up death: who could do that but life itself? It was his office to overcome sin: who could do that but righteousness itself? It was his office to vanquish the powers of the world and of the air: who could do that but a power above both world and air? Now in whose possession is life, or righteousness, or the empire and power of heaven, but in God's alone? Therefore the most merciful God, in the person of his only begotten Son, made himself our redeemer, when his will was to have us redeemed.

Another principal point of our reconciliation with God was this: that man, who had lost by his disobedience, should for remedy set obedience against it, should satisfy the judgment of God, and pay the penalty of sin. Therefore there came forth the true man, our Lord; he put on the person of Adam, and took upon him his name to enter into his stead in obeying his father, to yield our flesh the price of the satisfaction to the just judgment of God, and in the same flesh suffer the pain that we had deserved. For as much as therefore neither being only God he could feel death, nor being only man he could overcome death, he coupled the nature of man with the nature of God, that he might yield the one subject to death to satisfy for sins, and by the power of the other he might wrestle with death, and get victory for us. They therefore that spoil Christ either of his godhead or of his manhood, do indeed either diminish his majesty and glory, or obscure his goodness: but on the other side they do no less wrong to men whose faith they do thereby weaken and overthrow, which cannot stand but resting upon this foundation. Besides that, it was to be hoped, that the Redeemer should be the son of Abraham and David, which God had promised in the law and the Prophets. Whereby the godly minds do gather this other fruit, that being by the very course of his pedigree brought to David and Abraham, they do the more certainly know that this is the same Christ that was spoken of by so many oracles. But this which I just now declared, is principally to be kept in mind, that the common nature between him and us is a pledge of our fellowship with the Son of God: that he clothed with our flesh vanquished death and sin together, that the victory so might be ours and the triumph ours: that he offered up for sacrifice the flesh that he received from us, that having made satisfaction he might wipe away our guiltiness, and appease the just wrath of his father.

Whoever diligently heeds these things as they ought will easily neglect those wandering speculations that ravish to them light spirits and desirous of novelty — of which sort is, that Christ should have been man, although there had been no need of a remedy to redeem mankind. I grant that in the first degree of creation, and in the state of nature uncorrupted, he was set as head over angels and men. For which cause Paul calls him the firstborn of all creatures. Since all the Scripture cries out that he was clothed with flesh, that he might be the Redeemer, it is too rash a presumption to imagine any other cause or end. To what end Christ was promised from the beginning is well enough known: even to restore the world fallen in ruin, and to aid men being lost. Therefore under the law, the image of him was set forth in sacrifices, to make the faithful hope that God would be merciful to them, when, after satisfaction made for sin, he should be reconciled. But whereas in all ages, even when the law was not yet published, the Mediator was never promised without blood, we gather that he was appointed by the eternal counsel of God to purge the filthiness of men, for that the shedding of blood is a token of expiation. The prophets so preached of him that they promised that he should be the reconciler of God and men. That one specially notable testimony of Isaiah shall suffice us for all, where he foretells that he shall be stricken with the hand of God for the sins of the people, that the chastisement of peace should be upon him, and that he should be a priest that should offer up himself for sacrifice, that of his wounds should come health to others, and that, because all have strayed and been scattered abroad like sheep, therefore it pleased God to punish him, that he might bear the iniquities of all. Since we hear that Christ is properly appointed by God to help wretched sinners, whoever passes beyond these bounds follows foolish curiosity too much. Now when he himself had once come, he affirmed this to be the cause of his coming — to appease God, and gather us up from death into life. The same thing did the apostles testify of him. So John, before he teaches that the Word was made flesh, declares the falling away of man. But he himself is to be heard before all, when he speaks thus of his own office: So God loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Again: The hour is come that the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear it shall live. I am the resurrection and the life: he that believes in me, although he be dead, shall live. Again: The Son of man comes to save that which was lost. Again: The whole need not a physician. I should never make an end if I should rehearse all. The apostles do all with one consent call us to this fountain. And truly if he had not come to reconcile God, the honor of the priesthood should have come to nothing. For as much as the priest is appointed as a mediator between God and man to make intercession, and he should not be our righteousness, because he was made a sacrifice for us, that God should not impute sins to us. Finally, he should be despoiled of all the honorable titles with which the Scripture sets him out. And also that saying of Paul should prove vain, that what was impossible to the law, God has sent his own Son, that in the likeness of the flesh of sin he should satisfy for us. Neither will this stand, what he teaches in another place, that in this mirror appeared the goodness of God and his infinite goodness toward men, when Christ was given to be the Redeemer. Finally, Scripture everywhere assigns no other end — why the Son of God would take upon him our flesh, and also received this commandment of his Father — but to be made a sacrifice to appease his Father toward us. So it is written, and so it was necessary that Christ should suffer, and repentance be preached in his name. Therefore my Father loves me, because I give my life for the sheep — this commandment he gave me. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up. In another place: Father, save me from this hour. But I am therefore come even to this hour. Father, glorify your Son. Where he plainly speaks of the end why he took flesh, that he might be a sacrifice and satisfaction to do away with sin. After the same manner does Zechariah pronounce that he came according to the promise given to the fathers, to give light to them that sat in the shadow of death. Let us remember that all these things are spoken of the Son of God, in whom Paul in another place testifies that all the treasures of knowledge and wisdom are hidden, and besides whom he glories that he knows nothing.

If any man take exception and say, that none of all these things prove the contrary, but that the same Christ that redeemed men being damned, might also in putting on their flesh testify his love toward them, being preserved and safe. The answer is short, that inasmuch as the Holy Spirit pronounces, that by the eternal decree of God these two things were joined together, that Christ should be our redeemer, and also partaker of all one nature with us, therefore it is not lawful for us to search any further. For whoever is tickled with desire to know any more, being not contented with the unchangeable ordinance of God, does show also that he is not contented with the same Christ that was given us to be the price of our redemption. But Paul not only rehearses to what end he was sent, but also climbing to the high mystery of predestination, he very aptly represses all wantonness and itching desire of man's wit. The Father chose us in Christ before the creation of the world, to make us his sons by adoption, according to the purpose of his will: and he accepted us in his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption by his blood. Truly here is not the fall of Adam set before as though it were foremost in time but is shown what God determined before all ages, when his will was to help the misery of mankind. If the adversary object again, that this purpose of God did hang upon the fall of man which he did foresee, it is enough and more for me, to say, that they with wicked boldness break forth to feign them a new Christ, whoever suffer themselves to search for more, or hope to know more of Christ than God has foreappointed them by his secret decree. And for good cause did Paul, after he had so discoursed of the proper office of Christ, [reconstructed: wish] to the Ephesians the spirit of understanding, to comprehend what is the length, height, breadth, and depth, even the love of Christ that surpasses all knowledge: even as if of purpose he would set bars about our minds, that when mention is made of Christ, they should not, be it never so little, swerve from the grace of reconciliation. Therefore, since this is a faithful saying (as Paul testifies) that Christ is come to save sinners, I do gladly rest in the same. And whereas in another place the same Apostle teaches, that the grace which is now disclosed by the Gospel, was given us in Christ before the times of the world: I determine that I ought constantly to abide therein to the end. Against this modesty Osiander carps unjustly, who has again in this time unhappily stirred this question before lightly moved by a few. He accuses them of presumption that say, that the Son of God should not have appeared in the flesh, if Adam had not fallen, because this invention is confuted by no testimony of Scripture. As though Paul did not bridle forward curiosity, when after he had spoken of redemption purchased by Christ, he by and by commands to avoid foolish questions. The madness of some did burst out so far, that while they disorderly coveted to seem witty, they moved this question, whether the Son of God might have taken upon him the nature of an ass. This monstrousness which all the godly do worthily abhor as detestable, let Osiander confute with this pretense that it is never expressly confuted in the Scripture. As though when Paul accounts nothing precious or worthy to be known, but Christ crucified, he does therefore admit an ass to be the author of salvation. Therefore he that in another place reports, that Christ by the eternal counsel of his Father was ordained to be a head to gather all things together: will never the more acknowledge another that has no office of redeeming appointed him.

But as for the principle that he brags of, it is very trifling. He would have it, that man was created after the image of God, because he was fashioned after the pattern of Christ to come, that he might resemble him, whom the Father had already decreed to clothe with our flesh. Whereupon he gathers, that if Adam had never fallen from his first and uncorrupted original state, yet Christ should have been man. How trifling this is and wrested, all men that have sound judgment, do easily perceive of themselves. In the meantime first he thinks that he has seen what was the image of God, that indeed the glory of God did not only shine in those excellent gifts with which he was garnished, but also that God himself essentially dwelt in him. But as for me, although I grant that Adam did bear the image of God, inasmuch as he was joined to God, (which is the true and highest perfection of dignity) yet I say, that the likeness of God is nowhere else to be sought, but in those marks of excellence with which he had garnished Adam above other living creatures. And that Christ was then the image of God, all men do grant with one consent, and therefore that whatever excellence was graven in Adam, it proceeded from this, that by the only begotten Son he approached to the glory of his creator. Therefore man was created after the image of God, in whom the creator's will was to have his glory seen as in a looking glass. To this degree of honor was he advanced by the benefit of the only begotten Son: But I say further, that the same Son was a common head as well to Angels as to men, so that the same dignity that was bestowed upon man, did also belong to Angels. For when we hear them called the children of God, it were inconvenient to deny, that there is something in them wherein they resemble their Father. Now if his will was to have his glory to be represented as well in Angels as in men, and to be seen in both natures, Osiander does fondly trifle in saying, that the Angels were then set behind men, because they did not bear the image of Christ. For they could not continually enjoy the present beholding of God, unless they were like him. And Paul teaches, that men are no otherwise renewed after the image of God, but if they be coupled with Angels, that they may cleave together under one head. Finally, if we believe Christ, this shall be our last felicity, to be made of like form to the Angels, when we shall be received up into heaven. But if Osiander will conclude, that the original pattern of the image of God was in Christ as he is man, by the same reason a man may say, that Christ must needs have been partaker of the nature of Angels, because the image of God pertains also to them.

Therefore, Osiander has no cause to fear, that God should be found a liar, unless it had been first steadfastly and unchangeably decreed in his mind, to have his Son incarnate: because if the integrity of Adam had not fallen, he should with the Angels have been like to God, and yet it should not therefore have been necessary, [illegible] the Son of God should be made either man or Angel. And in the same he fears that absurdity, lest unless the unchangeable counsel of God had been before the creation of man that Christ should be born, not as the redeemer but as the first man, he should have lost his prerogative: forasmuch as now he should be born man only by an accidental cause, that is to restore mankind being lost, and so it might be gathered thereupon, that Christ was created after the image of Adam. For why should he so much abhor that which the Scripture so openly teaches, that he was made like to us in all things, except sin? Upon which Luke does not hesitate to reckon him the Son of Adam in his genealogy. And I would fain know why Paul calls Christ the second Adam, but because the estate of man was appointed for him, that he might raise up the posterity of Adam out of their ruin. For if he were in order before that creation, he should have been called the first Adam. Osiander boldly affirms, that because Christ was already before known man in the mind of God, men were formed after the same pattern. But Paul in naming him the second Adam sets a mean between the first beginning of man and the restitution which we obtain by Christ, the fall of man whereby grew the necessity to have nature restored to her first degree. Upon which it follows, that this same was the cause why the Son of God was born to become man. In the meantime, Osiander reasons ill and unsavorily, that Adam, so long as he had stood without falling, should have been the image of himself and not of Christ. I answer by the contrary, because though the Son of God had never put on flesh, nevertheless both in the body and in the soul of man should have shone the image of God, in the bright beams of which it always appeared, that Christ is verily the head and has the sovereign supremacy in all. And so is that foolish subtlety resolved, which Osiander blows abroad, that the Angels should have lacked this head, unless it had been purposed by God to clothe his Son with flesh, yes though there had been no fault of Adam. For he does too rashly snatch hold of that which no man in his right wit will grant, that Christ has no supremacy over Angels, that they should have him for their Prince, but insomuch as he is man. But it is easily gathered by the words of Paul, that insomuch as he is the eternal Word of God, he is the firstborn of all creatures: not that he is created, or ought to be reckoned among creatures: but because the state of the world in integrity, such as it was at the beginning adorned with excellent beauty, had no other origin: and then, that insomuch as he was made man, he was the firstborn of the dead. For the Apostle in one short clause sets forth both these points to be considered: that all things were created by the Son, that he might bear rule over Angels: and that he was made man, that he might begin to be the redeemer. Of like ignorance is it that he says, that men should not have had Christ for their king, if he had not been man. As though the kingdom of God could not stand, if the eternal Son of God, although not clothed with the flesh of man, gathering together both Angels and men into the fellowship of his heavenly glory and life, should himself bear the sovereignty. But in this false principle he is always deceived, or rather deceives himself, that the Church should have been without a head, unless Christ had appeared in the flesh. As though, even as the Angels enjoyed him their head, he could not likewise by his divine power rule over men, and by the secret force of his Spirit quicken and nourish them like his own body, till being gathered up into heaven, they might enjoy all one life with the Angels. These trifles that I have hitherto refuted, Osiander accounts for most strong oracles: even so as being drunk with the sweetness of his own speculations, he uses to blow out fond [reconstructed: Bacchic] cries of matters of nothing. But this one that he brings after, he [reconstructed: says] is much more strong, that is the prophecy of Adam, which, seeing his wife said, this now is a bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. But how does he prove that to be a prophecy? Because in Matthew Christ gives the same saying to God. As though whatever God has spoken by men, contains some prophecy. Let Osiander seek prophecies in every commandment of the law, which, it is certain to have come from God the author of them. Besides that, Christ should have been gross and earthly, if he had rested upon the [reconstructed: literal] sense. Because he speaks not of the mystical union to which he has vouchsafed to receive his church, but only of faithfulness between man and wife: for this cause he teaches, that God pronounced that man and wife shall be one flesh, that no man should attempt to break that indissoluble knot by divorce. If Osiander loathes this simplicity, let him blame Christ, for that he led not his disciples further to a mystery in more subtly expounding the saying of his Father. Neither yet does Paul maintain his error, which after he had said that we are flesh of the flesh of Christ, by and by adds, that this is a great mystery, for his purpose was not to tell in what meaning Adam spoke it, but under the figure and similitude of marriage, to set forth the holy coupling together, that makes us one with Christ. And so do the words sound. Because when he gives warning that he speaks this of Christ and his church, he does as it were by way of correction, sever the spiritual joining of Christ and his church from the law of marriage. Therefore this fickle reason easily vanishes away. And I think I need no more to shake up any more of that sort of chaff, because the vanity of them all is soon found out by this short refutation. But this sobriety shall abundantly suffice to feed soundly the children of God: that when the fullness of times was come, the Son of God was sent, made of woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.

It was absolutely necessary for our Mediator to be both God and man. If someone asks about the necessity of this, it was not a simple or absolute necessity in the philosophical sense, but one that arose from the heavenly decree on which all human salvation depended. The most merciful Father appointed what was best for us. Our iniquities had cast a darkness between Him and us, shutting us completely out of the kingdom of heaven. No one could serve as the interpreter to restore our peace except one who could reach God. But who could reach Him? Could any of Adam's sons? All of them, like their father, shunned the sight of God in fear. Could any of the angels? They too needed a head through whose binding power they could perfectly and inseparably cleave to God. What then? There was no hope at all unless God's own majesty descended to us — for we could not ascend to it. It was therefore necessary that the Son of God become for us Immanuel — God with us — and in such a way that His divinity and human nature would grow together into one. Otherwise the closeness would not be close enough, nor the connection strong enough, for us to hope that God dwells with us. So great was the distance between our filth and God's most pure holiness. Even if mankind had stood undefiled without any stain, his condition would have been too low to reach God without a Mediator. What then could he do, plunged down into death and hell by his deadly fall, defiled with so many corruptions, sunk in his own depravity, and overwhelmed with every curse? Therefore it was not without reason that Paul, when he wanted to present Christ as the Mediator, specifically called Him a man: 'For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.' He could have said 'God,' or at least could have omitted the title 'man' just as he might have omitted 'God.' But because the Holy Spirit, speaking through his mouth, knew our weakness, He provided for it in the best possible way by setting among us the Son of God as one familiar to us — as one of us. Therefore, so that no one would be troubled wondering where to seek the Mediator or how to come to Him, the naming of Him as man reminds us that He is near — so near that He touches us, since He is our own flesh. He means the same thing there that is expressed more fully elsewhere: that we have a High Priest who is not unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, since He was tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin.

This becomes even more evident when we consider how weighty the Mediator's task was: to restore us into God's favor so as to make children of God out of children of men, and heirs of heaven out of heirs of hell. Who could do this unless the Son of God also became the son of man, taking what was ours upon Himself in order to convey what was His to us — making ours by grace what was His by nature? Therefore in this pledge we trust that we are children of God: the natural Son of God formed for Himself a body from our body, flesh from our flesh, bones from our bones, that He might be altogether one with us. He did not despise taking on what was ours in order to restore to us what was His — so that in fellowship together with us He might be both Son of God and son of man. From this comes the holy brotherhood He proclaims with His own lips: 'I am going to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.' By this means the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven is assured to us — for the only Son of God, to whom it entirely and rightly belonged, has adopted us as His brothers. And if we are brothers, then we are partakers of the inheritance. Moreover, it was for the same reason very necessary that our Redeemer be both truly God and truly man. It was His office to swallow up death — who could do that but Life itself? It was His office to overcome sin — who could do that but Righteousness itself? It was His office to defeat the powers of the world and the air — who could do that but a power above both world and air? And in whose possession is life, or righteousness, or sovereignty over heaven? In God's alone. Therefore when the most merciful God willed to redeem us, He made Himself our Redeemer in the person of His only begotten Son.

Another central element of our reconciliation with God was this: that the man who had fallen through disobedience should provide a remedy through obedience, should satisfy the judgment of God, and pay the penalty of sin. Therefore our Lord came forth as the true man; He took on Adam's person and bore his name in order to stand in his place, to obey the Father, to present our flesh as the price of satisfaction to God's just judgment, and in that same flesh to suffer the punishment we had deserved. Since as God alone He could not experience death, and as man alone He could not conquer death, He united human nature with divine nature — so that He might present the one as subject to death to atone for sins, and by the power of the other wrestle with death and win victory for us. Those who rob Christ of either His divinity or His humanity diminish either His majesty and glory or obscure His goodness. And on the other side they do equal harm to people, whose faith they weaken and overthrow — for faith cannot stand unless it rests on this foundation. Beyond this, it was necessary that the Redeemer be the son of Abraham and of David, as God had promised in the law and the prophets. Through this, godly minds draw a further fruit: being led by His actual genealogy back to David and Abraham, they know with greater certainty that this is the same Christ spoken of in so many oracles. But what I stated just now is what must chiefly be kept in mind: that the nature He shares with us is the pledge of our fellowship with the Son of God; that clothed in our flesh He conquered both death and sin, so that the victory might be ours and the triumph ours; and that He offered up in sacrifice the flesh He received from us, so that having made satisfaction He might wipe away our guilt and appease the just wrath of His Father.

Anyone who carefully weighs these things as they should will easily disregard the wandering speculations that attract restless and novelty-seeking minds — such as the claim that Christ would have become man even if there had been no need to redeem mankind. I grant that in the original order of creation, in the state of uncorrupted nature, He was set as head over both angels and men, which is why Paul calls Him the firstborn over all creation. But since all of Scripture cries out that He was clothed with flesh in order to be the Redeemer, it is too rash a presumption to imagine any other cause or purpose. Why Christ was promised from the beginning is plain enough: to restore the world that had fallen into ruin and to save lost humanity. Therefore in the law His image was set forth through sacrifices, so that the faithful might hope God would be merciful to them when, after sin had been atoned for, He was reconciled. And since in all ages — even before the law was published — the Mediator was never promised without blood, we conclude that He was appointed by the eternal counsel of God to cleanse the filthiness of humanity, since the shedding of blood is the sign of atonement. The prophets proclaimed Him as the reconciler of God and humanity. One especially notable testimony from Isaiah will stand for all the rest: he foretells that Christ would be stricken by the hand of God for the sins of the people, that the punishment for our peace would be upon Him, that He would be a Priest who offers Himself as a sacrifice, that healing for others would come from His wounds, and that because all have strayed and wandered like sheep, it therefore pleased God to punish Him so that He might bear the iniquities of all. Since we hear that Christ was specifically appointed by God to help wretched sinners, whoever ventures beyond these boundaries is pursuing empty curiosity. And when He came, He confirmed this as the purpose of His coming: to appease God and to gather us from death into life. The apostles testified to the same thing. John, before he teaches that the Word became flesh, first declares the fall of humanity. But Christ Himself is to be heard above all others, when He says: 'For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.' And: 'The hour is coming when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.' 'I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in Me, though he die, yet shall he live.' And: 'The Son of Man came to save the lost.' And: 'Those who are well have no need of a physician.' I could never finish if I were to cite all the passages. The apostles all with one voice point us to this source. And truly, if He had not come to reconcile God, His high priestly office would come to nothing. For the priest is appointed as a mediator between God and man to make intercession — and He would not be our righteousness unless He had been made a sacrifice for us so that God would not impute our sins to us. Apart from this, He would be stripped of all the honorable titles with which Scripture adorns Him. Paul's statement would also be rendered meaningless — that what was impossible for the law, God accomplished by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to satisfy for us. Nor would this hold, what Paul teaches elsewhere: that God's goodness and His infinite love toward humanity appeared in this mirror — that Christ was given to be the Redeemer. In short, Scripture everywhere assigns no other reason why the Son of God would take on our flesh and receive this commission from His Father, except to be made a sacrifice to reconcile His Father to us. 'So it is written: the Christ should suffer, and repentance be proclaimed in His name.' 'For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life for the sheep — this commandment I received from My Father.' 'As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up.' And: 'Father, save Me from this hour — but for this purpose I have come to this hour. Father, glorify Your Son' — where He speaks plainly of the purpose for which He took on flesh: to be a sacrifice and satisfaction to do away with sin. In the same manner Zechariah declares that He came according to the promise given to the fathers, to give light to those sitting in the shadow of death. Let us remember that all these things are spoken of the Son of God, in whom Paul elsewhere testifies that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden, and beyond whom he glories in knowing nothing.

If someone objects that none of these things rule out the possibility that the same Christ who redeemed condemned humanity might also, by taking on human flesh, have shown His love toward humanity had they remained safe and preserved — the answer is brief: since the Holy Spirit declares that by God's eternal decree these two things were bound together — that Christ should be our Redeemer and also a sharer of our nature — we are not at liberty to search further. Whoever is itching to know more, not content with God's unchangeable ordinance, shows thereby that he is not content with the Christ who was given to us as the price of our redemption. But Paul does not merely recount the purpose for which Christ was sent — he also climbs to the high mystery of predestination and fittingly restrains all restlessness and curiosity in human minds: 'The Father chose us in Christ before the creation of the world to make us His sons by adoption, according to the purpose of His will; and He accepted us in His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption through His blood.' Here the fall of Adam is not set forward as primary in time — rather, what is shown is what God determined before all ages when He willed to help the misery of mankind. If the opponent objects again that this purpose of God depended on the fall of man that He foresaw, it is more than enough for me to say: whoever ventures to imagine a new Christ of their own devising, seeking to know more of Christ than God has appointed them by His secret decree, is breaking through with wicked boldness. And Paul had good reason, after having discoursed on Christ's proper office, to wish for the Ephesians the spirit of understanding — to comprehend the length, height, breadth, and depth, even the love of Christ that surpasses all knowledge. It is as if he deliberately set up barriers around our minds, so that whenever Christ is mentioned, they would not swerve by even the smallest degree from the grace of reconciliation. Therefore, since it is a trustworthy saying — as Paul testifies — that Christ came to save sinners, I gladly rest in that. And since the same apostle teaches elsewhere that the grace now disclosed through the Gospel was given to us in Christ before the ages began, I determine to abide there constantly to the end. Osiander unjustly attacks this restraint. He has in our own time unhappily reopened this question, which had been briefly stirred by a few others before. He accuses of presumption those who say the Son of God would not have appeared in the flesh if Adam had not fallen, on the grounds that this claim is not expressly refuted by any Scripture text. As though Paul did not bridle curiosity when, after speaking of redemption purchased by Christ, he immediately commands us to avoid foolish questions. Some people's madness went so far that, in their disorderly desire to appear clever, they raised the question whether the Son of God could have taken on the nature of a donkey. This monstrous idea — which all the godly rightly abhor as detestable — let Osiander refute on the ground that it is not expressly refuted in Scripture. As though Paul, who counts nothing precious or worth knowing except Christ crucified, thereby endorses a donkey as the author of salvation. Therefore the one who elsewhere reports that Christ by the eternal counsel of His Father was ordained as the head to gather all things together will never acknowledge another Christ who has been assigned no office of redemption.

As for the principle Osiander boasts of, it is very thin. He argues that man was created after the image of God because he was fashioned after the pattern of Christ who was to come — so that man might resemble Him whom the Father had already decreed to clothe with our flesh. From this he concludes that even if Adam had never fallen from his original uncorrupted state, Christ would still have become man. How weak and forced this argument is, all people of sound judgment can see for themselves. In the first place, he thinks he has understood what the image of God is — imagining that God's glory did not merely shine in the excellent gifts with which Adam was adorned, but that God Himself essentially dwelt in him. For my part, although I grant that Adam bore the image of God in that he was joined to God — which is true and highest dignity — I say that the likeness of God is to be sought nowhere other than in those marks of excellence with which God had adorned Adam above all other living creatures. Everyone agrees with one voice that Christ was then the image of God, and therefore that whatever excellence was engraved in Adam proceeded from this: that through the only begotten Son he drew near to the glory of his Creator. Man was therefore created after the image of God, in whom the Creator's will was to have His glory seen as in a mirror. To this degree of honor man was raised by the benefit of the only begotten Son. But I say further: the same Son was a common head over both angels and men, so that the same dignity bestowed upon man also belonged to angels. For when we hear them called the children of God, it would be unfitting to deny that there is something in them in which they resemble their Father. Now if God's will was to have His glory represented in both angels and men, and to be seen in both natures, Osiander is talking foolishly when he says the angels fell short of men because they did not bear the image of Christ. For they could not continuously enjoy the direct beholding of God unless they were like Him. And Paul teaches that people are renewed after the image of God only by being united with the angels and cleaving together under one head. Finally, if we believe Christ, our ultimate blessedness will be to be conformed to the angels when we are received into heaven. But if Osiander concludes that the original pattern of the image of God was in Christ as man, then by the same reasoning one could say that Christ must also have participated in the nature of angels, since the image of God applies to them as well.

Therefore Osiander has no cause to fear that God would be found a liar unless it had been first steadfastly decreed in His mind to have His Son become incarnate. For if Adam's integrity had not fallen, he would have been like God together with the angels — and yet it would not therefore have been necessary for the Son of God to become either man or angel. Osiander also fears the absurdity that unless God had decreed before the creation of man that Christ would be born not as Redeemer but as the first man, He would lose His prerogative. For in that case, Christ would have been born man only by an accidental cause — namely to restore lost mankind — and one could conclude that Christ was created after the image of Adam. But why should Osiander so strongly resist what Scripture so openly teaches — that Christ was made like us in all things, except sin? On this basis Luke does not hesitate to include Him as the son of Adam in his genealogy. And I would like to know why Paul calls Christ the second Adam, unless it is because the condition of humanity was laid on Him so that He might raise Adam's posterity out of their ruin. If He had existed in order before the creation, He would have been called the first Adam. Osiander boldly claims that because Christ was already known as man in the mind of God, humanity was formed after that same pattern. But Paul, in calling Him the second Adam, places the fall of man between the first creation and the restoration we receive through Christ — the fall that gave rise to the necessity of restoring nature to its original state. From this it follows that this was the very reason the Son of God was born to become man. Meanwhile Osiander reasons poorly and oddly when he says that Adam, as long as he stood without falling, would have been the image of himself and not of Christ. I answer the opposite: even if the Son of God had never taken on flesh, both in the body and in the soul of man would have shone the image of God — in the bright beams of which it has always been clear that Christ is truly the head and holds the supreme preeminence in all things. So the foolish subtlety Osiander spreads about — that the angels would have lacked a head unless God had purposed to clothe His Son with flesh even apart from Adam's fall — is resolved. For he too rashly grasps at what no person in their right mind will grant: that Christ has no supremacy over the angels and serves as their Prince only insofar as He is man. It is easy to gather from Paul's words that insofar as He is the eternal Word of God, He is the firstborn of all creation — not that He is a creature or should be counted among creatures, but because the original state of the world in its integrity and beauty had no other origin. And then, insofar as He was made man, He became the firstborn from the dead. The apostle sets forth both points in one brief clause: that all things were created through the Son, so that He might have dominion over the angels; and that He was made man so that He might become the Redeemer. Equally mistaken is Osiander's claim that people would not have had Christ as their King if He had not been man — as though the kingdom of God could not stand if the eternal Son of God, even without being clothed in human flesh, gathered angels and men together into the fellowship of His heavenly glory and life and bore the sovereignty. But he is always deceived by this false premise — or rather deceives himself: that the church would have been without a head unless Christ appeared in the flesh. As though, even as the angels enjoyed Him as their head, He could not likewise by His divine power govern humanity, quicken and nourish them by the secret force of His Spirit as His own body, until being taken up to heaven they might enjoy one life with the angels. These trifles, which Osiander considers the most powerful oracles — intoxicated as he is by the sweetness of his own speculations — are what I have been refuting. He brings forward what he considers a far stronger argument: the prophecy of Adam, who, upon seeing his wife, said: 'This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.' But how does he prove this is a prophecy? Because in Matthew Christ applies the same saying to God. As though everything God has spoken through human beings automatically contains a prophecy! Let Osiander then find prophecies in every commandment of the law, which certainly came from God its author. Beyond this, Christ's interpretation would have been coarse and earthly had He rested on the literal sense. For He speaks not of the mystical union by which He has received His church, but only of faithfulness between husband and wife — and He teaches that God declared husband and wife to be one flesh, so that no one should attempt to break that indissoluble bond through divorce. If Osiander dislikes this straightforwardness, let him blame Christ for not leading His disciples further into a mystery by expounding His Father's words more subtly. Nor does Paul support Osiander's error. After saying that we are flesh of Christ's flesh, Paul immediately adds that this is a great mystery — for his purpose was not to explain what Adam meant, but to use the figure and likeness of marriage to set forth the holy union that makes us one with Christ. And the words themselves show this: when he gives notice that he is speaking of Christ and His church, he by way of correction sets apart the spiritual joining of Christ and His church from the law of marriage. This unstable argument therefore easily vanishes. I do not think I need to sift through more chaff of the same kind, since all of it can be shown to be empty by this brief refutation. This sober truth will abundantly feed the children of God: that when the fullness of time came, the Son of God was sent, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law.