Chapter 8: Of Christ the Mediator

Question 1.

Did the Son of God, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance?

Yes. (John 1:1, 14; 1 John 5:20; Hebrews 2:14, 16, 17; Luke 1:27, 31, 35).

Well then, do not those heretics called Marcionites, and the Anabaptists err, who maintain, that Christ is not a true man, but only the appearance, shape, or form of a man?

Yes.

Do not likewise the Manicheans err, who maintain, that the body of Christ, is not of the substance of the Virgin Mary, but a heavenly body, brought from heaven to the womb of the Virgin?

Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?

(1) Because, Christ is said to be made of a woman (Galatians 4:4). (2) Because, the Word was made flesh (John 1:4). (3) By an induction of the essential parts of a man, and sinless infirmities, which were found in him. First, He was endued with a rational soul (John 12:27). Secondly, He had a real and substantial body, and denied he was a spirit only (Luke 24:39). Thirdly, Christ did hunger (Matthew 4:2). Fourthly, He was wearied, and thirsty (John 4:6). Lastly, He was sad — he groaned in spirit, and was troubled (John 11:33), and verse 15, He wept. None of which sinless perturbations, can agree to an appearance, shape, or form of a man. (4) Because, He was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh (Romans 1:3), and descended of the Jews (Romans 9:5). (5) Because, the promises were made in the seed of Abraham (Genesis 12:3; Genesis 18:18). (6) Because, He took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham, therefore in all things, it behooved him to be made like his brothers (Hebrews 2:16, 17). (7) Because, otherwise, he could not have satisfied in our place, the justice of God: seeing it had been unjust, for another nature to have suffered punishment, than that nature which had offended and sinned.

Question 2.

Are there two whole, perfect, and distinct natures in Christ, the Godhead, and the Manhood, inseparably joined together, in one person?

Yes. (1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:5).

Well then, do not the Nestorians err, who maintain, the union between the divine and human nature, not to be hypostatical, but only by way of assistance: and that, as there are two natures in Christ, so there are two persons, one proper to the divine nature, another proper to the human nature?

Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?

(1) Because, unless Christ-God-Man were but one person, the merit of his death, would not be of so great value, as to redeem the elect from infinite, and eternal punishment: seeing hence comes, all the value, and worth of his death, that the same person, who was God, did suffer, and die for us. (2) Because, otherwise, Christ had been swallowed up, and devoured by the wrath of God, against the sins of the elect, which he himself undertook. (3) Because, Christ, if he had not been both God and Man, in one person, he could not have been a mediator: for a mediator must be one (1 Timothy 2:5).

Question 3.

Is the Godhead, and Manhood in Christ, united without conversion, composition, or confusion?

Yes. (Luke 1:35; Colossians 2:9; Romans 9:5; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 Timothy 3:16).

Well then, do not those old heretics, the Eutychians err, who maintain, that as the person of Christ is one, so his nature is made one, by a composition, or confusion of the two natures together?

Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?

(1) Because, such a composition, is impossible, seeing the divine nature, is most perfect, and cannot lose any, of its own perfection, unless we would affirm, the divine nature, to be mutable, and changeable. (2) Because, that same Christ, who according to the flesh descended of the Jews, is over all, God blessed for ever (Romans 9:5). (3) Because, this doctrine takes away all means of mediation: for, by taking away the distinction between the natures, they take away the natures themselves: and so neither could Christ have suffered in our place, because not man: neither could he have given any virtue, value, or worth, to his sufferings, because not God.

Question 4.

Did Christ endure most grievous torments immediately in his soul?

Yes. (Matthew 26:37, 38; Luke 22:44; Matthew 27:46).

Well then, do not the Papists err, who maintain, that the soul of Christ, even from its first creation, was never affected with any sadness, or sinless perturbation of mind?

Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?

(1) Because, the Scripture testifies, that his soul was sad to death (Matthew 26:37). (2) Because, the Apostle John testifies, that when Christ saw Mary weeping for her brother Lazarus, he groaned in spirit, and was troubled (John 11:33; John 12:27). (3) Because, his soul, was exceeding sorrowful, even to death, as was cited before (Matthew 26:37). (4) The same thing is proven from Christ's desertion, whereby the actual fruition, and enjoying of God's favor, as to his sense, was interrupted, and broken in the midst for a time, but in no wise, altogether taken away, which made him cry upon the Cross: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me. (Matthew 27:46; Ephesians 5:2).

Question 5.

Had the Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience, and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit, once offered up to God, fully satisfied, the justice of his Father?

Yes. (Romans 5:9; Romans 3:25, 26; Hebrews 9:14, 16; Hebrews 10:14).

Well then, do not some, otherwise orthodox err, who deny, Christ's active obedience, to be a part of his satisfaction, performed in our place?

Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?

(1) Because the active disobedience of the first Adam made us all sinners: therefore we must be made righteous by the active obedience of the second Adam (Romans 5:19). (2) Because Christ not only offered himself to the death for us, but for their sakes (that is, for the elect's sake) he sanctified himself (that is, he gave up himself as a holy sacrifice) (John 17:19). (3) Because it was fitting for Christ to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15). (4) Because we stood in need not only of the expiation of sin, for saving us from eternal death, but of the gift of righteousness, for obtaining eternal life, according to that precept and demand of the law, Do this, and you shall live. And therefore Christ is not only called our ransom, but the end and perfection of the law, to everyone that believes (Romans 10:4). That is, the aim of giving the law by Moses is that, thereby men being brought to the knowledge of their sin, should flee for refuge to Christ, and his righteousness, as he that has perfectly fulfilled the law for us. (5) Because the passive obedience of Christ was not in itself merely and purely passive, but his active obedience did claim the chief and principal part in it (Psalm 40:7). Then said I, lo, I come: in the volume of the book, it is written of me. With these words, our Savior Christ declares his willing obedience, to accept of, undergo, and execute the mediatorship imposed upon him by God. And (Isaiah 53:7) he offered up himself a sacrifice for sin, and by one oblation he has perfected for ever them that are sanctified (Hebrews 10:14). (6) Because whole Christ was given to us, with all his benefits: otherwise, if only his passive obedience were imputed to us, it would follow that only half Christ were given — to wit, Christ suffering, but not Christ doing those things which pleased the Father; taking away our sin, and saving from death only, but not bringing righteousness. But Christ was not given and born for himself, but for us, that he might bestow himself wholly upon us, by doing for us what we could not do, and by suffering for us what we could not suffer.

Do not likewise the Socinians err, who maintain that this orthodox doctrine (namely, that Christ did merit eternal salvation to the elect, and has satisfied divine justice for them) is erroneous, false, and absurd?

Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?

(1) Because the Messiah does finish the transgression, and makes an end of sins, and makes reconciliation for iniquity, and shall be cut off, but not for himself, as the prophet Daniel has foretold (Daniel 9:24, 26). (2) Because his own self bore our sins in his own body, upon the tree (1 Peter 2:24). (3) Because he has reconciled those to God, that were sometimes alienated, and enemies in their mind by wicked works, in the body of his flesh through death (Colossians 1:21-22). (4) Because, now once in the end of the world, has he appeared, to put away sin, by the sacrifice of himself (Hebrews 9:26). (5) Because he has given his life, [illegible], a price of redemption for many. (6) Because the prophet Isaiah says that it pleased the Lord to bruise him, and put him to grief; and that he was wounded for our transgressions, and that he bore our iniquities (Isaiah 53:5, 10, 11).

Quest. 6.

Did Christ, in the work of mediation, act according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself?

Yes (Hebrews 9:4; 1 Peter 3:18).

Well then, do not the Papists err, who maintain that Christ is a Mediator only according to his human nature?

Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?

(1) Because it was needful, for perfecting the work of the Mediator, that Christ should overcome death; which could not otherwise be done than by his divine nature (1 Peter 3:18), where it is said he was put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit. (2) Because there are very many properties of the Mediator which cannot in any way agree to the human nature of Christ, as undertaking and promising that he will raise up all at the last day, whom the Father has given him (John 6:39). Again, he could not lay down his life, and take it up again, by the alone strength of his human nature: but all these are works proper to the Mediator, as is clear from (John 10:18). And (3) the application of those good things which he has merited is the proper work of the Mediator, which can only be done by the divine nature. (4) Because Christ is a Prophet, a Priest, and a King, according to both his natures. A Prophet (Matthew 11:27): No man knows the Father, save the Son. A Priest (Romans 5:10; Hebrews 9:14). He is a King (Luke 1:32). All which offices he executes according to both his natures.