Johannes Maccovius, Theological Distinctions XI.
James Dodson
Chapter XI
Of the Person of Christ and His Office
I. The whole Christ is one thing; the whole of Christ is another.
The use of this distinction is as follows: first, that the whole Christ is said to be everywhere, but not the whole of Christ; second, because the whole Christ is said by us—
[p. 104]
—to be adored, but not the whole of Christ, that is, the human nature.
II. One thing in Christ is the human nature; another is the divine nature.
III. Christ is Mediator, with respect to the divine nature, efficiently; with respect to the human nature, meritoriously.
The use of this is very great. Christ is said to give life, to raise up, and to send the Holy Spirit; but here we must always distinguish between being Mediator efficiently and meritoriously.
IV. The object of adoration is one thing; the object of consideration in adoration is another.
It is asked: What is the object of religious worship? We say that the formal object is God. But the object of consideration in this worship itself is the human nature of Christ and the mediatorial office. That is, God indeed is adored and invoked by us, but the meritorious cause why we adore Him, or are able to adore Him, lies with Christ the Mediator and the human nature, according to that in Daniel 9: “O Lord, hear us for the Lord’s sake.”
V. The concrete is one thing, the abstract another, in the doctrine of the person of Christ.
[p. 105]
Here “abstract” and “concrete” are taken otherwise than in logic. For by “concrete” here is understood the person; by “abstract,” the natures. Certain rules must be held for this distinction, from which it is rightly understood.
First, the person is denominated from either nature in the concrete. Thus “the man Christ” does not signify only the humanity, but the whole person, namely the human and divine nature. “Christ God” does not signify only deity, but Christ, God and man.
Second, abstracts are expressed either absolutely, as “the humanity of Christ,” “the divinity of Christ”; or with limitation. For example: Christ as man; Christ as God.
VI. The communication of properties is of one kind verbal, of another real.
It is real in the concrete, verbal in the abstract; that is, what is attributed to either nature is attributed to the whole person in the concrete really, but with respect to the nature from which the concrete is denominated, only verbally. For example: when God is said to have redeemed the Church with His own blood, this is said of the person of Christ in the concrete, really. But verbally, it is said of the nature from which the person is denominated. Thus John 3: “No man hath ascended into heaven.” It is said really of this person, who is the Son of Man, that He is in heaven and—
[p. 106]
—and on earth. But this is only verbally said of the human nature, which is not everywhere.
VII. Communication is of one kind transitive, of another intransitive.
The Lutherans continually object that the divine nature communicated its properties to the human nature in the same way that it communicated itself. Response. The divine nature communicates itself intransitively to the human nature; that is, so that the divine nature remains divine and the human nature human. For by that communication the human nature of Christ has not been deified.
VIII. Potentia is one thing, potestas another in Christ.
The Lutherans likewise argue: all power was given to Christ; therefore also omnipotence. But this is foolish. For potestas is one thing, potentia another. Potestas is ἐξουσία in Greek, but potentia is δύναμις in Greek. The former denotes office; the latter, strength or force. Thus they are even in diverse predicaments. For potestas is in relation, but potentia is in quality, namely in the second species, natural power. But it is objected: δύναμις is given to Christ, as Revelation 5:14 and 7:12. Response. It is a metonymy of antecedent and consequent, so that by the antecedent—
[p. 107]
—is meant that which is known to have been given to Him, the antecedent being put for the consequent. Just as in John 17, “Glorify me with the glory which I had,” the antecedent is put down, and the consequent is understood; for nothing else is meant there than the manifestation of glory.
IX. One thing in Christ is the Person, another the adjunct ἐνυπόστατον.
The Person is the divine nature alone. For we must not think that the person of Christ is as it were constituted out of the human and divine nature, as if made up of parts; but that the divine nature alone is the person, which assumed the human nature into its own personality. The human nature, however, is the adjunct ἐνυπόστατον.
X. To be the Lord Prophet is one thing; simply to be a prophet is another.
Christ is the Lord Prophet. None of the other prophets is the Lord Prophet, but a minister and servant. All the prophets are “prophets of the Lord” in the oblique case, not “Lords” in the direct case. Hebrews 3:5–6.
XI. To teach immediately is one thing; to teach mediately is another.
Christ, exhibited in the flesh, taught externally and immediately; but He taught mediately from the beginning of the world. Hence, in 1 Peter 1, the Spirit of Christ is said—
[p. 108]
—to have been in the prophets. And hence Christ is said to have preached in the times of Noah by His Spirit. 1 Peter 3.
XII. To teach internally is one thing; externally another.
Christ taught His faithful ones internally from the beginning of the world. And this belongs to God alone. Externally, even unbelievers are taught, even by an unbelieving hireling.
XIII. “To enlighten all men” is said in two ways: either to enlighten every individual, and in this way Christ does not enlighten every individual; or to enlighten those who are enlightened.
For such propositions are given in Scripture whose subject must be limited by their predicate. For example, Psalm 145: “God upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all those that be bowed down.” Certainly here not every individual who falls and is bowed down is said to be upheld and raised up by the Lord. For how many are there who fall and are not upheld, who are bowed down and are not raised? At least this statement does not apply to those of whom Psalm 36:13 says, “The workers of iniquity are fallen, and are not able to rise.” Therefore the sense is: God raises up all the fallen who are in fact raised up; for no one is raised up except by God, as it is said in Psalm—
[p. 109]
—37:24, “Though the righteous fall, he shall not be utterly cast down, because the Lord upholdeth him with His hand.” So also Christ enlightens every man coming into the world. If you take this of every individual man, it does not hold even naturally, because there are those born blind, John 9, who were never enlightened. Much less does it hold spiritually, since not even the external means of illumination are granted by God to every individual. Therefore He enlightens all who are enlightened; because no one who is enlightened can attribute the illumination received to anyone except God alone.
XIV. Satisfaction in Christ is one thing; merit another.
Satisfaction corresponds to the debt of punishment; hence by satisfaction we are freed from punishment. By merit, corresponding to the duty owed, we acquire the right to eternal life. Satisfaction was made by His death; merit by His holy life.
XV. Christ is said to liberate or redeem either properly or improperly.
Improperly, when He simply liberates without the intervention of a price. 2 Peter 2 speaks of those “denying the Lord who bought them.” Properly, by the intervention of a price. Thus Christ redeemed His sheep, John 10, for whom He is said to lay down His life.
[p. 110]
XVI. We die for the brethren in one way; Christ died for us in another.
That phrase is in 1 John 3. But we die in a different way, as is plain from the chief end. For we do not die for the brethren for the remission of sins, as Christ died for us, but for such an end as in 2 Corinthians 1:6–7.
XVII. To fill up what is lacking of the sufferings of Christ for the building up of the church is one thing; to do so for its redemption is another.
The passage is Colossians 1:24. The Papists are accustomed to abuse this passage; but if we ask how Paul says that he fills up the sufferings of Christ, whether for the building up or for the redemption of the church, then they are at a loss.
XVIII. The distinction by which Christ is said to have died sufficiently, but not efficaciously, is utterly vain.
For if He is said to have died sufficiently because His death is sufficient for all to be redeemed if God willed it to be done for them, then certainly, by equal reasoning, Christ could be said to have justified all and every one sufficiently, but not efficaciously; likewise, to have glorified all and every one, but not efficaciously.
XIX. The intercession by which Christ—
[p. 111]
—intercedes for us is not formal, but objective.
That is, Christ was not any longer prostrate for us, as in John 17, as if at the feet of the Father, so that His intercession were nothing other than the presentation of Himself before the face of God.
XX. The debt of office is one thing; the debt of punishment another.
The debt of punishment is removed by the death of Christ; the debt of office, by the fulfilling of the law.
XXI. The satisfaction of Christ is not righteousness, even though it is imputed unto justification.
It is not righteousness, because it is satisfaction; nevertheless, it is imputed unto justification, because on account of it man is absolved from sins.
XXII. To pay the penalty is one thing; to fulfill the law is another.
The adversaries object: because Christ expiated our sins, both of commission and omission, therefore we ought to be reckoned for those sins as though we ourselves had fulfilled the law. But this is false. For if someone, because he has committed fornication, is beaten with rods, he is not therefore regarded as one who abstained from fornication. For if the matter stood so, then he who was beaten with rods would no longer be infamous—
[p. 112]
—but would be held in the same place as one who had never fornicated.
XXIII. Man after the fall is held both to punishment and to obedience.
Our catechism treats this question and says that man is obligated either to punishment or to obedience. To understand this, it must be known that this question cannot conveniently be answered unless the state of men is distinguished. For there is one state before the fall, and in this man was held only to obedience. But in the state of fall before regeneration, man is held to both: to punishment, because of preceding sin; to obedience, that he may not sin. But if he were no longer obligated to obedience, then he would also no longer sin; yet men who are sinners are said to heap sins upon sins. “Fill ye up,” says Christ, “the measure of your fathers.” Matthew 23. The third state is after regeneration, and in this state man is held to obedience, not to punishment, because “there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.” Romans 8:1.
XXIV. Active obedience alone is our righteousness.
Obedience is distinguished twofold by theologians, into active and passive. Passive is that by which—
[p. 113]
—Christ satisfied the threatenings of the law for us; that is, He was made a curse for us, and this is called satisfaction. Active is that by which He perfectly fulfilled the law, and it is called merit; and this is called our righteousness.
XXV. Christ perfects His own by absolving them from sins through His suffering, not by constituting them righteous.
In Hebrews 10 it is read that Christ, by one offering, perfected those who are being perfected. Hence the adversaries infer that they are therefore perfect. Response. Certainly with respect to absolution from guilt, but not with respect to their having perfect righteousness. For perfect righteousness is the imputed righteousness of Christ, which He rendered to the law by living holily.
XXVI. Christ is King by right of creation and redemption.
Others put it thus: the kingdom of Christ is twofold, one essential, another mediatorial.
XXVII. Christ is the natural head of the church, but the political head of the good angels, evil angels, and reprobates.
This distinction must be carefully observed. For as God He is set over all, but in different ways. He is set over the church as its natural head, from whom, through certain joints, power flows—
[p. 114]
—into the members. Ephesians 4. It is called natural, not because it is properly natural, but because it bears a resemblance to a natural body. And it is called political, not because it is such properly, but because it bears a resemblance to a political body.
XXVIII. One kingdom of Christ is of grace; another of glory.
The kingdom of grace is called the church in this life; the kingdom of glory is called the church in heaven.
XXIX. The kingdom of Christ is eternal, and yet it will cease.
There seems to be a certain contradiction between Luke and Paul. For Luke says in chapter 1, “Of His kingdom there shall be no end.” Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, says that He will at last deliver up the kingdom to the Father, and so bring it to an end. Response. The angel in Luke is speaking of the essential kingdom, which belongs to Christ by right of creation; Paul is speaking of the mediatorial kingdom, or of the mode of administering this kingdom, which mode of administration consists in the external ministry.
XXX. Christ will judge in one way according to the divine nature, in another according to the human nature.
According to the divine nature, by knowing sins; according to the human, by pronouncing sentence and approving the judgments of God.
[p. 115]
XXXI. Christ the King is adored with religious worship, but not insofar as He is King and Mediator.
That is, not insofar as He is Mediator; otherwise the human nature of Christ would also be to be adored. Objection. Revelation 4: “Thou art worthy to receive glory, because Thou wast slain.” Response. “Because” and “insofar as” are not reciprocal in theology. For the Holy Spirit is sent to us, not insofar as Christ died, but because He died; for He cannot be sent by a creature. Sins are remitted to us because Christ died, but not insofar as He died. Here one must distinguish between the formal object, as above. The object of consideration in worship is the human nature and the mediatorial office; the formal object is the divine nature itself.
XXXII. Inequality of office does not remove equality of nature.
This rule is also certain among men. For Peter, who was equal to the other apostles, or even superior, if it be lawful to believe he was superior, was sent by the other apostles into Samaria. Acts 8:14.
XXXIII. Christ is Mediator of men only.
In 1 Timothy 2:5 it is said that Christ is Mediator of God and men. This makes against those—
[p. 116]
—who maintain that Christ is also Mediator of angels. But this is foolish, for the angels also did not sin so as to need reconciliation, but men only. Hence also the Holy Spirit calls Christ the Mediator of those whose nature He assumed.
XXXIV. Christ, in the state of humiliation, emptied Himself.
There are degrees of the state of Christ: of humiliation and of exaltation. It is asked: wherein did this humiliation consist? Response. In two things. First, in the assumption of the form of a servant, concerning which see Philippians 2. Second, in the hiding of the divine nature. I say “hiding,” because the divine nature was not so manifest in the flesh of Christ as it was afterward.
XXXV. Whatever things are said to have been given to Christ in time are given with respect to both natures.
The Lutherans deny this and say that they are given to the human nature, because nothing can be given to the divine nature. Response. This is false, if taken simply. Is it not said in Matthew 22, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”? And Revelation 14: “Give glory to God, who made heaven and earth.” But you will say: He has all things; therefore He lacks nothing. Response. So it is; nor are these things given to Him as though we did not first receive them from Him, and they are not given except as they are again referred by Him to our benefit.
[p. 117]
XXXVI. In Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead. Colossians 2:9.
But it is asked: How does it dwell in Him? Response. By the hypostatic union, by which, namely, the human nature of Christ was assumed into union with the λόγος. Second, not typically, but truly and really. Compare verse 17.
XXXVII. The divine nature of Christ is everywhere.
This must be carefully maintained against the Lutherans. It must be known that there is a threefold presence. First, general, by which He is present with all creatures, conserving and ruling them. Second, special, by which He is present with the elect, conserving them and supplying them with spiritual gifts. Third, most special, namely presence by union, and so He is present with Christ the man. It is usually distinguished thus by theologians: He is present with all things by general assistance, with the elect by grace, and with the human nature of Christ by union.
XXXIX. When a name is said to be given to Christ, authority is understood.
The name does not signify the name, as the Papists and Lutherans wish; hence also you may see that when the name of Jesus is named, they remove their hats and bend the knee. In this, the absurdity is all the greater, because when Christ or God is named, none of them—
[p. 118]
—touches his hat, although what is greater than Christ or God? But by name, as we said, authority is understood. Hence in Acts 4 the priests ask, “By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?”
XL. When Christ is said in the Holy Scriptures to be given, “to be given” often denotes “to be manifested.”
A thing is said to be given when it is manifested. Thus Christ says in John 16, “Father, glorify me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.” He does not ask that such glory be given to Him, but that it be manifested as what it had been.
XLI. Christ, as God, performed miracles.
We say “as God,” in which we have the Papists themselves agreeing with us. Becanus certainly held this in his Scholastic Theology. You will say: What then did the human nature of Christ do? Response. It declared what the divine nature was doing. Hence also the human nature of Christ is called by theologians the instrument for performing miracles; and not a physical instrument, but a moral one. Others say it is an intervening sign, at whose presence God, or the divine nature, performed miracles.
XLII. Wherever mention is made of redemption, and the price by which we were redeemed is added—
[p. 119]
—there properly so-called redemption is understood.
The contrary opinion belongs to Socinus, who says that it is not properly called redemption, but metaphorical. But we say it is properly so called, because where someone is said to have been freed, and that by whose intervention he was freed is called a price, there one must understand properly so-called redemption.
XLIII. The sacrifices of the Old Testament were not offered privately for capital offenses; nevertheless, they were offered in the annual sacrifice.
Socinus thinks that sacrifices were not appointed for all sins, because they were not appointed for capital offenses, which someone might even have committed while plainly denying all. But we say that they were not appointed privately, because God, who is merciful and most gracious, did not wish to impose necessity upon anyone—since in a private sacrifice each one confessed his own fault—of accusing himself and thereby casting himself into danger of life. Nevertheless, all sins were forgiven in the annual sacrifice; for there private confession was not required, but a general confession of all sins whatsoever.
XLIV. Christ is like us in all things—
[p. 120]
—according to nature, not according to all infirmities of nature.
For infirmities are either culpable, such as sins, and in these He is not like us; or inculpable, such as the affections of sorrow, pain, tears, hunger, and weariness, and in these He is like us. Then infirmities are either the common punishment of sin, such as the ability to die, or particular, such as diseases. He assumed the former, not the latter; the infirmities of the first kind, not of the second.
XLV. The personality of Christ’s divine nature is of itself; that of the human nature is by assumption.
Because the divine and human nature of Christ do not equally contribute to the constitution of the person. For this is contrary to the eternity and immutability of the divine nature. For that which subsists from eternity can receive nothing toward the constitution of its subsistence from that which was only made in time.
XLVI. By the assumption of the human nature into the divine λόγος, no change was made in the divine nature, but only in the human nature.
For every change is either generation or corruption, or increase or diminution—
[p. 121]
—or alteration, or local motion. But none of these falls upon the divine nature.
XLVII. The union of the natures of Christ is incomprehensible to us.
Because it is the union of a finite thing with the infinite. And if the union between Christ and the Church is incomprehensible to us, much more this mystery.
XLVIII. A priest is either properly so called, or metaphorically so.
A priest properly so called is either typical or real. The typical are either Aaronic or Melchizedekian. The real is Christ alone. Therefore, if the little sacrificing priests of the Papists boast that they are priests properly so called, it must be asked of what order they are: whether Aaronic—and then they will be Jews—or Melchizedekian. But of this order there was only one, Christ. Priests improperly so called are all believers. Revelation 1:6; 5:10; 1 Peter 2:5.