Johannes Marck’s Marrow of Christian Theology, Didactic-Elenctic XIX
James Dodson
Chapter XIX
Of the Person of Jesus Christ
I. To the knowledge of the person of the Mediator belong his names, his natures, and the effects of the union of these natures.
II. The two chief names are Jesus and Christ, which are very frequently joined in this order. Jesus is a Hebrew name, derived from ישע [to save], spoken so as to denote a Savior, and is the same as the name Joshua, coll. Acts 7:45; Josh. 1:1. But what some suppose, that it is also compounded from the name Jehovah, is vain; since the angel does not mention that origin, Matt. 1:21: καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν· αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν [and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins]; and from יהושע [Joshua; Jehovah saves] alone it can scarcely be regularly said otherwise.
III. Formerly several others had this name, among whom were the son of Nun and the son of Jozadak, both notable types of Christ. Other names are also read as formerly attributed to Messiah,משיח [Messiah; anointed one], Isa. 43:11: “I, even I, am Jehovah; and beside me there is no savior”; andישוע [salvation; Savior], Zech. 9:9: “Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, just, and saved,” or saving, or being himself the Savior, etc. And the name Jesus proceeded from the angel before the birth, Matt. 1:21: “Thou shalt call his name Jesus”; and was deservedly given to him soon after in circumcision, Luke 2:21: “When eight days were fulfilled”
[Page 247]
τοῦ περιτεμεῖν τὸ παιδίον, καὶ ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦς, τὸ κληθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀγγέλου [for circumcising the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel], etc. And truly in him the thing signified is most fully present, since he alone obtains and applies the greatest salvation to his own, Acts 4:12; Eph. 5:23, αὐτός ἐστι σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος [he is the Savior of the body], etc. The Socinians remove the force of this name by denying Christ’s merit; the Arminians by not conceding its certain application; and the Pontificians by attributing to others besides Christ the help of our salvation. All superstition ought to be absent from this name, though in favor of it even the most pious reverence should be held, above all others, by the Pontificians, Lutherans, and others, from the badly understood passage Phil. 2:10: “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,” etc.; where the issue is not this word, but the dignity of the person, to whom God gave “a name above every name.”
IV. Christ is a Greek name, corresponding to the Hebrew משיח [Messiah; anointed one], John 1:42, εὑρήκαμεν τὸν Μεσσίαν, ὅ ἐστι μεθερμηνευόμενον ὁ Χριστός [we have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ], and denotes the Anointed. Formerly, above others, prophets were anointed, Ps. 105:15: “Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm”; 1 Kings 19:16: “Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room,” etc.; also priests, Exod. 30:30: “And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons,” etc.; and kings, coll. Isa. 45:1: “Thus saith Jehovah to his anointed, to Cyrus,” etc.; although not all, nor in the same manner, according to the Jews.
V. This name is also attributed to the Mediator in the Old Testament, Ps. 2:2: “against Jehovah, and against his Anointed”; Dan. 9:25, 26: “unto Messiah the prince,” etc.; “Messiah shall be cut off,” etc.; and publicly
[Page 248]
it was known thence, John 1:42. Christ also possesses those three offices, and unction belongs to him: eternal unction, by destination, Prov. 8:23: “I was anointed from eternity,” etc.; and temporal unction, by public declaration and sufficient bestowal of gifts, Ps. 45:8: “Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows,” etc.; which was made by successive degrees. Rightly, therefore, from this name the faithful are called Christians, Acts 11:26, ἐχρημάτισε δὲ… χρηματίσαι πρῶτον ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ τοὺς μαθητὰς Χριστιανούς [and it came to pass… that the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch], etc.; because of their participation with Christ in unction and offices, 1 John 2:20, 27: “And ye have an unction from the Holy One,” etc.; καὶ ὑμεῖς τὸ χρῖσμα ὃ ἐλάβετε ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει [and the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you], etc.; Rev. 1:9: “He hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father,” etc. Nor should other schismatic names be adopted by them, 1 Cor. 1:12: “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided?”
VI. Many other names of Messiah are read in the prophets: Isa. 7:14: “His name shall be called Immanuel.” Isa. 9:5: “His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The Father of Eternity, The Prince of Peace,” etc.; all of which show what he was to be, and how he was to be declared and acknowledged. In the Gospel also patronymic or gentilic names are read: Galilean, Nazarene, which is noted to have been foretold in the Prophets in their passages, Matt. 2:22, κατοικήσει εἰς πόλιν λεγομένην Ναζαρέτ, ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν, ὅτι Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται [he shall dwell in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene]; then Son of David, and Son of Joseph, although
[Page 249]
he was thought to have been begotten by Joseph only by unbelievers.
VII. The nature of Christ is twofold, divine and human. The divine nature has already been asserted and is mentioned, Acts 20:28: “to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood”; 1 Tim. 3:16: “God was manifested in the flesh,” etc. And truly the same deity, characterized in the person of the Son, appears in Gal. 4:4: “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman,” etc.; 1 John 4:14: “And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world,” etc.; just as there is one person of the Mediator, 1 Tim. 2:5: “There is one Mediator of God and men,” etc.; from which reconciliation to God must also be in some measure distinguished. Therefore the divine nature cannot be called incarnate, although the whole Trinity effectively concurred in the incarnation. The reason why the Son was incarnate rather than the other persons seems chiefly to be that he, according to his order, could both be sent and send the Spirit.
VIII. The other nature of Christ is human. That it was true and not merely apparent is clear against the Docetae, both from the continuous appellation “man,” 1 Tim. 2:5, and “Son of man,” Matt. 20:28, etc.; and from the whole history of his birth, life, and death, in which he is read to have been handled by the various senses of men, 1 John 1:1: “That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, which our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life,” etc.
Objection 1. Bare likeness of flesh, and bare manhood, are attributed to him, Rom. 8:3; Phil. 2:7, 8.
Reply The apostle mentions only the bare likeness of sinful flesh, and a universal likeness with other men
[Page 250]
does not take away the truth of the same nature.
Objection 2. Christ was sometimes made ἄφαντον [invisible; vanished from sight], Luke 24:31.
Reply Not by vanishing away, but by suddenly withdrawing himself from the sight of the disciples.
Objection 3. Christ passed through closed doors, John 20:19.
Reply This is not said, but only that, while the doors were shut—which he could have opened—he suddenly stood in the midst.
IX. Christ also assumed an integral human nature, consisting of a body and all its parts, Matt. 26:26: “This is my body”; Luke 24:39: “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have,” etc.; and of a soul with its faculties, Matt. 26:38, 39, περίλυπός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή μου ἕως θανάτου [my soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death], etc.; πλὴν οὐχ ὡς ἐγὼ θέλω, ἀλλ’ ὡς σύ [nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt]. Mark 13:32: “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels in heaven, neither the Son.” As the Apollinarists held the deity to be in place of the soul, and the Monothelites did not acknowledge a human will in Christ, so they object:
Objection 1. Only flesh is commonly attributed to Christ, John 1:14.
Reply Elsewhere spirit is mentioned, and there a part of human nature is put synecdochically.
Objection 2. There would be a conflict between two wills.
Reply By no means, since the human is subject to the divine.
Objection 3. Human nature lacks personality.
Reply That does not belong to the integrity of the nature, but to the complement of the person.
X. With human nature Christ also assumed its qualities; indeed, also miserable infirmities arising from sin, such as sadness, hunger, thirst,
[Page 251]
sleep, weariness, etc.; Matt. 26:38, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death.” Matt. 4:2, “when he had fasted forty days and forty nights,” ὕστερον ἐπείνασε [afterward he hungered]. John 19:18, διψῶ [I thirst]. John 4:6, “Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well,” etc. But culpable imperfections were far removed from Christ; so that Christ could not even possibly be said to sin, as though θεάνθρωπος [God-man], and plainly most holy, Luke 1:35, “that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” Heb. 4:15, πεπειρασμένον κατὰ πάντα καθ’ ὁμοιότητα χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας [tempted in all points according to likeness, without sin]. Heb. 7:26, “such an High Priest became us,” ὅσιος, ἄκακος, ἀμίαντος, κεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν [holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners], etc. The Remonstrants and others object:
Objection 1. Christ, unless he could have sinned, did not freely obey.
Reply Freedom is falsely always placed in indifference.
Objection 2. Christ was tried in vain.
Reply By no means; but that his impeccability might be evident to us.
Objection 3. Except actual sin, Christ was made like us.
Reply Except every sin, even possible sin, because it would place an unbecoming imperfection in Christ.
XI. Christ had human flesh from the substance of the Virgin Mary, since he is called her son, Luke 2:7, and is said to have been “made of a woman,” Gal. 4:4; indeed, to have arisen from David, Abraham, etc., coll. Luke 1:32, “The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.” Matt. 1:1, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham,” etc. Indeed, he assumed flesh after the manner of other infants, Heb. 2:14, “forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood,” παραπλησίως μετέσχε τῶν αὐτῶν [he likewise took part of the same]. It was also most necessary that he should be from Mary, that there might be the noblest union with us, Heb. 2:
[Page 252]
11, ὅ τε γὰρ ἁγιάζων καὶ οἱ ἁγιαζόμενοι ἐξ ἑνὸς πάντες [for both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one], and that he should be from a virgin, by which he would be pure from every stain. Indeed, it is necessary for us to know this head, that with confidence we may have him as our Surety and Mediator.
XII. Today the Anabaptists oppose this, who commonly confess an incision concerning the origin of Christ’s flesh; and they object:
Objection 1. Christ’s flesh descended from heaven, John 3:13; 6:33; Eph. 4:9.
Reply There the person of Christ is treated, who, by reason of his manifestation in assumed flesh, is said to have descended from heaven.
Objection 2. Mary is denied to have been the mother of Christ, Matt. 12:57, 58; Heb. 7:3.
Reply Spiritual kinship is there preferred only to natural; and Christ did not have a mother according to deity.
Objection 3. Christ would have been impure if he had taken his flesh from Mary, coll. Job 14:4.
Reply The supernatural power of the Holy Ghost intervened in Christ’s generation.
Objection 4. Christians do not know Christ according to the flesh, 2 Cor. 5:16.
Reply His carnal and external knowledge is meant.
XIII. The generation of Christ from his mother was natural, inasmuch as he came forth from an opened womb, and not without all pain, coll. Luke 2:22, 24, “when the days of her purification were accomplished,” etc.; “they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; as it is written in the law of the Lord,” ὅτι πᾶν ἄρσεν διανοῖγον μήτραν ἅγιον τῷ κυρίῳ κληθήσεται [that every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord]. Gen. 3:16, “in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children,” etc.; by which very thing her virginity, consisting in purity from the touch of man, was not hurt; further, as the conception was in the ordinary time, Luke 1:16, “while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered,”
[Page 253]
etc., so at length the body was successively formed in the womb. For neither should we imagine an extraordinary miracle here beyond necessity, since human nature gradually formed from an imperfect mass was not unbecoming to Christ.
XIV. The same generation was supernatural, inasmuch as the Holy Ghost, or the Most High, intervened by his power, Luke 1:35, πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ, καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι [the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee]. On account of this distinction from the one born, Matt. 1:20, τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου [for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost], we understand rather the third person of the deity than the second, although the formation of Christ’s human nature belongs both to him and to the Father also. The Spirit, however, contributed nothing of his own divine nature, but is noted here as efficient, coll. Rom. 11:36, ὅτι ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα [for of him, and through him, and unto him, are all things], etc.; so that from this he cannot be called the Father of Christ. The action of the Spirit was almost threefold: the fecundation of the virginal seed; the formation of the human nature; and preservation from all stain, which can thence be well derived, namely, that Christ, supernaturally generated, should not be held by Adamic guilt, and therefore could not be infected by its stain.
XV. The history of this nativity is read in the Gospels; nor is its time sufficiently determined as to the hour, day, month, or year, since the evangelical characters are looser, and Christians began rather late to compute the years from Christ’s birth. Yet in general it is certain that about four thousand years of the world had passed when Christ was born; nor can our common era,
[Page 254]
or the Dionysian, differ much from the truth of the times from Christ’s birth.
XVI. The Son of God assumed human nature only for the liberation of sinful man, according to his predestination, 1 Pet. 1:19, 20, τιμίῳ αἵματι ὡς ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου Χριστοῦ, προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου [with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world]; and the promise, Gen. 3:15, “it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel”; and the preaching, Matt. 18:11, “the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” 1 Tim. 1:15, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,” etc. Therefore, if man had not sinned, Christ would not have been incarnate; which we hold against the Socinians, who suppose in this their thesis that man was created mortal and therefore had to be delivered from death, and that Christ is a bare man.
XVII. The union of the two natures is called hypostatic, or personal. Its beginning is commonly called incarnation, from John 1:14, “the Word was made flesh.” 1 Tim. 3:16, “God was manifested in the flesh.” In explaining it the name assumption of human nature is celebrated, which is chiefly sought from Phil. 2:7, ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε μορφὴν δούλου λαβών [he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant], and Heb. 2:16, οὐ γὰρ δήπου ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται, ἀλλὰ σπέρματος Ἀβραὰμ ἐπιλαμβάνεται [for verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham]. Yet many think that this name rather favors μετοχῆς [participation], because of verse 14, ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκε σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος, καὶ αὐτὸς παραπλησίως μετέσχε τῶν αὐτῶν [forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same], and the taking of the seed of Abraham rather implies the liberation of the elect
[Page 255]
and of the faithful from their misery; not without every reason.
XVIII. With the Ephesian fathers we condemn here Nestorianism, which denies Mary to be θεοτόκον [God-bearer], and maintained Christ to be only a θεοφόρον [God-bearing man], and thus introduced two persons in Christ; whereas the natures, truly united, are ἀδιαιρέτως καὶ ἀχωρίστως [indivisibly and inseparably]. For Scripture teaches one person: Eph. 4:5, “one Lord”; 1 Tim. 2:5, “one Mediator of God and men,” etc.; and the Son of God is said to have been “made of a woman,” Gal. 4:4, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός [God sent forth his Son, made of a woman], coll. Luke 1:35, “that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God,” etc.; nor can the apotelesmata subsist without the unity of person.
Objection 1. Thus the distinction between the two natures is taken away.
Reply By no means, since Mary is not the mother of deity in the abstract, nor does this most close union confound things.
Objection 2. Human nature without its own personality would not be whole.
Reply Personality contributes nothing to the integrity of nature; indeed, it belongs to greater perfection and glory that this nature so closely adheres to the person of the Son of God.
XIX. With the Chalcedonians we no less disapprove Eutychianism, which confounds the natures, while they are united ἀτρέπτως καὶ ἀσυγχύτως [unchangeably and without confusion], inconvertibly and without confusion; it is renewed by various Mennonites, who dream of a change of the divine nature into human. For both the truth of each nature after the union, and their evident distinction, forbids it, Rom. 1:3, 4, “concerning his Son, made of the seed of David according to the flesh, declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit
[Page 256]
of holiness by the resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom. 9:5, “of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever.” 1 Pet. 3:18, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκί, ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ τῷ πνεύματι [being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit], etc.; and it is evident from various attributes and works.
Objection 1. The Word was made flesh, John 1:14.
Reply Not by mutation, coll. 2 Cor. 5:21, “him who knew no sin he made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” etc.; but by assumption, and σκήνωσιν [tabernacling; dwelling], or inhabitation, which is added in that place, καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν [and dwelt among us].
Objection 2. The Son of God was emptied, Phil. 2:7, 8.
Reply This is said of the person, not of the nature
Objection 3. Double attributes are predicated of the whole Christ.
Reply Yet not concerning the whole of Christ, just as is the custom concerning the whole man.
XX. Therefore this union is personal conjunction, and the indivisible union of the person of the Logos with human nature assumed and sustained by him. This differs much from composition, properly so called, out of which a perfected third nature would arise; nor less from a coalition of persons, through which there would be personality equally belonging to each nature, and so the subsistence of the Son of God would be changed and communicated to human nature. This is in every way repugnant.
XXI. This union takes beginning from the perfection of the human nature in the womb, whence Elizabeth then made mention of “her Lord,” Luke 1:43, “whence is this to me,” ἵνα ἔλθῃ ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ κυρίου μου πρὸς με [that the mother of my Lord should come to me?]. Yet it is never ended, nor was it ended in Christ’s death, when the soul remained sus-
[Page 257]
tained, equally as the body, by the omnipresent divine person.
XXII. The first effect of this union is the communication of charisms, or gifts of the Spirit, made to the human nature, indeed most copiously, Ps. 45:8, “God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” John 3:34, οὐ γὰρ ἐκ μέτρου δίδωσιν ὁ Θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα [for God giveth not the Spirit by measure], etc.; yet by degrees, Luke 2:52, “Jesus increased in wisdom, and stature, and favor with God and men.” Eph. 4:8, “When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men,” etc. Hence one must not dream of that infinity of state in the human nature; nor likewise with the Pontificians, that the soul of Christ was filled from its own creation with all knowledge and grace, so that afterward he could learn nothing, contrary to Luke 2:52, προέκοπτε σοφίᾳ [he increased in wisdom]. Mark 13:32, “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son,” etc. So the fullest faith and hope should also not be denied to Christ, contrary to Ps. 16:8, 9, “I have set Jehovah always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth; my flesh also shall dwell in hope,” etc.
XXIII. Another effect is the communication of apotelesmata, or mediatorial works, to which, since each nature concurs by cooperating in its own way, the effect itself belongs to the person θεανδρικῶς [theandrically; in a God-man manner], as ἐνεργούμενον [being wrought].
XXIV. The third effect is the communication of idioms, or of properties of each nature, which belong to the person in the concrete, and are predicated of it, both directly from the same nature and indirectly from the other nature, by de-
[Page 258]
nomination; just as may be seen in John 2:25, αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐγίνωσκε τί ἦν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ [for he knew what was in man]. Acts 20:28, “the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” 1 John 1:7, “the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin,” etc. But predications in the abstract, as that we should attribute blood or passion to deity, for example, as they are not read in Scripture, so neither do we approve them.
XXV. But that communication of divine idioms made to the human nature must be wholly rejected here, as if that nature were made omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and endowed with the vivifying virtue, as the ubiquitarian Lutherans have stated. For divine attributes can neither be divided nor multiplied; nor is human nature capable of the infinite; nor has there been made in the union any confusion of the natures. It is further overthrown:
α. Omnipotence communicated in this way, by Christ’s prayers to the Father, Heb. 5:7, “who in the days of his flesh offered up prayers and supplications unto him that was able to save him from death, with strong crying and tears,” etc.;
β. Omniscience, by his growth and ignorance, Luke 2:52, “he increased in wisdom.” Mark 13:32, “of that day and hour no man knoweth,” etc.; “neither the Son,” etc.;
γ. Omnipresence, by exclusion from some places, John 11:15, ὅτι οὐκ ἤμην ἐκεῖ [that I was not there], even after glorification, Matt. 26:11, ἐμὲ δὲ οὐ πάντοτε ἔχετε [but me ye have not always]. John 16:28, “I leave the world, and go to the Father,” etc.;
δ. Vivifying power, finally, by weakness and death, 2 Cor. 13:4, “he was crucified through weakness”; 1 Pet. 3:18, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκί [being put to death in the flesh], etc.
XXVI. They object in favor of omnipotence, Matt. 28:18, ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς [all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth];
[Page 259]
and in favor of omniscience, John 21:17, κύριε, σὺ πάντα οἶδας [Lord, thou knowest all things]. Col. 2:3, ἐν ᾧ εἰσι πάντες οἱ θησαυροὶ τῆς σοφίας καὶ τῆς γνώσεως ἀπόκρυφοι [in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge], etc.; in favor of omnipresence, Matt. 28:20, μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος [I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world]. Eph. 4:10, “he that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things,” etc.; in favor of vivifying power, John 6:48, “I am that bread of life.” 1 Cor. 15:45, “the last Adam was made a quickening spirit,” etc. But we answer: the things which are said of the person of Christ θεανδρικῶς [theandrically] in the concrete are always in this way wrongly applied to the human nature in the abstract. Consider also Col. 2:3 as speaking rather of doctrine than of the person of Christ; that not all places, but either all offices, all prophecies, or all members of the Church, are to be understood in Eph. 4:10.
XXVII. From this union there was fourthly the communication of brotherly affection from the one side, and of divine honor from the other, inasmuch as each here is owed to the person θεανδρικῇ [theandric]. Certainly, just as it is not fitting to adore the human nature of Christ as finite, Gal. 4:8, “then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods,” etc.; so divine honor, προσκύνησις [worship], also as Mediator, must altogether be given to the person, according to the examples, Acts 7:59, κύριε Ἰησοῦ, δέξαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου [Lord Jesus, receive my spirit], and the prophecies, Ps. 72:11, “all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him”; and the commandments, Ps. 2:12, “kiss the Son.” Phil. 2:9, 10, “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,” etc.; and the offices
[Page 260]
of faith, trust, and obedience, which are due to him as prophet, priest, and king. Meanwhile it must be held:
α. That the foundation of this ultimate honor is not the office, but the divine nature, which is supposed and demonstrated in the office;
β. That human nature does not come into the communion of this honor in itself, any more than divine nature comes into the communion of passion;
γ. That to deny Christ this as Mediator is in no way lawful.