ness of sinful flesh consists in this, that Christ being, from his very birth, obnoxious to various miseries, both of soul and body, at last he concluded the course of his painful life by that death, in which the most striking signs of every kind of curse appeared for it was just that the sinner should thus live and die. Now Christ, considered simply as a righteous person, might have been exempted from these miseries, and from such a death. But after he had once, by a voluntary engagement, submitted himself to the law for us, he became bound to satisfy also this sanction of the law, which threatened death to sinners. As all these things arise, from the mediatorial covenant, they belong to Christ as Mediator.

XVI. But since in Christ, as Mediator, there is an union of the divine and human natures, this difficulty remains to be discussed, whether both natures, were in some measure subject to the law. Nothing forbids us to affirm this of the human, as we have already so often shewn ; but it seems from what we have confirmed, § 6. it must be denied with respect to the divine. But as the human nature does not, without the divine complete the person of the Mediator, the Mediator, as such, does not seem to have undertaken subjection to the law, without bringing his divine nature likewise to share therein.

XVII. In order to remove this difficulty, we are accurately to distinguish between both natures considered separately, and the person of God-man, consisting of both natures united. It was proper, that both natures should act suitably to themselves and their distinct properties. The divine nature, as characterized in the Son, since it could not truly and really be subject, did not, by virtue of the covenant, exert or display all its majesty, in the assumed form of a servant; nor hinder that nature, to which it was united by the hypostatical union, from being truly subject to the law, both as to the condition of the reward, and as to the penal sanction; which indeed was neither a real renuncia.

tion, nor degradation of the divine superiority, but only a certain economical veiling of it for a time.

XVIII. The human nature was really and properly subject to the law: nay, from the hypostatical union there was superadded a certain peculiar obligation upon the human nature of Christ, considered in relation to the suretiship to be undertaken for us as his brethren. For as men are bound to love God in such a manner as above all things to seek his glory, which shines most illustriously in the justification and sanctification of the sinner; and so to love their neighbour, as to desire to deliver their brother from sin and misery even at their own peril, if possible: but no mere man can effect this; yet the man Christ, who is likewise true God, and therefore is able, by his obedience and suffering, to promote this glory of God, and the salva tion of his brethren, was by that very thing obliged to undertake and undergo all those things, in which he might shew forth this most intense love of God and his neighbour. Since he only of all men could do this, he only of all was bound to do it. What others were obliged to will conditionally, as we observe a spark of this love in Moses,* and in Paul,† was incumbent on the man Christ absolutely; because, being God man, he could absolutely perform it.

XIX. We commonly ascribe to the person God-man the relation of an inferior to a superior, by a constitution, or appointment; so that, both by doing and suffering, those things might be accomplished, according to the condition of each nature, which were requisite to our salvation: so that the very obedience and sufferings themselves, are not only to be appropriated to the human nature, but to be considered as truly performed and suffered by the God-man. If this was not the case, they would not be of infinite value and dignity, nor sufficient for our redemption. Hence, he who is in the form of God, is said to have made himself of no reputation [emptied himself] and become obedient *Exod. xxx. 32. † Rom. ix. 3.

unto death; and to be the Lord of glory who was crucified.t

XX. It is usual here to inquire, whether Christ, as Mediator, is inferior to the Father and subordinate to him? But this controversy, it seems, may be easily settled among the orthodox. If the Mediator be considered in the state of humiliation, and the form of a servant, he is certainly inferior to the Father, and subordinate to him. It was not of his human nature only, but of himself in that state, that he himself said,‡ The Father is greater than I. Nay, the very mediatorial office in itself, may be reckoned to import a certain economical inferiority or subordination; as being to be laid down, when all things shall be perfectly finished, and God himself shall become all in all. Yet so that this undertaking and mediation, and the bringing of fallen man to God, to grace and glory, is not so much beneath the excellency of the Deity, but we, without the least hesitation, affirm, that this glory of mediation is incommunicable to any creature. It is the glory of JEHOVAH to be the righteousness of Israel. This glory he gives to none who is not God. To be Mediator does not merely denote a servant of God, but the great God and Saviour; who as the first and principal cause of saving grace, equal to the Father, works, by his own power, our reconciliation with God, by means of the subjection and obedience of his human nature, without which the co-equal Son could neither perform his service, nor obey the Father.

XXI. The third thing we promised to inquire into, was this: Could the Son refuse to undertake, or withdraw himself from this compact? To which question we are again to answer distinctly. 1. If the Son be considered as God, the whole of this covenant was of his own most free will and pleasure. There neither was, nor could be any necessity, to bind the Son of God, as such to this covenant. Here is nothing but mere good pleasure, philanthropy unremitted, and al*Phil. ii. 6, 7, 8. † 1 Cor. ii. 8. + John xiv. 28.

together liberal, pure and unmixed grace.

2. If he be considered as man, he indeed entered into this engagement freely and spontaneously, without being constrained; yet he could not, without sin, from which he is at the greatest distance, withdraw from this agreement. Which we prove in the following

manner.

XXII. 1. The human nature of Christ, as we have often said, could not be without law. The law under which it naturally is, is the royal law of love. Which does not indeed formally, as it was made for man in innocence, but yet eminently contain this precept, which John inculcates,* That one lay down his life for the brethren. I say, the law of love, as given to man in innocence, contains not this precept formally; because death is inconsistent with such a state, and perfect obedience, which is all summed up in love, frees man from all necessity of dying, according to the promise, He who doth those things shall live in them. And therefore we have shewn, that if Christ be considered in himself as a holy person, without respect to the decree of God, and his own engagement for his miserable brethren, he was by virtue of his perfect holiness, under no necessity of dying and suffering. But the law of love does, supposing the requisite circumstances, eminently contain the command of dying for our brethren. For it enjoins us to love God above all, and our neighbour as ourselves. And he who loves God above all, does not only delight in God his Creator, Benefactor, Lord and Example; not only studies to do every thing agreeable to him, but endeavors to direct and promote all things that are God's to his glory. And as he ought to esteem the glory of God dear above his own advantages, he also ought to be ready to undergo every thing, by which the glory of God may be most illustrated. And supposing such a one to have brethren in distress, from which he can deliver them by his death, so that God shall in an eminent manner, ap1 ep. iii. 16.

*

pear glorious in them; the love of our brethren, together with the love of God, enjoins him not to decline dying for them; especially, if he himself, becoming a conqueror over death, shall thereby obtain a most distinguishing reward at last. Since therefore Christ, as man, could not but be under the law of love; and a holy man, as doubtless it became him to be, cannot be conceived as destitute of love, much less as having a contrary disposition; it follows, that he could not, in such circumstances, withdraw himself from his agreement to satisfy for men; because the law of love eminently contains such an obligation.

XXIII. 2. The Son of God had from eternity engaged to satisfy this compact, by assuming human nature, and obeying in it, as we shewed above, § 2. If the human nature, personally united to him, could have withdrawn itself from, and renounced the compact, it was possible that the Son of God himself might have violated his plighted faith. For, in that case, Christ would not have been either the true and faithful God, who cannot lie, or not the God omnipotent, as who being willing from eternity to take that province upon himself, could not, in time, induce the human nature to execute that, for which it was assumed at first. Nor do I see what reply can be made to this argument, unless one shall venture to say, that it is contrary to the nature of liberty, that the will should be thus bent by a superior cause: and that, in such a case, the human nature, declining to stand to that compact, would be deprived of the honor of the hypostatical union, and another to be assumed in its stead. But besides that this overthrows the inseparability of the hypostatical union, admitted on both sides, the same difficulty recurs with respect to the nature newly assumed; because an equal liberty is to be ascribed to it.

XXIV. 3. God had, by an eternal and irrevocable decree, appointed, promised and confirmed by oath, the inheritance of all blessings in Christ. But supposing *Heb. vi. 13-18. Luke i. 73. Ff

VOL. I.