¹ Moltmann, Jürgen, The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1974) 257–59.Google Scholar

² Ibid.., 258–59.

³ Quistorp, Heinrich, Calvin's Doctrine of the Last things (London: Lutterworth, 1955) 167–71Google Scholar; cf. Moltmann, Crucified God, 287–88, nn. 127, 129, 135.

⁴ Moltmann, Crucified God, 257, 259.

⁵ Ibid.., 260, citing Van Ruler's Gestaltwerdung Christi in der Welt. Uber das Verhaltnis von Kirche und Kultur (1956).

⁶ Citations of Calvin refer to Joannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. Baum, , Cunitz, , and Reuss, (Brunswick: Schwetschke, 1863–1900)Google Scholar hereinafter Opera. Quotations from the Institutio christianae religionis follow, with occasional alteration, Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960).Google Scholar Quotations from Calvin's exegetical works follow Calvin's New Testament Commentaries: A New Translation, ed. Torrance, David W. and Torrance, Thomas F. (12 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959–72)Google Scholar also with occasional alteration; hereinafter Commentaries. On the problem of the eternity of Christ's kingship and the seeming contradiction of 1 Cor 15:24–28 see: Inst., 1.13.26; 2.14.3; 2.15.5; and the commentaries on 1 Cor 15:27 (Opera, 49. 549) and Heb 1:13 (Opera, 55. 19).

⁷ Inst., 2.15.5: “Cuius rei quaedam hodie cernuntur exempla: plenum vero documentum exstabit ultimo iudicio, quod etiam proprie censeri potest extremus regni eius actus” (Opera, 2. 366) and Inst., 2.14.3: “Ubi autem consortes coelestis gloriae Deum videbimus qualis est, tune perfunctus mediatoris officio …” (Opera, 2. 355). Emil Doumergue (Jean Calvin, les hommes et les choses de son temps [7 vols.; Lausanne: Georges Bridel, 1899–1928] 4. 235) cites this latter passage and comments briefly on the end of Christ's office as Mediator, but he does not draw any conclusions for the whole of Calvin's Christology and, in the material he cites from Calvin's debate with Stancarus, shows that he views this end of the office as the conclusion of the present dispensation. Cf. also Inst., 2.15.16: “Atqui his verus est regni eius status, haec potestas quam in eum contulit pater, donee ultimum actum ad vivorum et mortuorum iudicium adveniens compleat” (Opera, 2. 383).

⁸ Cor 15:27 (Opera, 49. 549; Commentaries, 9. 327).

⁹ Inst. 2.15.3: “spiritualem esse eius naturam: quia inde ad quid valeat et quid nobis conferat, totaque eius vis et aeternitas colligitur” (Opera, 2. 363).

¹⁰ Inst. 2.15.6: “Hinc sequitur aeternum esse deprecatorem …” (Opera, 2. 367), and cf. Blaser, Klauspeter, Calvins Lehre von den drei Amtern Christi (Zurich: EVZ, 1970) 17.Google Scholar

¹¹ Inst., 2.14.4; cf. 3.11.6; 3.25.3.

¹² Bauke, Hermann, Das Problem der Theologie Calvins (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922) 16–19.Google Scholar

¹³ Perhaps the best survey of Calvin's Christology is found in Wendel, Francois, Calvin: the Origins and Development of his Religious Thought (New York: Harper & Row, 1963) 215–32.Google Scholar The interrelationship of Calvin's Christotogical motifs is discussed in Muller, Richard A., “Predestination and Christology in Sixteenth Century Reformed Theology” (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1976) 95–136Google Scholar; more recently, Raitt, Jill, “The Person of the Mediator: Calvin's Christology and Beza's Fidelity,” Occasional Papers of The American Society for Reformation Research 1 (Dec. 1977) 53–80.Google Scholar Raitt unfortunately fails to discern the underlying non-Chalcedonian dynamic implied by the motifs and attempts to interrogate Calvin's usage of persona and Mediatoris persona from the point of view of Chalcedon. In particular, Raitt's interpretation of the title of Inst., 2.14, “Quomodo duae naturae mediatoris efficiant personam” (or, in the French of 1560, “Comment les deux natures font une seule personne au mediateur”) as “how can a created nature effect a divine person” (p. 53, cf. 57) is seen to be incorrect, the title most probably being a simple counter to the accusation of Nestorianism made against Calvin, indicating “how the two natures amount to (efficiant) one person [i.e., and not two],” persona meaning specifically the revealed person of the Mediator, in both natures, and not the eternal Son. Since Calvin also (Inst., 1.13.4–6) refers to the eternal subsistences in the divine essence as “persons” in the traditional fashion, his usage is rather fluid, but his emphasis is clearly on the Mediatoris persona and the traditional usage is maintained for the sake of clarity in discussion of the Trinity; cf. the comment in Inst., 1.13.23, “Excipiunt, si vere est Dei Filius, absurdum esse censeri personae Filium. Ego utrunque verum esse respondeo, Dei nempe esse Filium, quia Sermo est a Patre ante Secula genitus (nondum enim de Mediatoris persona nobis sermo est) et tamen explicandi causa habendam esse rationem personae, ut nomen Dei non simpliciter sumatur, sed pro Patre. Nam si non alium censemus Deum quam Patrem, non obscure deiicitur Filius ab hoc gradu” (Opera, 2. 109–10), my italics, andcf. Inst., 1.13.26.

¹⁴ 0n the activity of the Word prior to the incarnation see Inst., 1.13.7–10 and note how Calvin related this to the person and office of the Mediator as incarnate. On the Deus mantfestatus in came, see the movement of Calvin's analysis from the necessity of mediation and the Mediator (2.12) to the birth of Christ and Christ's true humanity (2.13) and only then to the question “Quomodo duae naturae Mediatoris efficiant personam” (2.14) and further, see Muller, “Predestination and Christology,” 102–12.

¹⁵ Cf. Weber, Otto, Grundlagen der Dogmatik (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1962) 2. 24–36.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Quistorp, Calvin's Doctrine, 169.

¹⁷ ibid.., 171.

¹⁸ Cor 15:44: “Quia singulas partes enumeratione exprimere non poterat, summam uno verbo complectitur, corpus nunc animale esse dicens, tune futurum spirituale. Porro vocatur animale, quod ab anima; spirituale, quod a spiritu informatur. … Post resurrectionem vero praestantior erit vis ilia vivifica, quam a spiritu accipiet. … Haec simplex est ac genuina mens apostoli: ne quis longius philoso-phando, in aere vaguetur. Quemadmodum faciunt qui substantiam corporis putant fore spiritualem: quum nulla hie flat mentio substantiae, nee ulla futura sit eius mentio” (Opera, 49. 557–58).

¹⁹ Phil 2:7 (Opera, 52. 26; Commentaries, 11. 248).

²⁰ Opera, 49. 549.

²¹ Opera, 79.340.

²² Quistorp, Calvin's Doctrine, 169.

²³ Doumergue, Calvin, 3. 594–95, 606; and cf. the entire chapter (594–619) on Calvin's secretaries.

²⁴ Inst., 2.14.2–3; cf. 4.17.29–30.

²⁵ Inst., 2.13.2; 2.16.14; 4.17.17.

²⁶ Moltmann, Crucified God, 230, cf. 231–35.

²⁷ ibid.., 234.

²⁸ ibid.., 206.

²⁹ The historical precedent for this type of Christological determination is the Hegelian and ultimately the kenotic doctrine developed in the nineteenth century and typified by thinkers like Thomasius and Gess: see Mackintosh, H. R., The Doctrine of the Person of Christ (Edinburgh: Clark, 1913) 256–72.Google Scholar

³⁰ Moltmann, Crucified God, 263.

³¹ Inst., 2.15.2; cf. the commentaries on Acts 3:22 (Opera, 48. 73–75) and Isa 61:1 (Opera, 37. 371–72). On the munus triplex see Blaser, Amtern Christi; also see E. F. K. Muller, “Jesu Christi dreifaches Amt,” RE 8. 733–41; and Jansen, John Frederick, Calvin's Doctrine of the Work of Christ (London: James Clarke, 1956).Google Scholar Jansen's work remains the most elaborate study of the munus triplex and it correctly maintains the unity of the office in its threefold characterization. Jansen also offers an excellent analysis of the importance and function of the kingly office in Calvin's soteriology—but his study is flawed by its attempt to show that the propheticum is an “artificial” addition “which does not find warrant in [Calvin's] biblical theology” even though he sees the importance of Christ's revelatory work to Calvin's Christology (p. 104). The fact that Christ, as Word and as teacher, has both a kingly and a priestly function (p. 99) does not undercut the prophetic office, but manifests the unity of prophetic, priestly, and kingly functions within the one office of Christ, particularly as that office points toward and determines the shape of Calvin's soteriology. Rather than view the prophetic office as a dogmatic addition not fully substantiated by Calvin's exegesis, we ought to consider the relative incompleteness of Calvin's teaching on the entire munus triplex. Enlightening modern discussions of the threefoldness of the office appear in Theodore Haering, The Christian Faith: A System of Dogmatics (London/New York/Toronto: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915) 2. 603–32, 659–60Google Scholar; Brunner, Emil, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1952) 273–315Google Scholar; and Berkouwer, Gerrit C., The Work of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965) 58–87Google Scholar; the latter two writers deal specifically with the doctrine in the context of Reformed theology in its historical development. And see Blaser, Amtern Christi, 12–15, 25–34.

³² Inst., 2.14.3.

³³ Col 1:20 (Opera, 52. 88): “Hoc quoque magnificum est Christi elogium, quod non aliter quam per ipsum coniuncti esse Deo possumus. … Pronuntiat igitur nos per solum Christum beatos esse, quia ipse vinculum sit nostrae cum Deo coniunctionis. ….” Cf. Inst., 2.12.3: “… communem naturam pignus esse nostrae cum filio Dei societatis; carne nostra vestitum debelasse mortem cum peccato, ut nostra esset victoria et triumphus noster …” (Opera, 2. 342).

³⁴ The most complete treatment of this issue in Calvin's Christology is Willis, E. David, Calvin's Catholic Christology: the Function of the So-Called Extra Calvinisticum in Calvin's Theology (Leiden: Brill, 1966).Google Scholar

³⁵ On Calvin's view of the aseity of Christ's divinity, see Warfleld, Benjamin Breckenridge, “Calvin's Doctrine of the Trinity,” Calvin and Calvinism (New York: Oxford, 1931) 233–44.Google Scholar

³⁶ Moltmann, Crucified God, 259.

³⁷ Inst., 2.12.4; cf. 2.12.5.

³⁸ Inst., 2.12.4.

³⁹ Inst., 2.12.1.

⁴⁰ Cf. the comment on Gal 3:19 (Opera, 50. 216): “Sic habendum est, nullam absque mundi initio Dei communicationem fuisse cum hominibus, nisi intercedente aeterna eius sapientia vel filio.”

⁴¹ Willis, Calvin's Catholic Christology, 126.

⁴² Opera, 23. 36: “Paulus prioris ad Corinth, cap. 15, 45 antithesin statuit inter hanc animam viventem, et spiritum vivificantem, quam fidelibus confert Christus: non alio fine nisi ut docent non fuisse in persona Adae absolutum hominis statum: sed hoc singulare esse beneficium Christi ut renovemur in coelestem vitam, quam etiam ante lapsum Adae nonnisi terrena fuit: quia non habeat stabilem flxamque constantiam.” Translation follows that of King, John, issued by The Calvin Society (Edinburgh, 1847).Google Scholar

⁴³ Cf. Jansen, Calvin's Doctrine, 86.

⁴⁴ Blaser, Amtern Christi, 20.

⁴⁵ Inst., 2.15.4. Cf. Moltmann, Crucified God, 259: Moltmann here relates the idea of the “crucified Christ becoming superfluous” to the idea of the “incarnation” being “transcended”—what we see in Calvin's theology, however, is neither a transcending of incarnation or a sense of the future superfluity of the crucified Christ: instead Calvin affirms that both Christ and those who are his ultimately pass beyond both crucifixion and crucified life. Indeed, the transcending of suffering and death by Christ becomes for Calvin a guarantee of the eternity of Christ's kingdom: cf. the commentary on Isa 9:7 (Opera, 36. 200): “Sicuti enim perpetuum est Christi regnum, quia non moritur: ita consequitur iustitiae et iudicii perpetuitas, quae nullo aevo poterit immutari.”

⁴⁶ Opera, 49.

⁴⁷ ibid..

⁴⁸ Commentary on 1 Cor 15:27, cited below, n. 62. The term “extra dimension” comes from Heiko Oberman's insightful study, “The ‘Extra’ Dimension in the Theology of Calvin” JEH 21 (1970) 43–64.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Commentary on 1 Cor 15:27 (Opera, 49. 549): “Christum ita nunc esse medium inter nos et patrem … Christus omnium hostium suorum victor secum nos sub Dei imperium reducat.” Cf. Commentaries, 9. 327.

⁵⁰ ibid..: “Deum quidem agnoscimus rectorem, sed in facie hominis Christi.”

⁵¹ Commentary on Matt 28:18 (Opera, 45. 821): “Diserte autem se tarn coeli quam terrae dominum et regem facit, quia evangelii praedicatione homines sub obsequium suum cogens, regni sui solium constituit in terra: et suos in novem vitam regenerans. … Meminerimus vero, quod Christus iure suo semper apud patrem habuit, hoc illi in carne nostra datum esse, vel (ut clarius loquar) in persona mediatoris.”

⁵² Inst. 2.15.5 and 1.13.26; cf. 1 Cor 15:24 (Opera, 49:546): “non est … insolitum, Christum humanae naturae respectu subiectum esse Deo.”

⁵³ Inst., 2.15.1 (Opera, 2. 361): “… quod ei iniunctum a patre munus fuit” and Inst., 2.14.3 (Opera, 2. 355): “Ubi autem consortes coelestis gloriae Deum videbimus qualis est, tune perfunctus Mediatoris oflicio, desinet Patris legatus esse, et ea gloria contentus erit qua potiebatur ante mundum conditum. Nee alio respectu peculiariter in Christi personam competit Domini nomen, nisi quatenus medium gradum statuit inter Deum et nos. Quo pertinet illud Pauli: unus Deus ex quo omnia (1 Cor 8:6); nempe cui temporale imperium a patre mandatum est, donee facie ad faciem conspicua sit divina eius majestas; cui adeo nihil decedet, imperium patri reddendo, ut longe clarior emineat. Nam et tune desinet caput Christi esse Deus, quia Christi ipsius deitas ex se fulgebit, quum adhuc velo quodam sit obtecta.”

⁵⁴ ibid..

⁵⁵ ibid..

⁵⁶ Jansen, Calvin's Doctrine, 86–87.

⁵⁷ See the commentaries on Luke 23:42–43 (Opera, 45. 774–76); Gal 1:1 (Opera, 50. 169); John 20:17 (Opera, 47. 434–35); and Jansen, Calvin's Doctrine, 86–87, citing these and other texts.

⁵⁸ Commentary on 2 Tim 4:1 (Opera, 52. 385).

⁵⁹ Commentary on Luke 1:33 (Opera, 45. 28–29; Commentaries, 1. 22).

⁶⁰ ibid..

⁶¹ Commentary on Heb 1:13 (Opera, 55. 19): “Neque tamen desinet Christus caput esse hominum et angelorum: nee propterea quidem ex eius honore minuetur.” Cf. Commentaries, 12. 16.

⁶² Opera, 49. 549 (cf. Commentaries, 9. 327): “Tune autem restituet Christus quod accepit regnum, ut perfecte adhaereamus Deo. Neque hoc modo regnum a se abdicabit, sed ab humanitate sua ad gloriosam divinitatem quodammodo traducet: quia tune patebit accessus, quo nunc infirmitas nostra nos arcet.”

⁶³ ibid..: “Sie ergo Christus subiicietur patri: quia tune remoto velo palam cernimus Deum in sua maiestate regnantenv. neque amplius media erit Christi humanitas quae nos ab ulteriore Dei conspectu cohibeat.”

⁶⁴ Quistorp, Calvin's Doctrine, 169.

⁶⁵ ibid..

⁶⁶ Moltmann, Crucified God, 257.

⁶⁷ ibid.., 258–59.

⁶⁸ Opera, 52. 424: “Quia Paulus de revelatione gloriae magni Dei loquutus mox Christum adiunxit, ut sciremus in huius persona fore illam gloriae revela-tionem. … ”

⁶⁹ Opera, 52. 88, cited above, n. 33.

⁷⁰ Inst., 2.14.2–3, 5–6; cf. the passage in Calvin's second treatise against Stancarus, Opera, 9. 352. Both of Calvin's replies to Stancarus have been translated and carefully analyzed by Tylenda, Joseph N., Calvin Theological Journal 8 (1973) 5–16, 131–57.Google Scholar On the relation of Calvin's doctrine of Christ as Mediator according to both natures to his Christology as a whole see Muller, “Predestination and Christology,” 132–36.

⁷¹ Berkouwer (Work of Christ, 63) refers to the office as “superpersonal” but I prefer “suprapersonal” in order better to parallel the contrasting idea of an “infrapersonal” office.

⁷² 0n the necessity of formulating Christology in functional terms, see Mackintosh, Person of Christ, 440–42 and the rather pointed comment of Cullmann, Oscar, The Christology of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959) 3–4Google Scholar: “When it is asked in the New Testament ‘Who is Christ?’, the question never means exclusively, or even primarily, ‘What is his nature?’, but first of all, ‘What is his function?’”

⁷³ Moltmann, Crucified God, 266.

⁷⁴ ibid.., 249.

⁷⁵ Inst., 2.14.8.

⁷⁶ Oberman, “Theology of Calvin,” 62.

⁷⁷ Annotatiónes maiores in Novum Dn. Nostri lesu Christi Testamentum (n. p., 1594) 2. 237, col. 2 (v. 24): “Finis, τελoς. Id est finis mundi & regni Christi complementum, sive perfectio. …” A general discussion of the orthodox doctrine of the munus regium can be found in Heppe, Heinrich, Reformed Dogmatics; Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources (London: Allen & Unwin, 1950), 481–87.Google Scholar Also see Franks, Robert S., The Work of Christ: A Historical-Study of Christian Doctrine (2d ed.; London: Thomas Nelson, 1962) 441–43.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Beza, Annotationes, 2. 238, col. 1: “Quum tradiderit, ὃταν παραδῷ. Quid ergo? an nondum regnat Pater? Regnat certe: sed ita ut, quoniam ad hue magna mundi pars & potestas tenebrarum ei resistunt, hoc respectu videatur rex non esse, quoniam pro rege a plerisque non habetur: ideoque quotidie petimus ut regnum ipsius adveniat. Dicitur ergo Christus regnum Deo Patre traditurus, id est, debellatis omnibus hostibus Patrem velut in regnum plene restiturus, videlicit respectu eorum que ab ipso desciverant, quorum alios perdomuerit, alios Patri reconciliarit ultimo demum illo die … An vero tune non regnabit Filius? Maxime vero, quum regni eius non sit finis de quo mox dicemus, vers 28.” Much the same argument is found in Johannes Piscator, Analysis logica epistolarum Pauli (London: George Bishop, 1591) 243–44.

⁷⁹ Beza, Annotationes, 2. 238, col. 2: “Apostolum (sicut ex vers 21 apparet) Christum hie considerare non ut Filium Dei aeternum simpliciter, sed ut in forma servi manifestatum: quo respectu dominatur quidem ut Ecclesiae caput, sed quia data est ei haec potestas a Patre, qui etiam dicitur eum excitasse a mortuis.”

⁸⁰ ibid.., 2. 239, col. 1: “Dicitur autem Filius etiam ipse tune subiiciendus Deo & Patri: minime id quidem quasi Pater in Filio ante id tempus non aquieverit, nee ipsius personae ratione extra suam Ecclesiam & in sese consideratae.”

⁸¹ ibid.., 2. 239, col. 1–2: “Sed … Ecclesiae respectu, id est quatenus est Ecclesiae sive omnium Patris subiectorum caput. … Ac nequis de ipsius maiestate quicquam vocabulo subiectionis detractum putet, sciendum est sessionem ad dextram Patris, & exaltationem supra omne nomen, sic de Christi came dici, ut unitas quidem personae retineatur, ac proinde uni Christo unica summa gloria tribuatur, sed ita tamen ut naturarum discrimine observato, Christus, quatenus homo est, Deo nunquam aequiparetur.”

⁸² ibid.., 2. 239, col. 2: “Haec ille, & quidam prorsus recte, quum Christus unus sit cum Patre Deus, & nobiscum homo. Qui vero de ipsa Christi persona in sese hunc locum explicant, mihi non videntur quaestionem propositam satis attendere.”

⁸³ ibid.., 2. 240, col. 1: “primogenito sua dignitas supra nos coheredes tribuenda est, nedum ut (quemadmodum commenti sunt Eutychiani) natura humana in divinam transeat. Nee enim sic persiceretur hominis natura, sed potius absorpta finiretur.”

⁸⁴ Polansdorf, Amandus Polanus von, Syntagma theologiae christianae (Geneva: Iacob Stoer, 1617) 6.29 (p. 443).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ ibid.., 444: “Sextum adjunctum est aeternitas. Regnum enim hoc est aeternum, quemadmodum ait Daniel, cap. 2. vers. 44. Ipsum stabit in secula. Quemadmodum enim Rex est aeternus in se, ita communicat etiam cum regno suam aeternitatem. Ista aeternitas regni Christi duobus modis est consideranda: Nam & ad totum Ecclesiae corpus pertinet & ad quodlibet eius membrum. Si totum Ecclesiae corpus spectemus, manet illud in perpetuum & conservatur mirabiliter. … Sin etiam quodlibet Ecclesiae membrum intueamur, est illud quoque aeternum, renatum ex incorruptible semine, & regenitum Dei Spiritu ad spem vitem melioris, sic ut homo fidelis non sit duntaxat mortalis filius Adami, sed gestet vitam coelestem & sempiternam in se ipso. …”

⁸⁶ ibid.., 444: “Obicitur locus I Cor. 15.24. Deinde erit finis, quum tradiderit regnum Deo ac Patri. Hinc infertur, regnum Christi non est aeternum. Resp. Proceditur a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. Christus tradit regnum Deo ac Patri. lam differentanea regni Christi removenda. Rex Messias habere debet regnum non mundanum, terrenum & corporale, in quo Iudaei alias nationes domino corporali premant: sed spirituale.”

⁸⁷ Ames, William, Medulla ss. theologiae (4th ed.; London: R. Allottum, 1630) 1.41.34Google Scholar; Walaeus, Antonius, Enchiridion religionis reformatae in Opera Omnia (Leiden: Hackius, 1643) 1. 42Google Scholar: “Secundum humanam naturam Christus etiam accepit nomen, super omne aliud nomen creatum: quia etiam secundum illam naturam caput angelorum & Ecclesiae suae est, ut liquet ex Eph.1.21 & Phil.2.9. Gloria tamen haec & majestas humanae naturae Christi, inferior est gloria mere divina. Nam Pater quidem subjecit humanae naturae Christi omnia, sed tamen Excepto illo qui illi omnia subjecit, ut Paulus testatur I Cor. 15.vers.27. Secundum vero divinam naturam, eandem gloriam ab aeterno cum Patre obtinuit & in aeternam obtinebit.”

⁸⁸ Socinus, Fausto, Themata de Officio Christi in Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum quos Unitarios vocant (Irenopoli, 1656) 1. 775–77Google Scholar: “II. Jesu Christi itaque officium dupliciter consideratur, nimirum, & quatenus eo functus fuit mortalis adhuc in terris existens; & quatenus eodem, dum in coelis immortalis vivit, perfungitur, & durante seculo hoc perpetuo functurus est. III. Id vero, quo functus fuit in mundo, est Propheticum; quo fungitur in coelo, Regium & Sacerdotale.”

⁸⁹ Johannes Crellius, Commentarius in priorem Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam in Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, 3. 330, col. 2: “Triplici enim potissimum ratione vox Finis ac accipi hie posse videtur. Primim de fine mundi, seu seculi ac status rerum praesentis, nulla religionis habita ratione. Deinde de fine regni Christi. Tertio de fine rerum omnium saluti nostrae. …”

⁹⁰ ibid.., 331, col. 2; and Jonas Schlichting, Commentarius in priorem Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Corinthios in Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, 5. 81: “Docet res hie locus; 1. Christum Deum ilium unum non esse. An enim regnum traderet alii? 2. Deum ilium unum solum Patrem esse, quandoquidem vox Patris ad declarationem eius adjicitur. 3. Christum habere regnum ex Dei gratia. Ideo enim illud Deo tradit, quia id a Deo accepit, ut ad auctorem suum redeat. Christus enim regnum accepit a Patre piorum causa, ut eos regat, defendat, ex morte eripiat, in caelestem patriam deducat, mundum hunc cum omnibus impiis aboleat, quo Deus & suam gloriam tanto magis amplificaret, & pios omnes tanto certiores redderet … regnum tradat Deo & Patri a quo illud ad haec perficienda acceperat.”

⁹¹ Mastricht, Petrus van, Theoretko-practica theologia, qua, per singula capita theologiae, pars exegetica, dogmatica, elenctica, et practica, perpetua successione con-jugantur (Utrecht: W. van de Water, 1724)Google Scholar 5.8.17; and Riissenius, Leonhardus, Summa theologiae didactico elencticae, ex celeberrimorum theologorum scriptis praecipue vero ex Francisci Turretini institutionibus theologicis ita aucta & illustrata, ut praeter explicationes theticas & problematicas in controversiis verus status proponatur (Frankfurt & Leipzig: J. V. Gottschall, 1731)Google Scholar 12.23, controversia: “An regnum Christi in aeternum duraturum sit? Aff. cont. Socin.” Also see Marckius, Johannes, Compendium theologiae christianae didactico-elencticum (Amsterdam: G. Borstius, 1690)Google Scholar 20,32,4; and Ridgley, Thomas, A Body of Divinity: wherein the doctrines of the Christian Religion are explained and defended (London: for Midwinter, Oswald, Ward & Hett, 1731) 1. 478–79.Google Scholar

⁹² Riissenius, Summa Theologiae, 20.23: “Manebit ergo regnum Christi in aeternum 1. Ratione dignitatis personae. 2. Ratione potestatis in Angelos & fldeles. 3. Honoris ab ipsis accipiendi.” Mastricht, Theoretko-practica theologia, 5.7.17: “Adversary negativae suae unicum praesidium quaerunt in I Cor.xv.24. cum tradiderant regnum Deo & Patri.”

⁹³ Wendelin, Marcus Friedrich, Systema majus duobus libris comprehensum in quibus universa theologia methodica praeceptorum serie explicalur (Cassel: Salomon Schadewitz, 1656)Google Scholar 1.17, thesis 6: “Unde diverso respectu Christi regnum est temporale & aeternum. Temporale, quoad Oeconomieum administrandi modum huic mundo accommodatum. Aeternum, quoad ea, quae regno absolute considerato sunt necessaria & essentialia vel coelesti gloriosae administrationi propria.”

⁹⁴ Mastricht, Theoretico-praetica theologia, 5.17.17: “Reformati, ut negant, ullas proprietates divinas, per unionem hypostaticam, communicatas fuisse humanae naturae; sic etiam negant, humanam illam naturam usum habuisse divinarum istarum proprietatum: quamvis largiantur personae Mediatoris sedentem ad dextram Dei, utriusque naturae proprietatibus plenarie uti.” This communicatio idiomatum in concreto is reflected in the explicit orthodox denial of ontological change in glorification; see Riissenius, Summa Theologiae, 18.23; “Corpora glorificatorum mutanda sunt non ad substantiam, sed tantum secundum qualitates. … Non quoad corpora came & sanguine, cute & offibus, & partibus organicis sint destituenda … sed, turn quatenus corpora ab omnibus terrenis faecibus & sordibus perfecte purgabuntur, omnes sensus puriores, omnes motus & actus perfectiones reddentur … turn, quod perfecte se subjicient Spiritui S. & animae per eum regenitae, & sic spiritualibus tantum actionibus vacabunt.” This insistence on the integrity of the human nature extends to a discussion of Christ's glorified body (ibid.., 12.24), controversia 2: “An Christus in coelo verum corpus & sanguinem habeat? Affirm, cont. Socin.” Cf. Burmann, Franz, Synopsis theologiae, & speciatim oeconomiae foederum Dei ab initio saecuhmm usque ad consummationem eorum (Geneva: loannis Pictet, 1678)Google Scholar 8.22.27,30.

⁹⁵ Wendelin, Systema majus, 1.17, thesis 6: “Quod autem ipse quoque Filius Patri subjiciendus dicitur I Cor. 15.v.28. non tarn de Christo quoad personam considerato accipiunt nonnulli, quam de Ecclesia: quatenus Filius Dei eorum omnium, qui Patri subjiciuntur, caput est: adeoque Christum subjiciendum intelligunt mysticum, qui quantisper hie in membris militat. …”

⁹⁶ Riissenius, Summa Theologiae, 12.23, objectio 1: “Deus erit omnia in omnibus I Cor. 15.28. R. Hoc non dicitur exclusive ad Christum, Caput Ecclesiae, á quo omnia in ipsam bona derivantur, sed respectu mediorum externorum, quae in hac vita obtinent, puta verbi, Sacramentorum, & c. quibus sit, ut Deum tanquam in speculo videamus; & innuitur Deum immediate nos beatudinis suae particeps plene facturum.”

⁹⁷ Burmann, Synopsis theologiae, 5.15.20: “Finem enim Christi regnum ignorat. Cum & Deus, & mediator, ac supremum Ecclesiae caput perpetuo mansurus, nee ab isto fastigio unquam descensurus, aut gloria sua cariturus sit. Quae enim ex verbis Apostoli, I Cor. 15.24,25. necitur difficultas, recto explicatu facile dissoivi potest. De regno enim Christi in terris, medios inter hostes, deque pugnis ac certaminibus eius, eo loci Apostolus agit, ac finem eorum praedicit, deque Christi ac Ecclesiae victoriis loquitur. Atque hoc est quod ait, postea finis erit. Praesentis enim regni faciem tantum mutandum toto contextu narrat. Ac simili modo Christi regnum Patri tradet, regnum videl. in terris gestum consummatum ac pacatum exhibendo, non in terra amplius, sed in coelo regnaturus. Nisi potius passive per regnum Christi ipsam eius Ecclesiam, ex terris assertam & victricem, ac post longum exilium coelo redonatam, intelligas. Quod est earn Patri tradere, h. e. triumphantem in coelo inducere. … Atque ita etiam filius subjicietur Patri, v.28. nempe in corpore suo mystico, ac in Ecclesia ilia, cujus princeps & caput est. …”

⁹⁸ ibid.., 5.24.6: “De regno illo Christi habendum est; non esse illud naturale, sed oeconomicum; in quo tanquam caput & mediator Ecclesiae earn gubemat, & assertam potenti manutuetur, omniaque in bonum eius dirigit, Data est mihi omnis potestas in coelo & in terra. Matth.28.18. Phil. 2.7,8,9. quae potestas non est proprietas Dei essentialis, sed oeconorruca, quae finem habitura est in consumma-tione seculi, quando externa eius administratione defunctus regnum illud Patri tradet. Deinde finis, quando trade! regnum Deo & Patri 1 Cor.15:24 & com.28. Et ipse filius subjicietur ei. ut scilicet regni illius functione oeconomica abdicata, immediate regnet, & simul cum Patre omnia sit in omnibus.” Cf. ibid.., 8.24.2.

⁹⁹ John Owen, XPIΣTOΛOΓIA: or, a Declaration of the Glorious Mystery of the Person of Christ in The Works of John Owen, ed. Goold, William H. (London: Johnstone & Hunter, 1850–53) 1. 271.Google Scholar Ridgley (Body of Divinity, 479) argues that the subjection of Christ as man (which is the only subjection he acknowledges) and the Pauline description of God as “all in all” pertain as much to this dispensation as to the eschaton: these phrases refer not to changes in God or in the human nature of Christ, but to changes in the administration of divine rule and to corresponding changes in believers’ perception of God.

¹⁰⁰ A word of thanks is due to Professor Timothy George of Southern Baptist Seminary, Louisville, for his careful reading of the MS and for several constructive suggestions which have been incorporated into the final draft of this article.