Question about Perkins’ ‘A Reformed Catholic’

[John The Baptist]

I’m on his section about merits. He’s saying things about Christ’s humanity and deity that are causing some confusion for me. Here are the passages:

“God's favour is of infinite dignity, and no creature is able to do a work that may countervail the favor of God, save Christ alone; who by reason of the dignity of his person, being not a mere man but God man, or Man-God, he can do such works as are of endless dignity every way answerable to the favour of God: and therefore sufficient to merit the same for us.”

“Hence follows a notable conclusion: That Christ's manhood considered apart from his godhead, cannot merit at God's hand: though it be more excellent every way than all both men and angels.
For being thus considered, it does nothing of itself, but by grace received from the godhead; though it also be without measure.
Secondly Christ's manhood is a creature, and in that regard bound to do whatsoever it doth. Thirdly, Christ as man cannot give any thing to God, but that which he received from God: therefore cannot the manhood properly by itself merit, but only as it is personally united unto the godhead of the Son. And if this be so, then much less can any mere man, or any angel merit: yea it is a madness to think, that either our actions or persons should be capable of any merit whereby we might attain to life eternal.”


Is this description of the necessity of Christ’s deity for our righteousness normal? I’ve always thought His obedience was rendered strictly as a man.

Thanks

Edit:
He seems to have an odd view of the covenant of works
“if life everlasting could be deserved, which cannot: because it is a free gift.”

Does he meant the COW itself is a free gift/condescension of God?

 

[Charles Johnson]

I’m on his section about merits. He’s saying things about Christ’s humanity and deity that are causing some confusion for me. Here are the passages:

“God's favour is of infinite dignity, and no creature is able to do a work that may countervail the favor of God, save Christ alone; who by reason of the dignity of his person, being not a mere man but God man, or Man-God, he can do such works as are of endless dignity every way answerable to the favour of God: and therefore sufficient to merit the same for us.”

“Hence follows a notable conclusion: That Christ's manhood considered apart from his godhead, cannot merit at God's hand: though it be more excellent every way than all both men and angels.
For being thus considered, it does nothing of itself, but by grace received from the godhead; though it also be without measure.
Secondly Christ's manhood is a creature, and in that regard bound to do whatsoever it doth. Thirdly, Christ as man cannot give any thing to God, but that which he received from God: therefore cannot the manhood properly by itself merit, but only as it is personally united unto the godhead of the Son. And if this be so, then much less can any mere man, or any angel merit: yea it is a madness to think, that either our actions or persons should be capable of any merit whereby we might attain to life eternal.”


Is this description of the necessity of Christ’s deity for our righteousness normal? I’ve always thought His obedience was rendered strictly as a man.

Thanks

This is pretty standard. It's a teaching of the Roman Church that Christ is mediator in his humanity alone. The Reformed teach that the mediatorship involves both natures.
Specifically regarding the merits of his atonement, the good works of a mere man are of finite worth, since he is finite. A man can only merit for himself. I think Calvin actually took a different position on this, but what Perkins expresses here is the standard view of the Reformed Orthodox.

 

[John The Baptist]

So

This is pretty standard. It's a teaching of the Roman Church that Christ is mediator in his humanity alone. The Reformed teach that the mediatorship involves both natures.
Specifically regarding the merits of his atonement, the good works of a mere man are of finite worth, since he is finite. A man can only merit for himself. I think Calvin actually took a different position on this, but what Perkins expresses here is the standard view of the Reformed Orthodox.

So in Rome’s view, that’s why we must merit for ourselves?

 

[Charles Johnson]

So

So in Rome’s view, that’s why we must merit for ourselves?

Rome says Christ is mediator in his human nature alone to justify the worship of creatures, beginning with the human nature of Christ - his heart, head, hands, etc, and from there, the cross, nails, etc.
Whereas the Reformed say Christ is mediator in both natures, but the only proper ground of his worship is the divine nature, because only God is the proper object of worship.
Regarding merits for salvation, Rome's justification is a little different, I think.

 

[John The Baptist]

Rome says Christ is mediator in his human nature alone to justify the worship of creatures, beginning with the human nature of Christ - his heart, head, hands, etc, and from there, the cross, nails, etc.
Whereas the Reformed say Christ is mediator in both natures, but the only proper ground of his worship is the divine nature, because only God is the proper object of worship.
Regarding merits for salvation, Rome's justification is a little different, I think.

Perkins doesn’t mention it in his objections section.

Thanks for the info.

 

[John The Baptist]

Another question:

Perkins seems to imply that Reformed believe Mary was perpetually a virgin. What’s going on there?

On Traditions, conclusion 2.

“We hold that the Prophets, our Saviour Christ, and his Apostles, spake and did many things good and true which were not written in the scriptures: but came either to us, or to our ancestors only by tradition. As 2. Tim. 3. 20. it is said, that Jannes and Jambres were the magicians that withstood Moses: now in the books of the Old Testament we shall not find them once named, and therefore it is like, that the Apostle had their names by tradition, or by some writings then extant among the Jews. So Heb. 12. 21. the author of the Epistle records of Moses, that when he saw a terrible sight in Mount Sinai, he said, I tremble and am afraid: which words are not to be found in all the books of the Old Testament. In the Epistle of Jude mention is made, that the devil strove with Michael the Archangel about the body of Moses: which point (as also the former) considering it is not to be found in holy writ, it seems the Apostle had it by tradition from the Jews. That the Prophet Isaiah was killed with a fullers club is received for truth, but yet not recorded in Scripture: and so likewise that the Virgin Mary lived and died a virgin. And in Ecclesiastical writers many worthy sayings of the Apostles and other holy men are recorded, and received of us for truth, which nevertheless are not set down in the books of the Old or New Testament. And many things we hold for truth not written in the word, if they be not against the word.”

Thanks!

 

[Phil D.]

Perkins seems to imply that Reformed believe Mary was perpetually a virgin. What’s going on there?

Some among the early Reformed did believe that.

Second Helvetic Confession:

Christ IS TRUE MAN, HAVING REAL FLESH. We also believe and teach that the eternal Son of the eternal God was made the Son of man, from the seed of Abraham and David, not from the coitus of a man, as the Ebionites said, but was most chastely conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the ever virgin Mary, as the evangelical history carefully explains to us (Matt., ch. 1).​

​

There have been numerous discussions about this on the PB.