Section CCCI

But to what does the appellation μεσίτης pertain, with which the man Christ Jesus is distinguished? The Greek-Latin glosses have thus: μεσίτης, umpire, arbitrator, mediator; μεσιτεία, arbitration, sequestration, arbitral judgment. In the Latin-Greek glossary we read: intercedes, μεσάζει; intervention, μεσιτεία; intercessor, βραβευτής, βοηθός; intervenes, βοηθεῖ, μεσάζει. All these are nearly synonyms¹, and are taken for one who by his intervention and suretyship relieves someone and comes to the aid of one laboring and in peril. Whence in the Etymologicum in Biel, μεσίτης is described by these words: ὁ μεταξὺ δύο ὤν, καὶ σημαίνει τὸν μεσάζοντα, “he who is between two, and it signifies the one mediating.”

In the Alexandrian version the word μεσίτης occurs only once², and by it the Hebrew words יש־בינינו are rendered; but in the same version³, and in Aquila, the formula איש־הבנים is rendered ὁ μεσάζων or ὁ μέσαιος. From these things we attain the understanding that he is properly called μεσίτης who stands as a middle between two. Hence⁴ Gregory Nazianzen, Basil of Seleucia⁵, and⁶ Theophylact call John the Baptist μεσίτης, because he stood as a middle—

—between the Old and the New Testament; and hence Greek writers⁷ call challengers μεσίται, who stand and advance between either battle line, both of their own men and of the enemy, and intend to settle and decide the war by single combat.

Therefore, as Petavius⁸ shrewdly admonishes, the common and native notion necessarily underlying μεσίτης, mediator, is this: that he be understood who is a participant in both and associated with them by a certain communion, of whom he is the reconciler and umpire. But this can be effected in two ways: in one way, that there be some conjunction of nature with each; but in the other, that he cohere with them by a harmony of minds and wills. The former species of μεσιτεία is not unfittingly called φυσική, natural; the latter σχετική, which consists in the affection of the mind alone and in the office of giving aid and deserving well that arises thence. “Now,” Petavius adds, “Christ Jesus, the mediator of God and men, possesses both: joining both natures in the same person of his, he fulfills that first natural and substantial form of an intervener; then he answers to the latter by a manifold function—by satisfying, interceding, and praying, by appeasing God and meriting for us.”

And in very truth, we no less believe that the one and the same Christ is⁹ son of David, son of Mary, and son of man, than we profess him to be¹⁰ τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ θεοῦ, the image of God; τὸ ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ τὸν χαρακτῆρα τῆς ὑποστάσεως θεοῦ, the splendor of the glory and character of the hypostasis of God; τὸν πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως, the firstborn of every creature, that is, τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς κτίσεως, the principle of the creature; τὸν ἔχοντα ὄνομα ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, καὶ ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχοντα, the one having a name above every name and existing in the form of God; τὸν πρῶτον καὶ τὸν ἔσχατον, the first and the last—

—τὸν μονογενῆ παρὰ πατρός, the only-begotten of the Father; and τὸν λόγον ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ ἴσα τῷ θεῷ ὄντα, the Word who was in the beginning with God and was equal to God. For, as is the concordant testimony of Christian tradition¹¹, we had need of a mediator who would unite in himself the divine and human nature, who would be θεάνθρωπος, God-man, and who, as Bernard¹² speaks, “agreeing equally with the parties, would be suspected by neither.” “For all,” Fulgentius¹³ testifies, “who desire to be participants in eternal salvation, ought equally to acknowledge and hold that the man Jesus Christ was not in vain named the mediator of God and men, except because the same God assumed the whole nature of man in himself, and the same man has in himself the whole substance of deity. For because through sin man was separated from God, there ought assuredly to intervene between God who was angered and man who was sinning the person of such a mediator, who, for propitiating God to man, would have in himself the whole and true God born of God, and, for reconciling man to God, would contain in himself the whole and true man born of man; and thus from both, in both, there would be one Christ, so that the fullness of deity would not consume but advance the man assumed, and the fullness of humanity would neither diminish the immense nor change the impassible deity; and thus the nature of man, which had been changed for the worse, would through him be wholly reintegrated, than whom nothing is better. Therefore, the mediator of God and men deigned to demonstrate himself full God and full man.”

But although the sincere account of a mediator comes back to this, if he is regarded ὄντως and substantially, nevertheless it must be confessed—

—that it is indicated by Paul by implication rather than signified in open and express discourse. And indeed it is indicated by implication when mention is made of Christ, who is the Word himself incarnate; but the nature according to which Christ discharged the offices and parts of mediator is expressly signified. For the appellation of man proves this, by which it is said, εἷς μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, “one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus”; and the things continuously added likewise prove this: ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων, “who gave himself a redemption for all.” For they are so disposed that they proclaim not so much the person of the mediator as that nature according to which Christ the mediator satisfied for all, suffered, and reconciled all with God. Therefore, a twofold notion expressed by Paul under the name mediator must be distinguished: first, indeed, a notion indicated by implication, which is the notion of θεάνθρωπος, God-man; but then a notion signified, which is the notion of the assumed human nature, by which God the Word completed the work of mediation.