Sermons Preached on Romans 8
The two essential or constitutive parts of Man are Soul and Body, where these two are there's the true man; Christ had both, therefore he was such: That he had a real body hath been already proved, I am only now to show that he also had a real Soul. And indeed the former proves the latter, for if Christ would assume the body (which is but in a manner the bark, shell, or case of man, but the lowest and meanest part of him, but as the covering and garment of the Soul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the Jews call it), certainly he would assume the Soul, the reasonable Soul, that being the highest and the noblest part. This is that which principally makes the Man, and hath the greatest influence into his Being and Essence; if therefore our Lord had only had an human Body without an human Soul, he had wanted that part which is most essential to man, and so could not have been looked upon as true and perfect man; but 'twas far otherwise. For indeed Christ redeemed and saved nothing but what he assumed, the Redemption and Salvation reach no farther than the assumption; our Soul then would have been never the better for Christ had he not taken that as well as our body, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as Najanzene expresses it): if he will save the whole man from sin he must assume the whole man without sin. 'It is said of him Luk. 2.52. he increased in wisdom and stature; here's stature for his Body and wisdom for his Soul, his growth in that speaks the truth of the former, and his growth in this speaks the truth of the latter; his body properly could not grow in wisdom nor his soul in stature, therefore there must be both. There are three things in a reasonable Soul, Understanding, Will, Affections; now 'tis evident all these were in Christ: He had an human Understanding (distinct from his Divine Understanding ); otherwise how could he have been said to increase in wisdom? and how could he have been under the nescience of some things? (as 'tis plain he was, for he knew not the precise time of the day of judgment, Mark 13.32.); as he was God he knew all things, so his Understanding was infinite, he must therefore have some other Understanding which was but finite, in reference to which there might be something which he did not know. He also had an human Will (distinct from his Divine Will ); for what could that Will be which he did submit and subordinate to the Will of his Father but this? Luk. 22.42.— Nevertheless not my Will but thine be don. Then for those Affections which are proper to the Soul, 'tis clear Christ had them; as namely Anger, Mar. 3.5. Mar. 10.14. Love, Mat. 10.21. Sorrow, Mat. 26.38. Luk. 19.41. Fear, Heb. 5.7. Joy, Luk. 10, 21. Joh. 11.15. Pity, Mat. 9.36. Mat. 13.32. Now where these three things are most certainly there is a true and real Soul.
Yet here also our blessed Lord and Savior is assaulted: he hath two Natures which make up his Person (his Deity and his Humanity ), but both of them by several persons are taken away (as you heard but now); and there are two Essential parts which make up one of his Natures, his Manhood, (viz. Soul and Body ), but both of these too by several persons are taken away also. Marcion divests him of a Body and Apollinaris of a Soul, (the Arians also are charged with this Heresy): these held that Christ had no Soul, but that the Deity was to him instead of a Soul and supplied the office thereof, that what the Soul is to us and doth in our bodies all that the Divine Nature was to Christ and did in his Body: O what light can be clear enough for their Conviction and guidance in the way of truth, whom God hath given up to strong delusions that they should believe lies! Are not the Scriptures clear enough in this matter that Christ had a real Soul? what was the subject of his inexpressible sorrow and agonies in the Garden, but his Soul? Matth. 26.38. My Soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death &c. Joh. 12.27. Now is my Soul troubled, and what shall I say? what did he in special recommend to God when he was breathing out his last gasp, but his Soul? Luk. 23.46. When Jesus had cried with a loud voice he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit, and having said thus he gave up the Ghost: what was the part affected in his sore desertion when he cried out My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? surely his Body could not be the immediate subject of a punishment purely spiritual, no, that must terminate in his spiritual part, the Soul. By all this it appears then that Christ was, as truly God, so also truly Man (he having a true Body and a true Soul ).
Yet a little further (that I may take in the whole truth, and leave out nothing which may tend to the heightening of Christ's incomparable Love and condescension to Sinners), he was not barely sent in Flesh (so far as the verity of the Human Nature is concerned, in his assuming the Essential parts thereof), but he also submitted to the common accidents, adjuncts, infirmities, miseries, calamities which are incident to that Nature: He lay so many Weeks and Months in the Virgins womb, received nourishment and growth in the ordinary way, was brought forth and bred up just as common Infants are ('bating some special respects shown to him to discover the greatness of his Person), had his life sustained by common food as ours is, was hungry, thirsty, weary, poor, reproached, tempted, deserted, &c. lived an afflicted life, then died a miserable death; was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, made himself of no reputation, took upon him the form of a Servant, was made in the likeness of man (not only in the taking of their Nature, but also in submitting to those abasements and miseries which now that Nature is liable unto); his whole life was a life of sufferings, wherein as there was enough in his Holiness, Miracles, to show him to be God, so there was also enough in his meanness, poverty, sufferings to show him to be Man: In a word, he took all our infirmities upon him; (take it with a double restriction ),
- 1. To all our sinless infirmities: such as are culpable and carry sin in them they must be excepted, for though he was made like to us in all things yet without sin, Heb. 4.15.
- 2. To all our Natural infirmities: as to personal infirmities, such as are proper to this and that Person (as blindness, deafness, lameness &c.) these Christ did not put himself under; for he did not assume this or that Person but the Nature in common, and therefore was not liable to the particular infirmities of Individuums, but only to those which properly belonged to the common Nature.
- 1. The Human Nature is solely and singly in us, in Christ 'tis conjunctly with the Divine.
- 2. We have it in the way of common and ordinary generation, Christ had it in a special and extraordinary way.
- 3. 'It is tainted and defiled in us, in Christ 'tis perfectly pure and holy.
- 4. In us it hath its proper subsistence, in Christ it subsists only in his Godhead.
Thus I have shewn what this sending of Christ in the Flesh is and what it imports, (viz.) the truth of his Incarnation, of his Body, and his assumption of the whole, entire, and perfect Nature of Man; and also (as the several Heads fell in my way) I have out of the Word given you the proof of them: I say out of the Word, for these Mysteries are only to be known and believed upon the light and authority thereof; if it asserts them, that certainly must be sufficient to command the belief of Christians who profess in all things to make the Scriptures to be the Rule of their Faith. And as to the credibility of Christ's incarnation from rational Considerations (in subserviency to and grounded upon Gospel-revelation ), sundry Authors ( Antient and Modern ) have written very much with great strength and evidence, to prove that 'twas neither impossible nor incongruous, neither absurd as to the thing nor unbecoming as to the Person, for Christ to be made Flesh; but I will not engage in so vast an Argument, having to do with those who are sufficiently satisfied with what the Word reveals.
Having thus explained and confirmed by Scripture-authority the Point in hand, I now proceed to a Second thing to give some short account of the Grounds and Reasons why Christ was thus sent in Flesh: Paul puts an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before it Heb. 2.17. Wherefore in all things it [behooved] him to be made like unto his Brethren; which behoving he brings down to one particular, that he might be a merciful and faithful high Priest in things pertaining to God &c. but I must take in more.
1. Our Lord Jesus was incarnate that the Old-Testament Promises, Prophesies, Types might all be fulfilled and accomplished. The incarnation of Christ was no new thing, or that which was never spoken of before it was done, 'twas that very thing which the Spirit of God had testify'd beforehand (as the Apostle speaks of his sufferings 1 Pet. 1.11.): it pleased God betimes, very early to give out some (though darker) discoveries of it; you have it hinted in the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the first-Gospel or first-Gospel-Promise that ever God made, Gen. 3.15. I will put enmity between thee and the Woman, and between thy seed and her seed, it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel; here's a Christ incarnate. Then 'twas more clearly intimated in the promise to Abraham, Gen. 22.18. In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed: in process of time 'twas again held forth in the Promise made to David, 2 Sam. 7.12. (which the Apostle makes to point to Christ Acts 2.30. Therefore being a Prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins according to the Flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne ): Afterwards this was most expressly promised and foretold, God would have it veiled and clouded no longer but it shall shine forth more clearly; Isa. 7.14. Behold a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son and shall call his name Immanuel: Isa. 9.6. Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: Yea Moses (long before this) had given a plain prediction of it; Deut. 18.15. The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy Brethren, like unto me; unto him shall ye hearken: (18) I will raise them up a Prophet from among their Brethren, like unto thee &c. now this Prophesy Peter apply's to Christ Acts 3.22. and pray mark those words in it from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me, (which clearly refer to his Manhood and Incarnation ): and that Prophesy of Balaam Numb. 24.17. had some reference to this also. You perceive I only meddle with those Scriptural predictions of it which are unquestionable and which God would have fulfilled: as to the Sybilline predictions thereof, how far they are to be credited or valued I concern not myself at all in that enquiry; but if any great stress could be laid upon them one of those Sybills went very far; (so far that some learned Persons do therefore doubt whether its prediction was genuine, upon this very reason because 'twas so express and clear): but I have not to do with them but with the sure Oracles of God. Then as to Types (which were nothing but real Prophesies or Promises wrapped up in visible representations, ) these also pointed to a Christ in our Flesh. The Old-Testament-dispensation lay much in Types, all of which pointed to Christ as the sum and substance of them; he was the kernel in those shells, all were but as so many fasciae or swaddling-hands in which the Babe Jesus was wrapped (as Luther used to say): Christ (saith a * Reverend Author ) was Abel's Sacrifice, Noah's Dove, Abraham's first Fruits, Isaac's Bam, Jacob's Ladder, Moses's Passover, Aaron's Rod, the Israelites Rock, the Patriarchs Manna, David's Tabernacle, Solomon's Temple; and all of these (saith he) prefigur'd his Incarnation. But to wade into the several Typical adumbrations of this would be a long work! In short, under the Law when Persons or Lands were to be redeemed he that was next a-kinn was to make the redemption, (see Levite. 25.25. Ruth. 3.13. &c.) Christ being to redeem sinners he must take their Flesh that he may be a-kinn to them, their Goel (as he is sometimes stilled) and so be a fit person to be their Redeemer. The Tabernacle seems to have a special reference to Christ's manhood, so the Apostle brings it in Heb. 8.2. A Minister of the Sanctuary, and of the true Tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man: so again, Heb. 9.11. But Christ being come an high Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect Tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say not of this building &c. by this Tabernacle of the Lord's pitching and not made with hands, he means the body or flesh of Christ which was the true Tabernacle and of which the common Tabernacle was but a type: and indeed there was so great a resemblance betwixt these two as that the one might very well prefigure and typify the other. For
- (1.) the Outside of that Tabernacle was but mean; it was made without of very ordinary and common things, within 'twas rich and glorious it being beautified with Gold, Silver, Precious Stones &c. but without all was plain it being covered only with Ram-skins and Goat-skins and such materials; Exod. 25.1. &c. and 26.14. &c. So here, Christ's outside was (especially to some) but very mean, Isa. 53.2. He hath no form nor comeliness, and when we shall see him there is no beauty that we should desire him; but yet he was exceeding glorious within (as 'tis said of the Church Psal. 45.13.); such as had a discerning eye they could see the inward glory of his Godhead shining through the cloud of his Manhood; And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth, Joh. 1.14.
- (2.) God's special presence was in the Tabernacle: there was the Shekhinah or habitation of God, wherein at first by an extraordinary Cloud he signified his glorious presence to be (as afterwards he did in the Temple too): By which therefore Christ sets forth his Body, Joh. 2.19, 21. Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up; but he spake of the Temple of his Body. Both Tabernacle and Temple were types and apt resemblances of his Flesh or Manhood, in respect of the special presence and inhabitation of the Divine Nature in it. Hence Some make all those great Promises made to the people of Israel concerning God's presence with them, in special in the Tabernacle and Temple, to point to Christ's Incarnation and in that to receive their accomplishment; (you may read them Exod. 25.8. Exod. 29.44, 45, 46. Levite. 26.11, 12, 13. Ezek. 37.26, 27, 28.
- (3.) The Tabernacle was a moveable thing; whilst Israel was in the Wilderness in an itinerary posture as they moved the Tabernacle moved with them, it was not fixed all that time as afterwards it was: So it was with Christ, he was here on earth with his Body for some time but neither he nor it were here long to abide; he ascended up to heaven and thither he carried his Body with him, and there tis fixed: this the Evangelist alludes unto Joh. 1.14. The Word was made Flesh, and dwelt amongst us &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he tented or tabernacled it for a time amongst us in respect of his short abode here; (in reference to which our Bodies too are set forth by Tabernacles, 2 Cor. 5.1, 4. 2 Pet. 1.13, 14.).
I might also instance in Melchizedek as a personal Type of Christ; he was without Father and Mother. &c. Heb. 7.3. which is very applicable to Christ; for he as the Son of God was without Mother and as the Son of man without Father. Well then! that all these Prophesies, Promises, Types might be fulfilled it was necessary that Christ should assume Flesh; (there's the first Ground of it.)
2. This was necessary in regard of Christ's Office and Work.
1. As to his Office. He was to be the Mediator betwixt God and Man, and that was to be his great and standing Office; now in order to his administration thereof it was requisite that he should be Man and take our Nature, for he who will be a Mediator 'twixt God and Man must himself be both: God and Man. He must be God that he may be fit to transact, treat, negotiate with God, and he must be Man that he may be fit to do the same with Man; God alone was too high to deal with Man and Man alone was too low to deal with God; and therefore Christ was a middle Person 'twixt both that he might deal with both. He could not have been fit to be the Mediator in respect of Office if he had not first been a middle Person in respect of his Natures; for (saith the Apostle) Gal. 3.20. A Mediator is not of one, but God is one: Not of one that is
- (1.) not of one Person; for mediation supposes more persons than one, was there none besides God himself Christ's mediatory work would be at end (that necessarily implying different parties betwixt whom he doth mediate):
- (2.) Not of one Nature; the Mediator must necessarily have more Natures than one: Observe it, God (saith the Text) is one (viz.) as he is essentially considered, and therefore as so he cannot be the Mediator; but Christ as personally considered he is not of one (that is) not of one Nature, for he is God and Man too; whereupon he's the Person who is qualified to be the Mediator.
2. Christ's Incarnation and Manhood was necessary in respect of that Work which he was willing to undertake, I mean the Work of Redemption. If he will engage to redeem and save lost Sinners, he must be so qualified as that he may first make satisfaction to an injured and offended God, for that God stood upon and would not recede from: he had decreed (as appears by the event ) to save man that way, and what he decrees must accordingly be accomplished; he had threatened death to the Sinner, which threatening therefore must be inflicted either upon the Offender himself or his Surety; and God (as Rector mundi ) will vindicate the honor of his Government, and therefore will punish the transgression of his Laws; upon such Considerations as these there must be Satisfaction. Now in order to that there must be suffering, yea Christ himself must suffer partly because he was pleased to substitute himself in the Sinners stead, and partly because his sufferings only could be satisfactory: but unless he be Man how can he suffer? So that the chain or link lies thus, without satisfaction no redemption, without suffering no satisfaction, without flesh no suffering; therefore Christ must be incarnate. Look as he must be more than Man that he may be able so to suffer, that his Sufferings may be meritorious, that he may go through with his Work and conquer all enemies, difficulties, discouragements whatsoever (all which could not have been done by a meet man ); so he must be Man that he may be in a capacity to suffer, die, and obey, for these are no work for one who is only God. A God only cannot suffer, a Man only cannot merit; God cannot obey, Man is bound to obey (whereupon his Obedience will be but matter of debt and therefore not meritorious); wherefore Christ that he might obey and suffer he was Man, and that he might merit by his Obedience and Suffering he was God-man; just such a Person did the work of Redemption call for.
3. Christ must be made Flesh because (as was said before concerning his sending ) this was the best, the fittest, the most convenient way that God could pitch upon, in order to the bringing about of his great designs. To make it the necessary way (especially with respect to satisfaction ), that to some possibly may seem too high; but surely none will deny but that this was the fittest and most convenient way; and had it not been so the wise God would have taken some other way rather than it. But did he design to advance his own glory and the Sinners good? to give out the highest manifestation and utmost advancement of all his Attributes? to promote and ascertain Pardon, Justification, Salvation, all Grace to Believers? what way could have been thought of so proper, so effectual as this of Christ's coming in our Flesh! If God will punish sin was it not meet that he should punish it in that Nature in which it had been committed? what more congruous than since Man had been the sinner that Man should be the sufferer? By man we fell God will therefore in wisdom so order it that by man too we shall rise again, that in the same Nature wherein the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the wound had been given the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the cure and remedy shall be provided also (as one expresses it). 1 Cor. 15.21. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. Rom. 5.12. As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin: and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned. The Human Nature was to be redeemed therefore 'twas fit that that Nature should be assumed; that was corrupted and spoil'd in us therefore it was expedient that Christ (to heal this Nature) should take it upon himself pure, unstained and uncorrupted: in short, Satan had foiled and baffled the first Adam in this Nature, wherefore in it Christ the second Adam will foil and baffle him; to Man was the Law given, by Man was the Law broken, therefore by Man also shall the Law be fulfilled. So much for the Grounds and Reasons of Christ's Incarnation.
Hitherto I have insisted upon what is more plain and easte, and have only in a more general way spoken to some things that concern the Incarnation and Manhood of Christ; I must now endeavor more particularly to open some other things about them which are of a more mysterious and abstruse Nature: I will reduce all to these Seven Propositions.
1. That the Lord Jesus, who antecedently to his incarnation was the Son of God and as such had a previous existence, even he was incarnate and made Flesh. Here the SOCINIANS again make their opposition, for though they acknowledge Christ's Flesh and Manhood (they had not need to deny him that it being all they grant him), yet that he, as praeexisting in the Essence of God and in the relation of God's Natural Son, did assume the Human Nature and unite it to the Divine in one Person, this they will by no means acknowledge, nay, this they fiercely and vehemently oppose. With what vile reflections and opprobrious speeches do they load this great Article of our Faith (as thus stated)! Socinus is pleased to call it merum humani ingenii commentum, a mere fiction of the wit of man; Smalcius a very Fable, yea Dogma in Christianâ religione fere monstrosissimum, (with many other such vile expressions which I either dread or disdain to mention): only there's one (from this last named Author ) which out-strips all the rest, 'tis this, We believe (saith he) that though it should be written not once or twice, but very often, and that too very plainly, that God was made man; yet it would be much better (this being a thing very absurd, contrary to sound reason, blasphemous against God), to find out some other sense of it which might suite with the Nature of God, rather than to take it literally according to what such words do hold forth, thereby to expose Religion to scorn: O the boldness and even blasphemy of the man! 'tis a vain thing to argue with these persons (either in this or any other Point ) from the holy Scriptures, for let God say there what he will if their Reason (as the Supreme Judge of what is to be believed or not to be believed) doth not like it, the Divine Revelation (let it be never so plain) signifies nothing: Lord! whither will the pride of Reason and the wickedness of the Heart carry men who are given up to themselves! But if Scripture-revelation must be thus subjected to human Reason, let's bid adieu to all Religion (saving what is Natural ): I thought this had been the highest Reason in the world, that Creatures should believe what God reveals, because he reveals it, though they with their poor dim and shallow reason cannot comprehend what is so revealed by him: (but I am fallen upon another Controversy).
I hope I speak to those who bear a greater reverence to the sacred Scriptures; and surely if these may be believed what can be more clear than this, that Christ is not only man but that he who was before the Son of God was afterwards in time made the Son of man? Mark the Text God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh; where Christ is supposed antecedently to be God's Son, then as such he was sent, and then incarnate: So Gal. 4.4. When the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son made of a woman, made under the Law: Joh. 1.14. The Word was made Flesh: 'tis not only he (that is, Christ the Personal Word ) was Flesh but he was made Flesh, (so the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendered else-where, and the subject matter determines it to be so rendered here also). But how was Christ made Flesh? was this spoken of him only in respect of his mean, afflicted, calamitous state and condition here? was that all that was meant by it? surely no! that was so far from being all that the Evangelist had it not at all in his eye when he uttered these words, for he adds and we saw his Glory, the Glory as of the only begotten of the Father; he joins his being made flesh with the glory of his Person, not with the meanness of his condition: and further, the Substance must antecede the Adjunct, the truth of the human Nature must go before the abasement and miseries of it: So that when 'tis said the Word was made Flesh it can carry no other sense than that Christ took the very Nature and Substance of man upon him; I say Christ, for 'tis very evident (where men do not willfully shut their eyes) that he is all along set forth by the Word, he being the personal, essential, and substantial Word: now observe he was the Word before he assumed Flesh, and he who was so praeexisting he assumed Flesh for 'tis the Word was made Flesh; plainly implying the antecedency of his being in that notion to this his incarnation. SOCINUS is shrewdly pinched with this Text, insomuch that he is fain to fall upon every word in it (with his usual Criticisms and forced senses ) thereby to evade and elude the strength of it; but all his attempts are in vain. So also (for the Word is not sparing in the revealing of this Truth though our Adversaries are pleased to assert the contrary), Heb. 2.14, 16. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the Devil: For verily he took not on him the Nature of Angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham: here the Apostle lays it down over and over by taking, he took part of the same, he took not on him the nature of Angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham; thereby to note Christ's assuming of the human Nature and joining of it to that other Nature which he had before. 1 Tim. 3.16. Without controversy great is the mystery of Godliness: God was manifest in the flesh &c. a Person here must be spoken of and the Lord Jesus must be that Person, for the following matter ( justified in the Spirit, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into Glory ) is only applicable to a Person and to Christ as that Person; (by the way they who alter the reading of the Text putting out 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and putting in ὁ, and so carrying it from the Person of Christ to the Gospel, have done no good service either to the truth in general or in special to that particular Truth which I am upon); now 'tis not here said only that Christ was manifested in the Flesh, but God was &c. to show that he who was incarnate (for that's the manifestation in the flesh here intended,) was first God or God before and then he was incarnate. 'It is a mighty Scripture that in Phil. 2.6, 7. Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: (here's Christ's praeexisting in the Nature of the Godhead and then after this comes his Manhood ). But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.
'Twould be a long work to draw out the full strength of these (and several other) Texts in order to the more undeniable proving of the Proposition before us; as also to answer the various replies, evasions, misinterpretations about them by such who dissent; and yet I could most willingly engage therein did I think such an undertaking would be proper (in such a Discourse as this) or tend to the advantage of any: but the truth is, I fear I should but perplex private Christians with things that possibly would be too high for them, and I am sure I should do that which is needless for Others who know where this is done already. And indeed the whole matter in this Controversy is by Crellius himself brought into a narrow compass (wherein we are very willing to join issue with him), for he grants if Christ did praeexist before he was incarnate that then his incarnation must needs be believed and owned according to our stating of it; but I have already proved (and Others do it much more fully) that he did so praeexist, therefore (upon that Concession ) the thing is clear and I need say no more upon it. Only let me leave this one word with our Opposers, their Homo Deus factus is the greatest falsehood, but our Deus Homo factus is the greatest truth.
The second Proposition is this, that Christ the Son of God, the second Person in the ineffable Trinity, he only was incarnate. 'It is here said God sending his own Son in the likeness &c. the taking then of flesh was that personal act which was proper to the Son alone: and in that so often alleged Text 'tis said the Word was made flesh; which Title (the Word) is never attributed to the Father, or to the Spirit, but always to the Son, and you see he's the person who was made flesh. 'It is true, Incarnation was the act of the whole Trinity approbative but 'twas only the Son's act terminative; all the Persons approved of it and concurred to it, but it was terminated only in Christ the second Person. The Schoolmen compare Christ's Flesh▪ to a garment made by three Virgin-sisters which yet but One of them only wears. A Question is commonly here started, why the second Person rather than the first or the third was thus incarnate? which Some do venture to answer by assigning the Reasons of it: I humbly conceive, there is too much of curiosity in the Question and too much of boldness in the Answer; why Christ was incarnate I can give several Reasons, but why he rather than the other Persons, there I must be silent. 'It is also query'd, there being such an oneness betwixt all the Persons how the Son can be said to assume the Human Nature and yet the Father and Spirit not assume it? to which the Answer is obvious, this difference might very well be upon that personal distinction which is betwixt them; for this assumption of flesh being not the act of the Nature (which is common ) but of the Person (which is limited ), the second Person might so assume and yet the other Persons not.
Thirdly Christ's incarnation was in time, and not till the fullness of time. He was always God (for he that is not always God is never God, the Divine Essence admitting neither of beginning nor end, ) but he was not always man; there never was a time in which he was not God but there was a time in which he was not Man: His Generation as the Son of God was eternal, but his Generation as the Son of Man was but temporal. In the fullness of time God sent his Son made of a woman &c. Gal. 4.4. The Evangelist sets him forth in his two Natures Joh. 1. with respect to his Divine Nature he shows that he was from everlasting: In the beginning was the Word &c. the same was in the beginning with God &c. then he comes to his Human Nature and that he shows was in time, the Word was made Flesh; he was not so ab aeterno but he was made so in time. In such a sense Christ may be said to be incarnate from all eternity, viz. in regard of God's eternal parpose and decree, (as in reference to that he is said to be the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world Rev. 13.8.); but as to the actuality of his Incarnation that was but 1600 and odd years ago.
A double enquiry here will be made: As 1. if this was defer'd so long what then became of those who lib'd and died before Christ was inearnate? if that was so necessary (as hath been shown) what became of the Patriarchs, of all who lived under the Law before that was in being? I answer, they had the merit, virine, benefit of the thing though they had not the thing itself; for God having decreed it, and Christ having covenanted and engaged to the Father that in the fullness of time he would take flesh, the Father all-along looked upon it as actually done, and accordingly dealt with Believers under the Law as though it had been actually done; insomuch that they had the same benefit by a Christ in Flesh which we now have: Therefore 'tis said Rom. 3.25. Whom God set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins [that are past] through the forbearance of God: Heb. 9.15. For this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the trrnsgressions [that were under the first Testament], they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance: Whatever our Lord is now since the actual exhibition of him, he was the same before effectively and virtually, for 'tis Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever Heb. 13.8. We read Mark 11.9. They that went before and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Believers who lived before Christ's incarnation and they who follow since both are equally obliged to magnify God for him, both receiving the same benefit by him.
2. It may be inquired, why at this very Epocha or period of time rather than at any other was Christ incarnate? why not either before or after but just then? Answ. why? because it was that very time which God had set (therefore called the fullness of time Gal. 4.4.) He that is pleased to set the time for other things (as for the Churches deliverances, Thou shalt arise and have mercy upon Zion, for the time to favor her, yea the set time is come, Psal. 102.13. (and so in several Other cases ), surely he was pleased to set the time for so great a thing as the coming of his own Son in Flesh: he in his eternal decree had determined the precise time for this, which therefore when it was come then Christ came; now (I say) all must be resolved into this. True, there were some more immediate Reasons why he came just when he did; he was to come before the Scepter was (wholly) departed from Judah, Gen. 49.10. whilst the Second Temple was standing, Hag. 2.6, 7, 8, 9. during the Fourth Monarchy, Dan. 2.44. Daniel's 70 weeks were almost expired, Dan. 9.24. there was a general expectation raised in the world of the coming of the Messias (as might easily be made out): Now with respect to these things the Lord Jesus came at that very period of time whereat he did; but they all falling out but in compliance with and subordination to the Decree of God, therefore the determination of the time of Christ's Coming and Incarnation must ultimately be resolved into that: O he came just when he did, neither sooner nor later because the Father had appointed that very time.
4. 'Twas not the Divine Nature or Essence simply and absolutely considered which assumed Flesh, but it was that Nature considered as subsisting in the Second Person. If this restriction and stating of the Point be not admitted, we cannot avoid our holding the Incarnation was common to all the Persons (contrary to what the Church hath ever held, and to what was asserted but even now): therefore when 'tis said God manifested in the Flesh you are to understand God in the Personal not in the Essential notion.
5. The Nature assuming was the Divine Nature (that being considered as was laid down in the forgoing Proposition ): The Manhood did not assume the Godhead but the Godhead it, Man did not become God but God became Man; 'tis not said that the Flesh was made the Word but the Word was made Flesh: (this is a thing so unquestionable that the very naming of it is enough).
6. The Lord Jesus (the eternal Son of God, God blessed forever) did so assume the Human Nature, as in a most mysterious and inconceivable manner, to unite it (upon the first framing or forming of it) to his Divine Nature, and to give that a subsistence in this, so as that both do make but one Person, the Essence, Properties, Operations of both Natures yet remaining the same, without either conversion or confusion. Here the Hypostatical Union is both asserted and and also described, for wherein doth the nature of that Union consist but in that which is here laid down? Of it you read Col. 2.9. In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, (i. e. Personally and Hypostatically ): Rom. 9.5. Whose are the Fathers, and of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever; (here's both the Natures of Christ, and both in him making but one Person ): upon the personal conjunction of which he's called Emmanuel, God with us Matth. 1.23.
But not to insist upon the Proof of this Union (which all but INFIDELS and SOCINIANS do believe), I will endeavor (as well as I can) rather to explain and open it: an undertaking which I enter upon (the Lord knows) with great fear and dread, because of the loftiness and mysteriousness of the thing to be opened; O 'tis a thing so sublime and mysterious as that it transcends the capacity of Angels and Men! how then shall I be able to speak of it or to it? Take whom you will, single out a Person of the sharpest wit, the profoundest judgment, the most elevated reason, let all the most raised abilities concur in him, and then set the Hypostatical Union before this person, alas poor man! how will he be puzzl'd, nonplus'd, unable to fathom so great a depth as this is! And well he may since 'tis the mystery of mysteries, one of the first magnitude, than which by a narrow intellect none more hard to be conceived of or understood. 'It is indeed sure and certain to Faith (which believes it because God reveals it, which readily answers all Objections and solves all difficulties about it by resting on divine revelation; ) but if Reason (beyond its proper bounds) will be prying into and judging of a thing so abstruse, its blindness as well as its boldness will soon appear: its bucket will not go to the bottom of a Well so deep, its line is too short to measure such heights, breadths, lengths, depths as are here to be found. I do not in the least wonder that they, who make Reason to be the supreme Judge of matters of Faith, do throw off the belief of this mystery, for though it be not at all contrary to reason (that being supposed to be modest and rectified ) yet 'tis infinitely above it. There are several unions in Nature but all come short of this, there's no resemblance in the whole compass of Nature that doth exactly reach it: Some I know speak of a plant which hath no root of its own, only it grows and is sustained by a tree of another kind; by which they would shadow out the subsistence of the Human Nature of Christ in the Divine: Others tell us the union of the Soul and Body in Man is of all resemblances the most fully expressive of this Union: Now 'tis granted these (or some other such-like) resemblances may hold forth something of it, but (alas!) 'tis but something; they go but a little way, their discoveries are as imperfect as those which some Travelers make of the World, who when they have seen and said all they can do yet leave a vast terra incognita undiscovered. Without controversy great is the mystery of Godliness, God manifested in the flesh &c. Christ's incarnation hath the precedency before all the other mysteries which are there mentioned about him; if that in itself be such a mystery, how must the mystery thereof be heightened the Hypostatical Union being taken in and added to it? The Mystical Union is very mysterious, the Hypostatical Union much more. Well therefore might I in the Proposition thus lay it down, that the uniting of the Human Nature in Christ to the Divine is done in a most mysterious and inconceivable manner. Well! upon the due weighing of that which hath been said, it concerns me with all tenderness and humility to treat of this Argument, and to fetch in all the light and direction that ever I may (for I shall need it all) from the Word and Spirit.
1. I desire that this in the General may be taken notice of, that the Hypostatical Union is no common or ordinary Union but that which is special and extraordinary: O 'tis an Union by itself, that which is of a very different and peculiar nature from all other Unions. Of which there is great diversity: for instance, there's an Union by apposition (as in the several parts of a building ); by mixtion (as in the several Elements in a compound body ); by alteration (as when water is turned into wine ); there is a Natural Union (as in the Soul and Body in man); a Moral Union (as betwixt Friend and Friend ); a Relative Union (as betwixt Husband and Wife ); a Mystical Union (as betwixt Christ and Believers ); an Union in respect of special presence or inhabitation, of special assistance, of special grace and favor, (which was all that Nestorius would grant in the Union of Christ's Divine Nature with his Human; but most falsely, for then there would be no more (for substance ) in the Hypostatical Union then what there is in that which belongs to all Believers, Christ being in these respects united also to them though in a lower degree ). Now some of these Unions are not at all applicable to Christ; such as are so do yet come short of that high and glorious Union that is betwixt his Godhead and his Manhood; alas! take the highest of them what is it when compared with the Hypostatical Union! You will ask me, why? or what is there in that more than in them? let the following head be observed and there will be the Solution of this Question. I add therefore.
2. The two Natures are so united in Christ as that the Human doth subsist in the Divine, and that both do make up but one Person: Herein lies the formal nature of the Hypostatical Union, that wherein it differs from and transcends all other Unions whatsoever; the explication of this therefore I must a little insist upon.
1. First, the conjunction of the two Natures in Christ is so near as that the Godhead imparts subsistence to the Manhood: for the Manhood as 'tis in Christ is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , having no subsistence but what it hath in the Personality of the eternal Word; so it subsists and no otherwise. And here's one great difference 'twixt the Human Nature as in us, and as in Christ; in us it hath its proper personality and subsistence, in Christ it hath not so. But how comes this about? take an answer to that from a Judicious Divine,
2. Secondly, Such is the Union of the Human with the Divine Nature in Christ, that 'tis taken into his Person and both make but one * Person. Here's the difference 'twixt the essential union of the three Persons (where there is but one. Nature yet three Persons ); as also 'twixt the mystical Union of Believers (where there is the Union of Persons yet not so as to make one Person ); and the Hypostatick Union of the two Natures in Christ: for against the former, here is distinction of Natures yet but oneness of Person; and against the latter, here is the union of Natures, & so as to make but one Person. And this follows upon the former head, for if the Manhood hath not personality in itself but only subsists in the Godhead, then it cannot cause any personal multiplication in him. In short, in Christ there is Nature and Nature but not Person and Person, aliud & aliud but not alius & alius, for 'tis but one Christ: as Soul and Body make but one Man so God and Man make (I say) but one Christ. We call it the Personal Union, but how? not because 'tis made up of Persons but because it centers in one Person. Christ took the Nature of of man but not the Person of man; Nature did not assume Nature, nor did Person assume Person, but Person assumed Nature. He was a Person before incarnation, and his personality (or a distinct personality ) did not result from the unition of the two Natures, only they are said to make one Person as the latter Nature makes no personal addition to Christ. And he was a perfect Person before the Union, only in ordine ad finem (the redeeming of man) he was pleased to take the Manhood into communion with the Godhead. So much for these two things wherein the nature of the Hypostatical Union mainly lies.
3. Though this Union be thus close and intinious, yet notwithstanding, the Essence, Properties, Operations of both Natures are preserved entire, without any conversion or confusion. Nestorious multiplies the Person, Eutyches eris upon another extreme (as 'tis usual when the staff is crooked and bends too much one way, they that would make it strait do often make it to bend as much the other way,) he confounds the Natures; to shun the plurality of Persons he destroys the distinction of the Natures; asserting that after the Union the Human Nature was wholly smallowed up in the Divine, and so leaving but one Nature to Christ: both of these Opinions were condemned by the Primitive Church as equally false, heretical, and dangerous. Here's the admirableness of this Union, though the Godhead and the Manhood are brought into so near a conjunction yet both retain that which is essential and proper to each; the One is not converted into the Other nor yet both confounded in one. The Word was made Fesh, but not so as to cease to be the Word still; when Christ was incarnate he did not part with what he had, only he • ook what he had not; there was assumption but no abolition, no conversion, no confusion. Indeed the two Natures stand at so great a distance, that though they may admit of Union yet they are not capable of any transmutation or commixtion; the Godhead can never be so depressed as to be turned into the Manhood, nor the Manhood ever be so advanced as to be turned into the Godhead. The Athanasian Creed thus sets it forth.
4. No sooner was the Human Nature framed or formed, but in that very instant of time it was united to the Divine Nature; (this also I put down as another branch of the main Proposition ). 'Twas taken as soon as it was made, its first existence and its union were contemporary. We distinguish betwixt the formation, sanctification, and assumption of the Human Nature, and we conceive of these as done successively in such an order, first that Nature was formed, then sanctified, then assumed: But this is merely founded upon our conception, not that it was so indeed and really as to the things themselves; for in truth there was no priority of time ( priority of Nature I deny not) betwixt the one and the other; but at the very same moment wherein by the Power of the Holy Ghost the Manhood of Christ was formed, it was also sanctified and united to the Godhead. A Question here is moved by Some whether Christ's Human Nature was complete and perfect at the first? (that is) whether as soon as ever his Flesh was formed, his Soul was infused and united to it? or whether (as it is with us) there was not some space of time intervening betwixt the formation of the Flesh and the infusion of the Soul? in the discussing of which there is a difference among them, Some being for the Affirmative and Others for the Negative: But (which is to my purpose) all agree in this, that whether it was only Flesh for sometime, or whether both Flesh and Soul were formed together, yet still the Union began at the first instant of the Incarnation. There was a time before Christ's Manhood did exist, but as soon as ever it did exist there was no time wherein it was under disunion and disjunction from his Godhead. Thus I have endeavored by these Four things to give you a little light concerning the Hypostatical Union of the two Natures in Christ's Person (which this Sixth Proposition led me unto); a point of such high importance, and so proper to the subject in hand that I could not wholly pass it over, and yet withal so sublime and mysterious that I can neither speak nor conceive of it according to what is in it.
7. Let me add but one thing further, 'It is probable had there been no sin that Christ had not been sent in Flesh; or had not. Adam fallen and thereby involved his whole Posterity in a state of sin and guilt, 'tis probable that Christ had not been incarnate: (I express it modestly going no higher than 'tis probable, because though the Scriptures make it certain to me yet 'tis not so to others, nay some are of a quite other opinion). The question is not de possibili, what God by his absolute Power and Will might and could have done? but only de facto, whither if man had not sinned Christ should actually have assumed our Nature? about which the Schools (with other Divines ) are divided, some affirming it, some denying it.
The former affirm though sin had not been yet Christ would have come in Flesh, not to have died or suffered, but only to have let the world see the glory and excellency of his Human Nature, that so great a work as his Incarnation might not have been lost or not done, that God thereby might give out a singular demonstration of his Love to man: the latter cannot lay so great a stress upon these things, and therefore assert if man had not sinned Christ had not been incarnate. And indeed their Opinion seems to be more agreeable to the Word, for that usually mentions saving from sin and the taking away of sin as the end and ground of Christ's taking Flesh: My Text describes the state of the sinner to be desperate (upon the terms of the Law ), and then upon that God sent his Son in Flesh; it adds further, he was thus sent to condemn sin in his Flesh, so that had there been no sin to have been condemned; he had not been sent in Fesh: So Matth. 1.21. She shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins: 1 Tim. 1.15. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners &c. Joh. 1.29. Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world: Dan. 9.24. Seventy weeks are determined upon the people, and upon thy holy city to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity. Tit. 2.14. Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity: Matth. 18.11. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost: as soon as Man fell Christ was promised as incarnate, but not before. The truth is, had we not been Captives what need would there have been of a Redeemer? had we not been sick and wounded what need of a Physician? had there been no breach 'twixt God and us what need of a Mediator in the way of reconciliation? As to that which Some allege that Christ might have come though there had been no sin, for this end that he might have secured man (though in innocence ) from death; that is grounded upon a mere falsehood, for had there been no sinning there would have been no danger of dying, and consequently no need of one to secure from death in a sinless state.
I have done with the First thing observed in the Words, Christ was sent in Flesh: in the opening of which I have been somewhat large, but if that be all I hope none will blame me for it; for the Incarnation and Manhood of the Son of God being the great foundation of our happiness, a thing wherein we have the very pith and marrow of the Gospel, the highest demonstation of the love of God, surely I could not stay too long upon it: 'tis an Argument which very many have wrote upon, and Some very fully, but that which I have said as 'twas necessary (because the Text led me to it) so 'tis sufficient with respect to my design in this Work.
Before I fall upon the application of this Head I must speak something to the Second, namely that Christ was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh; the Apostle doth not say only God sent him in flesh, but he adds in the likeness of sinful flesh.
In the handling of this I have two things to open,
- 1. Christ was sent in the likeness of sinful Flesh.
- 2. It was but in the likeness of sinful Flesh.
Of the first: the Apostle again uses his former Hebraism, for in the Greek 'tis in the likeness of the flesh of sin, which is as much as (according to our rendering of it) in the likeness of sinful flesh. The meaning of it is this, as Christ had true Flesh so he was under some appearance of having sinful flesh, there was some outward show as if his Human Nature had been tainted with sin; he externally appeared like a sinner, yea as like a sinner as one could do who yet indeed and in truth was none; such as looked upon him and saw how it was with him in his external condition, might be apt to conceive of him as they once did Joh. 9.24. We know this man is a sinner. There was something about Christ that had some resemblance of sin, otherwise Paul would not have called it the likeness of sinful flesh: he saith Heb. 9.28. Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, and unto them that look for him, shall he appear the second time [without sin] unto salvation, implying that Christ at his first coming was not without some appearance of sin: when he shall come the second time there shall not be the least show or appearance of it in him, nothing then but Majesty and Sanctity, but Greatness and Goodness shall be seen in him, but at his first coming it was otherwise.
But wherein was it the likeness of sinful flesh?
I answer, if you take it in the restrained notion of the flesh or body of Christ, that was like to sinful flesh, how? why in as much as it was so far like to our flesh (which is really sinful ) as to be passable and mortal; passibility and mortality, the suffering of pain, anguish &c. and dying, are shr • wd signs and tokens of sin. Had man continued in his innocent and sinless state, his body had not been liable to either of these, but he sinning it became liable to both: and it being so too with Christ's own body, here was the likeness of sinful flesh.
If you take it in the large notion, of the whole Human Nature or Person of Christ as Man, so 'twas the likeness of sinful flesh in several respects: He was truly man and in appearance and likeness he was sinful man, for he was dealt with, handled, used just as guilty and sinful persons are; and that both by God, and by Men. By God; he charged upon Christ the sin of all the Elect, the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all, he made him to be sin for us who knew no sin &c. He then let out his wrath upon him, demanded satisfaction of him, would have him to suffer, did not spare him in the least, yea, it pleased the Lord to bruise him, though he prayed that the Cup might pass from him yet his Father would have him drink of it; was not here the likeness of sinful flesh in God's dealing thus with him? By Men: to them 'twas more than likeness, they charged him to be really and actually guilty of sin, that he was a glutton, a wine-bibber, a friend of Publicans and Sinners, an impostor, a deceiver, a blasphemer, a breaker of the Law, and what not! Towards the close of his life they accused him of crimes of a very high and heinous nature, arraigned him as a malefactor, condemned him to die, executed him, crucified him 'twixt two thieves, numbered him amongst transgressors; he that had sin upon him by imputation was also a sinner by reputation: was not here the likeness of sinful flesh? Look upon him in his sorrows, afflictions, sufferings, he was a man of sorrows, acquainted with gr •• , his whole life was but one continued passion, never was any sorrow like to his sorrow, afflicted without, afflicted within, he suffered from God, he suffered from Man, drunk such a Cup as never any drank before him, was not here the likeness of sinful flesh? Did not the blind and sadly mistaken world judge Christ's own personal sin to be the proper Cause of all his suffering? Isa. 53.4. Surely he hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows, yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted: Are not suffering and sin so conjoin'd and linked together, that where there is the one there is some appearance of the other also? I do not say that really and in truth where there is suffering there is also sin, yet I say apparently and in the opinion and judgment of men (who take their measures in their judging of persons by their outward condition), where-ever there is suffering there is sin: so that in our most holy and innocent Savior it was the likeness of sinful flesh, because it was the reality of suffering flesh. Will you go on to his Death (the worst and most exquisite part of his Sufferings )? did he die? did he so die? undergo a death so ignominious, so painful? yea, and so penal too, (the punishment due for the sin of all believers being therein inflicted upon him)? O surely here was a very great likeness of sinful flesh! There seemed to be much of mere man in Christ's low condition whilst he continued in the world, but there seemed to be much of sinful man in the manner. of his going out of the World. What? so to suffer and so to die, and yet no sin? no, no sin for all that; but so to suffer and so to die, and yet no show or appearance of sin? yes that there was, (especially to them who could not look into things, & who were altogether ignorant of Christ's Person and of the great designs which he was carrying on.) There was such a likeness of sin in these things as that it never yet failed and was but a likeness, but only in this one great and unparalled'd Instance of our blessed Savior. As he submitted to the ordinary infirmities of the Human Nature, hunger, thirst, &c. in them there were some features and lineaments of sinful flesh; but as he submitted to death, to such a death, there was a more lively draught, a fuller resemblance of sinful flesh. As it was with the Creatures which were offered in Sacrifice, they in themselves were harmless and innocent, yet having the sins of the people laid upon them and they dying for them, so they had the likeness of sinful flesh; and just so it was with Christ, upon his being offered up upon the Cross as the Sacrifice for our sins.
2. Here was much likeness (you see) of sinful flesh, yet 'twas but likeness and nothing more; some external appearance of sin there was but that was all, yet no sin in truth and reality: 'twas the verity and sameness of natural flesh, 'twas but the likeness of sinful flesh. As 'twas with the brazen Serpent, that was made in an exact resemblance of the fiery Serpents; having that very shape and form which they had; yet 'twas but the likeness of them, for it had not that poison and venom in it which was in them; so here as to Christ (of whom the brazen Serpent even in this was an excellent type ), he seemed to have that very flesh which we have (and so he had in such a sense ), but yet there was this difference ours is envenom'd, his not; 'tis truly sinful flesh in us, 'twas but like sinful flesh in him.
This (as before) may be understood either of Christ's fleshly part, or of his whole Human Nature: In the first respect so his flesh was sinless, he had a true body but there was no sin in that body, 'twas pure, holy untainted flesh; 'twas made (as to purity and sanctity ) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to the primitive and archetype-formation of Adam's body in the state of innocence; that was created holy and spotless, and just such a body Christ did assume: 'tis true his body and Adam's differed in the manner of their production, but as to their purity and undefiledness by sin so they did agree. He says his Father had prepared him a body Heb. 10. 5. now if the holy God, in such a wonderful and immediate manner, for such high and glorious ends will prepare him a body, to be sure it shall be an holy body, and such an one as shall be proper for the attaining of those ends (which only an holy body was). 'Twas indeed upon our account and Christ's putting himself into our stead, a passable and mortal body (and so far like to sinful flesh ); but had it not been for that, it had neither suffered nor died.
In the Second respect, so the whole Human Nature in Christ was sinless. He was true and very man but not in the least sinful man; he was made man for the sin of man, but yet was man without the sin of man. That Nature which is so sadly depraved, vitiated, corrupted in us, in him had its primitive, original purity and holiness: Sin was not so essential or so inseparably twisted into it, but that God knew how to separate 'twixt the Nature itself and the deordination of it; Christ took the one but not the other. The Human Nature is made up of soul and body, both of these in Christ were unstained, not having the least macula or spot of sin cleaving to them; as 'twas an unpolluted, undefiled body, so 'twas also a pure, holy, spotless Soul. The Human Nature too is attended with such affections and such infirmities, to all of which Christ submitted so far as they were sinless, but no further: as to the former, he had Anger, Sorrow, Joy, Compassion, Love, but without the least stain or tincture of sin; as to the latter, he underwent hunger, thirst, pain &c. but yet under all he was without sin; he could suffer but he did not, nay, he could not sin. Hence he's called God's holy one Psal. 16.10. the holy Child Jesus Act. 4.27. the most holy Dan. 9.27. Jesus Christ the righteous 1 Joh. 2.1. God's righteous servant Isa. 53.11. He was a Lamb without blemish and without spot 1 Pet. 1.19. holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners Heb. 7.26. 'tis said of him he did no sin 1 Pet. 2.22. he knew no sin 2 Cor. 5.21. (he knew it in a way of imputation for he was made sin, but as to any inhesion or commission so he knew it not). The Apostle saith he was tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin (that must always be excepted) Heb. 4.15. he challenged all his enemies which of you convinceth me of sin? Joh. 8.46. He says of himself he always did the things which pleased his Father Joh. 8.29. and now 'tis said of him in him is no sin 1 Joh. 3.5. so that upon all this it appears that 'twas but the likeness of sinful flesh.
Christ (as Man ) had a threefold Holiness, Original, Habitual, Actual:
- 1. He was Originally Holy. David bitterly lamented it that he was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did his mother conceive him Psal. 51.5. and so 'tis with every man that comes into the world (in the way of common generation ); the very foundation of our Being is laid in sin: But 'twas not so without blessed Savior, in his Conception, the first framing and forming of his Human Nature there was nothing of sin; for he was therefore conceived in the Virgins Womb in an extraordinary manner by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, that he might be preserved pure from the common pollution: so the Angel told Mary Luk. 1.35. The holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.
- 2. He was Habitually Holy: there was in his Nature nothing but an universal rectitude and conformity to the rule and pattern of holiness, he had therein grace, all grace, nothing but grace, without the least mixture of habitual corruption. We bring with us into the world Natures most woefully depraved, such as are a very seed-plot and seminary of all evil; but our Lord Jesus had a quite other Nature, one that was perfectly sanctified and not in the least tainted with sin. This also was brought about by his miraculous and extraordinary formation, for had he been begotten as we are, his Nature had be tainted as well as ours is: that which is begotten (so I would read it rather than that which is born) of the flesh, is flesh, Joh. 3.6. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one; Job 14.4. The liquor will taste of the cask into which 'tis put; as water when it comes from the fountain may be very pure, yet if it runs through a dirty pipe it will contract filth; so let the Soul as it comes out of God's hands be never so pure, yet upon union with the body begotten and propagated in the usual way, both it (and the nature of the person too) will be defiled: therefore to avoid this Christ was begotten in another way. By which means he was also freed from the imputation of Adam's sin; for he not descending naturally and seminally from Adam, his sin was not imputed nor imputable unto him. The Apostle indeed saith Heb. 2.11. Both he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one (i.e.) of one Adam as the common root; but they are not both of this one Adam in the same manner, for they who are sanctified are of him; and from him in a way of seminal propagation, but he who sanctifieth was not so; whereupon though Adam's sin be imputable and imputed to the former, 'tis not to the latter. As (according to the usual illustration) Levi being in the loins of Abraham paid tithes in him, & yet Christ who was also in the loins of Abraham did not; so all men being in the loins of Adam and carnally descended from him, sinned in him and became partakers of his guilt; but Christ (though in some sense he might be said to be in Adam's loins too, for his genealogy is carried up to Adam Luk. 3.) yet he not descending from him in the ordinary fleshly way, his Person was exempted from the guilt of his sin and his Nature from the general depravation.
- 3. Christ was actually Holy; there was nothing but holiness in whatever he did, all his actings ( inward and outward ) did exactly correspond with the Nature and Will of his Father, he never was guilty of the least sin in thought, word, or deed, sin was neither contracted nor committed by him, Grace and Holiness were advanced in him to the highest pitch, according to the utmost capacity of the Human Nature, without the least mixture of what is contrary thereunto: in a word, he lived in his whole course a most holy, innocent, spotless, sinless life (as the Scriptures which have been alleged do abundantly testify).
This sanctity and sinlessness of Christ's Human Nature was necessary upon a double account:
1. To fit it for the personal union with his Divine Nature. Can it be imagined that ever the Lord Jesus would take a Nature tainted with sin, and so nearly unite it to himself? when the Divine Nature stood at so great a distance from sin, can we (without blasphemy) think that it would assume the Human Nature (had it been sinful), into so close an union as that both should make but one person? O such a thing was not possible! God can take a sinning (if repenting) Creature into his bosom, but he cannot take a sinning Nature into his Person. Christ might condescend to take flesh & yet be God, but he could not have taken sinful flesh and yet be God: the human nature (simply considered) was not inconsistent with his Godhead, but that Nature (if sinful) was.
2. This was necessary in respect of Christ's Office and undertaking for our good: In order to which, as he must be man so he must be man perfectly holy and righteous, for he that is a sinner himself cannot be a Savior to other sinners: then 'twould be Physician heal thyself, or Savior save thyself; all that such a one could do would be little enough for himself. Christ was both Priest and Sacrifice, with respect to both he must be without sin: as Priest, for if sin had been chargeable upon him he must then have offered for himself, and so have been in the same condition with the Priests under the Law; which the Apostle shows he was not Heb. 7.26, 27. As Sacrifice too, for whatever was offered up to God it was to have no blemish in it. In allusion to which the Apostle calls him a Lamb without blemish and without spot, 1 Pet. 1.19. (answerably to the Paschal Lamb, Exod. 12.5. and to the two Lambs in the fire-offering Numb. 28.3.) and he's said to offer himself without spot to God Heb. 9.14. How could Christ have taken off guilt from us had he had it lying upon himself? or how could he have made us righteous had he not been righteous himself? therefore 2 Cor. 5.21. He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him: and Isa. 53.11. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, (mark it, Christ being a righteous Person himself so he comes to justify and make others righteous): so 1 Joh. 3.5. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins, and in him is no sin; the connection is observable, he that will take away sin from others must have no sin in himself; Christ coming for that end therefore in him there was no sin. Three things (as † one observes from the words) were requisite to him that should be the Mediator, he must be God, he must be Man, he he must be perfectly and unmixtly holy: all these three qualifications you have in the Text, Christ was God's own Son, there's his Godhead; he was sent in flesh, there's his Manhood; he was sent but in the likeness of sinful flesh, there's his purity and holiness.
Having done with the Explicatory part, I come now to what is Applicatory: Where in the first place (passing by other things) these two we are mainly informed of,
- 1. Of the excellency of the Gospel and Christian Religion.
- 2. Of the excellency of Christ's Flesh or Manhood.
1. First, that great Truth which I have been upon informs us of the excellency of the Gospel and Christian Religion. The more raised and mysterious the things are which the one reveals and the other believes, the more excellent must both of them needs be; for this is a Principle grounded upon Reason, and strengthened by the Consent of all who pretend to Religion (whether it be true or false ): What more common amongst men, when they would argue for the excellency either of that from which they fetch their Religion, or of their Religion itself, than to cry up the mysteries and to tell us what high, sublime, mysterious things are contained in them! These make a great impression upon men's minds, and strongly induce them to believe that whatever hath in it such mysteries, must certainly be of God and have a divine Original: therefore Heathens themselves (as well as Christians ) have much pleased themselves with this, and have been great pretenders to such and such mysteries, thereby to gain credit and reputation to their way. Now let us apply this Principle or common test to the Gospel-revelation and the Christian Religion, and then I am sure their excellency above all other pretended Revelations and Religions will be evident. For look into all those admired and rare Secrets, those high and raised mysteries, which they who know not the Gospel did so much cry up and magnify; and do but compare them with this one mystery [God's own Son sent in flesh], alas! what trifles, what shallow, contemptible, ridiculous things are they in comparison of it! A God incarnate shames all the little mysteries of the Pagan Religion (if so good a title may be given to so bad a thing)▪ they all vanish before this and are not able to stand in competition with it. Now where is this profound mystery revealed but in the Gospel? and where is that revelation believed but in the Christian Religion? therefore how excellent must both needs be upon this account! The Heathens knew nothing at all of this; they dreamt of Men being made God's, but that he who was truly God should be made truly Man, this they were altogether ignorant of; in all their Religion there was no such mystery. The Apostle cries out 1 Tim. 3.16. Without controversy great is the mystery of Godliness, God manifested in the flesh, &c. his design in these (and in the following) words was to set forth the excellency of the Gospel, (which he calls Godliness because its main s • ope and tendency is to that); and how doth he do it? why, by the glorious mysteries held forth therein, of some of which he there gives a particular enumeration: As to the height and verity of which mysteries he saith, Without controversy &c. confessedly, beyond all dispute or denial, these are mysteries indeed; 'tis as if he had said, I know the poor Heathens pretend to great and high mysteries, but indeed they are so far from being high mysteries, that they are no mysteries at all (they being but the fancies of deluded men): but (saith he) I will tell you of mysteries that are both real and sublime, which are so beyond all contradiction, Without controversy great is the mystery of Godliness &c. But how doth he make that appear? he makes it out in some instances, and his first instance is in the Incarnation of the Son of God, Without controversy great is the mystery of Godliness, God was manifested in the flesh &c. O there's a mystery indeed, a transcendent mystery, one which all the Gentiles cannot parallel. A very Learned Author in a very learned Discourse upon this whole Verse proves, that Paul therein throughout had his eye upon the Gentile-Rites, Customs, pretensions to mysteries &c. especially upon those amongst the Greeks, and amongst them especially upon those in their Eleusinia sacra (which above all others were in highest repute at that time when the Apostle wrote this Epistle ): Now therefore against them he sets down the great mysteries of the Gospel and Christianity, which certainly were infinitely to be preferred before the other. The making out of this was our Apostles design (according to the Opinion of the forenamed Author ) in every branch of the Words; but I will go no farther than the first (that only suiting with the thing I am upon): And there are in it four things to prove the thing in hand;
- (1). As to Gospel-mysteries the true God was the object of them and concerned in them; but the Gentiles in their mysteries had to do with those which by nature were no God's, which were but called God's (as they are described Gal. 4.8. 1 Cor. 8.5.
- (2.) In Gospel mysteries one God only was the object of them, and Christians had to do with this one and only true God; but the Gentiles in their mysteries had to do with variety and multiplicity of God's: and so indeed with no God, for many God's are no God. 1 Cor. 8.5, 6. Though there be that are called God's, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be God's many, and Lord's many); But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him: 'tis God (one God) manifested &c.
- (3.) In Gospel mysteries there's a God, as incarnate, commemorated and remembered in them; in the Gentile-mysteries it was not so: In them they had some notions, and made some commemorations of their God's, but how? only as common benefactors, as giving them bread and wine and corn &c, but they went no higher; but now Christians under the Gospel they commemorate God as taking flesh and suffering in that flesh for their good; O there's mercy indeed, a mystery indeed!
- (4.) Whereas the Gentiles in their mysteries pretended such and such apparitions of their God's, in opposition to these the Apostle sets down the great and glorious appearance and manifestation of Christ: He was indeed manifested in the flesh, for he was so manifested in the flesh as to be made flesh, his was not an appearance only but a real assumption; there's a mystery indeed.
2. Secondly, this further informs us of the excellency and glory of Christ's Flesh and Manhood; from the premises it clearly appears that that is (and needs must be) superlatively great. Was Christ himself sent in flesh? did God's own Son assume and so assume flesh? O what a luster and glory must there be upon that flesh (or body ) which such a person doth so assume! 'It is called after its being glorified in him, a glorious body Phil. 3.21. but 'twas a glorious body long before, even from the first moment of its formation and assumption. 'It is true, its glory whilst 'twas here on earth did not shine forth in its full brightness, there was a veil and covering upon it during the state of Christ's Humiliation; but yet even then 'twas full of glory though the fullness, of its glory did not appear, (as the Sun is very glorious even when 'tis hid under a cloud ). And indeed 'twas requisite, not only from the state of his abasement, but also from the weakness of those with whom he was to converse, that here he should very much keep in its glory, for we see when at his transfiguration he let it break forth in a more than ordinary manner, the beholders thereof could not well bear it, it filled them with consternation; (read Matth. 17.1. &c.) But yet, upon its miraculous framing, its unstained and unspotted sanctity, its near union with the Godhead, even here (I say) its glory was exceeding great. O what a sight will it be in heaven to see this body of Christ in all its splendor, and to see him in this Flesh sitting at the right hand of God! As he was at first sent in it 'twas but mean (in external appearance and to mere sense), but now he is ascended and hath carried it up with him and 'tis placed at the right hand of God, so 'tis an Object so glorious that 'tis fit only for a glorified eye to behold.
And doth the Body of Christ engross all this glory? hath his Soul no part or share therein? yes surely! it may rather be asked: hath not that the greatest share, (it being the better and nobler part, and capable of that of which the Body is not)? If God prepare so excellent a body he'l be sure answerably to prepare as excellent a soul to dwell in that body, (as they that build stately houses will put in inhabitants that shall be answerable to them). Imagine a Soul untouched and unblemished with sin, fully and perfectly sanctified, filled with grace to the utmost of its capacity, having nothing in its several faculties but truth in the Understanding, holy conformity in the Will, heavenliness in the affections; I say, represent to yourselves in your thoughts such a Soul, and then think what an excellent Soul would that be? just such a Soul is in Christ. Indeed if we consider these constitutive parts of Christ's Manhood as they stand apart and by themselves, they are excellent to a very high degree; but if we go further and consider them in the Hypostatick Union, then we are at a mighty loss and cannot conceive what a glory is by that confer'd upon them. As suppose a Pearl was put into a glass of Crystal, that would put a great radiancy upon it; but what if the Sun itself could be put into this glass, how radiant then would it be? So here, the Lord Christ having so precious a Soul dwelling in his Flesh, even that (if there was nothing more) must make it very glorious; but when the Godhead itself dwells in it, how unspeakable must its glory and splendor needs be!
Leaving the parts let me speak to the whole; the whole human nature in Christ is transcendently excellent. If the essential and eternal Son of God will so far condescend as to assume Man's Nature, certainly in him the Manhood must have all that dignity, glory, perfection that ever it was capable of: and surely never was the Human Nature so advanced as in Christ. If you consider it as 'tis in us, so it hath its worth and excellency; for man is yet a glorious creature, (though 'tis too true by the loss of God's image he hath lost very much of his glory): As he was at first created in the state of innocence he was high indeed; by the Fall the case is sadly altered, the Human Nature now is exceedingly debas'd and depressed; but yet even in its ruins (as 'twas with old Carthage ) it may be seen what once it was: much is lost and the best is lost, but all is not lost; the glory of the Saint is gone, but the glory of the Man (in a great measure) yet remains. He is yet, as to his natural composition and endowments, very excellent, the top of the whole creation, God's master-piece and highest workmanship, endowed with a body curiously wrought, with a Soul of divine original, excellent in its being and operations. And besides this (which is general) it pleases God in some to restore the Human Nature (in part) to what it lost in Adam's fall, to advance it again by Grace and Regeneration; yea, to take it up to heaven to the vision and fruition of himself: And now 'tis at its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , here's its non-ultra, its highest advancement; 'tis not capable (as in us ) of higher exaltation that what it hath by Grace and Glory. This dignity and glory the Human Nature hath in us; but yet as 'tis so subjected, take it even at its highest elevation it comes infinitely short of the dignity and excellency of the Human Nature of Christ; the reason is, because in it there's all that hath been spoken in an eminent manner, and besides (which is higher than all the former) it is taken into a near conjunction with the Divine Nature. How glorious must that Manhood be, which subsists in the Godhead and hath no subsistence but in that! The nearer the Union is with that, the greater is the perfection and glory of that which is admitted into that union: And hence it is that there is such a fullness of Grace in Christ (as Man ) over and above what is in the best of men, that he is anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows; that his Manhood bears a part in the mediatory Office; that 'tis to be worshipped with Divine Worship (as hath been proved before); I say all this belongs to it by virtue of the Hypostatical Union, from which in all things it derives super-excellent Glory. And yet I must tell you this Human Nature (as high as 'tis) is the lowest thing in Christ; that which is the highest in us is but the lowest in him, Supremum infimi infimum supremi: as Man he's glorious but what is he then as God! What a Person is Christ take him altogether! O let him be adored and reverenced by you as Man, but especially as he is God-man. (So much for Information).
2. Secondly was Christ sent in flesh? hence ariseth matter of Exhortation to several Duties:
1. I would exhort you to give a full and firm assent to the truth of Christ's incarnation, as also firmly to adhere to Christ as sent in flesh. Here are two things which I • le speak to apart: First, see that you give a full and firm assent to the truth of Christ's Incarnation. 'It is a thing which the Scripture lays a great stress upon; 1 Joh. 4.3. Every Spirit that confesseth not [that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh] is not of God: and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof you have heard that it should come, and even now is it in the world. 2 Joh. 7. Many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not [that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh]: this is a deceiver and an Antichrist. It seems the Incarnation of Christ met with early opposition, his flesh was no sooner translated to Heaven but 'twas denied on Earth; this Apostle therefore (who in his Gospel had been a great asserter of it) in his Epistles will be also a zealous defender of it: and see how warm he was upon it, the denial of Christ's coming and of his coming in the flesh (for there lies the main emphasis ), he carries as high as Antichristianism and sets no lower a brand upon it: Antichristianism doth not only lie in the opposing of Christ in his Offices (which is the latter and modern Antichristianism ), but also in the opposing of him in his Natures as God and Man (which was the first and ancient Antichristianism ); to deny Christ's Manhood and assuming flesh this is down-right Antichristian, the very spirit of Antichrist, (if the Apostle here may be believed). Now there's a twofold denial of this; one open, express, direct; the other implicit, virtual, interpretative: the former (I hope) is very rare, the latter (I fear) is too common; he's no Christian who comes under the former, but there are too many Christians who come under the latter. As you read of some who profess that they know God, but in works they deny him Tit. 1.16. so here; all that own the Gospel profess they believe Christ's Incarnation, but yet virtually, interpretatively, consequentially, too many of them do no better than deny it. Now for you (my Brethren) I assure myself I need not spend time in warning you against the denial (I mean the rank and gross denial) of our Lord's Manhood and Incarnation, (that Antichristianism I hope you will never be guilty of); yet two things I would say to you: (1.) Get such a firm and rooted belief of this Fundamental Doctrine, as that there may be no secret doubting about it; no, not the least doubt stirring in the mind, for any doubting may by degrees by little and little work up to the full denial of it. (2.) That you will take heed not only of the open and direct denial of it, but also of all those Opinions and Practises which may amount to a virtual, implicit denial of it.
This minds me of something (upon which I crave leave a little to digress ) that passes betwixt Papists & Protestants: the former do greatly insult upon the forementioned Texts, from which they think they have enough to free the POPE (in whatever notion you consider him) from the charge of being Antichrist; and therefore thus they argue, He is Antichrist who confesses not that Christ is come in the flesh, but the POPE doth confess this, ergo he is not Antichrist: (this is one of Sanders his Demonstrations ). To which tis answered,
1. That the Apostle in these Texts doth not define or describe the Antichrist (by way of eminency ), him who was to come afterwards (who is set forth 2 Thes. 2.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 1 Tim. 4.1.); but some lesser Antichrists who were already risen up in the Apostles days: for he saith even now there are many Antichrists, 1 Joh. 2.18. This is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof you have heard that it should come, and even now already it is in the world, 1 Joh. 4.3. & 2 Joh. 7. Many deceivers are entered into the world &c. this is a deceiver and an Antichrist (though not the Antichrist ). As to the grand Antichrist, there was a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 about him, a let and impediment in his way to be removed before he could come (2 Thes. 2.7.); but for the lesser Antichrists (the praecursors of the great one ) they were already come: And 'tis probable that the Apostle in these descriptions in special-had his eye upon Simon Magus, who denied that Christ came in true flesh. The Argument then (so far as 'tis grounded upon these Texts ) only proves, that his HOLINESS is none of the little Antichrists (of whom John spake as already come), which we readily grant, for we make him to be the great Antichrist (of whom Paul spake as yet to come).
2. Yet our Divines will not wholly acquit him (and his party ) as to this Character of Antichrist; for though as to words and profession they confess that Christ is come in the flesh, yet implicitly and by Consequence they plainly deny it, they maintaining those Opinions and Practices which are interpretatively opposite to Christ's incarnation. As their burdening the Church with such swarms of unnecessary Ceremonies; if the substance be come indeed (and they believe it) why do they keep up the shadow? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (Najanz▪), under the Gospel the shadows vanish, the truth and substance being come: Their Doctrine of Transubstantiation in effect deny's Christ's Body to be a true body, for can a true body exist in puncto (as they say Christ's doth)? can it be a true body and yet not extense? can it be a true body and yet be present in a thousand places at once? can it be a body and yet have none of those Adjuncts which are inseparable from a body? So again, their invading of Christ's great Offices, advancing of their own Merits, Satisfactions &c. (with many other things which might be instanced in) are all and each of them interpretative denials of our Savior's being come in the Flesh. Now (Sirs!) your Religion doth not expose you to this guilt, but rather highly secures you from it; but take heed you do not draw some opinion or practice into it, which may also make you guilty of denying implicitly the Incarnation of the Son of God.
But I go further, 'tis not enough for you not to deny this great Truth, no nor just to believe it, but there must be a firm believing of it, a full and steady assent given to it. I would assure myself that you do believe the verity of Christ's Manhood, the reality of his Flesh, the truth of his Incarnation; but do you believe it steadily? do you come up to a full assent to it? are there no wavering, doubting thoughts about it? are you rooted, stablished, confirmed in the belief of it? This I pressed upon you before with respect to Christ's Sonship, and now I am to press it upon you with respect to his Incarnation. Whence let me tell you, that though the belief of this be not the main, vital, essential act of faith, quà justifying; yet 'tis absolutely necessary to that which is so; for there will be no fiducial reliance upon Christ's Person (which is the great act of faith as justifying), if antecedently there be not a firm belief of his being made Flesh: O therefore see that you be fully settled in your minds as to the unquestionable verity of this great Article of the Christian Religion. 'Twould be sad if (in our circumstances ) we should fluctuate about it: for did all the Old-Testament-Prophesies point to it, (as old Zacharias tells us they did, Luk. 1.70, 72, 73. As he spake by the mouth of his holy Prophets, which have been since the world began &c. To perform the mercy promised to our Fathers, and to remember his holy Covenant: The Oath which he sware to our Father Abraham &c. (in all which expressions his eye was chiefly upon the birth and incarnation of Christ)? and have these Prophesies received their full accomplishment? and have we lived to see this? and yet shall we doubt of the thing? surely that would be sad. The Ratriarchs and they who lived under the Law, had but some dimmer discoveries of it; here and there an obscure promise and that was all; to them (for a long time) this was revealed but in types and shadows ): And it was too a great way off from them; yet they saw the promises afar off, and were persuaded of them (as the Apostle tells us Heb. 11.13.); and now when Christ is come, when the thing is done, shall we be doubting and questioning in ourselves about it? when our light is so clear shall our faith yet be weak? Our Lord's coming in Flesh to redeem Man was that great thing held forth in the Scriptures of the Old-Testament, and they are full of it; observe that passage Heb. 10.5, 5, 6, 7. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, be saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: in burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure: Then said I, Lo, I come (in the Volume of the Book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God: what doth Christ mean by the volume of the book? I answer, the whole body of the Old-Testament-Scriptures; this was not written only in this or that particular Text, but you have it all along interwoven into the body of those Scriptures: now when the whole stream and current of the Scripture runs to this very thing, shall we yet give but a languid assent about it? Especially when we have the New-Testament-revelation superadded to the former? the New Testament (I say), which gives us so full an account as to matter of fact (in reference to the Conception, Nativity, Life, Death of Christ); which shows us how this and that Prophesy (pointing to his Incarnation ) was fulfilled; which asserts it over and over again, telling us expressly that the Word was made Flesh, God was manifested in the Flesh &c. shall we notwithstanding all this, yet stagger in our faith about the truth of Christ's being sent in flesh? O believe it, and believe it steadily! so as to look upon it as a thing without controversy. Satan hath all along (more or less) made his assaults upon Christians in this, as well as in other matters; and no question he will do the same to you, if it be possible to undermine and hinder your firm assent to it; but let him not prevail.
2. But under this branch of Exhortation I am to urge, not only firmness of assent but also firmness of adherence: I mean this, you must believe that Christ was sent in flesh so as to cleave and stick to him as sent in Flesh. There are some amongst us (whom therefore I cannot but look upon as most sadly deluded, and most dangerously erring in the very Fundamentals of the Christian Religion, ) who make little of a Christ in this notion; they are all for a Christ within them, but as to a Christ without them or a Christ in flesh, as born of the Virgin Mary, crucified at Jerusalem &c. I say a Christ (thus stated) they decry and disregard: (O that from what I have heard and read I had not too just occasion for this charge!) It is highly necessary therefore that I should say something to antidote you against this venom; that under the pretence of a Christ within you do not lose or overlook a Christ without. In a sober sense we are for a Christ within as much as any; viz. as he is formed in the Soul at the new birth Gal. 4.19, as he is united to and dwells in believers Col. 1.27. Rom. 8.10. but yet 'tis a Christ without, as incarnate, whom we rely upon for life and salvation; as he is so considered, we eye him in the great acts of faith and ground all our hope and confidence upon him. I have before told you, that a Christ as formed in the heart is necessary to justification and salvation (for he saves none but those who have this inward work ); but yet 'tis a Christ as formed in the Virgins womb and as dying upon the Cross, who is the proper, efficient, meritorious, procuring Cause of Justification and Salvation. These two must by no means be parted, yet their efficiency or causal influence upon Sinners good is very different; for by the one mercy is procured, by the other 'tis only applied; the impetration is by the Christ without, the application only is by the Christ within: And therefore though you are to put an high value upon the latter, and to endeavor to make sure of it as the way and condition of receiving benefit by Christ; yet you are to know that 'tis the former by which all is merited, and therefore there the great stress of your Faith must lie: 'tis a Christ as taking flesh and dying in flesh that you must stick unto. Matth. 1.21. She shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins: (Christ the Son of Mary was to save) 1 Tim. 1.15. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus [came into the world] to save sinners &c. (the Apostle lays the meriting of Salvation upon a Christ without, as coming into the world and not as coming into the heart ); he who died upon the Cross, was slain, suffered at Jerusalem, he's the person whom God hath exalted to be Prince, and Savior, Acts 5.30, 31. The God of our Fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree; him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins: (surely where persons have not forfeited the very principles of Christianity, this is a thing which needs no proof). Indeed Christ in the Spirit will very little profit those who disregard him in the flesh.
But no more of this! Paul hath a passage which I would a little open; 2 Cor. 5.16. Henceforth (saith he) know we no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more: how? know Christ no more after the flesh? what doth he mean by this? did he cast off all respects to him, all reliance upon him, as considered in his Flesh? O no! all that he aims at is this, he knew Christ no more after the flesh (that is) so as to have any further converse with him in a fleshly way; he did not expect again to eat and drink with him (as sometimes the Apostles had done), all that external converse was now at an end: Or he means that he did not look for any fleshly advantages by him, (as worldly honor, preferment, riches &c.): Or again, that he did not know him as in the state of his former abasement and humiliation; (so the word flesh is sometimes taken more restrainedly, see Heb. 5.7.) Thus you are to understand the Apostle in these words, and not as if he laid aside all knowledge of or respects unto the Lord Jesus, as considered in his Human Nature.
In believing we must eye a whole Christ, Christ God and Christ Man too; his whole Person with both his Natures is the proper object of Faith: And certainly there's something init that believing is so much set forth by its reference to his Flesh; as Joh. 6.53, 54, 56. Verily, verily I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you: Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him. Take away this Flesh and Christ's fitness to be a Mediator to God, and a Savior to us, ceases; and consequently his fitness too to be the object of saving Faith: 'tis Christ God-Man whom in believing you have to do with; and you are neither so to eye his Manhood as to overlook his Godhead, nor so to eye his Godhead as to overlook his Manhood: both together do your work. Upon the whole therefore, you are in the actings of Faith to look upon Christ as having assumed your Nature, and so to rest upon him.
2. Secondly, be much in the study and contemplation of Christ as sent in flesh. What an object is a Christ incarnate for these! I have pressed you to study him as the Son of God, I would also press you to study him as the Son of Man: to know him as God's own Son and as having taken our own Flesh, there's the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the excellency of the knowledge of him. What dry, insipid, jejune knowledge is all other in comparison of the knowledge of Christ as God-Man. One dram of this (especially if saving, practical, and fiducial ) is better than great heaps of mere natural and philosophical knowledge. It cannot be enough lamented that Christ in his Person, Natures, Offices is so little known; as to that which I am treating of, his assuming Mans nature, how little do the most understand of it! all hope to be saved by a Christ incarnate but (alas!) they know not what a Christ incarnate is: in the general possibly they can tell you he was a Man, but if you examine them about particulars what woeful ignorance will you find in them! is not this to be greatly bewailed? Nay, go even to Saints themselves how scant and dim is their light and knowledge about this! none can know it fully, some know nothing of it, they who know something 'tis (God knows) but very little in comparison of what they might, they wade but ankle deep into this great depth: is there not need therefore of this advice, to stir you up to the studying of Christ as sent in the flesh? O that you would study other things less, and this more! that you would every day (with all due sobriety) be prying, searching, diving into this mystery of a God manifested in the flesh! so the Angels do, this is one of those things which they desire to look into 1 Pet. 1.12. and we being more concerned in it than they shall not we be looking into it? David says Psal. 111.2. The works of the Lord are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein: here's a great work indeed, the greatest that ever was done by God; many great and glorious things he hath done but the sending of his own Son in our flesh exceeds them all: now shall not this be sought out by us? Things are to be studied according to their excellency in themselves and their influence upon the good of others: there are (in a very eminent manner) both of these inducements in the Incarnation of Christ, to draw out our most serious endeavors after the knowledge of it; for what so excellent in itself, so beneficial to Man as that? It stands very high in the place and reference which it bears in and to the Gospel; 'tis the Soul and Spirit, the marrow and kernel of the whole Gospel, one of the highest discoveries which the Gospel makes; all the Articles of Faith (saith one) stoop and veil to it: and if so, what a necessity doth this lay upon you to search as narrowly into it as ever you can? Pray do not object the mysteriousness of the thing, as if it was so much above you that you were not to meddle with it: for
- (1.) Though it be a great mystery yet 'tis a mystery (in a great measure) revealed.
- (2.) The more mysterious it is the more need there is of the most diligent inquisition into it;
- (3.) 'It is a mystery to curb curiosity and Pride, but not to stifle sober and modest enquiries.
Further, be much in meditating upon and contemplating of Christ as sent in the flesh. You are to study him that you may know more of him, to meditate upon him that you may draw out and improve what you do know. O Sirs! he that is in your Nature in Heaven should he not be very much in your hearts here on earth? A Christ incarnate? how should our Souls be swallowed up in thinking of him as such! What doth the whole world afford so deserving of our most fixed thoughts? is there any flower in Natures garden out of which such sweetness may be sucked? what divine comfort, what heavenly delights must needs flow from, hence to the Soul that is much in the contemplation of it? Is the foundation of our eternal happiness laid in it, and shall we not mind it? is it a thing so rare, so unparalleled, and yet shall it be seldom in our thoughts? What fools are we to suffer ourselves to be so much taken up with trifles and shadows, when we might live in the daily view of Christ God-Man! why should an empty, perishing world engross our thoughts when we have such an object as a Jesus incarnate to contemplate? why do we dwell so much upon fleshly things (of a deceiving and defiling nature), when the flesh-assuming Christ, the spotless and undefiled flesh of the holy Jesus, is either not at all regarded or very hastily passed over? 'It is said of Isaac Gen. 24.63. He went out to meditate in the field: O Christians! what a spacious and delicious field is Christ's Human Nature for you to meditate in and upon! O that you would go out frequently and so do. You say, sometimes you would employ your thoughts in divine Meditation and Contemplation, but you cannot call to mind a proper object for it, or you are presently on ground and want matter for your thoughts to work upon: 'pray when 'tis so, fix upon the Word as made Flesh; there's a fit and full object for these things, where think and think as long as you will yet fresh matter will offer itself; that's a Well out of which the more you draw the fuller you will find it to be. Psal. 104.34. My meditation of him (saith David ) shall be sweet; surely the believer may say, My meditation of God (who & as he was made Man ) shall be sweet: O that you would live in the daily exercise of this heavenly duty upon this