Sermons Preached on Romans 8, Chapter 12 (1 of 3)

Sermons Preached on Romans 8 · Chapter 12 (1 of 3)

p. 371ROM. 8.3.

—&c. In the likeneſs of ſinful Fleſh.

CHAP. XII. Of Chriſt's Incarnation and abaſement in Fleſh.

A Fourth General in the Words handled. Why the Apoſtle is ſo expreſs in the further adding of theſe Words to the former? Five things laid down for the explication of them. Fleſh not taken here in the ſame ſenſe with Fleſh in what went before. A double Synecdoche in the word Fleſh. Chriſt did not bring Fleſh from Heaven with him but aſſum'd it here on Earth. His ſending in Fleſh was not his taking a meer humane ſhape &c. Likeneſs to be joyn'd not with Fleſh but with ſinful Fleſh.

Two Propoſitions rais'd from the Words: Of the Firſt, that Chriſt was ſent in Fleſh. What his ſending in Fleſh imports: this opened more ſtrictly and more largely. Of Marcion (and Others) who denied the verity of Chriſt's Incarnation and Body: That proved as to both: as alſo the verity of his whole Manhood. Of his having a true Soul. Of his ſubmitting to the common adjuncts and infirmities of Fleſh. How the Humane Nature in Chriſt and in us differ. His Incarnation not impoſſible, not incredible. The Reaſons of it:

p. 372(1.) That the Old-Teſtament Prophecies, Promiſes, Types, might thereby receive their accompliſhment.

(2.) That Chriſt might be qualified for his Office (as Mediator) and the work of Redemption:

(3.) Becauſe it was the fitteſt and the beſt way in order to the redeeming of man.

Seven Propoſitions laid down for the due ſtating and opening of Chriſt's Incarnation: As

(1.) That Chriſt (who before was the eternal Son of God and had a praevious exiſtence) was made Fleſh: (this made good againſt the SOCINIANS).

(2.) That the Second Perſon only was incarnate.

(3.) That this was not done till the fulneſs of time.

(4.) That 'twas not the divine Eſſence abſolutely conſidered which aſſumed Fleſh, but that Eſſence conſidered as ſubſiſting in the Second Perſon.

(5.) That the Nature aſſuming was the Divine Nature.

(6.) That the Humane Nature was ſo aſſum'd as to ſubſiſt in the Divine, and that both of theſe Natures make but one Perſon: (where the Hypoſtatical Union is opened and prov'd).

(7.) 'Tis probable that if Adam had not fallen Chriſt had not been ſent in the Fleſh.

Of the Second Propoſition, That Chriſt was ſent in the likeneſs, yet but in the likeneſs of ſinful Fleſh. Of the Sanctity of Chriſt's Humane Nature: The Grounds thereof. Uſe 1. To inform

(1.) Of the excellency of the Goſpel and of the Chriſtian Religion: As alſo

(2.) Of the excellency of Chriſt's Fleſh or Manhood.

Uſe 2. Wherein ſeveral Duty's are urged upon Chriſtians: as namely

(1.) To give a full and firm aſſent to the Truth of Chriſt's Incarnation, and alſo firmly to adhere to Chriſt as having aſſumed our Fleſh; (where ſomething is ſpoken againſt thoſe who make little of a Chriſt in Fleſh but are all for a Chriſt within).

(2.) To be much in the ſtudy and contemplation of Chriſt incarnate.

(3.) To adore the Myſtery it ſelf and alſo p. 373the Father and the Son in the Myſtery.

(4.) To endeavour after the powerful influence of it upon Heart and Life: So as

1. To be humble.

2. Not to give way to Sin.

3. Eſpecially not to thoſe ſins which do more directly diſparage and debaſe the Humane Nature.

4. To love God and Chriſt.

5. To be willing to do, to ſuffer, to be abaſed for Chriſt.

6. To labour after a participation of the Divine Nature.

7. To be highly thankful, both for the Thing it ſelf and alſo for the revelation of it.

Uſe 3. Of Comfort. As

(1.) Chriſt in Fleſh muſt needs be un effectual way for promoting God's Glory and the Sinners Good.

(2.) In this God hath given out a very high demonſtration of his Love.

(3.) By this all the Promiſes are ſeal'd, and all the great things of Faith and Hope made ſure and credible: Particularly

1. The Myſtical Union.

2. Communion with God, Chriſt's ſpecial preſence, the inhabitation of the Spirit.

3. The Communications of Grace from God.

4. Our Sonſhip to God.

5. The Reſurrection of our Bodies.

6. The Future Glory.

(4.) God is now knowable and acceſſible.

(5.) The Humane Nature highly dignify'd and advanc'd.

(6.) Chriſt upon this is the more compaſſionate.

(7.) There are few troubles of Conſcience wherein this may not afford matter of eaſe and relief.

The Fourth General in the Words.THis branch of the Words contains a Fourth Head in it (which comes next to be opened): Our Apoſtle having ſpoken of God's ſending his own Son, he goes on to ſhew in what manner he ſent him; and (as to that) he ſaith God ſent him in the likeneſs of ſinful fleſh. Here's nothing in the Text but Wonders, but the foreign the great things of God! the further we go the deeper the Waters are, and ſtill new matter offers it ſelf to heighten our admiration: 'twas wonderful that God ſhould ſend ſuch a Son, but that he ſhould ſend ſuch a Son in ſuch a manner, in Fleſh, yea, in the likeneſs of ſinful Fleſh, this is yet p. 374more wonderful. O Chriſtian! ſtay alittle, pauſe upon theſe Words, get thy thoughts up, thy heart elevated in the contemplation of what is here ſet before thee, and then read one.

Why this Branch is added to what goes before?In my entrance upon them it may be enquired, why the Apoſtle is ſo particular and ſo expreſs in this matter?**Nonne ſatis erat dicere, mittens Filium ſuum? Hoc ipſo verbo declaratum non fuiſſet iſtud magnum myſterium ſcitu que digniſſimum: quomodo videlicet peccatum peccati damnavit Omnipotens, ſimilitudine …arnis peccati peccatores à peccato liberans &c. Corn. Muſſus. had it not been enough for him to have ſaid God ſent his own Son and ſo to have broke off, but he muſt alſo add that God ſent him in the likeneſs &c? To which I anſwer, there was great reaſon for this amplification, for the Apoſtle being here treating of ſuch great myſteries, of ſuch high and glorious diſcoveries of the Wiſdom, Grace, Love of God towards loſt Sinners, he thought in theſe he could not be too full or too expreſs; and he being to ſet down in a little room the whole model and platform of mans Salvation, the good Spirit of God directed him to put in enough, both for the ſetting forth of God's admirable Love, Mercy &c. and alſo for the encouragement of the Believers Faith (with reſpect to the certainty, compleatneſs, and fulneſs of his Salvation). Now Chriſt's incarnation and abaſement in Man's Nature being ſo pertinent and proper and ſo neceſſary as to both of theſe ends, therefore our Apoſtle will not paſs that over without a particular mentioning of it. And elſewhere you find him when he had ſpoken of Chriſt's miſſion preſently to ſubjoyn Chriſt's incarnation alſo; as Gal. 4.4. When the fulneſs of time was come, God ſent his Son, made of a woman &c. 'Twas not only God's ſending of Chriſt but his ſo ſending of him (viz.) in Fleſh, yea, in the likeneſs of ſinful Fleſh, which puts ſuch an emphaſis and accent upon his own Grace, and which doth give ſuch full aſſurance to poor Creatures that they ſhall be effectually redeem'd and ſav'd. Upon theſe Conſiderations therefore (beſides the admirableneſs of the thing in it ſelf) Paul (when he is upon ſuch an Argument) might very well ſuperadde this to what preceded; and he's not ſatisfied with the once mentioning of it in the general, but he repeats it and more particularly ſhows what uſe God made of Chriſt's Fleſh, or what good did by that redound to us, for ſin he condemned ſin in the Fleſh (that is) in the fleſh of Chriſt.

The Explication of the Words.For the clearing up the true meaning of the Words, and the vindicating of them from thoſe falſe interpretations which ſome of the old Hereticks put upon them, I will lay down a Few Particulars:

p. 3751. Firſt, that Fleſh (as here uſed concerning Chriſt) carry's a quite other ſenſe in it than what it did when it was ſpoken of before: You had it (Verſ. 1.)—Who walk not after the Fleſh &c. in this Verſe, what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the Fleſh; (in which ſenſe as 'tis there uſed it occurs in many following Verſes). Now Fleſh in theſe places is taken in a very different notion from Fleſh in this; for in them 'tis taken morally and accidentally, but here (where Chriſt is concern'd in it) 'tis taken Phyſically and ſubſtantially; in them it notes Man's nature as corrupted, but here the very being and ſubſtance of the Humane nature, or the verity of the Humane nature it ſelf abſtracted from any ſuch adjunct; (and ſo 'tis twice taken in this Verſe).

2. That Fleſh (in this application) is not to be underſtood in its more narrow and limited ſenſe, but in its more general and comprehenſive ſenſe. Here's a double Synecdoche in the word, as it ſignifies

(1.) the whole Body:

(2.) the whole Man or the whole nature of man:

Fleſh in its ſtrict acceptation is but a part of the body and the body but a part of the Man, but ſo you are not here to take it; for Chriſt had a perfect, entire, compleat body, and every thing (as well as meer Fleſh) which is proper to a body; for inſtance, he had blood as well as Fleſh (therefore both are named Heb. 2.14. He alſo took part of the ſame (i.e. of Fleſh and blood); and he had bones as well as fleſh, Luke 24.39. A Spirit hath not fleſh and bones as ye ſee me have. Further, Chriſt was not only clothed with Fleſh as that is limited but to one part of Man, but he aſſumed the**foreign. Cyrill. Alexandr. in Joh. p. 95. whole Nature of Man; he had a Soul as well as a Body (which two are the eſſential, conſtitutive parts of Man). What more common in Scripture than by Fleſh to ſet forth Man in his whole, entire, humane Nature? (See Gen. 6.12. Pſal. 65.2. Iſa. 40.5. Joel 2.28. Luk. 3.6. Rom. 3.20. Joh. 17.2. 1 Cor. 1.29.): and ſo the word is frequently uſed there to repreſent the whole manhood of Chriſt, (ſo Joh. 1.14. 1 Tim. 3.16. Heb. 10.20. 1 Pet. 3.18. & paſſim). When therefore 'tis ſaid God ſent his Son in Fleſh you are thus to conceive of it, that Chriſt did not only take Fleſh but that with it he took the whole Nature of Man, that he was as truly ſo compleatly Man, conſiſting of Fleſh and Spirit, Body and Soul; yea, that he aſſumed the entire Humane Nature with what-ever is proper to it, (two things only being excepted, of which by and by). In this extent and latitude you are here to take the word Fleſh, a part being put for the whole.

p. 3763. Although it be ſaid God ſent his Son in the likeneſs of ſinful Fleſh, yet we muſt diſtinguiſh between the Miſſion & the Incarnation. They differ in their Order, Chriſt being firſt ſent and then incarnate; as alſo in the place where each was done, for the miſſion was above but the incarnation was here below. This I take notice of that I may the better clear up that ambiguity which ſeems to be in the expreſſion, (which ſome among the Antients not underſtanding aright, runn'd themſelves upon very erroneous Opinions). For it being ſaid that God ſent his own Son in the likenſs of ſinful Fleſh, they from hence inferr'd that Chriſt came from Heaven actually clothed with Fleſh, that his Body was immediately created there, and that from thence he brought it down with him hither, and (to take in another of their**The firſt broachers of which were Apollinaris, Valentinus, &c. Of and againſt whom ſee Najanz. ad Nectarium. Athan. de Incarn. Chriſti. tom. 1. p. 619. & 1083. Haereſy's) that it was of ſuch a nature as that it only paſs'd through the Virgins womb foreign, as water through a pipe or as light through a glaſs. But you are not to give way to theſe apprehenſions the true meaning of the Words being this; Chriſt was ſent in the likeneſs of Fleſh, not that he had it before he was on earth but it was his Father's Will (for the fulfilling of which he ſent him) that he ſhould deſcend and here below aſſume Fleſh: ſo that though the Apoſtle expreſſes it by being ſent in the likeneſs &c. yet his meaning is rather to or for or in order to the likeneſs of ſinful fleſh: this was not done beforehand juſt at his ſending but this was to be ſubſequent upon it in its proper time and place. And Earth was that place where this ſtupendious myſtery of a Chriſt incarnate did commence, there was the attiring Houſe where he put on his mean and mourning dreſs; 'twas in the Virgin where his Body was ſo curiouſly and ſo wonderfully wrought. When he aſcended he carried up his Body from Earth to Heaven, but when he deſcended he did not bring down his Body from Heaven to Earth; the foundation of his being incarnate was laid above (in the purpoſe and command of the Father, with reſpect to which he's ſaid to be ſent in the likeneſs &c.) but his actual aſſumption of Fleſh was done here below. True he ſaith Joh. 3.13. No man hath aſcended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven: and Joh. 6.62. What if you ſhall ſee the Son of man aſcend up where he was before? but this you are to underſtand as ſpoken only upon the foreign communication of Properties, that being here attributed to Chriſt in one Nature (as the Son of man) which was only proper to him in the other (as the Son of God). 'Tis alſo ſaid of him that the ſecond man is the Lord from heaven 1 Cor. 15.47; but that p. 377you are to take not as referring to the matter and ſubſtance of his body (as if he brought that from heaven), but only as pointing to his deſcent from heaven and the miraculous formation of his body here on earth. And whereas Some ſpeak (as you heard) of Chriſt's Body being immediately created, and but paſſing through the Virgin as water through a pipe, the falſity of that Opinion is very notorious; for the Scripture plainly tells us that it was produc'd in another way, that he was conceiv'd and born of the Virgin, that the production of his ſubſtance was of Hers (though in an extraordinary manner); therefore 'tis ſaid Mat. 1.18. ſhe was found with child of the holy Ghoſt; and (Verſ. 20.) that which is conceiv'd in her is of the Holy Ghoſt; and Luke 1.35. that holy thing which ſhall be born of thee ſhall be called the Son of God; and Elizabeth ſpeaks of Chriſt as the fruit of her womb Luk. 1.42. and Paul ſayes he was made of a woman Gal. 4.4. (not made in a woman but of a woman). From all which Texts two things are evident,Of theſe things reade Tertull. in his excellent Treatiſe de Carne Chriſti. p. 374.

(1.) that though the formation of Chriſt's Fleſh was extraordinary and miraculous, yet it was not immediately created (eſpecially not in heaven):

(2.) that the Virgin Mary had a proper cauſality in the production of Chriſt's Body, and therefore was not a meer pipe through which it did only paſs.

4. This ſending of Chriſt in the likeneſs &c. was not his aſſuming of a meer humane ſhape or his apparition only in the ſhape and form of a man, but it was the real aſſumption of the humane Nature conſiſting of Soul and Body. There's a vaſt difference betwixt Chriſt's incarnation & ſuch apparitions as thoſe which we have inſtances of in the Old Teſtament; and that too, not only with reſpect to the appanitions of Angels but alſo of Chriſt himſelf; for it might eaſily be proved that 'twas he who appear'd to Abraham Gen. 18.13, 14, 17. to Jacob Gen. 32.24. to Moſes Exod. 3.2. (compar'd with Acts 7.30. &c. 35.). But now his incarnation was a quite other thing, for in that there was not the taking of man's ſhape but of man's nature, not the taking of it ſo as to lay it down again after a ſhort time (as was in apparitions), but ſo as to keep it and continue in it for ever. The Apoſtle cry's out 1 Tim. 3.16. Without controverſie great is the myſtery of Godlineſs, God manifeſted in the Fleſh &c. but had there been in that nothing more than a meer apparition of Chriſt in Fleſh or in humane ſhape, the thing had not been ſo ſtrange that he ſhould make ſuch a myſtery of it, for he knew this was very common: therefore there muſt be more in it than ſo. To convince us of the truth and reality of Chriſt's Fleſh p. 378in oppoſition to all phantaſms and meer apparitions, the Scripture ſpeaks of him not only as appearing (Mal. 3.2. Who ſhall ſtand when he appeareth? 2 Tim. 1.10. But is now made manifeſt by the appearing of our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt &c. Heb. 9.26. Once in the end of the world hath he appeared &c.); nor only as manifeſted (1 Joh. 1.2. 1 Joh. 3.5, 8. 1 Tim. 3.16.); nor only as taking Fleſh (which expreſſion to ſome might be more doubtful and general, as Heb. 2.14, 16.): but to put this out of all queſtion it ſays he was made fleſh Joh. 1.14. (which muſt be more than a bare appearance or manifeſtation in imaginary and phantaſtick Fleſh). 'Twas enough for**Nullus unquam Angelus ideo deſcendit ut cruciſigeretur &c. Si nunquam ejuſmodi fuit cauſa Angelorum corporandorum, habes cauſam cur non acceperint carnem. Non venerant mori, ideo nec naſci. At vero Chriſtus mori miſſus, naſci quo que neceſſario habuit ut mori poſſet. Tertull. de Carne Chriſti. p. 363. Angels when God had only ſome particular and ordinary meſſage to ſend them upon, to aſſume an external ſhape and then lay it down again; but when Chriſt is to be born, to converſe in the world a conſiderable time, to die, to make ſatisfaction in that Nature in which the offence had been committed, here muſt be more than a Spectrum, an apparition, here muſt be real Fleſh. And indeed the former Old-Teſtament apparitions were but as ſo many††Vide Irenaum adverſ. Haereſ. lib. 4. c. 37. praeludium's of Chriſt's real incarnation; in all theſe he did but praeludere humanitati ſuae (as Tertullian phraſeth it).

5. Therefore (as to the letter of the Words) when 'tis ſaid Chriſt was ſent in the likeneſs of ſinful Fleſh, this likeneſs is to be link'd not with Fleſh but with ſinful Fleſh. He had true, real, very Fleſh but he had only in appearance and likeneſs ſinful Fleſh; he had not a putative, imaginary body, but as to ſin though there was ſomething like to that in his outward ſtate and condition yet 'twas but like to it, there was no ſuch thing in truth and reality inhering in that Nature which he aſſumed. This is that plain, genuine interpretation of the Words againſt the old Heretical pervertings of them which the**Non in ſimilitudine Carnis quaſi Caro non eſſet Caro, ſed in ſimilitudine Carnis quia Caro erat ſed peccati Caro non erat. Aug. Vide Serm. 3. & 6. de verbis Apoſtoli. In ſimilitudine Carnis peccati fuiſſe Chriſtum ait, non quod ſimilitudinem Carnis accepit, quaſi imaginem Corporis & non veritatem, ſed ſimilitudinem Carnis peccatricis vult intelligi, quod ipſa non peccatrix Caro Chriſti ejus ſuit par cujus erat peccatum, genere non vitio Adae &c. Tertull. de Carne Chriſti. p. 372. Similitudo ad peccati titulum pertinet non ad ſubſtantiae mendacium &c. Idem adv. Marci. lib. 5. cap. 14. foreign. Baſil. Ep. 65. foreign &c. Chryſoſt. in loc. foreign &c. foreign. Theodoret. Miſit Deus &c. ut in verâ carnis ſuſceptione agnoſceretur veritas non fuiſſe peccati; & quantum ad corpus veritas intelligeretur, quantum ad peccatum ſimilitudo peccati, Caſſian. de Incarn. Dom. lib. 4. Orthodox (Antient and Modern) put upon them; the truth of which I ſhall endeavour to make out in what will follow: at preſent I need ſay no more about it.

p. 379Two Propoſitions raiſed from the Words.Theſe things being thus premiſed the whole matter will fall into theſe two Propoſitions:

1. That Chriſt was ſent in Fleſh.

2. That he was ſent in the likeneſs, yet but in the likeneſs of ſinful Fleſh. Two very weighty and important Truths! therefore I hope the opening and confirming of them will not be judged tedious or unneceſſary.

Of the Firſt Propoſition wherein the verity of Chriſt's Fleſh is proved.I begin with the Firſt: where I ſhall conſider the Fleſh in which Chriſt was ſent

(1.) in its more ſtrict,

(2.) in its more large notion.

More ſtrictly, as it relates to the verity of Chriſt's incarnation and the reality of his body; more largely, as it relates to the verity of his whole manhood, which (as hath been already ſaid) is made up and conſtituted of ſomething more than Fleſh.

But before I enter upon either of theſe Heads, I cannot but bewail (and O that I could do it with the moſt inward and moſt intenſe ſadneſs of Spirit!) that unworthy, wretched uſage which our bleſſed Lord JESUS hath all along met withal ever ſince he was reveal'd to the world. He hath but two Natures and how hath he been impugned, oppoſed, ſtruck at in both? firſt Some attempted to undermine his Godhead, then Others ſucceeded who attempted to undermine his Manhood. 'Tis very ſad to conſider, that he who is both God and Man (if ſeveral men might have had their Will) ſhould have been long before this neither God nor Man, but a very nothing. Ebion firſt comes upon the Stage and he denies him to be God, then come Marcion, Manes &c. and they deny him to be Man; the Arrian ungods him, and the Manichee unmans him, what will they leave us of him who is our All? How was the Primitive Church fain to diſpute, argue, contend to their utmoſt (and all little enough) for the defence of theſe Natures of Chriſt, (and God be bleſſed for their excellent zeal in ſuch fundamental Articles of the Chriſtian Faith! 'tis pity the Churches zeal ſhould ever run in any other Channel). But Chriſt muſt be oppoſed ſome way or other, (for he is ſet for a ſign which ſhall be ſpoken againſt Luk. 2.34.); the preſent Conteſts of the world are now againſt him chiefly with reſpect to his Offices, but the paſt Conteſts were againſt him chiefly with reſpect to his Natures: I have (according to my poor ability) vindicated his Natural and eternal Sonſhip (and conſequently his Godhead), I am now to vindicate the truth of his Incarnation and Manhood.

p. 380This the forementioned Hereticks peremptorily deny'd (as appears by the**Athanaſ. tom. 1. de Incarn. Chriſti. Tertull. de Praeſcrip. adverſ. Haeret. c. 46. Haer. 3. & de Carne Chriſti, & adverſ. Marcion. (againſt whom he writes five Books). Epiphan. tom. 2. lib. 1. Haer. 24. & 80. & tom. 3. Haer. 42. Auguſt. tom. 4. p. 925. &c. Cyrill Alexandr. tom. 5. p. 678. &c. Antients who wrote againſt them); they aſſerted that Chriſt had no ††—foreign. Ignat. hence they were called foreign. Valentinus carnem Chriſti putativam introduxit. Tertull. de came Chriſti. They ſay Chriſt did but foreign as Theophylact expreſſes it.true Fleſh, 'twas only the likeneſs of Fleſh which he appeared in, that his body was only a Phantaſtick, imaginary Body. And this peſtilent Opinion they did (in part) ground upon the Words which we have at preſent before us: but as to them, by the giving of their true ſenſe this weapon has been reſcued out of the Enemies hand. And ſome‖‖foreign eſt ipſa Caro, etiamſi non cum peccato &c. Miſſus ergo Filius Dei foreign. i. e. in carne non peccatrice, eâdem tamen, quae in nobis peccârat; five pollutâ non in ipſo, ſed in nobis. Naturam Peccati (h.e.) Peocatorum Dei Filius ſuſcepit, puram quidem ſed ut noſtram, quae peccârat expiaret. Cum notiſſimo Hebraiſmo foreign res ipſa dicatur, ut cum foreign ipſe Homo dicitur, non video cur non & foreign vera ſit …aro: cum peccati non ab eo dicatur, qui aſſumſit at que hoc ipſo expiavit, ſed ab eo qui peccando corrupit. Heinſ. Expoſitors (the more to weaken the Objection of the Adverſaries as grounded upon this Text) tell us, that the likeneſs here of ſinful Fleſh is the ſameneſs of ſinful Fleſh; that Chriſt took that very Fleſh which was and is ſinful, (not that it was ſo in him but that it is ſo in us), that he aſſum'd that very Fleſh which in man is defil'd by ſin, (yet not as defiled but as true Fleſh). As when 'tis ſaid concerning him that he was in the**Phil. 2.6, 7, 8.Phil 2:6Phil 2:7Phil 2:8 form of God, in the form of a Servant, in the likeneſs and faſhion of man (foreign, 'tis the ſame word with that in the Text), the meaning is that Chriſt was truly God, truly a Servant, truly Man: and as 'tis ſaid concerning Adam **Gen. 5.3.Gen 5:3he begat a Son in his own likeneſs, that is, he begat a Son who was as truly a man and as truly a Sinner as himſelf; ſo Chriſt was ſent in the likeneſs &c. viz. in juſt ſuch Fleſh or in the very ſelf ſame Fleſh which man hath made in himſelf ſinful, and therefore paſſible and mortal. Now though I cannot deny the truth of this Expoſition (as thus ſtated), nor that it may very well be grounded upon parallel places; yet becauſe to ſome at the firſt hearing it may ſeem ſomewhat harſh, I rather incline to that which was laid down before in the opening of the Words; 'twas the ſame fleſh in Chriſt and in us in its Phyſical conſideration, but it being morally conſidered it was but the likeneſs of ſinful Fleſh.

p. 381But to come to that which I propounded, let us conſider Fleſh in its ſtrict acceptation as it relates to the fleſhly and bodily part, ſo I'le lay down two things about it:

1. That Chriſt was indeed ſent in fleſh, was really incarnate, and did verily take fleſh upon him. And what one thing is there in the whole Goſpel wherein 'tis plain and poſitive, if it be not ſo in this? Joh. 1.14. And the Word was made Fleſh: 1 Tim. 3.16. Without controverſie great is the myſtery of Godlineſs, God manifeſted in the fleſh. 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. Rom. 1.3. Concerning his Son Jeſus Chriſt our Lord, who was made of the ſeed of David according to the fleſh: Rom. 9.5. Whoſe are the Fathers, and of whom as concerning the fleſh Chriſt came, who is over all God bleſſed for ever, Amen: Hence he's ſaid to be made of a woman Gal. 4.4. (many ſuch**See the ſtrength of theſe (with other) Texts drawn forth and vindicated againſt Objections by Mr. Tombes in a little Treatiſe called Emmannel or God-man, Sect. 15, 16, &c. (to the end of the Book.) places might be produced to prove that Chriſt really aſſumed Fleſh, but theſe may ſuffice).

Chriſt's Fleſh was organiz'd.And this Fleſh (wherein Chriſt was ſent) was organiz'd and form'd into a perfect body: the Apoſtle doth not only call it his Fleſh but the body of his fleſh: Col. 1.22. In the body of his fleſh through death &c. Heb. 10.5. Wherefore when he cometh into the world he ſaith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldſt not, but a Body haſt thou prepared me. I Pet. 1 24. Who his own ſelf bare our ſins in his own body on the tree &c. Our Saviour did not aſſume a confus'd indigeſted and unſhapen maſs or lump of fleſh (that was not his incarnation), but he aſſumed Fleſh caſt into the very mould and form of our bodies, having the ſame ſeveral parts, members, lineaments, the ſame proportion which they have.

2. I adde (not as a diſtinct Head from the former, but only that I may more diſtinctly ſpeak to it then as yet I have done,Of the Verity of Chriſt's Body.) that as Chriſt was indeed ſent in Fleſh, ſo the fleſh in which he was ſent was Fleſh indeed. He ſaith.**Joh. 6.55.John 6:55 My fleſh is meat indeed, and I ſay his Fleſh was fleſh indeed; as true, real, proper, very fleſh as that is which any of us carry about with us: 'twas (as was ſaid before) but the likeneſs of ſinful fleſh, but 'twas the reality of phyſical or p. 382ſubſtantial Fleſh. **Vide Aquin. 3. p. Qu. 5. Art. 1.Chriſt's body was no Spectrum or Phantaſm, no putative body (as if it had no being but what was in appearance and from imagination), but as real, as ſolid a body as ever any was; therefore the Apoſtle (in the**Col. 1.22.Col 1:22 fore-cited place) calls it a body of Fleſh, a body to ſhew the organization of it, and a body of fleſh to ſhew the reality of it, in oppoſition to all aerial and imaginary bodies. It had all the eſſential properties of a true body; ſuch as are organicalneſs, extenſion, local preſence, confinement, circumſcription, penetrability, viſibility, palpability, (and the like): Luke 24.39.**Quomodo hanc vocem interpretaris, Marcion &c. Ecce fallit & decipit &c. Ergo jam Chriſtum non de coelo deferre debueras, ſed de aliquo circulatoriò caetu, nec ſalutis Pontificem, ſed ſpectaculi artificem &c. Tertull. de Carne Chriſti. p. 362. Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I my ſelf, handle me and ſee, for a Spirit hath not fleſh and bones as ye ſee me have: 1 Joh. 1.1. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have ſeen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the word of life &c. He had alſo thoſe natural††Eſuriit ſub Diabolo, ſitiit ſub Samaritide, lacrymatus eſt ſupra Lazarum, trepidavit ad mortem, ſanguinem fudit poſtremò haec ſunt opinor ſigna coeleſtia. Idem. ibid. p. 367. affections, paſſions, infirmities which are proper to a body, as hunger Matth. 4.2. When he had faſted forty dayes and forty nights, he was afterwards an hungred: thirſt Joh. 4.7. Joh. 19.28. I thirſt: Sleep Matth. 8.24. Wearineſs Joh. 4.6. Jeſus being wearied with his journey &c. He was conceived, retained ſo long in the Virgins womb, ‖‖Marcion ut carnem Chriſti negaret, negavit etiam nativitatem; aut ut nativitatem negaret, negavit et Carnem, ſcilicet ne invicem ſibi teſtimonium redderent, & reſponderent Nativitas & Caro, quia nec nativitas ſine carne, nec caro ſine nativitate. Tertull. de Carne Chriſti. P. 358.born, circumcis'd, liv'd about thirty years on earth, convers'd all that time with men, ſuffered, died, was crucified, buried, roſe again, aſcended, ſat down with his body at the right hand of God, with it will come again to judge the world. Doth not all this ſpeak him to have a true body? could all this be done in and upon and by an imaginary body? Had it been only ſuch, then his Conception, Nativity, Death, Reſurrection, Aſcenſion are all too but imaginary things; his Sufferings, **foreign. Athan. de Incarn. p. 1083. Haec, quomodo in illo vera erant ſi ipſe non fuit verus? Si non verè habuit in ſe quod figeretur, quod moreretur, quod ſepeliretur, & reſuſcitaretur? Carnem ſcilicet ſanguine ſuffuſam, oſſibus ſtructam, nervis, intextam, venis implexam, quae naſci & mori novit? Tertull. de Carn. Chriſti. p. 361.Crucifixion, but meer fancies, and what then would become of us? then all our††Falſa eſt & fides noſtra, & phantaſma crit totum quod ſperamus a Chriſto. Tertull. Ibid. Faith, Hope, yea all our Religion would vaniſh into a meer fancy alſo. When Satan had him in the Wilderneſs and was tempting of him, p. 383he thus aſſaulted him Matth. 4.3. If thou be the Son of God, command that theſe ſtones be made bread: and (Verſ. 6.) If thou be the Son of God caſt thy ſelf down: now what an abſurd ridiculous thing had it been for Satan thus to have tempted Chriſt, ſuppoſing that he had only had a phantaſtick body? what need would there have been of food for ſuch a body? or what hurt could ſuch a body have received by falling from the higheſt pinacle? Nay further (as**Sceleſtiſſime hominum, qui interemtores excuſas Dei: Nihil enim ab eis paſſus eſt Chriſtus, ſi nihil verè eſt paſſus: Parce unicae ſpei totius orbis, quid deſtruis neceſſarium dedecus fidei? Tertull. Tertullian argues) what evil did his Murderers do in the crucifying of him if he had not a true body? for without that he could not have truly ſuffered, they then would have been excus'd (he ſuffering nothing at all by their means). The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is a ſymbol and repreſentation of his body, 1 Cor. 11.24. This is my body which is broken for you &c. now what a pitiful thing would this Sacramental repreſentation thereof be, if in it ſelf it was not a true body? (divers ſuch Conſiderations might be inſiſted upon if it was neceſſary).

So much for Chriſt's Fleſh in its ſtricter notion, Of the Verity of Chriſt's Manhood.I come now in the Second place to conſider it in its more large and extenſive notion. So Chriſt was ſent in Fleſh (that is) in the verity of man's nature, he verily took upon him the whole Humane nature, became true Man, of the ſame make and ſubſtance with us, in all things like to us (ſome things excepted which do not in the leaſt aboliſh or deſtroy the truth of his manhood). He's called the Man Chriſt Jeſus 1 Tim. 2.5. Since by man came death by man came alſo the reſurrection of the dead, 1 Cor. 15.21. He was made in the likeneſs of men: Phil. 2.7. He's ſtiled the Son of man Dan. 7.13. Joh. 3.13. the ſeed of the Woman Gen. 3.15. the ſeed of Abraham Gen. 22.18. the ſeed of David Rom. 1.3. the ſon of David Matth. 1.1. the branch of David Jer. 23.5. he's ſaid to be of the fruit of his loins Acts 2.30.

The two eſſential or conſtitutive parts of Man are Soul and Body, Of his having a true Soul.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 ſhew that he alſo had a real **Vide Aquin Sum. 3. p. Queſt. 5. Art. 3. Suſcepit non ſolum corpus humanum (ut quidam putant), ſed & animam noſtrarum animarum ſimilem per Naturam. Auguſt. de Incarn. Verbi Dei. tom. 4. lib. 2. p. 243.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††—foreign. Nemeſ. de Nat. Hom. c. 3. p. 94. covering and garment p. 384of the Soul, foreign 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 humane Body without an humane Soul, he had wanted that part which is moſt eſſential to man, and ſo could not have been look'd upon as true and perfect man; but 'twas far otherwiſe. For indeed Chriſt**H…c Deus in nobis ſalvavit, quod pro nobis ſuſcepit, & illam Naturam participem fecit ſalutis quam ſibi conjunxit. Fulgent. ad Traſimund. &c. redeem'd and ſav'd nothing but what he aſſum'd, 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 foreign(as Najanzene expreſſes it): if he will ſave the whole man from ſin he muſt††Totum hominem ſine peccato ſuſcepit, ut totum quo conſtabat homo à peccatorum peſ… ſanaret. Auguſt. de Civit. Dei. lib. 10. ca. 17. Si totum debuerat liberare pietas, totum debuit ſuſcipere divina Majeſtas. Totius ergo fuit hominis à Deo ſuſcipienda Natura, quoniam in toto fuit captivitas captivanda &c. Fulgent. ad Traſimund. de Myſterio Mediat. aſſume the whole man without ſin. 'Tis 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, Ʋnderſtanding, Will, Affections; now 'tis evident all theſe were in Chriſt: He had an humane Ʋnderſtanding (diſtinct from his Divine Ʋnderſtanding); 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**Vide Najanz. Orat. 36. p. 588. preciſe time of the day of judgment, Mark 13.32.); as he was God he knew all things, ſo his Ʋnderſtanding was infinite, he muſt therefore have ſome other Ʋnderſtanding which was but finite, in reference to which there might be ſomething which he did not know. He alſo had an humane 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.

p. 385Yet here alſo our bleſſed Lord and Saviour 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**See Epiphan. vol. 1. p. 743, 771. Apollinaris of a Soul, (the Arrians alſo are charged with this Hereſie): theſe held that Chriſt had no Soul, but that the‖‖foreign. Theodor. lib. 5 contra Haereſ. cap. 11. Deity was to him inſtead of a Soul and ſupply'd 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††2 Theſ. 2.11.2 Thess 2:11 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 cryed 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 cry'd 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,Of Chriſt's ſubmitting to the common Adjuncts &c. of the Humane Nature. and leave out nothing which may tend to the heightning of Chriſt's incomparable Love and condeſcenſion to Sinners), he was not barely ſent in Fleſh (ſo far as the verity of the Humane Nature is concern'd, 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 ſuſtain'd by common food as ours is, was hungry, thirſty, weary, poor, reproached, tempted, deſerted, &c. liv'd an afflicted life, then p. 386dy'd a miſerable death; was a**Iſal. 53.3. man of ſorrows and acquainted with grief, ††Phil. 2.7.Phil 2:7made 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 lyable unto); his whole life was a life of ſufferings, wherein as there was enough in his Holineſs, **foreign. Juſtin. Martyr. Expoſ. Fidei.Miracles, to ſhew him to be God, ſo there was alſo enough in his meanneſs, poverty, ſufferings to ſhew him to be Man: In a word, he took all our infirmities upon him; (take it with a double reſtriction),

1. To all our††foreign. Damaſcen. de Orthod. Fid. l. 3. c. 20. 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 lyable to the particular infirmities of Individuums, How the Humane Nature in Chriſt and in us differs?but only to thoſe which properly belonged to the common Nature.

I would carry this a little higher; though I have ſaid ſo much concerning the reality and ſameneſs of Chriſt's Humane Nature with ours, yet you are not in all reſpects to equalize that Nature as 'tis in him and as 'tis in us: for Subſtance and Eſsence 'tis one and the ſame in both, yet in other conſiderations there's a great diſparity; for

1. The Humane 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. 'Tis tainted and defil'd 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, p. 387for 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**Tertull. de Carne Chriſti: Deo nihil impoſſibile niſi quod non vult.—Quodcun que Deo indignum eſt mihi expedit.—Quid magis etubeſcendum naſci an mori? Carnem geſtare an Crucem? circuncidi an ſuffigi? educari an ſepeliri? in praeſepe deponi an in monumento recondi?—Vide Athanaſ. de Incarn. Verbi Dei. tom. 1. p. 88. (more fully) p. 95. &c. Iſidor. Pelus. Ep. L. 1. Ep. 141. Cyril. Hieroſ. Catech. 12. p. 111. Cyprian de Bapt. Chriſti. p. 492. Lactant. de Verâ Sapient. cap. 22. Fulgent. ad Regem Traſim. de Chriſto Mediat. Anſelm. cur Deus Homo. l. 1. cap. 3. p. 92.—Hoc myſterium à rectâ ratione abhorrere ac tanquam impoſſibile rejici, nunquam probabit. Ratio quidem corrupta ac primae Philoſophiae ignara, futilia quaedam argumenta contra illud fingit: verùm ratio quae infinitam divinae Eſſentiae perfectionem agnoſcit, ac Scripturam, eâ quâ par eſt modeſtiâ ac diligentiâ, conſulit ac confert, myſterium hoc divinae naturae omnibuſ que ejus Attributis quam convenientiſſimum eſſe fatetur.—Incarnatio illa non ſolum fuit poſſibilis, ſed ejufmodi, Patris conſilio poſito quale in hominum ſalute exequi decrevit, ſimplicitèr neceſſaria, tantum que abeſt ut à divinâ Majeſtate abhorreat, ut nihil ejus Omnipotentiam, Omniſcientiam, ſummam Miſericordiam ac Juſtitiam, uno verbo, infinitam ejus perfectionem magis patefaciat ac illuſtret. Biſterfeld. contra Crellium Lib. 1. Sect. 2. cap. 32. p. 341, 342. 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.

The Grounds and Reaſons of Christ's Incarnation.Having thus explain'd and confirm'd 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 foreign before it Heb. 2.17. Wherefore in all things it [behoved] 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.

That the Old-Teſtament Propheſies, Promiſes, Types might be accompliſhed.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 p. 388hinted in the foreign 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 expreſly promis'd and foretold, God would have it vail'd 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. Ʋnto 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 Propheſie 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 Propheſie 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 my ſelf at all in that enquiry; but if any great ſtreſs could be laid upon them one of thoſe**Sybilla Gumaea in Virgil. Eclog. 4. Ultima Cumaei venit jam carminis aetas: Magnus ab integro ſeclorum naſcitur ordo: Jam redit & Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna: Jam nova Progenies coelo dimittitur alto &c. Of this ſee Athanaſ. tom. 2. p. 386. Dr. Jackſon on the Creed. 7th. Book. Sect. 2. Chap. 8. p. 40. &c. 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 wrap'd 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 p. 389in thoſe ſhells, all were but as ſo many faſciae or ſwadling-hands in which the Babe Jeſus was wrap'd (as Luther us'd to ſay): Chriſt (ſaith a * Reverend Author) was Abel's Sacrifice, Noah's Dove, Bp. Brownrigge Serm. p. 115.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 redeem'd he that was next a-kinn was to make the redemption, (ſee Levit. 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 ſtil'd) 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 comlineſs, 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 Shechinah 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 p. 390anſwered and ſaid unto them, Deſtroy this Temple and in three dayes I will raiſe it up; but he ſpake of the Temple of his Body. Both Tabernacle and Temple were**Dr. Cudworth true Notion of the Lord's Supper. p. 62. types and apt reſemblances of his Fleſh or Manhood, in reſpect of the ſpecial preſence and inhabitation of the Divine Nature in it. Hence††Dr. Jackſon on the Creed 7th Book. ſect. 3. ch. 20. 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. Levit. 26.11, 12, 13. Ezek. 37.26, 27, 28.

(3.) The Tabernacle was a **Joſephus calls it foreign, templum portatile: Antiq. Jud. lib. 3. cap. 5. And Auſtine, Templum deambulatorium.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. foreign, 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 Melchiſedech 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**foreign. Najanz. P. 375. tom. 1. Son of God was without Mother and as the Son of man without Father. Well then! that all theſe Propheſies, Promiſes, Types might be fulfill'd it was neceſſary that Chriſt ſhould aſſume Fleſh; (there's the firſt Ground of it.)

The 2d Reaſon why Chriſt was incarnate and ſent in Fleſh, that he might be the better qualify'd for his Office and Work.2. This was neceſſary in regard of Chriſt's Office and Work.

1. As to his Office. He was to be the Mediatour 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) p. 391Gal. 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 hee's the Perſon who is qualify'd to be the Mediator.

And therefore when he is ſpoken of as Mediator his Manhood is brought in (that Nature being ſo neceſſary to that Office), 1 Tim. 2.5. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and Man, the Man Chriſt Jeſus.

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 qualify'd as that he may firſt make**Vide Anſelm. cur Deus Homo Lib. 1. Cap. 11, 12, 19, 20. ſatisfaction to an injur'd 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 threatned death to the Sinner, which threatning therefore muſt be inflicted either upon the Offender himſelf or his Surety; and God (as Rector mundi) will vindicate the honour 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 pleas'd 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**Suſcipitur à virtute infirmitas, a majeſtate humilitas, …ut quod noſtris remediis congruebat, unus at que idem Dei & hominum Mediator & mori ex uno & reſurgere poſſit ex altero: Niſi enim eſſet verus Deus non adferret remedium, niſi eſſet verus Homo non praeberet exemplum. Leo de Nativ. Quum mortem nec ſolus Deus ſentire, nec ſolus Homo ſuperarepoſſet, Humanam Naturam cum Divinâ ſociavit, ut alterius imbecillitatem morti ſubjiceret, ad expianda peccata alterius virtute luctam cum morte ſuſcipiens, nobis victoriam acquireret. Calvin. Inſtit. l. 2. cap. 12. &c. foreign &c. vide Epiphan. adv. Haer. l. 2. t. 2. p. 748. more than Man that he may be able ſo to ſuffer, that his Sufferings may p. 392be 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.

The 3d Reaſon why Chriſt was ſent in Fleſh, becauſe this was the beſt and fitteſt way in order to the carrying on of God's deſigns.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**De Neceſſitate ſi quaeritur, non ſimplex quidem & abſoluta fuit, ſed manavit ex coeleſti decreto unde pendebat hominum ſalus; caeterum quod nobis optimum erat ſtatuit clementiſſimus Pater. Calvin. Inſtit, lib. 2. cap. 12. Licet Deus ſolo nutu voluntatis abolere potuiſſet peccatum, convenientius tamen ei viſum fuit, ſi hâc juſtitiae viâ procederet ad deſtruendum regnum peccati, Eſtius in loc. Poterat Deus ſuam incomprehenſibitem miſericordiae largitatem patefacere, condonando noxam humano generi abſ que ullo actu perfectae ſatisfactionis &c. Vide Soto in Rom. 8.3. & Aquin. Sum. 3. P. Qu. 1. Art. 2.Rom 8:3 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 foreign the wound had been given the foreign the cure and remedy ſhall be provided alſo (as**Cyrill. Alexandr. Comment. in. Joh. P. 95. 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 entred into the world, and death by ſin: and ſo death paſſed upon all men for that all have ſinned. The Humane Nature was p. 393to be redeem'd therefore 'twas fit that that Nature ſhould be aſſum'd; that was**Naſcitur ut ipſam quam prius homo vitiaverat Naturam melioraret. Auguſt. de temp. Serm. 20. p. 613. &c. Et quia ea natura pro nobis plecti debuit quae peccaverat, quae que erat redimenda. Theſ. Salmur. de Chriſto Mediat. p. 244. Quoniam juſtitia & Lex Dei ita flagitabant, ut Caro humana quae peccaverat, eadem pro peccato lueret, Pareus in loc. Homo qui debuit, Homo qui ſolvit &c. Bern. Ep. ad Innocent. corrupted and ſpoyl'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 foil'd 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;Seven Propoſitions for the due ſtating and opening of Chriſt's Incarnation. I muſt now endeavour more particularly to open ſome other things about them which are of a more myſterious and abſtruſe Nature: I'le reduce all to theſe Seven Propoſitions.

1. Prop. Chriſt who did exiſt as the Son of God before, was incarnate.1. That the Lord Jeſus, who antecedently to his incarnation was the Son of God and as ſuch had a praevious exiſtence, even he was incarnate and made Fleſh. Here the††Socin. in Explic. cap. 1. Joh. & in Diſput. de Nat. Chriſti. Smalcius Homil. in 1. Joh. Hom. 8. Refut. theſ. Grawer. & in refut. theſ. Franzii. Crellius de uno Deo Patre. lib. 2. ſect. 2. cap. 5. p. 562. Oſtorod. Inſtit. cap. 17. Catech. Racov. p. 89. 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 Humane 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)!**Diſp. de Nat. Chriſti. p. 10. Humanationem merum humani ingenii ſuiſſe commentum. p. 3. ſtupenda Dei metamorphoſis. Socinus is pleas'd to call it merum humani ingenii commentum, a meer fiction of the wit of man; ††Smalcius refut. theſ. Franziu de Perſon. Chriſti. p. 67. quod alicui perſuaderi potuiſſe valdè mirum eſſet, niſi homines vivi capti & dementati eſſent à Sathanâ &c. Dogma tremendum Id. Hom. 8. in 1. cap. Joh. p. 87.Smalcius a very Fable, yea Dogma in Chriſtianâ religione ferè monſtroſiſſimum, (with many other ſuch vile expreſſions which I either dread or diſdain to mention): only there's‖‖Credimus etiamſi non ſemel at que iterum, ſed ſatis crebrò, & apertiſſimè ſcriptum extaret, Deum eſſe hominem factum, multo ſatius eſſe, quia haec res ſit abſurda & fánae rationi planè contraria, & in Deum blaſphema, modum aliquem dicendi comminiſci, quo iſta de Deo dici poſſint, quam iſta ſimplicitèr. ita ut verba ſonant intelligere &c. Smalcius Homil 8. in Joh. p. 89. one (from this laſt named Author) which out-ſtrips all the reſt, p. 394'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 Supream Judge of what is to be believ'd 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 humane 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 dimme and ſhallow reaſon cannot comprehend what is ſo revealed by him: (but I am faln upon another Controverſie).

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 ſuppos'd antecedently to be God's Son, then as ſuch he was ſent, and then incarnate: So Gal. 4.4. When the fulneſs 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 foreign is rendred**Joh. 1.12. 1 Cor. 1.30. Rom. 7.13. Gal. 3.13. Rom. 1.3. Gal. 4.4.John 1:121 Cor 1:30Rom 7:13Gal 3:13Rom 1:3Gal 4:4 elſe-where, and the ſubject matter determines it to be ſo rendred 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 joyns 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 humane Nature muſt go before p. 395the 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 wilfully 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 aſſum'd 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. SOCINƲS is ſhrewdly pinch'd with this Text, inſomuch that he is fain to fall upon every word in it (with his uſual Criticiſms and forc'd 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**Socin. de Nat. Chriſti. p. 7. Smalc. Hom. 8. in 1. c. Joh. p. 88. Adverſaries are pleas'd 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 humane Nature and joyning of it to that other Nature which he had before. 1 Tim. 3.16. Without controverſie 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**Eraſmus. Grotius. &c. they who alter the reading of the Text putting out foreign 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 ſhew 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. 'Tis 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.

p. 396'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 replyes, 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'm ſure I ſhould do that which is needleſs for Others who know where this is**Arnold. Catech. Racov. major. p. 27…. Galov. Socin. proflig. p. 285. Cocceius againſt Socin. in cap. 1. Joh. cap. 15. Biſterf. againſt Crellius. p. 564. Jacob. ad Portum againſt Oſtorod. p. 166. Owen againſt Biddle ch. 13. p. 289. &c. done already. And indeed the whole matter in this Controverſie is by Crellius himſelf brought into a narrow compaſs (wherein we are very willing to joyn iſſue with him), for he grants if Chriſt did praeexiſt before he was incarnate that then his incarnation muſt needs be believ'd and own'd according to our ſtating of it; but I have**See p. 284. &c. 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 falſhood, but our Deus Homo factus is the greateſt truth.

2. Prop. Chriſt the Second Perſon only was incarnate.The ſecond Propoſition is this, that Chriſt the Son of God, the ſecond Perſon in the ineffable Trinity, he only was incarnate. 'Tis 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 alledged Text 'tis ſaid**Joh. 1.14.John 1:14 the Word was made fleſh; which Title (the Word) is never attributed to the Father, or to the Spirit, but alwayes to the Son, and you ſee he's the perſon who was made fleſh. 'Tis true, Incarnation was the act of the whole Trinity approbativè but 'twas only the Son's act terminativè; all the Perſons approved of it and**Sola perſona Filii incarnata eſt, operante tamen eandem incarnationem totâ Sanctâ Trinitate, cujus opera ſunt inſeparabilia. Auguſt. Queſt. de Trinit. tom. 3. p. 1040. Vid. Anſelm. de Incam. Verbi. cap. 3. & 4. 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††See Lombard. lib. 3. Diſt. 1. Dr. Jackſon on the Creed 7th Book. p. 255. Queſtion is commonly here ſtarted, why the ſecond Perſon rather than the firſt or the third was thus incarnate? which Some do venture to p. 397anſwer 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. 'Tis alſo query'd, **Of this ſee Zanchy de tribus Elohim. l. 5. c. 6. p. 546. &c. Tilen. de Incarn. Filii Dei Diſp. 1. Sect. 20. Aug. Serm. 3. de Temp.there being ſuch an oneneſs betwixt all the Perſons how the Son can be ſaid to aſſume the Humane 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.

3. Prop. Chriſt not incarnate till the fulneſs of time.Thirdly Chriſt's incarnation was in time, and not till the fulneſs of time. He was alwayes God (for he that is not alwayes God is never God, the Divine Eſſence admitting neither of beginning nor end,) but he was not**Ne que enim Caro iſſa quae ex came Virginis nata eſt ſemper fuit, ſea Deus qui ſemper fuit ex carne Virginis in carne Hominis advenit. Caſſian. de Incar. Dom. Lib. 6. alwayes 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 fulneſs 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 ſhews 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 Humane Nature and that he ſhews 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 deferr'd ſo long what then became of thoſe who lib'd and dy'd before Chriſt was inearnate? The efficacy and benefit of Chriſt's Incarnation to thoſe who lived before it.if that was ſo neceſſary (as hath been ſhown) what became of the Patriarchs, of all who liv'd 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 it ſelf; for God having decreed it, and Chriſt having covenanted and ingaged to the Father that in the fulneſs of time he would take fleſh, the Father all-along look'd upon it as actually done, and accordingly dealt with Believers under the Law as though it had been p. 398actually 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 Mediatour 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 to day, and for ever Heb. 13.8. We read Mark 11.9. They that went before and they that followed, cryed, ſaying, Hoſanna, bleſſed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Believers who liv'd before Chriſt's incarnation and they who follow ſince both are equally obliged to magnifie God for him, both receiving the ſame benefit by him.

2. It may be enquired,Why Chriſt was incarnate juſt when he was? 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 fulneſs of time Gal. 4.4.) He that is pleas'd to ſet the time for other things (as for the Churches deliverances, Thou ſhalt ariſe and have mercy upon Zion, for the time to favour her, yea the ſet time is come, Pſal. 102.13. (and ſo in ſeveral Other caſes), ſurely he was pleas'd to ſet the time for ſo great a thing as the coming of his own Son in Fleſh: he in his eternal decree had determin'd the preciſe time for this, which therefore when it was come then Chriſt came; now (I ſay) all muſt be reſolv'd 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 reſolv'd into that: O he came juſt when he did, neither ſooner nor later becauſe the Father had appointed that very time.

p. 399Prop. 'Twas not the Divine Eſſence abſolutely conſidered which aſſumed Fleſh, but that Eſſence conſidered as ſubſiſting in the Second Perſon.4. 'Twas not the Divine Nature or Eſſence ſimply and abſolutely conſidered which aſſumed Fleſh, but it was that **Tota igitur Natura Divina fuit incarnata, ſed non quatenus abſolutè & in ſe conſideratur ut omnibus Perſonis communis, ſed quatenus perſonalibus proprietatibus ſeu foreign in Perſonâ Filii determinata co…ſideratur. Davenant. in Col. 2.9. p. 240. Solus Filius ſuſcepit humanitatem in ſingularitatem Perſonae non in unitatem Naturae Divinae. Concil. Tolet. Ne que enim Divina Natura ſi propriè & accuratè loqui velimus, ſed Perſona Divina aſſumſit Naturam Humanam: Divina quidem Natura unitur Humanae ſed eam nòn aſſumſit, aſſumere enim non eſt Naturae ſed Suppoſiti. Biſterf. contra. Crell. p. 565. Vide Alting. Theol. Problem. p. 562. & 577.Col 2:9Nature 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††1 Tim. 3.16.1 Tim 3:16 God manifeſted in the Fleſh you are to underſtand God in the Perſonal not in the Eſſential notion.

Prop. The Nature aſſuming was the Divine Nature.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,**foreign. Damaſc. de Orthod. Fide lib. 3. cap. 2. p. 167. Man did not become God but God became Man; 'tis not ſaid that††foreign. Athan. de Inc. Chriſti. t. 1. p. 612. 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).

Prop. That the Humane Nature was ſo aſſum'd as to ſubſiſt in the Divine, & that both Natures make but… one Perſon.6. The Lord Jeſus (the eternal Son of God, God bleſſed for ever) did ſo aſſume the Humane Nature, as in a moſt myſterious and unconceivable 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 Ʋnion is both aſſerted and and alſo deſcribed, for wherein doth the nature of that Ʋnion conſiſt but in that which is here laid down?Of the Hypoſtatical Ʋnion. Of it you read Col. 2.9. In him dwelleth all the fulneſs 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 for ever; (here's both the Natures of Chriſt, and both in him making but one Perſon): upon the perſonal conjunction of which he's call'd Emmanuel, God with us Matth. 1.23.

p. 400But not to inſiſt upon the Proof of this Ʋnion (which all but INFIDELS and SOCINIANS do believe),The myſteriouſneſs thereof. I will endeavour (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 Ʋnion 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 conceiv'd of or underſtood. 'Tis indeed ſure and certain to Faith (which believes it becauſe God reveals it, which readily anſwers all Objections and**foreign. Juſtin. Martyr. 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 ſupream 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 ſuppos'd 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**See Mr. Perkins on Galat. p. 273. plant which hath no root of its own, only it grows and is ſuſtain'd by a tree of another kind; by which they would ſhadow out the ſubſiſtence of the Humane Nature of Chriſt in the Divine: Others tell us the union of the**Yet there is a diſparity in the union of theſe two in Man and of the two Natures in Chriſt. Of which ſeè Dr. Jackſon on the Creed 7th B. p. 333. Soul and Body in Man is of all reſemblances the moſt fully expreſſive of this Ʋnion: 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 Travellers make of the World, who when they have ſeen and ſaid all they can do yet leave a vaſt terra incognita undiſcovered. Without controverſie great is the myſtery of Godlineſs, God manifeſted in the fleſh &c. Chriſt's incarnation hath the precedency before p. 401all the other myſteries which are there mentioned about him; if that in it ſelf be ſuch a myſtery, how muſt the myſtery thereof be heightned the Hypoſtatical Ʋnion being taken in and added to it? The Myſtical Ʋnion is very myſterious, the Hypoſtatical Ʋnion much more. Well therefore might I in the Propoſition thus lay it down, that the uniting of the Humane Nature in Chriſt to the Divine is done in a moſt myſterious and unconceivable 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.