Sermons Preached on Romans 8, Chapter 12 (2 of 3)
The Hypoſtatical Ʋnion opened in ſome Particulars. 'Tis not a common or ordinary Ʋnion but ſpecial and extraordinary.1. I deſire that this in the General may be taken notice of, that the Hypoſtatical Ʋnion is no common or ordinary Ʋnion but that which is ſpecial and extraordinary: O 'tis an Union by it ſelf, that which is of a very different and peculiar nature from all other Ʋnions. 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 Ʋnion (as in the Soul and Body in man); a Moral Ʋnion (as betwixt Friend and Friend); a Relative Ʋnion (as betwixt Husband and Wife); a Myſtical Ʋnion (as betwixt Chriſt and Believers); an Ʋnion in reſpect of ſpecial preſence or inhabitation, of ſpecial aſſiſtance, of ſpecial grace and favour, (which was all that Neſtorius would grant in the Ʋnion of Chriſt's Divine Nature with his Humane; but moſt falſely,*foreign &c. Athan. de Inc. Verbi Dei. p. 593. for then there would be no more (for ſubſtance) in the Hypoſtatical Ʋnion 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 Ʋnions are not at all applicable to Chriſt; ſuch as are ſo do yet come ſhort of that high and glorious Ʋnion that is betwixt his Godhead and his Manhood; alas! take the higheſt of them what is it when compar'd with the Hypoſtatical Ʋnion! You'l 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.
The two great things wherei… it conſiſts.2. The two Natures are ſo united in Chriſt as that the Humane doth ſubſiſt in the Divine, and that both do make up but one Perſon: Herein lies the formal nature of the Hypoſtatical Ʋnion, that wherein it differs from and tranſcends all other Ʋnions whatſoever; the explication of this therefore I muſt a little inſiſt upon.
Of the Subſiſtence of the Humane Nature in the Divine.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 foreign, 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 Humane 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*Eſtwick againſt B. p. 113 Judicious Divine, It's true (ſaith he) the eſſential parts of a man's Body and Soul being united, would have conſtituted a Perſon (as they do in all other men) if they had been left to themſelves; but it was prevented and ſtayd from ſubſiſting in it ſelf, and was drawn into the Unity of the ſecond Perſon by Divine and ſupernatural operation; whereby it was highly advanced, and ſubſiſts in a more eminent ſort than it could have done if it had become a rational humane Perſon. *Incarnatio non eſt qualiſcun que unio, ſed eſt ſpecialiſſima, proxima, & immediatiſſuna unio, quâ Perſona divina humanam Naturam ſuâ Perſonalitate carentem it a terminat, ut eam perſonaliter ſuſtentet, ipſi que illud complementum (attamen longè eminentiori modo) communicet, quod a ſuà connaturali Perſonalitate accepiſſet. Biſterf. contra Crell. p. 568. Vid. Davenant. in Coloſ. p. 244.And this may alſo prevent that Objection which from hence ſo readily offers it ſelf, (viz.) that if the Humane Nature in Chriſt hath not a perſonal ſubſiſtence belonging to it, then it wants that perfection which that Nature commonly hath in all Men, which ſeems to make it leſs perfect and excellent in him than 'tis in them: This is eaſily anſwered, the Conſequence is not good becauſe the want of this ſubſiſtence is compenſated with advantage in that ſubſiſtence which the Manhood hath in the Godhead; in which the Humane Nature ſubſiſting 'tis ſo far from being depreſs'd that 'tis highly advanc'd; as the Senſitive Soul in man being joyn'd with a nobler Soul and ſubſiſting in it, is thereupon more excellent than the ſenſitive Soul in a Beaſt, though there it hath a ſubſiſtence diſtinct from and independent upon the reaſonable Soul.
The two Natures make but one Perſon.2. Secondly, Such is the Ʋnion of the Humane with the Divine Nature in Chriſt, that 'tis taken into his *Deus in aeternam perſonam Deitatis temporalem accepit ſubſtantiam Carnis. Auguſt. Duas ſubſtantias accipimus in uno Filio Dei, unam Deitatis, aliam Humanitatis, non duas Perſonas. Idem. de Trinit. & Unit. Dei. Vid. Anſelm. de Incarn. Verbi. cap. 5. p. 87.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 Ʋnion of Believers (where there is the Union of Perſons yet not ſo as to make one Perſon); and the Hypoſtatick Ʋnion 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 it ſelf 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*In Deo non aliud & aliud quia una Natura, in Chriſto non alius & alius quia una Perſona. 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 Ʋnion, but how? not becauſe 'tis made up of Perſons but becauſe it centers in one Perſon. Chriſt took the†Aquin. Sum. 3. parte quaeſt. 4. Art. 2. Nature of of man but not the Perſon of man; Nature did not aſſume Naturè, 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*Vid. Daven. in Coloſ. 242. perfect Perſon before the Ʋnion, 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 Ʋnion mainly lies.
In this Ʋnion no converſion or confuſion of the two Natures.3. Though this Ʋnion be thus cloſe and intinious, yet notwithſtanding, the Eſſence, Properties, Operations of both Natures are preſerv'd entire, without any converſion or confuſion. Neſtorious multiplies the Perſon, Eutyches eris upon another extream (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 deſtroyes the diſtinction of the Natures; aſſerting that after the Union the Humane 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*O foreign. Najanz. Orat. 35, 375. Non potes dicere, niſi natusfuiſſet & hominem verè induiſſet, Deus eſſe deſi-'ſſit, amittens quod erat, dum fit quod non erat. Periculum enim ſtatus ſui Deo nullum eſt &c. Terrull. de Carn. Chr. p. 359. Quaſi non valuerit Chriſtus vere hominem indutus Deus perſeverare. Idem. p. 360. Verbum caro factum eſt &c. non in carnem mutatum ut deſiſteret eſſe quod erat, ſed caepit eſſe quod non erat. Auguſt. de Trin. & Unit. tom. 4. p. 947. & Ep. 174. Non mutando quod erat, ſed aſſumendo quod non erat. 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, *Nemo credat Dei Filium coaeternum & coaequalem converſum eſſe in hominis Filium, ſed potius credamus, ut non conſumptâ Divinâ & perfectè aſſumptâ humanâ ſubſtantiâ manentem Dei Filium factum hominis Filium. Auguſt. de Temp. Serm. 23. p. 616. &c. Neutra tamen ex duabus Naturis in aliam mutata eſt ſubſtantiam, unita quippe eſt non confuſa Verbi Dei hominiſ que ſubſtantia, ut in Deum quod ex nobis fuſceptum fuerat perveniret. O admirabile myſterium! O innarrabile commercium! Aug. Medit. c. 16.—foreign—foreign. Damaſc. Orth. Fid. lib. 3. cap. 2. (vide etiam ibid. c. 3.) foreign. Najanz. Orat. 39 foreign &c. Nyſſen. contra Apollinar. l. 2. p. 69.—foreign. Iſidor. Pelus. l. 1. Ep. 323.—foreign Chryſoſt. in Joh. 1.14. Vid. Athan. de Inc. Chriſti. p. 624. See Leporius his recantation in Caſſian. de ſucarn. Dom. L. 1. Agit utra que for ma cum alterius communione quod proprium eſt, Verbo ſcil. operante quod Verbi eſt, & carne exequente quod carnis eſt. Leo in Ep. ad. Flav. Ep. Conſtantinop.no converſion, no confuſion. Indeed the two Natures ſtand at ſo great a diſtance, that though they may admit of Ʋnion yet they are not capable of any tranſmutation or commixtion; the Godhead can never be ſo depreſs'd as to be turn'd into the Manhood, nor the Manhood ever be ſo advanc'd as to be turn'd into the Godhead. The Athanaſian Creed thus ſets it forth. Although Chriſt be God and Man yet he is but one Chriſt: one, not by converſion of the Godhead into Fleſh, but by taking of the Manhood into God: one altogether, not by confuſion of ſubſtance, but by unity of Perſon. The Scriptures plainly hold forth the two Natures of Chriſt to be diſtinct even after the Ʋnion; (turn to Rom. 1.3, 4. Rom. 9.5. 1 Pet. 3.18. 2 Cor. 13.4.). To which Texts let me add a few Conſiderations drawn out of ſome other Texts. Chriſt ſayes*Joh. 10.30. I and my Father are one (there's his Godhead), but withal he ſayes†Joh. 14.28. my Father is greater than I, (there's his Manhood too); he ſayes‖Joh. 8.58. Before Abraham was, I am (there's his being God), and yet he was born but the other day (there's his being Man too); he had the Divine Nature for he was Omniſcient, but he had the Humane alſo at the ſame time, for he's ſaid to *Luk. 2.52.grow in wiſdom and†Mark 13.32. not to know the time of the laſt Judgment (of which before); he was God and ſo the Father's Will and his were all one, but he was alſo Man and ſo he pray'd*Luk. 22.42. Nevertheleſs not my Will but thine be done; He was the†Matth. 22.45. Lord of David and the Son of David, the branch of David and the root of David, both‖Revel. 22.16. root and off-ſpring; how could ſuch different things be affirm'd of him but upon the diſtinction of his two Natures? that therefore is not in the leaſt impeach'd by the Hypoſtatical Ʋnion. True, upon this Union there is the communication of properties betwixt them, ſo as that that which is proper to one Nature is applyed to the other (as you ſee Joh. 3.13. 1 Cor. 2.8. Act. 20.48.), and ſo as that that which is predicated of the one may be alſo predicated of the other, (I mean in the concrete for in the abſtract this will not hold, as I cannot ſay the Deity is the Humanity or the Humanity is the Deity, yet I may truly ſay God is Man and Man is God): a communication of properties (thus far or in this ſenſe) we deny not (it follows upon the Ʋnion), but that that which is eſſential to one Nature ſhould really, Phyſically, be convey'd and made over to the other Nature, as Omnipreſence, Ʋbiquity, Omniſcience &c. from the Godhead to the Manhood (which is the Popiſh and Lutheran Communication), this, as implying a Contradiction and carrying in it a perfect repugnancy to the nature of the thing, we cannot aſſent unto.
The Humane Nature in the firſt moment of its formation was united to the Divine.4. No ſooner was the Humane 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*foreign. Damaſc. Orth. Fid. l. 3. cap. 2. v. Luommbard. L. 3. Diſt. 2. 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 Humane Nature, and we conceive of theſe as done ſucceſſively in ſuch an order, firſt that Nature was form'd, then ſanctify'd, then aſſum'd: But this is meerly 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 ſanctify'd and united to the Godhead. A Queſtion here is moved by Some whether Chriſt's Humane Nature was compleat and perfect at the firſt? (that is) whether as ſoon as ever his Fleſh was formed, his Soul was infus'd 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*Sharp. Curſus Theol. p. 362. Affirmative and Others for the†Lud. Capellus in Theſ. Salmur. part. 2. p. 12. theſ. 15. Dr. Jackſon on the Creed 7th Book. Sect. 3. ch. 29. p. 324. 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 form'd together, yet ſtill the Ʋnion 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 endeavoured by theſe Four things to give you a little light concerning the Hypoſtatical Ʋnion 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. Prop. 'Tis probable, if Adam had not faln Chriſt had not been ſent in Fleſh.7. Let me add but one thing further, 'Tis probable had there been no ſin that Chriſt had not been ſent in Fleſh; or had not. Adam fallen and thereby involv'd 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 ſin'd Chriſt ſhould actually have aſſum'd our Nature? about which the Schools (with other Divines) are divided, ſome*Scotus in 3. part. diſput. 7. Queſt. 3. Abſ que praejudicio concedi poteſt, etiamſi humana natura non peccaſſet adhuc Chriſtum carnem ſumpturum fuiſſe. Alex. Alonſ. 3. p. Qu. 2. memb. 13. Catharinus de praed. Chriſt. Pet. Galatinus de Arc. Cathol. ver. l. 7 c. 2.—Oſiander &c. affirming it, ſome*Aquinas p. 3. qui. 1. art. 3. Vaſquez. in 3. part. tom. 1. diſp. 10. art. 3. Becan. Theol. Schol. p. 3. c. 1. qu. 7. Calvin. Inſtit. l. 2. c. 12. againſt Oſiander. Hoorneb. Socin. Confut. tom. 2. l. …. c. 2. p. 253. Stegm. Photin. diſp. 15. p. 176. Alting. Theol. Probl. Loc. 12. Probl. 5. p. 564. denying it.
The former affirm though ſin had not been yet Chriſt would have come in Fleſh, not to have dy'd or ſuffer'd, but only to have let the world ſee the glory and excellency of his Humane 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 ſin'd 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 condemn'd; 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*Gen. 3.15. promis'd as incarnate, but not before. The truth is, had we not been Captives what need would there have been of a Redeemer? *Venit Filius hominis quaerere & ſalvare quod perierat; ſi homo non periiſſet filius hominis non veniſſet. Aug. Serm. 8. de Verbis Apoſt. Nulla cauſa fuit veniendi Chriſto Domino, niſi peccatores ſalvos facere: tolle vul…era, tolle morbos, & nulla eſt medicinae cauſa: Idem Serm. 9.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 Mediatour in the way of reconciliation? As to that which†Smalcius diſp. 12. contra Franzium. See Franzius's anſwer to him de Sacrif. Diſp. 15. Th. 75. &c. Some alledge that Chriſt might have come though there had been no ſin, for this end that he might have ſecured man (though in innocency) from death; that is grounded upon a meer 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*As Athanaſ…. de Incarn. Verbi Dei. tom. 1. p. 53. &c. & p 591 &c. & de Hum. Nat. ſuſc. 595. &c. Cyril. Alex. tem. 5. p. 678. &c. Tertull. de Carne Chriſti. & contra Marcion. Caſſian. Petav. Theol. Dogm. tom. 4. Raguſa in 3 part. Aquin. with Vaſquez &c. Zan…h. Oper. Theolog. tom. 8. Gerhard. Loc. Com. tom. 1. de Perſ. & Officio Chriſti p. 312. &c. et. in Uber. Exeg. Artic. tom. ult. lib 4 …p 424. &c. Calvin. Inſtit. lib. 2. cap. 12. & 13. with in… numerable others. 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.
Of the Second Head.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.
How Chriſt was ſent 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 rendring 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 ſhew as if his Humane 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 look'd 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 ſhew 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*Camem peccatrici ſimilem in paenâ non in culpâ. Habet tamen ſimilitudinem carnis peccat…icis per paſſibilitatem & mortalitatem. Auguſt. In carnem ſuam non pec…atum tranſtulit tanquam venenum Serpentis, ſed tamen tranſ…lit mortem ut eſſet in ſimilitudine carnis Peccati paena ſiue culpâ; unde in carne peccati & culpa ſolveretur, & paena. Idem. See him lib. 14. c. 5. contra Fauſtum Manich. Similem carni peccatrici in hoc quod erat paſſibilis, nam caro hominis ante peccatum paſſioni ſubjecta non erat. Aquin. Si peccatum cum carne accepiſſet, dictus eſſet miſſus in Carnem peccati: ſi etiam Carnem immotalem & impaſſibilem ſumpſiſſet (qualem modo habet) non diceretui miſſus in ſimilitudinem carnis peccati; at qula carnem accepit ſine peccato, paſſibilem tamen & mortalem, qualis eſt peccatorum caro propter peccatum talis effecta, ideo dicitur miſſus in ſimilitudinem carnis peccati. Tolet. paſſible 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 lyable to either of theſe, but he ſinning it became lyable 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 Humane 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*Ut tractaretur quo modo nocentes tractari ſolent. Grot. in Loc. dealt with, handled, uſed juſt as guilty and ſinful perſons are; and that both by God, and by Men. By God; he charg'd upon Chriſt the ſin of all the Elect,†Iſa. 53.6. the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all, ‖2 Cor. 5.21he 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*Rom. 8.32. not ſpare him in the leaſt, yea,†Iſa. 53.10. it pleaſed the Lord to bruiſe him, though he pray'd that‖Matth. 26.39 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 charg'd him to be really and actually guilty of ſin, that he was a *Matth. 11.19.glutton, a wine-bibber, a friend of Publicans and Sinners, an impoſtor, a †Matth. 27.63.deceiver, a ‖Joh. 10.36.blaſphemer, a breaker of the Law, and what not! Towards the cloſe of his life they accus'd him of crimes of a very high and heinous nature, arraign'd him as a malefactor, condemn'd him to die, executed him, crucify'd him 'twixt two thieves, *Iſa. 53.12. Mar. 15.28.numbred 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†Iſa. 35.3. 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 ſuffer'd from God, he ſuffer'd 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 conjoyn'd and link'd 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 Saviour it was the likeneſs of ſinful fleſh, becauſe it was the reality of ſuffering fleſh. Will you go on to his*In morte ejus potiſſimam cauſam ſitam arbitramur, cur ei ſimilitudo carnis peccati attributa ſit ab Apoſtolo. De Dieu. Caro peccati habet mortem & peccatum, ſimilitudo autem carnis peccati habuit mortem ſine peccato. Si haberet peccatum caro eſſet peccati; ſi mortem non haberet, non eſſet ſimilitudo carnis peccati. Anſelm. 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†Tametſi nullis maculis inquinata fuit Chriſti caro peccatrix tamen in ſpecie viſa eſt, quatenus debitam ſceleribus noſtris paenam ſuſtinuit. Calvin. 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 ſeem'd to be much of meer man in Chriſt's low condition whilſt he continued in the world, but there ſeem'd 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 ſhew 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‖Chriſtus indeubat perſonam peccatum habentis &c. cum caro paſſionibus morti que ſubjecta ſignum eſt communiſſimum hominis peccatum habentis, nec in aliquo fefellit niſi in Chriſto. Cajeran. fail'd and was but a likeneſs, but only in this one great and unparalled'd Inſtance of our bleſſed Saviour. As he ſubmitted to the ordinary infirmities of the Humane 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 offer'd 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.
'Twas in Chriſt but the likeneſs of ſinful Fleſh: Of his Sanctity & Holineſs.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 venome in it which was in them; ſo here as to Chriſt (of whom the brazen Serpent even in this was an excellent type), he ſeem'd 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 Humane 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 *foreign. Cyrill. Lib. 15. contra Julian. Peccatricem carnem non aſſumpſit qualis eſt noſtra, naturalem vero illam noſtram aſſumpſit. Si Caro Adae erat vera Caro antequam peccavit in Paradiſo, uti que & Chriſti caro vera eſt humana caro, etiamſi peccati qualitatem non aſſumpſerit. Muſcul. Noſtram induens ſuam fecit, ſuam faciens non peccatricem eam fecit. Tertull. de Car. Chriſti, Hierom's gloſs upon the Words (if thoſe Commentaries upon this Epiſtle be his) is lyable to exception; ſuſceptâ poſtea carne quae ad peccandum eſſet proclivior, ipſe tamen abſ que peccato cam ſuſcepit. See Perer. upon this Diſp. 3. p. 850.fleſh; 'twas made (as to purity and ſanctity)†Athan. de Incarnat. Chriſti, p. 620. foreign according to the primitive and archetype-formation of Adam's body in the ſtate of innocency; that was created holy and ſpotleſs, and juſt ſuch a body Chriſt did aſſume: 'tis true his body and Adam's differ'd 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 paſſible and mortal body (and ſo far like to ſinful fleſh); but had it not been for that, it had neither ſuffer'd nor dy'd.
In the Second reſpect, ſo the whole Humane Nature in Chriſt was *Habuit Natura Humana quam Chriſtus ſuſcepit ſpeciem peccati, non tamen ea revera peccato contaminari potuit. P. Martyr.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 it ſelf and the deordination of it; Chriſt took the one but not the other. The Humane 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 Humane Nature too is attended with ſuch*foreign &c. vide Oecum. in loc. p. 301. affections and ſuch†Particeps factus eſt infirmitatis non iniquitatis. Aug. Trahens de homine mortalitatem non inſquitatem. Id. tom. 3. …. 1072. 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 alwayes be excepted) Heb. 4.15. he challeng'd all his enemies which of you convinceth me of ſin? Joh. 8.46. He ſays of himſelf he always did the things which pleas'd 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.
A threefold Holineſs in Chriſt.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 with out bleſſed Saviour, in his Conception, the firſt framing and forming of his Humane Nature there was nothing of ſin; for he was therefore*Haec eſt ſimilitudo carnis, quia cum eadem ſit caro quae & noſtra, non tamen ita facta in utero eſt & nata ficut & caro noſtra. Eſt enim ſanctificata in utero & nata ſine peccato, & ne que ipſe in illâ peccavit. Ideo enim Virginalis uterus electus eſt ad pattum dominicum, ut in ſanctitate differret caro Dommi à carne noſtrâ. Ambroſ. conceived in the Virgins Womb in an extraordinary manner by the overſhadowing of the Holy Ghoſt, that he might be preſerv'd 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 wofully 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 bee 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 defil'd: therefore to avoid this Chirſt 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*Alting Theol. Problem. prob. 8. p. 571. Dr. Pearſon. on the Creed. p. 365. uſual illuſtration) Levi being in the loins of Abraham paid †Heb. 7.9, 10.tythes in him, & yet Chriſt who was alſo in the loins of Abrabam 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 genealogie 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*Eandem aſſumſit Naturam Chri…tus, ſed in ea non peccavi…. Ambroſ. committed by him, Grace and Holineſs were advanced in him to the higheſt pitch, according to the utmoſt capacity of the Humane Nature, without the leaſt mixture of what is contrary thereunto: in a word, he liv'd in his whole courſe a moſt holy, innocent, ſpotleſs, ſinleſs life (as the Scriptures which have been alledged do abundantly teſtifie).
The Grounds of Chriſt's Holineſs and Sanctity.This ſanctity and ſinleſsneſs of Chriſt's Humane Nature was neceſſary upon a double account:
1. To fit it for the perſonal union with his Divine Nature. Can it be imagin'd 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 Humane 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 humane 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 Saviour to other ſinners: then 'twould be Phyſician heal thy ſelf, or Saviour ſave thy ſelf; 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 offer'd for himſelf, and ſo have been in the ſame condition with the Prieſts under the Law; which the Apoſtle ſhews he was not Heb. 7.26, 27. As Sacrifice too, for whatever was offer'd 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 juſtifie many, (mark it, Chriſt being a righteous Perſon himſelf ſo he comes to juſtifie 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 connexion is obſerveable,*Si eſſet in illo peccatum, auferendum eſſet illi, non ipſe auferret. Auguſt. 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, *Piſcat.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, Uſe. 1. Information.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.
Of the excellency of the Goſpel and Chriſtian Religion.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 ſtrengthned 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 it ſelf, 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 mens 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 pleas'd 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'm 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 magnifie; 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 Gods, 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 cryes out 1 Tim. 3.16. Without controverſie 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 controverſie &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'le tell you of myſteries that are both real and ſublime, which are ſo beyond all contradiction, Without controverſie 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 controverſie 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 *Jac. Gothofredus in 1 Tim. 3.15, 16. in Critic. vol. 7. p. 3770. &c.Author in a very learned Diſcourſe upon this whole Verſe proves, that Paul therein throughout had his eye upon the Gentile-Rites, Cuſtoms, pretentions 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'le 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 concern'd in them; but the Gentiles in their myſteries had to do with thoſe which by nature were no Gods, which were but called Gods (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 Gods: and ſo indeed with no God, for many Gods are no God. 1 Cor. 8.5, 6. Though there be that are called Gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be Gods many, and Lords 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 remembred in them; in the Gentile-myſteries it was not ſo: In them they had ſome notions, and made ſome commemorations of their Gods, 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 Gods, 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.
In theſe reſpects the Apoſtle advances the myſteries of the Goſpel and of the Chriſtian Religion, above thoſe which the blind Gentiles were ſuch admirers of in their idolatrous way. Well! we who know and believe theſe things, what high thoughts ſhould we have of the Goſpel and of the Chriſtian Religion! how ſhould we adore and magnifie God for his infinite mercy to us, in bringing of us under that revelation and that Faith wherein this unparallel'd myſtery of a Chriſt incarnate is made known and embrac'd.
Of the excellency of the Fleſh and Manhood of Chriſt.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 luſtre and glory muſt there be upon that fleſh (or body) which ſuch a perſon doth ſo aſſume! 'Tis call'd 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. 'Tis true, its glory whilſt 'twas here on earth did not ſhine forth in its full brightneſs, there was a vail and covering upon it during the ſtate of Chriſt's Humiliation; but yet even then 'twas full of glory though the fulneſs, 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 fill'd them with conſternation; (read Matth. 17.1. &c.) But yet, upon its miraculous framing, its unſtain'd and unſpotted ſanctity, its neer 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 meer ſenſe), but now he is aſcended and hath carried it up with him and 'tis plac'd at the right hand of God, ſo 'tis an Object ſo glorious that 'tis fit only for a glorify'd 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 ask'd: 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 hee'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 untouch'd and unblemiſh'd with ſin, fully and perfectly ſanctify'd, fill'd with grace to the utmoſt of its capacity, having nothing in its ſeveral faculties but truth in the Ʋnderſtanding, holy conformity in the Will, heavenlineſs in the affections; I ſay, repreſent to your ſelves 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 Ʋnion, then we are at a mighty loſs and cannot conceive what a glory is by that conferr'd upon them. As ſuppoſe a Pearl was put into a glaſs of Chryſtal, that would put a great radiancy upon it; but what if the Sun it ſelf 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 it ſelf dwells in it, how unſpeakable muſt its glory and ſplendor needs be!
Leaving the parts let me ſpeak to the whole; the whole humane 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 Humane Nature ſo advanc'd 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 innocency he was high indeed; by the Fall the caſe is ſadly altered, the Humane Nature now is exceedingly debas'd and depreſs'd; 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 indowments, very excellent, the top of the whole creation, God's*Vid. Nyſſen de Hom. opif. c. 3. p. 51. foreign. Euryphamus in Stobae. Ser. c1. p. 556. Theophraſtus calls him foreign, as though God in him would vye with and out-vye all that he had done beſides in the whole viſible creation. See Weems's Portrait. p. 60, 61. 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 Humane 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 foreign, 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 Humane 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 Humane 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 Ʋnion 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 fulneſs of Grace in Chriſt (as Man) over and above what is in the beſt of men, that he is*Pſal. 45.7. anointed with the oyl 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 vertue of the Hypoſtatical Ʋnion, from which in all things it derives ſuper-excellent Glory. And yet I muſt tell you this Humane 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).
Uſe 2. Exhortation to ſeveral Dutys.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, 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. 'Tis a thing which the Scripture layes 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 entred 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 deny'd 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 denyal 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*Non attendamus ad linguam ſed ad facta; ſi enim omnes interrogantur, omnes uno ore confitentur Jeſum eſſe Chriſtum, quieſcat paululum lingua, vitam interroga. Aug. in Ep. Joh. Tract. 3. 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 my ſelf 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 formentioned 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*Vide Whittak. ad Sanderi Demonſtr. Reſp. p. 765. 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 entred into the world &c. this is a deceiver and an Antichriſt (though not the Antichriſt). As to the grand Antichriſt, there was a foreign about him, a let and impediment in his way to be remov'd 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*Of him as to this ſee Cyrill. Catech. 6. Simon Magus, who deny'd 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*Vid. Antichriſti Demonſtrat. per Rob. Abbat. 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*Quanquam P. R. & corde credit & ore confitetur Jeſum eſſe Chriſtum, hoc tamen non integrè ac ſimplicitèr, ſed ex parte tantum facit, dum Jeſu multa detrahit quae Chriſto conveniunt: & Chriſtum negat in carne veniſſe, non quidem totidem verbis at que apertè, ſed per conſequens & obliquè, verè tamen & neceſſario. Whittak. reſp. ad Sanderi Dem. p. 768. 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? foreign, (Najanz▪), under the Goſpel the ſhadows vaniſh, the truth and ſubſtance being come: Their Doctrine of*Pet. Molin. in Th. Sedam. vol. 1. de Tranſub. p. 2. p. S 31. where he proves Eccleſiam Romanam deſtruere Naturam Humanam Chriſti &c. Tranſubſtantiation in effect deny's Chriſt's Body to be a true body, for can a true body exiſt in puncto (as they ſay Chriſts 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 inſtanc'd in) are all and each of them interpretative denyals of our Saviours 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 my ſelf 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 preſs'd 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 liv'd 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 reveal'd 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 our ſelves 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 ſhews us how this and that Propheſie (pointing to his Incarnation) was fulfill'd; which aſſerts it over and over again, telling us expreſly 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 controverſie. Satan hath all along (more or leſs) made his aſſaults upon Chriſtians in this, as well as in other matters; and no queſtion he'l do the ſame to you, if it be poſſible to undermine and hinder your firm aſſent to it; but let him not prevail.
Firmly to adhere to Chriſt, as ſent in fleſh.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, crucify'd 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!) Tis highly neceſſary therefore that I ſhould ſay ſomething to antidote you againſt this venome; 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*p. 310. 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 procur'd, by the other 'tis only apply'd; 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 endeavour 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 layes 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, ſuffer'd at Jeruſalem, hee's the perſon whom God hath exalted to be Prince, and Saviour, 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 Saviour, 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 relyance 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 Humane 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 in't 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 Saviour 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 aſſum'd your Nature, and ſo to reſt upon him.
2d. Branch of the Exhortation, To be much in the ſtudy and contemplation of a Chriſt incarnate2. 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 preſs'd 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 foreign the *Phil. 3.8.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 meer 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 woful ignorance will you find in them! is not this to be greatly bewail'd? Nay, go even to Saints themſelves how ſcant and dimme 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 concern'd 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 ſtudyed 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 endeavours after the knowledge of it; for what ſo excellent in it ſelf, 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*Dr. Sibbs o… 1 Tim. 3.16. p. 65. one) ſtoop and vail 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.) 'Tis 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 ſuck'd? 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 unparallel'd, and yet ſhall it be ſeldom in our thoughts? What fools are we to ſuffer our ſelves 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 paſs'd over? 'Tis 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 Humane Nature for you to meditate in and upon! O that you would go out frequently and ſo do. You ſay, ſometimes you would imploy 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 it ſelf; that's a Well out of which the more you draw the fuller you'l 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 excellent object! What a bleſſed thing would it be if we could lie down, riſe up with a Chriſt, and eſpecially a Chriſt incarnate in our minds! Me thinks that which was the product and matter of God's thoughts from everlaſting, ſhould very much be the ſubject and matter of our thoughts in time.
3d. Branch of the Exhortation, To adore the myſtery it ſelf, and alſo the Father and the Son in the myſtery.3. Thirdly, was Chriſt ſent in Fleſh, yea, in the likeneſs of ſinful Fleſh? this ſhould ſtrike us all with amazement and aſtoniſhment; how ſhould we admire and wonder at this diſpenſation! Was it ſo indeed that ſuch a perſon did become man? ſuch a man? O the wonder of wonders! here's nothing but Wonders, a conflux and complication of Wonders; in this one thing there are many Wonders, and thoſe too not of the loweſt rank but the higheſt that ever were. Who can duly think of, weigh, ponder upon what is here laid down, without being tranſported and ſwallowed up in high and holy admiration! The glorified ones in heaven are alwayes wondring, and what is it which cauſeth them ſo to do? 'tis the beholding of Chriſt in our fleſh: they began betimes ſo to do (even as ſoon as ever Chriſt had aſſumed our Nature), and they continue ſtill to do the ſame, and ſo they will to all eternity. The Angels were ſo full of joy and admiration upon the firſt breaking out of this, that they muſt come from heaven and give ſome vent to themſelves, in ſinging*Luk. 2.14. Glory to God in the higheſt, on earth peace, good will towards men: Now when there is ſuch admiring and wondring in heaven, ſhall there be none in earth? Things which are myſterious and ſtrange affect us very much; was there ever any thing ſo myſterious and ſtrange as the incarnation of the Son of God? this is a myſtery indeed, the firſt link in that chain of myſteries 1 Tim. 3.16. When little things make us wonder 'tis an evidence of weakneſs, when great things do not make us wonder 'tis an evidence either of great inconſideracy or groſs ſtupidity. The proud Philoſopher ſcorns to wonder at any thing in Nature, but the humble Chriſtian (who hath things before him far more ſublime and unſearchable than any myſteries in Nature,) may well ſtand and wonder at thoſe things in Religion which 'tis not poſſible for him to comprehend. Amongſt which, what more incomprehenſible (take it in all reſpects) than the incarnation of God's own Son! he that doth not wonder at this pray what will he wonder at!