apud Comicum quidam suam in re praesenti certâ excusat incredulitatem Nescio nisi quia tam miserè hoc esse cupio verum cò vereor magis and wondered Whilest the text saith they beleeved not for joy it saith also that they beleeved for else whence was their joy He who in the consideration of this mystery never had any experience of this kind of unbeleef it may be doubted whether he ever did much fixe his thoughts upon the consideration of it Saint Paul himself as a man may gather from his words found it no very easie businesse therefore with such zeal and fervency addressed himself to God for others as where he prays for the Ephesians Eph. 3.16 17 18 19. That God would grant them according to the riches of his glory to bee strengthned with might in the inner man That Christ might dwell in their hearts that being rooted and grounded in love They might be able to comprehend with all Saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height And to know the love of God which passeth knowledg that they might be filled with all the fulnesse of God By which words and others to the same purpose Ch. 1 v.16 17 18 19. doth appear that although he thought the mattter incomprehensible yet the frequent meditation and contemplation of it necessary It is indeed of sigular good use to wean us from the world to purge us altogether from the grossest and to moderate and allay in us the best of earthly affections and we may certainly conclude that whosoever by a settled and constant arbitration of his minde or judgement doth propose to himself the things of this world wealth honour or life as much considerable either never seriously beleeved or doth not actually beleeve this sacred mystery of Christ the Son of God his Incarnation for the redemption of mankind Of Christ his EXINANITION BEing to treat of Christ his Exinanition by its self as distinct from his Incarnation we must of necessity begin with the word it self and the different uses and notions of it in this sacred argument This word then Exinanition applied to Christ is taken the word we say for the matter of it is found elsewhere also from the words of the Apostle to the Philippians where in the second chap. and third verse exhorting them to meeknesse and humility Let nothing be done through strife and vain-glory c. in the sixth and following verses he proposes unto them the example of Christ in these words Let this mind be in you Phil. 2.5 6 7 8. which was also in Christ Jesus Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equall with God But made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant and was made in the likenesse of men And being found in fashion as a man he humbled himself and became obedient unto death even the death of the Crosse Where we render it but made himself of no reputation it is in the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated by the Vulgar sed seipsum exinanivit and by Beza sed ipse se exinanivit As concerning those words in the sixth verse Who being in the form of God with Arrians and Socinians who deny the Deity and eternity of Christ there is not little contestation about the true meaning so concerning these the form of a servant in the seventh with those called commonly Lutherans who maintain a reall communion or communication of proprieties whereof we have treated before There is also no small controversie concerning the right sense of those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate thought it not robbery In Diatriba De Verb usu c. of which I have had occasion to treat elsewhere at large where upon good grounds as I conceive it is shewed that the words import he made it not a matter of triumph or ostentation by which interpretation the Orthodox sense of the former words who being in the form of God is much confirmed and the most plausible objections against it taken away But this will not concern us here The Exinanition then of Christ is here in these words of the Apostle grounded in the first place in that hee took upon him the forme of a servant which words both in opposition to the former the forme of God and as they are further expounded by the Apostle himself in the words following in the likenesse of men and in the fashion like a man must needs imply the very essence and nature of man as principally intended yet with an aggravation as if he had said not the essence and nature of man onely but of an abject contemptible miserable man which is included in the word servant Hence it is that the ancient Fathers use the words Exinanitio and forma fervi very frequently in a double sense understanding by it oftentimes the Incarnation of Christ or his assuming of the humane nature barely and sometimes the low condition the personall reproaches and sufferings of that humane nature which he assumed Certainly in Christ his Incarnation was his greatest abasement that the Almighty the Creator of men and Angels would stoop so low as to be made man a creature in which word though it should not be added so vile a creature as man or so despicable a man the lowest fall of abasement may be thought comprehended Homo sum humani à me nihil alienum puto there is no kind of suffering but may be conceived incidentall and in some sort naturall unto man But that the Infinite Eternall Omnipotent would be man that he might suffer is above all that can be said or conceived or indeed beleeved by naturall man But on the other side because the same Christ as true man by his Incarnation and as man considered subject to sufferings so he continued neverthelesse as truly and entirely what he was before Infinite Eternall Omnipotent that he should though in his humane nature onely suffer can as little be conceived had not the Deity so far for a time though not by any separation withdrawn or withheld its influence as to leave the humane nature obnoxious to whatsoever bare humanity sin always excepted was capable of So that here is Exinanition upon Exinanition And so may Christ rightly enough and agreeably to antiquity though there is much contesting between some Protestants of the Lutheran Confession and some others about it be said to have been abased or exinanited according to both natures this always presupposed and understood that the divine nature in Christ did not by this abasement or Exinanition which cannot be conceived without blasphemy suffer any manner of change or alteration Exinanition as by learned men hath been observed is also taken sometimes by some Ancients in a more generall sense grounded perchance upon the words of the Psalmist Psal 113.6 Who humbleth himself c. for that affection of mercy and compassion which moved God
Son in whom I am well pleased hear ye him Eph. 5.23 Christ is the head of the Church and he is the Saviour of the body 1 Tim. 2.5 6. One Mediator between God and man the Man Christ Jesus Who gave himself a ransome for all to be testified in due time and the like To this head are referred all such as concern Christ his Office For Christ is not our Mediator but as he is both God and Man It were grosse blasphemy to say in property of speech that the divine nature of Christ did suffer but that he suffered as God and Man we must beleeve the consideration of his divinity concurring with the sufferings of his humane nature to make them available The fourth is IV. Some things are spoken of Christ as God which must be understood of his humane nature onely as 1 Cor. 11.8 For had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory Acts 20.28 Feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own bloud V. The fifth is Some things are spoken of Christ as Man which must be understood of his divine nature as John 3.13 No man hath ascended up to Heaven but he that came down from Heaven even the Sonne of Man which is in Heaven Matth. 9.6 But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins c. Joh. 6.62 What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before There is some difference between us and the Lutherans whether in these passages of the two last rules the 4. and the 5. the idiomata or properties of one nature should be said to be communicated to the other nature or rather as we maintain to the Person The consequence of this difference if neerly sifted may be somewhat but otherwise we acknowledging the reality of this communication of idiomes in the Person and they so bounding and expounding that communication which they maintain as that the properties of both natures may still continue really distinct there appears to me but little necessity of such quarrelling about it To these rules of distinctions the Scripture it selfe in direct tearms or by formall precedents doth sometime lead us as S. Peter in those words speaking of Christ being put to death in the flesh 1 Pet. 3.18 and suffered for us in the flesh Ibid. 4.1 and the same Peter Chapter 2.23 Who his own self bare our sins in his body not in corpore proprio or suo ipsius but in corpore suo as both Beza and the Vulgar which I conceive more proper though it be in the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the tree So S. Paul Which was made of the seeed of David according to the flesh Rom. 1.3 and Chap. 9.3 to the same purpose Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came I finde that most who have written of this subject both Schoolmen and others take into consideration the necessity of Christ his Incarnation or as some propose it of his satisfaction for the reparation of mankind Some also insist much upon it as a main circumstance This puts a necessity upon me of saying somewhat of it who otherwise could have rested well satisfied in the simple knowledge of that way of salvation which the wisdome of God hath pitched upon with those considerations which himself in his holy Word hath recommended it unto us with without going so high as the consideration of the possibility of another way But since I may not altogether omit it my first care shall be rightly to state the question which is not Whether the reparation of mankind and thereupon the Incarnation of Christ was absolutely necessary that Christ would have been incarnated though man had not sinned hath been I know the opinion of some but that the reparation of man being falne was absolutely necessary not of any that I remember Neither is this the question Whether upon a supposition that satisfaction must be had any other true and proper satifaction could be found but in and by Christ which is a point handled by a Vide Chrysost Theodoret c. in 1 Tim. 2.5 Sed praecipuè Athan. Orat. 2. cont Arr. Cyrill Alexan. De rectâ fide ad Theodos R ginas divers of the Ancients who give sundry reasons grounded upon the Scripture that it could not and hath b Vid. Reverendiss Archiep. ArmachanuÌ„ in Trâ—ctatum qui inscribitur Immanuel vel De mysterio Incarn lately by some of eminent worth and ranke more accurately been discussed and proved but this supposed that God after the fall of Adam having a purpose to restore mankind to its former or a better state both of innocency and felicity whether he might not have brought it about any other way then by the Incarnation of his Son or thus for it comes all to one and so it is proposed by some Whether God can forgive sins without a proportionable satisfaction this is the question intended hereby us This speculation was first occasioned by the objections and scruples of ancient Heathens who as they liked well to heare of Gods mercy in generall so they could not many of them digest that the Almighty should be put to such shifts and stoop so low as they interpreted it for the execution of it Most ancient Fathers and Writers that I have observed resolve the question affirmatively that it was very possible to God either some other way or without any at all by his bare will and pleasure So not Athanasius and Augustine onely who are cited by learned Hugo Grotius in his Treatise De Satisfactione but S. Cyprian also or whoever is the Author of that excellent piece De cardinalibus operibus Christi Origen Theodoret Leo and Gregory two Popes for their singular worth and piety surnamed Great Theod. Therap l. 6. Theodoret having first shewed how many things God had made for mans sake and thereupon inferred how well it became him to restore them being faln for whom such store and plenty in Heaven and in Earth was appointed and provided and so proceeded in his discourse to the Incarnation of Christ goes on thus It was very easie for him without this veyling of himself with our flesh to have wrought this salvation of mankind and by his bare will not onely to have destroyed the power of death but sin also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mother of death and the begetter of sin that mischievous spirit the one to have altogether abolished and the other to have driven from the earth and confined to his after a short season appointed habitation eternall darknesse * Pariter Leo 2. De Nativit Misericordia Dei cum ad recuperanduÌ„ genus humanuÌ„ ineffabiliter ei multa suppeterent hanc potissimum consulendi viam elegit quâ ad destruendum opus Diaboli non virtute uteretur potentiae sed ratione justitiae But it was not the will of God in this to manifest
at least because I know what may be objected betweene a man and a childe The same man when he is come to maturity of years and discretion and when he was but a childe or a boy Or as much as is between an extraordinary wise learned and experienced man an ordinary plain rustick capacity How many things seem strange unreasonable incredible impossible to the one which to the others are well known to be nothing so Of Heraclitus the Philosopher his writings some-body once said as I remember What he understood he liked very well what he did not he verily beleeved was as good And can it be that any man should owe lesse civility to God To this very purpose Plotinus the Philosopher if my memory deceive me not hath a pregnant passage The testimonies also of divers Heathens Philosophers and others concerning the weaknesse and imbecillity of mans understanding to comprehend things divine we could produce But because Aristotle is generally acknowledged to have been as a Favourite so a great Patron of nature we will content our selves here with his ingenuous acknowledgement In his Metaphysicks by him called sometimes Theology speaking in a place of the difficulty of that Science he hath these words Arist Metaph. l. 2. c. 1. Ed. in fol. p. 856. It being so that the difficulty of a thing may be taken two ways it may be that the cause of it is not in the things themselves but in us For as the eyes of Bats are to the light of the Sun when it is day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so is the intellect of our souls to the knowledge of those things which of themselves are most clear and perspicuous How unreasonable it is to judge of the ways or works of God by humane either faculties or affections by what hath been said may appear how dangerous it is though that also in part hath appeared yet because it is a point that I would have well cleared I shall instance in one particular more We say commonly one good turn deserveth another and so indeed it is for the most part There be but few whose goodnesse is not in some respect or other if not meerly mercenary yet mixed with a by-respect to themselves and their owne interest Among men it is so whereupon Epicurus inferred that it must be so in God too And because he could not conceive right enough in that according to the Psalmist Psal 16.2 My goodnesse extendeth not to thee but to the Saints that are in the earth how man could merit at the hands of God another grosse conceit of his and that too grounded upon the similitude of mans weaknesse concurring that God could not take care of man or of the world in generall without much trouble and distraction to himself it made him to deny a Providence Of this latter the writings of the Epicureans are full it was their chiefest Theme As for the former I appeal to Lucretius one of Epicurus his greatest Champions Quid enim immortalibus atque beatis Gratia nostra queat largirier emolumenti Vt tantum nostrâ causâ gerere aggrediantur I shall not need to say more concerning this second principle I had not said so much of it but that I conceived it of great importance to us as will appear in the progresse of this Discourse The third is That whatsoever hath been revealed III. c. The matter is thus stated by Gregory Nazianz. in his Invectives against Julian who scoffed at the Christians for their usual Motto Beleeve saying that all their wit wisdom was included in that one word After divers other things by him alledged and retorted upon Julian he thus proceeds By that word saith he we professe to beleeve that it is not lawfull for us to distrust or discredit any thing that is averred by men divinely inspired and that the credit of such with us is such that we account their bare word a sufficient demonstration farre beyond all arguments and evidences of humane ratiocination So he there and so others whom I shall not need to name Now this principle of beleef grounded upon divine revelation as in one respect I grant it may be accounted the proper principle of Christianity because no Religion or Science can justly pretend to such a foundation but Christianity so generally considered why it should as by many it is made be more proper to Christians then to other men I see no sufficient reason For how can it bee conceived that any man or people in the world that really beleeve a Deity or divine nature should make any question of the truth of those things which issue from such a nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who can bee so simple or so phrentick rather saith Theodoret. But if any man apprehend it otherwise yet approved experience will convince him In what esteem Oracles were anciently amongst all Nations no man can be ignorant that is not a stranger to all Histories whence proceeded the Proverb Tanquam ex tripode of those things which are of unquestionable credit or certainty From the same Origine as the Oracles issued also their aruspicina auspicia omina and other such superstitions in some sort or other received and practised amongst all Nations professing by that how desirous and ready they were to be guided and directed in their ways at least in their most important affairs by them who could see into things future with better then mortall eyes Upon this ground politick wise men as Numa Pompilius Lycurgus and divers others mentioned in ancient Histories to make the people the more pliable to their laws and institutions devised means how to possesse them with an opinion that they entertained some commerce with some Deity or other by which they were prompted to such and such things Whether the Romans did not make such a use of their Sibylles verses or whether they really beleeved of them themselves what they perswaded others to beleeve I will not enquire because either way it shews how ready men have been generally to yeeld assent and obedience to divine revelation Hence is that observation of Historians Quiat Curt. l. 4. Ed. Paris p. 74. which many more largely insist upon by Quint. Curtius thus briefly contracted Nullares efficatiùs multitudinem regit quà m superstitio Alioquin impotens Java murabilis ubi vanâ religione eapta est meliùs vatibus quà m ducibus suis parent that is There is not any thing more powerfull to rule the people then superstition or an opinion of religion which otherwise of it self being unruly wild and mutable when it is possessed with an opinion of religion it will sooner be commanded by their Prophets then by their Captains This may be further confirmed by the doctrine of the ancient Masters of Rhetorick who where they treat of authorities as they call them that are brought by Oratours and Advocates for the confirmation of any cause give the first place to those testimonies which they call
over the which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood Being justified freely by his grace Rom. 3.24.5 through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his bloud to declare his righteousnesse for the remissiâ—n of sins that are past through the forbearancâ— of God But of him are ye in Christ Jesus 1 Cor. 1.30 who of God is made unto us Wisdome and Righteousnesse and Sanctification and Redemption But Christ being come an high Priest of good things to come c neither by the bloud of goats and calves Heb. 9.11 12 13 14. but by his own bloud he entred in once into the holy place having obtained eternall redemption for us For if the bloud of buls and goats and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh How much more shall the bloud of Christ who through the eternall Spirit offered himsel without spot to God purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God Heb. 9.26 For then c. but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself 1 Pet. 2.24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the treâ— that we beeng dead to sins should live unto righteousnesse by whose stripes ye were healed I said before my purpose was not to encounter adversaries here but to comfort and confirm them who stood unshaken in the same precious faith to use Saint Peters words upon which precious faith the Church was first founded and which by the succession of so many ages hath been continued and derived unto us Otherwise we might and must have taken notice of many more places and not content our selves with passages and testimonies of the New Testament only but ground especially upon prophesies of the Old as also have taken notice of many false glosses interpretations whereby the adversaries have endeavoured to elude the clearest testimonies of either whether Old or New Testament all which could not be without much more discourse then I can allow my selfe at this time Of prophesies there is not any that hath either more troubled the obstinate Jews as appears by their writings or converted more of the more candid and ingenuous among them then the fifty third Chapter of the Prophet Esay which whole Chapter both as a precious cordiall to them that are wounded in spirit and an excellent antidote against the danger of all spreading infection of unsound doctrine in this main fundamentall deserves to be committed to memory or at least often to be read and pondered by all prudent and wary Christians There be some texts of Scripture concerning this high and sublime mystery which by them that are not well grounded without some precaution may easily be mistaken We are taught by the Scriptures and true analogy of faith that the Word is so united unto our flesh the nature of God unto the nature of man as that both make but one person though but one person yet so neverthelesse that as the natures themselves so the properties of both remain distinct unpermixed unconfused But this though in the truth and reality of the thing it bee perpetuall and immutable yet in verball expressions it is not so precisely observed There is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they commonly call it that is a communication of idioms and properties in words and speeches sometimes used Ancient Fathers call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a communication not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of properties but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of names or words S. Cyrill useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appropriation and Damascen besides other words as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the like 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the right interpretation of which word there is some controversie amongst the Learned These kinde of expressions however called have bred great disputes and occasioned as much as any thing that dolefull division between us and those Protestants commonly called Lutherans they contending that this communication of properties is not verball onely but reall whereupon they inferre strange conclusions The truth is as some moderate learned men of this side especially state the businesse the controversie it self may seem rather verball then reall not such at least as should disturb the peace of the Church so much as it hath done But we will not meddle with controversies For the better understanding of the Scriptures in this sacred subject I finde five rules or propositions collected out of them or rather the severall expressions and modos loquendi there used upon this argument digested and reduced into five heads or rules They are such as every body needs not I know but such as every body is very well capable of and therefore I shall the more willingly insert them here I. The first is some things are spoken of Christ in the Scriptures which must be understood of his divine nature onely as Rom. 9.5 Christ who is over us all God blessed for ever John 8.58 Before Abraham was I am Heb. 1.2 3. By whom also he made the worlds Who being the brightnesse of his glory and the expresse image of his Person and upholding all things by the word of his power and other like places II. The second is Some things are spoken of Christ which must be understood of his humane nature onely as Luke 1.31 Thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bring forth a Son and shalt call his Name Jesus Luke 2.52 And Jesus increased in wisdome and stature and in favour with God and man Matth. 26 39. Neverthelesse not as I will but as thou wilt and the like Some at first hearing may think that those speeches Matth. 20.23 But to sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father and Mark 13.32 But of that day and that houre knoweth no man no not the Angels which are in heaven neither the Son but the Father should bee referred to this head or rule Certain enough it is that of the Ancients not a few did so understand them as spoken by Christ of himself not as God but Man But most Interpreters expound them otherwise and shew reasons why that exposition as contrary to other places of Scripture cannot stand The truth is they are difficult plâ—ces as may appear by the diversity of expositions But I will not make it my businesse here This caveat I thought would not be amisse which is all I intended The third is some things are spoken of Christ III. which must be understood of his Person onely not of either of his natures particularly as Matth. 17.5 This is my beloved