Quest. XXXVI. Who is the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace?

Answ. The only mediator of the covenant of grace is the Lord Jesus Christ, who being the eternal Son of God, of one substance and equal with the Father, in the fulness of time became man, and so was and continues to be God and Man, in two entire distinct natures, and one Person for ever.

Quest. XXXVII. How did Christ, being God, become Man?

Answ. Christ, the Son of God, became Man by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance, and born of her, yet without sin.

Next to the covenant of grace, and its various administrations, we have, in some following answers, an account of the Mediator thereof, who is set forth in the glory of his Person; the offices that he executes, and the estate in which he either was, or is, together with those accessions of glory, with which he shall perform the last part of his work in the close of time. The first thing to be considered, is the constitution of his Person, as God-man, Mediator; and here,

I. He is set forth as the only Mediator of the covenant of grace. How we are to understand his being Mediator, has been already considered^[113], and it was observed, that he did not make peace, by intreating, that God would remit the debt, without giving that satisfaction, which was necessary to be made, for the securing the glory of the divine justice. Herein we militate against the Socinians, who suppose him to be styled a Mediator, only because he made known unto the world those new laws contained in the gospel, which we are obliged to obey, as a condition of God’s being reconciled to us; and giving us a pattern of obedience in his conversation; and, in the close thereof, confirming his doctrine by his death; and then interceding with God, that, on these terms, he would accept of us, without any regard to the glory of his justice, which he is no farther concerned about, than by prevailing that it would desist from the demands which it might have made, and so pardon sin without satisfaction; But this is directly contrary to the whole tenor of scripture, which represents him as giving his life a ransom for many, Matt. xx. 28. upon which account it is said he made peace through the blood of his cross, Col. i. 20. and that God brought him again from the dead through the blood of the everlasting covenant, as the God of peace, Heb. xiii. 20. and, at the same time, appeared to be a God of infinite holiness and justice, and Christ a Mediator of satisfaction: But this will be farther considered, when we speak concerning his Priestly office^[114].

That which we shall, at present, observe is, that he is styled the only Mediator: Thus it is said, There is one Mediator between God and men, The man Christ Jesus, 1 Tim. ii. 5. In this we oppose the Papists, who greatly derogate from the glory of Christ by pretending that the angels, and glorified saints, are mediators of intercession, and that they not only offer up supplications to God in the behalf of men here on earth, but with them they present their own merits, as though Christ’s redemption and intercession had not been sufficient without them; and accordingly a great part of their worship consists in desiring that these good offices may be performed by them, on their behalf, which I cannot but conclude to be a breach of the first, or, at least, let them put never so fair colours upon it, of the second commandment; which will be farther considered in its proper place.

The scriptures they bring, in defence of this practice, are nothing to their purpose. For whenever an angel is said to intercede for men, as it is expressed, The angel of the Lord answered and said, O Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, and on the cities of Judah? Zech. i. 12. or to be the object of their prayers, or supplications, as Jacob says, The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads, Gen. xlviii. 16. no other person is intended hereby but Christ the angel of the covenant. Another scripture, which they bring to the same purpose, is that, in which Moses says, Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, Exod. xxxii. 13. which they miserably pervert; for Moses does not desire that God would hear the prayers that these saints made to him in the behalf of his church; but that he would remember the covenant that he made with them, and so accomplish the promises thereof, by bestowing the blessings that his people then stood in need of.

And there are two other scriptures that are often cited by the Papists, to this purpose, which, they think, can hardly be taken in any other sense; one is in Rev. v. 8. where it is said, that the four beasts, and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints; and the other is in chap. viii. 3. And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints, upon the golden altar, which was before the throne. It must be allowed, that there are many passages, in this book, which are hard to be understood; but there are none contrary to the analogy of faith, or derogatory to the glory of Christ, as the sense they give of these scriptures is; and therefore we must enquire, whether they may not be understood otherwise by us? It is said, indeed, the four beasts, and four and twenty elders, had golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints; but it is not fully determined whether, by these beasts and elders, are intended the inhabitants of heaven, or men on earth. If it is only an emblematical representation of those prayers that are directed to God from the church in this world, it is nothing to their purpose. But we will suppose that, by these beasts and elders, here spoken of, who fell down before the Lamb, are meant the inhabitants of heaven: nevertheless, we are not to understand, that they are represented as praying for the saints here on earth; for the golden vials full of odours, are only an emblem of the prayers that are put up by the saints here on earth, which God accepts of, or smells a sweet savour in, as perfumed with odours of Christ’s righteousness. This may be illustrated by those political emblems, that are used in public solemnities; such as the coronation of kings, in which the regalia are carried by the prime ministers of state, not to signify that they have any branch of kingly dignity belonging to them: but the whole ceremony is expressive of his honours and prerogatives, who is the principal subject thereof; so when the heavenly inhabitants are represented, in this vision, in such a way, as they are here described, it only signifies, that the prayers, which are put up by God’s people here on earth, through the mediation of Christ, are graciously heard and answered by him.

As for the other scripture, in which it is said, Another angel stood at the altar, and there was given him much incense, that he should offer it, with the prayers of all saints, that is generally understood, by those who do not give into this absurd opinion of the Papists, as spoken of our Saviour, and then it makes nothing to their purpose, but rather militates against it. But if it be objected, to this sense of the text, that our Saviour cannot properly be called another angel, and therefore it must be meant of one of the created angels; the sense but now given of the foregoing scripture may be accommodated to it, and so the meaning is, this angel, or one of the angels, stood at the altar before the Lamb, and, in an emblematical way, is set forth, as having incense put into his hand, which he presents to him; not as offering it up for himself, but as signifying that it was for the sake of Christ’s merits, that the prayers of his people, here on earth, ascended with acceptance in the sight of God. And it is as though he should say to Christ, “The incense is thine, thou hast a right to the glory thereof; and therefore let all know, that this is the only foundation of the church’s hope, that their wants shall be supplied by thee.” So that this does not give the least countenance to the Popish doctrine, of there being other mediators between God and man besides our Lord Jesus Christ.

Some of the Papists, indeed, are sensible that this opinion tends to detract from the glory of our great Mediator, and therefore they chuse rather to assert, that the saints and angels are mediators between Christ and men, so that we are through their means, to have access to him, and by him, to the Father: but, since Christ not only condescended to take our nature upon him, and therein to procure redemption for us; but invited his people to come to him; and since it is said, through him we have an access unto the Father, Eph. ii. 18. and no mention is made of any, by whom we have access to Christ; and our access to God is founded only in his blood, we have nothing else to do, but, by faith, in what he has done and suffered to draw nigh to God, as to a Father, reconciled to this great and only Mediator.

II. This Mediator is described, as to his Person, as God incarnate, or, as it is expressed, the eternal Son of God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, who became Man, and that, in the most proper sense, by assuming to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, which are the two constituent parts of man. Here we are to consider,

1. The Person assuming the human nature. He is styled the eternal Son of God, of one substance with the Father, and, with respect to his personality, equal with him.^[115] This is the same mode of speaking that was used by the Nicene fathers, in defence of our Saviour’s divinity against the Arians, which we have largely insisted on, in our defence of the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity,^[116] and having also explained what we mean by Christ’s Sonship, as referring to his Person and character, as Mediator,^[117] we shall add no more on that subject at present, but take it for granted, that our Saviour is, in the most proper sense, a divine Person, and shall consider him as assuming the human nature; accordingly we may observe,

(1.) That it was the second Person in the Godhead who was incarnate, and not the Father, nor the Holy Ghost. This we affirm against the Sabellians, who deny the distinct Personality of the Father, Son, and Spirit; and assert that the Father, or the Holy Ghost, might as truly be said to have been incarnate, as the Son, since their Personality, according to them, is not so distinct, as that what is done by one divine Person, might not be said to have been done by another.^[118]

(2.) It follows, from hence, that the divine nature, which belongs in common to the Father, Son, and Spirit, cannot be properly said to have been incarnate. It is true, we read, that God was manifest in the flesh, 1 Tim. iii. 16. and elsewhere, that in him, namely, in the human nature, dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead, Col. ii. 9. from whence some take occasion to conclude, that the human nature was united to the Godhead, or that the Godhead of Christ was said to be incarnate: but if this be asserted, it must be with caution and a distinction. I cannot therefore suppose, that the Godhead absolutely considered, but as including in it the idea of its subsisting in the Person of the Son, was incarnate; which is very well expressed, when we say that the human nature was united to the second Person in the Godhead, rather than to the Godhead itself.

(3.) Christ being farther considered, as the eternal Son of God; it follows from hence, that he existed before his incarnation, which has been largely insisted on, under a foregoing answer, in defence of Christ’s proper deity. In this we oppose not only the Socinians, who deny that he existed before he was conceived in the womb of the blessed Virgin; but also the Arians, especially those of them who take occasion to explain, without disguise, or ambiguity of words, what they mean when they speak of him, as being before time, which comes infinitely short of what is intended by his being styled God’s eternal Son, and so existing with him before time. Thus we have an account of the Person assuming the human nature.

2. We are now to consider the nature assumed, or united to the divine Person, which was an human nature, consisting of a true body, and a reasonable soul; so that as Christ is, in one nature, God equal with the Father, in the other he is Man, made, in all the essential properties of the human nature, like unto us. Here we may consider,

(1.) That, since this is a matter of pure revelation, we have sufficient ground, from scripture, to assert, that our Saviour is both God and Man. Many of the scriptures, that have been before referred to, to prove his deity, expressly attribute to him an human, as well as a divine nature, and speak of the same Person as both God and Man; as when God styles him, The Man that is my Fellow, Zech. xiii. 7. or, when he, who is Jehovah, our righteousness, is also described as a branch raised unto David, Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. that is, of the seed of David; or, as the apostle says, he, who is over all, God blessed for ever, was of the fathers concerning the flesh, or his human nature, Rom. ix. 15. Moreover, when we read of the same Person, as styled, The mighty God, and yet a Child born unto us, a Son given, Isa. ix. 6. or of the same Person’s being called Emmanuel, God with us, and yet born of a Virgin, Isa. vii. 14. compared with Matt. i. 23. or, when we read of the Word’s being made flesh, and dwelling among us: and elsewhere, being called the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, and yet made of the seed of David, according to the flesh, Rom. i. 3. or, God manifest in the flesh, 1 Tim. iii. 16. These, and many other scriptures, as plainly prove him to be man, as they do that he is God.^[119] And, indeed, the arguments to prove his humanity, taken from thence, are not so much contested, as those that respect his proper deity; and therefore, if these scriptures prove him to be God, they contain as strong and conclusive arguments to prove him to be Man, so that the bare mention of them is sufficient, especially when we consider, as it cannot be denied, that all these scriptures speak of the same Person; therefore,

(2.) When Christ is said to be both God and Man, it does not imply that there are two Persons in the Mediator; and accordingly it is said, in the answer we are explaining, that though these natures are distinct, yet the Person who has them, is but one. This is to be maintained against those who entertain favourable thoughts of that ancient heresy, first broached by Nestorius,^[120] whose method of reasoning cannot be reconciled with the sense of those scriptures, which plainly speak of the same Person, as both God and Man, and attribute the same actions to him in different respects, which is inconsistent with asserting, that the Mediator is both a divine and a human Person; and it cannot be denied but that it is a contradiction in terms, to say, that two Persons can be so united, as to become one. However, it must be acknowledged, that this is one of the incomprehensible mysteries of our religion; and when divines have attempted to explain some things relating to it, they have only given farther conviction, that there are some doctrines contained in scripture, which we are bound to believe, but are at a loss to determine how they are what they are asserted to be.

If it be objected, that we cannot conceive of an human nature, such an one as our Saviour’s is that has not its own Personality, since there is no parallel instance hereof, in any other men, which I take to be the principal thing that gave occasion to the asserting, that he had a human Person, as well as a divine;

The answer that I would give to this objection, is, that though, it is true, every man has a distinct subsistence of his own, without being united to any other person, yet we have no ground to conclude, that the human nature of Christ, even in its first formation, had any subsistence separate from the divine nature. Had it been first formed, and then united to the divine nature, it would have had a proper subsistence of its own; but, since it was not, its Personality, considered as united to the second Person in the Godhead, is contained therein, though its properties are infinitely distinct from it.

3. These two natures are distinct; united but not confounded. This is asserted, in opposition to an old exploded heresy, which was maintained by some, who, to avoid the error of Nestorius, and his followers, went into the other extreme,^[121] and asserted, that the divine and human nature of Christ were confounded, or blended together, after the similitude of things that are mixed together in a natural or artificial way, whereby the composition is of a different nature from the parts of which it is compounded, by which means they debase his Godhead, and advance his manhood; or rather, instead of supposing him to be both God and man, they do, in effect, say, he is neither God nor man. The main foundation, as I apprehend, of this absurd and blasphemous notion, was, that they could not conceive how he could have a divine and human understanding and will, without asserting, with Nestorius, that there were two persons in the Mediator, whereby they split against one rock, while endeavouring to avoid another. And to fence against both extremes, the fathers, in the council of Chalcedon, explained the doctrine in words to this purpose: That the two natures of Christ were indivisibly and inseparably united, without supposing that one was changed into the other, or confounded with it.

Therefore we must consider, that though these two natures are united, yet each of them retains its respective properties, as much as the soul and body of man do, though united together, which is the best similitude by which this can be illustrated, though I do not suppose that, in all respects, it answers it. Thus, in one nature, Christ had all the fulness of the Godhead, and in nothing common with us; nothing finite, derived, or dependent, or any other way defective. In his other nature, he was made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted: in this nature, he was born in time, and did not exist from all eternity, and increased in knowledge, and other endowments, proper thereunto. In one nature, he had a comprehensive knowledge of all things; in the other, he knew nothing but by communication, or derivation, and with those other limitations that finite wisdom is subject to. In one nature he had an infinite sovereign will; in the other, he had such a will as the creature has, which though it was not opposite to his divine will, yet its conformity thereunto was of the same kind with that which is in perfect creatures; so that though we do not say that his human will was the same with his divine, as to the essential properties thereof; yet it may be said to be the same, in a moral sense, as conformed thereunto, in like manner, as the will of man is said to be subjected to the will of God.

Had this been duly considered, persons would not have been so ready to give into an error so dangerous and blasphemous, as that which we are opposing. And we have sufficient ground, from scripture, to distinguish between his divine and human understanding and will, inasmuch as it is said, in one place, speaking of his divine understanding, Lord, thou knowest all things, John xxi. 17. and of his human, Of that day and hour knoweth no man; no, not the Son, Mark xiii. 32. and so of his will, it is sometimes represented as truly divine, in the same sense as the Father’s, as when it is said, As the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will, John v. 21. and elsewhere, If we ask any thing according to his will he heareth us, 1 John v. 14. and, Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out, John vi. 37. And, in other places, he is represented as having an human will, essentially distinct from the will of God; as when he says, Not my will, but thine, be done, Luke xxii. 42.

4. The nature that was assumed by the Son of God, is farther described, as truly and properly human. It was not an angelic nature; as the apostle says, He took not on him the nature of angels, inasmuch as he did not design to redeem the angels that fell, but he took on him the nature of the seed of Abraham, Heb. ii. 16. And, this nature is farther described, as consisting of a true body, and a reasonable soul.

(1.) Christ is described as having a true body. This is maintained against those who, in an early age of the church,^[122] denied that he had a real human nature. These, it is true, do not deny his deity; but they suppose, that it was impossible for God to be united to human flesh, and therefore that he appeared only in the likeness thereof; as some heathen writers represent their gods, as appearing in human forms, that they might converse with men. Thus they suppose, that the Godhead of Christ appeared in an human form, without a real human nature, in which sense they understand that scripture, He took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, Phil. ii. 7. as though, in that place, the similitude of a man were opposed to real humanity; or, at least, they suppose, that he had no other human nature when he dwelt on earth, than what he had, when he appeared to the church, under the Old Testament-dispensation, viz. to Abraham, Moses, Joshua, and several others, in which they conclude, that there was only the likeness of a human body, or an aerial one, which, according to some common modes of speaking, is called a spirit. To give countenance to this, they bring some other scriptures, as when it is said, after his resurrection, that he appeared in another form to two disciples, as they walked into the country, Mark xvi. 12. so when he appeared to Mary, it was in such a form, as that she knew not that it was Jesus, but supposed him to be the gardener, John xx. 14, 15. and especially when it is said, in another scripture, Luke xxiv. 21. when his two disciples at Emmaus knew him, he vanished out of their sight;^[123] which they understand of his vanishing, in the same sense, as, according to the popular way of speaking, a spectrum is said to do.

But this opinion is so absurd, as well as contrary to scripture, that it only shews how far the wild and extravagant fancies of men may run, who are so hardy, as to set aside plain scriptures, and take up with some few passages thereof, without considering their scope and design, or their harmony with other scriptures. And, indeed, there is scarce any thing said concerning him in the New Testament, but what confutes it; where we have an account of him, as being born, passing through all the ages of life, conversing familiarly with his people, eating and drinking with them, and, at last, dying on the cross, which put this matter out of all manner of dispute; as also when he distinguishes himself from a spirit, when the disciples were terrified upon his standing unexpectedly in the midst of them, supposing that he had been a spirit, he satisfies them that they were mistaken, by saying, Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have, Luke xxiv. 29.

As for those scriptures in the Old Testament, which speak of his appearing in a human form, assumed for that purpose; whether there was, in every one of those instances, a real human body that appeared, though, in some of them, it is beyond dispute that there was, I will not pretend to determine; yet it must be considered, that this is never styled his incarnation, or becoming man, but it was only an emblem, or prelibation thereof; and when it is said, in the scripture before mentioned, that he was made in the likeness of men, it does not from hence follow, that he was not, after his incarnation, a real man, for the likeness of man is oftentimes so understood in scripture; as when it is said, on occasion of the birth of Seth, that Adam begat a son in his own likeness, Gen. v. 3. And as to that other scripture, in which Christ is said to appear in different forms, it is not to be supposed that there was a change in his human nature, but only a change in his countenance, or external mein; or he appeared with other kind of garments, which rendered him not immediately known by them. And when, in the other scripture, it is said, he vanished out of their sight, nothing is intended thereby, but an instantaneous withdrawing of himself from them, which, it may be might contain something miraculous.

(2.) Christ is farther described, as having taken to himself a reasonable soul, to which his body was united. This is maintained against the Arians, who deny that he had an human soul, concluding that the divine nature, such an one as they will allow him to have, was, as it were, a soul to his body; which is founded partly on their misunderstanding the sense of those scriptures, in which it is said, The Word was made flesh, John i. 14. and God was manifest in the flesh, 1 Tim. iii. 16. and, Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, Heb. ii. 14. and, Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, &c. Rom. ix. 5. But the principal argument, by which this opinion is supported, is, because they suppose, that, if he had an human soul, distinct from his divine nature, he must have had two understandings and wills, to wit, a divine and an human, and then it would have been possible for him to have had contrary ideas in his mind, and determinations in his will, as man, to what he had as God, which would infer a sort of confusion of thought, and irregularity of actions: but to this it may be answered,

1st, As to the former, relating to his assuming flesh, it is a very common thing, in scripture, by a synecdoche, of the part for the whole, for flesh to signify the whole man, consisting of soul and body, of which we have many instances in scripture; as when it is said, All flesh had corrupted his way, Gen. vi. 12. that is, all men had corrupted their way; and the prophet speaking concerning the vanity of man, as mortal, says, All flesh is grass, Isa. xl. 6.

2dly, As to the other branch of their argument; we allow that Christ, as Man, had a distinct understanding and will, from what he had as God, and that his human understanding was not equally perfect with his divine, neither had his human will the sovereignty and glory of his divine will. And, if it should be also allowed, that if his human understanding and will had not always been under the influence and direction of his divine, he might have had contrary ideas, and determinations, as man, to what he had as God; yet we cannot allow that the divine nature would so far suspend its direction and influence, as that his human understanding should have contradictory ideas to his divine, so that this inconvenience should ensue, which would occasion a confusion and disorder in his actions, or methods of human conduct. It was no disparagement to him, nor hindrance to his work, to suppose that his human soul was subject to some natural imperfections, which were inconsistent with the infinite perfection of his deity; however, it is sufficient to assert, that, as Man, he knew every thing, which he was obliged to perform, in a way of obedience, and consented to, and delighted in every thing that was agreeable to his divine will, which would render his obedience compleat; though we suppose, that the nature, in which he performed it, was less perfect than that to which it was united; therefore this method of reasoning is not conclusive, and we must suppose, that he had a human soul, distinct from his divine nature. This is evident, because he could not perform obedience in the divine nature, his human soul being the only subject thereof, and it is proper to the deity to be dispassionate; therefore those sinless passions which he was subject to, were seated in his soul, as united to the body; and that he had such passions, is very plain from scripture; for he says, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death, Matt. xxvi. 38. And there are various other passions besides sorrow, which he was subject to, which, though free from sin, were altogether inconsistent with the infinite perfection of the divine nature.

9. This human nature is said to have been conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her, yet without sin. Here we may observe,

(1.) That there was something in the formation of Christ’s human nature, in which he resembled the rest of mankind, in that he was not produced, and brought into a state of manhood in an instant, or created out of the dust of the ground, as Adam was, but was born, or as the apostle expresses it, made of a woman, Gal. iv. 4. to denote his being formed out of her substance; and accordingly he began his state of humiliation in infancy, that he might, in all respects, be made like unto those whom he came to redeem. Herein the promise made to our first parents, relating to his being the seed of the woman, Gen. iii. 15. was not only fulfilled; but another express prediction, by the prophet Isaiah, who says, Unto us a Child is born, Isa. ix. 6.

(2.) There was something peculiar and extraordinary in his formation, as he was an extraordinary Person, and to be engaged in a work peculiar to himself; so he is said to have been born of a Virgin, not because, as some suppose, that that is a state of greater sanctity, than any other condition of life, but, as was before observed^[124], that he might be exempted from the guilt of Adam’s first sin, which he would have been liable to, though sanctified from the womb, had his human nature been formed in an ordinary way. It was certainly necessary that his human nature, which was, in its first formation, united to his divine Person, should be perfectly sinless; since it would have been a reproach cast on the Son of God, to have it said concerning him, that he was, in the nature which he assumed, estranged to, and separate from God, as all mankind are, who are born in an ordinary way. And this was also necessary for his accomplishing the work of our redemption, since as the apostle says, Such an High Priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, Heb. vii. 26. And, in order to his being born of a Virgin, there was an extraordinary instance of the power of God; and therefore it is said, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, Luke i. 35.

His being born of a Virgin, was an accomplishment of that prediction which we read of in Isa. vii. 14. The Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel. This text being so convincing a proof of Christianity, and, as such, referred to in the New Testament, Matt. i. 22, 23. the Jews, and many of the modern Deists, have endeavoured to weaken the force thereof, which renders it necessary for us to illustrate and explain it, agreeably to the scope and design of the prophecy, contained in the context; which we shall endeavour to do, in the following Paraphrase. Says God to the prophet, “Go to Ahaz, and bid him not be faint-hearted, by reason of the threatened invasion by the confederate kings of Israel and Syria; but let him ask a sign for the confirmation of his faith, that I may hereby assure him, that they shall not be able to do him any hurt: but I know, before-hand, his unbelief, and the sullenness of his temper, that he will refuse to ask a sign; therefore, when thou goest to meet him, take thy young son Shear-jashub in thine hand, or in thine arms, from whom thou mayest take occasion to deliver part of the message which I send thee with to him; tell him, that though he refuse to ask a sign, nevertheless^[125], the Lord shall give thee a sign, to his people, whom thou shalt command to hear this message, as well as Ahaz, they being equally concerned herein; therefore let them know, that, though their obstinate and wicked king calls a compliance with my command a tempting me, and therefore will not ask a sign, I will not give him any other sign, than what the whole house of Israel shall behold, in future ages, which, though it cannot be properly called a prognostic sign, yet it will be, when it comes to pass, a rememorative sign^[126], and that shall be a glorious one; for, Behold a Virgin^[127] shall conceive, and bear a Son, and thou shalt call his name Immanuel. When this wonderful thing happens, a thing new and unheard of, which shall be created in the earth, that a woman should compass a man, as it is said elsewhere, Jer. xxxi. 22. then the house of David shall understand the reason why I have not suffered these two kings to destroy Judah, so that it should be broken, that it be not a people, as Ephraim shall, within threescore and five years, [ver. 8.] for then the Messiah could not come of the house of David; and what he shall do for them, when he comes, is the ground and reason of all the temporal deliverances that I work for them, and particularly of this from the intended invasion of these two confederate kings. Tell them, moreover, that as this shall be a rememorative sign, so I will give them to understand, at present, that they shall be delivered in a little time; for before this Child, which thou hast here brought with thee, shall know to refuse the evil, and chuse the good, or shall know the difference between moral good and evil, that is, in two or three years time, The land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings; or those two kings, which thou dreadest, shall be driven, by the king of Assyria, out of their own land. And inasmuch as my people may be afraid, that, before these two years are expired, they shall be brought into such straights, through famine, or scarcity of provisions, which generally attend sieges, that they shall want the necessaries of life; let them know that this child, meaning Shear-jashub, shall not want butter and honey, that is, the best and most proper food for it, that he may know, or rather, until^[128] he know to refuse the evil, and chuse the good, that is, till these two kings, Rezin and Pekah, be utterly destroyed.”

Thus having considered our Saviour’s being born of a Virgin, there is one thing more that is to be observed under this head, namely, that he was of her substance, which is particularly mentioned in this answer, with a design to fence against an ancient heresy, maintained by the Gnostics in the second century, and hath been defended by others, in later ages, who supposed, that our Saviour did not derive his human nature from the Virgin Mary, but that it was formed in heaven, and sent down from thence; and that the Virgin’s womb is only to be considered as the first seat of its residence in this lower world, which they found on those scriptures which speak of his coming down from heaven, John iii. 13, 14. which they understand concerning his human nature; whereas, nothing is intended thereby but the manifestative presence of his divine nature, in which respect God is, in other scriptures, said to come down into this lower world, Gen. xi. 5, 7. And another scripture, which they bring to the same purpose, is that, in which, they suppose, he denies his relation to his mother, when he says, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? Whosoever shall do the will of my Father, which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother, Mat. xi. 48, 50. in which he does not deny his natural relation to them, but designs to shew, that his regard to persons in the exercise of his public ministry, was principally founded on their doing the will of his Father. And whereas they farther suppose, that if his human nature had, in any respect, been derived from the substance of the Virgin, either she must be concluded immaculate, as the Papists do, or else he must have been born a sinner; this hath been already proved to be no just consequence, inasmuch as the formation of his human nature, though it were of the substance of the Virgin, was in an extraordinary and miraculous way, whereby he was exempted from the guilt of original sin.

There is another opinion maintained by some of the school-men, which, though it be not generally received, seems, to me, not altogether improbable, namely, that Christ’s human body, though formed in the womb of the virgin, and a part of her substance, yet, as to the manner of its formation, it differed from that of all other human bodies, inasmuch as the matter, of which they consist, receives its form in a gradual way, and they cannot properly speaking be styled human bodies, till organized and fitted to have their souls united to them; whereas these suppose that the body of Christ, in its first formation, was rendered fit to receive the soul, which was, in an instant united to it; and both soul and body, at the same time, without having any separate subsistence, were united to the divine nature. This account of the formation of Christ’s human body, though I think it most adapted to the union of his soul and body with the divine nature, in the very instant of its formation, and therefore cannot but conclude it a more probable conjecture than what is generally received, yet I do not lay it down as a necessary article of faith; nor would I, from hence, be supposed to deny that the body of Christ grew in the womb like other human bodies, after the soul is united to them; nor would I set aside the account the scripture gives of the virgin’s accomplishing the full number of days, in which she should be delivered, Luke ii. 6. Gal. iv. 4. Thus we have considered our Saviour, as having a true body and a reasonable soul, and both united to the divine nature, whereby he is denominated God incarnate, in this answer.

6. Our Mediator is farther said to have been incarnate, in the fulness of time; and it is added, he shall continue to be both God and man for ever.

(1.) Let us consider what is meant by Christ’s becoming man in the fulness of time. The human nature could not be united to the divine from all eternity; since it is inconsistent with its being a created nature, that it should exist from eternity; notwithstanding he might, had it been so determined, have, assumed this nature in the beginning of time, or immediately after the fall of man, who then stood in need of a Mediator; but God, in his sovereign and wise providence, ordered it otherwise, namely, that there should be a considerable distance of time between the fall of man and Christ’s incarnation, in order to his recovery, which is called, in scripture, the fulness of time, Gal. iv. 4. that is, the time foretold by the prophets, and particularly Daniel, Dan. ix. 24, 25. whose prediction had an additional circumstance of time annexed to it, which gave occasion to the Jews to expect his coming at the same time that he was incarnate.

That there was an universal expectation of the Messiah at this time, appears from the disposition of many among them to adhere to any one, especially if he pretended himself to be a prophet, or that he would make some change in their civil affairs; and the Jewish historian^[129] tells us of many tumults and seditions that were in that age. Some of their ring-leaders he styles magicians; and persons pretending to be prophets, though, indeed, he does not expressly say that they assume the character of Messiah, yet he observes, that the time in which this was done, gave occasion hereunto^[130]; by which he means that it being at that time that the Jews expected that the Messiah, their king, should come, they thought it a fit opportunity to make these efforts, to shake off the Roman yoke; and they were so far from concealing the expectation they had thereof, that it was well known by the heathen, who were not without jealousies concerning them, with respect to this matter; so that some celebrated writers among them observe, that it was generally received throughout the east, according to some ancient predictions, that, at that time, the Jews should obtain the empire;^[131] and there are several expressions, in scripture, which intimate as much: thus Gamaliel speaks of one Theudas, who boasted himself to be somebody, by which, it is probable, he means the Messiah, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves, and were slain, Acts v. 36, 37. which some think to be the same person that Josephus mentions, the name being the same; though others are rather inclined to think that it was another pretender to this character, from some critical remarks they make on the circumstance of time referred to by Gamaliel, being different from that which is mentioned by Josephus.^[132] However, this does not affect our argument; for it is plain, from hence, that, about that time, the Jews were disposed to join themselves to any one who endeavoured to persuade them that he was the Messiah.

And this farther appears, from what our Saviour says, All that ever came before me, are thieves and robbers, John x. 8. by which, doubtless, he means, several that pretended to be the Messiah, in that age, before he came; and it is said elsewhere, Luke xix. 11. a little before our Saviour’s crucifixion, that they, that is, the Jews, generally thought that the kingdom of God, and consequently the Messiah, whom they expected, should immediately appear; and he also foretels, that between this and the destruction of Jerusalem, that is, before that age was at an end, many false Christs, should arise, and warns his followers not to adhere to them, Mat. xxiv. 24-26.

Moreover, had not the Jews expected that the Messiah would appear at that time, they would never have sent in so formal a manner, as they are said to have done, to enquire, Whether John the Baptist, when he exercised his public ministry amongst them, was he? John i. 19-21. And, when he had convinced them that he was not the Messiah, but that our Saviour would soon appear publicly amongst them, who had the only right to this character, he found it no difficult matter to persuade them to believe it; and accordingly Jerusalem and all Judea, that is, the people almost universally attended on his ministry, and were baptized, making a profession of this faith, and of their expectation of, and willingness to adhere to him; and it was the report, that the wise men, who came from the east, had received from the Jews, who were conversant with them, that this was the time that the Messiah should appear, that brought them to Jerusalem, from their respective countries, otherwise that preternatural meteor, or star, which they saw, could not have given them a sufficient intimation concerning this matter, so as to induce them to come and pay their homage to him; and when they came, and enquired of Herod, Where is he that is born king of the Jews? how surprizing soever it might be to that proud tyrant, to think that there was one born, who, as he supposed, would stand in competition with him for the crown, yet it was no unexpected thing to the Sanhedrim, whose opinion in this matter he demanded, in an hypocritical manner; therefore they say, he was to be born in Bethlehem, according to the prediction of the prophet Micah; whereas, if they had not known that this was the time in which he was to be born, they would have replied, that it was an unseasonable question, and a vain thing, to ask where a person was to be born, whose birth was not expected in that age; and they might easily have satisfied Herod, and removed the foundation of his jealousy and trouble, and thereby have prevented that inhuman barbarity committed on the infants of Bethlehem, if they had told him that the time spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in which the Messiah was to be born, was not yet come: but they knew otherwise; and in this respect, Christ might be said to be born in the fulness of time. That which we shall farther observe, concerning it, is,

1st, That it was at that time when God had sufficiently tried the faith of the Old Testament-church, in waiting for his coming, and thereby glorified his sovereignty, who hath the times and seasons of his bestowing all blessings in his own power.

2dly, It was at that time when the measure of the iniquity of the world was abundantly filled, whereby his people might observe the deplorable state into which sin had brought mankind, and the utter impossibility of our recovery without a Mediator, and that the light of nature could not discover any method by which the redemption and salvation of man might be brought about.

3dly, It was at that time that the Jewish church was at the lowest ebb, and therefore the most seasonable time, and they were laid under the highest obligations to adore and magnify him: their political state was broken, the sceptre departed from Judah, and they were brought under the Roman yoke, which sat very uneasy upon them; neither could they ever expect to make that figure in the world as they once had done, therefore now was the time for the Messiah to come, and erect his kingdom. And, besides this, they were given up to a very great degree of judicial blindness and hardness, and were disposed to make void the law of God by their traditions; so that religion, among them, was at a very low ebb; therefore it was the fittest time for God to display his grace, in reviving his work, and preventing his cause and interest from wholly sinking in the world. This was the time in which the Son of God became Man.

(2.) Christ shall continue to be God and Man for ever, or the union of these two natures is indissoluble: as to his divine nature, he is necessarily eternal and unchangeable; and the human nature shall continue for ever united to it, as the result of the divine purpose, in which God intends that some ends, glorious to himself, honourable to the Mediator, and advantageous to his people, should be attained thereby. For,

1st, If he had had a design to lay aside his human nature, he would have done it when he finished his work of obedience and sufferings therein, and thereby had so far answered the end of his incarnation, that nothing more was necessary for the purchase of redemption: but when he rose from the dead, as a Conqueror over death and hell, and was declared to have accomplished the work he came into the world about, it is certain he did not lay it aside, but ascended visibly into heaven, and shall come again, in a visible manner, in that same nature, to judge the world at the last day.

2dly, The eternity of Christ’s human nature appears from the eternity of his mediatorial kingdom, of which more under a following answer, when we come to speak concerning the glory of Christ’s kingly office. It appears, also, from the eternity of his intercession, which, as the apostle expresses it, He ever liveth to make, Heb. vii. 25. for his people: thus he does, by appearing in the human nature in the presence of God, in their behalf; therefore he must for ever have an human nature.

3dly, His saints shall abide for ever in heaven, and, as the apostle says, Shall ever be with the Lord, 1 Thess. iv. 17. and their happiness shall continue both as to soul and body; and, with respect to their bodies, it is said, they shall be fashioned like unto Christ’s glorious body, Phil. iii. 21. therefore his glorious body, or his human nature, shall continue for ever united to his divine Person.

4thly, His retaining his human nature for ever, seems necessary, as it redounds to the glory of God: it is an eternal monument of his love to mankind, and an external means to draw forth their love to him, who procured those mansions of glory, which they shall for ever be possessed of, by what he did and suffered for them therein.