A Discourse CONCERNING CHRIST HIS INCARNATION, AND EXINANITION.  
As also, concerning THE PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIANITY: By way of Introduction.  
By MERIC CASAUBON. D. D.  
LONDON, Printed by M. F. for R. Mynne, and are to be sold at his shop at the Sign of Saint Paul in Little Britain. 1646.   

To the READER.  
COurteous Reader, what is here offered unto thee under the title of a Discourse, is the substance of some Sermons preached upon this solemn sacred argument some years ago, where my dwelling and calling then was. The first part, which I call the Introduction, is, for the most part of it, newly added. Why now added, or thought necessary, will easily be understood by them that know (as who knows it not?) what opposition the most fundamental points of our Religion have met with of late, both at home and abroad. In the rest, there is more alteration of the form, than addition of matter and substance. The Incarnation of Christ is a subject which no true Christian can think unseasonable at any time. I confess, as it is necessary, so is it an argument of that sublimity, as would not be handled by every body, illotis manibus. I had not adventured upon this publication in this form, had I not had good encouragement from some, whose judgement I thought I might trust to, that it might do good. To that end it is here presented unto thee: and if thou shalt propose to thyself that end only in the reading, there will be the more hopes of the success. Farewell.   
Martinus Lutherus in Enchiridio Piarum Precationum De tribus Symbolis, etc. IPsà recomperi, & in omnibus Historiis universi Christianismi hoc animadverti, quod quicunque principalem illum Christianae fidei Articulum de IESV CHRISTO, verè & incorruptè tum crediderunt tum docuerunt, high posteà in vera Christianâ fide tutò ac firmiter perstiterunt; Et licet suos quosdam errores & sua peccata habuerint, sunt illi tamen ad extremum servati. 
The same in English.  WHat by mine own experience, and what by Church Histories of all Ages and Nations, I have certainly found and observed that as many as truly and sincerely have both believed and taught this main Article of the Christian faith concerning JESUS CHRIST, those have continued safe and sound in the Christian faith; and though perchance for a while they have had their errors and their infirmities, yet at the last they have died good Christians. 
Mr Hugo Grotius his opinion and testimony concerning the satisfaction of Christ: taken out of his later writings.  Ephes. 1.6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Hugo Grotius ibi: Sicut in veteri lege non obtinebatur venia eorum quae in eo statu veniam accipere poterant, nisi cruentâ morte victimae; ita in novo foedere remittit Deus peccata credentibus in Christum, ideo quia Christus id suâ morte cruentâ, quip sacrificio perfectissimo, Deoque gratissimo, pleno obedientiae, demissionis, dilectionis & patientiae, ab ipso nobis impetravit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, est plenissima liberatio, à reatuscilicet. quanquam autem vox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tralatione quadam (quod vulgò excipiunt & objiciunt Sociniani, scilicet) ad liberationem quamvis referri interdum solet; in hoc tamen argumento talem intelligi liberationem quae non sine magno impendio fiat, ostendit locus Matth. 20, 28. ubi Christi vita nobis impensa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, redemptio, dicitur.   

I Have perused this learned Discourse of Christ his Incarnation and Exinanition, and finding it both solid and Orthodox, and also adorned with such variety of matter, as may bring to the Reader much profit w●●h delight, I allow it to be printed and published.  
JOHN DOWNAME.   

ERRATA.  

PAg. 3. l. 25. read are ready.  
P. 13. l. 4. according to in Ital. letter.  
P. 23. l. 7. know not what we.  
P. 40. l. 22, 23. (as it is written) in Ital. letter.  
P. 49. l. 30. margin, Tractatu qui.  
P. 63. l. 3. meanness.    


OF THE PRINCIPLES OF DIVINITY; BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION to the ensuing Subject.  
ALL Arts and Sciences are grounded upon some common notions and principles, which as they cannot be well proved, (some of them at least) so they are presupposed to carry so much evidence with them, as that no rational man, be he learned or unlearned, as soon as he heareth them, will stick to yield assent unto them: so that, be particular propositions never so strange and incredible of themselves, or at the first hearing; yet if after many turn and wind they be reduced to some common principle, there is no further doubt. Neither is a rational man bound to embrace, for truth, that which is not, either implicitly or explicitly, by nearer or remoter consequences, reducible to such principles.  
Theology or Divinity, whether it may properly be called a Science or no, it is disputed amongst the Learned: I shall not dispute it here, but only say, that Divinity also hath her common principles; which though perchance they be not of that degree of evidence as the principles of some other Sciences are, yet they are evident enough to satisfy any rational man.  
This Doctrine though sound of itself, and of excellent use against all Heathens, Turks, Infidels, frantic or fanatic Enthusiasts, & Anabaptists; yet because it is very apt to be mistaken, and therefore liable to many exceptions, I think it necessary, before I come to make that use of it, which by way of Introduction I aim at in this present Discourse, to say somewhat of it, to make it more clear & passable, then otherwise amongst the vulgar of men it would be.  
First, than it must be observed, that to believe a thing upon grounds of reason, and to comprehend the reason, or nature, or possibility of that which is believed, are things in themselves far different: which will be made plainer by examples. What reasonable man can doubt of his soul, as of a distinct and different nature from the body, being so known by the daily effects and operations of it? yet neither is the nature of the soul perfectly comprehensible to any man: and even those effects and operations of it which are most visible and ordinary, the most understanding Physicians and Philosophers, when they come to sift them, and to render reasons, acknowledge themselves to be at a stand. Nay, the generation of man, that visible and material part of him only considered, (setting the soul aside, as of another origine,) even that hath posed the wisest and wittiest of men. That the loadstone hath such and such properties, whereof some have been known of old, and some have been lately discovered, who can question, there being such daily experience of it? But the the natural reasons of such properties, though much hath been said and written of it of late years, yet I think there be but few that will take upon them to know, or to render.  
There is great use of this distinction in debate and disputes about the Scripture: which by Ancients is said sometimes to be very plain and perspicuous: and sometimes obscure and full of incomprehensible mysteries: both true, if rightly understood. Clear and perspicuous in the delivery of such and such Doctrines, or Articles necessary to be known, believed, or practised to attain salvation: but full of obscurity, or altogether incomprehensible in their own natures to humane understanding. To instance in one example: What point of Doctrine can be proposed to our belief with more clearness and perspicuity, than the Resurrection of the dead? and what more obscure for the manner and possibility of it?  
That nothing therefore is to be believed, for which there is not ground in reason and humane common sense, is that which we have said, and are really to maintain in a right sense: but that Nihil credendum quod ratione capi nequeat; Nothing is to be believed, which may not be comprehended by humane reason, (as the Photinians and some other Heretics maintain) is an assertion, I know not whether more ridiculous and absurd in point of reason; or more blasphemous and impious in Divinity. Philosophers are allowed their occulta qualitates, and Physicians, even they who knew little of God otherwise, did acknowledge 〈◊〉, somewhat above their capacity and the ordinary course of nature in things of nature. There be I know that laugh at these occultae qualitates: and in some cases they may justly: neither would I contend about words if another word will give better content. But as for them who think they can give a reason for all which by others is admired as hidden & abstruse, sooner may they bring themselves into a suspicion that they never knew how to distinguish between reason and fancy, then persuade them that are rational, that no work of nature is above the reach of humane reason.  
Our second Observation (which follows upon the former, and is a further confirmation of it) shall be concerning the ambiguity or different acception of this word faith, or belief. Faith than we say may be taken either in opposition to sight, or sense: or in opposition to knowledge and comprehension: or thirdly and lastly, to reason, in general. In opposition to sight or sense; so things invisible, whether in their nature so, because spiritual; or invisible, because not present, but future; are the proper object of faith. In the Epistle to the Hebrews faith is thus defined; Faith is the substance (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of things hoped for; the evidence (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of things not seen. In opposition to knowledge and comprehension; so we are said to believe those things which we do not understand or comprehend. Lastly, in opposition to reason; so we are said to believe those things for which, or for the belief of which we have no ground or foundation at all in humane reason and ratiocination. Those that shall read the Ancients upon this argument, will find great use of these distinctions, to reconcile their several expressions, which otherwise might seem to import ● contrariety of opinions. For example; whereas it was commonly objected by ancient Heathens to the Christians of those times, that they grounded all their Doctrine upon mere belief; that their simple faith was all they had to trust to: Some not so ware perchance neither of the ambiguity of the word, nor what advantage Heathens would make of it; made no scruple simply to avow what was objected unto them: but others again did utterly disclaim it, complained of the objection as a gross and impudent calumny; appealed to reason themselves for proof of their belief; and offered themselves to join issue with them upon that title. Certain it is that most of them in this question did take faith not as opposed to reason properly; but either to knowledge and comprehension; or to sight and sense. Or if they did use the word reason in opposition to faith, by reason they did understand knowledge and comprehension; not as the word was used by others. In this sense Saint Augustine doth often oppose Divine authority, to reason; 
August. de Vera Rel. Authoritas fidem flagitat, & rationi praeparat hominem; ratio ad intellectum per cognitionem perducit: quanquam nec au●horitatem penitùs ratio deserit, cùm consideratur cu● credendum sit, etc.  not as though it were against humane reason to believe those things that are commended unto us by divine revelation or authority, (whereof we shall say more afterwards) but because most of the mysteries of our faith commended unto us by divine authority are such, as are above the reach of humane capacity to comprehend. Though herein too they did distinguish between the Tyrones, or beginners in Christianity; such as were lately converted to the Christian faith, whom they would have wholly to rely upon authority; and those whom the Apostle, Heb. 5.14. speaketh of, who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Of the use of humane reason in this kind for the unfolding or understanding of particular points (which is a different consideration from that of the Principles) much hath been written of late by learned Vedelius, in a Book of this argument, entitled Rationale Theologicum; to which the Reader, if he please, may have recourse. I shall conclude this Observation with the words of Saint Peter, 
1 Pet. 3.15.  Be ready to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.  
Thirdly, we would have it observed, that notwithstanding this opinion of faith and religion so grounded as we have said, we maintain nevertheless that no man can attain to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that degree, or fullness of faith required or available to salvation, but by supernatural means, viz. by the immediate operation of God's holy Spirit. To which purpose Origen in his answer to Celsus the Heathen says well: 
Orig. contra Celsum l. 6.  We are taught by the divine Word that what is preached by men (be it of itself never so true and rational (or, well grounded) cannot sufficiently penetrate into the soul of man, except both supernatural power from God be given to the speaker, and divine grace accompany those things that are spoken, etc. which is by him inferred upon the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 2.4. And my speech & my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. The necessity of this infused faith is acknowledged by Papists, as well as by Protestants: no sober man that believes the Scriptures can make any question of it.  
Fourthly, and lastly we say, though faith be reducible to principles of reason, and in that respect become knowledge as well as faith, yet we do not maintain a necessity of this knowledge in all Christians. Without infused faith no man is a true Christian; but a man may be a true Christian, though he understand not upon what grounds of humane reason his faith is grounded; which innumerable Christians for want either of education, or through natural indocility, or prevented by death never attain unto.  
If then in Divinity as well as in other Sciences, to proceed with more solidity, the consideration of the first principles be sometimes requisite; it is in these points especially and principally, which of themselves seem most contrary to reason and common sense: such as this is, Christ his Incarnation. I know it hath been the opinion of some (of Saint chrysostom by name) that the Incarnation of Christ the Son of God, might of itself sufficiently be demonstrated and maintained by arguments of reason. And somewhat of that kind I have seen endeavoured by some, but never yet any thing which did much satisfy me; or whereby I could hope to satisfy any other. And I account it a matter of no little danger for men to be too great undertakers in this kind. Wit and subtlety may do well perchance in some other things; but not so well in articles of such weight and consequence.  
To go on therefore in our intended method, before we come to particulars, of Christian principles in general we shall first say, That whatsoever among men professing to hearken to reason, and endowed with competent judgement and discursive faculties, either without any arguing at all will currently pass; or upon very little arguing may be justified and approved for right or reasonable, we reckon that in the number of common principles: of which kind we take these three ensuing particulars (to us here most considerable) to be,  

I.  First, that there is a God.  

II.  Secondly, that the ways and counsels of God, there being such disproportion between God and man, must in all probability be different, in most things, from the thoughts, counsels, and apprehensions of the wisest of men.  

III.  Thirdly, that whatsoever hath been revealed by God himself unto man, aught to be believed and embraced by men, with as much fullness of assent and belief, as what is most certain and undoubted amongst men, as either grounded upon the senses, or upon certain experience.  
To these, of which (as we shall show) there can be little question amongst rational men, being all avouched and averred by principal authors of several ages and religions, whose writings remain to this day; because we have not to do here with Heathens or Infidels properly, but with such as make no question of the truth of the Scriptures, but stumble most, for want of due consideration, as shall appear, at some of the former; we shall add a fourth, which is,  

iv  That those books of the Old and New Testament generally received by all Christians for Canonical, were written by men inspired of God, and justly accounted, The Word of God.  
Let us now consider of these principles severally, for it will much concern us that some of them that have not been so throughly sifted and considered of by others, be well cleared.  
The first is, that there is a God. 
I.   
We need not add; by whom the world, and all that is in it, man particularly, was made: since it is the view and consideration of the world especially, and all that is in it, and man particularly, that brings a natural man to the knowledge of God. 
Psal. 19.1, 2.  The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handy work. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night uttereth knowledge. So the Psalmist, inspired by God, speaketh of that knowledge of God, common to all men, (even them that know not God otherwise) by the bare evidence and testimony of nature. And thereby we may the better know, that David was inspired to say so, because we find others that were not inspired, so generally and unanimously concurring in this acknowledgement. Let those Heathens be looked upon that have written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, of the first apprehension, or discovery made by men of a Deity; as either Cleanthes, or Aristotle of old, whose names and arguments are recorded by Tully, and by Sixtus Empiricus: or later writers, as Tully himself, Plutarch, Dio Chrysostomus, and others; they all pitch upon this, as a principal evidence, aequabilitatem motus, conversionem coeli; solis, lunae, syderumque distinctionem, varietatem, pulchritudinem, ordinem; that is in a word, The beauty, order, constancy of the Heavens, and Firmament, Sun and Moon, etc. Even those who most wickedly did set themselves to argue against a Providence, could not but acknowledge this a strong argument for Providence: as Lucretius, an excellent Poet, but a professed Epicure, (in his opinions at least) as when he saith; 
Sol & luna suo lustrantes lumine circum,  
Perdocuere homines annorum tempora verti:  
Et certa ratione geri rem atque ordine certo.   
And again where he saith, 
Nam cum suspicimus magni coelestia mundi  
Templa super, stellisque micantibus aetherae fixum,  
Et venit inmentem solis lunaeque viarum:  
Tunc aliis oppressa malis in pectore cura  
Illa quoque expergefactum caput erigere infit,  
Ecquae forte Deum nobis immensa potestas  
Sit, vario motu quae candida sydera verset.   
But whilst we make the Heavens the chiefest and clearest evidence of a Deity, it must not be conceived, that they are the only. For in very truth, there is not any thing so mean in show and common estimation, which being throughly considered, doth not set out the power and wisdom of God to a discerning eye: as by ancient Philosophers, and others that have handled this argument is copiously showed. Whence proceeded that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Presumption of all people and nations of the Universe, in acknowledging and worshipping some Deity. Which consideration above all others (this general consent and conspiration of all men I mean) so fare moved Epicurus, that he was constrained thereby (as himself professed) to acknowledge a Deity, though the use and consequent of this acknowledgement he did elude and frustrate by denying a Providence. Solus vidit Epicurus esse Deos, quod in omnium animis eorum notionem impressisset ipsa natura: saith one of that sect in Tully; that is, that Epicurus did first avouch the being of a Deity upon that ground of mankind's general consent; though even so it be not altogether true: but true it is, that Epicurus did much enlarge himself upon that one proof and argument, and was the first that applied the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to that purpose.  
But how, and how fare God may be found by the light of nature, is largely disputed by the Schoolmen; and by those that have written Metaphysics. Though all agree in the main, yet they are not all of one mind, neither concerning the extent, nor the clearness of natural light. But to let them and their differences pass, the Apostle clearly determines it, and we with him, 
Rom. 1.20.  That the invisible things of God from the Creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. And certainly whoever shall weigh the arguments on both sides, as in good order and with exactness they are marshaled by Sixtus Empiricus, a very learned man, and a Sceptic, that is, one that professed himself to embrace no particular opinion, but to suspend his judgement (and therefore to be hoped the more impartial) in all things; will, or I am much deceived, even by evidence of reason (not to insist upon his authority) think himself bound to be of Saint Paul's opinion. I think therefore I may conclude this point with Saint Augustine's words, with little alteration: Quisquis prodigia (said he of the Christian faith) adhuc ut credat inquirit, magnum est ipse prodigium, 
Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 22. c. 8. Initio.  qui mundo credente non credit: I say, Qui argumenta adhuc ut Deum credat, quaerit, etc. To require proofs and arguments that there is a God, which all parts of this visible world do so clearly declare, and all men of the world so freely acknowledge, must needs be an argument of as monstrous stupor of mind, as it is of prodigious infidelity.  
As for the distinction of Persons in the Deity, there be that affirm this mystery not to have been unknown to some ancient Philosophers. Divers plausible passages and arguments they bring to that purpose, I confess; and yet conceive nevertheless, that by others it is more probably denied. But however, this is quite another case, & will not prove to our purpose here. That there is a God, with those ordinary Attributes of Goodness, & Omnipotency, by ancient Heathens as commonly acknowledged, is all we desire to be granted in the notion of a common notion and principle. And so much of the first.  

II.  The second is, That the ways and counsels of God, etc. as before.  
It was the first sin of man, that not contented with that similitude of God, to which he was created by God, he aspired to be like unto God in a higher and incommunicable degree of likeness. From which being shamefully and deservedly disappointed, it hath been his sin and his infirmity ever since, that he hath endeavoured as much as in him lay to make God like himself. From hence sprang the making of Idols and Idolatry. Aristotle in his Politics briefly noteth it in these words; That the gods do reign (or, are governed by a King) is commonly said and believed amongst men, because amongst men are yet at this present, & have been of old, Kingdoms; for as the shapes, so the lives of the gods, men are wont to liken unto their own. But Clemens Alexandrinus in his Stromata, partly out of Xenophanes an ancient Philosopher, (miscalled a Poet by some, because he wrote in verse) partly of himself, more largely, thus: The Grecians (or Gentiles, saith he) as they do represent the gods like unto themselves in outward shape, so in passions and affections also. And as every nation (according to Xenophanes) make the gods to resemble them in outward shape; (The Aethiopians, for example, form them black and flat nosed; the Thracians, flaxen haired [or, yellow haired] and sky colour eyed) so, their souls & dispositions also. The Barbarians make them cruel and terrible; the Grecians more meek and gentle, but yet not free from all perturbations of mind. So Clemens. The same observation is in Theodoret also, and in him, divers of Xenophanes own words and verses. To this purpose Pliny also hath a notable passage in his Natural History, of a famous Painter in Rome about, or a little before Augustus his time; one arelius: but his own words will do best: Fuit (saith he) & arelius Romae celeber paulò ante Divum Augustum, nisi flagitio insigni corrupisset artem; semper alicujus foeminae amore flagrans, & ob id Deas pingens, sed dilectarum imagine. Itaque in picturâ ejus scorta numerabantur.  
It hath ever been so, and is so to this day: and from this very fountain do flow most of the grossest opinions and sects in Religion, by which both the minds of men are distracted, and the public peace of commonweals disturbed. Every man is apt to think well of himself, of his own wit, reason, and judgement; and as he is, so must his god be, or he shall hardly be his god. His own reason must be the rule of his god's reason, and his wisdom the rule of his god's wisdom. I appeal to them that are versed in controversies, how often they shall meet with such speeches as these: It would not have stood with the wisdom of God: with the goodness of God: (yea and discretion too, some have said) to have done this, saith one; not to have done it, saith another. In such contradictions that both should be in the right, every man knows is a thing impossible: so that the credit of God (if I may so speak without blasphemy) is put to the stake, and must needs suffer on the one side. Yea even in matters of no controversy, but of mere curiosity, there be that stick not at these expressions. So one, (and he a man of good account otherwise) except he may know all the particulars of Adam's Paradise (about which how much controversy and little certainty there is, 
S. Eug. In Genesin p. 23. b. Neque adeò inhumanus fuerit Deus ut voluerit hujus rei ignoratione per omnes aetates homines torqueri▪ etc.  is not unknown to them that have taken pains to inquire into it) he charges God with unkindness and inhumanity. I must confess of myself that I never read such speeches without some horror; nor ever made any other account of them then of speeches approaching to blasphemy: neither can I persuade myself they ever had any very right apprehension of the Majesty of God, that make their own wisdom, goodness, or ratiocination the model of his. The Prophet Isaiah, I am sure hath taught us to think better of God then so. But why say I the Prophet Isaiah? they are Gods own words concerning himself: 
Esay 55.89.  For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts, than your thoughts. To this purpose also are the words of the Psalmist, 
Ps. 77.19.  as they are expounded by many: Thy way is in the Sea, and thy path in the great waters, and thy footsteps are not known.  
But it is not Scripture that we have here to do with, but common notions, and principles of humane reason. To humane reason therefore, & to common sense I appeal; If God be acknowledged infinite, omnipotent, (as by the Creation of the world he may be inferred) will not as much difference between God and man be granted, as is between man and brutes? Or at least (because I know what may be objected) between a man and a child? The same man when he is come to maturity of years and discretion; and when he was but a child, or a boy? Or as much as is between an extraordinary wise, learned and experienced man; & an ordinary, plain, rustic 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 somebody once said, as I remember, What he understood he liked very well; what he did not, he verily believed was as good. And can it be that any man should owe less 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 weakness and imbecility of man's 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 ourselves here with his ingenuous acknowledgement. In his Metaphysics, (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 goodness is not in some respect or other, if not merely mercenary, yet mixed with a by-respect to themselves, and their own 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 goodness extendeth not to thee: but to the Saints that are in the earth) how man could merit at the hands of God; another gross conceit of his, (and that too grounded upon the similitude of man's weakness) concurring, that God could not take care of man, or of the world in general, 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;  
 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 progress of this Discourse.  
The third is, That whatsoever hath been revealed, 
III.  etc.  
The matter is thus stated by Gregory Nazianz. in his Invectives against Julian, who scoffed at the Christians for their usual Motto, Believe; saying, that all their wit & wisdom was included in that one word: After divers other things by him alleged and retorted upon Julian, he thus proceeds: By that word, saith he, we profess to believe, that it is not lawful 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, fare 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 belief 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 be conceived, that any man or people in the world that really believe a Deity or divine nature, should make any question of the truth of those things which issue from such a nature? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Who can be so simple, or so frantic 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 tripod, 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 than mortal eyes.  
Upon this ground, politic 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 possess 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 believed of them themselves, what they persuaded others to believe, I will not inquire, because either way it shows how ready men have been generally to yield 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, quàm superstitio. Alioquin impotens, Java, murabilis, ubi vanâ religione eapta est, meliùs vatibus quàm ducibus suis parent; that is, There is not any thing more powerful to rule the people than superstition, (or an opinion of religion) which otherwise of itself 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 Rhetoric, who where they treat of authorities, (as they call them) that are brought by Orators and Advocates for the confirmation of any cause, give the first place to those testimonies which they call divina testimonia. Ponitur à quibusdam (saith Quintilian) & quidem in parte primâ Deorum auctoritas, quae est ex responsis, ut Socratem esse sapientissimum. And a little after, Quae cùm propria causae sunt, divina testimonia vocantur: cum aliunde accersuntur, argumenta. True it is that these divina testimonia, (as the same Author showeth elsewhere) were not generally received among the Heathens. But the reason was, partly because there were then many of Epicurus his sect, who denied a Providence, and that the gods intermeddled with humane affairs, and so eluded all such authorities as false and counterfeit; and partly because most were so in very truth, either merely forged and pretended; or so obscure and ambiguous, as that nothing could certainly be concluded from them.  
From what hath been said, doth sufficiently appear what hath been the common opinion of men concerning divine revelation. Though this may suffice, yet I will add one passage or two of ancient Philosophers, which go further yet, and may give further content to them who are not altogether unacquainted with the writings of such.  
Plato in his second Aleibiades, (a Dialogue of his so called) the subject whereof is altogether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Of Prayer, having disputed at large how hard a thing it is to to pray well, and insisted upon some particular forms, concludes (in the person of Socrates) that they must be content and wait, until some other teach them (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doccat, here, not discat) how they must be affected, (or, how they ought to carry themselves) both towards God & men. Yea, but when shall that time be (replieth Alcibiades) & who is he that shall teach us? for gladly would I see that man. And upon Socrates his return, that it is one that will take care of him, and take away that mist from his eyes, that hindereth him from the knowledge of that, which is truly good or evil: Alcibiades concludeth, that he is fully resolved, to submit unto that man, whatsoever he shall enjoin him, whereby he may be bettered.  
This passage of Plato is much made of not by allegorising Platonics only, who often give scope to their fancies upon very little ground of reason or probability; but by more sober unpartial men also. Among others, a learned man, who hath taken great pains upon Aristotle, and out of his affection to Aristotle may be thought by some to have passed but a harsh censure upon Plato, notwithstanding this his general judgement, instances in divers particulars, wherein he acknowledges him to deserve more than ordinary commendation: among others, in this very particular which we have spoken of; in these very words: Quod docuerit, etc. Denique quod omninò mirum est, etc. that is in English, As for other things, so particularly (which is to be admired in him) that he did teach the ineffable Incarnation, and coming of our Lord Christ, and did in a manner presage (or, foresee) the Doctrine of the Gospel, when he said, that men must acquiesce for a while to his instructions and admonitions, until a more venerable (or majestic) man, and more sacred, who would open all sacraries and fountains of truth, should appear upon Earth: whom, as one that could not err, all men should be bound to follow. For who else by this more majestic, more sacred man, can be meant, etc.  
So he of that place: which though he doth not quote, yet by what others say of it to the same purpose, and because I know no other in all Plato that comes nearer, I am confident is the place he so much commendeth. Yet there be that make a question whether Socrates himself were not the man intended by Plato: which some of the words would bear well enough; but the greater part, not; as I conceive. However if any question be made of this place, there be others in Plato no less admirable, and less questionable. Such a one is to be found in his Phaedon: where having discoursed of some opinions (ridiculous enough, at the best, but made worse by mistake) concerning the state of the soul after death, he concludes, that to know the certainty (they are his very words) of those things in this life, is either altogether impossible, or very difficult: that nevertheless it is the part of a generous man, not to give over searching, until he have met with the truth; or so much of it at least, as by indefatigable industry is to be attained: That so, (saith he) venturing ourselves in the Cockboat, as it were, of the safest and most exact discovery that can be made by man, we may wade through this mortal life, and think ourselves happy in this condition, until a more firm bottom of divine Word (or, Oracle) happen unto us, wherein with more safety and security we may be carried over.  
In those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by some translated, divine Oracle, doth properly signify, divine Word: which title to whom it is appropriated by sacred Authors, no Christian, I hope, needeth to be told.  
The same Plato, in that so much admired piece, which Tully of old translated into Latin, his Timeus, in a place, where he speaks of daemons, or spirits; or rather excuseth himself that he doth not speak of them, referring himself to ancient tradition; he saith there, as Tully hath rendered him, Credendum est nimirum veteribus & priscis, ut aiunt, viris, qui se progeniem Deorum esse dicebant. And few words after, Ac difficillimum factu (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Plato) à Diis ortis fidem non habere, quanquam nec argumentis nec rationibus certis eorum oratio confirmetur: sed quia de suis rebus notis videntur loqui, 
Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. Conser cum Arist. 1. Metaphys. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  veteri legi morique parendum est: that is, It is very hard (or, unreasonable) not to believe them who are descended from the gods, though their speech (or, doctrine) be not confirmed by any arguments or certain proofs. But forasmuch as they spoke of their own things best known unto them, we must submit to the old law, and rule. There will be found in these words not much less than in those of Nazianzene, which at the beginning of this third Observation we spoke of, if they be compared.  
And again in another place of the same Timeus, having spoken of the first principles of things, But as for these, saith he, what was their original from the very first beginning, God knoweth, and among men, such as are beloved of him; (or, dear unto him) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I take notice of the words (besides the sense) because of Christ his words, John 15.14, 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants, for the servant knoweth not what his Lord doth: but I have called you friends: for all things that I have heard of my Father, I have made known unto you.  
If all these places being put together contain not a prophecy concerning Christ, The Word of God, the Son of God, who was made flesh, and came into the world, as to redeem the world by the oblation of his own body, so also to reveal the truth of God unto men; if all these places, I say, being put together do not amount to a prophecy, I know not we may call a prophecy. Sure we are there is nothing forged or supposititious in all this; which of the Sibyls (that collection of verses I mean, which now goeth under that name) and of Mercurius Trismegistus hath been proved.  
For a close of this third point or principle, I shall add a passage of Dio Chrysostomus, a famous Orator and Philosopher, who lived in Trajanus the Emperor his days, and was in great account with him; whose words also, because he was a great Platonist, may be some light to those of Plato's.  
All the discourses, and all the devices of men are nothing to divine inspiration, and revelation, (or, authority.) For what traditions (or, doctrines) soever concerning the gods and this Universe, that are not void of wisdom and truth, have been among men, all such were begotten in the souls of men by divine will, and by a special lot, (or, luck, Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) as may be known by them that were the first Prophets and Professors of Divinity; such as Orpheus, son to one of the Muses, is reported to have been in Thracia; and another certain Shepherd in Boecria, taught by the Muses. And whosoever they be that take upon them to vent any doctrine of their own abroad for true, without divine rapture, or inspiration, their doctrine is certainly both absurd and wicked.  
The fourth is, 
iv  That those books of the Old and New Testament, etc.  
I said before, I presupposed I had to do here with Christians, who were already satisfied concerning the truth of those books. It is well known that such have been of old, and are at this day, too many, who though they profess to admit and allow for divine the same Scriptures that we do, and pretend to the faith and doctrine therein contained, as much as we; yet do not believe of Christ as we do. I have no direct aim at them in this Discourse, intended only for the further satisfaction and confirmation of Orthodox Christians in this main point: no direct aim, I say, but as the handling of this argument upon Scripture grounds, may prove a conviction of their impiety and infidelity. As for them that profess against this ground of either Old or New Testament, which we build upon, they will not, neither directly or indirectly, come within our reach.  
But how then, (may some object perchance) can we, as we first maintained, give a rational account of our faith, and stop the mouths of Atheists and Infidels, if we cannot prove the Scriptures to be the Word of God, upon common grounds of humane reason, and ratiocination? To which we answer, that although we do not apprehend those grounds so evident and so uncontrollable, as to oblige every rational man, to a present and ready assent, and therefore not to be reckoned among those common notions (though reducible to them) and principles we have spoken of: yet that the Scriptures by them that are learned may be maintained upon grounds of reason sufficient to convince and to convert an Infidel who with simplicity of heart, without strong prejudice or worldly engagements to the contrary, doth seek the truth, we do profess to believe, and should be sorry (were it our aim, or argument) if we could not make it good.  
One argument only I shall insist upon here, which by ancient Christians, as being both popular (proper I mean for vulgar capacities) and solid, was much pressed, and whereof they found good use. The testimony of a known professed enemy, or adversary, hath always among all men been accounted a very pregnant evidence. And what relation there is between the Old and New Testament, is well known to all Christians, and may soon be demonstrated to them that are not. Now than what greater evidence of the truth of the Old Testament can any man require, than the Jews, our greatest and most malicious adversaries? Then the Jews, I say, who by a special Providence, though scattered and dispersed through the whole world continue to this day a distinct Nation from all other Nations of the world, and to this day so zealous for Moses and all other Scriptures of the Old Testament, that in all places, for testimony of the truth of those Scriptures, they are ready, if they be put to it, to lay down their lives, and to forgo whatsoever is dearest unto them. Whose predecessors also (that too, by a special admirable Providence) have been of old so curious and so provident for the preservation of those Scriptures which they acknowledged, that they devised an art (of which art either for invention or accuratnesse there is no parallel in all the ancient learning of the Heathens how to prevent not the loss of it only, but the corruption also, by any either addition, or diminution, or alteration; in words, or syllables, yea letters, and tittles.  
How much this argument of the Jews testimony was made of by the ancients, and of what consequence it then proved, may appear by Saint Augustine, who speaks of it in sundry places of his Works. In the twelfth of his books against the Manicheans, he saith; Quid enim est aliud hodieque gens ipsa Judaeorum, nisi quaedam scriniaria Christianorum, basulans leges & prophetas ad testimonium assertionis Ecclesiae? that is: For what to this day are the Jews, but as it were the registers (or, record-keepers) of the Christians, bearing up & down the Law and the Prophets with them for a testimony to the Church? Saint Augustine in these words doth allude to the custom of the Jews, who then in every Synagogue were wont (and use it in most places, I believe to this day) to have sacred chests, or desks, wherein to keep their holy Bible, not only for its safety, but in reverence to it also. What Saint Augustine calls Scrinium, Tertullian inditeth, armarium, in his De Habitumuliebri, ch. 3. And Epiphanius in his Treatise, De Ponderibus & mensuris, where he treateth of the difference of Canonicalll books from others, he useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Such books (saith he speaking of that which is called Wisdom, and others of like nature) are accounted by them useful and profitable, but are not in the number (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of the Canonical: for which cause also they are not laid up (with the Canonical) in the aron, that is, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) in the chest or capse of the Testament.  

Lamp. Alardi, Epiphyll. Phiolog.  I wonder that any man could so mistake Epiphanius, as though he had believed that the whole Jews Bible, or Old Testament, had been kept in the Ark where the two Tables containing the ten Commandments, were appointed to be laid; which Ark, before the said Testament was complete, ever since the Babylonian Captivity had been wanting. Petavius himself, a learned Jesuit that hath set out Epiphanius, except he may be allowed to expunge those words as spurious, (the last refuge of venturous Critics, when they are plunged, and cannot get out) doth plainly profess to suspect this to have been the opinion of Epiphanius: whereas we have more occasion to suspect of him, that he did not understand him, or had any thought of those passages of Tertullian, and Augustine, which would have made Epiphanius his meaning clear enough, and as we conceive, unquestionable.  
I have now done with those grounds of common notions, and principles of humane reason, the consideration whereof I conceived would be proper and pertinent to the subject we are to treat of: a subject of itself so sublime and so fare above the reach of humane understanding, that whoever takes upon him to meddle with it, had need to lay well his grounds beforehand, and carefully to circumscribe himself, lest he fall into extravagances, before he be ware. Qui scrutatur Majestatem, opprimetur à gloriâ, whether that were Solomon's meaning, Prov. 25.27. or no, may be controverted; but a true sentence it is however, and they shall be sure to find it true, that proceed not, in such arguments, with much wariness.  
This method of proceeding by certain hypotheses laid for a foundation, though it be most proper to Mathematicians, yet it is not unusual to other Artists and Writers. It is the very method used by Plato in his Timeus, the subject whereof is the Creation of the world, of man particularly: our subject is the restauration, or regeneration of mankind, in Christ: which of the two, is generally accounted the greater work.   

OF THE INCARNATION of CHRIST.  
ANcient Philosophers that have written concerning the nature of this Universe, observe this as a great mystery of nature, and a singular evidence of the power and wisdom of God (the author of nature) that whatsoever is commonly said to die, or to perish, is by this death, or corruption (which they more properly call alteration) the cause of the production and generation of something else: whereby the course of this world's generation in general, is continued and maintained.  
It may be applied (in some kind) to this sacred subject and mystery of Christ his Incarnation. The fall and miscarrying of the first Adam, was the cause or occasion at the least, of the second Adam. Had not the first Adam, (the first fruits of mankind, in whom the whole lump was either to be sanctified or polluted) sinned, and by his sin undone all that should come from him; the second Adam, Christ Jesus, according to the flesh, as the Scripture speaketh, had never been born; for there had been no need of him. For as for the conceits of some either ancient Heretics, or later Schoolmen, who have maintained a contrary opinion, as neither grounded upon Scripture, nor any probability of reason, and generally rejected by the more sober of all sides, I willingly pass by.  
But on the other side, though the Incarnation of the Son of God, of all the works of God hath eminently the preeminence, yet we may not say or think, that therefore the first man sinned, or was ordained to sin, that the Son of God might be incarnated. For so we should make God the author of sin, than which, nothing either in itself can be more detestable, or more contrary to true piety. God indeed to whom all things past, present & future are equally present, as he foresaw from all eternity the fall of Adam, and in him of all mankind; so did he from all eternity decree the Incarnation of his Son for the restauration of man. Whence are those phrases of Scripture, that Christ (as a Redeemer) 
a 1 Pet. 1.20.  was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world: that we were 
b Ephes. 1.4.  chosen, or 
c 2 Tim. 1.9.  saved, (in Christ) before the foundation of the world; or, before the world began: and again, that Christ is the 
d Apoc. 13.8.  Lamb slain from the foundation of the world: though as for this last passage, I rather embrace their interpretation, (such hyperbaton's, as they call them, being very frequent in the Scriptures) who refer this from the beginning of the world, to the book of life (as Apocal. 17.18.) rather then to the Lamb slain: though I must profess against the reason that is given by some (as Ribera the Jesuit, upon the place) as though there were any absurdity or incongruity in the speech, being so justifiable by other parallel places of Scripture. But this foresight of God did no ways occasion, much less necessitate the disobedience of Adam, who as he was created with perfect freedom of will, so he might (had not he been wanting to himself) have resisted the temptation of the Devil, and have continued in that innocency, to which, his happiness and immortality was annexed. But it so fell out, that Adam used his freewill to his own, and all that should be after him, being descended from him, their ruin, and eternal confusion. Better it had been for him certainly, and better for all that had any dependence of him, never to have been, (for I am not of their opinion that think any being better than no being) then to see himself at once stripped of his happiness and innocency: of the son of God, become the slave of the Devil: and besides his own personal misery, the occasion of so much evil unto others. 
Seneca De Clem. l. 1.  Quanto autem non nasci melius, quàm numerari inter publico malo natos? how much more than quàm unum omnis omnibus mali causam extitisse?  
Here a question offers itself; though we would be very cautelous of moving questions of this nature, where the Scripture itself is silent, too much curiosity in this kind having been the occasion of sundry blasphemies and heresies; yet because there is some ground for it in the Scripture, we may not altogether pass it by. The question is, Why God would permit Adam to sin, which he might many ways have prevented, if he had thought fit.  
The first answer is, because it became God well, (if this be not too bold a speech) to make good his own order, and to maintain his own work. It had pleased God to endow Adam with a perfect freewill. He was furnished with sufficient grace to continue innocent, and to withstand sin; but that grace was conditional; as be used it, as he liked it, he might either improve it, or lose it. If therefore we must make a question of it, it is more proper to ask why God created Adam with freewill, then why God did not hinder the sin of Adam, being so created. This very question much troubled ancient Philosophers, who had the bare light of reason and nature for their guide; Why God being so perfectly good, as they did acknowledge him, would suffer sin and wickedness in men and among men either at all, or so far to prevail. They commonly distinguish of several degrees, or kinds of creatures with relation to goodness, by God created: the last kind whereof (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is their word) are those, whose condition is to be mutable; to fall, and to rise again; sometimes to look upwards unto the fountain of good; sometimes to be swayed downwards by the contagion of the body, and deceitfulness of the world: and their determination upon the matter is, that neither the power nor the wisdom of Almighty God would, or could so much have appeared, if this kind also (this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) had not been. What they say, being grounded upon no better authority, then humane ratiocination, will not much concern us, but to check our impiety, if neither reason, (commended unto us with the advantage of such precedents) nor religion, (grounded upon certain revelation) can do that in us, which bare and naked reason could in them; to make us, if not to plead for our Creator by strength of arguments; yet to acknowledge him good and wise in all his ways, even beyond our understandings, and where our reason is at a stand.  
Another reason is given, because God having in himself predetermined the redemption of collapsed mankind by the Incarnation of his Son, he therefore left Adam to the liberty of his will, and the Devil of his malice, because no other way can be conceived how he might more effectually have demonstrated and revealed at once, unto men and Angels the infiniteness both of his goodness and of his justice: as we shall have occasion afterwards to show more at large.  
Adam then (and in him humana natura, or mankind in general) being so created by God, and through the temptation of the Devil, and his own wretchedness (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Greek Fathers usually call it, that is, looseness and remissness of the mind, accompanied with carelessness and security) so lapsed; it pleased Almighty God in the depth of his goodness and wisdom, to appoint his restauration by the Incarnation of his Son, that eternal Word, by whom he had made, as all other things, so man particularly: that is, That his Son, coeternal with him, and from all eternity (by an incomprehensible mystery) begotten by him, should in the fullness of time be made flesh: that is, assume the nature of man unto himself, into a perfect Union (but without mixture or confusion) of two natures in one person: that so united, and so incarnated, he might offer himself, by his Passion, (Christ, as God & Man, though not in his Deity, suffering) unto God, his Father, as a sufficient ransom, in his strictest justice, for the sins of all men: to the end, that whosoever should believe in him so incarnated, and by a lively faith lay hold on the merits of his death, might not perish, but as a true member of his mystical body, might have in him everlasting life.  
How Christ, the eternal Son of God, came to be the son of a woman, as it doth deeply concern us not to be ignorant of what the Scriptures have revealed unto us about it, so to go beyond that, I conceive no less dangerous. The Scriptures say, as we have it in our Creed, that he was conceived of the holy Ghost, & born of the Virgyn Mary: and the words of the Angel to the blessed Virgin are known, 
Luke 1.35.  The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, & the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that Holy thing that shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. If any man venture beyond this in discoursing the manner, how; I dare not follow him. It is observed, (and observable indeed) that in this mystery Christ is not so properly said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, begotten; (though that word also be used sometimes (as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, made: as not begotten of the substance or essence of the Holy Ghost, (as ordinarily children are of the substance of their fathers) but made by the power of the Holy Ghost, of the substance of the Virgin Mary only. Whereupon ancient Fathers were wont to say, that as Christ in regard of his eternal generation is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, without a Mother; so in regard of his temporal, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, without a Father. There is good use of this observation against those heretics of old, and the Anabaptists of later times, who though they could not agree among themselves, how Christ came to have a body, whether true, or imaginary, and the like; yet agreed in this, to deny that he was made of the substance of a woman.  
This is the mystery of which we may truly say, that it is The chiefest of the ways of God. That the justification of any one sinner, is a greater work than the Creation of the world in general, is by many maintained, and divers reasons are given for it. I durst not undertake for the solidity of all those reasons (those excepted, that are drawn from this very particular of Christ his Incarnation) that are given: but certainly this mystery of the Son of God his Incarnation, is so transcendent a miracle above all other miracles of the world, whether Creation, or any other, as that we may justly doubt, whether he truly believe it, or ever took it into serious consideration, who in comparison of this, doth admire any thing else. For as for those things that are commonly most admired, and for the wonderfulness by divers thought incredible, if a man shall rationally consider of them, they will not so appear in very deed. It is the saying of an ancient Father, (one of the most learned and rational of those times) that there is but one true miracle in the world, and that is, an Omnipotent God. Having instanced in some one particular, which among the many strange sights of this world, he thought might seem as strange as any; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he; 
Theodor Therapeut. l. 3. Sed ibi Latinus interpres mentem verborum non assecutus est: non expressit certè.  a miracle above a miracle: and presently, (upon better consideration, as it were) he doth correct himself. And yet I dare say (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) that the miracle, is no miracle: For God, to whom all things, that he can think convenient, are easy, being the author, (or, workman) we have much reason to glorify the author, but no reason at all to wonder at the matter. He gives the reason in another place: That any thing should be, (whether by generation, or creation) whereof a cause (God, that is, the supreme cause) can be given, right reason will easily allow of. But that any thing should be without a cause (as God only is) no reason can comprehend.  

Vos enim ipsi dicere soletis, nihil esse quod Deus efficere non possit, & quidem sine labore ullo; ut enim hominum membra nulla conten●ione, ment ipsâ ac v luntate moveantur, sic numine Deorum omnia fingi, moveri, mutarique posse: neque id dicitis superstitiosè atque aniliter, sed physicâ constantique ratione. Materiam enim rerum, in quâ & ex quâ omnia sint, totam esse flexib●lem & commutabilem, ut nihil sit quod non ex eâ quamvis subitò singi convertique possit: ejus autem universae fict●icem & moderatricem divinam esse providentiam. Cic. de Nat. Deorum.  And indeed this Omnipotency of God some Heathen Philosophers have acknowledged, and expressed it very well, likening it to the power of the soul over the members of the body, which members upon the least intention, or intimation of the mind turn and move with all readiness and facility. Now God, said they, is the soul, or mind of this Universe, all parts and parcels whereof are at his beck, and disposal, to be turned into any shape or form at his pleasure, with as much ease and facility, as the members of our bodies are swayed by the motions and commands of our minds. This therefore granted, that there is a God, and he (as in reason it will be supposed) omnipotent, all things that imply not contradiction (for such rather argue weakness, than power) to such a one must needs be of equal facility. It is the fashion of men to wonder at those things only that are not usual: that is, (as I intent it here) that are not, or happen not according to that order or course of nature, which Omnipotent God in his wisdom thought fit at the beginning of the world to establish. And indeed as God did not establish that order at the first for nothing; that is, to break it without some extraordinary cause: so there is no reason that those things should easily be believed, which are contrary to the ordinary course of nature; until certain evidence, or divine revelation (the best evidence) enforce our faith. But if those things be considered in themselves with relation to the power of God, no solid reason can be given; why, for example, it should be more strange or incredible, that men (as by ancient Heathens, as well Philosophers, as others, they were generally conceived to have begun at the first) should spring out of the earth, as plants and trees; then to be propagated, as they are, by way of generation; in the right and rational consideration whereof so many particulars, so wonderful and so incomprehensible to humane reason, offer themselves, that the ablest Naturalists the world hath had, as well Heathens, as others, have freely acknowledged their ignorance, and weakness of understanding, and have been excited (some of them) to praise and glorify God for his wonderful works, as Galen doth in divers of his writings, upon this occasion. And certainly had it been so, that another way of propagation (as it is conceived by divers Ancients, that another way would have been, if man had not sinned) had been established by God; I am of Justin Martyr his opinion, that this way, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.) if then proposed to any man's consideration, would have seemed as incredible and impossible, as whatever, in that kind, is proposed to our belief as Christians Hence it is that the Apostle where he discourseth of the resurrection of the dead, (at the possibility of which so many stumbled) he appeals to approved experience of things natural, Thou fool, saith he, 
1 Cor. 15.36, 37, 38.  that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die. And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may be of wheat, or of some other grain. But God giveth it a body, as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.  
But this mystery of Christ, the Eternal Son of God, his Incarnation, is quite of another nature. That which in other things doth, or may satisfy a rational man, here it increaseth the wonder, and makes it more incredible. Ye do err, saith Christ to some that could not believe the resurrection of the dead, 
Ma●. 22.29.  not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. But here the more we know the power of God, the fuller and perfecter apprehension we have of his Greatness, & Omnipotency, the more incredible may this mystery seem unto us. Holy David in the 143. Psalms, but upon occasion of a temporal deliverance, the hurtful sword, in the 9 verse) with admiration falls into this consideration, Lord what is man that thou takest knowledge of him, or the son of man, that thou makest account of him? And in another place, the consideration of the world, and works of God, expressed this sweet and devout ejaculation from him, 
Psal. 8. taken in the literal sense: for in the mystical sense, these very words are applied to this mystery, Heb. 11.6.  When I consider the Heavens, the Moon and the Stars which thou hast ordained: What is man that thou art mindful of him; and the son of man that thou visitest him? But Lord, may we say, Thou, Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the Heavens like a Curtain: Who laidst the beams of thy chambers in the waters; who makest the clouds thy chariot; who walkest upon the wings of the wind. Who hast measured the waters in the hollow of thy hand; and meted out Heaven with thy span; Before whom all nations are as nothing; yea, less than nothing and vanity: Thou, who saidst, Let there be light, and there was light: Let the Firmament appear, and it did appear; the waters flow, and they did flow: Who as thou didst at the first make Heaven and Earth, and all that in them is, with a word of thy mouth; so canst with the least blast reduce them all to their first Chaos and nothing: What is man, that for his sake thou wouldst be made man: that ever, for man's sake, it should be said of thee, He hath no form nor comeliness: He is despised and rejected of men: 
Esay 53.3, etc.  a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: or ever Thou shouldst have occasion to say of thyself; 
Mat. 8.20.  The Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests: but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head?  
I wonder not if the Prophet say, Who hath believed our report? never had infidelity (were it not for divine revelation) a more plausible colour. Hereupon some infer wittily, that the incredibility of this mystery should (if rightly considered) make it the more credible. For, say they, 
Theod. Therap. l. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Salu. De Gubern. Dei lib. 4. Vtique hoc magis maestimabilis pietas, etc. Sed omnium acutissimè Tertul. De Bapt. c. 2. Alqui eò magis credendum, si quia mirandum est, idcircò non credendum. Qualia enim decet esse opera divina, nisi supra omnem admirationem? 1 Joh. 4.8, 9  such goodness doth best become an infinite Omnipotent God, so great and so excessive, as for the very greatness, it should not seem credible. But to this must be added, (to make the Observation more solid) that as God is infinite in all that he is; so more particularly and peculiarly, in love and goodness: because love and goodness, (if there be any impropriety in the speech, it must be excused, because we cannot otherwise speak of God, but improperly) are his very nature and essence. As ratiocination, (say the Schoolmen) is the proper nature of man, sic ipsa natura Dei est essentia bonitatis. For which they refer us, to their supposed Dionysius Areopagita: But why not rather to Saint John? Doth not Saint John upon this very occasion of Christ his Incarnation positively say, that (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) God is love? He that loveth not, (saith he) knoweth not God; For God is love. In this was manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.  
Of the love of men towards their own children, what admirable effects and operations upon extraordinary emergent occasions it hath had in divers, much might be said out of ancient and later stories: much more, and more wonderful, (because grounded upon nature only; whereas that of man, upon reason and piety also) of the love of dumb creatures towards their young ones; whereof Poets, and Naturalists that have written of their nature, treat at large, and give many instances. Now upon this, Salvian (an ancient Father, Presbyter Massiliensis, by his title; but styled by Gennadius, Episcoporum Magister) inferreth thus: (it is upon another occasion, God's Providence; but it is applied by himself to this subject of Christ his Incarnation) Deus ergò qui etiam minimis animantibus, etc. that is, God therefore who even in the least creatures, (as Aunts and Bees, spoken of before) hath planted this affection towards their own, how can it be that he should bereave himself of it? Especially, when all love of good things in us, proceedeth from his good love. For he is the source and fountain of all things: and because in him (as it is written) we live, move, and have our being; from him therefore we have derived this affection, whereby we embrace those that are our own. For all the world, and all mankind, 
* Pignus est creatoris sui.  are resemblances, (or evidences) of their Creator. And therefore by this affection wherewith we embrace (pignora nostra) those that are our own; he would have us to know how much he loveth (pignora sua) those that proceed from him.  
In a mystery therefore of this nature, so far exceeding the capacity of man, as that the weakest and wisest of men, beyond what is revealed by God himself, are as the tallest and lowest statures to the height of the highest heavens; and again, a mystery of so much importance to us, so much partly by professed Infidels openly contradicted and opposed; and partly by cunning Heretics sophisticated and depraved; it doth much concern every sincere Christian to be well furnished and provided of such principal clear texts of Scripture, as the wisdom of God hath provided unto us to that end; not so much to satisfy our understandings, as to settle our faith and our belief. Three special branches of this great mystery there be, about which the curiosity and infidelity of men hath especially stumbled, and wherein it doth mainly concern all true Christians to be well grounded: which are, 1. The Deity; 2. The Humanity (two natures in one Person) of Christ; and 3. The Merit and Propitiation of his blood. Concerning these, taking them severally in the order by us proposed, we conceive these places of Scripture, taken in themselves with that light only which being thus joined and put together, they do afford and hold forth to one another, without any further gloss or comment, to be very full, pregnant, and satisfactory.  
First, concerning the Deity of Christ, these places: 
Behold, a Virgin shall be with child, 
Matth. 1.23.  and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.  
In the beginning was the Word, 
Joh. 1.1, 2, 3, 4.  and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of man.  

John 5.18.  Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, not only because he had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.  

Rom. 9.5.  Whose are the Fathers, & of whom as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.  

Philip. 2.6.  Who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God.  

1 Tim. 3.16.  And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God manifest in the flesh, etc. Looking for the blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Who gave himself for us, etc.   
Secondly, concerning his humanity, or humane nature, these: 

John 1.14.  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelled among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth.  

Rom. 1.3.  Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.  

Gal. 4.4.  But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the Law.  

1 Tim. 2.5.  For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus.  

Heb. 2.14.  For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death; that is, the Devil.  

Heb. 2.16, 17.  For verily he took not on him the nature of Angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, etc.  
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: 
1 Joh. 2.2, 3.  Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God. And every spirit that confesseth not, etc.   
Thirdly, that Christ offered himself as a Propitiation for our sins, these:  
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, 
Matth. 20.28.  but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.  
The next day John seethe Jesus coming unto him, 
John 1.29.  and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.  
For God so loved the world, 
3.16.  that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.  
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, 
Acts 20.28.  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 blood, to declare his righteousness, for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.  
But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, 
1 Cor. 1.30.  who of God is made unto us Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Sanctification, and Redemption.  
But Christ being come an high Priest of good things to come, &c neither by the blood of goats and calves; 
Heb. 9.11, 12, 13, 14.  but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himsel without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works, to serve the living God?  

Heb. 9.26.  For then, etc. 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 bore our sins in his own body on the tre●, that we being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness; 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 Peter's 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 ourselves with passages and testimonies of the New Testament only, but ground especially upon prophecies 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, than I can allow myself at this time. Of prophecies, 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, than the fifty third Chapter of the Prophet Esay: which whole Chapter both as a precious cordial to them that are wounded in spirit; and an excellent antidote against the danger of all spreading infection of unsound doctrine in this main fundamental, 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 nevertheless, 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 be perpetual and immutable, yet in verbal 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 controversy amongst the Learned. These kind of expressions, however called, have bred great disputes and occasioned (as much as any thing) that doleful division between us, and those Protestants commonly called Lutherans, they contending, that this communication of properties is not verbal only, but real: whereupon they infer strange conclusions. The truth is, as some moderate learned men (of this side especially) state the business, the controversy itself may seem rather verbal, then real: 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 find five rules, or propositions collected out of them: or rather the several 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 only; 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 brightness of his glory, and the express 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 only; 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 wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. Matth. 26 39 Nevertheless, 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 hour knoweth no man, no not the Angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father) should be 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 show reasons why that exposition, as contrary to other places of Scripture, cannot stand. The truth is, they are difficult places, as may appear by the diversity of expositions. But I will not make it my business here. This caveat I thought would not be amiss, which is all I intended.  
The third is, some things are spoken of Christ, 
III.  which must be understood of his Person only, not of either of his natures particularly; as, Matth. 17.5. This is my beloved 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 ransom 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 gross 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 believe; 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 only; 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 blood.  

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 Son 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, etc. 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 nearly sifted, may be somewhat; but otherwise (we acknowledging the reality of this communication of idioms, 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 itself in direct terms, or by formal 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 bore 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 Original, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) on the tree. So S. Paul, Which was made of the seed 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 find 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 wisdom 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 fall'n, 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 satisfaction could be found, but in, and by Christ; which is a point handled by 
a Vide Chrysost. Theodoret etc. 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. Armachanun, in Tr●ctatum qui inscribitur Immanuel▪ vel, De mysterio Incarn.  lately by some of eminent worth and rank, 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 hear of God's mercy in general, 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 only, 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 showed how many things God had made for man's sake, and thereupon inferred how well it became him to restore them being fallen, 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 easy for him without this veiling of himself with our flesh to have wrought this salvation of mankind, and by his bare will not only 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, [eternal] darkness. 
* Pariter & Leo, 2. De Nativit. Misericordia Dei, cum ad recuperandū genus humanum 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 his absolute power; but the justice and equity of his providence, (or, wisdom.)  
Origen, (whom I mention for his antiquity, though not always to be followed in his opinions) upon this argument, because the question proposed by Celsus the Heathen was not, whether any other way in general; but particularly, why not such a way rather; he contents himself to show the impertinency of the question; and that the way by Celsus proposed, was not either to the Providence of God, or to the nature of man, so suitable and convenient: but of the possibility in general, as he doth not deny it, so neither doth he peremptorily affirm it. He doth not; (not there at least) but others do; and their determination of the matter is embraced by the Schoolmen, Peter Lombard, and Thomas Aquinas, and others: by Protestants also, Zanchius, Polanus, Peter Martyr, Paraeus: and many more, I believe. Gerardus, and most of the Lutheran party, hold the contrary opinion; and not they only, but of our side also some not of the obscurest.  
For my part, in reverence to God and his truth freely to deliver my mind, leaving others to the liberty of their own judgements, I must profess that I cannot satisfy myself, how it can stand with the duty and humility of mortal men, who can give so little account of ourselves, (either of our souls or bodies) to attempt the sounding of such an abyssus, such a bottomless Ocean, as either the Power or the Mercy of Almighty God and out of physical 
* Vide Testardum De Natura & Gratiâ: & nuperas (ut alios praeterean) Joh. Hoornbeck Disputationes Antijudaicas.  or metaphysical speculations (for such I account all in this kind, that are not apparently grounded upon divine authority) so peremptorily and positively to determine how fare either can go. I tremble to think what happened to the Bethshemites, for offering to pry into the Ark, the Mercy-seat of God. Of all things in the world, I would not abridge the Power of God in point of Mercy, whereof there is so much need in the world. If God himself doth limit, I adore his judgements, and submit with all humility. Where he doth not, I will not certainly: no authority of mortal man, no subtlety of humane wit shall persuade me to do it. Earthly Kings and Princes will not endure their Prerogative should be scanned by every Subject; not by any perchance, if they could help it: and good Kings will esteem mercy the best part of their Prerogative. Own we not then so much respect to the King of Kings, the Omnipotent Creator of all things, who from his highest Throne beholdeth the Inhabitants of the earth (Kings and Monarches, as well as others) as so many worms or grasshoppers, as to leave him the power and Prerogative of his Mercy indisputed; free and unbounded? That any who was not a God, should take upon him to forgive sins, was once we know thought blasphemy: (Mark 2.7.) how shall it not be some spice of blasphemy, to bereave God of this power, except God himself in his revealed Word doth expressly disclaim it?  
We see in the Gospel, when the Disciples upon the words of their Master, that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, then for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God, began to infer (as probably enough they might) that none therefore, or very few, (for so must their words, not pertinent otherwise, be understood: most men being either rich, or covetously seeking after riches; which comes all to one) could be saved; Christ himself teacheth them in such cases, not to judge rashly, but to remember the power of God: With men, saith he, this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. By which words Christ seemeth in some manner to justify their inference in point of humane ratiocination; (for that men cannot save themselves or be saved by other men, whereof no question was made, is not it that Christ acknowledges here impossible with men) but to disallow of humane ratiocination in things of this nature.  
But now on the other side, if any pretend Scripture (as most do) for their opinion, I answer; If clear Scripture, (as in such points would be requisite) how come so many, both ancient and late, so well versed in them, so able to judge of them, to be of another opinion? If doubtful and disputable, then in such a case that comes so near to blasphemy, (without good warrant from God himself) I hold the affirmative, as more plausible, so safer every way.  
To pass by therefore their arguments which are drawn, as was said before, most of them from metaphysical speculations, which I desire not to meddle with; I will only take notice of some considerations insisted upon by some of them to make their opinion more plausible, if not necessary.  
The first is, that to believe the possibility of man's restauration, either without any satisfaction at all, (by free pardon) or any other way of satisfaction, (if any other way can be, which as we said before, we do not conceive) is to undervalue the benefit and high price of this holy Dispensation. It is certain, the apprehensions of men, though their end, to glorify God, be the same, may be different; and a difference of apprehensions may make a difference of opinions, though tending to one end. I join with them therefore in their main drift; but I do not conceive that any man who really believes an impossibility (grounded upon Gods revealed Word) of any man's salvation without Christ, needs any other motive to induce him to set a right price upon this miraculous work, than the consideration of his own, and every man's happiness thereon depending.  
It is, secondly, further objected, that this opinion may seem to savour, or at least, to favour Socinisme; who eagerly plead against the necessity, & make it an argument against the truth of Christ his satisfaction. But surely, the way to deal with Socinians, is not by such reasoning. God be praised, we have a more sure way, and that is the way of divine authority. If that do it not, it is to be feared, weaker proofs, which not without much probability may be contradicted, will rather confirm them, then convert them. What Saint Augustine saith in a place upon another occasion, would be considered upon this, Metus est ne cum saepe subruuntur, 
August. De Magistro. quod totidem sere verbis etiam Plato non un● loco.  quae firmissimè statura et mansura praesumimus, in tantum odium vel timorem rationis incidamus, ut ne ipsi quidem perspicuae veritati fides habenda videatur; that is, It is to be feared, that when men shall see those reasons, which they once grounded upon as firm and stable, easily and familiarly overthrown, they fall at last into such a hatred or suspicion of reason, that even the most undoubted truths shall not be believed.  
I am therefore much pleased with Balth. Meisnerus (a Lutheran) his prudent moderation in this point, who in his Disputations against the Socinians, upon such grounds of reason as are ordinarily insisted upon by others, having said as much as can with any colour be said for this necessity, 
Balth. Meisnerus, A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dec. 3. Disp. 26.90.  concludes his Disputation in these words: [Hitherto, why God could not without some prejudice to his Omnipotency pardon sinners without some satisfaction, hath been showed. But that we should enter into this dispute with our adversaries, is not so absolutely necessary; because thereby we are forced to inquire into the reasons of the divine counsel, which ought not to be. God's revelation of his divine will by his Word ought to suffice us, whereby he declareth, that without the price and merit of his Son, as a Mediator, he will not forgive sin, because he hateth it, and for it, is angry with sinners. That it is so, therefore let us believe, and that [by this kind of satisfaction] the divine Omnipotency is no ways impaired, because both those are affirmed by the Scriptures, though we cannot render a reason of all the counsels of God. These things ought rather to be admired, and with thankful hearts extolled, then with niceness and curiosity sifted and discussed.] He repeats the same, though in other words, as fully in the 105. Paragraph of the same Disputation. And in the 89. commends this Canon: Quid Deus circa salutem nostram faciat, non ex rationibus de possibili colligendum, sed ex solis Scripturis addiscendum est.  
But doth not the Scripture plainly faith, (I take notice of this objection, because the phrase doth often occur, & may trouble them that are not so expert) that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, oportebat: Christ ought to suffer such & such things? Are not Christ his own words, John 3.14. As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the Wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; Must? yes, it is the Scripture phrase, but more full in other places; as Luke 24.44. These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me. And again in the next words, Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the same word as before) Christ to suffer, and to rise the third day from the dead. By which and other like places it doth clearly appear, that this must, hath relation merely to the predictions of the Old Testament concerning Christ, whether by words; or, (as that of the Serpent lifted up in the Wilderness) by types. God therefore having long before not only preordained, but also by several Prophets foretold the sufferings of Christ, it was not only expedient, but (in this respect) absolutely necessary, that all things should fall out accordingly; For It is easier that heaven and earth should pass, than one tittle of the Law to fail, Luk 16.17. Now that which made Christ so often to press the Scripture to the Jews, was to convince them by their own principles, that whereas they professed much zeal for the Scriptures, they might know that those very Scriptures, which they were so zealous for, were the very ground (in some sense) both of his doctrine, and of all that happened unto him. For otherwise, to consider the things in the order of their nature, those things did not (so properly) happen to Christ, because they were foretold; but because they were so determined by God from all eternity, therefore they were first foretold, and afterwards happened accordingly, Act. 4.28.  
Laying therefore aside this absolute necessity, as not grounded (for aught we could ever find) upon any Scriptures, and as we conceive of dangerous consequence; we may with less danger, and no less edification, we hope, take notice of such reasons or considerations, as the wit of man can reach unto, by which this counsel of God (Dispensation or Oeconomy the Ancients usually call it) in a rational trial, if need be, may be maintained convenient or plausible; though indeed most of these considerations be grounded upon Scripture, as will appear. But they must first be forewarned that are not so throughly acquainted with the terms belonging to this subject, that in this particucular consideration of the necessity or expedience of Christ's Incarnation; in the word Incarnation (as often besides) is presupposed to be included the Passion also, as the principal end of it: according to that of Christ, John 12.27. Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I, unto this hour. For so I conceive the words should be distinguished, and interpreted, But for this cause came I; (into the world, that is, according to that of the Apostle, This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ came into the world to save sinners, 1 Tim. 1.15.) unto this hour; that is, that I might suffer for sinners.  
The first and chiefest reason will be, that God chose this way, as the most convenient to manifest his love to mankind: according to that of Christ in S. John, So God loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. This consideration is not only mentioned often in the Scripture, but also set forth & commended unto us by several circumstances, all very considerable to make us the more apprehensive of it. See John 15.13. Rom. 5.6, 7, 8. 1 Joh. 4 9, 10. Now of this manifestation of his love in such an extraordinary way one main end was, the more powerfully to draw ours to himself, and to withdraw it from the love of the world: which two are inconsistent. See 2 Cor. 5.14, 15. Jam. 4.4. John 1. Ep. 2.15, 16, 17. This is the main consideration that hath made so many Martyrs.  
A second consideration might be, the better to manifest his justice, and his extreme antipathy (if we may so speak) to sin: thereby also (from the consideration of this antipathy in God) the more powerfully to draw us to the love of goodness and virtue; and to a true hearty detestation of wickedness. Whence, as I take it, especially it is, that according to the Scripture phrase, all impenitent sinners, who profess godliness, but show not the power of it in their lives and conversations, are styled Infidels, or unbelievers, as being altogether impossible, that they that truly believe, or have a true apprehension of this great mystery of godliness, should continue in ungodliness.  
A third consideration was certainly, that Christ might by his example work upon us the more effectually to imitate him, as in other things, so especially in his humility, the most proper virtue of Christianity, and without which all profession of Christianity is but delusion and imposture. But of this more in its proper place afterwards, in the consideration of his Exinanition.  
To these, divers others might be added, but either not so pertinent, or such as might be reduced to these. Even of these that we have set down, if a man be disposed to multiply questions, it may be asked, whether by some other cause, or way, such ends and such effects might not have been contrived and compassed. There is no end of such curiosity; but as no end, so as little fruit.  
There is nothing among men so generally received or approved in the ways and works of God, but such as are bold, and selfconceited, may easily except against, and think they might have mended it, if they had had the ordering of it. So that in the conclusion, we must either sink ourselves into Atheism (than which in other respects and considerations, nothing can be more contrary to sense and reason) or be forced to acknowledge that it is against reason to discredit the revealed will of God, because we see not sufficient reason for his will. It was an excellent resolution of Socrates, who when he had learned from Anaxagoras, (who therefore was surnamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (that is, Reason, or Understanding) was the cause of all things, 
Plato, in Phaedone.  resolved he would trouble himself no longer to seek the natural cause or reason of every thing, but rest in this fully satisfied, that since Reason was the supreme cause, all things must of necessity, both in respect of the general, and of every particular thing, be for the best. He was in the right certainly, and till we come to that, our scruples will never be at an end.  
Yet one reason or consideration more I find expressed in the Scripture, which must not be omitted; which is, that by this mystery so contrived and brought to pass (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the manifold wisdom of God might be made known both to Angels and to men. Unto me (saith Saint Paul, 
Ephes. 3.8, 9, 10, 11.  his words are full of weight and holy vigour) who am less than the least of all Saints is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ: And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world had been hid in God, who created all things in Jesus Christ: To the intent that now unto the Principalities and Powers in heavenly places might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God.  
This manifold wisdom of God, though it be observable in all the particulars of this great mystery from the first Conception to the Ascension; yet it is most eminently discernible in the circumstances of his Passion, as the main part of the story. Should a man collect into one the several observations of ancient Fathers and other Writers in this kind, it would arise to a considerable bulk: and though it cannot be denied that in so many, some may be found which may savour more of wit, than weight; yet those ought not to be any prejudice to the solidity of the rest: of which kind there will be enough found to fill the most stupid, if not extremely dulled with profaneness and infidelity, both with delight and with admiration. I have not proposed to myself so large a scope, neither am I at this time furnished for that purpose. Somewhat of this kind to the Incarnation more particularly, or at least, to the mystery in general, relating, we have here collected and set down.  
First, that as all things were at the first created (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) by the Word, (called in the Greek Logos) so by the fame Word, the restauration of mankind also, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the logical creatures, as Philosophers call them) should be.  
Secondly, that as by the transgression of one man, all were made guilty; so by the righteousness of one, all might be acquitted.  
Thirdly, that as pride and infidelity were the two principal causes of Adam's sin, and by it, of the ruin of mankind; so faith and humility should be the means of his restauration. Once man in the pride of his heart attempted to be like unto God: and God by a mystery of humility became like unto man, that he might exalt man to a nearer degree of likeness unto God.  
Fourthly, a woman was the Devils unhappy instrument to draw Adam to sin; and of a woman came the Saviour of the world. Eve believed a wicked Angel (in the form of a Serpent) and transgressed: Marry (that blessed Virgin) believed a blessed Angel, and conceived.  
Fifthly, that after that in the wisdom of God (that is, 
1 Cor. 1.21.  in the Book of nature; the sight and contemplation of this Universe, which doth so manifestly set forth the infinite power and wisdom of the Creator) the world by wisdom knew not God; (that he is a Spirit; but one, and only to be worshipped) it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching (not grounded upon humane ratiocination, philosophy, or eloquency of words) to confound the wise, (ver. 27.) and to save them that believe: which by the Gentiles was generally much scorned and derided, who accounted belief, the character and property of an Idiot.  
We meddle not here with his Nativity, the circumstances and considerations whereof are many, and distinct from those of his Incarnation, and from the general consideration of this mystery. In which kind besides those we have insisted upon, many more may be collected, that have already by divers been made; and some made perchance, that have not yet been observed. Maximus an ancient learned Writer & Martyr, in his Meditations, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith very well; The great mystery of the divine Incarnation still continues a mystery, not only for that being proportionably to the strength of them that are saved by it, manifested, that which is not manifested of it is much more than that which is: but also because even that which is manifested, may be said still hidden (or, concealed) as not, in the truth of it, utterable by any words: (or, not comprehensible to the understanding of man.) So he; and he goes on, and insists in this and the next Chapter, in sundry particulars, which I forbear to translate. Neither his language nor his conceptions are ordinary. They that can read him in his own language, may understand him; not they, I doubt, that shall read him translated.  
It is 
a Plato in Phaed. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Plato's observation, that in belief there may be a kind of unbeleef; when a man by satisfactory proofs or evidences being fully convicted in his understanding, that the thing is so indeed; is nevertheless not only by the greatness & sublimity of the things themselves that are proposed; but also by the consideration of the means and vileness of man so confounded and amazed, as that at the same time he neither knows how to believe, nor yet can tell how to contradict. In joy also, if excessive, there is a kind of unbeleef, whereof we read, Luke 24.41. And whilst they yet believed not for joy, 
Ita & apud Comicum quidam suam in re praesenti & certâ excusat incredulitatem; Nescio, nisi quia tam miserè hoc esse cupio verum, cò vereor magis.  and wondered. Whilst the text saith, they believed not for joy, it saith also that they believed; 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 fix his thoughts upon the consideration of it.  
Saint Paul himself, (as a man may gather from his words) found it not very easy business, & 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 be strengthened 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 knowledge, that they might be filled with all the fullness of God.  
By which words and others to the same purpose, Ch. 1. u.16, 17, 18 19 doth appear that although he thought the matter, 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 mind or judgement, doth propose to himself the things of this world (wealth, honour, or life) as much considerable, either never seriously believed, or doth not actually believe 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 itself, and the different uses and notions of it in this sacred argument.  
This word than 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 meekness and humility, Let nothing be done through strife and vainglory, etc. 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 equal with God. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. Where we render it, but made himself of no reputation; it is in the Original, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 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 real communion, or communication of proprieties; whereof we have treated before. There is also no small controversy concerning the right sense of those words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we translate, thought it not robbery; 
In Diatriba, De Verb usu, etc.  of which I have had occasion to treat elsewhere at large; where, upon good grounds (as I conceive) it is showed, 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 he took upon him the form of a servant: which words both in opposition to the former, the form of God; and as they are further expounded by the Apostle himself in the words following, in the likeness 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 only, 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 personal 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 incidental and in some sort natural unto man. But that the Infinite, Eternal, Omnipotent, would be man, that he might suffer, is above all that can be said, or conceived, or indeed believed by natural 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 nevertheless as truly and entirely what he was before, Infinite, Eternal, Omnipotent; that he should, though in his humane nature only, 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 general sense, (grounded perchance upon the words of the Psalmist, Psal. 113.6. Who humbleth himself, etc.) for that affection of mercy and compassion, which moved God to take notice of man's misery through Adam's fall, and thereupon to order his redemption and restauration by his Son.  
Of Christ his Exinanition in the first and chiefest sense we have treated hitherto under the notion of his Incarnation. Our purpose here in the remainder of our Discourse is, to consider his Exinanition in the temporal estate and condition of his assumed flesh; in those things that Christ suffered in the course of his life before his Passion, not so much in the person or relation of a Mediator, or Redeemer, (his chiefest Office) as of a Master or Teacher, to be an example of patience, humility, perfect obedience and mortification, or contempt of the world, unto us. That Christ in all his sufferings, even the greatest, his death and passion, had a further end (besides our redemption) to be an example unto us, is directly affirmed by Saint Peter: and that the same Christ in his more ordinary sufferings, (though we acknowledge his merits, or meriting to us too in all that he did or suffered) as his poverty, and the like, his chief end and aim was to be an example unto us, if it be not directly affirmed by the Scriptures, may with much probability grounded upon the Scriptures, be supposed and inferred. Why Christ, for example, though he might (as some Ancients observe) after a more apparently miraculous way have been made true man, must be born of a woman, many good reasons may be given: but why he should choose an obscure Village, or a common Inn, or a Manger in the Inn, to be places (in several respects) of his Nativity, the most probable reason can be given, is, that he might be an example of humility unto us.  
In this sense than it is, and with this particular relation that I shall now speak of Christ his Exinanition; wherein the first thing will be, to consider how it is proposed to us in the Scripture. I will not amplify matters, but content myself with the bare relation of the Gospel. It is a subject, I confess, fit for the best rhetoric of the world; wherein ancient Fathers and Writers have not been deficient. I like well of such amplifications, as tend to make a deeper impression in us, (such is our dulness) of what we can never be too sensible. But some men have not contained themselves within those bounds. As though they would rather supply the defect of the Scriptures, then of our devotions, they tell us of many things, devised by themselves which the Scriptures do not; and of a sacred history, by this mixture, make (as far as in them lies) a kind of Legend. Papias of old was taxed for this; and many since him, have been guilty of the same fault. But to leave them:  
The Scriptures tell us that the blessed Mother of Christ, about the very time that he was to be born, was forced to travel: that she was delivered in a common Inn, and the born child Christ Jesus, for want of other room in the Inn, (taken up in all likelihood by greater guests) was laid in a Manger. That assoon as he was born, he was persecuted; and thereupon his true mother and reputed father (with him, their charge and care) put to the troubles and toils of a long Journey into a strange Country, for refuge. That Christ did ever work with his own hands, is not so clearly expressed in the sacred story; but that he was subject to his parents, (his reputed father being a Carpenter by his trade) is clearly expressed: and because Christ himself, Mark 6.3. by some, to whom his life and conversation was well known, is called a Carpenter, Justin Martyr his opinion is approved by many; who peremptorily doth determine it, that Christ himself did work. And besides, though no other Scripture should induce us to believe it, yet because we are taught that Christ was made a curse for us, Gal. 3.13. and that he was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, Rom. 8.3. it stands with great probability, to say no more, that he should in the course of his life find and feel the effect of that curse, by God himself so solemnly pronounced, In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, Gen. 3.9.  
Again, that after he had openly and solemnly entered upon his Ministry, he subsisted, in part at least, by alms and contributions, is particularly recorded. That he went up and down, doing good, yet almost every where suffering evil: evil words, evil reports, affronts, reproaches: frequent attempts, upon his life and innocency: persecuted in his own person; and persecuted in them that adhered unto him, or spoke well of him; we find in the same Scriptures. Briefly, his own words of himself, Matth. 8.20. The Foxes have holes, and the Birds of the air have nests: but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head: are above all amplifications, and all rhetoric that the wit or eloquence of man can reach unto. If this be not enough to set out this Exinanition of Christ, we might have recourse to the Prophet Esay, who also is very pregnant and pathetical in the description of it: Esa. the 52. and 53. Chap. but it shall suffice to have named him: the Reader himself, if he please, may have recourse unto him.  
Now because not the Jews only, who mistaking the Prophets, expected an earthly King for their Messiah; but divers others also in all ages, worldly-minded men, or weak men, have been much scandalised at this manner of the Son of God his appearing in the form of a servant: before we speak of it in relation to us, (the main end of it) we will consider of it by itself, a while, what from best humane reason may be said for such a condition of life. For if it shall appear, not only that the contempt of all worldly pomp and magnificence, upon grounds of reason in the judgement of the most rational and judicious Heathens, Philosophers and others, hath been accounted a more generous thing, than the prosecution of it; but also more blessedness, with patience and calmness of mind to undergo all manner of crosses and adversities in this life, then to enjoy pleasure and to live at ease; I hope all exceptions and prejudices in this kind, which humane wit can with any colour suggest to the prejudice of our faith concerning the Author of our salvation, will sufficiently be removed.  
To the first then: The most ordinary both, and compendious definition or character of one that is truly magnanimous or generous, occurrent in the writings of ancient Heathens, is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to whom nothing (in this life, nor life itself) seems a great matter: that is, greatly considerable. But more particularly, this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or nothing, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arist. De virtut.  is thus expressed by Aristotle in a place: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, etc. It is also the part and property of true magnanimity, not to admire neither pleasure, nor greatness, nor power, nor victories obtained at the solemn games and prizes.  
They that are not acquainted with the state of the world as it was in those days (when certainly it was, in many respects, at a fare greater height of glory and outward splendour, than now it is) will not understand the pertinency (though most proper of itself) of that instance, of victories obtained at solemn games and prizes. His intention was certainly to go to the highest of humane glory, that his expression could reach, or his fancy pitch upon: and such was the glory of those solemn victories he speaks of. For first, (to help them a little that are not acquainted with Antiquity) what was done there, was not done in the sight of one Nation or Kingdom only, but in the sight, and concourse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the whole earth, as ancient Authors testify. And such was the honour of the Conquerors, and such their privileges; that they were, not after their lives only, some of them, worshipped as Gods; but even in their life time accounted most of them almost every where, (to use their own word) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as gods; or equal unto the gods. And it is further observable, that the most famous Epocha, or computation of times that ever was among Heathens (the Olympiades') was taken from these sports and victories, as if they had been the thing, wherein the world was most interessed, or which to take notice of, it most concerned it.  
As Aristotle, so others, all, or most that I have seen, make this the proper character of true magnanimity, not to admire; that is, 
Dionys. Longinus in praestantissimo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 libello, elegantissime, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et paulò post, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  (as by others it is expressed) to despise all those things which by ordinary men are highly prized and esteemed. Now the considerations upon which they grounded this contempt of the world, were these especially:  
First, the short continuance, if not of the objects themselves of glory, which this world presented unto us; yet of that fruition of them this our mortal life doth afford; being compared to eternity. Quae verò aetas longa est? saith one of them. What age of man is long? Or what is it indeed, that to mortal man can truly be deemed and termed long? But a very little while ago we were boys; then young men; and behold how old age, whilst we were in our race, suddenly, even before we could think or suspect, hath overtaken us. And this we call long, because old age to us is our utmost bounds. For so it is, that according to the measure of continuance allotted by nature unto every thing, so is age generally accounted either short or long. Aristotle writes of certain little creatures about the River Hypanis, (which from some part of Europe doth flow into the Pontus) which live but one day; Of these little creatures therefore such as live till about the third or fourth hour after noon past, dies in good age: but those that live to the going down of the Sun, decrepit; especially if it be a Summer's day, when the days are at longest. Let us compare our longest age with eternity, and we shall find their lives and ours to come much to one reckoning. Despise we therefore such fopperies (for what else to call, or how more gently to term things that are so light and vain, I know not) and let us account true courage and magnanimity, despising all humane things, and wholly set upon the pursuit of virtue, the sole happiness of man.  
So another; and he might speak with more authority as being then in actual possession of as much greatness and splendour as the whole earth could well afford, (or ever did afford) unto one man: a puissant Prince and Monarch: 
Marcus Aur. Antoninus, Imperator, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lib. 5. C § 19  Often meditate, (saith he) how swiftly all things that subsist, and all things that are done in the world, are carried away, and as it were conveyed out of sight. For both the substances themselves (we see) as a flood, are in a continual flux: and all actions, in a perpetual change: and the causes themselves subject to a thousand alterations: neither is there any thing almost, that may be said to be now settled, and constant (or at a stand.) Next unto this, and which follows upon it, consider both the infiniteness of the time already passed (this is spoken by him as a Heathen, who did not know the beginning of the world, nor believe perchance that it ever had a beginning) and the immense vastness of that which is to come, wherein all things are to be resolved and annihilated. Art not thou then a very fool, who for these things art either puffed up with pride, or distracted with cares; or, as for a thing that would trouble thee for any space of time, (to speak of) canst find in thy heart to make such moans?  
Another main consideration that induced them to this contempt, is the smallness, or pettinesse (if I may so speak) of the earth (the principal object of mortal men's cares and affections) in respect of the whole world or Universe. A consideration, not grounded (as some might happily surmise) upon the mere subtlety of Astronomical speculations; or extravagant boldness of rhetorical amplifications; but upon such evidences of common sense and reason, as any rational man (with very little search and study) is capable of. Yea and to this very end God and Nature (in the language of ancient Heathens) have made man capable of such knowledge and contemplation, that he might not set his mind upon the earth or earthly things, it being very improbable, if not impossible, that he that hath a right apprehension of this Universe, and useth himself (as becomes him) now and then to elevate his thoughts to such contemplations, should be much taken or affected with things so vile and contemptible, as all sublunary things will be found, compared to the Universe; and so much inferior to the divine temper and constitution of man's soul and understanding. Quid enim videatur ei magnum in rebus humanis, cui aeternitas omnis, totiusque mundi nota sit magnitudo? So Tully; and the same in another place, Idemque cum coelum, terras, maria, omniumque rerum naturam perspexerit,— in hac ille magnificentiâ rerum, atque in hoc conspectu & cognition naturae, Dii immortales, quàm ipse se noscet, (quod Apollo praecepit Pythius) quàm contemnet, quàm despiciet, quàm pro nihilo putabit ea, quae vulgò dicuntur amplissima? that is, The same man when he shall understand the nature of the Heavens, of the Earth, the Sea, and all that belongs unto them— in this magnificence of things, in this sight and survey of nature, good God how will he (as the Oracle commandeth) begin to know himself; how will he contemn, and despise, and account as nothing those things, which among men ordinarily, are in greatest account and esteem? and the writings of ancient Grecians, that writ of Philosophy, are full of such passages.  
It is so certainly: And if there be not among men now adays (as certainly there are not) such examples of heroic spirits and of true magnanimity, as have been in former times, among the Grecians especially; it may very probably be conceived, that one main reason of it is, because the Mathematics (Astronomy and Astrology were so called anciently) are not so generally studied, as they were formerly, among the Grecians especially. For it is one thing to hear in ordinary talk (as it is commonly talked) that the Earth to the whole Universe is but as one point, which many may conceive to be but an hyperbolical speech, as if we called a little man, an atom, in comparison of a great mountain: another thing, upon certain grounds of sense and reason, 
Ptol. M●●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 1. § 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as by Ptolemy, and other Mathematicians it is demonstrated, to know it and apprehend it clearly; as clearly, as every ordinary capacity doth apprehend, that one single farthing, is no very considerable thing, (little more than nothing) in comparison of such a sum; as for example, of one hundred thousand English pounds.  
These things therefore whoever shall rightly consider and understand, as he looketh upon a Commonwealth of Aunts or Bees, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, &. Anton. De Scipso, l 7. § 3. Formi●arū iste discursus est in angusto laberantium. Quid illis & nobis interest, etc. Sen. Nat. Qu. l. 1. in Praef.  (it is the similitude used by divers upon this occasion) where he seethe great stirring and pains taking; much carrying and running to and fro: so will he look upon the ordinary cares and distractions, frights and fears, hopes and joys of such among the sons of men, whose minds are wholly set upon the world, and have no further aim.  
A third consideration that induced them to this contempt, is, because this world (in the ordinary course of the world) affordeth nothing so great and glorious, but the basest and vilest of men are as capable of, as the most generous and deserving. Wise Solomon observed it, and he made a good use of it, it made him think the less of his own greatness. 
Eccles. 9.11.  I returned (saith he) and saw under the Sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all, Eccles. 9.11. These worldly goods, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, how base, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith the Solomon of the Heathens; Quae turpissimo cuique ac contemptissimo, lenoni ac lanistae, possunt contingere; saith Seneca) which may be in the power and possession of some abominable lose liver, some common strumpet, or some ravenous and bloody Tyrant.  
It once troubled Pliny the later, (a man of great learning, and great place in the Roman Commonwealth) very much, (when he observed what honourable titles the Senate of Rome (whereof himself had the honour to be a member) had conferred upon such a slave, (furciferum, as he calls him) as Pallas was: what honourable Edicts and Declarations they had made in his behalf; such indeed (they are to be seen in Pliny) as scarce any, the most renowned for valour, or wisdom, or noble descent, whom former times had known, had ever obtained. It did put him upon this contemplation, (the best use indeed that can be made of such objects) quàm mimica & inepta essent, quae interdum in hoc coenum, in has sordes abjicerentur, how vile and contemptible such things must needs be, which were cast sometimes upon such dunghills. Tacitus writes of this Pallas, that he had an estate of ter millies: which doth amount to such a vast sum of money, as might now suffice to be a ransom for many great Kings.  
By this appears what account wise Heathens made of the greatness of this world: and if this contempt of the world became them well, and was esteemed in them an effect of truest magnanimity, whose hopes nevertheless (for the most of them) went not beyond this world: how much more (upon their own grounds) must it become him, who both as he was the Eternal Son of God, from all eternity had in himself all fullness of infinite content and blessedness and in the beginning of times, had created Heaven and Earth, the Heaven to be his throne, and the Earth his footstool: (Esay 66.1.) and as he was made flesh in the fullness of times, yet even then was so united to eternal Majesty, that even then he was the Lord ●f glory; and so much the more the Lord of glory, because he had it in himself and from himself wholly, not from any outward adventitious lustre. That infinite disproportion between the least glimpse of Eternal Majesty, and the greatest glory this earth doth afford, how could it better appear upon earth, then in contempt of the earth? He that had the substance in himself, should he seek after the shadow? Cui nihil ad augendum fastigium superest, 
Plia. Sec. in Panegyr. ad Trajanum.  hic uno mode crescere potest, si se ipse submittat, securus magnitudinis suae. He that is at the height of Majesty and Greatness, if he will yet be greater and higher, he must abase himself, showing his Greatness in that more than in any thing, that he can abase himself with security. This was counsel once given to a great Prince and Emperor, by a great Orator: Heathens, both: and this we may say was the case of Christ: It was most proper to him, above all men, to magnify himself in his humility, who was so fare above all men; as being both God and man.  
Were there no other argument to persuade men against the opinion of the Millenaries, this would much move me: An earthly Kingdom of a thousand years? They must think better of the Earth, than I do; and a thousand years, a longer time, than I can conceive it, who propose such a Kingdom as a great thing to him, who is Lord of Heaven and Earth; to whom a thousand years are as yesterday, when it is past; and as a watch of the night, Psal. 90.4.  
There is not any thing that more enhanceth the credit of men in the world, than the reputation of valour, and the fame of Conquests and Victories. The Scriptures themselves seem to go this way too: Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, &c Thine arrows are sharp, etc. Psal. 45.3.5 etc. which speeches, and divers others of the same kind, were intended of Christ. And the Jews grounding partly upon such places of Scrip ure, and partly upon their own fond thoughts & imaginations, did promise themselves such a Messiah that should not only be a King, but a Warrior also & a great Conqueror. Of this, because approved histories of all ages & nations are sufficient to inform us what to think of it; and because it is a case that concerns the Jews particularly; I shall say no more than what I find in a learned Jew, of later times, but of great esteem, Manasse ben srael; in his treatise De Resurrectione, where preferring the resurrection of the dead (in point of glory) to the coming of the Messiah, he hath these words: Although it be certain that at the coming of the Messiah, the glorious Name of God shall be exalted; yet as certain it is, that it will not be with such glory and magnificence, as it will be at the resurrection of the dead. For neither is it indeed so great a miracle, if the Messiah shall subdue many Kingdoms and Nations; when as it is well known that some of very mean quality, and from obscure beginnings have attained to Kingdoms and Empires, and have been Lords of divers Countries. Whereas at the Resurrection, etc. So much of Christ his humility, in relation to the opinions of ancient Heathens, and what may be said of it in point of humane reason.  
As for Christ's sufferings, our next particular, were we to speak of his death and crucifixion particularly, we could not but take notice of a notable passage of Plato's (a prediction we might call it) much insisted upon, and deservedly, by some Ancients, as Theodoret, Eusebius, and some others. The passage, is that in the second of his Common-weal, where proposing the character of a perfect just man, among other things that such a one must undergo, that his righteousness may be approved to God and men to the utmost, he doth mention Crucifixion. But having to do here with sufferings in general only, it shall be sufficient in general to say, that as to despise pleasures and worldly greatness; (whereof we have spoken) so patiently to endure, and if occasion be, willingly and readily to undergo what ordinary men most dread and fly, hath always, among the wisest of men, been deemed an argument of truest generosity and nobleness of spirit: and not only so, but by many also, an argument of God's love and favour.  
As for the first part of my assertion, that patiently to endure, and readily to undergo all manner of crosses and calamities, belongs to true magnanimity; because no man that hath read any thing in ancient Authors, will make any question of it, I shall not need any proofs to make it good. But that crosses and calamities should be an argument of God's love and favour, may not without some reason seem either a mere paradox of the Stoic, or a secret of the Christian philosophy. There be indeed in the writings of those Philosophers, that were called Stoics, divers expressions to be found to this purpose, that go beyond all that I have read in the most rigid and resolute Christian Authors. Might I take the advantage of such, I should not need to seek any further at all. But because the Philosophers of that sect, were charged by many to hold things contrary to nature and common sense, though themselves did extremely disclaim it, and as confidently boasted of the contrary, that their doctrine was altogether founded upon nature; and which is more, drew after them a great part of the world; yet I will not altogether rely upon them, but farther add, which I conceive to be very observable, that some whom from all Antiquity the Heathens generally honoured as greatest Favourites of their most honoured Deities, were set out unto them as greatest sufferers in the whole course of their lives. Such were, Hercules, the son (as they feigned) of Juppiter: of whose labours, who hath not heard? and Ulysses'; of whom Maximus Tyrius (conformably to what others have written of him more at large) recordeth, that God forced him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. to wander and to beg, and to wear rags; to be kicked and reviled; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; for the love that he did bear unto him: which puts me in mind of Epictetus his famous Distich concerning himself: 

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Epictetus, a slave; in my body maimed:  
No man ever poorer: of the Gods beloved.   
This Epictetus, (a poor man indeed, whilst he lived) when he died, of all worldly goods left after him but one poor Lamp; but such a name and such a reputation with it, as made his memory sacred to the greatest of the earth; so that this very Lamp for his sake became very precious, and proved a competent patrimony to them that sold it.  
Hitherto we have spoken of Christ his Exinanition, in relation to Christ himself, as he was the Son of God; what in point of humane reason might be said of it, or for it, against the scoffs and exceptions of men pretending to reason and common sense; as also, for the further satisfaction of some weaker Christians. We are now to treat of it in relation to us; and first, as it might tend to our instruction, or confirmation of faith.  
There is not any point of doctrine more necessary to be known, believed and pressed among men, than the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and of a judgement after this life. It is the main fundamental of all piety and godliness. If the dead rise not, Let us eat and drink, for to morrow we die: was Saint Paul's inference; though perchance not so much his own sense and inference properly, as the sense and inference of the generality of men, transferred upon himself. Nun melius multò fuisset; 
Cicero De Senect.  How much better were it for us to pass our lives in ease and quietness, without either labour or strife; if so be that the soul be not immortal indeed? It was the speech of one, but the sense of most ancient Heathens, as partly from their lives, and partly from other speeches and expressions tending to the same purpose, might be collected. Now one main argument used by ancient Heathens to persuade themselves and others that it was so indeed; that the soul was immortal, and that there was a judgement, or somewhat answerable to a judgement, after this life, was, as the prosperity of wicked men, so the troubles and miseries of the virtuous and godly, in all ages of the world, (even among the Jews, when the condition of temporal rewards was more absolute, then since the light of the Gospel it hath been) by all sorts of men noted and observed. For, said they, the Sun, the Moon, the seasons of the year, and other works of God, sufficiently teach us, that there is a God, who hath created and appointed these things: and as it would be against common sense to doubt of the being of a God, so is it as much against sense, that is, those common notions of humane reason, whereby men are naturally guided to discern between that which is morally good and evil, just and unjust, to doubt whether God himself from whom we have received these notions, be good and just. Now then since we see plainly, that in this world there be many just men, 
Eccles. 8.14.  unto whom (to use the words of Solomon in stead of theirs) it happeneth according to the work of the wicked; and again, many wicked men, unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous; it must needs be, that after this there is another world, when both good and evil shall be rewarded according to their works.  
This argument though used by Heathens of old, who were guided by the light of nature only, yet ought it not therefore to be in less esteem with Christians. 
* Mel. de Animâ cap. ult. de imimmortalit. Haec consideratio in bonis mentibus, etc. Vide & virum incomparab. Hug. Grot. in Matth. 22.32. Inter omnia argumenta, quae ad probandam a●imi immortalitatem, etc.  Philip Melanchthon, as brave a man both for piety and learning as ever Germany had, acknowledgeth of himself, that he found very good use of it, and that his faith was not a little strengthened by it. It may very well be that Saint Paul himself aimed at the same thing, where he saith, that the sufferings of the righteous in this world are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that is, a clear evidence or demonstration of God's judgement: future, that is; or, that shall be. The words will bear this sense and interpretation very well: and there be, (as may appear by the Italian Notes upon the place) who so interpret those words of Christ in Saint Luke, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And it shall turn to you for a testimony, Luke 21.13.  
Now if the consideration of godly men's sufferings in this world be of moment to such an inference; how much more the sufferings of Christ, (consider him but as a man) so good and so innocent, beyond all example: & not his sufferings only, but also his contempt of the good things of this world, (as they are called, Luke 16.2.) who did so much good, instructing the souls, and curing the bodies of so many men, whilst he lived in the world?  
Of the ancient Druids, as I remember, it is recorded somewhere, that humana despectantes, animam immortalem esse pronunciarunt; that is, despising the things of this world they did pronounce, or declare the soul of man to be immortal. And whereas of Pope John the 22. of that name it is affirmed by some, that he denied the resurrection of the dead, Bellarmine saith not; but that by reason of his lewd life, men did generally conceive that he did not believe another life after this, though he did not positively maintain any such thing. Whether Bellarmine be in the right, 
Bell. De Rom. Pontif. l. 4. c. 14. § Itaque.  or no, concerning this particular instance; I shall not here inquire; nor yet inquire more generally, what dependence these two, opinions, and actions, have the one upon the other; and whether a man may certainly and infallibly from the one, judge of the other: certain it is that men ordinarily judge of the opinions of men by what they see in their lives and conversations. Christ therefore, (to conclude this point) as he taught men by his doctrine, so by his Exinanition, (the humility of his life, and the multiplicity of his sufferings) that the soul of man is immortal, and that after this life there is a judgement to be expected.  
But lastly, Christ did of purpose undergo this estate of humiliation and Exinanition, that he might by his example not only teach us, as before we have said, what to think of this present world, but also the more powerfully draw us to the contempt of it: being a lesson of such consequence to us, as the saving of our souls, and eternity of either happiness, or misery: God having so provided and appointed it, that Heavens should be opened unto such only, who by abstinence, mortification, and the like, should make their way. Not that by these we can merit Heaven, (which were to void the satisfaction of Christ, the main foundation of all Christianity) but because these are the necessary consequents of a true faith, without which we cannot apply to ourselves the merits of Christ's satisfaction. Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. 
1 Joh. 2.15, 16, 17.  If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doth the will of God, abideth for ever. A heavenly doctrine indeed; but the more heavenly, the more hard of digestion to natural man.  
It cannot be denied, but Christ (take him but as a man) used so much solid reason, so many excellent arguments, some drawn from the nature of God, others from the generality of his providence, and the like; and that these reasons, these arguments (if of divine Oracles we may be allowed so to speak) were set out with that rhetoric, or vigour of expression, (which the Grecians properly call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) as could not but affect much any sober rational man, as would take them into serious consideration. Yet so it is, (as by many upon several occasions hath been well observed) the example of the Orator, is above all reasons and arguments. Seneca hath said as much for poverty and contempt of the world, as ever I think, was said by man, that was mere man, But whilst he spoke against riches, what by favours from his Prince and pupil; and what by his private negotiations, he heaped them (himself doth acknowledge it) beyond all measure. His life was not very vicious; but it was very vain and sumptuous: witness those famous tables, so highly valued, that he left after him among other household stuff. No wonder therefore if he did so little good while he lived. Epictetus, with less wit and rhetoric, did much more. As he wrote, so he lived.  
Some men have been of opinion that this Epictetus was a Christian. There be indeed in those Remains of his doctrine and speeches preserved to posterity by Arrianus, and others, some passages for the substance of the matter, so Evangelicall, that a man might suspect them to have been borrowed from the writings of the Apostles: some again so particularly appliable to Christ, as might not improbably, by those that look no further into the matter, be surmised to have been intended of him. But certain it is, that he was not a Christian; all that can be gathered from such passages, is, that Christianity is not so much repugnant to humane sense and reason, (by good literature well refined and improved) as it hath been by many conceived. In this very particular we are now upon, treating of the office, parts and duties of one that would take upon himself to be a public teacher; or, as himself styles him, God's Messenger, to reclaim mankind from their vain courses, he presseth very much the necessity of his example in the contempt of all worldly things, as of pains, so of pleasures, honour, and the like. Among other things to this purpose, he hath these words: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. For it behoveth the true Cynic (the same whom in that very Chapter he also calleth, the Messenger, the Watchman; the Preacher, or Herald; the Minister; yea and the Apostle of God) to have such measure of patience, 
Epictet. Arriani, l. 3. c. 21.  as to be accounted by most men a very stock or stone. Himself indeed (that is, his soul) to be above the stroke, or contumely of men: but as for his body to yield that readily to whomsoever, to be used at his pleasure. And again in another Chapter of the same Book, For these things God sends me hither and thither. He makes me a spectacle unto men of poverty, of contempt; of craziness of body; here banished; there a prisoner: not out of any hatred to me; (God forbidden) how should he hate the best of his servants? nor out of neglect, (for even the least things are cared for by him) but to exercise me, and to use me as his witness unto others.  
Fit then and expedient (in point of humane reason, at least) it was, that he that came to teach us the way to Heaven by contempt of the world, should himself lead us the way by his example. This end of Christ his Exinanition, and this his example is pressed in divers places of Scripture. Let this mind be in you, (saith S. Paul to the Philippians, 
Phil. 2.5, 6, etc.  as we saw before) which was also in Christ Jesus; Who being in the form of God, etc. And Saint Peter, 
1 Pet. 2.21.  to the same purpose, For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps. To this head also may be referred such places, where Christ is set out unto us, as if for his own sake and interest he had undergone what he did, and submitted himself to this kind of Exinanition. So Heb. 12.2. Looking upon Jesus the Author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. And in the same Epistle, Ch. 5.7, 8. Who in the days of his flesh, etc. Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered: And being made perfect, he became the Author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him. Though he were a Son, that is, as I take it, that although Christ was in an extraordinary manner the Son of God, born without any stain of original sin, etc. yet having undertaken such a charge and such an office as he had, it was convenient he should under go 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, troubles and adversities in this life, not only that by divers degrees of sufferings in the course of his life he might the better be prepared (as some here do paraphrase) for his great and last suffering, the principal end of his Incarnation; nor as bearing that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or likeness of sinful flesh, (Rom. 8.3.) but also by his example the more effectually to teach and satisfy us, that even they that are dearest unto God among the sons of men, must by trials and crosses in this world, be fitted for God & another world.  
And indeed as the example (apprehended with a right and lively faith) was incomparable, so did there ensue effects answerable; that is, admirable beyond all example. Of Alexander the Great (not to instance in others) by Historians that have written his life, or of him, it is noted that by his example especially, he did achieve most of his greatest exploits in the Conquest of the world. When ever he was much put to it, as either hardly beset (himself and his Army, as he was often) with inextricable difficulties; or would put his soldiers upon some desperate action, beyond the compass of ordinary humane strength and courage; his example was his ordinary refuge, & constant stratagem, which seldom or never failed him. Among other things which he did in this kind, this seems to me as memorable as any. His Army which was wont to be light & expedit, laden with the spoils of many rich Countries, marched but heavily. Neither could their heads be free, when their hands were so full. Being thus, what with care, what with loadage much encumbered, Alexander apprehending the consequence of this alteration, and knowing well enough that with words (for sooner would they have parted with their lives, then with that for which they had all hazarded; and many of them lost their lives, say the Historians) he should do but little good, he commanded all his own Carriages, not sparing any; and all theirs, to be brought into one place. Then he commanded fire to be set, not to theirs, but to his: but the fire spreading, soon consumed all that was there, as well of theirs, as his own. And how could they mourn or murmur for their mites, (in comparison) that saw their King so freely to devote his own rich treasures?  
It were strange that Alexander his example should have more influence upon his soldiers, than the example of Christ upon those that are called by his name; the disproportion both of the persons, and of the obligations on both sides being considered. Christ indeed was not himself always present in person; and when present in the days of his flesh, (as the Apostle speaketh) yet not visible to bodily eyes, in his Majesty, as Alexander was. But where the eyes of faith have been opened, effects of Christ's example have ensued, beyond all comparison. In the time of the Primitive Church, when the memory of Christ his conversation upon earth, and of his miracles, was yet fresh, Christians were generally known by nothing more than for their contempt of the world, and of death particularly. It was objected unto them by Heathens who were not acquainted with the mysteries of their faith, as a frenzy, or desperate obstinacy. Antoninus the Roman Emperor, in his Meditations; and Epictetus (the same of whom we have spoken before) in his Discourses set out by Arrianus, take notice of it with some admiration. Tertullian in his Apologetic, & in his Treatise De spectaculis, treats of it largely. Sulpitius Severus speaking of those times, saith that tunc Martyria, etc. suffering of martyrdom was then sought after with as much earnestness, as Bishoprics were (he lived about 400. years after Christ) in his days. That he spoke it not hyperbolically, may appear (were there no other proofs) by those many laws and constitutions of the Church against wilful martyrdom, or such as offered themselves to death for their faith, which by men, women, and even children, of all ranks and qualities, was frequently done in those times. And by this contempt of death and of the world, as much and more than by miracles or any thing else, did Christians conquer the world, and in despite of all opposition, (as great as can be imagined) subdued it to the Christian faith. Such was the faith of those times.  
If the same effects of Christ his example have not appeared in all ages, it is not because the example itself hath less efficacy than it had then, but because Christ is not apprehended with the same faith, as he was then. Christ himself did foretell of the little faith of the latter times. It is not all, to be called a Christian. The Apostle denied them (we know) to be true Jews, all, which were Jews outwardly; or to be the children of Abraham, all, that were of the seed of Abraham; but had not his faith.  
What the violence of some present sufferings, (be they sufferings of the body, or sufferings of the mind) or the violent apprehension of future, in either kind, may do for a while; how far it may prevail upon some, sound and solid otherwise; especially if the temper of a naturally soft or passionate disposition doth concur, I shall not here inquire. Though grace and nature go not always by the same principles, yet there may be, where true grace is, so much of nature remaining sometimes, as to verify that of Aristotle's, (that incomparable Naturalist) that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. those that are in any passion, can not judge of the truth. But if any professed Christian in his more sober, retired, and free thoughts can settle himself to such an opinion as either to wonder at the miseries and calamities of others, (good and godly men) or to bemoan himself in the same case as miserable indeed and hardly dealt with; that man by such an opinion doth renounce the faith he professeth, and what show soever he make to the world, yet cannot but be conscious to himself of his own infidelity.  
All Christians are not Paul's, I grant; though his zeal to God, and his charity to men, 
Act. 26.29  did once prompt him to such a wish. God forbidden, heaven should be opened to none but such. As of glory, so of faith, of zeal, though true and sincere, and perfect in its kind, there may be many degrees. We are allowed, if we may be free, rather to be free; if rich and honourable in the world, by good and lawful means, rather to be so, then poor and contemptible. That common soldier is not commended, who to show his valour, runs into dangers, wilfully; or sets upon the enemy without a command. In this our Christian warfare some are Captains and Generals, that must lead and command: the greatest part, are common soldiers, who if they readily follow, & execute, when called, it is as much as needs. S. Paul himself could say, I know how to be abased; and I know how to abound. 
Phil. 4.12.  If there be a firm resolution, and answerable due preparation, if God shall call us to it, to say with S. Paul, I account all things but dung, etc. such a resolution, and such a preparation may in the eyes of God (who as he only can see, so most observes the heart) stand for the deed itself.  
And so may those general expressions, as, Whosoever doth not bear his cross, etc. and, Whosoever will live godlily, etc. and that through many tribulations, etc. and the like, be qualified and understood: of the resolution & preparation, (if true and real) as well as of the deed and event itself. And certainly some religious men, who actually and personally never tasted, either not at all, (if such may be found) or very little, of the troubles and miseries of this life, by this kind of preparation, as also by their fellow-feeling (as in hearty compassion, so in readiness to assist and relieve to their power) in the sufferings of others, might be as great sufferers before God, as some others, who suffer much more, but happily not so patiently, nor with so much reflection upon others, as they should. But where neither actual patiented enduring, nor this hearty preparation is found, there we may certainly from this doctrine of Christ his Exinanition conclude, that there is no real communion with Christ, nor true sense of Christianity.   
FINIS.