Emmanuel, or, God-man a treatise wherein the doctrine of the first Nicene and Chalcedon councels, concerning the two natures in Christ, is asserted against the lately vented Socinian doctrine / by John Tombes ...

SECT. 25. (Book 25)

Some Objections against the proof from Philip. 2. 5, 6, 7, 8. are answer∣ed.

NEvertheless I meet with some Argu∣ments to the contrary, which I think fit to set down in the Authours words.

1. He setteth before them Christs Exam∣ple exhorting to humility, and therefore the act of Christ which he doth exemplify must be manifest: But to whom was, or could that incarnation, which Christians commonly talk of, be manifest, when they themselves say it passeth the understanding of Angels to comprehend it?

To which I answer: It was manifest by the Angels and others Revelation, and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that it was so was comprehensible, as is proved before, although the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or manner how it was be incomprehensible, we are to imitate God in many of his works, the manner of which is incomprehensible by us, as being performed immediately, or by invi∣sible Agents, in secret manner; As Magi∣strates

are to imitate God in his righteous judgement, though it be unsearchable in re∣spect of the manner; Parents are to imitate God in his providence for his Creatures, though the manner of doing it be indiscerni∣ble, and therefore the incomprehensibleness of the incarnation hinders not, but that it being revealed may be propounded as an imi∣table pattern: Yet in this of our Apostle it is to be observed that he propounds not only Christs incarnation, but also his humiliation in becoming obedient unto death, as an exam∣ple to be imitated by the Philippians.

2. The Apostle speaketh of our Lord as a man, in that he giveth him the Titles of Christ Jesus, both which agree to him onely as a man: For he is called Jesus as he was a child conceived of the Holy Spirit in the Virgins womb, and brought forth by her, Luke 1. 27, 30, 31, 35. and Christ signi∣fieth the anointed, John 1. 41. and accord∣ingly Jesus is expressly called the Christ of God, Luke 9. 20. But he was anointed (as the Adversaries themselves will confesse) as a man, and not as God; See Acts 10. 38.

Whereto I answer, The Title Philip. 2. 5. is given to him, who being in the form of

God, took on him the form of a Servant, be∣ing made in the likeness of men, and there∣fore as God-man: And though the name Jesus was given to him upon his conception, or birth, yet it follows not, therefore only as a man: Yea the Exposition of the Appel∣lation as the same with Immanuel, Mat. 1. 23. the Son of God, Luke 1. 35. doth in∣timate the Title given to him as God, ra∣ther than only as man: It is true, his anoint∣ing was as man, and that it may be ga∣thered from Acts 10. 38. yet he who was anointed had a Divine Nature, and under both these is considered, Philip. 2. 5. where he is propounded for an example, to wit, in that being in the form of God, he emptied himself, being made in the likeness of men: He who is propounded as an example, was a Saviour, and anointed, but yet not to be imitated in his saving and anoi••ting, but in his obedience to his Father and condescension to us, by laying aside his Glory and Maj••sty, and becoming as a Servant to his Father for us, in which God was with him, and he also God with us, consubstantial with his Father afore, with us at his Incarnation.

3. Had the Apostle here spoken of an as∣sumption of the Humane Nature, he would

not have said, that Christ became in the likeness of men, and was found in fashion as a man: For if men (as the Adversaries must hold, when they alledge this place to prove that Christ assumed a Humane Na••ure, and became man) be here considered ac∣cording to their Essence and Nature, this would imply that Christ had not the Essence and Nature, but only the likeness and fa∣shion of a man, and so was not a true and real man: By men therefore are here meant vulgar and ordinary men; for so this word is elsewhere taken in the Scriptures, as Psal. 82. 6. I have said, ye are Gods; and all of you are Children of the most High: But ye shall dye like men, and fall like one of the Princes: and Judges 16. 7. Then shall I be weak, and be as one of men (So the Hebrew Ekadh Haadam signifieth;) See also ver. 11. of the same chapter.

I answer hereto, that likeness agrees to substance or essence, and not only to qua∣lity or condition, and that in neither of the places alledged men is taken for men as ab∣ject, is shewed before: If this objection were of force it would prove Christ was made not a really weak man, but in the likeness or fashion of weak men, if [men]

be considered not as men, but as weak and abject men, Philip. 2. 7, 8. which it con∣cern'd the Objector to have heeded as well as the Adversaries: Notwithstanding then this Objection men and man, Phil. 2. 7, 8. may and must be understood of humane Es∣sence and Nature, not restrainedly as ap∣plied only to men of a vulgar, ordinary, low or weak condition, and Christ hence prov∣ed to be Incarnate, and to have both Na∣tures, Divine and Humane.

Other Arguments against the understand∣ing by the form of God the condition or state of Empire, which Christ had with his Fa∣ther before his Incarnation are in the first part of the disputation of Josue Placeus of Saumur concerning the Arguments by which it is e∣vinced Christ to have been before his concep∣tion, disp. 5th. out of Philip. 2. 6. §. 18. in these words, yet in very deed the form of God seems not to us to be placed in com∣manding: For we dare not affirm that God was not in that infinite time, in which he liv∣ed blessed before any creature was made, in the form of God; But neither also dare we deny that he shall be in the form of God af∣ter the last day, in which time perhaps there will be no need, that he command the crea∣tures:

He is no less in the form of God when he ceaseth from commanding, then when he commands as a King sitting on his Throne attended by his Guard, Crowned with Ma∣jesty and Glory, is in the form of a King, even when he commands nothing.

To which I answer, if [the form of God] noted only the essence of God, not the state and appearance, it might as well be said of Christ, when he did not rule as well as when he did, when he shall not as well as when he shall, that he was in the form of God: But sith the term emptying himself notes a diminution in something of what he was, and this is expressed ••o be the form of God, in which he lessened or emptied him∣self, and that was by taking the form of a Servant, and that as a Servant to his Father, to whom he was obedient, it seems plainly to be intimated, that his being in the form of God, or as God, was his commanding as God with his Father: Now as the form of a Servant notes not the essence of a man, but the state and appearance of a Servant, though it presuppose the being of a man, he taking the form of a Servant being made in the like∣ness of men: so the form of God also is to be conceived to note not the essence of God, but

the state and appearance of being God as God, or equal to God in his Rule, though it presuppose the essence of God which he had; And he might empty himself of the form of God in this sense, it being only a relative condition supervenient to his essence from the respect to subjects to be ruled, which might be taken or laid aside without alteration in essence: As the assumption of an humane body, contract with his Father, Heb. 10. 9. are ascribed to the second Person in the God-head peculiarly without subtraction from, or addition to his essence as God: So we say, that Christ is Mediatour accord∣ing to both Natures, so as to interceed with his Father according to his Divine Nature, and this had a beginning and shall have an end, and yet his Divine Essence invariable. As for the similitude of a King as it is used, it is not apposite to the point: The King on his Throne that is guarded hath some to com∣mand; Yet if he do not Rule, but only be in the Gesture, and wear the Habit, and hold the Ensigns of a Ruler, may be said to be in the Habit, not in the Form of a King; as he that hath the Place and Cloaths of a Ser∣vant doth not take the Form of a Servant, without taking the Work of a Servant,

although he be in the Habit of à Servant.

It is added §. 19. It is indeed Divine to command, not to command simply, but ef∣fectually to rule all things: For Masters, and Lords, and Magistrates command also: Yea to command seems not to belong to God as God, but as he is Lord: There is some difference between God and Lord; For from all Eternity God was actually God, but he seems not to have been actually Lord, but when he had Servants or Subjects, to wit Creatures: For it is known that a Lord and a Servant are relatives, whose nature is that they exist together in time; But al∣though it be a Divine thing to command, yet not whatsoever is Divine is the Form of God. §. 20. For Form is conceived as some permanent thing to command as a transe••nt action: Form as something absolute inherent in the thing informed, to command as an action passing from the Commander to another: Form as that by which the thing is that which it is; Inward indeed as that by which the th••ng is such essentially, but out∣ward as that by which the thing is what out∣wardly appears: But to command neither is that by which God is God, neither as that by which he is such as he appears to bé.

Lastly, a form is conceived as that which is before action, for the inward produceth a∣ction, the outward the manner of the action: For each thing acts according to its form, and the actions of a King are wont to be agree∣able to the form of a King, of a Servant to the form of a Servant, of a Merchant to the form of a Merchant, and so in others: To command therefore is an action agreeing to the form of God, not the form of God it self: Otherwise Christ had in like sort taken and deposed the form of God; taken it as oft as he commanded either Diseases or Devils, or the Sea, deposed it as often as he ceased from commanding: To end, Is it not manifest, that the Apostles words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 existing or when he was in the form of God, signifies a state or condition, not action; a state I say in which he then was when he emtied himself, and which by emtying himself either he de∣posed or hid, the form of a Servant being ta∣ken?

To which I answer, If the word [Form] note a state or condition, as it is granted, and the term [form of a Servant] also im∣plies; and it be a Divine thing to command or rule all things, then by these grants it may well be expounded [he was in the

form of God] that is, in the state or condi∣tion of an Emperour, or co-ruler with his Father; which being a relative state, he might empty himself of, as he may of the state of Mediatour (which yet belongs to his Divine Nature) as being a distinct Person from the Father, although consubstantial or co-essential; And this state and condition he actually had as soon as any creature was made, the Divine Essence he had afore a∣ny creature was, but the form of God, when there was; and it might be termed the form by which he appeared to be God, by whom and for whom all things visible and in∣visible were created, Col. 1. 16. though not a permanent or absolute form, as the form of a Servant is so termed though not a per∣manent, or absolute state, or the form of a King or Merchant, as he speaks: Which being rightly understood answers the four things, by which §. 40. he takes it that he hath proved the form of God to be the Divine Essence.

For, 1. Saith he, In what form of God could he be Lord afore he was made a man, but in the very Nature and Divine Essence?

To which I answer, In none, yet the

form notes not the Essence of God but the State or Condition of a Lord or Commander, as the form of a Servant notes not the Essence or Nature of a Man, but the state or condi∣tion of a Servant, although he were so in no other Nature, than that of a Man.

2. Saith he, In the Nature of God it self sith he is most simple, the external form cannot be separated from the internal.

Answ. This I suppose is not true, he had the internal Form or Essence of God afore he was Creatour, and shall have it when he shall cease to be actual Judge of all.

3. Saith he, The truth of this form proves it: For that form of God in which Christ was, was either the true form of God, or the false: If the false, Christ was a false God, which even to pronounce my mind abhors: If true, it was not severed from the internal, and essential Form of God: For what the ex∣ternal form of any thing as of Gold or Silver without the inward, that is commonly called false.

To which I answer; It was the true form of God, and yet might be severed, as the form of a Mediatour or actual Judge of all: Nor is his proof right; For though that which hath the outward form without the inward be

alse, yet that which hath the inward with∣out the outward may be true, as Gold and Silver covered with dirt or drosse, as it is in Mines afore it is refinened, is true Gold or Silver, though the outward form be want∣ing.

4. Saith he, The equality of Christ with God proves it: For the external form of God separated from the internal, if any can be, makes him not equal to God, as neither the outward and appearing form of a King alone, makes one equal to a King.

Answ. That being in the form of God, Christ was equal to God, or as God, may be gathered from the Text, Philip. 2. 6. But not, that the form of God makes him e∣qual to God, which therefore may be though the form of God be laid afide for a time. Plaeceus himself in the same place, Sect. 24. saith, when therefore Christ was in the form of God, equal to God, ••e emptied himself by taking the form not of an inferiour simply, but of a Servant; So as that whe∣ther you look on his Humane Nature, or his condition, or manner of living, or his Office, or Obedience, he plainly se••med not equal to God; not the Son of God, but the Ser∣vant,

no otherwise than if as heretofore, when there were two Emperours at the same time, one the Garment of a Servant being taken, and Commands being reco••ved from the other, should apply all his endeavour in executing th••m, it might be al••owable to say, that he when he was in the form of an Emperour emptied himself, the form of a Servant being taken; which is the same with the sense I give: More to the same purpose he wri••es in his second Book, Disp. 9. Sect. 15, 16. where he makes his obedience men∣tioned Philip. 2. 8. to have been in his Di∣vine Nature voluntary and undue, and his superexaltation answerable.

By this explication the form of God, Phil. 2. 6, 7. and Christs exi••an••tion, and the glo∣ry he had with his Father before the world was, John 17. 4, 5. may be understood without that imaginary pre-existence of Christs Soul united with the Word and re∣splendent with celestial Glory and Beauty a∣mong the Angels in Heaven, fancied by Dr. Henry Moor in his Mystery of God∣liness, first Book, chap. 8. p. 23. which would infer that Christ was not made an en∣tire man at his Incarnation, but only imbo∣d••ed or cloathed with flesh, which is incon∣sistent

with that which is said in the same place, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 emptied himself, being made in the likeness of men, so that he was the se∣cond Adam, or second Man, or Son of man, the man Christ Jesus. And how those expressions of Christs coming down from Heaven, John 3. 13, 31. John 6. 38. where he was before, ver. 62. coming forth from the Father, and coming into the world, John 16. 28. may be understood without a bo••ily descen•• afore his publick Preaching, or pre-existence and descent of the soul of the Messiah from Heaven into an earthly bo∣dy is shewed before Sect. 14.

FINIS.