Sermon 1: Concerning the Divinity of Our Blessed Savior

*JOHN I. 14.* The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

These words contain in them three great points concerning our B. Savior, the Author and Founder of our faith and religion.

First, his incarnation, the Word was made, or became, flesh.

Secondly, his life and conversation here among us, and dwelt among us, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], he pitched his tabernacle among us; he lived here below in this world and for a time made his residence and abode with us.

Thirdly, that in this state of his humiliation he gave great and clear evidence of his divinity; while he appeared as a man and liv'd among us, there were great and glorious testimonies given of him that he was the Son of God: and that in so peculiar a manner as no creature can be said to be: And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, &c.

I shall begin with the first of these, his incarnation; as most proper for this solemn time, which has for many ages been set apart for the commemoration of the nativity and incarnation of our B. Savior: The Word was made flesh, that is, he who is personally called the Word, and whom the Evangelist Saint John had so fully described in the beginning of this Gospel, he became flesh, that is, assumed our nature and became Man; for so the word flesh is frequently used in Scripture for Man or human nature: O you that hearest prayer, to you shall all flesh come, that is, to you shall all men address their supplications: again, The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, that is, all men shall behold and acknowledge it; and then it follows, all flesh is grass, speaking of the frailty and mortality of man: And so likewise in the New Testament, our B. Savior foretelling the misery that was coming upon the Jewish nation, says, Except those days should be shortned no flesh should be saved, that is, no man should escape and survive that great calamity and destruction which was coming upon them: By the works of the Law, says the Apostle, shall no flesh, that is, no man be justified.

So that by the Word's being made or becoming flesh the Evangelist did not intend that he assumed only a human body without a soul, and was united only to a human body, which was the heresy of Apollinaris and his followers, but that he became Man, that is, assumed the whole human nature, body and soul. And it is likewise very probable that the Evangelist did purposely choose the word flesh, which signifies the frail and mortal part of Man, to denote to us that the Son of God did assume our nature with all its infirmities, and became subject to the common frailty and mortality of human nature.

The words thus explain'd contain that great mystery of godliness, as the Apostle calls it, or of the Christian religion, namely the incarnation of the Son of God, which Saint Paul expresseth by the appearance or manifestation of God in the flesh, And without controversie great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifested in the flesh, that is, he appeared in human nature, he became man; or, as Saint John expresseth it in the text, The Word was made flesh.

But for the more clear and full explication of these words, we will consider these two things.

First, the Person that is here spoken of, and who is said to be incarnate, or to be made flesh, namely the Word.

Secondly, the mystery itself, or the nature of this incarnation, so far as the Scripture has revealed and declared it to us.

1. We will consider the Person that is here spoken of, and who is said to be incarnate or to be made flesh, and who is so frequently in this chapter called by the name or title of the Word; namely the eternal and only begotten Son of God; for so we find him described in the text, The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, &c. that is, such as became so great and glorious a Person as deserves the title of the only begotten Son of God.

For the explaining of this name or title of the Word given by Saint John to our B. Savior, we will consider these two things.

First, the reason of this name or title of the Word, and what probably might be the occasion why this Evangelist insists so much upon it, and makes so frequent mention of it.

Secondly, the description itself, which is given of him under this name or title of the Word by this Evangelist, in his entrance into his history of the Gospel.

1. We will enquire into the reason of this name or title of the Word, which is here given to our B. Savior by this Evangelist: And what might probably be the occasion why he insists so much upon it and makes so frequent mention of it. I shall consider these two things distinctly and severally.

First, the reason of this name or title of the Word, here given by the Evangelist to our B. Savior. And he seems to have done it in compliance with the common way of speaking among the Jews, who frequently call the Messias by the name of the Word of the Lord; of which I might give many instances: But there is one very remarkable, in the Targum of Jonathan, which renders those words of the Psalmist, which the Jews acknowledge to be spoken of the Messias, namely The Lord said to my Lord, sit you on my right hand, &c. I say it renders them thus, The Lord said to his Word, sit you on my right hand, &c. And so likewise Philo the Jew calls him by whom God made the world, the Word of God, and the Son of God. And Plato probably had the same notion from the Jews, which made Amelius the Platonist, when he read the beginning of Saint John's Gospel, to say, this Barbarian agrees with Plato, ranking the Word in the order of principles; meaning that he made the Word the principle or efficient cause of the world, as Plato also has done.

And this title of the Word was so famously known to be given to the Messias, that even the enemies of Christianity took notice of it. Julian the Apostate calls Christ by this name: and Mahomet in his Alchoran gives this name of the Word to Jesus the Son of Mary. But Saint John had probably no reference to Plato any otherwise than as the Gnosticks, against whom he wrote, made use of several of Plato's words and notions. So that in all probability Saint John gives our B. Savior this title with regard to the Jews more especially, who anciently called the Messias by this name.

Secondly, we will in the next place consider, what might probably be the occasion why this Evangelist makes so frequent mention of this title of the Word, and insists so much upon it. And it seems to be this: no, I think that hardly any doubt can be made of it, since the most ancient of the Fathers, who lived nearest the time of Saint John, do confirm it to us.

Saint John, who survived all the Apostles, lived to see those heresies which sprang up in the beginnings of Christianity, during the lives of the Apostles grown up to a great height, to the great prejudice and disturbance of the Christian Religion: I mean the heresies of Ebion and Cerinthus, and the several sects of the Gnosticks which began from Simon Magus, and were continued and carried on by Valentinus and Basilides, Carpocrates and Menander. Some of which expressly denied the divinity of our Savior, asserting him to have been a mere man, and to have had no manner of existence before he was born of the B. Virgin, as Eusebius and Epiphanius tells us particularly concerning Ebion: which those who hold the same opinion now in our days may do well to consider from where it had its original.

Others of them, I still mean the Gnosticks, had corrupted the simplicity of the Christian doctrine by mingling with it the fancies and conceits of the Jewish Cabbalists, and of the schools of Pythagoras and Plato, and of the Chaldaean philosophy more ancient than either; as may be seen in Eusebius de Preparat. Evan.; and by jumbling all these together they had framed a confused genealogy of deities, which they called by several glorious names, and all of them by the general name of Aeons or Ages: among which they reckoned [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] & [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] & [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] & [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], that is, the Life, and the Word, and the only begotten, and the Fulness, and many other divine powers and emanations which they fancied to be successively derived from one another.

And they also distinguished between the Maker of the World whom they called the God of the Old Testament, and the God of the New: and between Jesus and Christ: Jesus according to the doctrine of Cerinthus, as Irenaeus tells us, being the man that was born of the Virgin, and Christ or the Messias being that divine power or Spirit which afterwards descended into Jesus and dwelt in him.

If it were possible, yet it would be to no purpose, to go about to reconcile these wild conceits with one another; and to find out for what reason they were invented, unless it were to amuse the people with these high swelling words of vanity and a pretence of knowledge falsely so called, as the Apostle speaks in allusion to the name of Gnosticks, that is to say, the men of knowledge, which they proudly assumed to themselves, as if the knowledge of mysteries of a more sublime nature did peculiarly belong to them.

In opposition to all these vain and groundless conceits, Saint John in the beginning of his Gospel chooses to speak of our B. Savior, the history of whose life and death he was going to write, by the name or title of the Word, a term very famous among those sects: and shews that this Word of God, which was also the title the Jews anciently gave to the Messias, did exist before he assumed a human nature, and even from all eternity: and that to this eternal Word did truly belong all those titles which they kept such a canting stir about, and which they did with so much senseless nicety and subtilty distinguish from one another, as if they had been so many several emanations from the Deity. And he shews that this Word of God, was really and truly the Life, and the Light, and the Fulness, and the only begotten of the Father; v. 5. In him was the Life, and the Life was the Light of men; and v. 6. And the Light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not: and v. 7, 8, 9. where the Evangelist speaking of John the Baptist says of him, that he came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light; and that he was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light: and that Light was the true Light which coming into the World enlightens every man: and v. 14. And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth: and v. 16. And of his fulness we all receive, &c. You see here is a perpetual allusion to the glorious titles which they gave to their Aeons as if they had been so many several deities.

In short, the Evangelist shews that all this fanciful genealogy of divine emanations, with which the Gnosticks made so great a noise, was mere conceit and imagination; and that all these glorious titles did really meet in the Messias who is the Word, and who before his Incarnation was from all eternity with God, partaker of his divine nature and glory.

I have declared this the more fully and particularly, because the knowledge of it seems to me to be the only true key to the interpretation of this discourse of Saint John concerning our Savior under the name and title of the Word. And surely it is a quite wrong way for any man to go about by the mere strength and subtilty of his reason and wit, though never so great, to interpret an ancient book, without understanding and considering the historical occasion of it, which is the only thing that can give true light to it.

And this was the great and fatal mistake of Socinus, to go to interpret Scripture merely by criticising upon words, and searching into all the senses that they are possibly capable of, till he can find one, though never so forc'd and foreign, that will save harmless the opinion, which he was before-hand resolved to maintain even against the most natural and obvious sense of the text which he undertakes to interpret: just as if a man should interpret ancient statutes and records by mere critical skill in words without regard to the true occasion upon which they were made, and without any manner of knowledge and insight into the history of the age in which they were written.

I should now proceed to the second thing which I proposed to consider, namely,

2. The description here given of the Word by this Evangelist in his entrance into his history of the Gospel. In the beginning, says he, was the Word, 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 which passage of the Evangelist four things are said of the Word which will require a more particular explication.

First, that he was in the beginning.

Secondly, that he was in the beginning with God.

Thirdly, that he was God.

Fourthly, that all were made by him.

1st, that he was in the beginning, [in non-Latin alphabet], which is the same with [in non-Latin alphabet] from the beginning, where speaking of Christ by the name of eternal life, and of the Word of life, That, says he, which was from the beginning. Nonnus, the ancient paraphrast of Saint John's Gospel, by way of explication of what is meant by his being in the beginning, adds that he was [in non-Latin alphabet] without time, that is, before all time; and if so, then he was from all eternity. In the beginning was the Word, that is, when things began to be made he was; not then began to be, but then already was, and did exist before any thing was made; and consequently is without beginning, for that which was never made could have no beginning of its being. And so the Jews used to describe eternity, before the world was, and before the foundation of the world, as also in several places of the New Testament. And so likewise Solomon describes the eternity of Wisdom, The Lord, says he, possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old: I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning or ever the earth was: when he prepared the heavens I was there; then I was with him as one brought up with him, rejoicing always before him. And so Justin Martyr explains this very expression of Saint John, that he was, or had a being before all ages. So likewise Athenagoras, a most ancient Christian writer, God, says he, who is an invisible Mind, had from the beginning the Word in himself.

2ly. That in the beginning the Word was with God. And so Solomon, when he would express the eternity of Wisdom, says it was with God. And so likewise the Son of Sirach speaking of Wisdom says it was [in non-Latin alphabet] with God. And so the ancient Jews often called the Word of God, the Word which is before the Lord, that is, with him, or in his presence. In like manner the Evangelist says here that the Word was with God, that is, it was always together with him, partaking of his happiness and glory. To which our Savior refers in his prayer, Glorify me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world was. And this being with God the Evangelist opposeth to his appearing and being manifested to the world (v. 10): He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not, that is, he who from all eternity was with God, appeared in the world, and when he did so, though he had made the world yet the world would not own him. And this opposition between his being with God and his being manifested in the world, the same Saint John mentions elsewhere, I shew to you that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested to us.

3ly. That he was God. And so Justin Martyr says of him, that he was God before the world, that is, from all eternity. But then the Evangelist adds by way of explication, the same was in the beginning with God, that is, though the Word was truly and really God, yet he was not God the Father, who is the fountain of the Deity, but an emanation from him, the only begotten Son of God, from all eternity with him; to denote to us that which is commonly called by divines, and for any thing I could ever see properly enough, the distinction of persons in the Deity; at least we know not a fitter word whereby to express that great mystery.

4thly, That all things were made by him. This seems to refer to the description which Moses makes of the Creation, where God is represented creating things by his Word, God said, Let there be light, and there was light: And so likewise the Psalmist, By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth: And so Saint Peter also expresseth the Creation of the World, By the Word of the Lord the heavens were of old, and the Earth made out of Water: And in the ancient books of the Chaldeans and the verses ascribed to Orpheus, the Maker of the World is called the Word, and the Divine Word: And so Tertullian tells the Pagans, that by their philosophers the Maker of the World was called [in non-Latin alphabet] the Word, or Reason: And Philo the Jew following Plato, who himself most probably had it from the Jews, says, that the World was created by the Word; whom he calls the Name of God, and the Image of God, and the Son of God; two of which glorious titles are ascribed to him together with that of Maker of the World, by the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews; In these last days, says he, God has spoken to us by his Son, by whom also he made the worlds: Who is the brightness of his glory, and the express Image of his person: And to the same purpose Saint Paul, speaking of Christ, calls him the Image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature, that is, born before any thing was created, as does evidently follow from the reason given in the next words why he called him the first-born of every creature, for by him were all things created that are in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible; all things were created by him and for him, and he is before all things, and by him all things subsist. From where it is plain that by his being the first-born of every creature thus much at least is to be understood, that he was before all creatures, and therefore he himself cannot be a creature, unless he could be before himself. No, the Apostle says it expressly in this very text in which he is called the first-born of every creature, or of the whole creation, that he is before all things, that is, he had a being before there was any created being, he was before all creatures both in duration and in dignity; for so must he of necessity be, if all things were made by him; for as the Maker is always before the thing which is made, so is he also better and of greater dignity.

And yet I must acknowledge that there seems to be no small difficulty in the interpretation I have given of this expression in which Christ is said by the Apostle to be the first-born of every creature, or of the whole creation; because in strictness of speech the first-born is of the same nature with those in respect of whom he is said to be the first-born: And if so, then he must be a creature as well as those in respect of whom he is said to be the first-born. This is the objection in its full strength, and I do own it to have a very plausible appearance: And yet I hope before I have done to satisfy any one that will consider things impartially and without prejudice, and will duly attend to the scope of the Apostle's reasoning in this text and compare it with other parallel places of the New Testament, that it neither is, nor can be the Apostle's meaning in affirming Christ to be the first-born of every creature to insinuate that the Son of God is a creature.

For how can this possibly agree with that which follows and is given as the reason why Christ is said to be the first-born of every creature? Namely, because all things were made by him: the Apostle's words are these, the first-born of every creature, or of the whole creation, for by him all things were created: But now, according to the Socinian interpretation, this would be a reason just the contrary way: For if all things were created by him, then he himself is not a creature.

So that the Apostle's meaning in this expression must either be that the Son of God our B. Savior was before all creatures, as it is said presently after that he is before all things; and then the reason which is added will be very proper and pertinent, he is before all things because all things were created by him: In which sense it is very probable that the Son of God elsewhere calls himself the beginning of the Creation of God, meaning by it, as the philosophers most frequently use the word [in non-Latin alphabet], the Principle or Efficient Cause of the Creation: And so we find the same word, which our translation renders the beginning, used together with the word first-born, as if they were of the same importance; the beginning and first-born from the dead, that is, the Principle and Efficient Cause of the Resurrection of the dead.

Or else, which seems to me to be the most probable, and indeed the true meaning of the expression, by this title of the first-born of every creature the Apostle means that he was Lord and Heir of the Creation: For the first-born is natural heir, and Justinian tells us that heir did anciently signify lord: And therefore the Scripture uses these terms promiscuously, and as if they were equivalent; for whereas Saint Peter says of Jesus Christ that he is Lord of all, Saint Paul calls him Heir of all things: And then the reason given by the Apostle why he calls him the first-born of every creature will be very fit and proper, because all things were created by him: For well may he be said to be Lord and Heir of the Creation who made all things that were made, and without whom was not any thing made that was made.

And this will yet appear much more evident, if we consider that the Apostle to the Hebrews, who by several of the Ancients was thought to be Saint Paul, where he gives to Christ some of the very same titles which Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians had done, calling him the image of God, and the maker of the world, does instead of the title of the first-born of every creature call him the heir of all things; and then adds as the reason of this title, that by him God made the worlds, God, says he, has in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he has constituted heir of all things: Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the Word of his power, &c. Which is exactly parallel with that passage of Saint Paul to the Colossians, where Christ is called the image of the invisible God, and where it is likewise said of him that he made all things, and that by him all things do subsist, which the Apostle to the Hebrews in different words, but to the very same sense, expresseth by his upholding all things by the Word of his power, that is, by the same powerful Word by which all things at first were made: But then instead of calling him the first-born of every creature, because all things were made by him, he calls him the heir of all things, by whom God also made the worlds.

And indeed that expression of the first-born of every creature cannot admit of any other sense which will agree so well with the reason that follows as the sense which I have mentioned, namely, that he is therefore heir and Lord of the whole creation, because all creatures were made by him; which exactly answers those words of the Apostle to the Hebrews, whom he has constituted heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.

And now I appeal to any sober and considerate man, whether the interpretation which I have given of that expression of the first-born of every creature be not much more agreeable both to the tenor of the Scripture, and to the plain scope and design of the Apostle's argument and reasoning in that text.

I have insisted the longer upon this, because it is the great text upon which the Arians lay the main strength and stress of their opinion that the Son of God is a creature, because he is said by the Apostle to be the first-born of every creature; by which expression if no more be meant than that he is heir and Lord of the whole creation, which I have showed to be very agreeable both to the use of the word first-born among the Hebrews, and likewise to the description given of Christ in that parallel text which I cited out of the Epistle to the Hebrews, then this expression of the first-born of every creature is nothing at all to the purpose either of the Arians or the Socinians, to prove the Son of God to be a creature: Besides, that the interpretation which I have given of it makes the Apostle's sense much more current and easy; for then the text will run thus, who is the image of the invisible God, heir and Lord of the whole creation, for by him all things were made.

So that in these four expressions of the Evangelist which I have explained there are these four things distinctly affirmed of the Word.

First, That he was in the beginning, that is, that he already was and did exist when things began to be created: He was before any thing was made, and consequently is without any beginning of time; for that which was never made could have no beginning of its being.

Secondly, That in that state of his existence before the creation of the world he was partaker of the divine glory and happiness: And this I have showed to be the meaning of that expression, and the Word was with God: For thus our blessed Savior does explain his being with God before the world was, And now, O Father, glorify me with your own self, with the glory which I had with you before the world was.

Thirdly, That he was God; And the Word was God. Not God the Father, who is the principle and fountain of the Deity: To prevent that mistake, after he had said that the Word was God, he immediately adds in the next verse, the same was in the beginning with God: He was God by participation of the divine nature and happiness together with the Father, and by way of derivation from him as the light is from the Sun: Which is the common illustration which the ancient Fathers of the Christian Church give us of this mystery, and is perhaps the best and fittest that can be given of it. For among finite beings it is not to be expected, because not possible, to find any exact resemblance of that which is infinite, and consequently is incomprehensible, because whatever is infinite is for that reason incomprehensible by a finite understanding, which is too short and shallow to measure that which is infinite; and whoever attempts it will soon find himself out of his depth.

Fourthly, That all things were made by him: Which could not have been more emphatically expressed than it is here by the Evangelist, after the manner of the Hebrews, who when they would say a thing with the greatest force and certainty are wont to express it both affirmatively and negatively, as, He shall live and not die, that is, he shall most assuredly live; so here, All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made, that is, he made all creatures without exception, and consequently he himself is not a creature, because it is evidently impossible that any thing should ever make itself: But then if he be, and yet was never made, it is certainly true that he always was, even from all eternity.

All these assertions are plainly and expressly contained in this description which the Evangelist Saint John here makes of the Word; and this according to the interpretation of these expressions by the unanimous consent of the most ancient writers of the Christian Church: Who, some of them, had the advantage of receiving it from the immediate disciples of Saint John: Which surely is no small prejudice against any newly invented and contrary interpretation; as I shall hereafter more fully show, when I come to consider the strange and extravagant interpretation which the Socinians make of this passage of Saint John; which is plain enough of itself, if they under a pretence of explaining and making it more clear had not disturbed and darkened it.

Now from this description which the Evangelist here gives of the Word, and which I have so largely explained in the foregoing discourse, these three corollaries or conclusions do necessarily follow.

First, that the Word here described by Saint John is not a creature. This conclusion is directly against the Arians, who affirmed that the Son of God was a creature. They grant indeed that he is the first of all the creatures both in dignity and duration; for so they understand that expression of the Apostle wherein he is called the first-born of every creature: but this I have endeavoured already to show not to be the meaning of that expression.

They grant him indeed to have been God's agent or instrument in the creation of the world, and that all other creatures besides himself were made by him: but still they contend that he is a creature and was made. Now this cannot possibly consist with what Saint John says of him, that he was in the beginning, that is, as has been already shown, before anything was made. And likewise, because he is said to have made all things, and that without him was not anything made that was made; and therefore he himself who made all things is necessarily excepted out of the condition and rank of a creature; as the Apostle reasons in another case, He has put all things under his feet: but when he says all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted who did put all things under him. In like manner, if by him all things were made, and without him was not any thing made that was made, then either he was not made, or he must make himself; which involves in it a plain contradiction.

Secondly, that this Word was from all eternity: for if he was in the beginning, that is, before any thing was made, he must of necessity always have been; because whatever is, must either have been sometime made, or must always have been; for that which was not, and afterwards is, must be made. And this will likewise follow from his being said to be God, and that in the most strict and proper sense, which does necessarily imply his eternity, because God cannot begin to be, but must of necessity always have been.

Thirdly, from both these it will undeniably follow that he had an existence before his incarnation and his being born of the blessed Virgin. For if he was in the beginning, that is, from all eternity, which I have shown to be the meaning of that expression, then certainly he was before his being born of the blessed Virgin. And this likewise is implied in the proposition in the text, And the Word was made flesh, namely, that Word which the Evangelist had before so gloriously described, that Word which was in the beginning, and was with God, and was God, and by whom all things were made; I say, that Word was incarnate and assumed a human nature, and therefore must necessarily exist and have a being before he could assume humanity into an union with his divinity.

And this proposition is directly levelled against the Socinians, who affirm our blessed Savior to be a mere man, and that he had no existence before he was born of the Virgin Mary his mother: which assertion of theirs does perfectly contradict all the former conclusions which have been drawn from the description here given by Saint John of the Word. And their interpretation of this passage of Saint John applying it to the beginning of the publication of the Gospel, and to the new creation or reformation of the world by Jesus Christ, does likewise contradict the interpretation of this passage constantly received, not only by the ancient Fathers, but even by the general consent of all Christians for fifteen hundred years together, as I shall hereafter plainly show. For to establish this their opinion, that our blessed Savior was a mere man, and had no existence before his birth, they are forced to interpret this whole passage in the beginning of Saint John's Gospel quite to another sense, never mentioned, nor I believe thought of by any Christian writer whatever before Socinus. And it is not easy to imagine how any opinion can be loaded with a greater and heavier prejudice than this is.

And this I should now take into consideration, and show, besides the novelty of this interpretation and the great violence and unreasonableness of it, the utter inconsistency of it with other plain texts of the New Testament.

But this is wholly matter of controversy and will require a large discourse by itself; I shall therefore wave the further prosecution of it at present, and apply myself to that which is more practical and proper for the occasion of this season. So that at present I have done with the first thing contained in the first part of the text, namely the person here spoken of who is said to be incarnate, namely the Word, it was he that was made flesh.

I should then have proceeded to the second thing which I proposed to consider, namely the mystery itself, or the nature of this incarnation so far as the Scripture has revealed and declared it to us, namely, by assuming our nature in such a manner as that the divinity became united to a human soul and body. But this I have already endeavoured in some measure to explain, and shall do it more fully in some of the following discourses upon this text. I shall now only make a short and useful reflection upon it with relation to the solemnity of this time.

And it shall be to stir us up to a thankful acknowledgment of the great love of God to mankind in the mystery of our redemption by the incarnation of the Word, the only begotten Son of God: that he should deign to have such a regard to us in our low condition, and to take our case so much to heart as to think of redeeming and saving mankind from that depth of misery into which we had plunged ourselves; and to do this in so wonderful and astonishing a manner: that God should employ his eternal and only begotten Son, who had been with him from all eternity, partaker of his happiness and glory, and was God of God, to save the sons of men by so infinite and amazing a condescension: that God should vouchsafe to become man, to reconcile man to God: that he should come down from heaven to earth, to raise us from earth to heaven: that he should assume our vile and frail and mortal nature, that he might clothe us with glory and honor and immortality: that he should suffer death to save us from hell, and shed his blood to purchase eternal redemption for us.

For certainly the greater the Person is that was employed in this merciful design, so much the greater is the condescension, and the love and goodness expressed in it so much the more admirable: that the Son of God should stoop from the height of glory and happiness to the lowest degree of abasement and to the very depth of misery for our sakes, who were so mean and inconsiderable, so guilty and obnoxious to the severity of his justice, so altogether unworthy of his grace and favor, and so very unwilling to receive it when it was so freely offered to us. For, as the Evangelist here tells us, He came to his own, and his own received him not: to his own creatures, and they did not own and acknowledge their Maker; to his own nation and kindred, and they despised him and esteemed him not. Lord! what is man, that God should be so mindful of him; or the Son of man, that the Son of God should come down from heaven to visit him, in so much humility and condescension, and with so much kindness and compassion?

Blessed God and Savior of mankind! what shall we render to you for such mighty love, for such inestimable benefits as you have purchased for us and are ready to confer upon us? What shall we say to you, O you preserver and lover of souls, so often as we approach your holy table, there to commemorate this mighty love of yours to us, and to partake of those invaluable blessings which by your precious bloodshedding you have obtained for us? So often as we there remember, that you were pleased to assume our mortal nature, on purpose to live among us for our instruction, and for our example, and to lay down your life for the redemption of our souls and for the expiation of our sins; and to take part of flesh and blood that you might shed it for our sakes: what affections should these thoughts raise in us? What vows and resolutions should they engage us in, of perpetual love and gratitude, and obedience to you the most gracious and most glorious Redeemer of mankind?

And with what religious solemnity should we, more especially at this time, celebrate the Incarnation and birth of the Son of God by giving praise and glory to God in the highest, and by all possible demonstration of charity and good-will to men? And as he was pleased to assume our nature so should we, especially at this season, put on the Lord Jesus Christ, that is, sincerely embrace and practice his religion, making no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof. And now that the Sun of Righteousness is risen upon the world, we should walk as children of the light, and demean ourselves decently as in the day, not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envy. And should be very careful not to abuse ourselves by sin and sensuality, upon this very consideration that the Son has put such an honor and dignity upon us: we should reverence that nature which God did not disdain to assume and to inhabit here on earth, and in which he now gloriously reigns in heaven, at the right hand of his Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.