« PreviousContinue »
maculate Virgin; whereby the Saviour of the world was born of a Woman under the Law, without the least pretence of any original corruption, that he might deliver us from the guilt of sin; born of that Virgin which was of the house and lineage of David, that he might sit upon his throne, and rule for evermore. And in this latitude I profess to believe in Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary.
HIS Article hath also received some accession in the particular exale pressions of Christ's Humiliation. For the first word of it, now
generally speaking of his Passion, in the most ancient Creeds was
and crucified, they only, * Crucified under Pontius Pilate: nor* Crucifixus was his Crucifixion distinguished from his Death, but where we read, crucified, Pilato, che re
1 sub Pontio dead, and buried, they only, crucified and buried. Because the chief of pultus. Ruffin. his Sufferings were on the Cross, and he gave up the Ghost there; therefore in Symb.cal
fianus de inhis whole Passion and his Death were comprehended in his Crucifixion. carn. Domini.
Credimus in eum qui sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus est & sepultus. S. Auguft. de Fide ca Symb. c de Trinitat. I. 1. C. 14. Caput nofiruin Christus eft, crucifixuin & fepultum, relufcitatum ascendit in cælum. Idem in Pfal. 132. Qui sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus eit & fepultus. Max. Tauri. Chryfol. Eufeb. Gallic. Tò éri Morlig Thinéto sowe wéév?a Tapéve. Qui sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus & fepultus, MSS. Armach. And besides these, a witness without exception, Leo the Great ; Unigenitum Filium Dei crucifixum & sepultuin, omnes etiam in Symbolo confitemur. Epift. 10. cap. 5. Afterwards the Pallion was expressed : Pallus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus & fepultus. Etherius Uxam. And the Death: Paffus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, & fepultus. Author. lib. de Symb. ad Catechum. Not but both these were expressed before in the Rule of Faith by Tertullian, but without particular mention of the Crucifixion, Adv. Prax. c. 2. hunc pailum, hunc inortuum, & sepultumn : as Optatus, Paffus, mortuus, & sepultus resurrexit. lib. 1. Passus, sepultus, & tertia die resurrexit. Capital. Caroli 82. And generally the Ancients did understand determinately his crucifyiug by that more comprehensive name of his Suffering. For as Marcellus and S. Cyril have swewbérich seit Device, Eusebius ad the Nicene Council to the same purpose have wasóvia only in their Creeds. As Clem. Alex. Pædag. 1. 2. c. 3. msis DEON wisiv, † sis webbulce Opo rovicv. which was farther enlarged afterwards by the Council of Constantinople into sowywbévia, rej zevó. 72, xã TL périen.
· But again, being he suffered not only on the Cross; being it was pogible he might have been affixed to that cursed Tree, and yet not have died; therefore the Church thought fit to add the rest of his sufferings, as antecedent, and his death, as consequent to his Crucifixion.
To begin then with his Passion in general. In those words, He suffered under Pontius Pilate, we are to consider part as substantial, part as circumstantial. The substance of this part of the Article consisteth in our Saviour's Passion, He suffered: The Circumstance of Time is added, declared by the present Governour, under Pontius Pilate.
Now for the explication of our Saviour's Passion as distinct from those particulars which follow in the Article, more I conceive cannot be required than that we shew, Who it was that suffered, How he suffered; What it was he suffered.
First, If we would clearly understand him that suffered in his full relation to his Palion, we must consider him both in his Office, and his Person; as Jesus Christ, and as the only-begotten Son of God. In respect of his Office, we believe that he which was the Christ did suffer; and so we make profeflion to be saved by Faith in a fuffering Melias. Of which that we may give a just account, First, we must prove that the promised Mefias was to luffer: for if he were not, then by professing that our Jefus fuffcred, we
should declare he was not Christ. Secondly, we must thew that Jesus, whom we belieyed to be the Mefias, did really and truly suffer : for if he did not, then while we proved the true Melias was to suffer, we should conclude our Jefus was not that Mesias. Thirdly, it will farther be advantageous for the illustration of this truth, to manifest that the sufferings of the Mefias were determined and foretold, as those by which he should be known. And fourthly, it will then be necessary to shew that our Jesus did truly suffer whatsoever was determined and foretold. And more than this cannot be necessary to declare Who it was that suffered, in relation to his Office.
For the first of these, that the promised Messias was to suffer, to all Chris
stians it is unquestionable ; because our Saviour did constantly instruct the a Mark 9. 12. Apostles in this truth, both a before his death, that they might expect it, and b Luke 24. 26, b after, that they might be confirmed by it. And one part of the Doctrine 46. c Acts 17. 3. which S. Paul disseminated through the world was this, that the Christ mult
needs have suffered.
But because thefe Testimonies will satisfie only such as belieye in Jesus, and our Saviour himself did refer the disbelieving Jews to the Law and the Pro
phets, as those who testified of him; we will thew from thence, even from Mark 9. 12. the Oracles committed to the Jews, how it was written of the Son of man, 1 Pet. 1. II. that he must suffer many things; and how the Spirit of Christ which was
in the Prophets teftified before-hand the sufferings of Christ
The fifty third Chapter of Efay is beyond all question a fad, but clear, description of a suffering person: a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, oppressed, and afflicted, wounded and bruised, brought to the slaughter,
and cut off out of the land of the living. But the Person of whom that Chap* Page 87 ter treateth was certainly the Mejias, as we have * formerly proved by the we Wewed by confession of the most ancient Jews, and may farther be evidenced both from the Authority them, and from the place it felf. For surely no man's foul can be made an of the Targum, the Be- offering for our sins, but our Saviour's: nor hath God baid on any man the Peshith Rab- iniquity of us at, but on our Redeemer. Vpon no Person but the Messias ba, and the Midrash ubon could the chastisement of our peace be; nor with any stripes could we be Ruth, and by healed but his. It is sufficiently then demonstrated by the Propher, that the the confession suffering Person whom he describes was to be the Chrift, in that he bare our of Solomon j'archi and griefs, and carried our forrows. Moses Allhech, that the ancient Rabbins did interpret that Chapter of the Mesias ; which might seem a sufficient acknowledgment. Bur because this is the most considerable controversie between us and the Jews, it will not seem unnecessary to prove the same truth by farther Testimonies. In the Talmud Cod. Sanhedrin. to the question, What is the name of the Mellins ? it is answered, voin the Leper. And the reason of the name is there rendred DNIU because it is spoken in this, Eray 53.4. Surely he hath born our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did eftcem him stricken, i. e. yra), And be cause y227 is used of the Leprosie, Levit. 13. 13. therefore from yras they concluded his name to be a Leper, and con
vvmiroverje between us and the Jews, it will not seen" petent ack*
-God pro הוציא ה'בה נשמות המשיח מJequently did interpret that place of the Meffias
duced the Soul of the Mellias, and said unto him, Wilt thou redeem my sons after 6000 years? He answered, I will. Wilt thou bear the Chastisements, to take away their fins, XUI XIN 1970 N 2 37 2170 as it is written, Ifa. 53.4. Surely he hath born our griefs? And he answered, I will bear them with joy. Which is a clear testimony, considering the Opinion of the Jews, that all fouls of men were created in the beginning, and so the foul of the Meffias to suffer for the rest. The shift of the Jews, turning these expressions off from the Meffias, and attributing of them to the people as to one, is something ancient : For we find that Origen was urged with that exposition in a disputation with the Jews. Méxinueces de 078'év ! 's Ty's aefowlers ago '18d'aross Copa's en Balács taas w onlesaus tautous xencsépelu@. i ' ois éxiafo • 'lxóa , taūTC WET 09@necat ais mei eres tê ons ry yovoulfus c tñ Al seat ocê my wangfútos, óra woddod tegshaulo:
fúar 9 on wegpári rõ ÉTECT Buur '18dair's rois aondois Oriol. Thus the few interpreted those places, Isa. 52. 14. his viTage was so marred more than any man; 52. 14. that which had not been told thein they shall see, 53. 3. a man of forrow, and acquainted with grief: and applied them to the people of Israel in their dispersions. But Origen did easily refute him, by retorting other places of the same Prophecy, as 53. 4. Surely he hath born our griefs and carried our forrows; verse 5. he was wounded for our transgreflions, he was bruised for our iniquities, and with his stripes are we healed. SaỘg 8, Jays be, oi co tac cua Gia, Quế Pot, size 7s, ca sỹ C750g : ove you, I Am 18 Adỡ dang, dite rejoi dad idvæv, rešta nélpol. But especially he confounded the Jew with those words of the 8th verse, He was cut off out of the land of the living; for the transgressions of my people was he itricken. Maaisee édőžaul 1.6 Hy λι τ φασκάσης λέξεως το, 'Απο ή ανομιών τ8 λαξ με ήχθη ως θάναήoν. Ει δ ο λαός και εκείνες ασιν οι προφηδόμυοι, πώς
no = avaiày A8 28 28 A= 2 x8 6; 9áoey Sto, e và tẸ; hy s5 * Adày 18 6%; tỷ * 8 To; ở xa lạc8 Xpisòs; Origen, adv. Celfum, l. 1,
This Prediction is so clear, ever since the Serpent was to bruise the Heel of the Woman's feed, that the Jews, who were resolved to expect a Me fias which should be only glorious, have been inforced to invent another, which should fuffer. And then they anfwer us with a distinctio
r us with a distinction of their own invention; That a Meffias was to redeem us, and a Messias was to fuffer for us : but the fame Meffias was not both to redeem us and to suffer for us. For they fay that there are * two several persons promised under the * So indeed name of the Mellias ; one of the Tribe of Ephraim, the other of the Tribe of the Jews exJudab ; one the Son of Joseph, the other the Son of David ; the one to pect a double
David ; the one to Messias one precede, fight, and suffer death, the other to follow, conquer, reign, and on a mun never to die. If then our Saviour were a Chrift, we must confess he was a Mellias the fuffering Meffias, and consequently, according to their doctrine, not a Sa- the other? viour. For if he were the Son of David, then, say they, he was never to mon die ; or if he ever died, he was not that Mesias which was promifed to fit up-fon of David. on the throne of David. And while we confefs our Saviour died, and with- So the Taral assert his descent from the house of David, we do, in their
, in- upon Cantivolve our felves in a Contradiction.
cles 4, 5.
• Tping on Jingxna Tiwni 787 m2 n a pron) Two are thy deliverers which thall deliver thee, Mellias the Son of David, and Messias the Son of Ephraim: and in the same manner, Chap. 7.3. This that Paraphraft, nothing.fo ancient as the rest, is conceived to have taken out of the Talmud in Maffecheth Succa, where cap. 5. infcribed 350, God faith to Messias the son of David, wparnis in 10 Ask what thou wilt, (according to the second Pfalm) and I will give it thee. 177,w gop la niung NNW ny Who seeing Messias the Son of Joseph which was lain, asked of God nothing but life. Thus from the Talmud and the latter Targum the Rabbins have generally taught a double Meffoas, one the Son of David, the other of Jofeph. As Solomon Jarchi, Ifa. 24. 18. Zach. 12. 10. Aben Ezra, Zach.9.9. Malach. 3: 1. Kimchi, Zach. 12. 10. whom the latter Fews constantly follow. And this Marcion the Heretick seems to have learned of the Jews, and to have taught with some alteration in favour of his own opinion. Constituit Marcion alium esse Christum, qui Tiberianis temporibus à Deo quondam ignoto revelatus fit in falutem omnium gentium ; alium, qui â Deo creatore in restitutionem Judaici status fic destinatus quandoque venturus. Tertul. adver. Marcion. 1.4. c.6.
But this distinction of a double Messias is far from prevailing over our belief: first, because it is in it self falfe, and therefore of nó validity against us ; fecondly, because it was first invented to counterfeit the truth, and so very advantageous to us.
That it is in it self false, will appear, because the Scriptures never mention any Melias of the Tribe of Ephraim ; neither was there ever any promise of that nature made to any of the Sons or Off-spring of Jofeph. Besides, as we acknowledge but one Mediator between God and Man, fo the Scriptures never mention any Mesias but one. Under whatsoe title he is represented to us, there can be no pretence for a double perfon. Whether the feed of the woman, or the feed of Abraham, whether Shiloh, or the Son of David, still one person promised: and the style of the ancient Jews before our Saviour was, not they, but he * which is to * oiczór come. The question which was asked him, when he professed himself weg. to be. Christ, was, whether it was he which was to come, or 'whether they were to look for another ; not that they could look for him and for another also. The objection then was, that Elias was not yet come, and therefore they expected no Messias till Elias came. Nor can the difference of the Mefias's condition be any true reason of imagining a double person, because in the fame place the Prophets, speaking of the fame per- Zach.9.9. son indifferently represent him in either condition. Being then, by the Isa. 9.6. confession of all the Jews one Messias was to be the Son of David, whom Elias was to precede ; being by the tenure of the Scriptures there was never promise made of more Chrifts than one, and never the least mention of the Tribe of Ephraim with any such relation; it followeth that that distinction is in it self false. Again, that the same Diftindion, framed and contrived against us, must
needs be in any indifferent person's judgment advantageous to us, will appear because the very invention of a double person is a plain confession of a twofold condition ; and the different relations, which they prove not, are a convincing argument for the distinct economies, which they deny not. Why should they pretend to expect one to die, and another to triumph, bur that the true Mejias was both to triumph and to die, to be humbled and to be exalted, to put on the rags of our infirmity before the robe of Majefty and Immortality ? Why should they tell of one Mediator to be conquered, and the other to be victorious, but that the Serpent was to bruise the heel of the Seed of the Woman, and the fame Seed to braise his head; Thus even while they endeavour to elude, they confirm our Faith; and as if they were still under the cloud, their error is but as a shadow to give a luftre to our truth. And so our first Affertion remaineth firm; the Mefias was to suffer.
Secondly, Thar Jesus, whom be believe to be Christ, did suffer, we shall not need to prove, because it is freely confessed by all his enemies. The Gentiles acknowledged it, the Jews triumphed at it.' And we may well take that for granted, which is so far from being denied, that it is objected. If hunger and thirst, if revilings and contempt ; if sorrows and agonies, if stripes and buffetings, if condemnation and crucifixion, be Sufferings, Jesus fuffered. If the Infirmities of our nature, if the weight of our fins, if the malice
1, if the machinations of Satan, if the hand of God could make him faffer, our Saviour suffered. If the Annals of times, if the writings of his
Apostles, if the death of his Martyrs, if the confession of the Gentiles, if * Those which the scoffs of the Jews, be testimonies, Jefus fuffered. Nor was there ever were called by any which thought he did not really and truly fuffer, but * fuch as withal irthe Greeks Zoxnai and rationally pretended he was not really and truly man.'' Davlatiasai who taught that Christ was man only putativè, and came into the world only in Phantasmate, and consequently that be did only putativè pati. Theje were called Aoxilas not from thew* Author, but from their opinion, that Christ did all things only as doxhou, in appearance, not reality. As Clemens Alexandrinus, Tão aigiosa ci v dve dosuéta ials./eur tegralogoor yw's jj ñ Aoxnãv. Strom, l. 7. viz.: oi doxhoh Xerson we panigñay Winebov. Id. 1.6. Neque in Phantasia, id eft, absque carne, ficut Valentinus afferit, neque de thesi, putative imaginatum, sed verum corpus. Genad. de Eccl. Dog. cap. 2. Where for de thesi, I suppose we jhould read doxace. The original of this train of Hereticks is to be fetched from Simon Magus, whose assertion was Christum nec venisse, nec à Judæis quicquam pertulisse. S. Aug. de Heres. Wherefore making himself the Father, son, and Holy Ghost, he affirmed, se in Filii persona putativè apparuiffe, and so that he suffered as the son amongst the Jews; choice Men Witovdévous ö árace doxnces móvor. Damasc. de Hæres. Now what Simon Magus said of himself, when he made himself the Son, that those who followed affirmed of Chrift. As Saturnius, wbe taught Chriftum in substantia non fuisse, & phantasmate tantum quafi passum fuisse. Tertul. de Pref. adv. Heret. 6.-46. Vide Epiph. mutilum, Her. 23. c. 1. And Basilides, who delivered, divas Xersòv parlarla á to paéreas, Heimi disces cn@gwa Fov, henda Cápria sangévoux Ino šv OsboxWv. Tovdivan, cana Eiumnie Kuplwarov. Epiph. Hár. 24. 6.3. A Judæis non credunt Christum crucifixum, fed Simonem Cyrenensem, qui angariatus fuftulit crucem ejus. S. Aug. Hær.4. Thus the Valentinians, particularly Marcus, the Father of the Marcosian Hereticks : Marcus etiam nesciò quis Hærefim condidit, negans relurrectionem carnis, & Christum non verè, sed putativě, passum asseverans. S. Aug. Her. 14. Thus Cerdon: Christum in substantia carnis negat, in phantasmate solo fuisse pronunciat, nec omnio passum, sed quafi paflum. Tertul. Pref. c.51. Christum ipsum natum ex femina, neque habuisse carnem, nec verè mortuum vel quicquam parsum, sed fimulâffe passionem. S. Aug. Hær.21. And the Manichees, who taught, Chriftum non fuisse in carne vera, sed fimulatam speciem carnis ludificandis humanis sensibus præbuiffe ; ubi non folum mortem, verum etiam refurrectionem, mentiretur. Idem. Hær.46. Whom therefore Vincentius Lirinenfis calls Phantasiæ prædicatores, cap. 20.
Thirdly, To come yet nearer to the particular acknowledgment of this truth, we shall farther thew that the promised Mefias was not only engaged to suffer for us, but by a certain and express agreement betwixt him and the Father, the measure and manner of his Sufferings were determined, in order to the Redemption it self which was thereby to be wrought ; and what was fo resolv’d, was before his coming in the flesh revealed to the Prophets, and written by them, in order to the reception of the Mesias, and the acceptation of the benefits to be procured by his Sufferings.
That what the Mesias was to undergo for us was predetermined and de
creed, appeareth by the timely acknowledgment of the Church unto the FaAfts 4.27,28. ther; Of a truth, against thy holy Child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both
Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, Luke 16, 8. were gathered together; For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. For as when the two Goats were presented hefore the Lord. that Goat was to be offered for a Sin-offering upon which
who lotiof the Lord should fall; and that lot of the Lord was lift up on high u n d of the High-priest, and then laid upon the head of the Goat which was to die : so the hand of God is said to have determined what should be done unto our Saviour, whose Passion was typified by that Sin-offering. And well may we say that the hand of God as well as his coun fel determined his Passion, because he was delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknow. Aets 2. 23. ledge of God.
And this determination of God's Counsel was thus made upon a Covenant or Agreement between the Father and the Son, in which it was concluded by them both what he should suffer, what he should receive. For beside the Covenant made by God with man, confirmed by the blood of Christ, we must consider and acknowledge another Covenant from eternity made by the Father with the Son: which partly is expressed, If he mall make his Soul an ifa. 53. 10. offering for fin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days; partly by he Apottle. Then raid I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is writ- Heb. 10. 7. ten of me to do thy will, O God. In the Condition of making his foul an offering for fin, we see propounded whatloever he suffered; in the accepta. ton. Ló. I come to do thy will, O God, we see undertaken whatsoever was propounded. The determination therefore of our Saviour's Passion was made by Covenant of the Father who sent, and the Son who suffered.
And as the Sufferings of the Mesias were thus agreed on by consent, and determined by the counsel of God; so they were revealed by the Spirit of God unto the Prophets, and by them delivered unto the Church; they were involved in the Types, and acted in the Sacrifices. Whether therefore we consider the Prophecies fpoken by God in the mouths of men, they clearly relate unto his Sufferings by proper prediction; or whether we look uponi the ceremonial performances, they exhibit the fame by an active representation.' S. Paul's Apology was clear, that he said none other things but Aits 26. tt. those which the Prophets and Mofes did say should come, that Christ hould suffer. The Prophets said in express terms that the Meffias, whom they foretold, should suffer: Moses said fo in those Ceremonies which were instituted by his Ministry. When he caused the Passover to be Nain, he said that Shiloh was the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world. When he fer the brazen Serpent up in the Wilderness, he said, the Son of man should be lifted up upon the Cross. When he commanded all the Sacrifices for sin, he said, without effusion of Blood there was no Remission, and therefore the Son of God must die for the sins of men. When he appointed Aaron to go into the Holy of Holies on the day of Atonement, he said, Christ, our High-Priest should never enter through the veil into the highest Heavens to make expiation for us, but by his own Blood. If then we look upon the fountain, the eternal Counsel of the will of God, if we look upon the Revelation of that Counsel, either in express Predictions or Ceremonial Representations; we shall clearly see the truth of our third Assertion, That the Sufferings of the promifed Messias were predetermined and foretold.
Now all these sufferings which were thus agreed, determined and revealed as belonging to the true Mesias, were undergone by that Jesus of Na
th whom we believe to be the true Christ. Never was there any fuffering Type which he out-went not, never Prediction of any Passion which he fulfilled not, never any expression of grief and forrow which he felt not. When the appointed time of his death approached, he said to bis Apostles,