That it is in itself false, will appear, because the Scriptures never mention any Messias of the tribe of Ephraim, neither was there ever any promise of that nature made to any of the sons or offspring of Joseph. Besides, as we acknowledge but one Mediator between God and man, so the Scriptures never mention any Messias but one. Under whatsoever title he is represented to us, there can be no pretence for a double person. Whether the "seed of the woman," or the "seed 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 come.* The question which was asked him, when he professed himself 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 Messias's condition be any true reason of imagining a double person, because in the same place the prophets, (Zech. ix. 9. Isa. ix. 6.) speaking of the same person, indifferently represent him in either condition. Being then, by the confession of all the Jews, one Messias was to be the son of David, whom Elias was to precede; being by the tenor of the Scriptures there was never promise made of more Christs than one, and never the least mention of the tribe of Ephraim with any such relation; it followeth, that that distinction is in itself false.

Again, that the same distinction, 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, but that the true Messias 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 majesty 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 same seed to bruise 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 lustre to our truth. And so our first assertion remaineth firm; the Messias was to suffer.

Secondly, that Jesus, whom we 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 * Ο ἐρχόμενος.

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 suffered. If the infirmities of our nature, if the weight of our sins, if the malice of man, if the machinations of Satan, if the hand of God could make him suffer, 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 the scoffs of the Jews, be testimonies, Jesus suffered. Nor was there ever any which thought he did not really and truly suffer, but such as withal irrationally pretended he was not really and truly man.*

Thirdly, to come yet nearer to the particular acknowledgment of this truth, we shall further shew that the promised Messias 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 itself which was thereby to be wrought; and what was so resolved, was before his coming in the flesh revealed to the prophets, and written by them, in order to the reception of the Messias, and the acceptation of the benefits to be procured by his sufferings. That what the Messius was to

Those which were called by the Greeks Δοκηταὶ and Φαντασιασταί, who taught that Christ was man only putative, and came into the world only in phantasmate, and consequently that he did only putative pati. These were called Acuntal, not from their author, but from their opinion, that Christ did all things only v Sox, in appearance, not reality. As Clemens Alexandrinus: Τῶν αἱρέσεων αἱ μὲν ἀπὸ δογμάτων ἰδιαζόντων προσαγορεύον ται, ὡς ἡ τῶν Δοκητῶν. Strom. l. vii. c. 17. fin. viz. οἳ δοκήσει Χριστὸν πεφανερώσθαι bæiλaßov. Id. 1. vi. Neque in phantasia, id est, absque carne, sicut Valentinus asserit, neque de thesi, putative imaginatum, sed verum corpus.' Genuad, de Eccl. Dogm. c. 2. Where, for de thesi, I suppose we should read δοκήσει. The original of this train of heretics is to be fetched from Simon Magus, whose assertion was: Christum nec venisse, nec a Judæis quicquam pertulisse.' S. August. Hares. 1. Wherefore making himself the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, he affirmed, 'se in Filii persona putative apparuisse,' and so that he suffered as the Son amongst the Jews: ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πεπονθέναι δὲ, ἀλλὰ δοκήσει μόνον. Damasc. de Hares. Now what Simon Magus said of himself, when he made himself the Son, that those who followed affirmed of Christ. Saturninus, who taught: Christum in

As

undergo for us was predeter

substantia non fuisse, et phantasmate tantum quasi passum fuisse. Tertull, de Prese. adv. Hæret. c. 46. Vide Epiph. mutilum, Hær. 23. §. 1. And Basilides, who delivered : εἶναι τὸν Χριστὸν φαντασίαν ἐν τῷ φαίνεσθαι, μὴ εἶναι δὲ ἄνθρωπον, μηδὲ σάρκα εἰληφέναι —οὐχὶ Ἰησοῦν φάσκων πεπονΘέται, ἀλλὰ Σίμωνα τὸν Κυρηναίον. S. Ερίphan. Hær. 24. §. 3. A Judæis non credunt Christum crucifixum, sed Simonem Cyrenensem, qui angariatus sustulit crucem ejus.' S. August. Hær, 4. Thus the Valentinians, particularly Marcus, the father of the Marcosian heretics: 'Marcus etiam nescio quis Hæresim condidit, negans resurrectionem carnis, et Christum non vere, sed putative, passum asseverans.' S. August. Hær. 14. Thus Cerdon: Christum in substantia carnis negat, in phantasmate solo fuisse pronunciat, nec omnino passum, sed quasi passum.' Tertull. Præsc. c. 51. 'Christum ipsum neque natum ex fœmina, neque habuisse carnem, nec vere mortuum, vel quicquam passum, sed simulasse passionem.' S. August. Hær. 21. And the Manichees, who taught: Christum non fuisse in carne vera, sed simulatam speciem carnis ludificandis humanis sensibus præbuisse; ubi non solum mortem, verum etiam resurrectionem mentiretur.' Idem, Hær. 46. Whom therefore Vincentius Liri. nensis calls phantasiæ prædicatores. c. 20.

mined and decreed, appeareth by the timely acknowledgment of the Church unto the Father: "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, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done." (Acts iv. 27, 28.) For as when the two goats were presented before the Lord, that goat was to be offered for a sin-offering, upon which the lot of the Lord should fall; and that lot of the Lord was lift up on high in the hand of the high-priest, and then laid upon the head of the goat which was to die: (Lev. xvi. 8.) 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 counsel, determined his passion, because he was "delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God." (Acts ii. 23.)

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 and 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 by the prophet, "if he shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days;" (Isa. liii. 10.) partly by the apostle, "Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God." (Heb. x. 7.) In the condition of "making his soul an offering for sin," we see propounded whatsoever he suffered; in the acceptation, "Lo, 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 Messias 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 spoken by God in the mouths of men, they clearly relate unto his sufferings by proper prediction; or whether we look upon the ceremonial performances, they exhibit the same by an active representation. St. Paul's apology was clear, that he said "none other things but those which the prophets and Moses did say should come, that Christ should suffer." (Acts xxvi. 22.) The prophets said in express terms, that the Messias, whom they foretold, should suffer: Moses said so in those ceremonies which were instituted by his ministry. When he caused the Passover to be slain, he said that

Shiloh was the Lamb slain before the foundations of the World When he set 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 effusión 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 lock 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 promised Messias were predetermined and foretold.

Now all these sufferings which were thus agreed, determined, and revealed, as belonging to the true Messias, were undergone by that Jesus of Nazareth, whom we believe to be the true Christ. Never was there any suffering type which he outwent not, never prediction of any passion which he fulfilled not, never any expression of grief and sorrow which he felt not. When the appointed time of his death approached, he said to his apostles," Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished." (Luke xviii. 31.) When he delivered them the blessed sacrament, the commemoration of his death, he said, "Truly the Son of man goeth as it was determined." (Luke xxii. 22.)* After his resurrection, he chastised the dulness of his disciples, who were so overwhelmed with his passion, that they could not look back upon the antecedent predictions; saying unto them, "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?" (Luke xxiv. 25, 26.) After his ascension, St. Peter made this profession before the Jews, who had those prophecies, and saw his sufferings, "Those things which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled." (Acts . 18.) Whatsoever therefore was determined by the counsel of God; whatsoever was revealed by the prophets concerning the sufferings of the Messias, was all fulfilled by that Jesus whom we believe to be, and worship as, the Christ. Which is the fourth and last assertion propounded to express our Saviour's passion in relation to his office.

Having considered him that suffered in his office, we are next to consider him in his person. And being in all this Article there is no person expressly named or described, we must look back upon the former, till we find his description and his name. • Κατὰ τὸ ὡρισμένον.

The Article immediately preceding leaves us in the same suspension; but for our satisfaction refers us to the former, where we find him named Jesus, and described the only begotten Son of God.

Now this Son of God we have already shewn to be therefore truly called the only-begotten, because he was from all eternity generated of the essence of the Father, and therefore is, as the eternal Son, so also the eternal God. Wherefore by the immediate coherence of the Articles, and necessary consequence of the CREED,* it plainly appeareth, that the eternal Son of God, God of God, very God of very God, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried. For it was no other person who suffered under Pontius Pilate, than he who was born of the Virgin Mary; he who was born of the Virgin Mary, was no other person than he who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, he who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, was no other person than our Lord; and that our Lord no other than the only Son of God therefore by the immediate coherence of the Articles it followeth, that the only Son of God, our Lord, suffered under Pontius Pilate. That Word which was in the beginning, which then was with God, and was God, in the fulness of time being made flesh, did suffer. For the princes of this world "crucified the Lord of glory;" (1 Cor. ii. 8.) and "God purchased his Church with his own blood." (Acts xx. 28.)+ That person who, was begotten of the Father before all worlds, and so was really the Lord of glory, and most. truly God, took upon him the nature of man, and in that nature being still the same person which before he was, did suffer. When our Saviour fasted forty days, there was no other person hungry, than that Son of God who made the world: when he sat down weary by the well, there was no other person felt that thirst, but he who was eternally begotten of the Father, the fountain of the Deity: when he was buffeted and scourged, there was no other person sensible of those pains, than that eternal Word which before. all worlds was impassible: when he was crucified and died, there was no other person which gave up the ghost, but the Son of him, and so of the same nature with him, who only hath immortality." (1 Tim. vi. 16.) And thus we conclude our first consideration propounded, viz. Who it was that suf fered affirming that, in respect of his office, it was the Messias; in respect of his person, it was God the Son.

But the perfect probation and illustration of this truth requireth first a view of the second particular propounded, How, or in what he suffered. For while we prove the person suffering to be God, we may seem to deny the passion, of which the per

This is that inseparabilis connexio in the Creed, which Cassianus urgeth so much against Nestorius, De Incarn. 1. vi. Dominum passum symboli tenet

auctoritas, et Apostolus tradidit, dicens, Si enim cognovissent, nunquam Dominum gloriæ crucifixissent.' Vigil. advers. Eutych. 1. ii. §. 8.