of the passover did foretell as much. For while it is said, "ye shall not break a bone thereof," (Exod. xii. 46.) it was thereby intimated, that the Saviour of the world should suffer that death to which the breaking of the bones belonged (and that, according to the constant custom, was the punishment of cracifixion), but only in that death should by the providence of God be so particularly preserved, as that not one bone of his should be touched. And thus the crucifixion of the Messias in several types was represented.

Nor was it only thus prefigured and involved in the typical resemblances, but also clearly spoken by the prophets in their particular and express predictions. Nor shall we need the accession of any lost or additional prophetical expressions, which some of the ancients have made use of:+ those which are still preserved even among the Jews, will yield this truth sufficient testimonies.

When God foretells by the prophet Zachary, what he should suffer from the sons of men, he says expressly, "They shall

Crucis boni odoris assatio excoquat carnalium sensuum cruditatem;' De Cana Domini, commonly attributed to St. Cyprian. Nor is the roasting of this lamb any far-fetched figure of the cross; for other roasting hath been thought a proper resemblance of it: where the body of the thing roasted hath limbs, as a lamb, there it bears the similitude of a proper cross, with an erect and transverse beam; where the roasted body is only of length and uniform, as a fish, there the resemblance is of a straight and simple Tavęóç. As it is represented by Hesychius: Σκόλοψιν ὡς ὅπτησιν· τὸ γὰρ παλαιὸν κακούργους ἀνεσκολόαιζον οξύνοντες ξύλον διὰ τῆς ῥάχεως καὶ τοῦ νώτου, καθάπερ τοὺς ὀπτωμένους ἰχθὺς ἐπὶ ὀβελίσκων. δ. υ. Σκόλοψιν.

* Although, indeed, it must be confessed, that the crurifragium and the crucifixion were two several punishments, and that they ordinarily made the cross a lingering death: yet because the Law of Moses did not suffer the body of a man to hang upon a tree in the night, therefore the Romans, so far to comply with the Jews, did break the bones of those whom they crucified in Judea constantly; whereas in other countries they did it but occasionally.

+ As Barnabas cites one of the prophets whom we know not, Epist. c. 12. 'Oμows πάλιν περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ ὁρίζει ἐν ἄλλῳ προφήτη λέγοντι, Καὶ πότε ταῦτα συντελεσθήσεται; καὶ λέγει Κύριος, Ὅταν ξύλον κλιθῇ καὶ ἀναστῇ, καὶ ὅταν ἐκ ξύλου αἷμα στάξη· which words are not to be found in any of the prophets. Thus Justin Martyr, to prove, or usTÀ TÒ σταυρωθῆναι βασιλεύσει ὁ Χριστὸς, produceth a prophecy out of the 96th Psalm, in

these words: ὁ Κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου. p. 298. And Tertullian, who advances all his conceptions: Age nunc, si legisti penes Prophetam in Psalmis, Dominus regnavit a ligno; exspecto quid intelligas, ne forte lignarium aliquem regem significari putetis, et non Christum qui exinde a passione Christi (lege crucis, Jor he himself hath it ligni, Adv. Marcion. \. iii. c. 19.) superata morte regnavit.' Ade. Jud. c. 10. And in the place cited against Marcion Etsi enim mors ab Adam regnavit usque ad Christum, cur Christus non regnasse dicatur a ligno, ex quo crucis ligno mortuus, regnum mortis exclusit" Thus they, and some after them, make use of those words, ¿mè ¿úλwv, a ligno, which are not to be found either in the Greek or Latin translation, from whence they seem to produce them; nor is there any thing like them in the original, or any translation extant, nor the least mention or footstep of them in the Catena Graco rum Patrum. Justin Martyr, indeed, accused the Jews for rasing the words i τοῦ ξύλου out of the text: ̓Απὸ τοῦ ἐνενηκο· στοῦ πέμπτου ψαλμοῦ τῶν διὰ Δαβὶδ λεχθέν των λόγων, λέξεις βραχείας ἀφείλοντο ταύτας, ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου· εἰρημένου γὰρ τοῦ λόγου, Είπατε ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, Ὁ Κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου, ἀφῆκαν, Εἴπατε ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, Ο Κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν. γ. 298. But, first, he doth not accuse them for rasing it out of the original Hebrew, for his discourse is only to shew that they abused the LXX. Secondly, though the Jews had rased it out of their own, it appeareth not how they should have gotten it out of the Bibles in the Christians' hands, in which those words are not to be found.

bok upon me whom they have pierced;" (Zech. xii. 10.)* and therefore shews that he speaks of the Son of God, which was to be the Son of man, and by our nature liable to vulneration; and withal foretells the piercing of his body: which being added to that prediction in the Psalms, "They pierced my hands and my feet,"+ (Psal. xxii. 16.) clearly representeth and foretelleth to us the death upon the cross, to which the hands and feet of the person crucified were affixed with nails. And because these prophecies appeared so particular and clear, and were so properly applied by that disciple whom our Saviour loved, and to whom he made a singular application even upon the cross; therefore the Jews have used more than ordinary industry and artifice to elude these two predictions, but in

These words of Zachary are clear in

והביטו אלי את אשר דקרו,the original

although the LXX. have made another sense, ἐπιβλέψονται πρός με, ἀνθ' ὧν κατωρ Xharro, by translating x x ȧve av, eo quod; as also the Chaldee paraphrase

by with the Arabic version; and the Syriac another yet, by rendering it per eum quem, as if they should look upon one, and pierce another: yet the plain construction of x, is nothing else but quem, relating to the person in the affix of the precedent x, who, being the same with him who immediately before promiseth to pour upon man the Spirit of grace, must needs be God. Which that the Jews might avoid, they read it not

but, not on me, but on him, to distinguish him whom they were to pierce, from him who was to give the Spirit of grace. But this fraud is easily detected, because it is against the Hebrew copies, the Septuagint, and Chaldee paraphrase, the Syriac and Arabic translations. can the Rabbins shift this place, because it was anciently by the Jews interpreted of the Messias, as themselves confess. So R. Solomon Jarchi upon the place,

Nor

Our masters רזל" פירשוהו על משיח בן יוסף :

have expounded this of the Messias the son of Joseph. That they interpreted it therefore of the Messias, is granted by them; that any Messias was to be the son of Joseph, is already denied and refuted: it remaineth therefore that the ancient Jews did interpret it of the true Messias, and that St. John did apply it to our Saviour according to the acknowledged exposition. And in the Bereshith Rabba, we are clearly taught thus much; for unto that question, "Who art thou, O great mountain?" (Zech. iv. 7.) he answereth,

The great mountain is הגדול זה משיח בן דוד

the Messias the Son of David.

And he proves it from, Grace, grace unto it."

because he giveth grace שהו נתן חן ותחן נים

and supplications; as it is written, Zech.

til. 19.

This translation seems something different from the Hebrew text as we now read it, a sicut leo, manus meas et pedes meos. But it was not always read as now it is. For R. Jacob the son of Chajim, in Massoreth Magna, ɔy

testifieth that he found או ordine אות האלף in some correct copies בקצת ספרים כרייקים ,read כרי but בארו,written in the text כתיב .כארי and therefore written in the margin

The same is testified by the Masorah on
Numb. xxiv. 9. citing the words of this
text, and adding nam. And Johannes
Isaac Levita confirmeth it by his own ex-
perience, who had seen in an ancient
copy in the text, and in the
margin. It was anciently therefore with-
out question written 3, as appeareth
not only by the LXX. who translated it
pugay, foderunt; and Aquila, who ren-
dered it xav, fædarunt, (in the same
sense with that of Virgil, Æn. iii. v. 241.
'Obscœnas pelagi ferro fœdare volucres.')
and the old Syriac, which translateth it
via transfixerunt; but also by the less, or
marginal, Masorah, which noteth that the
word is found written alike in two
places; this and Isaiah xxxviii. 18. but
in divers significations: wherefore being
in Isaiah it manifestly signifieth sicut leo,
it must not signify the same in this; and
being the Jews themselves pretend to no-
thing else, it followeth that it be still read
as it was, 18, and translated foderunt.
From whence it also appeareth, that this
was one of the eighteen places which
were altered by the Scribes.

For the Masorah in several places confesseth, that eighteen places in the Scriptures have been altered by the Scribes; and when they come to reckon the places, they mention but sixteen; the other two without question are those concerning the crucifixion of the Messias, Psalm xxii. 16. and Zech. xii. 10. For that of Zachary, a Jew confessed it to Mercerus and that of David, we shewed before to be the other.

:

X

vain. For these two prophets, David and Zachary, manifestly did foretell the particular punishment of crucifixion.

66

It was therefore sufficiently adumbrated by types, and promulgated by prophecies, that the promised Messias was to be crucified. And it is as certain, that our Jesus, the Christ whom we worship, and from whence we receive that honour to be named Christians, was really and truly crucified. (Matt. xxvi. 2.) It was first the wicked design of Judas, who betrayed him to that death: it was the malicious cry of the obdurate Jews, Crucify him, crucify him." (John xix. 15.) He was actually condemned and delivered to that death by Pilate, "who gave sentence that it should be as they required:" (Luke xxiii. 24.) he was given into the hands of the soldiers, the instruments commonly used in inflicting that punishment,* who "led him away to crucify him." (Matt. xxvii. 31.) He underwent those previous pains which customarily antecede that suffering, as flagellation, and bearing of the cross :† for " Pilate, when he had scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified;" (Matt. xxvii. 26.)" and he, bearing his cross, went forth into Golgotha." (John xix. 17.) They carried him forth out of the city, as by custom in that kind of death they were wont to do; and there between two malefactors, usually by the Romans condemned to that punishment, they crucified him.§ And that he was truly fastened to the cross, appears by the satisfac

That the soldiers did execute the sentence of death given by the Roman magistrates in their provinces, and not only in the camp, is evident out of the historians of that nation.

+ Sciendum est Romanis Pilatum legibus ministrasse, quibus sancitum est, ut qui crucifigitur prius flagellis verberetur.' S. Hieron. ad Matt. xxvii. 26. To which Lucian alludes in his own condemnation : Ἐμοὶ μὲν ἀνεσκολοπίσθαι δοκεῖ αὐτὸν, νὴ Δία, μαστιγωθέντα γε πρότερον. Lucian. in Piscatore, c. 2. Multi occisi, multi capti, alii verberati crucibus affixi.' Liv. 1. xxxiii. c. 36. And 1. xxviii. Ad palum

'Credo ego isthoc exemplo tibi esse
Dispessis manibus, patibulum cum

་

Tully; Cum Mamertini more atque instituto suo crucem fixissent post urbem in via Pompeia.' V. in Verr. c. 66.

§ Thieves and robbers were usually by the Romans punished with this death. Thus Cæsar used his pirates, τοὺς λῃστὰς ἅπαντας ἀνεσταύρωσε. Plut. in Vita, c. 2. 'Imperator provinciæ jussit latrones crucibus affigi.' Petron. Sat. c. 111. 'La tronem istum, miserorum pignorum meorum peremptorem, cruci affigatis.' Apuleius de Aur. Asin. 1. iii. p. 133. ed. Elmenhorst. 1621. Latrocinium fecit

deligatus, lacerato virgis tergo, cervicem cruci Romanæ subjiciam.' So Curtius reports of Alexander: Omnes verberibus affectos sub ipsis radicibus petræ crucibus jussit affigi.' 1. vii. c. 11. Thus were the Jews themselves used, who caused our Saviour to be scourged and crucified: Μαστιγούμενοι καὶ προβασανιζόμενοι τοῦ θανά του πᾶσαν αἰκίαν, ἀνεσταυροῦντο. Joseph. excid. 1. v. c. 32.

This was observed both by the Jews and Romans, that their capital punishments were inflicted without their cities. And that particularly was observed in the punishment of crucifixion. Plautus; eundum actutum extra portam, habebis.'—Mil. Glor. a. ii. s. iv. 6.

aliquis, quid ergo meruit? Ut suspendatur.' Sen. Epist. 7. Where suspendi is as much as crucifigi, and is so to be understood in all Latin authors which wrote before the days of Constantine. Famosos latrones, in his locis ubi grassati sunt, furca figendos, compluribus placuit.' Callist. 1. xxxviii. de pænis. Where furca figendos is put for crucifigendos; being so altered by Tribonianus, who, because Constantine had taken away the pu nishment, took also the name out of the Law.

tion given to doubting Thomas, who said, "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, I will not believe :" and our Saviour said unto him, "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands:" (John xx. 25. 27.) whereby he satisfied the apostle, that he was the Christ; and us, that the Christ was truly crucified; against that fond heresy, which made Simon the Cyrenean not only bear the cross, but endure crucifixion, for our Saviour.* We therefore infer this second conclusion from the undoubted testimonies of his followers, and undefined confessions of his enemies, that our Jesus was certainly and truly crucified, and did really undergo those sufferings, which were pretypified and foretold, upon the cross.

Being thus fully assured that the Messias was to be, and that our Christ was truly crucified, it, thirdly, concerns us to understand what was the nature of crucifixion, what the particularities of suffering, which he endured on the cross. Nor is this now so easily understood as once it was: for being a Roman punishment, it was continued in that empire while it remained heathen; but when the emperors themselves received Christianity, and the towering eagles resigned the flags unto the cross, this punishment was forbidden by the supreme authority, out of a due respect and pious honour to the death of Christ. From whence it came to pass, that since it hath been disused universally for so many hundred years, it hath not been so rightly conceived as it was before, when the general practice of the world did so frequently represent it to the Christian's eyes. Indeed if the word which was used to denote that punishment did sufficiently represent or express it, it were enough to say that Christ was crucified: but being the most usual or original word doth not of itself declare the figure of the tree,

This was the peculiar heresy of Basilides, a man so ancient, that he boasted to follow Glaucias as his master, who was the disciple of St. Peter. And Irenæus hath declared this particularity of his : 'Quapropter neque passum eum : et Simonem quendam Cyrenæum angariatum portasse crucem ejus pro eo ; et hunc secundum ignorantiam et errorem crucifixum, transfiguratum ab eo, uti putaretur ipse esse Jesus; et ipsum autem Jesum Simonis accepisse formam, et stantem irrisisse eos. Adv. Hær. 1. i. c. 23. And Tertullian, of the same Basilides: 'Hunc (Christum) passum a Judæis non esse, sed vice ipsius Simonem crucifixum esse : unde nec in eum credendum esse qui sit crucifixus, ne quis confiteatur in Simonem credidisse.' De Prasc. adv. Hær. c. 46, From these is the same delivered by St. Epiphanius Hares. 24. §. 3. and by St. Augustin, Hær. 4.

Serm. 18. al. 88. de Verbis Dem. §. 8. 'Quia ipse honoraturus erat fideles suos in fine hujus seculi, prius honoravit crucem in hoc seculo, ut terrarum principes credentes in eum prohiberent aliquem nocentium crucifigi.' And Tract. 36. in Ioan. §. 4. speaking of this particular punishment: Modo in pœnis reorum non est apud Romanos; ubi enim Domini crux honorata est, putatum est quod et reus honoraretur si crucifigeretur.' Whence appears, first, that in the days of St. Augustin crucifixion was disused: secondly, that it was prohibited by the secular princes. But when it was first prohibited, or by whom, he sheweth not. It is therefore to be observed, that it was first for. bidden by the first Christian emperor, Constantine the Great. Sozomenus gives this relation : Αμέλει τοι πρότερον νενομι σμένην ̔Ρωμαίοις τὴν τοῦ σταυροῦ τιμωρίαν νόμῳ ἀνεῖλε τῆς χρήσεως τῶν δικαστηρίων. 1. i. c. 8.

This is observed by St. Augustin,

or manner of the suffering ;* it will be necessary to represent it by such expressions as we find partly in the evangelical relations, partly in such representations as are left us in those authors whose eyes were daily witnesses of such executions.

The form then of the cross on which our Saviour suffered was not a simple but a compounded figure, according to the

Σταυροὺς δ' ἐκτὸς ἔλασσε διαμπερὲς ἔνθα, καὶ ἔνθα, Πυκνοὺς καὶ θαμέας, τὸ μέλαν δρυὸς ἀμφικεάσσας.—Οδυσ. Ε. 11. ̓Αμφὶ δέ οἱ μεγάλην αὐλὴν ποίησαν ἄνακτι Σταυροῖσιν πυκινοῖσι.—Ιλ. Ω. 433. These are the same which Homer elsewhere calls σκόλοπες, and the ancient grammarians render each by other. Eustathius: Σταυροὶ ὀρθὰ καὶ ἀπωξυμμένα ξύλα. οἱ δ' αὐτοὶ καὶ σκόλοπες λέγονται, ἀφ' ὧν τὸ ἀνασκολοπίζεσθαι, καὶ ἀνασταυροῦσθαι· so he, expounding σταυρός : and in the same manner expounding σκόλοπες· λέγονται δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι σκόλοπες καὶ σταυροὶ, ἐκ δὲ τούτων τὸ ἀνασκολοπίζειν, καὶ ἀνασταυροῦν. As when Homer describes the Phæacian walls,

1. xli. c. 22. 'Αντίγονον ἐμαστίγωσε σταυρο προσδήσας" not that he crucified him, as Baronius mistakes; but that he put him to another death after the Roman custom, as those died in Livy, 1. xxviii. c. 29.