« ZurückWeiter »
lineage; “for it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah." (Heb. vii. 14.)
Besides, if we look upon the place where the Messias was to be born, we shall find that Jesus by a particular act of Providence was born there. “ When Herod bad gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea.” (Matt. ii. 4,5.) The people doubted whether Jesus was the Christ, because they thought he had been born in Galilee, where Joseph and Mary lived; wherefore they said, “ Sball Christ come out of GaJilee? Hath not the Scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was ?” (John vii. 41, 42.) That place of Scripture which they meant was cited by the scribes to Herod, according to the interpretation then current among the Jews, and still preserved in the Chaldee paraphrase.* “ For thus it is written in the prophet, And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah, for out of thee shall come a governor that shall rule my people Israel.” (Matt. ii. 5, 6.) This prediction was most manifestly and remarkably fulfilled in the birth of Jesus, when by the providence of God it was so ordered, that Augustus should then tax the world, to which end every one should go up into his own city. Whereupon Joseph and Mary his espoused wife left Nazareth of Galilee, their habitation, and went into Bethlehem of Judea, the city of David, there to be taxed, “ because they were of the house and lineage of David.” (Luke ii. 4.) And, while they were there, as the days of the Virgin Mary were accomplished, so the prophecy was fulfilled; for there she brought forth her first-born son; and so unto us was born that day “ in the city of David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.” (Luke ii. 11.)
But if we add unto the family and place, the manner of his birth, also foretold, the argument must necessarily appear conclusive. The prophet Isaiah spake thus unto the house of David; “The Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isa. vii. 14.) What nativity could be more congruous to the greatness of a Messias than that of a virgin, which is most miraculous ? What name can be thought fitter for him than that of Immanuel, “ God with us,” (Isa. viii. 8.) whose land Judea is said to be? The Immanuel then thus born of a virgin was without question the true Messias. And we know Jesus was thus born of the blessed Virgin Mary, “ that it might be fulfilled which was thus spoken of the Lord * Whicb, expressly translateth it he may exercise domination in Israel. : ,
, , shall come before me the Messias, that Hwan 750 897
ממך לי יצא משיח,So RabbiSolomon מנך קדמי יפוק משיחא למהוי :thus ,So Kimchi and Abarbanel בן דוד Out of thee עביד שולטן על ישראל
by the prophet.” (Matt. i. 22.) Wherefore being all the prophecies concerning the family, place, and manner of the birth of the Messias were fulfilled in Jesus, and not so much as pretended to be accomplished in any other; it is again from hence apparent, that this Jesus is the Christ.
Thirdly, He who taught what the Messias was to teach, did what the Messias was to do, suffered what the Messias was to suffer, and by suffering obtained all which a Messias could obtain, must be acknowledged of necessity to be the true Messias. But all this is manifestly true of Jesus. Therefore we must confess he is the Christ. For, first, it cannot be denied but the Messias was promised as a prophet and teacher of the people. So God promised him to Moses; « I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto thee.” (Deut. xviii. 18.) So Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Hosea, have expressed him, as we shall hereafter have farther occasion to shew. And, not only so, but as a greater prophet, and more perfect doctor, than ever any was which preceded him, more universal than they all. “I have put my Spirit upon him, (saith God): he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles, and the isles shall wait for his law.” (Isa. xlii. I. 4.) Now it is as evident that Jesus of Nazareth was the most perfect Prophet, the Prince* and Lord of all the prophets, doctors, and pastors, which either preceded or succeeded him. For he hath revealed unto us the most perfect will of God both in his precepts and his promises. He hath delivered the same after the most perfect manner, with the greatest authority; not like Moses and the prophets, saying, Thus saith the Lord; but “I say unto you;” (Matt. v. often.) not like the interpreters of Moses, for“ he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes :" (Matt. vii. 29.) with the greatest perspicuity, not, as those before him, under types and shadows, but plainly and clearly; from whence both he and bis doctrine is frequently called light : with the greatest universality, as preaching that Gospel which is to unite all the .nations of the earth into one Church, that there might be one Shepherd and one flock. Whatsoever then that great Prophet the Messias was to teach, that Jesus taught; and whatsoever works he was to do, those Jesus did.
When John the Baptist “ had heard the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples" with this message to him, "Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?” (Matt. xi. 2, 3.) And Jesus returned this answer unto him, shewing the ground of that message, “the works of Christ," was a sufficient resolution of the question sent; “Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: the blind re.ceive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up.” (Matt. xi. 4, 5.)
'Αρχιποίμην. 1 Ρet. ν. 4. ο ποιμήν ο ποιμήν και επίσκοπος των ψυχών. 1 Tūv a poßátwv ò uéyas. Heb. xiji. 20. Pet. ii. 25.
And as Jesus alleged the works which he wrought to be a sufficient testimony that he was the Messias; so did those Jews acknowledge it, who said, “When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man doeth ?” (John vii. 31.) And Nicodemus, a ruler among them, confessed little less : “Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.” (John iii. 2.) Great and many were the miracles which Moses and the rest of the prophets wrought for the ratification of the Law, and the demonstration of God's constant presence with his people; and yet all those, wrought by so many several persons, in the space of above three thousand years, are far short of those which this one Jesus did perform within the compass of three years. The ambitious diligence of the Jews hath reckoncd up seventy-six miracles for Moses, and seventy-four for all the rest of the prophets: and supposing that they were so many (though indeed they were not), how few are they in respect of those which are written of our Saviour! How inconsiderable, if compared with all which he wrought! when St. John testifieth with as great certainty of truth as height of hyperbole, that “there are many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, he supposed that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." (John xxi. 25.) Nor did our Saviour excel all others in the number of his miracles only, but in the power of working. Whatsoever miracle Moses wrought, he either obtained by his prayers, or else, consulting with God, received it by command from him ; so that the power of'miracles cannot be conceived asimmanent or inhering in him. . Whereas this power must of necessity be in Jesus, " in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," (Col. ii. 9.) and “to whom the Father had given to have life in himself.” (John v. 26.) This he sufficiently shewed by working with a word, by commanding the winds to be still, the devils to fly, and the dead to rise: by working without a word or any intervenient sign; as when the woman which “had an issue of blood twelve years touched his garment, and straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up' (Mark v. 25. 29.) by the virtue which flowed out from the greater fountain of his power. And, lest this example should be single, we find that “the men of Gennesaret,” the “people out of all Judea and Jerusalem, and from the sea-coast of Tyre and Sidon, even the whole multitude sought to touch him; for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all." (Matt. xiv. 34. 36. Luke vi. 17. 19.) Once indeed Christ seemed to have prayed, before he raised Lazarus from the grave, but even that was done " because of the people which stood by;” (John xi. 42.) not that he had not power within himself to raise up Lazarus, who was afterwards to raise himself; but “that they might believe the Father had sent him.” (Ibid.)
The immanency and inherency of this power in Jesus is evident in this, that he was able to communicate it to whom he pleased, and actually did confer it upon his disciples: “Behold I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy.”(Luke x. 19.) Upon the apostles: “Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils; freely ye have received, freely give." (Matt. x. 8.): Upon the first believers: “These signs shall follow them that believe; in my name they shall cast out devils.” (Mark xvi. 17.) “He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do.” (John xiv. 12.) He then which did more actions divine and powerful than Moses and all the prophets ever did, he which performed them in a manner far more divine than that by which they wrought, 'hath done all which can be expected the Messias, foretold by them, should do.
Nor bath our Jesus only done, but suffered, all which the Messias was to suffer. For we must not with the Jews deny a suffering Christ, or fondly of our own invention make a double Messias, one to suffer, and another to reign. It is clear enough by the prophet Isaiah what his condition was to be, whom he calls the “servant of God:” (Isa. lii. 13.) and the later Jews cannot deny but their fatbers constantly understood that place of the Messias.*
• For, first, instead of those words, the fathers, as it is written, Behold, my “ Behold, my servant shall deal pru- servant shall understand, that is, the dently,” ibe Targum hath it plainly, Messias: which are the words of the xin ay nibyo si Behold, my verse before cited. And the same BeSon the Messias shall prosper. And reshit Rabba upon Gen. xxiv. 67. Solomon Jarchi on the place: 1397127 saith: Messias ihe King was in the trunaoppio Our rabbins under generation of the wicked; that he gave stand this of the Messias. And the bimself to seek for mercies for Israel, reason which he renders of their inter- and to fasting and humbling himself pretation is very observable. For they for them, as it is written; and so prosay (says be), that the Messias is duceth the words of Isa. liii. 5. From stricken, as it is written, “He took whence it appears again, that the auour infirmities, and bare our griefs ;” thor thereof interpreted both the chapwhich are the words of the 4th verse ters of the same Messias. And farther of the 53d chapter. From whence.we it is observable that the Midrash upon may perceive how the ancient Jews Ruth ii. 14. expounds the same verse did join the latter part of the 52d in the same manuer. And Rabbi Mo. chapter with the 53d, and expound ses Alshech speaks yet more fully of them of the same person. Beside, be the consent of the ancient Jewish doc. cites a certain Midrash, or gloss, turs upon thiş place, no 497730
, Messias, and that is to be found in 27 Behold our doctors of happy Bereshit Rabba upon Gen. xxviii. 10. memory conclude with one mouth, as where, falling upon that place in Zech. they have received from their ancestors, iv. 7. “Wbat art thou, O great moun- that this is spoken of the Messias. From tain, before Zerubbabel?” he answers, hence it appears, that it was originally Tu Ti 597207 77 that great moun- the general sense of the Jews, that all tain is the Messias. Then asking again, that piece of Isaiah is a description of Why doth he call the Messias a great the Messias, and consequently that mountain? he gives this answer, Xyto the apostles cannot be blamed by them
; Tu Ti Because he is greater than the modern Jews may well be sus.
Now the sufferings of Christ spoken of by the prophet may be reduced to two parts: one in respect of contempt, by which he was despised of men; the other in respect of his death, and all those indignities and pains which preceded and led unto it. For the first, the prophet hath punctually described his condition, saying, “ He hath no form or comeliness, and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men.” (Isa. liii. 2, 3.) He seems to describe a personage no way amiable, an aspect indeed rather uncomely:* and so the most ancient writers have interpreted Isaiah,t and confessed the fulfilling of pected to frame their contrary expo- p. 202. And Celsus impiously argusitions out of a wilful opposition to ing against the descent of the Holy Christianity.
Ghost upon our Saviour, says: It is The first 5 NO N5 seems to impossible that any body in which signify no less, as being from the root something of the Divinity were should
x which signifieth to form, figure, not differ from others; ToūTo dě (the fashion, or delineate; from whence the body of Christ) ουδέν άλλου διέφερεν, noun attributed to any person signi- αλλ', ώς φασι, μικρόν, και δυσειδές, και fieth the feature, complexion, shape, ảyevvÈS hv. This which Celsus by his or composition of the body: as Ra- ώς φασι seems to take from the com. chel was 80 ng', forma pulcra, mon report of Christians in his age, Gen. xxix. 17. and so Joseph 17' Origen will have him take out of 7X, Gen. xxxix, 6. so Abigail and Isaiah, and upon that acknowledgeth Esther, and in general, Deut. Xxi. 11. το δυσειδές, but the other two, μικρόν with an addition of fair added to Νη, and αγεννές, he dcnies : “Ομολογουμέwhereas David is called, without such νως τοίνυν γέγραπται τα περί του δυσειaddition, ΝΑ ΕΡΝ, but with the fall δες γεγονέναι το Ίησού σώμα, ου μεν ως signifcation ο ανήρ αγαθός το είδει, in εκτέθειται, και αγεννές, ουδέ σαφώς δηJudges viii. 18. 25 ΝΟ5 ΤΠΝ λούται, ότι μικρόν ήν έχει δε η λέξις ούτω Το εις ομοίωμα υιού βασιλέως, so tlie παρά τω Ησαΐα αναγεγραμμένη, &c. Roman; but the Aldus and Complut. I. vi. §. 75. and then cites this place, better, ως είδος υιών βασιλέως" accord. and so returns it as an answer to the ing to that verse of Euripides cited by argument of Celsus, that because he Athenæus and Porphyrius,
was foretold to be as he was, he must Πρώτον μεν είδος άξιον τυραννίδος. be the Son of God: Μεγάλη κατασκευή The Messias was to be a king, whose εστι του τον άμορφον δοκούντα είναι Ίηexternal form and personage spake no σούν, υιόν είναι θεού, το προ πολλών such majesty. .
ετών της γενέσεως αυτού πεπροφητεύσθαι + As Justin Martyr: Οι μεν είρηνται και περί του είδους αυτού. Ιbid. S. 76. εις την πρώτην παρουσίαν του Χριστού, In the same sense did St. Cyril take έν ή και άτιμος, και αειδής, και θνητός these words of the Prophet; who, φανήσεσθαι κεκηρυγμένος εστίν. Dial. speaking of that place of the Psalmist, cum Tryph. p. 232. 'Έλθόντος του “speciosus forma prio filiis homiΙησού επί τον Ιορδάνην, και νομιζομένου num,’ observes this must be underΙωσήφ του τέκτονος υιού υπάρχειν, και stood of his Divinity: Kένωσις γαρ αειδούς, ώς αι γραφαί εκήρυσσον, φαινο- αυτό και ταπείνωσις της μετά σαρκός οίμένου. Ιbid. p. 316. Επειδή γάρ οι έν κονομίας όλον εστί το μυστήριον" γράφει ουρανώ άρχοντες εώρων αειδή και άτιμον δήπου και ο Προφήτης Ησαΐας περί αυτο είδος και άδοξον έχοντα αυτόν, ου του, Ουκ είχεν είδος, ουδε κάλλος, &c. γνωρίζοντες αυτόν, επυνθάνοντο Τίς And again: Έν είδει πέφηνεν ο υιός τω έστιν ούτος ο βασιλεύς της δόξης; Ιbid. λίαν ακαλλεστάτω. Tertullian speaks p. 255. And Clemens Αlex. Τον δε κύ- plainly as to the prophecy, and too ριον αυτόν την όψιν αισχρόν γεγονέναι freely in his way of expression: Sed διά Hσαίου το Πνεύμα μαρτυρεί. Και carnis terrenae non mira conditio ipsa είδομεν αυτόν, και ουκ είχεν είδος, &c. erat, quae caetera ejus miranda faciePed. 3. c. 1. “Όπου γε και αυτός ή κε- bat, cum dicerent, Unde huic doctrina φαλή της Εκκλησίας εν σαρκί μέν αειδής htc et signa ista? Adeo nec humanee διελήλυθε και άμορφος, Strom. 3. c. 17. honestatis corpus fuit, nedam coele