Abbildungen der Seite



whom that chapter treateth was certainly the Messias, as we have formerly proved by the confession of the most ancient Jews, and may farther be evidenced both from them and from the place itself.* For surely no man's soul can be “ made an offering for our sins,” but our Saviour's: nor hath God “laid on any man the iniquity of us all,” but on our Redeemer.

Upon” no person but the Messias could the chastisement of our peace” be; nor“ with any stripes could we be healed” but his. It is sufficiently then demonstrated by the prophet, that the suffering person whom he describes was to be the Christ, in that he “ bare our griefs,” and “ carried our sorrows." This prediction is so clear, ever since the serpent was to

Page 153. we shewed by the thing ancient: for we find that Origen authority of the Targum, the Bere- was urged with that exposition, in a shith Rabba, and the Midrash upon disputation with the Jews: Méuvnual Ruth, and by the confession of So- δέ ποτε έν τινι προς τους λεγομένους lomon Jarclii and Moses Alsthech, παρά 'Ιουδαίοις σοφούς εκζητήσει ταϊς that the ancient Rabbins did interpret προφητείαις ταύταις χρησάμενος" εφ' οίς that chapter of the Messias: which έλεγεν ο Ιουδαίος, ταύτα πεπροφητεύmight seem a sufficient acknowledg- σθαι ώς περί ενός του όλου και γινομένου ment. But because this is the most έν τη διασπορά και πληγέντος, ένα πολconsiderable controversy between us λοί προσήλυτοι γένωνται τη προφάσει and the Jews, it will not seem unne- του έπεσπάρθαι Ιουδαίους τοίς πολλούς cessary to prove the same truth by Oveol. adv. Cels. I. i. c. 55. Thos the further testimonies. In the Talmud Jew interpreted those places, Isa, lii. Cod. Sanhedrin, to the question, 14. “His visage was so marred more What is the name of the Messias? it than any man,” lii. 15. “ that which is answered, Xynnt the leper. And had not been told tliem, they shall the reason of the name is there ren- see,” liii. 3. “a man of sorrows and dered, JORJ because it is spoken in acquainted with grief;" and applied this, Isa. liii. 4.“Surely he haili borne them to the people of Israel in their our griefs, and carried our sorrows: dispersions. But Origen did easily yet we did esteem bim stricken," i.e. refute him, by retorting other places yas. And because yujt is used of of the same prophecy; as liii

. 4. the leprosy, Levit. xiii. 13. therefore “Surely he hath borne our griefs, from you they concluded his name and carried our sorrows,” ver. 5. to be a leper, and consequently did “ He was wounded for our transinterpret that place of the Messias. gressions, he was bruised for our inIn the Pesikta it is written, N'YNT iquities, and with his stripes are we Vai nowin'n 'God produced bealed :” Sapãs yap, says he, oi &v the soul of the Messias, and said unto ταίς αμαρτίαις γενόμενοι, και ιαθέντες, him, Wiit thou redeem my sons after εκ του τον Σωτήρα πεπονθέναι, είταπό six thousand years? He answered, I του λαού εκείνου, είτε και οι από τών εθwill. Wilt thou bear the chastise- võv, raõra déyovot. Ibid. But espe ments, to take away their sins ? 1177 eially he confounded the Jew with NW X17 13995377 378 3797 as it those words of the 8th verse, " He is written, Isa. liii. 4. “Surely he was cut off out of the land of the liv. hath borne our griefs?" And he an- ing, for the transgressions of my peoswered, I will bear them with joy.' pie was he stricken:” Máriota de Which is a clear testimony, consider- εδόξαμεν θλίβειν από της φασκούσης ing the opinion of the Jews, that all λέξεως το, 'Από τών ανομιών του λαού souls of men were created in the be- μου ήχθη εις θάνατον. Ει γάρ ο λαός ginning, and so the soul of the Messias κατά εκείνους εισίν οι προφητευόμενοι, to suffer for the rest. The shift of the πώς από των ανομιών του λαού του Jews, turning these expressions of θεού λέγεται ήχθαι εις θάνατον ούτος, from the Messias, and attributing of ει μή έτερος ών παρά τον λαόν του θεού; them to the people as to one, is some- ris d' otros, ei jih 'Incoûs Xplorós; Ibid.


“bruise the heel of the woman's seed,” that the Jews, who were resolved to expect a Messias which should be only glorious, have been enforced to invent another, which should suffer. And then they answer us with a distinction of their own invention; that a Messias was to redeem us, and a Messias was to suffer for us: but the same Messias was not both to redeem us and to suffer for us. For they say that there are two several persons promised under the name of the Messias ;* one of the tribe of Ephraim, the other of the tribe of Judah; one the son of Joseph, the other the son of David; the one to precede, fight, and suffer death, the other to follow, conquer, reign, and never to die. If then our Saviour were a Christ, we must confess he was a suffering Messias, and, consequently, according to their doctrine, not a Saviour. For if he were the son of David, then, say they, he was never to die; or if he ever died, he was not that Messias which was promised to sit upon the throne of David. And while we confess our Saviour died, and withal assert his descent from the house of David, we do, in their opinion, involve ourselves in a contradiction.

But this distinction of a double Messias, is far from prevailing over our belief: first, because it is in itself false, and therefore of no validity against us; secondly, because it was first invented to counterfeit the truth, and so very advantageous to us.

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

*. So indeed the Jews expected a the Messias the son of Joseph which doable Messias, one 901 13 do was slain, asked of God nothing but Messias the son of Joseph, the other life. Thus from the Talmud and the 717 13 two Messias the son of latter Targum, the Rabbins have geDavid. See the Targum expressly nerally taught a double Messias, one upon Canticles, iv. 5. TR72 7'70 As Solomon Jarchi, Isa. xxiv. 18.

the son of David, the other of Joseph. 717 72 niua 727225 goyinyt Zech. xii. 10. Aben Ezra, Zech. ix. 0978 92. uriTwo are thy 9. Malach, iji. 1. Kimchi, Zech. xii. deliverers which shall deliver thee, Mes- 10. whom the latter Jews constantly sias the son of David, and Messias the follow. And this Marcion the heretic son of Ephraim: and in the same seems to have learned of the Jews, manner, chap. vii. 3. This, that pa- and to have taught with some alteraraphrast, nothing so ancient as the tion in favour of his own opinion: rest, is conceived to have taken out · Constituit Marcion alium esse Chriof the Talmud in Massecheth Succa, stum, qui Tiberianis temporibus a where cap. 5. inscribed bokning, God Deo quondam

ignoto revelatus sit in saith to Messias ,the son of David, salutem omnium gentium; alium, qui wpan 78 ya 58 Ask what thou a Deo creatore in restitutionem Juwilt (according to the second Psalm), daici status sit destinatus, quandoque and I will give it thee., 711 77') venturus.Tertull. adv. Marcion. I. iv. 1970 0712 Trups Who seeing c. 6.

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 Mes. sias'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 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

• ο ερχόμενος,

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 Messias was to undergo for us was predetermined 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

* Those which were called by the smate tantum quasi passum fuisse.' Greeks Aorntai and oavtaolaotai, Tertull. de Præsc. adv. Hæret. c. 46. who taught that Christ was man only. Vide Epiph. mutilum, Hær. 23. §. 1. putative, and came into the world And Basilides, who delivered: elvar only in phantasmate, and consequently τον Χριστόν φαντασίαν εν τω φαίνεσθαι, that tie did only putalive pati. These μη είναι δε άνθρωπον, μηδέ σάρκα είληwere called Δοκηται, not from their φέναι--ουχί Ιησούν φάσκων πεπονθέναι, author, but from their opinion, that állà Eiuwva Tòv Kupnvaiov. S. EpiChrist did all things only ły dochoel, phan. Hær. 24. §. 3.

A Judæis non in appearance, not reality. As Cle- credunt Christum crucifixum, sed Simens Alexandrinus: Tõv aipéoewv ai monem Cyrenensem, qui angariatus uèv åtò doyuátwv idialóvtwv #poo ayo- sustulit crucem ejus. S. August. pevovrai, tūv Aokntūv. Strom. Har. 4. Thus the Valentinians, par1. vii. c. 17. fin. viz. oi dochoel Xplotòv ticularly Marcus, the father of the Trepavepwodai ümédaßov. Id. l. vi.” “Ne- Marcosian heretics: •Marcus etiam que in phantasia, id est, absque carne, nescio quis Hæresim condidit, negans sicut Valentinus asserit, neque de resurrectionem carnis, et Christum thesi, putative imaginatum, sed ve- non vere, sed putative, passum asserum corpus.' Gennad. de Eccl. Dogm. verans.' S. August. Hær. 14. Thus c. 2. Where, for de thesi, I suppose

Cerdon : Christum in substantia we should read dokyoel. The original carnis negat, in phantasmate solo, of this train of heretics is to be fetched fuisse pronunciat, nec omnino pasfrom Simon Magus, whose assertion sum, sed quasi passum.' Tertull. was: “Christum nec venisse, nec a Ju- Præsc, c. 51. • Christum ipsum nedæis quicquam pertulisse.' S. August. que natum ex foemina, neque baHæres. 1. Wherefore making bim- buisse carnem, nec vere mortuum, self the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, vel quicquam passum, sed simulasse he affirmed, “se in Filii persona pu- passionem. S. August. Hær. 21. And tative apparuisse,' and so that he suf- the Manichees, who taught: “Cbrifered as the Son amongst the Jews : stum non fuisse in carne vera, sed siαληθεία μη πεπονθέναι δε, αλλά δοκήσει mulatam speciem carnis Iudicandis uóvov. Damasc. de Hæres. Now what humanis sensibus præbuisse; ubi non Simon Magus said of himself, when solum mortem, verum etiam resurhe made himself the Son, that those rectionem mentiretur.' Idem, Hær. who followed affirmed of Christ. As 46. Whom therefore Vincentius LiSaturninus, who taught: ‘Cbristum rinensis calls phantasiæ prædicatores, in substantia non fuisse, et phanta- c. 20.

[ocr errors]

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 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 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, 0 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 effusion of blood there was no remission,

« ZurückWeiter »