And one part of the doctrine which St. Paul disseminated through the world was this, "that the Christ must needs have suffered." (Acts xvii. 3.) But because these testimonies will satisfy only such as believe in Jesus, and our Saviour himself did refer the disbelieving Jews to the Law and the Prophets, as those who testified of him; we will shew from thence, even from the oracles committed to the Jews, "how it was written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things," (Mark ix. 12.) and "how the Spirit of Christ which was in the prophets testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ." (1 Pet. i. 11.) sad, The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is beyond all question 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 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 Page 131, we shewed by the authority of the Targum, the Bereshith Rabba, and the Midrash upon Ruth, and by the confession of Solomon Jarchi and Moses Alshech, that the ancient Rabbins did interpret that chapter of the Messias which might seem a sufficient acknowledgment. But because this is the most considerable controversy between us and the Jews, it will not seem unnecessary to prove the same truth by further testimonies. In the Talmud Cod. Sanhedrin, to the question, What is the name of the Messias? it is answered, the leper. And the reason of the name is there rendered, because it is spoken in this, Isa. liii. 4. "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken," And because yon is used of the leprosy, Levit. xiii. 13. therefore from they concluded his name to be a leper, and consequently did interpret that place of the Messias. In the הוציא הבה נשמת Pesikta it is written ? men God produced the soul of the Messias, and said unto him, Wilt thou redeem my sons after six thousand years' He answered, I will. Wilt thou bear the chastisements, to take away their sins? as it is ההוא דכתיב אכן חליינו הוא נשא written, Isa. liii. 4. Surely he hath borne our griefs ?" And he answered, I will bear them with joy.' Which is a clear testimony, considering the opinion of the Jews, that all souls of men were created in the beginning, and so the soul of the Messias to suffer for the rest. The shift of the Jews, turning he confounded the Jew with those words 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 "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. to the second Psalm), and I will give it Who כיון שרואה למשיח בן יוסף שנהרג .thee seeing the Messias the son of Joseph which 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 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. came. 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 Messias 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 Soxntal, not from their author, but from their opinion, that Christ did all things only Soxne, in appearance, not reality. As Clemens Alexandrinus: Tav aięśσewv ai μὲν ἀπὸ δογμάτων ἰδιαζόντων προσαγορεύονται, ὡς ἡ τῶν Δοκητῶν. Strom. l. vii. c. 17. fn. viz. οἳ δοκήσει Χριστὸν πεφανερῶσθαι iméhaßov. Id. 1. vi. Neque in phantasia, id est, absque carne, sicut Valentinus asserit, neque de thesi, putative imaginatum, sed verum corpus.' Gennad. 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. As Saturninus, who taught: 'Christum in undergo for us was predeter substantia non fuisse, et phantasmate tantum quasi passum fuisse.' Tertull. de Præsc. adv. Hæret. c. 46. Vide Epiph. mutilum, Har. 23. §. 1. And Basilides, who delivered: εἶναι τὸν Χριστὸν φαντασίαν ἐν τῷ φαίνεσθαι, μὴ εἶναι δὲ ἄνθρωπον, μηδὲ σάρκα εἰληφέναι-οὐχὶ Ἰησοῦν φάσκων πεποι θέται, ἀλλὰ Σίμωνα τὸν Κυρηναῖον. S. Epiphan. 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 Lirinensis 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 |