صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

paid tithes in him, and yet Christ, though the Son of Abraham, did not pay tithes in him, but receive them in Melchizedec; so though we being in the loins of Adam may be all said to sin in him, yet Christ, who descended from the same Adam according to the flesh, was not partaker of that sin, but an expiation for it. For he who is contained in the seminal virtue of his parent, is some way under his natural power, and therefore may be in some manner concerned in his actions; but he who is only from him by his natural substance, according to a passive or obediential power, and so receiveth not his propagation from him, cannot be so included in him as to be obliged by his actions, or obnoxious to his demerits.

Thirdly; it was necessary that we should believe Christ born of that person, that virgin Mary which was espoused unto Joseph, that thereby we might be assured that he was of the family of David. For whatsoever promises were made of the Messias were appropriated unto him. As the seed of the woman was first contracted to the seed of Abraham, so the seed of Abraham was next appropriated to the Son of David. He was "to be called the Son of the Highest, and the Lord God was to give unto him the throne of his father David," Luke i. 32. When Jesus asked the Pharisees, "What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? they said unto him, The son of David," Matt. xxii. 42. When Herod demanded of the chief priests and scribes where Christ should be born; "they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea," because that was the city of David, whither Joseph went up with Mary his espoused wife, because he was of the house and lineage of David. After John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ, was born, "Zacharias blessed the Lord God of Israel, who had raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David," Luke i. 69. The woman of Canaan, the blind men sitting by the way, and those other blind that followed him cried out, "Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David." The very children, out of whose mouths God perfected praise, were "crying in the temple, and saying, Hosannah to the Son of David," Matt. xxi. 15. And when the blind and dumb both spake and saw, "all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the

Son of David?" Matt. xii. 23. Thus by the public and concurrent testimonies of all the Jews, the promised Messias was to come of the house and lineage of David; for "God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit upon his throne," Acts ii. 30. It was therefore necessary we should believe that our Saviour "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;" of which we are assured, because he was born of that virgin Mary who descended from him, and was espoused unto Joseph, who descended from the same, that thereby his genealogy might be known,

The consideration of all which will at last lead us to a clear explication of this latter branch of the article, whereby every Christian may inform himself what he is bound to profess, and being informed, fully express what is the object of his faith in this particular, when he saith, I believe in Jesus Christ which was born of the virgin Mary. For hereby he is conceived to intend thus much—I assent unto this as a most certain and infallible truth, that there was a certain woman, known by the name of Mary, espoused unto Joseph of Nazareth, who before and after her espousals was a pure and unspotted virgin, and being and continuing in the same virginity, did, by the immediate operation of the Holy Ghost, conceive within her womb the only-begotten Son of God, and, after the natural time of other women, brought him forth as her firstborn Son, continuing still a most pure and immaculate virgin; whereby the Saviour of the world was born of a woman under the law, without the least pretence of any original corruption, that he might deliver us from the guilt of sin; born of that virgin who was of the house and lineage of David, that he might sit upon his throne, and rule for evermore. And in this latitude I profess to believe in Jesus Christ, bora of the virgin Mary.

262

ARTICLE IV.

Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried.

THIS article hath also received some accession in the particular expressions of Christ's humiliation; for the first word of it, now generally speaking of his passion, in the most ancient creeds was no way distinguished from his crucifixion; for as we say, suffered and crucified, they only, "crucified under Pontius Pilate :" nor was his crucifixion distinguished from his death, but where we read, crucified, dead, and buried, they only, "crucified and buried." Because the chief of his sufferings were on the cross, and he gave up the ghost there, therefore his whole passion and his death were comprehended in his crucifixion.

[ocr errors]

But again; seeing he suffered not only on the cross; seeing it was possible he might have been affixed to that cursed tree, and yet not have died; therefore the church thought fit to add the rest of his sufferings, as antecedent, and his death, as consequent, to his crucifixion.

To begin then with his passion in general. In those words, he suffered under Pontius Pilate, we are to consider part as substantial, part as circumstantial. The substance of this part of the article consisteth in our Saviour's passion-he suffered; the circumstance of time is added, declared by the present governor-under Pontius Pilate.

Now for the explication of our Saviour's passion as distinct from those particulars which follow in the article, more, I conceive, cannot be required than that we show who it was that suffered, how he suffered, what it was he suffered.

First; if we would clearly understand him that suffered in his full relation to his passion, we must consider him both in his office, and his person; as Jesus Christ, and as the only-begotten Son of God. In respect of his office, we believe that he who was the Christ did suffer; and so we make profession to be saved by faith in a suffering Messias. Of which that we may give a just account, first, we must prove that the promised Messias was to suffer;

for if he were not, then by professing that our Jesus suffered, we should declare he was not Christ. Secondly, we must show that Jesus, whom we believe to be the Messias, did really and truly suffer; for if he did not, then while we proved the true Messias was to suffer, we should conclude our Jesus was not that Messias. Thirdly, it will farther be advantageous for the illustration of this truth, to manifest that the sufferings of the Messias were determined and foretold, as those by which he should be known. And, fourthly, it will then be necessary to show that our Jesus did truly suffer whatsoever was determined and foretold. And more than this cannot be necessary to declare who it was that suffered, in relation to his office.

For the first of these, that the promised Messias was to suffer, to all Christians it is unquestionable; because our Saviour did constantly instruct the Apostles in this truth, both before his death, that they might expect it, and after, that they might be confirmed by it. And one part of the doctrine which St. Paul disseminated through the world was this, "that the Christ must needs have suffered."

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 show 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:" and "how the Spirit of Christ which was in the prophets testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ."

1 Pet. i. 11.

66

a

The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is beyond all question a sad, but clear, description of a suffering person; 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 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 who should be only glorious, have been enforced to invent another who 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 who 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.

« السابقةمتابعة »