Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

this assertion of Peter, that he was "put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:" (d) if the Son of God had not been subject to the infirmities of human nature. This is more plainly expressed by Paul, when he says, that "he was crucified through weakness." (e) The same is confirmed by his exaltation, because he is positively asserted to have obtained a new glory after his humiliation; which could only be applicable to a real man composed of body and soul. Manichæus fabricates for Christ an aërial body; because he is called "the second Adam, the Lord from heaven." (f) But the apostle in that place is not speaking of a celestial corporeal essence, but of a spiritual energy, which being diffused from Christ raises us into life. That energy we have already seen, that Peter and Paul distinguish from his body. The orthodox doctrine therefore, concerning the body of Christ, is firmly established by this very passage. For unless Christ had the same corporeal nature with us, there would be no force in the argument which Paul so vehemently urges, that if Christ be risen from the dead, then we also shall rise; that if we rise not, neither is Christ risen. (g) Of whatever cavils either the ancient Manichæans, or their modern disciples, endeavour to avail themselves, they cannot succeed. Their nugatory pretence that Christ is called "the Son of man," because he was promised to men, is a vain subterfuge: for it is evident that in the Hebrew idiom, the Son of man is a phrase expressive of a real man. And Christ undoubtedly retained the phraseology of his own language. There is no room for disputing what is meant by the sons of Adam. And not to go any farther, it will be fully sufficient to quote a passage in the eighth Psalm, which the apostles apply to Christ: "What is man, that thou art mindful of him, or the Son of man, that thou visitest him?" This phrase expresses the true humanity of Christ; because, though he was not immediately begotten by a mortal father, yet his descent. was derived from Adam. Nor would there otherwise be any truth in what we have just quoted, that Christ became a partaker of flesh and blood, that he might bring many sons to glory: language which clearly styles him to be a partaker of

(d) 1 Peter iii. 18.
(ƒ) 1 Cor. xv. 47.

(e) 2 Cor. xiii. 4.
(g) 1 Cor. xv. 13, 14.

the same common nature with us. In the same sense the apostle says, that "both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one." For the context proves that this refers to a community of nature; because he immediately adds, "for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." (h) For if he had already said that the faithful are of God, what reason Could Jesus Christ have to be ashamed of such great dignity? But because Christ of his infinite grace associates himself with those who are vile and contemptible, it is therefore said that he is not ashamed. It is a vain objection which they make, that on this principle the impious will become the brethren of Christ; because we know that the children of God are born, not of flesh and blood, but of the Spirit through faith: therefore a community of nature alone is not sufficient to constitute a fraternal union. But though it is only to the faithful that the apostle assigns the honour of being one with Christ, yet it does not follow that unbelievers are not, according to the flesh, born of the same original: as when we say that Christ was made man, to make us children of God, this expression extends not to all men; because faith is the medium by which we are spiritually ingrafted into the body of Christ. They likewise raise a foolish contention respecting the appellation of firstborn. They plead that Christ ought to have been born at the beginning, immediately of Adam, in order "that he might be the first-born among many brethren." (1) But the primogeniture attributed to him refers not to age, but to the degree of honour and the eminence of power which he enjoys. Nor is there any more plausibility in their notion, that Christ is said to have assumed the nature of man and not of angels, because he received the human race into his favour. For the apostle, to magnify the honour with which Christ hath favoured us, compares us with the angels, before whom in this respect we are preferred. (k) And if the testimony of Moses be duly considered, where he says that the Seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent, () it will decide the whole controversy. For that prediction relates not to Christ alone, but to the whole human race. Because the victory was to be gained

(h) Heb. ii. 10, 11, 14.
(k) Heb. ii, 16.

(i) Rom. viii. 29.
(7) Gen. iii. 15.

for us by Christ, God pronounces in general, that the posterity of the woman shall be superior to the devil. Whence it follows, that Christ descended from the human race; because the design of God, in that promise to Eve, was to comfort her with a good hope, that she might not be overcome with

sorrow.

III. Those passages, where Christ is called "the seed of Abraham," and "the fruit of the body of David," they with equal folly and wickedness involve in allegories. For if the word seed had been used in an allegorical sense, Paul certainly would not have been silent respecting it, where without any figure he explicitly affirms, that there are not many sons of Abraham who are redeemers, but Christ alone. (m) Equally unfounded is their notion, that Christ is called the Son of David in no other sense, but because he had been promised, and was at length manifested in due time. For after Paul has declared him to have been "made of the seed of David," the immediate addition of this phrase, "according to the flesh," (n) is certainly a designation of nature. Thus also in another place he calls him "God blessed for ever," and distinctly states that he descended from the Jews "as concerning the flesh." (0) Now if he was not really begotten of the seed of David, what is the meaning of this expression: "the fruit of his loins?" (p) What becomes of this promise: "Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne." (9) They likewise trifle in a sophistical manner with the genealogy of Christ, as it is given by Matthew. For though he mentions the parents of Joseph and not of Mary; yet as he was treating of a thing then generally known, he thought it sufficient to shew that Joseph descended from the seed of David, while there could be no doubt that Mary was of the same family. But Luke goes farther, with a view to signify, that the salvation procured by Christ is common to all mankind; since Christ the author of salvation is descended from Adam the common parent of all. I grant indeed, that from the genealogy it cannot be inferred that Christ is the Son of David, any otherwise than as he was

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

born of the Virgin. But the modern Marcionites, to give a plausibility to their error, that Christ derived his body from nothing, contend that women have no generative semen; and thus they subvert the elements of nature. But as this is not a theological question, and the arguments which they adduce are so futile that there will be no difficulty in repelling them, I shall not meddle with points belonging to philosophy and the medical art. It will be sufficient for me to obviate the objection which they allege from the Scripture, namely, that Aaron and Jehoiada married wives of the tribe of Judah, and that thus, if women contain generative semen, the distinction of tribes was confounded. But it is sufficiently known, that, for the purposes of political regulation, the posterity is always reckoned from the father; yet that the superiority of the male sex forms no objection to the co-operation of the female semen in the process of generation. This solution extends to all the genealogies. Frequently, when the Scripture exhibits a catalogue of names, it mentions none but men; is it therefore to be concluded that women are nothing? Even children themselves know that women are comprehended under their husbands. For this reason women are said to bear children to their husbands, because the name of the family always remains with the males. Now as it is a privilege conceded to the superiority of the male sex, that children should be accounted noble or ignoble, according to the condition of their fathers; so on the other hand, it is held by the lawyers, that in a state of slavery the offspring follows the condition of the mother. Whence we may infer, that the offspring is produced partly from the seed of the mother: and the common language of all nations implies that mothers have some share in the generation of children. This is in harmony with the Divine law, which otherwise would have no ground for the prohibition of the marriage of an uncle with his sister's daughter; because in that case there would be no consanguinity. It would also be lawful for a man to marry his uterine sister, provided she were begotten by another father. But while I grant that a passive power is ascribed to women, I also maintain that the same that is affirmed of men is indiscriminately predicated of them. Nor

[ocr errors]

is Christ himself said to be "made" by a woman, but "of a woman." (r) Some of these persons, casting off all modesty, impudently inquire, whether we choose to say that Christ was procreated from the menstrual seed of the Virgin. I will inquire on the other hand, whether he was not nourished in the blood of his mother; and this they must be constrained to confess. It is properly inferred therefore from the language of Matthew, that inasmuch as Christ was begotten of Mary, (s) he was procreated from her seed; as when Booz is said to have been begotten of Rahab,(t) it denotes a similar generation. Nor is it the design of Matthew here to describe the Virgin as a tube through which Christ passed, but to discriminate this miraculous conception from ordinary generation, in that Jesus Christ was generated of the seed of David by means of a Virgin. In the same sense, and for the same reason that Isaac is said to have been begotten of Abraham, Solomon of David, and Joseph of Jacob, so Christ is said to have been begotten of his mother. For the evangelist has written the whole of his account upon this principle; and to prove that Christ descended from David, he has contented himself with this one fact, that he was begotten of Mary. Whence it follows, that he took for granted the consanguinity of Mary and Joseph.

IV. The absurdities, with which these opponents wish to press us, are replete with puerile cavils. They esteem it mean and dishonourable to Christ, that he should derive his descent from men; because he could not be exempt from the universal law, which concludes all the posterity of Adam, without exception, under sin. (v) But the antithesis, which we find in Paul, easily solves this difficulty: "As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, even so by the righteousness of one the grace of God hath abounded." (w) To this the following passage corresponds: "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven." (x) Therefore the same apostle in another place, by teaching us that Christ was "sent in the likeness of sinful flesh" (y) to satisfy the

(r) Gal. iv. 4.
(ε) Matt. i. 5. Σαλμών
(v) Gal. iii. 22.

(x) 1 Cor. xv. 47.

(8) Matt. i. 16. e§ ns eyevunde Inows-
δε εγέννησε τον Βοοζ εκ της Ραχαβ,

(z) Rom. v. 12, 15, 18,
(y) Rom. viii. 3.

« AnteriorContinuar »