« ZurückWeiter »
power, no more did Christ himself, who was no otherwise raised than by an eminent act of God's omnipotency; which is excellently set forth by the apostle, in so high an exaggeration of expressions, as I think is scarcely to be paralleled in any author, “that we may know what is the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe, according to the working of the might of his power which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him up from the dead."* (Eph. i. 19.) Being then omnipotency is a divine attribute, and infinite power belongs to God alone; being no less power than infinite could raise our Saviour from the dead: it followeth, that whatsoever instrumental action might occur, God must be acknowledged the principal agent.
And therefore in the Scriptures the raising of Christ is attributed to God the Father (according to those words of the apostle, “Paul an apostle, not of men, neither by men, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from the dead,” Gal. i. 1.); but it is not attributed to the Father alone. For to whomsoever that infinite power doth belong, by which Christ was raised, that person must be acknowledged to have raised him. And because we have already proved that the eternal Son of God is of the same essence, and consequently of the same power with the Father, and shall hereafter shew the same true also of the Holy Ghost; therefore we must likewise acknowledge that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost raised Christ from the dead.+ Nor is this only true by virtue of this ratiocination, but is also delivered expressly of the Son, and that by himself. It is a weak fallacy used by the Socinians, who maintain, that God the Father only raised Christ, and then say, they teach as much as the apostles did, who attribute it always either generally unto God, or particularly to the Father. For if the apostles taught it only so, yet
* Κατά το υπέρβαλλον μέγεθος της ενήργησεν εν τώ Χριστώ εγείρας αυτόν δυνάμεως αυτού, κατά την ενέργειας του εκ νεκρών. All which he set on work, κράτους της ισχύος αυτού, ήν ενήργησεν all which he actuated in Christ, when ŠV TY XP40TŲ. Which words our trans- be raised him from the dead. lation comes far short of, and I doubt t.Quis nisi solus Filius resurrexit? our language can scarce reach it. For Quia solus mori potuit, qui carnem first, here are dóvapus, and ioxùs, two habuit: et tamen ab hoc opere, quo words to express the power of God, solus Filius resurrexit, non erat Pater and the validity and force of it, but alienus, de quo scriptum est, qui not sufficient; wherefore there is an suscitavit a mortuis Jesum. An forte addition to each of them, uéyeyog rñs se ipse non suscitavit? Et ubi est duvápews, and kpáros rñs loxíos, two quod ait, Solvite templum hoc, et triwords more to express the eminent duo suscitabo illud? et quod potestagreatness of this power and force, but tem habere se dicit ponendi et iterum not sufficient yet; and therefore there sumendi animam suam? Quis autem is another addition to each addition, ita desipiat, ut Spiritum Sanctum reτο υπερβάλλον μέγεθος, and η ενέργεια surrectionem hominis Christi dicat Toũ kpárovs, to set forth the eminence non cooperatum, cum ipsum hominem and activity of that greatness; and all Christum fuerit operatus.' S. August. yet as it were but flat and dull, till it contra Serm. Arian. cap. 15. be quickened with an active verb, ijv
if he which taught the apostles, taught us something more, we must make that also part of our belief. They believe the Father raised Christ, because St. Paul hath taught them so, and we belicve the same : they will not believe that Christ did raise himself; but we must also believe that, because he hath said so. These were his words unto the Jews, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up;" and this is the explication of the apostle, “But he spake of the temple of his hody," (John ii. 19. 21.) which he might very properly call a temple, because “the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily." (Col. ii. 9.) And “when he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had said.” (John ii. 22.) Now if, upon the resurrection of Christ, the apostles believed those words of Christ, " Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up," then did they believe that Christ raised himself; for in those words there is a person mentioned which raised Christ, and no other person mentioned but himself.
A strange opposition they make to the evidence of this argument, saying, that God the Father raised Christ to life,* and Christ being raised to life, did lift and raise his body out of the grave, as the man sick of the palsy raised himself from the bed, or as we shall raise ourselves out of the graves when the trump shall sound, and this was all which Christ did or could do. But if this were true, and nothing else were to be understood in those words of our Saviour, he might as well have said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days any one of you may raise it up.' For when life was restored unto it by God, any one of them might have lifted it up, and raised it out of the grave, and have shewn it alive.
This answer therefore is a mere shift: for to raise a body which is dead, is, in the language of the Scriptures, to give life unto it, or to quicken a mortal body. “For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.”+ (John v. 21.) He then which
Aliter Deus Christum suscitavit, absolute power. Kaitoi tò, oudèv dúaliter Christus corpus suum.
Deus ναται αφ' εαυτού ποιείν, τω, ούς θέλει, Christo vitam restituendo, Christus εναντίον εστίν. Ει γάρ ούς θέλει, δύναvita recuperata corpus suum levando, ται αφ' εαυτού ποιείν, το γαρ θέλειν εξουet e sepulcro prodeundo, seque post σίας" ει δε ου δύναται αφ' εαυτού, ουκέτι mortem vivum sistendo prebendoque. oύς θέλει. Το μεν γάρ, ώσπερ ο πατήρ Sic et paralyticus ille erexerat corpus εγείρει, της δυνάμεως δείκνυσι την απαsuum, accepta a Christo sanitate: sic ραλλαξίαν" το δέ, ούς θέλει, της εξουσίας et omnes mortui surgent, et ex monu- tov ióórnta. S. Chrysost. Hom. 38. in mentis prodibunt, recepta ab eodem Ioan. Where it is very observable Christo vita. Confessionis Sociniana that though łyeipsiv TOùs verpoùg and Vindices.
ζωοποιεϊν be the same in the language + Έγείρειν τους νεκρούς and ζωοποιείν of the Scriptures, yet εγείρειν and ζωοis the same thing; and therefore one yovely are not the same. By which in the Apodosis answereth to both in observation the late learned Bishop of the Protasis, and sheweth that Christ Ely, hath most evidently detected raiseth and quickeneth whom he will, that Socinian cavil. "Si quis nbstiwhich demonstrateth his infinite and nate vocem excitabo [łyepā] urgere
quickeneth the dead bodies of others when he raiseth them, he also quickened his own body, when he raised that. The temple is supposed here to be dissolved, and being so, to be raised again; therefore the suscitation must answer to the dissolution. But the temple of Christ's body was dissolved when his soul was separated, nor was it any other way dissolved than by that separation. God suffered not his • Holy One to see corruption, and therefore the parts of his body, in respect of each to other, suffered no dissolution. Thus as the apostle desired to be “ dissolved and to be with Christ," so the temple of Christ's body was dissolved here, by the separation of his soul: for the temple standing was the body living; and therefore the raising of the dissolved temple was the quickening of the body. If the body of Christ had been laid down in the sepulchre alive, the temple had not been dissolved; therefore to lift it up out of the sepulchre when it was before quickened, was not to raise a dissolved temple, which our Saviour promised he would do, and the apostles believed he did.
Again, it is most certainly false that our Saviour had power only to lift up his body when it was revived, but bad no power of himself to reunite his soul unto his body, and thereby to revive it. For Christ speaketh expressly of himself, " I lay vult, is animadvertet quid D. Jesus i. 17. DYBT 9x 7789 kaì llwoalibi dicat, Eum qui perdiderit ani- yóvovv tà ápoeva, Vulg. Trans. sed mam, vivificaturum eam, Ubi si quis conservabant mares, Chald. Xo'p? insistere vellet ipsis verbis, eum col- X2°n'; so verse 18. ¿Swoyoveīte tà ligere oporteret, Credentes etiam ipsos äpseva, and 22. kai tāv Oñàu 'woyosesc vivificaturos, et a mortuis excita- veire aŭrò. And indeed IT in Piel turos.” Cat. Racov. Sect. ix. p. 334. is often used for keeping or preserving For łyepő hath manifest relation to the alive, and is so several times translated, dead, but Śwoyovũ unto the living. Swoyovõ as well as Gwypw, as Jud. viji. And therefore our translation hath 19. Onnis, ei tŚwoyovýceite auto's, very well rendered those words, Luc. ouk av ånértelva juās, Volg. Trans. xvii
. 33. og tàv årolio, avrny, Swoyo- Si servassetis eos, non vos occiderem, viosi aŭtiv, “ Whosoever shall lose. “If ye had saved them alive, I would his life, shall preserve it:" so that (wo- not slay you." 1 Sam. xxvii. 9. 857 γονεϊν ψυχήν is to preserve life, which T και ουκ εζωογόνει άνδρα, η γυinterpretation is most evident out of vaīka, Vulg. Trans. Nec relinquebat vithe antithesis of the same place: "Os àv ventem virum aut mulierem, “And left ζητήση την ψυχήν αυτού σώσαι, απολέσει neither man nor woman alive.” And aúrýv. For owoar and åroléoel in the which is yet nearer to our purpose, former part are the same with åtodéoel 1 Kings xx.31. TUDI NA Tigaibox and ζωογονήσει in the latter. And be- LΧΧ. εί πως ζωογονήσει τας ψυχάς side, this is the language of St. Luke, juõv, Vulg. Trans. Forsitan salvabit who, Acts vii. 19. says, that the Egyp- animas nostras,“ Peradventure he will tians ill intreated the Israelites, ToŨ TOL save thy life.” So that Swoyoveiv in siv ērchera rà ßpéon avrūv, eig tò mi) Swo- the language of the LXX. is to save γονείσθαι, , “So that they cast out their alive, and Swoyoveiv triv foxov, is to young children, to the end they might preserve one's life. So that St. Luke not live,” that is, remain alive, Syr. in the text cited by the Socinians, 71073 X57, ne servarentur, ne viverent, could intend no more than that he as the Arabic. In which words there which was ready to lose his life for is a manifest reference to that place Christ, should thereby preserve it, and in Exodus, where thrice this word is consequently he speaks nothing of the used in that sense by the LXX. as raising of the dead.
down my ủife (or sopl) that I might take it again. No man taketh it froin me, but I lay it down of myself, I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." (John X. 17, 18.) The laying down of Christ's life was to die, and the taking of itagain was to revive; and by his taking of his life again, he shewed himself to be the resurrection and the life.” (John xi. 25.) For he which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” (Rom. i. 4.) But if Christ had done no more in the resurrection, thay lifted up his body when it was revived, he had done that which any other person might have done, and so had not declared himself to be the Son of God with power. It remainęth therefore, that Christ by that power which he had within himself, did take his life again which he had laid down, did reunite his soul unto his body, from which he separated it when he gave up the ghost, and so did quicken and revive himself: and so it is a certain truth, not only that God the Father raised the Son, but also that God the Son raised himself.*
From this consideration of the efficient cause of Christ's resurrection, we are yet farther assured, that Christ did truly and properly rise from the dead in the same soul and the same body. For if we look upon the Father, it is beyond all controversy that he raised his own Son: and as while he was hore alive, God spake from heaven, saying, “This is my wellbeloved Son;" so after his death it was the same person, of whom he spake by the prophet, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” (Psal. ii. 7. Acts xiii. 33.) If we look upon Christ himself, and consider him with power to raise himself, there can be no greater assurance that he did totally and truly arise in soul and body by that Divinity, which was never separated either from the body or from the soul. And thus we have sufficiently proved our second particular, the verity, reality, and propriety, of Christ's resurrection, contained in those words, He rose from the dead.
The third particular concerns the time of Christ's resurrection, which is expressed by the third day; and those words afford a double consideration ; one in respect of the distance of time, as it was after three days; the other in respect of the day, which was the third day from his passion, and the precise day upon which he rose. For the first of these, we shall
* Και αληθώς έπαθεν, ώς και αληθώς autem suscitanda mortuus erat. Non ávéopadEV łautóv. S. Ignat. ad Smyrn. enim Pater solus Filium suscitavit, de §. 2. $i peccati confessor revixit a quo dictum est ab Apostolo, Propter morte, quis eum suscitavit? Nullus quod eum Deus exaltavit, sed etiam mortuus est sui ipsius suscitator. Ille Dominus seipsum, id est, corpus suum: se potuit suscitare, qui mortua carne unde dicit, Solvite templum hoc, et in non mortuus est. Etenim hoc susci triduo suscitabo illud. S. August. de tavit quod mortuum fuerat. Ille se Verb. Domin. Serm. 8. al. 67. §. 2. suscitavit qui vivebat in se, in carne
shew that the Messias, who was foretold both to die and to rise again, was not to rise before, and was to rise upon the third day after his death; and that in correspondence to these predictions, our Jesus, whom we believe to be the true Messias, did not rise from the dead until, and did rise from the dead upon, the third day.
The typical predictions of this truth were two, answering to our two considerations, one in reference to the distance, the other in respect of the day itself. The first is that of the prophet Jonas, wbo" was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights," and then by the special command of God he was rendered safe“upon the dry land,” and sent a preacher of repentance to the great city of Nineveh. (Jonah i. 17, ii, 10. iii. 2.) This was an express type of the Messias then to come, who was to preach repentance and remission of sins to all nations; that “as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so should the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth :" (Matt. xii. 40.) and as he was restored alive unto the dry land again, so should the Messias, after three days, be taken out of the jaws of death, and restored unto the land of the living.
The type in respect of the day was the waved sheaf in the feast of the first-fruits, concerning which this was the law of God by Moses, “When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then shall ye bring a sheaf of the first-fruits of your harvest unto the priest: and he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf, an he-lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt-offering unto the Lord.” (Lev. xxiii. 10-12.) For under the Levitical Law, all the fruits of the earth in the land of Canaan were profane; none might eat of them till they were consecrated, and that they were in the feast of the firstfruits. One sheaf was taken out of the field and brought to the priest, who lifted it up as it were in the name of all the rest, waving it before the Lord, and it was accepted for them, so that all the sheaves in the field were holy by the acceptation of that: “ For if the first-fruits be holy, the lump also is holy.” (Rom. xi. 16.) And this was always done the day after the sabbath, that is, the paschal solemnity, after which the fulness of the harvest followed: by which thus much was foretold and represented, that as the sheaf was lifted up and waved, and the lamb was offered on that day by the priest to God, so the promised Messias, that immaculate Lamb which was to die, that priest which dying was to offer up himself to God, was upon this day to be lifted up and raised from the dead, or rather to shake and lift up and present himself to God, and so to be accepted for us all, that so our dust might be sanctified, our corruption hallowed, our mortality consecrated to eternity. Thus was the resurrection of the Messias