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 * Κατὰ τὸ ὑπέρβαλλον μέγεθος τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ κράτους τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ, ἣν ἐνήργησεν EVT XρLOTY. Which words our translation comes far short of, and I doubt our language can scarce reach it. For first, here are divas, and loxos, two words to express the power of God, and the validity and force of it, but not sufficient; wherefore there is an addition to each of them, péyedos Tns dvváμews, and κpáros rñs loxúos, two words more to express the eminent greatness of this power and force, but not sufficient yet; and therefore there is another addition to each addition, τὸ ὑπερβάλλον μέγεθος, and ἡ ἐνέργεια Tоũ kрáтovs, to set forth the eminence and activity of that greatness; and all yet as it were but flat and dull, till it be quickened with an active verb, v ἐνήργησεν ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ ἐγείρας αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν. All which he set on work, all which he actuated in Christ, when he raised him from the dead. +'Quis nisi solus Filius resurrexit? Quia solus mori potuit, qui carnem habuit: et tamen ab hoc opere, quo solus Filius resurrexit, non erat Pater alienus, de quo scriptum est, Qui suscitavit a mortuis Jesum. An forte se ipse non suscitavit? Et ubi est quod ait, Solvite templum hoc, et triduo suscitabo illud? et quod potestatem habere se dicit ponendi et iterum sumendi animam suam? Quis autem ita desipiat, ut Spiritum Sanctum resurrectionem hominis Christi dicat non cooperatum, cum ipsum hominem Christum fuerit operatus.' S. August. contra Serm. Arian. cap. 15. 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 believe 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 body," (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. Kairoɩ rò, ovdèv dú'aliter Christus corpus suum. Deus ναται ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ ποιεῖν, τῷ, οὓς θέλει, Christo vitam restituendo, Christus ἐναντίον ἐστίν. Εἰ γὰρ οὓς θέλει, δύναvita recuperata corpus suum levando, ται ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ ποιεῖν, τὸ γὰρ θέλειν ἐξουet e sepulcro prodeundo, seque post σίας· εἰ δὲ οὐ δύναται ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ, οὐκέτι mortem vivum sistendo præbendoque. οὓς θέλει. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ, ὥσπερ ὁ πατὴρ Sic et paralyticus ille erexerat corpus ἐγείρει, τῆς δυνάμεως δείκνυσι τὴν ἀπαsuum, accepta a Christo sanitate: sic ραλλαξίαν· τὸ δὲ, οὓς θέλει, τῆς ἐξουσίας et omnes mortui surgent, et ex monu- rýv ivórηra. S. Chrysost. Hom. 38. in mentis prodibunt, recepta ab eodem Ioan. Where it is very observable Christo vita.' Confessionis Sociniana that though yeίpew rous verρoùg and SWOTTOLET be the same in the language of the Scriptures, yet ἐγείρειν and ζωοyovely are not the same. By which observation the late learned Bishop of Ely, hath most evidently detected that Socinian cavil. Si quis obstinate vocem excitabo [¿yep] urgere Vindices. † Ἐγείρειν τοὺς νεκροὺς and ζωοποιεῖν is the same thing; and therefore one in the Apodosis answereth to both in the Protasis, and sheweth that Christ raiseth and quickeneth whom he will, which demonstrateth his infinite and " 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 had 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. DTX 1) kai ¿(woalibi dicat, Eum qui perdiderit ani- yóvovv rà ãpoɛva, Vulg. Trans. sed mam, vivificaturum eam. Ubi si quis conservabant mares, Chald. XP? insistere vellet ipsis verbis, cum col- ; so verse 18. woyovełte tà ligere oporteret, Credentes etiam ipsos apoɛva, and 22. kai πãν Oñν Swoyosese vivificaturos, et a mortuis excita- vɛre avrò. And indeed in Piel turos.' Cat. Racov. Sect. ix. p. 334. is often used for keeping or preserving For yep hath manifest relation to the alive, and is so several times translated, dead, but woyov unto the living. woyov as well as wypw, as Jud. viii. And therefore our translation hath 19., Ei ¿SWOYOVÝKELTE AUTOÙS, very well rendered those words, Luc. our av åπékteiva vμãs, Vulg. Trans. xvii. 33. ôç ¿àv ảñoλéøy avrýv, Swoyo- Si servassetis eos, non vos occiderem, výσu avrǹv, “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. Si γονεῖν ψυχὴν is to preserve life, which interpretation is most evident out of the antithesis of the same place: "Oç làv ζητήσῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὑτοῦ σῶσαι, ἀπολέσει αὐτήν. For σῶσαι and ἀπολέσει in the former part are the same with aπoléon and ζωογονήσει in the latter. And beside, this is the language of St. Luke, who, Acts vii. 19. says, that the Egyptians ill intreated the Israelites, Tou TOLεῖν ἔκθετα τὰ βρέφη αὐτῶν, εἰς τὸ μὴ ζωογονεῖσθαι, “ So that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live," that is, remain alive, Syr. , ne servarentur, ne viverent, as the Arabic. In which words there is a manifest reference to that place in Exodus, where thrice this word is used in that sense by the LXX. as '' καὶ οὐκ ἐζωογόνει ἄνδρα, ἢ γυvačka, Vulg. Trans. Nec relinquebat viventem virum aut mulierem, "And left neither man nor woman alive.” And which is yet nearer to our purpose, 1 Kings xx. 31. JUDI ON MIMIDIN LXX. εἴ πως ζωογονήσει τὰς ψυχὰς uv, Vulg. Trans. Forsitan salvabit animas nostras, "Peradventure he will save thy life." So that woyoveïv in the language of the LXX. is to save alive, and ζωογονεῖν τὴν ψυχὴν, is to preserve one's life. So that St. Luke in the text cited by the Socinians, could intend no more than that he which was ready to lose his life for Christ, should thereby preserve it, and consequently he speaks nothing of the raising of the dead. down my life (or soul) that I might take it again. No man taketh it from 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, than 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 remaineth 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 here 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 * Καὶ ἀληθῶς ἔπαθεν, ὡς καὶ ἀληθῶς ávéornoev šautóv. S. Ignat. ad Smyrn. §. 2. Si peccati confessor revixit a morte, quis eum suscitavit? Nullus mortuus est sui ipsius suscitator. Ille se potuit suscitare, qui mortua carne non mortuus est. Etenim hoc suscitavit quod mortuum fuerat. Ille se suscitavit qui vivebat in se, in carne autem suscitanda mortuus erat. Non enim Pater solus Filium suscitavit, de quo dictum est ab Apostolo, Propter quod eum Deus exaltavit, sed etiam Dominus seipsum, id est, corpus suum: unde dicit, Solvite templum hoc, et in triduo suscitabo illud.' S. August. de Verb. Domin. Serm. 8. al. 67. §. 2. 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, who "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 |