« ZurückWeiter »
was truly and vitally informed with a human soul. And that they might be yet farther assured that it was the same soul, by which thạt body lived before,* he gave a full testimony of his Divinity by the miracle which he wrought in the multitude of fishes caught, by breathing on the apostles the Holy Ghost, and by ascending into heaven in the sight of his disciples. For being “no man ascended into heaven but he which came from heaven, the Son of man which was in heaven,” (John iii. 13.) being the Divinity was never so united to any human soul but only in that person, it appeared to be the same soul with which he lived and wrought all the miracles before. To conclude, being Christ appeared after his death with the same body in which he died, and with the same soul united to it, it followeth that he rose from the dead by a true and proper resurrection.
Moreover, that the verity and propriety of Christ's resurrection may farther appear, it will be necessary to consider the cause thereof, by what power and by whom it was effected. And if we look upon the meritorious cause, we shall find it to be Christ himself. For he by his voluntary sufferings in his life, and exact obedience at his death, did truly deserve to be raised unto life again.t Because he drank of the brook in the way, because he humbled himself unto death, even to the death of the cross, therefore was it necessary that he should be exalted, and the first degree of his exaltation was his resurrection. Now being Christ humbled himself to the sufferings both of soul and body; being whatsoever suffered, the same by the virtue and merit of his passion was to be exalted; being all other degrees of exaltation supposed that of the resurrection : it followeth from the meritorious cause, that Christ did truly rise from the dead with the same soul and the same body, with which he lived united, and died separated.
The efficient cause of the resurrection of Christ is to be considered either as principal or instrumental. The principal cause was God himself; for no other power but that which is omnipotent, can raise the dead. It is an act beyond the activity of any creature, and unproportionate to the power of any finite agent. “This Jesus hath God raised up (saith the apostle), whereof we are all witnesses.” (Acts ii. 32.) And generally in the Scriptures as our, so Christ's, resurrection is attri. buted unto God; and as we cannot hope after death to rise to life again without the activity of an infinite and irresistible
*Ideo clausis ad discipulos ostiis nere.’Leo,Serm.l.de Resurrectione,c.3. introibat, et flatu suo dabat Spiritum + •Ut mediator Dei et bominum Sanctum, et dato intelligentiæ lumine, homo Christus Jesus resurrectione sanctarum Scripturarum occulta pan- clarificaretur, prius humiliatus est debat; et rursus idem vulnus lateris, passione : non enim'a mortuis resurfixuras clavorum, et omnia recentis- rexisset, si mortuus non fuisset. Husimæ passionis signa monstrabat, ut militas claritatis est meritum, claritas agnosceretur in eo proprietas divinæ humilitatis est præmium. S. August, humanæque naturæ individua perma- Tract. 104. in Toan. . 3.
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 wbatsoever 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 TQ Xploty. Which words our trans- he 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 dóvapıs, and loxòs, two babuit: 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, péyelog rñs se ipse non suscitavit? Et ubi est duvausws, 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 kpárous, 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, iv
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 bath 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. Kairol tò, ovdèv 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 prodeunclo, seque post σίας" ει δε ου δύναται αφ' εαυτού, ουκέτι mortem vivum sistendo praebendoque. oύς θέλει. Το μεν γαρ, 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- tv iGórnta. S. Chrysost. Hom. 38. in mentis prodibunt, recepta ab eodem Ioan. Where it is very observable Christo vita. Confessionis Sociniana that though ấyeipetv TOùs verpoùg and Vindices.
ŚwoToLeTV be the same in the language + Εγείρειν τους νεκρούς and ζωοποιεϊν of the Scriptures, yet εγείρειν and ζωοis the same thing; and therefore one yoveīv 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'ho will, that Socinian cavil. "Si quis obstiwhich demonstrateth his infinite and nale vocem excitabo [éyepū] 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 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. Obytnx 797779 kai llwoalibi dicat, Eum qui perdiderit ani- yóvovv rà åpgeva, Vulg. Trans. sed mam, vivificaturum eam, Ubi si quis conservabant mares, Chald. Kaip? insistere vellet ipsis verbis, eum col- X3°'; so verse 18. I woyoveite od ligere oporteret, Credentes etiam ipsos άρσενα, and 22. και πάν θήλυ ζωογοsese vivificaturos, et a mortuis excita- veite aŭrò. And indeed 1777 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 (woyovũ unto the living. (woyovū as well as Swypã, as Jud. viii. And therefore our translation hath 19. Onn 15, ci dźwoyovhcette avrovs, very well rendered those words, Luc. oúk av åméktelva úpās, Vulg. Trans. xvii. 33. og tàv åtoléoy aúrny, Swoyo- Si servassetis eos, non vos occiderem, víost aŭrnv, “ 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
. 9.859 γονεϊν ψυχήν is to preserve life, which m και ουκ εζωογόνει άνδρα, ή γυinterpretation is most evident out of vaika, Vulg. Trans. Nec relinguebat vithe antithesis of the same place:"Oç dv ventem virum aut mulierem, “ And left ζητήση την ψυχήν αυτού σώσαι, απολέσει neither man nor woman alive.” And aúrýv. For owoai and ároltoel in the which is yet nearer to our purpose, former part are the same with åtodéoel 1 Kings xx.31. TWIJ NA 77725518 and ζωογονήσει in the latter. And be- LΧΧ. εί πως ζωογονήσει τας ψυχάς side, this is the language of St. Luke, vuôv, Vulg. Trans. Forsitan salvahit who, Acts vii. 19. says, that the Egyp- animas nostras, “Peradventure he will tjans ill intreated the Israelites, roŨ TOL- save thy life.” So that Gwoyoveiv in &īvěkJeta rà ßpépn aútūv, kig tò uri Swo- the language of the LXX. is to save γονείσθαι, , “So that they cast out their alive, and Swoyoveiv triv toxiv, 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, 1173 X37, 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 life (or sopl) that I might take it again. No mau 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.) Bụt 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 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 åváợtnoEV davráv. 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