Boultbee on Article IV: Of the Resurrection of Christ

The Latin text presents no points of sufficient consequence to be noted. No special sources are suggested for this Article. It is possible that some doctrinal follies of Anabaptists may have been in the view of its writers ; but the obvious necessity of enunciating a complete faith in Christ would, in any case, have required the statement now before us.

Observations on Article IV.

This Article is so manifestly a recapitulation of a portion ot the Creed, that nothing need be added to a sketch of the treatment by Bishop Pearson of this portion of the Christian fiiith.* He first shows from prophecy that the Messiah was to rise again, and enumerates varied testimonies from Scrip- ture to the fact of Christ’s resurrection. Then follows the definition of a resurrection, thus stated — * A substantial change by which that which was before, and was corrupted, is repro-

[…] Art. V. § 2. 1)2

36 akticle IV.

duced the same thing again.’ For a resurrection must be distinguished from a creation, or a mere alteration of state. A resurrection can only be predicated of a rational being who can retain personal identity. The reunion of the same soul to the same body, in all that is requisite to secure that per- sonal identity, is a perfect and proper resurrection. It must be noted that Pearson in the above definition does not forget that Christ’s body ‘saw no corruption ’ (Acts ii. 31). For he further defines ’ the separation of the rational soul firom its body to be the corruption of a man.’

In the sense above stated Christ did properly rise. He had a real body ; for He said, * Handle me and see.’ He had the same body ; for He offered His wounds to be examined. The animal soul was present ; for He ate before the disciples. The sensitive part was there: He conversed, He saw, He heard. The rational soul was present: He reasoned with them out of the Scriptures. It was the same soul ; for the Deity was united to human nature in one man only. And the conjunction of the Godhead with the risen body of Jesus is manifest from His display of divine power after the resur- rection. It thus appears that Christ did truly rise again from the dead, with aU things appertaining to the perfection of man’s nature, and with His own body.

The ascension, which follows next in the Article, will in like manner refer us to Pearson.* Having shown from type and prophecy that the Messiah was to ascend, he asserts that Christ ascended into heaven neither metaphorically nor figuratively by virtue of the hypostatic imion, but actually by a local transfer of the human nature (body and soul), which was upon earth, into heaven. In testimony of this it was necessary that the ascension should be visible, because the ascended body disappeared. Accordingly we have the testimony of the apostles (Acts i. 9, 10), and of angels (Acts i. 10, 11). Further it is asserted that He ascended into that whi«h in the most eminent sense is called heaven, as appears from many passages (e.g. Heb. iv. 14; Eph. iv. 10).

• • Creed,’ Art. VI. § 1.

The session ’ at the right hand of God ’ is the next doctrine contained in this Article. This is treated by Pearson in the following manner :^

The fact that Christ was thus enthroned at the right hand of God is asserted frequently in Scripture (e.g. Mark xvi. 19 ; Eph. i. 20). This was covenanted to none but the Messiah (Heb. i. 13). The session itself is shown not to refer neces- sarily to a corporeal posture; but chiefly to imply rest, dominion, majesty, and judicial power. It, therefore, importa the entry of the Messiah into His full dominion. The place, the right hand of God, is not named in our Article, but ia necessarily implied. It is interpreted as conveying no corporeal position, since God is a Spirit ; but as signifying power, honour, and the place of highest felicity.

That this session shall continue imtil the judgment day is asserted by the word until. This appears from many passages of Scripture (e.g. 1 Cor. xv. 25, 28 ; Acts iii. 21 ; 1 Thess. iv. 16).

Lastly, the return to judgment is the subject of the Seventh Article of Pearson ’ On the Creed.’ The principal points of doctrine there elaborated are these: — That Christ shall return is declared frequently in the New Testament (e.g. Acts i. 11), as it is also stated that His purpose then shall be judgment.

The propriety of the judgment being committed to Him appears from these considerations : — It is a part of His exalta- tion, the reward of His sufferings and obedience (John v. 22, 23). The Judge will thus be visible. He will know human infirmities by His own experience.

The judicial action itself is sparingly described. But it involves the eternal disposal of the souls and bodies of all persons. As to the manner, we can only say that it is repre- sented to us under judicial terms. A judgment-seat is spoken of (2 Cor. V. 10). A personal appearance of all before the tribunal (Rev. xx. 12) ; the manifestation of all thoughts and actions (1 Cor. iv. 5) ; a definitive sentence (Matt. xxv. 34, 41) ; execution of the sentence (Matt. xxv. 46), are among the judicial particulars set forth in Scripture.

[…] Art. V. § 2.

That this judgment shall take place at the last day, the very cloaiiig hour of this dispensation, is manifest fix)m every consideration of its nature and purpose ; and further is clearly declared — 2 Pet. iii. 7 — which predicts the destruction of the existing irame of heaven and earth at the time of the judg- ment.