Forbes on Article IV: Of the Resurrection of Christ

” THE same stone which the builders rejected is be come the Head of the Corner.3’ The same argument which the Apostles used when, inspired by the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, they went forth to con quer the world to the obedience of faith, is the turn ing-point in the great contest between Faith and In fidelity, which is being waged in the midst of the civilization of the nineteenth century. Grant the Re surrection, and the whole Catholic Creed follows ; reject the Resurrection, and there remains no basis for Christianity, however long a pietistic sentiment may seek to feed the dead embers of a defunct and ex tinguished faith.

Observe the course of persuasion used by the first propagators of the faith. They distinctly assert that Jesus of Nazareth, who had been seen and known by many to whom they spake, whose public Crucifixion was recorded in the Criminal Procedure of the State, ac tually had risen from the dead, in accordance with such a distinct promise that He wras to do so, as that on the fulfilment of such promise He had all along staked His pretensions as a Divine Teacher. The apostolic college is filled up specially with a view to a “witness with us of His resurrection a.” St. Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost turns on this fact : ” This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses13.” So at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple, ” the Prince of Life •whom God hath raised from the dead, whereof we are witnesses c ;” so before the Sanhedrin, ” “Whom God raised from the dead, even by Him doth this man stand before you whole d;” so in the preaching after that, ” With great power gave the Apostles witness of the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus e ;” so in the presence of Gamaliel, “Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give re pentance unto Israel and forgiveness of sinsf;” so St. Stephen saw the Son of Man in heaven, whereon the people ” cried with a loud voice and stopped their ears^;” so at the baptism of Cornelius, to the Gentiles the astounding fact is declared, ” Him God raised up the third day, and shewed Him openly h;” so in St.

Paul’s first sermon at Antioch ’, and at Thessalonica k, and specially at Athens, the Resurrection is the subject of his teaching l. When charged before the Sanhedrin, he claims the sympathy of the Pharisees, and at the same time states the very centre of his teaching, when he says, “Of the hope and of the resurrection of the dead, I am called in question111.” And the practical and unsupernatural Festus states the matter from his point of view, when he speaks of the complaints against Paul, being ” of one Jesus which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive n ;” as indeed the blessed Apostle himself makes plain in his solemn address to Agrippa0. In short, the whole of the Acts testify to the truth that the early disciples made this the very kernel of their teaching.

As might be expected, the early Christian apologists urge this argument. St. Justin P says : ” After His crucifixion, then, even they that were acquainted with Him all denied and forsook Him ; but afterwards, when He rose from the dead, and was seen by them, and taught them to read the prophecies in which all these things were foretold to happen, and when they had seen Him go up into heaven, and had believed and received power from thence, which was sent them from Him, they went forth to the whole race of men and taught these things, and received the name of Apo stles.” And Tertullian shews how the belief in our Lord’s Resurrection is bound up with the hope of our

m Ibid, xxiii. 6. n Ibid. xxv. 19. (J Ibid. xxvi. 23. P Apol., 50.

own : ” Believing the Resurrection of Christ, we believe also in our own, for whom He died and rose again. When, therefore, we are sure of the resurrection of the dead, the sorrow of death is voided, as well as the im patience of pain q;” and, conversely, “weaken the faith in the Resurrection of our Lord, and that of ourselves is injured also r.” St. Chrysostom s shews how all the different mysteries hang upon each other : ” For if He (Christ) truly took not upon Him our flesh, He neither was crucified, dead, nor buried, neither did He rise again. If He did not rise again, the whole reason of the Dispensation is overthrown. Thou seest into what inconsequence they fall who will not follow the canon of the Holy Scripture, but who twist everything in their individual reasonings.1”

Now in the modern controversies, this truth, as has been said, is the Crucial one. We must begin by assuming God, therefore an omnipotent God, therefore a God who ruleth and governeth all things in heaven and earth. This granted, there can be no limit to His power, and however contrary to our experience, there is no antecedent improbability that He may not act by what we term * miraculous intervention/ We have a right, therefore, on the ground that all natural phe nomena are the result of the operation of a perfect will, to assume the propriety of a general fixity, but also the power of an occasional disturbance of the order of being. Brute matter can have no law within itself,

i De Patientia, p. 165, ed. Eigalt. Paris, IG-il. r Ibid., p. 484.

• In Gen. Horn. 58, n. 3.

else it would cease to be brute matter. Matter, there fore, is either the Pantheistic God, or it has no inherent laws of its own constitution outside the will of its maker. But that brute matter is the Pantheistic God is a supposition surrounded by great difficulties. We therefore may safely choose the only other alternative.

Assuming, then, the possibility of miracle, we have in the Resurrection of our Lord to face the fact of the greatest objective miracle which has ever been preached to the world. If mankind have been deceived in giving credence to this, Christianity must fall ; for both its apologetic and its ethical position is bound up in the truth of the fact. On the other hand, accept the Re surrection of our Lord, and all other mysteries follow in its train. When the soul has bowled itself before the truth of the Resurrection, it is only inconsistency which keeps men back from accepting all the mysteries of the faith. It is only a little more or a little less. In principle the point has been yielded.

This being the case, the historical truth of what is asserted of our Lord’s rising again must be submitted to the severest historical criticism. There is no true kindness in blinking any fact with regard to it. It is too serious a matter not to be probed to the quick. And here such works as the Trial of the Witnesses come in good stead. The acutest minds have devoted themselves to pick holes in the Gospel narrative of this sacred event, and the result is that, given the authen ticity of the documents, there is not only no contradic tion, such as can destroy their historic worth, but ac-

F

tually there is no escape for an unprejudiced mind in accepting the truth on the historic testimony.

The chief modern attempt at evasion is that of Dr. Strauss, whose theory of a mythic accretion around a really historic personage is a very subtle device of the evil one. The main points on which he rests are— i. an exaggeration of the difficulty of systematizing the records of the different appearances of our Lord during the forty great days, and thereby the infusion of a doubt as to the trustworthiness of the testimony ; or, ii. the philosophical difficulty as to the nature of the Resurrection of Body.

i. Following in the main the authority of Mr. Gres- well1, we seem to find that the following chronology harmonizes the different accounts of our Lord’s Resur rection, and of such of His apparitions as it has pleased the Holy Ghost to reveal to us in the Gospels and Epistles.

1. On Sunday morning the sixteenth of Nisan, cor responding with the sixth of April, the two Maries and Salome, who had bought spices, went very early to the tomb. An earthquake takes place. An angel of the Lord comes down and rolls back the stone, and sits upon it ; as the women approach, they ask who is to roll back the stone, and on arriving they find that this has actually taken place. An angel announces the Resurrection, and invites them to enter the tomb; there they see a young man sitting on the right in a shining garment, who encourages them, and again

announces the Resurrection ; sends them to Peter and the Apostles, and invites them to meet our Lord in Galilee, as He had said unto them ; the women fly from the tomb in fear, but with great joy they ran to announce it to the Disciples, but they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid u.

2. The watch go into the city, announce all that has taken place, leave the sepulchre empty, and are bribed by the Chief Priests x.

3. Meanwhile a new company of women, of whom the chief is Joanna, the wife of Chusa, bearing spices, come to the tomb, see two men in bright clothing, who reproached them for seeking the living among the dead, and remind them of our Lord’s prophecy in Galilee, that the Son of Man should be betrayed into the hands of sinners ; returning from the tomb, they

.announce this to the Eleven and the rest, to whom their words seem as idle tales y.

4. The news of the Resurrection, however, is affirmed to the Apostle Simon Peter and the other disciple, on the evidence of both companies of women z.

5. Peter and John run to the empty tomb and inspect it, and go away, wondering at what has taken place a.

(’). Our Lord’s first appearance to Mary Magdalen as the gardener b.

7. He appears to the women, saying, “All hail c I”

u St. Matt, xxviii. 18; St. Mark xvi. 1—8. x St. Matt, xxviii.

xx. 1,2. a st. Luke xxiv. 12 ; St. John xx. 3, 10. b St. Mark

xvi. 9—11 ; St. John xx. 11—18. c St. Matt, xxviii. 9 ; Ellicott’s

Life of our Lord, 391.

8. The scene at Emmaus c^ and the second manifesta tion toward mid-da}’.

9. Cleophas and his companion return and announce it to the rest, and are received with incredulity as to the actual facte; but the disciples, on the other hand, announce an apparition of our Lord to Simon f.

10. Soon after, He, for the fourth manifestation, appears to the ten ?.

11. The fifth manifestation to the eleven11.

12. The sixth manifestation on the mountain in Galilee1.

13. The seventh manifestation to the five hundred J.

14. The eighth manifestation at the sea of Tibe rias k.

15. The ninth manifestation to James1.

16. The tenth to all the Apostles m, on the fortieth day after His resurrection n.

17. His eleventh manifestation to St. Stephen at his martyrdom.

18. His twelfth to St. Paul at his conversion.

19. His thirteenth at St. Paul’s first answer be fore Nero.

20. His fourteenth to St. John in Patmos.

The beautiful legend that our Lord first appeared to His mother is not here dwelt upon, inasmuch as it rests upon no authority anterior to the Middle Ages.

«» St. Mark xvi. 12 ; St. Luke xxiv. 13, sqq. e St. Mark xvi. 13.

f St. Luke xxiv. 33, 34. » St. Luke xxiv. 36 ; St. John xx. 19—24.

h St. Mark xvi. 14; St. John xx. 26. l St. Matt, xxviii. 16, sqq.

i 1 Cor. xv. 6. k St. John xxi. 1—24. > 1 Cor. xv. 7.

m Ibid. n St. Luke xxiv. 44—19.

ii. The difficulty as regards the Resurrection-body is no doubt very perplexing, for we know nothing of the conditions of such bodies. Enough is revealed to shew that something ineffable and mysterious attended upon all the apparitions of the Son of God after His resurrec tion. On the one hand, He appears among the dis ciples suddenly when the doors are shut, His sacred Body passing through matter without sustaining any let or hindrance thereby. He has the faculty of ren dering Himself invisible, and of moving from place to place with supernatural speed. He is so changed that one, least of all likely to mistake Him, supposes Him to be the gardener. On the other hand, He is so palpable that He invites the touch of St. Thomas ; and in proof of the abidingness of His Humanity, He eats fish and bread by the fire of coals on the shore of the sea of Galilee.

And from these data two lines of thought have ex isted in the Church. St. Irenaeus, and they who follow him, hold the risen body of our Lord to have been flesh and blood in the exact sense of our own, and they natu rally, as against the heretics of the time, strenuously insist upon the identity of the body before and after death. On the other hand, the philosophical school of Alexandria, deeply imbued with heathen learning, and fully alive to the difficulties of the question, have dwelt strongly on the line of thought opened up by St. Paul in the fifteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where he distinguishes between the natural body and the spiritual body ; where he draws

the broadest line possible, consistent with perfect iden tity, between the conditions of all pre-resurrection and post-resurrection bodies. This line was first developed by Origen, but probably traces of it may be found in St. Pantsenus and St. Clement. As a rule, the Alexan drians opposed Chiliasm, and this rejection involves the notion of a spiritual resurrection °. They also assumed that souls at the time of the resurrection should not resume the gross material body, but one of fine, uncor ruptible texture v. Origen, according to Neander % makes much use of what St. Paul says with reference to the terrestrial and the glorified body, distinguishing from the mutable phenomenal form, the proper essence lying at the foundation of the body, which through all the changes of life remains the same, and is not destroyed by death. The proper essence would, by the co-operation of the divine power, be awakened to a nobler form, cor responding to the ennobled character of the soul.

St. Augustine tells us that at one time he held the Alexandrian view, but afterwards saw reason to change his opinion1’. Moreover, he asks if parts which ser\e

P Clemens, Psed. ii. p. 230; Orig. de Princ. ii. 10. 3, and c. 11, cit. Gieseler.

r Vide lletract., lib. i. cap. xvii. torn. i. p. 20.

I am indebted for the line of thought regarding the different schools of Christian thought, to my valued friend the Rev. D. Greig, whose articles in the “Christian Remembrancer” on the connection between, Calvinism and Infidelity well deserve study.

for the support of man will survive the resurrection, and he answers in the affirmative s. The thoughts of the Schoolmen on the subject of the Resurrection are very valuable. They lay down that —

It behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead, First, to commend the justice of God to which it belongeth, to exalt those who for His sake humble themselves. Secondly, to instruct our faith in His divinity, for if Christ be not risen, the Apostle testifies, ” our preaching is vain, and your faith also is vain.” Thirdly, for the support of our hope, because, when we see Christ who is our Head risen, we may hope that we His members shall also rise again ac cording to the words of Job, ” I know that my Re deemer liveth.” Fourthly, for the instruction of the faithful in morals, for ” like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Fifthly, for the com pletion of our salvation, as He was humiliated in death to free us from evils, so He was glorified in rising again to promote us to good things ; as it is written, ” Who was given for our sins, and rose again for our justification i”

s Civ. Dei, xxii. 19; Serm. 243, n. 3.

The science of anatomy supplies us with some hints as to the nature of the post-resurrection body. In the embryo there are the organs which tend to its nutrition, and there are the germs of the future organs of the developed body : so in the developed body there are the organs which tend to its nutrition, and the germs of future organs, such as the supra-renal capsules, which have no office in the present mode of being. It may be that they will find their use in the resurrection of body. * St. Thomas, qu. Tert. pars 53, Art. 1.

To confirm our faith in Christ’s divinity, that Re surrection was not deferred to the end of the world; to confirm our faith in His humanity and death, a cer tain delay was necessary to make the latter evident, therefore He rose on the third day. Christ is the nrstfruits of them that slept, and His Resurrection is such, not in the sense of a simple resuscitation from the state of death, but in that of a freedom from the pos sibility of dying again. ” Christ being risen from the dead, dieth no more, death hath no more dominion over Him.” The vital union was destroyed in death, but not the hypostatic union. Wherefore Christ, ac cording to the power of His divinity, was the cause of His own Resurrection, but according to His hu manity He was raised by the Father.

In order to a true Resurrection, the same body must be re-united to the same soul, and inasmuch as it is its form which determines the truth of the nature of any body, therefore the Body of Christ after His Resur rection was both a true Body, and of the same nature as before. A phantastic body implies only an appa rent resurrection. Whatever pertains to the nature of the human body, as flesh, blood, bones, and the like, is integrally, and without any diminution, in the glorious Body of the Risen Christ. But that Body was glorious, First, as being the model of our bodies, which, being sown in dishonour, shall be raised in glory. Secondly, because by the lowliness of His Passion He merited the glory of His Resurrection. Thirdly, be cause the Soul of Christ being glorious by its perfect

fruition of the Godhead, and that glory being only re strained from filling the Body to accomplish the mys tery of redemption, when that was done, His Soul again resumed its power to make the Bod}^ also glorious ; and yet that Soul resumed the Body stigmatized with the sacred wounds of the Passion ; (1.) for the glory of Christ, to preserve to Him the trophies of His victory ; (2.) to confirm the faith of His disciples in the truth of His Resurrection ; (3.) that He might ever plead them to the Father in His office of perpetual Priest and Yictim ; (4.) to suggest, from the sight of these signs of suffering, to those who have been redeemed by His death how mercifully they have been aided thereby; and, lastly, (5.) to convict the reprobate at the Day of Judgment u.

Our Lord did not prove His Resurrection to His disciples by argument, because argumentative proof proceeds from premisses which must have been either known or unknown to them. If unknown, it was im possible, because we cannot proceed from the unknown to prove the known ; if known, it was unnecessary, the proof being in their own power. He contented Him self with the testimony of Scripture, the foundation of our faith, as contained in Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. But He shewed Himself alive after His Pas sion to His disciples by many infallible proofs and sensible signs, to the intent that (1.) they themselves might be disposed to faith, and (2.) that their testimony might be efficacious. His proofs were sufficient to shew,

u St. Thomas, q. 54, Art. 1, 2, 3, 4.

(1.) the truth, and then (2.) the glory of His Resur rection. The truth by its solidity : ” Handle Me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have ;” its identity, being the same in members as the Body He had before : ” Behold My hands and feet, that it is I Myself;” its perfection, by His manifesta tion of the nutritive life in eating and drinking; its sensitive life, in sustaining their touch ; and its intel lectual life, by expounding to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

He shewed the glory of His Resurrection by His entrance through the closed doors, by His vanishing from the sight of His disciples at Emmaus, and bv His Ascension into heaven. As St. Gregory the Great sa}rs, ” He, after His Resurrection, shewed that His body was of the same nature, but of another glory.”

The supernatural fact of the Resurrection of our Saviour being thus established, the thought leads on, by a natural sequence, to His wonderful Ascension. This earth could be no permanent dwelling-place for One entered upon a life immortal and incorruptible. His Divine Nature had never left heaven, and there fore was not subject to the conditions of place and motion, which after all are mere measures, and of no substantial reality. When our Lord sat with Mcode- mus, He stated that He was in heaven ; but the Human Nature, hypostatically united to the Divinity, could rest for a time under the relations of time and under our present restrictions of space, and therefore, first, by the power of His own Divinity, and then by virtue

of His glorified Soul united to that Divinity, He ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things. His Body by virtue of its union with the Deity in the One Person of the Eternal AVord, excelleth all spiritual substances,, and therefore fittingly is it highly exalted far ” above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.”

Our Lord’s Ascension not only raises our souls to Him as the object of our faith, oar hope, our love, and our worship, as That to which we direct our prayer, resting on the corporeal form of Him in “Whom dwellcth all the fulness of the Godhead Bodily ; but as our Head, He has gone before us His members, that where He is, there we may be also : He has entered into the heaven of heavens, within the veil, presenting His Body that was prepared, Himself in our Xature, as the eternal Victim of propitiation : He is seated in heaven crowned as the Lord of all, from whence He pours down His gifts upon creation.

He is seated in two senses ; first, as dwelling and abiding in that special throne of glory which is de scribed as the Eight Hand of the Father, and the faith in this is the great safeguard against all those forms of Pantheism, which err in confusing created with un created substance. Secondly, as enjoying the Royal and judiciary power which, as reigning together with the Father, He hath from Him. To Him alone cloth it belong to sit there, since according to His Divinity,

He alone with the Holy Ghost is equal to the Father ; and according to His Manhood He has the prerogative of a more blessed Human Nature than any creature, and a prerogative of glory due to Him alone ; ” for unto which of the angels said He at any time, Sit Thou at My Eight Hand until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool?”

As God, and as Man, He shall judge both the quick and the dead ; as God, He is the Begotten Wisdom and the Truth, and therefore He commanded His Apostles to testify that it is He Who is ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. ” The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son.” He is also Judge as Man, inasmuch as, being Head of the Church, to Him belongs the power of judgment. ” The Father hath given Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.” By plenitude of grace, and by merit as Man, He judgeth. And though at the last day the saints in glory will be His assessors, yet will they be there also only to add glory to the great Assize : ” when He shall come to be glorified in His saints, and to be admired in all them that believe in that day V

• 2 Tbess. i. 10.

SPIKITUS Sanctus, a Pat re et Filio procedens, ejusdem cst cum Patre et Filio essentice, mctjestatis, et gloria, ac cetcrnus Dens.

Notes

• Acts i. 22. b Ibid. ii. 32. c Ibid. iii. 15. d Ibid. iv. 10. e Ibid. iv. 33. f Ibid. v. 31. e Ibid. vii. 57. h Ibid. x. 40.
• Acts xiii. 30. k Ibid. xvii. 3. l Ibid. xvii. 19.
• Harmonia Evangelica, p. 393.
• —15. y St. Luke xxiv. 1—9. z Ibid. xxiv. 10; St. John
• Gieseler, Cb. Hist., vol. i. p. 242, ed. Clarke.
• Ch. Hist., vol. ii. p. 403, where he quotes Uepl apx-, 1. ii. c. 10; c. Cels., 1. iv. c. 57; Liber tin. in Psalm., t. xi. p. 388, ed. Lovain ; see also Cels. v. 23, vii. 32.