Gibson on Article IV: Of the Resurrection of Christ

This article has remained practically imchanged since the publication of the Edwardian series in 1553.^ Its language differs considerably from that of the corresponding article in the Confession of Augsburg, as well as from that in the Thirteen Articles of 1538, which was taken almost word for word from the Third Article of that formulary.* The emphatic assertion of the truth of the resurrection and of the reality of the human nature of the risen Lord indicates that the special object of the article was to guard against the Docetic views adopted

^ In 1553 and 1563 the title in the Latin was “Resurrectio Christi,” for which ” De resurrectione Christi ” was substituted in 1571 as harmonising better with the English. In the last clause the word ”all” appears for the first time in the English edition published in 1563. The corresponding word omnes in the Latin found in modern texts is wanting not only in the published editions of 1553 and 1563, but also in that of 1571 by John Dayes, auctorUate sercnissimm reginx.

2 “Item descendit ad inferos et vere resurrexit tertia die, deinde ascendit ad cceIos, ut sedeat ad dexteram Patris, et perpetuo regnet et dominetur omnibus creaturis, sanctificet credentes in ipsum, misso in corde eorum Spiritu Sancto, qui regat, consoletur, ac vivificet eos, ac defendat adversus Diabolum et vim peccati. Item Christus palam est rediturus ut judicet vivos et mortuos etc. juxta symbolum apostolorum. Article III. of 1638. Cf. Con/. August. Art. iii. ” De Filio Dei.”

by some of the Anabaptists, which was associated with a further error as to the nature of the risen body, practically amountmg to a denial of the existence of the humanity of Christ since the resurrection. This error is described and condemned in the following passage from the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum which illustrates the meaning and shows the intention of this article.

“Circa duplicem Christi naturam perniciosus est et varius error: ex quibus alii sunt ex Arianorum secta, Christum ita ponentes hominem ut Deum negent. Alii eum sic Deum judicant ut hominem non agnoscant, et de corpore nugantur de coelo divinitus assumpto, et in virginis uterum lapso, quod tanquam in transitu per Mariam quasi per canalem aut iistulam prteterfluxerit. Quidam verhuvi in carnis naturam conversum asserunt, quam, quamprimiim a morte in caelum fuit recepta, mirsus volunt in naturam divinam reversam et absorptam esse. Quorum illi delirium imitantur, qui corpori Christi tarn latos fines dant, ut illo credant aut omnes locos simul, aut innumeros obsiderL Quod si confiteremur, humanam e Christo naturam eximeremus. Quemadmodum enim Dei natura sibi hoc assumit, ut per omnia permeet, sic humanae semper illud attributum est, ut certis locorum finibus circumscripta sit. Quidam corpus ipsum s«pe dicunt, et subinde factum esse. Qui errores omnes Sacrarum Scripturarum authoritate sic corrigendi sunt, ut Christus meliore natura Deus sempiternus accipiatur, et quidem sequalis sit Dei Patris; humana vero corpus habeat extempore factum, neque saepius quam semel, neque ex alia materia quam ex Maria? virginis vera et sola subsistantia ac quemadmodum reliqua humana corpora suis loci finibus circumscriptum.”^

This extract — and particularly the portion of it in italics — makes it quite clear that when this article was

[…]

first drawn up there was much erroneous teaching on the nature of our Lord’s humanity, and that there was in some quarters an inclination to deny that after the resurrection it continued to be in any sense true human nature. Hence the need for this article asserting not only that Christ trtdy arose, but also that He took again His body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man’s nature, wherewith He a8cended,etc.” The three principal subjects which require consideration are the following : —

1. The resurrection of Christ.

2. The ascension and session (at the right hand of the lather).

3. The return to judgment.

I. TJie Resurrection of Christ

The article is concerned with this simply as an historical fact. Questions, therefore, of its significance, its bearing upon our Lord’s claims, its position as the central fact round which other doctrines group themselves, its witness to our acceptance with God, its revelation of the unseen world and our relation to it — important as all these are — do not directly come before us here.^ The points to be considered in connection with the statements of the article are two —

(a) The evidence for the fact of the resurrection ; and

(5) The nature of the resurrection body.

(a) The evidence for the fact of the resurrection. In the forefront must always be placed the witness of S. Paul His epistles were all — or nearly all — written some time before the gospel narratives were committed to writing. Doubts have, it is true, been freely cast

• Reference may be made on all these subjects to “Westcott’s Gospel of the Resurrection^ or Milligan’s Lectures on the Resurrection,

on the genuineness of some of them. But all except the most sceptical of critics will admit that First and Second Corinthians, Romans and Galatians, were written between the years a.d. 52 and 60, by the apostle whose name they bear. And these epistles alone are amply sufficient to prove not merely that the fact of the resurrection was believed in by the whole Church at the time when they were written, but that the belief in it grew up at the time of the alleged event, on the spot, and that the Church was immediately reconstructed on the basis of the resurrection. The most striking passage of all is that in 1 Cor. XV., where S. Paul enumerates the appearances of the risen Jesus, and stakes everything on the truth of the resurrection. “If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ.” But apart from this the belief is bound up with the apostle’s whole life, and underlies his whole teaching. There is scarcely an epistle in which he does not allude to it. ” The literal fact of the resurrection is the implied and acknowledged groundwork of the apostle’s teaching.” i S. Paul’s conversion is generally dated a.d. 35 or 36. The crucifixion probably took place in a.d. 28. Thus we see from the witness of S. Paul that, within eight years of the alleged event, the belief in it was universally held by Christians, for the witness of his epistles is of such a character as entirely to exclude the notion that the belief can have grown up or come to be widely accepted after his conversion. The belief is thus pushed back to an earlier date, which leaves no time for the gradual growth of legend or myth.

Next to the witness of the Apostle of the Gentiles may be placed that of the Apostle of the Circumcision. S. Peter’s First Epistle begins with the doctrine of ” the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Pet. i. 3), which is referred to as a known and acknowledged fact again in ch. i. 21 and iii. 21.

Reference may also be made to the early preaching of the apostles as preserved in the Acts of the Apostles. The tendency of modern criticism is on the whole to confirm more and more S. Luke’s accuracy as an historian, and we cannot doubt that in these early chapters we have a faithful representation of the history of the first days of the Christian Church, and of the character of the apostolic preaching. We find, then, not only that Matthias was elected at S. Peter’s suggestion, in the place of the traitor Judas, to be “a witness of the resurrection” (Acts i. 22), but that the literal fact of the resurrection occupies the foremost position in S. Peter’s own speeches on the day of Pentecost (ii. 24- 36) ; in Solomon’s Porch (iii. 15 ; cf. iv. 33) ; before the Council (v. 30) ; and in the house of Cornelius (x. 40).

The evidence, thus summarised, is independent of that in the Gospels. Much, if not all of it, would still remain, even if they could be shown to be comparatively late compilations. But the fact that there is such a wealth of testimony to the truth of the resurrection affords a striking confirmation of the veracity of the evangelists’ accounts of it. The fact is, of course, stated by all four evangelists. On some details their narratives may be hard to harmonise, but on the main fact their witness is clear and precise, and leaves no room for doubt that they at least believed the resurrection as a true and literal fact. ” Indeed.” says Bishop Westcott, ” taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no single historic incident better or more variously

supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof ofit.”i

One minor point deserves a brief notice before leaving the subject of the witness of Scripture to the resurrection. It will be observed that the article asserts that ” Christ did truly arise** It is sometimes stated that this is not the way in which the fact is represented in Scripture, as there the action is ascribed to the Father, who is said to have raised Christ from the dead. Certainly, it is true that in the vast majority of instances the Father is spoken of as the agent, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ is regarded as an awakening effected by His power (see Acts iii 15, iv. 10, v. 30, x. 40; Rom. iv. 24, viii. 11, etc.). But there are other passages in which it is spoken of definitely as a rising again on the part of the Son.^ In S. John ii. 19 our Lord Himself says distinctly “of the temple of His body ” ” I will raise it up,” while in x. 1 8 He expressly asserts His right not only to ” lay down ” His life, but to “take it again.” And if He could thus claim the action as His own, it will surely be felt that no further justification is required for the use of the active voice ” arise ” in this article as in the creeds of the Church.^

Q)) The nature of tJie resurrection body. — The state-

2 Cf. Westcott on S. John ii. 22.

^ In the Western Creeds the word used is always resurrcxit. In those of the East it is as regularly avaaTivra. ‘EyeipeaBaif the |)assive, is the word more commonly used in Scripture, but ivacrijvai and avlar-q occur in S. Mark viii. 31, ix. 9, xvi. 9 ; S. Luke xxiv. 7, 46 ; S. John XX. 9 ; Acts x. 41, xvii. 3 ; 1 Thess. iv. 14.

ment of the article that Christ … took again His body with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man’s nature, is one

which very closely follows the language of Holy Scripture. That it was the crucified body which our Lord took again is plainly taught by the evangelists. It still bore the marks of the passion, for ” He showed unto them His hands and His side ” (S. John xx. 20). The reality of His body is evidenced by the fact that He ate before the disciples (S. Luke xxiv. 43; cf. Acts x. 41). When ” they were affrighted and supposed that they had seen a spirit,” He reassures them with the words, ” Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself : handle Me and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see Me have” (St. Luke xxiv. 36-40). All these passages mark very clearly the reality and identity of the resurrection body. Yet there are other passages which indicate with equal clearness that a change has passed over it. It was the same, and yet different. The body has not been left in the grave, but it has been transfigured and endowed with new powers. He appears in their midst when “the doors were shut” (S. John xx. 19). He vanishes out of the sight of the two at Emmaus as suddenly and mysteriously as He appears in the midst of the ten (S. Luke xxiv. 31). And finally, in the last scene on the Mount of Olives, ” as they were looking He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight” (Acts i. 10). Thus are taught the two lessons of the reality of the resurrection body, and its glorification, ” There is sown a natural body ; there is raised a spiritual body” (1 Cor. xv. 44). Of the actual nature of the resurrection body we know but little, and that little is drawn entirely from the statements of Scripture. It is perhaps impossible for us in our present condition to form any distinct conception of it, or to understand the

laws which regulate its presence and action. We can do little more than note the indications of its nature to be found in Holy Scripture. And the passages referred to above make it perfectly clear that while personal identity is preserved and bodily structure remains, yet its presence and appearance is governed by laws which are entirely different from those to which the ” natural body ” is subject. It is a glorified, and a ” spiritual ” body. Further, S. Paul expressly tells us that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven” (1 Cor. XV. 50), in connection with which statement we cannot fail to see a deep significance in the fact that when our Lord would describe His risen body to the disciples He speaks of it not in the familiar phrase ” flesh and blood,” but makes use of the unique expression “flesh and bones” (S. Luke xxiv. 39). This language is carefully repeated in our own article (” took again His body with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man’s nature), and without venturing to assert that the resurrection body was bloodless, we may safely say that the unique phrase employed by our Lord was designedly chosen to convey a different idea from the ordinary term ” flesh and blood.” This latter expression occurs in S. Matthew xvi. 1 7 ; 1 Cor. XV. 50; Gal. i. 16; Epli. vi. 12; Heb. ii. 14. In the last of these passages it is used of our Lord’s incarnate life before the crucifixion. “Since the children are sharers in flesh and blood. He also Himself in Like manner partook of the same.” It is here used to denote that He took upon Him man’s nature itnder its present conditions,^ “flesh and blood” being, as will be

seen from the other passages where it occurs, a term with earthly associations connected with it, suggestive rather of the lower animal life than of the higher spiritual existence. ” Flesh and bones ” is altogether a nobler expression. Its meaning may be gathered from such passages as Gen. ii. 23, xxix. 14; Judges ix. 2; 2 Sam. V. 1, xix. 12, 13. These may suggest that it denotes ” community, kinship, close personal union and relationship”; and thus it is indicative of the change that has passed over the body of the risen Saviour, that though in His incarnate life before the crucifixion He ” partook ” of ” flesh and blood,” yet after the resurrection He claims not this, but “flesh and bones.” He would teach His disciples that He was not formless spirit. But to have said that He was ” flesh and blood ” would have misled them into the idea that He was exactly what He had been. He therefore says that He has ” flesh and bones,” in proof that, while He had undergone a change, that change still left Him truly human.^

II. Tlie Ascension and Session (at the Right Hand of

the Father),

(a) The fact of the ascension, though clearly stated, has comparatively little stress laid upon it in Holy Scripture. Of the four evangelists, neither S. Matthew nor S. John relate it, although the latter has preserved words of our Lord which directly refer to it, and so may be said to assume it as a well-known fact (See S. John iii. 13, vi 62; xx. 17). It is just mentioned— but nothing more — at the close of S. Mark’s Gospel, in the section the authorship of which is disputed (S. Mark xvi. 19). In St. Luke’s Gospel, accord-

ing to the received text, a brief notice of it is given, but the words referring to it are marked in Westcott and Hort’s Greek Testament as a “western non-interpolation,” being omitted in an important group of early authorities.^ S. Luke has, however, preserved a full account of it in the Acts of the Apostles (L 9-11), to which it forms the proper introduction as the preparation for the day of Pentecost.

In S. Paul’s Epistles there are but two direct references to it, namely, in Eph. iv. 8-1 0 :” Wherefore He saith, when He ascended on high. He led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. Now this, He ascended, what is it but that He also descended into the lower parts of the earth ? He that descended is the same also that ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.” 1 Tim. iiL 1 6 : ” Eeceived up in glory ” {avekri^Ori iv 3o^). S. Peter in his First Epistle (iiL 22), speaks of Christ as having “gone into heaven.” But though direct notices of the actual ascension are but few, the fact is implied and assumed not only in all those passages referred to below, which speak of the session at the right hand of the Father, but also in the whole conception of the priestly work of Christ as described in the Epistle to the Hebrews, as well as in the representation of the glorified Christ in the Apocalypse.

The mystery of the ascension is one which it is peculiarly difficult for finite minds such as ours to grasp. We have to guard against thinking of it as a mere change of position from one place to another. As heaven is a state rather than a place, so the ascension involves a change of the mode of existence rather than

^ The words Kai av€(p4p€To ets rbv ovpavbv, S. Luke xxiv. 51, are omitted in K D, a 6 cjf rhe. The recently discovered Old Syriac Version, however, which generally agrees with the ** Western” group reads the verse as follows : ” And while He blessed them. He was lifted up from them.”

a change of position. And yet we are not to think of it as if it brought about the destruction of our Lord’s manhood or its absorption into Deity. The Mediator between God and man is still ” Himself man ” (1 Tim. ii. 5). By the ascension He “has entered upon the completeness of spiritual being, without lessening in any degree the completeness of His humanity… . We cannot indeed unite the two sides [of the thought] in one conception, but we can hold both firmly without allowing the one truth to infringe upon the other.” ^ This we can do, and with this we must rest content. And so with regard to that “heaven” into which He passed when ” a cloud received Him out of their sight ” ; the following words of a thoughtful and devout theologian seem to state very exactly the two sides of the truth which, if we are loyal to scriptural truth, we find ourselves compelled to maintain concerning it :

” We cannot conceive of heaven as any distinct place — some sphere, some distant world, or the like — some distinct * where,’ according to the ideas of our present sensible perceptions ; because heaven is everywhere that God is. Yet we must persuade ourselves of some more definite place in heaven where the cosmical, the created life, is perfectly realised ; where God Himself is all in all, where the fragmentary, the imperfect, inseparable from existence in time, is lifted up into the fulness of eternity.” ^

(Jb) As in the Apostles* Creed, the words, ” He ascended into heaven,” are immediately followed by the clause, “And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty,” so in the article after, wherewith He

ascended into heaven, we read, and there sitteth.

The phrase employed once more is entirely scriptural.

• Martensen, Christian DogmcUics (E. T.), p. 321.

,

In the Old Testament it is used of tlie Messianic King in Ps. ex. 1 : ” The Lord said unto My Lord, sit thou on My right hand until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” Its occurrence in this passage evidently suggested its use in the New Testament, in which it may be fairly said to be the regular phrase employed to describe the condition of the risen and glorified Saviour. So in [S. Mark] xvi. 1 9 we read that ” the Lord Jesus … was received up into heaven, and sat down at tlie right hand of God.” In Eom. viii. 32 it is said that ” Christ Jesus,” who was raised from the dead, ” is at the right hand of God.” In Col. iii. 1, He is spoken of as “seated on the right hand of God.” Heb. x. 12: “He, when He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.” ^ In all these passages, wherever the position is indicated, it is that of sittinrf. One exception to this there is in the New Testament. In Acts vii. 55 S. Stephen says : ” Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standinrj on the right hand of God.”’ It is remarkable that the phrase should occur here and here only ; and there can be little doubt that S. Chrysostom is right in the interpretation which he puts upon the unusual expression. ” Why standing, and not sitting ? To show that He is ready to succour His martyr. For thus it is said also of the Father, * Stand up, O God,’ and ’ now will I up, saith the Lord, I will set him in safety.* ” 2

It is, perhaps, scarcely necessary to point out that the expression, ” Sittcth at the right hand of God,” is to be taken metaphorically, and that, as ]]ishop Pearson says, ” we must not look upon it as determining any posture

^ III Acts ii. 33, it is doubtful wlictlicr the words should be remlcred, *’ Being hy the right hand of God exalted,” or ” Being at the richt hand of God exalted.”

^ Horn. vi. iu Asccns.

of His body in the heavens, correspondent to the inclination and curvation of our limbs.” ^ Both parts of the expression are valuable for the ideas and thoughts which they are intended to bring before uh. Sitliiuj is snggcstive of continuance, of rest after labour, of the king upon his throne, and the judge upon the judgment-seat. The rvjht liand is the symbol of strength and power. It is the position of honour and dignity ; and, as Pearson adds, ” the right hand of God is the place of celestial happiness and perfect felicity ; according to that of the psalmist, *In Thy presence is fulness of joy, at Thy right hand pleasures for evermore.’ ”

(c) Before leaving the subject of the ascension and session at the right hand of God, there is one question arising in connection with it which demands a brief consideration: How far can the risen and ascended Lord be said to be present everywhere as man ? At the time when the Articles were drawn up the subject had been brought prominently forward on the continent, owing to the unfortunate teaching of some of the Lutheran divines, following Luther himself who, in the course of the controversy on the Lord’s Supper, endeavoured to support his doctrine on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist by a theory of the ubiquity or omnipresence of the human nature of the Lord, of which theory it can only be said that it is altogether destructive of the reality of the manhood, and endows it with some, at least, of the essential properties of Deity, namely, omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience.

That the subject was definitely present to the minds of those who compiled our Articles is plainly indicated by the passage from the Reformatio Lcfjum JtJccksiasiicarum, which has been already quoted as illustrative of this article. And the terms used in the article itself are

» On the Creed, Art. VI. rli. ii.

quite sufficient to show that those who drew it up had no sympathy with […] but intended to attribute what can only be called a ” local ” presence to the body of Christ in heaven. Ho ” took again His body … whcrcimth He ascended into heaven, and there sitteth until He return, etc.” But while it is necessary to repudiate any teaching which would destroy the perfection of our Lord’s humanity, and practically involve us in Eutychianism, it is at the same time equally needful to guard against imagining that there are in Christ two centres of personality, and that the two natures are in any way separated from each other, a view which would implicate us in something like Nestorianism. The subject is carefully discussed by Hooker, whose guidance we may thankfully follow. In the fifty-fifth chapter of the fifth book of the Ecclesiastical Polity he points out — (1) That “the substance of the body of Christ hath no presence, neither can have but only local ” ; (2) That ” there is no proof in the world strong enough to enforce that Christ had a true body, but by the true and natural properties of His body, amongst which properties definite or local presence is chief”; (3) That “if his majestical body have now any such new property, by force whereof it may everywhere really, even in siihstance, present itself, or may at once be in many places, then hath the majesty of his estate extinguished the verity of His nature.” Consequently he holds it ” a most infallible truth that Christ as man is not everywhere present.” But, having said this, he proceeds at once to add that in some sense it may be granted that even as man He is everywhere present. ” His human substance in itself is naturally absent from

the earth. His soul and body not on earth but in heaven only. Yet because the substance is inseparably joined to that personal Word which, hy His very divine essence 18 present with all things, tho nature which cannot have in Itself universal presence hath it after a sort, by being nowhere severed from that which everywhere is present Wheresoever the Word is, it hath with it manhood, else should the Word be in part or somewhere God only and not man, which is impossible.” Thus there results (a) a sort of presence of the manhood hj conjunction.

Again, there is a second way in which a kind of

universal presence may be attributed to the manhood.

It has (h) a j^rescnce of co-oj^eration, for ” that Deity of

Christ which, before our Lord’s Incarnation wrought all

things without man, doth now work nothing wherein the

nature which it hath assumed is either absent from it or

idle.” ” Touching the manner how He worketh as man in

all things, the principal powers of the soul of man are

tlie will and the understanding, the one of which two in

Christ asscntetli unto all things, and from the other

nothing which Deity doth work is hid ; ^ so that by

knowledge and assent tlie soul of Christ is present with

all tilings which the Deity of Christ worketh.” Further

of the body of Christ it may be said, that ” although the

definite limitation thereof be most sensible,” yet in some

sort it, too, admits of a ” kind of infinite and unlimited

presence.” It is an integral part of that human nature

which IS nowhere severed from Deity, and thus a

’ Lest it should be said that this gives to the manhood an essential property of Deity, namely. - omniscience,” it will be well for the reader to refer back to what Hook-r l.as said in a ].rovious chapter on the illumination of the human soul of Christ, “which beincj so inward unto God cannot choose but be privy unto all things which God worketh and must therefore of necessity be endued with knowledge so far Vorth universal, though not with infinite knowledge peculiar to Deity itself” Eccl. Polity, bk. v. ch. liv. § 7.

” presence of conjunction ” may be ascribed to it ” And forasmuch as it is by virtue of that conjunction made the body of the Son of God, by whom also it was made a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, this giveth it a xn-esence of force and efficacy throughout all generations of men. Albeit, therefore, nothing be actually infinite in substance but God only in that He is God, nevertheless as every number is infinite by possibility of addition, and every line by possibility of extension infinite, so there is no stint which can be set to the value or merit of the sacrificed body of Christ ; it hath no measured certainty of Umits, bounds of efficacy unto life it knoweth none, but is also itself infinite in possibility of application^ ^

III. The Return to Judgment. The concluding words of the article. Until He

return to judge all men at the last day, merely

repeat the substance of the corresponding article in the Creed, ” from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead,” without in any way explaining or elaborating it. It does not appear that there was any special form of false teaching on this subject, which the statement was intended to combat. Errors with regard to eschatology are plainly and directly condemned in Articles XXXIX. to XLII. of the series of 1553, but in the article before us the mention of the judgment is probably introduced incidentally rather than polemically, as being the natural close of the dispensation referred to in the previous clause, ” On the session at the right hand of the Father.” It will, then, be sufficient to notice here how the article accurately follows Scripture — (a) in pointing to the Redeemer as also the Judge, and

(h) in connecting this judgment with His second advent, and not with the moment of each man’s death.

(a) It is the teaching of Scripture that the second Person of the Holy Trinity, who has come as the Saviour of the world, shall also ” come to be our Judge.” See S. Matt. xvL 27, xxiv. 37, xxv. 31 j Acts L 11, x. 42 ; 2 Cor. V. 10 ; 2 Thess. ii. 2, etc.

(b) The time of the judgment is not the moment of each man’s death, but what Scripture terms ” the last day.”^ See S. Matt. xiii. 39 seq., xxv. 31-33 ; Acts xvii. 31 ; Rom. ii 5, 16 ; 1 Cor. iv. 5 ; 2 Pet. ii 9, 10, etc.

’ See S. John vi. 39 scq. ; xi. 24 ; xii. 48.

De SpirUu Sando.

Spiritus Sanctus, a Patre et Filio procedens, ejusdem est cum Patre et Filio essentise, majestatis et glorise, verus ac aeternus Deus.

Notes

• Westcott, The Gospel of the Resurrection, p. 105, The only epistles of S. Paul in which there is no direct reference to the resurrection are Second Thessalonians, Titus, and Philemon.
• The Gospel of the Resurrection^ p. 133. Fuller consideration of the evidence of the resurrection is not attempted here, because it seems to belong more properly to the subject of Christian evidences. For a careful statement of it, and a criticism of the theory of visions, reference may be made to Row’s Bampton Lectures, vi. and vii.
• See Bishop Westcott’s notes on the passage, Commentary on the Epistle to the ffebrews, p. 52, where it is pointed out that by the use of the phrase aT^ Kal ffdp^ “stress is laid on the element which is the symbol of life as subject to corruption.”
• Milligan On the Resurrection, p. 242. The whole note is suggestive, and on the nature of the resurrection body reference may be further made to the first lecture in the same volume.
• Westcott*s Hvitoric Faith, p. 81.
• The ” Ubiquitarians ” arc frequently alluded to by Bishop Jewel in his letters. See his IForks (Parker Soc.) vol. iv. pp. 1258, 1261, 1264.
• The subject of the presence of Christ as Man is fully considered in Augustine’s JEpistola ad Dardanum, ’* De PrKsentia Dei,” Ep. clxxxvu.