Hey on Article IV: Of the Resurrection of Christ

336 BOOK IV. ART. IV, SECT. 1. our fourth book than in our f, the general na- ture of an Article need not prevent our introducing them. What we shall have to say on the sixth Article, concerning the authority of the Scriptures, will, in a good measure, suit all Sects of Christians, and therefore might haye come into the first Book. Nevertheless, some opinions of Christians might be aimed at by those, who compiled this Article. Wee may alto previously remark, that it will be best to keep the subject of the Resurrection of Christ distinct from that of the Resurrection of the Body, or the general Resurrection: they are nearly connected in most writings, which treat of either of them; but it seems best to keep them fo far sepa- rate, as to throw the latter into an Appendix to this NR.

| These things being premised, there 1s no- ing to prevent our adhering to our old Plan in treating this Article, We begin therefore with History. | The Hisiory of the Article now before us, regu- larly and fully treated, should consist of four parts; relating 1. to the Resurrection of Christ : 2. to his Ascension : 3. to his Session, as it is called: and 4. to his coming to Judgmeut.

With regard to the Resurrefion of Christ, the | Docete, as holding that our Saviour had not a pro- per material body, must of course deny, that he rose from the Grave, in the ordinary sense of the words; but moreover, they are said to have in- sisted more frequently than common on this part of his History. With the Docetæ we may join all those, who are called * Ne; all those, who

interpreted

6 See Rogers on the Articles, p . 17. and Woolston, Letter 6. beginning. Allegoriste must + Ky the metaphorical resurreQion mentioned Rom. vi. and elsewhere, to be meant also in the Gos- pel Narratives : as the Socinians make the Creation by Christ to be all moral, Woolston was famous for allegorizing.

BOOK IV. ART. Iv. SECT. 1. 387 interpreted facts allegorically, Under Docetæ are included the Manicheans. vo e

[…]

would always wish any Angle authority respecting an

early Heretic, to be compared with other autho- rit ies as collected by Lardner. 1

1 might have mentioned the Prejudices, which St. Paul had to encounter, when he preached Jesus and the Resurrection, from doctrines of Heathen Philosophers and the Sects of the Fews; but these

are more nearly connected with the subject of the

general resurrection. “PU Lk Early in the fifth century lived Synesius, a man of uncommon character, whole ordination, as con- trary to rules of Church discipline, has occasioned several Books: this man had bis doubts about the Resurrection, calling it beοðο ri x%; arogenrov, Which

Bingham * well translates, * a fort of mystical and

1neffable

w Aug. Hzr. 8. see also Lard. Vol. 9, p. 325, 326.

This part of Ecclesiastical History is interesting, especially

to young people. Synesius was a man of liberal sentiments, and

one, who indulged himself in innocent pleasures: he was so beloved, or esteemed, that the people of Ptolemais demanded

him for their Bishop. When it was proposed to him to be or-

dained for that purpose, he said, that he could not give up his

wife, nör play of some sort, nor the chace. Moreover, that he

held some opinions, which he could not disclaim, though they would be objected to. Nor did he give up his correspondence

with the learned Hypatia, Notwithstanding these things, which

would be striking at the time, he was ordained, and made Bi-

shop of Ptolemais ; about the year 410. Probably men had an

high notion of his abilities, pleasing qualities, integrity, and

honour. His Episeles are extant: the 105th, out of which I

read some passages at Lecture, is pleasing; the part about re-

fusing to put away his wife, is beautiful and noble. Mention of him may be found in Lardner’s Works, by the Index.

F Antiquities, 4. 3. 3. |

B B 2

2 ; = - — he ITE EE

[…] X—&

—

3 N I ——

— =D

SL == — —

— en „

— — Oe Winn

— >

—. ——ç—

——— Tr = - —_——— IS — = AT… = —— - — . - — —

388 BOOK Iv. IT,

ineffable thing.” But I do not see, even from his own expression, whether he meant the Resurrection of Christ, or the general Resurrection: rather, I think, the latter; but they are nearly related.

In the sixteenth Century, Gaspar Schwenkfeld, a Silesian Knight, is said to have held, that Christ was not a real man after his resurrection. In ge- neral, he seems to have magnified the character of Christ, by supposing him something above human; though he would not own, that he adopted the

notions of Eutyches. Our Reformers must have known of this man, when they composed this Ar- tide, as he was very eminents: it is said, that there are still some of his followers * in Silesia.

11. Some notions of the Ancients, with regard to the Ascension of Christ, have been mentioned under the second * Article. We are moreover * told, that Carpocrates and Montanus denied the ascension of Christ’s body, and maintained, that only his soul |

ascended into Heaven. Some have wanted to set aside the ascension entirely, and, in order to sup— port their notion, have said, that the scriptural ex- pressions might be interpreted of Christ’s rising, or ascending, — the Grave. The idea, that Christ ascended into Heaven with et and bones, was con- demned in the second Nicene Council in 787, and

in a Council at Constantinople next before it. Socinus, in order to evade the force of John vi. 62. as proving the pre-existence of Christ, feigned what he called a preparatory Ascension, which, though not the Ascension here meant, may be mentioned |

for

® Vet he is not mentioned amongst those, against whom our Articles were composed, in the Politia Eccles. Angl.—A ing li notion would not entitle him to mention. h Mosheim, 8vo. Vol. 4.p 317.— or Index. He died in 1562. i Art. 11. Sect. 1v. and xv. & Philaster, Theodoret; see Rogers.

i Sec Bingham? s Apology, Wer, fol, Vol. 2. p- 724.

for the sake of diftinfiness*. Christ ascended, ac- cording to Socinus, before he began his ministry,

in order to be instructed in the nature of it. — Was

ever any fancy more arbitrary? how unsuitable to a sect pretending eminently to reason and common

sense I apprehend, that this strong hold of Soci-

nianism has been abandoned.

111. With regard to the Son of Christ, we may mention, that, in the time of Tertullian, there - were some who, though they believed in the Ascen- sion, thought that what is said of #7ng implied, that the mere Body of Christ was placed at the

1 hand of God, void of animation, or emptied of Chrifi*, as they used to speak, and of course not

employed in the exercise of government.—The

idea, that dignity and pre-eminence are shewn by

indolence and freedom from care and action, has

frequently been favoured. —It seems to have been a fundamental idea with the Epicureans. | Iv. There“ have been some different notions

held, with regard to Christ’s returning © to judge all men at the last day.” I believe, this is called

by some the second coming of Christ, but that ex- pression has sometimes a more extensive meaning? The horror of eternal punishment has set several per- sons on imagining ways of avoiding it. Very early Christians thought, that the Being, who was the Author

m Op. Socini, ‘T. 2. p. 380, col. 2. See also Pearson on Creed, p. 108, fol. or 2 10, 4to. |

u Tert. de carne Christi, p. 24. cited by Lord King, p. 285.

e It might explain some expressions, to notice the German and Popi/h notions of the Bodily Ubiquity or omnipresence of _ Christ. (See Rogers on the Art. and Reformatio Legum, de Trin. Cap. 4. Chambers’s Di&. under Ub:quity : < Allo, for cor- poral ubiquity, Fulke’s -Rhem. Test. on Matt. xxvi. Sect. 4.) though this properly belongs to Art. xxvit1. Sect. x.

? Hurd on Prophecy, opening of Ser. v.

. — BB 3

—ͤ—f——

— […] x […] EDT ==

DE —

• • — - — — - — ß […] 4 — =: - Sz — — 3 […] 2 L EE IEEE […] . DE […] x, — * ihe —— Yn IIA Py Twas […] . 24 bh […] i 2 * 4 = - - : = == - — - . . […] A - - — — _ - 4 n […] We — E — Z _ […] . Tz=2 — 9929 EE Rene nn Bo eres Sos - _ […] DS - . ä — — : […] : REESE … : CT * I . 3 — A […] pe […] - = by — 3 S RY - = - - — — - = - = — - […] Co = 2 — —

—

[…] ñ […] - _ - > -

= — L […] w — PPE — —

EPE —

— —’

— —

== = r —

[…] ==

wy ooo - _—

[…] pg - […] a a […] 4

Author of Christianity, was too benevolent to con- demn any one: and some evaded the dreadful sentence of eternal fire, even by fatality * itself : insomuch that, in some very ancient Creeds, there was what seems now a redundancy of expression on this head, which has since been di/continned*. The Manicheans have been said to deny a future judgment: but © Lardner has brought paflages from their writings, found in the controversial works of Augustin, which prove the contrary. — Yet they | seem to have denied the eternity of Hell-torments, or to have maintained, that all men will be /aved fi- nally, —It is owing to the moderation of our Church, that we are not called upon to subscribe to the eter- nity of Hell-torments”: nay, we are not required even to condemn those, who presume to affirm, that all men will be finally saved, though that was required in the last Article of Edward vi. and 1 think reasonably. Though one were inclined to hope, with Dr. Hartley“ that all men will be happy ultimately; that is, when punishment has done its proper work in reforming principles and conduct; yet, to afirm it, must always be presumption?. — A sect, which subsisted in this country at the time of the Reformation, called the Family. of Love, or Familifts, held, that wicked men will be annililated*: as did some Gnuostics of old. 8 0 „ V. It 1 Lord King, Cr. p. 200. Ib. p. 34. * Ib. p. 313. Works, Vol. 3. p. 440, 478. . PIE u There is an expression of the Athanassan Creed about © exrr- lasting fire,” but it seems only a quotation of Matt. xxv. 41. fo must: be understood in the same manner. N * On Man, Sect. v. Prop. 94. See also Origeniani, in Aug. _ Her, 43. | N The title of the Article, All men shall not be saved: at length,“ seems inaccurate; as, I think, the meaning is, It is not to be affirmed, that all men all be saved finally; or after a definite time, — This appears from the Body of the Article. = See Lord King, p. 407. Though this may belong to the Appendix, yet it annuls future judgment.

BOOK IV. v. - 391

v. It is natural here to mention the Millena- rians, or Chiliasts, who believed, that Christ would come to reign, with his Saints, a HMousand years upon earth; and would gratify them with sensual pleasures. This was to take place before the ge- neral resurrection, though there must be a resur- rection of Saints previous to it This notion was founded on the 2oth Chapter of Revelation“; and one can scarce wonder, that the passage should occasion some expectation, though, as all prophe- cies should be interpreted by their completion, it

must be rash to a&, or dispute in a peremptory manner, upon any prophecy not completed. Ire- næus and Lactantius were Chiliasts; and Nepos, a

Bishop in Egypt. Some passages in Lactantius are sanguine enough®, though his ruling ideas seem to be peace and concord. When the Chiliasts came to imagine particulars, J suppose there was a great difference between them: Cerinthus is said, by some, to have taught, that the pleasures of the Millen- mum would be very gross*. But others, of respect- able character, conceived, that, though Tefal, they would not be vicious : that they would consist in eating and drinking, and marriage“. The name of the New Jerusalem * being used, those, who were inclined to Judaism, flattered themselves with the hopes of a /iteral 5 restoration of the Jewish polity:

this makes Bab > say, that the promises made

to

Add 1 Thesf. iii. 13. ok 14, &c.

[…]

Lard. under Dionysius of Alexandria, who opposed Nepos about the Millennium.

© Quieta et placida erunt omnia.

f Rev. xxi. 2. E Lard. Vol. 3. p. 114. 7

b L. 7. c. 24. quoted by Lardner, Vol. 3. p. 103. And rom says, speaking of the Apocalypse, quam fi juxta literam | B B 4 ccipimus,

392 BOOK IV. vi. vir.

to the Saints had been expected (by Nepos) to be fulfilled © in a Jewish sense;” and this makes the Article of Edward vi. say, that the Millenarii, or they who encouraged the revival of their doctrine, cast themselves headlong © into a ei dotage.” In the time of our * Charles 11. some fanatics were called Millenarii, but they were low and illiterate _ persons, not such as would take any pains to follow ancient models, or even to study the Scriptures with exaCtness. — Mo/heim seems not to speak of Millenarians after the time of Dionysius of Alexan- dria. And the accurate T!/lemont * seemed to think, there had nothing passed about Millenarians from the time of Angustin; though in his own time he heard, that they were reviving in Sweden and Brandenburgh. _

vi. [ am not aware, that any thing more need be said on this Article, of the historical sort; I should therefore proceed to an Explanation; but I do not see, that there 1s any thing explanatory to be offered here, which will not be better offered hereafter. Something might be said of the nature of the Sefion of Christ, and of the expression, © he last day;” but, if any little difficulties relating to

them are thrown into the form of objections, they

will be more thoroughly discussed, and will fall in better with the en of our reasoning. 15 vii. We come then to the Proof of the propo-

sitions contained in the Article, which may here, as in the historical part, be reduced to Four. — 1. Christ did 1 from the dead as a being truly human. 2. He did ascend into Heaven, without any change in his person, 3. His Session was mon at

accipimus, judaizandum est; &c. The Allegorifts then were those, who did not judaize: as appears by Lardner’s account of Dionysus of Alexandria.

Hume, 1660. * vol. 2. 1 Hedied 1698, aged 71+

g BOOK IV. ART. Iv. SECT. VIII. 393

that time till his return to judge the world. 4. He will return to judge all mankind. — The proofs of these propositions must be wholly taken from Scrip- ture; the authenticity of which must therefore be taken for granted; or must be considered as havin been proved. This is mentioned, because Bishop Burnet, on this Article, goes back to first prin- ciples. :

We must distinguish, as before, between direct and indirect proof: The direct proof in this Atticle will consist of zexts of Scripture, such as are in ge- neral so well known, that some of them perhaps need not now be adduced, were it not for the sake of regularity. The indirect proof, or answering ob- feftions, will, in our present subject, occupy more of our attention“. EN .

VIII. 1. For the direct proof of Christ’s re- surrection, 1 refer to the 24th Chapter of Luke’s Gospel; verse 3—6; 30, 40, 42, 43.—John xx. 28, and preceding. Acts ii. 29-31. and Acts x11. 39—37. Allo to 1 Cor. xv. 5—8. To which might be added a passage or two, which takes the Resurrection for granted, and reasons upon it: such as Rom. vi. 4 —1 Cor. xv. 13.— Col. iii. 1. &c.— or Rom. iv. 25.—2 Tim. ii. 8. ä . IX. 2. For m Bp. Burnet’s proof is addressed to Infidels; ours will only shew, to hem, that the Resurrection of Christ is affirmed in Scripture; their disbelief of the Gospel Hittory will be com- bated in our indirect proof, (indeed Bp. Burnet obviates diffi +

culties j; though even that must be only looked upon as an ocea- sional supplement to our reasoning in the fir/t Bock. Our scrip- tural proof is applicable to Woolston’s arguments, as he only wants to set aside the /itera/ sense, in favour of the mystical (see the opening of his 6th Letter, and my account of him B. 1. Chap. xy 1. Sect. v11) ;—and his Jewish: Rabbi, in his 6th Let-

ter, argues on the absurdity of Christ’s Resurrection, from the account of it given by the Christian Evangelists (p. 5) And indeed any persom may argue upon an account of facts, as given py those who believe them. |

’

394 BOOK IV, ART. IV. SECT, IX.X. XI. XII:

ix. 2. For proof of the Ascension, we may refer to Mark xvi. 19.—Luke xxiv. 51. and Acts i. . &c.—one might also add (or take first) John xx. 17. and vi. 62. and afterwards, Eph. iv. 8.—Col. i. 1. 25 .—Heb. vi. 19, 20. xX. 3. For proof of Christ’s fitting at the right e. of God, we may have recourse to Mark xvi. 9. Acts 1. 34. &c.—Ephes. i. 20. &c.—Heb. i. 1 and 13. And afterwards, to Eph. ii. 6.— Col. ui. 1. observing, that the fitting does not imply On but government.

4. The proofs of Christ’s returning to judę- om are numerous. I he 254 Chapter of St. Mat- thew’s Gospel, from the 31st verle, is a capital one. The 24th Chapter has two senses”; Mark viii. 38. Add John v. 22.— Acts i. 11.— X. 42.—Xvii. 31. Rom. xiv. 10. or 2 Cor. v. 10.—to which should be added some texts expressing Christ’s coming, or his returuiug, more ablolutely or independently; as that is an expression of the Article: such as 1 Cor.

XVvx. 23.—1 Thess. iv. 15. and 1 Ul. 13.—V. 2, 3, 23.

James v. 7, 8.—2 Pet. m. 4. &. Though Acts 1. 11. does express the return of Christ; so does Matt. xxv. 31. X11. All the proof requisite for the question respecting the Millennium, is only to recolle& what has been said before about the premature appli- cation of Prophecies, and to observe, with Bishop Gi#/on*, that there is no appearance, that the plea-

sures of such a state, whenever it may take place,

will be sensual. And, with Lardner”, that impurity is represented as a disqualification for the State. Whether the enjoyment of sensual pleasures, not reckoned vicious, can be called impurity, in any

sense, is a question, about which all men may not be

n gee Book 1. Chap. x viI. Se. x. © P. 209, P Vol. 3. p. 112. Rev. xxi. 27 ,—XXU, 14, 15.

be perfectly agreed; the marriage servi ce of th Church of England calls married persons * undefiled members of Christ’s Body.”

XIII. Having then gone through a direct proof of the Doctrines of our Article, we come to the indirect; or to the answering of objefions. These have been numerous; we must, as in che second Article, make a selection.

This part of our subject has been more fully treated since the time of Bishop Burner, than before it; by the publication of Mr. Wes book on the resurrection, and of the pampblet ascribed to Bi- | shop Sherlock, called the Trial of the Witnesses, &c. which has something particularly interesting in its {ule and plan; it was written against the objec- tions of Mr. V. alla, of whom ue once gave an account.

AV. *. The Gust objection I shall mention, may be thus expressed; It is more likely, that the Body of Christ was /o/er by his Disciples, than that it revived. This is the objection, which the Ferws made at the time; nay, St. Matthew tells us, that the Priests thought 1 worth while to bribe the Guards to testify the fact, on which it is founded; and that the people were credulous enough, or enough prejudiced, to believe the fact, and so adopt the objection. Certainly, if the Disciples of Christ wanted to use any deceptious, and by any false ap- pearances make men believe what they themselves knew to be false, they could much more easily do that, if they had the “Body of Christ, than if it was in the possession of eee enemies, so that it might, at any time, be produced against them But how

could

q See abont Paphnutius, Art. xxxii. Sect. iii. Cohabiting with

r wife, he said, (though a Monk himself} 18 chastity itsel

r Book 1. Chap. xvI. Sect. vii, Matt. xxviii. 12—1 5.

396 + BOOK IV. ART. Iv. SECT» xv.

could they procure the Body ?—they would not at- tempt to force a guard of sixty men.—No, fay the Jews, it was not force that was used, it was flight and cunning; the guards were asleep: could the Disciples expect that? or be prepared to take advan- tage of it? or, would they dare to run the hazard of awakening them? But is it credible, that they were asleep? a guard of sixty men all asleep! or even a sixth part of them!—nay, suppose they were aflcep, can they be admitted as competent ww1tnesses of what passed during their slumbers?—no more, I think, need be said on this* objection.

xv. 2. It has been objected, that Christ was not in the grave a sufficient length of fime to answer the predictions; or that he rose 700 soon: then he did rife? We might say, that is the principal thing; whether, in an affair so very extraordinary, 255 circumstances were just as might be expected, is a matter of secondary consequence. If a man * performed a sourney, or any very ordinary act, and performed it too soon, or too late, it might not answer its purpose; but, if Christ did really rise from the dead, the main purpose mist be answered, Whether we can clear up all circumstances or not.

But you reply, though we could not find out the fallacy of evidence any other way, yet if we find inconsistencies in it, they invalidate the whole. It had been said beforehand , that Christ would be in the Grave three days, or three days and three nights; whereas he was but one whole day. We an- swer; there are in Scripture four different forms of expressing the time, during which our Lord was to lie in the Sepulchre: he was to rife the hird

day, n See Trial, 2 p. 36. 43. F u Matt. xii. Matt. xx. 19. and other passages; cr Matt.

xXVii. 63. with Parallels x Matt. xx. 19.

day, in three ? days, after three days, and it is said, © the Son of Man” shall be © free days and three nights 1n the heart * of the earth.” Now these expressions must mean the same thing, if the Evan- a invented their narrations; because no per- ns ever write inconsistencies purposely, or except where something escapes them; or seems likely to . escape others; never, where the inconsistencies must be glaring to every eye. And, if they mean the same thing, there 1s no inconsistency amongst them. And our remark may be extended to the seeming inconsistency between these expressions and the fact; suppose the Evangelists to be inventing, and fo writing what would best promote their caise, nothing so easy as to fit the event to the prediction: it must be as easy to make Christ rile © on the fourth day, as on the third: upon a supposition then of the narratives being feigned, the fact was agree- able to the predictions in that one sense, in which they would ail be understood. No one can fay, these accounts are inconsistent, and therefore in- vented; for, ifthey had been invented, they would not have admitted the inconsistencies now under consideration. | If we put the supposition, that the narratives were not feigned, we are rid of our principal difficul- ty; we have only to consider the question before us as a critical question, which we should be glad to

resolve,

7 Matt. xxvii. 40. 2 xxvii. 63.

2 Matt. xii. 40. the word zhree is a leading word in them all. d It has occurred to me, that the common phrases about a musical o#ave might seem contradictory, or inconsistent, when they were not so; and much in the same manner with the phrases aboat a number of days.— An octave comprehends three thirds and one second; the mind sums these into eleven: yet it is

sometimes said, an octave contains only /e tones, even we”. koning as tones the two /amitones.

© Woolston, Letter bth, p. 13.

398 BOOK Iv. ART, IV, SECT. xv. resolve, if we can; but which we may leave as a difficulty in suspense, it we cannot.—Qn this foot- ing, it is comfortable to remark, that, when we say two events were distant three days, we may mean znclyfrvely, reckoning, into the number three, the days on which both events happened: and the very existence of the word inclusively, in this sense, shews, that this mode of reckoning is common: this will be admitted still more easily of the expres- tion © the third day.” —Yet, if we compare the 63d and 64 verses of Matt. xxvii. we shall see, that this expression means the fame thing with © after three days;”—which will be confirmed by observing, that, in John xx. 26. © ofter eight days” means the day [ennight, as we call it; the two days meant were (molt probably) two successive Sundays*. The only expression remaining therefore is, © three days and three nights :” but this means the same as three days; —evenmg-morning is a Jewish expres- sion for a day“; three evening mornings for hree days: and © three days and three nights“ means only the same as three © evening-mornmgs,” or three day-nights, which may be reckoned inclusively as well as three days. Our word day is of nself often taken for the whole 24 hours; if we had a com- pound word something like nyteovxriov, day-night, three day-nights would seem familiar, and reckon- Ing them inclusively would occasion no difficulty: such a word would have been equivalent to the ex-

pression © three days and three nights. That

© Gen. 1, paslim, . N

That the time elapsed was, in the event before us, expressed by the Jews according to what has been said, appears from the words of Cleopas, ro-day is the third day since those things were done.“ — The reckoning after the event is the same as be- fore it. | | ; But it has been? urged, that, if the Body of Christ had laid a day longer, witnesses would have attended on the spot, who would have disproved our present account: in this argument, something in the Gospels is allowed to be true; — Christ had been really buried, and his body ming on the third day; —if so, either it must have been Helen, or it mult have revived; the former having been dis- proved, the latter remains rrue. xXv1. 3. It has been objected, that Christ ap- _ peared only to select witnesses*. Their being chosen has probably an air of art and contrivance. But {urely there is no fact, which requires, in order to

its being credible, that all men, who lived when it happened, should have seen it. In the case of the Resurrection of Christ, supposing it really to

have happened, it was proper, that those should be witnesses, who had not only eyes to see, but candour to embrace truth on {sufficient evidence,

and resolution to persist in the profession of it in

spite of all dangers. —Those, who ascribed the Mi-

racles of Christ to Beelzebub, might have rejected

even sufficient evidence of the Resurrection. Those,

who would have shrunk at persecution, or betrayed

their cause, like Judas, for money, would have

been improper witnesses, however true the accounts committed to them.

But, might not some indifferent persons have been witnesses? not if the fact was rues what man

fit

[…]

• […] 5 N — - < — - […] K 4 2 ů […] —.

Pap > __ ——

IL

I ——

5 - […] ”

fit to be a witness, could have known the resur- rection of Jesus to be real, and have been indif- ferent about the success of his religion? such an one must have embraced the Christian religion, and then he would have been as ang as any other Disciple.

We are not here considering the force of the evi- dence in favour of the resurrection of Christ; for that we refer to the 16th Chapter of the farst Book; we are only considering one particular, the election of certain persons for the purpose of bear- ing testimony to it.

The Jewith magistrates have been mentioned * as | those, to whom Christ ought to have shewn him- self; but to say this, seems at least presumptuous. It is right to see whether we have /uffcrient evidence, but we cannot fix upon any specific evidence, or mode of proof, and say, that God ought to have made use of that. A fact may be frue, and we may have reason to think it fo, though many sources of proof may have been left untouched. — If the fact before us be true, we need inquire no farther. Magistrates are often worldly-minded men; and want to keep things in their old course at all hazards. Some of them, though moved by the arguments of the Apostles, might have gone away

forrowful, like the young man in the Gospel; or, like Agrippa, have been only alngst persuaded to embrace Christianity.

Bishop Sherlock, or the Author of the 7. ryal of the Witnessesk, makes an important observation on this matter: he suggests, that Christ took a solemn leave of the Jews when he {poke what is written at the close of the 23d Chapter of St. Matthew’s Gos- pel; that he had then fied his commission to the Jews, as their Meshah;—thar, after his Resurrection,

he

he opened a new commission, addressed to the World at large. When that was once opened, all preter- ence of them was at an end; all men hecame upon the same footing; and therefore if Magistrates, as such, were to be made witnesses of sacred truth, newly revealed, the Roman Magistrates should have had the preference, —Indeed, the Jewish had been found too much biased to be entrusted with suck truth as Jesus had to offer. But the argument of the Infidels would prove too muck; that no country, no age, should be left without original Testimony®, - - XVII. 4. The next objection seems as if it might proceed from a mind neither disingenuous nor cap- tious. If we take the incidents of the life of Jesus after his resurrection, there is sumething in them uncommon and extraordinary. They give him the air and appearance of not being so strictly and pro- perly man, as he had been before his death. Some incidents and circumstances must be here enume- rated. — The noli me? tangere:”—the two Disci- ples not knowing ® Christ in going to Emmaus ;—his being said to appear ** in another […] vanish out of their © sight, — to stand in the midst, when the doors were*® shut for fear of the Jews, At the mountain in Galilee, ** /ome doubted; very few. transactions are recorded, considering our Lord passed forty days on earth after his resurrection; and seemingly only three * appearances. —To which must be added, the ascension of the Body of Christ.— I do ane g 0.

[…] —

—

[…] —

I Witness their whole conduct on the Trial: thou gh Pilate thought Christ innocent, zhey cried out, crucify him.” They ascribed too his Miracles to the Prince of the Devils. |

. Trysl, p. 80. | n See SeR. 1. the notion of Schwenkfeld. © John xx. 17. P Luke xxiv. 4 Mark xvi, 12. Luke xxiv. 31. John xx. 19, 25. © Matt. xxviii. 17. 8 2 xxi. 14. VOL. 11. c

1 […] : Fi. 1 N 1 , ws J FIG , I M48 \ t, Hy “Wt WANT. 5: a HB q 1 Wt N. — 10 U 18h ! [TK if Hh Ae Bf […] 4: (184 by it 7 na “8 11H “18 vol N nh KIN : 4s [1 on ” ! ‘4 * N ol We „ N ( “mY

— Tl P CESS

% N

= [He

402 BOOK IV. ART. Iv. SECT. XVII. not remember seeing it noticed in any objection, that the ound, of our Lord were fresh, though he walked * to Emmaus; and suffered Thomas, in a 8 time, to thrust his hand into the scar 7 in his side. 15 N Before we attempt to account for these appear- ances, we must observe, that their not being per- feftly accounted for, is not a sufficient reason why the Gospel History should be rejected: all that we have a right to require, is sufficient evidence on the whole. Es Ce CB 1. If we might suppose, that Christ had the glo- rified or spiritual body of a man, after his refur- rection, it seems as if none of these incidents or _ circumstances would give us much trouble*. Their probability, on such a supposition, and our 1gno- rance of the nature of such body, would partly satisfy, and partly silence us; we should receive what 1s written, and wait for a clear understanding till we ourselves were cloathed with our heavenly tabernacle. —That the human body, in its exist- ence in a future state, 1s of such a sort, as to be properly called a spiritual body,” is clear from many texts of Scripture; but they will most pro- perly be produced, when we treat of the general resurrection:— that Christ did assume his spiritual body before his ascension, is a supposition somewhat e countenanced The wounds of Christ are mentioned several times in the Trial. n 5 : R 2 Does not Epiplianius seem to have thought, that Christ had his spiritual Body after his Resurrection? Hzr. 64. Sect. 64. ( Origeniani). Works, Vol. 2, p. 538, about Origen’s notion of 1 Cor. xv. 7.-though Epiphanius is writing again Origen in the passage above mentioned. Origen had denied the resur- rection of the Body, or had been said to do so: Epiphanius ob- viates his objections by saying, that the body of Christ, after

| his resurrection, was of such rarefied, ætherial matter, that it could pass through a door, &c.

BOOK Iv. ART. iv. SECT. XVII. 403

countenanced by 1 Cor. xv. 50. Flesh * and blood cannot 1nherit the Kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” This is a general assertion; we have no e to think Christ an exception to it. In Phil. iii. 21, we are told, that Christ “ shall change our : wil body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body ;” but

we are not told the time of his assuming that glo-

rious body: : if it was not before his ascension, when could it be? — not, I should think, at his rransf- guration; the change in Christ’s body made 7her, seems to have been external and superficialꝰ only; and partial. John does not record the transaction; the three other Evangelists all speak of the gar- ments being changed; Mark of the garments only; and the other two mention nothing in the Body or Person of our Saviour as changed, but the face or countenance.—By analogy we should judge, that, as Christ was perfect man in life, in death, and in Hades, so he would, after his elbe en assume such a body, as al men will assume after the gene- ral resurrection.— Besides, he 1s represented (1 Cor. xv. 20. and Acts xxvi. 23.) as *© the first fruits,” and (Col. i. 18.) as © the 50% born from the dead.“

Ignatius confirms this, Ep. ad Trallianos, P. 34.

Oxon. 1709. See Rutherforth’s Charges, p. 87. 1t must not be asked here, whether Lazarus and others © had spiritual bodies after they arose from the grave; they were to die again, in the common manner of other men, and to take their spiritual bodies at the same time with the rest of their spectes.

—

4 Here flesh and blood”? means what 1 is commonly so called; che natural body; though even the spiritual body may be /ai4 to consist of all parts, which are essential to an human body. But it would be premature to dwell on this just at present. d Take the accounts, as in Macknight’s Harmony. SeR. 72. © Matt. xxvii. 52.

N

AS. — —

2 : 8 — = C

—

==

b Tx x f E […] 1 _ […] 5 85 = 3 C - = - 8 […] I ——— 2 […] 7 […] ů — -4 LEY […] 2 […] IS. DO — — - G —

[…] 7 — mh

ql ; 5 we: 7 Wi — a

! ö J ;

Aide.

402 BOOK IV. ART. Iv. SECT. XVII.

not remember seeing it noticed in any objection,

that the wounds of our Lord were fresh, though he walked * to Emmaus; and suffered Thomas, in a week’s time, to thrust his hand into the scar in his

Before we attempt to account for these appear-

_ ances, we must observe, that their not being per-

fefly accounted for, is not a sufficient reason why

the Gospel History should be rejected: all that we

have a right to require, is sufficient evidence on the whole. „ 3

1. If we might suppose, that Christ had the glo-

rifed or spiritual body of a man, after his resur-

rection, it seems as if none of these incidents or circumstances would give us much trouble*. Their

probability, on such a supposition, and our igno- ance of the nature of such body, would partly

satisfy, and partly silence us; we should receive what is written, and wait for a clear understanding

till we ourselves were cloathed with our heavenly

tabernacle. —That the human body, in its exist- ence in a future state, is of such a sort, as to be

properly called a © spiritual body,” is clear from

many texts of Scripture; but they will most pro- perly be produced, when we treat of the general

resurrection:— that Christ did assume his spiritual body before his ascenfon, is a supposition somewhat

countenanced

2 The wounds of Christ are mentioned several times in the

Trial. |

1 Cor. xv. 7.—though Epiphanius is writing again Origen in

the passage above mentioned. Origen had denied the resur- rection of the Body, or had been said to do so: Epiphanius ob- viates his objections by saying, that the body of Chritt, after his resurrection, was of such rarefied, ætherial matter, that 1 could pass through a door, &c. | ;

Bock IV, ART, iv. SECT. XVII. 403 countenanced by 1 Cor. xv. 50. Flesh* and

blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” This is a general assertion; we have nb reason to think Christ an exception to it. In Phil. iii. 21. we are told, that Christ © shall change our vile body, that it

may be fashioned like unto his glorious body; but

vue are not told the time of his assuming that glo- rious body: if it was not before his ascension, when could it be?—not, I should think, at his rransfi- guration; the change in Christ’s body made en, seems to have been external and superficialb only; and partial, John does not record the transaction;

the three other Evangelists all speak of the gar-

ments being changed; Mark of the garments only;

and the other two mention nothing in the Body or

Person of our Saviour as changed, but the face or countenance.—By analogy we should judge, that, as Christ was perte& man 1n lite, 1n death, and in Hades, so he would, after his celurrettion. assume such a body, as all men will assume after the gene- ral resurrection.— Besides, he 1s represented (1 Cor. xv. 20. and Acts xxvi. 23.) as the first fruits; and (Col. i. 18.) as © the firf-born from the dead.” Ignatius confirms this, Ep. ad Trallianos, p. 34. Oxon. 1709: See Rutherforth’s Charges, p. 87. It must not be asked here, whether Lazarus and others had spiritual bodies after they arose from the grave; they were to die again, in the common manner of other men, and to take their spiritual bodies at the same time with the rest of their Hpecies.

do

2 Here « flesh and blood” means what is commonly so called; the natural body; though even the spiritual body may be /aid to consist of all parts, which are essential to an human body. But it would be premature to dwell on this just at present. > Take the accounts, as in Macknight’s Harmony. Sect. 72. 6 Matt. xxvii. —

— — 2 a = g p ©. 2 5 - =_ * - , X 7 I 3 p — 2 - […] : < B. n — —. ] ⏑—— — I — = yu ==

— SL

Fil ht t ik

I mh 1 ul: 41 ; ( “is 1 WHY =

„ CE ——

a MTS.

404 book iv.

I do not know, that this hypothesis 1 is inconfiftent with Scripture, or with our Article“: but it will probably be rejected, from a general idea of its being too bo/d and fanciful. If men come to par- ticular reasons for rejecting it, they will urge seem- ingly one of these free things. 1. That it is incon- fltent with the scriptural expression adopted by our Article, about e and bones. Or 2. That the time, in which it supposes the body of Christ to have been changed, is much less than that between death and the general resurrection. Or 3. That, according to it, Christ might not be strictly the same man before and after his resurrection:—at least, a moment’s consideration of these three things _ have its use. The spiritual body of an human being e hats flesh and bones, as well as his natural body : a least, so we must always express ourselves We have no idea of any human body without flesh and bones, they are constituent parts of it, and effential to it; in whatever sense therefore we say, that we have Bodies in heaven, in the fame sense we must say, that we have whatever are the constituent parts of bodies. — Flesi and bones cannot be supposed to be the same 7hings in natural and spiritual bodies, but there is no reason why we should change our terms in speaking of them. 2, The time, during which Christ was in the Grave, seems sufficient for his changing his natural into a spiritual body. St. Paul says’, © we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.“ If any one preferred the hypothesis, that Christ assumed his spiritual body gradually between his resurrection

• When I first offered this hypothesis, it was my own thought; but it seems to have been (like many original — men- tioned in antiquity.

Luke xxiv. 39. Ky 58 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52.

resurrection and his ascension, we should have no occasion to object. Such an one would watch whether the things related of Christ become gra- dually more spiritual, St. Thomas’s handling of his body, John xx. 27. was about a eek after his resurrection: in John xxi. 13. it is not expressly affirmed, that he eat; whatever may seem to be implied. Jesus then cometh, and faxet bread, and gzveth them, and fish likewise.. .

3. Though it were true, that Christ changed his natural body for a spiritual one before his ascen⸗- sion, yet he might, in common propriety of speech, be spoken of as still the same man: or, the body he had after his resurrection might be called © his | body.” Whenever we make such change, we must continue each the same man; otherwise we could not be susceptible of rewards and punishments, {supposing the Deity a just Being. — Identity is so far from excluding all change, that, in common ques- tions concerning it, it presupposes some®; and when identity is destroyed, seems to depend more upon convenience and custom of language, than upon the quantity of change. A reptile may undergo less change in becoming an insect, than a man under- goes while he continues to be called the same man; or, I should rather say, than another animal of its own e undergoes without being accounted to | lose its identity. i By the way, it may be considered, whether this notion of identity will not sufficiently obviate those difficulties, which arise from the parts of man’s body becoming parts of vegetables, and so of animals

| which When you ask, whether such a thing continues the same,

the meaning is, can it be called the same notwithstanding such and such changes ?

b Voltaire, Vol. 26. 4to. p. 411.

406 BOOK IV. ARr. IV. SECT. XVII,

which feed upon those vegetables; or even of aller men.

It does not then appear impossible, that Christ might assume his spiritual body hefore his afcen- sion, nottvithstanding his body is said to consist, in part, of flesh and bones; notwithstanding he lay but a short time in the Grave, and must undergo, on that supposition, some very material changes’.

But still we must remember, that the Scripture does not plainly inform us of such an event; and therefore we must not rest here; we must inquire farther, how the incidents and circumstances just now mentioned, as giving an air of something ex- traordinary to the person of Christ, may be account-

ed for.

I be power, by which Christ was raised from the dead, must be accounted a. miraculous power: may we then be allowed to suppose, that such a power

was exercised after his resurrection, as well as in effecting it? —if we may, our present difficulties will, in a great measure, receive a solution. And a miraculous power does not interfere with the Auma- nity of Christ, which 1s now Our principal concern®; —nor is it for us to say, 4 priori, when God shall, and when he shall ot, make 1s of such a power. The history of the resurrection of Christ may be a true history, and yet it might please God to use

miraculous power in some Incidents subsequent to it.

But Bp. Pearson, on «tb words © From the dead,” quotes Greg.

Hom. 26, in Evang.“ corpus suum et ejusdem nature et alte- rius ehrie. The nate is proved by the handling; the new g/ory by the entering in w hile the doors were shut. Creed, p. G1 7» first edit.

There are miraculous events interspersed through the Life

of Christ. He passes safe through a multitude, he walks upon the fea, &c.

BOOK IV. ART. Iv. SECT. XVII. 407

But some are most inclined to solutions, which keep clear of every thing supernatural. © Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father,” may mean only, pass not this precious time in

salulatious (such as embracing the knees); it will be some time before my ascension takes place; there will be opportunities to shew your rejoicing, when there is no particular business to prevent it. Again, two disciples might walk with Jesus, side by side, and not know him; they might never look at * him; or not see him clearly; especially in the dusk of the evening; their minds might be intent upon something ® else; he would speak in a file different from that, in which they had usually heard him speak: why not purposely?—and yet, when /:ghts were brought, at supper, and they sate opposite to him, they might know him, As to their eyes being holden, ver. 16. (Luke xxiv), and opened, ver. 31, that is only Jewish phraseology; it means nothing supernatural.—Minerva held the eyes of Penelope, that she did not know her husband, — His being in another form, woeÞy, might mean only the effect of a different dress. His vanisting, or becoming invisible, (z@evro; eywero), might only be his retiring out of the room?, while they were at- tending to something elle, expecting him to return. —He might, consistently with the Scripture ex- pressions, enter by the door in a common way: who, that would stop the Jews, would stop im? Though it seems strange, that any of his disciples should doubt at the interview in GalIlee®, yet it 1 might

Ly 1 See Trial of Witnesses, p. 68. | m See Macknight’s instance (p. 647) of Odysley, B. 19th, (or T), line 479. And another, Trial, p. 50. u Luke xxiv. 14, 15. o Macknight. ? Lardner says, that Theophylaff is well worth reading on this passage : see his Cred. on Fuvencus ; Works, Vol. 4, p.

rg ITS - —— =

— — CE

408 BOOK IV. ART. Iv. SECT. XV1t.

might only mean had doubted, (Grotius); or it migdt only be some of inferior note; some, who had not been at Jerusalem, had not weighed the evidence, and whose minds were possessed with ideas of Ghosts and Apparitions. The greatness of so wonderful an event might terrify men out of their judgment, and make them distrust even their senses. - It is better they should doubt, than be too hasty to believe. Though no great variety of transactions is recorded, as having passed during the forty days, yet we find nothing wanting in particular: no Evangelist ever composed a Journal; and detached facts, if of a wonderful nature, have a romantic air and appearance. What could Christ do more in his then situation, though it would produce no variety of incidents, than employ himself in © speak- ing of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God?” Macknight reckons up seven appearances which he made, in all; it may moreover be con- sidered whether, if the Evangelists had invented their histories, they would have abstained from throwing in more incidents in this part of their fa- ble: —whether we should not have had prodigies, _ discourses, ænigmas, in abundance, Of the Ascen- sion we will speak by and by. As to the wounds of Christ, we know so little of a miraculous revival, that we are not able to = a solution of their being healed, on our present plan of avoiding every thing supernatural. It does not seem likely, that a Body should be supernatu- rally restored to Life, and the wounds remain. Whatever events were natural and ordinary, we are sure, that the restoration of life and health to the Body of Christ was not one of them. He was

cc put 207.— (T heophylact on Matt. xxviii. 17. In r p.

183.) It seems a good exposition. 7 AQs 1. 3. See also John * 30. Many other signs,” &c.

BOOK IV. XV11, 409

6 put to death in the feli, but was cen by the Spfr.

Thus, here are three ways of ching the diffi- culties proposed; it is possible, that some might make use of more than one of them; i. e. might allow some of the incidents to be common, some miraculous, and others to imply a spiritual body.— But let every one consider, whether the remark be- fore made on the fime of Christ’s rising might not be extended to every one of them; whether they might not all have been easily avoided by any one,

who was imwverting a narration merely to serve some. purpose. If fo, the conclusion is, as before, the

narratives which we have are not fictitious.

1 mentioned * the ascenson of Christ as one of those things, which gave our Saviour’s Body an air of being not perfectly human. This will come best under a separate observation; especially as our Article has been objected to, on account of what it affirms respecting the Ascension of Christ*, It has

been mentioned before®, that two Councils con-

demned the notion of our Article, that fest and bones * were parts of that Body, wherewith Christ ascended. These Councils may, on that account, seem to consider the human Body of Christ as incon-

fifent with his Ascension; but I should rather say,

that they only adopted our jr/ solution of the dit ficulty in preference to any other; that is, they thought, that Christ must assume his spiritual Body

some time before his Ascension. When they en creed against flesh and bones being admitted into

the 1 mansions, they most probably meant

to

• x Pet. il. 18. * P. 401.

t Bingham, Vol. 2. p. 724. part of his Apology.

u P. 338.

• I follow Bingham s expression, though I do not see Bones mentioned in the Acts of the Councils.

fl } j } ly j I IT i” U ( U N

—

& 0

— C—_

410 BOOK IV: ART. Iv. SECT. XVIII.

to speak of the Body in its present corruptible state; as St. Paul does, when he speaks of “ flesh? and blood.” And * indeed there may be some ambi- guity, when the parts of the body are mentioned; there may be a doubt, whether the natural Body is spoken of, or the spiritual; as we mult use the same terms for both; which can only be resolved by the connection and design of the expressions. I think we have sufficiently shewn, that any component parts of an human body, which are necessary to our idea of such body, may be spoken of as be- longing either to heavenly or earthly bodies. In the Ascension then of our Lord, he might have an human body, though it were a spiritual one; or, in other words, the difficulty we are speaking of may admit of our first solution: can the second or third be applied to it?—First, could the Ascension be miraculous? I should rather say, it might be supernatural; it might be above any law of our nature; and yet it might not be a wicla- tion of any law; which every miracle seems to be. — Neither do I see how the third solution can be of any use to us; the Ascension of Christ cannot be an event of an ordinary nature; it is wholly out of the reach of our common experience.

I shall not mention any more o&7efons, as what may be strictly called such: but I said, that, instead of directly explaining some expressions of the Arti- cle, I would propose any difficulty contained in those expressions, in the form of objections, that the ce of them might be the more distinct.

XVIII. 1. The first of these explanatory objec- lions may bs this; our Article speaks of Christ as sitting on the right hand of God; whereas he is re-

presented Y 1 Cor. xv. 50.

z ‘This conjecture is confirmed by the expre/ions of the Coun- _ 1] (or Councils, for the latter adopts the words of the former).

’ BOOK Iv. ART, Iv. SECT. XVIII. 411

presented in Scripture as fanding at the right hand of God. Whatever difficulty there is here, is a

difficulty of Scripture, for we have shewn, that

Christ is frequently described as fitting; which how- ever does not afford a reason why it should be

passed over. In truth, all we want, at present, is

to improve our own conceptions. *’ We must there-

fore again apply what was formerly * laid down.

when we use our own language concerning any

thing spiritual or heaveply, any thing which we express, not properly, but in borrowed terms, we

mean somethin “8 of the following sort: - when we lay the hand o

Supreme Being, of certain effe&s, which, if pro-

duced by man, we should ascribe to his hand. |

When we speak of the Providence of G od, we mean that cause in God of effects, which, in man, would be ascribed to forefght.—-In like manner, when we speak of /itting, we mean that fate of things, which would produce fitting in man; and so of fanding:— by Christ’s fitting at the right hand of God, we mean that state of dignity, authority, equality of rank, which, according to our customary notions, would occasion a person to fit at the right hand of a great Personage. By Chriffs standing, Acts vii. 55. that fate of shewing protecting care over a dying servant, which would cause the same person, if stand.— The postures therefore are only different circumstances; and the descriptions of them no more contradict one another, than a man contradicts himself by sometimes giving orders to his servant, and sometimes paying him his wages. Tell a Painter to draw a picture of a Prince exercising his authority, and another of the same Prince shewing a compassionate tenderness for a servant, who has

been wounded in | his defence; giving him no di-

rections Acts vii. 55, b Book 1. Chap. x1x. Sect. 5.

God, we mean that cause, in the

man, to

AKA — —

2 . 8 — L : […] . Q — — —

——

—— D—U— 8 […] —

—— 2 —mↄ b—̃

—— — a — =_

re&ions about particular postures; and he will, of course, draw his Prince /ting in the former picture, and! in the latter Handing. ix. 2. Another explanatory bie kon may be this: why should our Article use a different lan- guage from every one of our three Creeds, with regard to the persons, whom Christ 1s to judge ? The Article says, „all men; the Creeds, © the quick and the dead.” But certainly the expression of the Article is the Jess ambiguous; and therefore, if any thing more be said upon the difference, it will be, not so much to explain the Article, as the Creed; or rather the Scriptures; for from Scripture the expression of quick and dead’ is derived“. Nevertheless, as we subscribe to the Creeds, it may not be improper briefly to observe, that by < the quick,” are probably meant those, who will be alive at the time of Christ’s coming to judge the world: though I should not blame any one, wha thought it was not intended to declare Positively, that any would be then alive; but only to affirm, that Christ would judge © all men,” whether any happened to remain alive, or all had paid the debt of mortality.— To those, who favour this sense, the Creeds and the Article coincide. xx. 3. The /aft explanatory objection J shall mention, is the following. — Is there not a material difference between the Article, which speaks of Christ as fitting only 2 the last day; and the Creed, which describes him as one, whose king- dom shall have no ng”? The short answer is, that our Article seems only to reach, as it were, to the day of judgment, but the Creed to that erernity, which follows it; in con- tradiction © See Pearson on the Creed, p. 560, first edit,

Acts x. 42. 2 Tim. iv. 1. 1 Pet. iv. 5, 1 Thess. iv. 15, 17. 1 Cor. xv. 5 1.

_ *-., BOOK IV. ART, IV. SECT. XX. 413

tradiction perhaps to the error of Marcellus and Photinus, who thought e exd” (fo I conceive) to mean the end of Christ’s kingdom; which, in one sense, it is. The general judgment is at a dis- tance not to be defined by us : but it will happen, and then is the end of time, the last day:“ but a proper eternity follows; and one, to our views, un- varied. When judgment has been executed (fo 1 understand), “ then cometh the end; the end of God’s dispensation towards man; the end therefore of all Christ’s mediatorial offices; as prophet, he will no longer 7nffru&; as priest, he will no longer avert punishment; as King, he will no longer pro- ref. Sitting may be no longer ascribed to him:— yet, as God the Son, he may reign for ever: nay, he may, though it be unintelligible to us, {till retain some connexion with hymanity; still enjoy the re- wards of his sufferings and obedience. TI own this connexion with humanity, and enjoying rewards, to be above my comprehension ; and I believe it to be above the comprehension of every man; but I can see clearly, that it is our business to keep in view, at the same time, what St. Paul delivers to the Corinthians, and what St. John teaches in his Book of Revelation“: the joint effect of which pas- sages I can no better express than by saying, after the last day, God “ shall be all in all;” shall rule no more by a Mediator, but immediately ’; Christ, as he who was Mediator, shall be /ubje&, shall no more retain even his kingly office; yet, as God the Son, he * shall reign for ever and ever,” King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.“

XXI. Thus

f x Cor. xv. 24. See Pearson on the Creed. And Art, 11. Sect. vir. ; ESO |

E Pearson. D Art. 11. Sect. xxvr.

i 1 Cor. xv. 24— 28. & Rev. xi. 15. 1 Whitby in 1 Cor, xv. 28. E Nerv. XIX. 16.

414 BOOK IV. ART. IV. SECT xxI. XXIT. XXI11.

xxI. Thus we have gone through our History, explanation, and proof. — Our Application will be short. In giving asent, a question might arise, how far any one was at liberty to understand what is {aid of the Body of Christ, of his spiritual body. But, as every human body, natural and spiritual, must have something to be called fest”, 8&c. and as identity of person is consistent with the change of Body from natural to spiritual, it seems as if he who assents might either take the Body of Christ (and its parts), as denoting its ordinary corrup- tible state on earth, or as being the same with our furure spiritual bodies; or as being, indetermi- nately, either one or the other, as a truly human body would be in like circumstances.

Xx11., Mutual concessions may here be passed over, for the same reason which was mentioned under the third Article; because our Church i is not engaged in controversy concerning it.

XXIII. Improvements may arise from new ob- jections; as they have done before. It is scarce possible to answer a new and specious objection, without diving deeper into a subject ;—without making something more clear and definite ; without getting a more perfect knowledge of the sense of Scripture, and a stronger relish for its excellencies.

— The Harmonies in the parts of Scripture, which give an account of the Resurrection, and which should assign the series of events as they really hap- pened, are as yet unsettled: Macknight’s is very ingenious, but Lardner is dissatisfied with it in some respects: a comparison of these two, and others, would scarce fail of producing 1 improvement in one way or other.

n Sect. xvII. o Thid,

• APPENDIX

[ 41s J

ER is an intimate connexion between the resurrection of Christ and the general resur- rection. St. Paul reasons from the one to the other,“

and indeed * this at ot: from several things already

mentioned. On this account, we may fay some-

thing of the latter here, as well as any where; and it cannot be considered as a digression to do fo, because: we assent to the resurrection of the Body in two of our Creeds, and to the resurrection of

the dead in the third: and to these Creeds we assent in the eighth Article.

No one can think attentively concerning the na- ture of Man, without inquiring what will be his fate after Death. — Amongst the Ph:lo/ophers of old, the Stoics thought, that rhe soul continued after

death, though it was corruptible, (@Szerov); but the Epicureans rejected totally the notion of a 7. ture state. Accordingly, when St. Paul preached <« Jesus and the resurrectionꝰ at © Athens, the Sto- ics * said, they would hear him again, but the Epicureans “ mocked*,” 240 Ear

Amongst the Jews, a similar difference prevailed between the Pharisees and the Saducees. Bayle* calls the Stoics Pagan Pharisees; and Joseplius calls the

| Pharisees 21 Cor. xv. 13, 449. b Phil. iii. 2 1. Col. i. 18, &c. Ads xvii. 18, 32. 4 Parkhurst, E770.

For the notions of nodern Philosophers, see Bp. Porteus’s | Charge of this year, 1794. | | _

Under Epicurus.

416 BOOK 1V.

Pharisees Jewi/t Stoics. © The Saducees® say, there is no resurrection, neither Angel nor Spirit” (human soul); “but the Pharisees confess both.” — The Essenes, favouring Oriental notions, thought the Body would be annihilated after death, though the Soul would be rewarded or punished. | _

Permit me, as I have not mentioned it before, just to observe, that the three Jewish se&s were confined to what we call the Gentry, and collec- tively opposed to the People; whereas our sets reach to the very bottom of the people:—and I have a notion, none but people of liberal education were Stoics, &c.— The Pharisees were grave and regular; and in general were Magistrates : opulent rather than noble; yet numerous; stately, but | Preserving order; adopting maxims e/tablished amongst the people, yet not very popular; or however rather respected than beloved. The Sadducees were but few in number; rather affecting the importance of high rank than of opulence ; too insolent and haughty to bear the drudgery and formality of administering justice; affecting to think in a singular manner, without low prejudices; and do despise all establisned notions, as vulgar and bar- barous.— This is, in substance, the e

e Acts xxiii. 8. iT

b Mr. T. Twining, the translator of Aristotle’s Poetics, with original Notes and Dissertations, on account of a Note on his Sermon, preached Sept. 29, 1794, says, in a Letter dated Col- chester, Nov. 7, 1794, In those times”? (the times of Xeno- phon) © there was, I think, nothing of that moral and intellec- tual lewel among the members of a State, which education, reading (in consequence of printing), &c. has produced in later times. All, then, was divided nearly into educated Gentlemen, and ignorant Mob: Patricians, and Plebeians: 3 d, and i Ae deen, &c. &c.— There was very little among them, I ap- prehend, of that respectable sort of Persons, whom we call the

middle rank. |

of 7osephus; but perhaps something is to be allowed for his being a Pharisee himself.

With regard to our present subject, we may say, in general, that mere Philosophers have been too ready to give up the Body to destruction in the Grave; and the people have beer too ready to transfer the present imperfections to the future. How Christianity has reconciled the dictates of Reason with the feelings of simple nature, 1s well shewn by Bishop SHerlochs. | To come then to Christianity; it seems to be well proved by Lord King and Dr. Rutherforth, that the resurrection of the Body or Fle/h, was a part in orthodox confessions of Faith, from the earliest times“: even Clemens Romanus and Igna- tius mention it in their artless manner, but in a manner sufficiently plain. As to Heretics, we may be sure, that such as we have called Oriental, would be nvincibly averse to every thing material entering into the Kingdom of Heaven; accordingly, Au- gustin says of Simon Magus, © negabat etiam car- nis resurrectionem; and of Carpocrates, “ re{ur- rectionem corporis simul cum Lege abjiciebat.” — Those, who thought the Soul was taken from Stars and restored to them, did, in effect, deny the eter- nal existence of a /iving Body. — Those, who said the Resurrection was already paf? *, got rid of their dithculties about matter, by taking the moral com- parisons and allusions to the resurrection, as de- icriptions of plain fact. This is the nature of al- . Interpretation.

Origen

s Sherlock, Vol. 1. Disc. 6. p. 199, &c. Also Vol. 3 Disc. 17. |

h Lord King on Creed, p. 402, 403. Dr. Rutherforth’s 4th Charge. 1 i Dr. Rutherforths Charges, p. 86, 87. * 2 Tim. ü. 18.

VOL; 11; D »D

418 BOOK IV. ART. Iv. APPENDIX,

Origen is accused by Epiphanius of having denied the Resurrection of the Body (fee Epiphan. Her. 64. p. 532, 339, 550, 591, 592); but an account of one single ancient is seldom to be depended on without comparing it with others. Huet has en- tered into the subject of Origen’s opinions, in his Origeniana; Cave gives a good short account of them. He holds Origen to have maintained, that the Souls of good men shall be cloathed with bodies refined and ethereal; and that the Souls of bad

men shall suffer punishments after death,

The orthodox doctrine, once settled, continued {o uniform, that we may pass on to the times of our Reformation. What was the case then appears best from our Articles of 1552, and the Reformatio Legum before | mentioned: from which we perceive, that the prevailing error was what we have men- tioned last of all; the error of Hymenæus and ’ Philetus. There seem allo to have been opinions concerning the sleep of tlie foul, and the resurrection of the foul, which our Reformers thought too much fixed; but they are not a part of our present subject u.

Of the early Sociniaus it has been said, that * they deny the Resurrection of HMese Bodies :” which seems to be a revival of an ancient distinc- tion of Origen’s, between the resurrection of a Body, and the resurrection of Mes Body *:— Origen is said to have held, that each man shall have 4 Body, but not the same he has here; he shall have © aereum

corpus

Introduction to this Book, Sect, 4. | n See Reform. Legum, de Hæresibus, Cap. 12.—and the 39th and 4oth Articles (the last but two) of 1552. : © Cheynell on Socinianisme, p. 24.— but I do not see this notion in the works of Socinus; judging by the Index. . * See Lord King on the Creed, p. 401, 40a, and 403; from different authors,

| BOOK IV. 419

corpus et paulatim in auras v tenues dissolvendum;“ against this was introduced into the Creed, the expression of the Resurrection of the Flessi: for even air is a Body. Indeed, there has but been one difficulty on this subject, properly speaking; that arising from the gross impure nature of our 3 here, and the idea, that “ flesh and blood,“ such as ours, cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. And people may dispute for ever, if, while they maintain, that our future bodies will be the same, they allow, that the qualities of the same body will be changed. e 7

So much for History. An explanation of the dcoctrine of the resurrection of the body could con- sist in nothing but describing the glorified Body; and that could only be described in negative terms, by removing all the imperfections of our natural Body. Resurgent,“ says Augustin®, * corpora fine ullo vitio, fine ulla deformitate, ficut fine ulla corruptione, onere, aut difficultate. —And even this removal of imperiections may be called ma- ginary*. It admits therefore of various degrees; and hence all the disputes, which have arisen on this head. Imagine the spiritual body very refined, and the plainer orthodox are alarmed for its identity; they fear it should not be left corporeal, or carnal:— Speak of the spiritual body in terms usually denot- ing solid matter, talk of fe and bones, and the

FD more

[…]

r Enchir.‘c 19. cited by Lord King, p. 406.

Epiphanius (Her. 64. Sect. 63.) makes animal and spiritual bodies to consist in this; that animal bodies have propensities and appetites, which may carry men to evil; spiritual bodies have none.—And it may be true, that, where men neither marry nor are given in marriage, their propensities may be suited to

their condition; but even this muit imply some change or re- finement in the body itself. | |

DD 2

more philosophical orthodox are alarmed for its spirituality; they fay, you want to have our future bodies too gross; © flesh and blood cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” — The rational man leaves the whole matter to the disposal of God. The Doctrine before us can only have a proof | from Scripture, though Bishop Sherlock has given good illustrations and confirmations of it, from the nature of lle thing: as indeed did the 39th Article of 1552, in very few words; “ that the whole […] Rutherforth * has confined himself to scriptural proof.—Supposing the Resur- rection of Christ sufficiently proved, the passages quoted at the beginning of this Appendix * would be a sufficient proof of ours. To which we may add 1 John iii. 2. © we shall be ke him.” — Matt. xxvii. 52, 53, may shew a case not exactly similar to that resurrection, which brings men into a state of immortality; yet it seems improbable, that the Bodies of Saints, or Christians, would have been raised, if there was afterwards to be no resurrection of the Body. Indeed it may not be certain what kind of dee thele persons had: they © appeared unto many,” —how different they were ow Christ in the nature of their bodies cannot, probably, be determined. John v. 28. seems a proof of the re- surrection of the Body; the Grave (wm, not dns) is not the receptacle of the Sou/.—Rom. viii. 19-23, is not a perspicuous passage, therefore it is rather to be recommended for study, than to be quoted; those who read it attentively should com- pare with it 2 Cor. v. I=4.—1 ag N. 17. 14, 1s n plain; but 1 Cor. xv. 35 — 40, is a capital

t Cans 4th. u Acts xvii. 31, 32. is to this purpose : ver. 31, is abont rail-

ing Christ as a prof in ver. 32, it is © the resurrection ol tlie dead. re

capital passage to our purpose.— And, as the diffi- culty arising from the gross nature of our Body is properly the ouly one incident to our present sub- ject, it will be proper to go on, and read ver. 30, as expressing that difficulty, and ver. 53, with Phil.

iii. 20, 21, as giving a solution of it. 2 Pet. i. 14. probably means the same thing, but might want explaining and detending, if any one should be | contentious about it.

Though I have said, that the grossness of our present bodies is the only difficulty, which has occa- sioned divisions amongst Christians, yet that of Fol- faire (and of others) mentioned in the 17th Sec- tion, might be mentioned here. — It appears to our judgments more easy to collect particles, sufficient to constitute identity, than to create out of nothing, —And Identity, as before, is consistent with many and considerable changes: God only knows what changes of material particles 1s consistent with that sameness, which 1s requisite for the purpoles of a Just retribution.

• Voltaire, Vol. 26, quarto, P- 411.

• ARTICLE

Notes

• Aug. Har. 8. _ © Lard. Vol. 3. p. 112,
• We might add the reckoning of the day of Circumcision. Tryal, p. 49. Gen. xvii. 12. eight days old.” Luke i. 59. Lev. xii. 3. © in the eighth day:“ and Phil. iii. c. Luke ii. 21. « when eight days were accomplished:“ —to which add, that (14th night) fortnight in English, 18 Frome jours, fifteen days in French,
• Tryal, p. 55, and 27. N
• | Eee Does not Epiphanius seem to have thought, that Christ had his spiritual Body after his Resurre&ion ? , 64. Se, 64. ( Origeniani). Works, Vol. 2, p. 538, about Origen’s notion of
• See Lord King on the Creed, p. 404, 405, from Augustin.