Trollope on Article IV: Of the Resurrection of Christ

This Article asserts not only the reality and completeness of our Lord’s resurrection, but those subsequent particulars made known in the Scriptures, of his ascension into heaven, and his exaltation to the right hand of God, there to re- main until his second advent to judge the world.

2. In what light do ye regard the doctrine of

Christ’s resurrection ; and how far is the belief in a

general resurrection supported by the Old and New

Testaments respectively?

The Resurrection qf Christ is the great fundamental doctrine upon which the Christian system depends. *If, *8ays the Apostle (1 Cor. xv. 14. 19.), * Christ be not risen, ’ then is our preaching vain and your faith is also vain ; for * if in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men *most miserable : but now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept.’ His resurrection is therefore the pledge and earnest of a general resurection to an immortal life : — a truth, to which the obscure allusions in the Old Testament. (Job xix. 23. eqq. Psal. xvii. 16. Isai. zxv. 8. xxvi. 19. Ezek. xxxvii. 1. sqq. Dan. xii. 2. Hos. vi. 2. xiii. 14.) by no means obtained the unanimous assent of the Jews : but which in the New Testament is set forth in all the fulness which its importance demands (1 Cor. xv. 20. sqq. ?hiL iii. 21. 1 Thess. iv. 14. Rev. xx. 13.).

C2

18- QUESTIONS AND ANSWBBS Off

3. Shew that our Lord’s resurrection was foretold by David ; and that the truth of the fact, as recorded in the Gospel, is established by the most convincing evidence.

St Peter affirms (Acts 11. 31.^, that the resurreotion of Christ was predicted by David (Psal. xvi. 9, 10.) ; and our Lord not only repeatedly foretold his own resurreotion (Matt. zvii. 22. xz. 190, but announced it to the Jews as an undeniable proof of his divine mission (John ii. 19. 21.). The fact itself is plainly asserted by the scujred writers (Matt, xxviii. 6, 7. Luke xxiv. 6. John xxi. 14. Acts ii. 32. X. 40.) ; the unbelief of Thomas ended in hi& more |>erfeet conviction (John xx. 27.) : and the only opposing testimony is that of the soldiers, who were bribed to acquiesce in a report that the disciples came and stole the body while they slept.

4. What are the proofs of the perfect identity of our Lord’s body, before and after his resurrec- tion?

As our Lord underwent a true and proper dissotution of soul and body by death, so be resumed the same body at his resurrection* Of its identity and completeness he assured his disciples, by permitting them to handle him, and ex- amine his corporeal subsisteneey his Jlenh and bones (Luke xxiv. 39. John xx. 27.) ; and they ’ did also eat and drink * with him after he rose from the dead.’ (Acts x. 41.)

5. What do the Scriptures state respecting our Lord^B ascension into heaven, and his sitting at the right hand, of God I

The hig[h-priest of the Israelites entered into the Holy of holies with the blood of the sacrifice, yearly, on the great day of Expiation, which was typical of Chnsf s ascension, through his own blood, into heaven (Heb. ix. 11, 12.) ; he himself predicted his own ascension (John xvi. 28. xx. 17.) ; and the fJvang^elists, to whom, as their eyesoould not follow him actually into heaven, his reception was certified by Angels, have recorded the circumstanceB with which it was

ABTICLE ly. 19

attended fLuke zxiy. 60, 51. Acts i. 11.). His session also at the rigcot band of God, as the place of highest lorj in heaven, was also typified by the extation of Josepn (Gen. xli. 40.J, predicted by David (Psal. ex. 1.) and by Christ himself (Matt. xxvi. 64. Luke xxiL 69.) and recorded in the Gospel (Mark xvi. 19.)

6. Shew that the ascension of Christ was not metaphorical, but real ; and state the reasons which made it necessary.

The ascension of Christ is neither to be understood me- taphoricdUyj nor as a dissolution of the hypostati(»l union ; but as a real local translation of the man Christ Jesus into heaven : for he went up bodily and visibly; and such a trans- lation was necessary, as a proof that the nature of man is not excluded from the divine presence, but that where he is, his faithful folloiwers will be also. It was also necessary, in order that his disciples might receive the Holy Ghost (John xvi. 7.) ; and that he mi^ht be our mediator and intemessor at the throne of Grace (Heb. vii. 25.)

7. Whence do you infer the necessity of a future judgment ; and the fitness of Christ as the appointed judge?

The necessity of a future judgment is manifest from the moral nature of man, from the apparent inconsistencies in God’s providential ^vemment of the world, and from the explicit declarations of Scripture ; and it is consistent with the Divine justice that Christ should be the judge, who, as Gody will execute judgment unerringly and impartially, and, as mant with a merciful feeling for man’s infirmities (Acts X. 42. xvii. 31. Rom. ii. 16. 2 Tim. iv. 8. Tit. ii. 13.).

8. Adduce passages £rom the writings of the early Christians coniirmatory of the several assertions of this Article.

Ignatius ad Smym. c. 3. I kruno that he was in the flesh after the resurrection- : for he said to those rvith Peter , Handle me, fed me, and see that I am no disembodied spirit,

“■9”

QUBSTioNfl aud akswbbs on

Irenseus adv. HsBr. v. 7. Christ rote again a Jlethy tub- ttance , and shewed his disciples the print qfthe nails f and the mound in his side ; as proqfs that his JUth rose again from the dead. Ibid. ill. 18. It mas still one ana the same Jesus, to mhom the gates qf Heaven mere opened, to receive him in the flesh ; amd he mill come again in the same Jlesh in mhich he niffervd. See (dso Tertull. adv. Marcion. IV. 43. Cyprian, de Idol. Vanit. 4.