are destined to have a rehabiliment of flesh and breath, such as it is here said they will have, by reason indeed of which their renewed state could alone express the reformed con- dition of Jewish affairs, which is pretended to be the meaning of this passage. It is. however, more characteristic of a religiousj.- spirit to maintain the truth on the authority of a literal interpretation, sucli as is required CHAP, xxxii.]
ON THE RESURRFXTION OF THE FLESH.
by the sense of the inspired passage. Now, if this vision had reference to the condition of the Jews, as soon as He had revealed to him the position of the bones, He would at once have added, " These bones are the whole house of Israel," and so forth. But immedi- ately on showing the bones, He interrupts the scene by saying somewhat of the prospect which is most suited to bones; without yet naming Israel, He tries the prophet's own faith: "Son of man, can these bones ever live?" so that he makes answer: "O Lord, Thou knowest." Now God would not, you may be sure, have tried the prophet's faith on a point which was never to be a real one, of which Israel should never hear, and in which it was not proper to repose belief. Since, however, the resurrection of the dead was indeed foretold, but Israel, in the distrust of his great unbelief, was offended at it; and, whilst gazing on the condition of the crumb- ling grave, despaired of a resurrection; or rather, did not direct his mind mainly to it, but to his own harassing circumstances, — therefore God first instructed the prophet (since he, too, was not free from doubt), by revealing to him the process of the resurrec- tion, with a view to his earnest setting forth of the same. He then charged the people to believe what He had revealed to the prophet, telling them that they were themselves, though refusing to believe their resurrection, the very bones which were destined to rise again. Then in the concluding sentence He says, "And ye shall know how that I the Lord have spoken and done these things," intending of course to do that of which He had spoken; but certainly not meaning to do that which He had spoken of, if His design had been to do something different from what He had said.
CHAP. XXXI. OTHER PASSAGES OUT OF THE PROPHETS APPLIED TO THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH.
Unquestionably, if the people were indulg- ing in figurative murmurs that their bones were become dry, and that their hope had perished — plaintive at the consequences of their dispersion — then God might fairly enough seem to have consoled Xh^xx figurative despair with?>. figurative promise. Since, how- ever, no injury had as yet alighted on the people from their dispersion, although the hope of the resurrection had very frequently failed amongst them, it is manifest that it was owing to the perishing condition of their bodies that their faith in the resurrection was shaken. God, therefore, was rebuilding the faith which the people were pulling down. But even if it were true that Israel was then depressed at some shock in their existing cir- cumstances, we must not on that account sup- pose that the purpose of revelation could have rested in a parable: its aim must have been to testify a resurrection, in order to raise the nation's hope to even an eternal salvation and an indispensable restoration, and thereby turn off their minds from brooding over their present affairs. This indeed is the aim of other prophets likewise " Ye shall go forth," (says Malachi), " from your sepulchres, as young calves let loose from their bonds, and ye shall tread down your enemies."' And again, (Isaiah says): "Your heart shall re- joice, and your bones shall spring up like the grass," ^ because the grass also is renewed by the dissolution and corruption of the seed. In a word, if it is contended that the figure of the rising bones refers properly to the state of Israel, why is the same hope announced to all nations, instead of being limited to Israel only, of reinvesting those osseous remains with bodily substance and vital breath, and of raising up their dead out of the grave? For the language is universal: " The dead shall arise, and come forth from their graves; for the dew which cometh from Thee is medi- cine to their bones." ^ In another passage // is written: " All flesh shall come to worship before me, saith the Lord." '» When? When the fashion of this world shall begin to pass away. For He said before: "As the new heaven and the new earth, which I make, re- main before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed remain." 5 Then also shall be fulfilled what is written afterwards: "And they shall go forth " (namely, from their graves), " and shall see the carcases of those who have trans- gressed: for their worm shall never die, nor shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be a spectacle to all flesh " ^ even to that which, being raised again from the dead and brought out from the grave, shall adore the Lord for this g^eat grace.
CHAP. XXXII. ^ — feVEN UNBURIED BODIES WILL BE RAISED ACJAIN. WHATEVER BEFALLS THEM GOD WILL RESTORE THEM AGAIN. JONAH 's CASE QUOTED!N ILLUSTRATIOX OF GOD's POWER.
But, that you may not suppose that it is merely those bodies which are consigned to tombs whose resurrection is foretold, you have it declared in Scripture: "And I will com- ON THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH.
[cnAi. XXXIII.
mand the fishes of the sea, and they shall cast up the bones which they have devoured; and I will bring joint to joint, and bone to bone." You will ask. Will then the fishes and other animals and carnivorous birds be raised again, in order that they may vomit up what they have consumed, on the ground of your read- ing in the law of Moses, that blood is required of even all the beasts? Certainly not. But the beasts and the fishes are mentioned in re- lation to the restoration of flesh and blood, in order the more emphatically to express the resurrection of such bodies as have even been devoured, when redress is said to be demanded of their very devourers. Now I apprehend that in the case of Jonah we have a fair proof of this divine power, when he comes forth from the fish's belly uninjured in both his natures — his flesh and his soul. No doubt the bowels of the whale would have had abundant time during three days for con- suming and digesting JotiaK' s flesh, quite as effectually as a coffin, or a tomb, or the gradual decay of some quiet and concealed grave; only that he wanted to prefigure even those beasts (jvhich symbolize) especially the men who are wildly opposed to the Christiati name, or the angels of iniquity, of whom blood will be required by the full exaction of an aveng- ing judgment. Where, then, is the mian who, being more disposed to learn than to assume, more careful to believe than to dispute, and more scrupulous of the wisdom of God than wantonly bent on his own, when he hears of a divine purpose respecting sinews and skin, and nerves and bones, will forthwith devise some different application of these words, as if all that is said of the substances in question Avere not naturally intended for man? For either there is here no reference to the destiny of man — in the gracious provision of the kingdom (of heaven), in the severity of the judgment-day, in all the incidents of the resur- rection; or else, if there is any reference to his destiny, the destination must necessarily be made in reference to those substances of which the man is composed, for whom the des- tiny is reserved. Another question I have also to ask of these very adroit transformers of bones and sinews, and nerves and sepulchres: Why, when anything is declared of the soul, do they not interpret the soul to be something else, and transfer it to another signification? — since, whenever any distinct statement is made of a bodily substance, they will obstinately prefer taking any other sense whatever, rather than that which the name indicates. If things \ which pertain to tlie body are figurative, why are not those which pertain to the soul figura- tive also? Since, however, things which belong to the soul have nothing allegorical in them, neither therefore have those which be- long to the body. For man is as much body as he is soul; so that it is impossible for one of these natures to admit a figurative sense, and the other to exclude it.
CHAP. XXXIII. — so MUCH FOR THE PROPHETIC SCRIPTURES. IN THE GOSPELS, CHRIST'S PAR- ABLES, AS EXPLAINED BY HIMSELF, HAVE A CLEAR REFERENCE TO THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH.
This is evidence enough from the prophetic Scriptures. I now appeal to the Gospels. But here also I must first meet the same sophistry as advanced by those who contend that the Lord, like (the prophets), said every- thing in the way of allegory, because it is written: "All these things spake Jesus in parables, and without a parable spake He not unto them,"' that is, to the Jews. Now the disciples also asked Him, "Why speakest Thou in parables?"'' And the Lord gave them this answer: "Therefore I speak unto them in parables: because they seeing, see not; and hearing, they hear not, according to the prophecy of Esaias."^ gut since it was to the Jews that He spoke in parables, it was/ not then to all men; and if not to all, it fol- lows that it was not always and in all things parables with Him, but only in certain things, and when addressing a particular class. But He addressed a particular class when He spoke to the Jews. It is true that He spoke sometimes even to the disciples in parables. But observe how the Scripture relates such a fact: " And He spake a parable unto them." ♦ It follows, then, that He did not usually ad- dress them in parables; because if He always, did so, special mention would not be made ov His resorting to this mode of address. Besides, there is not a parable which you will not find to be either explained by the Lord Himself, as that of the sower, (which He in- terprets) of the management of the word of God; 5 or else cleared by a preface from the writer of the Gospel, as in the parable of the arrogant judge and the importunate widow, which is expressly applied to earnestness in prayer;* or capable of being spontaneously understood,'' as in the parable of the fig-tree, which was spared a while in hopes of improve- ment— an emblem of Jewish sterility. Now, ' Matt. xiii. 34.
3 Matt. xiii. 13; comp. Isa. vi. 9.
4 See Luke vi. 39; comp. with v«r. 20, and other places, espe- cially in this Gospel.
5 See Luke viii. ii. * See Luke xviii. i.
7 Such cases of obvious meaning, which required no explana- tion, are referred to in Matt..\.\i. 45 and Luke xx. ly.
CHAP. XXXIV.]
ON THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH.
if even parables obscure not the light of the gospel, how unlikely it is that plain sentences and declarations, which have an unmistakea- ble meaning, should signify any other thing than their literal sense! But it is by such declarations and sentences that the Lord sets forth either the last judgn:\ent, or the king- dom, or the resurrection: " It shall be more tolerable," He says, " for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you.'' "^ And, "Tell them that the kingdom of God is at hand."- And again, "It shall be recom- pensed to you at the resurrection of the just."' Now, if the mention of these events (I mean the judgment-day, and the kingdom of God, and the resurrection) has a plain and absolute sense, so that nothing about them can be pressed into an allegory, neither should those statements be forced into parables which describe the arrangement, and the process, and the experience of the kingdom of God, and of the judgment, and of the resurrection. On the contrary, things which are destined for the body should be carefully understood in a bodily sense, — not rn a spiritual sense, as having nothing figurative in their nature. This is the reason why we have laid it down as a preliminary consideration, that the bodily substance both of the soul and of the flesh is liable to the recompense, which will have to be awarded in return for the co-operation of the two natures, that so the corporeality of the soul may not exclude the bodily nature of the flesh by suggesting a recourse to figurative descriptions, since both of them must needs be regarded as destined to take part in the kingdom, and the judgment, and the resurrec- tion. And now we proceed to the special proof of this proposition, that the bodily character of the flesh is indicated by our Lord whenever He mentions the resurrection, at the same time without disparagement to the cor- poreal nature of the soul, — a point which has been actually admitted but by a few.
CHAP. XXXIV. CHRIST PLAINLY TESTIFIES TO THE RESURRECTION OF THE ENTIRE MAN. NOT IN HIS SOUL ONLY, WITHOUT THE BODY.
To begin with the passage where He says that He is come to " /^ seek and to save that which is lost." * What do you suppose that to be which is lost? Man, undoubtedly. The entire man, or only a part of him? The whole man, of course. In fact, since the trangression which caused man's ruin was committed quite as much by the instigation of the soul from concupiscence as by the action of the flesh from actual fruition, it has marked the entire man with the sentence of transgression, and has therefore made him deservedly amenable to perdition. So that he will be wholly saved, since he has by sin- ning been wholly lost. Unless it be true that the sheep (of the parable) is a " lost " one, irrespective of its body; then its recovery may be effected without the body. Since, however, it is the bodily substance as well as the soul, making up the entire animal, which was carried on the shoulders of the Good Shepherd, we have here unquestionably an example how man is restored in both his natures. Else how unworthy it were of God to bring only a moiety of man to salvation — and almost less than that; whereas the munificence of princes of this world always claims for itself the merit of a plenary grace! Then must the devil be understood to be stronger for injuring man, ruining him wholly? and must God have the character of comparative weakness, since He does not relieve and help man in his entire state? The apostle, however, suggests that " where sin abounded, there has grace much more abounded." s How, in fact, can he be regarded as saved, who can at the same time be said to be lost — lost, that is, in the flesh, but saved as to his soul? Unless, indeed, their argume?it now makes it necessary that the soul should be placed in a " lost " condition, that it may be susceptible of salvation, on the ground that that is properly saved which has been lost. We, however, so understand the soul's immortality as to believe it " lost," not in the sense of destruction, but of punish- ment, that is, in hell. And if this is the case, then it is not the soul which salvation will affect, since it is " safe " already in its own nature by reason of its immortality, but rather the flesh, which, as all readily allow, is sub- ject to destruction. Else, if the soul is also perishable (in this sense), in other words, not immortal — the condition of the flesh — then this same condition ought in all fairness to benefit the flesh also, as being similarly mortal and perishable, since that which perishes the Lord purposes to save. I do not care now to follow the clue of our discussion, so far as to consider whether it is in one of his natures or in the other that perdition puts in its claim on man, provided that salvation is equally distributed over the two substances, and makes him its aim in respect of them both. For observe, in which substance so- ever you assume man to have perished, in the other he does not perish. He will therefore be saved in the substance in which ON THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH.
[chap. XXXV.
he does not perish, and yet obtain salva- tion in that in which he does perish. You have (then) the restoration of the entire man, inasmuch as the Lord purposes to save that part of him which perishes, whilst he will not of course lose that portion which cannot be lost. Who will any longer doubt of the safet)'' of both natures, when one of them is to obtain salvation, and the other is not to lose it? And, still further, the Lord explains to us the meaning of the thing when He says: " I came not to do my own will, but the Father's, who hath sent me."' What, I ask, is that will? " That of all which He hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."^ Now, what had Christ re- ceived of the Father but that which He had Himself put on? Man, of course, in his text- ure of flesh and soul. Neither, therefore, of those parts which He has received will He no considerable portion fraction, of either. If allow to perish; nay, — nay, not the least the flesh be, as our opponents slightingly think, but a poor fraction, then the flesh is safe, be- cause not a fraction of man is to perish; and no larger portion is in danger, because every portion of man is in equally safe keeping with Him. If, however. He will not raise the flesh also up at the last day, then He will permit not only a fraction of man to perish, but (as I will venture to say, in consideration of so important a part) almost the whole of him. But when He repeats His words with increased emphasis, " And this is the Father's will, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day,"^ — He asserts the full extent of the resurrection. For He assigns to each several nature that reward which is suited to its services: both to the flesh, for by it the Son was " seen; " and to the soul, for by it He was "believed on." Then, you will say, to them was this promise given by whom Christ was " seen." Well, be it so; only let the same hope flow on from them to us! For if to them who saw, and therefore believed, such fruit then accrued to the operations of the flesh and the soul, how much more to us! For more "blessed," says Christ, " are they who have not seen, and yet have believed; " ■♦ since, even if the resur- rection of the flesh must be denied to the?n, it must at any rate be a fitting boon to j/s, who are the more blessed. For how could we be blessed, if we were to perish in any part of us?
CHAP. XXXV. EXPLANATION OF WHAT IS MEANT BY THE BODY, WHICH IS TO BE RAISED AGAIN. NOT THE CORPOREALITY OF THE SOUL.
But He also teaches us, that " He is rather to be feared, who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell," that is, the Lord alone; " not those which kill the body, but are not able to hurt the soul,"^ that is to say, all human powers. Here, then, we have a recog- nition of the natural immortality of the soul, which cannot be killed by men; and of the mortality of the body, which may be killed: whence we learn that the resurrection of the dead is a resurrection of the flesh; for unless it were raised again, it would be impossible for the flesh to be " killed in hell." But as a question may be here captiously raised about the meaning of " the body " (or " the flesh "), I will at once state that I understand by the human body nothing else than that fabric of the flesh which, whatever be the kind of ma- terial of which it is constructed and modified, is seen and handled, and sometimes indeed killed, by men. In like manner, I should not admit that anything but cement and stones and bricks form the body of a wall. If any one imports into our argument some body of a subtle, secret nature, he must show, dis- close, and prove to me that that identical body is the very one which was slain by human vio- lence, and then (I will grant) that it is of such a body that (our scripture) speaks. If, again, the body or corporeal nature of the soul* is cast in my teeth, it will only be an idle sub- terfuge! For since both substances are set before us (in this passage, which affirms) that " body and soul " are destroyed in hell, a dis- tinction is obviously made between the two; and we are left to understand the body to be that which is tangible to us, that is, the flesh, which, as it will be destroyed in hell — since it did not "rather fear" being destroyed by God — so also will it be restored to life eter- nal, since it preferred to be killed by human hands. If, therefore, any one shall violently suppose that the destruction of the soul and the flesh in hell amounts to a final annihila- tion of the two substances, and not to their penal treatment (as if they were to be con- sumed, not punished), let him recollect that the fire of hell is eternal — expressly an- nounced as an everlasting penalty; and let him then admit that it is from this circum- stance that this never-ending "killing" is more formidable than a merely human mur- der, which is only temporal. He will then * Tertullian supposed that even the soul was in a certain sense of a corporeal essence. [Compare the speculations of Crusius in Auberlen, DiTs'ite Revelation, ('J ranslation of A. B. Paton, Edin- burgh, Clarks, 1867).]
CHAP. XXXVl.]
ON THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH.
come to the conclusion that substances must be eternal, when their penal "killing" is an eternal one. Since, then, the body after the resurrection has to be killed by God in hell along with the soul, we surely have sufficient information in this fact respecting both the issues which await it, namely the resurrection of the flesh, and its eternal " killing." Else it would be most absurd if the flesh should be raised up and destined to " the killing in hell," in order to be put an end to, when it might suffer such an annihilation (more directly) if not raised again at all. A pretty paradox,' to be sure, that an essence must be refitted with life, in order that it may receive that annihila- tion which has already in fact accrued to it! But Christ, whilst confirming us in the self- same hope, adds the example of "the spar- rows"— how that "not one of them falls to the ground without the will of God."' He says this, that you may believe that the flesh which has been consigned to the ground, is able in like manner to ri^e again by the will of the same God. For althotigh this is not allowed to the sparrows, yet " we..'are of more value than many sparrows," ^ for the very reason that, when fallen, we rise again. He affirms, lastly, that "the very hairs of our