head are all numbered,"'* and ir the affirma- tion He of course includes the promise of their safety; for if they were to be lost, where would be the use of having taken such a nu- merical care of them? Surely the only use lies (in this truth): "That of all v/hich the Father hath given to me, I should lose none," ^ — not even a hair, as also not an eye nor a tooth. And yet whence shall come that "weeping and gnashing of teeth," ^ if not from eyes and teeth i — even at that time when the body shall be slain in hell, and thrust out into that outer darkness which shall be the suitable torment of the eyes. He also who shall not be clothed at the marriage feast in the raiment of good works, will have to be " bound hand and foot," — as being, of course, raised in his body. So, again, the very re- clining at the feast in the kingdom of God,- and sitting on Christ's thrones, and standing at last on His right hand and His left, and eating of the tree of life: what are all these but most certain proofs of a bodily appoint- ment and destination?
CHAP. XXXVI. — Christ's refutation of the SADDUCEES, AND AFFIRMATION OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE.
Let us now see whether (the Lord) has not ' Scilicet.
imparted greater strength to our doctrine in breaking down the subtle cavil of the Saddu- cees. Their great object, I take it, was to do away altogether with the resurrection, for the Sadducees in fact did not admit any salvation either for the soul or the flesh;' and there- fore, taking the strongest case they could for impairing the credibility of the resurrection, they adapted an argument from it in support of the question which they started. Their specious inquiry concerned the flesh, whether or not it would be subject to marriage after the resurrection; and they assumed the case of a woman who had married seven brothers, so that it was a doubtful point to which of them she should be restored.* Now, let the purport both of the question and the answer be kept steadily in view, and the discussion is settled at once. For since the Sadducees indeed denied the resurrection, whilst the Lord affirmed it; since, too, (in affirming it,) He reproached them as being both ignorant of the Scriptures — those, of course which had declared the resurrection — as well as incredu- lous of the power of God, though, of course, effectual to raise the dead, and lastly, since He immediately added the words, " Now, that the dead are raised, " ' (speaking) without misgiving, and affirming the very thing which was Ueing denied, even the resurrection of the dead before Him who is " the God of the liv- ing, " — (it clearly follows) that He affirmed this verity in the precise sense in which they were denying it; that it was, in fact, the resur- rection of the two natures of man. Nor does it follow, (as they would have it,) that because Christ denied that men would marry, He there- fore proved that they would not rise again. On the contrary. He called them " the children of the resurrection, " '° in a certain sense having by the resurrection to undergo a birth; and after that they marry no more, but in their risen life are " equal unto the angels, "" in- asmuch as they are not to marry, because they are not to die, but are destined to pass into the angelic state by putting on the raiment of incorruption, although with a change in the substance which is restored to life. Besides, no question could be raised whether we are to marry or die again or not, without involving in doubt the restoration most especially of that substance which has a particular relation both to death and marriage — that is, the flesli. Thus, then, you have the Lord affirming against the Jewish heretics what is now en- 7 Compare TertuUian's De Pra-scriJ>t. Hteret. c. xxxiii, 8 Matt. xxii. 23-32; Mark xii. 18-27 > Luke xx. 27-38.
ON THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH.
[chap. X.XXVIH.
countering the denial of the Christian Saddu- cees — the resurrection of the entire man.
CHAP. XXXVII. — Christ's assertion about the UNPROFITABLENESS OF THE FLESH EXPLAINED CONSISTENTLY WITH OUR DOCTRINE.
He says, it is true, that " the flesh profiteth nothing; " ' but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and in- tolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, "It is the spirit that quickeneth;" and then added, "The flesh profiteth nothing," — meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: " The words that I speak unto you they are spirit, and they are life." In a like sense He had previously said: "He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life." ' Con- biituting, therefore. His word as the life- giving principle, because that word is spirit and life. He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, ^ vve ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before (the passage in hand). He had declared His flesh to be " the bread which cometh down from heaven, "•» impressing on (His hearers) con- stantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had pre- ferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. s Then, turning His subject to their reflections, because He perceived that they were going to be scattered from Him, He says: "The flesh profiteth nothing." Now what is there to destroy the resurrection of the flesh? As if there might not reasonably enough be something which, although it " pro- fiteth nothing " itself, might yet be capable of being profited by something else. The spirit "profiteth," for it imparts life. The flesh profiteth nothing, for it is subject to death. Therefore He has rather put the two prop- ositions in a way which favours our belief: for by showing what " profits, " and what " does not profit, " He has likewise thrown John vi. 63.
light on the object which receives as well as the subject which gives the "profit." Thus, in the p7-ese7it instance, we have the Spirit giving life to the flesh which has been subdued by death; for " the hour," says He, " is coming, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live."^ Now, what is " the dead " but the flesh? and what is "the voice of God" but the Word? and what is the Word but the Spirit, ' who shall justly raise the flesh which He had once Himself become, and that too from death, which He Himself suffered, and from the grave, which He Himself once entered? Then again, when He says, " Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and shall come forth; they that have done good, to the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resur- rection of damnation," ^ — none will after such words be able to interpret the dead " that are in the graves " as any other than the bodies of the flesh, because the graves themselves are nothing but the resting-place of corpses: for it is incontestable that even those who partake of "the old man," that is to say, sinful men — in other words, those who are dead through their ignorance of God (whom our heretics, forsooth, foolishly insist on understanding by the word "graves"') — are plainly here spoken of as having to come from their graves for judgment. But how are graves to come forth from graves?
CHAP. XXXVIII. CHRIST, BY RAISING THE DEAD, ATTESTED IN A PRACTICAL WAY THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH.
After the Lord's words, what are we to think of the purport of His actions, when He raises dead persons from their biers atui \ht\r graves? To what end did He do so? If it was only for the mere exhibition of His power, or to afford the temporary favour of res- toration to life, it was really no great matter for Him to raise men to die over again. If, iiowever, as was the truth, it was rather to put in secure keeping men's belief in a future re- surrection, then it must follow from the par- ticular form of His own examples, that the said resurrection will be a bodily one. I can never allow it to be said that the resurrection of the future, being destined for the soul only, did then receive these preliminary illustrations of a raising of the flesh, simply because it would have been impossible to have shown the 7 The divine nature of the Son. Sw our A nii'-Afarcion, pp.
9 Compare c. xix. above.
CHAT. XXXIX.]
ON THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH.
resurrection of an invisible soul except by the resuscitation of a visible substance. They have but a poor knowletlge of God, who sup- pose Him to be only capable of doing what comes within the compass of their own thoughts; and after all, they cannot but know full well what His capability has ever been, if the}' only make acquaintance with the writings of John. For unquestionably he, who has exhibited to our sight the martyrs' hitherto disembodied souls resting under the altar, ' was quite able to display them before our eyes rising without a body of flesh. I, how- ever, for my part prefer (believing) that it is impossible for God to practise deception (weak as He only could be in respect of artifice), from any fear of seeming to have given pre- liminary proofs of a thing in a way which is in- consistent with His actual disposal of the thing; nay more, from a fear that, since He was not powerful enough to show us a sample of the resurrection without the flesh. He might with still greater infirmity be unable to display (by and by) the full accomplishment of the sam- ple in the self-same substance of the flesh. No example, indeed, is greater than the thing of which it is a sample. Greater, however, it is, if souls with their body are to be raised as the evidence of their resurrection without the body, so as that the entire salvation of man />/ soul and body should become a guarantee for only the half, the soul; whereas the condition in all examples is, that that which would be deemed the less — I mean the resurrection of the soul only — should be the foretaste, as it were, of the rising of the flesh also at its ap- pointed time. And therefore, according to our estimate of the truth, those examples of dead persons who were raised by the Lord were indeed a proof of the resurrection both of the flesh and of the soul, — a proof, in fact, that this gift was to be denied to neither substance. Considered, however, as examples only, they expressed all the less significance — less, indeed, than Christ will express at last —for they were not raised up for glory and immortality, but only for another death.
CHAP. XXXIX. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AF- FORDED TO US IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
The Acts of the Apostles, too, attest "" the resurrection. Now the apostles had nothing else to do, at least among the Jews, than to- explain ^ the Old Testament and confirm •♦ the New, and above all, to preach God in Christ. Consequently they introduced noth- ing new concerning the resurrection, besides = TertuUian always refers to this book by a//a»-a/ phrase.
3 Resi^nandi.
4 Censignaodi.
announcing it to the glory of Christ: in every other respect it had been already received in simple and intelligent faith, without any ques- tion as to what sort of resurrection it was to be, and without encountering any other op- ponents than the Sadducees. So much easier was it to deny the resurrection altogether, than to understand it in an alien sense. You find Paul confessing his faith before the chief priests, under the shelter of the chief captain, ^ among the Sadducees and the Pharisees. "Men and brethren," he says, " I am a Phari- see, the son of a Pharisee; of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am now called in question by you,"* — referring, of course, to the nation's hope; in order to avoid, in his present condition, as an apparent transgressor of the law, being thought to approach to the Sadducees in opinion on the most important article of the faith — even the resurrection. That belief, therefore, in the resurrection which he would not appear to impair, he really confirmed in the opinion of the Pharisees, since he rejected the views of the Sadducees, who denied it. In like manner, before Agrippa also, he says that he was advancing " none other things than those which the prophets had announced."'' He was therefore maintaining just such a resurrection as the prophets had foretold. He mentions also what is writ- ten by " Moses ", touching the resurrection of the dead; (and in so doing) he must have known that it would be a rising in the body, since requisition will have to be made therein of the blood of man.® He declared it then to be of such a character as the Pharisees had admitted it, and such as the Lord had Himself maintained it, and such too as the Sadducees refused to believe it — such refusal leading: them indeed to an absolute whole verity. Nor had the viously understood Paul to other resurrection. ' They derided his announcement; but they would have indulged no such derision if they had heard from him nothing but the restoration of the soul, for they would have received that as the very common anticipation of their own native philosophy. But when the preaching of the resurrection, of which they had pre- viously not heard, by its absolute novelty ex- cited the heathen, and a not unnatural in- credulity in so wonderful a matter began to harass the simple faith with many discussions, then the apostle took care in almost every one of his writings to strengthen men's belief of 5 Sub tribune.
6 Acts xxiii. 6.
7 Acts xxvi. 22. 9 Acts xvii. 32.
rejection of the Athenians preannounce any had, in fact, ON THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH.
[chap, xi^ this Christian hope, pointing out that there was such a hope, and that it had not as yet been realized, and that it would be in the body, — a point which was the especial object of inquiry, and, what was besides a doubtful question, not in a body of a different kind from ours.
CHAP. XL. — SUNDRY PASSAGES OF ST. PAUL WHICH ATTEST OUR DOCTRINE RESCUED FROM THE PERVERSIONS OF HERESY.
Now it is no matter of surprise if arguments are captiously taken from the writings of (the apostle) himself, inasmuch as there " must needs be heresies; " ' but these could not be, if the Scriptures were not capable of a false interpretation. Well, then, heresies finding that the apostle had mentioned two " men " — "the inner man," that is, the soul, and "the outward man," that is, the flesh — awarded salvation to the soul or inward man, and de- struction to the flesh or outward man, because it is written (in the Epistle) to the Corinthians: "Though our outward man decayeth, yet the inward man is renewed day by day."^ Now, neither the soul by itself alone is " man " (it was subsequently implanted in the clayey mould to which the name mati had been already given), nor is the flesh without the soul " man ": for after the exile of the soul from it, :t has the title of corpse. Thus the desig- nation man is, in a certain sense, the bond between the two closely united substances, under which designation they cannot but be coherent natures. As for the inward man, indeed, the apostle prefers its being regarded as the mind and heart ^ rather than the soul;* in other words, not so much the sub- stance itself as the savour of the substance. Thus when, writing to the Ephesians, he spoke of " Christ dwelling in their inner man," ' he meant, no doubt, that the Lord ought to be admitted into their senses. ^ He then added, "in your hearts by faith, rooted and grounded mlovQ,'' — making "faith" and "love" not substantial parts, but only con- ceptions of the soul. But when he used the phrase " in your hearts," seeing that these are substantial parts of the flesh, he at once as- signed to the flesh the actual " inward man," which he placed in the heart. Consider now in what sense he alleged that "the outward man decayeth, while the inward man is re- newed day by day." You certainly would not maintain that he could mean that corruption of the flesh which it undergoes from the mo- 3 Animam.
4 Animam.
ment of death, in its appointed state of per- petual decay; but the ivear and tear which for the name of Christ it experiences during its course of life before and until death, in harass- ing cares and tribulations as well as in tortures and persecutions. Now the inward man will have, of course, to be renewed by the sugges- tion of the Spirit, advancing by faith and holi- ness day after day, here in this life, not there after the resurrection, were our renewal is not a gradual process from day to day, but a con- summation once for all complete. You may learn this, too, from the following passage, where the apostle says: " For our light afflic- tion, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen," that is, our sufferings, " but at the things which are not seen," that is, our rewards: " for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal."* For the afflictions and injuries wherewith the outward man is worn away, he affirms to be only worthy of being despised by us, as being light and temporary; preferring those eternal recompenses which are also in- visible, and that " weight of glory " which will be a counterpoise for the labours in the endurance of which the flesh here suffers decay. So that the subject in this passage is not that corruption which they ascribe to the outward man in the utter destruction of the flesh, with the view of nullifying the resurrection. So also he says elsewhere: " If so be that we suf- fer with Him, that we maybe also glorified to- gether; for I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us." "> Here again he shows us that our sufferings are less than their rewards. Now, since it is through the flesh that we suffer with Christ — for it is the property of the flesh to be worn by sufferings — to the same flesh belongs the recompense which is promised for suffering with Christ. Accordingly, when he is going to assign afflictions to the flesh as its especial liability — according to the statement he had already made — he says, " When we were come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest;"' then, in order to make the soul a fellow- sufferer with the body, he adds, " We were troubled on every side; without were fight- ings," which of course warred down the flesh, " within were fears," which afflicted the soul.' Although, therefore, the outward man decays — not in the sense of missing the resurrection, but of enduring tribulation — it will be under- 9 Same verse.
CHAP. XLII.]
ON THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH.
D/D stood from this scripture that it is not exposed to its suffering without the inward man. Both, therefore, will be glorified together, even as they have suffered together. Parallel with their participation in troubles, must necessarily- run their association also in rewards^ CHAP. XLI. — THE DISSOLUTION OF OUR TABER- NACLE CONSISTENT WITH THE RESURRECTION OF OUR BODIES.
It is still the same sentiment which he fol- lows up in the passage in which he puts the recompense above the sufferings: "for we know," he says, " that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a house not made with hands, eternal in the heav- ens; " ' in other words, owing to the fact that our flesh is undergoing dissolution through its sufferings, we shall be provided with a home — in heaven. He remembered the award (which the Lord assigns) in the Gospel: " Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." ^ Yet, when he thus contrasted the recompense of the reward, he did not deny the flesh's res- toration; since the recompense is due to the same substance to which the dissolution is attributed, — that is, of course, the flesh. Because, however, he had called the flesh a house, he wished elegantly to use the same term in his comparison of the ultimate reward; promising to the very house, which undergoes dissolution through suffering, a better house through the resurrection. Just as the Lord also promises us many mansions as of a house in His Father's home;^ although this may possibly be understood of the domicile of this world, on the dissolution of whose fabric an eternal abode is promised in heaven, inas- much as the following context, having a mani- fest reference to the flesh, seems to show that these preceding words have no such reference. For the apostle makes a distinction, when he goes on to say, " For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven, if so be that be- ing clothed we shall not be found naked;"'* which means, before we put off the garment of the fiesh, we wish to be clothed with the celestial glory of immortality. Now the priv- ilege of this favour awaits those who shall at the coming of the Lord be found in the flesh, and who shall, owing to the oppressions of the time of Antichrist, deserve by an instantaneous death, s which is accomplished by a sudden - Matt. V. lo. 3 John xiv. 2.
5 Compendio mortis. Compare our A nti-Marcion for the same thoughts and words, v. 12. [p. 455, supra!\ change, to become qualified to join the rising saints; as he writes to the Thessalonians: " For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we too shall ourselves be caught up to- gether with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."<^ CHAP. XLII. — DEATH CHANGES, WITHOUT DE- STROYING, OUR MORTAL BODIES. REMAINS OF THE GIANTS.
It is the transformation these shall undergo which he explains to the Corinthians, when he writes: " We shall all indeed rise again (though we shall not all undergo the transformation) in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump" — for none shall experience this change but those only who shall be found in the flesh. " And the dead," he says, " shall be raised, am/ 'we shall be changed." Now, after a careful consideration of this appointed order, you will be able to adjust what follows to the preceding sense. For when he adds, " This corruptible must put on incorrruption, and this mortal must put on immortality,"' this will assuredly be that house from heaven, with which we so earnestly desire to be clothed upon, whilst groaning in this our present body, — meaning, of course, over this flesh in which we shall be surprised at last; because he says that we are burdened whilst in this tabernacle, which we do not wish indeed to be stripped of, but rather to be in it clothed over, in such a way that mortality may be swallowed up of life, that is, by putting on over us whilst we are transformed that vestiture which is from heaven. For who is there that will not desire, while he is in the flesh, to put on immortality, and to continue his life by a happy escape