On the Resurrection of the Flesh - Tertullian
The heretics against whom this work is directed, were the same who
maintained that the demiurge, or the god who created this world and gave the
Mosaic dispensation, was opposed to the supreme God. Hence they attached an
idea of inherent corruption and worthlessness to all his works'amongst the
rest, to the flesh or body of man; affirming that it could not rise again,
and that the soul alone was capable of inheriting immortality. 
Translated by Dr. Holmes.
Text edited by Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson and
first published by T&T Clark in Edinburgh in 1867. Additional
introductionary material and notes provided for the American
edition by A. Cleveland Coxe, 1886.
Chapter I. The Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body Brought to Light by
the Gospel. The Faintest Glimpses of Something Like It Occasionally Met with
in Heathenism. Inconsistencies of Pagan Teaching.
The resurrection of the dead is the Christian's trust.  By it we are
believers. To the belief of this (article of the faith) truth compels
us'that truth which God reveals, but the crowd derides, which supposes that
nothing will survive after death. And yet they do honour  to their
dead, and that too in the most expensive way according to their bequest, and
with the daintiest banquets which the seasons can produce,  on the
presumption that those whom they declare to be incapable of all perception
still retain an appetite.  But (let the crowd deride): I on my side
must deride it still more, especially when it burns up its dead with
harshest inhumanity, only to pamper them immediately afterwards with
gluttonous satiety, using the selfsame fires to honour them and to insult
them. What piety is that which mocks its victims with cruelty? Is it
sacrifice or insult (which the crowd offers), when it burns its offerings to
those it has already burnt?  But the wise, too, join with the vulgar
crowd in their opinion sometimes. There is nothing after death, according to
the school of Epicurus. After death all things come to an end, even death
itself, says Seneca to like effect. It is satisfactory, however, that the no
less important philosophy of Pythagoras and Empedocles, and the Plantonists,
take the contrary view, and declare the soul to be immortal; affirming,
moreover, in a way which most nearly approaches (to our own doctrine),
 that the soul actually returns into bodies, although not the same
bodies, and not even those of human beings invariably: thus Euphorbus is
supposed to have passed into Phythagoras, and Homer into a peacock. They
firmly pronounced the soul's renewal  to be in a body,  (deeming
it) more tolerable to change the quality (of the corporeal state)than to
deny it wholly: they at least knocked at the door of truth, although they
entered not. Thus the world, with all its errors, does not ignore the
resurrection of the dead.
Chapter II. The Jewish Sadducees a Link Between the Pagan Philosophers and
the Heretics on This Doctrine. Its Fundamental Importance Asserted. The Soul
Fares Better Than the Body, in Heretical Estimation, as to Its Future State.
Its Extinction, However, Was Held by One Lucan.
Since there is even within the confines of God's Church  a sect
which is more nearly allied to the Epicureans than to the prophets, an
opportunity is afforded us of knowing  what estimate Christ forms of
the (said sect, even the) Sadducees. For to Christ was it reserved to lay
bare everything which before was concealed: to impart certainty to doubtful
points; to accomplish those of which men had had but a foretaste; to give
present reality to the objects of prophecy; and to furnish not only by
Himself, but actually in Himself, certain proofs of the resurrection of the
dead. It is, however, against other Sadducees that we have now to prepare
ourselves, but still partakers of their doctrine. For instance, they allow a
moiety of the resurrection; that is, simply of the soul, despising the
flesh, just as they also do the Lord of the flesh Himself. No other persons,
indeed, refuse to concede to the substance of the body its recovery from
death,  heretical inventors of a second deity. Driven then, as they
are, to give a different dispensation to Christ, so that He may not be
accounted as belonging to the Creator, they have achieved their first error
in the article of His very flesh; contending with Marcion and Basilides that
it possessed no reality; or else holding, after the heretical tenets of
Valentinus, and according to Apelles, that it had qualities peculiar to
itself. And so it follows that they shut out from all recovery from death
that substance of which they say that Christ did not partake, confidently
assuming that it furnishes the strongest presumption against the
resurrection, since the flesh is already risen in Christ. Hence it is that
we have ourselves previously issued our volume On the flesh of Christ; in
which we both furnish proofs of its reality,  in opposition to the
idea of its being a vain phantom; and claim for it a human nature without
any peculiarity of condition'such a nature as has marked out Christ to be
both man and the Son of man. For when we prove Him to be invested with the
flesh and in a bodily condition, we at the same time refute heresy, by
establishing the rule that no other being than the Creator must be believed
to be God, since we show that Christ, in whom God is plainly discerned, is
precisely of such a nature as the Creator promised that He should be. Being
thus refuted touching God as the Creator, and Christ as the Redeemer of the
flesh, they will at once be defeated also on the resurrection of the flesh.
No procedure, indeed, can be more reasonable. And we affirm that controversy
with heretics should in most cases be conducted in this way. For due method
requires that conclusions should always be drawn from the most important
premises, in order that there be a prior agreement on the essential point,
by means of which the particular question under review may be said to have
been determined. Hence it is that the heretics, from their conscious
weakness, never conduct discussion in an orderly manner. They are well aware
how hard is their task in insinuating the existence of a second god, to the
disparagement of the Creator of the world, who is known to all men naturally
by the testimony of His works, who is before all others in the mysteries
 of His being, and is especially manifested in the prophets; 
then, under the pretence of considering a more urgent inquiry, namely man's
own salvation'a question which transcends all others in its importance'they
begin with doubts about the resurrection; for there is greater difficulty in
believing the resurrection of the flesh than the oneness of the Deity. In
this way, after they have deprived the discussion of the advantages of its
logical order, and have embarrassed it with doubtful insinuations 
in disparagement of the flesh, they gradually draw their argument to the
reception of a second god after destroying and changing the very ground of
our hopes. For when once a man Is fallen or removed from the sure hope which
he had placed in the Creator, he is easily led away to the object of a
different hope, whom however of his own accord he can hardly help
suspecting. Now it is by a discrepancy in the promises that a difference of
gods is insinuated. How many do we thus see drawn into the net vanquished on
the resurrection of the flesh, before they could carry their point on the
oneness of the Deity! In respect, then, of the heretics, we have shown with
what weapons we ought to meet them. And indeed we have already encountered
them in treatises severally directed against them: on the one only God and
His Christ, in our work against Marcion,  on the Lord's flesh, in
our book against the four heresies,  for the special purpose of
opening the way to the present inquiry: so that we have now only to discuss
the resurrection of the flesh, (treating it) just as if it were uncertain in
regard to ourselves also, that is, in the system of the Creator. 
Because many persons are uneducated; still more are of faltering faith, and
several are weak-minded: these will have to be instructed, directed,
strengthened, inasmuch as the very oneness of the Godhead will be defended
along with the maintenance of our doctrine.  For if the resurrection
of the flesh be denied, that prime article of the faith is shaken; if it be
asserted, that is established. There is no need, I suppose, to treat of the
soul's safety; for nearly all the heretics, in whatever way they conceive of
it, certainly refrain from denying that. We may ignore a certain Lucan,
 who does not spare even this part of our nature, which he follows
Aristotle in reducing to dissolution, and substitutes some other thing in
lieu of it. Some third nature it is which, according to him, is to rise
again, neither soul nor flesh; in other words, not man, but a bear
perhaps'for instance, Lucan himself.  Even he  has received
from us a copious notice in our book on the entire condition of the soul,
 the especial immortality of which we there maintain, whilst we also
both acknowledge the dissolution of the flesh alone, and emphatically assert
its restitution. Into the body of that work were collected whatever points
we elsewhere had to reserve from the pressure of incidental causes. For as
it is my custom to touch some questions but lightly on their first
occurrence, so I am obliged also to postpone the consideration of them,
until the outline can be filled in with complete detail, and the deferred
points be taken up on their own merits.
Chapter III. Some Truths Held Even by the Heathen, They Were, However, More
Often Wrong Both in Religious Opinions and in Moral Practice. The Heathen
Not to Be Followed in Their Ignorance of the Christian Mystery. The Heretics
Perversely Prone to Follow Them.
One may no doubt be wise in the things of God, even from one's natural
powers, but only in witness to the truth, not in maintenance of error;
(only) when one acts in accordance with, not in opposition to, the divine
dispensation. For some things are known even by nature: the immortality of
the soul, for instance, is held by many; the knowledge of our God is
possessed by all. I may use, therefore, the opinion of a Plato, when he
declares, "Every soul is immortal." I may use also the conscience of a
nation, when it attests the God of gods. I may, in like manner, use all the
other intelligences of our common nature, when they pronounce God to be a
judge. "God sees," (say they); and, "I commend you to God."  But
when they say, "What has undergone death is dead," and, "Enjoy life whilst
you live," and, "After death all things come to an end, even death itself;
"then I must remember both that "the heart of man is ashes," 
according to the estimate of God, and that the very "Wisdom of the world is
foolishness," (as the inspired word) pronounces it to be.  Then, if
even the heretic seek refuge in the depraved thoughts of the vulgar, or the
imaginations of the world, I must say to him: Part company with the heathen,
O heretic! for although you are all agreed in imagining a God, yet while you
do so in the name of Christ, so long as you deem yourself a Christian, you
are a different man from a heathen: give him back his own views of things,
since he does not himself learn from yours. Why lean upon a blind guide, if
you have eyes of your own? Why be clothed by one who is naked, if you have
put on Christ? Why use the shield of another, when the apostle gives you
armour of your own? It would be better for him to learn from you to
acknowledge the resurrection of the flesh, than for you from him to deny it;
because if Christians must needs deny it, it would be sufficient if they did
so from their own knowledge, without any instruction from the ignorant
multitude. He, therefore, will not be a Christian who shall deny this
doctrine which is confessed by Christians; denying it, moreover, on grounds
which are adopted by a man who is not a Christian. Take away, indeed, from
the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them
support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone: they will then be unable
to keep their ground. For that which commends men's common sense is its very
simplicity, and its participation in the same feelings, and its community of
opinions; and it is deemed to be all the more trustworthy, inasmuch as its
definitive statements are naked and open, and known to all. Divine reason,
on the contrary, lies in the very pith and marrow of things, not on the
surface, and very often is at variance with appearances.
Chapter IV. Heathens and Heretics Alike in Their Vilification of the Flesh
and Its Functions, the Ordinary Cavils Against the Final Restitution of So
Weak and Ignoble a Substance.
Hence it is that heretics start at once from this point,  from which
they sketch the first draft of their dogmas, and afterwards add the details,
being well aware how easily men's minds are caught by its influence, (and
actuated) by that community of human sentiment which is so favourable to
their designs. Is there anything else that you can hear of from the heretic,
as also from the heathen, earlier in time or greater in extent? Is not
(their burden) from the beginning and everywhere an invective against the
flesh'against its origin, against its substance, against the casualties and
the invariable end which await it; unclean from its first formation of the
dregs of the ground, uncleaner afterwards from the mire of its own seminal
transmission; worthless,  weak, covered with guilt, laden with
misery, full of trouble; and after all this record of its degradation,
dropping into its original earth and the appellation of a corpse, and
destined to dwindle away even from this  loathsome name into none
henceforth at all'into the very death of all designation? Now you are a
shrewd man, no doubt: will you then persuade yourself, that after this flesh
has been withdrawn from sight, and touch, and memory, it can never be
rehabilitated from corruption to integrity, from a shattered to a solid
State, from an empty to a full condition, from nothing at all to
something'the devouring fires, and the waters of the sea, and the maws of
beasts, and the crops of birds and the stomachs of fishes, and time's own
great paunch  itself of course yielding it all up again? Shall the
same flesh which has fallen to decay be so expected to recover, as that the
lame, and the one-eyed, and the blind, and the leper, and the palsied shall
come back again, although there can be no pleasure in returning to their old
condition? Or shall they be whole, and so have to fear exposure to such
sufferings? What, in that case, (must we say) of the consequences of
resuming the flesh? Will it again be subject to all its present wants,
especially meats and drinks? Shall we have with our lungs to float (in air
or water),  and suffer pain in our bowels, and with organs of shame
to feel no shame, and with all our limbs to toil and labour? Must there
again be ulcers, and wounds, and fever, and gout, and once more the wishing
to die? Of course these will be the longings incident on the recovery of the
flesh, only the repetition of desires to escape out of it. Well now, we have
(stated) all this in very subdued and delicate phrases, as suited to the
character of our style; but (would you know) how great a licence of unseemly
language these men actually use, you must test them in their conferences,
whether they be heathens or heretics.
Chapter V. Some Considerations in Reply Eulogistic of the Flesh. It Was
Created by God. The Body of Man Was, in Fact, Previous to His Soul.
Inasmuch as all uneducated men, therefore, still form their opinions after
these common-sense views, and as the falterers and the weak-minded have a
renewal of their perplexities occasioned by the selfsame views; and as the
first battering-ram which is directed against ourselves is that which
shatters the condition of the flesh, we must on our side necessarily so
manage our defences, as to guard, first of all, the condition of the flesh,
their disparagement of it being repulsed by our own eulogy. The heretics,
therefore, challenged us to use our rhetoric no less than our philosophy.
Respecting, then, this frail and poor, worthless body, which they do not
indeed hesitate to call evil, even if it had been the work of angels, as
Menander and Marcus are pleased to think, or the formation of some fiery
being, an angel, as Apelles teaches, it would be quite enough for securing
respect for the body, that it had the support and protection of even a
secondary deity. The angels, we know, rank next to God. Now, whatever be the
supreme God of each heretic, I should not unfairly derive the dignity of the
flesh likewise from Him to whom was present the will for its production.
For, of course, if He had not willed its production, He would have
prohibited it, when He knew it was in progress. It follows, then, that even
on their principle the flesh is equally the work of God. There is no work
but belongs to Him who has permitted it to exist. It is indeed a happy
circumstance, that most of their doctrines, including even the harshest,
accord to our God the entire formation of man. How mighty He is, you know
full well who believe that He is the only God. Let, then, the flesh begin to
give you pleasure, since the Creator thereof is so great. But, you say, even
the world is the work of God, and yet "the fashion of this world passeth
away,"  as the apostle himself testifies; nor must it be
predetermined that the world will be restored, simply because it is the work
of God. And surely if the universe, after its ruin, is not to be formed
again, why should a portion of it be? You are right, if a portion is on an
equality with the whole. But we maintain that there is a difference. In the
first place, because all things were made by the Word of God, and without
Him was nothing made.  Now the flesh, too, had its existence from
the Word of God, because of the principle,  that here should be
nothing without that Word. "Let us make man,"  said He, before He
created him, and added, "with our hand," for the sake of his pre-eminence,
that so he might not be compared with the rest of creation.  And
"God," says (the Scripture), "formed man."  There is undoubtedly a
great difference in the procedure, springing of course from the nature of
the case. For the creatures which were made were inferior to him for whom
they were made; and they were made for man, to whom they were afterwards
made subject by God. Rightly, therefore, had the creatures which were thus
intended for subjection, come forth into being at the bidding and command
and sole power of the divine voice; whilst man, on the contrary, destined to
be their lord, was formed by God Himself, to the intent that he might be
able to exercise his mastery, being created by the Master the Lord Himself.
Remember, too, that man is properly called flesh, which had a prior
occupation in man's designation: "And God formed man the clay of the
ground."  He now became man, who was hitherto clay. "And He breathed
upon his face the breath of life, and man (that is, the clay) became a
living soul; and God placed the man whom He had formed in the garden."
 So that man was clay at first, and only afterwards man entire. I wish
to impress this on your attention, with a view to your knowing, that
whatever God has at all purposed or promised to man, is due not to the soul
simply, but to the flesh also; if not arising out of any community in their
origin, yet at all events by the privilege possessed by the latter in its
Chapter VI. Not the Lowliness of the Material, But the Dignity and Skill of
the Maker, Must Be Remembered, in Gauging the Excellence of the Flesh.
Christ Partook of Our Flesh.
Let me therefore pursue the subject before me'if I can but succeed in
vindicating for the flesh as much as was conferred on it by Him who made it,
glorying as it even then was, because that poor paltry material, clay, found
its way into the hands of God, whatever these were, happy enough at merely
being touched by them. But why this glorying? Was it that,  without
any further labour, the clay had instantly assumed its form at the touch of
God? The truth is,  a great matter was in progress, out of which the
creature under consideration  was being fashioned. So often then
does it receive honour, as often as it experiences the hands of God, when it
is touched by them, and pulled, and drawn out, and moulded into shape.
Imagine God wholly employed and absorbed in it'in His hand, His eye, His
labour, His purpose, His wisdom, His providence, and above all, in His love,
which was dictating the lineaments (of this creature). For, whatever was the
form and expression which was then given to the clay (by the Creator) Christ
was in His thoughts as one day to become man, because the Word, too, was to
be both clay and flesh, even as the earth was then. For so did the Father
previously say to the Son: "Let us make man in our own image, after our
likeness."  And God made man, that is to say, the creature which He
moulded and fashioned; after the image of God (in other words, of Christ)
did He make him And the Word was God also, who being  in the image
of God, "thought it not robbery to be equal to God."  Thus, that
clay which was even then putting on the image of Christ, who was to come in
the flesh, was not only the work, but also the pledge and surety, of God. To
what purpose is it to bandy about the name earth, as that of a sordid and
grovelling element, with the view of tarnishing the origin of the flesh,
when, even if any other material had been available for forming man, it
would be requisite that the dignity of the Maker should be taken into
consideration, who even by His selection of His material deemed it, and by
His management made it, worthy? The hand of Phidias forms the Olympian
Jupiter of ivory; worship is given to the statue, and it is no longer
regarded as a god formed out of a most silly animal, but as the world's
supreme Deity' not because of the bulk of the elephant, but on account of
the renown of Phidias. Could not therefore the living God, the true God,
purge away by His own operation whatever vileness might have accrued to His
material, and heal it of all infirmity? Or must this remain to show how much
more nobly man could fabricate a god, than God could form a man? Now,
although the clay is offensive (for its poorness), it is now something else.
What I possess is flesh, not earth, even although of the flesh it is said:
"Dust thou art, and unto dust shall thou return,"  In these words
there is the mention of the origin, not a recalling of the substance. The
privilege has been granted to the flesh to be nobler than its origin, and to
have happiness aggrandized by the change wrought in it. Now, even gold is
earth, because of the earth; but it remains earth no longer after it becomes
gold, but is a far different substance, more splendid and more noble, though
coming from a source which is comparatively faded and obscure. In like
manner, it was quite allowable for God that He should dear the gold of our
flesh from all the taints, as you deem them, of its native clay, by purging
the original substance of its dross.
Chapter VII. The Earthy Material of Which Flesh is Created Wonderfully
Improved by God's Manipulation. By the Addition of the Soul in Man's
Constitution It Became the Chief Work in the Creation.
But perhaps the dignity of the flesh may seem to be diminished, because it
has not been actually manipulated by the hand of God, as the clay was at
first. Now, when God handled the clay for the express purpose of the growth
of flesh out of it afterwards, it was for the flesh that He took all the
trouble. But I want you, moreover, to know at what time and in what manner
the flesh flourished into beauty out of its clay. For it cannot be, as some
will have it, that those "coats of skins"  which Adam and Eve put on
when they were stripped of paradise, were really themselves the forming of
the flesh out of clay,  because long before that Adam had already
recognised the flesh which was in the woman as the propagation of his own
substance ("This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh "  ),
and the very taking of the woman out of the man was supplemented with flesh;
but it ought, I should suppose, to have been made good with clay, if Adam
was still clay. The clay, therefore, was obliterated and absorbed into
flesh. When did this happen? At the time that man became a living soul by
the inbreathing of God'by the breath indeed which was capable of hardening
clay into another substance, as into some earthenware, so now into flesh. In
the same way the potter, too, has it in his power, by tempering the blast of
his fire, to modify his clayey material into a stiffer one, and to mould one
form after another more beautiful than the original substance, and now
possessing both a kind and name of its own. For although the Scripture says,
"Shall the clay say to the potter? "  that is, Shall man contend
with God? although the apostle speaks of "earthen vessels"  he
refers to man, who was originally clay. And the vessel is the flesh, because
this was made of clay by the breath of the divine afflatus; and it was
afterwards clothed with "the coats of skins," that is, with the cutaneous
covering which was placed over it. So truly is this the fact, that if you
withdraw the skin, you lay bare the flesh. Thus, that which becomes a spoil
when stripped off, was a vestment as long as it remained laid over. Hence
the apostle, when he call circumcision "a putting off (or spoliation) of the
flesh,"  affirmed the skin to be a coat or tunic. Now this being the
case, you have both the clay made glorious by the hand of God, and the flesh
more glorious still by His breathing upon it, by virtue of which the flesh
not only laid aside its clayey rudiments, but also took on itself the
ornaments of the soul. You surely are not more careful than God, that you
indeed should refuse to mount the gems of Scythia and India and the pearls
of the Red Sea in lead, or brass, or iron, or even in silver, but should set
them in the most precious and most highly-wrought gold; or, again, that you
should provide for your finest wines and most costly unguents the most
fitting vessels; or, on the same principle, should find for your swords of
finished temper scabbards of equal worth; whilst God must consign to some
vilest sheath the shadow of His own soul, the breath of His own Spirit, the
operation of His own mouth, and by so ignominious a consignment secure, of
course, its condemnation. Well, then, has He placed, or rather inserted and
commingled, it with the flesh? Yes; and so intimate is the union, that it
may be deemed to be uncertain whether the flesh bears about the soul, or the
soul the flesh; or whether the flesh acts as apparitor to the soul, or the
soul to the flesh. It is, However, more credible that the soul has service
rendered to it,  and has the mastery,  as being more
proximate in character to God.  This circumstance even redounds to
the glory of the flesh, inasmuch as it both contains an essence nearest to
God's, and renders itself a partake of (the soul's) actual sovereignty. For
what enjoyment of nature is there, what produce of the world, what relish of
the elements, which is not imparted to the soul by means of the body? How
can it be otherwise? Is it not by its means that the soul is supported by
the entire apparatus of the senses'the sight, the hearing, the taste, the
smell, the touch? Is it not by its means that it has a sprinkling of the
divine power, there being nothing which it does not effect by its faculty of
speech, even when it is only tacitly indicated? And speech is the result of
a fleshly organ. The arts come through the flesh; through the flesh also
effect is given to the mind's pursuits and powers; all work, too, and
business and offices of life, are accomplished by the flesh; and so utterly,
are the living acts of the soul the work of the flesh, that for the soul to
cease to do living acts, would be nothing else than sundering itself from
the flesh. So also the very act of dying is a function of the flesh, even as
the process of life is. Now, if all things are subject to the soul through
the flesh, their subjection is equally due to the flesh. That which is the
means and agent of your enjoyment, must needs be also the partaker and
sharer of your enjoyment. So that the flesh, which is accounted the minister
and servant of the soul, turns out to be also its associate and co-heir. And
if all this in temporal things, why not also in things eternal?
Chapter VIII. Christianity, by Its Provision for the Flesh, Has Put on It
the Greatest Honour. The Privileges of Our Religion in Closest Connection
with Our Flesh. Which Also Bears a Large Share in the Duties and Sacrifices
Now such remarks have I wished to advance in defence of the flesh, from a
general view of the condition of our human nature. Let us now consider its
special relation to Christianity, and see how vast a privilege before God
has been conferred on this poor and worthless substance. It would suffice to
say, indeed, that there is not a soul that can at all procure salvation,
except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is
the very condition on which salvation hinges.And since the soul is, in
consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh
which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is
washed, in order that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that
the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed (with the cross), that the
soul too may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of
hands, that the soul also maybe illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds
on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may fatten on its
God. They cannot then be separated in their recompense, when they are united
in their service. Those sacrifices, moreover, which are acceptable to God'I
mean conflicts of the soul, fastings, and abstinences, and the humiliations
which are annexed to such duty'it is the flesh which performs again and
again  to its own especial suffering. Virginity, likewise, and
widowhood, and the modest restraint in secret on the marriage-bed, and the
one only adoption  of it, are fragrant offerings to God paid out of
the good services of the flesh. Come, tell me what is your opinion of the
flesh, when it has to contend for the name of Christ, dragged out to public
view, and exposed to the hatred of all men; when it pines in prisons under
the cruellest privation of light, in banishment from the world, amidst
squalor, filth, and noisome food, without freedom even in sleep, for it is
bound on its very pallet and mangled in its bed of straw; when at length
before the public view it is racked by every kind of torture that can be
devised, and when finally it is spent beneath its agonies, struggling to
render its last turn for Christ by dying for Him'upon His own cross many
times, not to say by still more atrocious devices of torment. Most blessed,
truly, and most glorious, must be the flesh which can repay its Master
Christ so vast a debt, and so completely, that the only obligation remaining
due to Him is, that it should cease by death to owe Him more'all the more
bound even then in gratitude, because (for ever) set free.
Chapter IX. God's Love for the Flesh of Man, as Developed in the Grace of
Christ Towards It. The Flesh the Best Means of Displaying the Bounty and
Power of God.
To recapitulate, then: Shall that very flesh, which the Divine Creator
formed with His own hands in the image of God; which He animated with His
own afflatus, after the likeness of His own vital vigour; which He set over
all the works of His hand, to dwell amongst, to enjoy, and to rule them;
which He clothed with His sacraments and His instructions; whose purity He
loves, whose mortifications He approves; whose sufferings for Himself He
deems precious;'(shall that flesh, I say), so often brought near to God, not
rise again? God forbid, God forbid, (I repeat), that He should abandon to
everlasting destruction the labour of His own hands, the care of His own
thoughts, the receptacle of His own Spirit,  the queen of His
creation, the inheritor of His own liberality, the priestess of His
religion, the champion of His testimony, the sister of His Christ! We know
by experience the goodness of God; from His Christ we learn that He is the
only God, and the very good. Now, as He requires from us love to our
neighbour after love to Himself,  so He will Himself do that which
He has commanded. He will love the flesh which is, so very closely and in so
many ways, His neighbour'(He will love it), although infirm, since His
strength is made perfect in weakness;  although disordered, since
"they that are whole need not the physician, but they that are sick; "
 although not honourable, since "we bestow more abundant honour upon
the less honourable members; "  although ruined, since He says, "I
am come to save that which was lost; "  although sinful, since He
says, "I desire rather the salvation of the sinner than his death; "
 although condemned, for says He, "I shall wound, and also heal. "
 Why reproach the flesh with those conditions which wait for God,
which hope in God, which receive honour from God, which He succours? I
venture to declare, that if such casualties as these had never befallen the
flesh, the bounty, the grace, the mercy, (and indeed) all the beneficent
power of God, would have had no opportunity to work. 
Chapter X. Holy Scripture Magnifies the Flesh, as to Its Nature and Its
You hold to the scriptures in which the flesh is disparaged; receive also
those in which it is ennobled. You read whatever passage abases it; direct
your eyes also to that which elevates it. "All flesh is grass." 
Well, but Isaiah was not content to say only this; but he also declared,
"All flesh shall see the salvation of God. "  They notice God when
He says in Genesis, "My Spirit shall not remain among these men, because
they are flesh; "  but then He is also heard saying by Joel, "I will
pour I out of my Spirit upon all flesh."  Even the apostle ought not
to be known for any one statement in which he is wont to reproach the flesh.
For although he says that "in his flesh dwelleth no good thing; " 
although he affirms that "they who are in the flesh cannot please God,"
 because "the flesh lusteth against the Spirit; "  yet in
these and similar assertions which he makes, it is not the substance of the
flesh, but its actions, which are censured. Moreover, we shall elsewhere
 take occasion to remark, that no reproaches can fairly be cast upon
the flesh, without tending also to the castigation of the soul, which
compels the flesh to do its bidding. However, let me meanwhile add that in
the same passage Paul "carries about in his body the marks of the Lord
Jesus; "  he also forbids our body to be profaned, as being "the
temple of God; "  he makes our bodies "the members of Christ; "
 and he exhorts us to exalt and "glorify God in our body." 
If, therefore, the humiliations of the flesh thrust off its resurrection,
why shall not its high prerogatives rather avail to bring it about?'since it
better suits the character of God to restore to salvation what for a while
He rejected, than to surrender to perdition what He once approved.
Chapter XI. The Power of God Fully Competent to Effect the Resurrection of
Thus far touching my eulogy of the flesh, in opposition to its enemies, who
are, notwithstanding, its greatest friends also; for there is nobody who
lives so much in accordance with the flesh as they who deny the resurrection
of the flesh, inasmuch as they despise all its discipline, while they
disbelieve its punishment. It is a shrewd saying which the Paraclete utters
concerning these persons by the mouth of the prophetess Prisca: "They are
carnal,  and yet they hate the flesh." Since, then, the flesh has
the best guarantee that could possibly accrue for securing to it the
recompense of salvation, ought we not also to consider well the power, and
might, and competency  of God Himself, whether He be so great as to
be able to rebuild and restore the edifice of the flesh, which had become
dilapidated and blocked up,  and in every possible way
dislocated?'whether He has promulgated in the public domains of nature any
analogies to convince us of His power in this respect, lest any should
happen to be still thirsting for the knowledge of God, when faith in Him
must rest on no other basis than the belief that He is able to do all
things? You have, no doubt amongst your philosophers men who maintain that
this world is without a beginning or a maker. It is, however, much more
true, that nearly all the heresies allow it an origin and a maker, and
ascribe its creation to our God. Firmly believe, therefore, that He produced
it wholly out of nothing, and then you have found the knowledge of God, by
believing that He possesses such mighty power. But some persons are too weak
to believe all this at first, owing to their views about Matter. They will
rather have it, after the philosophers, that the universe was in the
beginning made by God out of underlying matter. Now, even if this opinion
could be held in truth, since He must be acknowledged to have produced in
His reformation of matter far different substances and far different forms
from those which Matter itself possessed, I should maintain, with no less
persistence, that He produced these things out of nothing, since they
absolutely had no existence at all previous to His production of them. Now,
where is the difference between a thing's being produced out of nothing or
out of something, if so be that what existed not comes into being, when even
to have had no existence is tantamount to having been nothing? The contrary
is likewise true; for having once existed amounts to having been something.
If, however, there is a difference, both alternatives support my position.
For if God produced all things whatever out of nothing, He will be able to
draw forth from nothing even the flesh which had fallen into nothing; or if
He moulded other things out of matter, He will be able to call forth the
flesh too from somewhere else, into whatever abyss it may have been
engulphed. And surely He is most competent to re-create who created,
inasmuch as it is a far greater work to have produced than to have
reproduced, to have imparted a beginning, than to have maintained a
continuance. On this principle, you may be quite sure that the restoration
of the flesh is easier than its first formation.
Chapter XII. Some Analogies in Nature Which Corroborate the Resurrection of
Consider now those very analogies of the divine power (to which we have just
alluded). Day dies into night, and is buried everywhere in darkness. The
glory of the world is obscured in the shadow of death; its entire substance
is tarnished with blackness; all things become sordid, silent, stupid;
everywhere business ceases, and occupations rest. And so over the loss of
the light there is mourning. But yet it again revives, with its own beauty,
its own dowry, is own sun, the same as ever, whole and entire, over all the
world, slaying its own death, night'opening its own sepulchre, the
darkness'coming forth the heir to itself, until the night also revives'it,
too, accompanied with a retinue of its own. For the stellar rays are
rekindled, which had been quenched in the morning glow; the distant groups
of the constellations are again brought back to view, which the day's
temporary interval had removed out of sight. Readorned also are the mirrors
of the moon, which her monthly course had worn away. Winters and summers
return, as do the spring-tide and autumn, with their resources, their
routines, their fruits. Forasmuch as earth receives its instruction from
heaven to clothe the trees which had been stripped, to colour the flowers
afresh, to spread the grass again, to reproduce the seed which had been
consumed, and not to reproduce them until consumed. Wondrous method! from a
defrauder to be a preserver, in order to restore, it takes away; in order to
guard, it destroys; that it may make whole, it injures; and that it may
enlarge, it first lessens. (This process) indeed, renders back to us richer
and fuller blessings than it deprived us of'by a destruction which is
profit, by an injury which is advantage, and by a loss which is gain. In a
word, I would say, all creation is instinct with renewal. Whatever you may
chance upon, has already existed; whatever you have lost, returns again
without fail. All things return to their former state, after having gone out
of sight; all things begin after they have ended; they come to an end for
the very purpose of coming into existence again. Nothing perishes but with a
view to salvation. The whole, therefore, of this revolving order of things
bears witness to the resurrection of the dead. In His works did God write
it, before He wrote it in the Scriptures; He proclaimed it in His mighty
deeds earlier than in His inspired words. He first sent Nature to you as a
teacher, meaning to send Prophecy also as a supplemental instructor, that,
being Nature's disciple, you may more easily believe Prophecy, and without
hesitation accept (its testimony) when you come to hear what you have seen
already on every side; nor doubt that God, whom you have discovered to be
the restorer of all things, is likewise the reviver of the flesh. And
surely, as all things rise again for man, for whose use they have been
provided-but not for man except for his flesh also'how happens it that (the
flesh) itself can perish utterly, because of which and for the service of
which nothing comes to nought?
Chapter XIII. From Our Author's View of a Verse in the Ninety-Second Psalm,
the Phînix is Made a Symbol of the Resurrection of Our Bodies.
If, however, all nature but faintly figures our resurrection; if creation
affords no sign precisely like it, inasmuch as its several phenomena can
hardly be said to die so much as to come to an end, nor again be deemed to
be reanimated, but only re-formed; then take a most complete and
unassailable, symbol of our hope, for it shall be an animated being, and
subject alike to life and death. I refer to the bird which is peculiar to
the East, famous for its singularity, marvelous from its posthumous life,
which renews its life in a voluntary death; its dying day is its birthday,
for on it it departs and returns; once more a phoenix where just now there
was none; once more himself, but just now out of existence; another, yet the
same. What can be more express and more significant for our subject; or to
what other thing can such a phenomenon bear witness? God even in His own
Scripture says: "The righteous shall flourish like the phænix; " 
that is, shall flourish or revive, from death, from the grave'to teach you
to believe that a bodily substance may be recovered even from the fire. Our
Lord has declared that we are "better than many sparrows: "  well,
if not better than many a phænix too, it were no great thing. But must men
die once for all, while birds in Arabia are sure of a resurrection?
Chapter XIV. A Sufficient Cause for the Resurrection of the Flesh Occurs in
the Future Judgment of Man, It Will Take Cognisance of the Works of the Body
No Less Than of the Soul.
Such, then, being the outlines of the divine energies which God has
displayed as much in the parables of nature as in His spoken word, let us
now approach His very edicts and decrees, since this is the division which
we mainly adopt in our subject-matter. We began with the dignity of the
flesh, whether it were of such a nature that when once destroyed it was
capable of being restored. Then we pursued an inquiry touching the power of
God, whether it was sufficiently great to be habitually able to confer this
restoration on a thing which had been destroyed. Now, if we have proved
these two points, I should like you to inquire into the (question of) cause,
whether it be one of sufficient weight to claim the resurrection of the
flesh as necessary and as conformable in every way to reason; because there
underlies this demurrer: the flesh may be quite capable of being restored,
and the Deity be perfectly able to effect the restoration, but a cause for
such recovery must needs pre-exist. Admit then a sufficient one, you who
learn of a God who is both supremely good as well as just 
'supremely good from His own (character), just in consequence of ours. For
if man had never sinned, he would simply and solely have known God in His
superlative goodness, from the attribute of His nature. But now he
experiences Him to be a just God also, from the necessity of a cause; still,
however, retaining under this very circumstance His excellent goodness, at
the same time that He is also just. For, by both succouring the good and
punishing the evil, He displays His justice, and at the same time makes both
processes contribute proofs of His goodness, whilst on the one hand He deals
vengeance, land on the other dispenses reward. But with Marcion  you
will have the opportunity of more fully learning whether this be the whole
character of God. Meanwhile, so perfect is our (God), that He is rightly
Judge, because He is the Lord; rightly the Lord, because the Creator;
rightly the Creator, because He is God. Whence it happens that that heretic,
whose name I know not, holds that He properly is not a Judge, since He is
not Lord; properly not Lord, since He is not the Creator. And so I am at a
loss to know how He is God, who is neither the Creator, which God is; nor
the Lord, which the Creator is. Inasmuch, then, as it is most suitable for
the great Being who is God, and Lord, and Creator to summon man to a
judgment on this very question, whether he has taken care or not to
acknowledge and honour his Lord and Creator, this is just such a judgment as
the resurrection shall achieve. The entire cause, then, or rather necessity
of the resurrection, will be this, namely, that arrangement of the final
judgment which shall be most suitable to God. Now, in effecting this
arrangement, you must consider whether the divine censure superintends a
judicial examination of the two natures of man'both his soul and his flesh.
For that which is a suitable object to be judged, is also a competent one to
be raised. Our position is, that the judgment of God must be believed first
of all to be plenary, and then absolute, so as to be final, and therefore
irrevocable; to be also righteous, not bearing less heavily on any
particular part; to be moreover worthy of God, being complete and definite,
in keeping with His great patience. Thus it follows that the fulness and
perfection of the judgment consists simply in representing the interests of
the entire human being. Now, since the entire man consists of the union of
the two natures, he must therefore appear in both, as it is right that he
should be judged in his entirety; nor, of course, did he pass through life
except in his entire state. As therefore he lived, so also must he be
judged, because he has to be judged concerning the way in which he lived.
For life is the cause of judgment, and it must undergo investigation in as
many natures as it possessed when it discharged its vital functions.
Chapter XV. As the Flesh is a Partaker with the Soul in All Human Conduct,
So Will It Be in the Recompense of Eternity.
Come now, let our opponents sever the connection of the flesh with the soul
in the affairs of life, that they may be emboldened to sunder it also in the
recompense of life. Let them deny their association in acts, that they may
be fairly able to deny also their participation in rewards. The flesh ought
not to have any share in the sentence, if it had none in the cause of it.
Let the soul alone be called back, if it alone went away. But (nothing of
the kind ever happened); for the soul alone no more departed from life, than
it ran through alone the course from which it departed'I mean this present
life. Indeed, the soul alone is so far from conducting (the affairs of)
life, that we do not withdraw from community with the flesh even our
thoughts, however isolated they be, however unprecipitated into act by means
of the flesh; since whatever is done in man's heart is done by the soul in
the flesh, and with the flesh, and through the flesh. The Lord Himself, in
short, when rebuking our thoughts, includes in His censures this aspect of
the flesh, (man's heart), the citadel of the soul: "Why think ye evil in
your hearts? "  and again: "Whosoever looketh on a woman, to lust
after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." 
So that even the thought, without operation and without effect, is an act of
the flesh. But if you allow that the faculty which rules the senses, and
which they call <i>hegemonikon,  has its sanctuary in the
brain, or in the interval between the eyebrows, or wheresoever the
philosophers are pleased to locate it, the flesh will still be the thinking
place of the soul. The soul is never without the flesh, as long as it is in
the flesh. There is nothing which the flesh does not transact in company
with the soul, when without it does not exist. Consider carefully, too,
whether the thoughts are not administered by the flesh, since it is through
the flesh that they are distinguished and known externally. Let the soul
only meditate some design, the face gives the indication'the face being the
mirror of all our intentions. They may deny all combination in acts, but
they cannot gainsay their co-operation in thoughts. Still they enumerate the
sins of the flesh; surely, then, for its sinful conduct it must be consigned
to punishment. But we, moreover, allege against them the virtues of the
flesh; surely also for its virtuous conduct it deserves a future reward.
Again, as it is the soul which acts and impels us in all we do, so it is the
function of the flesh to render obedience. Now we are not permitted to
suppose that God is either unjust or idle. Unjust, (however He would be, )
were He to exclude from reward the flesh which is associated in good works;
and idle, were He to exempt it from punishment, when it has been an
accomplice in evil deeds: whereas human judgment is deemed to be the more
perfect, when it discovers the agents in every deed, and neither spares the
guilty nor grudges the virtuous their full share of either punishment or
praise with the principals who employed their services.
Chapter XVI. The Heretics Called the Flesh "The Vessel of the Soul," In
Order to Destroy the Responsibility of the Body. Their Cavil Turns Upon
Themselves and Shows the Flesh to Be a Sharer in Human Actions.
When, however, we attribute to the soul authority, and to the flesh
submission, we must see to it that (our opponents) do not turn our position
by another argument, by insisting on so placing the flesh in the service of
the soul, that it be not (considered as) its servant, lest they should be
compelled, if it were so regarded, to admit its companionship (to the soul).
For they would argue that servants and companions possess a discretion in
discharging the functions of their respective office, and a power over their
will in both relations: in short, (they would claim to be) men themselves,
and therefore (would expect) to share the credit with their principals, to
whom they voluntarily yielded their assistance; whereas the flesh had no
discretion, no sentiment in itself, but possessing no power of its own of
willing or refusing, it, in fact, appears to stand to the soul in the stead
of a vessel as an instrument rather than a servant. The soul alone,
therefore, will have to be judged (at the last day) pre-eminently as to how
it has employed the vessel of the flesh; the vessel itself, of course, not
being amenable to a judicial award: for who condemns the cup if any. man has
mixed poison in it? or who sentences the sword to the beasts, if a man has
perpetrated with it the atrocities of a brigand? Well, now, we will grant
that the flesh is innocent, in so far as bad actions will not be charged
upon it: what, then, is there to hinder its being saved on the score of its
innocence? For although it is free from all imputation of good works, as it
is of evil ones, yet it is more consistent with the divine goodness to
deliver the innocent. A beneficent man, indeed, is bound to do so: it suits
then the character of the Most Bountiful to bestow even gratuitously such a
favour. And yet, as to the cup, I will not take the poisoned one, into which
some certain death is injected, but one which has been infected with the
breath of a lascivious woman,  or of Cybele's priest, or of a
gladiator, or of a hangman: then I want to know whether you would pass a
milder condemnation on it than on the kisses of such persons? One indeed
which is soiled with our own filth, or one which is not mingled to our own
mind we are apt to dash to pieces, and then to increase our anger with our
servant. As for the sword, which is drunk with the blood of the brigand's
victims, who would not banish it entirely from his house, much more from his
bed-room, or from his pillow, from the presumption that he would be sure to
dream of nothing but the apparitions of the souls which were pursuing and
disquieting him for lying down with the blade which shed their own blood?
Take, however, the cup which has no reproach on it, and which deserves the
credit of a faithful ministration, it will be adorned by its drinking-master
with chaplets, or be honoured with a handful of flowers. The sword also
which has received honourable stains in war, and has been thus engaged in a
better manslaughter, will secure its own praise by consecration. It is quite
possible, then, to pass decisive sentences even on vessels and on
instruments, that so they too may participate in the merits of their
proprietors and employers. Thus much do I say from a desire to meet even
this argument, although there is a failure in the example, owing to the
diversity in the nature of the objects. For every vessel or every instrument
becomes useful from without, consisting as it does of material perfectly
extraneous to the substance of the human owner or employer; whereas the
flesh, being conceived, formed, and generated along with the soul from its
earliest existence in the womb, is mixed up with it likewise in all its
operations. For although it is called "a vessel" by the apostle, such as he
enjoins to be treated "with honour,"  it is yet designated by the
same apostle as "the outward man,"  'that clay, of course, which at
the first was inscribed with the title of a man, not of a cup or a sword, or
any paltry vessel. Now it is called a "vessel" in consideration of its
capacity, whereby it receives and contains the soul; but "man," from its
community of nature, which renders it in all operations a servant and not an
instrument. Accordingly, in the judgment it will be held to be a servant
(even though it may have no independent discretion of its own), on the
ground of its being an integral portion of that which possesses such
discretion, and is not a mere chattel. And although the apostle is well
aware that the flesh does nothing of itself which is not also imputed to the
soul, he yet deems the flesh to be "sinful; "  lest it should be
supposed to be free from all responsibility by the mere fact of its seeming
to be impelled by the soul. So, again, when he is ascribing certain
praiseworthy actions to the flesh, he says, "Therefore glorify and exalt God
in your body,"  'being certain that such efforts are actuated by the
soul; but still he ascribes them to the flesh, because it is to it that he
also promises the recompense. Besides, neither rebuke, (on the one hand),
would have been suitable to it, if free from blame; nor, (on the other
hand), would exhortation, if it were incapable of glory. Indeed, both rebuke
and exhortation would be alike idle towards the flesh, if it were an
improper object for that recompence which is certainly received in the
Chapter XVII. The Flesh Will Be Associated with the Soul in Enduring the
Penal Sentences of the Final Judgment.
"Every uneducated  person who agrees with our opinion will be apt to
suppose that the flesh will have to be present at the final judgment even on
this account, because otherwise the soul would be incapable of suffering
pain or pleasure, as being incorporeal; for this is the common opinion. We
on our part, however, do here maintain, and in a special treatise on the
subject prove, that the soul is corporeal, possessing a peculiar kind of
solidity in its nature, such as enables it both to perceive and suffer. That
souls are even now susceptible of torment and of blessing in Hades, though
they are disembodied, and notwithstanding their banishment from the flesh,
is proved by the case of Lazarus. I have no doubt given to my opponent room
to say: Since, then, the soul has a bodily substance of its own, it will be
sufficiently endowed with the faculty of suffering and sense, so as not to
require the presence of the flesh. No, no, (is my reply): it will still need
the flesh; not as being unable to feel anything without the help of the
flesh, but because it is necessary that it should possess such a faculty
along with the flesh. For in as far as it has a sufficiency of its own for
action, in so far has it likewise a capacity for suffering. But the truth
is, in respect of action, it labours under some amount of incapacity; for in
its own nature it has simply the ability to think, to will, to desire, to
dispose: for fully, carrying out the purpose, it looks for the assistance of
the flesh. In like manner, it also requires the conjunction of the flesh to
endure suffering, in order that by its aid it may be as fully able to
suffer, as without its assistance it was not fully able to act. In respect,
indeed, of those sins, such as concupiscence, and thought, and wish, which
it has a competency of its own to commit, it at once  pays the
penalty of them. Now, no doubt, if these were alone sufficient to constitute
absolute desert without requiring the addition of acts, the soul would
suffice in itself to encounter the full responsibility of the judgment,
being to be judged for those things in the doing of which it alone had
possessed a sufficiency. Since, however, acts too are indissolubly attached
to deserts; since also acts are ministerially effected by the flesh, it is
no longer enough that the soul apart from the flesh be requited with
pleasure or pain for what are actually works of the flesh, although it has a
body (of its own), although it has members (of its own), which in like
manner are insufficient for its full perception, just as they are also for
its perfect action. Therefore as it has acted in each several instance, so
proportionably does it suffer in Hades, being the first to taste of judgment
as it was the first to induce to the commission of sin; but still it is
waiting for the flesh in order that it may through the flesh also compensate
for its deeds, inasmuch as it laid upon the flesh the execution of its own
thoughts. This, in short, will be the process of that judgment which is
postponed to the last great day, in order that by the exhibition of the
flesh the entire course of the divine vengeance may be accomplished.
Besides, (it is obvious to remark) there would be no delaying to the end of
that doom which souls are already tasting in Hades, if it was destined for
Chapter XVIII. Scripture Phrases and Passages Clearly Assert "The
Resurrection of the Dead." The Force of This Very Phrase Explained as
Indicating the Prominent Place of the Flesh in the General Resurrection.
Thus far it has been my object by prefatory remarks to lay a foundation for
the defence of all the Scriptures which promise a resurrection of the flesh.
Now, inasmuch as this verity is supported by so many just and reasonable
considerations'I mean the dignity of the flesh itself,  the power
and might of God,  the analogous cases in which these are
displayed,  as well as the good reasons for the judgment, and the
need thereof  'it will of course be only right and proper that the
Scriptures should be understood in the sense suggested by such authoritative
considerations, and not after the conceits of the heretics, which arise from
infidelity solely, because it is deemed incredible that the flesh should be
recovered from death and restored to life; not because (such a restoration)
is either unattainable by the flesh itself, or impossible for God to effect,
or unsuitable to the final judgment. Incredible, no doubt, it might be, if
it had not been revealed in the word of God;  except that, even if
it had not been thus first announced by God, it might have been fairly
enough assumed, that the revelation of it had been withheld, simply because
so many strong presumptions in its favour had been already furnished. Since,
however, (the great fact) is proclaimed in so many inspired passages, that
is so far a dissuasive against understanding it in a sense different from
that which is attested by such arguments as persuade us to its reception,
even irrespective of the testimonies of revelation. Let us see, then, first
of all in what title this hope of ours is held out to our view. 
There is, I imagine, one divine edict which is exposed to the gaze of all
men: it is "The Resurrection of the Dead."  These words are prompt,
decisive, clear. I mean to take these very terms, discuss them, and discover
to what substance they apply. As to the word resurrectio, whenever I hear of
its impending over a human being, I am forced to inquire what part of him
has been destined to fall, since nothing can be expected to rise again,
unless it has first been prostrated. It is only the man who is ignorant of
the fact that the flesh falls by death, that can fail to discover that it
stands erect by means of life. Nature pronounces God's sentence: "Dust thou
art, and unto dust shall thou return."  Even the man who has not
heard the sentence, sees the fact. No death but is the ruin of our limbs.
This destiny of the body the Lord also described, when, clothed as He was in
its very substance, He said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will
raise it up again."  For He showed to what belongs (the incidents
of) being destroyed, thrown down, and kept down'even to that to which it
also appertains to be lifted and raised up again; although He was at the
same time bearing about with Him "a soul that was trembling even unto
death,"  but which did not fall through death, because even the
Scripture informs us that "He spoke of His body."  So that it is
the flesh which falls by death; and accordingly it derives its name,
cadaver, from cadendo.  The soul, however, has no trace of a fall
in its designation, as indeed there is no mortality in its condition. Nay it
is the soul which communicates its ruin to the body when it is breathed out
of it, just as it is also destined to raise it up again from the earth when
it shall re-enter it. That cannot fall which by its entrance raises; nor can
that droop which by its departure causes ruin. I will go further, and say
that the soul does not even fall into sleep along with the body, nor does it
with its companion even lie down in repose. For it is agitated in dreams,
and disturbed: it might, however, rest, if it lay down; and lie down it
certainly would, if it fell. Thus that which does not fall even into the
likeness of death, does not succumb to the reality thereof. Passing now to
the other word mortuorum, I wish you to look carefully, and see to what
substance it is applicable. Were we to allow, under this head, as is
sometimes held by the heretics, that the soul is mortal, so that being
mortal it shall attain to a resurrection; this would afford a presumption
that the flesh also, being no less mortal, would share in the same
resurrection. But our present point is to derive from the proper
signification of this word an idea of the destiny which it indicates. Now,
just as the term resurrection is predicated of that which falls'that is, the
flesh'so will there be the same application of the word dead, because what
is called "the resurrection of the dead" indicates the rising up again of
that which is fallen down. We learn this from the case of Abraham, the
father of the faithful, a man who enjoyed close intercourse with God. For
when he requested of the sons of Heth a spot to bury Sarah in, he said to
them, "Give me the possession of a burying place with you, that I may bury
my dead,"  'meaning, of course, her flesh; for he could not have
desired a place to bury her soul in, even if the soul is to be deemed
mortal, and even if it could bear to be described by the word "dead." Since,
then, this word indicates the body, it follows that when "the resurrection
of the dead" is spoken of, it is the rising again of men's bodies that is
Chapter XIX. The Sophistical Sense Put by Heretics on the Phrase
"Resurrection of the Dead," As If It Meant the Moral Change of a New Life.
Now this consideration of the phrase in question, and its
signification'besides maintaining, of course, the true meaning of the
important words'must needs contribute to this further result, that whatever
obscurity our adversaries throw over the subject under the pretence of
figurative and allegorical language, the truth will stand out in clearer
light, and out of uncertainties certain and definite rules will be
prescribed. For some, when they have alighted on a very usual form of
prophetic statement, generally expressed in figure and allegory, though not
always, distort into some imaginary sense even the most clearly described
doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, alleging that even death itself
must be understood in a spiritual sense. They say that which is commonly
supposed to be death is not really so,'namely, the separation of body and
soul: it is rather the ignorance of God, by reason of which man is dead to
God, and is not less buried in error than he would be in the grave.
Wherefore that also must be held to be the resurrection, when a man is
reanimated by access to the truth, and having dispersed the death of
ignorance, and being endowed with new life by God, has burst forth from the
sepulchre of the old man, even as the Lord likened the scribes and Pharisees
to "whited sepulchres."  Whence it follows that they who have by
faith attained to the resurrection, are with the Lord after they have once
put Him on in their baptism. By such subtlety, then, even in conversation
have they often been in the habit of misleading our brethren, as if they
held a resurrection of the dead as well as we. Woe, say they, to him who has
not risen in the present body; for they fear that they might alarm their
hearers if they at once denied the resurrection. Secretly, however, in their
minds they think this: Woe betide the simpleton who during his present life
fails to discover the mysteries of heresy; since this, in their view, is the
resurrection. There are however, a great many also, who, claiming to hold a
resurrection after the soul's departure, maintain that going out of the
sepulchre means escaping out of the world, since in their view the world is
the habitation of the dead'that is, of those who know not God; or they will
go so far as to say that it actually means escaping out of the body itself,
since they imagine that the body detains the soul, when it is shut up in the
death of a worldly life, as in a grave.
Chapter XX. Figurative Senses Have Their Foundation in Literal Fact.
Besides, the Allegorical Style is by No Means the Only One Found in the
Prophetic Scriptures, as Alleged by the Heretics.
Now, to upset all conceits of this sort, let me dispel at once the
preliminary idea on which they rest'their assertion that the prophets make
all their announcements in figures of speech. Now, if this were the case,
the figures themselves could not possibly have been distinguished, inasmuch
as the verities would not have been declared, out of which the figurative
language is stretched. And, indeed, if all are figures, where will be that
of which they are the figures? How can you hold up a mirror for your face,
if the face nowhere exists? But, in truth, all are not figures, but there
are also literal statements; nor are all shadows, but there are bodies too:
so that we have prophecies about the Lord Himself even, which are clearer
than the day For it was not figuratively that the Virgin conceived in her
womb; nor in a trope did she bear Emmanuel, that is, Jesus, God with us.
 Even granting that He was figuratively to take the power of Damascus
and the spoils of Samaria,  still it was literally that He was to
"enter into judgment with the elders and princes of the people." 
For in the person of Pilate "the heathen raged," and in the person of Isreal
"the people imagined vain things;" "the kings of the earth" in Herod, and
the rulers in Annas and Caiaphas, were gathered together against the Lord,
and against His anointed."  He, again, was "led as a sheep to the
slaughter, and as a sheep before the shearer," that is, Herod, "is dumb, so
He opened not His mouth."  "He gave His back to scourges, and His
cheeks to blows, not turning His face even from the shame of spitting."
 "He was numbered with the transgressors; "  "He was pierced
in His hands and His feet; "  "they cast lots for his raiment"
 "they gave Him gall, and made Him drink vinegar; "  "they
shook their heads, and mocked Him; "  "He was appraised by the
traitor in thirty pieces of silver."  What figures of speech does
Isaiah here give us? What tropes does David? What allegories does Jeremiah?
Not even of His mighty works have they used parabolic language. Or else,
were not the eyes of the blind opened? did not the tongue of the dumb
recover speech?  did not the relaxed hands and palsied knees become
strong,  and the lame leap as an hart?  No doubt we are
accustomed also to give a spiritual significance to these statements of
prophecy, according to the analogy of the physical diseases which were
healed by the Lord; but still they were all fulfilled literally: thus
showing that the prophets foretold both senses, except that very many of
their words can only be taken in a pure and simple signification, and free
from all allegorical obscurity; as when we hear of the downfall of nations
and cities, of Tyre and Egypt, and Babylon and Edom, and the navy of
Carthage; also when they foretell Isreal's own chastisements and pardons,
its captivities, restorations, and at last its final dispersion. Who would
prefer affixing a metaphorical interpretation to all these events, instead
of accepting their literal truth? The realities are involved in the words,
just as the words are read in the realities. Thus, then, (we find that) the
allegorical style is not used in all parts of the prophetic record, although
it occasionally occurs in certain portions of it.
Chapter XXI. No Mere Metaphor in the Phrase Resurrection of the Dead. In
Proportion to the Importance of Eternal Truths, is the Clearness of Their
Well, if it occurs occasionally in certain portions of it, you will say,
then why not in that phrase,  where the resurrection might be
spiritually understood? There are several reasons why not. First, what must
be the meaning of so many important passages of Holy Scripture, which so
obviously attest the resurrection of the body, as to admit not even the
appearance of a figurative signification? And, indeed, (since some passages
are more obscure than others), it cannot but be right'as we have shown
above  'that uncertain statements should be determined by certain
ones, and obscure ones by such as are clear and plain; else there is fear
that, in the conflict of certainties and uncertainties, of explicitness and
obscurity, faith may be shattered, truth endangered, and the Divine Being
Himself be branded as inconstant. Then arises the improbability that the
very mystery on which our trust wholly rests, on which also our instruction
entirely depends, should have the appearance of being ambiguously announced
and obscurely propounded, inasmuch as the hope of the resurrection, unless
it be clearly set forth on the sides both of punishment and reward, would
fail to persuade any to embrace a religion like ours, exposed as it is to
public detestation and the imputation of hostility to others. There is no
certain work where the remuneration is uncertain. There is no real
apprehension when the peril is only doubtful. But both the recompense of
reward, and the danger of losing it, depend on the issues of the
resurrection. Now, if even those purposes of God against cities, and
nations, and kings, which are merely temporal, local, and personal in their
character, have been proclaimed so clearly in prophecy, how is it to be
supposed that those dispensations of His which are eternal, and of universal
concern to the human race, should be void of all real light in themselves?
The grander they are, the clearer should be their announcement, in order
that their superior greatness might be believed. And I apprehend that God
cannot possibly have ascribed to Him either envy, or guile, or
inconsistency, or artifice, by help of which evil qualities it is that all
schemes of unusual grandeur are litigiously promulgated.
Chapter XXII. The Scripture Bid Our Supposing Either that the Resurrection
is Already Past, or that It Takes Place Immediately at Death. Our Hopes and
Prayers Point to the Last Great Day as the Period of Its Accomplishment.
We must after all this turn our attention to those scriptures also which
forbid our belief in such a resurrection as is held by your Animalists (for
I will not call them Spiritualists),  that it is either to be
assumed as taking place now, as soon as men come to the knowledge of the
truth, or else that it is accomplished immediately after their departure
from this life. Now, forasmuch as the seasons of our entire hope have been
fixed in the Holy Scripture, and since we are not permitted to place the
accomplishment thereof, as I apprehend, previous to Christ's coming, our
prayers are directed towards  the end of this world, to the passing
away thereof at the great day of the Lord'of His wrath and vengeance'the
last day, which is hidden (from all), and known to none but the Father,
although announced beforehand by signs and wonders, and the dissolution of
the elements, and the conflicts of nations. I would turn out the words of
the prophets, if the Lord Himself had said nothing (except that prophecies
were the Lord's own word); but it is more to my purpose that He by His own
mouth confirms their statement. Being questioned by His disciples when those
things were to come to pass which He had just been uttering about the
destruction of the temple, He discourses to them first of the order of
Jewish events until the overthrow of Jerusalem, and then of such as
concerned all nations up to the very end of the world. For after He had
declared that "Jerusalem was to be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the
times of the Gentiles should be fulfilled,"  'meaning, of course,
those which were to be chosen of God, and gathered in with the remnant of
Isreal'He then goes on to proclaim, against this world and dispensation
(even as Joel had done, and Daniel, and all the prophets with one consent
 ), that "there should be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in
the stars, distress of nations with perplexity, the sea and the waves
roaring, men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those
things which are coming on the earth."  "For," says He, "the powers
of heaven shall be shaken; and then shall they see the Son of man coming in
the clouds, with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come
to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth
nigh."  He spake of its "drawing nigh," not of its being present
already; and of "those things beginning to come to pass," not of their
having happened: because when they have come to pass, then our redemption
shall be at hand, which is said to be approaching up to that time, raising
and exciting our minds to what is then the proximate harvest of our hope. He
immediately annexes a parable of this in "the trees which are tenderly
sprouting into a flower-stalk, and then developing the flower, which is the
precursor of the fruit."  "So likewise ye," (He adds), "when ye
shall see all these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of heaven
is nigh at hand."  "Watch ye, therefore, and pray always, that ye
may be accounted worthy to escape all those things, and to stand before the
Son of man; "  that is, no doubt, at the resurrection, after all
these things have been previously transacted. Therefore, although there is a
sprouting in the acknowledgment of all this mystery, yet it is only in the
actual presence of the Lord that the flower is developed and the fruit
borne. Who is it then, that has aroused the Lord, now at God's right hand so
unseasonably and with such severity "shake terribly" (as Isaiah 
expresses it ("that earth," which, I suppose, is as yet unshattered? Who has
thus early put "Christ's enemies beneath His feet" (to use the language of
David  ), making Him more hurried than the Father, whilst every
crowd in our popular assemblies is still with shouts consigning "the
Christians to the lions? "  Who has yet beheld Jesus descending
from heaven in like manner as the apostles saw Him ascend, according to the
appointment of the two angels?  Up to the present moment they have
not, tribe by tribe, smitten their breasts, looking on Him whom they
pierced.  No one has as yet fallen in with Elias;  no one
has as yet escaped from Antichrist;  no one has as yet had to
bewail the downfall of Babylon.  And is there now anybody who has
risen again, except the heretic? He, of course, has already quitted the
grave of his own corpse'although he is even now liable to fevers and ulcers;
he, too, has already trodden down his enemies'although he has even now to
struggle with the powers of the world. And as a matter of course, he is
already a king'although he even now owes to Cæsar the things which are
Chapter XXIII. Sundry Passages of St. Paul, Which Speak of a Spiritual
Resurrection, Compatible with the Future Resurrection of the Body, Which is
Even Assumed in Them.
The apostle indeed teaches, in his Epistle to the Colossians, that we were
once dead, alienated, and enemies to the Lord in our minds, whilst we were
living in wicked works;  that we were then buried with Christ in
baptism, and also raised again with Him through the faith of the operation
of God, who hath raised Him from the dead.  "And you, (adds he),
when ye were dead in sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He
quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses." 
And again: "If ye are dead with Christ from the elements of the world, why,
as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances? " 
Now, since he makes us spiritually dead'in such a way, however, as to allow
that we shall one day have to undergo a bodily death,'so, considering indeed
that we have been also raised in a like spiritual sense, he equally allows
that we shall further have to undergo a bodily resurrection. In so many
words  he says: "Since ye are risen with Christ, seek those things
which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God. Set your
affection on things above, not on things on the earth." 
Accordingly, it is in our mind that he shows that we rise (with Christ),
since it is by this alone that we are as yet able to reach to heavenly
objects. These we should not "seek," nor "set our affection on," if we had
them already in our possession. He also adds: "For ye are dead"'to your
sins, he means, not to yourselves'"and your life is hid with Christ in
God."  Now that life is not yet apprehended which is hidden. In
like manner John says: "And it doth not yet appear what we shall be: we
know, however, that when He shall be manifest, we shall be like Him."
 We are far indeed from being already what we know not of; we should,
of course, be sure to know it if we were already (like Him). It is therefore
the contemplation of our blessed hope even in this life by faith (that he
speaks of)'not its presence nor its possession, but only its expectation.
Concerning this expectation and hope Paul writes to the Galatians: "For we
through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith." 
He says "we wait for it," not we are in possession of it. By the
righteousness of God, he means that judgment which we shall have to undergo
as the recompense of our deeds. It is in expectation of this for himself
that the apostle writes to the Philippians: "If by any means," says he, "I
might attain to the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already
attained, or were already perfect."  And yet he had believed, and
had known all mysteries, as an elect vessel and the great teacher of the
Gentiles; but for all that he goes on to say: "I, however, follow on, if so
be I may apprehend that for which I also am apprehended of Christ."
 Nay, more: "Brethren," (he adds), "I count not myself to have
apprehended: but this one thing (I do), forgetting those things which are
behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press
toward the mark for the prize of blamelessness,  whereby I may
attain it; "meaning the resurrection from the dead in its proper time. Even
as he says to the Galatians: "Let us not be weary in well-doing: for in due
season we shall reap."  Similarly, concerning Onesiphorus, does he
also write to Timothy: "The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy in
that day; "  unto which day and time he charges Timothy himself "to
keep what had been committed to his care, without spot, unrebukable, until
the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ: which in His times He shall show,
who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of
lords,"  speaking of (Him as) God It is to these same times that
Peter in the Acts refers, when he says: "Repent ye therefore, and be
converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing
shall come from the presence of the Lord; and He shall send Jesus Christ,
which before was preached unto you: whom the heaven must receive until the
times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of
His holy prophets." 
Chapter XXIV. Other Passages Quoted from St. Paul, Which Categorically
Assert the Resurrection of the Flesh at the Final Judgment.
The character of these times learn, along with the Thessalonians. For we
read: "How ye turned from idols to serve the living and true God, and to
wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus."
 And again: "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are
not even ye in the presence of our Lord God, Jesus Christ, at His coming?
"  Likewise: "Before God, even our Father, at the coming of the
Lord Jesus Christ, with the whole company of His saints."  He
teaches them that they must "not sorrow concerning them that are asleep,"
and at the same time explains to them the times of the resurrection, saying,
"For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which
sleep in Jesus shall God bring with Him. For this we say unto you by the
word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of our
Lord, shall not prevent them that 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 which are
alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to
meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we be ever with the Lord." 
What archangel's voice, (I wonder), what trump of God is now heard, except
it be, forsooth, in the entertainments of the heretics? For, allowing that
the word of the gospel may be called "the trump of God," since it was still
calling men, yet they must at that time either be dead as to the body, that
they may be able to rise again; and then how are they alive? Or else caught
up into the clouds; and how then are they here? "Most miserable," no doubt,
as the apostle declared them, are they "who in this life only" shall be
found to have hope:  they will have to be excluded while they are
with premature haste seizing that which is promised after this life; erring
concerning the truth, no less than Phygellus and Hermogenes.  Hence
it is that the Holy Ghost, in His greatness, foreseeing clearly all such
interpretations as these, suggests (to the apostle), in this very epistle of
his to the Thessalonians, as follows: "But of the times and the seasons,
brethren, there is no necessity for my writing unto you. For ye yourselves
know perfectly, that the day of the Lord cometh as a thief in the night. For
when they shall say, 'Peace, 'and 'All things are safe, 'then sudden
destruction shall come upon them."  Again, in the second epistle he
addresses them with even greater earnestness: "Now I beseech you, brethren,
by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto
Him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, nor be troubled, either by spirit,
or by word," that is, the word of false prophets, "or by letter," that is,
the letter of false apostles, "as if from us, as that the day of the Lord is
at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means. For that day shall not come,
unless indeed there first come a falling away," he means indeed of this
present empire, "and that man of sin be revealed," that is to say,
Antichrist, "the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above
all that is called God or religion; so that he sitteth in the temple of God,
affirming that he is God. Remember ye not, that when I was with you, I used
to tell you these things? And now ye know what detaineth, that he might be
revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he
who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way." 
What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by
being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own
ruins)? "And then shall be revealed the wicked one, whom the Lord shall
consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness
of His coming: even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all
power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of
unrighteousness in them that perish." 
Chapter XXV. St. John, in the Apocalypse, Equally Explicit in Asserting the
Same Great Doctrine.
In the Revelation of John, again, the order of these times is spread out to
view, which "the souls of the martyrs" are taught to wait for beneath the
altar, whilst they earnestly pray to be avenged and judged: 
(taught, I say, to wait), in order that the world may first drink to the
dregs the plagues that await it out of the vials of the angels, 
and that the city of fornication may receive from the ten kings its deserved
doom,  and that the beast Antichrist with his false prophet may
wage war on the Church of God; and that, after the casting of the devil into
the bottomless pit for a while,  the blessed prerogative of the
first resurrection may be ordained from the thrones;  and then
again, after the consignment of him to the fire, that the judgment of the
final and universal resurrection may be determined out of the books.
 Since, then, the Scriptures both indicate the stages of the last
times, and concentrate the harvest of the Christian hope in the very end of
the world, it is evident, either that all which God promises to us receives
its accomplishment then, and thus what the heretics pretend about a
resurrection here falls to the ground; or else, even allowing that a
confession of the mystery (of divine truth) is a resurrection, that there
is, without any detriment to this view, room for believing in that which is
announced for the end. It moreover follows, that the very maintenance of
this spiritual resurrection amounts to a presumption in favour of the other
bodily resurrection; for if none were announced for that time, there would
be fair ground for asserting only this purely spiritual resurrection.
Inasmuch, however, as (a resurrection) is proclaimed for the last time, it
is proved to be a bodily one, because there is no spiritual one also then
announced. For why make a second announcement of a resurrection of only one
character, that is, the spiritual one, since this ought to be undergoing
accomplishment either now, without any regard to different times, or else
then, at the very conclusion of all the periods? It is therefore more
competent for us even to maintain a spiritual resurrection a the
commencement of a life of faith, who acknowledge the full completion thereof
at the end of the world
Chapter XXVI. Even the Metaphorical Descriptions of This Subject in the
Scriptures Point to the Bodily Resurrection, the Only Sense Which Secures
Their Consistency and Dignity.
To a preceding objection, that the Scriptures are allegorical, I have still
one answer to make'that it is open to us also to defend the bodily character
of the resurrection by means of the language of the prophets, which is
equally figurative. For consider that primeval sentence which God spake when
He called man earth; saying, "Earth thou art, and to earth shalt thou
return."  In respect, of course, to his fleshly substance, which
had been taken out of the ground, and which was the first to receive the
name of man, as we have already shown,  does not this passage give
one instruction to interpret in relation to the flesh also whatever of wrath
or of grace God has determined for the earth, because, strictly speaking,
the earth is not exposed to His judgment, since it has never done any good
or evil? "Cursed," no doubt, it was, for it drank the blood of man;
 but even this was as a figure of homicidal flesh. For if the earth
has to suffer either joy or injury, it is simply on man's account, that he
may suffer the joy or the sorrow through the events which happen to his
dwelling-place, whereby he will rather have to pay the penalty which, simply
on his account, even the earth must suffer. When, therefore, God even
threatens the earth, I would prefer saying that He threatens the flesh: so
likewise, when He makes a promise to the earth, I would rather understand
Him as promising the flesh; as in that passage of David: "The Lord is King,
let the earth be glad,"  'meaning the flesh of the saints, to which
appertains the enjoyment of the kingdom of God. Then he afterwards says:
"The earth saw and trembled; the mountains melted like wax at the presence
of the Lord,"'meaning, no doubt the flesh of the wicked; and (in a similar
sense) it is written: "For they shall look on Him whom they pierced."
 If indeed it will be thought that both these passages were pronounced
simply of the element earth, how can it be consistent that it should shake
and melt at the presence of the Lord, at whose royal dignity it before
exulted? So again in Isaiah, "Ye shall eat the good of the land," 
the expression means the blessings which await the flesh when in the kingdom
of God it shall be renewed, and made like the angels, and waiting to obtain
the things "which neither eye hath seen, nor ear heard, and which have not
entered into the heart of man."  Otherwise, how vain that God
should invite men to obedience by the fruits of the field and the elements
of this life, when He dispenses these to even irreligious men and
blasphemers; on a general condition once for all made to man, "sending rain
on the good and on the evil, and making His sun to shine on the just and on
the unjust!"  Happy, no doubt, is faith, if it is to obtain gifts
which the enemies of God and Christ not only use, but even abuse,
"worshipping the creature itself in opposition to the Creator!" 
You will reckon, (I suppose) onions and truffles among earth's bounties,
since the Lord declares that "man shall not live on bread alone!" 
In this way the Jews lose heavenly blessings, by confining their hopes to
earthly ones, being ignorant of the promise of heavenly bread, and of the
oil of God's unction, and the wine of the Spirit, and of that water of life
which has its vigour from the vine of Christ. On exactly the same principle,
they consider the special soil of Judæa to be that very holy land, which
ought rather to be interpreted of the Lord's flesh, which, in all those who
put on Christ, is thenceforward the holy land; holy indeed by the indwelling
of the Holy Ghost, truly flowing with milk and honey by the sweetness of His
assurance, truly Judæan by reason of the friendship of God. For "he is not a
Jew which is one outwardly, but he who is one inwardly."  In the
same way it is that both God's temple and Jerusalem (must be understood)
when it is said by Isaiah: "Awake, awake, O Jerusalem! put on the strength
of thine arm; awake, as in thine earliest time,"  that is to say,
in that innocence which preceded the fall into sin. For how can words of
this kind of exhortation andinvitation be suitable for that Jerusalem which
killed the prophets, and stoned those that were sent to them, and at last
crucified its very Lord? Neither indeed is salvation promised to any one
land at all, which must needs pass away with the fashion of the whole world.
Even if anybody should venture strongly to contend that paradise is the holy
land, which it may be possible to designate as the land of our first parents
Adam and Eve, it will even then follow that the restoration of paradise will
seem to be promised to the flesh, whose lot it was to inhabit and keep it,
in order that man may be recalled thereto just such as he was driven from
Chapter XXVII. Certain Metaphorical Terms Explained of the Resurrection of
We have also in the Scriptures robes mentioned as allegorizing the hope of
the flesh. Thus in the Revelation of John it is said: "These are they which
have not defiled their clothes with women,"  'indicating, of
course, virgins, and such as have become "eunuchs for the kingdom of
heaven's sake."  Therefore they shall be "clothed in white
raiment,"  that is, in the bright beauty of the unwedded flesh. In
the gospel even, "the wedding garment" may be regarded as the sanctity of
the flesh.  And so, when Isaiah tells us what sort of "fast the
Lord hath chosen," and subjoins a statement about the reward of good works,
he says: "Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thy
garments,  shall speedily arise; "  where he has no
thought of cloaks or stuff gowns, but means the rising of the flesh, which
he declared the resurrection of, after its fall in death. Thus we are
furnished even with an allegorical defence of the resurrection of the body.
When, then, we read, "Go, my people, enter into your closets for a little
season, until my anger pass away,"  we have in the closets graves,
in which they will have to rest for a little while, who shall have at the
end of the world departed this life in the last furious onset of the power
of Antichrist. Why else did He use the expression closets, in preference to
some other receptacle, if it were not that the flesh is kept in these
closets or cellars salted and reserved for use, to be drawn out thence on a
suitable occasion? It is on a like principle that embalmed corpses are set
aside for burial in mausoleums and sepulchres, in order that they may be
removed therefrom when the Master shall order it. Since, therefore, there is
consistency in thus understanding the passage (for what refuge of little
closets could possibly shelter us from the wrath of God? ), it appears that
by the very phrase which he uses, "Until His anger pass away," 
which shall extinguish Antichrist, he in fact shows that after that
indignation the flesh will come forth from the sepulchre, in which it had
been deposited previous to the bursting out of the anger. Now out of the
closets nothing else is brought than that which had been put into them, and
after the extirpation of Antichrist shall be busily transacted the great
process of the resurrection.
Chapter XXVIII. Prophetic Things and Actions, as Well as Words, Attest This
But we know that prophecy expressed itself by things no less than by words.
By words, and also by deeds, is the resurrection foretold. When Moses puts
his hand into his bosom, and then draws it out again dead, and again puts
his hand into his bosom, and plucks it out living,  does not this
apply as a presage to all mankind?'inasmuch as those three signs 
denoted the threefold power of God: when it shall, first, in the appointed
order, subdue to man the old serpent, the devil,  however
formidable; then, secondly, draw forth the flesh from the bosom of death;
 and then, at last, shall pursue all blood (shed) in judgment.
 On this subject we read in the writings of the same prophet, (how
that) God says: "For your blood of your lives will I require of all wild
beasts; and I will require it of the hand of man, and of his brother's
hand."  Now nothing is required except that which is demanded back
again, and nothing is thus demanded except that which is to be given up; and
that will of course be given up, which shall be demanded and required on the
ground of vengeance. But indeed there cannot possibly be punishment of that
which never had any existence. Existence, however, it will have, when it is
restored in order to be punished. To the flesh, therefore, applies
everything which is declared respecting the blood, for without the flesh
there cannot be blood. The flesh will be raised up in order that the blood
may be punished. There are, again, some statements (of Scripture) so plainly
made as to be free from all obscurity of allegory, and yet they strongly
require  their very simplicity to be interpreted. There is, for
instance, that passage in Isaiah: "I will kill, and I will make alive."
 Certainly His making alive is to take place after He has killed. As,
therefore, it is by death that He kills, it is by the resurrection that He
will make alive. Now it is the flesh which is killed by death; the flesh,
therefore, will be revived by the resurrection. Surely if killing means
taking away life from the flesh, and its opposite, reviving, amounts to
restoring life to the flesh, it must needs be that the flesh rise again, to
which the life, which has been taken away by killing, has to be restored by
Chapter XXIX. Ezekiel's Vision of the Dry Bones Quoted.
Inasmuch, then, as even the figurative portions of Scripture, and the
arguments of facts, and some plain statements of Holy Writ, throw light upon
the resurrection of the flesh (although without specially naming the very
substance), how much more effectual for determining the question will not
those passages be which indicate the actual substance of the body by
expressly mentioning it! Take Ezekiel: "And the hand of the Lord," says he,
"was upon me; and the Lord brought me forth in the Spirit, and set me in the
midst of a plain which was full of bones; and He led me round about them in
a circuit: and, behold, there were many on the face of the plain; and, lo,
they were very dry. And He said unto me, Son of man, will these bones live?
And I said, O Lord God, Thou knowest. And He said unto me, Prophesy upon
these bones; and thou shalt say, Ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord.
Thus saith the Lord God to these bones, Behold, I bring upon you the breath
of life, and ye shall live: and I will give unto you the spirit, and I will
place muscles over you, and I will spread skin upon you; and ye shall live,
and shall know that I am the Lord. And I prophesied as the Lord commanded
me: and while I prophesy, behold there is a voice, behold also a movement,
and bones approached bones. And I saw, and behold sinews and flesh came up
over them, and muscles were placed around them; but there was no breath in
them. And He said unto me, Prophesy to the wind, son of man, prophesy and
say, Thus saith the Lord God, Come from the four winds, O breath, and
breathe in these dead men, and let them live. So I prophesied to the wind,
as He commanded me, and the spirit entered into the bones, and they lived,
and stood upon their feet, strong and exceeding many. And the Lord said unto
me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Isreal. They say
themselves, Our bones are become dry, and our hope is perished, and we in
them have been violently destroyed. Therefore prophesy unto them, (and say),
Behold, even I will open your sepulchres, and will bring you out of your
sepulchres, O my people, and will bring you into the land of Isreal: and ye
shall know how that I the Lord opened your sepulchres, and brought you, O my
people, out of your sepulchres; and I will give my Spirit unto you, and ye
shall live, and shall rest in your own land: and ye shall know how that I
the Lord have spoken and done these things, saith the Lord." 
Chapter XXX. This Vision Interpreted by Tertullian of the Resurrection of
the Bodies of the Dead. A Chronological Error of Our Author, Who Supposes
that Ezekiel in His Ch. XXXI. Prophesied Before the Captivity.
I am well aware how they torture even this prophecy into a proof of the
allegorical sense, on the ground that by saying, "These bones are the whole
house of Isreal," He made them a figure of Isreal, and removed them from
their proper literal condition; and therefore (they contend) that there is
here a figurative, not a true prediction of the resurrection, for (they say)
the state of the Jews is one of humiliation, in a certain sense dead, and
very dry, and dispersed over the plain of the world. Therefore the image of
a resurrection is allegorically applied to their state, since it has to be
gathered together, and recompacted bone to bone (in other words, tribe to
tribe, and people to people), and to be reincorporated by the sinews of
power and the nerves of royalty, and to be brought out as it were from
sepulchres, that is to say, from the most miserable and degraded abodes of
captivity, and to breathe afresh in the way of a restoration, and to live
thenceforward in their own land of Judæa. And what is to happen after all
this? They will die, no doubt. And what will there be after death? No
resurrection from the dead, of course, since there is nothing of the sort
here revealed to Ezekiel. Well, but the resurrection is elsewhere foretold:
so that there will be one even in this case, and they are rash in applying
this passage to the state of Jewish affairs; or even if it do indicate a
different recovery from the resurrection which we are maintaining, what
matters it to me, provided there be also a resurrection of the body, just as
there is a restoration of the Jewish state? In fact, by the very
circumstance that the recovery of the Jewish state is prefigured by the
reincorporation and reunion of bones, proof is offered that this event will
also happen to the bones themselves; for the metaphor could not have been
formed from bones, if the same thing exactly were not to be realized in them
also. Now, although there is a sketch of the true thing in its image, the
image itself still possesses a truth of its own: it must needs be,
therefore, that must have a prior existence for itself, which is used
figuratively to express some other thing. Vacuity is not a consistent basis
for a similitude, nor does nonentity form a suitable foundation for a
parable. It will therefore be right to believe that the bones 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 condition of Jewish affairs, which is pretended to be the
meaning of this passage. It is. however, more characteristic of a religious
spirit to maintain the truth on the authority of a literal interpretation,
such as is required 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 Isreal," and so forth. But immediately
on showing the bones, He interrupts the scene by saying somewhat of the
prospect which is most suited to bones; without yet naming Isreal, 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 Isreal should never hear, and in which it was not proper to repose
belief. Since, however, the resurrection of the dead was indeed foretold,
but Isreal, in the distrust of his great unbelief, was offended at it; and,
whilst gazing on the condition of the crumbling 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 resurrection, 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.
Chapter XXXI. Other Passages Out of the Prophets Applied to the Resurrection
of the Flesh.
Unquestionably, if the people were indulging 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 their figurative despair with a figurative promise. Since,
however, 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 Isreal was then depressed at some shock in their existing
circumstances, we must not on that account suppose 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
rejoice, 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 Isreal, why is the same hope announced to all
nations, instead of being limited to Isreal 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 medicine to their bones."  In another passage it 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, remain before me, saith
the Lord, so shall your seed remain."  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 transgressed: 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 great grace.
Chapter XXXII. Even Unburied Bodies Will Be Raised Again. Whatever Befalls
Them God Will Restore Them Again. Jonah's Case Quoted in Illustration of
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 command 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 reading 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 relation 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 consuming and digesting
Jonah'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 (which symbolize) especially the men who are wildly
opposed to the Christian name, or the angels of iniquity, of whom blood will
be required by the full exaction of an avenging judgment. Where, then, is
the man 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 were 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
resurrection; 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 destiny 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 the body are figurative, why are not those which pertain to the soul
figurative also? Since, however, things which belong to the soul have
nothing allegorical in them, neither therefore have those which belong 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
Chapter XXXIII. So Much for the Prophetic Scriptures. In the Gospels,
Christ's Parables, 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 everything 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."  But since it was to the
Jews that He spoke in parables, it was not then to all men; and if not to
all, it follows 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 address them in parables; because
if He always did so, special mention would not be made of 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 interprets) of the management of the word of God;  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 improvement'an emblem of Jewish sterility. Now, if even
parables obscure not the light of the gospel, how unlikely it is that plain
sentences and declarations, which have an unmistakeable meaning, should
signify any other thingthan their literal sense! But it is by such
declarations and sentences that the Lord sets forth either the last
judgment, or the kingdom, 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 recompensed 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
in 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 resurrection. 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 corporeal nature of the
soul,'a point which has been actually admitted but by a few.
Chapter 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 "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 transgression 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 sinning 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."  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 argument 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 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 punishment, 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 subject
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 be does not perish. He will therefore be saved in the
substance in which he does not perish, and yet obtain salvation 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 safety 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
received of the Father but that which He had Himself put on? Man, of course,
in his texture of flesh and soul. Neither, therefore, of those parts which
He has received will He allow to perish; nay, no considerable portion'nay,
not the least fraction, of either. If the flesh be, as our opponents
slightingly think, but a poor fraction, then the flesh is safe, because 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 resurrection of the flesh must be denied to them, it must at any rate
be a fitting boon to us, who are the more blessed. For how could we be
blessed, if we were to perish in any part of us?
Chapter 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 bureau powers. Here, then, we have a recognition 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 material 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,
disclose, and prove to me that identical body is the very one which was
slain by human violence, 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 subterfuge!For
since both substances are set before us (in this passage, which affirms)
that "body and soul" are destroyed in bell, a distinction 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 eternal, 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 annihilation of the two
substances, and not to their penal treatment (as if they were to be
consumed, not punished), let him recollect that the fire of hell is
eternal'expressly announced as an everlasting penalty; and let him then
admit that it is from this circumstance that this never-ending "killing" is
more formidable than a merely human murder, which is only temporal. He will
then 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 annihilation which has already in fact
accrued to it! But Christ, whilst confirming us in the selfsame hope, adds
the example of "the sparrows"'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
rise again by the will of the same God. For although 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 head are all numbered,"  and in the
affirmation 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 numerical
care of them? Surely the only use lies (in this truth): "That of all which
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?'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 reclining 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 appointment and destination?
Chapter XXXVI. Christ's Refutation of the Sadducees, and Affirmation of
Let us now see whether (the Lord) has not imparted greater strength to our
doctrine in breaking down the subtle cavil of the Sadducees. 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 therefore, 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 incredulous 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 being denied, even the resurrection of the dead before
Him who is "the God of the living,"'(it clearly follows) that He affirmed
this verity in the precise sense in which they were denying it; that it was,
in fact, the resurrection of the two natures of man. Nor does it follow, (as
they would have it, ) that because Christ denied that men would marry, He
therefore 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,"  inasmuch 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
flesh. Thus, then, you have the Lord affirming against the Jewish heretics
what is now encountering the denial of the Christian Sadducees'the
resurrection of the entire man.
Chapter 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
intolerable, 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."  Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving
principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His
flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh,
 we 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) constantly under the figure of necessary
food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh
of Egypt to their divine calling.  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" profiteth 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 propositions in a way which favours our
belief: for by showing what "profits," and what "does not profit," He has
likewise thrown light on the object which receives as well as the subject
which gives the "profit." Thus, in the present 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 resurrection 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?
Chapter 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 and their 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 restoration to life, it was really no great
matter for Him to raise men to die over again. If, however, as was the
truth, it was rather to put in secure keeping men's belief in a future
resurrection, then it must follow from the particular 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
resurrection of an invisible soul except by the resuscitation of a visible
substance. They have but a poor knowledge of God, who suppose 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 they 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, however, 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 preliminary proofs of a thing in a way which is inconsistent 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 sample 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 in soul and body should become a guarantee for only the
half, the soul; whereas the condition in all examples is, 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 appointed
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.
Chapter XXXIX. Additional Evidence Afforded to Us in the Acts of the
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 nothing new concerning
the resurrection, besides announcing it to the glory of Christ: in every
other respect it had been already received in simple and intelligent faith,
without any question as to what sort of resurrection it was to be, and
without encountering any other opponents 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 Pharisee, 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 written
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 rejection of the
whole verity. Nor had the Athenians previously understood Paul to announce
any other resurrection.  They had, in fact, 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
previously not heard, by its absolute novelty excited the heathen, and a not
unnatural incredulity 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 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.
Chapter 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 destruction 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 man had been already given), nor is the flesh without the soul "man
": for after the exile of the soul from it, it has the title of corpse. Thus
the designation 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 substance 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 in love,"'making "faith" and "love" not substantial parts, but
only conceptions of the soul. But when he used the phrase "in your
hearts," seeing that these are substantial parts of the flesh, he at once
assigned 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 renewed day by day." You certainly would not maintain that
he could mean that corruption of the flesh which it undergoes from the
moment of death, in its appointed state of perpetual decay; but the wear and
tear which for the name of Christ it experiences during its course of life
before and until death, in harassing cares and tribulations as well as in
tortures and persecutions. Now the inward man will have, of course, to be
renewed by the suggestion of the Spirit, advancing by faith and holiness 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 consummation once
for all complete. You may learn this, too, from the following passage, where
the apostle says: "For our light affliction, which is but for a moment,
worketh for as 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 invisible,
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 suffer with Him,
that we may be also glorified together; 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 fightings," 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 understood
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.
Chapter XLI. The Dissolution of Our Tabernacle Consistent with the
Resurrection of Our Bodies.
It is still the same sentiment which he follows 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 heavens; "  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 restoration; 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 Lore 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, inasmuch as the following context,
having a manifest 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 being clothed we shall
not be found naked; "  which means, before we put off the garment
of the flesh, we wish to be clothed with the celestial glory of immortality.
Now the privilege 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,  which is
accomplished by a sudden 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 together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in
the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 
Chapter XLII. Death Changes, Without Destroying, 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, and 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 incorruption, 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 from death, through the
transformation which must be experienced instead of it, without encountering
too that Hades which will exact the very last farthing? 
Notwithstanding, he who has already traversed Hades is destined also to
obtain the change after the resurrection. For from this circumstance it is
that we definitively declare that the flesh will by all means rise again,
and, from the change that is to come over it, will assume the condition of
angels. Now, if it were merely in the case of those who shall be found in
the flesh that the change must be undergone, in order that mortality may be
swallowed up of life'in other words, that the flesh (be covered) with the
heavenly and eternal raiment'it would either follow that those who shall be
found in death would not obtain life, deprived as they would then be of the
material and so to say the aliment of life, that is, the flesh; or else,
these also must needs undergo the change, that in them too mortality may be
swallowed up of life, since it is appointed that they too should obtain
life. But, you say, in the case of the dead, mortality is already swallowed
up of life. No, not in all cases, certainly. For how many will most probably
be found of men who had just died'so recently put into their graves, that
nothing in them would seem to be decayed? For you do not of course deem a
thing to be decayed unless it be cut off, abolished, and withdrawn from our
perception, as having in every possible way ceased to be apparent. There are
the carcases of the giants of old time; it will be obvious enough that they
are not absolutely decayed, for their bony frames are still extant. We have
already spoken of this elsewhere.  For instance,  even
lately in this very city,  when they were sacrilegiously laying the
foundations of the Odeum on a good many ancient graves, people were
horror-stricken to discover, after some five hundred years, bones, which
still retained their moisture, and hair which had not lost its perfume. It
is certain not only that bones remain indurated, but also that teeth
continue undecayed for ages'both of them the lasting germs of that body
which is to sprout into life again in the resurrection. Lastly, even if
everything that is mortal in all the dead shall then be found decayed'at any
rate consumed by death, by time, and through age,'is there nothing which
will be "swallowed up of life,"  nor by being covered over and
arrayed in the vesture of immortality? Now, he who says that mortality is
going to be swallowed up of life has already admitted that what is dead is
not destroyed by those other before-mentioned devourers. And verily it will
be extremely fit that all shall be consummated and brought about by the
operations of God, and not by the laws of nature. Therefore, inasmuch as
what is mortal has to be swallowed up of life, it must needs be brought out
to view in order to be so swallowed up; (needful) also to be swallowed up,
in order to undergo the ultimate transformation. If you were to say that a
fire is to be lighted, you could not possibly allege that what is to kindle
it is sometimes necessary and sometimes not. In like manner, when he inserts
the words "If so be that being unclothed  we be not found
naked."  'referring, of course, to those who shall not be found in
the day of the Lord alive and in the flesh'he did not say that they whom he
had just described as unclothed or stripped, were naked in any other sense
than meaning that they should be understood to be reinvested with the very
same substance they had been divested of. For although they shall be found
naked when their flesh has been laid aside, or to some extent sundered or
worn away (and this condition may well be called nakedness, ) they shall
afterwards recover it again, in order that, being reinvested with the flesh,
they may be able also to have put over that the supervestment of
immortality; for it will be impossible for the outside garment to fit except
over one who is already dressed.
Chapter XLIII. No Disparagement of Our Doctrine in St. Paul's Phrase, Which
Calls Our Residence in the Flesh Absence from the Lord.
In the same way, when he says, "Therefore we are always confident, and fully
aware, that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord;
for we walk by faith, not be sight,"  it is manifest that in this
statement there is no design of disparaging the flesh, as if it separated us
from the Lord. For there is here pointedly addressed to us an exhortation to
disregard this present life, since we are absent from the Lord as long as we
are passing through it'walking by faith, not by sight; in other words, in
hope, not in reality. Accordingly he adds: "We are indeed confident and deem
it good rather to be absent from the body, and present with the Lord;"
 in order, that is, that we may walk by sight rather than by faith, in
realization rather than in hope. Observe how he here also ascribes to the
excellence of martyrdom a contempt for the body. For no one, on becoming
absent from the body, is at once a dweller in the presence of the Lord,
except by the prerogative of martyrdom,  he gains a lodging in
Paradise, not in the lower regions. Now, had the apostle been at a loss for
words to describe the departure from the body? Or does he purposely use a
novel phraseology? For, wanting to express our temporary absence from the
body, he says that we are strangers, absent from it, because a man who goes
abroad returns after a while to his home. Then he says even to all: "We
therefore earnestly desire to be acceptable unto God, whether absent or
present; for we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ
Jesus."  If all of us, then all of us wholly; if wholly, then our
inward man and outward too'that is, our bodies no less than our souls. "That
every one," as he goes on to say, "may receive the things done in his body,
according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."  Now I
ask, how do you read this passage? Do you take it to be confusedly
constructed, with a transposition  of ideas? Is the question about
what things will have to be received by the body, or the things which have
been already done in the body? Well, if the things which are to be borne by
the body are meant, then undoubtedly a resurrection of the body is implied;
and if the things which have been already done in the body are referred to,
(the same conclusion follows): for of course the retribution will have to be
paid by the body, since it was by the body that the actions were performed.
Thus the apostle's whole argument from the beginning is unravelled in this
concluding clause, wherein the resurrection of the flesh is set forth; and
it ought to be understood in a sense which is strictly in accordance with
Chapter XLIV. Sundry Other Passages of St. Paul Explained in a Sentence
Confirmatory of Our Doctrine.
Now, if you will examine the words which precede the passage where mention
is made of the outward and the inward man, will you not discover the whole
truth, both of the dignity and the hope of the flesh? For, when he speaks of
the "light which God hath commanded to shine in our hearts, to give the
light of the knowledge of the glory of the Lord in the person of Jesus
Christ,"  and says that "we have this treasure in earthen
vessels,"  meaning of course the flesh, which is meant'that the
flesh shall be destroyed, because it is "an earthen vessel," deriving its
origin from clay; or that it is to be glorified, as being the receptacle of
a divine treasure? Now if that true light, which is in the person of Christ,
contains in itself life, and that life with its light is committed to the
flesh, is that destined to perish which has life entrusted to it? Then, of
course, the treasure will perish also; for perishable things are entrusted
to things which are themselves perishable, which is like putting new wine
into old bottles. When also he adds, "Always bearing about in our body the
dying of the Lord Jesus Christ"  what sort of substance is that
which, after (being called) the temple of God, can now be also designated
the tomb of Christ? But why do we bear about in the body the dying of the
Lord? In order, as he says, "that His life also may be manifested."
 Where? "In the body." In what body? "In our mortal body." 
Therefore in the flesh, which is mortal indeed through sin, but living
through grace'how great a grace you may see when the purpose is, "that the
life of Christ may be manifested in it." Is it then in a thing which is a
stranger to salvation, in a substance which is perpetually dissolved, that
the life of Christ will be manifested, which is eternal, continuous,
incorruptible, and already the life of God? Else to what epoch belongs that
life of the Lord which is to be manifested in our body? It surely is the
life which He lived up to His passion, which was not only openly shown among
the Jews, but has now been displayed even to all nations. Therefore that
life is meant which" has broken the adamantine gates of death and the brazen
bars of the lower world,"  'a life which thenceforth has been and
will be ours. Lastly, it is to be manifested in the body. When? After death.
How? By rising in our body, as Christ also rose in His. But lest any one
should here object, that the life of Jesus has even now to be manifested in
our body by the discipline of holiness, and patience, and righteousness, and
wisdom, in which the Lord's life abounded, the most provident wisdom of the
apostle inserts this purpose: "For we which live are alway delivered unto
death for Jesus' sake, that His life may be manifested in our mortal
body."  In us, therefore, even when dead, does he say that this is
to take place in us. And if so, how is this possible except in our body
after its resurrection? Therefore he adds in the concluding sentence:
"Knowing that He which raised up the Lord Jesus, shall raise up us also with
Him,"  risen as He is already from the dead. But perhaps "with
Him" means "like Him: "well then, if it be like Him, it is not of course
without the flesh.
Chapter XLV. The Old Man and the New Man of St. Paul Explained.
But in their blindness they again impale themselves on the point of the old
and the new man. When the apostle enjoins us "to put off the old man, which
is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; and to be renewed in the spirit
of our mind; and to put on the new man, which after God is created in
righteousness and true holiness,"  (they maintain) that by here
also making a distinction between the two substances, and applying the old
one to the flesh and the new one to the spirit, he ascribes to the old
man'that is to say, the flesh'a permanent corruption. Now, if you follow the
order of the substances, the soul cannot be the new man because it comes the
later of the two; nor can the flesh be the old man because it is the former.
For what fraction of time was it that intervened between the creative hand
of God and His afflatus? I will venture to say, that even if the soul was a
good deal prior to the flesh, by the very circumstance that the soul had to
wait to be itself completed, it made the other  really the former.
For everything which gives the finishing stroke and perfection to a work,
although it is subsequent in its mere order, yet has the priority in its
effect. Much more is that prior, without which preceding things could have
no existence. If the flesh be the old man, when did it become so? From the
beginning? But Adam was wholly a new man, and of that new man there could be
no part an old man. And from that time, ever since the blessing which was
pronounced upon man's generation,  the flesh and the soul have had
a simultaneous birth, without any calculable difference in time; so that the
two have been even generated together in the womb, as we have shown in our
Treatise on the Soul.  Contemporaneous in the womb, they are also
temporally identical in their birth. The two are no doubt produced by human
parents  of two substances, but not at two different periods;
rather they are so entirely one, that neither is before the other in point
of time. It is more correct (to say), that we are either entirely the old
man or entirely the new, for we cannot tell how we can possibly be anything
else. But the apostle mentions a very clear mark of the old man. For "put
off," says he, "concerning the former conversation, the old man; " 
(he does) not say concerning the seniority of either substance. It is not
indeed the flesh which he bids us to put off, but the works which he in
another passage shows to be "works of the flesh."  He brings no
accusation against men's bodies, of which he even writes as follows:
"Putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbor: for we are
members one of another. Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down
upon your wrath: neither give place to the devil. Let him that stole steal
no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands (the thing which
is good), that he may have to give to him that needeth. Let no corrupt
communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good for the
edification of faith, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. And
grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of
redemption. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and
evil-speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: but be ye kind one to
another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ hath
forgiven you."  Why, therefore, do not those who suppose the flesh
to be the old man, hasten their own death, in order that by laying aside the
old man they may satisfy the apostle's precepts? As for ourselves, we
believe that the whole of faith is to be administered in the flesh, nay
more, by the flesh, which has both a mouth for the utterance of all holy
words, and a tongue to refrain from blasphemy, and a heart to avoid all
irritation, and hands to labour and to give; while we also maintain that as
well the old man as the new has relation to the difference of moral conduct,
and not to any discrepancy of nature. And just as we acknowledge that that
which according to its former conversation was "the old man" was also
corrupt, and received its very name in accordance with "its deceitful
lusts," so also (do we hold) that it is "the old man in reference to its
former conversation,"  and not in respect of the flesh through any
permanent dissolution. Moreover, it is still unimpaired in the flesh, and
identical in that nature, even when it has become "the new man; "since it is
of its sinful course of life, and not of its corporeal substance, that it
has been divested.
Chapter XLVI. It is the Works of the Flesh, Not the Substance of the Flesh,
Which St. Paul Always Condemns.
You may notice that the apostle everywhere condemns the works of the flesh
in such a way as to appear to condemn the flesh; but no one can suppose him
to have any such view as this, since he goes on to suggest another sense,
even though somewhat resembling it. For when he actually declares that "they
who are in the flesh cannot please God," he immediately recalls the
statement from an heretical sense to a sound one, by adding, "But ye are not
in the flesh, but in the Spirit."  Now, by denying them to be in
the flesh who yet obviously were in the flesh, he showed that they were not
living amidst the works of the flesh, and therefore that they who could not
please God were not those who were in the flesh, but only those who were
living after the flesh; whereas they pleased God, who, although existing in
the flesh, were yet walking after the Spirit. And, again, he says that "the
body is dead; "but it is "because of sin," even as "the Spirit is life
because of righteousness."  When, however, he thus sets life in
opposition to the death which is constituted in the flesh, he unquestionably
promises the life of righteousness to the same state for which he determined
the death of sin, But unmeaning is this opposition which he makes between
the "life" and the "death," if the life is not there where that very thing
is to which he opposes it'even the death which is to be extirpated of course
from the body. Now, if life thus extirpates death from the body, it can
accomplish this only by penetrating thither where that is which it is
excluding. But why am I resorting to knotty arguments,  when the
apostle treats the subject with perfect plainness? "For if," says he, "the
Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that
raised up Jesus from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies, because
of His Spirit that dwelleth in you; "  so that even if a person
were to assume that the soul is "the mortal body," he would (since he cannot
possibly deny that the flesh is this also) be constrained to acknowledge a
restoration even of the flesh, in consequence of its participation in the
selfsame state. From the following words, moreover, you may learn that it is
the works of the flesh which are condemned, and not the flesh itself:
"Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the
flesh: for if ye live after the flesh ye shall die; but if ye, through the
Spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."  Now
(that I may answer each point separately), since salvation is promised to
those who are living in the flesh, but walking after the Spirit, it is no
longer the flesh which is an adversary to salvation, but the working of the
flesh. When, however, this operativeness of the flesh is done away with,
which is the cause of death, the flesh is shown to be safe, since it is
freed from the cause of death. "For the law," says he, "of the Spirit of
life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death,"
 'that, surely, which he previously mentioned as dwelling in our
members.  Our members, therefore, will no longer be subject to the
law of death, because they cease to serve that of sin, from both which they
have been set free. "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak
through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,
and through  sin condemned sin in the flesh "  'not the
flesh in sin, for the house is not to be condemned with its inhabitant. He
said, indeed, that "sin dwelleth in our body."  But the
condemnation of sin is the acquittal of the flesh, just as its
non-condemnation subjugates it to the law of sin and death. In like manner,
he called "the carnal mind" first "death,"  and afterwards "enmity
against God; "  but he never predicated this of the flesh itself.
But to what then, you will say, must the carnal mind be ascribed, if it be
not to the carnal substance itself? I will allow your objection, if you will
prove to me that the flesh has any discernment of its own. If, however, it
has no conception of anything without the soul, you must understand that the
carnal mind must be referred to the soul, although ascribed sometimes to the
flesh, on the ground that it is ministered to for the flesh and through the
flesh. And therefore (the apostle) says that "sin dwelleth in the flesh,"
because the soul by which sin is provoked has its temporary lodging in the
flesh, which is doomed indeed to death, not however on its own account, but
on account of sin. For he says in another passage also"How is it that you
conduct yourselves as if you were even now living in the world? " 
where he is not writing to dead persons, but to those who ought to have
ceased to live after the ways of the world
Chapter XLVII. St. Paul, All Through, Promises Eternal Life to the Body.
For that must be living after the world, which, as the old man, he declares
to be "crucified with Christ,"  not as a bodily structure, but as
moral behaviour. Besides, if we do not understand it in this sense, it is
not our bodily frame which has been transfixed (at all events), nor has our
flesh endured the cross of Christ; but the sense is that which he has
subjoined, "that the body of sin might be made void, "  by an
amendment of life, not by a destruction of the substance, as he goes on to
say, "that henceforth we should not serve sin; "  and that we
should believe ourselves to be "dead with Christ," in such a manner as that
"we shall also live with Him."  On the same principle he says:
"Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed."  To what?
To the flesh? No, but "unto sin."  Accordingly as to the flesh they
will be saved'" alive unto God in Christ Jesus,"  through the flesh
of course, to which they will not be dead; since it is "unto sin," and not
to the flesh, that they are dead. For he pursues the point still further:
"Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it,
and that ye should yield your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto
sin: but yield ye yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead
"'not simply alive, but as alive from the dead'" and your members as
instruments of righteousness."  And again: "As ye have yielded your
members servants of uncleanness, and of iniquity unto iniquity, even so now
yield your members servants of righteousness unto holiness; for whilst ye
were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye
then in those things of which ye are now ashamed? For the end of those
things is death. But now, being made free from sin, and become servants to
God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the
wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus
Christ our Lord."  Thus throughout this series of passages, whilst
withdrawing our members from unrighteousness and sin, and applying them to
righteousness and holiness, and transferring the same from the wages of
death to the donative of eternal life, he undoubtedly promises to the flesh
the recompense of salvation. Now it would not at all have been consistent
that any rule of holiness and righteousness should be especially enjoined
for the flesh, if the reward of such a discipline were not also within its
reach; nor could even baptism be properly ordered for the flesh, if by its
regeneration a course were not inaugurated tending to its restitution; the
apostle himself suggesting this idea: "Know ye not, that so many of us as
are baptized into Jesus Christ, are baptized into His death? We are
therefore buried with Him by baptism into death, that just as Christ was
raised up from the dead, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
 And that you may not suppose that this is said merely of that life
which we have to walk in the newness of, through baptism, by faith, the
apostle with superlative forethought adds: "For if we have been planted
together in the likeness of Christ's death, we shall be also in the likeness
of His resurrection."  By a figure we die in our baptism, but in a
reality we rise again in the flesh, even as Christ did, "that, as sin has
reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness unto life
eternal, through Jesus Christ our Lord."  But how so, unless
equally in the flesh? For where the death is, there too must be the life
after the death, because also the life was first there, where the death
subsequently was. Now, if the dominion of death operates only in the
dissolution of the flesh, in like manner death's contrary, life, ought to
produce the contrary effect, even the restoration of the flesh; so that,
just as death had swallowed it up in its strength, it also, after this
mortal was swallowed up of immortality, may hear the challenge pronounced
against it: "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
"  For in this way "grace shall there much more abound, where sin
once abounded."  In this way also "shall strength be made perfect
in weakness,"  'saving what is lost, reviving what is dead, healing
what is stricken, curing what is faint, redeeming what is lost, freeing what
is enslaved, recalling what has strayed, raising what is fallen; and this
from earth to heaven, where, as the apostle teaches the Philippians, "we
have our citizenship,  from whence also we look for our Saviour
Jesus Christ, who shall change our body of humiliation, that it may be
fashioned like unto His glorious body"  'of course after the
resurrection, because Christ Himself was not glorified before He suffered.
These must be "the bodies" which he "beseeches" the Romans to "present" as
"a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God."  But how a living
sacrifice, if these bodies are to perish? How a holy one, if they are
profanely soiled? How acceptable to God, if they are condemned? Come, now,
tell me how that passage (in the Epistle) to the Thessalonians'which,
because of its clearness, I should suppose to have been written with a
sunbeam'is understood by our heretics, who shun the light of Scripture: "And
the very God of peace sanctify you wholly." And as if this were not plain
enough, it goes on to say: "And may your whole body, and soul, and spirit be
preserved blameless unto the coming of the Lord."  Here you have
the entire substance of man destined to salvation, and that at no other time
than at the coming of the Lord, which is the key of the resurrection.
Chapter XLVIII. Sundry Passages in the Great Chapter of the Resurrection of
the Dead Explained in Defence of Our Doctrine.
But "flesh and blood," you say, "cannot inherit the kingdom of God."
 We are quite aware that this too is written; but although our
opponents place it in the front of the battle, we have intentionally
reserved the objection until now, in order that we may in our last assault
overthrow it, after we have removed out of the way all the questions which
are auxiliary to it. However, they must contrive to recall to their mind
even now our preceding arguments, in order that the occasion which
originally suggested this passage may assist our judgment in arriving at its
meaning. The apostle, as I take it, having set forth for the Corinthians the
details of their church discipline, had summed up the substance of his own
gospel, and of their belief in an exposition of the Lord's death and
resurrection, for the purpose of deducing therefrom the rule of our hope,
and the groundwork thereof. Accordingly he subjoins this statement: "Now if
Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that
there is no resurrection of the dead? If there be no resurrection of the
dead, then Christ is not risen: and if Christ be not risen, then is our
preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false
witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ,
whom He raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise
not, then is not Christ raised: and if Christ be not raised, your faith is
vain, because ye are yet in your sins, and they which have fallen asleep in
Christ are perished."  Now, what is the point which he evidently
labours hard to make us believe throughout this passage? The resurrection of
the dead, you say, which was denied: he certainly wished it to be believed
on the strength of the example which he adduced'the Lord's resurrection.
Certainly, you say. Well now, is an example borrowed from different
circumstances, or from like ones? From like ones, by all means, is your
answer. How then did Christ rise again? In the flesh, or not? No doubt,
since you are told that He "died according to the Scriptures,"  and
"that He was buried according to the Scriptures,"  no otherwise
than in the flesh, you will also allow that it was in the flesh that He was
raised from the dead. For the very same body which fell in death, and which
lay in the sepulchre, did also rise again; (and it was) not so much Christ
in the flesh, as the flesh in Christ. If, therefore, we are to rise again
after the example of Christ, who rose in the flesh, we shall certainly not
rise according to that example, unless we also shall ourselves rise again in
the flesh. "For," he says, "since by man came death, by man came also the
resurrection of the dead."  (This he says) in order, on the one
hand, to distinguish the two authors'Adam of death, Christ of resurrection;
and, on the other hand, to make the resurrection operate on the same
substance as the death, by comparing the authors themselves under the
designation man. For if "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be
made alive,"  their vivification in Christ must be in the flesh,
since it is in the flesh that arises their death in Adam. "But every man in
his own order,"  because of course it will be also every man in his
own body. For the order will be arranged severally, on account of the
individual merits. Now, as the merits must be ascribed to the body, it must
needs follow that the order also should be arranged in respect of the
bodies, that it may be in relation to their merits. But inasmuch as "some
are also baptized for the dead,"  we will see whether there be a
good reason for this. Now it is certain that they adopted this (practice)
with such a presumption as made them suppose that the vicarious baptism (in
question) would be beneficial to the flesh of another in anticipation of the
resurrection; for unless it were a bodily resurrection, there would be no
pledge secured by this process of a corporeal baptism. "Why are they then
baptized for the dead,"  he asks, unless the bodies rise again
which are thus baptized? For it is not the soul which is sanctified by the
baptismal bath:  its sanctification comes from the "answer."
 "And why," he inquires, "stand we in jeopardy every hour? " 
'meaning, of course, through the flesh. "I die daily,"  (says he);
that is, undoubtedly, in the perils of the body, in which "he even fought
with beasts at Ephesus,"  'even with those beasts which caused him
such peril and trouble in Asia, to which he alludes in his second epistle to
the same church of Corinth: "For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant
of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed above measure,
above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life."  Now, if
I mistake not, he enumerates all these particulars in order that in his
unwillingness to have his conflicts in the flesh supposed to be useless, he
may induce an unfaltering belief in the resurrection of the flesh. For
useless must that conflict be deemed (which is sustained in a body) for
which no resurrection is in prospect. "But some man will say, How are the
dead to be raised? And with what body will they come? "  Now here
he discusses the qualities of bodies, whether it be the very same, or
different ones, which men are to resume. Since, however, such a question as
this must be regarded as a subsequent one, it will in passing be enough for
us that the resurrection is determined to be a bodily one even from this,
that it is about the quality of bodies that the inquiry arises.
Chapter XLIX. The Same Subject Continued. What Does the Apostle Exclude from
the Dead? Certainly Not the Substance of the Flesh.
We come now to the very gist  of the whole question: What are the
substances, and of what nature are they, which the apostle has disinherited
of the kingdom of God? The preceding statements give us a clue to this point
also. He says: "The first man is of the earth, earthy"'that is, made of
dust, that is, Adam; "the second man is from heaven"  'that is, the
Word of God, which is Christ, in no other way, however, man (although "from
heaven "), than as being Himself flesh and soul, just as a human being is,
just as Adam was. Indeed, in a previous passage He is called "the second
Adam, "  deriving the identity of His name from His participation
in the substance, because not even Adam was flesh of human seed, in which
Christ is also like Him.  "As is the earthy, such are they also
that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are
heavenly."  Such (does he mean), in substance; or first of all in
training, and afterwards in the dignity and worth which that training aimed
at acquiring? Not in substance, however, by any means will the earthy and
the heavenly be separated, designated as they have been by the apostle once
for all, as men. For even if Christ were the only true "heavenly," nay,
super-celestial Being, He is still man, as composed of body and soul; and in
no respect is He separated from the quality of "earthiness," owing to that
condition of His which makes Him a partaker of both substances. In like
manner, those also who after Him are heavenly, are understood to have this
celestial quality predicated of them not from their present nature, but from
their future glory; because in a preceding sentence, which originated this
distinction respecting difference of dignity, there was shown to be "one
glory in celestial bodies, and another in terrestrial ones,"  '"one
glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the
stars: for even one star differeth from another star in glory, " 
although not in substance. Then, after having thus premised the difference
in that worth or dignity which is even now to be aimed at, and then at last
to be enjoyed, the apostle adds an exhortation, that we should both here in
our training follow the example of Christ, and there attain His eminence in
glory: "As we have borne the image of the earthy, let us also bear the image
of the heavenly."  We have indeed borne the image of the earthy, by
our sharing in his transgression, by our participation in his death, by our
banishment from Paradise. Now, although the image of Adam is here borne by
is in the flesh, yet we are not exhorted to put off the flesh; but if not
the flesh, it is the conversation, in order that we may then bear the image
of the heavenly in ourselves,'no longer indeed the image of God, and no
longer the image of a Being whose state is in heaven; but after the
lineaments of Christ, by our walking here in holiness, righteousness, and
truth. And so wholly intent on the inculcation of moral conduct is he
throughout. this passage, that he tells us we ought to bear the image of
Christ in this flesh of ours, and in this period of instruction and
discipline. For when he says "let us bear" in the imperative mood, he suits
his words to the present life, in which man exists in no other substance
than as flesh and soul; or if it is another, even the heavenly, substance to
which this faith (of ours) looks forward, yet the promise is made to that
substance to which the injunction is given to labour earnestly to merit its
reward. Since, therefore, he makes the image both of the earthy and the
heavenly consist of moral conduct'the one to be abjured, and the other to be
pursued'and then consistently adds, "For this I say" (on account, that is,
of what I have already said, because the conjunction "for" connects what
follows with the preceding words) "that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God,"  'he means the flesh and blood to be understood in
no other sense than the before-mentioned "image of the earthy; "and since
this is reckoned to consist in "the old conversation,"  which old
conversation receives not the kingdom of God, therefore flesh and blood, by
not receiving the kingdom of God, are reduced to the life of the old
conversation. Of course, as the apostle has never put the substance for the
works of man, he cannot use such a construction here. Since, however he has
declared of men which are yet alive in the flesh, that they "are not in the
flesh,"  meaning that they are not living in the works of the
flesh, you ought not to subvert its form nor its substance, but only the
works done in the substance (of the flesh), alienating us from the kingdom
of God. It is after displaying to the Galatians these pernicious works that
he professes to warn them beforehand, even as he had "told them in time
past, that they which do such things should not inherit the kingdom of
God,"  even because they bore not the image of the heavenly, as
they had borne the image of the earthy; and so, in consequence of their old
conversation, they were to be regarded as nothing else than flesh and blood.
But even if the apostle had abruptly thrown out the sentence that flesh and
blood must be excluded from the kingdom of God, without any previous
intimation, of his meaning, would it not have been equally our duty to
interpret these two substances as the old man abandoned to mere flesh and
blood'in other words, to eating and drinking, one feature of which would be
to speak against the faith of the resurrection: "Let us eat and drink, for
to-morrow we die."  Now, when the apostle parenthetically inserted
this, he censured flesh and blood because of their enjoyment in eating and
Chapter L. In What Sense Flesh and Blood are Excluded from the Kingdom of
Putting aside, however, all interpretations of this sort, which criminate
the works of the flesh and blood, it may be permitted me to claim for the
resurrection these very substances, understood in none other than their
natural sense. For it is not the resurrection that is directly denied to
flesh and blood, but the kingdom of God, which is incidental to 
the resurrection (for there is a resurrection of judgment  also);
and there is even a confirmation of the general resurrection of the flesh,
whenever a special one is excepted. Now, when it is clearly stated what the
condition is to which the resurrection does not lead, it is understood what
that is to which it does lead; and, therefore, whilst it is in consideration
of men's merits that a difference is made in their resurrection by their
conduct in the flesh, and not by the substance thereof, it is evident even
from this, that flesh and blood are excluded from the kingdom of God in
respect of their sin, not of their substance; and although in respect of
their natural condition  they will rise again for the judgment,
because they rise not for the kingdom. Again, I will say, "Flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God; "  and justly (does the apostle
declare this of them, considered) alone and in themselves, in order to show
that the Spirit is still needed (to qualify them) for the kingdom. 
For it is "the Spirit that quickeneth" us for the kingdom of God; "the flesh
profiteth nothing."  There is, however, something else which can be
profitable thereunto, that is, the Spirit; and through the Spirit, the works
also of the Spirit. Flesh and blood, therefore, must in every case rise
again, equally, in their proper quality. But they to whom it is granted to
enter the kingdom of God, will have to put on the power of an incorruptible
and immortal life; for without this, or before they are able to obtain it,
they cannot enter into the kingdom of God. With good reason, then, flesh and
blood, as we have already said, by themselves fail to obtain the kingdom of
God. But inasmuch as "this corruptible (that is, the flesh) must put on
incorruption, and this mortal (that is, the blood) must put on
immortality,"  by the change which is to follow the resurrection,
it will, for the best of reasons, happen that flesh and blood, after that
change and investiture,  will become able to inherit the kingdom of
God'but not without the resurrection. Some will have it, that by the phrase
"flesh and blood," because of its rite of circumcision, Judaism is meant,
which is itself too alienated from the kingdom of God, as being accounted
"the old or former conversation," and as being designated by this title in
another passage of the apostle also, who, "when it pleased God to reveal to
him His Son, to preach Him amongst the heathen, immediately conferred not
with flesh and blood," as he writes to the Galatians,  (meaning by
the phrase) the circumcision, that is to say, Judaism.
Chapter LI. The Session of Jesus in His Incarnate Nature at the Right Hand
of God a Guarantee of the Resurrection of Our Flesh.
That, however, which we have reserved for a concluding argument, will now
stand as a plea for all, and for the apostle himself, who in very deed would
have to be charged with extreme indiscretion, if he had so abruptly, as some
will have it, and as they say, blindfold, and so indiscriminately, and so
unconditionally, excluded from the kingdom of God, and indeed from the court
of heaven itself, all flesh and blood whatsoever; since Jesus is still
sitting there at the right hand of the Father,  man, yet God'the
last Adam,  yet the primary Word'flesh and blood, yet purer than
ours'who "shall descend in like manner as He ascended into heaven" 
the same both in substance and form, as the angels affirmed,  so as
even to be recognised by those who pierced Him.  Designated, as He
is, "the Mediator  between God and man," He keeps in His own self
the deposit of the flesh which has been committed to Him by both parties'the
pledge and security of its entire perfection. For as "He has given to us the
earnest of the Spirit, "  so has He received from us the earnest of
the flesh, and has carried it with Him into heaven as a pledge of that
complete entirety which is one day to be restored to it. Be not disquieted,
O flesh and blood, with any care; in Christ you have acquired both heaven
and the kingdom of God. Otherwise, if they say that you are not in Christ,
let them also say that Christ is not in heaven, since they have denied you
heaven. Likewise "neither shall corruption," says he, "inherit
incorruption.  This he says, not that you may take flesh and blood
to be corruption, for they are themselves rather the subjects of
corruption,'I mean through death, since death does not so much corrupt, as
actually consume, our flesh and blood. But inasmuch as he had plainly said
that the works of the flesh and blood could not obtain the kingdom of God,
with the view of stating this with accumulated stress, he deprived
corruption itself'that is, death, which profits so largely by the works of
the flesh and blood'from all inheritance of incorruption. For a little
afterwards, he has described what is, as it were, the death of death itself:
"Death," says he, "is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting?
O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin "'here is the
corruption; "and the strength of sin is the law"  'that other law,
no doubt, which he has described "in his members as warring against the law
of his mind,"  'meaning, of course, the actual power of sinning
against his will. Now he says in a previous passage (of our Epistle to the
Corinthians), that "the last enemy to be destroyed is death."  In
this way, then, it is that corruption shall not inherit incorruption; in
other words, death shall not continue. When and how shall it cease? In that
"moment, that twinkling of an eye, at the last trump, when the dead shall
rise incorruptible."  But what are these, if not they who were
corruptible before'that is, our bodies; in other words, our flesh and blood?
And we undergo the change. But in what condition, if not in that wherein we
shall be found? "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this
mortal must put on immortality."  What mortal is this but the
flesh? what corruptible but the blood. Moreover, that you may not suppose
the apostle to have any other meaning, in his care to teach you, and that
you may understand him seriously to apply his statement to the flesh, when
he says "this corruptible" and "this mortal," he utters the words while
touching the surface of his own body.  He certainly could not have
pronounced these phrases except in reference to an object which was palpable
and apparent. The expression indicates a bodily exhibition. Moreover, a
corruptible body is one thing, and corruption is another; so a mortal body
is one thing, and mortality is another. For that which suffers is one thing,
and that which causes it to suffer is another. Consequently, those things
which are subject to corruption and mortality, even the flesh and blood,
must needs also be susceptible of incorruption and immortality.
Chapter LII. From St. Paul's Analogy of the Seed We Learn that the Body
Which Died Will Rise Again, Garnished with the Appliances of Eternal Life.
Let us now see in what body he asserts that the dead will come. And with a
felicitous sally he proceeds at once to illustrate the point, as if an
objector had plied him with some such question. "Thou fool," says he, "that
which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die."  From this
example of the seed it is then evident that no other flesh is quickened than
that which shall have undergone death, and therefore all the rest of the
question will become clear enough. For nothing which is incompatible with
the idea suggested by the example can possibly be understood; nor from the
clause which follows, "That which thou sowest, thou sowest not the body
which shall be,"  are you permitted to suppose that in the
resurrection a different body is to arise from that which is sown in death.
Otherwise you have run away from the example. For if wheat be sown and
dissolved in the ground, barley does not spring up. Still it is not
 the very same grain in kind; nor is its nature the same, or its
quality and form. Then whence comes it, if it is not the very same? For even
the decay is a proof of the thing itself, since it is the decay of the
actual grain. Well, but does not the apostle himself suggest in what sense
it is that "the body which shall be" is not the body which is sown, even
when he says, "But bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other
grain; but God giveth it a body as it pleaseth Him? "  Gives it of
course to the grain which he says is sown bare. No doubt, you say. Then the
grain is safe enough, to which God has to assign a body. But how safe, if it
is nowhere in existence, if it does not rise again if it rises not again its
actual self? If it rises not again, it is not safe; and if it is not even
safe, it cannot receive a body from God. But there is every possible proof
that it is safe. For what purpose, therefore, will God give it "a body, as
it pleases Him," even when it already has its own "bare" body, unless it be
that in its resurrection it may be no longer bare? That therefore will be
additional matter which is placed over the bare body; nor is that at all
destroyed on which the superimposed matter is put,'nay, it is increased.
That, however, is safe which receives augmentation. The truth is, it is sown
the barest grain, without a husk to cover it, without a spike even in germ,
without the protection of a bearded top, without the glory of a stalk. It
rises, however, out of the furrow enriched with a copious crop, built up in
a compact fabric, constructed in a beautiful order, fortified by
cultivation, and clothed around on every side. These are the circumstances
which make it another body from God, to which it is changed not by
abolition, but by amplification. And to every seed God has assigned its own
body  'not, indeed, its own in the sense of its primitive body'in
order that what it acquires from God extrinsically may also at last be
accounted its own. Cleave firmly then to the example, and keep it well in
view, as a mirror of what happens to the flesh: believe that the very same
flesh which was once sown in death will bear fruit in resurrection-life'the
same in essence, only more full and perfect; not another, although
reappearing in another form. For it shall receive in itself the grace and
ornament which God shall please to spread over it, according to its merits.
Unquestionably it is in this sense that he says, "All flesh is not the same
flesh; "  meaning not to deny a community of substance, but a
parity of prerogative,'reducing the body to a difference of honour, not of
nature. With this view he adds, in a figurative sense, certain examples of
animals and heavenly bodies: "There is one flesh of man" (that is, servants
of God, but really human), "another flesh of beasts" (that is, the heathen,
of whom the prophet actually says, "Man is like the senseless cattle"
 ), "another flesh of birds" (that is, the martyrs which essay to
mount up to heaven), "another of fishes" (that is, those whom the water of
baptism has submerged).  In like manner does he take examples from
the heavenly bodies: "There is one glory of the sun" (that is, of Christ),
"and another glory of the moon" (that is, of the Church), "and another glory
of the stars" (in other words, of the seed of Abraham). "For one star
differeth from another star in glory: so there are bodies terrestrial as
well as celestial" (Jews, that is, as well as Christians).  Now, if
this language is not to be construed figuratively, it was absurd enough for
him to make a contrast between the flesh of mules and kites, as well as the
heavenly bodies and human bodies; for they admit of no comparison as to
their condition, nor in respect of their attainment of a resurrection. Then
at last, having conclusively shown by his examples that the difference was
one of glory, not of substance, he adds: "So also is the resurrection of the
dead."  How so? In no other way than as differing in glory only.
For again, predicating the resurrection of the same substance and returning
once more to (his comparison of) the grain, he says: "It is sown in
corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonour, it is
raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a
natural body, it is raised a spiritual body."  Now, certainly
nothing else is raised than that which is sown; and nothing else is sown
than that which decays in the ground; and it is nothing else than the flesh
which is decayed in the ground. For this was the substance which God's
decree demolished, "Earth thou art, and to earth shalt thou return; "
 because it was taken out of the earth. And it was from this
circumstance that the apostle borrowed his phrase of the flesh being
"sown," since it returns to the ground, and the ground is the grand
depository for seeds which are meant to be deposited in it, and again sought
out of it. And therefore he confirms the passage afresh, by putting on it
the impress (of his own inspired authority), saying, "For so it is written;
"  that you may not suppose that the "being sown" means anything
else than "thou shalt return to the ground, out of which thou wast taken;
"nor that the phrase "for so it is written" refers to any other thing that
Chapter LIII. Not the Soul, But the Natural Body Which Died, is that Which
is to Rise Again. The Resurrection of Lazarus Commented on. Christ's
Resurrection, as the Second Adam, Guarantees Our Own.
Some, however, contend that the soul is "the natural (or animate) body, "
 with the view of withdrawing the flesh from all connection with the
risen body. Now, since it is a clear and fixed point that the body which is
to rise again is that which was sown in death, they must be challenged to an
examination of the very fact itself. Else let them show that the soul was
sown after death; in a word, that it underwent death,'that is, was
demolished, dismembered, dissolved in the ground, nothing of which was ever
decreed against it by God: let them display to our view its corruptibility
and dishonour (as well as) its weakness, that it may also accrue to it to
rise again in incorruption, and in glory, and in power.  Now in the
ease of Lazarus, (which we may take as) the palmary instance of a
resurrection, the flesh lay prostrate in weakness, the flesh was almost
putrid in the dishonour of its decay, the flesh stank in corruption, and yet
it was as flesh that Lazarus rose again'with his soul, no doubt. But that
soul was incorrupt; nobody had wrapped it in its linen swathes; nobody had
deposited it in a grave; nobody had yet perceived it "stink; "nobody for
four days had seen it "sown." Well, now, this entire condition, this whole
end of Lazarus, the flesh indeed of all men is still experiencing, but the
soul of no one. That substance, therefore, to which the apostle's whole
description manifestly refers, of which he clearly speaks, must be both the
natural (or animate) body when it is sown, and the spiritual body when it is
raised again. For in order that you may understand it in this sense, he
points to this same conclusion, when in like manner, on the authority of the
same passage of Scripture, he displays to us "the first man Adam as made a
living soul."  Now since Adam was the first man, since also the
flesh was man prior to the soul  it undoubtedly follows that it was
the flesh that became the living soul. Moreover, since it was a bodily
substance that assumed this condition, it was of course the natural (or
animate) body that became the living soul. By what designation would they
have it called, except that which it became through the soul, except that
which it was not previous to the soul, except that which it can never be
after the soul, but through its resurrection? For after it has recovered the
soul, it once more becomes the natural (or animate) body, in order that it
may become a spiritual body. For it only resumes in the resurrection the
condition which it once had. There is therefore by no means the same good
reason why the soul should be called the natural (or animate) body, which
the flesh has for bearing that designation. The flesh, in fact, was a body
before it was an animate body. When the flesh was joined by the soul,
 it then became the natural (or animate) body. Now, although the soul
is a corporeal substance,  yet, as it is not an animated body, but
rather an animating one, it cannot be called the animate (or natural) body,
nor can it become that thing which it produces. It is indeed when the soul
accrues to something else that it makes that thing animate; but unless it so
accrues, how will it ever produce animation? As therefore the flesh was at
first an animate (or natural) body on receiving the soul, so at last will it
become a spiritual body when invested with the spirit. Now the apostle, by
severally adducing this order in Adam and in Christ, fairly distinguishes
between the two states, in the very essentials of their difference. And when
he calls Christ "the last Adam,"  you may from this circumstance
discover how strenuously he labours to establish throughout his teaching the
resurrection of the flesh, not of the soul. Thus, then, the first man Adam
was flesh, not soul, and only afterwards became a living soul; and the last
Adam, Christ, was Adam only because He was man, and only man as being flesh,
not as being soul. Accordingly the apostle goes on to say: "Howbeit that was
not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that
which is spiritual,"  as in the case of the two Adams. Now, do you
not suppose that he is distinguishing between the natural body and the
spiritual body in the same flesh, after having already drawn the distinction
therein in the two Adams, that is, in the first man and in the last? For
from which substance is it that Christ and Adam have a parity with each
other? No doubt it is from their flesh, although it may be from their soul
also. It is, however, in respect of the flesh that they are both man; for
the flesh was man prior to the saul. It was actually from it that they were
able to take rank, so as to be deemed'one the first, and the other the last
man, or Adam. Besides, things which are different in character are only
incapable of being arranged in the same order when their diversity is one of
substance; for when it is a diversity either in respect of place, or of
time, or of condition, they probably do admit of classification together.
Here, however, they are called first and last, from the substance of their
(common) flesh, just as afterwards again the first man (is said to be) of
the earth, and the second of heaven;  but although He is "of
heaven" in respect of the spirit, He is yet man according to the flesh. Now
since it is the flesh, and not the soul, that makes an order (or
classification together) in the two Adams compatible, so that the
distinction is drawn between them of "the first man becoming a living soul,
and the last a quickening spirit,"  so in like manner this
distinction between them has already suggested the conclusion that the
distinction is due to the flesh; so that it is of the flesh that these words
speak: "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is
natural, and afterward that which is spiritual."  And thus, too,
the same flesh must be understood in a preceding passage: "That which is
sown is the natural body, and that which rises again is the spiritual body;
because that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural:
since the first Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam a quickening
spirit."  It is all about man, and all about the flesh because
What shall we say then? Has not the flesh even now (in this life) the spirit
by faith? so that the question still remains to be asked, how it is that the
animate (or natural) body can be said to be sown? Surely the flesh has
received even here the spirit'but only its "earnest; "  whereas of
the soul (it has received) not the earnest, but the full possession.
Therefore it has the name of animate (or natural) body, expressly because of
the higher substance of the soul (or anima, ) in which it is sown, destined
hereafter to become, through the full possession of the spirit which it
shall obtain, the spiritual body, in which it is raised again. What wonder,
then, if it is more commonly called after the substance with which it is
fully furnished, than after that of which it has yet but a sprinkling?
Chapter LIV. Death Swallowed Up of Life. Meaning of This Phrase in Relation
to the Resurrection of the Body.
Then, again, questions very often are suggested by occasional and isolated
terms, just as much as they are by connected sentences. Thus, because of the
apostle's expression, "that mortality may be swallowed up of life "
 'in reference to the flesh'they wrest the word swallowed up into the
sense of the actual destruction of the flesh; as if we might not speak of
ourselves as swallowing bile, or swallowing grief, meaning that we conceal
and hide it, and keep it within ourselves. The truth is, when it is written,
"This mortal must put on immortality,"  it is explained in what
sense it is that "mortality is swallowed up of life "'even whilst, clothed
with immortality, it is hidden and concealed, and contained within it, not
as consumed, and destroyed, and lost. But death, you will say in reply to
me, at this rate, must be safe, even when it has been swallowed up. Well,
then, I ask you to distinguish words which are similar in form according to
their proper meanings. Death is one thing, and morality is another. It is
one thing for death to be swallowed up, and another thing for mortality to
be swallowed up. Death is incapable of immortality, but not so mortality.
Besides, as it is written that "this mortal must put on immortality,"
 how is this possible when it is swallowed up of life? But how is it
swallowed up of life, (in the sense of destroyed by it) when it is actually
received, and restored, and included in it? For the rest, it is only just
and right that death should be swallowed up in utter destruction, since it
does itself devour with this same intent. Death, says the apostle, has
devoured by exercising its strength, and therefore has been itself devoured
in the struggle "swallowed up in victory."  "O death, where is thy
sting? O death, where is thy victory? "  Therefore life, too, as
the great antagonist of death, will in the struggle swallow up for salvation
what death, in its struggle, had swallowed up for destruction.
Chapter LV. The Change of a Thing's Condition is Not the Destruction of Its
Substance. The Application of This Principle to Our Subject.
Now although, in proving that the flesh shall rise again we ipso facto prove
that no other flesh will partake of that resurrection than that which is in
question, yet insulated questions and their occasions do require even
discussions of their own, even if they have been already sufficiently met.
We will therefore give a fuller explanation of the force and the reason of a
change which (is so great, that it) almost suggests the presumption that it
is a different flesh which is to rise again; as if, indeed, so great a
change amounted to utter cessation, and a complete destruction of the former
self. A distinction, however, must be made between a change, however great,
and everything which has the character of destruction. For undergoing change
is one thing, but being destroyed is another thing. Now this distinction
would no longer exist, if the flesh were to suffer such a change as amounts
to destruction. Destroyed, however, it must be by the change, unless it
shall itself persistently remain throughout the altered condition which
shall be exhibited in the resurrection. For precisely as it perishes, if it
does not rise again, so also does it equally perish even if it does rise
again, on the supposition that it is lost  in the change. It will
as much fail of a future existence, as if it did not rise again at all. And
how absurd is it to rise again for the purpose of not having a being, when
it had it in its power not to rise again, and so lose airs being'because it
had already begun its non-existence! Now, things which are absolutely
different, as mutation and destruction are, will not admit of mixture and
confusion; in their operations, too, they differ. One destroys, the other
changes. Therefore, as that which is destroyed is not changed, so that which
is changed is not destroyed. To perish is altogether to cease to be what a
thing once was, whereas to be changed is to exist in another condition. Now,
if a thing exists in another condition, it can still be the same thing
itself; for since it does not perish, it has its existence still. A change,
indeed, it has experienced, but not a destruction. A thing may undergo a
complete change, and yet remain still the same thing. In like manner, a man
also may be quite himself in substance even in the present life, and for all
that undergo various changes'in habit, in bodily bulk, in health, in
condition, in dignity, and in age'in taste, business, means, houses, laws
and customs'and still lose nothing of his human nature, nor so to be made
another man as to cease to be the same; indeed, I ought hardly to say
another man, but another thing. This form of change even the Holy Scriptures
give us instances of. The hand of Moses is changed, and it becomes like a
dead one, bloodless, colourless, and stiff with cold; but on the recovery of
heat, and on the restoration of its natural colour, it is again the same
flesh and blood  Afterwards the face of the same Moses is
changed,  with a brightness which eye could not bear. But he was
Moses still, even when he was not visible. So also Stephen had already put
on the appearance of an angel,  although they were none other than
his human knees  which bent beneath the stoning. The Lord, again,
in the retirement of the mount, had changed His raiment for a robe of light;
but He still retained features which Peter could recognise.  In
that same scene Moses also and Elias gave proof that the same condition of
bodily existence may continue even in glory'the one in the likeness of a
flesh which he had not yet recovered, the other in the reality of one which
he had not yet put off.  It was as full of this splendid example
that Paul said: "Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned
like unto His glorious body."  But if you maintain that a
transfiguration and a conversion amounts to the annihilation of any
substance, then it follows that "Saul, when changed into another man,"
 passed away from his own bodily substance; and that Satan himself,
when "transformed into an angel of light,"  loses his own proper
character. Such is not my opinion. So likewise changes, conversions and
reformations will necessarily take place to bring about the resurrection,
but the substance of the flesh will still be preserved safe.
Chapter LVI. The Procedure of the Last Judgment, and Its Awards, Only
Possible on the Identity of the Risen Body with Our Present Flesh.
For how absurd, and in truth how unjust, and in both respects how unworthy
of God, for one substance to do the work, and another to reap the reward:
that this flesh of ours should be torn by martyrdom, and another wear the
crown; or, on the other hand, that this flesh of ours should wallow in
uncleanness, and another receive the condemnation! Is it not better to
renounce all faith at once in the hope of the resurrection,  than
to trifle with the wisdom and justice of God?  Better that Marcion
should rise again than Valentinus. For it cannot be believed that the mind,
or the memory, or the conscience of existing man is abolished by putting on
that change of raiment which immortality and incorruption supplies; for in
that case all the gain and fruit of the resurrection, and the permanent
effect  of God's judgment both on soul and body,  would
certainly fall to the ground. If I remember not that it is I who have served
Him, how shall I ascribe glory to God? How sing to Him "the new song,"
 if I am ignorant that it is I who owe Him thanks? But why is
exception taken only against the change of the flesh, and not of the soul
also, which in all things is superior to the flesh? How happens it, that the
self-same soul which in our present flesh has gone through all life's
course, which has learnt the knowledge of God, and put on Christ, and sown
the hope of salvation in this flesh, must reap its harvest in another flesh
of which we know nothing? Verily that must be a most highly favoured flesh,
which shall have the enjoyment of life at so gratuitous a rate! But if the
soul is not to be changed also, then there is no resurrection of the soul;
nor will it be believed to have itself risen, unless it has risen some
Chapter LVII. Our Bodies, However Mutilated Before or After Death, Shall
Recover Their Perfect Integrity in the Resurrection. Illustration of the
We now come to the most usual cavil of unbelief. If, they say, it be
actually the selfsame substance which is recalled to life with all its form,
and lineaments, and quality, then why not with all its other
characteristics? Then the blind, and the lame, and the palsied, and whoever
else may have passed away with any conspicuous mark, will return again with
the same. What now is the fact, although you in the greatness of your
conceit  thus disdain to accept from God so vast a grace? Does it
not happen that, when you now admit the salvation of only the soul, you
ascribe it to men at the cost of half their nature? What is the good of
believing in the resurrection, unless your faith embraces the whole of it?
If the flesh is to be repaired after its dissolution, much more will it be
restored after some violent injury. Greater cases prescribe rules for lesser
ones. Is not the amputation or the crushing of a limb the death of that
limb? Now, if the death of the whole person is rescinded by its
resurrection, what must we say of the death of a part of him? If we are
changed for glory, how much more for integrity!  Any loss sustained
by our bodies is an accident to them, but their entirety is their natural
property. In this condition we are born. Even if we become injured in the
womb, this is loss suffered by what is already a human being. Natural
condition"  is prior to injury. As life is bestowed by God, so is
it restored by Him. As we are when we receive it, so are we when we recover
it. To nature, not to injury, are we restored; to our state by birth, not to
our condition by accident, do we rise again. If God raises not men entire,
He raises not the dead. For what dead man is entire, although he dies
entire? Who is without hurt, that is without life? What body is uninjured,
when it is dead, when it is cold, when it is ghastly, when it is stiff, when
it is a corpse? When is a man more infirm, than when he is entirely infirm?
When more palsied, than when quite motionless? Thus, for a dead man to be
raised again, amounts to nothing short of his being restored to his entire
condition,'lest he, forsooth, be still dead in that part in which he has not
risen again. God is quite able to re-make what He once made. This power and
this unstinted grace of His He has already sufficiently guaranteed in
Christ; and has displayed Himself to us (in Him) not only as the restorer of
the flesh, but as the repairer of its breaches. And so the apostle says:
"The dead shall be raised incorruptible" (or unimpaired).  But how
so, unless they become entire, who have wasted away either in the loss of
their health, or in the long decrepitude of the grave? For when he propounds
the two clauses, that "this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this
mortal must put on immortality, "  he does not repeat the same
statement, but sets forth a distinction. For, by assigning immortality to
the repeating of death, and incorruption to the repairing of the wasted
body, he has fitted one to the raising and the other to the retrieval of the
body. I suppose, moreover, that he promises to the Thessalonians the
integrity of the whole substance of man.  So that for the great
future there need be no fear of blemished or defective bodies. Integrity,
whether the result of preservation or restoration, will be able to lose
nothing more, after the time that it has given back to it whatever it had
lost. Now, when you contend that the flesh will still have to undergo the
same sufferings, if the same flesh be said to have to rise again, you rashly
set up nature against her Lord, and impiously contrast her law against His
grace; as if it were not permitted the Lord God both to change nature, and
to preserve her, without subjection to a law. How is it, then, that we read,
"With men these things are impossible, but with God all things are possible;
"  and again, "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to
confound the wise? "  Let me ask you, if you were to manumit your
slave (seeing that the same flesh and soul will remain to him, which once
were exposed to the whip, and the fetter, and the stripes), will it
therefore be fit for him to undergo the same old sufferings? I trow not. He
is instead thereof honoured with the grace of the white robe, and the favour
of the gold ring, and the name and tribe as well as table of his patron.
Give, then, the same prerogative to God, by virtue of such a change, of
reforming our condition, not our nature, by taking away from it all
sufferings, and surrounding it with safeguards of protection. Thus our flesh
shall remain even after the resurrection'so far indeed susceptible of
suffering, as it is the flesh, and the same flesh too; but at the same time
impassible, inasmuch as it has been liberated by the Lord for the very end
and purpose of being no longer capable of enduring suffering.
Chapter LVIII. From This Perfection of Our Restored Bodies Will Flow the
Consciousness of Undisturbed Joy and Peace.
"Everlasting joy," says Isaiah, "shall be upon their heads."  Well,
there is nothing eternal until after the resurrection. "And sorrow and
sighing," continues he, "shall flee away."  The angel echoes the
same to John: "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; "
 from the same eyes indeed which had formerly wept, and which might
weep again, if the loving-kindness of God did not dry up every fountain of
tears. And again: "God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there
shall be no more death,"  and therefore no more corruption, it
being chased away by incorruption, even as death is by immortality. If
sorrow, and mourning, and sighing, and death itself, assail us from the
afflictions both of soul and body, how shall they be removed, except by the
cessation of their causes, that is to say, the afflictions of flesh and
soul? where will you find adversities in the presence of God? where,
incursions of an enemy in the bosom of Christ? where, attacks of the devil
in the face of the Holy Spirit?'now that the devil himself and his angels
are "cast into the lake of fire."  Where now is necessity, and what
they call fortune or fate? What plague awaits the redeemed from death, after
their eternal pardon? What wrath is there for the reconciled, after grace?
What weakness, after their renewed strength? What risk and danger, after
their salvation? That the raiment and shoes of the children of Isreal
remained unworn and fresh for the space of forty years;  that in
their very persons the exact point  of convenience and propriety
checked the rank growth of their nails and hair, so that any excess herein
might not be attributed to indecency; that the fires of Babylon injured not
either the mitres or the trousers of the three brethren, however foreign
such dress might be to the Jews;  that Jonah was swallowed by the
monster of the deep, in whose belly whole ships were devoured, and after
three days was vomited out again safe and sound;  that Enoch and
Elias, who even now, without experiencing a resurrection (because they have
not even encountered death), are learning to the full what it is for the
flesh to be exempted from all humiliation, and all loss, and all injury, and
all disgrace'translated as they have been from this world, and from this
very cause already candidates for everlasting life;  'to what faith
do these notable facts bear witness, if not to that which ought to inspire
in us the belief that they are proofs and documents of our own future
integrity and perfect resurrection? For, to borrow the apostle's phrase,
these were "figures of ourselves; "  and they are written that we
may believe both that the Lord is more powerful than all natural laws about
the body, and that He shows Himself the preserver of the flesh the more
emphatically, in that He has preserved for it its very clothes and shoes.
Chapter LIX. Our Flesh in the Resurrection Capable, Without Losing Its
Essential Identity, of Bearing the Changed Conditions of Eternal Life, or of
But, you object, the world to come bears the character of a different
dispensation, even an eternal one; and therefore, you maintain, that the
non-eternal substance of this life is incapable of possessing a state of
such different features. This would be true enough, if man were made for the
future dispensation, and not the dispensation for man. The apostle, however,
in his epistle says, "Whether it be the world, or life, or death, or things
present, or things to come; all are yours: "  and he here
constitutes us heirs even of the future world. Isaiah gives you no help when
he says, "All flesh is grass; "  and in another passage, "All flesh
shall see the salvation of God."  It is the issues of men, not
their substances, which he distinguishes. But who does not hold that the
judgment of God consists in the twofold sentence, of salvation and of
punishment? Therefore it is that "all flesh is grass," which is destined to
the fire; and "all flesh shall see the salvation of God," which is ordained
to eternal life. For myself, I am quite sure that it is in no other flesh
than my own that I have committed adultery, nor in any other flesh am I
striving after continence. If there be any one who bears about in his person
two instruments of lasciviousness, he has it in his power, to be sure, to
mow down  "the grass" of the unclean flesh, and to reserve for
himself only that which shall see the salvation of God. But when the same
prophet represents to us even nations sometimes estimated as "the small dust
of the balance,"  and as "less than nothing, and vanity," 
and sometimes as about to hope and "trust in the name"  and arm of
the Lord, are we at all misled respecting the Gentile nations by the
diversity of statement? Are some of them to turn believers, and are others
accounted dust, from any difference of nature? Nay, rather Christ has shone
as the true light on the nations within the ocean's limits, and from the
heaven which is over us all.  Why, it is even on this earth that
the Valentinians have gone to school for their errors; and there will be no
difference of condition, as respects their body and soul, between the
nations which believe and those which do not believe. Precisely, then, as He
has put a distinction of state, not of nature, amongst the same nations, so
also has He discriminated their flesh, which is one and the same substance
in those nations, not according to their material structure, but according
to the recompense of their merit.
Chapter LX. All the Characteristics of Our Bodies' Sex, Various Limbs,
Etc. Will Be Retained, Whatever Change of Functions These May Have, of Which
Point, However, We are No Judges. Analogy of the Repaired Ship.
But behold how persistently they still accumulate their cavils against the
flesh, especially against its identity, deriving their arguments even from
the functions of our limbs; on the one hand saying that these ought to
continue permanently pursuing their labours and enjoyments, as appendages to
the same corporeal frame; and on the other hand contending that, inasmuch as
the functions of the limbs shall one day come to an end, the bodily frame
itself must be destroyed, its permanence without its limbs being deemed to
be as inconceivable, as that of the limbs themselves without their
functions! What, they ask, will then be the use of the cavity of our mouth,
and its rows of teeth, and the passage of the throat, and the branch-way of
the stomach, and the gulf of the belly, and the entangled tissue of the
bowels, when there shall no longer be room for eating and drinking? What
more will there be for these members to take in, masticate, swallow,
secrete, digest, eject? Of what avail will be our very hands, and feet, and
all our labouring limbs, when even all care about food shall cease? What
purpose can be served by loins, conscious of seminal secretions, and all the
other organs of generation, in the two sexes, and the laboratories of
embryos, and the fountains of the breast, when concubinage, and pregnancy,
and infant nurture shall cease? In short, what will be the use of the entire
body, when the entire body shall become useless? In reply to all this, we
have then already settled the principle that the dispensation of the future
state ought not to be compared with that of the present world, and that in
the interval between them a change will take place; and we now add the
remark, that these functions of our bodily limbs will continue to supply the
needs of this life up to the moment when life itself shall pass away from
time to eternity, as the natural body gives place to the spiritual, until
"this mortal puts on immorality, and this corruptible puts on incorruption:
"  so that when life shall itself become freed from all wants, our
limbs shall then be freed also from their services, and therefore will be no
longer wanted. Still, although liberated from their offices, they will be
yet preserved for judgment, "that every one may receive the things done in
his body."  For the judgment-seat of God requires that man be kept
entire. Entire, however, he cannot be without his limbs, of the substance of
which, not the functions, he consists; unless, forsooth, you will be bold
enough to maintain that a ship is perfect without her keel, or her bow, or
her stern, and without the solidity of her entire t frame. And yet how often
have we seen the same ship, after being shattered with the storm and broken
by decay, with all her timbers repaired and restored, gallantly riding on
the wave in all the beauty of a renewed fabric! Do we then disquiet
ourselves with doubt about God's skill, and will, and rights? Besides, if a
wealthy shipowner, who does not grudge money merely for his amusement or
show, thoroughly repairs his ship, and then chooses that she should make no
further voyages, will you contend that the old form and finish is still not
necessary to the vessel, although she is no longer meant for actual service,
when the mere safety of a ship requires such completeness irrespective of
service? The sole question, therefore, which is enough for us to consider
here, is whether the Lord, when He ordains salvation for man, intends it for
his flesh; whether it is His will that the selfsame flesh shall be renewed.
If so, it will be improper for you to rule, from the in utility of its limbs
in the future state, that the flesh will be incapable of renovation. For a
thing may be renewed, and yet be useless from having nothing to do; but it
cannot be said to be useless if it has no existence. If, indeed, it has
existence, it will be quite possible for it also not to be useless; it may
possibly have something to do; for in the presence of God there will be no
Chapter LXI. The Details of Our Bodily Sex, and of the Functions of Our
Various Members. Apology for the Necessity Which Heresy Imposes of Hunting
Up All Its Unblushing Cavils.
Now you have received your mouth, O man, for the purpose of devouring your
food and imbibing your drink: why not, however, for the higher purpose of
uttering speech, so as to distinguish yourself from all other animals? Why
not rather for preaching the gospel of God, that so you may become even His
priest and advocate before men? Adam indeed gave their several names to the
animals, before he plucked the fruit of the tree; before he ate, he
prophesied. Then, again, you received your teeth for the consumption of your
meal: why not rather for wreathing your mouth with suitable defence on every
opening thereof, small or wide? Why not, too, for moderating the impulses of
your tongue, and guarding your articulate speech from failure and violence?
Let me tell you, (if you do not know), that there are toothless persons in
the world. Look at them, and ask whether even a cage of teeth be not an
honour to the mouth. There are apertures in the lower regions of man and
woman, by means of which they gratify no doubt their animal passions; but
why are they not rather regarded as outlets for the cleanly discharge of
natural fluids? Women, moreover, have within them receptacles where human
seed may collect; but are they not designed for the secretion of those
sanguineous issues, which their tardier and weaker sex is inadequate to
disperse? For even details like these require to be mentioned, seeing that
heretics single out what parts of our bodies may suit them, handle them
without delicacy, and, as their whim suggests, pour torrents of scorn and
contempt upon the natural functions of our members, for the purpose of
upsetting the resurrection, and making us blush over their cavils; not
reflecting that before the functions cease, the very causes of them will
have passed away. There will be no more meat, because no more hunger; no
more drink, because no more thirst; no more concubinage, because no more
child-bearing; no more eating and drinking, because no more labour and toil.
Death, too, will cease; so there will be no more need of the nutriment of
food for the defence of life, nor will mothers' limbs any longer have to be
laden for the replenishment of our race. But even in the present life there
may be cessations of their office for our stomachs and our generative
organs. For forty days Moses  and Elias  fasted, and lived
upon God alone. For even so early was the principle consecrated: "Man shall
not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth
of God."  See here faint outlines of our future strength! We even,
as we may be able, excuse our mouths from food, and withdraw our sexes from
union. How many voluntary eunuchs are there! How many virgins espoused to
Christ! How many, both of men and women, whom nature has made sterile, with
a structure which cannot procreate! Now, if even here on earth both the
functions and the pleasures of our members may be suspended, with an
intermission which, like the dispensation itself, can only be a temporary
one, and yet man's safety is nevertheless unimpaired, how much more, when
his salvation is secure, and especially in an eternal dispensation, shall we
not cease to desire those things, for which, even here below, we are not
unaccustomed to check our longings!
Chapter LXII. Our Destined Likeness to the Angels in the Glorious Life of
To this discussion, however, our Lord's declaration puts an effectual end:
"They shall be," says He, "equal unto the angels."  As by not
marrying, because of not dying, so, of course, by not having to yield to any
like necessity of our bodily state; even as the angels, too, sometimes. were
"equal unto" men, by eating and drinking, and submitting their feet to the
washing of the bath'having clothed themselves in human guise, without i the
loss of their own intrinsic nature. If therefore angels, when they became as
men, submitted in their own unaltered substance of spirit to be treated as
if they were flesh, why shall not men in like manner, when they become
"equal unto the angels," undergo in their unchanged substance of flesh the
treatment of spiritual beings, no more exposed to the usual solicitations of
the flesh in their angelic garb, than were the angels once to those of the
spirit when encompassed in human form? We shall not therefore cease to
continue in the flesh, because we cease to be importuned by the usual wants
of the flesh; just as the angels ceased not therefore to remain in their
spiritual substance, because of the suspension of their spiritual incidents.
Lastly, Christ said not, "They shall be angels," in order not to repeal
their existence as men; but He said, "They shall be equal unto the
angels,  that He might preserve their humanity unimpaired. When He
ascribed an angelic likeness to the flesh,  He took not from it its
Chapter LXIII. Conclusion. The Resurrection of the Flesh in Its Absolute
Identity and Perfection. Belief of This Had Become Weak. Hopes for Its
Refreshing Restoration Under the Influences of the Paraclete.
And so the flesh shall rise again, wholly in every man, in its own identity,
in its absolute integrity. Wherever it may be, it is in safe keeping in
God's presence, through that most faithful "Mediator between God and man,
(the man) Jesus Christ,"  who shall reconcile both God to man, and
man to God; the spirit to the flesh, and the flesh to the spirit. Both
natures has He already united in His own self; He has fitted them together
as bride and bridegroom in the reciprocal bond of wedded life. Now, if any
should insist on making the soul the bride, then the flesh will follow the
soul as her dowry. The soul shall never be an outcast, to be had home by the
bridegroom bare and naked. She has her dower, her outfit, her fortune in the
flesh, which shall accompany her with the love and fidelity of a
foster-sister. But suppose the flesh to be the bride, then in Christ Jesus
she has in the contract of His blood received His Spirit as her spouse. Now,
what you take to be her extinction, you may be sure is only her temporary
retirement. It is not the soul only which withdraws from view. The flesh,
too, has her departures for a while'in waters, in fires, in birds, in
beasts; she may seem to be dissolved into these, but she is only poured into
them, as into vessels. And should the vessels themselves afterwards fail to
hold her, escaping from even these, and returning to her mother earth, she
is absorbed once more, as it were, by its secret embraces, ultimately to
stand forth to view, like Adam when summoned to hear from his Lord and
Creator the words, "Behold, the man is become as one of us!" 
'thoroughly "knowing" by that time "the evil" which she had escaped, "and
the good" which she has acquired. Why, then, O soul, should you envy the
flesh? There is none, after the Lord, whom you should love so dearly; none
more like a brother to you, which is even born along with yourself in God.
You ought rather to have been by your prayers obtaining resurrection for
her: her sins, whatever they were, were owing to you. However, it is no
wonder if you hate her; for you have repudiated her Creator.  You
have accustomed yourself either to deny or change her existence even in
Christ  'corrupting the very Word of God Himself, who became flesh,
either by mutilating or misinterpreting the Scripture,  and
introducing, above all, apocryphal mysteries and blasphemous fables.
 But yet Almighty God, in His most gracious providence, by "pouring
out of His Spirit in these last days, upon all flesh, upon His servants and
on His handmaidens,"  has checked these impostures of unbelief and
perverseness, reanimated men's faltering faith in the resurrection of the
flesh, and cleared from all obscurity and equivocation the ancient
Scriptures (of both God's Testaments  ) by the clear light of their
(sacred) words and meanings. Now, since it was "needful that there should be
heresies, in order that they which are approved might be made manifest; "
 since, however, these heresies would be unable to put on a bold front
without some countenance from the Scriptures, it therefore is plain enough
that the ancient Holy Writ has furnished them with sundry materials for
their evil doctrine, which very materials indeed (so distorted) are
refutable from the same Scriptures. It was fit and proper, therefore, that
the Holy Ghost should no longer withhold the effusions of His gracious light
upon these inspired writings, in order that they might be able to
disseminate the seeds of truth with no admixture of heretical subtleties,
and pluck out from it their tares. He has accordingly now dispersed all the
perplexities of the past, and their self-chosen allegories and parables, by
the open and perspicuous explanation of the entire mystery, through the new
prophecy, which descends in copious streams from the Paraclete. If you will
only draw water from His fountains, you will never thirst for other
doctrine: no feverish craving after subtle questions will again consume you;
but by drinking in evermore the resurrection of the flesh, you will be
satisfied with the refreshing draughts.
Cadaver, cap. xviii. p. 558.
The Schoolmen and middle-age jurists improved on Tertullian's etymology. He
says,'"a cadendo'cadaver." But they form the word thus: Caro data vermibus =
On this subject see a most interesting discourse of the (paradoxical and
sophistical, nay the whimsical) Count Joseph de Maistre, in his Soirées de
St. Pétersbourg.  He remarks on the happy formation of many Latin
words, in this manner: e.g., Cæcus ut ire = Cæcutire, "to grope like a blind
man." The French, he says, are not without such examples, and he instances
the word ancOtre = ancestor, as composed out of ancien and Otre, i.e., one
of a former existence. Courage, he says, is formed from cæur and rage, this
use of rage being the Greek thumos. He supposes that the English use the
word rage in this sense, but I recall only the instance:
"Chill penury repressed their noble rage,"
from Gray's Elegy. The Diversions of Purley, of Horne-Tooke, supply amusing
examples of the like in the formation of English words.
His flesh, the Bread, cap. xxxvii. p. 572.
Note our author's exposition. He censures those who understood our Lord's
words after the letter, as if they were to eat the carnal body. He expounds
the spiritual thing which gives life as to be understood by the text: "the
words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life." His word is
the life-giving principle and therefore he called his flesh by the same
name: and we are to "devour Him with the ear and to ruminate on Him with the
understanding, and to digest Him by faith." The flesh profits nothing, the
spirit imparts life. Now, was Tertullian ever censured for this exposition?
On the contrary, this was the faith of the Catholic Church, from the
beginning. Our Saxon forefathers taught the same, as appears from the Homily
of Ælfric,  , a.d. 980, and from the exposition of Ratramn, a.d.
840. The heresy of Transubstantiation was not dogmatic even among Latins,
until the Thirteenth century, and it prevailed in England less than three
hundred years, when the Catholic doctrine was restored, through the
influence of Ratramn's treatise first upon the mind of Ridley and then by
Ridley's arguments with Cranmer. Thus were their understandings opened to
the Scriptures and to the acknowledging of the Truth, for which they
suffered martyrdom. To the reformation we owe the rescue of Ante-Nicene
doctrine from the perversions of the Schoolmen and the gradual corruptions
of doctrine after the Ninth Century.
Paradise, cap. xliii. p. 576.
This sentence reads, in the translation I am editing, as follows: "No one,
on becoming absent from the body, is at once a dweller in the presence of
the Lord, except by the prerogative of martyrdom, whereby (the saint) gets
at once a lodging in Paradise, not in Hades." But the original does not say
precisely this, nor does the author use the Greek word Hades. His words are:
"Nemo enim peregrinatus a corpore statim immoratur penes Dominum nisi ex
martyrii prærogativa Paradiso silicet non Inferis diversurus." The passage
therefore, is not necessarily as inconsistent with the author's topography
of the invisible world, as might seem. "Not in the regions beneath Paradise
but in Paradise itself," seems to be the idea; Paradise being included in
the world of Hades, indeed, but in a lofty region, far enough removed from
the Inferi, and refreshed by light from the third Heaven and the throne
itself, (as this planet is by the light of the Sun, ) immensely distant
though it be from the final abode of the Redeemed.
 See Bp. Kaye, On Tertullian, p. 256. A full examination of the tenets
of these Gnostic heretics occurs in our author's Treatise against Marcion.
An able review of Tertullian's line of thought in this work on the
resurrection occurs in Neander's Antignostikus, Bohn's translation, ii.
478-486. [There is a decisive ebullition of Montanistic fanaticism in cap.
xi., and in the second chapter there is a reference to the De Carne Christi.
Date this treatise circa A.D. 208.]
 Pro temporibus esculentorum.
 Etiam desiderar.
 Cum crematis cremat.
 Adhuc proxime: "Christianae scilicet doctrinae." Oehler.
 Apud Deum.
 Eam solidam.
 In sacramentis.
 In praedicationibus: "in the declarations of the prophets."
 See books ii. and iii. of our Anti-Marcion.
 He means the De Carne Christi.
 Tanquam penes nos quoque incerta, id est penes Creatorem. This
obscure clause is very variously read. One reading, approved by Fr. Junius,
has: "Tanquam penes nos incertum, dum sit quotue certum penes Creatorem,"
q.d., "As a subject full of uncertainty as respects ourselves, although of
an opposite character in relation to the Creator;" whatever that may mean.
 Hoc latere.
 Compare Adv. Omnes Hoereses, c. vi.
 Varro's words help us to understand this rought joke: "Ursi Lucana
origo," etc. (De Ling. Lat. v. 100.)
 Iste: rather his subject than his person.
 i.e. the De Anima.
 Compare the De Test. Anim. ii., and De Anim. xliii.
 Isa. xliv. 20.
 1 Cor. i. 20, iii. 19.
 Of the resurrection of the body.
 Natandum pulmonibus.
 1 Cor. vii. 31.
 John i. 3.
 Gen. i. 26.
 Gen. i. 27.
 Limum de terra: Gen. ii. 7.
 Gen. ii. 7, 8.
 It having just been said that flesh was man's prior designation.
 Quid enim si.
 Gen. i. 26.
 Phil. ii. 6.
 Gen. iii. 19. ["Earth thou art, etc." in text.]
 Gen. iii. 31.
 A Valentinian notion.
 Gen. ii. 23.
 Rom. ix. 20.
 2 Cor. vi. 7.
 Col. ii. 11.
 John iv. 24.
 Una notitia ejus = monogamia.
 Matt. xxii. 37-40.
 2 Cor. xii. 9.
 Luke v. 31.
 1 Cor. xii. 23.
 Luke xix. 10.
 Ezek. xviii. 23.
 Deut. xxxii. 39.
 Isa. xl. 7.
 Isa. xl. 5.
 Gen. vi. 3, Sept.
 Joel iii. 1.
 Rom. viii. 18.
 Rom. viii. 8.
 Gal. v. 17.
 Below, in ch. xvi.
 Gal. vi. 17.
 1 Cor. iii. 16.
 1 Cor. vi. 15.
 Ver. 20.
 Carnes. [To explain the state of mind in which this sentence is
written, let the reader kindly turn back to Vol. II. p. 4, the paragraph."As
Eusebius informs us, etc."]
 Oehler explains "devoratum" by "interceptum."
 Sept. Ps. xcii. 12.'"like a palm
tree" (A.V.). We have here a characteristic way of Tertullian's quoting a
scripture which has even the least bearing on his subject. [See Vol. I.
(this series) p. 12, and same volume, p. viii.]
 Matt. x. 33.
 He refers to Marcion.
 He here refers his reader to what he has written against Marcion,
especially in his books i. and ii.
 Matt. ix. 4.
 Matt. v. 28.
 The leading power.
 "Frictricis" is Oehler's reading.
 1 Thess. iv. 4.
 2 Cor. iv. 16.
 Rom. viii. 3.
 1 Cor. vi. 20.
 As stated in ch. v.-ix.
 See ch. xi.
 As stated in ch. xii. and xiii.
 See ch. xiv.-xvii.
 Resurrectio Mortuorum.
 Gen. iii. 19.
 John ii. 19.
 Matt. xxvi. 38.
 John ii. 21.
 "Corpse from falling." This, of course, does not show the
connection of the words, like the Latin. [Elucidation I.]
 Gen. xxiii. 4.
 Matt. xxiii. 27.
 Isa. vii. 14; Matt. i. 23.
 Isa. viii. 4.
 Isa. iii. 13.
 Ps. ii. 1, 2.
 Isa. liii. 7.
 Isa. l. 6, Sept.
 Isa. liii. 12.
 Ps. xxii. 17.
 Ver. 18.
 Ps. lxix. 22. Tertullian only briefly gives the sense in two
words: et potus amaros.
 Ps. xxii. 8.
 Zech. xi. 12.
 Isa. xxxv. 5.
 Ver. 3.
 Ver. 6.
 Resurrectio Mortuorum, of which we have been speaking.
 See ch. xix.
 For the opinions of those Valentinians who held that Christ's
flesh was composed of soul or of spirit'a refined, ethereal substance'see
Tertullian's De Carne Christi, cc. x.-xv.
 Suspirant in.
 Luke xxi. 24.
 Joel iii. 9-15; Dan. vii. 13, 14.
 Luke xxi. 25, 26.
 Vers. 26-28.
 Luke xxi. 29, 30; Matt. xiv. 32.
 Luke xxi. 31; Matt. xxiv. 33.
 Luke xxi. 36.
 Isa. ii. 19.
 Ps. cx. 1.
 Compare The Apology, xl.; De Spect. xxvii.; De Exhort. Cast. xii.
 Acts i. 11.
 Zech. xii. 1. comp. John xix. 37.
 Mal. iv. 5.
 1 John iv. 3.
 Rev. xviii. 2.
 Matt. xxii. 21.
 Col. i. 21.
 Col. ii. 12.
 Ver. 13.
 Ver. 20. The last clause in Tertullian is, "Quomodo sententiam
 Col. iii. 1, 2.
 Ver. 3.
 1 John iii. 2.
 Gal. v. 5.
 Phil. iii. 11, 12.
 Ver. 12.
 Vers. 13, 14. In the last clause Tertullian reads = blamelessness, or purity, instead of = "our
 Gal. vi. 9.
 2 Tim. i. 18.
 1 Tim. vi. 14, 15, 20.
 Acts iii. 19-21.
 1 Thess. i. 9, 10.
 1 Thess. ii. 19. Some mss. omit "God."
 1 Thess. iii. 13.
 1 Thess. iv. 13-17.
 1 Cor. xv. 19.
 2 Tim. i. 15.
 1 Thess. v. 1-3.
 2 Thess. ii. 1-7.
 2 Thess. ii. 8-10.
 Rev. vi. 9, 10.
 Rev. xvi.
 Rev. xviii.
 Rev. xx. 2.
 Vers. 4-6.
 Vers. 12-14.
 Gen. iii. 19.
 See above, ch. v.
 Gen. iv. 11.
 Ps. xcvii. 1.
 Zech. xii. 10.
 Isa. i. 19.
 1 Cor. ii. 9.
 Matt. v. 45.
 Rom. i. 25.
 Matt. iv. 4.
 Rom. ii. 28, 29.
 Isa. li. 9, Sept.
 Rev. iii. 4 and xiv. 4.
 Matt. xix. 12.
 Rev. iii. 5.
 Matt. xxii. 11, 12.
 There is a curious change of the word here made by Tertullian,
who reads instead of "thy health," or "healings," which
is the world in the Sept.
 Isa. lviii. 8.
 Isa. xxvi. 20.
 Isa. xxvi. 20.
 Ex. iv. 6, 7.
 Ex. iv. 2-9.
 Comp. vers. 3, 4.
 Comp. vers. 6, 7.
 Comp. ver. 9.
 Gen. ix. 5.
 Isa. xxxviii. 12, 13, 16. The very words, however, occur not in
Isaiah, but in 1 Sam. ii. 6, Deut. xxxii. 39.
 Ezek. xxxvii. 1-14.
 Mal. iv. 2, 3.
 Isa. lxvi. 14.
 Isa. xxvi. 19.
 Isa. lxvi. 23.
 Ver. 22.
 Isa. lxvi. 24.
 Matt. xiii. 34.
 ver. 10.
 Matt. xiii. 13; comp. Isa. vi. 9.
 See Luke vi. 39; Comp. with ver. 20, and other places, especially
in this Gospel.
 See Luke viii. 11.
 See Luke xviii. 1.
 Such cases of obvious meaning, which required no explanation, are
referred to in Matt. xxi. 45 and Luke xx. 19.
 Matt. xi. 22.
 Matt. x. 7.
 Luke xiv. 14.
 Luke xix. 10.
 Rom. v. 20.
 John vi. 38.
 Ver. 39.
 Ver. 40.
 John xx. 29.
 Matt. x. 28.
 Tertullian supposed that even the soul was in a certain sense of
a corporeal essence. [Compare the speculations of Crusius in Auberlen,
Divine Revelation, (Translation of A.B. Paton, Edinburgh, Clarks, 1867).]
 Matt. x. 29.
 Ver. 31.
 Matt. x. 30.
 John vi. 39.
 Matt. viii. 12, xiii. 42, xxii. 13, xxv. 30.
 Compare Tertullian's De Proescript. Hoeret. c. xxxiii.
 Matt. xxii. 23-32; Mark xii. 18-27; Luke xx. 27-38.
 Luke xx. 37.
 Ver. 36.
 Ver. 36.
 John vi. 63.
 John v. 24.
 John i. 14.
 John vi. 51.
 John vi. 31, 49, 58.
 John v. 25.
 The divine nature of the Son. See our Anti-Marcion, pp. 129, 247,
note 7, Edin.
 John v. 28, 29.
 Compare c. xix. above.
 Rev. vi. 9-11.
 Tertullian always refers to this book by a plural phrase.
 Sub tribuno.
 Acts xxiii. 6.
 Acts xxvi. 22.
 Gen. ix. 5, 6.
 Acts xvii. 32.
 1 Cor. xi. 19.
 2 Cor. iv. 16.
 Eph. iii. 17.
 2 Cor. iv. 17, 18.
 Rom. viii. 17, 18.
 2 Cor. vii. 5.
 Same verse.
 2 Cor. v. 1.
 Matt. v. 10.
 John xiv. 2.
 2 Cor. v. 2, 3.
 Compendio mortis. Compare our Anti-Marcion for the same thoughts
and words, v. 12. [p. 455, supra.]
 1 Thess. iv. 15-17.
 1 Cor. xv. 51-53.
 Comp. Matt. v. 26, and see Tertullian's De Anima, xxxv. [and see
cap. xliii., infra, p. 576.]
 De Anim. c. li.
 Sed: for "scilicet."
 2 Cor. v. 4. [Against Marcion, p. 455, note 24.]
 Exuti. He must have read , instead of the reading of
nearly all the ms. authorities, .
 2 Cor. v. 3.
 2 Cor. v. 6, 7.
 Ver. 8.
 Comp. his De Anima, c. lv. [Elucidation III.]
 2 Cor. v. 9, 10.
 2 Cor. v. 10.
 Per hyperbation.
 2 Cor. iv. 6.
 Ver. 7.
 2 Cor. iv. 10.
 Ver. 10.
 Ver. 10.
 Ps. cvii. 16.
 2 Cor. iv. 11.
 Ver. 14.
 Eph. iv. 22-24.
 The flesh.
 Gen. i. 28.
 See ch. xxvii.
 We treat "homines" as a nominative, after Oehler.
 Eph. iv. 22.
 Gal. v. 19.
 Eph. iv. 25-32.
 Eph. iv. 22.
 Rom. viii. 8, 9.
 Ver. 10.
 Rom. viii. 11.
 Vers. 12, 13.
 Ver. 2.
 Rom. vii. 17, 20, 23.
 Per delinquentiam: see the De Carne Christi, xvi.
 Rom. viii. 3.
 Rom. vii. 20.
 Rom. viii. 6.
 Ver. 7.
 Col. ii. 20.
 Rom. vi. 6.
 Evacuetur: . A.V. destroyed, i.e. deprived of all
activity, Rom. vi. 6.
 Rom. vi. 6. Tertullian's reading literally is, "that thus far
(and no further) we should be servants of sin."
 Ver. 8.
 Ver. 11.
 Ver. 11.
 Ver. 11.
 Vers. 12, 13.
 Vers. 19-23.
 Rom. vi. 3, 4.
 Ver. 5.
 Rom. v. 21.
 1 Cor. xv. 55.
 Rom. v. 20.
 2 Cor. xii. 9.
 Phil. iii. 20, 21.
 Rom. xii. 1.
 1 Thess. v. 23.
 [Note Tertullian's summary of the text, in harmony with the
Tripartite philosophy of humanity.]
 1 Cor. xv. 50.
 1 Cor. xv. 12-18.
 Ver. 3.
 Ver. 4.
 Ver. 21.
 1 Cor. xv. 22.
 Ver. 23.
 Ver. 29.
 Ver. 29.
 Comp. 1 Pet. iii. 21.
 1 Cor. xv. 30.
 Ver. 31.
 Ver. 32.
 2 Cor. i. 8.
 1 Cor. xv. 35.
 Ad carnem et sanguinem revera.
 1 Cor. xv. 47.
 Ver. 45.
 See De Carne Christi. ch. xvi.
 1 Cor. xv. 48.
 1 Cor. xv. 40.
 Ver. 41.
 Ver. 49.
 1 Cor. xv. 50.
 See Eph. iv. 22.
 Rom. viii. 9.
 Gal. v. 21.
 1 Cor. xv. 32.
 A.V. damnation, John v. 29.
 1 Cor. xv. 50.
 This must be the meaning of the dative illi.
 John vi. 63.
 1 Cor. xv. 53.
 We have kept this word to suit the last Scripture quotation; but
Tertullian's word, both here and in the quotation, is "devorata," swallowed
 See i. 15, 16.
 Mark xvi. 19.
 1 Cor. xv. 45.
 Acts i. 9.
 Ver. 10.
 Zech. xii. 10; John xix. 37; Rev. i. 7.
 1 Tim. ii. 5. Tertullian's word is "sequester," the guardian of a
 2 Cor. v. 5.
 1 Cor. xv. 50.
 1 Cor. xv. 54-56.
 Rom. vii. 23.
 1 Cor. xv. 26.
 Ver. 52.
 Ver. 53.
 Cutem ipsam. Rufinus says that in the church of Aquileia they
touched their bodies when they recited the clause of the creed which they
rendered "the resurrection of this body."
 1 Cor. xv. 36.
 Ver. 37.
 An objection of the opponent.
 Vers. 37, 38.
 1 Cor. xv. 38.
 Ver. 39.
 Ps. xlix. 20, Sept.
 1 Cor. xv. 39.
 1 Cor. xv. 41.
 Ver. 42.
 Vers. 42-44.
 Gen. iii. 19.
 1 Cor. xv. 45.
 What in our version is rendered "a natural body," is St. Paul's
which the heretics held to be merely a periphrasis for
We have rendered Tertullian's phrase corpus animale by "animate
body," the better to stiu the argument.
 1 Cor. xv. 42, 43.
 Compare ver. 45 with Gen. ii. 7.
 See this put more fully above, c. v., near the end.
 See the De Anima, v.-ix., for a full statement of Tertullian's
view of the soul corporeality.
 1 Cor. xv. 45.
 1 Cor. xv. 46.
 Ver. 47.
 Ver. 45.
 Ver. 46.
 1 Cor. xv. 44, 45.
 2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5, and Eph. i. 14.
 2 Cor. v. 4.
 1 Cor. xv. 53.
 1 Cor. xv. 53.
 Ver. 54.
 Ver. 55.
 Ex. iv. 6, 7.
 Ex. xxxiv. 29, 35.
 Acts vi. 15.
 Acts vii. 59, 60.
 Matt. xvii. 2-4.
 Ver. 3.
 Phil. iii. 21.
 1 Sam. x. 6.
 2 Cor. xi. 14.
 With Marcion.
 With Valentinus.
 Rev. v. 9, xiv. 3.
 Or the recovery of our entire person.
 1 Cor. xv. 52.
 1 Cor. xv. 53.
 1 Thess. iv. 13-17 and v. 23.
 Matt. xix. 26.
 1 Cor. i. 27.
 Isa. xxxv. 10.
 Ver. 10.
 Rev. vii. 17.
 Rev. xxi. 4.
 Rev. xx. 10, 13-15.
 Deut. xxix. 5.
 Dan. iii. 27.
 Jonah i. 17, ii. 10.
 Gen. v. 24; 2 Kings ii. 11.
 1 Cor. x. 6.
 1 Cor. iii. 22.
 Isa. xl. 7.
 Ver. 5.
 Isa. xl. 15.
 Ver. 17. The word is spittle, which the LXX. uses in the
fifteenth verse for the "dust" of the Hebrew Bible.
 Isa. xlii. 4, Sept; quoted from the LXX. by Christ in Matt. xii.
21, and by St. Paul in Rom. xv. 12.
 An allusion to some conceits of the Valentinians, who put men of
truest nature and fit for Christ's grace outside of the oceanbounded earth,
 1 Cor. xv. 53.
 2 Cor. v. 10.
 Ex. xxiv. 8.
 1 Kings xix. 8.
 Deut. viii. 3; Matt. iv. 4.
 Luke xx. 36; Matt. xxii. 30.
 1 Tim. ii. 5.
 Gen. iii. 22.
 In this apostrophe to the soul, he censures Marcion's heresy.
 Compare the De Carne Christi.
 See the De Proescript. Hoeret. ch. xxxviii. supra, for instances
of these diverse methods of heresy. Marcion is mentioned as the mutilator of
Scripture, by cutting away from it whatever opposed his views; Vaneltinus as
the corrupter thereof, by his manifold and fantastic interpretations.
 See the Adv. Valentinianos, supra.
 Joel. ii. 28, 29; Acts ii. 17, 18. [See last sentence. He
improves upon St. Peter's interpretation of this text (As see below) by
attributing his own clear views to the charismata, which he regards as still
vouchsafed to the more spiritual.]
 We follow Oehler's view here, by all means.
 1 Cor. xi. 19.
 Oeuvres, Tom. v. p. 111.
 See Soames' Anglo Saxon Church, cap. xii. p. 465, and cap. xi.
pp. 423-430. See also the valuable annotations of Dr. Routh's Opuscula, Vol.
II. pp. 167-186.
Also, see links to 3500 other Manuscripts:
E-mail to: BELIEVE
The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at:
BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet