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.”222    Luke xix. 10. 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.”223    Rom. v. 20. 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 he 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.”224    John vi. 38. 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.”225    Ver. 39. 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,”226    Ver. 40.—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;”227    John xx. 29. 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?

CAPUT XXXIV.

Imprimis, cum ad hoc venisse se dicit, uti quod periit, salvum faciat, quid dicas perisse? Hominem, sine dubio. Totumne, an ex parte? Utique totum: siquidem transgressio, quae perditionis humanae caussa est, tam animae instinctu ex concupiscentia, quam et carnis actu ex degustatione commissa, totum hominem elogio transgressionis inscripsit, atque exinde merito perditionis implevit. Totus itaque salvus fiet, qui periit totus delinquendo 0842C : nisi si et ovis illa sine corpore amittitur, et sine corpore revocatur. Nam si caro quoque ejus cum anima (quod pecus totum est) humeris boni pastoris advehitur, ex utraque utique substantia restituendi hominis exemplum est. Aut quam indignum Deo, dimidium hominem redigere in salutem? Pene 0843A minus facere, cum etiam saecularium principum plena semper indulgentia vindicetur. Diabolus validior in hominis injuriam intelligitur, totum eum elidens; Deus infirmior renuntiabitur, non totum eum relevans? Atquin et Apostolus suggerit (Rom. V), ubi delictum abundaverit, illic gratiam superabundasse. Quomodo denique salvus habebitur, qui poterit et perditus dici, carne scilicet perditus, anima vero salvus, nisi quod jam et anima in perdito constituatur necesse est, ut salva effici possit? Id enim salvum effici oportebit, quod perditum fuerit. Porro autem recipimus animae immortalitatem, ut perdita non in interitum credatur, sed in supplicium, id est, in gehennam. Et, si ita est, jam non animam spectabit salus; salvam scilicet sua natura per immortalitatem; sed carnem potius, quam interibilem constat apud omnes. Aut si 0843B et anima interibilis, id est non immortalis, quod et caro; jam et carni forma illa ex aequo proficere debebit, proinde mortali et interibili; quia id quod perit, salvum facturus est Dominus. Nolo nunc contentioso fune deducere, hac an illac hominem perditio depostulet , dum utrimque cum salus destinet, in ambas substantias peraequata. Ecce enim, ex quacumque substantia hominem perisse praesumpseris, ex altera non perit. Salvus ergo erit jam ex qua non perit, et salvus nihilominus fiet ex qua perit. Habes totius hominis restitutionem; dum et quodcumque ejus perit, salvum facturus est Dominus; et quodcumque non perit, utique non erit perditurus. Quis ultra de utriusque substantiae securitate dubitabit , cum altera salutem consecutura 0843C sit, altera amissura eam non sit? Et tamen adhuc sensum rei exprimit Dominus, ego, dicens, veni, non ut meam, sed ut Patris, qui misit me, faciam voluntatem. Quam oro te? Ut omne quod dedit mihi, non perdam ex eo quicquam, sed resuscitem illud in novissima die. Quid a Patre Christus acceperat, nisi quod et induerat? Hominem sine dubio, carnis animaeque texturam. Neutrum ergo eorum, quae accepit, perire 0844A patietur; imo nec quicquam utriusque; imo nec modicum. Quod si modicum caro, ergo nec carnem, quia nec modicum: nec quicquam, quia nec quicquam . Atquin, si non et carnem resuscitabit novissima die, jam non modicum patietur perire de homine; sed, pro tanta dixerim parte, prope totum. Ingerens amplius: Haecest Patris voluntas, ut omnis qui videtFilium, et credit in eum, habeat vitam aeternam, et suscitem illum novissima die; plenitudinem exstruit resurrectionis: distribuit enim utrique substantiae per officia propriam mercedem salutis, et carnis per quam filius aspiciebatur, et animae per quam credebatur. Ergo, dices, illis erit promissa res, a quibus Christus videbatur. Sit plane ita, ut et ad nos eadem 0844B spes inde manaverit. Nam si videntibus, et idcirco credentibus, fructuosa tunc fuerunt opera carnis atque animae, multo magis nobis. Feliciores enim, inquit, qui non viderunt , et credunt; quando etsi illis negaretur carnis resurrectio, certe felicioribus competisset. Quomodo enim felices, si ex parte perituri?