Chapter X.—Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body, Continued. How are the Dead Raised? and with What Body Do They Come? These Questions Answered in Such a Sense as to Maintain the Truth of the Raised Body, Against Marcion. Christ as the Second Adam Connected with the Creator of the First Man. Let Us Bear the Image of the Heavenly. The Triumph Over Death in Accordance with the Prophets.  Hosea and St. Paul Compared.

Let us now return to the resurrection, to the defence of which against heretics of all sorts we have given indeed sufficient attention in another work of ours.3303    Argumentum processurum erat.    He refers to his De Resurrect. Carnis. See chap. xlviii. But we will not be wanting (in some defence of the doctrine) even here, in consideration of such persons as are ignorant of that little treatise. “What,” asks he, “shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not?”3304    See Luke v. 1–11.    1 Cor. xv. 29. Now, never mind3305    Jer. xvi. 16.    Viderit. that practice, (whatever it may have been.)  The Februarian lustrations3306    Attentius argumentatur.    Kalendæ Februariæ. The great expiation or lustration, celebrated at Rome in the month which received its name from the festival, is described by Ovid, Fasti, book ii., lines 19–28, and 267–452, in which latter passage the same feast is called Lupercalia. Of course as the rites were held on the 15th of the month, the word kalendæ here has not its more usual meaning (Paley’s edition of the Fasti, pp. 52–76). Oehler refers also to Macrobius, Saturn. i. 13; Cicero, De Legibus, ii. 21; Plutarch, Numa, p. 132. He well remarks (note in loc.), that Tertullian, by intimating that the heathen rites of the Februa will afford quite as satisfactory an answer to the apostle’s question, as the Christian superstition alluded to, not only means no authorization of the said superstition for himself, but expresses his belief that St. Paul’s only object was to gather some evidence for the great doctrine of the resurrection from the faith which underlay the practice alluded to. In this respect, however, the heathen festival would afford a much less pointed illustration; for though it was indeed a lustration for the dead, περὶ νεκρῶν, and had for its object their happiness and welfare, it went no further than a vague notion of an indefinite immortality, and it touched not the recovery of the body. There is therefore force in Tertullian’s si forte. will perhaps3307    Apud illum, i.e., the Creator.    Si forte. answer him (quite as well), by praying for the dead.3308    Luke v. 12–14.    τῷ εὔχεσθαι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν (Rigalt.). Do not then suppose that the apostle here indicates some new god as the author and advocate of this (baptism for the dead.  His only aim in alluding to it was) that he might all the more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body, in proportion as they who were vainly baptized for the dead resorted to the practice from their belief of such a resurrection. We have the apostle in another passage defining “but one baptism.”3309    1 Cor. v. 11.    Eph. iv. 5. To be “baptized for the dead” therefore means, in fact, to be baptized for the body;3310    Per carnalia, by material things.    Pro corporibus. for, as we have shown, it is the body which becomes dead.  What, then, shall they do who are baptized for the body,3311    Hoc nomine.    Eph. iv. 5. if the body3312    Æmulus.    Corpora. rises not again? We stand, then, on firm ground (when we say) that3313    Another allusion to Marcion’s Docetic doctrine.    Ut, with the subjunctive verb induxerit. the next question which the apostle has discussed equally relates to the body. But “some man will say, ‘How are the dead raised up? With what body do they come?’”3314    Materiam.    1 Cor. xv. 35. Having established the doctrine of the resurrection which was denied, it was natural3315    Unicum.    Consequens erat. to discuss what would be the sort of body (in the resurrection), of which no one had an idea. On this point we have other opponents with whom to engage. For Marcion does not in any wise admit the resurrection of the flesh, and it is only the salvation of the soul which he promises; consequently the question which he raises is not concerning the sort of body, but the very substance thereof. Notwithstanding,3316    Ex., literally, “alone of.” So Luke iv. 27.    Porro. he is most plainly refuted even from what the apostle advances respecting the quality of the body, in answer to those who ask, “How are the dead raised up? with what body do they come?” For as he treated of the sort of body, he of course ipso facto proclaimed in the argument that it was a body which would rise again. Indeed, since he proposes as his examples “wheat grain, or some other grain, to which God giveth a body, such as it hath pleased Him;”3317    Compare 2 Kings v. 9–14 with Luke iv. 27.    1 Cor. xv. 37, 38. since also he says, that “to every seed is its own body;”3318    Facilius—rather than of Israelites.    1 Cor. xv. 38. that, consequently,3319    Per Nationes. [Bishop Andrewes thus classifies the “Sins of the Nations,” as Tertullian’s idea seems to have suggested: (1) Pride, Amorite; (2) Envy, Hittite; (3) Wrath, Perizzite; (4) Gluttony, Girgashite; (5) Lechery, Hivite; (6) Covetousness, Canaanite; (7) Sloth, Jebusite.]    Ut. “there is one kind of flesh of men, whilst there is another of beasts, and (another) of birds; that there are also celestial bodies and bodies terrestrial; and that there is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars”3320    Compare, in Simeon’s song, Luke ii. 32, the designation, “A light to lighten the Gentiles.”    1 Cor. xv. 39–41.—does he not therefore intimate that there is to be3321    [See Elucidation I.]    Portendit. a resurrection of the flesh or body, which he illustrates by fleshly and corporeal samples? Does he not also guarantee that the resurrection shall be accomplished by that God from whom proceed all the (creatures which have served him for) examples? “So also,” says he, “is the resurrection of the dead.”3322    Such seems to be the meaning of the obscure passage in the original, “Syro facilius emundato significato per nationes emundationis in Christo lumine earum quæ septem maculis, capitalium delictorum inhorrerent, idoatria,” etc. We have treated significato as one member of an ablative absolute clause, from significatum, a noun occuring in Gloss. Lat. Gr. synonymous with δήλωσις. Rigault, in a note on the passage, imputes the obscurity to Tertullian’s arguing on the Marcionite hypothesis. “Marcion,” says he, “held that the prophets, like Elisha, belonged to the Creator, and Christ to the good God. To magnify Christ’s beneficence, he prominently dwells on the alleged fact, that Christ, although a stranger to the Creator’s world, yet vouchsafed to do good in it. This vain conceit Tertullian refutes from the Marcionite hypothesis itself. God the Creator, said they, had found Himself incapable of cleansing this Israelite; but He had more easily cleansed the Syrian.  Christ, however, cleansed the Israelite, and so showed himself the superior power. Tertullian denies both positions.”    1 Cor. xv. 42. How?  Just as the grain, which is sown a body, springs up a body. This sowing of the body he called the dissolving thereof in the ground, “because it is sown in corruption,” (but “is raised) to honour and power.”3323    Quasi per singulos titulos.    1 Cor. xv. 42, 43. Now, just as in the case of the grain, so here: to Him will belong the work in the revival of the body, who ordered the process in the dissolution thereof. If, however, you remove the body from the resurrection which you submitted to the dissolution, what becomes of the diversity in the issue? Likewise, “although it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.”3324    There was a mystic completeness in the number seven.    1 Cor. xv. 44. Now, although the natural principle of life3325    Dicabatur.    Anima: we will call it soul in the context. and the spirit have each a body proper to itself, so that the “natural body” may fairly be taken3326    Sicut sermonem compendiatum, ita et lavacrum. In chap. i. of this book, the N.T. is called the compendiatum. This illustrates the present phrase.    Possit videri. to signify the soul,3327    Et hoc opponit.    Animam. and “the spiritual body” the spirit, yet that is no reason for supposing3328    Repræsentavit.    Non ideo. the apostle to say that the soul is to become spirit in the resurrection, but that the body (which, as being born along with the soul, and as retaining its life by means of the soul,3329    Quasi non audeam.    Animam. admits of being called animal (or natural3330    Vindicare in.    Animale. The terseness of his argument, by his use of the same radical terms Anima and Animale, is lost in the English. [See Cap. 15 infra. Also, Kaye p. 180. St. Augustine seems to tolerate our author’s views of a corporal spirit in his treatise de Hæresibus.]) will become spiritual, since it rises through the Spirit to an eternal life.  In short, since it is not the soul, but the flesh which is “sown in corruption,” when it turns to decay in the ground, it follows that (after such dissolution) the soul is no longer the natural body, but the flesh, which was the natural body, (is the subject of the future change), forasmuch as of a natural body it is made a spiritual body, as he says further down, “That was not first which is spiritual.”3331    Plane. An ironical cavil from the Marcionite view.    1 Cor. xv. 46. For to this effect he just before remarked of Christ Himself: “The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.”3332    Si tamen major.    1 Cor. xv. 45. Our heretic, however, in the excess of his folly, being unwilling that the statement should remain in this shape, altered “last Adam” into “last Lord;”3333    Luke v. 14.    ὁ ἔσχατος ᾽Αδάμ into ὁ ἔσχατος Κύριος. because he feared, of course, that if he allowed the Lord to be the last (or second) Adam, we should contend that Christ, being the second Adam, must needs belong to that God who owned also the first Adam. But the falsification is transparent. For why is there a first Adam, unless it be that there is also a second Adam? For things are not classed together unless they be severally alike, and have an identity of either name, or substance, or origin.3334    Utpote prophetatæ.    Vel auctoris. Now, although among things which are even individually diverse, one must be first and another last, yet they must have one author. If, however, the author be a different one, he himself indeed may be called the last. But the thing which he introduces is the first, and that only can be the last, which is like this first in nature.3335    Emaculatum.    Par. It is, however, not like the first in nature, when it is not the work of the same author.  In like manner (the heretic) will be refuted also with the word “man: ”  “The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.”3336    [i.e., the Great High Priest whose sacrifice is accepted of the Father, for the sins of the whole world.]    1 Cor. xv. 47. Now, since the first was a man, how can there be a second, unless he is a man also? Or, else, if the second is “Lord,” was the first “Lord” also?3337    Suscepturus: to carry or take away.    Marcion seems to have changed man into Lord, or rather to have omitted the ἄνθρωπος of the second clause, letting the verse run thus: ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοϊκὁς, ὁ δεύτερος Κύριος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. Anything to cut off all connection with the Creator. It is, however, quite enough for me, that in his Gospel he admits the Son of man to be both Christ and Man; so that he will not be able to deny Him (in this passage), in the “Adam” and the “man” (of the apostle).  What follows will also be too much for him. For when the apostle says, “As is the earthy,” that is, man, “such also are they that are earthy”—men again, of course; “therefore as is the heavenly,” meaning the Man, from heaven, “such are the men also that are heavenly.”3338    Legis indultor.    The οἱ ἐπουράνιοι, the “de cœlo homines,” of this ver. 48 are Christ’s risen people; comp. Phil. iii. 20, 21 (Alford). For he could not possibly have opposed to earthly men any heavenly beings that were not men also; his object being the more accurately to distinguish their state and expectation by using this name in common for them both. For in respect of their present state and their future expectation he calls men earthly and heavenly, still reserving their parity of name, according as they are reckoned (as to their ultimate condition3339    Advenit.    Secundum exitum.) in Adam or in Christ. Therefore, when exhorting them to cherish the hope of heaven, he says: “As we have borne the image of the earthy, so let us also bear the image of the heavenly,”3340    Atquin.    1 Cor. xv. 49. T. argues from the reading φορέσωμεν (instead of φορέσομεν), which indeed was read by many of the fathers, and (what is still more important) is found in the Codex Sinaiticus. We add the critical note of Dean Alford on this reading: “ACDFKL rel latt copt goth, Theodotus, Basil, Cæsarius, Cyril, Macarius, Methodius (who prefixes ἕνα), Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Ps. Athanasius, Damascene, Irenæus (int), Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, Jerome.”  Alford retains the usual φορέσομεν, on the strength chiefly of the Codex Vaticanus.—language which relates not to any condition of resurrection life, but to the rule of the present time. He says, Let us bear, as a precept; not We shall bear, in the sense of a promise—wishing us to walk even as he himself was walking, and to put off the likeness of the earthly, that is, of the old man, in the works of the flesh. For what are this next words? “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.”3341    Formam.    1 Cor. xv. 50. He means the works of the flesh and blood, which, in his Epistle to the Galatians, deprive men of the kingdom of God.3342    Ab ea avertendos.    Gal. v. 19–21. In other passages also he is accustomed to put the natural condition instead of the works that are done therein, as when he says, that “they who are in the flesh cannot please God.”3343    Aliquatenus.    Rom. viii. 8. Now, when shall we be able to please God except whilst we are in this flesh?  There is, I imagine, no other time wherein a man can work. If, however, whilst we are even naturally living in the flesh, we yet eschew the deeds of the flesh, then we shall not be in the flesh; since, although we are not absent from the substance of the flesh, we are notwithstanding strangers to the sin thereof. Now, since in the word flesh we are enjoined to put off, not the substance, but the works of the flesh, therefore in the use of the same word the kingdom of God is denied to the works of the flesh, not to the substance thereof. For not that is condemned in which evil is done, but only the evil which is done in it.  To administer poison is a crime, but the cup in which it is given is not guilty. So the body is the vessel of the works of the flesh, whilst the soul which is within it mixes the poison of a wicked act. How then is it, that the soul, which is the real author of the works of the flesh, shall attain to3344    Jam.    Merebitur. the kingdom of God, after the deeds done in the body have been atoned for, whilst the body, which was nothing but (the soul’s) ministering agent, must remain in condemnation? Is the cup to be punished, but the poisoner to escape?  Not that we indeed claim the kingdom of God for the flesh: all we do is, to assert a resurrection for the substance thereof, as the gate of the kingdom through which it is entered. But the resurrection is one thing, and the kingdom is another. The resurrection is first, and afterwards the kingdom. We say, therefore, that the flesh rises again, but that when changed it obtains the kingdom. “For the dead shall be raised incorruptible,” even those who had been corruptible when their bodies fell into decay; “and we shall be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.3345    Supervacuus.    1 Cor. xv. 52. For this corruptible”—and as he spake, the apostle seemingly pointed to his own flesh—“must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality,”3346    Gradu.    1 Cor. xv. 53. in order, indeed, that it may be rendered a fit substance for the kingdom of God. “For we shall be like the angels.”3347    Ecce.    Matt. xxii. 30 and Luke xx. 36. This will be the perfect change of our flesh—only after its resurrection.3348    Sententiam.    Sed resuscitatæ. Now if, on the contrary,3349    Matt. v. 17.    Aut si. there is to be no flesh, how then shall it put on incorruption and immortality? Having then become something else by its change, it will obtain the kingdom of God, no longer the (old) flesh and blood, but the body which God shall have given it. Rightly then does the apostle declare, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;”3350    Quod salvum est.    1 Cor. xv. 50. for this (honour) does he ascribe to the changed condition3351    That is, you retain the passage in St. Luke, which relates the act of honouring the law; but you reject that in St. Matthew, which contains Christ’s profession of honouring the law.    Demutationi. which ensues on the resurrection. Since, therefore, shall then be accomplished the word which was written by the Creator, “O death, where is thy victory”—or thy struggle?3352    Nostros: or, perhaps, “our people,”—that is, the Catholics.    Suggested by the ἰσχυσας of Sept. in Isa. xxv. 8. “O death, where is thy sting?”3353    1 Cor. xv. 55.—written, I say, by the Creator, for He wrote them by His prophet3354    Isa. xxv. 8 and (especially) Hos. xiii. 14.—to Him will belong the gift, that is, the kingdom, who proclaimed the word which is to be accomplished in the kingdom.  And to none other God does he tell us that “thanks” are due, for having enabled us to achieve “the victory” even over death, than to Him from whom he received the very expression3355    The Septuagint version of the passage in Hosea is, ποῦ ἡ δίκη σου, θάνατε; ποῦ τὸ κέντνον σου, ᾅδη, which is very like the form of the apostrophe in 1 Cor. xv. 55. of the exulting and triumphant challenge to the mortal foe.

CAPUT X.

Revertamur nunc ad resurrectionem, cui et alias quidem proprio volumine satisfecimus omnibus haereticis resistentes; sed nec hic desumus propter 0494C eos qui illud opusculum ignorant. Quid, ait, facient qui pro mortuis baptizantur, si mortui non resurgunt (I Cor., XV)? Viderit institutio ista. Kalendae si forte Februariae respondebunt illi, pro mortuis 0495A petere . Noli ergo Apostolum novum statim auctorem aut confirmatorem ejus denotare, ut tanto magis sisteret carnis resurrectionem, quanto illi qui vane pro mortuis baptizarentur, fide resurrectionis hoc facerent. Habemus illum alicubi (Eph., IV, 5) unius baptismi definitorem . Igitur et pro mortuis tingui, pro corporibus est tingui; mortuum enim corpus ostendimus. Quid facient qui pro corporibus baptizantur, si corpora non resurgunt? Atque adeo recte hunc gradum figimus, ut et Apostolus secundam disceptationem aeque de corpore induxerit. Sed dicent quidam: Quomodo mortui resurgent? quo autem corpore venient? Defensa etenim resurrectione quae negabatur, consequens erat de qualitate corporis retractare, quae non videbatur. Sed de ista cum aliis 0495B congredi convenit. Marcion enim in totum carnis resurrectionem non admittens, et soli animae salutem repromittens, non qualitatis, sed substantiae facit quaestionem. Porro et ex his manifestissime obducitur, quae Apostolus ad qualitatem corporis tractat propter illos qui dicunt, Quomodo resurgent mortui? quo autem corpore venient? (jam enim praedicavit resurrecturum esse corpus) de corporis qualitate tractari. Denique si proponit exempla grani tritici, vel alicujus ejusmodi, vel quibus det corpus Deus prout volet; si unicuique seminum, proprium ait esse corpus; et aliam quidem carnem hominum, aliam vero pecudum et volucrum; et corpora coelestia atque terrena; et aliam gloriam solis, et lunae aliam, et stellarum aliam: nonne carnalem et corporalem portendit 0495C resurrectionem, quam per carnalia et corporalia exempla commendat? nonne etiam ab eo Deo eam spondet, a quo sunt et exempla? Sic et resurrectio, inquit. Quomodo? sicut et granum corpus seritur, corpus resurgit. Seminationem denique vocavit dissolutionem corporis in terram, quia seritur in corruptela, resurgit in honestatem et virtutem. Cujus ille ordo in dissolutione, ejus et hic in resurrectione corporis, scilicet sicut et granum. Caeterum, si auferas corpus resurrectioni, quod dedisti dissolutioni, ubi consistet diversitas exitus? Proinde etsi seritur animale, resurgit spiritale. Et si habet aliquod proprium corpus anima vel spiritus, ut possit videri corpus animale animam significare, et corpus spiritale spiritum; non ideo animam dicit in resurrectione spiritum 0495D futurum , sed corpus, quod cum anima nascendo, et per animam vivendo, animale dici capit, futurum spiritale, dum per spiritum surgit in aeternitatem. Denique, si non anima, sed caro seminatur in corruptela dum dissolvitur in terram, jam non anima erit corpus animale, sed caro, quae fuit corpus animale. Siquidem de animali efficitur spiritale, sicut et 0496A infra dicit: Non primum quod spiritale. Ad hoc enim et de ipso Christo praestruit: Factus primus homo Adam in animam vivam; novissimus Adam in spiritum vivificantem; licet stultissimus haereticus noluerit ita esse. Dominum enim posuit novissimum, pro novissimo Adam; veritus scilicet ne si et Dominum novissimum haberet Adam, et ejusdem Christum defenderemus in Adam novissimo, cujus et primum. Sed falsum relucet. Cur enim primus Adam, nisi quia et novissimus Adam? Non habent ordinem inter se nisi paria quaeque, et ejusdem vel nominis, vel substantiae, vel auctoris. Nam etsi potest in diversis quoque esse aliud primum, aliud novissimum; sed unius auctoris. Caeterum, si et auctor alius, et ipse quidem potest novissimus dici. Quod tamen intulerit, primum 0496B est; novissimum autem, si primo par sit. Par autem primo non est, quia non ejusdem auctoris est. Eodem modo et in homine hominis revincetur. Primus, inquit, homo de humo terrenus; secundus, dominus de coelo. Quare secundus, si non homo, quod et primus? aut numquid et primus dominus, si et secundus? Sed sufficit, si Evangelio Filium hominis adhibet Christum et hominem, et in nomine Adam, eum negare non poterit. Sequentia quoque eum comprimunt. Cum enim dicit Apostolus: Qualis qui de terra, homo scilicet, tales et terreni, homines utique; ergo et qualis qui de coelo, homo, tales et qui de coelo, homines. Non enim poterat hominibus terrenis non homines coelestes opposuisse, ut statum ac spem studiosius distingueret in appellationis societate. 0496C Statu enim ac spe dicit terrenos atque coelestes homines; tamen ex pari, qui secundum exitum aut in Adam aut in Christo deputantur. Et ideo jam ad exhortationem spei coelestis: Sicut portavimus, inquit, imaginem terreni, portemus et imaginem coelestis; non ad substantiam ullam referens resurrectionis, sed ad praesentis temporis disciplinam. Portemus enim, inquit, non portabimus; praeceptive, non promissive, volens nos sicut ipse incessit, ita incedere, et a terreni, id est, veteris hominis imagine abscedere, quae est carnalis operatio. Denique, quid subjungit? Hoc enim dico, fratres, quia caro et sanguis regnum Dei non possidebunt; opera scilicet carnis et sanguinis, quibus et ad Galatas (Gal., V, 19-21) scribens, abstulit Dei regnum, solitus et alias substantiam 0496D pro operibus substantiae ponere; ut cum dicit, Eos qui in carne sunt, Deo placere non posse; quando enim placere Deo poterimus, nisi dum in carne hac sumus? Aliud tempus operationis nullum, opinor, est. Sed si in carne quamquam constituti, carnis opera fugiamus; tum non erimus in carne, dum non in substantia carnis non sumus, sed in 0497A culpa. Quod si in nomine carnis opera, non substantiam carnis jubemur exponere; operibus ergo carnis, non substantiae carnis, in nomine carnis denegatur Dei regnum. Non enim id damnatur, in quo male fit, sed id quod fit. Venenum dare, scelus est; calix tamen in quo datur, reus non est. Ita et corpus carnalium operum vas est, anima est autem quae in illo venenum alicujus mali facti temperat. Quale autem, ut si anima auctrix operum carnis merebitur Dei regnum, per expiationem eorum quae in corpore admisit, corpus ministrum solummodo, in damnatione permaneat? Venefico absoluto, calix erit puniendus? Et tamen non utique carni defendimus Dei regnum, sed resurrectionem substantiae suae, quasi januam regni per quam aditur. Caeterum, aliud 0497B resurrectio, aliud regnum. Primo enim resurrectio, dehinc regnum. Resurgere itaque dicimus carnem, sed mutatam consequi regnum. Resurgent enim mortui incorrupti; illi scilicet, qui fuerant corrupti, dilapsis corporibus in interitum. Et nos mutabimur in atomo, in oculi momentaneo motu. Oportet enim corruptivum hoc (tenens utique carnem suam dicebat Apostolus) induere incorruptelam, et mortale hoc immortalitatem; ut scilicet habilis substantia efficiatur regno Dei. Erimus enim sicut angeli. Haec erit demutatio carnis resuscitatae. Aut si nulla erit, quomodo induet incorruptelam et immortalitatem? Aliud igitur facta per demutationem, tunc consequetur Dei regnum; jam non caro nec sanguis, sed quod illi corpus Deus dederit. Et ideo recte Apostolus: Caro 0497C et sanguis regnum Dei non consequentur; demutationi illud adscribens, quae accedit resurrectioni. Si autem tunc fiet verbum, quod scriptum est apud Creatorem: Ubi est, mors, victoria tua, vel contentio tua? Ubi est, mors, aculeus tuus? Verbum autem hoc Creatoris est, per Prophetam; ejus erit et res, id est regnum, cujus et verbum fiet in regno. Nec alii Deo gratias dicit, quod nobis victoriam, utique de morte, referre praestiterit, quam illi a quo verbum insultatorium de morte et triumphatorium accepit (II Cor., I, III et IV).