Eusebius of Cesarea has given a lively representation of the victory which Jesus Christ gained over death on this occasion. As soon as he had said, 'Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit,' he quitted his body, without waiting till death should seize him; but he himself anticipated death, and took him trembling, prostrate at his feet, and about to seek safety in retreat. He arrested his flight, and breaking the gates of those gloomy dungeons, in which the souls of the saints were enclosed, he drew them thence, raised them, rose himself, and led them in triumph with him into the celestial Jerusalem. St. Hilary obviously favours this opinion, when he says that Jesus Christ reigns in Sion, in Jerusalem; not in terrestrial Jerusalem, that murderous and sanguinary city, but in the celestial Jerusalem, which is our mother, of which the saints who rose with him are the inhabitants. Cujus et existimo hodieque incolæ sunt in Passione Domini resurgentes. d St. Epiphanius is not quite consistent in what he relates respecting the saints who arose with the Saviour. In one place, in explaining what is said by St. Paul (1 Cor. xv. 20), that Jesus Christ is the first-fruits of the raised dead-he remarks that in truth the dead were seen to rise with Jesus Christ; that Elijah and Elisha raised some; that the Saviour himself restored life to Lazarus, and to some others; but, he adds, what distinguishes Jesus Christ from others is, that he rose to die no more; instead of which all the others who were raised died again. Elsewhere, in speaking of the blessed whose bodies are on the earth, he excepts from their number those who rose with Jesus Christ, who have entered with him into the bride-chamber, who have come into the holy city, and have appeared to many, as it is said in the Evangelist. It is certain, he continues, that at first they entered into the terrestrial Jerusalem, but afterwards they were introduced with Jesus Christ into the celestial, which till then had been opened to no one. In order to reconcile St. Epiphanius with himself, one might say that in the first passage he must be understood as speaking only of the dead who were raised to ordinary life and in bodies. mortal and corruptible, but not of those who were resuscitated with subtil and glorious bodies. Lazarus and those whom Elijah and Elisha restored, were recalled to life a short time after their death, and before their bodies were destroyed and reduced to dust. Those whom Jesus Christ revived, were dead and corrupted long before. The flesh of the first was like the still entire grain d Hilar. in Ps. ii. n. 26. ' Epiph. Hæres. lxvii. n. 7, p. 911. Epiphan. Hæres. lxiv. n. 65, p. 594. of of wheat, which has not yet rotted in the earth, in order to germinate and rise again. The flesh of the second was like the grain which, after having experienced corruption, puts forth the germ of reproduction. This flesh was animated by a new breath of life, and re-invested with immortality. St. Jerome has varied still more than St. Epiphanius, and it is far from easy to harmonize his statements on this subject. He assures us in one place that the good thief was received into Paradise after Jesus Christ; and that many bodies of the saints who arose were seen in the celestial Jerusalem.h Post Christum latro in Paradiso, et idcirco in resurrectione ejus multa dormientium corpora surrexerunt, visaque sunt in cœlesti Jerusalem. In other places he treats this opinion with ridicule. We must not understand that of the celestial Jerusalem, as many ridiculously do, since the miracle of the resurrection of the saints would have been of no service to mankind, if they had only been seen in the celestial Jerusalem.' That is true, if they had been seen in heaven only: but those who believe that these bodies ascended into heaven with Jesus Christ do not deny that they were also seen in the terrestrial Jerusalem. For the passage in the Gospel may be explained three ways: 1. Those resuscitated saints showed themselves really in the city of Jerusalem. 2. They represented another kind of persons spiritually raised, who by faith, baptism, and a holy life, deserved to become citizens of the celestial Jerusalem. Jeromek himself furnishes this explanation in his epistle to Redibia. 3. They might ascend with their bodies into the celestial Jerusalem, there to enjoy immortality and an eternity of bliss. These three senses are found in St. Jerome and in other commentators. St. The venerable Bede introduces these risen saints into the terrestrial Jerusalem, then into the celestial;m Rabanus and Druthmarus indicate in express terms that they ascended into heaven in the train of Jesus Christ with their revived bodies." Radbertus (after having remarked that many propose the question, whether, after being raised, they die anew to rise a second time, as Lazarus, who died twice, and who has yet to rise once) says that though the Gospel affords no explanation on the point, most believe that their resurrection was eternal, and that they ascended to heaven in the flesh with Jesus. He adds, that if these saints were to be undoubted witnesses of the actual resurrection, it is consistent with piety not only to suppose, but to believe, that they were raised never again to die, for how could they be true witnesses of the real resurrection of Jesus Christ, and of that which we look for, if they had immediately returned to dust? We cannot, indeed, he goes on to say, demonstrate that by the text of the Gospel; but again, those who combat our opinion, cannot oppose us with any decisive authority sufficient to make us abandon our position." Tertullian admits that many held that the patriarchs and the prophets ascended into heaven with their resuscitated bodies as a retinue and as attendants on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ut appendices Dominica resurrectionis. St. Augustin" brings forward the same opinion in his letter to Evodius. Neither of them approved of this view, but from their mentioning it thus it is clear that it was one of old standing, and generally known in the church. Rufinus in his Exposition of the Creed expressly maintains it." To these authorities may be added a great number of recent commentators, who hold that the saints then rising with Jesus Christ did not die again; but that, body and soul, they ascended into heaven. Thomas Aquinast offers this opinion, and gives some proofs of it, but does not stop there. He quotes a sermon on the Assumption by St. Jerome, who leaves the matter unsettled. Dionysius the Carthusian" does not express himself in a more decided manner. Cornelius à Lapide says that the opinion most general and best founded is that they ascended into heaven with Jesus Christ. The Abbé Rupert seems to believe that they rose to die no more, since he speaks of the notion of those who held that they died a second time as the opinion of some others. Qui utique (ut quidam existimaverunt) iterum morituri resurrexerunt. Maldonat also holds that they did not die again; but the view which maintains that they did die a second time, and did not ascend to heaven with their bodies, is founded on many passages of Scripture, and of the Fathers, and on various reasons which give this theological opinion a great superiority over that which we have just adduced. St. Paul teaches us that the patriarchs having obtained a good report through faith received not the promise, God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect' (Heb. xi. 39). They have then not yet risen, nor ascended to heaven with their bodies; for what would they have to desire, if they enjoyed in soul and body the delights of never-ending bliss? • Paschas. Radbert. in Matt. 1. 12, p. 1187. 9 Aug. Ep. 164. P Tertull. de Anima, c. 53. Scio quibusdam videri morte Domini Christi jam talem resurrectionem præstitam justis, qualis nobis in fine promittitur. 8 Ingressi sunt in sanctam civitatem: sine dubio ingressi sunt civitatem de qua Apostolus ait: Quæ autem sursum est Jerusalem, libera est, &c. D. Thom. part 3, qu. 53, art. 3. u In Matt. xxvii. * Corn. à Lapid. in Matt. xxvii. The The same apostle, speaking of the future resurrection, says that Jesus Christ is the first fruits of those who slept, and who are one day to rise for ever moreover, if any were to have risen and gone to heaven with Christ, it would without doubt have been David, St. John the Baptist, the patriarchs, and the prophets interred in Palestine. Now we know that since the ascension of our Saviour, they have continued to point out their tombs and remains in that country; we must therefore conclude that they had not risen to die no more, or at least, that such was not the general belief in the Holy Land. St. Peter, speaking to the Jerusalem Jews, says to them: 'Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.' He wished to prove that it was of Jesus Christ and not of himself that David had spoken, when he said, "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption.' Now, what force would his reasoning have had, if David had risen and ascended into heaven with Jesus Christ in his glorious and immortal body? Undoubtedly the Jews would not have failed to reply to him, that according to his principles the prophecy was accomplished in the person of David, who in truth was dead and had been committed to the grave; but who was now re-invested with glory and immortality, to die no more. We may be told that the remains of John, of Samuel, of Elijah and Elisha, and the tombs of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, exhibited in Palestine and elsewhere, are not very powerful proofs, for the tombs may be empty and the remains questionable. But those who found out and showed the said tombs and remains did not assuredly entertain the belief that the saints had mounted to heaven with their bodies; and there is à priori a great reason to hesitate, when we have the voice of popular tradition against us. Tertullian refutes those who believe that the patriarchs and the prophets had ascended to heaven after the resurrection of the Saviour. He makes use of weak enough arguments to prove that only the souls of martyrs are in heaven, and he even says that he had written a book on purpose to show that all souls, except those of the martyrs, were in Hades awaiting the day of the Lord." We do not agree with these views; but we have referred to this author as an instance of the opinions held by many of the ancients, who believed that the saints did not enjoy bliss till after the general resurrection, and who advanced their theory without > Acts ii. 99. * Tertull. Lib. de Anima, c. 55. . Vide in primis Iren. 1. v. c. 31. any any exception in favour of those who had risen with Jesus Christ; which leads us to conclude that they did not believe that these last had ascended to heaven even in spirit. St. Chrysostom says expressly that those who rose while Jesus Christ was on the cross died again, and in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews: 'I say with the apostle that the holy prophets and the patriarchs of the Old Testament have not yet received their recompense, it being the will of God that they should receive it only with us.' He includes in the number of these just ones Abel, Noah, Abraham, and even St. Paul; he was thus far from believing that these saints were in heaven, body and soul. Theodoret expresses himself almost to the same effect on this passage of St. Paul; he speaks without any exception, as St. Chrysostom, and he says that all the saints still await their crowns and their rewards. Theophylactus advances the idea that these saints only arose to serve as evidences of the resurrection of Jesus Christ; and the proof of that is that they died after having appeared to many in Jerusalem. Euthymius admits that they arose to corroborate the evidence of those who affirmed that Jesus Christ had risen ; but that ultimately they died again. This is the generally received opinion amongst the Greeks, who usually derive their explanations from St. Chrysostom. e St. Ambrose assures us positively that it is Jesus Christ whose merits have won for us the grace of the future resurrection, but adds that up to the present time he is the only one who has risen to die no more: Solus tamen ipse adhuc resurrectione perpetuâ resurrexit. He says elsewhere that those who arose with the Saviour rose only for a time, but that this momentary resurrection is a proof of the eternal resurrection which awaits us. The Fathers whom we have quoted thus far, have only spoken of this subject incidentally; but St. Augustin makes it a special topic in his letter to Evodius. He there concentrates the greater part of the proofs which we have already adduced, and after having maturely weighed the arguments on both sides, he sufficiently shows that he does not believe that the just ones who arose with Jesus Christ, either with or after him (for he leaves that point unsettled) were raised for good and all. He is persuaded that otherwise we could not properly reserve for Jesus Christ the quality of 'first-born from the dead, and that we should impeach the statement of St. Paul that God by an act of his goodness towards us has not permitted the saints to receive their full fruition and reward without us; and finally, that St. Peter could not have effectually h c Theodor. in Heb. xi. b Chrys. in Homil. 28; Heb. xi. Theoph. in Matt. xxvii. Euthym. in Matt. xxvii. f Ambros. in Job. vi. e Aug. Ep. 164. h Heb. xi. 40. employed |