ART. IV.-ON THE RESURRECTION OF THE SAINTS WHO AROSE WITH JESUS CHRIST.

Translated from the French of AUGUSTIN CALMET by the Rev. ALEXANDER J. D. D'ORSEY.

ST.

T. MATTHEW relates that Jesus Christ having given up the ghost upon the cross, the earth did quake and the rocks rent, and the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of the grave after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.' As if the Saviour had wished to show by these tokens of his power, that he had just conquered death, and had restored life to those who were, in a certain sense, buried in sin. The opening of those tombs, and the return of those departed ones to life, were also proofs and pledges for our future resurrection, says Jerome.

As this subject is peculiarly interesting, affording scope for several curious investigations, we shall treat of it here somewhat at length, and shall discuss the following questions:-Who those were who arose? Where they arose? In what form, and with what body they appeared? If they died again, or if they ascended to heaven with Jesus Christ, there to live for ever happy in soul and body? We may speculate on this subject with the more freedom and safety, as various opinions which divide the Fathers as well as the modern writers on it, do not affect the fundamental articles of religion, every one acknowledging the truth of the Evangelist's narrative; and therefore the difficulties only turn on the circumstances, the manner and the consequences of the miracle.

We cannot without some rashness speak in precise terms as to the number or condition of those who then left their graves. The holy Evangelist simply tells us that many bodies of the saints which slept arose.' All then did not arise; and if it is true, as some commentators have asserted, that the quaking of the earth, the rending of the rocks, and the opening of the graves only took place in and near Jerusalem, it will necessarily follow that the resurrection was restricted to those saints who had been interred in the neighbourhood of that city, and to whom the Son of God wished to manifest this favour. If it is maintained that the sepulchres of the saints were opened all over the world, or at least throughout Palestine, this vast extent of country will leave us in still greater uncertainty, as to the number and state of those who rose from their tombs on this occasion.

There are some who believe that it was the oldest of the patriarchs who then appeared, it being probable enough that Jesus Christ caused the effects of his death and of his advent to be felt first by those who had waited for him longest; so Adam, Abel, Seth, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, and the other ancients would be the most highly favoured, and arise before the others. But as there is much to countenance the belief that the patriarchs before the deluge, and those who preceded Abraham, lived and were buried out of Palestine, there is sufficient difficulty in making them rise with Jesus Christ on the hypothesis that the graves were only opened in Judea, or even in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Add to this, that it seems those rather should have risen who were known to the Jews then living, and were more of their own day, in preference to the ancient patriarchs, of whom their notions were confused by the misty light of antiquity.

In short, it appears natural that the prophets having been the principal witnesses who predicted the coming, the birth, the life, the death, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ; and having, for the most part, sealed their testimony with their blood, should also, by a peculiar prerogative, take part with others in the fruits of his death and resurrection; so that Moses, David, Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, whose writings we possess, should have been preferred to many, who, though inspired by the spirit of prophecy, have nevertheless left us no monuments of their predictions. Some believe that Job and Jonas, and the three young men delivered from the furnace at Babylon, being the principal types of the Saviour's resurrection; Isaiah, as the evangelical prophet; Melchisedec, as prefiguring Christ's priesthood; and Daniel, as pointing out more precisely the years of his coming, were then privileged to rise in preference to others.

St. Epiphanius would wish that the preference should be given to those who were nearest the times of Jesus Christ, and whose countenances could still be recognised by such as lived at that period, and had borne testimony to Jesus Christ, since his advent; as Zacharias the father of John the Baptist, the aged Simeon, St. John the Baptist, and the good thief. Lerins does not believe that any female was resuscitated, because it was fitting that the Holy Virgin should be the first person of her sex to arise, even as Jesus Christ was the first-born of the dead. As if Jesus Christ, in this character of first-born of the dead, had not procured for women, as well as for men, the privilege of the resurrection. Others, on the contrary, will have it that Eve was resuscitated amongst the first on this occasion, as the common mother of all mankind. But let us leave these conjectures, and without determining anything on a matter which is undecided, let us confine

ourselves to the terms of the Evangelist, who tells us that 'many bodies of the saints arose.'

There are two different opinions as to the time of the resurrection of the saints of whom we speak. Some believe that they arose immediately after the death of the Saviour, and as soon as their graves were opened by the earthquake, which took place when he gave up the ghost; while others maintain that they did not rise from their tombs till after the resurrection of our Saviour; so that, in accordance with St. Paul, Jesus Christ is really the first-born from the dead. Both of these opinions are supported by the text of St. Matthew. The first is founded upon the statement, that Jesus Christ having expired, the earth did quake, and the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints arose;' where it is obvious that no interval is placed between the death of the Saviour and the resurrection of the saints. Those who defend the other opinion, direct attention to the fact that St. Matthew, having related the resurrection of the saints, immediately adds, and after his resurrection they appeared unto many; insinuating thereby, that they had only arisen after him or with him, and that he narrates the opening of their tombs and their resurrection by anticipation; and indeed, what would they have done from the death of the Saviour to his resurrection, since they had not to appear, and indeed did not appear, till he had risen again? Then they went to bear witness to their Saviour, showing themselves in the holy city.

'Jesus

St. Augustin makes mention of these two opinions, and he does not disapprove of either; but as they were foreign to his purpose, he does not dwell upon them. Origen points out clearly that they did not rise before Jesus Christ, but after his resurrection. St. Gregory the Great expresses himself to the same effect. Christ died alone,' says he, but he did not rise alone; he at the same time gave back life to men long before dead.' St. Jerome is still more decided: though at the moment of the death of our Saviour the graves were opened, yet,' says he, the saints did not arise till after his resurrection, in order that he might be truly the first-born from the dead.' We find the same words in Bede and in Rabanus Maurus; Radbert entertains similar views, with Druthmarus and several others.

6

But St. Hilary seems to say that they arose at the moment Jesus gave up the ghost. Then,' says he, "the graves were opened," because the bonds of death were broken, "and the dead arose,” because, in enlightening the darkness of death and the obscurity of hell, he deprived death of his spoils by the resurrection of those whom he went to see: by which he insinuates that Jesus Christ having descended into hell immediately after he had expired, he instantly restored life to those who were dead before he should

himself arise. St. Chrysostom speaks still more clearly: he says, that the Saviour makes evident, by raising his servants while he was still upon the cross, the falsity of the Jewish taunt, he saved others, himself he cannot save.' For it was a great miracle to see Lazarus come out of his tomb, it was still more marvellous to see those saints who rose and who showed themselves to many persons. Theophylactus, and the other Greeks who have been accustomed to follow St. Chrysostom, are of the same opinion. They say that the resurrection of the dead, which happened while Jesus Christ was on the cross, was the sign and the pledge of the future deliverance of those who were in hell [i.e. Hades].

But if it is true, of which there seems no doubt, that the souls of the holy patriarchs did not leave hell till Jesus Christ had descended to it, and that their bodies could not arise till their souls disengaged from those places where they were awaiting his coming, had reanimated their frames, it must be admitted that the resurrection of the saints did not happen till some time after the death of Christ; for though the soul passes in an instant from one place to another, and though the operations of spirits separate from matter are not marked by intervals of time, nevertheless we cannot conceive that the Saviour had been in hell, that he had there announced his coming to the holy patriarchs, that he had thence delivered their souls, that he had reunited these to their bodies, and that he had done all in a moment. The ancient Fathers believed that he was some time in hell, for they maintained that he there preached to the souls of the unbelievers, and that he converted several of them. It is true that this opinion is not now received in the church, but at least it is certain that those who entertained such views did not believe that the saints were raised immediately after the Saviour's death, unless their resurection had preceded his return upon earth. Now we do not at all see that Jesus Christ had given upon earth any indication of his presence previous to his resurrection, having been all the rest of the time in Hades, there comforting the souls of the holy patriarchs.

Thus, it was perfectly credible that it was not till after the resurrection of the Saviour that the saints arose. But in what form did they appear? Was it with bodies glorious and immortal such as we hope to have after the general resurrection, or with their natural bodies which they had before their death, as was the case with Lazarus and others who only rose to die anew, and who had only material bodies subject to hunger and thirst as ours are? In short, had they resplendent bodies, but of a transient splendour which was to disappear with their apparitions, like the bodies of Moses and Elijah, who appeared with Jesus Christ in his transfiguration, and who having exhibited themselves in glory at this

interview, re-entered both one and other into their natural condition. Elijah returned to the place where he awaits the second advent of the Messiah, and Moses went back to his grave, there to wait for this second special resurrection, or for the general rising from the dead.

The resolution of these difficulties depends much on what we are about to say in the sequel, where we shall consider the question, whether these resuscitated bodies ascended to heaven with Jesus Christ, or whether they died a second time and returned to their graves as before. If it is maintained that they arose to die no more, I do not see how they can be denied the possession of bodies glorious, subtle, penetrating, such as we accord to the blessed. But if they only appeared for a moment, or perhaps for some hours, or for some days, as Moses and Elijah upon Tabor, it will not be easy to determine what was the nature of their bodies, which, according to this hypothesis were not yet clothed with perfect immortality.

But it is indubitable that they must be distinguished from bodies simply resuscitated, which lived and conversed with other men, as Lazarus, and those who in the Old Testament were restored to life by the prophets Elijah and Elisha. The Evangelist sufficiently informs us that everyone did not see them, and that they only showed themselves to whom they pleased, and consequently that their bodies were of a nature different from ours, which we cannot conceal from the eyes of those whom we encounter.

The author of 'Questions for the Orthodox,' printed under the name of St. Justin, takes a middle course in this discussion. He acknowledges that the saints who arose did not die after tasting of immortality, though not of the happiness of heaven. Their bodies are not yet rendered conformable to the glorious body of Jesus Christ; but they wait for their transmutation like Enoch and Elias, who are alive, but who have not yet received their perfect recompense; for, adds he, there is not as yet any one but Jesus Christ raised to live a life immortal and incorruptible, as being the first-born from the dead, and the first fruits of those who have slept the sleep of death.

It would remain still to ascertain what is the nature of the bodies of Enoch and Elijah, in the condition in which they at present are. I see nothing to hinder our believing them to be like ours, with this difference, that they are neither subject to our wants nor to our infirmities; but when we would know that, should we be more certain of it, were the hypothesis of the author to whom we allude certain? Where then must all those saints be that arose with Jesus Christ? If they are not in heaven, in what part of the earth shall we place them? Such solutions are worse than the difficulties we wish to solve; they throw us into greater em