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 perpetua 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 employed against the unbelieving Jews the proof drawn from the tomb of David, still visible amongst them, in order to demonstrate that he had suffered corruption, and that the passage in the second Psalm had no reference to him if his tomb had been empty, and if this prince had been raised from the dead to suffer death no more. Thomas Aquinas, after having stated the reasons which have been brought forward on both sides in this discussion, declares himself in favour of those who hold that the saints who arose with Jesus Christ died anew; and this is the view which appears to us best founded on Holy Writ, on the Fathers, and on tradition. The arguments adduced to support the opinion that the saints ascended to heaven with their resuscitated bodies are far from unanswerable. The triumph of Jesus Christ was sufficiently graced by the innumerable company of sainted spirits whom he had released from the captivity in which they had groaned for so many centuries, and for whom he now procured access to that heaven, the gates of which had till then been closed against them. It was just and right that he should appear in this triumph in a mode differing from that of others, and that his corporeal frame, revived and resplendent, should enter first into the realms of glory. It was sufficient to strengthen our faith, to sustain our hope, and to console the saints, who await, as we do, a future resurrection. The prophets and the patriarchs who arose for a time with Jesus Christ, being verily and indeed resuscitated, were indubitably witnesses of the true resurrection of the Saviour; and it was sufficient 254 Resurrection of the Saints who arose with Jesus Christ. that we should be thoroughly convinced that our head had really risen to assure ourselves that our mortal body will be one day rerobed in immortality. The saints who resumed their bodies to bear witness to the resurrection of the Saviour, quitted them also by his order without pain and without affliction, as soon as they had fulfilled this purpose, because they experience no pleasure and no joy save in doing the will of their heavenly Father. God does not manifest either inconsistency or change of purpose in permitting them to die again, because they only rose on this condition. He accorded them this honour and this favour in all its plenitude, but he was not bound to confer a second, although different from the first, by introducing them into heaven with immortal bodies. The Fathers who have been cited to support the opinion of this resurrection of the saints being unaccompanied by dying again, are of three kinds. The first asserts their views in a clear and positive manner, but they bring forward no good proof of their position. The second express themselves in a doubtful and undecided tone: and the third do not agree amongst themselves, for they are quoted in support of the affirmative, as well as of the negative side of the question. We oppose to the first other Fathers, who have declared in favour of the contrary opinion in a manner as clear and as positive, but better sustained and better proved. We do not at all count those whose testimony is obscure and ambiguous, any more than those who have spoken for and against; though we might interpret them in our favour with as much propriety as our opponents rank them on their side. Such testimony, according to all the rules of evidence, is nil; and when the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers are divided, their arguments should be duly weighed, and the best chosen. Now it seems evident that the passages of Scripture which we adduce are far more definite than those quoted on the opposite side; and we have for our view those of the Fathers who are considered the three columns of theology, St. Chrysostom amongst the Greeks, St. Augustin of the Latins, and Aquinas as representing the schoolmen of later times. Thus, we have no hesitation in maintaining that the saints who rose after the death of our Saviour died again to rise on some future day in a blissful immortality; that we know nothing of the number, or condition, or age of those who then arose; that it is certain their resurrection was perfectly real; but that their bodies were not visible to every one, nor perhaps so entirely glorious as those with which the saints will be invested in heaven, but that they were all that was necessary to persuade men of the present resurrection of Jesus and of our rising again which is yet to come. In fine that, although Matthew narrates the opening of the graves immediately after the death of Jesus Christ, there is every reason to believe that that event did not take place till after the resurrection of the Saviour, and after his return from Hades, to which our creed teaches us he descended after his death to deliver from the shades the souls of those who there awaited his coming. ART. V. ELEMENTARY THEOLOGY. No V. THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE. THE teachings of science have been frequently employed to subvert the authority of Revelation, and destroy the faith of men in the supernatural character of the Bible. This opposition to Scripture has, however, been favoured by only a comparatively small section among the promoters of physical science; while many leading and distinguished scientists, in every branch comprehended in this field of inquiry, have advocated the claims of Holy Writ. On the side of mental science in its various branches the opposition is scarcely worth naming, being, in fact, almost entirely confined to a few adherents of the extreme "Sensational School;" and even the hostility of their doctrines is more evident in the logical issues to which they lead, than in any direct attack made upon revealed truth. We are not prepared to attribute all the occasion of this antagonism to the students of physical science; the advocates of revelation have also contributed to produce it. The progress of science has been opposed, and its teachings hastily and severely denounced as contrary to Bible teaching, and the credit of scripture has even been staked upon the scientific accuracy of its language concerning physical phenomena. Better denunciation and dogmatic assertion have provoked a more avowed hostility, and no effort has been spared to discredit the sacred word. But it must also be allowed that much of the opposition has been factious, and evidently the offspring of prejudice. Crude theories have been formed upon very imperfect data; bare probabilities have been elevated into certainties, and for reasons which would have been considered insufficient in relation to questions of another character, men have been asked to abandon their faith in revealed truth. If a more impartial view were taken of the questions at issue, and the respective provinces of science and revelation more definitely determined, much of the difference now paraded with ostentation would entirely disappear. It is the province of science to deal with phenomena-with things as they appear, and by careful observation and a wide induction of facts, to ascertain what are the conditions and laws which determine the succession of phenomena. Science cannot reach absolute beginning, for there are no data upon which to proceed. Pure origination, the commencement of phenomena,-is pre-phenomenal, and transcends the limits of human thought; and, by consequence, cannot be made the subject of scientific inquiry. Hence, all theories designed to account for the origin of things are unscientific, or, at most, but philosphical conjectures; and when carefully examined are singularly defective, failing to explain the very point for the elucidation of which they were framed. The nebula hypothesis and the development theory, as expounded by its latest advocates, explain nothing respecting the origin of the universe, or the beginning of organic life, neither are these theories any more successful in elucidating the cause of the phenomena with which modern science is familiar. Revelation is given to make God known to man, as he neither is, nor can be made known by nature. The purposes of divine mercy and their development in human history, the possibilities within reach of the spiritual man, the high moral elevation to which humanity may rise through the mercy of God by Jesus Christ, are the themes of revelation. It has been often said that it neither was nor is the design of the Bible to teach men science, and this observation has not always had its due weight in the controversies between science and revelation. The advocates of the authority and integrity of scripture have written as if the truths relating to man's moral and spiritual destiny were dependent upon an exact accordance between biblical phraseology and the findings of physical science; and some scientists have conducted the controversy as though it had been the province of revelation to anticipate the results of modern scientific inquiry. On both sides the province of revelation is misapprehended. We opine that the verities revealed in the Bible are not dependent upon the mere form of expression, and that scripture phraseology was not intended to be an exact exponent of physical phenomenaan exponent so exact and comprehensive as to anticipate the results of scientific research. There is nothing derogatory to the character of the sacred record in allowing that its language is accommodated to the conditions of human knowledge; this in fact is indispensable, for if it be not granted revelation is impossible; and this principle will admit of application to the questions raised in the recent controversies between science and revelation. Whatever the state of human knowledge when revelation was given the language would have to be so far accommodated as not to bewilder and unnecessarily perplex, and yet admit of adjustment in substance to subsequent advancement. There is too much demanded when it is required that the form of scripture statement and the findings of modern science shall correspond; it is sufficient if in substance they are one, if the great truths brought to light by each are in correspondence. The form of revelation is comparatively unimportant, and without injury to the record may be variably apprehended; it is the deeper truth with which men ought to concern themselves. The form may belong to a given period, but the truth belongs to humanity. Where physical phenomena are introduced in revelation they are not discussed scientifically, that is, not in the same manner nor for the same purpose which science discusses them. The great end of inquiry in physical science is utility. All other purposes are subordinate to this, and science is valued in proportion as it contributes to the improvement of man's condition. Science reveals much important truth respecting God and his government, but to elucidate this is not its chief aim as generally pursued. The religion of science constitutes a province of investigation apart from strictly scientific inquiry. The heavens and the earth, and all physical phenomena, are investigated with a view to utilization; and in so far as nature is rendered subservient to man, science is deemed successful. Now the very truths which fall into the background in science, occupy the front place in revelation; not to make nature subservient to man, but to bring man into obedience to God is its aim; hence the phenomenal when it is introduced is subordinate to the truth respecting God and his purposes of mercy. What utility is in physical science, God and his purposes are in revelation; and what utilization is intended by science to accomplish in relation to man's circumstances--that is improvement and elevation-the revelation of God is intended to accomplish in man's nature; but the one ought not to be gauged by the other. The advocates of revelation have no reason to condemn scientific inquiry as opposed to the Bible, merely because there is not special prominence given to the truths they value; the truths are there, but the principal work of science is in another direction; neither onght any scientist to assail revelation and maintain his conclusions as contradictory to it. His manner of stating scientific truth may be different from that observed in revelation, but then it was not, and is not the purpose of revelation to state scientific but religious truth, and to state it not according to scientific form, but so as to meet the religious requirements of man. In scripture the scientific is subordinate to the religious, and if the latter element demand R |