barrassments than ever. As then we have nothing certain upon this subject, we prefer to leave the question undecided to deciding it on chance, and without a full knowledge of the matter.

The great difficulty in all this dissertation consists in knowing if the saints who rose with Jesus Christ ascended to heaven with him, or remained upon earth, there to die again. There is on that point a difference of opinion, and both sides adduce reasons and authorities of no mean weight. The Scriptures represent Jesus Christ mounting to heaven as a conqueror re-entering his dominions, laden with spoil, and leading with him a multitude of captives whom he has delivered. He came into this world to preach deliverance to the captives; to set at liberty them that are bruised' (Luke iv. 18). It was, then, fitting that he should enter heaven at the head of those whom he had rescued from prison; and since he returned thither with his glorious and immortal body, it was natural that he should in a similar way obtain admission for at least the principal witnesses of his resurrection and the chief of his friends, with their resuscitated bodies, especially after having accorded them first the nonour of the resurrection. Was it becoming that he should separate them from those bodies which they had just resumed in order to leave them a second time in the obscurity and dust of the tomb? Could such a separation be made without grief, and is grief a fit accompaniment to a blessed spirit? Are the gifts of God things to be repented of (Rom. xi. 29), and does he take away with one hand what he gives with the other?

St. Ignatius the Martyr, in his epistle to the Magnesians, considers the resurrection of the prophets, occurring at the death of Jesus Christ, as an especial favour, and without asserting that they died again. They expected, says he, Jesus Christ their master, and when he came, he raised them from the dead. The author of 'Questions for the Orthodox,' printed under the name of St. Justin, believes that the resurrection of these holy patriarchs was perfectly real, that they are not dead, and that they are in a state of immortality, but nevertheless not in heaven, as has been already stated.

Origen insinuates in his 'Commentary on St. Matthew,' that the saints raised with Jesus Christ, followed him into heaven; but he declares it in a more positive manner, writing on the Song of Solomon, where he says that Jesus Christ in raising himself raised at the same time those whom death held captive, and took them with him when he ascended into heaven, to which he exalted not only their souls, but also their bodies, as we learn, says he, from the Evangelist, who says, that many saints being raised, they entered into Jerusalem, the holy city of the living God. St. Clement of Alexandria only treats of the matter incidentally, but he states clearly enough, that the saints who rose after the Saviour's death are transported into a better life.

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 quited 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.

St. Ephiphanius 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 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. 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.'

6

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. St. Jerome 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.

The venerable Bede introduces these risen saints into the terrestrial Jerusalem, then into the celestial: 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 unboubted 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 Aquinas 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 a 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?

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 a 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 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 expressess himself almost to the same effect on this passage of St. Paul: he speaks without any exception, as St. Chyrsostom, 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 Greks, who usually derive their explanations from St. Chrysostom.