Article 10. On the Resurrection of the Dead

705. Of how great importance the dogma concerning the resurrection is, the Apostle himself declares, saying: "If there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ risen. But if Christ has not risen, then our preaching is empty, and your faith also is empty." 1 Corinthians 15. Hence St. Augustine, on Psalm 101, says: "Take away the resurrection, and immediately you overturn Christianity." - First we shall present the true notion of the resurrection; then we shall show its truth and existence.

§ I.

Errors are explained; the definition of resurrection is handed down.

706. The Catholic dogma concerning the resurrection of the dead has at every time been vehemently attacked, so that St. Augustine, on Psalm 58, says: "In no matter is Christian faith so contradicted as concerning the resurrection of the flesh." - Certainly if pagan Philosophers are in question, Tertullian, On Prescription, chapter 7, says: "That the resurrection of the flesh may be denied is taken from the one school of all the philosophers." - And when Paul was speaking in the Areopagus, Acts 17:32: "When they had heard of the resurrection of the dead, some indeed mocked, but others said: We will hear you again concerning this." - Among the Jews themselves, some denied the dogma of the resurrection, as is gathered from Matthew 22:23, where it is said: "On that day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him," Christ. The Samaritans are accused of the same error by Origen and St. Epiphanius. - Among Christians themselves in the time of the Apostles, Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:12 gravely reproaches certain persons who denied the resurrection. The same Apostle, in the epistle to Timothy, accuses Hymenaeus and Philetus of impiety, "who fell away from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they overturned the faith of some," namely, as St. Thomas explains, thinking that all things which are said in the Scriptures concerning resurrection "are the resurrection of souls, which has already taken place" through the resurrection of Christ, according to that saying of the Apostle: "If you have risen with Christ, seek the things that are above, etc." - After the times of the Apostles, this heresy was propagated more widely, as Tertullian, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine report. And in the more recent age, the Anabaptists, Socinians, and Arminians held the same error. To these must be added the pseudo-philosophers, atheists, pantheists, and rationalists of our age.

707. On the contrary, the Church at every time has professed the resurrection of the dead in her Creeds. Already in the Apostles' Creed there stands the article of faith: "I believe ... the resurrection of the flesh." - In the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed we say: "I expect the resurrection of the dead." - In the Athanasian Creed: "All men have to rise again with their bodies." - The same truth was defined in the Fourth and Eleventh Councils of Toledo; in Lateran IV, chapter Firmiter; and in the Synod of Jerusalem in the year 1672, chapter 18, with the schismatic Greeks consenting.

708. The word resurrection is not so much Latin as ecclesiastical; for among the ancient Latins the word resurrection is not found, especially in its true signification. This is not surprising, for since those ancients did not know the reality, they did not give it a name.

709. Resurrection can be taken passively and actively. Taken actively, it is better called resuscitation, and it is an external work by which God, by his omnipotent power, is going to recall dead men to life, restoring to each one the bodies which they once had and uniting them again to their souls. - Taken passively, it is the restoration of the body lost through death, and the repeated union of the soul with the same. Or, as Suarez says in On the Mysteries of the Life of Christ, disputation 44, section 1, no. 1, resurrection "is a substantial change by which that which had previously existed and had been corrupted, the very same thing is produced again."

710. It is said, 1. that resurrection is a change, in which it is distinguished from creation, or rather from recreation. For if God should reduce to nothing an Angel or a man once produced, and afterward again produce him, that would be a recreation or restoration of the same thing which had existed before, in which it would agree with resurrection; nevertheless it would not be resurrection as we now speak, because it would not be a change, but a simple effecting from nothing. Therefore it belongs to the account of resurrection that it be a proper change, and thus that it be made from presupposed matter or a subject; for in this a proper change differs from simple effecting, which does not include change.

711. It is said, 2. substantial; for it can happen that in the same subject the same accident numerically, which had been destroyed, is produced again through a change from the subject similar to resurrection; this kind of change can also be found in spiritual things, as is clear. Nevertheless, just as the being and production of an accident are not such simply, but in a qualified respect, so the restoration of the same accident is not simply reparation, but in a qualified respect; and therefore it is not signified absolutely by the name of resurrection. Therefore resurrection, simply so called, signifies a substantial change, as I said, and for that reason has a place only in substances composed of matter and form."

712. It is said, 3. that which had previously existed and had been corrupted. For resurrection has a place only in corruptible things. "First indeed, because production from a presupposed subject properly has a place only in a generable and corruptible thing; therefore neither does reproduction. Next, because this change must tend to producing a thing which had previously existed and had been corrupted. For unless it had been destroyed, it would not be capable of reproduction; and unless it had been destroyed by corruption, the subject from which it could again be produced would not have remained. Therefore it is necessary that corruption or death precede resurrection; therefore, just as corruption has no place except in a corruptible thing, so neither does resurrection."

713. It is said, 4. the very same thing is produced again. For through resurrection it is necessary that the same man be made who had previously ceased to be. For if it were another, it would no longer be resurrection, but a multiplication of men and a new generation."

§ II.

On the identity of those rising again.

714. The chief difficulty in explaining the dogma concerning resurrection arises from the identity which is required in those rising again. Therefore we shall explain briefly what is sufficient concerning this.

715. A twofold identity can be considered here, namely specific and numerical. Specific identity suffers no difficulty on the part of the form, which, since it is the intellective and spiritual soul itself, just as it does not perish, so it will be the same in the resurrection of bodies in each man. But that the matter also ought to be specifically the same in the resurrection is easily clear; for as Suarez well notes, same place, section 2, no. 2, "since this species of matter, namely of generable and corruptible things, belongs to the essence of the human body, and consequently to the essence of man, if the matter of the rising body were not of the same species, the composite from it would not only not be the same man who had existed before, but indeed would not even be a man. Therefore that would not be resurrection, but the new production of a certain new monster." - Nor is it difficult to explain this specific identity of matter in the opinion of St. Thomas and Suarez, nos. 197 and following: for if it is true that matter has species from form, and that in man there is no other substantial form besides the intellective soul, then when in the resurrection matter is again united to the intellective soul, by this very fact it receives the same species.

716. Therefore the whole question concerns numerical identity. In this matter one must first note with Suarez, same place, no. 5, "that since resurrection is a certain change in which subject and terminus are found, it can sometimes be denominated from the subject, in which way we say that the body which was dead rises again; for that body is the subject, not the terminus of resurrection. But sometimes it can denominate the terminus, in which way we say that a man has risen, as Lazarus, for example. But properly it does not denominate the soul, because the soul had not fallen, but had remained alive, although it can be denominated as reunited to the body through resurrection."

717. Now that numerical identity, both on the part of the subject, the body, and on the part of the terminus, the man, must be admitted in the resurrection is easily clear. For Job 19 says: "Again I shall be surrounded with my skin, and in my flesh," which I now have, "I shall see my God." - Paul writes in Romans 8:11: "He who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit dwelling in you," that is, he will give life to the bodies which are now yours, and in which the Holy Spirit now dwells through grace. - And 1 Corinthians 15:53: "This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality"; in this place the pronoun "this" shows that we shall not receive new bodies, but the same which we now have. - The Fathers hand down the same. Tertullian, against Marcion, book 5, chapter 9, says: "If resurrection is the restoration of the dead thing itself, but the dead thing is nothing other than the body, resurrection belongs to the body. Thus also the word resurrection claims no other thing than that which fell." - St. Ambrose, sermon on the faith of the resurrection, chapter 87: "This is resurrection, as is expressed by the sound of the word itself: that what fell should rise again, what had been dead should live again." - St. Jerome, against John of Jerusalem, no. 28: "Just as the Lord after the resurrection showed the fastenings of the nails in his hands and showed the wound of the lance in his side ... so also after the resurrection we shall have the same members which we now use, the same flesh and blood and bones, whose works, not nature, are condemned in the Holy Scriptures." - And St. Thomas, on book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 44, question 1, article 1: "For it cannot be called resurrection unless the soul returns to the same body, because resurrection is a repeated rising, and it belongs to the same thing to rise and to fall; hence resurrection regards more the body, which falls after death, than the soul, which lives after death; and so, if it is not the same body which the soul resumes, it will not be called resurrection, but rather the assumption of a new body." See Suarez, same place; and the Roman Catechism, part 1, chapter 12, no. 2.

718. We now deal with explaining this numerical identity. And indeed, if there is question of the numerical identity of the same man, it must be observed with Valentia, volume 4, disputation 11, question 3, part 3, that it is not necessary to understand and defend that the same man numerically who lived before is going to rise and live again after death in any other way than it is already established that each man, while he spends this life, although in one and another age of himself, and affected by however many and different accidents, is the same numerically. But with regard to these and other things in one and the same man while he lives there is great variety. For one and the same man has himself differently when he is a boy, differently when he is a youth, a man, and an old man; differently when he is sick; differently when he is stronger and more vigorous; differently when he consists whole from all his parts and members; differently when he is deprived of some member or part, etc. And besides, he does not always retain the same parts of prime matter, since these continuously flow and flow back through nutrition, according to the opinion of Aristotle in the book On Generation, text 35 and following, received by St. Thomas here, question 80, article 5, and by the principal other Philosophers. And nevertheless, notwithstanding all this variety, each one is one and the same man through his whole life, precisely because he retains both the same soul numerically and, besides, the same determinate account of one and the same human body, joined namely with the same native temperament of qualities and accidents, in which are contained the ultimate dispositions toward this numerically same soul, and therefore also the peculiar relation of matter to it, whatever finally the parts of this matter may be."

719. St. Thomas illustrated this also by an example, Supplement, question 80, article 4, corpus: "So also let us understand this to happen in the parts of one man as happens in the whole multitude of a city, because individuals are removed from the multitude by death, others succeeding into their place; hence the parts of the multitude flow and flow back materially, but formally remain, because others are constituted for the same offices and orders from which the former ones were withdrawn; hence a commonwealth is said to remain one numerically. And similarly also while some parts flow and others are repaired in the same shape and in the same situation, all parts flow and flow back according to matter, but remain according to species; nevertheless the man remains the same numerically." See also Contra Gentiles, book 4, chapter 81, reply to the fourth.

720. But with regard to explaining identity in the resurrection on the part of the subject, the chief difficulty is this: It is known, they say, that there have once been, and still now are, anthropophagous men, who, namely, feed on human flesh; and so, since the same flesh has been in several men, it cannot happen that each should rise again with his own flesh. The difficulty grows if it is considered that absolutely all men are anthropophagous. For scarcely have corpses been committed to the earth when they are immediately resolved into their principles; by these plants are nourished, by which living things are fed; and we, while we eat plants and living things, again convert into our substance the very same primitive principles which constituted the substance of those men who lived in preceding ages, and so in succession as to future generations, so that there is a perpetual passing around, or flux, of the same substance, which passes from one body into another. Therefore, since the same substance has belonged to so many bodies, to whom will it be restored in the future resurrection? It is altogether impossible that absolutely all bodies be raised with their own substance. St. Augustine had already solved this difficulty, which they now make so much of as though it were a new invention of more recent science, in The City of God, book 22, chapters 12 and 19, and after him St. Thomas, who in Contra Gentiles, book 4, chapter 80, proposes it briefly and clearly in this way: "It is contingent that sometimes some men feed on human flesh, and are nourished only by such nourishment, and generate children so nourished. Therefore the same flesh is found in several men. But it is not possible that it rise again in several; nor otherwise does there seem to be a universal and complete resurrection if there is not restored to each one what he had here. Therefore it seems impossible that there will be a future resurrection of men."

721. In order that this difficulty be solved, and at the same time that it be explained how identity on the part of the subject must be understood, we note the following:

a) In order to defend the possibility of resurrection with regard to numerical identity on the part of the subject, we must take it not as it is imagined by adversaries, but as it is understood by the Church; and in order to adhere to the sense of the Church, it is enough to understand it as it is explained by the most approved Theologians, the Church not contradicting it. Now then,

b) Theologians commonly teach, on book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 44, that each one will rise again in youthful age. In this matter they have followed St. Augustine, who, explaining that saying of the Apostle in Ephesians 4, "Until we all meet into a perfect man, into the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ," says in The City of God, book 22, chapter 15: "It remains that each one receive his measure, which he either had in youth, even if he died as an old man, or would have had if he died before." And a little after: "If this," he says, "which we have already reported from the Apostle, was said concerning the resurrection of bodies, let us take it as said so that the bodies of the dead rise again neither beyond nor below youthful form, but in that age and strength up to which we know Christ arrived here. For even the most learned men of this age have defined youth to be around thirty years; and when it has been bounded by its proper span, from there the man already begins to incline toward the impairments of a heavier and senile age." From this it plainly follows that in those who die in infancy, some part of matter must be supplied, and that this supplement does not obstruct the identity of the rising body. See St. Thomas, Supplement, question 81, article 1.

c) Theologians commonly teach, and the natural sciences also confirm, that "not all parts of matter always remain in the body, but flow and flow back." - From this it plainly follows that not all the matter which each one had during the whole time of life is to be resumed in the resurrection. "Therefore that matter," says Suarez, On the Mysteries of the Life of Christ, disputation 44, section 2, no. 8, "which will have been sufficient for composing a body of this sort will be resumed, and it will be enough for true resurrection." See also St. Thomas, Supplement, question 80, article 5.

d) Suarez rightly observes, same place, no. 6: "It seems it must be said that without a special miracle, which must not be invented without foundation, it cannot happen that two men have entirely the same matter through the whole course of life. For there is no one who is nourished by human flesh alone; indeed there are few who ever use it for food, and then there are so many transmutations of things that it cannot naturally happen that entirely the same part of matter be shared by two men, both in generation and in nutrition and growth." Similarly, it is certain that herbs and plants, even if we grant what the adversaries suppose, besides the nutrition which they draw from the principles of dead bodies, convert many other things into their own nourishment or sap; indeed that what they draw from corpses is the smallest part of them, which therefore must likewise be said of living things and of men, who feed both on the fruits of the earth and on living things.

e) But if perhaps in some parts of matter two men share, and those parts do not suffice for forming each body whole, then to whom are those parts of matter restored, and in whom are they supplied? St. Thomas answers, Contra Gentiles, book 4, chapter 81: "For this will be preserved in the resurrection, that if something was materially in several men, it will rise again in him to whose perfection it belonged more; hence if it was in one as radical seed from which he was generated, but in another as supervening nourishment, it will rise again in him who was generated from this as from seed. But if in one it was as belonging to the perfection of the individual, but in another as deputed to the perfection of the species, it will rise again in him to whom it belonged according to the perfection of the individual; hence seed will rise again in the begotten, and the rib of Adam will rise again in Eve, not in Adam, in whom it was as in a principle of nature. But if it was in each according to the same mode of perfection, it will rise again in him in whom it first was."

Concerning this solution Suarez says, same place, no. 6: "This alone of difficulty occurs, that it attends only to the physical reason, not the moral one. But it seems that the account of merits also must be had ... according to the order of divine providence and justice, either that matter will be divided, or it will be given whole to one according to the account of the merits of each; so that, as far as can be, distributive justice is preserved, and a man receives reward or punishment even in that part of the body which cooperated more with him in acting well or badly; but another part of matter will be supplied from elsewhere." See also Perrone.

§ III.

The exposition is completed, and the truth of the resurrection is established.

722. The resurrection now explained, according to Catholic doctrine, is said to be future, universal, and from divine power.

723. The futurity of the resurrection, with attention to the general law, is a most open truth of faith. For Job said: "On the last day I shall rise from the earth." Martha showed the same faith concerning Lazarus dead, saying: "I know that he will rise in the resurrection on the last day." Christ himself says concerning the just man who merits eternal life: "I will raise him up on the last day." And in 1 Corinthians 15:52 it is read: "In a moment, in the blink of an eye, at the last trumpet, for the trumpet will sound and the dead will rise."

724. But this general law certainly admits an exception in the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, whose soul together with the body the Church piously believes to have been assumed into heaven, and the consensus of all Theologians so confirms this that to assert the opposite would be wicked. For it was fitting, as Damascene teaches, oration 2 on the Assumption, that the Lord of glory, who even after birth preserved her virginity incorrupt, should honor by translation, before the common and universal resurrection, her immaculate body preserved incorrupt after she departed. See Baronius, at the year of Christ 48.

725. Some have thought that this privilege of resurrection and assumption into heaven was granted to those saints whose bodies rose again at the time of the death of Christ and who, "going out from the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city and appeared to many," Matthew 27:53. St. Thomas formerly adhered to this opinion, Supplement, question 77, article 1, reply to 3. But he seems to have retracted it in III, question 53, article 3, where he says: "Concerning those who rose with Christ there is a twofold opinion. For some assert that they returned to life as not going to die again ... But St. Augustine, in the Epistle to Evodius, 99, before the middle, recalling this opinion, says," he reports the text of the holy Doctor, "... Thus therefore Augustine seems to think that they rose again to die again. To this also seems to pertain what Jerome says on Matthew in the place cited above: that 'just as Lazarus rose again, so also many bodies of the saints rose again, that they might show the Lord rising.' Although in the sermon on the Assumption he leaves this under doubt, nevertheless the reasons of Augustine seem much more effective."

726. But the universality of the resurrection can be understood in two ways: either 1. insofar as all who die will rise again, whether good or evil, the former to reward, the latter to punishment; or 2. insofar as all, with no one excepted, die and thus rise again.

727. The universality of the resurrection taken in the first sense pertains to faith, as will be clear from the thesis soon to be established and from the definitions of the Church handed down above. But with regard to the other sense, there was an opinion of certain persons that some at the end of the world are not going to die, but, when the day of judgment is already present, without death and consequently without resurrection, are to be judged together with the others. This opinion rested especially on the words of the Creed: "The Lord is going to come to judge the living and the dead."

728. But St. Thomas teaches, Supplement, question 78, article 1, corpus: "This opinion is safer and more common: that all will die and rise again from death, and this for three reasons: first, because it agrees more with divine justice, which condemned human nature for the sin of the first parent, so that those who drew origin from him through an act of nature contracted the infection of original sin and consequently were debtors to death; second, because it agrees more with divine Scripture, which foretells the future resurrection of all. But resurrection properly belongs only to 'that which fell and was dissolved,' etc." - But to the words of the Creed he replies, reply to 1: "That distinction of the dead and the living is not to be referred to the very time of judgment, nor to the whole past time, because all who are to be judged at some time were living and at some time dead, but to that determinate time which will immediately precede the judgment, namely when the signs of judgment begin to appear."

729. We said in the last place that the resurrection takes place from divine power. These words show both that resurrection is a miraculous work and, consequently, that it cannot in any way be accomplished by the powers of nature.

730. Certainly the Fathers, in order to defend the possibility of resurrection against unbelievers, constantly took refuge in divine omnipotence. Thus, for example, Lactantius, Divine Institutes, book 7, chapter 23, says: "But if not only the Prophets, but also seers and poets and philosophers agree that the resurrection of the dead is going to be, let no one ask from us how it can happen; for an account of divine works cannot be rendered. But if in the beginning God formed man in some ineffable manner, let us believe that the old can be restored by the same one who made the new." - St. Gregory the Great, homily 20 on Ezekiel: "Grant to the power of your Creator what you are not able to comprehend concerning yourself, and do not despair concerning the resurrection of your flesh! Consider prudently that it is less for God to repair what was than to have made what was not. If you cannot comprehend the effect of resurrection by reason, consider that there are many things which you do not understand how they are, and yet you do not doubt that they are."

731. Nevertheless Bonnet imagined a certain palingenesis or rebirth, an instauration to be introduced according to origin, by force of which men, like butterflies from a nymph, chrysalis, or grub, ought finally to come forth from a certain preformed germ, even after death inseparably inhering in the soul. This hypothesis seems to please Wegscheider, Lavater, etc. But, besides what has been said, the following things especially stand against it. a) The existence of such a germ inseparably inhering in the soul can be proved neither from revelation nor from reason; therefore what is asserted gratuitously is denied gratuitously.

b) Next, this germ, if it is something material, belongs to the body, which in death is deserted by the soul; if it is something spiritual, it cannot naturally produce a material thing, or flesh.

c) The comparison of resurrection with the rebirth of a butterfly from a nymph is also absurd; for if the latter is crushed, cut apart, and scattered, the former does not come forth. But see Perrone, in the note, and Muzzarelli, On the Good Use of Logic, opusculum 22.

732. And so, these things having been set down beforehand, we say:

PROPOSITION LI. Faith teaches, reason does not contradict, indeed it recommends, that there will be a universal resurrection of the dead, by which all men will rise again with the bodies which they now bear.

Proof I. From Scripture, Old Testament. Job 19:25 and following reads: "For I know that my Redeemer lives, and on the last day I shall rise from the earth; and again I shall be surrounded with my skin, and in my flesh I shall see my God. I myself shall see him, and my eyes shall behold him, and not another: this hope has been laid up in my bosom."

Since these words establish the dogma concerning resurrection with the greatest clarity, the enemies of faith have left nothing unattempted in order to twist them into another sense. Especially they strive to explain this whole place concerning the hope which, they say, Job cherished of recovering health and of his restoration into his former happy state. But this spurious interpretation is excluded.

a) From the magnificent preface which Job sets before his words; for he says in verses 23 and 24: "Who will grant me that my words may be written? Who will give me that they may be inscribed in a book, with an iron stylus and a sheet of lead, or carved with a chisel in flint?" But the restoration of health and temporal fortune was certainly not of such great importance that it would be necessary to transmit its memory to posterity by so solemn a manner.

b) Job had certain faith and a most firm hope concerning the object of joy about which he speaks; his words show this: "I know ... that ... I shall rise from the earth," etc.; "this hope of mine has been laid up in my bosom." But concerning the recovery of bodily health he did not have such certain knowledge or so firm a hope; rather he had already entirely despaired of it. For in chapter 7, verse 16, he said: "I have despaired; I shall now no longer live! spare me, for my days are nothing"; chapter 17, verse 1: "My spirit will be weakened; my days will be shortened, and only the grave remains for me," etc.

c) Eliphaz already in chapter 5, verse 18 and following had tried to console Job by the hope of recovering health and prosperous fortune; but Job in chapter 6 rejected that consolation and manifested a desire of dying, saying in verse 8 and following: "Who will grant that my petition may come, and that God may give me what I expect? And he who began, let him crush me; let him loose his hand and cut me off!" Chapter 10, verse 1: "My soul is weary of my life." Therefore he did not desire and expect in this life the restoration of health and fortune, but he desired death and expected reward in the other life. Hence he did not say: after a little time, but on the last day; not from the dunghill or bed, but from the earth, I shall rise.

d) The context demands this sense. For Bildad, thinking Job stained with hidden crimes, graphically describes in chapter 18 the most wretched death of the sinner and concludes, verse 21: "These therefore are the tabernacles of the wicked, and this is the place of him who does not know God." To that accusation Job responds by saying that he does not fear death, that in the other life God will be for him not an angry avenger but a benign Redeemer, and that he awaits by full right at last a glorious resurrection and the blessed vision of God.

e) Hence St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, etc., understood the same words concerning the resurrection of the flesh. And St. Jerome, in the Epistle to Paulinus, no. 8, did not hesitate to say: "He prophesies the resurrection of bodies in such a way that no one has written of it either more manifestly or more cautiously." - Several Protestant interpreters also agree. See Perrone, in the note.

Several other places from the Old Testament could also be brought forward, such as Ezekiel 37, Daniel 12, Isaiah 26, Hosea 7, etc. Hence it is no wonder if there was a common and firm faith among the Jews concerning resurrection. Thus in 2 Maccabees 7:9 it is read: "You indeed, most wicked one, destroy us in the present life; but the King of the world will raise us, the dead for his laws, in the resurrection of eternal life." And verse 14: "It is better for those handed over to death by men to await hope from God, to be raised again by him; for there will not be for you a resurrection unto life." - John 11:24: "I know that my brother will rise again in the resurrection on the last day."

Proof II. From the New Testament. Matthew 22:28 and following: "You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God; for in the resurrection they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be like the Angels of God in heaven." Verse 31: "But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken by God, saying to you: I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? He is not God of the dead, but of the living: for all live to him." On this place St. Irenaeus, St. John Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius note that by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob not only their souls are signified, but the whole men. Acts 24:14 and following: "Thus I serve my Father and my God, believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets; having hope in God, which these themselves also expect, the future resurrection of the just and the unjust." - But the Apostle preached this truth most frequently.

Proof III. From the Fathers. Their testimonies can be seen in Knoll, part 5, section 3, article 2, § 824. But the consensus of the Fathers is so great that Beausobre, History of Manichaeism, volume 2, book 8, chapter 5, who wished to deny it, cites only Origen and St. Gregory of Nyssa to the contrary. But even if we granted that two opposed it, the unanimous consensus of the Fathers would not be weakened. - With regard to Origen, not a few concede that he at least spoke incautiously on this matter, although others try to interpret him favorably, since in other places he expressly handed down the dogma concerning resurrection. With regard to St. Gregory of Nyssa, he certainly more than once in his works explains and defends the Catholic doctrine concerning resurrection. But as to the fact that he seems to exclude figure and extension from the body of Christ and affirms that nothing corporeal is found in Christ, rightly with Zaccagni, who first published the Antirrheticus from the Vatican library, they understand these things not of the specific properties of the human body, but of accidental properties, of which the glorious body of Christ was free.

Proof IV. From reason. 1. That the dogma of resurrection is not repugnant to reason is clear from those things which we have set down beforehand in the preceding sections. The Fathers, moreover, illustrate the matter by many things. Thus St. Ambrose, On Faith in the Resurrection, no. 53, says that the faith of resurrection is shown by the usage of the world and the state of all things, the series of generations, the changes of successions, the settings and risings of the heavenly signs, the setting of day and night and their daily succession as though brought back to life. "What shall I say of fruits? Do they not seem to you to die when they fall, to rise when they revive? What is sown rises; what is dead rises and is formed again into the same genera and the same species. The earth first gave back these fruits; in these nature first imitated the species of our resurrection." See also Tertullian. - And St. Augustine, sermon 19 on the words of the Apostle, says: "I appeal to you, whoever with an unbelieving mind doubts concerning the resurrection and thinks that the dead cannot be raised. Which is greater: to make from nothing men who live, or to repair after death those who have been made and have lived? Surely it is greater to make what never was. How therefore do you say that it is impossible for God, who formed man from nothing, to form him again? How can he not raise us when we have been turned into dust, he who, even if we returned into nothing, was able to make us exist, just as he caused us to exist when before we had never been?"

2. But reason left to itself cannot demonstrate the necessity or the fact of the resurrection, as we showed above, nos. 307 and following.

3. Nevertheless it shows in several ways the fittingness of resurrection. Thus, for example: a) the souls of men are immortal; therefore they remain, says St. Thomas, Contra Gentiles, book 4, chapter 79, "after the bodies, released from the bodies. It is also manifest from those things which were said in the second book, chapters 83 and 84, that the soul is naturally united to the body, for according to its essence it is the form of the body. Therefore it is against the nature of the soul to be without the body. But nothing which is against nature can be perpetual. Therefore the soul will not be without the body perpetually. Since therefore it remains perpetually, it must be joined again to the body, which is to rise again. Therefore the immortality of souls seems to require the future resurrection of bodies."

b) "By divine providence punishment is owed to those who sin, and reward to those acting well. But in this life men, composed of soul and body, sin or act rightly. Therefore reward or punishment is owed to men both according to soul and according to body. But it is manifest that in this life they cannot attain the reward of ultimate felicity, from those things which have been shown in the third book; often also sins are not punished in this life. Indeed, as Job 21:7 says: 'Here the impious live, they have been strengthened and exalted with riches.' Therefore it is necessary to posit a repeated conjunction of the soul to the body, so that man can be rewarded and punished in body and soul."

The Fathers also used these and similar arguments, not indeed to demonstrate the dogma of resurrection, but to recommend it. The objections from reason have been anticipated; those, however, which are usually objected from Scripture are of easy solution and can be seen in Perrone.