To begin with the passage where He says that He is come to
"to seek and to save that which is lost." What do you suppose that
to be which is lost? Man, undoubtedly. The entire man, or only a part of
him? The whole man, of course. In fact, since the transgression which caused
man's ruin was committed quite as much by the instigation of the soul from
concupiscence as by the action of the flesh from actual fruition, it has
marked the entire man with the sentence of transgression, and has therefore
made him deservedly amenable to perdition. So that he will be wholly saved,
since he has by sinning been wholly lost. Unless it be true that the sheep
(of the parable) is a" lost" one, irrespective of its body; then its recovery
may be effected without the body. Since, however, it is the bodily substance
as well as the soul, making up the entire animal, which was carried on
the shoulders of the Good Shepherd, we have here unquestionably an example
how man is restored in both his natures. Else how unworthy it were of God
to bring only a moiety of man to salvation-and almost less than that; whereas
the munificence of princes of this world always claims for itself the merit
of a plenary grace! Then must the devil be understood to be stronger for
injuring man, ruining him wholly? and must God have the character of comparative
weakness, since He does not relieve and help man in his entire state? The
apostle, however, suggests that "where sin abounded, there has grace much
more abounded." How, in fact, can he be regarded as saved, who can
at the same time be said to be lost-lost, that is, in the flesh, but saved
as to his soul? Unless, indeed, their argument now makes it necessary that
the soul should be placed in a "lost" condition, that it may be susceptible
of salvation, on the ground that is properly saved which has been lost.
We, however, so understand the soul's immortality as to believe it "lost,"
not in the sense of destruction, but of punishment, that is, in hell. And
if this is the case, then it is not the soul which salvation will affect,
since it is "safe" already in its own nature by reason of its immortality,
but rather the flesh, which, as all readily allow, is subject to destruction.
Else, if the soul is also perishable (in this sense), in other words, not
immortal-the condition of the flesh-then this same condition ought in all
fairness to benefit the flesh also, as being similarly mortal and perishable,
since that which perishes the Lord purposes to save. I do not care now
to follow the clue of our discussion, so far as to consider whether it
is in one of his natures or in the other that perdition puts in its claim
on man, provided that salvation is equally distributed over the two substances,
and makes him its aim in respect of them both. For observe, in which substance
so-ever you assume man to have perished, in the other be does not perish.
He will therefore be saved in the substance in which he does not perish,
and yet obtain salvation in that in which he does perish. You have (then)
the restoration of the entire man, inasmuch as the Lord purposes to save
that part of him which perishes, whilst he will not of course lose that
portion which cannot be lost, Who will any longer doubt of the safety of
both natures, when one of them is to obtain salvation, and the other is
not to lose it? And, still further, the Lord explains to us the meaning
of the thing when He says: "I came not to do my own will, but the Father's,
who hath sent me." What, I ask, is that will? "That of all which
He hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at
the last day." Now, what had Christ received of the Father but that
which He had Himself put on? Man, of course, in his texture of flesh and
soul. Neither, therefore, of those parts which He has received will He
allow to perish; nay, no considerable portion-nay, not the least fraction,
of either. If the flesh be, as our opponents slightingly think, but a poor
fraction, then the flesh is safe, because not a fraction of man is to perish;
and no larger portion is in danger, because every portion of man is in
equally safe keeping with Him. If, however, He will not raise the flesh
also up at the last day, then He will permit not only a fraction of man
to perish, but (as I will venture to say, in consideration of so important
a part) almost the whole of him. But when He repeats His words with increased
emphasis, "And this is the Father's will, that every one which seeth the
Son, and believeth on Him, may have eternal life: and I will raise him
up at the last day," -He asserts the full extent of the resurrection.
For He assigns to each several nature that reward which is suited to its
services: both to the flesh, for by it the Son was "seen; "and to the soul,
for by it He was "believed on." Then, you will say, to them was this promise
given by whom Christ was "seen." Well, be it so; only let the same hope
flow on from them to us! For if to them who saw, and therefore believed,
such fruit then accrued to the operations of the flesh and the soul, how
much more to us! For more "blessed," says Christ, "are they who have not
seen, and yet have believed; " since, even if the resurrection of
the flesh must be denied to them, it must at any rate be a fitting boon
to us, who are the more blessed. For how could we be blessed, if we were
to perish in any part of us?
