and as we know that there is a spiritual body, why may it not refer to that? Besides, it is stated that certain members may be cut off and perish, so that they at least will not rise. So that supposing a natural resurrection to be treated of, some are contemplated as rising and going to their final destiny, without their right eyes and right hands. But as no one can reasonably think that the actual plucking out of the one, or cutting off of the other, was intended to be taught; so it will follow that by the "whole body" is not to be understood the natural body, but rather that spiritual body from which offending thought and offending love ought to be removed.
Again, the Lord said, "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."[1] Now, if killing the body means killing the natural body on earth, then, to destroy both body and soul in hell, must mean absolutely to destroy them: but as it is certain that no such destruction is meant, it is plain that by the body referred to, as being the subject of such destruction, cannot be meant the natural body. But is it possible not to fear, those who would compass our death? Surely the Lord never intended to teach us that it was a Christian virtue not to fear the assassin who would kill us. Men may have courage to die, but it can hardly be said they should have no fear of those who would inflict a murderous death. On this, however, we need not dwell. Supposing the body mentioned in the first instance to mean the natural body, it does not follow that it is the natural body which is meant in the second instance: it certainly is not so said. Each must be taken with the signification which is given to it by its surroundings. As killing is only predicable of the
