|
|
 The Self-Evidencing Power of Truth.
The word of truth is free, and carries its own authority, disdaining to fall
under any skilful argument, or to endure the logical scrutiny of its hearers.
But it would be believed for its own nobility, and for the confidence due to Him
who sends it. Now the word of truth is sent from God; wherefore the freedom
claimed by the truth is not arrogant. For being sent with authority, it were not
fit that it should be required to produce proof of what is said; since neither
is there any proof beyond itself, which is God. For every proof is more powerful
and trustworthy than that which it proves; since what is disbelieved, until
proof is produced, gets credit when such proof is produced, and is recognised as
being what it was stated to be. But nothing is either more powerful or more
trustworthy than the truth; so that he who requires proof of this is like one
who wishes it demonstrated why the things that appear to the senses do appear.
For the test of those things which are received through the reason, is sense;
but of sense itself there is no test beyond itself. As then we bring those
things which reason hunts after, to sense, and by it judge what kind of things
they are, whether the things spoken be true or false, and then sit in judgment
no longer, giving full credit to its decision; so also we refer all that is said
regarding men and the world to the truth, and by it judge whether it be
worthless or no. But the utterances of truth we judge by no separate test,
giving full credit to itself. And God, the Father of the universe, who is the
perfect intelligence, is the truth. And the Word, being His Son, came to us,
having put on flesh, revealing both Himself and the Father, giving to us in
Himself resurrection from the dead, and eternal life afterwards. And this is
Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Lord. He, therefore, is Himself both the faith and
the proof of Himself and of all things. Wherefore those who follow Him, and know
Him, having faith in Him as their proof, shall rest in Him. But since the
adversary does not cease to resist many, and uses many and divers arts to
ensnare them, that he may seduce the faithful from their faith, and that he may
prevent the faithless from believing, it seems to me necessary that we also,
being armed with the invulnerable doctrines of the faith, do battle against him
in behalf of the weak.
Objections to the Resurrection of the Flesh.
They who maintain the wrong opinion say that there is no resurrection of the
flesh; giving as their reason that it is impossible that what is corrupted and
dissolved should be restored to the same as it had been. And besides the
impossibility, they say that the salvation of the flesh is disadvantageous; and
they abuse the flesh, adducing its infirmities, and declare that it only is the
cause of our sins, so that if the flesh, say they, rise again, our infirmities
also rise with it. And such sophistical reasons as the following they elaborate:
If the flesh rise again, it must rise either entire and possessed of all its
parts, or imperfect. But its rising imperfect argues a want of power on God's
part, if some parts could be saved, and others not; but if all the parts are
saved, then the body will manifestly have all its members. But is it not absurd
to say that these members will exist after the resurrection from the dead, since
the Saviour said, "They neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but shall be
as the angels in heaven? " And the angels, say they, have neither flesh, nor do
they eat, nor have sexual intercourse; therefore there shall be no resurrection
of the flesh. By these and such like arguments, they attempt to distract men
from the faith. And there are some who maintain that even Jesus Himself appeared
only as spiritual, and not in flesh, but presented merely the appearance of
flesh: these persons seek to rob the flesh of the promise. First, then, let us
solve those things which seem to them to be insoluble; then we will introduce in
an orderly manner the demonstration concerning the flesh, proving that it
partakes of salvation.
If the Members Rise, Must They Discharge the Same Functions
as Now?
They say, then, if the body shall rise entire, and in possession of all its
members, it necessarily follows that the functions of the members shall also be
in existence; that the womb shall become pregnant, and the male also discharge
his function of generation, and the rest of the members in like manner. Now let
this argument stand or fall by this one assertion. For this being proved false,
their whole objection will be removed. Now it is indeed evident that the members
which discharge functions discharge those functions which in the present life we
see but it does not follow that they necessarily discharge the same functions
from the beginning. And that this may be more clearly seen, let us consider it
thus. The function of the womb is to become pregnant; and of the member of the
male to impregnate. But as, though these members are destined to discharge such
functions, it is not therefore necessary that they from the beginning discharge
them (since we see many women who do not become pregnant, as those that are
barren, even though they have wombs), so pregnancy is not the immediate and
necessary consequence of having a womb; but those even who are not barren
abstain from sexual intercourse, some being virgins from the first, and others
from a certain time. And we see men also keeping themselves virgins, some from
the first, and some from a certain time; so that by their means, marriage, made
lawless through lust, is destroyed. And we find that some even of the lower
animals, though possessed of wombs, do not bear, such as the mule; and the male
mules do not beget their kind. So that both in the case of men and the
irrational animals we can see sexual intercourse abolished; and this, too,
before the future world. And our Lord Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, for no
other reason than that He might destroy the begetting by lawless desire, and
might show to the ruler that the formation of man was possible to God without
human intervention. And when He had been born, and had submitted to the other
conditions of the flesh,-I mean food, drink, and clothing,-this one condition
only of discharging the sexual function He did not submit to; for, regarding the
desires of the flesh, He accepted some as necessary, while others, which were
unnecessary, He did not submit to. For if the flesh were deprived of food,
drink, and clothing, it would be destroyed; but being deprived of lawless
desire, it suffers no harm. And at the same time He foretold that, in the future
world, sexual intercourse should be done away with; as He says, "The children of
this world marry, and are given in marriage; but the children of the world to
come neither marry nor are given in marriage, but shall be like the angels in
heaven." Let not, then, those that are unbelieving marvel, if in the world to
come He do away with those acts of our fleshly members which even in this
present life are abolished.
Must the Deformed Rise Deformed?
Well, they say, if then the flesh rise, it must rise the same as it falls; so
that if it die with one eye, it must rise one-eyed; if lame, lame; if defective
in any part of the body, in this part the man must rise deficient. How truly
blinded are they in the eyes of their hearts! For they have not seen on the
earth blind men seeing again, and the lame walking by His word. All things which
the Saviour did, He did in the first place in order that what was spoken
concerning Him in the prophets might be fulfilled, "that the blind should
receive sight, and the deaf hear," and so on; but also to induce the belief that
in the resurrection the flesh shall rise entire. For if on earth He healed the
sicknesses of the flesh, and made the body whole, much more will He do this in
the resurrection, so that the flesh shall rise perfect and entire. In this
manner, then, shall those dreaded difficulties of theirs be healed.
The Resurrection of the Flesh is Not Impossible.
But again, of those who maintain that the flesh has no resurrection, some
assert that it is impossible; others that, considering how vile and despicable
the flesh is, it is not fit that God should raise it; and others, that it did
not at the first receive the promise. First, then, in respect of those who say
that it is impossible for God to raise it, it seems to me that I should show
that they are ignorant, professing as they do in word that they are believers,
yet by their works proving themselves to be unbelieving, even more unbelieving
than the unbelievers. For, seeing that all the heathen believe in their idols,
and are persuaded that to them all things are possible (as even their poet Homer
says, "The gods can do all things, and that easily; "and he added the word
"easily" that he might bring out the greatness of the power of the gods), many
do seem to be more unbelieving than they. For if the heathen believe in their
gods, which are idols ("which have ears, and they hear not; they have eyes, and
they see not" ), that they can do all things, though they be but devils, as
saith the Scripture, "The gods of the nations axe devils,"
much more ought we, who hold the right, excellent, and true faith, to believe in
our God, since also we have proofs [of His power], first in the creation of the
first man, for he was made from the earth by God; and this is sufficient
evidence of God's power; and then they who observe things can see how men are
generated one by another, and can marvel in a still greater degree that from a
little drop of moisture so grand a living creature is formed. And certainly if
this were only recorded in a promise, and not seen accomplished, this too would
be much more incredible than the other; but it is rendered more credible by
accomplishment. But even in the case of the resurrection the Saviour has shown
us accomplishments, of which we will in a little speak. But now we are
demonstrating that the resurrection of the flesh is possible, asking pardon of
the children of the Church if we adduce arguments which seem to be secular and
physical: first, because to God nothing is secular, not even the world itself,
for it is His workmanship; and secondly, because we are conducting our argument
so as to meet unbelievers. For if we argued with believers, it were enough to
say that we believe; but now we must proceed by demonstrations. The foregoing
proofs are indeed quite sufficient to evince the possibility of the resurrection
of the flesh; but since these men are exceedingly unbelieving, we will further
adduce a more convincing argument still,-an argument drawn not from faith, for
they are not within its scope, but from their own mother unbelief,-I mean, of
course, from physical reasons. For if by such arguments we prove to them that
the resurrection of the flesh is possible, they are certainly worthy of great
contempt if they can be persuaded neither by the deliverances of faith nor by
the arguments of the world.
The Resurrection Consistent with the Opinions of the
Philosophers.
Those, then, who are called natural philosophers, say, some of them, as
Plato, that the universe is matter and God; others, as Epicurus, that it is
atoms and the void; others, like the Stoics, that it is these four-fire, water,
air, earth. For it is sufficient to mention the most prevalent opinions. And
Plato says that all things are made from matter by God, and according to His
design; but Epicures and his followers say that all things are made from the
atom and the void by some kind of self-regulating action of the natural movement
of the bodies; and the Stoics, that all are made of the four elements, God
pervading them. But while there is such discrepancy among them, there are some
doctrines acknowledged by them all in common, one of which is that neither can
anything be produced from what is not in being, nor anything be destroyed or
dissolved into what has not any being, and that the elements exist
indestructible out of which all things are generated. And this being so, the
regeneration of the flesh will, according to all these philosophers, appear to
be possible. For if, according to Plato, it is matter and God, both these are
indestructible and God; and God indeed occupies the position of an artificer, to
wit, a potter; and matter occupies the place of clay or wax, or some such thing.
That, then, which is formed of matter, be it an image or a statue, is
destructible; but the matter itself is indestructible, such as clay or wax, or
any other such kind of matter. Thus the artist designs in the clay or wax, and
makes the form of a living animal; and again, if his handiwork be destroyed, it
is not impossible for him to make the same form, by working up the same
material, and fashioning it anew. So that, according to Plato, neither will it
be impossible for God, who is Himself indestructible, and has also
indestructible material, even after that which has been first formed of it has
been destroyed, to make it anew again, and to make the same form just as it was
before. But according to the Stoics even, the body being produced by the mixture
of the four elementary substances, when this body has been dissolved into the
four elements, these remaining indestructible, it is possible that they receive
a second time the same fusion and composition, from God pervading them, and so
re-make the body which they formerly made. Like as if a man shall make a
composition of gold and silver, and brass and tin, and then shall wish to
dissolve it again, so that each element exist separately, having again mixed
them, he may, if he pleases, make the very same composition as he had formerly
made. Again, according to Epicurus, the atoms and the void being indestructible,
it is by a definite arrangement and adjustment of the atoms as they come
together, that both all other formations are produced, and the body itself; and
it being in course of time dissolved, is dissolved again into those atoms from
which it was also produced. And as these remain indestructible, it is not at all
impossible, that by coming together again, and receiving the same arrangement
and position, they should make a body of like nature to what was formerly
produced by them; as if a jeweller should make in mosaic the form of an animal,
and the stones should be scattered by time or by the man himself who made them,
he having still in his possession the scattered stones, may gather them together
again, and having gathered, may dispose them in the same way, and make the same
form of an animal. And shall not God be able to collect again the decomposed
members of the flesh, and make the same body as was formerly produced by Him?
The Body Valuable in God's Sight.
But the proof of the possibility of the resurrection of the flesh I have
sufficiently demonstrated, in answer to men of the world. And if the
resurrection of the flesh is not found impossible on the principles even of
unbelievers, how much more will it be found in accordance with the mind of
believers! But following our order, we must now speak with respect to those who
think meanly of the flesh, and say that it is not worthy of the resurrection nor
of the heavenly economy, because, first, its substance is earth; and besides,
because it is full of all wickedness, so that it forces the soul to sin along
with it. But these persons seem to be ignorant of the whole work of God, both of
the genesis and formation of man at the first, and why the things in the world
were made. For does not the word say, "Let Us make man in our image, and after
our likeness? " What kind of man? Manifestly He means fleshly man, For the word
says, "And God took dust of the earth, and made man." It is evident, therefore,
that man made in the image of God was of flesh. Is it not, then, absurd to say,
that the flesh made by God in His own image is contemptible, and worth nothing?
But that the flesh is with God a precious possession is manifest, first from its
being formed by Him, if at least the image is valuable to the former and artist;
and besides, its value can be gathered from the creation of the rest of the
world. For that on account of which the rest is made, is the most precious of
all to the maker.
Does the Body Cause the Soul to Sin?
Quite true, say they; yet the flesh is a sinner, so much so, that it forces
the soul to sin along with it. And thus they vainly accuse it, and lay to its
charge alone the sins of both. But in what instance can the flesh possibly sin
by itself, if it have not the soul going before it and inciting it? For as in
the case of a yoke of oxen, if one or other is loosed from the yoke, neither of
them can plough alone; so neither can soul or body alone effect anything, if
they be unyoked from their communion. And if it is the flesh that is the sinner,
then on its account alone did the Saviour come, as He says, "I am not come to
call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Since, then, the flesh has been
proved to be valuable in the sight of God, and glorious above all His works, it
would very justly be saved by Him.
We must meet, therefore, those who say, that even though it be the special
handiwork of God, and beyond all else valued by Him, it would not immediately
follow that it has the promise of the resurrection. Yet is it not absurd, that
that which has been produced with such circumstance, and which is beyond all
else valuable, should be so neglected by its Maker, as to pass to nonentity?
Then the sculptor and painter, if they wish the works they have made to endure,
that they may win glory by them, renew them when they begin to decay; but God
would so neglect His own possession and work, that it becomes annihilated, and
no longer exists. Should we not call this labour in vain? As if a man who has
built a house should forthwith destroy it, or should neglect it, though he sees
it falling into decay, and is able to repair it: we would blame him for
labouring in vain; and should we not so blame God? But not such an one is the
Incorruptible,-not senseless is the Intelligence of the universe. Let the
unbelieving be silent, even though they themselves do not believe.
But, in truth, He has even called the flesh to the resurrection, and promises
to it everlasting life. For where He promises to save man, there He gives the
promise to the flesh. For what is man but the reasonable animal composed of body
and soul? Is the soul by itself man? No; but the soul of man. Would the body be
called man? No, but it is called the body of man. If, then, neither of these is
by itself man, but that which is made up of the two together is called man, and
God has called man to life and resurrection, He has called not a part, but the
whole, which is the soul and the body. Since would it not be unquestionably
absurd, if, while these two are in the same being and according to the same law,
the one were saved and the other not? And if it be not impossible, as has
already been proved, that the flesh be regenerated, what is the distinction on
the ground of which the soul is saved and the body not? Do they make God a
grudging God? But He is good, and will have all to be saved. And by God and His
proclamation, not only has your soul heard and believed on Jesus Christ, and
with it the flesh, but both were washed, and both wrought righteousness. They
make God, then ungrateful and unjust, if, while both believe on Him, He desires
to save one and not the other. Well, they say, but the soul is incorruptible,
being a part of God and inspired by Him, and therefore He desires to save what
is peculiarly His own and akin to Himself; but the flesh is corruptible, and not
from Him, as the soul is. Then what thanks are due to Him, and what
manifestation of His power and goodness is it, if He purposed to save what is by
nature saved and exists as a part of Himself? For it had its salvation from
itself; so that in saving the soul, God does no great thing. For to be saved is
its natural destiny, because it is a part of Himself, being His inspiration. But
no thanks are due to one who saves what is his own; for this is to save himself.
For he who saves a part himself, saves himself by his own means, lest he become
defective in that part; and this is not the act of a good man. For not even when
a man does good to his children and offspring, does one call him a good man; for
even the most savage of the wild beasts do so, and indeed willingly endure
death, if need be, for the sake of their cubs. But if a man were to perform the
same acts in behalf of his slaves, that man would justly be called good.
Wherefore the Saviour also taught us to love our enemies, since, says He, what
thank have ye? So that He has shown us that it is a good work not only to love
those that are begotten of Him, but also those that are without. And what He
enjoins upon us, He Himself first of all does.
The Resurrection of Christ Proves that the Body Rises.
If He had no need of the flesh, why did He heal it? And what is most forcible
of all, He raised the dead. Why? Was it not to show what the resurrection should
be? How then did He raise the dead? Their souls or their bodies? Manifestly
both. If the resurrection were only spiritual, it was requisite that He, in
raising the dead, should show the body lying apart by itself, and the soul
living apart by itself. But now He did not do so, but raised the body,
confirming in it the promise of life. Why did He rise in the flesh in which He
suffered, unless to show the resurrection of the flesh? And wishing to confirm
this, when His disciples did not know whether to believe He had truly risen in
the body, and were looking upon Him and doubting, He said to them, "Ye have not
yet faith, see that it is I; " and He let them handle Him, and showed them the
prints of the nails in His hands. And when they were by every kind of proof
persuaded that it was Himself, and in the body, they asked Him to eat with them,
that they might thus still more accurately ascertain that He had in verity risen
bodily; and He did eat honey-comb and fish. And when He had thus shown them that
there is truly a resurrection of the flesh, wishing to show them this also, that
it is not impossible for flesh to ascend into heaven (as He had said that our
dwelling-place is in heaven), "He was taken up into heaven while they beheld,"
as He was in the flesh. If, therefore, after all that has been said, any one
demand demonstration of the resurrection, he is in no respect different from the
Sadducees, since the resurrection of the flesh is the power of God, and, being
above all reasoning, is established by faith, and seen in works.
The Body Saved, and Will Therefore Rise.
The resurrection is a resurrection of the flesh which died. For the spirit
dies not; the soul is in the body, and without a soul it cannot live. The body,
when the soul forsakes it, is not. For the body is the house of the soul; and
the soul the house of the spirit. These three, in all those who cherish a
sincere hope and unquestioning faith in God, will be saved. Considering,
therefore, even such arguments as are suited to this world, and finding that,
even according to them, it is not impossible that the flesh be regenerated; and
seeing that, besides all these proofs, the Saviour in the whole Gospel shows
that there is salvation for the flesh, why do we any longer endure those
unbelieving and dangerous arguments, and fail to see that we are retrograding
when we listen to such an argument as this: that the soul is immortal, but the
body mortal, and incapable of being revived? For this we used to hear from
Pythagoras and Plato, even before we learned the truth. If then the Saviour said
this, and proclaimed salvation to the soul alone, what new thing, beyond what we
heard from Pythagoras and Plato and all their band, did He bring us? But now He
has come proclaiming the glad tidings of a new and strange hope to men. For
indeed it was a strange and new thing for God to promise that He would not keep
incorruption in incorruption, but would make corruption incorruption. But
because the prince of wickedness could in no other way corrupt the truth, he
sent forth his apostles (evil men who introduced pestilent doctrines), choosing
them from among those who crucified our Saviour; and these men bore the name of
the Saviour, but did the works of him that sent them, through whom the name
itself has been spoken against. But if the flesh do not rise, why is it also
guarded, and why do we not rather suffer it to indulge its desires? Why do we
not imitate physicians, who, it is said, when they get a patient that is
despaired of and incurable, allow him to indulge his desires? For they know that
he is dying; and this indeed those who hate the flesh surely do, casting it out
of its inheritance, so far as they can; for on this account they also despise
it, because it is shortly to become a corpse. But if our physician Christ, God,
having rescued us from our desires, regulates our flesh with His own wise and
temperate rule, it is evident that He guards it from sins because it possesses a
hope of salvation, as physicians do not suffer men whom they hope to save to
indulge in what pleasures they please.
|
