PAGAN ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY.
IF it is proved, 1st, That in the first centuries of the Christian era,
and before the coming of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the resurrection
of the body was held by a large number of Pagans; 2d, That the Church of
Rome which, in the sixteenth century, transmitted it to the now
self-called Orthodox Christian Churches, did not hold it either from the
apostles of Jesus Christ, or from the Jews, it will remain evident that
the Church of Rome borrowed it from the Pagans, and consequently that
its origin is Pagan.
But it can be proved, 1st, That in the first centuries of the Christian
era, and before the coming of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the
resurrection of the body was held by a large number of Pagans; 2d, That
the Church of Rome, which, in the sixteenth century, transmitted it to
the now self-called Orthodox Christian Churches, did not hold it from
the apostles of Jesus Christ; and, 3d, That she did not hold it from the
Jews.
1st. It can be proved that in the first centuries of the Christian era,
and before the coming of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the resurrection
of the body was held by a large number of Pagans:
The doctrine of the resurrection of the body had been taught by
Zoroaster. All the Persians believed it; and even now the Parsis, or
followers of the religion of Zoroaster, who live in Turkey and in
Persia, hold it. It was also one of the dogmas of the Chaldeans, and of
many other oriental countries. In India the Pagans, now-a-days, believe
that their bodies will come again to life, and it is owing to this
belief, the Roman Catholic priest Bergier says, that the wives throw
themselves on the same wood piles on which lay the dead bodies of their
husbands, to be burnt alive, and to come again to life with them. This
belief and practice are immemorial in India. Interesting particulars in
regard to the doctrine of the resurrection believed by ancient nations,
can be read in the French work, Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions,
tome 69, pages 270, and following; in the work of Hyde, on the Religion
of the Persians; and also in the writings of Plutarch, article Isis and
Osiris.
According to the testimony of Diodore, and of Herodote, the Egyptians
believed in Metempsychosis; and it was an immemorial doctrine among
them. Also, many of them believed that their bodies would come again to
life, after a sojourn of one thousand years in the grave. The Sybilline
verses treat of the resurrection of the body. Much has been written
about it by Bocchus, in Solin, chap. 8; and by Lactance, book 7, chap.
29, book 4, chap. 15, 18, and 19. The Stoicians, who were the most
learned philosophers of antiquity, and in the three centuries which
preceded the coming of Jesus Christ, and also in the three that
followed, believed in Metempsychosis; however, a portion of their school
believed in the resurrection of the body. Of this we are informed by
Seneca, Epist. 40; by Laerta, book 7; and by Plutarch, writing on the
Resignation of the Stoicians.
Pliny, deriding Democrite, informs us that this philosopher believed in
the resurrection of the body; see book 7, chap. 45, where he says: "Vain
is the promise made by Democrite that we will live again." The doctrine
of the resurrection of the body is taught in these verses of Phocylides
about the remains of the dead:
"[Greek: Ou kalon harmoniên analyemen anthrôpoio;
Kai tacha d' ek gaiês elpizomen es phaos elthein
Leipsan' apoichomenôn opiso te theoi telethontai.]"
Translation:--"It is impious to disperse the remains of man; for the
ashes and the bones of the dead will come again to light, and will
become similar to the gods."
Virgil speaks of the resurrection of the body, though in an obscure
manner, in the sixth book of his poem Eneida.
Therefore in the first centuries of the Christian era, and before the
coming of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the resurrection of the body was
held by a large number of Pagans.
2d. It can be proved that the Church of Rome, which, in the sixteenth
century, transmitted the doctrine of the resurrection of the body to the
now self-called Orthodox Christian Churches, did not hold it from the
apostles of Jesus Christ:--
It will be evident that the Church of Rome did not hold the doctrine of
the resurrection of the body from the apostles of Jesus Christ, if it
can be proved, 1st, That the Fathers of the first centuries did not
agree on this doctrine; 2d, That nearly all the Christian denominations
of the first two centuries, and the majority, to say the least, of those
of the century following, disbelieved it; and, 3d, That this doctrine is
irrational.
But it can be proved, 1st, That the Fathers of the first centuries did
not agree about the doctrine of the resurrection of the body; 2d, That
nearly all the Christian denominations of the first two centuries, and
the majority, to say the least, of the century following, disbelieved
it; and, 3d, That this doctrine is irrational.
1st. It can be proved that the Fathers of the first centuries did not
agree about the doctrine of the resurrection of the body.
Tatian believed in Metempsychosis, but not in the resurrection of the
body. St. Gregory of Nysse denied that there was anything corporeal in
the person of Jesus Christ, since the time he ascended to the heavens.
Origen admitted the resurrection of the bodies, but not that of the
flesh. Synesius, bishop of Ptolemaïda, in his Series of Epistles,
declares that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is a mystery,
whose solution ought to be kept secret, and considered as sacred: that
it is well to teach it to the people; and that he, the bishop, would
publicly profess and preach this doctrine, though it is not his personal
belief. If the reader desires to find lengthier particulars, about the
divergency of the opinions of the Fathers concerning the doctrine of the
resurrection of the body, we refer him to the work of Beausobre, headed,
History of Manicheanism, tome 2, book 8, chap. 5, No. 3, and following.
Therefore the Fathers of the first centuries did not agree about the
doctrine of the resurrection of the body.
2d. It can be proved that nearly all the Christian sects, or
denominations, of the first two centuries, and the majority, to say the
least, of those of the century following, disbelieved the doctrine of
the resurrection of the body:----
According to the unanimous testimony of the Roman Catholic authors
themselves, Bergier, Feller, Fleury, etc., etc., the following Christian
sects of the first three centuries held the dogma of Metempsychosis: The
Basilidians, the Bardesanists, the Barules, the Barborians, the
Valentinians, the Marcionites, the Marcosians, the Theodotians, the
Artemonians, the Carpocratians, the Docetes, the Tatianists, the
Apellites, the Montanists, the Artotyrites, the Severians, the Ascites,
the Ascodrutes, the Ophites, the Cainites, the Sethians, the
Hermogenians, the Hermians, the Valesians, the Hieracites, the
Samosatians, and the Manicheans: this latter sect, Catholic authors say,
were subdivided into more than sixty sects, which professed, each one of
them, to believe in Metempsychosis. The same authors add, that many of
the other sects named above denied the resurrection of the body. Though
they do not say so of all, we may safely affirm that every one of the
above named Christian sects disbelieved the doctrine of the resurrection
of the body. This we demonstrate thus:--
According to the doctrine of Metempsychosis, when, at death, a soul
separates from the body, she passes into another body to animate it; and
to thus expiate, by many and successive transmigrations, the faults she
has committed in an anterior existence, and so continually. But the
doctrine of the resurrection of the body teaches that the same soul
which animated it in its prior existence, shall animate it anew when it
will come again to life. How can then this same soul animate this same
body, and at the same time the thousands of other human bodies, which
she had also animated in her various transmigrations? Therefore the
belief of the doctrine of Metempsychosis necessarily implies a disbelief
of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. Consequently, although
the Roman Catholic authors do not positively state that all the above
named Christian sects disbelieved the doctrine of the resurrection of
the body, we may safely affirm, from the fact that they held the
doctrine of Metempsychosis, that they disbelieved the doctrine of the
resurrection of the body.
Therefore nearly all the Christian sects, or denominations, of the first
two centuries, and the majority, to say the least, of those of the
century following, disbelieved the doctrine of the resurrection of the
body.
3d. It can be proved that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body
is irrational.
All the reasons which have been brought forth by St. Cyrille, bishop of
Jerusalem, in his Catechism, page 18; by St. Gregory of Nysse, in his
oratio on the Resurrection of the Flesh; by St. Augustine, in his City
of God, book 20; by St. Chrysostome, in his homily on the Resurrection
of the Flesh; by Tertullian, in his treatise on the Resurrection of the
Flesh; by St. Gregory, the Pope, in his Fourth Dialogue; by St.
Ambrosius, in his sermon on the Faith of the Resurrection of the Flesh;
and by St. Epiphane, Ancyrot, page 38, can be summed up as follows:--
God himself has formed with his own hands man's body; he has animated it
with the breath of his own mouth, and has placed within it a soul made
to his likeness. The flesh of the Christian is, in some manner,
associated to all the functions of its soul, and is the instrument of
all the graces of God. It is the body that is washed by baptism to
purify the soul, it is the body that in order to feed the soul receives
the Eucharist; it is the body that is immolated to God by
mortifications, by fasts, by vigils, by virginity, and by martyrdom.
Thus St. Paul reminds that our bodies are the members of Jesus Christ,
and the temples of the Holy Spirit. Would God leave in the grave forever
the work of his own hands, the master-piece of his might, the depository
of his breath, the king of the other bodies, the canal of his graces,
and the victim of his worship?
If God has condemned the body to death as a punishment for sin, Jesus
Christ came to save all that was lost. Without this complete reparation,
we would not know how far the goodness, the mercy, and the parental
tenderness of our God, extend. The flesh of man, restored by incarnation
to its former dignity, ought to come again to life, as well as that of
Jesus Christ. Is not he who created the flesh mighty enough to bring it
again to life? Nothing entirely perishes in nature: forms change, but
all renews itself, and seems to grow young again; God has stamped
immortality upon all his works. Night follows the day, eclipsed stars
appear anew; the spring makes us forget the winter; plants grow again,
and resume their hues and perfumes; and several animals which seem to
die receive a new life. Thus, by the lessons of nature, God has prepared
the lessons of the revelation; and he has shown us the image of the
resurrection, before showing us its reality.
God's justice demands the resurrection of our body. God ought to judge,
to reward, or to punish the whole man. The body is the instrument of
the soul for good or for evil; even the thoughts of the soul are
reflected on man's face. The soul cannot experience pleasure or pain
without the co-participation of the body, and the principal exercise of
virtue consists in the repression of the desires of the flesh. Then it
is just that the soul of the wicked be tormented, by being reunited to
the same body which has been the instrument of her crimes; and that the
soul of the saints be rewarded, by her eternal reunion to a body which
has been the instrument of her merits.
All these reasons can be generalized thus:
Man's body has been the instrument of our soul to do good or evil. Then
the justice of God requires that man's body come again to life, to
share, with its soul, eternal reward, or eternal punishment.
We answer: Since man's body is but the instrument of our soul to do good
or evil, his body is capable neither of merit nor of demerit. But, since
man's body is capable neither of merit nor of demerit, it is capable
neither of reward nor of punishment. Therefore the justice of God does
not require that man's body come again to life, to share, with its soul,
eternal reward or eternal punishment.
More, it is irrational that the same particles of matter be, at the same
time, in many places. But the doctrine of the resurrection of the body
supposes that the same particles of matter will be, at the same time,
in many places. This we prove:
The cannibals live upon man's flesh; and they assimilate to their own
bodies the particles of flesh which compose the bodies of the men they
devour. Consequently, at the resurrection of the bodies, these particles
of flesh will compose the bodies of the cannibals, and, at the same
time, the bodies of the men they have devoured. Therefore, the doctrine
of the resurrection of the body supposes, that the same particles of
matter will be, at the same time, in many places.
Besides, when, after death, man's body putrefies, the particles of
flesh, of which it is composed, dissolve into gases, which the plants
convert to their own nature. Those vegetables and fruits, thousands of
men eat; and thus they assimilate to themselves those same particles,
which formerly composed the bodies of other men. Consequently, at the
resurrection of the bodies, those particles will compose a multitude of
bodies. Therefore, the doctrine of the resurrection of the body
supposes, that the same particles of matter will be, at the same time,
in many places.
Then the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is irrational.
_Objection._--Jesus Christ came again to life with a spiritual body.
Then these proofs do not demonstrate that the doctrine of the
resurrection of the body is irrational.
_Answer._--Jesus Christ came again to life with a spiritual body; this
we concede. Then these proofs do not demonstrate that the doctrine of
the resurrection of the body is irrational. This we deny; for it is an
article of faith in the Church of Rome; and it is nearly unanimously
believed by all the other Partialist Churches, that the bodies of the
righteous _alone_ will be spiritual bodies; and that the bodies of the
wicked will be after the resurrection, as they were while on earth.
Consequently, it does not follow, from the fact that Jesus Christ came
again to life with a spiritual body, that the above proofs do not
demonstrate that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is
irrational.
_Remark._--The Partialists quote passages of the Scriptures to prove the
doctrine of the resurrection of the body. We shall not discuss the true
meaning of those passages; for such a discussion does not enter in the
plan of this work, which is exclusively intended to prove historically
the true origin of the Partialist doctrines. However, in regard to those
texts we say:
It would be a blasphemy against God to suppose that the Scriptures teach
us an irrational doctrine. But, as demonstrated above, the doctrine of
the resurrection of the body is irrational. Then the Scriptures do not
teach it. Then those texts ought not to be understood of the
resurrection of the body.
3d. It can be proved that the Church of Rome did not hold the doctrine
of the resurrection of the body from the Jews.
The Church of Rome did not hold from the Jews the doctrine of the
resurrection of the body, if, 1st, the Roman Catholic theologians do not
hold that this doctrine is taught in the Old Testament; 2d, If this
doctrine was traditional only among the illiterate portion of the Jewish
nation; and, 3d, If this tradition was not of an ancient and national
origin.
But, 1st, The Roman Catholic theologians do not hold that the doctrine
of the resurrection of the body is taught in the Old Testament; 2d, This
doctrine was traditional only among the illiterate portion of the Jewish
nation; and, 3d, This tradition was not of an ancient and national
origin.
1st, The Roman Catholic theologians do not hold that the doctrine of the
resurrection of the body is taught in the Old Testament.
The Roman Catholic theologians do not pretend that the doctrine of the
resurrection of the body is taught in the Old Testament; they only
assert that it may be that it is taught therein. Bergier, who is their
organ, and whose works, written in the last century, were, and still now
are, classical among the priests, writes--Article, Resurrection of the
Body, page 159:--"We presume that Job, Daniel, and the seven Maccabean
brothers, had some knowledge of this essential dogma." Consequently the
Roman Catholic theologians do not hold that the doctrine of the
resurrection of the body is taught in the Old Testament.
2d, The doctrine of the resurrection of the body was traditional only
among the illiterate portion of the Jewish nation.
Josephus states, in his Antiq. Jud., book 18, ch. 2; and in his De Bello
Judaico, book 2, ch. 7, al. ch. 12, that the Sadducees were the literate
portion of the Jewish people; that they held nearly all the public
offices; that they were well educated, courteous, and that they avoided
public discussions and controversies on the subject of religion. He
states also that they disbelieved the doctrine of the resurrection of
the body. Therefore the doctrine of the resurrection of the body was
traditional only among the illiterate portion of the Jewish nation.
3d, The tradition of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body was
not of an ancient and national origin.
In the year 587 before the Christian era, in the second year of the
reign of Sedecias, Jerusalem was besieged, taken, destroyed; Sedecias
and the whole nation were led captives to Babylon. There they were
detained seventy years, until Cyrus permitted them to return to their
own country. During those seventy years of captivity, the Jewish people
borrowed from the Pagans many religious practices, ceremonies, rites,
and doctrines--this is the testimony of Josephus--and among them the
doctrine of the resurrection of the body, which, as has been proved
before, was believed by a large number of Pagans. When the people
returned from Babylon to Jerusalem a portion of them preserved some of
those religious practices, ceremonies, rites, and doctrines, and
rejected the others. Those which they preserved they transmitted to
their posterity, and among them was the doctrine of the resurrection of
the body. Therefore the tradition of the doctrine of the resurrection of
the body was not of an ancient and national origin.
We have proved, 1st, That the Roman Catholic theologians do not hold
that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is taught in the Old
Testament; 2d, That this doctrine was traditional only among the
illiterate portion of the Jewish nation; and, 3d, That this tradition
was not of an ancient and national origin.
Therefore, 3d, The Church of Rome did not hold from the Jews the
doctrine of the resurrection of the body.
We come now to the general conclusions of this chapter.
It has been proved, 1st, that in the first centuries of the Christian
era, and before the coming of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the
resurrection of the body was held by a large number of Pagans; 2d, That
the Church of Rome, which, in the sixteenth century, transmitted it to
the now self-called Orthodox Christian Churches, did not hold it either
from the Apostles of Jesus Christ or from the Jews.
Therefore the Church of Rome borrowed from the Pagans the doctrine of
the resurrection of the body.
_Therefore the origin of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is
Pagan._