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:

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.