On the Resurrection of the Dead
Athenagoras the Athenian
Select Commentary
December 20, 2020
Apprentice Hunter
‘Now, explain it to me like I'm a four-year-old.’
-Joe Miller, ‘Philadelphia’
‘[I]t is fearfully tedious...to read them [the alleged writings of the Church Fathers]."
Jean Hardouin, ‘Prolegomena to a Censure of Old Writers’, Chapter 3, section 19
-Joe Miller, ‘Philadelphia’
‘[I]t is fearfully tedious...to read them [the alleged writings of the Church Fathers]."
Jean Hardouin, ‘Prolegomena to a Censure of Old Writers’, Chapter 3, section 19
1
The English translation of the text is found here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/athenagoras-resurrection.html
The result from a readability website:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/athenagoras-resurrection.html
The result from a readability website:
Your page (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/athenagoras-resurrection.html) has an average grade level of about 19. Ooh, that's probably a bit too complicated. Have you thought about using smaller words and shorter sentences?
The author posing as St. Anethagoras explains the resurrection at the reading level beyond all but the most erudite scholars. This dissimulation is typical for the alleged writings of the Church Fathers, otherwise said, the Church Fathers substitute the simplicity in Christ with a verbosity that tends toward nonsense [2 Corinthians 11:13]. The Orthodox Church in America states that Saint Athenagoras ‘stands out among the apologists of his day because of his literary excellence and his clear and eloquent style.’ As always, the Gentle Reader will resolve any perceived contradictions between an average nineteen grade reading level and a ‘clear and eloquent style’.
The primary purpose of this essay will examine the utilization of certain words that produce confounding and obscuring statements that create doubts concerning the presupposed attempt to justify the resurrection. Secondarily, we will indicate the always subtle sentences that suggest uncertainty concerning established Christian doctrine.
We maintain the length of the sentences as found in the English translation as an indication of the inherent duplicity by the unknown author, although certain modern punctuations, such as commas and semicolons, have been removed. The words under consideration are underlined, colored in red, or both, while sentences of interest are in blue. The modern chapter divisions have been maintained and we have included sentence numbering for ease of reference.
The primary purpose of this essay will examine the utilization of certain words that produce confounding and obscuring statements that create doubts concerning the presupposed attempt to justify the resurrection. Secondarily, we will indicate the always subtle sentences that suggest uncertainty concerning established Christian doctrine.
We maintain the length of the sentences as found in the English translation as an indication of the inherent duplicity by the unknown author, although certain modern punctuations, such as commas and semicolons, have been removed. The words under consideration are underlined, colored in red, or both, while sentences of interest are in blue. The modern chapter divisions have been maintained and we have included sentence numbering for ease of reference.
Chapter 1 Defense of the truth should precede discussions regarding it.
Sentence 1
By the side of every opinion and doctrine which agrees with the truth of things,1 there springs up some falsehood and it does so, not because it takes its rise naturally from some fundamental principle or from some cause peculiar to the matter in hand, but because it2 is invented on purpose by men who set a value on the spurious seed, for its tendency to corrupt the truth.
‘Which’ is a pronoun and is used to refer to something previously mentioned when introducing a clause giving further information.
‘Some’ means ‘an unspecified number or amount of people or things.’
‘Because’ is a conjunction meaning ‘for the reason that; since.’
‘Or’ is a conjunction that is ‘used to link alternatives.’
1. An ‘opinion’ is ‘a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge,’ whereas, doctrine is ‘a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church’. The difference is that the origin of an opinion is personal, while a doctrine is external.
2. ‘some falsehood’.
‘Some’ means ‘an unspecified number or amount of people or things.’
‘Because’ is a conjunction meaning ‘for the reason that; since.’
‘Or’ is a conjunction that is ‘used to link alternatives.’
1. An ‘opinion’ is ‘a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge,’ whereas, doctrine is ‘a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church’. The difference is that the origin of an opinion is personal, while a doctrine is external.
2. ‘some falsehood’.
Sentence 2
This is apparent, in the first place, from those who in former times1 addicted themselves to such inquiries and their want of agreement with their predecessors and contemporaries and then, not least, from the very confusion which marks the discussions that are now going on.
‘Not’ is an adverb meaning ‘used with an auxiliary verb or “be” to form the negative’ and is ‘used as a short substitute for a negative clause.’
1. It is uncertain ‘those who in former times’ may be referencing, as Saint Athenagoras allegedly lived in the second century.
1. It is uncertain ‘those who in former times’ may be referencing, as Saint Athenagoras allegedly lived in the second century.
Sentence 3 For such men have left no truth free from their calumnious attacks- not the being of God, not His knowledge, not His operations, not those books,1 which follow by a regular and strict sequence from these and delineate for us the doctrines of piety.
‘For’ is a conjunction meaning ‘seeing that, since,’ or ‘because.’
1. Certain unnamed men attack the existence of God, his knowledge, and his workings.
1. Certain unnamed men attack the existence of God, his knowledge, and his workings.
Sentence 4
On the contrary, some of them1 utterly and once for all, give up in despair the truth concerning these things and some distort it to suit their own views and some of set purpose doubt even of things which are palpably evident.2
'On the contrary’ is ‘used to intensify a denial of what has just been implied or stated by suggesting that the opposite is the case.’
‘Evident’ is an adjective meaning ‘plain or obvious; clearly seen or understood.’
1. ‘such men’.
2. The author does not clarify the ‘set purpose’ of those who doubt ‘things’ that are ‘plain or obvious’.
‘Evident’ is an adjective meaning ‘plain or obvious; clearly seen or understood.’
1. ‘such men’.
2. The author does not clarify the ‘set purpose’ of those who doubt ‘things’ that are ‘plain or obvious’.
Sentence 5
Hence, I think that those who bestow attention on such subjects should adopt two lines of argument, one in defense of the truth, another concerning the truth, that in defense of the truth, for disbelievers and doubters, that concerning the truth, for such as are candid and receive the truth with readiness.
‘Hence’ means ‘as a consequence; for this reason.’
‘As’ can be an adverb ‘used in comparisons to refer to the extent or degree of something’, or a conjunction ‘used to indicate that something happens during the time when something is taking place’, or a preposition ‘used to refer to the function or character that someone or something has.’
‘As’ can be an adverb ‘used in comparisons to refer to the extent or degree of something’, or a conjunction ‘used to indicate that something happens during the time when something is taking place’, or a preposition ‘used to refer to the function or character that someone or something has.’
Sentence 6
Accordingly it behoves those who wish to investigate these matters, to keep in view that which the necessity of the case in each instance requires and to regulate their discussion by this, to accommodate the order of their treatment of these subjects to what is suitable to the occasion and not for the sake of appearing always to preserve the same method,1 to disregard fitness and the place which properly belongs to each topic.
‘Accordingly’ is an adverb meaning ‘consequently; therefore.’
A ‘wish’ is a noun meaning to ‘feel or express a strong desire or hope for something that is not easily attainable; want something that cannot or probably will not happen.’
1. The order of the treatment of the subjects should be altered if a clear understanding is to be preserved.
A ‘wish’ is a noun meaning to ‘feel or express a strong desire or hope for something that is not easily attainable; want something that cannot or probably will not happen.’
1. The order of the treatment of the subjects should be altered if a clear understanding is to be preserved.
Sentence 7
For, so far as proof and the natural order1 are concerned, dissertations concerning the truth always take precedence of those in defense of it,2 but, for the purpose of greater utility, the order must be reversed and arguments in defense of it precede those concerning it.3
‘Proof’ is a noun meaning ‘evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.’
‘Must’ is a verb ‘expressing an opinion about something that is logically very likely’ or meaning ‘be obliged to; should (expressing necessity).’
1. The ‘natural order’ is the sequence arranged in a rational manner.
2. Discussions of the truth occurs first, then the defense of the truth is placed second.
3. The author states that ‘greater utility’ is the reason for the reversal from the normal procedure.
‘Must’ is a verb ‘expressing an opinion about something that is logically very likely’ or meaning ‘be obliged to; should (expressing necessity).’
1. The ‘natural order’ is the sequence arranged in a rational manner.
2. Discussions of the truth occurs first, then the defense of the truth is placed second.
3. The author states that ‘greater utility’ is the reason for the reversal from the normal procedure.
Sentence 8
For the farmer could not properly cast the seed into the ground, unless he first extirpated the wild wood and whatever would be hurtful to the good seed, nor the physician introduce any wholesome medicines into the body that needed his care, if he did not previously remove the disease within, or stay that which was approaching.1
‘Unless’ is a conjunction meaning ‘except if (used to introduce the case in which a statement being made is not true or valid).’
‘Nor’ is a conjunction ‘used before the second or further of two or more alternatives (the first being introduced by a negative such as “neither” or “not”) to indicate that they are each untrue or each do not happen.’
‘If’ is a conjunction that introduces a conditional clause ‘on the condition or supposition that; in the event that.’
1. The alleged writings of the Church Fathers invariably segue from the supposed subject, typically religious or doctrinal matters, to illustrate examples from the physical world. We understand these materialistic examples as implicit denials both of the spiritual world, generally, and of Christian doctrine, specifically.
‘Nor’ is a conjunction ‘used before the second or further of two or more alternatives (the first being introduced by a negative such as “neither” or “not”) to indicate that they are each untrue or each do not happen.’
‘If’ is a conjunction that introduces a conditional clause ‘on the condition or supposition that; in the event that.’
1. The alleged writings of the Church Fathers invariably segue from the supposed subject, typically religious or doctrinal matters, to illustrate examples from the physical world. We understand these materialistic examples as implicit denials both of the spiritual world, generally, and of Christian doctrine, specifically.
Sentence 9
Neither surely can he who wishes to teach the truth persuade any one by speaking about it, so long as there is a false opinion lurking in the mind of his hearers and barring the entrance of his arguments.1
‘Neither’ is an adverb ‘used before the first of two (or occasionally more) alternatives that are being specified (the others being introduced by “nor”) to indicate that they are each untrue or each do not happen.’
'Surely’ is an adverb ‘used to emphasize the speaker's firm belief that what they are saying is true.’
‘So long as’ is phrase meaning ‘provided that.’
1. Teachers of the truth cannot be successful if there are false opinions in the minds of his audience.
'Surely’ is an adverb ‘used to emphasize the speaker's firm belief that what they are saying is true.’
‘So long as’ is phrase meaning ‘provided that.’
1. Teachers of the truth cannot be successful if there are false opinions in the minds of his audience.
Sentence 10
And, therefore, from regard to greater utility, I myself sometimes place arguments in defense of the truth before those concerning the truth and on the present occasion it appears to me, looking at the requirements of the case, not without advantage to follow the same method in treating of the resurrection.1
‘Therefore’ is an adverb meaning ‘for that reason; consequently.’
‘Sometimes’ is an adverb meaning ‘occasionally, rather than all of the time.’
1. The author states that on certain occasions, he places arguments before the truth. The explicit reason for this inversion from what was stated previously is ‘greater utility’ [sentence 7].
‘Sometimes’ is an adverb meaning ‘occasionally, rather than all of the time.’
1. The author states that on certain occasions, he places arguments before the truth. The explicit reason for this inversion from what was stated previously is ‘greater utility’ [sentence 7].
Sentence 11
For in regard to this subject also we find some utterly disbelieving and some others doubting1 and even among those who have accepted the first principles2 some who are as much at a loss what to believe as those who doubt the most unaccountable thing of all being that they are in this state of mind without having any ground whatsoever in the matters themselves for their disbelief or finding it possible to assign any reasonable cause why they disbelieve or experience any perplexity.
‘Possible is an adjective meaning ‘able to be done; within the power or capacity of someone or something.’
1. Some people disbelieve and doubt the subject of the resurrection.
2. As a result of not providing a definition of ‘the first principles’, this phrasing is ambiguous.
1. Some people disbelieve and doubt the subject of the resurrection.
2. As a result of not providing a definition of ‘the first principles’, this phrasing is ambiguous.
Chapter 2 A resurrection is not impossible.
Sentence 12
Let us, then, consider the subject in the way I have indicated.
‘Then’ is an adverb meaning ‘at that time; at the time in question’ and ‘after that; next; afterward.’
Sentence 13
If all disbelief does not arise from levity and inconsideration, but if it springs up in some minds on strong grounds and accompanied by the certainty which belongs to truth1 (well and good), for it then maintains the appearance of being just, when the thing itself to which their disbelief relates appears to them unworthy of belief, but to disbelieve things which are not deserving of disbelief is the act of men who do not employ a sound judgment about the truth.2
1. As certainty belongs to truth, so the unsettled is an attribute of falsehood.
2. The author states that it is possible to have unsound judgments concerning the truth. Therefore, the ‘truth’ and ‘conclusions from the truth’ are two separate issues.
2. The author states that it is possible to have unsound judgments concerning the truth. Therefore, the ‘truth’ and ‘conclusions from the truth’ are two separate issues.
Sentence 14
It behoves, therefore, those who disbelieve or doubt concerning the resurrection to form their opinion on the subject, not from any view they have hastily adopted and from what is acceptable to profligate men, but either to assign the origin of men to no cause (a notion which is very easily refuted), or, ascribing the cause of all things to God to keep steadily in view the principle involved in this article of belief and from this to demonstrate that the resurrection is utterly unworthy of credit.
‘Either’ can be utilized as either a conjunction or an adverb and is ‘used before the first of two (or occasionally more) alternatives that are being specified (the other being introduced by “or”).’
Sentence 15
This they will succeed in, if they are able to show that it is either impossible for God or contrary to His will, to unite and gather together again bodies that are dead or even entirely dissolved into their elements, so as to constitute the same persons.
‘So’ is a conjunction meaning ‘and for this reason; therefore.’
Sentence 16
If they cannot do this, let them cease from this godless disbelief1 and from this blasphemy against sacred things, for that they do not speak the truth when they say that it is impossible, or not in accordance with the divine will, will clearly appear from what I am about to say.
‘Accordance’ is a noun meaning 'conformity or agreement.'.
1. Godless disbelief must be distinguished among rational disbelief and Godly disbelief.
1. Godless disbelief must be distinguished among rational disbelief and Godly disbelief.
Sentence 17
A thing is in strictness of language considered impossible to a person, when it is of such a kind that he either does not know what is to be done or has not sufficient power for the proper doing of the thing known.
‘When’ is a conjunction meaning ‘at or during the time that.’
Sentence 18
For he who is ignorant of anything that requires to be done is utterly unable either to attempt or to do what he is ignorant of and he, too, who knows ever so well what has to be done and by what means and how, but either has no power at all to do the thing known or not power sufficient, will not even make the attempt, if he be wise and consider his powers and if he did attempt it without due consideration, he would not accomplish his purpose.
Sentence 19
But it is not possible for God to be ignorant either of the nature of the bodies that are to be raised, as regards both the members entire and the particles of which they consist, or whither each of the dissolved particles passes and what part of the elements has received that which is dissolved and has passed into that with which it has affinity, although to men it may appear quite impossible that what has again combined according to its nature with the universe should be separable from it again.
‘Although’ is a conjunction meaning ‘in spite of the fact that; even though.’
‘May’ is a verb ‘expressing possibility.’
‘May’ is a verb ‘expressing possibility.’
Sentence 20
For He from whom, antecedently to the peculiar formation of each, was not concealed either the nature of the elements of which the bodies of men were to consist or the parts of these from which He was about to take what seemed to Him suitable for the formation of the human body, will manifestly, after the dissolution of the whole, not be ignorant whither each of the particles has passed which He took for the construction of each.
‘Seem’ is verb that gives ‘the impression or sensation of being something or having a particular quality’ and can be ‘used to make a statement ... less assertive or forceful.’ [Italics added.]
Sentence 21 For, viewed relatively to the order of things now obtaining among us and the judgment we form concerning other matters, it is a greater thing to know beforehand that which has not yet come to pass, but, viewed relatively to the majesty and wisdom of God,1 both are according to nature and it is equally easy to know beforehand things that have not yet come into existence and to know things which have been dissolved.
‘But’ is a conjunction ‘used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned.’
1. The ‘majesty and wisdom of God’ is presumed, as there is no prior evidence or argument for either quality.
1. The ‘majesty and wisdom of God’ is presumed, as there is no prior evidence or argument for either quality.
Chapter 3 He who could create can also raise up the dead.
Sentence 22
Moreover also, that His power is sufficient for the raising of dead bodies, is shown by the creation of these same bodies.1
‘Moreover’ is an adverb meaning ‘as a further matter; besides.’
‘Also’ is an adverb meaning ‘in addition; too.’
1. There is no evidence or argument to demonstrate the support for the supposition that God creates the bodies of men.
‘Also’ is an adverb meaning ‘in addition; too.’
1. There is no evidence or argument to demonstrate the support for the supposition that God creates the bodies of men.
Sentence 23
For if, when they did not exist, He made at their first formation the bodies of men and their original elements, He will, when they are dissolved in whatever manner that may take place, raise them again with equal ease, for this, too, is equally possible to Him.
Sentence 24
And it is no damage to the argument, if some suppose the first beginnings to be from matter or the bodies of men at least to be derived from the elements as the first materials or from seed.1
1. The writer maintains the argument is valid whether the men were created from the elements, the earth or dust, in the case of Adam, or from sexual generation.
Sentence 25
For that power which could give shape to what is regarded by them as shapeless matter and adorn it, when destitute of form and order, with many and diverse forms and gather into one the several portions of the elements and divide the seed which was one and simple into many and organize that which was unorganized and give life to that which had no life, that same power can reunite what is dissolved and raise up what is prostrate and restore the dead to life again and put the corruptible into a state of incorruption.
‘Could’ is a verb ‘used to indicate possibility.’
Sentence 26
And to the same Being1 it will belong and to the same power and skill to separate that which has been broken up and distributed among a multitude of animals of all kinds which are wont to have recourse to such bodies and glut their appetite upon them, to separate this, I say, and unite it again with the proper members and parts of members, whether it has passed into some one of those animals or into many or thence into others or, after being dissolved along with these, has been carried back again to the original elements, resolved into these according to a natural law, a matter this which seems to have exceedingly confounded some, even of those admired for wisdom,2 who, I cannot tell why, think those doubts worthy of serious attention which are brought forward by the many.3
‘After’ is a preposition meaning ‘in the time following (an event or another period of time).’ ‘Even’ is an adverb ‘used to emphasize something surprising or extreme.’
‘Whether’ is a conjunction ‘expressing a doubt or choice between alternatives’, or ‘expressing an inquiry or investigation (often used in indirect questions)’, or ‘indicating that a statement applies whichever of the alternatives mentioned is the case.’
1. The wording of ‘the same Being’ presumably refers to ‘God’ from Chapter 2.
2. Those individuals ‘admire for wisdom’ are the philosophers.
3. The author doubts these points are worthy of ‘serious attention’, yet, by dismissing their importance, brings this observation to the reader’s attention.
‘Whether’ is a conjunction ‘expressing a doubt or choice between alternatives’, or ‘expressing an inquiry or investigation (often used in indirect questions)’, or ‘indicating that a statement applies whichever of the alternatives mentioned is the case.’
1. The wording of ‘the same Being’ presumably refers to ‘God’ from Chapter 2.
2. Those individuals ‘admire for wisdom’ are the philosophers.
3. The author doubts these points are worthy of ‘serious attention’, yet, by dismissing their importance, brings this observation to the reader’s attention.
Chapter 4 Objection from the fact that some human bodies have become parts of others.
Sentence 27 These persons,1 to wit, say that many bodies of those who have come to an unhappy death in shipwrecks and rivers have become food for fishes and many of those who perish in war or
who from some other sad cause or state of things are deprived of burial, lie exposed to become the food of any animals which may chance to light upon them.
‘To wit’ means ‘that is to say, namely.’
1. ‘Admired for wisdom’, [sentence 26].
1. ‘Admired for wisdom’, [sentence 26].
Sentence 28 Since, then, bodies are thus consumed and the members and parts composing them are broken up and distributed among a great multitude of animals and by means of nutrition
become incorporated with the bodies of those that are nourished by them, in the first place, they say,1 their separation from these is impossible and besides this, in the second place, they adduce another circumstance more difficult still.
‘Thus’ is adverb meaning ‘as a result or consequence of this; therefore.’ ‘Besides’ can be either a preposition meaning ‘in addition to; apart from’ or an adverb meaning ‘in addition; as well.’
1. Those ‘admired for wisdom’ [sentence 26].
1. Those ‘admired for wisdom’ [sentence 26].
Sentence 29
When animals of the kind suitable for human food, which have fed on the bodies of men, pass through their stomach and become incorporated with the bodies of those who have partaken of them, it is an absolute necessity, they say,1 that the parts of the bodies of men which have served as nourishment to the animals which have partaken of them should pass into other bodies of men, since the animals which meanwhile have been nourished by them convey the nutriment derived from those by whom they were nourished into those men of whom they become the nutriment.
‘Since’ is a conjunction meaning ‘for the reason that; because.’
1. The philosophers.
1. The philosophers.
Sentence 30
Then to this they tragically add the devouring of offspring perpetrated by people in famine and madness and the children eaten by their own parents1 through the contrivance of enemies and the celebrated Median feast and the tragic banquet of Thyestes2 and they add, moreover, other such like unheard of occurrences which have taken place among Greeks and barbarians and from these things they establish, as they suppose, the impossibility of the resurrection, on the ground that the same parts cannot rise again with one set of bodies and with another as well, for that either the bodies of the former possessors cannot be reconstituted, the parts which composed them having passed into others, or that, these having been restored to the former, the bodies of the last possessors will come short.
‘Suppose’ is a verb meaning to ‘assume that something is the case on the basis of evidence or probability but without proof or certain knowledge.’
1. Cannibalism is discussed and the appropriateness of this topic in the context of the resurrection will be determined by the reader.
2. The alleged writings of the Church Father invariably cite examples from pagan mythology.
1. Cannibalism is discussed and the appropriateness of this topic in the context of the resurrection will be determined by the reader.
2. The alleged writings of the Church Father invariably cite examples from pagan mythology.
Chapter 5 Reference to the processes of digestion and nutrition.
Sentence 31
But it appears to me that such persons, in the first place, are ignorant of the power and skill of Him that fashioned and regulates this universe1 who has adapted to the nature and kind of each animal the nourishment suitable and correspondent to it and has neither ordained that everything in nature shall enter into union and combination with every kind of body nor is at any loss to separate what has been so united, but grants to the nature of each several created being or thing to do or to suffer what is naturally suited to it and sometimes also hinders and allows or forbids whatever He wishes and for the purpose He wishes and, moreover, that they have not considered the power and nature of each of the creatures that nourish or are nourished.
1. ‘Him that fashioned and regulates this universe’ is an ambiguous expression.
Sentence 32
Otherwise they would have known that not everything which is taken for food under the pressure of outward necessity turns out to be suitable nourishment for the animal,1 but that some things no sooner come into contact with the plicatures of the stomach than they are wont to be corrupter and are vomited or voided, or disposed of in some other way, so that not even for a little time do they undergo the first and natural digestion, much less become incorporated with that which is to be nourished, as also, that not even everything which has been digested in the stomach and received the first change actually arrives at the parts to be nourished, since some of it loses its nutritive power even in the stomach and some during the second change and the digestion that takes place in the liver is separated and passes into something else which is destitute of the power to nourish, nay, that the change which takes place in the liver does not all issue in nourishment to men, but the matter changed is separated as refuse according to its natural purpose and that the nourishment which is left in the members and parts themselves that have to be nourished sometimes changes to something else, according as that predominates which is present in greater or less abundance and is apt to corrupt or to turn into itself that which comes near it.
‘Otherwise’ is an adverb meaning either ‘in circumstances different from those present or considered; or else’ or ‘in other respects; apart from that.’
‘So that’ is a conjunction meaning ‘in order that, with the result that’ and ‘in such a way that, with the intent that.’
‘Not even’ is an adverb that ‘introduces or constitutes a more emphatic negation or exclusion than "not".’
1. It is highly likely that those individuals admired for their wisdom realize the possibility that not all food consumed is utilized by the body.
‘So that’ is a conjunction meaning ‘in order that, with the result that’ and ‘in such a way that, with the intent that.’
‘Not even’ is an adverb that ‘introduces or constitutes a more emphatic negation or exclusion than "not".’
1. It is highly likely that those individuals admired for their wisdom realize the possibility that not all food consumed is utilized by the body.
Chapter 6 Everything that is useless or hurtful is rejected.
Sentence 33
Since, therefore, great difference of nature obtains in all animals and the very nourishment which is accordant with nature is varied to suit each kind of animal and the body which is nourished and as in the nourishment of every animal there is a threefold cleansing and separation, it follows that whatever is alien from the nourishment of the animal must be wholly destroyed and carried off to its natural place or change into something else, since it cannot coalesce with it, that the power of the nourishing body must be suitable to the nature of the animal to be nourished and accordant with its powers and that this, when it has passed through the strainers appointed for the purpose and been thoroughly purified by the natural means of purification, must become a most genuine addition to the substance, the only thing, in fact, which any one calling things by their right names would call nourishment at all, because it rejects everything that is foreign and hurtful to the constitution of the animal nourished and that mass of superfluous food introduced merely for filling the stomach and gratifying the appetite.
‘Accordant’ is an adjective meaning ‘agreeing or compatible.’
Sentence 34
This nourishment, no one can doubt, becomes incorporated with the body that is nourished, interwoven and blended with all the members and parts of members, but that which is different and contrary to nature is speedily corrupted if brought into contact with a stronger power, but easily destroys that which is overcome by it and is converted into hurtful humours and poisonous qualities, because producing nothing akin or friendly to the body which is to be nourished.
Sentence 35
And it is a very clear proof of this, that in many of the animals nourished, pain or disease or death follows from these things, if owing to a too keen appetite, they take in mingled with their food something poisonous and contrary to nature which, of course, would tend to the utter destruction of the body to be nourished, since that which is nourished is nourished by substances akin to it and which accord with its nature, but is destroyed by those of a contrary kind.
‘Of course’ is a phrase ‘used to introduce an idea or turn of events as being obvious or to be expected.’
Sentence 36
If, therefore, according to the different nature of animals, different kinds of food have been provided suitable to their nature and none of that which the animal may have taken, not even an accidental part of it, admits of being blended with the body which is nourished, but only that part which has been purified by an entire digestion and undergone a complete change for union with a particular body and adapted to the parts which are to receive nourishment, it is very plain that none of the things contrary to nature can be united with those bodies for which it is not a suitable and correspondent nourishment, but either passes off by the bowels before it produces some other humour, crude and corrupter, or, if it continue for a longer time, produces suffering or disease hard to cure, destroying at the same time the natural nourishment, or even the flesh itself which needs nourishment.
Sentence 37
But even though it1 be expelled at length, overcome by certain medicines or by better food or by the natural forces, it is not got rid of without doing much harm, since it bears no peaceful aspect towards what is natural, because it cannot coalesce with nature.
‘Even though’ is a phrase meaning ‘despite the fact that.’
1. Different ‘kinds of food’, [sentence 36].
1. Different ‘kinds of food’, [sentence 36].
Chapter 7 The resurrection body different from the present.
Sentence 38
Nay, suppose we were to grant that the nourishment coming from these things (let it be so called, as more accordant with the common way of speaking),1 although against nature, is yet separated and changed into some one of the moist or dry or warm or cold, matters which the body contains, our opponents 2 would gain nothing by the concession, for the bodies that rise again are reconstituted from the parts which properly belong to them, whereas no one of the things mentioned is such a part, nor has it the form or place of a part, nay, it does not remain always with the parts of the body which are nourished, or rise again with the parts that rise, since no longer does blood or phlegm or bile or breath contribute anything to the life.
1. The ‘common way of speaking’ may be understood as being inaccurate and lacking specificity.
2. Our ‘opponents’ remain unnamed.
2. Our ‘opponents’ remain unnamed.
Sentence 39
Neither, again, will the bodies nourished then require the things they once required, seeing that, along with the want and corruption of the bodies nourished, the need also of those things by which they were nourished is taken away.
‘Yet’ is a conjunction meaning ‘but at the same time; but nevertheless.’
‘Whereas’ is a conjunction ‘in contrast or comparison with the fact that.’
‘Whereas’ is a conjunction ‘in contrast or comparison with the fact that.’
Sentence 40
To this must be added, that if we were to suppose the change arising from such nourishment to reach as far as flesh, in that case too there would be no necessity that the flesh recently changed by food of that kind, if it became united to the body of some other man, should again as a part contribute to the formation of that body, since neither the flesh which takes it up always retains what it takes nor does the flesh so incorporated abide and remain with that to which it was added, but is subject to a great variety of changes, at one time being dispersed by toil or care, at another time being wasted by grief or trouble or disease and by the distempers arising from being heated or chilled, the humours which are changed with the flesh and fat not receiving the nourishment so as to remain what they are.
Sentence 41
But while such are the changes to which the flesh is subject, we should find that flesh, nourished by food unsuited to it, suffers them in a much greater degree, now swelling out and growing fat by what it has received and then again rejecting it in some way or other and decreasing in bulk, from one or more of the causes already mentioned and that that alone remains in the parts which is adapted to bind together or cover or warm the flesh that has been chosen by nature and adheres to those parts by which it sustains the life which is according to nature and fulfils the labours of that life.
‘While’ is a conjunction meaning ‘during the time that; at the same time as’ or meaning ‘whereas (indicating a contrast).’
Sentence 42 So that whether the investigation in which we have just been engaged be fairly judged of, or the objections urged against our position be conceded, in neither case can it be shown that what is said by our opponents is true nor can the bodies of men ever combine with those of the same nature, whether at any time, through ignorance and being cheated of their perception by someone else, men have partaken of such a body or of their own accord, impelled by want or madness, they have defiled themselves with the body of one of like form, for we are very well aware that some brutes have human forms or have a nature compounded of men and brutes, such as the more daring of the poets are accustomed to represent.1
1. The ‘more daring’ or more imaginative ‘of the poets’ describe creatures that are half man and half animal, such as the centaurs, Pan, and the Minotaur.
Chapter 8 Human flesh not the proper or natural food of men.
Sentence 43
But what need is there to speak of bodies not allotted to be the food of any animal and destined only for a burial in the earth in honor of nature, since the Maker of the world1 has not allotted any animal whatsoever as food to those of the same kind, although some others of a different kind serve for food according to nature?2
1. It is uncertain if ‘the Maker of the world’ and the the ‘Creator’ are synonymous.
2. This paragraph is a rhetorical question.
2. This paragraph is a rhetorical question.
Sentence 44
If, indeed, they1 are able to show that the flesh of men was allotted to men for food, there will be nothing to hinder its being according to nature that they should eat one another, just like anything else that is allowed by nature and nothing to prohibit those who dare to say such things from regaling themselves with the bodies of their dearest friends as delicacies, as being especially suited to them and to entertain their living friends with the same fare.2
‘Indeed’ is an adverb ‘used to emphasize a statement or response confirming something already suggested.’
1.‘our opponents’, [sentence 42].
2. Nature does not teach that fellow human beings are not proper food, however, certain social conventions instruct citizens that human flesh is a forbidden delicacy.
1.‘our opponents’, [sentence 42].
2. Nature does not teach that fellow human beings are not proper food, however, certain social conventions instruct citizens that human flesh is a forbidden delicacy.
Sentence 45
But if it be unlawful even to speak of this and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act and if what is against nature can never pass into nourishment for the limbs and parts requiring it and what does not pass into nourishment can never become united with that which it is not adapted to nourish, then can the bodies of men never combine with bodies like themselves, to which this nourishment would be against nature, even though it were to pass many times through their stomach, owing to some most bitter mischance, but, removed from the influence of the nourishing power, and scattered to those parts of the universe again from which they obtained their first origin, they are united with these for as long a period of time as may be the lot of each and separated thence again by the skill and power of Him who has fixed the nature of every animal and furnished it with its peculiar powers, they are united suitably, each to each, whether they have been burnt up by fire or rotted by water or consumed by wild beasts or by any other animals or separated from the entire body and dissolved before the other parts and being again united with one another, they occupy the same place for the exact construction and formation of the same body and for the resurrection and life of that which was dead or even entirely dissolved.1
1. The above sentence has 269 words in the English translation and an average reading level of ‘about grade 43’.
Sentence 46
To expatiate further, however, on these topics, is not suitable, for all men are agreed in their decision respecting them, those at least who are not half brutes.
Chapter 9 Absurdity of arguing from man’s impotency.
Sentence 47
As there are many things of more importance to the inquiry before us, I beg to be excused from replying for the present to those who take refuge in the works of men1 and even the constructors of them, who are unable to make anew such of their works as are broken in pieces or worn out by time or otherwise destroyed and then from the analogy of potters and carpenters2attempt to show that God neither can will nor if He willed would be able, to raise again a body that is dead or has been dissolved,3 not considering that by such reasoning they offer the grossest insult to God, putting, as they do, on the same level the capabilities of things which are altogether different or rather the natures of those who use them, and comparing the works of art with those of nature.
1. We understand that that who take ‘refuge’ in literary works are inferior to those individuals who use reason, that is, a good memory is no substitute for thought.
2. The analogy of potters and carpenters may be a poor analogy to the craftmanship of God.
3. The author distinguishes between a ‘body that is dead’ and one that ‘has been dissolved’.
2. The analogy of potters and carpenters may be a poor analogy to the craftmanship of God.
3. The author distinguishes between a ‘body that is dead’ and one that ‘has been dissolved’.
Sentence 48 To bestow any serious attention on such arguments would be not undeserving of censure, for it is really foolish to reply to superficial and trifling objections.
Sentence 49 It is surely far more probable, yea, most absolutely true, to say that what is impossible with men is possible with God.1
‘Probable’ is an adjective meaning ‘likely to be the case or to happen.’
‘True’ is an adjective meaning ‘in accordance with fact or reality.’
‘Impossible’ is an adjective meaning ‘not able to occur, exist, or be done.’
1. The author quotes from Luke 18:27.
‘True’ is an adjective meaning ‘in accordance with fact or reality.’
‘Impossible’ is an adjective meaning ‘not able to occur, exist, or be done.’
1. The author quotes from Luke 18:27.
Sentence 50 And if by this statement of itself as probable and by the whole investigation in which we have just been engaged reason shows it to be possible, it is quite clear that it is not impossible.
‘Quite’ is an adverb meaning ‘to the utmost or most absolute extent or degree; absolutely; completely.’
Sentence 51 No, nor is it such a thing as God could not will.
Chapter 10 It cannot be shown that God does not will a resurrection.
Sentence 52
For that which is not accordant with His will is so either as being unjust or as unworthy of Him.1
1. The author states that actions against the will of God are unjust and undignified. Regrettably, no standards are provided so that the reader may determine for himself if certain human actions are deemed unjust or unworthy by God.
Sentence 54
But it is evident that no one of the beings exterior to him and that are reckoned among the things that have existence, is injured.
Sentence 55
Spiritual natures (nohtai fuseis) cannot be injured by the resurrection of men, for the resurrection of men is no hindrance to their existing nor is any loss or violence inflicted on them by it nor, again, would the nature of irrational or inanimate beings sustain wrong, for they will have no existence after the resurrection and no wrong can be done to that which is not.1
‘Irrational’ is an adjective meaning ‘not logical or reasonable.’
1. Although wrong can not be done to that which is not’, wrong could be done, and in all likelihood was done, to those which were.
1. Although wrong can not be done to that which is not’, wrong could be done, and in all likelihood was done, to those which were.
Sentence 56
But even if any one should suppose them to exist for ever, they would not suffer wrong by the renewal of human bodies, for if now, in being subservient to the nature of men and their necessities while they require them and subjected to the yoke and every kind of drudgery, they suffer no wrong, much more, when men have become immortal and free from want and no longer need their service and when they are themselves liberated from bondage, will they suffer no wrong.
'Even if’ is a phrase meaning ‘despite the possibility that; no matter whether.’
Sentence 57
For if they had the gift of speech, they would not bring against the Creator1 the charge of making them, contrary to justice, inferior to men because they did not share in the same resurrection.2
1. It is not certain if the ‘Creator’ is synonymous with the ‘Maker’.
2. Irrational beings have no reason to complain if they do not partake of the ‘same resurrection’. This wording leaves open the possibility that there are various types of resurrections, possibly one for men and another for ‘irrational beings’, and a third resurrection for those with an immortal soul.
2. Irrational beings have no reason to complain if they do not partake of the ‘same resurrection’. This wording leaves open the possibility that there are various types of resurrections, possibly one for men and another for ‘irrational beings’, and a third resurrection for those with an immortal soul.
Sentence 58
For to creatures whose nature is not alike the Just Being1 does not assign a like end.2
1. The ‘Just Being’ is an vague term and may not be synonymous with either the ‘Creator’ or the ‘Maker’.
2. The author alludes to the potentiality that those creatures may partake of another resurrection, but not an identical resurrection or ‘like end’.
2. The author alludes to the potentiality that those creatures may partake of another resurrection, but not an identical resurrection or ‘like end’.
Sentence 59
And besides, with creatures that have no notion of justice there can be no complaint of injustice.1
1. Creatures that only have opinions, but not knowledge of the nature of justice, cannot complain of injustice.
Sentence 60
Nor can it be said either that there is any injustice done as regards the man to be raised, for he consists of soul and body and he suffers no wrong as to either soul or body.
Sentence 61
No person in his senses will affirm that his soul suffers wrong, because, in speaking so, he would at the same time be unawares reflecting on the present life also, for if now, while dwelling in a body subject to corruption and suffering, it has had no wrong done to it much less will it suffer wrong when living in conjunction with a body which is free from corruption and suffering.
Sentence 62
The body, again, suffers no wrong, for if no wrong is done to it now while united, (a corruptible thing1 with an incorruptible2) manifestly will it not be wronged when united an incorruptible with an incorruptible.
1. The body.
2. The immortal soul.
2. The immortal soul.
Sentence 63
No, nor can any one say that it is a work unworthy of God to raise up and bring together again a body which has been dissolved, for if the worse was not unworthy of Him, namely, to make the body which is subject to corruption and suffering, much more is the better not unworthy, to make one not liable to corruption or suffering.
Chapter 11 Recapitulation
Sentence 64
If, then, by means of that which is by nature first and that which follows from it, each of the points investigated has been proved, it is very evident that the resurrection of dissolved bodies is a work which the Creator can perform1 and can will and such as is worthy of Him, for by these considerations the falsehood of the contrary opinion has been shown and the absurdity of the position taken by disbelievers.
1. The Creator can resurrect ‘dissolved bodies’, however, the author has created a distinction between dead bodies and dissolved bodies, so the careful reader may reasonably wonder if dead bodies can be resurrected.
Sentence 65
For why should I speak of their correspondence each with each and of their connection with one another?1
1. This sentence is a rhetorical question.
Sentence 66
If indeed we ought to use the word connection, as though they were separated by some difference of nature and not rather say, that what God can do He can also will and that what God can will it is perfectly possible for Him to do and that it is accordant with the dignity of Him who wills it.1
1. The author touches upon the ‘dignity of Him who wills it’, but the subject and the nature of His ‘power’ is omitted.
Sentence 67
That to discourse concerning the truth is one thing and to discourse in defense of it is another has been sufficiently explained in the remarks already made, as also in what respects they differ from each other and when and in dealing with whom, they are severally useful, but perhaps there is no reason why, with a view to the general certainty and because of the connection of what has been said with what remains, we should not make a fresh beginning from these same points and those which are allied to them.
‘Perhaps’ is an adverb ‘used to express uncertainty or possibility.’
Sentence 68
To the one kind of argument it naturally pertains to hold the foremost place, to the other to attend upon the first, and clear the way and to remove whatever is obstructive or hostile.
Sentence 69
The discourse concerning the truth, as being necessary to all men for certainty and safety, holds the first place, whether in nature or order or usefulness; in nature, as furnishing the knowledge of the subject, in order, as being in those things and along with those things which it informs us of, in usefulness, as being a guarantee of certainty and safety to those who become acquainted with it.
Sentence 70
The discourse in defense of the truth is inferior in nature and force, for the refutation of falsehood is less important than the establishment of truth1 and second in order, for it employs its strength against those who hold false opinions and false opinions are an aftergrowth from another sowing and from degeneration.
1. The establishment of truth is the priority and the refutation of falsehood is of secondary importance. However, previously, the author explicitly states that he adopts ‘two lines of argument, one in defense of the truth, another concerning the truth,’ The refutation of falsehood is not necessarily identical to the defense of the truth.xxxxxxxxx
2
Sentence 71
But, notwithstanding all this, it is often placed first and sometimes is found more useful, because it removes and clears away beforehand the disbelief which disquiets some minds and the doubt or false opinion of such as have but recently come over.
‘Notwithstanding’ as a preposition means ‘in spite of’, as an adverb ‘nevertheless; in spite of this’, and as a conjunction, ‘although; in spite of the fact that.’
Sentence 72
And yet each of them is referrible to the same end, for the refutation of falsehood and the establishment of truth both have piety for their object,1 not, indeed, that they are absolutely one and the same, but the one is necessary, as I have said, to all who believe and to those who are concerned about the truth and their own salvation, but the other proves to be more useful on some occasions and to some persons and in dealing with some.
1. The object for the ‘refutation of falsehood’ and the ‘establishment of truth’ both have their object, if not their origin, in piety. It seems, therefore, that the impious can neither refute falsehoods nor seek truth.
Sentence 73
Thus much by way of recapitulation, to recall what has been already said.
Sentence 74
We must now pass on to what we proposed and show the truth of the doctrine concerning the resurrection, both from the cause itself, according to which and on account of which, the first man and his posterity were created, although they were not brought into existence in the same manner and from the common nature of all men as men1 and further, from the judgment of their Maker2 upon them according to the time each has lived and according to the rules by which each has regulated his behavior, a judgment which no one can doubt will be just.
1. The author distinguishes between the first man, presumably Adam, and his posterity, although ‘they’ were not bought into existence as is the ‘common nature’ of ‘men as men’. We agree that Adam and Eve were not created from natural means, from the earth and a rib, respectively. However, the author hints that Cain, Able, and Seth were not brought into being in the natural manner of men. The support for this supposition is said by Eve, as she states ‘For God... hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel…’ [Genesis 4:25], although she did not make similar declarations for either Abel or Cain. Therefore, the author brings to the attention of the reader the supernatural birth of Seth.
2. The ‘Maker’ may be synonymous with the ‘Creator’.
2. The ‘Maker’ may be synonymous with the ‘Creator’.
Chapter 12 Argument for the resurrection from the purpose contemplated in man’s creation.
Sentence 75
The argument from the cause will appear, if we consider whether man was made at random and in vain or for some purpose and if for some purpose, whether simply that he might live and continue in the natural condition in which he was created or for the use of another and if with a view to use, whether for that of the Creator Himself, or of some one of the beings who belong to Him1 and are by Him deemed worthy of greater care.
1. The author suggests the possibility that man was created for ‘one of the beings who belong’ to the Creator. It seems that against boredom, even the angels struggle in vain.
Sentence 76
Now, if we consider this in the most general way, we find that a person of sound mind and who is moved by a rational judgment1 to do anything, does nothing in vain which he does intentionally, but either for his own use or for the use of some other person for whom he cares or for the sake of the work itself, being moved by some natural inclination and affection towards its production.2
1. The word ‘judgment’ needs a modifier, in this case, ‘rational’.
2. Once again, the author utilizes examples from the physical world to explain the Christian doctrine of the resurrection.
2. Once again, the author utilizes examples from the physical world to explain the Christian doctrine of the resurrection.
Sentence 77
For instance (to make use of an illustration, that our meaning may be clear), a man makes a house for his own use, but for cattle and camels and other animals of which he has need he makes the shelter suitable for each of them, not for his own use, if we regard the appearance only, though for that, if we look at the end he has in view, but as regards the immediate object, from concern for those for whom he cares.1
1. Spiritual truths are explained by examples from the material world.
Sentence 78
He has children, too, not for his own use, nor for the sake of anything else belonging to him, but that those who spring from him may exist and continue as long as possible, thus by the succession of children and grandchildren comforting himself respecting the close of his own life and hoping in this way to immortalize the mortal.1
1. Spiritual truths are explained by examples of the material world, including sexual generation or, to use the strange expression of the author, ‘immortalizing the mortal’.
Sentence 79
Such is the procedure of men.1
1. The procedure of men is to beget children. One wonders if the procedure of philosophers is to create dense tomes that all but a few individuals can fully understand and appreciate.
Sentence 80
But God can neither have made man in vain, for He is wise and no work of wisdom is in vain nor for His own use, for He is in want of nothing.
Sentence 81
But to a Being absolutely in need of nothing,1 no one of His works can contribute anything to His own use.
1. The idea that God needs nothing is either based on Divine revelation to the Church or through a series of reasoned conclusions.
Sentence 82
Neither, again, did He make man for the sake of any of the other works which He has made.1
1. According to Genesis 2:8, the ‘Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden and there he put the man whom he had formed.’ and, continuing in Genesis 2:15, the ‘Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.’ Therefore, it seems that man was made ‘for the sake’ of the garden, ‘to keep it’, that is, man was created for another work, the garden, ‘which He has made’.
Sentence 83
For nothing that is endowed with reason and judgment has been created or is created, for the use of another,1 whether greater or less than itself, but for the sake of the life and continuance of the being itself so created.
1. The natural position of man is not to rule over men. However, one could argue that men without reason and judgement should, for their own benefit and the good of society, be ruled by their superiors.
Sentence 84
For reason cannot discover any use which might be deemed a cause for the creation of men,1 since immortals are free from want2 and in need of no help from men in order to their existence and irrational beings are by nature in a state of subjection and perform those services for men for which each of them was intended,3 but are not intended in their turn to make use of men, for it neither was nor is right to lower that which rules and takes the lead to the use of the inferior, or to subject the rational to the irrational, which is not suited to rule.4
1. If reason cannot determine a cause for the creation of man, then it seems that one must seek an irrational cause, otherwise said, the advent of man is an accident. If man does not have ‘any use’, then it follows that man is useless.
2. If ‘immortals are free from want’, then it follows that demons, generally, and Satan, specifically, want nothing.
3. Although ‘irrational beings’ can be rightly considered as beasts of burden, the vague wording allows for the various interpretations, such as men without ‘reason’ or ‘judgment’.
4. The inversion of nature is for the numerically abundance of the inferior to rule the few who are superior and for the irrational to reign over the rational.
2. If ‘immortals are free from want’, then it follows that demons, generally, and Satan, specifically, want nothing.
3. Although ‘irrational beings’ can be rightly considered as beasts of burden, the vague wording allows for the various interpretations, such as men without ‘reason’ or ‘judgment’.
4. The inversion of nature is for the numerically abundance of the inferior to rule the few who are superior and for the irrational to reign over the rational.
Sentence 85
Therefore, if man has been created neither without cause and in vain (for none of God's works is in vain, so far at least as the purpose of their Maker is concerned), nor for the use of the Maker Himself, or of any of the works which have proceeded from Him, it is quite clear that although, according to the first and more general view of the subject, God made man for Himself and in pursuance of the goodness and wisdom which are conspicuous throughout the creation,1 yet, according to the view which more nearly touches the beings created, He made him for the sake of the life of those created, which is not kindled for a little while and then extinguished.
1. The ‘light .. was good’, Genesis 1:4; the dry land and seas are ‘good’, verse 10; grass and trees are ‘good’, verse 12; the sun and the moon are ‘good’, verse 18; sea animals and flying animals are ‘good’, verse 21; land animals are ‘good’, verse 25; everything made was ‘good’, verse 31.
Sentence 86
For to creeping things, I suppose, and birds and fishes, or to speak more generally, all irrational creatures, God1 has assigned such a life as that, but to those who bear upon them the image of the Creator Himself,1,2 and are endowed with understanding and blessed with a rational judgment, the Creator1 has assigned perpetual duration,3 in order that, recognizing their own Maker1 and His power and skill and obeying law and justice, they may pass their whole existence free from suffering, in the possession of those qualifies with which they have bravely borne their preceding life, although they lived in corruptible and earthly bodies.
1. As ‘God’, the ‘Creator’, and ‘Maker’ are all found in this paragraph, these distinct words may describe different entities or these titles may represent different aspects of one entity.
2. ‘And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…’, Genesis 1:26 . It should be not noted that ‘God’ does not speak in the Garden of Eden, but the ‘Lord God’ [cf. Genesis 3:9].
3. If the Creator has endowed man with perpetual duration, then this fact must be a Divine revelation to the Church, for reason alone cannot conclude that man is immortal.
2. ‘And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…’, Genesis 1:26 . It should be not noted that ‘God’ does not speak in the Garden of Eden, but the ‘Lord God’ [cf. Genesis 3:9].
3. If the Creator has endowed man with perpetual duration, then this fact must be a Divine revelation to the Church, for reason alone cannot conclude that man is immortal.
Sentence 87
For whatever has been created for the sake of something else, when that has ceased to be for the sake of which it was created, will itself also fitly cease to be and will not continue to exist in vain,1 since, among the works of God, that which is useless can have no place, but that which was created for the very purpose of existing and living a life naturally suited to it,2 since the cause itself is bound up with its nature and is recognized only in connection with existence itself, can never admit of any cause which shall utterly annihilate its existence.
1. It seems that Adam was not made to keep the garden, otherwise he, specifically, and mankind, generally, would not ‘continue to exist in vain’.
2. The author must realize that man is almost infinitely malleable and there is no one proper end or purpose of ‘life naturally suited to’ him.
2. The author must realize that man is almost infinitely malleable and there is no one proper end or purpose of ‘life naturally suited to’ him.
Sentence 88
But since this cause is seen to lie in perpetual existence,1 the being so created must be preserved for ever2, doing and experiencing what is suitable to its nature, each of the two parts of which it consists contributing what belongs to it, so that the soul may exist and remain without change in the nature in which it was made, and discharge its appropriate functions (such as presiding over the impulses of the body and judging of and measuring that which occurs from time to time by the proper standards and measures)3 and the body be moved according to its nature towards its appropriate objects and undergo the changes allotted to it and, among the rest (relating to age or appearance or size), the resurrection.
1. There is no evidence or argument from evidence that the cause of man is found in ‘perpetual existence’, the supposed existence of an immortal soul notwithstanding.
2. Since man is not ‘preserved for ever’, legitimate doubts are raised about the premise of his ‘perpetual existence’.
3. Some ‘appropriate functions’ of the soul are listed. As there are appropriate functions of the soul, it follows that there exist inappropriate functions of the soul that the author omits.
2. Since man is not ‘preserved for ever’, legitimate doubts are raised about the premise of his ‘perpetual existence’.
3. Some ‘appropriate functions’ of the soul are listed. As there are appropriate functions of the soul, it follows that there exist inappropriate functions of the soul that the author omits.
Sentence 89
For the resurrection is a species of change and the last of all and a change for the better of what still remains in existence at that time.1
1. Although it is not certain to what wording ‘of what still remains in existence at the time’ of the resurrection may refer, it likely means the bodies of still living Christians [vide 1 Corinthians 15:52].
Chapter 13 Continuation of the argument.
Sentence 90
Confident of these things, no less than of those which have already come to pass and reflecting on our own nature,1 we are content with a life associated with neediness and corruption, as suited to our present state of existence and we steadfastly hope for a continuance of being in immortality and this we do not take without foundation from the inventions of men, feeding ourselves on false hopes,2 but our belief rests on a most infallible guarantee, the purpose of Him who fashioned us, according to which He made man of an immortal soul and a body,3 and furnished him with understanding and an innate law for the preservation and safeguard of the things given by Him as suitable to an intelligent existence and a rational life,4 for we know well that He would not have fashioned such a being, and furnished him with everything belonging to perpetuity, had He not intended that what was so created should continue in perpetuity.
1. ‘[O]ur own nature’ is an ambiguous expression and it can be interpreted as ‘our nature as men’, ‘our nature as Christians’, or ‘our nature as philosophers’.
2. There are at least two types of hope, false and true.
3. No evidence has been presented to support the idea of an immortal soul. Although the presumption of an immortal soul is found throughout the alleged writings of the Church Fathers, this belief did not become dogmatic in the Roman Church until the year 1513 [vide Apostolici regiminis].
4. An ‘intelligent existence and a rational life’ does not describe the overwhelming majority of men,
2. There are at least two types of hope, false and true.
3. No evidence has been presented to support the idea of an immortal soul. Although the presumption of an immortal soul is found throughout the alleged writings of the Church Fathers, this belief did not become dogmatic in the Roman Church until the year 1513 [vide Apostolici regiminis].
4. An ‘intelligent existence and a rational life’ does not describe the overwhelming majority of men,
Sentence 91
If, therefore, the Maker of this universe1 made man with a view to his partaking of an intelligent life and that having become a spectator of His grandeur and of the wisdom which is manifest in all things, he might continue always in the contemplation of these2, then, according to the purpose of his Author3 and the nature which he has received, the cause of his creation is a pledge of his continuance for ever and this continuance is a pledge of the resurrection,4 without which man could not continue.
1. The ‘Maker of this universe’ is a vague expression.
2. Few men are capable of contemplation his grandeur and the wisdom found in all things.
3. The ‘Author’ is a vague expression.
4. The resurrection is based on the continuation of man and the continuation of man is argued from his creation and supposition that God cannot create anything in vain. The Gentle Reader may not find this line of reasoning satisfactory as, of course, there is a distinction between creating, allowing a creation, and being indifferent to a creation.
2. Few men are capable of contemplation his grandeur and the wisdom found in all things.
3. The ‘Author’ is a vague expression.
4. The resurrection is based on the continuation of man and the continuation of man is argued from his creation and supposition that God cannot create anything in vain. The Gentle Reader may not find this line of reasoning satisfactory as, of course, there is a distinction between creating, allowing a creation, and being indifferent to a creation.
Sentence 92
So that, from what has been said, it is quite clear that the resurrection is plainly proved by the cause of man's creation, and the purpose of Him who made him.1
1. The author claims that the resurrection is ‘proved’ by the reason of man’s creation.
Sentence 93
Such being the nature of the cause for which man has been brought into this world, the next thing will be to consider that which immediately follows, naturally or in the order proposed and in our investigation the cause of their creation is followed by the nature of the men so created and the nature of those created by the just judgment of their Maker1 upon them and all these by the end of their existence.2
1. The ‘Maker’ remains a vague term.
2. It is not certain who or what ‘all these by the end of their existence’ includes.
2. It is not certain who or what ‘all these by the end of their existence’ includes.
Sentence 94
Having investigated therefore the point placed first in order, we must now go on to consider the nature of men.
Chapter 14 The resurrection does not rest solely on the fact of a future judgment.
Sentence 95
The proof of the several doctrines of which the truth consists or of any matter whatsoever proposed for examination, if it is to produce an unwavering confidence1 in what is said, must begin not from anything without nor from what certain persons think or have thought, but from the common and natural notion of the matter2 or from the connection of secondary truths with primary ones.3
1. Confidence is different from ‘unwavering confidence’, just as likelihood or possibility is different from knowledge.
2. The natural notion of matter is that it is neither created nor destroyed; it simply changes forms, otherwise said, matter is eternal.
3. It unknown the number of truths in existence.
2. The natural notion of matter is that it is neither created nor destroyed; it simply changes forms, otherwise said, matter is eternal.
3. It unknown the number of truths in existence.
Sentence 96
For the question relates either to primary beliefs and then all that is necessary is reminiscence, so as to stir up the natural notion or to things which naturally follow from the first and to their natural sequence.
Sentence 97
And in these things we must observe order, showing what strictly follows from the first truths or from those which are placed first, so as neither to be unmindful of the truth or of our certainty respecting it1 nor to confound the things arranged by nature and distinguished from each other or break up the natural order.2
1. It is uncertain as to the reason there would be uncertainty concerning the truth. If a certain ‘truth’ is the result of opinions or improper reasoning, then there should be uncertainty of the ‘truth’.
2. The reasonable order of the discussion can be altered for the benefit of topic under consideration.
2. The reasonable order of the discussion can be altered for the benefit of topic under consideration.
Sentence 98
Hence I think it behooves those who desire to handle the subject with fairness and who wish to form an intelligent judgment1 whether there is a resurrection or not, first to consider attentively the force of the arguments contributing to the proof of this and what place each of them holds, which is first, which second, which third, and which last.
1. It is important to have intelligent judgments concerning the resurrection. One wonders if these thoughtful judgments are held by those who doubt and disbelieve.
Sentence 99
And in the arrangement of these they should place first the cause of the creation of men, namely, the purpose of the Creator in making man and then connect with this,1 as is suitable, the nature of the men so created, not as being second in order, but because we are unable to pass our judgment on both at the same time, although they have the closest natural connection with each other and are of equal force in reference to the subject before us.
'Namely’ is an adverb meaning ‘that is to say; to be specific (used to introduce detailed information or a specific example).’
1. The possibilities for the reason for the creation of man has been previously addressed. Since it is established that the Creator is without want, the reason for man’s creation cannot be found in any need of the Creator. Additionally, if the purpose of man was not to keep the garden in Eden, then it would appear that man has no purpose and, therefore, the cause for the creation of man remains unknown.
1. The possibilities for the reason for the creation of man has been previously addressed. Since it is established that the Creator is without want, the reason for man’s creation cannot be found in any need of the Creator. Additionally, if the purpose of man was not to keep the garden in Eden, then it would appear that man has no purpose and, therefore, the cause for the creation of man remains unknown.
Sentence 100
But while from these proofs as the primary ones and as being derived from the work of creation, the resurrection is clearly demonstrated,1 none the less can we gain conviction respecting it from the arguments taken from providence, I mean from the reward or punishment due to each man in accordance with just judgment and from the end of human existence.2
'None the less’ is an adverb meaning ‘in spite of that; nevertheless.’
1. Once again, the author states that the resurrection is ‘clearly demonstrated’. However, this demonstration cannot explain the purpose of man.
2. The ‘end of human existence’ is a vague expression, as it can be understood as either death, or the final goal, or the purpose of humanity.
1. Once again, the author states that the resurrection is ‘clearly demonstrated’. However, this demonstration cannot explain the purpose of man.
2. The ‘end of human existence’ is a vague expression, as it can be understood as either death, or the final goal, or the purpose of humanity.
Sentence 101
For many,1 in discussing the subject of the resurrection, have rested the whole cause on the third argument alone, deeming that the cause of the resurrection is the judgment.
1. The term ‘many’ is vague.
Sentence 102
But the fallacy of this is very clearly shown, from the fact that, although all human beings who die rise again, yet not all who rise again are to be judged,1 for if only a just judgment were the cause of the resurrection, it would of course follow that those who had done neither evil nor good, namely, very young children, would not rise again, but seeing that all are to rise again,2 those who have died in infancy as well as others, they too justify our conclusion that the resurrection takes place not for the sake of the judgment as the primary reason, but in consequence of the purpose of God in forming men and the nature of the beings so formed.
1.We learn that ‘not all who rise again are to be judged’ and this is reasonable, as the Saints, who are currently in the presence of God, will not be judged.
2. The author claims that ‘all are to rise again’. Orthdoxwiki.com states that since ‘mankind shares in Christ's Resurrection, the Church teaches that all mankind shall rise from the dead at the Final Judgment.’ The author makes at least one orthodox statement.
2. The author claims that ‘all are to rise again’. Orthdoxwiki.com states that since ‘mankind shares in Christ's Resurrection, the Church teaches that all mankind shall rise from the dead at the Final Judgment.’ The author makes at least one orthodox statement.
Chapter 15 Argument for the resurrection from the nature of man.
Sentence 103
But while the cause discoverable in the creation of men is of itself sufficient to prove that the resurrection follows by natural sequence on the dissolution of bodies, yet it is perhaps right not to shrink from adducing either of the proposed arguments, but, agreeably to what has been said, to point out to those who are not able of themselves to discern them, the arguments from each of the truths evolved from the primary and first and foremost, the nature of the men created, which conducts us to the same notion and has the same force as evidence of the resurrection.
Sentence 104
For if the whole nature of men in general is composed of an immortal soul and a body1 which was fitted to it in the creation and if neither to the nature of the soul by itself nor to the nature of the body separately has God assigned such a creation or such a life and entire course of existence as this, but to men compounded of the two in order that they may, when they have passed through their present existence, arrive at one common end,2 with the same elements of which they are composed at their birth and during life,3 it unavoidably follows, since one living being is formed from the two,4 experiencing whatever the soul experiences and whatever the body experiences, doing and performing whatever requires the judgment of the senses or of the reason, that the whole series of these things must be referred to some one end, in order that they all and by means of all, namely, man's creation, man's nature, man's life, man's doings and sufferings,5 his course of existence and the end suitable to his nature, may concur in one harmony and the same common experience.
1. The immortal soul is discussed as a possibility, neither a fact nor an ancient Christian doctrine.
2. The ‘one common end’ that men experience is death.
3. An additional difficulty is mentioned: the resurrected bodies now partake of the same elements from birth and throughout their lifetimes.
4. An immortal soul and a body.
5. The author finds a purpose, not only for man’s creation and nature, but for his life and suffering.
2. The ‘one common end’ that men experience is death.
3. An additional difficulty is mentioned: the resurrected bodies now partake of the same elements from birth and throughout their lifetimes.
4. An immortal soul and a body.
5. The author finds a purpose, not only for man’s creation and nature, but for his life and suffering.
Sentence 105
But if there is some one harmony and community of experience belonging to the whole being, whether of the things which spring from the soul or of those which are accomplished by means of the body, the end for all these must also be one.1
1. The ‘end for all these must also be one’ is predicated on the condition phrasing of ‘if’ there is one harmony and ‘if’ there is a ‘community of experience’ to the whole being. The repeated usage of ‘if’ increases uncertainty,
Sentence 106
And the end will be in strictness one, if1 the being whose end that end is remains the same in its constitution and the being will be exactly the same, if2 all those things of which the being consists as parts are the same.
1. The repeated usage of ‘if’ increases uncertainty.
Sentence 107
And they will be the same in respect of their peculiar union, if the parts dissolved are again united for the constitution of the being.
Sentence 108
And the constitution of the same men of necessity proves that a resurrection will follow of the dead and dissolved bodies, for without this, neither could the same parts be united according to nature with one another nor could the nature of the same men be reconstituted.
Sentence 109
And if both understanding and reason have been given to men for the discernment of things which are perceived by the understanding and not of existences only, but also of the goodness and wisdom and rectitude of their Giver,1 it necessarily follows that since those things continue for the sake of which the rational judgment2 is given, the judgment given for these things should also continue.
1. The ‘Giver’ may be synonymous with God, the Creator, and the Maker.
2. The word ‘judgment’ is modified by the adjective ‘rational’.
2. The word ‘judgment’ is modified by the adjective ‘rational’.
Sentence 110
But it is impossible for this to continue, unless the nature which has received it and in which it adheres, continues.
Sentence 111
But that which has received both understanding and reason is man, not the soul by itself.1
1. Man, not the ‘soul by itself’, receives both ‘understanding and reason’.
Sentence 112
Man, therefore, who consists of the two parts,1 must continue for ever.
1. The body and immortal soul.
Sentence 113
But it is impossible for him to continue unless he rise again.1
1. The author makes an accurate observation, based solely upon certain limited criteria. There is no resurrection in The Republic, yet, souls inhabit new, if not similar or familiar, bodies.
Sentence 114
For if no resurrection were to take place, the nature of men as men would not continue.1
1. The author states that the ‘nature of men as men’ would not continue without the resurrection. However, this statement is unlikely to be correct, as the ‘nature of men as men’ does not change and this nature cannot be predicated on a possible future event.
Sentence 115
And if the nature of men does not continue, in vain has the soul been fitted to the need of the body and to its experiences,1 in vain has the body been lettered so that it cannot obtain what it longs for, obedient to the reins of the soul and guided by it as with a bridle, in vain is the understanding, in vain is wisdom, and the observance of rectitude, or even the practice of every virtue and the enactment and enforcement of laws,- to say all in a word, whatever is noble in men or for men's sake or rather the very creation and nature of men.2
1. The existence of the immortal soul is a pious supposition and it is unknown if the soul has truly ‘been fitted to the need of the body’.
2. The author attempts to convince the reader that without the resurrection, attributes such as wisdom and virtue are sought in vain. In addition to wisdom and virtue, the attainment of civility, civilization, and nobility would also be in vain.
2. The author attempts to convince the reader that without the resurrection, attributes such as wisdom and virtue are sought in vain. In addition to wisdom and virtue, the attainment of civility, civilization, and nobility would also be in vain.
Sentence 116
But if vanity is utterly excluded from all the works of God, and from all the gifts bestowed by Him, the conclusion is unavoidable, that, along with the interminable duration of the soul, there will be a perpetual continuance of the body according to its proper nature.1
1. The statement is based on the conditional phrasing that if vanity is excluded from the works of God. While it is not known if God takes ‘excessive pride in or admiration of’ his ‘own appearance or achievements’, it is recorded that ‘the LORD your God’ is ‘a jealous God’, that is, ‘feeling or showing envy of someone or their achievements and advantages’[Exodus 20:5]. The ‘Lord your God’ may be identical to the ‘Lord God’ found in the garden of Eden.
Chapter 16 Analogy of death and sleep and consequent arguments for the resurrection.
Sentence 117
And let no one think it strange that we call by the name of life a continuance of being which is interrupted by death and corruption, but let him consider rather that this word has not one meaning only,1 nor is there only one measure of continuance, because the nature also of the things that continue is not one.
1. The author brings to the attention of the reader that certain words have more than ‘one meaning’, after the common manner of speaking.
Sentence 118
For if each of the things that continue has its continuance according to its peculiar nature, neither in the case of those who are wholly incorruptible and immortal shall we find the continuance like ours, because the natures of superior beings do not take the level of such as are inferior, nor in men is it proper to look for a continuance invariable and unchangeable, inasmuch as the former are from the first created immortal and continue to exist without end by the simple will of their Maker and men, in respect of the soul, have from their first origin an unchangeable continuance, but in respect of the body obtain immortality by means of change.
‘Inasmuch’ is a conjunction that means ‘in the degree that, insofar as, in view of the fact that, since.’
Sentence 119
This is what is meant by the doctrine of the resurrection; and, looking to this, we both await the dissolution of the body, as the sequel to a life of want and corruption, and after this we hope for a continuance with immortality,1 not putting either our death on a level with the death of the irrational animals or the continuance of man with the continuance of immortals,2 lest we should unawares in this way put human nature and life on a level with things with which it is not proper to compare them.3
‘Lest’ is a conjunction meaning ‘with the intention of preventing (something undesirable); to avoid the risk of.’
1. The hope, or ‘a feeling of expectation and desire for a certain thing to happen’, of immortality is not identical with knowing the ancient Christian doctrine of the resurrection.
2. In a purported Christian text, the presumption is that the ‘immortals’ are angels. This presumption is not a certainty.
3. Since man is unlike either irrational animals or the ‘immortals’, then man cannot, properly speaking, be compared to anything.
1. The hope, or ‘a feeling of expectation and desire for a certain thing to happen’, of immortality is not identical with knowing the ancient Christian doctrine of the resurrection.
2. In a purported Christian text, the presumption is that the ‘immortals’ are angels. This presumption is not a certainty.
3. Since man is unlike either irrational animals or the ‘immortals’, then man cannot, properly speaking, be compared to anything.
Sentence 120
It ought not, therefore, to excite dissatisfaction, if some inequality appears to exist in regard to the duration of men, nor, because the separation of the soul from the members of the body and the dissolution of its parts interrupts the continuity of life, must we therefore despair of the resurrection.
Sentence 121
For although the relaxation of the senses and of the physical powers, which naturally takes place in sleep seems to interrupt the sensational life when men sleep at equal intervals of time and, as it were, come back to life again, yet we do not refuse to call it life and, for this reason, I suppose, some call sleep the brother of death, not as deriving their origin from the same ancestors and fathers, but because those who are dead and those who sleep are subject to similar states,1 as regards at least the stillness and the absence of all sense of the present or the past, or rather of existence itself and their own life.
1. Sleep and death are similar states after the common manner of speaking.
Sentence 122
If, therefore, we do not refuse to call by the name of life the life of men full of such inequality from birth to dissolution and interrupted by all those things which we have before mentioned, neither ought we to despair of the life succeeding to dissolution,1 such as involves the resurrection, although for a time it is interrupted by the separation of the soul from the body.2
1. The author utilizes the word ‘dissolution’ on ten occurrences. It seems that dissolution is synonymous with death.
2. The separation of the soul from the body is stated as a well known fact.
2. The separation of the soul from the body is stated as a well known fact.
Chapter 17 The series of changes we can now trace in man renders a resurrection probable.
Sentence 123
For this nature of men, which has inequality allotted to it from the first and according to the purpose of its Maker,1 has an unequal life and continuance, interrupted sometimes by sleep, at another time by death and by the changes incident to each period of life,2 whilst those which follow the first are not clearly seen beforehand.
1. The cause of inequality among the members of mankind is assigned to the Maker.
2. Incidental changes are accidents or events ‘that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.’
2. Incidental changes are accidents or events ‘that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.’
Sentence 124
Would any one have believed, unless taught by experience, that in the soft seed1 alike in all its parts there was deposited such a variety and number of great powers, or of masses, which in this way arise and become consolidated, I mean of bones and nerves and cartilages, of muscles too, and flesh and intestines and the other parts of the body?2
1. Seminal fluid.
2. This sentence is a rhetorical question regarding human experiences, that is, occurrences in the material world.
2. This sentence is a rhetorical question regarding human experiences, that is, occurrences in the material world.
Sentence 125
For neither in the yet moist seed1 is anything of this kind to be seen nor even in infants do any of those things make their appearance which pertain to adults or in the adult period what belongs to those who are past their prime or in these what belongs to such as have grown old.
1. Seminal fluid.
Sentence 126
But although some of the things I have said exhibit not at all and others but faintly, the natural sequence and the changes that come upon the nature of men, yet all who are not blinded in their judgment of these matters by vice or sloth, know that there must be first the depositing of the seed1 and that when this is completely organized in respect of every member and part and the progeny comes forth to the light, there comes the growth belonging to the first period of life and the maturity which attends growth and after the maturity the slackening of the physical powers till old age and then, when the body is worn out, its dissolution.
1. The discussion of sexual reproduction is mentioned under the guise of proving the resurrection.
Sentence 127
As, therefore, in this matter, though neither the seed has inscribed upon it the life or form of men nor the life the dissolution into the primary elements, the succession of natural occurrences makes things credible which have no credibility from the phenomena themselves, much more does reason, tracing out the truth from the natural sequence, afford ground for believing in the resurrection, since it is safer and stronger than experience for establishing the truth.1
1. ‘Reason’ is ‘stronger than experience for establishing the truth.’
Chapter 18 Judgment must have reference both to soul and body: there will therefore be a resurrection.
Sentence 128 The arguments I just now proposed for examination, as establishing the truth of the resurrection, are all of the same kind, since they all start from the same point, for their starting point is the origin of the first men by creation.1
1. The author uses the plural ‘men’ when discussing the origin of mankind and the thoughtful reader must conclude that the author is not referring to the singular creation of Adam [Genesis 2:7]. Previously, ‘God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.’, Genesis 1:27. The wording of ‘male and female’ in this creation narrative are singular in both the Hebrew [Strong’s numbers H2145 and H5347] and Greek texts [Strong’s numbers G730 and G2338].
Sentence 129
But while some of them derive their strength from the starting point itself from which they take their rise, others, consequent upon the nature and the life of men, acquire their credibility from the superintendence of God over us, for the cause according to which, and on account of which, men have come into being, being closely connected with the nature of men, derives its force from creation, but the argument from rectitude, which represents God as judging men according as they have lived well or ill, derives its force from the end of their existence, they come into being on the former ground, but their state depends more on God's superintendence.
Sentence 130
And now that the matters which come first have been demonstrated by me to the best of my ability, it will be well to prove our proposition by those also which come after, I mean by the reward or punishment due to each man in accordance with righteous judgment and by the final cause of human existence and of these I put foremost that which takes the lead by nature and inquire first into the argument relating to the judgment, premising only one thing, from concern for the principle which appertains to the matters before us, and for order, namely, that it is incumbent on those who admit God to be the Maker of this universe,1 to ascribe to His wisdom and rectitude the preservation and care of all that has been created if they wish to keep to their own principles and with such views to hold that nothing either in earth or in heaven is without guardianship or providence, but that on the contrary, to everything, invisible and visible alike, small and great, the attention of the Creator reaches, for all created things require the attention of the Creator,2 and each one in particular, according to its nature and the end for which it was made, though I think it would be a useless expenditure of trouble to go through the list now, or distinguish between the several cases or mention in detail what is suitable to each nature.
1. Since some people admit God is the Maker of the universe, it follows that others make a distinction between God and the Maker or the architect of ‘this’ cosmos.
2. The conclusion of this statement seems to indicate that the Lord God, as found in the episode in the Garden of Eden, is not the Creator, as the Lord God was inattentive and allowed the serpent to persuade Eve to eat of the tree.
2. The conclusion of this statement seems to indicate that the Lord God, as found in the episode in the Garden of Eden, is not the Creator, as the Lord God was inattentive and allowed the serpent to persuade Eve to eat of the tree.
Sentence 131
Man, at all events, of whom it is now our business to speak, as being in want, requires food; as being mortal, posterity; as being rational, a process of judgment.1
1. While food is a requirement for all animals, man, as an individual, does not require posterity and through long and painful experience, it is clear that most men are not rational and, therefore, a process of judgment is not a requirement for humanity.
Sentence 132
But if each of these things belongs to man by nature and he requires food for his life and requires posterity for the continuance of the race and requires a judgment in order that food and posterity may be according to law, it of course follows, since food and posterity refer to both together, that the judgment must be referred to them too (by both together I mean man, consisting of soul and body)1 and that such man becomes accountable for all his actions and receives for them either reward or punishment.
1. Man consists of a ‘soul and body’ and it cannot be determined if the soul, in this sentence, is mortal or immortal.
Sentence 133
Now, if the righteous judgment awards to both together1 its retribution for the deeds wrought and if it is not proper that either the soul alone should receive the wages of the deeds wrought in union with the body (for this of itself has no inclination to the faults which are committed in connection with the pleasure or food and culture of the body), or that the body alone should (for this of itself is incapable of distinguishing law and justice), but man, composed of these,1 is subjected to trial for each of the deeds wrought by him and if reason does not find this happening either in this life (for the award according to merit finds no place in the present existence, since many atheists and persons who practise every iniquity and wickedness live on to the last, unvisited by calamity, whilst, on the contrary, those who have manifestly lived an exemplary life in respect of every Virtue, live in pain, in insult, in calumny and outrage, and suffering of all kinds) or after death (for both together no longer exist, the soul being separated from the body and the body itself being resolved again into the materials out of which it was composed and no longer retaining anything of its former structure or form, much less the remembrance of its actions): the result of all this is very plain to every one,2 namely, that, in the language of the apostle "this corruptible (and dissoluble) must put on incorruption,"3 in order that those who were dead, having been made alive by the resurrection and the parts that were separated and entirely dissolved having been again united, each one may, in accordance with justice, receive what he has done by the body, whether it be good or bad.
1. The ‘soul and body’ [sentence 132].
2. ‘[I]f reason does not find this happening either in this life...or after death… [then] the result of all this is very plain to every one’ and that result is there is no ultimate judgement and and any wrongs deeds in this world remain unavenged and, of course, neither is virtue ultimately rewarded.
3. The ‘Apostle’ is Saint Paul and the quote is from 1 Corinthians 15:53.
2. ‘[I]f reason does not find this happening either in this life...or after death… [then] the result of all this is very plain to every one’ and that result is there is no ultimate judgement and and any wrongs deeds in this world remain unavenged and, of course, neither is virtue ultimately rewarded.
3. The ‘Apostle’ is Saint Paul and the quote is from 1 Corinthians 15:53.
Chapter 19 Man would be more unfavorably situated than the beasts if there were no resurrection.
Sentence 134
In replying, then, to those who acknowledge a divine superintendence and admit the same principles as we do, yet somehow depart from their own admissions, one may use such arguments as those which have been adduced and many more than these, should he be disposed to amplify what has been said only concisely and in a cursory manner.1
1. The author states that this essay is ‘concise’ and cursory or 'hasty and therefore not thorough or detailed.'
Sentence 135
But in dealing with those who differ from us concerning primary truths,1 it will perhaps be well to lay down another principle antecedent to these, joining with them in doubting of the things to which their opinions relate and examining the matter along with them in this manner, whether the life of men, and their entire course of existence, is overlooked and a sort of dense darkness is poured down upon the earth, hiding in ignorance and silence both the men themselves and their actions2 or whether it is much safer to be of opinion that the Maker presides over the things which He Himself has made, inspecting all things whatsoever which exist or come into existence, Judge of both deeds and purposes.3
1. If there are ‘primary truths’, then if follows there are secondary and tertiary truths. It is unknown the actual numbering of ‘truths’ before one encounters opinions.
2. Men and the actions of men may be either unknown to God or overlooked by God.
3. The author acknowledges that the Maker presiding over his creation is an opinion only, although an opinion shared by the majority of men. Since God did not walk in the garden of Eden, but the Lord God, the author brings attention to the fact that the Maker did not inspect the garden.
2. Men and the actions of men may be either unknown to God or overlooked by God.
3. The author acknowledges that the Maker presiding over his creation is an opinion only, although an opinion shared by the majority of men. Since God did not walk in the garden of Eden, but the Lord God, the author brings attention to the fact that the Maker did not inspect the garden.
Sentence 136
For if no judgment whatever were to be passed on the actions of men, men would have no advantage over the irrational creatures,1 but rather would fare worse than these do, inasmuch as they keep in subjection their passions and concern themselves about piety and righteousness and the other virtues2 and a life after the manner of brutes would be the best, virtue would be absurd, the threat of judgment a matter for broad laughter,3 indulgence in every kind of pleasure the highest good, and the common resolve of all these and their one law would be that maxim, so dear to the intemperate and lewd, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."4
1. The author states that the only advantage men have over ‘irrational creatures’ is the final judgement and the thoughtful reader may conclude that this statement is a sham.
2. Piety and righteousness are listed as virtues.
3. The ‘threat of judgment’ in the next world is utilized by thoughtful men for the benefit of society, since irrational men deny virtue has any practical value in this world.
4. 1 Corinthians 15:32
2. Piety and righteousness are listed as virtues.
3. The ‘threat of judgment’ in the next world is utilized by thoughtful men for the benefit of society, since irrational men deny virtue has any practical value in this world.
4. 1 Corinthians 15:32
Sentence 137
For the termination1 of such a life is not even pleasure, as some suppose, but utter insensibility.2
1. The word ‘termination’ is to be understood as either goal or purpose.
2. The lack of awareness or concern.
2. The lack of awareness or concern.
Sentence 138
But if the Maker of men takes any concern about His own works1 and the distinction is anywhere to be found between those who have lived well and ill, it must be either in the present life, while men are still living who have conducted themselves virtuously or viciously, or after death, when men are in a state of separation and dissolution.2
1. God said, ‘The end of all flesh is come before me… I will destroy them with the earth.’, Genesis 6:13.
2. This sentence is conditional: ‘But if the Maker of men…’
2. This sentence is conditional: ‘But if the Maker of men…’
Sentence 139
But according to neither of these suppositions can we find a just judgment taking place, for neither do the good in the present life obtain the rewards of virtue, nor yet do the bad receive the wages of vice.1
‘Supposition’ is a noun meaning ‘an uncertain belief.’
1. The author states that some virtuous acts are not always rewarded or acknowledged, while some vicious behavior remains unknown and unpunished.
1. The author states that some virtuous acts are not always rewarded or acknowledged, while some vicious behavior remains unknown and unpunished.
Sentence 140
I pass over the fact, that so long as the nature we at present possess is preserved, the moral nature is not able to bear a punishment commensurate with the more numerous or more serious faults.
Sentence 141
For the robber or ruler or tyrant1 who has unjustly put to death myriads on myriads,2 could not by one death make restitution for these deeds and the man who holds no true opinion concerning God,3 but lives in all outrage and blasphemy, despises divine things, breaks the laws, commits outrage against boys and women alike,4 razes cities unjustly, burns houses with their inhabitants and devastates a country and at the same time destroys inhabitants of cities and peoples5 and even an entire nation,6 how in a mortal body could he endure a penalty adequate to these crimes, since death prevents the deserved punishment and the mortal nature does not suffice for any single one of his deeds?7
1. The robber or ruler or tyrant may be the same individual or entity.
2. The wording 'myriads on myriads’ may be understood as all of humanity, except for eight individuals.
3. It is possible to hold no true opinion concerning God, that is, it is possible to have false beliefs regarding God.
4. The Benjamites abduct women from a village, so their tribe will not become extinct, Judges 21:21.
5. The lack of just men results in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Genesis 19:24-25.
6. The Israelites are to destroy the descendants of Amalek and as there is no nation from Amalek, it can be said that the Israelites committed genocide, Deuteronomy 25:19.
7. The rhetorical question provides examples from the material realm and states that for certain deeds there is not adequate punishment in this world. Of course, crimes and outrages do not provide a reasonable argument for the resurrection anymore than tyrannical actions provide evidence for the existence of Jehovah.
2. The wording 'myriads on myriads’ may be understood as all of humanity, except for eight individuals.
3. It is possible to hold no true opinion concerning God, that is, it is possible to have false beliefs regarding God.
4. The Benjamites abduct women from a village, so their tribe will not become extinct, Judges 21:21.
5. The lack of just men results in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Genesis 19:24-25.
6. The Israelites are to destroy the descendants of Amalek and as there is no nation from Amalek, it can be said that the Israelites committed genocide, Deuteronomy 25:19.
7. The rhetorical question provides examples from the material realm and states that for certain deeds there is not adequate punishment in this world. Of course, crimes and outrages do not provide a reasonable argument for the resurrection anymore than tyrannical actions provide evidence for the existence of Jehovah.
Sentence 142
It is proved, therefore, that neither in the present life is there a judgment according to men's deserts nor after death.1
1. The author states or has ‘proved’ that there is not a judgement in this world or after death for man’s deeds. The implication of this sentence is that those fortunate individuals who escape human judgement in the present world will not experience a judgement in the next world. This single sentence could be easily overlooked in the original manuscript without spaces between words, without punctuation, and without the insertion of modern chapter headings.
3
Chapter 20 Man must be possessed both of a body and soul hereafter, that the judgment passed upon him may be just.
Sentence 143
For either death is the entire extinction of life, the soul being dissolved and corrupted along with the body, or the soul remains by itself, incapable of dissolution, of dispersion, of corruption,1 whilst the body is corrupted and dissolved, retaining no longer any remembrance of past actions nor sense of what it experienced in connection with the soul.
1. The author states either the soul is dissolved with the body or it is incapable of corruption. If the soul is incapable of corruption, then there is no justice can be found in punishing an incorrupt soul, in fact, such punishment would be unjust.
Sentence 144
If the life of men is to be utterly extinguished, it is manifest there will be no care for men who are not living, no judgment respecting those who have lived in virtue or in vice, but there will rush in again upon us whatever belongs to a lawless life and the swarm of absurdities which follow from it and that which is the summit of this lawlessness-1 atheism.2
1. The life of absurdities and lawlessness is described as the life of the atheist.
2. The author is against those who are explicitly atheistic, however, a distinction should be made between those who are atheists, but outwardly adhere to expected social conventions.
2. The author is against those who are explicitly atheistic, however, a distinction should be made between those who are atheists, but outwardly adhere to expected social conventions.
Sentence 145
But if the body were to be corrupted and each of the dissolved particles to pass to its kindred element, yet the soul to remain by itself as immortal, neither on this supposition would any judgment on the soul take place, since there would be an absence of equity,1 for it is unlawful to suspect that any judgment can proceed out of God and from God which is wanting in equity.2
1. The author agrees that the any judgment on the immortal and incorrupt soul be be without equity, ‘the quality of being fair and impartial.’
2. The author states that God is impartial in judgment.
2. The author states that God is impartial in judgment.
Sentence 146
Yet equity is wanting to the judgment, if the being is not preserved in existence who practiced righteousness or lawlessness,1 for that which practiced each of the things in life on which the judgment is passed was man, not soul by itself.2
1. Impartiality is lacking if those who are righteous or lawless are not preserved for judgement. 2. Judgement is to be passed on man, not the soul alone.
Sentence 147
To sum up all in a word, this view will in no case consist with equity.1
1. The lack of equity does not necessarily suggest that a reasoned conclusion is incorrect.
Chapter 21 Continuation of the argument.
Sentence 148
For if good deeds are rewarded the body will clearly be wronged, inasmuch as it has shared with the soul in the toils connected with well-doing, but does not share in the reward of the good deeds and because, though the soul is often excused for certain faults on the ground of the body's neediness and want,1 the body itself is deprived of all share in the good deeds done, the toils on behalf of which it helped to bear during life.2
1. It is uncertain if man, God, or both excuse certain ‘faults’ of the soul. As it seems impossible to reconcile the incorrupt nature of the soul with certain ‘faults’ of the soul, it follows that the word ‘soul’ has at least two distinct and unrelated meanings.
2. This sentence is conditional: ‘For if good deeds are rewarded…’
2. This sentence is conditional: ‘For if good deeds are rewarded…’
Sentence 149
Nor, again, if faults are judged, is the soul dealt fairly with, supposing it alone to pay the penalty for the faults it committed through being solicited by the body1 and drawn away by it to its own appetites and motions,2 at one time being seized upon and carried off, at another attracted in some very violent manner and sometimes concurring with it by way of kindness and attention to its preservation.
1. The author teaches that the soul is solicited by the body.
2. The soul is described as a passive bystander to the actions of the body, otherwise said, the soul is the ideal standard for those individuals who strive to live vicariously.
2. The soul is described as a passive bystander to the actions of the body, otherwise said, the soul is the ideal standard for those individuals who strive to live vicariously.
Sentence 150
How can it possibly be other than unjust for the soul to be judged by itself in respect of things towards which in its own nature it feels no appetite, no motion, no impulse, such as licentiousness, violence, covetousness, injustice, and the unjust acts arising out of these?1
1. This sentence is a rhetorical question that brings to light the unjust judgment of an immortal soul that lacks licentiousness, violence, or covetousness.
Sentence 151
For if the majority of such evils come from men's not having the mastery of the passions which solicit them1, and they are solicited by the neediness and want of the body, and the care and attention required by it (for these are the motives for every acquisition of property, and especially for the using of it, and moreover for marriage and all the actions of life, in which things, and in connection with which, is seen what is faulty and what is not so), how can it be just for the soul alone to be judged in respect of those things which the body is the first to be sensible of,2 and in which it draws the soul away to sympathy and participation in actions with a view to things which it wants and that the appetites and pleasures and moreover the fears and sorrows, in which whatever exceeds the proper bounds is amenable to judgment, should be set in motion by the body, and yet that the sins arising from these and the punishments for the sins committed, should fall upon the soul alone, which neither needs anything of this sort, nor desires nor fears or suffers of itself any such thing as man is wont to suffer?3
1. It seems that all and not only a ‘majority of such evils’ are the result of men not having self mastery.
2. The judgement of the material body, which has no morality and lacks self awareness, is absurd. The thoughtful reader may understand the punishment of the body, as symbolizing the created cosmos, that is, the infliction of corporal suffering suggests the dualism of Gnosticism.
3. This sentence is a rhetorical question.
2. The judgement of the material body, which has no morality and lacks self awareness, is absurd. The thoughtful reader may understand the punishment of the body, as symbolizing the created cosmos, that is, the infliction of corporal suffering suggests the dualism of Gnosticism.
3. This sentence is a rhetorical question.
Sentence 152
But even if we hold that these affections do not pertain to the body alone, but to man, in saying which we should speak correctly, because the life of man is one, though composed of the two,1 yet surely we shall not assert that these things belong to the soul, if we only look simply at its peculiar nature.2
1. The corruptible body and soul.
2. The strange, odd, or unusual nature of the soul perhaps alludes to the ambiguous meaning of the term ‘soul’.
2. The strange, odd, or unusual nature of the soul perhaps alludes to the ambiguous meaning of the term ‘soul’.
Sentence 153
For if it is absolutely without need of food,1 it can never desire those things which it does not in the least require for its subsistence nor can it feel any impulse towards any of those things which it is not at all fitted to use nor, again, can it be grieved at the want of money or other property, since these are not suited to it.2
1. The soul.
2. It seems that the only entity suited to the soul is the human body.
2. It seems that the only entity suited to the soul is the human body.
Sentence 154
And if, too, it is superior to corruption, it fears nothing whatever as destructive of itself,1 it has no dread of famine or disease or mutilation or blemish or fire or sword, since it cannot suffer from any of these any hurt or pain, because neither bodies nor bodily powers touch it at all.2
1. The soul lacks fear, as nothing can destroy it.
2. The soul, having no needs and being immune to ‘bodies’ and ‘bodily powers’, continues to exist vicariously through the body.
2. The soul, having no needs and being immune to ‘bodies’ and ‘bodily powers’, continues to exist vicariously through the body.
Sentence 155
But if it is absurd to attach the passions to the soul as belonging specially to it,1 it is in the highest degree unjust and unworthy of the judgment of God to lay upon the soul alone the sins which spring from them, and the consequent punishments.
1. It is absurd that suggest that ‘the passions of the soul’ are shared by the body, otherwise, one should speak of the passions of the soul and the body.
Chapter 22 Continuation of the argument.
Sentence 156
In addition to what has been said, is it not absurd that, while we cannot even have the notion of virtue and vice as existing separately in the soul (for we recognize the virtues as man's virtues, even as in like manner vice, their opposite, as not belonging to the soul in separation from the body and existing by itself), yet that the reward or punishment for these should be assigned to the soul alone?1
1. This sentence is a rhetorical question.
Sentence 157
How can any one have even the notion of courage or fortitude as existing in the soul alone, when it has no fear of death or wounds or maiming or loss or maltreatment or of the pain connected with these or the suffering resulting from them?1
1. This sentence is a rhetorical question. From what has been discussed concering the nature of the soul, it follows that the soul suffers from a ‘moral hazard’, that is, the condition ‘when an entity has an incentive to increase its exposure to risk because it does not bear the full costs of that risk.’
Sentence 158
And what shall we say of self-control and temperance, when there is no desire drawing it to food or sexual intercourse1 or other pleasures and enjoyments nor any other thing soliciting it from within or exciting it from without?2
1. Yet again, sexual intercourse is mentioned.
2. This sentence is a rhetorical question.
2. This sentence is a rhetorical question.
Sentence 159
And what of practical wisdom,1 when things are not proposed to it which may or may not be done nor things to be chosen or avoided or rather when there is in it no motion at all or natural impulse towards the doing of anything? 2
1. Since ‘practical wisdom’ is not defined , it seems that ‘unpractical wisdom’ would be a type of wisdom.
2. This sentence is a rhetorical question.
2. This sentence is a rhetorical question.
Sentence 160
And how in any sense can equity be an attribute of souls, either in reference to one another or to anything else, whether of the same or of a different kind, when they are not able from any source, or by any means, or in any way, to bestow that which is equal according to merit or according to analogy, with the exception of the honor rendered to God and, moreover, have no impulse or motion towards the use of their own things, or abstinence from those of others, since the use of those things which are according to nature, or the abstinence from them, is considered in reference to those who are so constituted as to use them, whereas the soul neither wants anything, nor is so constituted as to use any things or any single thing, and therefore what is called the independent action of the parts cannot be found in the soul so constituted?1
1. This sentence is a rhetorical question.
Chapter 23 Continuation of the argument.
Sentence 161
But the most irrational thing of all is this: to impose properly sanctioned laws on men, and then to assign to their souls alone the recompense of their lawful or unlawful deeds.1
1. The author states that to punish the soul alone for unlawful deeds is irrational, when ‘properly sanctioned laws’ are applied to men.
Sentence 162
For if he who receives the laws would also justly receive the recompense of the transgression of the laws, and if it was man that received the laws and not the soul by itself, man must also bear the recompense for the sins committed and not the soul by itself, since God has not enjoined on souls to abstain from things which have no relation to them, such as adultery, murder, theft, rapine, dishonor to parents, and every desire in general that tends to the injury and loss of our neighbors. 1
1. The author states that ‘adultery, murder, theft’, and dishonor do not pertain to the soul. The author distinguishes between actions that the body should avoid and, furthermore, these prohibitions do not have their origin in decrees from God. If the laws do not originate in God, then the origin of the laws is from the hand of a mediator.
Sentence 163
For neither the command, "Honor thy father and thy mother," is adapted to souls alone, since such names are not applicable to them, for souls do not produce souls, so as to appropriate the appellation of father or mother, but men produce men nor could the command, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," ever be properly addressed to souls1 or even thought of in such a connection, since the difference of male and female does not exist in them nor any aptitude for sexual intercourse nor appetite for it2 and where there is no appetite, there can be no intercourse and where there is no intercourse at all, there can be no legitimate intercourse, namely marriage and where there is no lawful intercourse, neither can there be unlawful desire of, or intercourse with, another man's wife, namely adultery.3
1. As the commandments are not ‘properly addressed to souls’, the body, and by extension, the material world, is the subject of the commandments.
2. The soul lacks both an aptitude and an appetite for sexual intercourse.
3. The soul is not guided by the appetite ‘for sexual intercourse’ and is not responsible for either ‘legitimate intercourse’ or ‘unlawful intercourse’.
2. The soul lacks both an aptitude and an appetite for sexual intercourse.
3. The soul is not guided by the appetite ‘for sexual intercourse’ and is not responsible for either ‘legitimate intercourse’ or ‘unlawful intercourse’.
Sentence 164
Nor, again, is the prohibition of theft or of the desire of having more, applicable to souls, for they do not need those things, through the need of which, by reason of natural indigence or want, men are accustomed to steal or to rob, such as gold or silver or an animal or something else adapted for food or shelter or use, for to an immortal nature everything which is desired by the needy as useful is useless.1
1. The author states that the soul, having ‘an immortal nature’, finds the requirements and wants of the ‘needy’ body as ‘useless’. Of course, lacking utility does not mean that these pursuits and acquisitions are not enjoyable for the vicariously existing incorruptible soul.
Sentence 165
But let the fuller discussion of these matters be left to those who wish to investigate each point more exactly or to contend more earnestly with opponents.1
1. The author does not follow this line of inquiry, leaving these topics for ‘those who wish to investigate each point more exactly’. Once wonders if the author’s engagement of his readers is not from a sincere conviction.
Sentence 166
But, since what has just been said and that which concurs with this to guarantee the resurrection, suffices for us, it would not be reasonable to dwell any longer upon them, for we have not made it our aim to omit nothing that might be said, but to point out in a summary manner to those who have assembled what ought to be thought concerning the resurrection and to adapt to the capacity of those present the arguments bearing on this question.1
1. The author modifies his writing style to the understanding or ‘capacity’ of his audience. Either this explicit statement is implicitly denied by the academic approach to the subject or the intended audience for this work concerning the justification of the resurrection consists entirely of scholars or philosophers.
Chapter 24 Argument for the resurrection from the chief end of man.
Sentence 167
The points proposed for consideration having been to some extent investigated, it remains to examine the argument from the end or final cause, which indeed has already emerged in what has been said and only requires just so much attention and further discussion as may enable us to avoid the appearance of leaving unmentioned any of the matters briefly referred to by us and thus indirectly damaging the subject or the division of topics made at the outset.1
1. The appearance of avoidance of specific topics may be achieved, yet, the reality remains that certain unmentioned matters are ‘left to those who wish to investigate each point more exactly’ [sentence 165].
Sentence 168
For the sake of those present, therefore, and of others who may pay attention to this subject, it may be well just to signify that each of those things which are constituted by nature and of those which are made by art, must have an end peculiar to itself, as indeed is taught us by the common sense of all men and testified by the things that pass before our eyes.1
1. The ‘common sense of all men’ and the physical senses are called upon for the determination of a particular end and, by doing so, the mind and proper reasoning are marginalized.
Sentence 169
For do we not see that husbandmen have one end and physicians another, and again, the things which spring out of the earth another and the animals nourished upon it and produced according to a certain natural series, another?1
1. Once again, examples from human activities are cited and this sentence is a rhetorical question.
Sentence 170
If this is evident and natural and artificial powers and the actions arising from these, must by all means be accompanied by an end in accordance with nature, it is absolutely necessary that the end of men, since it is that of a peculiar nature should be separated from community with the rest, for it is not lawful to suppose the same end for beings destitute of rational judgment and of those whose actions are regulated by the innate law1 and reason and who live an intelligent life and observe justice.2
1. The ‘innate law’ is the discovery of Natural Law, which, not surprisingly, the Apostle Paul alludes to in the Epistle to the Romans [2:14-15].
2. A distinction is made between living without rational judgment and those who observe justice.
2. A distinction is made between living without rational judgment and those who observe justice.
Sentence 171
Freedom from pain, therefore, cannot be the proper end for the latter, for this they would have in common with beings utterly devoid of sensibility nor can it consist in the enjoyment of things which nourish or delight the body or in an abundance of pleasures,1 else a life like that of the brutes must hold the first place, while that regulated by virtue is without a final cause.
1. Freedom from pain ‘cannot be the proper end for’ those individuals ‘whose actions are regulated by the innate law and reason’ living ‘an intelligent life and observe justice’, unlike those individuals 'destitute of rational judgment’ and ‘delight the body’ ‘in an abundance of pleasures’. It is stated that the soul also delights in ‘an abundance’ of bodily pleasures, but this statement seems highly unlikely, for as we have seen, the soul exists vicariously through the actions and senses of the body.
Sentence 172
For such an end as this, I suppose, belongs to beasts and cattle, not to men possessed of an immortal soul and rational judgment.1
1. Two ends are explicitly mentioned by the author: the end of beasts and the end of men who have an immortal soul and rational judgment. The attentive reader may speculate if there is a third possibility, that is, an end appropriate for men with rational judgment, but lacking an immortal soul.
Chapter 25 Argument continued and concluded.
Sentence 173
Nor again is it the happiness of soul separated from body, for we are not inquiring about the life or final cause of either of the parts of which man consists, but of the being who is composed of both, for such is every man who has a share in this present existence and there must be some appropriate end proposed for this life.1
1. Appropriateness is a human opinion based ultimately upon both social conventions and convictions and is not necessarily based on reason. The thoughtful reader may not find the appropriateness of divine justice as a valid reason for the resurrection.
Sentence 174
But if it is the end of both parts together and this can be discovered neither while they are still living in the present state of existence through the numerous causes already mentioned nor yet when the soul is in a state of separation, because the man cannot be said to exist when the body is dissolved and indeed entirely scattered abroad,1 even though the soul continue by itself, it is absolutely necessary2 that the end of a man's being should appear in some reconstitution of the two together and of the same living being.3
1. According to the author, man cannot exist without the body. Yet, if consciousness exists in the immortal soul, then the uniqueness of the individual does, in fact, continue, albeit without a body.
2. The author attempts to convince the unwary reader that ‘necessity’, or being indispensable, is a valid argument for the resurrection.
3. Man ‘should appear in some reconstitution of’ the soul and body. Of course, the appearance of ‘some reconstitution’ is not identical to an actual reconstitution.
2. The author attempts to convince the unwary reader that ‘necessity’, or being indispensable, is a valid argument for the resurrection.
3. Man ‘should appear in some reconstitution of’ the soul and body. Of course, the appearance of ‘some reconstitution’ is not identical to an actual reconstitution.
Sentence 175
And as this follows of necessity, there must by all means be a resurrection of the bodies which are dead or even entirely dissolved and the same men must be formed anew, since the law of nature ordains the end not absolutely, nor as the end of any men whatsoever, but of the same men who passed through the previous life,1 but it is impossible for the same men to be reconstituted unless the same bodies are restored to the same souls.2
1. The addition of ‘previous’ to life seems extraneous, as ‘the same men who passed through life’ is easily understood, but the wording has a different interpretation as ‘the same men who passed through the previous life’.
2. The author argues that the same bodies must be restored to the same souls, otherwise there would be no resurrection. However, in the previous sentence, the author is satisfied if man ‘should appear in some reconstitution’ of the body and soul.
2. The author argues that the same bodies must be restored to the same souls, otherwise there would be no resurrection. However, in the previous sentence, the author is satisfied if man ‘should appear in some reconstitution’ of the body and soul.
Sentence 176
But that the same soul should obtain the same body is impossible in any other way and possible only by the resurrection, for if this takes place, an end befitting the nature of men follows also.1
1. The continued insistence by the author for the deceased to posses the ‘same body’ as the the only valid body for the resurrection can be understood as either thoroughness or dissimulation. We suggest that a similar body will suffice for the resurrection, as the terrestrial body will be changed into a divine body [vide theosis].
Sentence 177
And we shall make no mistake in saying, that the final cause of an intelligent life and rational judgment, is to be occupied uninterruptedly with those objects to which the natural reason is chiefly and primarily adapted, and to delight unceasingly in the contemplation of Him who is and of His decrees, notwithstanding that the majority of men, because they are affected too passionately and too violently by things below, pass through life without attaining this object.1
1. Most men are too involved in the physical word, ‘by things below’, to ‘delight unceasingly in the contemplation of Him who is’, otherwise said, most people are distracted by material things and cannot take pleasure in pondering the ineffable essence of God.
Sentence 178
For the large number of those who fail of the end that belongs to them does not make void the common lot, since the examination relates to individuals and the reward or punishment of lives ill or well spent is proportioned to the merit of each.
‘For not one of the ‘Fathers’ has said that our hope is to be place in Christ’s merits;
neither in epistles nor tractates, nor in discourses to the people, nor in disputations,
nowhere in fact does that dictum occur…
The hiding of so great a matter, what is it but a denial of it?’
-Jean Hardouin
Appendix
How to write like a 'Church Father'
How to write like a 'Church Father'
accordance
accordant accordingly after also although as as as |
noun
adjective adverb preposition adverb. conjunction adverb conjunction preposition |
conformity or agreement.
agreeing or compatible. consequently; therefore. in the time following (an event or another period of time). in addition; too. in spite of the fact that; even though. used in comparisons to refer to the extent or degree of something. used to indicate that something happens during the time when used to refer to the function or character that someone or something has. |
because
besides besides but |
conjuction
prepostion adverb conjunction ‘ |
for the reason that; since.
in addition to; apart from. in addition; as well. used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned. |
could
either either even even if even though evident |
verb
adverb conjunction adverb phrase phrase adjective |
used to indicate possibility.
used before the first of two (or occasionally more) alternatives that are being specified (the other being introduced by “or”). used before the first of two (or occasionally more) alternatives that are being specified (the other being introduced by “or”). used to emphasize something surprising or extreme. despite the possibility that; no matter whether. despite the fact that. plain or obvious; clearly seen or understood. |
for
for for for |
preposition
preposition preposition preposition |
with the object or purpose of.
intended to belong to, or be used in connection with. suiting the purposes or needs of. in order to obtain, gain, or acquire. |
hence
if impossible inasmuch indeed indeed indeed irrational |
adverb
conjunction adjective conjunction adverb adverb adverb adjective. |
as a consequence; for this reason.
that introduces a conditional clause ‘on the condition or supposition that; in the event that. not able to occur, exist, or be done. in the degree that, insofar as, in view of the fact that, since. used to emphasize a statement or response confirming something already suggested. used to introduce a further and stronger or more surprising point. used to emphasize a statement or response confirming something already suggested. not logical or reasonable. |
lest
may moreover must must |
conjunction
verb adverb verb verb |
with the intention of preventing (something undesirable); to avoid the risk of.
expressing possibility. as a further matter; besides. expressing an opinion about something that is logically very likely. be obliged to; should (expressing necessity). |
namely
neither nonetheless nor not not not even notwithstanding notwithstanding notwithstanding |
adverb
adverb adverb conjunction adverb adverb adverb conjunction preposition adverb |
that is to say; to be specific (used to introduce detailed information or a specific example).
used before the first of two (or occasionally more) alternatives that are being specified (the others being introduced by “nor”) to indicate that they are each untrue or each do not happen. in spite of that; nevertheless. used before the second or further of two or more alternatives (the first being introduced by a negative such as “neither” or “not”) to indicate that they are each untrue or each do not happen.’ used as a short substitute for a negative clause. used with an auxiliary verb or “be” to form the negative. introduces or constitutes a more emphatic negation or exclusion than "not". although; in spite of the fact that. in spite of. nevertheless; in spite of this. |
of course
on the contrary or or opinion otherwise |
phrase
phrase conjunction conjunction noun adverb |
‘used to introduce an idea or turn of events as being obvious or to be expected.’
used to intensify a denial of what has just been implied or stated by suggesting that the opposite is the case. used to link alternatives. introducing a synonym or explanation of a preceding word or phrase. a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. in circumstances different from those present or considered; or else’ or ‘in other respects; apart from that.’ |
perhaps
possible probable proof proposition quite |
67adverb
11adjective 49adjective 7noun 50adverb |
used to express uncertainty or possibility.
able to be done; within the power or capacity of someone or something. likely to be the case or to happen. evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion. to the utmost or most absolute extent or degree; absolutely; completely. |
seem
since so so long as so long that so that some sometimes suppose supposition surely |
verb
conjunction conjunction phrase phrase clause determiner adverb verb noun adverb |
‘the impression or sensation of being something or having a particular quality’ and can be ‘used to make a statement ... less assertive or forceful.’
for the reason that; because. and for this reason; therefore. provided that. 'in order that, with the result that’ and ‘in such a way that, with the intent that.' expresses goal or purpose. an unspecified number or amount of people or things. occasionally, rather than all of the time. assume that something is the case on the basis of evidence or probability but without proof or certain knowledge.’ an uncertain belief. used to emphasize the speaker's firm belief that what they are saying is true. |
then
therefore thus to wit true unless |
adverb
adverb adverb phrase adjective conjunction |
after that; next; afterward.
‘for that reason; consequently.’ ‘as a result or consequence of this; therefore.’ that is to say, namely. in accordance with fact or reality. except if (used to introduce the case in which a statement being made is not true or valid). |
when
whereas whether which while while wish yet |
conjunction
conjunction conjunction pronoun conjunction conjunction verb conjunction |
at or during the time that.
in contrast or comparison with the fact that. ‘expressing a doubt or choice between alternatives’, or ‘expressing an inquiry or investigation (often used in indirect questions)’, or ‘indicating that a statement applies whichever of the alternatives mentioned is the case.’ used referring to something previously mentioned when introducing a clause giving further information. during the time that; at the same time as. whereas (indicating a contrast). feel or express a strong desire or hope for something that is not easily attainable; want something that cannot or probably will not happen. but at the same time; but nevertheless.’ |