On the Resurrection of the Dead

Tertullian

  1. 1. Defence of the Truth Should Precede Discussions Regarding It.
  2. 2. A Resurrection is Not Impossible
  3. 3. He Who Could Create, Can Also Raise Up the Dead
  4. 4. Objection from the Fact that Some Human Bodies Have Become Part of Others
  5. 5. Reference to the Processes of Digestion and Nutrition
  6. 6. Everything that is Useless or Hurtful is Rejected
  7. 7. The Resurrection-Body Different from the Present
  8. 8. Human Flesh Not the Proper or Natural Food of Men
  9. 9. Absurdity of Arguing from Man's Impotency
  10. 10. It Cannot Be Shown that God Does Not Will a Resurrection
  11. 11. Recapitulation
  12. 12. Argument for the Resurrection /rom the Purpose Contemplated in Man's Creation
  13. 13. Continuation of the Argument
  14. 14. The Resurrection Does Not Rest Solely on the Fact of a Future Judgment
  15. 15. Argument for the Resurrection from the Nature of Man
  16. 16. Analogy of Death and Sleep, and Consequent Argument for the Resurrection
  17. 17. The Series of Changes We Can Now Trace in Man Renders a Resurrection Probable
  18. 18. Judgment Must Have Reference Both to Soul and Body: There Will Therefore Be a Resurrection
  19. 19. Man Would Be More Unfavourably Situated Than the Beasts If There Were No Resurrection
  20. 20. Man Must Be Possessed Both of a Body and Soul Hereafter, that the Judgment Passed Upon Him May Be Just
  21. 21. Continuation of the Argument
  22. 22. Continuation of the Argument
  23. 23. Continuation of the Argument
  24. 24. Argument for the Resurrection from the Chief End of Man
  25. 25. Argument Continued and Concluded

By the side of every opinion and doctrine which agrees with the truth of things, 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 it is invented on purpose by men who set a value on the spurious seed, for its tendency to corrupt the truth. This is apparent, in the first place, from those who in former times 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. 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 which follow by a regular and strict sequence from these, and delineate for us the doctrines of piety. On the contrary, some of them 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. 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. Accordingly it behooves 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, to disregard fitness and the place which properly belongs to each topic. For, so far as proof and the natural order are concerned, dissertations concerning the truth always take precedence of those in defense of it; but, for the purpose of greater utility, the order must be reversed, and arguments in defense of it precede those concerning it. 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 stop that which was approaching. 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. 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. For in rega