On the Resurrection of the Dead 11

If each of the points examined has been demonstrated from what is first by nature and from what follows from it, it is clear that the resurrection of bodies that have been dissolved is possible, willed by God, and a work worthy of the Creator; for these arguments have shown that the contrary is false and that the unbelievers are unreasonable. Why need I speak of how each of these three implies the others and of their connection with one another? If indeed one should speak of connection, as though they were separated by some difference, and should not rather say that what is possible is also willed, and that what God wills is certainly possible and in keeping with the dignity of the one who wills it. That the argument setting out the truth is one thing and the argument defending the truth another has been adequately explained above: how each differs, and when and for whom each is useful. But perhaps nothing prevents us, for the sake of the general soundness of the argument and of the connection between what has been said and what remains, from making a fresh start from these very points and what belongs to them. To the one argument belongs the first place by nature; to the other, to escort the first, prepare its way, and clear out of its path whatever obstructs it or makes it steep. The argument setting out the truth, being necessary to all human beings for their security and salvation, stands first by nature, by order, and by usefulness: by nature, as providing knowledge of things; by order, as existing in and together with the things it makes known; by usefulness, as the source of security and salvation for those who know it. The argument defending the truth is inferior by nature and power, since it is a lesser thing to refute falsehood than to establish truth; and second in order, since its strength is directed against those who hold false opinions, and false opinion grew up from a later sowing and corruption. Yet even so it is often put first and is sometimes more useful, since it removes and clears away beforehand the unbelief that troubles some, and the doubt or false opinion of those who are just coming to the faith. Both are directed to one end, for both the argument that refutes falsehood and the one that establishes truth serve piety; yet they are not simply one. The one is necessary, as I said, to all who believe and care about the truth and their own salvation; the other is sometimes more useful for certain people and against certain people. Let this be said in summary, to recall what has been said already. We must now go on to the subject at hand, and show that the teaching about the resurrection is true: from the cause according to which and for which the first human being came into being, and those after him, even though they did not come into being in the same way; from the common nature of all human beings as human beings; and further, from the judgment their Maker will pass on them for the time each of them lived and the laws by which each conducted himself, a judgment no one would dispute is just.