Übersetzung ausblenden
De la chair de Jesus-Christ

I.

Ceux qui, cherchant à ébranler la foi à la résurrection, que l'on avait crue fermement jusqu'à ces modernes Sadducéens, prétendent que cette espérance n'appartient point à la chair, ont raison de mettre en question la chair de Jésus-Christ, et de soutenir ou qu'elle n'existe pas, ou qu'elle est tout autre chose que la chair de l'homme. Ils craignent que s'il est prouvé une fois que cette chair est semblable à la nôtre, il n'en sorte contre eux la présomption que cette chair, ressuscitée en Jésus-Christ, ressuscitera infailliblement dans les hommes. Il faut donc soutenir la réalité de la chair avec les mêmes arguments qui servent à la renverser. Examinons quelle est la substance corporelle du Seigneur. Quant à sa substance spirituelle, tout le monde est d'accord. Il ne s'agit que de sa chair. On dispute de sa vérité, de sa nature, de son existence, de son principe, de ses qualités. Sa réalité deviendra le gage de notre résurrection. Marcion, voulant nier la chair du Christ, a nié aussi sa naissance: ou, voulant nier sa naissance, a nié également sa chair, sans doute de peur que la naissance et la chair ne se rendissent témoignage dans leur mutuelle correspondance, puisqu'il n'y a point de naissance sans la chair, ni de chair sans la naissance! Comme si, en vertu des droits que s'arroge l'hérésie, il n'avait pas pu, ou nier la naissance en |390 admettant la chair, ainsi que l'a fait Apelles, son disciple, et depuis son déserteur; ou bien, tout en confessant la chair et la naissance, leur donner une autre interprétation, avec Valentin, autre disciple et déserteur de Marcion. Mais qui a pu soutenir le premier, que la chair de Jésus-Christ était imaginaire, a bien pu supposer aussi que sa naissance n'était qu'un fantôme; de même que la conception, la grossesse, l'enfantement d'une vierge, et successivement toute la vie de cet enfant, une chimère. Toutes ces circonstances auraient trompé les mêmes yeux et les mêmes sens qu'avait déjà fermés l'illusion de la chair.

Übersetzung ausblenden
On the Flesh of Christ

Chapter I.--The General Purport of This Work. The Heretics, Marcion, Apelles, and Valentinus, Wishing to Impugn the Doctrine of the Resurrection, Deprive Christ of All Capacity for Such a Change by Denying His Flesh.

They who are so anxious to shake that belief in the resurrection which was firmly settled ¹ before the appearance of our modern Sadducees, ² as even to deny that the expectation thereof has any relation whatever to the flesh, have great cause for besetting the flesh of Christ also with doubtful questions, as if it either had no existence at all, or possessed a nature altogether different from human flesh. For they cannot but be apprehensive that, if it be once determined that Christ's flesh was human, a presumption would immediately arise in opposition to them, that that flesh must by all means rise again, which has already risen in Christ. Therefore we shall have to guard our belief in the resurrection ³ from the same armoury, whence they get their weapons of destruction. Let us examine our Lord's bodily substance, for about His spiritual nature all are agreed. ⁴ It is His flesh that is in question. Its verity and quality are the points in dispute. Did it ever exist? whence was it derived? and of what kind was it? If we succeed in demonstrating it, we shall lay down a law for our own resurrection. Marcion, in order that he might deny the flesh of Christ, denied also His nativity, or else he denied His flesh in order that he might deny His nativity; because, of course, he was afraid that His nativity and His flesh bore mutual testimony to each other's reality, since there is no nativity without flesh, and no flesh without nativity. As if indeed, under the prompting of that licence which is ever the same in all heresy, he too might not very well have either denied the nativity, although admitting the flesh,--like Apelles, who was first a disciple of his, and afterwards an apostate,--or, while admitting both the flesh and the nativity, have interpreted them in a different sense, as did Valentinus, who resembled Apelles both in his discipleship and desertion of Marcion. At all events, he who represented the flesh of Christ to be imaginary was equally able to pass off His nativity as a phantom; so that the virgin's conception, and pregnancy, and child-bearing, and then the whole course ⁵ of her infant too, would have to be regarded as putative. ⁶ These facts pertaining to the nativity of Christ would escape the notice of the same eyes and the same senses as failed to grasp the full idea ⁷ of His flesh.