Quest. LXXXVII. What are we to believe concerning the resurrection?

Answ. We are to believe, that at the last day there shall be a general resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust; when they that are then found alive, shall, in a moment, be changed; and the self-same bodies of the dead which were laid in the grave, being then again united to their souls for ever, shall be raised up by the power of Christ; the bodies of the just, by the Spirit of Christ, and by virtue of his resurrection, as their head, shall be raised in power, spiritual, incorruptible, and made like to his glorious body; and the bodies of the wicked shall be raised up in dishonour, by him, as an offended Judge.

In the foregoing answers, we have considered the soul and body as separated by death, the body turned to corruption, and the soul immediately entering into a state of happiness or misery; and are now led to insist on the doctrine of the resurrection, when these two constituent parts of man shall be reunited. And accordingly we shall endeavour,

I. To explain what we are to understand by the resurrection of the dead.

II. We shall prove that there is nothing in this doctrine contrary to reason, at least, if we consider it as a supernatural and divine work.

III. We shall farther observe, that this doctrine could not be known by the light of nature; and therefore we believe it as founded in divine revelation.

IV. What arguments are contained in scripture for the proof thereof; some of which might be taken from the Old Testament, and others from the New, in which it is more clearly revealed.

V. We shall answer some of the most material objections brought against it.

VI. We shall consider it as universal, as it is here styled a general resurrection of the dead, from the beginning of time to Christ’s second coming; yet with this exception, that they who are found alive shall be changed. And,

VII. The condition in which the body shall be raised; and those circumstances of honour and glory, which respect, more especially, the resurrection of the just. And, on the other hand, we shall consider the resurrection of the wicked, as being in dishonour, by Christ, as an offended Judge.

I. What are we to understand by the resurrection of the dead. We sometimes find the word taken, in scripture, in a metaphorical sense, for God’s doing those things for his church, which could not be brought about any otherwise than by his extraordinary and supernatural power. Sometimes the work of regeneration is set forth by this figurative way of speaking; whereby they who are dead in trespasses and sins, are said to be quickened; and our Saviour speaks of this when he says, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live, John v. 25. But we are to understand it in a proper sense, as denoting that change which shall pass upon the body, when it shall be delivered from the state of corruption, into which it was brought at death, and reunited to the soul; which is distinguished in a following verse, from this metaphorical sense of it, when he says, All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation, ver. 28. This includes in it not barely the repairing, but the rebuilding the frame of nature; which was not only decayed, but dissolved in death; or the gathering together those particles of matter, of which the body was before constituted; which was not only turned into corruption, but common dust; whereby a new body, as to the form and qualities thereof, is erected out of its old materials; otherwise it could not be called a resurrection. It is said, indeed, that the body shall not, in all respects, be the same that it was when separated from the soul; as the apostle compares to a grain of wheat sown in the ground, which, when it springs up, is not altogether the same as it was before; for God giveth it a body,^[153] as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body, 1 Cor. xv. 37, 38. It is the same for substance, as it consists of the same materials, but very different as to its qualities; as will be farther considered, when we speak concerning the condition of the body when raised from the dead; and as it is raised with a design that it should be re-united to the soul, which will immediately follow upon it; and this union shall be indissoluble and eternal.

II. We shall now consider that there is nothing contrary to reason, or impossible, from the nature of the thing, which might have a tendency to overthrow this doctrine; especially if we consider it as a supernatural and divine work, brought about by the almighty power of God.

If we look no farther than the power of natural causes, we may conclude it to be impossible for a creature to effect, as much as it was at first to produce the body of man out of the dust of the ground; but this is not impossible with God: He that gave life and being to all things; and, by his sovereign will, puts a period to that life, which had been, for some time continued by his power and providence, can give a new life to it; especially if there be nothing in this work that renders it unmeet for it to be performed by him.

That there is nothing in the nature of the thing that renders a resurrection impossible, appears, in that death, though it be a dissolution of the frame of nature, does not annihilate the body. If the body, indeed, were annihilated at death, then it would be impossible, or contrary to the nature of things, that there should be a resurrection thereof; since the bringing it again into a state of existence would be a new creation; which, though it would not be too great a work for omnipotency, yet it could not be styled a resurrection, or restoring the same body to life that was separated from the soul, to which it was once united. But when we suppose that the matter of which the body consisted is still in being, and nothing is necessary to the raising it from the dead but the recollecting the various particles thereof, and forming it again into a body, fitted to receive the soul: this is not in its own nature impossible; nor does it infer a contradiction, so as that we should argue from thence, that it cannot be brought about by divine power.

That this may more fully appear, let it be considered, that nothing which God has brought into being, can be annihilated, but by an act of his will; since nothing can defeat or disannul his providence, which upholdeth all things that were brought into being by the word of his power. It is also certain, that God has given us no ground to conclude that any part of his material creation has been, or shall be turned into nothing; from whence it follows, that the particles of all the bodies of men, that once lived in this world, though turned to corruption or dust, are as much in being as ever they were, though not in the same form.

Again, it is certain that God, who made and upholdeth all things, has a perfect knowledge of that which is the object of his power, since his understanding is infinite: therefore he knows where the scattered dust, or the smallest particles of matter that once constituted the bodies of men, are reserved: and when we speak of a resurrection from the dead, we understand hereby the gathering them together, and disposing them in such a way as that new bodies shall be framed out of them: therefore, though this could not be done by any but God, it is not impossible, from the nature of the thing, for him to do it; and that he will do it will be considered, when we come more directly to the proof of this doctrine. We shall therefore proceed,

III. To consider it as a matter of pure revelation, such as we could not have known by the light of nature, without the assistance of scripture-light. Something, indeed, might be known by reason concerning the immortality of the soul, and its being not only capable of happiness or misery in a future state, but dealt with therein according to its behaviour in this world: nevertheless, when we enquire into that part, which the body shall bear therein; whether it shall be raised and reunited to the soul, to be for ever a partner with it in what respects its state in another world, or shall remain for ever in a state of corruption; this cannot be known by the light of nature.

There are, indeed, many things which we find in the writings of the Heathen, that discover them to have had some notion of what bears a resemblance to a resurrection: as when they speak concerning the transmigration of souls, or their living in other bodies, when separated from those which they formerly were united to. And others of them speak concerning the general conflagration, and the restoration of all things, immediately after, to their former state, as well as give some hints which are contained in their writings, concerning particular persons that have been raised from the dead, at least, pretended to have been so. What we find of this nature therein, very much resembles the fabulous account we have in the Popish legends of miracles, said to have been wrought, though without proof: thus we are told of one Aristeas, the Proconnesian, who had a power of expiring and returning to life at pleasure, and relating what he had seen in a separate state.^[154] The same is reported of one Hermotimus of Clazomena.^[155] But the most famous story of this kind, is what is related by Plato,^[156] and transcribed from him by Eusebius,^[157] concerning one Er, the son of Armenius; who, after he was slain in battle, and had continued ten days among other dead bodies, was brought home to his house; and two days after, being laid on his funeral pile, came to life again: this Plato, while he is relating it, calls little better than a fable.^[158] And it was treated by others with ridicule, how much soever believed by some who regarded reports more than solid evidence of the truth thereof.

I might also mention others, who are said, by Heathen writers to have been translated into heaven in their bodies and souls^[159]: Which might take its first rise from what they had received by tradition, concerning the translation of Enoch and Elijah; as the stories of those that were raised from the dead might be first invented by them with this view, that their religion might have as great reputation as that of the Jews.

But notwithstanding these particular instances related by them, of some translated, or others raised from the dead; there were very few of them that believed the doctrine of the resurrection; and some treated it with as much contempt as we do the before-mentioned account which they give of particular persons raised from the dead^[160]. This agrees very well with what we read in scripture, concerning the treatment the apostle Paul met with, when he encountered the Epicureans and Stoicks at Athens, preaching to them Jesus and the resurrection, Acts xvii. 18. upon which occasion they call him babbler; and insinuated that he seemed to be a setter forth of strange gods. Oecumenius and Chrysostom think, that they supposed he reckoned the resurrection among the gods^[161], as well as Jesus, whose divinity he doubtless maintained; but whether they were so stupid as thus to wrest his words, is not material. It is no wonder to find the Epicureans treating this doctrine with ridicule; for they, denying the immortality of the soul, could not entertain the least idea of the resurrection of the body in any sense: Whereas the Stoicks, though they did not own the doctrine of the resurrection, yet they could not think it so strange a doctrine as some others might do; since they held that the soul, after death, continued at least, as long as the body; and they knew very well, that many of the philosophers strenuously maintained the transmigration of souls; and, indeed, this was held by many of them, as well as the Platonists and Pythagoreans; and therefore the resurrection, though it differed from it, could not seem so strange and unheard of a notion, as that they should reckon it among the gods: However, it plainly appears from hence that this doctrine could not be learned by the light of nature; whatever confused ideas the Heathen might have entertained by tradition, concerning it.

Therefore it follows from hence, that we must look for a satisfactory account hereof from scripture: Thus when the Sadducees put a stupid question to our Saviour concerning the woman that had seven husbands, which successively died; and they would know whose wife she should be in the resurrection; by which they designed to express their opposition to this doctrine, rather than a desire of information as to the question proposed: Our Saviour in his reply to them refers them to the scriptures, Matt. xxii 29. as the fountain from whence a clear and satisfactory knowledge of this doctrine is to be derived as well as from the power of God. This divine perfection argues the possibility thereof, the justice and goodness of God, its expediency; but the scriptures, which contain a revelation of his will, represent it as certain; and this leads us to consider some arguments that are contained in, or deduced from scripture for the proof thereof; and here we shall consider,

1. Those proofs which we have for it, taken from the Old Testament. These I chuse first to insist on, because I am sensible there are many who think, that the church knew nothing of it, till it was revealed, by our Saviour, in the New Testament: This very much detracts from the importance of the doctrine, as well as renders the state of those who lived before Christ’s incarnation, very uncomfortable, since the saints, according to this opinion, must have had no hope of a glorious resurrection to eternal life. This notion is defended by many who extend the darkness of the dispensation farther than what is convenient; and among others, it is generally maintained by the Socinians, probably with this design, that since according to them, our Saviour had little else in view, in coming into the world, but to lead men into the knowledge of some things which they were ignorant of before; this might be reckoned one of those doctrines that he came to communicate. Thus Volkelius denies that there were any promises of eternal life made to the church under the Old Testament; and concludes that there was no one who had the least surmise that any such doctrine was contained in those scriptures which we commonly bring from thence to prove it^[162]. And to give countenance to this opinion, several quotations are often taken from Jewish writers, since our Saviour’s time, who either speak doubtfully of this matter, or give occasion to think that they did not understand those scriptures which establish the doctrine of the resurrection in the Old Testament, as having any reference to it.

Therefore it may not be amiss for us to enquire; what were the sentiments of some of the Jews about this matter? Every one knows that there was one sect amongst them, namely, the Sadducees, who distinguished themselves from others by denying it: And Josephus gives the largest account of any one, concerning another sect, to wit, the Essens, who affected to lead a recluse life, in their respective colleges, and were governed by laws peculiar to themselves: Among other things which he relates concerning their conduct and sentiments, he says, that it was an opinion established among them, that the bodies of men were corruptible, and the matter of which they were compounded, not perpetual; though the soul remained for ever: And then he represents them as speaking, according to the Pythagorean and Platonick way, concerning the body’s being the prison of the soul, and its remaining when released from it, and of the soul’s dwelling in a pleasant place, and enjoying many things that tend to make it happy, &c.^[163]. Nevertheless, his account of them is so short, and the expression on which the whole stress of this supposition is founded, a little ambiguous, namely, that the bodies of men are corruptible, and their matter not perpetual, which may be understood as agreeing with the common faith concerning man’s mortality, and the body’s turning to corruption, and not remaining in the same state in which it was; that it seems to leave the matter doubtful, whether they asserted or denied the resurrection. It is also supposed, that Philo denied this doctrine from several passages observed in his writings, which a late learned writer takes notice of^[164]; but this is only the opinion of a single person, who, according to his general character, seems to be halting between two opinions, to wit, the doctrine of Moses, and the philosophy of Plato; and therefore I take his sentiments, about this, to be nothing else but an affection of thinking or speaking agreeably to the Platonic philosophy, which had probably given such a tincture to his notions, that he might deny the resurrection. And if the Essens, before-mentioned, should be allowed to have denied it, they received it from their attachment to the same, or, at least, the Pythagorean philosophy: But we cannot from hence conclude that the doctrine of the resurrection was denied by the main body of the Jews, or the greatest part of them; or by any, excepting those who were led out of the way, by the writings of the philosophers: Which gave occasion to the apostle Paul to warn the church to beware of philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ, Col. ii. 8. as foreseeing that some of them, in after-ages, would, in many respects, corrupt the doctrines of the gospel, by accommodating them to, or explaining them by what they found in the writings of the Heathen philosophers, as Origen, Justin Martyr, and some others did; and he seems to take the hint from what had been before observed relating to the corruption of the Jewish faith, by those who were attached to them. Thus concerning the opinion of those Jews, who are supposed to deny the doctrine of the resurrection.

On the other hand, there are several Rabbinical writers, who sufficiently intimate their belief of this doctrine; though it is true, some of them infer it from such premises, as discover great weakness in their method of reasoning. Thus the learned bishop Pearson observes, that they produce several places out of Moses’s writings, which when the resurrection is believed, may, in some kind, serve to illustrate it, but can, in no degree, be thought to reveal so great a mystery^[165]. And Dr. Lightfoot produces other proofs, which they bring for this doctrine, as little to the purpose^[166], of which all the use that can be made is, that we may from hence observe, that they believed the doctrine we are maintaining, to be contained in scripture. Whether they were able to defend it by shewing the force of those arguments on which it is founded therein or no, is not much to our present purpose, my design in referring to their writings being to prove that this doctrine was embraced by the Jews, in the ages before, as well as since our Saviour’s time. It is true, the Talmud, and other writings, which are generally quoted for the proof of it, are of later date, and the most ancient of the Chaldee paraphrases now extant, is supposed to have been written about that time, or, at least, but little before it: And there are no uninspired writings, relating to the Jewish affairs, more ancient, except those which we generally call Apocryphal; which most suppose to have been written about 150 years before the Christian Æra. And it is very evident, that about that time the doctrine of the resurrection was believed by the Jewish church; as the author of the book of Maccabees, in the history of the martyrdom of the seven brethren in the reign of Antiochus^[167], represents some of them in the agonies of death, as expressing the firm belief they had of a resurrection to eternal life; their mother, in the mean while, encouraging them from the same consideration. These, as it is more than probable, the apostle includes in the number of those noble Old Testament worthies who were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection, Heb. xi. 35. which is an undeniable evidence that the church at that time believed the doctrine of the resurrection.

All that I shall add under this head is, that how weak soever the reasoning of some Jewish writers, concerning this subject, has been, there are others who give substantial proofs from the Old Testament; which not only argues that they believed it, but that their belief proceeded from a just conviction of the truth thereof. And they give the same sense of some of those scriptures which are generally produced for the proof hereof, as we do^[168].

The first scripture that we shall take notice of, is what contains the vision mentioned in Ezek. xxxvii. 1, & seq. concerning the valley which was full of bones, which were very dry: Upon which occasion God says, Son of man, Can these bones live? to which he replies, O Lord God, thou knowest. And afterwards we read of God’s laying sinews, and bringing up flesh upon them, covering them with skin, and putting breath into them; and their being hereupon restored to life. I am sensible that they who are on the other side of the question, pretend that this is no proof of a resurrection; because the design thereof was to illustrate and make way for the prediction mentioned in the following verses, concerning the deliverance of God’s people from the Babylonish captivity: But that which seems to have its weight with me is, that God would never have made use of a similitude to lead them into this doctrine, taken from a thing which they had no manner of idea of: But if we suppose that they believed that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, agreeable to the literal sense of the words here made use of to illustrate it, then the argument taken from thence is plain and easy, q. d. as certainly as you have ground to believe that the dead shall be raised at the last day (which though it could not be brought about by any natural means, yet it shall be effected by the power of God;) so your deliverance, how unlikely soever it may appear to those who look no farther than second causes, shall come to pass by God’s extraordinary power and providence, which will be as life from the dead.

And whereas it is farther objected, that when God asked the prophet, whether these dry bones could live? He seems to be in doubt about it; which argues that he had no idea of the resurrection of the dead. To this it may be replied, that his doubt respected an event that should immediately ensue; he knew that God could put life into these bones; but whether he would do it now or no, he could not tell: Therefore it does not contain any disbelief of the doctrine of the resurrection at the last day; and, indeed, this scripture, how little soever it may seem to some to make for the doctrine we are maintaining, is alleged by others, as an undeniable proof of it. Tertullian expressly says, that this would have been a very insignificant vision, if this doctrine were not true^[169]. And Jerome speaks to the same purpose, supposing that God would never illustrate any truth which they were in doubt of, by a similitude taken from an incredible fiction^[170]. And Menasseh Ben Israel, a learned Jew, supposes this text to be an express and infallible proof of the resurrection; which plainly argues that he thought the Jews, in former ages, were convinced of this doctrine thereby^[171].

But supposing this scripture be not reckoned sufficient to evince the truth of this doctrine, there is another which has more weight in it, viz. that in Job xix. 25-27. I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though, after my skin, worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another, though my reins be consumed within me. Job, as is generally supposed, lived in Moses’ time; therefore, if it can be made appear that he professes his faith in the doctrine of the resurrection, we may conclude that the church was acquainted with it in the early ages thereof; and nothing seems more evident, from the plain sense of the words, than that he here professes his faith in, and encourages himself from the hope of future blessedness, both in soul and body, at Christ’s second coming in the last day.

It is with a great deal of difficulty that they who deny this doctrine, are obliged to account for the sense of this text, so as to evade the force of the argument taken from thence to prove it. These suppose that Job intends nothing hereby but a firm persuasion which he had, that he should be recovered from that state of misery in which he then was, which not only affected his mind, but his body, as it was smitten with sore boils, from the sole of his foot unto his crown, Job ii. 7. his flesh being clothed with worms, and his skin broken and become loathsome, chap. vii. 5. and accordingly he says, I shall be redeemed from this affliction, and brought into a happy state before I die; and so they suppose that the words are to be taken in a metaphorical sense; and therefore do not prove the doctrine of the resurrection. But this will appear to be a very great perversion of the sense of this text, if we consider,

1. In how solemn a manner he brings it in, in the verses immediately foregoing. Oh that my words were now written! Oh that they were printed in a book! that they were graven with an iron pen and lead, in the rock for ever! Which seems to import that he had something to communicate, that was of far greater moment than the account of his deliverance from the afflictions he was under in this world. Therefore it seems more agreeable to understand the sense of the words, as denoting that great and important truth, in which all believers are concerned, relating to Christ’s second coming, and the happiness that his saints shall then enjoy in soul and body; this deserves to be writ with a pen of iron, that it may be transmitted to all generations. But,

2. It is evident that he is here speaking of something that should be done, not whilst he lived, but in the end of time; for he considers his Redeemer, as standing in the latter day upon the earth. The person whom he here speaks of as his Redeemer, is, doubtless, our Saviour, who is frequently described, both in the Old and New-Testament, under that character: And, if at any time God the Father is called the Redeemer of his people, it may farther be observed that he is never said in redeeming them to make himself visible to their bodily eyes, or to stand upon the earth, much less to do this in the latter or last day, in which Christ is said to come again in a visible manner, to raise the dead and judge the world: And this Job intends when he says, In my flesh shall I see God, whom I shall see for myself and mine eyes shall behold, and not another.

3. It is evident also that he intends hereby something that should befal him after his death, and not barely a deliverance from his present misery in this world; for he speaks of his skin or body as devoured by worms, and his reins consumed within him; which can intend no other than a state of corruption in death.

4. It does not appear that Job had any intimation concerning the change of his condition in this world, before God turned his captivity, having first made him sensible of his error, in uttering that which he understood not, when he testified his reconciliation to his friends, notwithstanding the injuries he had received from them, by praying for them, chap. xlii. 3, 10. And, indeed, he was so far from expecting happiness in this life, that he says, Mine eye shall no more see good, viz. in this world, chap. vii. 7. and hereupon he takes occasion to meditate on his own mortality in the following words; The eye of him that hath seen me shall see me no more; thine eyes are upon me, and I am not: And after this he prays, O that thou wouldst hide me in the grave, chap. xiv. 13. &c. And immediately before he speaks of his Redeemer as living, and the deliverance which he should obtain in the latter day, in the text under our present consideration, he earnestly desires the compassion of his friends: Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, O ye my friends; for the hand of God hath touched me; which does not well agree with the least expectation of a state of happiness in this world; in which case he would not need their pity; he might only have convinced them of the truth thereof, and it would have given a turn to their behaviour towards him; for we find, that, when God blessed his latter end more than his beginning, every one was as ready to comfort him concerning the evil that the Lord had brought upon him, and shew their very great respect to him, by offering him presents, as any were before to reproach him. Therefore upon the whole, it is very evident that Job is not speaking concerning his deliverance from his present evils in this world, but of a perfect deliverance from all evil in the great day of the resurrection: Accordingly we must conclude, that the doctrine of the resurrection is plainly asserted in this scripture; and indeed, Jerome says, that no one who wrote after Christ has more plainly maintained the doctrine of the resurrection than Job does in this scripture, who lived before him^[172].

There is another scripture, by which, if I do not mistake the sense thereof, Job appears to have had a steady faith in the doctrine of the resurrection, and was firmly persuaded concerning his happiness, when raised from the dead, namely, in chap. xiv. 13, 14, 15. in which he says, O! that thou wouldst hide me in the grave, that thou wouldst keep me secret until thy wrath be past; that is, till a full end is put to all the afflictive providences which men are liable to in this present world, namely, till the day of Christ’s second coming; or, that thou wouldst appoint me a set time, and remember me; namely, that thou wouldst deliver me from the evils which I now endure. As to the former of these expedients, to wit, his deliverance by death, that he counts a blessing, because he takes it for granted that if a man die he shall live again, ver. 14.^[173] and therefore says, all the days of my appointed time, that is, not of the appointed time of life, but the time appointed that he should lie in the grave, in which he desired that God would hide him; there, says he, I shall wait, or remain, till my change come, that is, till I am changed from a state of mortality to that of life. And he goes on in the following words, Thou shalt call, that is, by thy power thou shalt raise me, and I will answer thee, or come forth out of my grave; and hereby thou wilt make it known that thou hast a desire to the work of thine hands.

If it be objected to this sense of the words, that Job says, ver. 12. that man lieth down, and riseth not till the heavens be no more; they shall not awake nor be raised out of their sleep; therefore he is so far from expecting relief from his misery in the resurrection, that he seems plainly to deny it. To this I answer, that he doth not deny the doctrine of the resurrection in those words wherein he says that they shall not be raised from the dead, till the heavens be no more; which seems to intimate that he concluded that the dead should rise when the frame of nature was changed, as it will be, at the last day, in which the heavens shall be no more. I confess this sense is not commonly given of these verses, nor any argument drawn from, them to prove a resurrection from the dead; therefore I would not be too tenacious of mine own sense thereof; but I cannot but think it more probable than the common sense that is given of the words, and if so, it may be considered as a proof of the doctrine that we are maintaining.

There is another scripture which plainly proves the doctrine of the resurrection, namely, Dan. xii. 2. Many of them that sleep in the dust shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. This scripture is brought by several Rabbinical writers, as a proof of this doctrine; and the words are so express, that it will be very difficult to evade the force of them; though, it is true, some modern writers, who are ready to conclude that the Old Testament is silent as to the doctrine of the resurrection, take the words in a metaphorical sense, for the deliverance of the church from those grievous persecutions which they were under in the reign of Antiochus; and so sleeping in the dust is taken, by them, for lying in the holes and caves of the earth, the Jews being forced to seek protection there from the fury of the tyrant: But this cannot be properly called sleeping in the dust of the earth; and their deliverance from this persecution is not consistent with the contempt that should be cast on some that were raised out of the dust; nor could the happiness that others enjoyed in this deliverance, be called everlasting life, it being only a temporal salvation, that according to them, is here spoken of; and it must be a straining the metaphor to a great degree, to apply the following words to their wise men and teachers, after this deliverance, that they should shine as the brightness of the firmament; therefore this sense has such difficulties attending it, that every person who is not prepossessed with prejudice must give into the literal sense of the text; and confess that it is an argument to prove the doctrine of the resurrection.

The only difficulty that is pretended to be involved in this sense of the text is its being said, Many of them that sleep in the dust shall awake; whereas the doctrine that we are defending, is that of an universal resurrection. But since we shall have occasion to speak to that under a following head, we shall rather choose to refer it to its proper place, in which, according to our designed method, we are to consider that all who have lived from the beginning to the end of time, shall be raised.

There are other scriptures in the Old Testament that might be brought to prove this doctrine, such as that in Deut. xxxii. 39. in which God says, I kill, and I make alive; and that parallel text, in which the same thing is confessed, and farther explained, by Hannah, in her song, in 1 Sam. ii. 6. The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up. I know that death and life are sometimes taken for good and evil; but why should deliverance from the miseries of this present life be represented by the metaphor of a resurrection, and this attributed to the almighty power of God, if the doctrine of the resurrection was reckoned by the church at that time, no other than a fiction or chimera, as it must be supposed to be if they had no idea of it, as not having received it by divine revelation?

We might, as a farther proof of this doctrine, consider those three instances that we have in the Old Testament of persons raised from the dead, namely, the Shunamite’s child, by the prophet Elisha, 2 Kings iv. 35. and the man who was cast into his sepulchre, that revived and stood on his feet, when he touched his bones, chap. xiii. 21. and the widow of Zarephath’s son, by the prophet Elijah, on which occasion it is said, He cried to the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, I pray thee let this child’s soul come into him again; and accordingly the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived, 1 Kings xvii. 21, 22. From hence we must conclude, that this doctrine was not unknown to the prophet; for if it had, he could not have directed his prayer to God in faith. And these instances of a resurrection of particular persons could not but give occasion to the church at that time, to believe the possibility of a resurrection at the last day; so that it might as reasonably be expected that God will exert his power by raising the dead then, as that he would do it at this time, unless there was something in this possible event contrary to his moral perfections; but the resurrection appeared to them as it doth to all who consider him as the governor of the world, and as distributing rewards and punishments to every one according to their works, as not only agreeable to these perfections, but, in some respects, necessary for the illustration thereof. Therefore we must conclude, that as they had particular instances of a resurrection, which argued the general resurrection possible, they might easily believe that it should be future; which is the doctrine that we are maintaining.

To this we may add, that the patriarch Abraham believed the doctrine of the resurrection; therefore he had it some way or other revealed to him, before the word of God was committed to writing. This appears from what the apostle says when speaking concerning his offering Isaac, that he accounted that God was able to raise him up even from the dead, Heb. xi. 19. From hence it is evident that he was verily persuaded when he bound him to the altar, and lifted up his hand to slay him, that God would suffer him to do it, otherwise it had been no trial of his faith, so that his being prevented from laying his hand on him was an unexpected providence. Now how could he solve the difficulty that would necessarily ensue hereupon; had he expected that God would give him another seed instead of Isaac, that would not have been an accomplishment of the promise which was given to him, namely, that in Isaac his seed should be called; therefore the only thing that he depended on, was, that when he had offered him, God would raise him from the dead, and by this means fulfil the promise that was made to him concerning the numerous seed that should descend from him; therefore it cannot be supposed that Abraham was a stranger to the doctrine of the resurrection.

There are other scriptures by which it appears that the doctrine of the resurrection was revealed to the church under the Old Testament dispensation, either from the sense of the words themselves, or the explication thereof in the New, which refers to them: thus it is said in Psal. xvi. 10. Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption; which the apostle Peter quotes to prove the resurrection of Christ, in Acts ii. 24-27. If David therefore knew that the Messiah should be raised from the dead (which, as will be considered under a following head, is a glorious proof of the doctrine of the resurrection of the saints) we cannot suppose that he was a stranger to this doctrine himself.

Again, it is said in Isa. xxv. 8. He will swallow up death in victory; and this is mentioned immediately after a prediction of the glorious provision, which God would make for his people under the gospel-dispensation, which is called, by a metaphorical way of speaking, ver. 6. A feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined; and of the gospel’s being preached to the Gentiles, ver. 7. which is expressed by his destroying the face of covering, and the veil that was spread over all nations: therefore it may well be supposed to contain a prediction of something consequent thereupon, namely, the general resurrection: and there is another scripture to the same purpose, viz. Hos. xiii. 14. I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plague; O grave, I will be thy destruction; and both these scriptures are referred to by the apostle, as what shall be fulfilled in the resurrection of the dead; when he says, Then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory: O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 1 Cor. xv. 54, 55. Therefore we cannot but think that the prophets, and the church in their day, understood the words in the same sense.

There is another scripture in the Old Testament, in which the premises are laid down, from whence the conclusion is drawn in the New for the proof of this doctrine, namely, when God revealed himself to Moses, Exod. iii. 6. which our Saviour refers to, and proves the doctrine of the resurrection from, against the Sadducees. Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: for he is not the God of the dead, but of the living, Luke xx. 37, 38. which argument was so convincing, that certain of the Scribes, said, in the following words, Master, thou hast well said; and after that, they, that is, the Sadducees, durst not ask him any question at all; so that it silenced, if it did not convince them. There are some, indeed, who, though they conclude that it is a very strong proof of the immortality of the soul, which the Sadducees denied, since that which does not exist cannot be the subject of a promise; yet, they cannot see how the resurrection can be proved from it; whereas it is brought, by our Saviour, for that purpose: therefore, that the force of this argument may appear, we must consider what is the import of the promise contained in this covenant, that God would be the God of Abraham; which is explained elsewhere, when he told him, I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward, Gen. xv. 1. He was therefore given hereby to expect, at the hand of God, all the spiritual and saving blessings of the covenant of grace; but these blessings respect not only the soul, but the body; and as they are extended to both worlds, it is an evident proof of the happiness of the saints in their bodies in a future state, and consequently that they shall be raised from the dead. This leads us,

2. To consider those arguments to prove the doctrine of the resurrection which are contained in the New Testament, in which it is more fully and expressly revealed than in any part of scripture. Here we may first take notice of those particular instances in which our Saviour raised persons from the dead in a miraculous way, as the prophets Elijah and Elisha did under the Old Testament dispensation, as was before observed. Thus he raised Jairus’s daughter, whom he found dead in the house, Matt. ix. 25. and another, to wit, the widow’s son at Nain, when they were carrying him to the grave; which was done in the presence of a great multitude, Luke vii. 11, 14, 15. and there was another instance hereof in his raising Lazarus from the dead, John xi. 43, 44. which he did in a very solemn and public manner, after he had been dead four days, his body being then corrupted and laid in the grave, from whence Christ calls him, and he immediately revived and came forth. These instances of the resurrection of particular persons tended to put the doctrine of the general resurrection out of all manner of doubt; and, indeed, it was, at this time, hardly questioned by any, excepting the Sadducees: therefore before Christ raised Lazarus, when he only told his sister Martha that he should rise again, she, not then understanding that he designed immediately to raise him from the dead, expresses her faith in the doctrine of the general resurrection; I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day, John xi. 24. upon which occasion our Saviour replies, I am the resurrection and the life, ver. 25. denoting that this work was to be performed by him.

Moreover, this doctrine was asserted and maintained by the apostles, after Christ had given the greatest proof hereof in his own resurrection from the dead: thus it is said, that they preached through Jesus, the resurrection from the dead, Acts iv. 2. And the apostle Paul standing before Felix, and confessing his belief of all things which are written in the law and the prophets, immediately adds, that he had hope towards God, which they themselves also allow; that is, the main body of the Jewish nation; that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust.

And he not only asserts but proves it with very great strength of reasoning, in 1 Cor. xv. and the argument he therein insists on, is taken from Christ’s resurrection, ver. 13. If there be no resurrection, then is Christ not risen; which is a doctrine that could not be denied by any that embraced the Christian religion, as being the very foundation thereof; but if any one should entertain the least doubt about it, he adds, ver. 17. If Christ be not raised from the dead, your faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins; that is, your hope of justification hereby is ungrounded, and they also which are fallen asleep in Christ, are perished; but this none of you will affirm; therefore you must conclude that he is risen from the dead: and if it be enquired, how does this argument prove the general resurrection, that he farther insists on from ver. 20. Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept? Christ’s resurrection removes all the difficulties that might afford the least matter of doubt concerning the possibility of the resurrection of the dead; and his being raised as the first-fruits of them that slept, or, as the head of all the elect, who are said to have communion with him in his resurrection, or to be risen with him, Col. iii. 1. renders the doctrine of the resurrection of all his saints, undeniably certain. As the first-fruits are a part and pledge of the harvest, so Christ’s resurrection is a pledge and earnest of the resurrection of his people. Thus the apostle says elsewhere, If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies, Rom. viii. 11. And our Saviour, when he was discoursing with his disciples concerning his death, and resurrection that would ensue thereupon, tells them, that though after this he should be separated for a time from them, and the world should see him no more, yet that they should see him again; and assigns this as a reason, because I live ye shall live also, John xiv. 19. q. d. because I shall be raised from the dead, and live for ever in heaven; you, who are my favourites, friends, and followers, shall be also raised and live with me there; so that the resurrection of believers is plainly evinced from Christ’s resurrection.

I might produce many other scriptures out of the New Testament, in which this doctrine is maintained; but we shall proceed to consider what proofs may be deduced from scripture-consequences. And it may here be observed, that our Lord Jesus Christ, has by his death and resurrection, as the consequence thereof, purchased an universal dominion over, or a right to dispose of his subjects in such a way as will be most conducive to his own glory and their advantage. Thus the apostle speaks of him as dying, rising, and reviving, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living; and infers from thence, that whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s, Rom. xiv. 8, 9. And his being Lord over the dead is expressed in other terms, by his having the keys of hell and death; and this is assigned as the consequence of his being alive after his death, or of his resurrection from the dead, Rev. i. 18. Therefore he has a power, as Mediator, to raise the dead. And to this we may also add, that this is what he has engaged to do, as much as he did to redeem the souls of his people. When believers are said to be given to him, or purchased by him, it is the whole man that is included therein; and accordingly he purchased the bodies as well as the souls of his people, as may be argued from our obligation hereupon, to glorify him in our bodies as well as in our spirits which are God’s, 1 Cor. vi. 20. And they are both under his care; he has undertaken that their bodies shall not be lost in the grave; which is very emphatically expressed, when he is represented as saying, this is the will of the Father which hath sent me, John vi. 39, 40. or, contained in the commission that I received from him, when he invested me with the office of Mediator; that of all which he had given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. What should be the reason that he here speaks of things rather than persons, if he had not a peculiar regard to the bodies of believers? which, as they are the subjects of his power when raised from the dead; so they are the objects of his care, and therefore he will raise them up at the last day.

We might farther consider Christ’s dominion as extended to the wicked as well as the righteous. He is not, indeed, their federal head; but he is appointed to be their Judge; and therefore has a right to demand them to come forth out of their graves, to appear before his tribunal; though they are neither the objects of his special love, nor redeemed by his blood, nor the dutiful and obedient subjects of his kingdom; inasmuch as it is said, God has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead, Acts xvii. 31. And elsewhere it is said, that he was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead, chap. x. 42. Therefore we read, that he shall sit upon the throne of his glory, and before him shall be gathered all nations, Matt. xxv. 31, 32. and of his determining the final estate, both of the righteous and the wicked, as it is expressed in the following verses; and this is described more particularly as being immediately after the universal resurrection; as it is said, ‘I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God, and the books were opened,’ Rev. xx. 12, 13. which, as will be observed under our next answer, respects his judging the world; and in order hereto it is farther said, that ‘the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them; and they were judged every man according to their works.’ And since Christ is represented as a judge, it is necessary that he should execute his vindictive justice against his enemies, and punish them as their sins deserve; but this respects not only the soul but the body; and therefore Christ that he may secure the glory of his justice, shall raise the bodies of sinners, that he may punish them according to their works; and therefore he is said to be the object of fear, in that he is able to destroy both soul and body in hell, Matt. x. 28.

Thus we have endeavoured to prove the doctrine of the resurrection by arguments taken from the Old and New Testament, and those scripture-consequences from which it may be plainly deduced: so that how much soever it may be thought a strange and incredible doctrine, by those who have no other light to guide them but that of nature; it will be generally believed by all whose faith is founded upon divine revelation, and who adore the infinite power and impartial justice of God, the Governor of the world: and, indeed, it is not attended with such difficulties arising from the nature of the thing, as many pretend, since we have several emblems in nature which seem to illustrate it; which are very elegantly represented by some of the Fathers, and especially by Tertullian;^[174] whom the learned and excellent bishop Pearson refers to and imitates in his style and mode of expression;^[175] his words are these; “As the day dies into night, so doth the summer into winter: the sap is said to descend into the root, and there it lies buried in the ground. The earth is covered with snow, or crusted with frost, and becomes a general sepulchre. When the spring appeareth all begin to rise; the plants and flowers peep out of their graves, revive, and grow, and flourish; this is the annual resurrection. The corn by which we live, and for want of which we perish with famine, is notwithstanding cast upon the earth, and buried in the ground, with a design that it may corrupt, and being corrupted, may revive and multiply; our bodies are fed with this constant experiment, and we continue this present life by succession of resurrections. Thus all things are repaired by corrupting, are preserved by perishing, and revive by dying; and can we think that man, the lord of all those things, which thus die and revive for him, should be detained in death, as never to live again? Is it imaginable that God should thus restore all things to man, and not restore man to himself? If there were no other consideration but of the principles of human nature, of the liberty, and remunerability of human actions, and of the natural revolutions and resurrections of other creatures, it were abundantly sufficient to render the resurrection of our bodies highly probable.” We shall now consider,

V. Some objections that are generally brought against the doctrine of the resurrection. Some things, indeed, are objected against it, that are so vain and trifling, that they do not deserve an answer: as when the followers of Aristotle assert that it is impossible for a thing which is totally destroyed, to be restored to that condition in which it was before^[176]: And some have been so foolish as to think that those nations, who burnt their dead bodies, put an eternal bar in the way of their resurrection; since the particles being so changed and separated by fire as they are, can never return again to their former bodies; or they who have been swallowed up by the ocean, and the particles of which they consisted, dissolved by water; and every one of them separated from the other, can never be again restored to their former situation. Such-like objections as these, I say, do not deserve an answer; because they consider the resurrection as though it were to be brought about in such a way, as effects are produced by second causes, according to the common course of nature; without any regard to the almighty power of God, that can easily surmount all the difficulties which, they pretend, lie in the way of the resurrection.

And there are other objections, taken from a perverse sense, which they give of some texts of scripture, without considering the drift and design thereof, or what is added in some following words, which sufficiently overthrows the objection. Thus some produce that scripture in Eccles. iii. 19, 20, 21. where it is said, That which befalleth the sons of men, befalleth beasts. So that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast, all go unto one place, and all are of the dust, and all turn to the dust again; which we before mentioned as brought against the immortality of the soul; and it is also alleged against the resurrection of the body, by those who conclude that it shall be no more raised from the dead than the bodies of brute creatures. But this is rather a cavil or a sophism, than a just way of reasoning; inasmuch as the following words plainly intimate, that men and beasts are compared together only as to their mortality, not as to what respects their condition after death; and therefore it is no sufficient argument to overthrow the doctrine of the resurrection. These and such-like objections are so trifling, that we shall not insist on them: However, there are three or four that we shall lay down, and consider what answers may be given to them.

Obj. 1. It is objected against the doctrine of the resurrection, that though the power of God can do all things possible to be done; yet the raising the dead, at least, in some particular instances thereof, is impossible from the nature of the thing; and therefore we may say, without any reflection cast on the divine Omnipotency, that God cannot raise them, at least, not so as that every one shall have his own body restored to him; since there are some instances of Cannibals, or men-eaters, who devour one another, by which means the flesh of one man is turned into the flesh of the other. And in those instances which are more common, the bodies of men being turned into dust, produce food, like other parts of the earth, for brute creatures; and accordingly some of those particles of which they consisted, are changed into the flesh of these creatures; and these again are eaten by men; so that the particles of one human body, after having undergone several changes, become a part of another; therefore there cannot be a distinct resurrection of every one of those bodies that have lived in all the ages of the world.

Answ. To this it may be replied, that it cannot be proved, that in those instances mentioned in the objection, that when one man preys upon another, or when brute creatures live upon that grass which was produced by the ground, which was made fertile by the bodies of men turned to corruption, and it may be, may have some of the particles thereof contained in them: It cannot, I say, be proved, that these particles of the bodies of men are turned into nourishment, and so become a part of human flesh; since providence did not design this to be for food. If so, then it is not true in fact, that the particles of one human body become a part of another. But, suppose it were otherwise (to give the objection as much weight as possible) we may farther observe, that it is but a very small part of what is eaten, that is turned into flesh; and therefore those particles of one human body, that by this means are supposed to pass into another, make up but a very inconsiderable part thereof. Therefore, if some few particles of one human body in the resurrection are restored again to that body to which they at first belonged, this will not overthrow the doctrine of the resurrection of the same body. If the body of man loses a few ounces of its weight, no one will suppose that it is not the same body. So when the bodies of men are raised from the dead, if the far greater part of the particles thereof are recollected and united together, they may truly be said to constitute the same body; this therefore does not overthrow the resurrection of the same body from the nature of the thing.

Object. 2. It is farther objected, especially against the possibility of the resurrection of the same body that was once alive in this world; that the bodies of men, while they live, are subject to such alterations, that it can hardly be said that we are the same when we are men as when we are children. The expence of those particles which were insensibly lost by perspiration, and others being daily gained by nutrition, make such an alteration in the contexture of the body, that, as some suppose, in the space of about seven years, almost all the particles of the body are changed, some lost and others regained. Now if it be supposed that the same body we once had shall be raised, it is hard to determine; whether those particles of which it consisted when we were young, shall be gathered together in the resurrection, or the particles of the emaciated or enfeebled body, which was laid down in the grave.

Answ. We are obliged to take notice of such-like objections as these, because they are often alleged in a cavilling way, against the doctrine of the resurrection. The answer therefore that I would give to this, is, that the more solid and substantial parts of the body, such as the skin, bones, cartilages, veins, arteries, nerves, fibres, that compose the muscles, with the ligaments and tendons, are not subject to this change that is mentioned in the objection, by evaporation or perspiration; which more especially respects the fluids, and not the solids of the body. These remain the same in men as they were in children, excepting what respects their strength and size: And if the body, as consisting of these and some other of the particles that it has lost, which the wisdom of God thinks fit to recollect, be gathered together in the resurrection; we may truly say, that the same body that once lived, notwithstanding the change made in the fluids thereof, is raised from the dead.

Obj. 3. There is another objection which is sometimes brought against the doctrine of the resurrection of the just, especially against their being raised with the same body they once had, taken from the inconsistency hereof, with their living in the other world, called heaven; which is generally distinguished from the earth, as being a more pure subtil and etherial region, therefore not fit to be an habitation for bodies compounded of such gross matter as ours are, which are adapted to the state and world in which they now live: Whereas, to suppose them placed in heaven, is inconsistent with the nature of gravity; so that we may as well conclude a body, which naturally tends to the earth its centre, to be capable of living in the air, at a distance from the surface of the earth, as we can, that it is possible for such a body to live in heaven: Therefore they argue that the bodies of men, at the resurrection must be changed, so as to become etherial, which does, in effect, overthrow the doctrine of the resurrection, as respecting, at least, the restoring the bodies of men to the same form which once they had.

Moreover, this objection is farther improved by another supposition: which gave the Socinians occasion to assert, that the same body shall not be raised; namely, that if the bodies of men should be the same as they are now, they would be rendered incapable of that state of immortality which is in heaven. For by the same method of reasoning, by which, as has been before observed, they argue that man would have been liable to mortality, though he had not sinned, viz. that death was then the consequence of nature, inasmuch as the body was to be supported by food, breathe in proper air, and be fenced against those things that might tend to destroy the temperament thereof, or a dissolution would ensue, they conclude that we must not have such bodies as we now have, but etherial. And to give countenance to this, they refer to the apostle’s words in 1 Cor. xv. 50. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God: And ver. 40. where he speaks of celestial bodies as distinguished from terrestrial, and of the body’s being raised a spiritual body, ver. 44. And there is another scripture generally referred to, wherein our Saviour speaks of believers, in the resurrection, being as the angels of God, Matt. xxii. 30. which is to be understood, at least, as signifying that their motion will be no more hindered by the weight of the body, than the motion of an angel is; therefore their bodies must be of another kind than what we suppose they shall be in the resurrection.

Answ. 1. As to what respects the inconsistency of bodies like ours, living in the upper world, as being contrary to the nature of gravitation: It may be answered, that according to the generally received opinion of modern philosophers, gravity arises from an external pressure made upon bodies which are said to be heavy or light, according to the force thereof; and therefore those bodies that are in the upper regions, above the atmosphere, are equally adapted to ascend or descend; which sufficiently answers that part of the objection. This a learned writer takes notice of^[177]: And if this be not acquiesced in, he advances another hypothesis; which, because it has something of wit and spirit in it, I shall take leave to mention, though I must suspend my judgment concerning it, whether it be true or false. He says, perhaps, our heaven will be nothing else but an heaven upon earth; and that it seems more natural to suppose that, since we have solid and material bodies, we shall be placed as we are in this life, in some solid and material orb; and this he supposes agreeable to the apostle Peter’s words, when he speaks of a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness, 2 Pet. iii. 13. From whence he concludes, that either this world shall be fitted to be the seat of the blessed, or some other that has a solid basis like unto it. And to give countenance to this opinion, he refers to some ancient writers; and particularly tells us, that Maximus speaks of it as the opinion of many in his time; and Epiphanius brings in Methodius in the third century, as asserting the same thing.

2. As to what concerns that part of the objection, that bodies, like those we have now, are unmeet for the heavenly state, inasmuch as they cannot be supported without food and other conveniences of nature, which tend to the preservation of life in this world. To this it may be answered, that it is not necessary to suppose that the body shall be raised with such qualities as that it will stand in need of food, rest, or other conveniences of nature; which, at present, tend to the support of life: The apostle seems to assert the contrary, when he says, Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats; but God shall destroy both it and them, 1 Cor. vi. 13. There is certainly a medium between asserting, with some, that we shall be raised with an etherial body, in all respects unlike to that which we have at present; and maintaining, that we shall have such as are liable to the imperfections of this present state, and supported in the same way in which they now are.

As to what the apostle says concerning flesh and blood not inheriting the kingdom of heaven, he does not mean thereby that our bodies shall be so changed, that they shall in no respect consist of flesh and blood: And when he speaks of celestial and spiritual bodies, it is not necessary for us to suppose, that hereby he intends Ærial or etherial bodies. But this will be more particularly considered under a following head, when we speak of the circumstances in which the bodies of believers shall be raised from the dead. As for that other scripture, in which they are said to be as the angels of God in heaven, that respects their being immortal and incorruptible; or as the context seems to intimate, that they need not marriage, to perpetuate their generations, in that world: Therefore we have no occasion to strain the sense of the words, so as to suppose that our Saviour intends in his saying they shall be as the angels, that they shall cease to be like what they were when men on earth.

Objec. 4. The last objection which we shall mention, is taken from its not being agreeable to the goodness of God, extended to those who are made partakers of the resurrection to eternal life; inasmuch as it is a bringing them into a worse condition than the soul was in, when separate from the body. This objection is generally brought by those who give into that mode of speaking often used by Plato^[178] and his followers, that the body in this world, is the prison of the soul, which at death, is set at liberty: therefore they suppose, that its being united to the body again, is no other than its being condemned to a second imprisonment, which is so far from being a favour conferred, that it rather seems to be a punishment inflicted. Others, with Celsus, reckon it a dishonour for the soul to be reunited to a body that is corrupted.^[179] And others speak of the body as being a great hindrance to the soul in its actings; and frequently inclining it to the exercise of some of those passions that tend to make men uneasy, and thereby unhappy; and that this may, some way or other, take place in a future state.

Answ. It is no great difficulty to answer this objection, in which there is not a due difference put between the present and future state of believers. The only thing which might give occasion to men to conclude that their souls are imprisoned in this world is, because they are abridged of that happiness which they shall be possessed of in another; which the apostle calls The glorious liberty of the children of God, Rom. viii. 21. And as for the reproaches which some of the greatest enemies to Christianity have cast on this doctrine, these are not sufficient to beget the least dislike of it in the minds of serious and unprejudiced Christians. What though the body be turned to corruption? It shall be raised incorruptible, and in glory; and therefore shall be a palace fit to entertain its noble inhabitant: what though it has, in this world, offered many temptations to the soul to sin, by which it has been sometimes overcome and exposed to those passions that have defiled, and made it very uneasy; is this to be objected against its being raised from the dead in such a state of perfection, that it shall never more contract any guilt, or render the soul unhappy, by any inconvenience arising from it? But this will farther appear, when we speak of the condition in which the body shall be raised under a following head. We shall therefore proceed,

VI. To consider the resurrection of the dead as universal, including in it all who have lived, or shall live, from the beginning of time, till Christ’s second coming, excepting those who shall be found alive; on whom a change shall pass which is equivalent to a resurrection.

1. That all the dead shall be raised: this is expressly mentioned in that vision, I saw the dead both small and great, standing before God; and the books were opened; and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them; and they were judged every man according to their works, Rev. xx. 12, & seq. where the Judge is represented as demanding the bodies of men of all ranks, conditions, and ages, out of those places where they have been lodged, with a design to reward or punish them according to their works: therefore, if the justice of God is to be displayed in this solemn and awful transaction, and the bodies as well as the souls of men, are the subjects on which this judgment must pass; then it follows, that it will be universal: thus our Saviour says, All that are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation, John v. 28, 29. This is so evident a truth, founded on the divine perfections, as well as express words of scripture, that it is strange to find that any, who allow that the dead shall be raised, should deny the universality thereof.

However, we meet with several expressions in Rabbinical writers, which seem to speak of it as a peculiar privilege belonging to some, but not to all; and therefore they have a proverbial expression, that though the rain descends on the just and on the unjust, yet the resurrection of the dead belongs only to the just:^[180] and this they infer from the words of the prophet Daniel, in chap. xii. 2. Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake; which words contain a difficulty which most have found it an hard matter to account for, agreeably to the sense of the prophet, who speaks, in the words immediately following, of the consequence hereof, as, some shall awake to everlasting life, and some to everlasting shame and contempt; whereby he divides the world into two parts, and considers one as happy, the other as miserable; therefore he must, doubtless, speak of an universal resurrection. But the great difficulty lies in these words; Many of them that sleep in the dust shall arise; from whence, some conclude that this expression contains an exception of others who shall not arise: thus some Jewish writers seem to have understood it; but I rather think, that the word many, there, imports nothing else but the multitude, q. d. the whole number of those that sleep shall awake.^[181]

It is somewhat hard to determine what the Rabbinical writers intend when they seem to confine the resurrection to the Israelites; and some of them to exclude, not only the wicked from it, but those that had not addicted themselves to the study of the law, whom they call the Gnam Haaretz: thus they are represented in scripture as giving them but a very indifferent character, The people that knoweth not the law are accursed, John vii. 49. by this means they bring the number of those that shall be raised from the dead into a very narrow compass: nevertheless they speak of future rewards and punishments in another world; therefore some have thought, when they exclude all but the Israelites, and, of them, all but those who were in the greatest reputation amongst them, that they understand nothing else by the resurrection, but that which they fancied would happen in the days of the Messiah; in which, they suppose, that some of the Jews shall be raised from the dead before the general resurrection at the last day; and in this sense we may easily understand their exclusive account, when they speak of many that shall not be partakers of this privilege; and if it be extended to the resurrection at the last day, then I am apt to think, that they intend hereby a resurrection to eternal life, and so some understand that common proverb but now mentioned, concerning the rain’s descending upon all; but the resurrection’s belonging only to the just, in this sense; that though the rain descends upon the wilderness, and barren ground; yet it is only some places which are made fruitful thereby: accordingly, though the resurrection be universal, both of the righteous and wicked; yet the resurrection to eternal life belongs only to the just.^[182]

All that I shall observe at present is, that this is not altogether disagreeable to the scripture-mode of speaking; which, though in some places it asserts the resurrection of the whole world, in others, by the resurrection, we are to understand nothing else, but a resurrection to eternal life: thus the apostle Paul, when he speaks of his attaining unto the resurrection of the dead, Phil. iii. 11. intends hereby his obtaining a glorious resurrection. And our Saviour, when speaking concerning the happiness of the saints in another world, expresses it on this wise; that they shall be counted worthy, or meet, to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, Luke xx. 35. so that whatever is said by Jewish writers, tending to limit the resurrection of the dead to eternal life, to some particular persons, it does not appear but that even they held, in other respects, a general resurrection, both of the just and unjust; which is as demonstrable as is the resurrection in general.

2. They who are found alive at Christ’s second coming, shall undergo a change; which, though it cannot be called a resurrection, will be equivalent to it. The apostle Paul gives an account of this, as what was before unknown to the church; Behold I shew you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump, 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52. And elsewhere he speaks of them when thus changed, as caught up in the clouds together with other saints, that are raised from the dead, to meet the Lord in the air, 1 Thess. iv. 17. This is no less an effect of almighty power than a resurrection; for hereby their bodies, though never separated from their souls, are brought into the same state as the bodies of others shall be, when re-united to them, and thereby be rendered incorruptible and immortal, as the bodies of all other saints shall be, and made partakers of the same glory with which they are said to be raised. We have an emblem of this in Christ’s transfiguration, when there was such a change made, for the present, on his body, that his face shined as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And there was not only a resemblance, but a kind of specimen hereof, in the translation of Enoch and Elijah, whose bodies were before this, liable to corruption, and all other infirmities that attend this present life, but were made, in a moment, celestial and glorious. And the body of our Saviour, though it was raised from the dead incorruptible and immortal, yet, during the space of forty days, while he continued on earth, it was not made so glorious as it was immediately after the cloud received him into heaven, when it underwent such a change as was agreeable to the place and state into which he then entered; even so the bodies of the saints, at last, shall, by this change, be made meet for heaven, and received, with other saints into it.

VII. We shall now consider the condition in which the body shall be raised. And,

1. Those circumstances of honour and glory which respect more especially the resurrection of the just: this the apostle mentions, and describes them as raised in glory, 1, Cor. xv. 43. It is the same body indeed, that is raised, which he illustrates by a grain of wheat springing up, and changed into a full-grown ear; which, though it be greatly improved, and very much altered from what it was, when cast into the ground, yet every seed, as he observes, has its own body, ver. 38. From whence we may infer, that the same body shall be raised from the dead, though with very different qualities. There are several things mentioned by the apostle, in the account he gives of the bodies of the saints after the resurrection; which some have attempted to explain in such a way, as is hardly consistent with a resurrection of the same body. The Socinians generally maintain that the body shall be altogether new, as to its substance, as well as its qualities: and others speak of it as an aerial body; as supposing that the gross and heavy matter, of which it formerly consisted, is not adapted to an heavenly state, and would render it not altogether free from a liableness to corruption. This opinion a late writer mentions, as what was espoused by some of the Fathers, which he speaks very favourably of; and inasmuch as the apostle calls it a spiritual body, 1 Cor. xv. 45. and seems to distinguish it from flesh and blood, which cannot inherit the kingdom of God, ver. 50. he thinks that though the same flesh and blood may rise from the grave, it will then or afterwards, receive such a change, as will render it spiritual and incorruptible; and so, perhaps, when it comes to heaven, will not be flesh and blood; or, that it will clothed with such an heavenly body as will keep it from a possibility of corruption; and accordingly he supposes that the apostle is to be understood in this sense, that flesh and blood unchanged and unclothed with its heavenly body, cannot inherit the kingdom of God; and that this body with which it shall be invested, will be thin, aerial, spiritual, bright, and shining; and, in that respect, may be called celestial.^[183] The reason he assigns why flesh and blood, namely, such as is subject to corruption here, cannot inherit the kingdom of God, is, because the flesh may be cut and divided, and the blood let out, which would subject it to corruption; therefore it must be changed, and put on incorruption.

This account of the bodies of the just after the resurrection, seems, indeed, to be a medium between the two extremes, either of those who suppose that the body shall differ but little from what it was whilst here on earth, or of others, who conclude it to be nothing else but an aerial body; yet it contains several things taken for granted, without sufficient proof, which I cannot readily give into: nevertheless what he farther adds on this subject is undeniably true, viz. that the body, which before was subject to filth and deformity, is raised in glory and splendor, shining like the sun, Matt. xxiii. 43. That which was once vile, is fashioned like Christ’s glorious body, Phil. iii. 21. and is freed from all defect or deformity in its members, and from any dishonourable parts. Not subject to weakness by labour, decays of age, to impotency and wasting by diseases; but nimble, strong, active, and that without reluctancy or molestation, grief, pain, or lassitude; it is raised a spiritual body, possessed and acted by the Holy Spirit; and advanced so far to the perfection of spirits, as to be free from grossness, ponderosity, from needing rest, sleep, or sustenance, and is fitted for a spiritual and celestial state in which our bodies shall wholly serve our spirits, and depend upon them, and therefore may be styled spiritual. If we stop here, without giving too much scope to our wit and fancy, in advancing things too high for us, and confess that we know not, or, at least, but a little of the affairs of an unseen world; or, as the apostle says, what we shall be, Phil. iii. 21. we say enough to give us an occasion to conclude that it is a glorious and desirable state, and the change wrought therein, such as fully answers our most raised expectations, and is agreeable to a state of perfect blessedness. Thus concerning the condition and circumstances in which the saints shall be raised.

There is one thing which must not wholly be past over, which is farther observed in this answer, namely, that the bodies of the just shall be raised by the Spirit of Christ: This is what the apostle expressly says, If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you, Rom. viii. 11. The bodies of believers, which were, in this world, the temple of the Holy Ghost, and were under his divine influence whilst living, shall not cease to be the objects of his care when dead; and as an instance of his regard to them, as well as denoting the subserviency hereof, to their attaining that complete redemption which Christ has purchased for them, the Spirit, in a peculiar manner, demonstrates his personal glory in raising them from the dead: Whereas, others are said to be raised only by the power of Christ.

2. We shall now consider the circumstances in which the wicked shall be raised, namely, in dishonour; or, as the prophet Daniel expresses it, to shame and everlasting contempt. Some marks of dishonour shall, doubtless, be impressed on their bodies, in that they shall be raised with all those natural blemishes and deformities, which rendered them the object of contempt. That part which the body bore in tempting the soul to sin, shall tend to its everlasting reproach; and when reunited to it, those habits of sin which were contracted, shall incurably remain, as well as the tormenting sense of guilt consequent hereupon, which exposes them to the wrath of God for ever; so that their resurrection, which renders them immortal, brings upon them endless misery. And it is said to be brought about by Christ, as an offended Judge, as the consequence whereof, they are summoned to his tribunal, who will render to every one according to his works. Which leads us to consider Christ as coming to judge the world; which is that solemn transaction that will immediately follow after the resurrection.