things to be true which at the same time their reason plainly tells
them are impossible, I shall at this time endeavor to assert and
vindicate this article of the resurrection from the pretended
impossibility of it. And I hope, by God's assistance, to make the
possibility of the thing so plain as to leave no considerable scruple
about it in any free and unprejudiced mind. And this I shall do from
these words of St. Paul, which are part of the defense which he made
for himself before Festus and Agrippa, the substance whereof is this,
that he had lived a blameless and inoffensive life among the Jews, in
whose religion he had been bred up; that he was of the strictest sect
of that religion, a Pharisee, which, in opposition to the Sadducees,
maintained the resurrection of the dead and a future state of rewards
and punishments in another life; and that for the hope of this he was
called in question, and accused by the Jews. "And now I stand here,
and am judged, for the hope of the promise made unto the fathers; unto
which promise our twelve scribes, instantly serving God day and night,
hope to come; for which hope's sake, King Agrippa, I am accused of the
Jews." That is, he was accused for preaching that Jesus was risen from
the dead, which is a particular instance of the general doctrine of
the resurrection which was entertained by the greatest part of the
Jews, and which to the natural reason of mankind (however the heathen
in opposition to the Christian religion were prejudiced against it),
hath nothing in it that is incredible. And for this he appeals to
his judges, Festus and Agrippa: "why should it be thought a thing
incredible with you that God should raise the dead?"
Which words being a question without an answer, imply in them these
two propositions:
First, That it was thought by some a thing incredible that the dead
should be raised. This is supposed in the question, as the foundation
of it: for he who asks why a thing is so, supposeth it to be so.
Secondly, That this apprehension, that it is a thing incredible that
God should raise the dead, is very unreasonable. For the question
being left unanswered, implies its own answer, and is to be resolved
into this affirmative, that there is no reason why they or any man
else should think it a thing incredible that God should raise the
dead.
I shall speak to these two propositions as briefly as I can; and then
show what influence this doctrine of the resurrection ought to have
upon our lives.
First, that it was thought by some a thing incredible that God should
raise the dead. This St. Paul has reason to suppose, having from his
own experience found men so averse from the entertaining of this
doctrine. When he preached to the philosophers at Athens, and declared
to them the resurrection of one Jesus from the dead, they were amazed
at this new doctrine, and knew not what he meant by it. They said, "he
seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods, because he preached unto
them Jesus and the resurrection." He had discoursed to them of the
resurrection of one Jesus from the dead; but this business of the
resurrection of one Jesus from the dead was a thing so remote from
their apprehensions that they had no manner of conception of it; but
understood him quite in another sense, as if he had declared to them
two new deities, Jesus and Anastasis; as if he had brought a new god
and a new goddess among them, Jesus and the Resurrection. And when he
discoursed to them again more fully of this matter, it is said that,
"when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, they mocked." And at
the twenty-fourth verse of this twenty-sixth chapter, when he spake of
the resurrection, Festus told him he would hear him no further, and
that he looked upon him as a man beside himself, whom much learning
had made mad. Festus looked upon this business of the resurrection
as the wild speculation of a crazy head. And indeed the heathens
generally, even those who believed the immortality of the soul, and
another state after this life, looked upon the resurrection of the
body as a thing impossible. Pliny, I remember, reckons it among
those things which are impossible, and which God himself can not do;
"_revocare defunctos_, to call back the dead to life"; and in the
primitive times the heathen philosophers very much derided the
Christians, upon account of this strange doctrine of the resurrection,
looking always upon this article of their faith as a ridiculous and
impossible assertion.
So easy it is for prejudice to blind the minds of men, and to
represent everything to them which hath a great appearance of
difficulty in it as impossible. But I shall endeavor to show that if
the matter be thoroughly examined, there is no ground for any such
apprehension.
I proceed therefore to the second proposition, namely, that this
apprehension, that it is an incredible thing that God should raise
the dead, is very unreasonable: "why should it be thought a thing
incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?" That is, there
is no sufficient reason why any man should look upon the resurrection
of the dead as a thing impossible to the power of God; the only
reason why they thought it incredible being because they judged it
impossible; so that nothing can be vainer than for men to pretend to
believe the resurrection; and yet at the same time to grant it to be a
thing in reason impossible, because no man can believe that which he
thinks to be incredible; and the impossibility of a thing is the best
reason any man can have to think a thing incredible. So that the
meaning of St. Paul's question is, "why should it be thought a thing
impossible that God should raise the dead?"
To come then to the business: I shall endeavor to show that there is
no sufficient reason why men should look upon the resurrection of the
dead as a thing impossible to God. "Why should it be thought a thing
incredible (that is, impossible) with you, that God should raise the
dead?" which question implies in it these three things:
1. That it is above the power of nature to raise the dead.
2. But it is not above the power of God to raise the dead.
3. That God should be able to do this is by no means incredible to
natural reason.
First. This question implies that it is above the power of nature
to raise the dead; and therefore the apostle puts the question very
cautiously, "why should it be thought incredible that God should raise
the dead?" by which he seems to grant that it is impossible to any
natural power to raise the dead; which is granted on all hands.
Secondly. But this question does plainly imply that it is not above
the power of God to do this. Tho the raising of the dead to life be
a thing above the power of nature, yet why should it be thought
incredible that God, who is the author of nature, should be able to
do this? and indeed the apostle's putting the question in this manner
takes away the main ground of the objection against the resurrection
from the impossibility of the thing. For the main reason why it was
looked upon as impossible was, because it was contrary to the course
of nature that there should be any return from a perfect privation to
a habit, and that a body perfectly dead should be restored to life
again: but for all this no man that believes in a God who made the
world, and this natural frame of things, but must think it very
reasonable to believe that He can do things far above the power of
anything that He hath made.
Thirdly. This question implies that it is not a thing incredible to
natural reason that God should be able to raise the dead. I do not say
that by natural light we can discover that God will raise the dead;
for that, depending merely upon the will of God, can no otherwise be
certainly known than by divine revelation: but that God can do this
is not at all incredible to natural reason. And this is sufficiently
implied in the question which St. Paul asks, in which he appeals to
Festus and Agrippa, neither of them Christians, "why should it be
thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead?"
And why should he appeal to them concerning the credibility of this
matter if it be a thing incredible to natural reason?
That it is not, I shall first endeavor to prove, and then to answer
the chief objections against the possibility of it.
And I prove it thus: it is not incredible to natural reason that God
made the world, and all the creatures in it; that mankind is His
offspring; and that He gives us life and breath, and all things. This
was acknowledged and firmly believed by many of the heathens. And
indeed, whoever believes that the being of God may be known by natural
light, must grant that it may be known by the natural light of reason
that God made the world; because one of the chief arguments of the
being of God is taken from those visible effects of wisdom, and power,
and goodness, which we see in the frame of the world. Now He that can
do the greater can undoubtedly do the less; He that made all things of
nothing, can much more raise a body out of dust; He who at first gave
life to so many inanimate beings, can easily restore that which is
dead to life again. It is an excellent saying of one of the Jewish
rabbis: He who made that which was not, to be, can certainly make that
which was once, to be again. This hath the force of a demonstration;
for no man that believes that God hath done the one, can make any
doubt but that He can, if He please, do the other.
This seems to be so very clear, that they must be strong objections
indeed, that can render it incredible.
There are but two that I know of, that are of any consideration, and
I shall not be afraid to represent them to you with their utmost
advantage; and they are these:
First, against the resurrection in general: it is pretended
impossible, after the bodies of men are resolved into dust, to
re-collect all the dispersed parts and bring them together, to be
united into one body.
The second is leveled against a resurrection in some particular
instances, and pretends it to be impossible in some cases only--viz.,
when that which was the matter of one man's body does afterward become
the matter of another man's body; in which case, say they, it is
impossible that both these should, at the resurrection, each have his
own body.
The difficulty of both these objections is perfectly avoided by those
who hold that it is not necessary that our bodies at the resurrection
should consist of the very same parts of matter that they did before.
There being no such great difference between one parcel of dust and
another; neither in respect of the power of God, which can easily
command this parcel of dust as that to become a living body and being
united to a living soul to rise up and walk; so that the miracle of
the resurrection will be all one in the main, whether our bodies be
made of the very same matter they were before, or not; nor will there
be any difference as to us; for whatever matter our bodies be made of,
when they are once reunited to our souls, they will be then as much
our own as if they had been made of the very same matter of which they
consisted before. Besides that, the change which the resurrection will
make in our bodies will be so great that we could not know them to be
the same, tho they were so.
Now upon this supposition, which seems philosophical enough, the force
of both these objections is wholly declined. But there is no need to
fly to this refuge; and therefore I will take this article of the
resurrection in the strictest sense for the raising of a body to life,
consisting of the same individual matter that it did before; and in
this sense, I think, it has generally been received by Christians, not
without ground, from Scripture. I will only mention one text, which
seems very strongly to imply it: "and the sea gave up the dead which
were in it; and death and the grave delivered up the dead which, were
in them; and they were judged every man according to his works." Now
why should the sea and the grave be said to deliver up their dead, if
there were not a resurrection of the same body; for any dust formed
into a living body and united to the soul, would serve the turn? We
will therefore take it for granted that the very same body will
be raised, and I doubt not, even in this sense, to vindicate the
possibility of the resurrection from both these objections.
First, against the resurrection in general of the same body; it is
pretended impossible, after the bodies of men are moldered into dust,
and by infinite accidents have been scattered up and down the world,
and have undergone a thousand changes, to re-collect and rally
together the very same parts of which they consisted before. This the
heathens used to object to the primitive Christians; for which reason
they also used to burn the bodies of the martyrs, and to scatter their
ashes in the air, to be blown about by the wind, in derision of their
hopes of a resurrection.
I know not how strong malice might make this objection to appear; but
surely in reason it is very weak; for it wholly depends upon a gross
mistake of the nature of God and his providence, as if it did not
extend to the smallest things; as if God did not know all things that
He hath made, and had them not always in His view, and perfectly
under His command; and as if it were a trouble and burden to infinite
knowledge and power to understand and order the least things; whereas
infinite knowledge and power can know and manage all things with as
much ease as we can understand and order any one thing; so that this
objection is grounded upon a low and false apprehension of the Divine
nature, and is only fit for Epicurus and his herd, who fancied to
themselves a sort of slothful and unthinking deities, whose happiness
consisted in their laziness, and a privilege to do nothing.
I proceed therefore to the second objection, which is more close
and pressing; and this is leveled against the resurrection in some
particular instances. I will mention but two, by which all the rest
may be measured and answered.
One is, of those who are drowned in the sea, and their bodies eaten up
by fishes, and turned into their nourishment: and those fishes perhaps
eaten afterward by men, and converted into the substance of their
bodies.
The other is of the cannibals; some of whom, as credible relations
tell us, have lived wholly or chiefly on the flesh of men; and
consequently the whole, or the greater part of the substance of their
bodies is made of the bodies of other men. In these and the like
cases, wherein one man's body is supposed to be turned into the
substance of another man's body, how should both these at the
resurrection each recover his own body? So that this objection is like
that of the Sadducees to our Savior, concerning a woman that had seven
husbands: they ask, "whose wife of the seven shall she be at the
resurrection?" So here, when several have had the same body, whose
shall it be at the resurrection? and how shall they be supplied that
have it not?
This is the objection; and in order to the answering of it, I shall
premise these two things:
1. That the body of man is not a constant and permanent thing, always
continuing in the same state, and consisting of the same matter; but
a successive thing, which is continually spending and continually
renewing itself, every day losing something of the matter which it had
before, and gaining new; so that most men have new bodies oftener than
they have new clothes; only with this difference, that we change our
clothes commonly at once, but our bodies by degrees.
And this is undeniably certain from experience. For so much as our
bodies grow, so much new matter is added to them, over and beside the
repairing of what is continually spent; and after a man come to his
full growth, so much of his food as every day turns into nourishment,
so much of his yesterday's body is usually wasted, and carried off by
insensible perspiration--that is, breathed out at the pores of his
body; which, according to the static experiment of Sanctorius, a
learned physician, who, for several years together, weighed himself
exactly every day, is (as I remember) according to the proportion of
five to eight of all that a man eats and drinks. Now, according to
this proportion, every man must change his body several times in a
year.
It is true indeed the more solid parts of the body, as the bones, do
not change so often as the fluid and fleshy; but that they also do
change is certain, because they grow, and whatever grows is nourished
and spends, because otherwise it would not need to be repaired.
2. The body which a man hath at any time of his life is as much his
own body as that which he hath at his death; so that if the very
matter of his body which a man had at any time of his life be raised,
it is as much his own and the same body as that which he had at
his death, and commonly much more perfect; because they who die of
lingering sickness or old age are usually mere skeletons when they
die; so that there is no reason to suppose that the very matter of
which our bodies consists at the time of our death shall be that which
shall be raised, that being commonly the worst and most imperfect body
of all the rest.
These two things being premised, the answer to this objection can not
be difficult. For as to the more solid and firm parts of the body, as
the skull and bones, it is not, I think, pretended that the cannibals
eat them; and if they did, so much of the matter even of these solid
parts wastes away in a few years, as being collected together would
supply them many times over. And as for the fleshy and fluid parts,
these are so very often changed and renewed that we can allow the
cannibals to eat them all up, and to turn them all into nourishment,
and yet no man need contend for want of a body of his own at the
resurrection--viz., any of those bodies which he had ten or twenty
years before; which are every whit as good and as much his own as that
which was eaten.
Having thus shown that the resurrection is not a thing incredible to
natural reason, I should now proceed to show the certainty of it from
divine revelation. For as reason tells us it is not impossible, so the
word of God hath assured us that it is certain. The texts of Scripture
are so many and clear to this purpose, and so well known to all
Christians, that I will produce none. I shall only tell you that as
it is expressly revealed in the gospel, so our blest Savior, for the
confirmation of our faith and the comfort and encouragement of our
hope, hath given us the experiment of it in his own resurrection,
which is "the earnest and first-fruits of ours." So St. Paul tells us
that "Christ is risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of
them that slept" And that Christ did really rise from the dead, we
have as good evidence as for any ancient matter of fact which we do
most firmly believe; and more and greater evidence than this the thing
is not capable of; and because it is not, no reasonable man ought to
require it.
Now what remains but to conclude this discourse with those practical
inferences which our apostle makes from this doctrine of the
resurrection; and I shall mention these two:
The first for our support and comfort under the infirmities and
miseries of this mortal life.
The second for the encouragement of obedience and a good life.
1. For our comfort and support under the infirmities and miseries of
this mortal state. The consideration of the glorious change of our
bodies at the resurrection of the just can not but be a great comfort
to us, under all bodily pain and sufferings.
One of the greatest burdens of human nature is the frailty and
infirmity of our bodies, the necessities they are frequently prest
withal, the manifold diseases they are liable to, and the dangers and
terrors of death, to which they are continually subject and enslaved.
But the time is coming, if we be careful to prepare ourselves for it,
when we shall be clothed with other kind of bodies, free from all the
miseries and inconveniences which flesh and blood is subject to.
For "these vile bodies shall be changed, and fashioned like to the
glorious body of the Son of God." When our bodies shall be raised to a
new life, they shall become incorruptible; "for this corruptible shall
put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality; and
then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, death is
swallowed up in victory." When this last enemy is conquered, there
shall be no "fleshly lusts" nor brutish passions "to fight against the
soul; no law in our members to war against the laws of our minds"; no
disease to torment us; no danger of death to amaze and terrify us.
Then all the passions and appetites of our outward man shall be
subject to the reason of our minds, and our bodies shall partake of
the immortality of our souls. It is but a very little while that our
spirits shall be crusht and clogged with these heavy and sluggish
bodies; at the resurrection they shall be refined from all dregs of
corruption, and become spiritual, and incorruptible, and glorious, and
every way suited to the activity and perfection of a glorified soul
and the "spirits of just men made perfect."
2. For the encouragement of obedience and a good life. Let the belief
of this great article of our faith have the same influence upon us
which St. Paul tells it had upon him. "I have hope toward God that
there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and
unjust; and herein do I exercise myself always to have a conscience
void of offense toward God and toward man." The firm belief of a
resurrection to another life should make every one of us very careful
how we demean ourselves in this life, and afraid to do anything or to
neglect anything that may defeat our hopes of a blest immortality,
and expose us to the extreme and endless misery of body and soul in
another life.
Particularly, it should be an argument to us, "to glorify God in our
bodies and in our spirits"; and to use the members of the one and
the faculties of the other as "instruments of righteousness unto
holiness." We should reverence ourselves, and take heed not only how
we defile our souls by sinful passions, but how we dishonor our bodies
by sensual and brutish lusts; since God hath designed so great an
honor and happiness for both at the resurrection.
So often as we think of a blest resurrection to eternal life, and the
happy consequences of it, the thought of so glorious a reward should
make us diligent and unwearied in the service of so good a Master and
so great a Prince, who can and will prefer us to infinitely greater
honors than any that are to be had in this world. This inference the
apostle makes from the doctrine of the resurrection. "Therefore, my
beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the
work of the Lord; for as much as ye know that your labor is not in
vain in the Lord."
Nay, we may begin this blest state while we are upon earth, by
"setting our hearts and affections upon the things that are above,
and having our conversation in heaven, from whence also we look for a
Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile bodies, that
they may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the
working whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself."
"Now the God of peace, who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus
Christ, the great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the
everlasting covenant, make us perfect in every good work to do his
will, working in us always that which is pleasing in his sight,
through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever. Amen."
HOWE
THE REDEEMER'S TEARS OVER LOST SOULS
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
John Howe, a leading writer and divine under the Commonwealth, was
born in 1630, at Loughborough, in Leicestershire, England. He was
educated at Cambridge and Oxford, and ordained by Charles Herle,
rector of Winwick, whom he styled, "a primitive bishop." He became
chaplain to Cromwell and his son Richard. Among his contributions to
Puritan theology are "The Good Man the Living Temple of God," and
"Vanity of Men as Mortal," He was a man of intellect and imagination.
His sermons, tho often long and cumbersome, are marked by warmth of
fancy and a sublimity of spirit superior to his style. Howe was a
leading spirit in the effort made for the union of the Congregational
and Presbyterian bodies. He died in 1705.
HOWE
1630-1705
THE REDEEMER'S TEARS OVER LOST SOULS
_And when He was come near, He beheld the city, and wept over it,
saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the
things which belong to thy peace! But now they are hid from thine
eyes_.--Luke six., 41, 42.