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.

Footnote 153:

“By affirming, that the grain produced from the seed sown, is not the

very body which is sown, the apostle I think insinuates, that the body

to be raised is not numerically the same with the body deposited at

death, but something of the same kind formed by the energy of God.

Having such an example of the divine power before our eyes, we cannot

think the reproduction of the body impossible, though its parts be

utterly dissipated. Farther, although the very numerical body is not

raised, yet the body is truly raised, because what is raised, being

united to the soul, there will arise in the man thus completed, a

consciousness of his identity, by which he will be sensible of the

justice of the retribution which is made to him for his deeds.

Besides, this new body, will more than supply the place of the old, by

serving every purpose necessary to the perfection and happiness of the

man in his new state. According to this view of the subject, the

objection taken from the scattering of the particles of the body that

dies, has no place; because it does not seem necessary, that the body

to be raised, should be composed of them. For the scripture no where

affirms, that the same numerical body is to be raised. What it teaches

is; that the dead shall be raised.”