Part 42

QUEST. LXXXVII. _What are we to believe concerning the resurrection?_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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