Part 44

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.