Habitation of Men. There was no Mansion proper for Men none sufficiently suited to their Nature till Christ ascended up thither in his Body He then created one proper for the reception of his own Humane Nature and for the Habitation of our Bodies This I take to be that New Earth or Habitable Orb which is spoken of by St. Peter and St. John There Christ at present remains from thence as he says he will come to judge this World and the Good he will carry up with him to live there for ever in unspeakable Happiness I know that St. John seems to intimate that that new Earth which he speaks of is not in Heaven For he says that the New Jerusalem came down on that Earth from Heaven But we ought not to understand the Descriptions contain'd in the Revelations too strictly By the New Jerusalem coming down from Heaven on that new Earth he seems to mean only this that in that new Earth the Throne of God or his most especial Presence will be among Men. I leave these things to your Consideration and proceed to The Fifth and last Objection which is concerning the uselessness of a Humane Body in the next Life and the unnecessariness of raising up the same that died Our Adversaries perhaps are willing to grant that there is no impossibility in the Resurrection and that the Body being purified and exalted to the highest degree of Humane Perfection may be worthy of the Heavenly Mansions But however say they it is not agreeable to the Divine Wisdom to raise up the same Humane Body Why not Why he acts says the Etherealist in all things wisely and for some end But to what purpose should he raise up the same Body when a new one will serve as well and to what purpose should he again invest the Soul with a Humane Body when the several Parts of it are useless In answer to this it s commonly alledged that the same Humane Body must rise again and be united to the Soul that together with the Soul it may be either rewarded or punish'd for the Good or Evil we did in this Life It would be Injustice they say for God to punish or reward the Soul alone for what it did not alone but together with the Body This Argument is commonly made use of not only by the School-men and other Modern Divines but by almost all the Ancients Athenagoras Tertullian Greg. Nazianzen St. Chrysostom the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy Epiphanius St. Ambrose Theodoret Aeneas Gazaeus Johannes Damascenus Nilus Photius and several others of the ancient Greeks and Latins They all agree that God is obliged in Justice to reward or punish the Body together with the Soul The same is asserted in one place which I have produced by Origen himself And this is the reason assigned for the Resurrection by the Talmudists in the Tract Sanhedrin I desire as much as any Man to pay a just Deference and Regard to the Judgments of the ancient Fathers But it must be confes'd that tho' their Authority be great in Matters of Tradition yet the Reasons and Arguments which they produce to confirm their Doctrines are not always convincing If we seriously and impartially consider this Assertion we shall find it not to be true My reasons in short are these First To speak properly the Body is not capable either of sinning or doing well It is only the Instrument of the Soul And the Arm that stabs sins no more than the Sword 'T is the Soul only that is the Murderer Neither Secondly is the Body capable of any Reward or Punishment 'T is the Soul only that is sensible and nothing but what is sensible can be capable of Rewards and Punishments Thirdly If it be Injustice in God to punish the Soul alone without the Body in conjunction with which she committed the Sin then all the Matter which constituted the Body when the several Sins were committed must be rais'd again and be re-united to the Soul For if some why not all But what Monsters of Men should we be in the Resurrection if all the Substance of which our Bodies consisted from our Childhood to our Deaths should be gather'd together and form'd into a Body 'T was the Opinion of some of the ancient Hereticks That the Souls of Men Die and are dissolv'd together with the Body and revive and rise again with it in the Resurrection Which Opinion supposes the Soul to be material as well as the Body which many of the ancient Christians who were not look'd upon as Heretical believ'd Eusebius tells us of certain Christians of Arabia in the Third Century who advanc'd and taught this Opinion concerning the Soul's Dissolution and Resurrection and that it was condemn'd by a Synod there call'd on purpose in which Origen was present by whom he says they that maintain'd it were re-converted Gilbertus Gaulminus in his Notes on the Book De vitâ morte Mosis says that the Arabick Historians ascribe this Opinion that the Soul dies together with the Body to Origen himself But that Origen did not hold that Opinion appears very evidently from a Hundred places in his Works Tatianus who was Scholar to Justin M. and lived before these times tho' he held that the Souls of the Good do not die together with the Body yet he asserts that those of the Wicked do and that being dissolv'd they are rais'd up again together with the Body in the Day of Judgment There were others who maintain'd that the Soul tho' it does not properly die together with the Body yet after its separation from the Body it sleeps as it were and remains altogether insensible That it is not capable of any perception without the concurrence of an Organical Body These are call'd Psychopannychites St. Maximus speaks of this as a prevailing Opinion in his time which was about the middle of the Seventh Century We are told by some but I think untruly that P. John XXII maintain'd it Stephanus Gobarus speaks of some who maintain'd that the Soul never leaves the Body but remains always in it and is buried together with it and is raised up with it in the Resurrection Whether these maintain'd that it properly dies and is dissolv'd or that it only remains insensible he does not say Tertullian himself tho' in other places he asserts the sensibility of separated Souls and that of it-self it is capable of Rewards and Punishments and is actually in some measure rewarded or tormented before the Resurrection yet in his Apology against the Heathens he expresly affirms that the Soul is not capable of suffering at all but in union with the Flesh and that that is one Reason why the Flesh is to rise Again in his Book de Testimonio Animae To enjoy everlasting Happiness or to sustain everlasting Torments it is necessary that thou
Origen heretofore as you rightly observe my dear Philalethes and some other late Opinionists have been pleased to advance another Notion That the Body to which the Soul shall be united in the next Life shall not be a Human Body but a thin and Etherial one and that too consisting of new Particles In asserting the truth of the Catholick Doctrine the Task you are pleased to impose on me I shall use all possible Plainness and observe this Method I. I shall shew it to be probable from the Traditions even of the Heathens themselves convey'd down to 'em from Noah and his Posterity II. I shall prove it from the Authority of the Old Testament and the Traditions of the Ancient Jews and shew it from thence to be if not certain yet more than probable III. I shall demonstrate it from the Authority of the New Testament and the Unanimous consent of the Primitive Church before the time of Origen and prove it from thence tobe certain IV. I shall answer the Objections rais'd against it To pretend to make out the Probability of the Doctrine of the Resurrection from the Opinions and Traditions of the Heathens may seem perhaps a very vain Attempt But it is no more than what many of the Ancients have endeavour'd to do and Photius mentions an Author who published a large Work in Fifteen Books to prove That the Doctrine of the Resurrection with other Christian Doctrines was own'd by many of the Gentiles The several â—…tions whose Opinions that Author produced were as Photius tells us the Greeks Persians Thracians Egyptians Babylonians Chaldaeans and Italians What success either He or any other Author that attempted the same might meet with I am not concern'd to enquire but I think I shall be able to shew that many of the Notions and Opinions of the Heathens were grounded on a Tradition concerning the Resurrection nay that many of the Heathens in Ancient Times acknowledged it and that many of 'em do so to this Day I shall first lay before you some Opinions embraced by the Heathens which I think carry with them no small resemblance of the Doctrine of the Resurrection And in the Second place shall present you with others which plainly express it The first Opinion which I shall take notice of is concerning the Human Shape and Actions attributed to the Soul in its State of Separation It was anciently the common and receiv'd Opinion of the Gentiles and so it is at this time throughout the whole Heathen World That the Soul or Manes which remain after Death has a perfect Human Shape and all the same Parts both External and Internal that the Body has and that when it leaves the Body it Eats and Drinks and does all the same things that a living Man does Now from whence can we imagine this odd Opinion should arise and be so generally propagated all over the World I shall leave it to be considered by you whether it were not grounded on an Ancient Tradition That the Soul after Death shall be united to a Human Body Justin Martyr to prove that the Doctrine of the Resurrection was known to Homer produces his description of Tityus's Punishment after Death and what he says of the Punishments of Sisyphus and Tantalus Their Punishments says he suppose not a Soul only but also a Body The same sort of Argument he makes use of to prove that Plato held the same Doctrine He observes that Plato in the Story which he relates concerning Eris speaks of those that were punished in Hell as of Men compounded of Body and Soul with the same Parts and Countenances which they had when living here on Earth that he makes Aridaeus and other Tyrants to be bound Neck and Heels and to be Flea'd and then to be drag'd through Thorns and Briars Now says he for Plato to say that the Soul is judged with the Body can signify nothing else but that he believ'd the Doctrine of the Resurrection For how could Aridaeus and the rest be punished after that manner in Hell if they had left their Bodies their Heads Hands and Feet on Earth Sure they will not say that the Soul has a Head a Skin and Hands and Feet But this is a Mistake of that excellent Person The Reason why the Heathens described the Punishments of the Damn'd after this manner was not because they thought that their Bodies were not left here on Earth but partly because it was the vulgar Opinion that the Soul had all the same Parts that the Body has and partly because such Descriptions do more easily move and affect us and it is not easy to describe the Torments of the Soul after any other manner Our Lord in the Parable of Dives and Lazarus speaks of them in the same manner as if they had Bodies tho' what is related of 'em is supposed to be before the Resurrection and their Bodies are suppos'd to be yet in their Graves I might mention others of the Ancient Christians that have made use of Arguments of the like nature but it is not my Business to confute those who have written for the Resurrection I shall therefore pass them by From what has been said concerning our Saviour's speaking of the Soul of Lazarus as if it had a Body tho' he did not believe it had you may possibly imagine that the Heathens did not really believe that the Soul has all the Parts of a Human Body though they are wont to speak of it as if they believ'd it But it evidently and undeniably appears that that was and is at this time their real Opinion Hence the Custom so general in the World of leaving Meat and Drink on the Graves of the Dead and of burying together with the dead Bodies all sorts of Utensils Houshold-Stuff and Weapons which they think the Soul will make use of in the next Life Hence also the Custom in so many Countries of putting to Death the Wives and Slaves of the deceased that they may wait upon 'em and serve in the same Capacities in the other World For Brevity sake I am content to seem a little Immodest and to take it for granted that you believe I can prove what I have asserted The Second Opinion that deserves to be consider'd is that of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Transmigration of Souls out of one Body into another 'T was you know the Opinion not only of the Pythagoreans and Platonists and some of the Stoicks amongst the Greeks but of many whole Nations of the ancient Gentiles and 't is still the received Opinion of the greatest part of the Eastern Heathens and of many other Countries in divers parts of the World that when a Man dies his Soul passes into another Body either the Body of a Man or of some other Creature Now on what could this Opinion be grounded but on some broken and imperfect Tradition concerning the Resurrection of our Bodies How came so strange an Opinion to obtain in so
many Countries They had doubtless heard from their Ancestors the Descendants of Noah that after Death the Soul should be reunited to a Body and not knowing by reason of the imperfectness of the Tradition how it was to be done they invented a way for it and imagin'd it was to be by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by being born again And as Error is always fruitful in Inventions and one having taken Root there is presently a Superfoetation of many others they afterwards carried it on farther and fansy'd a Transmigration of the Soul not only into another Human Body but also into the Bodies of other living Creatures and even into Trees and Plants But the Transmigration of the Soul into the Bodies of irrational Animals was never so generally receiv'd as its Transmigration into another Human Body The Author of the Book De Spermate ascribed to Galen tells us that the Philosopher Porphyry maintain'd That the Soul of a Beast passes into a Beast but the Soul of a Man into a Man And Hierocles affirms that the Soul of a Man passes only into a Man Of the same Opinion was Timaeus Locrus with divers others of the Pythagoreans And the same was likewise the Opinion of the ancient Gauls as may be gather'd from what Caesar says of ' em Imprimis say he hoc volunt persuadere non interire animas sed ab aliis post mortem transire ad alios atque hoc maxime ad virtutem excitari putant metu mortis neglecto Appian writes of the ancient Germans that they contemn'd Death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through the hopes they had of reviving or living again Which I understand not immediately of the Resurrection but of the Transmigration of the Soul into another Human Body And in the same Sence I understand Lucan where he speaks of the Opinion of the Sâ—…ythians Populus quos despicit Arctos Felices errore suo quos ille timorum Maximus haud urget lethi metus inde ruendi In ferrum mens prona viris animique capaces Mortis ignavum rediturae parcere vitae That the Opinion of the Transmigration was grounded on a Tradition concerning the Resurrection will appear more Probable if we consider what Herodotus writes of the Doctrine of the Egyptians That the Soul being departed this Body after many Removes into the Bodies of all kinds of Animals and after a long Time viz. 3500 Years assumes again the Body of a Man And to this Day there are great Numbers in Grand Caire and some in other parts of the World that assert very near the same thing and agree with those ancient Egyptians almost exactly in the Number of Years They will tell ye that theâ—… Soulâ—… having passed into several Beasts of the same Kind and wander'd out of the Body of one to animate another it will at last after the Circle of 3365 Years return again to a Human Body more purified and refin'd than in its first Principles What is this but a broken Tradition concerning the Re-union of our Souls with our Bodies at the end of the World But others of the Ancients come up yet more close to us They tell us that the Souls of those that are in Heaven or Elysium continue there a long time a Thousand Years or the like and then shall come again into the World and be united to a Human Body Thus Virgil from the Traditions of the Ancients Quisque suos patimur manes Exinde per amplum Mittimur Elysium pauci laeta arvae tenemus Donec longa dies perfecto temporis Orbe Concretam exemit labem purumque reliquit Aetherium sensum atque aurai simplicis ignem Has omnes ubi mille rotam volvêre per annos Lethaeum ad fluvium Deus evocat agmine magno Scilicet immemores supera ut convexa revisant Rursus incipiant in corpora velle reverti Clauclian 2. Ruff. Quos ubi per varios annos per mille figuras Egit Lethaeo purgatos flumine tandem Rursus aâ—… humanae revocat primordia formae St. Austin mentions this as the Opinion of the greatest Philosophers That the Souls says he of bad Men pass immediately into other Bodies and that the Souls of good Men are a long time in Rest but after a great while come down from Heaven and assume Bodies again Hoc dixerunt valde magni Philosophi I shall add no more concerning these Opinions but only put you in mind that Tertullian Minucius Felix and Lactantius no less Men than they were of my Opinion That the Doctrine of the Transmigration was founded on a Tradition concerning the Resurrection The Third Opinion which I think deserves to be taken notice of is that concerning the equal duration of the Body and Soul that the Soul should indeed remain after Death but not unless the Body did so too This was the Doctrine of some of the Stoicks and my Author is Servius Animam says he tamdiu durare dicunt quamdin durat Corpus The Egyptians had an Opinion amongst 'em much the same with this It is commonly said by those that speak of the Custom of the Egyptians of embalming the Bodies of their Dead such as Petrus Bellonius and others that the Reason why they were so careful to preserve their Bodies was because they expected a Resurrection But this indeed was not the Reason The true Reason was this They believ'd the Soul never left the dead Body but always adher'd to it as long as it lasted how long soever that were and after the dissolution of the Body they believ'd the Soul was to enter into another For this also Servius is my Author So others tell us that they were wont to keep the dead Bodies of their Friends in their Houses and their Closets and to set 'em at Table as Guests at Meals with 'em believing that they had there the whole Man not only the Body but the Soul too Luâ—…ian assures us he himself had din'd in Egypt with such Guests Hence Silius the Poet Aegyptia tellus Claudit odorato post funus stantia saxo Corpora à mensis exanguem haud separat umbram The Fourth Opinion which I shall recommend to your Consideration is this That these very Bodies of ours are capable of being made Immortal and Incorruptible and of being translated up into Heaven there to inhabit everlastingly in Union with the Soul Did any of the Heathens believe thus much They did so 'T was the Doctrine of the Chaldaick Philosophers and likewise of the Greeks themselves Psellus in his Gloss on the Chaldaick Oracles tells us that it was a Doctrine of those Philosophers That a Man's Body may by the Works of Religion Lustrations and the like be so purged and attenuated the impure Matter being consumed by the Heavenly Fire as that the Soul may carry it up to Heaven with it That Hercules and Helena and others amongst the Greeks and
Romulus amongst the Romans were translated like Enoch and Elias into Heaven in their proper Bodies we read in divers of our Ancient Authors The Emperor Julian mentions the Assumption of Hercules He went up says he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho' he will not acknowledge that his Body with which he ascended was a Body of Flesh but intimates according to the Notion of the Chaldaick Philosophers that the gross parts of his Body were consumed by Heavenly Fire or Lightening That the Romans when Romulus was murder'd were made believe that he had been taken up in his Body into Heaven I need only mention not endeavour to prove It is what you know very well and many of the Writers of the Roman History speak of it The Emperor Julian believ'd it tho he says as he does of Hercules that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mortal part of his Body was consum'd or lick'd up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Heavenly fire or Lightning That Helena being like to be murdered was taken up publickly into Heaven Isaacus Porphyrogennetus relates from the Traditions of the Ancient Greeks Plutarch tells us that it was the common Opinion of the Greeks that Cleomedes Astypalensis was translated in his Body into Heaven and that many others had been so translated Thus Philostratus doubts whether his greatly admir'd Apollonius Tyaneus ever died and tells us of a Report that going into a Temple in Lindus he was never seen afterwards He mentions moreover a Tradition of the Cretans that he was taken up into Heaven out of a Temple in Crete a Voice being heard in the Temple as of Virgins singing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Come from the Earth come into Heaven come Fifthly They did not only believe that many had been translated like Enoch and Elias into Heaven but they also believ'd that the Souls of some others had been after Death re-united to their Bodies and that so by a Resurrection they had been taken up into Heaven That this was generally believed of Aristaeus the Proconnesian is asserted by many Heathen Writers And Plutarch assures us that it was commonly believ'd that the Body of Alcmena the Mother of Hercules was taken up into Heaven after her Death It happened as they say when it was carried out to be interr'd Thus says he they exalt those things which are by nature Mortal among the Gods He does not believe these Reports himself on the contrary he calls it a Foolish thing to place Earth in Heaven The Soul says he only is from the Gods from them it came and to them it returns not with the Body but separated wholly from it perfectly pure clean and freed from Flesh. The Soul as Heraclitus says flies from the Body as Lightening does from a Cloud While it is in the Body like a heavy and cloudy Vapour it is difficultly kindled and with great difficulty it ascends to the things above Therefore the Bodies of Good Men ought not by any means to be placed in Heaven contrary to their Nature but we ought to believe that the Soul alone ascends up thither He disputes against this Belief and these Traditions of the Heathens in the very same manner as he would have disputed against Christians The Sixth Opinion of the Heathens which I shall present you with is concerning a Resurrection of the very same Human Body after its dissolution In this only it differs from our Christian Doctrine that it makes the Soul return not immediately to those Particles from which it was separated by Death and which were laid in the Grave so as that those who died Men should rise of the same Stature but first to those Particles which were unîted to it in the Mothers Womb And afterwards those Particles that constituted the Body in its several Ages are according to this Opinion to rise again and be united all in their due time to the same Soul 'till at last the same Particles that were buried shall be all re-united together and constitute the Body in the very same manner as formerly They tell us that after the expiration of many Thousands of Years when all the same Stars and Planets shall return to the same Configuration and Respect that they formerly had to one another there shall be a Resurrection of all things to their former State not only of Men but all other things in the World Socrates for Example shall be born again of the same Mother and grow up in the same manner with all the same Circumstances teach Philosophy at Athens to the self-same Scholars eat the self-same Diet and wear the self-same Cloths be accused by the same Accusers condemn'd by the same Judges and die by the same Poison You and I my Friend are according to them to live here again in all the same Circumstances Our Friendship the same and the same Correspondence between us You are to send again to me to know what I have to say for the Doctrine of the Resurrection I am to send you this very same Treatise written on the same Paper and with the same Pen and Ink and the Hair that now makes this Blot must make the same again Thus all things must go on in a continual Round and Revolution and by a continual successive Resurrection But who are they that tell us these things Who were they that taught this Opinion The Pythagoreans and the Platonists amongst the Greeks and many of the Priests or Philosophers of Egypt from whom the Greeks learnt it Would you have me quote my Author It is Origen and not he only tho' he alone were enow but I have likewise several others The Followers of Pythagoras and Plato says Origen say that after a certain Revolution of the Stars when they shall return to the same Configuration and Respèct to one another which they formerly had there will necessarily be the very same Face of Things here on Earth which there had been before when the Stars were in the same Position And according to this Notion when the Stars shall return to the same Order which they were in in Socrates 's time Socrates must be born again and suffer the same things which he did before the same Anytus and Melitus accusing him and the same Areopagites passing Sentence upon him And the same is the Dctrine of the Egyptians For Pythagoras Porphyry likewise is my Witness It is well known to all says he first that he asserted the Immortality of the Soul and that he asserted that the Soul passes into several kinds of Creatures and moreover that he taught that after certain Revolutions of the Stars those things which once had been shall be again and that there is nothing properly new For Plato I might produce his own Words and the Testimonies of others such as Proclus c. But who has not heard of Plato's great Year I need not put you in mind that this can be nothing else
but an old Tradition concerning our future Resurrection a little alter'd by the dropping of a part of it as it passed in a long series of time through the Mouths of several Persons It appears from the Testimony of R. Abraham Bar Chaia cited by Abarbinel that this same Opinion concerning the Restitution of all things to their former State after the return of the Planets to their former Configuration was likewise received by many of the Philosophers of India Some of 'em held that this should happen after the Term of 4320000 Years other assign'd 360000 Years others 49000 others 36000 others 12000 others 7000 And Bar Châ—…ia declares that he thinks they form'd this Notion from the Tradition which they had received from their Ancestors concerning the Resurrection M. Varro the great Roman Writer in the Books which he publish'd De Gente Populi Romani speaks of certain Authors whom he calls Genethliaci whose Opinion it was that the Soul returns and is united to the very same Body to which it had been formerly conjoyn'd by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the space of 440 years His Words are these Genethliaci quidam scripserunt esse in renascendis hominibus quam appellant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Graeci hanc scripserunt confici in annis numero quadringentis quadraginta ut idem Corpus cadem anima quae fuerant conjuncta in homine aliquando eadem rursus redeant in conjunctionem Amongst others even of the Greek Philosophers we find this Tradition preserv'd more entire The Stoicks though they look'd upon the Doctrine of the Resurrection as preach'd by St. Paul at Athens to be nothing but Babble yet they themselves as least some of 'em tell us all the same things that the Egyptians but now mention'd and the Pythagoreans and the Platonists taught But in this they come up nearer to us that they do not make the World Eternal but say as we do that the World shall be destroy'd by Fire and that this Resurrection or Restitution of all things shall be after the general Conflagration My Author for this is first of all Origen and he a very good one in these Matters who observes not without good Reason that tho they did not call it by the Name of a Resurrection yet the Thing was the same The Stoicks says he hold that after a certain revolution of Time the Universe will be destroy'd by a Conflagration and that immediately upon it all things will be restored to what they were before without any manner of Change But there are some amongst 'em that do not come up altogether to this Opinion and They hold that there will be some small Alteration and for some short Time These Men tell us that after the Conflagration Socrates for Example shall be born again an Athenian the Son of Sophroniscus and Phenarete And therefore tho' they do not call it by the Name of a Resurrection yet they mean the same Thing He shall be bred up say they at Athens and shall teach Philosophy there as before So that Philosophy it self is as it were to rise again and be in the same State as formerly Anytus and Melitus shall rise again and be Socrates 's Accusers and the Council of the Areopagites shall condemn him And what is more ridiculous than all this Socrates is to wear the same Cloths that he did before live in the same Poverty and with all the same Circumstances So Phalaris shall again play the Tyrant and torment the same Persons in his Brazen Bull. And Alexander the Pherean shall exercise his Cruelty on the same Persons that he did heretofore Tatianus mentions the same Opinion of Zeno that the World shall be renewed by a Conflagration that the same Men shall rise and do the very same Things Anytus and Melitus shall accuse Socrates again Busiris murder his Guests Hercules undergoe the same Labours c. Lactantius produces these Words of Chrysippus whom Cicero stiles the Prop of the Porch of the Stoicks out of his Book of Providence This being so it is manifâ—…st that it is not at all impossible but that after a certain revolution of Time even We may be restored from Death to what we now are The Philosopher Numenius calls it in express Terms a Resurrection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That Resurrection which makes that which is call'd the greatest Year This Opinion of the Stoicks concerning the Renovation of things after the Conflagation is mention'd by many others as by Tully Philo Judeus Justin Martyr Athenagoras Clemens Alexandrinus c. The Emperor M. Antoninus who was chiefly addicted to the Sect of the Stoicks writes doubtingly concerning the Life to come to this purpose How comes it to pass says he That the Gods who have order'd all things well and with singular love towards Mankind have neglected this one thing to take care that Men especially the Good and those who maintain'd as it were a frequent Correspondence with 'em and by their pious Works and holy Offices contracted a kind of familiarity with 'em that those Men when once they are dead do no longer exist but are extinct for ever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If it be so the reason you must know is because it ought not to be otherwise This Place the learned Merich Casaubon understands so as if it had respect to the Resurrection of the Body in the true Christian Sense and the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he renders thus should never be restored to Life That Antoninus says he intends it of the Body for the Soul if not immortal yet that it remain'd a long time after Death they believ'd not of the Body alone but of the Body and Soul to be join'd again into one and the same Person may appear because he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as soon as ever dead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be restored to Life again to wit the Man consisting though not a precise Stoick in that of Body and Soul for ever That the Emperor intended such a Resurrection he further confirms by another Passage in his Book where he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You will easily be persuaded that I am not at all prejudiced against this Opinion of that learned Man But let Truth prevail above all things It must be confess'd that he did not understand Antoninus's meaning and that he was mistaken in two Respects 1. If Antoninus had intended a Resurrection he ought to have been understood only of such a Resurrection as I have shewn the Stoicks generally believ'd 2. It is not true that he intended a Resurrection in any Sense In this last place he only alludes to that Opinion which the Stoicks commonly taught not asserts it And in the other Place he only speaks of the duration of the Soul after Death of which he himself doubted It must be acknowledged that that Philosopher had too mean an Opinion of
any that can deliver out of my Hand After the dead Body is put into the Grave they bow themselves backward three times and throw Grass over their Heads signifying their hope of the Resurrection with these Words out of Isaiah And your Bones shall bud as the Grass After that in the Porch of the Synagogue God shall destroy Death for ever and wipe away all Tears from their Eyes and will take away their Reproach from all the Earth for the Lord hath spoken it If I had a mind to transcribe the Observations of others I could add to these the Testimonies of 500 other Rabbinical Writers but I content my-self to have presented you with my own Observation And from what has been laid before you it abundantly appears First That the Doctâ—…ine of the Resurrection has been lookâ—… upon by the Jews as a necessary Article of their Creed from before the Date of their Talmuds Secondly That tho' it was not receiv'd by 'em as an indispensible Article of Faith in the time of our Saviour and for some time before and after yet even in those times it was the common and receiv'd Doctrine Thirdly That by the Resurrection they always understood not barely the re-conjunction of the Soul with a Body after Death but the resuscitation of the same Humane Body I shall only add that the Resurrection is acknowledged not only by the Rabbinists or the Followers of the Talmud which are much the greater Number but also by those that are call'd Karraites who follow only the Scripture disallowing Traditions and are therefore reckon'd by the Talmudists as Hereticks These are said to be descended from the ancient Sadduces If so it appears that the Sadduces themselves were at last convinced of their Errour and made Proselytes to the Doctrine of the Resurrection 'T was about the end of the first Century after our Saviour's Nativity that the Doctrine of the Resurrection began to be reckon'd among the Jews as a necessary Article of Faith I gather it thus That it was not an Article of Faith till after the time of Josephus who liv'd till near the end of that Century appears from hence that neither the Essens nor the Sadduces were in his time accounted Hereticks And that it was receiv'd as a part of their Creed before the Year 140 appears from what we read in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho p. 306 307. It appears from thence that the Doctrine of the Resurrection and that too of the same Humane Body was at that time acknowledged by all such Jews as were accounted Orthodox and that the Sadduces who denied it were at that time rejected as Heretioks I should here Philalethes have dismiss'd this Point but it comes now into my Mind that there are two things relating to the Opinion of the Jews of which you desire particularly to be satisfied which ought to be consider'd in this Place Your Queries are concerning the Transmigration of Souls out of one Body into another by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether that be not held by many of the Jews and if so Whether they that hold it do not deny the Resurrection of the Body How that Opinion can be consistent with this To the First of these Queries I must answer in the Affirmative It is very true that the Transmigration of Souls out of one Body into another is by many of the Jews both ancient and modern maintain'd They call it The Revolution of Souls or The secret of the Revolution Leo Modena speaks of it as of a common Opinion but he adds withal that there are many that do not believe it And the Author of The Present State of the Jews in Barbary takes notice of it as receiv'd by the Jews of those Parts Another Traveller observes that it 's likewise receiv'd among the Jews of Asia Of the learned Jews that assert it Menasseh Ben-Israel is one and the famous Abarbinel another It 's likewise asserted by the ancient Cabbalists in the Zoar and by the Talmudists themselves The Cabbalists tell us that the Soul of Adam David and the Messias is one and the same We are told by others that Phineas the Grand-Son of Aaron and Elias the Prophet were the same Man By which they must mean either that the Soul of Phineas pass'd into the Body of Elias or that Phineas did not die but that having lain hid for many Ages or having been translated he afterwards appear'd again and was call'd Elias It may seem more probable that they believ'd the first and it 's generally taken for granted by learned Men that they did so Yet I cannot be confident of it for I find that some of the Rabbins had this Tradition and Opinion amongst 'em that Phineas liv'd many Ages The Reason they give for the Transmigration of Souls is the same with that which is generally assign'd by the Heathens viz. That the Soul may be purg'd and amended But they do not hold as the Heathens did that the Soul Transmigrates into many Bodies They restrain it to Three Thus the Soul of Adam they will tell ye was purg'd by passing into the Body of K. David and by passing again into the Body of the Messias will be fully and perfectly purified A modern Traveller tells us that this was the Opinion of certain Jews of Asia with whom he convers'd that the Soul if it has not at first forgiveness is twice more sent into a Body to amend and become better and then is rejected or receiv'd by God according to its Deserts That the Soul is to pass into Three several Bodies they prove from those Words of Job Lo all these things worketh God thrice which we render oftentimes with Man And of the Transmigration they understand the Chaldee Paraphrase of Isaiah Chap. 22. v. 14. where mention is made of the second Death Neither is it only the Transmigration of the Soul into other Human Bodies that is own'd and receiv'd among the Jews There are some amongst 'em that like thorough-pac'd Pythagoreans make it pass into the Bodies of Brutes Holstenius assures us that he himself had convers'd with some in Italy that asserted it very zealously and prov'd it from the Story of K. Nebuchadnezar whose Soul they affirm'd to have really past into the Body of a Beast They prov'd it likewise from those Words of the Psalmist Deliver my Soul from the Sword my Darling from the Power of the Dog Where the Prophet say they begs of God that his Soul being loos'd from its Body might not pass into a Dog or any other Brute It appears from the Testimony of Josephus that the Opinion of the Transmigration of the Soul into another Humane Body by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was receiv'd among the Jews even in his time and that too by many of the Pharisees themselves In his Second Book concerning the Jewish War where he gives us a particular account of the Dogma's of the
suffered these things For all these things have been done upon me by the Lord. Of all which I am conscious my Eye has seen 'em and not another and they have been all done unto me in my Bosom For raise up my Skin the Alexandrian Copy has And he shall raise up my Body But Origen's Copies agreed with that which is published St. Clement of Rome reads it thus Thou shalt raise up my flesh which has suffered all these things The Chaldee Paraphrase has it thus And I know that my Redeemer lives and hereafter his Redemption will arise upon the Dust. And after my Skin shall be puft up this shall be And in my Flesh I shall see God again Whom I am to see for my-self and my Eyes shall see him and not another My Reins are consum'd within me The Syriack thus I know indeed that my Saviour lives and that in the End he will appear upon Earth And these things straiten'd or encompass'd my Skin and my Flesh. If my Eyes shall see God they will see light My Reins are quite perish'd within me This has nothing at all relating to the Resurrection And the learned Grotius and others are very positive that this place cannot be understood of the Resurrection without wresting the Hebrew very much The Translation which he gives us of it is different from all others And he expounds it of Job's sudden restitution to his former Health and temporal Prosperity You may read this Exposition oppos'd in our learned Bishop Pearson's Comment on the Creed He calls it a very new one But in that he 's mistaken For 't is no more than what St. Chrysostom long ago thought on and did not dislike Having laid these several Translations and Expositions before you I shall leave this Text to your Judgment without pretending to decide the Controversy If you will not understand it of the Resurrection yet what I undertook to make out seems from other places sufficiently clear I shall close this part of my Discourse which is concerning the Traditions of the Jews and the Testimonies of the Old Testament with an observation concerning that Argument which our Saviour makes use of out of the Books of Moses to prove the Resurrection against the Sadduces As touching the Resurrection says he of the Dead have you not heard that which was spoken unto you by God saying I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob God is not the God of the Dead but of the Living The most that this Argument proves is the Immortality of the Soul that the Souls of Abraham Isaac and Jacob did not die with their Bodies as the Sadduces believ'd From whence I observe that it was not so much the Resurrection of the Body as the Immortality of the Soul that the Sadduces stuck at and that if it could be once prov'd out of the Books of Moses that the Soul was Immortal and did not die with the Body they were ready and willing to grant that there would be a Resurrection of the Body Our Saviour thought it would be enough to convince 'em of the Resurrection of the Body if they could but be convinc'd of the Immortality of the Soul If the Doctrine of the Resurrection were not so clearly reveal'd to the Jews as to be always own'd as a necessary Article of Faith if they saw it through a Glass but darkly and obscurely yet it is not so with Christians If they knew but in part and prophesy'd but in part yet he being come which is perfect that which was only in part is to us done away I shall now in the next place demonstrate the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the same Humane Body to be the Doctrine of the Gospel And this I shall do by shewing First That it is the Doctrine of the New Testament Secondly That it is the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers The Arguments which I shall draw from the New Testament are these First Our Saviour's own Testimony concerning the place from whence the Resurrection is to be Marvel not at this For the Hour is coming in the which 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 This is a plain and express Declaration that the Body that lies in the Grave is to rise again To the same purpose St. John in the Revelations And the Sea gave up the Dead which were in it and Death and Hell i. e. the Grave deliver'd up the Dead which were in them And they were judg'd every Man according to their Works 'T is confess'd by Origen himself that the Bodies to which our Souls are to be united in the Resurrection will be rais'd up out of the Graves where the Dead are reposited Yet he advances an Hypothesis which supposes a diversity of Particles He tells us as St. Methodius and St. Jerom represent his Opinon that as a Grain of Corn that is sown has a a Natural Principle or Faculty by which it attracts the Particles of Matter that lie near it and so grows up and produces new Corn So in the Substance of our Bodies that lies dissolv'd in the Grave there remain certain semina resurrectionis a certain Power and Faculty by which in the Day of Judgment at the sound of the Trump the Dead shall in a moment grow up There shall spring up he says from those Seeds not the same Flesh but another and with a form different from what we now have The same Hypothesis he maintains in his Work against Celsus We say that as the Blade springs up from a grain of Wheat so in the Body there is a certain natural Principle or Faculty which as it is never corrupted it-self so there springs up from it an incorruptible Body And the same we find again in a Fragment produced by Pamphilus out of his Second Book concerning the Resurrection Yet there he says that after the Resurrection we shall be the very same Men. The Foundation of this Hypothesis of Origen is St. Paul's comparing our Resurrection to the growing of Corn of which I shall speak by and by and shew how unreasonable it is to argue against the Identity of the Body from that Comparison To shew the Absurdity of this Hypothesis let us suppose that the Body was never buried but expos'd in the Air or perfectly burnt to Ashes or drown'd and dissolv'd in the Sea and let this be done some Thousands of years ago I would ask an Origenist Where are then his principia resurrectionis 'T is impossible to conceive any such semina resurgendi unless we will suppose that there always remains some little part of the Body undissolv'd And therefore some of the Jews who will have the Body to be made up in the Resurrection by growing as out of a Seed and from whom
ingenious Author that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not meant that the Doors of the Room into which our Saviour entred were then actually shut but only that it was then Night Though indeed it was in the Night that He appear'd yet because it cannot be prov'd as I think it cannot that that Phrase is any where else us'd to signifie the Night-time and 't is likely that the Doors of their Houses were wont to be shut tho' perhaps not bolted as well in the Day-time as at Night and therefore it could not be well us'd to signify the Night-time I am content to understand the Words in the common acceptation Yet I say it cannot be thence prov'd that our Saviour's Body was not then a true humane Body But if the Doors were then really shut and his Body were truly of the Nature of Man's how was it possible for him to enter into the Room In answer to this I ask another Question How was it possible for our Saviour to walk on the Water as he did and to make St. Peter do the like Was not that contrary to the Nature of a Humane Body I shall not pretend to prescribe a way to the Almighty But this I am sure of it was easie for Omnipotence to effect that Miracle several ways He might either open a passage into the Room which the Disciples did not see or rarefy his Body for that present Moment So likewise he might vanish away either by an exceeding swift Motion or by altering the Medium or the Sight of the Spectators And thus St. Luke tells us that when he appear'd to some of his Disciples in the way and convers'd with 'em they did not know him What was the Reason of that St. Mark says that he appear'd in another form But was it really so No the difference was in their Sight not in his Conntenance St Luke expresly affirms that their eyes were held that they should not know him And as soon says he as their Eyes were open'd they knew him Whatsoever means his Almighty Power was pleas'd to make use of we have his own express Testimony for it that his Body was the very same with that which was crucified and that it was still truly Humane consisting of Flesh and Bones He ate with his Disciples as a Man and had the Holes which the Nails had made in his Hands and his Feet and his Wound still remaining in his Side Which he therefore was pleas'd to preserve that St. Thomas and all Unbelievers might be fully convinc'd of the reality of his Resurrection When he enter'd into the Room amongst his Disciples and they thought he had been a Spirit because they did not see the Door open'd Why says he are you troubled and why do thoughts arise in your hearts Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my-self Handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and Bones as ye see me have And according to this we declare in the Fourth Article of our Church that Christ being dead and buried took again his Body with Flesh Bones and all things appertaining to Man's Nature Clemens Alex. in a Fragment of his Comments on the 1 Ep. of St. John which is extant in Cassiodorus tells us of an odd sort of Tradition that St. John once touching Christ's Body thrust his Hand into the inward parts of his Body the hardness of the Flesh not at all resisting it but giving way to it But this Tradition was not concerning his Body after his Resurrection but even before he was crucified and to this they imagin'd that St. John had respect in these Words That which was from the beginning which we have heard which we have seen with our eyes which we have look'd upon and our hands have handled of the Word of Life To prove the Humanness of Christ's Body after his Resurrection I might add if need were the Testimony of St. Ignatius I know says he and believe that even after his Resurrection he appear'd in the Flesh. And when he came to Peter and the rest he said unto them Take hold of me handle me and see that I am not an incorporeal Spirit And immediately they touch'd him and believ'd Instead of those Words in our Creed And ascended into Heaven the Primitive Church asserted expresly in their Creed that he ascended into Heaven in the flesh The Church says St. Irenaeus spread throughout the whole World to the ends of the Earth hath receiv'd this Faith from the Apostles and their Disciples that there is one God That Jesus Christ the Son of God was incarnate for our Salvation and that he was taken up in the flesh into Heaven c. Ephremius Patriarch of Antioch affirms that Christ is now known in the flesh St. Athanasius affirms that he carried up into Heaven the very same †Flesh that he had when living And to mention no more in the Synodical Epistle of the Church of Rome under Pope Damasus there 's an Anathema denounced against any one that shall not confess That He sits on the right Hand of the Father in the Flesh which he had when living and that he shall come in the same to judge the quick and the dead The same Anathema you may read in Vigilius Tapsensis IX That our Resurrection will be of the same nature with our Saviour's and our Bodies the same as his was that is numerically the same with those that died consisting of the same Particles and still truly Humane I shall farther prove from the Example of those who rose out of their Graves at the time of his Resurrection And the Graves were opened says St. Matthew and many Bodies of Saints which slept arose and came out of the Graves after his Resurrection and went into the Holy City and appear'd unto many This was to shew that Christ by his Resurrection had conquer'd Death and the Dead were then rais'd as an Earnest of our future Resurrection We may here observe First That the Bodies of those that appear'd were not form'd of other Matter but the same that lay buried in the Graves arose Secondly That the Graves were open'd that the Bodies might arise and come forth which demonstrates that those Bodies were not Subtle and Ethereal but of a Gross Humane Substance And this is likewise evident from those Words and appear'd unto many For what else can be understood by those Words but that they so appear'd as to be known X. To these Examples we will here add those Types of our Resurrection which are mention'd in the Old Testament I mean the Translations of Enoch and Elias The Author to the Hebrews tells us that Enoch was translated that he should not see Death And the same is true of Elias 'T is the Opinion I know of some of the Rabbi's that the Bodies in which Enoch and Elias were translated were immediately dissolv'd and that new ones were created for 'em
after the same likeness But this is a Conjecture altogether groundless and precarious And it is not I think to be doubted but that as they were translated in their Bodies so they still retain the very same and will always retain ' em And this to me is another very clear Demonstration that the Bodies to which our Souls are to be united in the next Life will be numerically the same XI I shall conclude all these Arguments with another drawn from the proper signification of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Resurrection which is every where used in the New Testament and signifies rising again If the same Particles of Matter that were buried be not to rise if the Body is to be altogether new as to its Substance how can it be said to be a Resurrection a rising again That Body which rises again must be that which once died For nothing can be said to rise again but that which once fell If a new Body be to be created and united to the Soul if all that we are to expect be only this that after Death our Souls will be again united to a Body certainly they would never have chosen so very improper a Word to express it as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Resurrection It 's generally suppos'd by Natural Philosophers that in the space of about Seven Years all the Particles of a Man's Body are chang'd Now suppose you will say that a Man should keep his Bed for above Seven Years together and at last should recover and rise again tho' there be not one Particle in his Body when he rises the same that he had when first he began to keep his Bed yet the Body with which he rises may properly be said to be the very same The Body in such a case may properly be said to rise again I answer that there 's a great deal of difference betwixt a Body whose Particles are gradually chang'd in a continu'd union with the Soul and a Body whose Particles are chang'd not gradually but all together Altho' in the case suppos'd the Body is understood to be the same and may properly be said to rise again tho' it has not any the same Particles yet when the Soul is separated from the Body if that Body be dissolv'd and new Particles be form'd into a Body and united to the Soul it cannot be said to be the same or to rise again I appeal to the common Sense of Mankind I proceed now to shew in the Second place that our Doctrine of the Identity of the Body in the Resurrection is the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers the successors of Christ and his Apostles The Fathers and ancient Writers of the primitive Ages whose Testimonies I shall produce are these which follow I. St. Clement Bishop of Rome the Companion and Fellow-Labourer of St. Paul the Apostle In his First Epistle to the Corinthians he endeavours to convince that People of the possibility of the Resurrection by the Example of the Phenix which he says according to the Opinion of those times was produced out of the same Matter of which the dead one was compounded He intimates that the Phenix was design'd by God Almighty as an Emblem of our Resurrection to assure us that he will certainly raise us up Why therefore says he do we esteem it a great matter and wonderful that the Creater of all things should raise up all those that have serv'd him holily since by a Bird he manifests to us the magniâ—…cence of his Promise And tho' he makes use of several other Comparisons yet he ehieâ—…y inâ—…s on this as the most apposlte and is very long and particular upon it Secondly He endeavours to eonvince the Corinthians of the possibility of it by representing to 'em the Almighty Power of God and his Veraeity that nothing is impossible to him but to lye and the like Thirdly To prove the Doctrine of the Resurrection he produces those Words of Job Thou shalt raise up my Flesh. I observe the Word Flesh. In the Greek Translation of the Book of Job it is Skin This St. Clement thought â—…it to change to express the thing more fully and 't is worthy to be observ'd that when he changed the Word he call'd it not Body but flesh Fourthly in his Second Epistle he has these Words Let no one of you say that this flesh shall not be judg'd nor rise Do you know in what you were saved in what you were converted unless it were in this Flesh We ought therefore so to keep our Flesh as the Temple of God For as ye were call'd in the Flesh so shall ye come in the flesh The Lord Jesus Christ who has saved us being first a Spirit was made Flesh and so call'd us So we likewise in this flesh than receive a Reward I know this Second Epistle is by some suspected not to be St. Clement's But as it is suspected so 't is only suspected not proved and this at least is certain that it is exceeding ancient Having thus shewn what was St. Clement's Doctrine I shall now subjoin some few Remarks 1. That the First Epistle was written by St. Clement not in his own Name only tho' his Authority alone were enough to demonstrate our Doctrine to be the Doctrine of the Church but in the Name of the whole Church of Rome This appears from the Title of it and from the Testimony of St. Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius and others Clemens Alexandrinus quotes it in one place by the Title of The Epistle of the Romans to the Corinthians 2. That in most Churches it was wont to be read together with the Canonical Scriptures not only in Eusebius's time about the end of the Third Centry but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he himself asserts in those Times which to him were the ancient Times From hence it is evident that the primitive Church in general profess'd the same Doctrine It appears from St. Epiphanius that in his time not only the First but the Second too was wont to be read in the same manner St. Clement says he in his Circular Epistles which are read in the Holy Churches c. And in the last of the Canons ascribed to the Apostles the same is mention'd together with the First as part of the Canonical Scripture 3. That St. Clement writes to the same Church to whom St. Paul had written before concerning the Resurrection Now since he found that some of the Corinthians persisted still in their unbelief notwithstanding what St. Paul had written to 'em if the Doctrine of St. Paul and the Catholick Church had been only concerning a new Ethereal Body he would have told 'em so in the plainest Terms that possibly he could not have written so to 'em as plainly to intimate if not assert the quite contrary Why are you so hard of believe Has not St. Paul already told you that the Body in the
Resurrection shall not be the same Humane Body as you imagine but a new one and of a quite different kind 4. It manifestly appears from this obstinate unbelief of some in that Church that they did not understand St. Paul of a new Ethereal Body That the Soul after Death is invested with an Ethereal Body was the common and receiv'd Opinion of the Greeks themselves the Pythagoreans and the Platonists And though they commonly believ'd that the Soul has an Ethereal Body or Vehicle in its state of Prae-existence and that it retains the same even whilst it is united to the Humane Body and also after Death yet they did not think it necessary that it should always be invested with the same which it had before its separation from the Humane Body Plato asserts that The Soul will always have a Body but sometimes of one Kind and sometimes of another And Porphyry affirms that according as the Soul is affected so it assumes a Body suitable to its present Condition that being thoroughly purged it assumes a Body of the purest Sort the next in degree to Immateriality And with that according to his Philosophy it lives for ever in Heaven The Conclusion is that if the Apostles had intended not the same Body that died but another Ethereal One 't is impossible that their Doctrine should meet with so great Opposition as it did Was this the Doctrine that the Corinthians could not believe Could that which their own Philosophers had taught 'em seem so strange and incredible a Thing when preach'd by the Apostles It is plain from St. Paul that the Corinthians to whom he wrote thought the Resurrection a strange and incredible Thing and after they had receiv'd St. Paul's Epistle they still continued to think it so They still thought it as is evident from what St. Clement answers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strange and wonderful Thing Was the Union of the Soul to an Ethereal Body after Death so strange and wonderful a Thing to the Corinthians that they could not believe St. Paul but forced St. Clement to write again and again to 'em to convince ' em Was it for this that St. Clement to convince 'em was forc'd to insist so much on the Almighty Power of God If the Epistle ad Tarsenâ—…es were genuine to St. Clement we might add St. Ignatius who was constituted Bishop of Antioch by the Apostles themselves In that Epistle they who assert that this flesh is not to rise are reckon'd amongst the Ministers of Satan But since that Epistle is spurioâ—…s we must pass by Him unless you will grant that those Words of his concerning his being condemn'd to be devour'd by wild Beasts had some respect to the Resurrection of the Body I am the Wheat says he of God and am ground small by the teeth of Beasts that I may be â—…ound pure Bread II. At the same time flourish'd St. Polyâ—… who was Disciple to St. John the Evâ—…ngelist When he was bound to the Sâ—…ake to be burn'd he thanked God that he was now to suffer Martyrdom and to partake of the Cap of Christ in order to the Resurrection of everlasting Life both of Soul and Body You may read his Prayer in the Epistle of the Church of 〈◊〉 which is Extant in Eusebius III. At the same time also lived Papiaâ—… Bishop of â—…rapolis St. Irenâ—…s tells us that he was Disciple to St. John the Evangelist and a familiar Acquaintance of St. Polyâ—…p's This is certain that he liv'd in the time of those who had been conversant with the Apostles and had made it his Business to collect the Doctrines of the several Apostles from the Mouths of such as had convers'd with ' em Now that He asserted the Resurrection of the same Humane Body Eusebius plainly intimates when he tells us that according to his Opinion Christ is to reign here corporally upon Earth after the Resurrection from the Dead a Thousand Years St. Maximus affirms that he held that after the Resurrection we shall eat and drink as before Such an Opinion as this could never be built on meer Air. Whether true or false it plainly shews that the Apostles did not preach the Resurrection of an Airy or Ethereal Body IV. The Sibylline Oracles publish'd by some Christian not long after these times within about Thirty Years after St. John the Apostle's Death say That God after he has destroy'd the World and all mankind by Fire will restore their Ashes and Bones and form 'em again as they were before And the Verses which tell us thus much are extant not only in the Volume which now we have but also in the ancient Apostolical Constitutions where they are cited V. St. Justin Martyr who flourish'd in the Year 140 and was first instructed in the Christian Faith by one that was not only of Man's Estate but of a considerable Age when St. John was yet living not only speaks in several places of his Works of the Rising Body as of the very same and truly Humane but in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew he gives him this Caution that if he met with any that had the Name of Christians but denied the Resurrection of the Dead he should not esteem them Christians For I says he and all those Christians who in all respects hold the true Opinions do know that there will be a Resurrection of the flesh He says expresly The Resurrection of the flesh And the same Word he used in the Title of a Book which he wrote professedly on this Subject Concerning the Resurrection of the flesh They did not call it in those Days The Resurrection of the Body because some of the Hereticks who denied the Resurrection of the Flesh pretended however to believe the Resurrection of the Body but that all might know that they intended the Verâ—… same Humane Body they call'd it in downright Terms The Resurrection of the flesh VI. Tatianus Syrus who was Disciple to Justin M. in his Oration against the Gentiles We shall be restored says he to what we are and be judg'd by God the Creator This we believe tho' you look upon us as silly triflers and bablers for it For as once I had no being and then was begotten so being born and again reduced by Death to what I was I I shall be restored to my being again Tho' all my Flesh shall be consum'd by Fire yet the World contains the evaporated Matter Though I should be drown'd and dissolv'd in a River or the Sea or be devoun'd by wild Beasts yet I am laid â—…p in the Repositories of God The Ignoranâ—… indeed and the Atheist know not where my Substance is reposited but God who reigns and who alone sees it will restore it in his due Time to its former State VII St. Irenâ—…us who was born before the Death of St. John and was Scholar to St. Polycâ—…rp one of his Disciples affrms
Flesh of God the Word in Heaven together with God the Word I shall not here take Notice of the Dialogue against the Marcionites which is extant under Origen's Name in which the Catholick Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Same Humane Body is zealously asserted and maintain'd against those Hereticks I do not take it to be Origen's Yet t is certain that it is very ancient There are some that reckon Origen among the Asserters of the Millennarian Doctrine which Doctrine supposes a Resurrection of a true Humane Body But I think it is a Mistake Quis haec audiens resurrectionem carnis eum negare putet So St. Jerom after those Words of Origen which I but now transcrib'd from him Who would believe that Origen who in so many Places of his Works acknowledges the Resurrection of the Same Humane Body should in others advance quite contrary Notions and Opinions Whatever Pamphilus alledges in his behalf it is too too True that he did so You desire me to give you a particular account of his Opinions relating to the Resurrection Huetius I remember in his Origeniana treats largely of 'em But I have not that Work at present by me You must therefore be contented with what I have to present you of my own In short they are These 1. That in some places of his Works he advances this Opinion That the Body in the Resurrection is made up of new Particles by growing as Corn does out of a Seed I have already shewn In the First Canon of the Council of Trulla it is said that He and his Followers Evagrius and Didymus spoke wickedly and contumeliously of the Resurrection of the Dead Aristinus tells us more particularly that they foolishly said that these very Bodies that we now have are not to rise They denied says the Anonymous Author De Synodis the Resurrection of that Body which now we have They taught says another Anonymous Writer De Synodis That our Bodies are not to rise Epiphanius tells us that the Followers of Origen acknowledg'd the Resurrection of the Dead and of our flesh and of the Body of our Lord the same that was conceiv'd of the Virgin Mary yet they did not own that the same flesh shall rise but that another will be substituted by God in its Place And the same he says was the Opinion of the Hereticks call'd Hieracites that there will be a Resurrection of the flesh but not of this which now we have but another which will be substituted in its Place 2. St. Jerom says that the Followers of Origen when urg'd by the Catholicks would acknowledge the Resurrection not only of the Body but also of the flesh and if they were press'd very hard and were ask'd whether they own'd the Resurrection of this same Flesh which we now have which is seen and touch'd and walks and speaks they would assent even to that too But if they were ask'd whether they own'd that the Body in the Resurrection will have Hands and Feet a Belly Breast Teeth and the other Parts which make up a Humane Body that they denied 3. The same Author tells us that Origen in many places of his Works especially in his IV. Book Concerning the Resurrection and in his Exposition of the First Psalm and in his Stromata denied that the Body will rise with Bones Blood and flesh and such Parts and Members as now we have or with difference of Sexes and affirm'd that it will be Aereal Ethereal intangible and invisible and that whereas we now see with our Eyes hear with our Ears work with our Hands and walk with our Feet we shall then be all Sight all Hearing c. That the Body will be Subtle and Ethereal he asserts in his Comment on St. Matthew And in his Second Book against Celsus we are told that the Body of Christ after his Resurrection was so constituted as to be of a middle Temper between the fineness of the Soul and the grossness it had before his Death St. Maximus likewise observes that in some of his Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so I read it as a Manuscript has it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one of his Books he made the rising Body to be Ethereal 4. The Account which St. Methodius gives of his Opinion is this He tells us in one place that Origen taught That in the Resurrection we shall have the same species of Body the same Form or Appearance yet it will not consist of the same Matter as our Bodies in old Age retain the same Species yet have not any the same Particles which we had in our Youth In another place he says that Origen in his Comment on the LXV Psalm compared our Bodies to a Bladder full of Water if you let the Water run and keep pouring in new the Bladder retains the same form though the Water be all chang'd so says he it is with the Body in the Resurrection it is not numerically the same Body yet the Form and Figure is the same tho' made more Glorious 5. The same Author adds that according to Origen tho' the Body in the Resurrection retains the same intire Species or form yet it throws off its earthly Qualities and tho' it has the Shape and Figure of a Body of Flesh yet it is not flesh And this says he he proves from that Assertion of St. Paul that Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven which is spoken only of the Infirmities and Corruptions of Flesh and Blood and from other Texts of that kind 6. The same Author tells us in Photius that Origen made the Body in the Resurrection to consist of Air and Fire 7. From the same and other Authors it appears that he asserted with the Platonists that the Body is no part of the Man but the Soul alone is the whole Man and that the Body is the Pâ—…ison of the Soul into which it is sent by way of punishment for some Sin it had committed in a state of Pre-existence 8. Agreeable to this is that Fansie of his concerning the Creation of our first Parents Adam and Eve That they were created nudae mentes and had not any Bodies 'till after their Fall that then God cloath'd 'em with Bodies by way of Punishment And this he says is meant by that place in Genesis where 't is said that unto Adam and to his Wife did the Lord God make Coats of Skins and cloath'd them By Coats of Skins he understands Bodies 9. In his Books against Celsus he tells us that the reason why the Body is to rise and be united to the Soul is because the Soul cannot move without a Material Vehicle 10. In other places he tells us that the Soul is never without a Material Vehicle and that it is not capable of being rewarded or punish'd but in a Body and that before the Resurrection it is rewarded or punish'd
THE Resurrection OF The same Body ASSERTED FROM The Traditions of the Heathens the Ancient Jews and the Primitive Church WITH An ANSWER to the OBJECTIONS brought against it By HUMPHRY HODY D. D. Fellow of Wadham College in Oxford and Chaplain to His Grace JOHN Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Non enim levia sunt illa de quibus contendimus sed ejusmodi ut illa scire praestantius sit ignorare turpissimum St. Methodius de Resurrectione LONDON Printed for Awnsham and John Churchill at the Black-Swan in Pater-Noster-Row 1694. REVERENDO ADMODUM IN CHRISTO PATRI AC PRAESULI Edvardo Stillingfleet Grandi Nomini HISTORIAM HANC Resurrectionis Corporis Sacellanus nuper semper Cultor Ejus Devotissimus HUMFREDUS HODY D. D. C. TO THE READER THis Treatise contains a History of the Resurrection of the Body The Grand Design of it is to prove the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the same Humane Body to be the Doctrine of the Gospel If that be prov'd the Truth of it is sufficiently demonstrated and that is all the Author desires should be granted him What he lays down concerning the Heathens and Jews and that which he advances concerning the Resurrection its being once a General Doctrine deriv'd down from Noah and the Ante-diluvian Patriarchs all that is ex abundanti and design'd only for the more Curious There is one thing more which he bad me say and that is this That he treads not in any Man's Steps but the Entertainment which he has here prepared for thee is wholly and in all its Parts new at least his own May â—…6 1694. THE CONTENTS PART I. Concerning the Opinions of the Heathens That they held many Opinions which were grounded on a Tradition concerning the Resurrection and that some of them hold the Resurrection in the true Christian Sense THeir gross Notions concerning the Soul in its state of separation that it has all the same Parts that the Body has p. 3. A Mistake of St. Justin Martyr p. 4. Their Opinion concerning the Transmigration of Souls p. 6. Their Opinion concerning the duration of the Soul as long as the Body lasted and its adherence to the Body after Death p. 11. They believe thâ—… some Men have aâ—…cended up into Heaven in their Bodies there to live for ever p. 13. That others have done so even after Death upon a Re union of their Souls and Bodies p. 15. The Opinion of the Pythagoreans and Platonists c. concerning the Restitution of our Bodies and of all other things in the World to their former state after the revolution of maâ—…y Ages by a new Birth or production p. 16. The Opinion of some of the Genethliacal Writers that the Soul returns and is united to the same Body in the space of 440 Years p. 20. The Opinion of the Stoicks concerning the reproduction of all the same Men c. after the general Conflagration p. 20. That Democritus asserted the Resurrection Epicurus's Opinion concerning the restauration of the very same Bodies after a great space of time p. 26. Merick Casaubon's Mistake concerning the Opinion of the Emperor M. Antoninus p. 23. The Resurrection asserted in the same sense as we understand it by the ancient Magi and by the present Heathen Gaurs of Persia the Relicts of the ancient Magi p. 29. By some of the ancient Arabians p. 31. By some of the Banians of India p. 33. By the present Inhabitants of the Island of Ceylon p. 36. Of Java p. 37. Of Pegu p. 37. Of Transiana p. 37. By some amongst the Chinese p. 37. By the Arderians in Guinnee p. 45. And by the ancient Prussians p. 45. These Traditions concerning the Resurrection not receiv'd from the Jews but transmitted down from Noah and the Ante-diluvian Patriarohs p. 49. PART II. Concerning the Opinions of the ancient Jews p. 53. to 107. THE Doctrine of the Resurrection no Article of Faith or Term of Communion among them 'till about 100 Years after Christ p. 53. c. Not own'd by the Essens p. 54. nor by Philo p. 56. yet the common and general Doctrine long before that time p. 64. Their not making it a Term of Communion no Argument against the certainty of it The Soul's Immortality it self no Term of the Jewish Communion in those times The Sadduces own'd as true Jews p. 89. The Opinion of Josephus p. 66. Of the Sapientes Mecar p. 60. the Hemero-Baptists p. 61. and the Samaritans p. 62. They that held the Resurrection understood it to be of the same Humane Body The Opinion of some of the Jews concerning the passing of their Bodies under-ground to the Holy Land and their Custom of carrying the Bones of their Dead thither p. 70. The Transmigration of Souls held by many of the Jews p. 78. and by some of the Pharisees in the time of Josephus p. 81. Whether held by any in our Saviour's time p. 82. They that own the Transmigration acknowledge withal a Resurrection p. 87. Testimonies for the Resurrection out of the Old Testament p. 96. PART III. Concerning the Doctrine of the Primitive Church THE Resurrection of the same Humane Body demonstrated from the New Testament p. 107 c. and from the Doctrine of the Primitive Writers which flourish'd before the time of Origen such as St. Clement of Rome p. 133. Justin M. p. 141. Irenaeus p. 142. Athenagoras p. 143. Theophilus of Antioch p. 144. The Churches of Lions and Vienna p. 144. Clemens Alex. p. 145. Tertullian p. 145. and others And from the Creeds of the Primitive Church and others in several Ages p. 171. The Inconsistences and Contradictions of Origen p. 108 109 152 to 168. That he himself in some places of his Works own'd the Resurrâ—…ction of the same Humane Body p. 152. That the Primitive Fathers would never have embraced the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the same humane Body if it had not been evidently Apostolical 180. PART IV. Objections answer'd The Qualities of the Body in the Resurrection The Reason why it is to rise p. 184 c. The principal Errata are these PAge 9. Line 17. for their Souls read the Soul p. 23. l. 22. r. Merick p. 30. l. 12. r. Years which Ibid l. 9. r. Guebres p. 53. l. 8. r. of the number p. 58. l. 25. r. will free p. 59. l. 9. r. dissolution p. 93. l. 12. for Rights 〈◊〉 Rites p. 100. l. 9. r. unwilling Ibid l. 15. r. do not conâ—…in p. 109. l. 1. r. represent p. 171. l. 24. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from St. Austin The Resurrection of the same Body asserted THE Resurrection is defin'd by Maimonides to be The return of the Soul into the same Body from which it had been separated and agreeable to this Definition the Catholick Faith spread throughout the whole Christian World is this That the same Body which died consisting of the same Particles shall rise again out of its Grave in the Day of Judgment and be re-united to the Soul But
speak of the Resurrection He in his Discourse with Alexander has these Words Thou shalt not lie hid from God neither shalt thou have any Place to which thou mayest flee at the time of the Resurrection Neither shalt thou escape his Vengeance But as that Discourse is altogether fictitious so the Author's Judgment who makes him talk after this manner deserves not to be regarded My Fourth Example is the Inhabitants of the Island of Ceylon in the East-Indies These People says another Traveller of our own Nation who liv'd amongst 'em no less than 19 Years and could not but be very well acquainted with their Belief do firmly believe a Resurrection of the Body and the Immortality of Souls and a future State They hold that in the other World those that are good Men tho' they be poor and mean in this World yet there they shall become high and Eminent But wicked Men they say will be turned into Beasts The Fifth is the Inhabitants of Java another of the East-Indian Isles who believe as Le Blanc affirms that after their Flesh is wholly consum'd their Souls will re-unite to the Body and remain in Peace to all Eternity The Sixth is the People of Pegu another Country in the East-Indies It 's affirm'd by a Roman Missionary who lived amongst 'em some years that they believe a Vivification of the Body after Death and re-union with the Soul The Seventh is the People of Transiana a Country adjoining to Pegu on the North of it who when they bury a dead Body burn the Heart and Bowels as a Sacrifice to their Duma or God then put the Ashes within the Corpse again That nothing as they say may be wanting at the Day of Resurrection The Eighth is some of the Chinese Gaspar Da Cruz gives us this Account of the Opinions of some of that Nation They make says he many Heavens some where there is Meat and Drink and fair Women whither all living things do go And to these they say all Men do go that are not of the Religious They place others higher whither they say the holy Priests do go that live in the Wildernesses and all the Felicity they give them there is to sit refreshing themselves with the Wind. They place others yet higher the Gods of which they say have round Bodies like Bowls those that go to these Heavens have round Bodies as the Gods themselves have The same Author tells us That they wear their Hair long holding that by it they shall be carried to Heaven That the Priests are generally shaven for they say They need no help to carry them to Heaven This might pass I presume with many for a full and sufficient Proof that they own a Resurrection But I do not my-self rely on it These Opinions might be grounded on the gross Notion they might have of the Materiality of the Soul I mention'd in the beginning of this Discourse that the Heathens generally believe that the Soul has all the same Parts that the Body has They believe that the Parts of the Soul when the Soul is united to the Body are diffused throughout all the Parts of the Body that if a man's Body has Hair his Soul has Hair too and that if you cut off his Hair you cut off together with it the Hair of the Soul That some in that great and populous Empire acknowledge a Resurrection is more plainly asserted by others Pinto tells us of a Sect named Trimechau who are of Opinion That so long as a Man lives in this World so long shall he remain under Ground 'till at length by the Prayers of the Priests his Soul shall reassume the Body of a Child of Seven Days old wherein he shall live again till he shall grow so strong as to re-enter into the old Body which he left in the Grave and so be translated into the Heaven of the Moon where they say he shall live many Years and in the end be converted into a Star which shall remain fixt above in the Firmament for ever The same Author if he deserve that Name and be not rather in this as he is in a great many of his Stories a Romancer has another Relation which makes directly to our Purpose It is somewhat long and I fear you will think it tedious perhaps ridiculous but however I shall here present you with it because as I remember you have not the Author in your Library I must ingenuously confess I do not my-self much believe it But I must not make my Judgment the Rule of other Men's It may perhaps be true at least some part of it tho' the Prejudice which I have against the Relator makes it seem very doubtful to me If after you have read it you think it unworthy of this place before you shew these Papers to any of your Friends be pleas'd to strike it quite out or let it be lookt upon only as a Parenthesis He tells us of a place in Pequin the chief City of China called the Treasure of the Dead in which are many little Houses according to the Report of the Chinese no less than 3000 full of dead Men's Skulls with Two great Mounts of their other Bones That there is a Register kept of those Bones and Skulls to whom they belong'd In that place says he there are Two great Idols call'd The Blowers of the House of Smoak so the Chinese use to call Hell and the Figure of a Monstrous Serpent call'd The gluttonous Serpent of the House of Smoak with a great Bowl of Iron on his Head as if it had been thrown at him from some other place and near it another great Figure in the form of a Giant holding a great Iron Bowl aloft in his Hands and beholding the Serpent with a frowning and angry Countenance he seems as if he would throw his Bowl at him Round about this Figure is a number of little Idols on their Knees with their Hands lifted up as if they would adore it But what means all this long Story What you will say are these Houses of Skulls these Giants Serpents and Bowls to our Purpose The Explication he gives of all these things is this All this great Edifice says he was consecrated to the Honour of this Idol call'd Mucluparon whom the Chinese affirm'd to be the Treasurer of all the dead Bones and that when the Gluttonous Serpent before-mentioned came to steal them away he made at him with the Bowl which he held in his Hands whereupon the Serpent in great fear fled away to the bottom of the profound House of Smoak whither God precipitated him for his great Wickedness And farther they affirm'd that he had maintain'd a Combat with him 3000 Years already and was to continue the same 3000 Years more so that from 3000 to 3000 Years he was to employ Five Bowls wherewith he was to make an end of killing him Hereupon they added that assoon as this
These I had says he from Heaven and for his Laws I despise 'em and from him I hope to receive 'em again This happen'd about 165 Years before Christ. 'T is true I am not fully perswaded that these Words were really spoken by that Martyr Since there were not any Jews then present who might think it worth their while to commit the Words of those several Martyrs to Memory it may be reasonably suppos'd that the Speeches ascrib'd to 'em were made by the Author of the History as is usual with other Historians Thus Josephus in his History of those Martyrs makes 'em speak quite different Speeches so likewise the Arabick History which is extant in the Polyglot Bible and if I well remember the Hebrew Ben Gorion all differing both from the Book of Maccabees and from one another Yet this at least is to be concluded from these Words that when the Second of Maccabees was written this Doctrine was generally receiv'd and 't was also then taken for granted that at that time when those Martyrs suffer'd it was the general and receiv'd Doctrine How ancient that Book is we do not certainly know but we know from Clemens Alexandrinus who cites it that it was extant within 150 Years after our Saviour's Pasâ—…ion and from the First and Second Chapters it may easily be gather'd that it was written long before his Nativity before the Jews were conquer'd by the Romans 2. We read in the same Book that Razis the Jew when he pluck'd out his own Bowels and cast 'em with his Hands upon the Throng call'd upon the Lord of Life and Spirit to restore him those again 3. I know that he shall rise again in the Resurrection at the last day Thus Martha concerning her Brother Lazarus when our Saviour had told her that tho' he then lay dead and buried yet he should rise again She knows it she says and does not at all doubt of it 4. That it was the common and receiv'd Opinion of the Jews at that time that the Body in the Resurrection would be truly a Humane Body is farther evident from that Question of the Sadduces concerning the Woman that had been married to Seven Brethren Whose Wife she should be in the Resurrection 5. It 's evident likewise from that Saying of one of the Jews at the Feast where Christ was present in the House of one of the chief Pharisees When Christ had told the Pharisee that if he invited the Poor c. he should be recompens'd at the Resurrection of the Just one of those that sate at Meat with him made him this Answer Blessed is he that shall eat Bâ—…ead in the Kingdom of God Their Opinion was that they should Eat and Drink in the next Life as well as in this 6. Josephus the learned Jew who was born in the Thirty Seventh Year after Christ professes himself a Follower of the Pharisees and in another place he tells us the place I shall produce hereafter that the Pharisees own'd a Transmigration of the Soul out of one Body into another It should therefore seem that he himself also held it But it is not necessary that because he chose rather to adhere to the Sect of the Pharisees than to that of the Essens or Sadduces he should therefore be in all things a Pharisee In his Third Book of the War he seems to intimate that the Souls of the Wicked shall not after Death be re-conjoin'd to a Body but he plainly asserts that those of the Good shall And from this consideration he endeavours to disswade his Companions from laying violent Hands upon themselves Such Souls says he as are pure and obedient obtain the most Holy place of Heaven whence after the great Revolution of the World or after the circumvolution of many Ages they shall return and again inhabit Chast Bodies But they who lay violent Hands upon themselves their Souls are cast into Hell and God punishes their Sin in their Posterity Whether he held the Resurrection or only the Transmigration of the Soul we cannot from this place certainly conclude But from another place of his Works if he were the true Author of the Book call'd Maccabaica it appears very evidently that he own'd the Resurrection For he cites there that place of the Prophet Ezechiel where he speaks of the raising up of the dry Bones He tells us that the Maccabees were encouraged by their Mother with the hopes and assurance of a future Life She propos'd says he to her Sons the Saying of Solomon That God is the Wood of Life to them that do his Will And that of Ezechiel Can these dry Bones live Neither did she omit that Saying of Moses in his Song I will kill and I will make alive And from hence it likewise appears that Josephus believ'd that at that time when those Martyrs suffer'd the Doctrine of the Resurrectiâ—…n of the same Humane Body was the common and establish'd Doctrine And that this was the common Opinion in his time may be further gather'd from what he says concerning the Opinion of the Sect of the Essens That they had a most certain Opinion amongst 'em that their Bodies indeed were corruptible and that their Matter should not be perpetual This had been a very idle Observation if some others had not asserted the Perpetuity of the Body as well as of the Soul He therefore takes notice of that Opinion of theirs because it was contrary to the receiv'd and general Opinion 7. In the Targum or Chaldee Paraphrase of Jonathan who is placed by some in the same Age with the Apostles there is mention made of the Second Death in Hell and that too of the Body For thus he paraphrases the Sixth Verse of the Sixty Fifth Chapter of Isaiah Their Vengeance shall be in Hell where the Fire continually burns Behold it is written before me I will not give 'em an end in this Life but will be revenged on 'em for their Sins and deliver their Bodies to the Second Death And here I shall observe by the bye That tho' Josephus seems to intimate that the Wicked are not to rise and many of the Rabbins affirm the same thing Yet from hence it is manifest that among the Ancient Jews there were others of the contrary Perswasion And that in the time of the Apostles this was the general and receiv'd Opinion of the Jews is apparent from those Words of St. Paul in his Apology to Felix But this I confess unto thee that I have Hope towards God which they themselves the Jews also allow that there shall be a Resurrection of the Dead both of the Just and Unjust 8. The Chaldee Paraphrase of the Canticles has these Words C. 8. V. 5. The Prophet Salomon said When the Dead shall revive it shall come to pass that the Mount of Olives shall be cleft and all the Dead of Israel shall come out from thence And the Just too that died in
several Sects among the Jews he affirms of the Pharisees in general that they held That all Souls are immortal That those only of good Men pass into another Body but those of bad Men are eternally punished And agreeably to this in the Eighteenth Book of his Antiquities where he likewise gives an account of the Opinions of the several Sects The Pharisees says he believe that the Souls of Men both Good and Bad are immortal That they have judgment pass'd upon 'em under the ground according to their behaviour in this Life and that those of bad Men are retain'd in perpetual imprisonment but to those of the good there is given the power of returning to Life From the words of Philo Judaeus which I but now produced it appears that he likewise acknowledg'd it 'T is believ'd by some learned Men that this Opinion of the Transanimation was commonly receiv'd even in the time of our Saviour among the Jews But I am rather of Opinion That this part of the Platonical Philosophy began to be receiv'd just after our Saviour's time and that Philo and those Pharisees with whom Josephus had convers'd were the first that taught it That it was not known to the Jews in the time of our Saviour I gather from the Answer which Nicodemus the Pharisee made him when he had told him that no Man can see the Kingdom of God except he be born again A Man be born again It seem'd to the Pharisee a very strange Saying How says he can a Man be born again Can he enter the Second time into his Mother's Womb and be born Had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof we discourse been at that time known and acknowledged among the Jews how could he who was a Master in Israel express so much wonder at the hearing of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned To this we may add that there is not any Argument produced to shew that this Pythagorean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was receiv'd among the Jews in the time of our Saviour but what is ineffectual and grounded on a Mistake In the Gospel of St. Matthew it is said that our Lord asking his Disciples Whom do Men say that I the Son of Man am They told him that some said he was John the Baptist some Elias and others Jeremias or one of the Prophets In the Gospel of St. Mark it is plainly intimated that the most common Opinion concerning him was That he was John the Baptist. He askt his Disciples Whom do Men say that I am And they answer'd John the Baptist. But some say Elias and others one of the Prophets This Opinion of the People concerning our Saviour some learned Commentators as Munster Maldonatus and Drusiâ—…s take to be grounded on the Pythagorean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if they imagin'd that the Soul of John the Baptist or of Elias or some other of the Prophets had entred into his Body in his Conception But how could they imagine it of the Soul of John the Baptist whom they knew to be just then put to Death 'T is very certain that they who took him to be John the Baptist believ'd that John who was beheaded a little before had risen again out of his Grave And that this was their Opinion appears moreover from what St. Matth. says of King Herod that hearing of the fame of Jesus he said unto his Servants This is John the Baptist He is risen from the Dead and therefore mighty Works do shew forth themselves in him St. Luke expresly asserts that the People who took him to be John the Baptist believ'd that the Baptist had risen from the Dead Now Herod the Tetrarch heard of all that was done by him and he was perplext because it was said of some that John was risen from the Dead And of some that Elias had appeared And of others that one of the old Prophets was risen again As for those that thought him to be Elias their Fancy was grounded on the expectation the Jews had of the coming of that Prophet again upon Earth according to that of the Prophet Malachi Behold I will send you Elias the Prophet They believ'd he would come again not by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in the same Body in which he was translated When St. Luke says that they thought Elias had appear'd he plainly intimates that they thought he had descended in his Body not been born again It is said in St. John that the Jews sent Priests and Levites from Jerusalem to John the Baptist to know who he was whether Christ or Elias or that Prophet Grotius in his Comment on this place believes that when they askt him whether he was Elias they imagin'd he might be Elias sent down from Heaven but they says he that askt him that Question shew'd plainly that they did not â—…ow of what Father and Mother he was born or at least doubted of it But in another place of his Comments his Opinion is otherwise He proves from this place that the Jews before Christ acknowledged a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and from them he thinks that Pythagoras borrow'd his Opinion That they could not think John to be Elias any otherwise than by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he proves from this Consideration that he being of the Sacerdotal Order they could not but know him very well But to this I answer that tho' he was of the Sacerdotal Order yet he might very well be unknown to the Jews that then dwelt at Jerusalem How could that be St. Luke will answer for me From his Youth he was in the Deserts 'till the day of his shewing unto Israel Another place from whence some inferr that the Transmigration of Souls was receiv'd among the Jews in those times is St. John ix 2. where we read that Jesus passing by and seeing a Man who was blind from his birth his Disciples askt him saying Master who did sin this Man or his Parents that he was born blind But it is not necessary that because the Disciples believ'd that he sinned before he was born they should therefore believe that his Soul had been before that united to a Body It is much more probable that they thought his Soul might have sinned in its solitary state of Pre-existence and was therefore sent down into such a Body That this was their fancy is agreed by most Commentators St. Cyril of Alexandria and Grotius himself and it cannot be denied but that the Doctrine of the Pre-existence of the Soul was in those times receiv'd among the Jews Sure I am it is at this time their common and established Doctrine I mention'd but now certain Natural Philosophers among the Jews who were call'd Sapientes Mecar and that there seem to have been some so call'd in the time of the Apostles It is probable there were such even before those times It may seem from what I said
or not much better were those who denied the Resurrection as impure and abominable such perchance of whom we may say what Origen does in this latter case See what absurdity Celsus is guilty of who mentions those as of our Religion who cannot endure to hear the Name of Jesus XVII Lucian the noted Atheist a Writer of the same Age has these Words concerning the Christians Those Wretches perswade themselves that they shall be the whole Man both Body and Soul immortal and shall live for ever And on this account they contemn Death and many of 'em offer themselves voluntarily to be put to Death XVIII Minucius Felix who lived in the beginning of the following Age Who says he is so foolish and brutish as to deny that God who first made Man can form him again as he was before 'T is harder to make that which before had no Being than to restore that which once had a Being All Bodies when dissolv'd whether crumbled to Dust or dissolv'd into Moisture or reduced to Ashes or rarefied into Vapour are lost to us but to God the keeper of the Elements they are still preserv'd He brings in his Heathen objecting against the Christians that they believ'd this Doctrine of the Resurrection with so great and firm an assurance as if they themselves had risen to Life XIX The Author of the Book entituled Concerning the Cause of the Universe against the Heathens tells the Heathens that God will raise us all up not shifting the Soul out of one Body into another but raising up the same Bodies You O ye Heathens says he because you see that these Bodies are dissolv'd do not believe that they will rise again But learn you to believe For since ye believe according to Plato that the immortal Soul was made by God you ought not to disbelieve but that God is able to raise up to Life this Body which is compounded of the Elements and to make it immortal c. The Author of this Book was either Caius the Roman Presbyter or St. Hippolytus who both flourish'd in the begining of the Third Age. St. Hippolytus wrote a Book besides with this Title Concerning the Resurrection of the flesh We are now come down to the time of Origen who left the receiv'd Traditions of the worthy Fathers his Predecessors and endeavour'd to accommodate the Doctrine of the Resurrection to the Notions of the Heathen Philosophers He himself owns that the Resurrection of the flesh was the Doctrine preach'd in the Churches But he says that by the more wise it was not understood in so gross a sense as Celsus represented it If he means that the Wiser and Learneder sort of Christians did not believe that the same Humane Body is to rise it appears from the foregoing Testimonies that that is not true We have sought for Christ not among the ignorant Common-People but among the Doctors in the Temple And the Authorities which we have produced are those of the moâ—… Wise and Learned But this was not Origen's meaning He means only thus much That the wiser sort understood that the Flesh in the Resurrection would not be just the same in quality with that which was buried but would be alter'd for the better Neither we says he in his Answer to Celsus nor the holy Scriptures say that the Dead shall rise out of the Earth with the same Flesh without any alteration for the better So firmly establish'd in the Church was the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the same Body that Origen himself tho' in some places of his Works he advances an Hypothesis not agreeable to it yet in many other places he very plainly asserts 〈◊〉 In the Proem of his Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he reckons up the several Doctrines which were own'd to be certain and firmly grounded on the Tradition of the Church he lays down this for one That there shall be a time of the Resurrection of the Dead when this Body that is sown in corruption shall rise in incorruption In the Second Book of the same Work Chap. 10. where he treats professedly of this Doctrine he disputes against the Hereticks that denied the Resurrection after this manner There are some says he especially among the Hereticks that are offended at the Church's Belief of the Resurrection as if we believ'd foolishly and absurdly concerning it To whom we may answer thus If even they themselves confess that there will be a Resurrection of the Dead let 'em answer us this Question what that is which died Is it not the Body The Resurrection therefore will be of the Body Let 'em tell us besides whether they think that we shall have Bodies in the Resurrection or not I think since the Apostle St. Paul says that it is sown a natural Body and shall be rais'd up a spiritual Body they cannot deny but that the Body is to rise or that we are to have Bodies in the Resurrection Now since it is certain that we are to have Bodies in the Resurrection and the Body that fell are said to rise again for nothing but that which fell can properly be said to rise again there is no doubt but that our Bodies are therefore to rise that we may be again cloath'd with ' em For this by a natural consequence follows from that For if our Bodies rise again without all doubt they therefore rise that we may be again cloath'd with ' em And if it be necessary that we should be in Bodies we ought not to be in any other Bodies but our own Now since it is true that they rise and that they rise Spiritual Bodies there is no doubt but that they are to rise again without their Corruption and Mortality For it would be in vain for any one to rise from the Dead that he may die again In his First Book Concerning the Resurrection as his Words are produced by Pamphilus in his Apology he thus disputes for it Is it not absurd that this Body which bears the Scars of Wounds receiv'd for Christ's sake and which as well as the Soul endured cruel Torments in Persecutions and suffer'd the Punishments of Prisons and Bonds and Stripes which was burnt by Fire cut with the Sword devour'd by Wild Beasts tormented on the Cross and many other ways should be defrauded of the Rewards due to it for so great Sufferings For does it not seem contrary to all reason that the Soul which did not suffer alone should be rewarded alone and its Vessel the Body which serv'd it with great labour should obtain no Reward of its Contentions and Victory that the Flesh which resists its natural vicious Inclinations and Lusts and preserves its Virginity with a great deal of labour which labour is more the labour of the Body than of the Soul or at least full as much should be rejected as unworthy in the time of Retribution and the Soul only obtain the Crown To the same purpose are those
in an Ethereal Body 11. In other places he proceeds so far as to deny that the Soul will after Death be united to any Body whatever and to asfirm that at the end of the World all Corporeal Substance will be perfectly annihilated Photius tells us that He and his Followers Evagrius and Didymus asserted that our Bodies are not to rise but our naked Souls alone without Bodies So also says Constantinus Harmenopulus And Anastasiâ—…s Sinaita intimates the same We are told by Leontius that he own'd a Resurrection of the Body but held withal that the Soul being punish'd in the Body is purg'd by degrees and at last freed wholly from it and restored to its primitive state and condition Theophilus Alexandrinus assures us that he made the rising Bodies corruptible and mortal and asserted that after many Ages they will be annihilated That all Corporeal Substance will be at the end of the World annihilated he affirms in several places of his Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated by St. Jerom in his Epistle to Avitus So St. Maximus observes that tho in some of his Books he taught a Resurrection of an Ethereal Body yet in others he denied it affirming that all corporeal Substance will be annihilated 12. In one place of his Work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he tells us that at the time of the Dissolution of the World all Matter will be chang'd into the same Substance of which God himself consists In the same he asserts 13. That as soon as the World is dissolv'd and all Matter annihilated there will be new Matter and a new World created just like this and after that another and so on to Eternity and that before this World was created there had been innumerable others 14. That in the next World he that is now a Man may be an Angel and that which is now an Angel may be a Man by being for it's offences thrust down into a Humane Body If after it is sent down into a Body it does not behave it-self so as to deserve to be restor'd to its former State it will then says he become a Devil and according to its Merits be employ'd in divers Offices in the other Worlds if after this it desires to amend and become better it is sent again into a Humane Body and being there punish'd and purified it at last becomes an Angel as it was at first These were the Opinions of Origen relating to the Resurrection these his strange Contradictions and Inconsistences How dangerous a thing it is in matters of Religion to forsake the Traditions of the Church and to build upon ones own private Fancy we may learn from his Example If once you begin to indulge your own Fancy in Matters of Religion without a due Regard to the Traditions of the Primitive Church you know not where it will end 'T is odds but the head-strong Thing will at last after many Turns and Wanderings bring you to a Precipice No sooner were these Opinions advanc'd and publish'd but the Church began to be alarm'd Liberatus Diaconus affirms that Origen was condemn'd for 'em in his life-time His Apologist Pamphilus who flourish'd and wrote about the latter end of the same Century tells us that that which made the greatest Noise and was chiefly oppos'd was his Opinion concerning the Resurrection The same Author tells us that several had written against him on that Subject One of them was St. Methodius he whom I have several times quoted Bishop of Tyre who was martyr'd about the Year CCCIII. He wrote a Book with this Title Against Origen Concerning the Resurrection of which a great part is preserv'd in Epiphanius and Photius The Opinion which he opposes and confutes is First That the Rising Body will not consist of the same substance that was buried Secondly That it will be not a Body of Flesh but an Ethereal one Another that wrote against Origen Concerning the Resurrection was Antipater Bishop of Bostra in Arabia who flourish'd long after about the Year 460. A Third was Ammon Hadrianopolites whose Age I know not To these I might add Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria who writes against him in his Paschal Epistles Epiphanius St. Jerom the Emperor Justinian and others In the Year 399 He and his Opinions were condemn'd and anathematiz'd by a Synod of Alexandria under the Patriarch Theophilus who at the same time expell'd all those that profest 'em out of Egypt In the Year 400 he was condemn'd by a Synod call'd at Rome by P. Anastasius after that by a Synod of Antioch under the Patriarch Ephraemius a little after by a Synod of Constantinople under the Patriarch Mennas and at last by a General Council the Fifth which was held in the Year 553. I could easily fill you a Volume with the Testimonies and Authorities of the Doctors of the Fourth and the following Ages and could shew you with how great a Zeal the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the same Humane Body has been always maintain'd by the Church But I remember I am to send you not a Folio but a Manual and I think the History of the Resurrection which I have brought down through the Two first and purest Ages of the Church to the time of Origen may suffice to clear the truth of this Article of our Faith by shewing that the Fathers of those Primitive times were Seconds to the Apostles and abett the same Doctrine which we deduced from Scripture The later Doctors of the Church we will call all together to a General Council by their Creeds and so seal our Doctrine with the great and Venerable Seal of the whole Catholick Church We have shewn already from the Testimony of Irenaeus and Tertullian that in the Creed of the Catholick Church in their time the Resurrection of the flesh was one Article It is so in that which is extant in the Apostolical Constitutions It is so likewise in that which we commonly call the Apostles Creed which was generally believ'd even before the time of Ruffinus to have been written by the Apostles themselves In our English Translation we read The Resurrection of the Body but in the Originals the Greek and the Latin it is The Resurrection of the flesh So 't was read as Russinus affirms in all Churches That the Latin Churches read Carnis Resurrectio appears not only from Rufsinus but likewise from St. Jerom St. Austin Chrysologus and Maximus Taurinensis whose Expositions on the Creed are now extant and from divers others That it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Resurrection of the flesh in the Creed of the ancient Church of Jerusalem is apparent from St. Cyril Bishop of that Church It is so in the Greek Creed which is extant at the end of K. Ethelstan's Psalter in Sir John Cotton's Library and in that of the Bodleian Library which is written in
Saxon Characters at the end of the Acts of the Apostles a Manuscript of above a Thousand Years old In the Church of Aquileia they had one Word peculiar to themselves For instead of the Resurrection of the Flesh they read to make it more express because some of the Origenists would talk of a new Flesh The Resurrection of this Flesh. The several Councils which were call'd in the Fourth Century relating chiefly to the Controversies of the Arians the confessions of Faith which they publish'd have not for the most part any thing express concerning the Resurrection of the Flesh. The Nicene Creed and those of most of the Synods of that Age express only thus much That Christ will Come to judge the Quick and the Dead But that the Resurrection of the Flesh was the Doctrine of the Council of Nice may particularly appear from that Confession which the Heretick Arius and the rest of his Party of Alexandria presented to the Emperor Constantine after they had been condemn'd by that Council to perswade him that they were truly Orthodox and came up fully to the Doctrine of the Council In that Confession it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So also in the Confession of the Synod of Antioch and in that of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra And in that of the Eighty Eastern Bishops who sided with the Arians at Sardica In the Creeds of the Second and Sixth General Councils and in that which in the time of Epiphanius was wont to be recited by the Converts that were to be baptized it is only The Resurrection of the Dead In that ascribed to St. Athanasius we profess that all Men shall rise again with their Bodies That of P. Damasus delivers it thus We believe that we shall be rais'd up in the same Flesh in which we now live I need not mention that of St. Jerom. What his Belief was appears sufficiently from the several places where I have already cited him He is positive in this that it is not possible to understand the Doctrine of the Resurrection as profest by the Catholick Church any otherwise than of a true Humane Body Ruffinus in the same Age being suspected with John Bishop of Jerusalem as favouring the Opinion of Origen to clear himself and the Bishop from that Scandal makes this Profession of Faith in his own and the Bishop's Name in the Preface to his Translation of Pamphilus's Apology for Origen We believe as it has been deliver'd down to us from the Holy Fathers that the Son of God arose from the Dead in the very same Flesh in which he suffer'd by which he gave us also hope of a Resurrection We speak of the Resurrection of the Flesh not in a shuffling and deceitful manner as some falsly accuse us but we believe that this very Flesh in which we now live shall rise not another instead of it neither do we mean any other Body besides this of Flesh. If therefore we say that the BODY shall rise we speak according to the Apostle for he uses that Word If we say that the FLESH is to rise we make our Confession according to the Tradition of the Creed 'T is a foolish thing to accuse us as if we thought a Humane Body could be any thing besides Flesh. Whether therefore that which shall rise be called FLESH according to the Creed or BODY according to the Apostle it is so to be believ'd as the Apostle has set it forth that that which shall rise shall rise in Power and Glory and shall rise an Incorruptible and a Spiritual Body that Corruption shall not inherit Incorruption Saving therefore these Prerogatives of the Body or Flesh in the other Life the Resurrection of the Flesh is to be believ'd wholly and perfectly so that both the same nature of Flesh may be retain'd and the state and glory of an incorrupted and spiritual Body may not be violated For so it is written These things are preach'd in Jerusalem in the Church of God by the holy Bishop John These things I together with him profess and maintain If any one either believes or teaches any other Doctrine or thinks that we believe any other than this we have now set forth let him be accurs'd The Creed of the First Council of Toledo in the Year 400 has thus We believe there will be a Resurrection of the Flesh of Mankind That of the Fourth Council of Toledo in the Year 633. We are to be rais'd up by Christ in the same Flesh in which we now live and in the same Form in which he himself rose That of the Eleventh Council of the same Church in the Year 675. According to the Example of our Head i. e. Christ we confess that there will be a true Resurrection of the Flesh of all the Dead Neither do we believe that we shall rise in an Aereal or any other kind of Flesh as some have delirously fansied but in that in which we live have our being and move Boetius in his Confession of Faith This is principally requir'd in our Religion that we believe not only that our Souls do not perish but also that our Bodies themselves which are dissolv'd by death are restored in the life to come to their former state Vigilius Tapsensis If any one says that a Man will not rise in the Day of Judgment in the Body as God made him let him be accurs'd To conclude tho' the Church of England in the vulgar Translation of the Apostles Creed uses only these Terms The Resurrection of the Body yet in her Form of Publick Baptism the Person to be baptized is askt in his Representative the Godfather Dost thou believe the Resurrection of the flesh I have now But I cannot yet say I have now done Before I put an end to this History I shall crave your leave to offer to your Consideration what I had almost forgotten an Observation or two relating to some of those Primitive Writers whose Authorities we have above produced My first Observation is this That the greatest part of 'em were not only bred up in the Prejudices and Infidelity of the Heathens but were likewise by Profession Philosophers and Lawyers And what Opinion the Philosophers and learned Greeks had of the Doctrine of the Resurrection as profest by the Christians is very notorious I have shewn in the beginning of this Discourse that even among the Greeks there were many Opinions which were founded on an ancient Tradition concerning the Resurrection and that it was in some sense believ'd by many of their Philosophers Notwithstanding it is certain that as it was understood by the Christians it was by all the Greeks in general exploded Not any one Christian Doctrine so generally and with so much contempt rejected There was not any one Sect says Tertullian among all the Philosophers but what denied it They did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with
fed his Fishes with the Bodies of his Slaves whom he threw into his Ponds that he might feed at second Hand on Man's Flesh. Now since the substance of one Man's Body becomes the substance of another Man's Body how you will say can the Bodies of both be rais'd again This Objection is a very considerable one and has been all along urg'd against the Doctrine of the Resurrection not only by our later Scepticks but anciently as I but now observ'd by the Heathen Philosophers I shall not deny as Athenagoras seems to do that the substance of one Man's Body when eaten by another turns to nourishment and becomes the Flesh of that other that eats it It sufficiently appears that they that eat Humane Flesh to satisfie their Hunger are reliev'd and cherish'd and of consequence nourish'd by it But my Answer is this That God Almighty who has engag'd his Promise that the Bodies of all Men shall rise again will take care so to order all things relating to our Nourishment as that that may not hinder his Promise from being fullfill'd He will take care that the Particles of One Man's Body shall never so become the Particles of another Man's Body as that the Resurrection of either should be thereby render'd impossible 'T is an Observation of the most accurate Sanctorius grounded on infallible Statick Experiments that not above the Fiftieth Part of what a Man takes into his Body turns to Nourishment From hence I make this following Inference Should an Ox for Example feed only on such Grass as grew in that Field which was impregnated by the Dead Bodies of the Cimbrians but now mention'd as the Grass would not consist wholly of those Particles which belong'd to the dead Bodies but would chiefly consist of other more common Particles those of Rain and the like so not above the 50th Part perhaps a much less proportion of the Grass which is eaten would become the Flesh of the Ox and not above the 50th Part of that Flesh of the Ox which is eaten by a Man would be turn'd into the Substance of the Man Should a Man feed on Corn that grew in such a Field as the Corn would consist not wholly of the Humane Particles but chiefly of others so not above the 50th Part of the Corn so eaten would become the Flesh of him that ate it The same may be said of him who â—…ed his Fishes with the Bodies of his Slaves As the Fish must be suppos'd to receive their Nourishment from those Bodies not wholly but only in part so not above the 50th part of the Substance of the Fish you may say much less considering the unfitness of Fish for Nourishment would become the Flesh of the Eater It is plain that even according to the common course and nature of Nutrition were there no particular Providence concern'd in the matter there would be in such Cases but very few Particles in any Man's Body which belong'd before to another Should one Man devour another wholly in this the great Strength of the Objection lies it appears from Sanctorius's Observation that not above the 50th part of the Flesh of the Person devour'd would become the Flesh of him that ate it And besides the other 49 parts of the Flesh there would remain all the Bones untouched which make up a great the most substantial part of the Body It is further to be consider'd that though the same Body that died is to rise again yet it is not necessary that all the Particles of it should be rais'd up 'T is enough that such Particles are rais'd as made up the integrant and necessary Parts of the Body By necessary Parts I mean those which remain after the utmost degree of Maceration without which the Body would not be Integral but Imperfect And these are chiefly the Bones the Skin the Nerves the Tendons the Ligaments and the Substance of the several Vessels As long as these and all that are necessary to Life remain the Body is truly Whole though never so much macerated All the Flesh that is added makes nothing at all to the Wholeness or Integrality of the Body tho' it conduce to Strength and Ornament And this is that Flesh which would chiefly turn to Nourishment if the Body were devour'd The Substance of the Vessels Tendons c. are not so apt for Nourishment If the dying Body be extremely macerated I do not doubt but that in the Resurrection it will be restor'd by foreign and adventitious Matter to its due and just Proportion So in Bodies that are full and fleshy there 's a great deal of substance that is not necessary which if it become the Flesh of another Man the Body may be rais'd up without it and yet be still Physically Whole and truly the same In Bodies that are Fat and Grass there is doubtless a great deal superfluons which will never be rais'd up though it were never made the Ingredient of another Man's Body To sum up all in a word I say that God Almighty who has promis'd that the Bodies of all Men shall be rais'd up again to Life will so order all things relating to our Nourishment as that those Particles of which the necessary Parts of one Man's Body were compounded shall never become the Particles of the necessary Parts of another Man's Body At least he will take care that they may not continue to be so at the time of his Death If Providence has decreed that not only the necessary Particles but that all the Particles of the dying Body shall be rais'd up again it will take such care of our Nourishment as that the Particles of one Man's Body shall never continue to be part of another Man's Body at the time of his Death God will take care that no one shall die whilst his Body contains any Particles that belong to another But as I said it is not at all necessary that we should believe thus much Mr. Boyle in his Treatise concerning the Possibility of the Resurrection in answer to this Objection which we have now examin'd alledges that it is not necessary that any of the same Flesh should be rais'd up 'T is enough he says if the Bones are rais'd up and cloth'd with new Flesh. And this he proves from the Prophet Eccechiel's Description of the Mystical Resurrection where says he only the same Bones were rais'd up and the Flesh c. was made up of new Matter But how does it appear that in that Resurrection the Flesh is to be understood to be made up not of the former but of new Particles He alledges moreover that the Body which rises may be said to be the same with that which was buried though it contain in it but a very small part of the same Substance He observes that St. Paul's comparing the Resurrection to the growing of Corn seems to justifie the supposition of a Plastick Power in some part of the matter of a deceased Body whereby being Divinely
endeavour to demonstrate that he is able to provide that the Particles which compounded the necessary Parts of one Man's Body shall never belong to the necessary Parts of another or that they shall not be the Particles of another at the time of his Death He that created all the Particles that are in the Universe He that made all the Bodies that ever were out of 'em He in whose Book are all our Members and our Particles written how can he be ignorant to what uses each Particle has been put and where they are all reposited He who first created our Bodies and form'd 'em of the Dust of the Earth how can it be difficult for him to raise up the Dust of the Grave and make it declare his Truth He that first commanded Man to come as it were out of Nothing what can hinder but that he should be obey'd when he shall be pleas'd to command the Children of Men to come again If so mean a Thing as a Loadstone can distinguish and gather together the little Particles of Iron that lie confus'd and undistinguish'd in the Dust how much more shall the Almighty Magnetism of Him that made the Loadstone be able to distinguish and raise up together the confused and lost Particles of our Bodies If Mercury when dead and dissolv'd can even by the Power of Nature be reduced and restor'd to its Life and Being how much more shall the great God of Nature be able to reduce and restore our dead and dissolved Bodies to their former State I shall not any longer insist on these things There is no one can doubt of the Resurrection on the account of the difficulty of it but such as with the Athenians worship an Unknown God The Third Objection is taken from the unworthiness of these our Bodies and from their unfitness to be made the Habitation of the Soul in the next Life which is to be in Heaven and Everlasting The Consideration of the Impureness of these our Bodies made the Heathen Philosophers deride and abominate the Doctrine of the Resurrection To hope for the Resurrection of the Body says Celsus becomes rather the Worms than Men And what Man's Soul says he would ever desire to be re-united to a Body that is already rotten Thus a late Author to disgrace this Doctrine is pleas'd to call the Body a Load of Carrion and to compare it to course nasty Rags I shall not say in answer to Celsus that the Soul will ever desire to return to the Body purely for the Body's sake Neither are we to regard what the Soul might perhaps desire but what God has order'd to be done Were the Soul to wish without any regard to the Will and Good-pleasure of God I am apt indeed to believe she would hardly desire to be re-conjoined to her Body But neither would she wish to be in any Body whatever She would not be what she is not a Soul but a Seraphim But is the Clay to say to the Potter Why dost thou make me thus The Ambition of the Soul must stoop to the Pleasure of God Her Wishes and Desires must all con-center in the Will of her Almighty Maker and Preserver As she must be contented with that middle degree of Glory in which God has placed her so likewise she must be contented with that Collegue and Companion which he shall think fit to assign her When he shall be pleas'd to command her to return to her old Habitation tho' it were as to a Prison she must humbly and resignedly submit to his good Pleasure Behold the Handmaid of the Lord be it unto me according to thy Word But why should we imagine that the Soul when she shall be remanded to her Body will look upon herself as sent to a Prison That House which was once a Prison may be turned to a Palace and such a one too as the Owner of it would be glad to live in forever Were the wretched and disorderly House in which my Soul now lives to continue always just such as it is she would doubtless think herself happy in being sent for abroad and with reason be glad to continue always from home This Flesh in which we now live may at present be deservedly styl'd a Prison or a Burden or an Enemy or whatsoever else is not Declamation and Irreverence 'T is our Church in her Office of Burial that calls it the Burden of the Flesh And 't is the Author of Ecclesiasticus that tells us that the corruptible Flesh presseth down the Soul Such indeed is our Earthly House of this Tabernacle so foul so inconvenient and ruinous that I know not who would be very fond of it Who is there that can say It is good for us to be here I know that in my Flesh as at present it is there dwelleth no good thing We are now in a Body of Death as the Apostle himself calls it and well may we desire with the Apostle and with much more reason than he to be deliver'd from it But is this Body to be always thus constitution'd Is it always to remain this Needy and Impure this Passionate Lustful Restive Body We have hitherto look'd but on one Side of it let us now look upon it in the Reverse Immortal Incorruptible Powerfull Spiritual Celestial Glorious These are the Attributes of the Body that shall be rais'd And where is now the unworthiness of it Where is the unfitness to be made the Habitation of the Soul Was there heretofore a Law in our Members warring against the Law of our Minds Were there heretofore continual Feuas between the Flesh and the Spirit There is now a perpetual Peace Their Quarrels and Bickerings are all at an end They are now no longer Enemies but loving and faithful Friends It is not properly in the Nature of Flesh to oppose it self to the Soul and to revolt from its Duty and Subjection It is naturally Quiet and Passive and though in this Life the Wheels and Movements of the Noble Machine are sometimes disorder'd yet in the next they will all move regularly and in obedience to the Intelligence that governs it When God shall be pleas'd to raise it up out of the Grave it will drop all its Passions and Restiveness together with its Impurities and carry up nothing with it but its Natural Gentleness and a Will to be govern'd Those Traces which sensible Pleasures had imprinted on it will be all perfectly Obliterated and the new Impressions which it will receive will be truly worthy of Heaven and Eternity Had our Bodies heretofore many Infirmities Were they sickly or maim'd or crooked or old or otherwise deform'd These Infirmities and all Imperfections are now done away The Body is new-cast the Mold work'd better and the Mettal refin'd The whole Figure comes out with Vast Improvements though the same as to all the Ideal Rudiments yet a much more curious and delicate Piece of Workmanship Whatever it was heretofore it
has now no real Deformity no Wrincle or Blemish but all is turn'd to Comeliness and Beauty At least we shall then have a truer Notion of Beauty and Deformity and that which now passes for Ugliness will then appear to be no such thing Hoec est vera resurrectionis Confessio quoe sic gloriam carni tribuit ut non auferat veritatem So †St. Jerom. And that Confession we must stand to Now how far these Bodies of ours are capable of being exalted and glorified so as still to continue truly Humane I shall not presume to determine I am not fond of walking in the Dark especially when it is to little or no purpose But because you desire to know what my Sentiments are concerning our future State and are pleas'd to ask me that Question How are the Dead rais'd up And with what Body do they come I must own my-self inclin'd to believe that our Bodies in the Resurrection will be as to their Purity Constitution and Liveliness the same with that of Adam when first it came from the Hands of its Maker with the Stamps and Characters of the Divine Goodness and Wisdom fresh upon it That was the true Exemplar and Original and Perfection of Humane Nature All the Difference I think will be this That Adam's Body after some little Time stood in need of Meat and Drink to supply its Evacuations and was fitted to make him the Father of Mankind Ours in the Resurrection will continue always the same without Perspiration or any other Evacuation The Springs will always have the same Bent the Motions will all be equally Regular the same continual Round of the same pure vigorous Spirits and the same Blood moving forever in a brisk but even Circulation The Apostles Epithets ' of Powerful and Spiritual and Celestial and Glorious and all that the Scripture says of our Transformation into the Divine likeness I take to signifie no more than this even and pure and dispassionate and incorruptible State of the Body with a perfect Refinement of all our Faculties This perhaps is much less than what some others are willing to allow to a glorified Body But I see no Reason why we should expect any higher Exaltation And if such be the State and Condition of it I know no Reason why we should desire any higher This Heavenly Frame is enough to make us truly Happy and Blessed no less than if our Bodies were Ethereal and our Souls were carried in those fine Celestial Chariots which the Heathen Philosophers talk of If Adam had not sinn'd these very same Bodies had then been Immortal and wholly exempted from Death Why then should we think it strange that the Immortal Bodies which God will bestow on us in the Resurrection should be truly Humane The Immortality of these Bodies was then intended as a Blessing and shall we not think it a Blessing worthy of the Donor to have the same Body restored to a better State than that from which it was fallen Yes This is enough and This is all I desire and This I hope to obtain Let this my Body this very same Body be made pure my Pollutions wash'd away my Passions subdu'd my Wants remov'd my Understanding clear'd my sense of true Pleasure enliven'd let this be but done and my Soul will desire no more Her old Acquaintance when blessed with these happy Transmutations will be truely welcome to her Neither She nor the Angels will ever be asham'd of his Company Let this be but done and I shall not think the grossness of it to be any Diminution of my Happiness I shall not envy the Glory of Incorporeal Beings but shall heartily thank God that I am what I am A Fourth Objection is concerning the unfitness of a Humane Body to be plac'd in Heaven on account of its Gravity How can a Humane Body that is naturally heavy be sustain'd in a pure Ethereal Heaven I answer 1. If those Regions of Heaven where the Saints are hereafter to have their Habitation be all fluid and Ethereal or even void Space yet our Bodies may without the least difficulty and without any Miracle or particular Care of Omnipotence be there supported and sustain'd There is no such thing as Gravity in Regions purely Ethereal which are above the Reach and Activity of particular Orbs. There is no High and Low in such Places Our Bodies will be there sustain'd as the Globe of the Earth and the several celestial Orbs are now sustain'd in the Air and Ether Which is not done by a Miracle for they are Naturally sustain'd there and there is not any Low to which they may encline There is nothing indeed properly speaking Heavy in its own Nature as there is not any thing Light in its own Nature And our Bodies even here in this World do not of their own Natures tend towards the Center of the Earth but they are violently haled of push'd down Had there been no external Causes of what we call Gravity contriv'd by the Creator there would have been no such Thing no High and Low in the Universe This no one can deny that considers the System of the World 2. That the place in which we are to have our Abode in the next Life is all pure Ether or Immaterial is perhaps not so true as generally suppos'd Perhaps after all our Heaven will be nothing but a Heaven upon Earth or some glorious solid Orb created on purpose for us in those immense Regions which we call Heaven It seems more natural to suppose that since we have solid and material Bodies we shall be placed as we are in this Life on some solid and material Orb. Neither is this a new Opinion but embrac'd by many of the Ancients That after the Resurrection we are to live for ever on a new Earth was as Maximus tells us the Opinion of many in his time And the same was asserted in the Third Century by St. Methodius Bishop of Tyre in his Treatise Concerning the Resurrection St. Peter himself tells us that after this World is dissolv'd there will be new Heavens and a new Earth wherein dwelleth Righteousness He adds that this the Saints look for with a plain Intimation that there they are hereafter to Inhabit St. John also in his Revelations makes mention of a new Earth where the Blessed are to have their happy abode after this World is destroy'd These places the Chiliasts produce to confirm their Opinion but they ought to be understood of the everlasting Habitation of the Blessed Our Saviour tells his Disciples In my Fathers House are many Mansions I go to prepare a place for you And If I go to prepare a place for you I will come again and receive you unto my-self that where I am there ye may be also In the Regions of Heaven tho' before our Saviour's Ascension there were many Mansions of Angels or Immaterial Beings yet those it seems were not thought fit for the
shouldest be restored to thy former Substance because thou art not capable of feeling either Pleasure or Pain without Flesh. If this Opinion were true That the Soul is not capable in its own nature without an organiz'd Body of any Perception I take no notice here of that other Opinion concerning the death and dissolution of the Soul we should not need to look any further for a reason why God has ordained that the Soul should be again united to a Humane Body since it would not otherwise be capable after death of being either Rewarded or Punished And it must be confess'd that this Notion is very consistent with the Doctrine of the Resurrection and the general Judgment which is to follow the Resurrection But here lies the difficulty I know not how to make it consistent with some other Places of the Scripture The Scripture is plainly against it When our Saviour tells the penitent Thief upon the Cross This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise He seems to intimate that he should be sensible of that happiness That Wish of St. Paul in the 1 st of the Philip. That he might depart and be with Christ seems yet more clear and convincing The Apostle seems plainly to intimate that being with Christ he should be sensible of it That St. Paul believed that the Soul after its Separation from the Body remains sensible and is capable of perceiving without any Organs of Sense I inferr moreover from that Place where he speaks of his being rapt up into Heaven which others I think do not usually take notice of He says that he could not tell whether he was rapt up into Heaven and saw there those unspeakable Sights in the Body or out of the Body Now he could not have doubted of that if he had not believed that the Soul is sensible when out of the Body To this we may add that Place of St. John in the Revelations where he says that he saw in Heaven The Souls of them that were slain for the Word of God and they cried with a loud Voice saying How long O Lord c. There are other places in that Book which confirm the same thing Tertullian in his Book De Resurrectione Carnis where he owns that separated Souls do not Sleep but are sensible and are actually punish'd or rewarded before the Resurrection says they are punish'd or rewarded before the Resurrection for those good or bad things which they did without the concurrence of the Body as for good or bad Thoughts Desires and Contrivances and he seems to intimate that tho' the Soul is in its own nature capable of Rewards and Punishments yet it is not in its own nature so capable as when it is united to the Body It is capable he says of greater Pleasure or Torment when united to the Body than when in a State of Separation and therefore for those things which the actually did in concurrence with the Body the must be punished or rewarded in the Body that the Pleasure or Torment may be perfect But this is very precarious and if once it be granted that the Soul is in its own nature without an organiz'd Body capable of Rewards and Punishments it cannot be denied but that it is of its self capable of being fully rewarded or punished We have not yet found out a Reason for this Decree of God Almighty concerning the Resurrection If we would give a true account of it it is necessary we should mount a little higher and look a little farther I shall pass by many Conjectures which we find in the Schools and in some of our ancient Writers and among the Jewish Masters and shall lay before you my own Thoughts If it be not Presumption to take upon one to search into God's Counsels and the Reasons of his Decrees I should think that one Reason why he has been pleas'd to decree that the Soul in the Day of Judgment shall be again united to a Humane Body may be this That as we are Men when we sin or do well so we may be Men when by a judicial Sentence we are punish'd or rewarded for it But we cannot be Men unless we have Humane Bodies St. Paul tells us that we must all appear before the Judgment-Seat of Christ that every Man may receive the Things done in the Body according to that he hath done whether it be good or bad And as we are to give an account for what we did in the Body so in the Body we shall give an account If it be reasonable that we should be Men when we are punish'd or rewarded for what we did when Men it seems much more reasonable that we should be then the same Men But we cannot be the same Men unless we have the same Bodies 'T is a great Mistake to imagine that the Identity or Sameness of a Man consists wholly in the sameness of the Soul If Euphorbus and Homer and Ennius had had one and the same Soul yet they would not have been one and the same but Three distinct Men. In what the Identity or sameness of the Body consists that That of the Rising Body can consist in nothing else but in the Restauration of the same Numerical Particles which made up the dissolved Body to their former Construction I have already told you Another Reason why God has been pleas'd to ordain that the same Humane Body that died shall rise again and be reconjoin'd to the Soul I take to be this and this indeed I take to be the First and the Chief Reason of that Decree We had all been Immortal Men if Adam had not sinn'd 't was God's design that we should never die but that our Souls should remain for ever united to their Bodies This gracious Design being frustrated by Adam's Transgression he was graciously pleas'd to ordain that as in Adam all die so by the Merits of Christ the second Adam we should all at last triumph over Death and be restored to those Bodies and that Humane Nature which he first design'd should be Immortal By the Death and Resurrection of Christ our Losses are to be repair'd which Adam's sinning occasion'd but our Losses cannot be repair'd unless we are restor'd to those Bodies which by his sinning we lost Will neither of these Reasons satisfie the Etherealist Well then I will give him another I will give him a most certain Reason why God will restore us to our Humane Natures and why he will raise up the very same Body he will because he will A very bad Reason to be given for the Actions of Man but a very good one for God's He will because he hath promis'd I am the Lord and I have said it says he and who can say What doest thou There is nothing that God does but He does for a very good Reason But who are We that we should call him to an Account for what he does His ways and his Counsels are many of