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
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
which I cannot undertake to defend On the contrary it must be confess'd that among the Ancient Jews there were many that did not ac-acknowledge it who were lookt upon nevertheless as true Israelites 'T will be worth our while to enquire into this matter and the love of Truth which has all along been and I hope will always be my Guide obliges me to do it I shall shew 1. That it was not always receiv'd among the Jews as a necessary Article of Faith or term of Communion and who they were that did not acknowledge it 2. That tho' there were some amongst 'em that did not acknowledge it and it was not always lookt upon as a necessary Article of Faith yet it was the common and receiv'd Opinion of that Nation about the time of our Saviour as well before as after 3. That the Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul was not receiv'd among the Jews of those times as a necessary Article of Faith or Term of Communion From whence it follows that the Doctrine of the Resurrection is not therefore the less certain because it was not always lookt upon by the Jews as a necessary Article of Faith 4. I shall shew that the Doctrine of the Resurrection is plainly alluded to in the Prophecies of the Old Testament and by them confirm'd First That the Doctrine of the Resurrection was not always receiv'd among the Jews as a necessary Article of Faith or Term of Communion will appear from some of the following Examples of such as did not acknowledge it 1. The Essens a famous Sect among the Jews consisting of no less than about 4000 in number That they did not acknowledge a Resurrection nor the re-union of the Soul with any kind of Body may be easily gather'd from that account which Josephus gives us of their Doctrines concerning the Soul In his Second Book of the Jewish War where he speaks very largely of 'em having taken an occasion to speak of their being tormented by some of the Roman Soldiers In the midst says he of their sufferings they smil'd and laughing at them that inflicted their Torments they gave up their Souls with a great deal of Constancy and Chearfulness as Men that expected to recover 'em again This last Expression may seem to intimate that they expected that their Souls would be again united to their Bodies but from that which follows it appears that our Author's meaning was otherwise For they have says he a most certain Opinion amongst 'em that their Bodies indeed are corruptible and that their Matter shall not be perpetual but that their Souls shall always have a being that coming from out of the subtle Ether they are drawn down into their Bodies by a natural sort of Attraction and there are detain'd as it were in Prisons but when they are freed from the bonds of Flesh as it were from a long Enslavement with a great deal of Joy they â—…ee away on high And as for good Souls they agree with the Greeks that they dwell beyond the Ocean in a perfect enjoyment of Happiness in a Country free from all kind of Grievance from Showers Snows and Heats made insinitely pleasant by the Western Gales arising out of the Ocean But as for the Souls of the Wicked they are sent into certain Places expos'd to Cold and Tempests there to remain in everlasting Misery and Torment Josephus tells us that in his Youth he had made it his Business to enquire into the Doctrines of the Particular Sects the Essens the Sadduces and the Pharisees and to learn their Customs and Ways of living being conversant amongst 'em with great perseverance and application that having inform'd himself of their several Rules and Placits he might adhere to that Sect which should please him best It is therefore evident that he could not be ignorant of the true Opinion of the Essens And this we must of necessity grant that those Essens at least with whom he had Convers'd profess'd the aforesaid Opinion It is not enough to say that Josephus was a Court-Writer and likely to misrepresent their Opinions that they might seem to agree with the Greeks and Romans among whom he liv'd For that the aforesaid Opinion might be really the Opinion of the Essens will appear very probable from the next Example which is that of Philo Judaeus Secondly That Philo the famous Jew who liv'd in the Time of the Apostles and is call'd by his Country-Man Josephus a Man every way Glorious and was in his own Time so highly esteem'd by the Jews of Alexandria where he liv'd as to be sent their chief Embassador to Rome to defend their Cause against their Enemies that he did not own the Resurrection of the Body or that the Soul is hereafter to be united for ever to another Body is from many places of his Works undeniably evident It is certain that according to the Doctrine of Plato he look'd on the Body as the Prison of the Soul and he expresly asserts that the purer Sorts of Souls do fly from the Body as their Gaol and live for ever in a State of Separation If on any account it be true what was commonly said of him by the Greeks it is chiefly so in relation to the Soul Either Plato Philonizes or Philo Platonizes either Plato learn'd his Philosophy of the Jews or else Philo was a Follower of Plato The last is the truth Let us hear now what Philo says In his Book Concerning Dreams his Philosophy is this 〈◊〉 That the Air between the surface of the Earth and the Concave of the Moon is the place of the Habitation of Souls which are there innumerable Of these there are some which descend to be join'd and united to mortal Bodies as many as are nearer to the Earth and desirous of union with ' em After the time of separation assign'd by Nature and their return again up into the Air there are some still retain a desire of Life and re-union and these are again united to a Body by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but others are weary of the vanity of Life and flee from the Body as a Grave or a Prison and nimbly flying into the upper Regions of the Ether there fix their Abode and Habitation In another place of the same Book having cited those Words which God spake to Jacob in his Dream And behold I am with thee and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest and will bring thee again into this Land For I will not leave thee until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of On those Words And I will bring thee again into this Land according to his allegorizing way he thus Comments This Place says he is perhaps to be understood of the Immortality of the Soul for the Soul having left its Heavenly Place and Travelling into the Body the Father promises it that he will not
always suffer it to be held in Prison but will free it from its Bonds and bring it into its ancient Country neither will he cease to keep it till his Promise be perfectly fulfill'd And agreeably to this in another Book he says that of the Souls which are dwelling in the Air some are Angels and others descending into the Body as it were into a River are sometimes overwhelm'd in its rapid Gulphs and sometimes bearing briskly up against 'em do first swim out and then fly back to the place from whence they came These says he are the Souls of those who are taught some Philosophy from on high which continually from the Beginning to the End desire the dissolution of that Life which is by conjunction with the Body that they may obtain an Incorporeal and an Incorruptible Life with the Unbegotten and Incorruptible God But those which are drown'd are the Souls of other Men who neglecting Wisdom give themselves up to the uncertain blasts of Fortune which do not appertain to our better Part but only to our Bodies or else to such Things as are voider than they of Life such as Glory and Riches and Power and Honour and those other things which Men that look not on that which is truly Good do fansie and paint to themselves by false and erroneous Notions Thirdly That many of the Jews who held the Immortality of the Soul did not own the Resurrection of the Body may be further gather'd form a place of Cornelius Tacitus the Roman Historian where he describes the Customs of that Nation He says thus of 'em in general Animasque proelio aut suppliciis peremptorum aeternas putaâ—…t They believe that the Souls of such Jews as are slain in Battle or put to Death by the Enemies of their Religion are immortal Tho' he speaks in the same Place of their Custom of burying their dead Bodies contrary to that of the Romans who were wont to burn their Dead yet he speaks not a Word of their believing the Resurrection of those Bodies Which he could not have omitted if he had known that they believ'd it it being so singular and extraordinary a Thing and he could not one would think have been ignorant of it if the Jews had so generally held it as they did the Immortality of the Soul Fourthly There were among the ancient Jews certain natural Philosophers whom the Rabbins are wont to call Sapientes Mecar from their searching or enquiring after natural Causes To which appellation St. Paul the Apostle seems to have had Respect in those Words to the Corinthians Where is the Wise Where is the Scribe Where is the Searcher or Enquirer the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we in our Translation render the Disputer of this World So St. Jerom indeed has render'd it Ubi enim Sapiens Ubi Grammateus Ubi causarum Naturalium Scrutatores Of them it s affirm'd by one of the learned Rabbins that they denied the existence of Daemons and that some of them asserted that all living Things not only Men but all other Animals shall after Death rise again their Souls returning into other Bodies after a certain space of many Thousands of Years This Opinion concerning the Revolution of Souls they borrow'd of the Heathens and tho' it were originally grounded on a Tradition concerning the Resurrection yet the Doctrine is not the same Fifthly Another Sect that denied the Resurrection was that of the Sadduces That they denied it I need not endeavour to prove I shall only here tell ye that tho' they did so yet in the Time of our Saviour and his Apostles they were not look'd upon as Hereticks by the Jews but were properly Members of their Body and Communion This I shall prove by and by Sixthly There was another Sect of the Jews call'd Hemero-Baptists who agreed as Epiphanius assures us with the Sadduces in denying the Resurrection and in their other Tenets only in this they dissented from 'em that they esteem'd it necessary for the cleansing themselves from Sin to bathe themselves every Day both Winter and Summer From whence they had their Name Seventhly That the Prophet Ezechiel himself did not fully rely on the Doctrine of a future Resurrection but doubted once a little of it as a Doctrine at that time not sufficiently reveal'd or almost forgotten may be gathered from the Answer which he return'd to that Question of God Almighty Son of Man can these dry Bones live If the Doctrine of the Resurrection had been at that time the common and receiv'd Doctrine as it was afterwards in the time of our Saviour and the Prophet had been fully assur'd of it he would not have answer'd as he did Lord God Thou knowest But roundly as Martha answer'd our Saviour concerning the Resurrection of her Brother Lazarus I know Lord that they can and will 'T is true the Words thou knowest are capable of another interpretation and may be so understood as to signifie thou knowest that they can But the true meaning seems to be otherwise and they seem to import thus much Thou knowest whether they can or no I do not Eighthly To these we may add the Samaritans who tho' they were not of the Communion of the Jews were however the Followers of the Law of Moses If we may believe some of those ancient Writers who have given an account of their Opinions they were not only ignorant of the Doctrine of the Resurrection but rejected likewise that of the Immortality of the Soul This is positively asserted by Leontius and long before him by Origen But it does not seem to be true For in the Chronicon Samaritanum they expresly own the Immortality of the Soul and Rewards and Punishments in the next Life and it 's plainly intimated by St. Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem that they did not deny the Immortality of the Soul but only doubted of it But tho' they did not deny the Immortality of the Soul yet certain it is that they deny'd the Resurrection of the Body In this all Authors agree with Origen and Leontius above-cited as St. Cyril Epiphanius the Author of the Recognitions ascrib'd to St. Clement and the Talmudists Secondly tho' the Doctrine of the Resurrection was not always receiv'd by the Jews as a necessary Article of Faith or Term of Communion as appears from some of the foregoing Instances yet 't is certain that about the time of our Saviour as well before as after it was the receiv'd and common Doctrine of that Nation This evidently appears from the following Examples 1. In the Answers which the Seven Martyrs give their Tormenters which we read recorded in the Second Book of Maccabees there 's a clear and open Profession of this Doctrine And it plainly appears from the Answer of the Third of those Martyrs that the Resurrection which they expected was of the same Humane Body Being call'd to his Torments and holding out his hands
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
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