all imaginable opposition contend against it says the Author of the Questions and Answers ad Graecos Thus St. Austin affirms that there was nothing in the Christian Religion so vehemently so pertinaciously and with so much contention and earnestness opposed as the Resurrection of the Flesh. Of the Immortality of the Soul says he many of the Heathen Philosophers have discoursed at large And in very many of their Writings they assert it But when they come to the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Flesh they do not so much as hesitate about it but vehemently oppose it and they say that 't is impossible that this earthly Flesh should ascend up into Heaven Pliny affirms that 't is beyond the Power even of God himself to raise up a Body to life when once it is dead And 't is Madness to him to believe there will be any such thing To Celsus this Doctrine seem'd abominable or worthy to be spit at as extremly impure St. Cyril of Alexandria tells us that the Emperor Julian derided this above all the Tenets of the Christians They mock'd at it says the author of the Apostolical Constitutions And Origen says it was a common subject of Laughter Cecilius in Minucius Felix calls it an old Wife's Tale. And Tatian assures us that the Heathens were wont to look upon the Christians as pitiful Triflers and Bablers for asserting it My conclusion is this That if the Doctrine of the Identity or Resurrection of the very same Body had not been lookt upon in those Primitive Times as firmly establish'd on the Authority of Christ and his Apostles if it had been look'd upon only as a Scholastical Doctrine or a Dogma that might be dispensed with those learned and acute Men of whom we speak when converted from their Heathenism would never have embraced it as I have proved they did In the Second place it is worthy to be observ'd that those Books out of which I have taken their Testimonies were many of 'em written professedly in Answer to the Objections of the Heathen Philosophers And if the Doctrine of a new Ethereal Body which Origen afterwards made bold to advance could have been warranted by the Scripture and the Traditions of the Apostles how gladly would those Fathers have taken hold of it That the Soul is never without an Ethereal Body was as we have already observ'd a common Opinion of the Greek Philosophers Now how easie had it been for those Fathers to answer all the Cavils and Objections and Flouts of their insulting Adversaries by proposing this Notion How easie had it been to remove that great Stumbling-Block which lay in their way to Christianity They were too learned and too acute Philosophers not to think on it but they knew it was not agreeable to the Doctrine deliver'd to the Saints Perhaps it may be alledged that the Reason why the Primitive Fathers believ'd the Resurrection of the same Humane Body was because they believ'd that after the Resurrection Christ is to come upon Earth and the Saints are to abide with him here a Thousand Years Perchance you may be apt to suspect that this was the chief Foundation of that gross Notion which they so generally entertain'd of the rising Body To remove such a Suspicion as that is I need only tell you that not only the Patrons of the Millennarian Doctrine but such also as rejected that Doctrine asserted the Resurrection of the same Humane Body Tho' many of those ancients whose Authorities we have produced asserted the Millennium such as Papias the Author of the Sibylline Oracles Justin M. Irenâ—…us Tertullian and Hippolytus Yet others there are amongst 'em that did not embrace that Doctrine It does not at all appear that either St. Clement of Rome or St. Ignatius or Theophilus of Antioch or Tatian or Minucius Felix were asserters of it On the contrary it appears that the wise and learned Athenagoras did not believe it I observe that he asserts that after the Resurrection there will be no such Things as Inanimate Beings which is plainly repugnant to the Doctrine of the Millennium In his Discourse of the Resurrection he argues after this Manner If God says he is unwilling to raise the Dead it is either because it is Unjust or because it is Unworthy But it is not Unjust for if it be so it must be an Injury either to those that are rais'd or to some other being It cannot be an Injury to any other Being For Intellectual Beings or Angels are not at all damnified by it neither can it be an Injury to Irrational or Inanimate Beings For after the Resurrection there will be no such Beings And to that which is not there can be no Injury done But admit that there should be such things then in being yet the Resurrection of Mankind would be to them no Injury c. Neither was Clemens Alexandrinus an asserter of the Millenium I know it is suspected by some learned Men that he was But that he was not I gather from a place in his Treatise concerning the Salvability of Rich Men. He was made says he speaking of the young-Man re-converted by St. John a Trophy of the Resurrection that is hoped for when in the end of the World the Angels shall carry up those who are truly Penitent to the Supercelestial Habitations I have now done with my History and Proofs of the Doctrine of the Resurrection And by this time I hope you are so well satisfied of the Truth and certainty of it as to be ready to ask me that Question of St. Paul How say some among You that there is no Resurrection The fourth and last thing I propos'd to do was to answer the Objections of such as say there will be no Resurrection And this I shall now in the next place endeavour to do The First Objection is taken from the Difficulty of it There are not only many Men whom Necessity and Famine have forc'd to devour one another but there are many whole Nations in the World that are wont to feed ordinarily on Humane Flesh. You may add that we are all in some sense Canibals and Man-eaters we devour one another we eat our dead Neighbours our Brothers our Fathers the succeeding Generation swallows down the former though we prey not upon 'em in the same manner as some other Canibals do yet by a subtle Cookery of Nature we eat 'em at second Hand This is true in some Measure From the Bodies of the Dead springs up Grass this when eaten by the Ox is turn'd into Flesh this we eat and the Flesh of the Ox becomes ours Plutarch tells us that when the Cimbrians were defeated by Marius there fell so great a Number of 'em that the whole Field was dung'd as one may say with their dead Bodies and afforded the next Season an extraordinary rich and plentiful Crop Others tell us of a certain Roman who
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
the Spaniards carried away many of 'em to work in the Gold Mines by persuading 'em that they should be carried away to the Seats of the Blessed where their deceas'd Ancestors were and there live among them But these things may be resolv'd into that gross Notion which those ignorant People entertain'd of the Materiality of the Soul That the Peruvians acknowledged the Resurrection of the Body before ever any Christians came into those Parts is confidently asserted by several Authors by Joh. Hugo Linschoten Honorius Philoponus Le Blanc Lerius and others and a French Writer tells us that most Authors affirm it But I fear there are few or none that speak upon their own Knowledge He whom all the rest follow is the Author of the General Hist. of India cited for it by Lerius That Historian relates That when the Spaniards rifled the Graves of the Dead for the Treasures that were wont to be buried with 'em and carelesly threw about their Bones the Peruvians entreated them not to scatter the Bones of the Dead lest it should hinder their Resurrection This is very plain and express But I cannot I confess but doubt of the truth of it For I find that Josephus Acosta a very good Author expresly asserts the quite contrary That tho' the Peruvians held the Immortality of the Soul and that the Good are rewarded after Death and the Wicked punished yet they were not come to the knowledge of that Point that the Bodies shall rise and be again united to their Souls Neither do I find any thing concerning the Resurrection in the large Royal Commentaries of the Inca Garcilasso You see Philalethes I am not willing to abuse you by imposing upon you an Argument which I think I have reason to doubt of And moreover I must tell ye that it is not improbable but that there may be some others amongst the Modern Instances which I have laid before you as particularly that of the Virginians that hereafter may be found to be grounded on Mistakes The truth is the First Authors of Reports of this nature are oftentimes such as are either too Ignorant of the Language of those whose Opinions they give an Account of to understand 'em aright or not sufficiently Knowing and Judicious to distinguish rightly one Opinion from another But upon the whole if you please to reflect on all that has been hitherto said and consider all things together I am of Opinion you will be very apt to lay down this Proposition at the Foot of the Account That the Doctrine of the Resurrection as we now understand it is an old Universal Doctrine deriv'd down from Noah and grounded on the more ancient Revelations of the Antediluvian Patriarchs But why deriv'd down from Noah Why grounded perhaps you may ask on the ancient Revelations of the Antediluvian Patriarchs Might not the Heathens receive this Notion from the Jews I know many Modern Writers and some of the Ancients who contend that the Doctrine of the Resurrection was in some measure known to the Gentiles give this account of it that they learnt it of the Jews by reading the Scriptures or by conversing with some of that Nation But I leave it to your serious Judgment whether this Account which I have given you of it be not much more probable How could so many different Nations Nations so Ancient and so remote from Judaea receive this Doctrine or their broken Traditions concerning it from the Jews I could offer you many Arguments and I think pretty good ones to confute that common and ill-grounded Opinion That most of those Notions in which the Ancient Heathens agreed with the Jews were borrowed from them But this is not a proper time for it Are you apt to suspect that the Notices of the Resurrection which we find among the Heathens of these present Times were received from the Missionaries which the Church of Rome has of latesent abroad into the several Parts of the World I must needs say that if I know any thing of these Matters I know that that could not be Will you say they were received from some Christians or Mahometans who in former times arriv'd in those Countries This I grant may be true of some of ' em But if you consider that before the times of Christianity there were manifest Foot-steps of this Doctrine to be found amongst the Heathens in divers Parts of the World as well as in these Days and that the ancient Magi of the East did plainly assert it as you will be forced to acknowledge that the whole cannot be accounted for that way so I think it will seem very probable that the present Heathens themselves are beholding to their first Ancestors and not to any Christians or Mahometans for what they know concerning it I take no notice of another Opinion very common amongst the Fathers That the Doctrine of the Resurrection may be learnt from Natural Reason I should be very glad to have it well prov'd that the Doctrine of the Resurrection might be discover'd to those Heathens of whom we have spoken by that light of Nature But for my part I utterly despair of it I know of no Natural Reason no light of Nature so bright and shining as to discover this Mystery and have therefore purposely forborn to make use of any of those Arguments which the Fathers and some of our Modern Writers are wont to produce from it I look on this Doctrine as one of those that could never be discovered but by an extraordinary Revelation Should God be pleas'd to ask me as he did the Prophet Son of Man can these dry Bones live I can only appeal to him for the truth of it and must humbly answer in the Prophet's Words Lord God thou knowest I shall conclude this Argument with a Testimony of a St. Peter which confirms the Notion which we have advanc'd He affirms That the Resurrection was foretold by the Prophets from the very beginning of the World The Heavens says he must receive Christ untill the time of the Restitution of all things Of which God hath spoken by the Mouth of his Holy Prophets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 since the World began or from the beginning of the World These Traditions preserv'd among the Heathens I have placed here in the first Station as an Out-guard upon my Main Force the Authorities of Scripture which contains the same Tradition of the Resurrection derived down first from Noah and again confirmed and ratified anew by other Revelations I shall now in the next place draw this out and give you a full view of it I begin with the Testimonies of the Old Testament and the Common Opinion of the ancient Jews 'T is confidently asserted by Menasseh Ben Israel that the Doctrine of the Resurrection was always so receiv'd by the Ancient Jews as that any one that denied it was rejected out of number of the Israelites But this is an Assertion
'em unsearchable to us and as Job tells us he giveth not account of any of his Matters 'T is his part to act ours to admire and submit and as long as our Reason and our Senses are not plainly contradicted we are only to enquire What not How or Why I would fain know of those who deny the Resurrection of the same Humane Body because they do not know what use we can have of the particular Parts of such a Body in the life to come whether they deny or doubt of the Existence of all other things the Reason of which they cannot comprehend I should undertake to quiet all the Scruples of those Men and to satisfie all their queries if they would be but pleas'd to undertake to answer a few Questions of mine I could ask 'em the Reason of a hundred Things both in Nature and Divinity but to bring my Questions home to the Case before us If they will not believe that in the Life to come we shall have Humane Bodies because they cannot see to what uses our several Parts can then serve let 'em tell me to what real Uses all the Parts of our Bodies serve here in this Life By that time they are able to do that I believe I may be able to assign them the uses of the several Parts of our Bodies in the Life to come If they please to cast their Eyes down on their own Bodies they may there see certain Parts of which there is no real Use such as were bestowed on their Bodies for Resemblance Sake only Why therefore might not God give us Humane Bodies in the next Life meerly for this Reason Suppose if you please that there is no other that they that Rise may Resemble or be like those that Died or be such as they were I would ask the Etherealist a Question or two more Let him tell me for what Reason God gave us a Body here in this Life why he made us Corporeal Beings since only to have created so many Souls or Spirits might have conduced as much or for ought we can see more to His Glory and our Happiness than to make us as he has done of Body and Soul Let him tell me for what Reason we shall have in the Life to come any Body at all as he himself grants we shall have an Ethereal one since the Soul is in its own Nature and without any sort of Body Capable of Rewards and Punishments In a Word the same Reason God had for making us what we are the same he will have for making us what we shall be viz. His good Pleasure â—…om readest thou Go learn to be modest Enquire first what God has promis'd then judge of his Wisdom by his Promises I fansie my-self talking Philalethes to a bold Refiner on the Promises and Decrees of God Almighty one of those little Dothings that call themselves Philosophers who first form to themselves Notions and Idea's then deal with Revelation as the Tyrant did with the poor Innocents on his Bed either violently stretch it beyond its natural Reach or chop off a Part to make it commensurate to their Inventions This I know is what You are not guilty of You pursue the quite contrary Method As a real Lover of Truth and as becomes a true Christian Philosopher you first search the Scriptures and then the Traditions of the Primitive Church and on these agreeing together as on a sure and certain Foundation you raise and build the System of your Belief Those Doctrines which you find clearly reveal'd you do not endeavour to puzle with nice Objections and Scruples nor pervert with anyp rivate Glosses and Conceits of your own But as you find 'em so you embrace ' em You firmly believe and humbly acquiesce and leave the Contrivance and the Reasons to God Concerning the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the same Humane Body which in Obedience to your Commands I have endeavour'd to confirm and establish I shall here for the close of all add That among all the Doctrines of Christianity you understand me of such as are grounded only on Revelation there is not any one either more plainly deliver'd in Scripture or more clearly convey'd down to us by the Traditions of the Primitive Fathers or more universally receiv'd by the Catholick Church than this is 'T is indeed so clearly deliver'd down to us and so universally receiv'd that to deny it and yet at the same time profess the Christian Faith seems to imply a Contradiction He that would preach the one must likewise maintain the other We must do as St. Paul did at Athens Preach Jesus and not only the but This Resurrection FINIS * Cohort ad Grac. p. 26. * De Provid Fatâ—… ap Phot. Cod. CCXIV. a Bel. Gal. 〈◊〉 6. c. 14. b Bel. Celtico * l. 2. c. 123. †Sir Paul Ricaut of the Turkish Empire l. 2. c. 12. p. 133. * Aen. 6. v. 751. †De tempore Serm. 139 142. a De Resur c. 1. Sed Platonici immortalem animam 〈◊〉 contrario reclamant immo adhuc proxime etiam in Corpora remeabilem affirmant etsi non in eadem etsi non in humà na tantummodo ut Euphorbus in Pythagoram Homerus in Pavum recenseantur Certè recidivatum animae corporalem pronunciaverunt tolerabilius mutatâ quà m negatâ qualitate pulsatâ saltem licet non aditâ veritate Ita saeculum resurrectionem morcuorum nec quum errat ignorat b Sic etiam conditionem renascendi sapientium clariores Pythagoras primus praecipuus Plato corruptâ dimidiatâ fide tradiderunt Nam corporibus dissolutis solas animas volunt perpetuò manere in alia nova corpora saepius commeare Addunt istis illa ad retorquendam verjtatem in pecudes aves belluas hominum animas redire Non Philosophi sane studio sed mimico vitio digna ista sententia est Sed ad propositum satis est etiam in hoc sapientes vestros in aliquem modum nobiscum consonare c L. 7. c. 23. Quâ de anastasi Philosophi quoque dicere aliquid conatâ—… sunt tam corruptè quà m Poetae Nam Pythagoras transire animas in nova Corpora disputavit c. * Observ. de locis memorab in Asiâ c. †De Luctu * Orat. 5. p. 312. Orat. 7. p. 408 409. a Orat. 4. p. 289. †De praetermissis ab Homero * In Romulo * Vitâ Apollonii l. 8. c. 12. †Plutarch in Romulo Herodotus l. 4. c. 13 14 15. * l. c. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 35. * Contra Celsum l. 5. p. 245. a Vita Pythag. p. 188. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Ap. Pecock Not. in Portam Mosis p. 146. †Ap. S. Aug. de Civ XXII 28. a C. Celsum l. 5. p. 245. †P. 208. He says it was the Opinion of the Stoicks not that things should be numerically the same but only in likeness not
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
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
the Body to propose it as a thing to be wonder'd at why the Bodies of good Men are not to be rais'd again And the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on which Casaubon lays a great Stress and which seems to be the Foundation of his Error signifies not only again as he renders it but amplius or in posterum So in Philo Judaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the time to come in Isocrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Posterity In the same Sense it is used by Plato and others I might here observe that the Philosopher Heraclitus more ancient than the Stoicks speaks not only of the general Conflagration but says that they that have lived ill in this Life shall be purged by that Fire I might likewise observe that both he and Anaximenes and Diogenes Apolloniates believ'd That after the destruction of this World there will be another Created and so on to all Eternity But I rather chuse to entertain you with some thing that I think will be more surprizing and more to our Purpose Should I tell you that those two great Atomical Philosophers Democritus and Epicurus believ'd that our Bodies will hereafter be restor'd again and be made up of the very same Particles should I tell you thus much you would take me perhaps to be rather pleasant than serious But how strange soever you may think it it is nevertheless true at least if my Authors were not mistaken They believ'd that this will happen after a vast distance of time and aâ—…ter innumerable changes by a Second fortuitous concourse of the very same Particles Democritus as I suppose form'd this Notion from what he had learnt concerning the Instauration of all Things by conversing with the Egyptians among whom we know he lived many Years to be instructed in their Philosophy And from him it is likely Epicurus receiv'd it But how does it appear that those two great Corporealists who believ'd that the Soul and Body diâ—… both together asserted this kind of Resurrection For Democritus Pliny is my Author for Epicurus St. Jerom. Pliny in his Nat. Hist. opposes and derides this Opinion of Democritus so he does also the Immortality of the Soul Similis est de asservandis corporibus hominum ac reviviscendi promissa Democrito vanitas qui non revixit ipse Quae malum ista dementia est iterari vitani morte S. Jerom's Words concerning Epicuruâ—… aâ—…e these Vide hoc novum est jam faâ—…um est in seculo quod fuit ante nos Cum superioribus autem congruit quod niâ—…il novum in mundo fiat nec sit aliquis qui possit existere dicere ecce hoc novum est siquidem omne quod se putaverit novum ostendere jam in prioribus seculis fuit Nec putemus signa atque prodigia multa quae arbitrio Dei nova in Mundo fiunt in prioribus seculis esse jam facta locum invenire Epicurum qui asserit per innumerabiles periodos EADEM eisdem in locis per â—…osdem fieri There is no reason we should change the Reading and for Epicurus read Chrysippus as a learned Man suspects we ought since as has been shewn Democritus himself whose Philosophy Epicurus follow'd and from whom the Ancients tell us he borrow'd a great many of his Notions maintain'd either the same or a like Opinion I shall conclude these Opinions with those receiv'd among some of the Ancient Arabians The Harbanists an ancient Sect among the Heathen Arabians held That after the space of 36425 Years all the Species of Living Creatures that are in the World shall be destroy'd and the Nature of the Universe shall again produce Two Pair of every Species for every Climate of the Earth And after this manner the World is to continue by several Revolutions to Eternity There were others among the Arabians that agreed with the Pythagoreans and Platonists or rather came up more home to the Christian Doctrine than they did They believ'd that after certain Circulations of the Heavenly Bodies the Soul will return and will constitute the same Individual Man and that the Man thus constituted anew will remember what had past in the former Life Abrahamus Ecchellensis mentions this as the Opinion of some Ancient Hereticks amongst the Mahometans in Egypt and elsewhere And you know the Mahometans of Egypt were originally Arabians We have made I think by this time a pretty tolerable Progress and from the View we have already taken I believe you begin to be convinced that the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body was known and generally embrac'd in the first Ages of the World We will now extend our View and look a little farther abroad into the World and shew that the Heathens had not only some Opinions amongst 'em which were built on a Tradition concerning the Resurrection and that carry with 'em a very great resemblance of our Doctrine but that many of 'em in several parts of the World have held the same Doctrine with us and do to this day believe it in the same sense as we understand it I mean that they hold That the Particles of the Body which died will be rais'd again and without a new Birth be united to the Soul and constitute the very same Man I shall not here take any notice of those Greek Verses which are extant under the Name of Phocylides that they plainly assert the Resurrection in regard those Verses are by all learned Men attributed not to the Ancient Phocylides but to some Jewish or Christian Author The First Instance which I shall present you with is that of the Persian Magi. I need not tell you that the Magi were the Priests and Philosophers of the Ancient Persians Theopompus and Eudemus Rhodius two very Ancient Authors in D. Laertius tell us that the Magi taught That Men shall revive and be Immortal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Plutarch assures us out of the Books of Zoroastres that according to their Doctrine there will be a time when the Earth shall be made plain and level and all Mankind shall live blessedly together on Earth in one common Society and shall speak but one Language This is almost expresly the Millennarian Doctrine of the Resurrection They add according to Theopompus that this shall happen after the term of 6000 Years Which is the same number of Years that the Ancient Jews and most of the Christian Fathers allow for the duration of the World before the Resurrection And that the Bodies of Men in that State will not have need of Food but will be pure and pellucid or as he expresses it will cast no Shadow Thus Aeneas Gazaeus affirms that Zoroastres foretold that there will come a time when there shall be a Resurrection of all the Dead And this says he Theopompus attests To this I shall add what is also very remarkable
that the same Doctrine is at this day preserv'd amongst the Heathen Gavrs or Guebers at this time living in Persia the Remains of the Ancient Magi or Persians My Author is a late Traveller of good Credit who gives us this Account That according to their Doctrine there shall be an Universal Resurrection And at that time all the Souls either in Paradise or Hell shall return to take possession of their Bodies that the Earth shall be made level and Men shall have every one their Apartment answerable to the Good which they did in their Life time but that their chief Delight shall be to behold and praise God and Zoroastres their Prophet They add that before the Resurrection those that are in Paradise do not behold the Face of God They likewise say that their Prophet did not die but was carried up in his Body into Heaven My second Instance is of some of the Arabians I shew'd but just now that some of the ancient Arabians came up very near to our Doctrine I shall now add that there were others of that Country which is very spacious and contain'd very different Sects that made a further Advance and came up fully to us That the most ancient Arabians acknowledged the Resurrection in the Christian Sense we may probably gather from that noted Place in Job concerning the Resurrection at least if the Words be rightly understood and were really spoken by him I need not tell you that Job was an Arabian But you perhaps will tell me that that was spoken by him only as an inspir'd Person I see no Reason for that But this is not the only Argument I have to prove that the old Arabians expresly own'd our Doctrine I have the express Testimony of several Arabick Writers that some of 'em did so There were some among the Heathen Arabians says Gregorius Abulpharajius that acknowledged the Resurrection of the Dead He adds that they used to kill a Camel on the Graves of the Dead that when they should rise to Judgment such was their Ignorance mixt with the Knowledge they had of the Truth they might ride upon it The same is asserted by other Arabick Authors I know that one Kossus He of whom is that Arabick Proverb More Eloquent than Kossus is reported by some to have taught the Arabians the Doctrine of the Resurrection as also the Unity of the God-head But that is to be understood only of some not of all the Arabians that own'd it My Opinion is that Kossus was no other than a Christian Presbyter who first preach'd the Gospel in some part of Arabia For so the Word Kos or Kas signifies in the Arabick Tongue I mean it signifies a Presbyter and his eloquent Preaching might very well occasion the above mention'd Proverb Now it does not seem very probable that they who are spoken of by Abul-pharajius who were wont to have a Camel buried with 'em were descended from any who had been enlighten'd by the Gospel My Third Instance is of some of the Banians of Cambaia in the East-Indies A Traveller of our own Nation tells us that a Banian of Cambaia gave an Acquaintance of his this Account of their Faith relating to the next Life Law says he they hold none but only seven Precepts which they say were given 'em from their Father Noe not knowing Abraham nor any other 1. To honour Father and Mother 2. Not to steal 3. Not to commit Adultery 4. Not to kill any Thing living 5. Not to eat any Thing living 6. Not to cut their Hair 7. To go bare-foot in their Churches They hold there shall be a Resurrection and all shall come to Judgment but the Account shall be most strict insomuch that but one of 10000 shall be receiv'd to Favour and those shall live again in this World in great Happiness The rest shall be tormented And because they will escape this Judgment when any Man dies he is burnt to Ashes and thrown into a River And by this means they hope to escape the Judgment to come As for the Soul that goeth to the Place from whence it came but where the Place is they know not That the Body should not be made again they reason with the Philosophers saying that of nothing nothing can be made beholding the course of Nature that nothing is made but by a means as by the Seed of an Animal is made another and by Corn cast into the Ground there cometh up new Corn. So say they a Man cannot rise again except some part of him be left undissolv'd and therefore they burn the whole For if he were buried in the Earth they say there is a small Bone in the Neck which would never be consum'd Or if he were eaten by a Beast that Bone would not consume but of that Bone would come another Man and then the Soul being restored again he should come to Judgment whereas now the Body being destroy'd the Soul shall not be judged For their Opinion is That both Body and Soul must be united together as they have sinn'd together to receive Judgment and therefore the Soul alone cannot Their Seven Precepts which they keep very strictly they do not keep for any hope of Reward they have after this Life but only that they may be blessed in this World They say the Three chief Religions in the World are of the Christians Jews and Mahometans and yet but one of them True But being in doubt which is the truest of the Three they will be of None For they hold that all these Three shall be judged and but few of them which be of the True shall be saved the Examination shall be so strict They say these Three Religions have too many Precepts to keep them all well and therefore wonderful hard it will be to give an Account because so few do observe all their Religion aright This Account is the more considerable for what it mentions of Noah and I should be glad to tell you that I find it confirm'd by other Relations of those Parts But that I must own I cannot as yet do On the contrary I know that the Banians of Cambaia and of other Parts do not generally talk after this manner or own explicitly a Resurrection but the Transmigration of Souls into other Bodies Nevertheless it is not improbable but that among those many Sects of the Banians or Gentiles of Mogulistan whose Opinions we find describ'd in our more vulgar Relations there may be some particularly in Cambaia who have these Traditions and Notions And this is th more credible because as I shall by and by shew there are other Nations in the Indies which assert a Resurrection Those Brachmans of India of whom we read in the Histories of Alexander the Great were either of that Country which is now call'd Cambaia or of a Country bordering upon it And Palladius in his Treatise of the Brachmans makes Dandamis the most Famous and Considerable amongst '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
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
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