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
of 'em that some of 'em believ'd the Pythagorean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But granting that some of 'em did so yet it does not appear that those that did so were some of the most ancient such as lived in our Saviour's time or before They might live long after those times and I am of opinion that they did To your Second Query which is concerning the consistency of the two Opinions this of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that of the Resurrection How one can be consistent with the other My Answer is this Those Jews that hold the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do all as well as the rest acknowledge the Resurrection but with this difference They do not acknowledge the Resurrection of all Humane Bodies for that cannot be but they tell ye that either the first or the last of those Bodies to which the same Soul has been united shall rise Abarbinel is of Opinion that the Resurrection is to be of the first but so is not Menasseh Ben-Israel he alledges that this does not agree with the Doctrine of the ancient Zoar. The Cabbalists there declare for the last And their Words are these R. Hisquiha says If you tell me that all Bodies shall awake and rise again pray tell me what will be become of those Bodies which were inform'd by one and the same Soul R. Joseph answer'd As for those Bodies which have deserv'd nothing nor done any good they shall be so dealt with as if they had never had a Being and because they were as a dry Tree in this World they shall also be as such in that which is to come But the last Body that was inform'd by the Soul shall rise again because it was planted and brought forth Fruit and took Root as it ought I am now in the next place to shew that tho' the Doctrine of the Resurrection was not receiv'd by the Jews as a necessary Article of Faith 'till after our Saviour's time yet it ought not to be lookt upon as the less certain on that account And this I shall make out by shewing that 'till after our Saviour's time there was nothing among them thought a necessary Article of Faith or Term of Communion but only the believing and owning the Law of Moses and the worshipping in the Temple of Jerusalem that the Immortality of the Soul it-self was not receiv'd by 'em as a necessary Article of Faith or Term of Communion The truth of this will evidently appear if we can prove that the Sadduces who denied not only the Resurrection of the Body but also the Immortality of the Soul were admitted by the Jews of those Times as Members of their Communion and true Israelites Now that this was so is apparent from these following Considerations First In the Acts of the Apostles it is said that when Peter and John were preaching to the People in the Temple The Priests and the Captain of the Temple and the Sadduces came upon 'em being griev'd that they taught the People and preach'd through Jesus the Resurrection of the Dead And in the Chapter following that there being a continual flocking of the People to the Apostles the High-Priest rose up and all they that were with him which is the Sect of the Sadduces and were fill'd with Indignation By which two places it appears that the Sadduces in those Days were the Companions and Associates of the Captain of the Temple and the Priests and not only so but were also the most intimate Associates of the High-Priest himself Which surely could never have been had they been look'd upon as Hereticks and out of their Communion Secondly It appears from the 23 Chap. of the same Book that a part of their Sanhedrin it self their great and Sacred Council consisted of Sadduces that one part was Pharisees and the other Saddnces Nay from thence we may gather that the Doctrine of a future Life might as well have been condemn'd by the Sanhedrin as the contrary Doctrine Else how could St. Paul cry out to the Pharisees that concerning the Hope and Resurrection of the Dead he was there call'd in Question He means not strictly the Resurrection of the Body but the Immortality of the Soul and the Life to come Thirdly The Sadduces were not only the intimate Associates of the inferior Priests and the High-Priests themselves and Members likewise of the Sanhedrin but they were also advanc'd to the dignity of High-Priests and own'd as such by all the Jews in general Josephus is my Witness that Ananus the younger who was High-Priest in the time of the Emperor Nero was by Sect a Sadduce and that long before him above 100 Years before Christ a Hyrcanus the first of that Name from a Pharisee became a Sadduce Fourthly Josephus tells us that though the Sadduces were but few in Number yet generally the better sort of People or Persons of considerable Quality were of that Sect. A learned Jew with whom I once discours'd concerning this Point in answer to these Arguments was pleas'd to tell me that the Reason why in those times the Sadduces were admitted into the Sanhedrin and into the High-Priesthood was because of the over-ruling and arbitrary power of the Heathen Governours and that Sect being in an especial manner encouraged by the supream Governours it was on that account embrac'd by such as were of the greatest Quality In Answer to which I might observe that in the time of Hyrcanus Judaea was not in subjection to any Heathen Governour neither does it appear that the Sadduces were peculiarly favour'd and promoted by the Roman Prefects If they were how came it to pass that in so long a time and among so many High-Priests there was only one Sadduce advanced to that Dignity But I pass by these Considerations and for a full reply to this Evasion shall referr you to the following Arguments Fifthly Though ' the Sadduces were members even of the holy Sanhedrin and one of the High-Priefts had openly declar'd for that Sect and another that openly profess'd it had been advanc'd to that Honour yet we do not any where read that any of the learned Jews thought it unlawful or remonstrated against it Josephus indeed tells us that the Sadduces had not any Power to speak of in the Government but that when they were advanc'd to any place of Command though unwillingly and by compulsion they profess'd themselves Pharisees because the Common People would not otherwise endure ' em This place may seem to make directly against me but in reality it does not On the contrary it makes directly for me For First It appears from hence that they were not peculiarly favour'd and upheld by their Heathen Governours Secondly It appears that it was not the learned part of the Nation but only the Common People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that would not endure to be under ' em Though â—…t was not a matter of Conscience yet the People who had firmly
that we shall not all die but some will only be chang'd What can be more plain than those Words of the same Apostle The Dead in Christ shall rise first then we i. e. they which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the Clouds to meet the Lord in the Air And so shall we ever be with the Lord. Now since the Bodies of that Generation which shall be living at the last Day are to consist of the same individual Particles how is it credible that the Bodies of those that are rais'd shall be made up of New Is it Credible that there will be in Heaven such a Disparity that some shall retain their old Bodies others have new Ones The Dead says the Apostle shall be rais'd Incorruptible and they that are living shall be chang'd The Reason he gives is the same for both For this Corruptible must put on Incorruption c. And from thence it is evident that as are the Bodies of those that are only changed such will be the Bodies of those that rise But how does this agree with that Comparison which the same Apostle makes between the Resurrection of our Bodies and the growing of Corn The Apostle observes that the Corn which is sown is not the same with that which shall be and he plainly applies this to our Resurrection Does not that prove that the Body which rises will be no more the same with that which died than Corn is the same with that from whence it sprung This is that Place as I have already said on which Origen and the rest of our Adversaries chiefly groun'd their Opinions My Answer is this There is no necessity we should take the Comparison in all respects strictly You know we have a Maxim in the Schools that no Similitude walks on Four Feet The meaning is that Similitudes and Comparisons are always Lame and ought to be understood loosly and only in some respect And so ought this Comparison which the Apostle uses All that he means by it is this That as a Grain of Corn which springs up differs from that which was sown so the Body which rises shall not be altogether the same but shall differ in some Respects from that which was buried I observe that the Question which the Apostle answers is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with what sort of Body the Dead shall rise I observe the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with what sort of Body as to its Qualities And as the Question is only concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Quality of the Body so ought the Answer to be understood to intend no other There is nothing more certain than that of all Arguments the weakest are those that are taken from Comparisons so loosly are Comparisons wont to be used I shall crave your Leave to give you here a few Instances relating to the Subject now before us The Resurrection of our Bodies is compared to the growing of Corn not only by the Apostle but by almost all the Fathers yet they at the same time own expresly the Identity of the Body The Greek Church uses boil'd Wheat as a Symbol of it In their great Festivals after the Sacrament they have usually an Entertainment for the Congregation which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the offering of the Colyba which is boil'd Wheat mixt for the better relish with some other things The Priest goes about with a Charger full of it and distributes it to all that are present as a Symbol of the Resurrection and in Memory of the Dead The Arch-Bishop of Philadelphia Gabriel Severus has left us a particular Treatise concerning this Rite of the Greek Church We are told indeed by some Writers that in the beginning this Custom had no respect to the Resurrection But whatever was the meaning of those that first instituted it 't is certain that they who now continue it referr it to the Resurrection The Muscovites are wont to use Eggs as Symbols of the Resurrection Every Year against Easter they die or colour Red a great Number of Eggs of which every Man and Woman gives to the Priest of the Parish upon Easter Day in the Morning The Common-People use to carry in their Hands one of these red Eggs the Persons of Quality Gilded Ones on Easter Day and Three or Four Days after And meeting their Friends one takes the other by the Hand and one of 'em saying The Lord or Christ is risen the other answers It is so of a Truth Then they kiss one another and exchange their Eggs. The Jews make Grass to be a Symbol of it Some of the ancient Fathers are pleas'd to tell us that Trees and Plants putting forth Leaves and Flowers in the spring-Spring-Time and bearing Fruits are Types and Emblems of it Some compare it to the healing of Wounds Others and those too some of the chief of the ancient Doctors of the Church to the revolution of Night and Day Darkness and Light to one Month's following another and one Year's arising from another Nay they tell us that these Alternations are manifest Proofs and Demonstrations of the resurrection Now from such Symbols and Comparisons as these who would not be apt to conclude that they do not believe the Resurrection of the Same Body Yet certain it is that they all profess and assert this Doctrine That St. Paul meant the very same Body as to Substance will further appear from what I shall observe hereafter concerning the Incredulity of the Corinthians in the time of St. Clement Bishop of Rome VIII My Eighth Argument shall be taken from the Example of our Saviour's Resurrection The Apostle tells us That Christ was The first Fruits of those that slept that by him came the Resurrection of the Dead that as in Adam all die so in Christ shall all be made alive Every Man in his own Order Christ the First-Fruits afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming Again to the Romans he says that He that rais'd Christ from the Dead shall also quicken our mortal Bodies And in his Epistle to the Philippians he assures us in the most express Terms That Jesus Christ whom we look for from Heaven shall change our vile Body that it may be fashioned like to his Glorious Body From all which I inferr that as was our Saviour's Body after his Resurrection such will ours be in our Resurrection Now that the same Body of Christ which was crucifi'd and buried was rais'd again and that it continu'd a true Humane Body there is no one I think can doubt who truly believes the Scripture or our Saviour's own Words For what if by His Divine Power He was pleas'd to convey Himself into a Room when the Doors were or seem'd to be shut What if he vanish'd away out of the Sight of those that convers'd with him This was done to demonstrate his Power I shall not alledge with a late learned and