'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
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
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