[Page] 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.

[Page] 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.

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 th [...] some Men have a [...]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 ma [...]y Ages, by a new Birth or production, p. 16.

[Page] 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. [Page] 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. [Page] 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 Resurr [...] ­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 con [...]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.

[Page 2] 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 [...]tions whose Opinions that Au­thor produced, were, as Photius tells us, the Greeks, Persians, Thracians, Egypti­ans, [Page 3] 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 [Page 4] 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.

Cohort. ad Grac. p. 26. 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 [Page 5] 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 [Page 6] 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. 'Twas (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 'tis still the received Opinion [Page 7] of the greatest part of the Eastern Hea­thens, and of many other Countries in divers parts of the World, that when a Man dies, his Soul passes into another Body, either the Body of a Man, or of some other Creature. Now, on what could this Opinion be grounded, but on some broken and imperfect Tradi­tion, concerning the Resurrection of our Bodies? How came so strange an Opini­on to obtain in so many Countries? They had doubtless heard from their Ancestors, the Descendants of Noah, that after Death, the Soul should be reunited to a Body; and not knowing, by reason of the imperfectness of the Tradition, how it was to be done, they invented a way for it, and imagin'd it was to be by a [...], or by be­ing born again. And as Error is always fruitful in Inventions, and, one having taken Root, there is presently a Superfoetati­on of many others, they afterwards carried it on farther, and fansy'd a Transmigration of the Soul, not only into another Human Body, but also into the Bodies of other living Creatures, and even into Trees and Plants. But the Transmigration of the Soul into the Bodies of irrational Animals was never so generally receiv'd as its Transmigration into another Hu­man [Page 8] 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 De Pro­vid. & Fat [...] ap. Phot. Cod. CCXIV. 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 Bel. Gal. [...]. 6. c. 14. 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 Bel. Cel­tico. 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 S [...]ythians.

—Populus quos despicit Arctos,
Felices errore suo, quos ille timorum
Maximus haud urget lethi metus, inde ruendi
In ferrum mens prona viris, animi (que) capaces
Mortis & ignavum rediturae parcere vitae.

[Page 9] That the Opinion of the Transmigra­tion was grounded on a Tradition con­cerning the Resurrection, will appear more Probable, if we consider what l. 2. c. 123. 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 the [...] Soul [...] 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 Sir Paul Ricaut of the Turkish Empire, l. 2. c. 12. p. 133. 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 Re­union 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 [Page 10] shall come again into the World, and be united to a Human Body. Thus Aen. 6. v. 751. 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 a [...] humanae revocat primordia formae.

St. Austin De tem­pore, Serm. 139 & 142. 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.

[Page 11] I shall add no more concerning these Opinions, but only put you in mind, that 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 humàna tantummodo, ut Euphorbus in Pythagoram, Homerus in Pavum, recenseantur. Certè recidivatum ani­mae corporalem pronunciaverunt; tolerabilius mutatâ quàm negatâ qualitate: pulsatâ saltem, licet non aditâ veritate. Ita saeculum, resur­rectionem morcuorum, nec quum errat, ignorat. Tertullian, 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. Minucius Felix, and L. 7. c. 23. Quâ de anastasi Philosophi quoque dicere aliquid cona­t [...] sunt; tam corruptè quàm Poetae. Nam Pythagoras transire ani­mas in nova Corpora disputavit, &c. 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. & [Page 12] 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 Observ. de locis memorab. in Asiâ, &c. 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. Lu [...]ian De Luctu. 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.

[Page 13] 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. 'Twas the Doctrine of the Chal­daick Philosophers, and likewise of the Greeks themselves. Psellus, in his Gloss on the Chaldaick Oracles, tells us, that it was a Doctrine of those Philosophers, That a Man's Body may by the Works of Religion (Lustrations, and the like) be so purged and attenuated, the impure Matter being consumed by the Heavenly Fire, as that the Soul may carry it up to Heaven with it. That Hercules, and Helena, and others, amongst the Greeks, and Romulus amongst the Romans, were translated (like Enoch and Elias) into Heaven in their proper Bodies, we read in divers of our Ancient Authors. The Emperor Orat. 5. p. 312. & Orat. 7. p. 408, 409. Julian mentions the Assumption of Her­cules. He went up (says he) [...]. Tho' he will not acknow­ledge, that his Body with which he a­scended was a Body of Flesh, but inti­mates, according to the Notion of the Chaldaick Philosophers, that the gross [Page 14] parts of his Body were consumed by Heavenly Fire, or Lightening. That the Romans, when Romulus was murder'd, were made believe, that he had been ta­ken up in his Body into Heaven, I need only mention, not endeavour to prove. It is what you know very well, and ma­ny of the Writers of the Roman History speak of it. The Emperor Orat. 4. p. 289. Julian be­liev'd it, tho he says, as he does of Her­cules, that the [...], the mortal part of his Body was consum'd or lick'd up [...] by the Heavenly fire, or Lightning. That Helena, being like to be murdered, was taken up pub­lickly into Heaven, De prae­termissis ab Homero. Isaacus Porphyrogen­netus relates from the Traditions of the Ancient Greeks. In Ro­mulo. Plutarch tells us that it was the common Opinion of the Greeks, that Cleomedes Astypalensis was translated in his Body into Heaven, and that many others had been so translated. Thus Vitâ A­pollonii, l. 8. c. 12. Philostratus doubts whether his greatly admir'd Apollonius Tyaneus ever died; and tells us of a Report, that, go­ing into a Temple in Lindus, he was ne­ver seen afterwards. He mentions more­over a Tradition of the Cretans, that he was taken up into Heaven out of a Tem­ple in Crete, a Voice being heard in the Temple as of Virgins singing, [...], [Page 15] [...]. Come from the Earth, come into Heaven, come.

Fifthly, They did not only believe that many had been translated like E­noch and Elias into Heaven, but they also believ'd that the Souls of some o­thers had been after Death re-united to their Bodies, and that so, by a Resurre­ction, they had been taken up into Hea­ven. That this was generally believed of Aristaeus the Proconnesian, is asserted by many Plutarch in Romulo. Herodotus, l. 4. c. 13, 14, 15. Heathen Writers. And l. c. Plu­tarch assures us, that it was commonly believ'd that the Body of Alcmena, the Mother of Hercules, was taken up into Heaven after her Death. It happened, as they say, when it was carried out to be interr'd. Thus (says he) [...], p. 35. they ex­alt those things which are by nature Mor­tal among the Gods. He does not be­lieve these Reports himself; on the con­trary he calls it a Foolish thing to place Earth in Heaven. The Soul (says he) only is from the Gods, from them it came, and to them it returns, not with the Body, but separated wholly from it, perfectly pure, clean, and freed from Flesh. The Soul, as Heraclitus says, flies from the Body as Ligh­tening does from a Cloud. While it is in the Body, like a heavy and cloudy Vapour, it is difficultly kindled, and with great dif­ficulty [Page 16] it ascends to the things above. There­fore the Bodies of Good Men ought not by any means to be placed in Heaven, contra­ry to their Nature, but we ought to believe that the Soul alone ascends up thither. He disputes against this Belief, and these Traditions of the Heathens, in the very same manner as he would have disputed against Christians.

The Sixth Opinion of the Heathens which I shall present you with, is con­cerning a Resurrection of the very same Human Body, after its dissolution. In this only it differs from our Christian Do­ctrine, that it makes the Soul return, not immediately to those Particles from which it was separated by Death, and which were laid in the Grave, so as that those who died Men, should rise of the same Stature, but first to those Particles, which were unîted to it in the Mothers Womb: And afterwards those Particles that constituted the Body in its several Ages, are, according to this Opinion, to rise again, and be united all in their due time to the same Soul; 'till at last the same Particles that were buried shall be all re-united together, and constitute the Body in the very same manner as formerly. They tell us, that after the expiration of many Thousands of Years, [Page 17] when all the same Stars and Planets shall return to the same Configuration and Re­spect that they formerly had to one a­nother, there shall be a Resurrection of all things to their former State, not only of Men, but all other things in the World. Socrates, for Example, shall be born again of the same Mother, and grow up in the same manner, with all the same Circum­stances, teach Philosophy at Athens to the self-same Scholars, eat the self-same Diet, and wear the self-same Cloths, be accused by the same Accusers, condemn'd by the same Judges, and die by the same Poison. You and I (my Friend) are, according to them to, live here again in all the same Circumstances: Our Friendship the same, and the same Correspondence between us. You are to send again to me, to know what I have to say for the Doctrine of the Resurrection: I am to send you this very same Treatise, written on the same Paper, and with the same Pen and Ink; and the Hair, that now makes this Blot, must make the same again. Thus all things must go on in a continual Round and Revolution, and by a continual successive Resurre­ction. But who are they that tell us these things? Who were they that taught this Opinion? The Pythagoreans, [Page 18] and the Platonists, amongst the Greeks, and many of the Priests or Philosophers of Egypt, from whom the Greeks learnt it. Would you have me quote my Au­thor? It is Origen, and not he only (tho' he alone were enow) but I have like­wise several others. The Followers of Py­thagoras and Plato (says Contra Celsum, l. 5. p. 245. Origen) say, that after a certain Revolution of the Stars, when they shall return to the same Configu­ration and Respèct to one another, which they formerly had, there will necessarily be the very same Face of Things here on Earth, which there had been before, when the Stars were in the same Position. And accord­ing to this Notion, when the Stars shall return to the same Order, which they were in in Socrates's time, Socrates must be born again, and suffer the same things which he did before; the same Anytus and Melitus accusing him, and the same Areopagites passing Sentence upon him: And the same is the Dctrine of the Egyptians. For Py­thagoras, Porphyry Vita Pythag. p. 188. likewise is my Witness It is well known to all, says he, first that he asserted the Immortality of the Soul; and that he asserted that the Soul passes into several kinds of Creatures; and moreover, that he taught, that after cer­tain [...]. Revolutions (of the Stars) those [Page 19] things which once had been, shall be again, and that there is nothing properly new. For Plato I might produce his own Words, and the Testimonies of others, such as Proclus, &c. But who has not heard of Plato's great Year? I need not put you in mind, that this can be nothing else but an old Tradition concerning our future Resurrection, a little alter'd by the drop­ping of a part of it as it passed in a long series of time, through the Mouths of several Persons.

It appears from the Testimony of R. Abraham Bar Chaia, cited by Ap. Pe­cock. Not. in Portam Mosis, p. 146. Abar­binel, that this same Opinion concerning the Restitution of all things to their for­mer State, after the return of the Planets to their former Configuration, was like­wise received by many of the Philoso­phers of India. Some of 'em held that this should happen after the Term of 4320000 Years, other assign'd 360000 Years, others 49000, others 36000, o­thers 12000, others 7000; And Bar Ch [...]ia declares that he thinks they form'd this Notion from the Tradition which they had received from their Ancestors, concern­ing the Resurrection.

M. Varro, the great Roman Writer, in the Books which he publish'd Ap. S. Aug. de Civ. XXII. 28. De Gente Populi Romani, speaks of certain [Page 20] Authors, whom he calls Genethliaci whose Opinion it was, that the Soul re­turns, and is united to the very same Body, to which it had been formerly conjoyn'd, by a [...] in the space of 440 years. His Words are these: Genethliaci quidam scripserunt, esse in re­nascendis hominibus quam appellant [...] Graeci: hanc scripserunt confici in annis numero quadringentis quadragin­ta, ut idem Corpus & cadem anima, quae fue­rant conjuncta in homine aliquando, ea­dem rursus redeant in conjunctionem.

Amongst others even of the Greek Philosophers, we find this Tradition pre­serv'd more entire. The Stoicks, though they look'd upon the Doctrine of the Re­surrection, as preach'd by St. Paul at Athens, to be nothing but Babble, yet they themselves, as least some of 'em, tell us all the same things that the Egy­ptians but now mention'd, and the Pytha­goreans, and the Platonists taught: But in this they come up nearer to us, that they do not make the World Eternal, but say, as we do, that the World shall be destroy'd by Fire, and that this Resurrection, or Re­stitution, of all things shall be after the ge­neral Conflagration. My Author for this, is first of all C. Cel­sum, l. 5. p. 245. Origen, and he a very good one in these Matters, who observes, not [Page 21] without good Reason, that, tho they did not call it by the Name of a Resurrection, yet the Thing was the same. The Stoicks, says he, hold, that after a certain revolution of Time, the Universe will be destroy'd by a Conflagration, and that immediately upon it all things will be restored to what they were before, without any manner of Change. But there are some amongst 'em that do not come up altogether to this Opi­nion, and They hold, that there will be some small Alteration, and for some short Time. These Men tell us, that after the Conflagration, P. 208. He says it was the Opinion of the Stoicks not that things should be numerically the same, but only in like­ness; not that Socrates E. G. should be born a­gain, but some one ex­actly like him, with all the like Circumstances. Socrates, for Example, shall be born a­gain, an Athenian, the Son of Sophroniscus and Phenarete. And therefore, tho' they do not call it by the Name of a Resur­rection, yet they mean the same Thing. He shall be bred up, say they, at Athens, and shall teach Philo­sophy there as before. So that Philosophy it self is as it were to rise again, and be in the same State as formerly. Anytus and Me­litus shall rise again, and be Socrates's Accusers, and the Council of the Areopa­gites shall condemn him. And what is more ridiculous than all this, Socrates is to wear the same Cloths that he did before, live in the same Poverty, and with all [Page 22] the same Circumstances. So Phalaris shall again play the Tyrant, and torment the same Persons in his Brazen Bull. And Alexander the Pherean shall exer­cise his Cruelty on the same Persons that he did heretofore. Tatianus Cont. Graecos, p. 143. men­tions the same Opinion of Zeno; that the World shall be renewed by a Conflagrati­on, that the same Men shall rise, and do the very same Things; Anytus and Meli­tus shall accuse Socrates again, Busiris mur­der his Guests, Hercules undergoe the same Labours, &c. De Vi­ta Beat [...], l. 7. c. 23. Lactantius produces these Words of Chrysippus, whom Cicero stiles the Prop of the Porch of the Stoicks, out of his Book of Providence. [...]. This being so, it is mani­f [...]st, that it is not at all impos­sible, but that after a certain revolution of Time, even We may be restored from Death to what we now are. The Philo­sopher Ap [...] Eu [...]. P [...]p. XV. 18, 19. Numenius calls it in express Terms a Resurrection. [...], &c. That Resurrection which makes that which is call'd the greatest Year. This Opinion of the Stoicks concerning the Renovati­on of things after the Conflagation, is mention'd by many others, as by 2. De Nat. De [...] ­rum, c. 46. Tul­ly, [Page 23] Quod mundus sit corruptibi­lis. p. 728. Philo Judeus, Apolog. 2. p. 66. Justin Martyr, Apolog. pro Christ. Athenagoras, Strom. 5. p. 549. 599. Clemens Alexandri­nus, &c.

The Emperor l. 12. c. 12. § 5. M. Antoninus, who was chiefly addicted to the Sect of the Stoicks, writes doubtingly concerning the Life to come, to this purpose. How comes it to pass, says he, That the Gods, who have order'd all things well, and with singular love towards Mankind, have ne­glected this one thing, to take care, that Men, especially the Good, and those who maintain'd as it were a frequent Correspon­dence with 'em, and by their pious Works, and holy Offices contracted a kind of fami­liarity with 'em; that those Men when once they are dead, do no longer exist, but are extinct for ever? [...]. If it be so, the reason, you must know, is, because it ought not to be other­wise. This Place the learned Notis in M. An­tonin. and in his Book of Credul. and Incred. p. 23. Merich Casaubon understands so, as if it had re­spect to the Resurrection of the Body, in the true Christian Sense, and the Words, [...], he ren­ders thus, should never be restored to Life. ‘That Antoninus (says he) intends [Page 24] it of the Body (for the Soul, if not immortal, yet that it remain'd a long time after Death, they believ'd) not of the Body alone, but of the Body and Soul to be join'd again into one and the same Person, may appear, because he saith, [...], as soon as ever dead, [...], not to be restored to Life again; to wit, the Man, consisting (though not a precise Stoick in that) of Body and Soul for ever.’ That the Emperor intended such a Resurrection, he further con­firms by another Passage in his Book, where he says, L. 7. §. 2. [...]. You will easily be per­suaded, that I am not at all prejudiced against this Opinion of that learned Man: But let Truth prevail above all things. It must be confess'd, that he did not un­derstand Antoninus's meaning, and that he was mistaken in two Respects: 1. If Antoninus had intended a Resurrection, he ought to have been understood only of such a Resurrection, as I have shewn the Stoicks generally believ'd. 2. It is not true that he intended a Resurrection in any Sense. In this last place he only alludes to that Opinion which the Sto­icks commonly taught, not asserts it: [Page 25] And in the other Place he only speaks of the duration of the Soul after Death, of which he himself doubted. It must be acknowledged, that that Philosopher had too mean an Opinion of 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, See Clem. Alex. l. 5. p. 549, 599. that they that have lived ill in this Life shall be purged by that Fire. I might likewise observe that both he, and Sim­plicius Com. in Arist. Phys. l. 8. Anaximenes, and Ibid. 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 [Page 26] 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 a [...]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 di [...] both together, asserted this kind of Resurrection? For Democritus, Pliny is my Author; for Epicurus, St. Jerom. Pliny L. 7. c. 55. 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 [Page 27] vanitas, qui non The Au­thor seems to intimate that De­mocritus spoke of a Resurrecti­on which was to be in a little time: But I believe he had not duly consi­der'd his Opinion. revixit ipse. Quae (ma­lum) ista dementia est iterari vitani mor­te? S. Jerom's Com. in Ecclesi­asten, c. 1. Words concerning E­picuru [...] a [...]e these: Vide, hoc novum est, & jam fa [...]um est in seculo quod fuit ante nos. Cum superioribus autem congruit, quod ni­ [...]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 [...]osdem fieri. There is no reason we should change the Reading, and for Epicurus, read, Chrysippus, as a Me­ric. Casaub. of Cred. and Incred. p. 22. 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 Po­cock. Spe­cim. Hist. Arabum, p. 145., an ancient Sect among the Heathen Arabi­ans, held, That after the space of 36425 Years, all the Species of Living Crea­tures [Page 28] 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. Euty­c [...]io Vind. p. 417. 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 [Page 29] 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 Pr [...] ­mio. D. Laertius, tell us, that the Ma­gi taught, That Men shall revive, and be Immortal. [...] [Page 30] [...]. And De Is. & Osir. p. 370. [...]. 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 Ap. Plut. loco cit. 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 Theophrasto, p. 77. [...]. 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 [Page 31] Author is a late Ta [...] nier. l. 4. c. 8. p. 165. 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 c. 19. [...]. 26. Job concerning the Resurrection, at least if the Words be rightly understood, and were really [Page 32] 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 Hist. Dynast. p. 101. 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 Pocockius Specim. Hist. Arabum, p. 134. Fuisse ex Arabibus dicit Sharestanius alios qui nec praecessisse creationem crederent, nec futuram resurrectionem; rerum or [...]um naturae, interi [...]um seculo deberi asterentes; alios, qui res omnes cre­atas agnoscerent, at re­stitutum iri mortuos ne­garent; alios demum qui utrumque [...]aterentur. 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 [Page 33] 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 Abul­pharajius, 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 Mr. Rich. Wrag in Hackluit tom. 2. p. 310. 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. [Page 34] 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 [Page 35] 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 [Page 36] 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, speak of the Resurrecti­on. He, in his Discourse with Alexan­der, has these Words: Thou shalt not lie hid from God, neither shalt thou have any Place to which thou mayest flee at the time of the [...]. Resurrection. Neither shalt thou escape his Vengeance. But as that Discourse is altogether fictitious, so the Author's Judgment, who makes him talk after this manner, deserves not to be regarded.

My Fourth Example is the Inhabitants of the Island of Ceylon, in the East-Indies. These People, says another Knox Hist. of Ceylon. p. 85. Travel­ler of our own Nation, (who liv'd a­mongst 'em no less than 19 Years, and could not but be very well acquainted with their Belief) do firmly believe a Re­surrection of the Body, and the Immortali­ty of Souls, and a future State. They hold [Page 37] that in the other World, those that are good Men, tho' they be poor and mean in this World, yet there they shall become high and Eminent; But wicked Men, they say, will be turned into Beasts.

The Fifth is the Inhabitants of Java, another of the East-Indian Isles, who believe, as Trav. Part I. c. 24. p 97. Le Blanc affirms, that after their Flesh is wholly consum'd, their Souls will re-unite to the Body, and remain in Peace to all Eternity.

The Sixth is the People of Pegu, a­nother Country in the East-Indies. It's, affirm'd by a Bom­ferrus ci­ted by Sir Tho. Her­bert in his Trav. p. 359. Roman Missionary, who lived amongst 'em some years, that they believe a Vivification of the Body after Death, and re-union with the Soul.

The Seventh is the People of Transia­na, a Country adjoining to Pegu, on the North of it; who, when they bury a dead Body, burn the Heart and Bowels, as a Sacrifice to their Duma or God; then put the Ashes within the Corpse again, Le Blanc. c. 36 p. 168. That nothing, as they say, may be wanting at the Day of Resurrection.

The Eighth is some of the Chinese. Gas­par Da Cruz Trea­tise of Chi­na. gives us this Account of the Opinions of some of that Nati­on. They make (says he) many Heavens, some where there is Meat and Drink, and fair Women, whither all living things do [Page 38] go. And to these they say, all Men do go, that are not of the Religious. They place others higher, whither they say the holy Priests do go that live in the Wildernesses, and all the Felicity they give them there, is to sit refreshing themselves with the Wind. They place others yet higher, the Gods of which they say have round Bodies like Bowls; those that go to these Heavens have round Bodies as the Gods themselves have. The same Author tells us, That they wear their Hair long, holding, that by it they shall be carried to Heaven. That the Priests are generally shaven, for they say, They need no help to carry them to Heaven. This might pass, I presume, with many for a full and sufficient Proof, that they own a Resurrection: But I do not my-self rely on it. These Opinions might be ground­ed on the gross Notion they might have of the Materiality of the Soul. I menti­on'd in the beginning of this Discourse, that the Heathens generally believe, that the Soul has all the same Parts that the Body has: They believe that the Parts of the Soul, when the Soul is united to the Body, are diffused throughout all the Parts of the Body, that if a man's Bo­dy has Hair, his Soul has Hair too; and that if you cut off his Hair, you cut off together with it the Hair of the Soul. [Page 39] That some in that great and populous Empire acknowledge a Resurrection, is more plainly asserted by others. Pinto Voyag. p. 145. tells us of a Sect named Trimechau, who are of Opinion, That so long as a Man lives in this World, so long shall he re­main under Ground, 'till at length, by the Prayers of the Priests, his Soul shall re­assume the Body of a Child of Seven Days old, wherein he shall live again till he shall grow so strong as to re-enter into the old Body which he left in the Grave, and so be translated into the Heaven of the Moon; where, they say, he shall live many Years, and in the end be converted into a Star, which shall remain fixt above in the Firmament for ever. The same Author (if he deserve that Name, and be not rather in this, as he is in a great many of his Stories, a Romancer) has another Relati­on which makes directly to our Purpose. It is somewhat long, and I fear you will think it tedious, perhaps ridiculous; but however I shall here present you with it, because, as I remember, you have not the Author in your Library. I must in­genuously confess, I do not my-self much believe it: But I must not make my Judgment the Rule of other Men's. It may perhaps be true, at least some part of it, tho' the Prejudice which I [Page 40] have against the Relator, makes it seem very doubtful to me. If after you have read it, you think it unworthy of this place, before you shew these Papers to any of your Friends be pleas'd to strike it quite out, or let it be lookt upon only as a Parenthesis. ‘He tells us C. 35. [...]. 2. p. 140. of a place in Pequin, the chief City of China, cal­led the Treasure of the Dead, in which are many little Houses, according to the Report of the Chinese, no less than 3000, full of dead Men's Skulls, with Two great Mounts of their other Bones: That there is a Register kept of those Bones and Skulls, to whom they be­long'd. In that place, says he, there are Two great Idols, call'd The Blowers of the House of Smoak, (so the Chinese use to call Hell) and the Figure of a Mon­strous Serpent, call'd, The glutto­nous Serpent of the House of Smoak, with a great Bowl of Iron on his Head, as if it had been thrown at him from some other place; and near it ano­ther great Figure in the form of a Gi­ant holding a great Iron Bowl aloft in his Hands, and beholding the Serpent with a frowning and angry Counte­nance, he seems as if he would throw his Bowl at him. Round about this Figure is a number of little Idols on [Page 41] their Knees, with their Hands lifted up as if they would adore it.’ But what means all this long Story? What (you will say) are these Houses of Skulls, these Giants, Serpents, and Bowls, to our Purpose? The Explication he gives of all these things, is this: All this great Edi­fice, says he, was consecrated to the Honour of this Idol, call'd Mucluparon, whom the Chinese affirm'd to be the Treasurer of all the dead Bones, and that when the Glut­tonous Serpent before-mentioned came to steal them away, he made at him with the Bowl which he held in his Hands, where­upon the Serpent in great fear fled away to the bottom of the profound House of Smoak, whither God precipitated him for his great Wickedness: And farther they affirm'd, that he had maintain'd a Combat with him 3000 Years already, and was to continue the same 3000 Years more; so that from 3000 to 3000 Years he was to employ Five Bowls, wherewith he was to make an end of kil­ling him. Hereupon, they added, that assoon as this Serpent should be dead, the Bones that were there gathered together, would return to the Bodies to which they appertain'd formerly, and so should go and remain for ever in the House of the Moon. To these Opinions (adds my Author) they join many others such like, unto which they [Page 42] give so much faith, that nothing can be a­ble to remove them from it. For it is the Doctrine that is preach'd unto them by their Bonzees, who also tell them that the true way to make a Soul happy, is to gather the Bones of the Dead together into this Place; by means whereof there is not a day passes but a Thousand, or Two Thou­sand, Bones are brought thither. Now if some for their far distance cannot bring all the Bones whole together, they will at least­wise bring a Tooth or Two, and so they say, that, by way of an Alms, they make as good satisfaction as if they brought all the rest: Which is the reason that in all these Charnel-Houses there is such an infinite multitude of these Teeth, that one might lade many Ships with them. Thus far Pinto: I wish I could quote you a bet­ter Author. Tho the silence of all o­ther Travellers who have given an Ac­count of that Country, and particular­ly of the City of Pequin, and the odd­ness of the Story it self, be enough to perswade one that the whole is no bet­ter than an idle Fable; yet that which he says of the Combat maintain'd with the Devil 3000 Years already, and to be continued 3000 Years more, comes up so near to the Opinion of the An­cient Magi, those great Theologists [Page 43] of the East, which De Is. & Osir, p. 370. Theopompus ai [...] de Sen­tenti [...] Magorum vicibus 3000 annorum alterum Deorum superare, alte­rum succumbere: Et per alia 3000 annorum bel­lum eos inter se gerere, pugnare, & alterum alte­rius opera demoliri: tan­dem Plutonem deficere, & tunc Homines fore be­atos, neque alimento u­tentes, neque umbram e­dentes. Plu­tarch gives an account of, that from thence it may be concluded that the whole is not fabulous, but that there may be some truth in it. For it is not likely that so illite­rate a Person as Pinto, knew what Plutarch relates of the Magi. I shall leave the whole to your Judgment, and to the Enquiries of such as shall hereafter visit that City. Kircher Chinâ Illustr. p. 133. mentions a Sect of the Chinese call'd Lanzu, which, says he, Paradisum spondet, ex a­nimâ & corpore constitutis, & in suis tem­plis quorundam effigies exponunt, quos hac ratione ad Coelos evolasse fabulantur. Ad eam rem consequendam exercitationes quas­dam praescribunt, positas in vario sedendi ritu, certisque precationibus, imo etiam pharmacis, quibus spondent unà cum suo­rum Divorum favore vitam in mortali cor­pore longiorem. We read in Hist. Indiae Ori­ent. l. 1. p. 93. Joh. Lu­dovicus Gotofridus, that the Chinese cele­brate the Memory of Twelve certain Philo­sophers, who, they say, were for their Vertue Translated into Heaven. And Her­bert in his Trav. p. 377. another affirms of the Chinese in ge­neral, That they believe a Resurrection: And he brings this Argument to prove [Page 44] it, That sometimes they will lend Money to be repaid 'em in the other World. This is reported of some amongst 'em by seve­ral Travellers: But whether it be a sufficient Argument, I leave to the Judg­ment of others.

The Ninth is the Eastern Tartars, who inhabit on the North of China. p. 162. Pinto, whom I but now quoted, has a Relati­on concerning them much the same with what he has given us of the Chinese. He tells us that he saw in that Country, about the Temple of a Celebrated Idol, a great many Houses full of the Skulls and Bones of dead Men; the Idol very vast and monstrous, with a great Bowl of Iron in his Hands; and this is the Account he gives of it, from the Mouth, as he says, of a Tartar of no mean Qua­lity: That that Idol, or God, is the Trea­surer of the Bones of all those that are born into the World, to the end that at the last Day, when Men come to be born a­gain (he means rise again) he may give to every one the same Bones which he had upon Earth. And that the Bowl he holds in his Hands, is to fling at the Devil, when he should come thither to steal away any of those Bones. I have told you my Author, one (as I have already hinted) whose Relations I dare not Insure.

[Page 45] Out of Asia we will pass, if you please, into Africa, and then into the o­ther two parts of the World, and see if those parts afford us any other Exam­ples.

My Tenth Instance is the People of Arder, a Country in Guinnee near Rio da Volta. They believe (as the Dutch Relations assure us) that the Bodies of such as are slain in the Wars, do rise again within Two Days after they are buried, and go to another Life; and this they averr they have found by ex­perience. This Opinion is cherish'd by their Fetisero's, or Priests, who steal (as we may suppose) the dead Bodies out of their Graves. They say that in the Bodies of those that are not slain in the Wars, the Blood congeals, and there­fore they are not to expect a Resur­rection.

The Eleventh is the Prussians here in Europe. That they, before they were converted to the Christian Faith, believ'd, not only the Immortality of the Soul, but also the Resurrection of the Body, is asserted by Christophorus Hartknochius Apud Acta Eru­ditorum Lipsiensia. Vol. 12. p. 193., in his Borussia Vetus & Nova.

The Twelfth is the Virginians in Ame­rica. A French Hist. of the Caribby Isles, l. 2. c. 14. Author tells us, [Page 46] That they have a small glimpse of this sa­cred Truth. And a Smith in hi [...] Vir­ginia, l. 2. p. 36. Traveller of our own, who lived long among 'em, and has written a large Account of their Country and Manners, seems to inti­mate the same thing. His Words are as follows: They think that their We­rowances (i. e. their Governors) and Priests, when they are dead, go beyond the Mountains towards the setting of the Sun, and ever remain there in form of their Okee (i. e. their God, to whom they attribute a Human Shape) with their Heads painted with Oyl and Ponones (a Herb so called) finely trimmed with Fea­thers, and shall have Beads, Hatchets, Cop­per, and Tobacco, doing nothing but dance and sing, with all their Predecessors. But the Common People they suppose shall not live after Death, but rot in their Graves like dead Dogs. In a Marginal Note he calls this expresly their Resurrection.

The Inhabitants of Louisiana, another Country in the Northern America, late­ly discover'd by the French, seem to hold, That the Soul after Death shall be re-united to its Body. My Author's Words are these, Ap. A­cta Lips. Vol. 2. p. 379. Animas superstites esse corporibus fatentur, & in Regione a­moena, resumptis Corporibus, venaturos esse mortuos, nugantur; eâque de causâ [Page 47] instrumenta, & arma sepultis addunt, ho­rumqúe utensilium spiritum etiam revictu­rum esse aiunt.

Jarricus Reru [...] Indicarum Thesauro, To. 2. c. 28. relates, That the Brasili­ans, enslav'd by the Portuguese, used to boast that their Friends who died some Cen­turies of Years ago, would come thither a­gain in a Ship, and free their Posterity from slavery, and root out the Portuguese: And had this Opinion current among 'em, That no one that believ'd this would be excluded Heaven; but they that did not, would be rent in pieces by wild Beasts.

It's storied Reru [...] Indicarum Thesauro, To. 2. c. 28. of the People of His­paniola, Prae­fat. in Ben­zonis Hist. and the adjacent Isles, that 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 Trav. p. 256. 286. Joh. Hugo Linschoten, Hist. Missionis Benedictinorum in America. Hono­rius [Page 48] Philoponus, Trav. part 3. c. 11 & 14. Le Blanc, Hist. Navigat. in Brasiliam p. 224. Leri­us, and others: and a Hist. of the Ca­ribby Isles, l. 2. c. 14. 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 L. 4. c. 124. 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 Hist. of the West-Indies, l. 5. c. 5. 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 [Page 49] 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 [Page 50] 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, [Page 51] 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 Bishop Paerson on the Creed, p. 376. of our Mo­dern [Page 52] 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 Acts 3. 21. 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.

[Page 53] I begin with the Testimonies of the Old Testament, and the Common Opi­nion of the ancient Jews. 'Tis confi­dently asserted by De Re­sur. initio Epistolae Dedic. 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 which I cannot un­dertake to defend: On the contrary, it must be confess'd that among the Ancient Jews there were many that did not ac­acknowledge it, who were lookt upon nevertheless as true Israelites. 'Twill be worth our while to enquire into this matter, and the love of Truth, which has all along been, and, I hope, will always be my Guide, obliges me to do it. I shall shew,

1. That it was not always receiv'd a­mong the Jews as a necessary Article of Faith, or term of Communion, and who they were that did not acknowledge it.

2. That tho' there were some amongst 'em that did not acknowledge it, and it was not always lookt upon as a ne­cessary Article of Faith, yet it was the common and receiv'd Opinion of that Nation about the time of our Saviour, as well before as after.

[Page 54] 3. That the Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul was not receiv'd among the Jews of those times, as a necessary Ar­ticle of Faith, or Term of Communion: From whence it follows, that the Do­ctrine of the Resurrection is not there­fore the less certain, because it was not always lookt upon by the Jews as a necessary Article of Faith.

4. I shall shew that the Doctrine of the Resurrection is plainly alluded to in the Prophecies of the Old Testament, and by them confirm'd.

First, That the Doctrine of the Re­surrection was not always receiv'd among the Jews as a necessary Article of Faith, or Term of Communion, will appear from some of the following Examples of such as did not acknowledge it.

1. The Essens, a famous Sect among the Jews, consisting of no less than a­bout Philo Jud. Quod omnis probus sit liber. p. 678. 4000 in number. That they did not acknowledge a Resurrection, nor the re-union of the Soul with any kind of Body, may be easily gather'd from that account which Josephus gives us of their Doctrines concerning the Soul. In his Second C. 7. p. 787. Book of the Jewish War, where he speaks very largely of 'em, having taken an occasion to speak of their being tormented by some of [Page 55] the Roman Soldiers; In the midst (says he) of their sufferings they smil'd, and laughing at them that inflicted their Tor­ments, they gave up their Souls with a great deal of Constancy and Chearfulness, as Men that expected to [...]. recover 'em again. This last Expression may seem to intimate that they expected that their Souls would be again united to their Bodies, but from that which follows it appears that our Author's meaning was otherwise. For they have (says he) a most certain Opinion amongst 'em, that their Bodies indeed are corruptible, and that their Matter shall not be perpetual: but that their Souls shall al­ways have a being; that, coming from out of the subtle Ether, they are drawn down into their Bodies by a natural sort of Attra­ction, and there are detain'd as it were in Pri­sons: but when they are freed from the bonds of Flesh, as it were from a long Enslavement, with a great deal of Joy they [...]ee away on high. And as for good Souls they agree with the Greeks, that they dwell beyond the Ocean, in a perfect enjoyment of Happiness in a Coun­try free from all kind of Grievance, from Showers, Snows, and Heats, made insi­nitely pleasant by the Western Gales arising out of the Ocean. But as for the Souls of the Wicked, they are sent into certain Places expos'd to Cold and Tempests, there [Page 56] to remain in everlasting Misery and Tor­ment. Josephus In his own Life. tells us, that in his Youth he had made it his Business to enquire into the Doctrines of the Parti­cular Sects, the Essens, the Sadduces, and the Pharisees, and to learn their Customs and Ways of living, being conversant amongst 'em with great perseverance and application, that having inform'd him­self of their several Rules and Placits, he might adhere to that Sect which should please him best. It is therefore evident that he could not be ignorant of the true Opinion of the Essens: And this we must of necessity grant, that those Essens at least with whom he had Con­vers'd, profess'd the aforesaid Opinion. It is not enough to say that Josephus was a Court-Writer, and likely to misrepresent their Opinions that they might seem to agree with the Greeks and Romans, a­mong whom he liv'd: For that the a­foresaid Opinion might be really the O­pinion of the Essens, will appear very probable from the next Example, which is that of Philo Judaeus.

Secondly, That Philo, the famous Jew, who liv'd in the Time of the Apostles, and is call'd by his Country-Man Josephus [...] Antiq. l. 18. c. 10. a Man every way Glorious, and was in his own Time so highly esteem'd by the [Page 57] Jews of Alexandria, where he liv'd, as to be sent their chief Embassador to Rome, to defend their Cause against their Enemies; that he did not own the Resurrection of the Body, or that the Soul is hereafter to be united for ever to another Body, is from many places of his Works unde­niably evident. It is certain that accord­ing to the Doctrine of Plato, he look'd on the Body as the Prison of the Soul, and he expresly asserts, that the purer Sorts of Souls do fly from the Body as their Gaol, and live for ever in a State of Se­paration. If on any account it be true what was commonly said of him by the Greeks, it is chiefly so in relation to the Soul, St. Hieron. Catalog. Photius Cod. 105. Either Plato Philonizes or Philo Platonizes, either Plato learn'd his Philo­sophy of the Jews, or else Philo was a Follower of Plato. The last is the truth. Let us hear now what Philo says. In his Book P. 455. Edit. Colon. 1613 Concerning Dreams, his Philoso­phy is this [...] That the Air between the sur­face of the Earth and the Concave of the Moon, is the place of the Habitation of Souls, which are there innumerable: Of these there are some which descend to be join'd and united to mortal Bodies, as many as are nearer to the Earth, and desirous of u­nion with 'em. After the time of separati­on assign'd by Nature, and their return a­gain [Page 58] up into the Air, there are some still re­tain a desire of Life and re-union, and these are again united to a Body (by a [...] or [...].) but others are weary of the vanity of Life, and flee from the Body as a Grave or a Prison, and nimbly flying into the upper Regions of the Ether, there fix their Abode and Habitation. In ano­ther P. 459. place of the same Book, having cited those Words which God spake to Jacob in his Dream: Gen. 28. 15. And behold I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this Land: For I will not leave thee until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of: On those Words, And I will bring thee again into this Land, according to his allegorizing way, he thus Comments: This Place (says he) is perhaps to be understood of the Immortali­ty of the Soul; for the Soul having left its Heavenly Place, and Travelling into the Body, the Father promises it, that he will not always suffer it to be held in Prison, but will free it from its Bonds, and bring it into its ancient Country, neither will he cease to keep it till his Promise be perfectly fulfill'd. And agreeably to this in another De Gi­gantibus, p. 222. Book he says, that of the Souls which are dwelling in the Air, some are Angels, and others descending into the [Page 59] Body, as it were into a River, are some­times overwhelm'd in its rapid Gulphs, and sometimes bearing briskly up against 'em do first swim out, and then fly back to the place from whence they came. These (says he) are the Souls of those who are taught some Philosophy from on high, which con­tinually from the Beginning to the End desire the dissolution of that Life which is by conjunction with the Body, that they may obtain an Incorporeal and an Incorruptible Life, with the Unbegotten and Incorrupti­ble (God.) But those which are drown'd, are the Souls of other Men; who neglecting Wisdom, give themselves up to the uncer­tain blasts of Fortune, which do not ap­pertain to our better Part, but only to our Bodies, or else to such Things as are voider than they of Life, such as Glory, and Riches, and Power, and Honour, and those other things which Men, that look not on that which is truly Good, do fansie and paint to themselves by false and erroneous Notions.

Thirdly, That many of the Jews who held the Immortality of the Soul, did not own the Resurrection of the Body, may be further gather'd form a place of Cornelius Tacitus Hist. l. 5. c. 5. the Roman Historian, where he describes the Customs of that Nation. He says thus of 'em in gene­ral: Animasque proelio aut suppliciis per­emptorum, [Page 60] aeternas puta [...]t. They believe that the Souls of such (Jews) as are slain in Battle, or put to Death (by the Enemies of their Religion) are immortal. Tho' he speaks in the same Place of their Custom of burying their dead Bodies (contrary to that of the Romans, who were wont to burn their Dead) yet he speaks not a Word of their be­lieving the Resurrection of those Bodies. Which he could not have omitted, if he had known that they believ'd it, it being so singular and extraordinary a Thing; and he could not (one would think) have been ignorant of it, if the Jews had so generally held it as they did the Immortality of the Soul.

Fourthly, There were among the ancient Jews certain natural Philosophers, whom the Rabbins are wont to call Sapientes Mecar, from their searching or enquiring after natural Causes: To which appellati­on St. Paul the Apostle seems to have had Respect in those Words to the Corinthi­ans Epist. 1. c. 1. v. 20.: Where is the Wise? Where is the Scribe? Where is the Searcher (or En­quirer, the [...], which we in our Translation render the Disputer) of this World. So St. Jerom indeed has ren­der'd it Proaem. in l. 3. Com. ad Galatas. Ubi enim Sapiens? Ubi Grammateus? Ubi causarum Naturalium [Page 61] Scrutatores? Of them its affirm'd by Vide Drusii Ob­serv. l. 4. c. 6. one of the learned Rabbins, that they denied the existence of Daemons, and that some of them asserted that all li­ving Things (not only Men, but all o­ther Animals) shall after Death rise again, their Souls returning into other Bodies af­ter a certain space of many Thousands of Years. This Opinion concerning the Revo­lution of Souls they borrow'd of the Hea­thens, and tho' it were originally ground­ed on a Tradition concerning the Resur­rection, yet the Doctrine is not the same.

Fifthly, Another Sect that denied the Resurrection was that of the Sadduces. That they denied it I need not endea­vour to prove. I shall only here tell ye, that tho' they did so, yet in the Time of our Saviour and his Apostles, they were not look'd upon as Hereticks by the Jews, but were properly Mem­bers of their Body and Communion. This I shall prove by and by.

Sixthly, There was another Sect of the Jews call'd Hemero-Baptists, who agreed, as Epiphanius assures us, with the Sadduces in denying the Resurrection, and in their other Tenets; only in this they dissent­ed from 'em, that they esteem'd it ne­cessary, for the cleansing themselves from Sin, to bathe themselves every Day, both [Page 62] Winter and Summer: From whence they had their Name.

Seventhly, That the Prophet Ezechiel himself did not fully rely on the Doctrine of a future Resurrection, but doubted once a little of it, as a Doctrine at that time not sufficiently reveal'd, or almost forgotten, may be gathered from the Answer which he return'd to that Que­stion of God Almighty, Son of Man, can these (dry) Bones live? If the Doctrine of the Resurrection had been at that time the common and receiv'd Doctrine, as it was afterwards in the time of our Saviour, and the Prophet had been ful­ly assur'd of it, he would not have an­swer'd, as he did; Lord God, Thou knowest: But roundly, as Martha an­swer'd our Saviour concerning the Re­surrection of her Brother Lazarus, I know, Lord, that they can and will. 'Tis true, the Words, thou knowest are capa­ble of another interpretation, and may be so understood as to signifie, thou knowest that they can. But the true meaning seems to be otherwise, and they seem to import thus much: Thou know­est whether they can or no; I do not.

Eighthly, To these we may add the Sa­maritans, who tho' they were not of the Communion of the Jews, were however [Page 63] the Followers of the Law of Moses. If we may believe some of those ancient Writers, who have given an account of their Opinions, they were not only ig­norant of the Doctrine of the Resurre­ction, but rejected likewise that of the Immortality of the Soul. This is po­sitively asserted by De Sectis, Act. 2. Leontius, and long before him by Com. in Mat. p. 486. Origen. But it does not seem to be true: For in the Chroni­con Samaritanum they expresly own the Immortality of the Soul, and Rewards and Punishments in the next Life; and it's plainly intimated by Catech. 18. [...], p. 215. St. Cyril Bishop of Jerusa­lem, that they did not deny the Immortality of the Soul, but only doubted of it. But tho' they did not deny the Im­mortality of the Soul, yet certain it is, that they deny'd the Resurrection of the Body. In this all Au­thors agree with Origen and Leontius a­bove-cited, as St. Cyril Har. 4., Epiphanius, the Author of the L. 1. c. 54. Recognitions ascrib'd to St. Clement, and the Tract. Sanhedrin, c. 11. § 3. Talmudists.

Secondly, tho' the Doctrine of the Resurrection was not always receiv'd by the Jews as a necessary Article of Faith, or Term of Communion, as appears from some of the foregoing [Page 64] Instances, yet 'tis certain that about the time of our Saviour, as well before as after, it was the receiv'd and common Do­ctrine of that Nation. This evidently appears from the following Examples.

1. In the Answers which the Seven Martyrs give their Tormenters, which we read recorded in the Second Book of Maccabees, there's a clear and open Profession of this Doctrine: And it plainly appears from the Answer of the Third of those Martyrs, that the Re­surrection which they expected was of the same Humane Body. Being call'd to his Torments, and holding out his hands, C. 7. v. 11. These I had (says he) from Heaven, and for his Laws I despise 'em, and from him I hope to receive 'em again. This happen'd about 165 Years before Christ. 'Tis true, I am not fully perswaded that these Words were really spoken by that Martyr. Since there were not any Jews then present who might think it worth their while to commit the Words of those several Martyrs to Memory, it may be reasonably suppos'd that the Spee­ches ascrib'd to 'em were made by the Author of the History, as is usual with other Historians. Thus Josephus in his History of those Martyrs makes 'em speak quite different Speeches; so likewise the [Page 65] Arabick History which is extant in the Polyglot Bible, and (if I well remember) the Hebrew Ben Gorion; all differing both from the Book of Maccabees, and from one another. Yet this at least is to be concluded from these Words, that when the Second of Maccabees was writ­ten, this Doctrine was generally receiv'd, and 'twas also then taken for granted, that at that time when those Martyrs suffer'd, it was the general and receiv'd Doctrine. How ancient that Book is, we do not certainly know, but we know from Clemens Alexandrinus, who cites it, that it was extant within 150 Years af­ter our Saviour's Pas [...]ion; and from the First and Second Chapters it may easily be gather'd, that it was written long before his Nativity, before the Jews were conquer'd by the Romans.

2. We read in the same C. 14. v. 46. Book, that Razis the Jew, when he pluck'd out his own Bowels, and cast 'em with his Hands upon the Throng, call'd upon the Lord of Life and Spirit to restore him those again.

3. St. [...] Jo. 11. 24. I know that he shall rise again in the Resurrection at the last day. Thus Martha concerning her Brother Lazarus, when our Saviour had told her that, tho' he then lay dead and buried, yet he [Page 66] should rise again. She knows it, she says, and does not at all doubt of it.

4. That it was the common and re­ceiv'd Opinion of the Jews at that time, that the Body in the Resurrection would be truly a Humane Body, is farther evi­dent from that Question of the Saddu­ces concerning the Woman that had been married to Seven Brethren Mat. 22. [...]8. Mark 12. 23. Luke 20. 32., Whose Wife she should be in the Resur­rection?

5. It's evident likewise from that Saying of one of the Jews at the Feast where Christ was present in the House of one of the chief Pharisees. When Christ had told the Pharisee that if he invited the Poor, &c. he should be recom­pens'd at the Resurrection of the Just; one of those that sate at Meat with him made him this Answer, Luke 14. 14. Blessed is he that shall eat B [...]ead in the Kingdom of God. Their Opinion was, that they should Eat and Drink in the next Life as well as in this.

6. Josephus, the learned Jew, who was born in the Thirty Seventh Year after Christ, professes himself a Follow­er of the Pharisees; and in another place he tells us (the place I shall produce here­after) that the Pharisees own'd a Trans­migration of the Soul out of one Body [Page 67] into another: It should therefore seem that he himself also held it. But it is not necessary that because he chose ra­ther to adhere to the Sect of the Pha­risees, than to that of the Essens or Sad­duces, he should therefore be in all things a Pharisee.

In his Third C. 25. (Graec.) [...]. Book of the War, he seems to intimate that the Souls of the Wicked shall not after Death be re-con­join'd to a Body, but he plainly asserts that those of the Good shall. And from this consi­deration he endeavours to disswade his Companions from laying violent Hands upon themselves. Such Souls (says he) as are pure and obedient, obtain the most Holy place of Heaven, whence af­ter the great Revolution of the World, (or, after the circumvolution of many Ages,) they shall return, and again inhabit Chast Bo­dies. But they who lay violent Hands upon themselves, their Souls are cast into Hell, and God punishes their Sin in their Posterity. Whether he held the Resurrection, or only the Transmigration of the Soul, we can­not from this place certainly conclude. But from another place of his Works, (if he were the true Author of the [Page 68] Book call'd Maccabaica) it appears very evidently that he own'd the Resurrecti­on. For he cites there that place of the Prophet Ezechi­el Ad finem. [...], &c. where he speaks, of the raising up of the dry Bones. He tells us that the Macca­bees were encouraged by their Mother with the hopes and assurance of a future Life. She propos'd (says he) to her Sons the Say­ing of Solomon, That God is the Wood of Life to them that do his Will: And that of Ezechiel: Can these dry Bones live? Neither did she omit that Saying of Moses in his Song: I will kill, and I will make alive. And from hence it likewise appears, that Josephus believ'd, that at that time when those Martyrs suffer'd, the Doctrine of the Resurrecti [...]n of the same Humane Bo­dy was the common and establish'd Do­ctrine. And that this was the common Opinion in his time, may be further ga­ther'd from what he says concerning the Opinion of the Sect of the Essens, That they had a most certain Opinion amongst 'em, that their Bodies indeed were cor­ruptible, and that their Matter should not be perpetual. This had been a very idle Observation, if some others had not as­serted the Perpetuity of the Body as well [Page 69] as of the Soul. He therefore takes notice of that Opinion of theirs, because it was contrary to the receiv'd and general Opinion.

7. In the Targum, or Chaldee Para­phrase of Jonathan, who is placed by some in the same Age with the Apostles, there is mention made of the Second Death in Hell, and that too of the Bo­dy. For thus he paraphrases the Sixth Verse of the Sixty Fifth Chapter of I­saiah; Their Vengeance shall be in Hell, where the Fire continually burns. Behold it is written before me; I will not give 'em an end in this Life, but will be re­venged on 'em for their Sins, and deliver their Bodies to the Second Death. And here I shall observe by the bye, That tho' Josephus seems to intimate that the Wic­ked are not to rise; and many of the Rabbins affirm the same thing: Yet from hence it is manifest, that among the An­cient Jews, there were others of the contrary Perswasion. And that in the time of the Apostles this was the gene­ral and receiv'd Opinion of the Jews, is apparent from those Words of St. Paul in his Apology to Felix Acts 24. 15.: But this I confess unto thee, that I have Hope to­wards God, which they themselves (the Jews) also allow, that there shall be a Re­surrection [Page 70] of the Dead, both of the Just and Unjust.

8. The Chaldee Paraphrase of the Can­ticles has these Words, C. 8. V. 5. The Prophet Salomon said, When the Dead shall revive, it shall come to pass that the Mount of Olives shall be cleft, and all the Dead of Israel shall come out from thence: And the Just too that died in Captivity shall come through the way of the Caverns under the Earth, and shall come forth out of the Mount of Olives. It asserts that famous Opinion, that the Jews that die out of Judaea, when they rise from the Dead, are to pass through the Caverns of the Earth so far as Judaea, and are there to rise. This shews that they believ'd the Resurrection of the same Humane Body. This Devolution of the Dead, or Rowling of the Caverns (as they are wont to call it) is asserted by many of the An­cient Rabbins, and particularly in both their Vide Menasseh Ben-Israel de Resur. l. 2. c. 2. Vorstii Ani­mad. in Pirke R. Elieser, p. 216. Pocockii Not as in Portam Mosis, p. 119. Talmuds. And tho' some of the Moderns, as Menasseh Ben-Israel, and several others, reject it, and are willing that what the Ancients say concerning it, should be taken not literally, but in an Allegorical sense, yet 'twas cer­tainly the Opinion of many amongst 'em. And even at this Day there are many that acknowledge it. And that (as they [Page 71] tell us) was the reason why Jacob and Joseph who died in Egypt, were carried into Canaan to be buried there, that they might not be obnoxious to the trouble of the Caverns. Hence it is that the Bones of so many Jews, who die in foreign Countries, are carried by their Friends into Judaea. We are told by a John Sanderson Voyage to the Holy Land. Traveller of our own, that in what part soever they die, and are buried, their Bodies must all rise to Judgment in the Holy Land, out of the Valley of Jehosaphat, and that therefore the greater and richer sort of 'em, have their Bones convey'd to some part thereof by their Kindred or Friends. By which means (says he) they are freed of a labour to scrape thither through the Ground, which with their Nails they hold they must, who are not there bu­ried, or convey'd thither by others. Sandys Travels, p. 148. A­nother assures us, that whole Barks full of Jews Bones are wont to arrive at Jop­pa to be interr'd at Jerusalem. The rea­son he gives is this, Because they ima­gine that the Soul is delighted by it, and at the general Judgment, they shall have a quicker dispatch. The same rea­son is given by Mori­son's Trav. p. 223. others. And by Tra­vels, p. 184 part 1. Thevenot we are told, that the Jews who now live in Jerusalem, give a Chequin a Day for permission to bury their Dead [Page 72] in the Valley of Jehosaphat, that they may be the sooner dispatch'd at the Day of Judgment, because, as they believe, it will be held in that place. They think that they who are there buried will be sooner dispatch'd, because they are the first that will make their Appearance, it requiring some time for those who are buried else­where, to come thither.

9. The Tract. Sanhedrin. c. 11. §. 1. Talmudical Doctors declare, that to deny the Resurrection is so great a Sin, that they who deny it shall never rise. They tell us, Ibid. §. 4. that Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt, believ'd the Resurre­ction, and that she propos'd R. Meir this Question, Whether they that rise, shall rise Naked, or with Cloths on? R. Meir affirms, that they shall rise with their Cloths on, the same in which they were buried. And the same is asserted by a­nother very ancient Doctor, In Pirke c. 33. R. Elie­ser. The L. c. Talmudists add, that one of the Roman Emperors objecting to R. Ga­maliel the difficulty of the Resurrection of a Body reduced to Dust, a Daughter of the Rabbi undertook to give him an Answer, to this purpose: There are with us (says she) two Potters; one makes Vessels of Water, the other of Clay; Which of them is the best? He that makes 'em of Water, says the, Emperor: Then she: Did God [Page 73] make Man out of Water, and shall he not much more be able to make him of Clay? L. c. That a certain Heretick (or Sadduce) ob­jecting the same difficulty to R. Ammin, he return'd him an Answer by this Para­ble: A certain King (says he) commanded his Servants to build him a Palace in a Place, where there was neither Water nor Earth, for Mortar. It was done. That falling down, he commanded it to be built in a Place where there was good store of both. They tell him, that they cannot do it. He in Anger replies: What, when there was neither Water nor Earth for Mortar, you could build one; and now you have both, can you not do it? If thou believest not (says R. Gamaliel) get thee into the Field, and see there a Mouse, which to day is partly Flesh and partly Earth, but to Mor­row by a quick and sudden Generation is become all Flesh. Perhaps thou may'st say, that that is done in some space of Time. Go therefore out upon the Hill, thou shalt there see at present, but only one Snail: To Morrow when it has rain'd, thou shalt see the whole Hill cover'd with Snails. L. c. (b) L. c. That one saying to Gebiha Ben-Pesisa, Woe to you, ye Villains, that say, that the Dead shall live. What, do the Living die, and shall the Dead live? He answer'd; Woe to you, ye wicked Wretches, that deny [Page 74] that the Dead shall live. Since they, who once were not did afterwards exist, shall not they much more exist, who once had a being before? Thus the ancient Doctors in the Gemara.

10. Of the 13 Articles or Foundations of Faith collected by Ap. Pocockii Portam Mosis, p. 177. Maimonides, and receiv'd by the whole Nation of the Jews long before his time, the last is this: That there will be a Resurrection of the Dead. And Maimonides tells us that whoe­ver denied any one of those Articles, he is rejected out of the Number of the Israelites, and is branded with the Name of Heretick, and Epicurean, and ought to be destroy'd. In the Office of Mourners, which is extant in the Jews Common-Prayer-Book Entitled, The Mahzor of the holy Roman Synagogue, they are directed, when they look upon the Graves of any of their Nation, to offer up this Prayer: Blessed be the Lord our God, the King of the World, who form'd you with judgment, nourish'd you, preserv'd you alive, deliver'd you up unto Death: who knows the Number of you all, who will raise you up again, who will re­store you again with Judgment. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who givest Life to the Dead. Isai. 26. 19. May thy Dead live, with my dead Body may they rise again. Awake and rejoice ye that lie in the Dust, because [Page 75] the De Ro­re quo futu­rum est juxta Rab­binos ut Deus vitae restituat mortuos. Vide Po­cock. in Portam Mosis, p. 120. Dew of the Light is your Dew, and the Earth shall cast out the Dead. The same Prayer, or Benediction, is pro­nounc'd likewise by the Hazan, or Mi­nister of the Synagogue, at the Grave of one to be buried. In the Prayer which is sung at the Grave by the Hazan, toge­ther with the rest of the Congregation, (which they call the justification of Judg­ment) they have these Words: God is perfect in all his Works. Who will say unto him, What dost thou? He who governs in Things beneath, and in Things above, who delivers up to Death, who gives Life, who brings down to the Grave, and brings back again. To which they add those out of Moses's Song in C. 32. v. 39. Deuteronomy. See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no God with me. I kill, and I make a­live. I wound and I heal. Neither is there any that can deliver out of my Hand. After the dead Body is put into the Grave, they bow themselves backward three times, and throw Grass over their Heads, signifying their hope of the Re­surrection with these Words, out of Isaiah, And your Bones shall bud as the Grass. After that, in the Porch of the Synagogue; God shall destroy Death for ever, and wipe away all Tears from their Eyes, and will take away their Reproach [Page 76] from all the Earth, for the Lord hath spoken it.

If I had a mind to transcribe the Ob­servations of Vide not. Pococ­kii in Por­tam Mosis, p. 86. ad 234. & Menasseh Ben-Israel per totum opus de Re­surrectio­ne. others, I could add to these, the Testimonies of 500 other Rab­binical Writers, but I content my-self to have presented you with my own Observation. And from what has been laid before you it abundantly appears, First, That the Doct [...]ine of the Resurrecti­on has been look [...] upon by the Jews as a necessary Article of their Creed, from before the Date of their Talmuds. Se­condly, That tho' it was not receiv'd by 'em as an indispensible Article of Faith in the time of our Saviour, and for some time before and after, yet even in those times it was the common and receiv'd Doctrine. Thirdly, That by the Resurrecti­on they always understood, not barely the re-conjunction of the Soul with a Body after Death, but the resuscitation of the same Humane Body. I shall only add that the Resurrection is acknowledged not only by the Rabbinists or the Fol­lowers of the Talmud, which are much the greater Number, but also by those that are call'd Karraites, who follow only the Scripture, disallowing Traditions, and are therefore reckon'd by the Tal­mudists as Hereticks. These are said to [Page 77] be descended from the ancient Sadduces. If so, it appears, that the Sadduces them­selves were at last convinced of their Er­rour, and made Proselytes to the Do­ctrine of the Resurrection.

'Twas about the end of the first Century after our Saviour's Nativity, that the Do­ctrine of the Resurrection began to be rec­kon'd among the Jews, as a necessary Ar­ticle of Faith. I gather it thus. That it was not an Article of Faith till after the time of Josephus, who liv'd till near the end of that Century appears from hence, that neither the Essens, nor the Sadduces, were in his time accounted Hereticks. And that it was receiv'd as a part of their Creed before the Year 140, appears from what we read in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, p. 306, 307. It appears from thence that the Doctrine of the Resurrection, and that too of the same Humane Body, was at that time ac­knowledged by all such Jews as were accounted Orthodox, and that the Sad­duces, who denied it, were at that time rejected as Heretioks.

I should here (Philalethes) have dis­miss'd this Point, but it comes now into my Mind, that there are two things re­lating to the Opinion of the Jews, of which you desire particularly to be sa­tisfied, [Page 78] which ought to be consider'd in this Place. Your Queries are concern­ing the Transmigration of Souls out of one Body into another by a [...], Whether that be not held by many of the Jews? and if so, Whether they, that hold it, do not deny the Resurre­ction of the Body? How that Opinion can be consistent with this?

To the First of these Queries I must answer in the Affirmative. It is very true, that the Transmigration of Souls out of one Body into another, is by many of the Jews, both ancient and modern, maintain'd. They call it The Revolution of Souls, or The secret of the Revolution. Leo Modena speaks of it as of a com­mon Opinion, but he adds withal, that there are many that do not believe it. And the Author Dr. Addison. of The Present State of the Jews in Barbary, takes notice of it as receiv'd by the Jews of those Parts. Another Traveller observes that it's like­wise receiv'd among the Jews of Asia. Of the learned Jews that assert it Me­nasseh Ben-Israel is one, and the famous Abarbinel another. It's likewise asserted by the ancient Cabbalists in the Zoar, and by the Vide Hornbec­kium de converten­dis Judais. p. 541. ad 550. Me­nasseh Ben-Isr. de Re­sur. l. c. Talmudists themselves. The Cabbalists tell us, that the Soul of A­dam, David, and the Messias, is one and the [Page 79] same. We are told by others, that Vide Seld. de Succes. Pont. p. 111, 112. Phineas, the Grand-Son of Aaron, and Elias the Prophet were the same Man: By which they must mean, either that the Soul of Phineas pass'd into the Bo­dy of Elias, or that Phineas did not die, but that having lain hid for many Ages, or having been translated, he afterwards appear'd again, and was call'd Elias. It may seem more probable, that they be­liev'd the first, and it's generally taken for granted by learned Men that they did so: Yet I cannot be confident of it: for I find that some of the Rabbins Vid seld. l. c. p. 109. had this Tradition and Opinion amongst 'em, that Phineas liv'd many Ages.

The Reason they give for the Trans­migration of Souls, is the same with that which is generally assign'd by the Heathens, viz. That the Soul may be purg'd and amended. But they do not hold, as the Heathens did, that the Soul Transmigrates into many Bodies. They restrain it to Three. Thus the Soul of Adam (they will tell ye) was purg'd by passing into the Body of K. David, and by passing again into the Body of the Messias, will be fully and perfectly puri­fied. A modern John Sanderson Trav. to Palestine. Traveller tells us that this was the Opinion of certain Jews of Asia, with whom he convers'd; that the [Page 80] Soul, if it has not at first forgiveness, is twice more sent into a Body to amend and become better, and then is rejected or re­ceiv'd by God according to its Deserts. That the Soul is to pass into Three se­veral Bodies, they prove from those Words of Job: C. 33. v. 29. Lo, all these things worketh God thrice (which we render, oftentimes) with Man. And of the Trans­migration they understand the Chaldee Pa­raphrase of Isaiah, Chap. 22. v. 14. where mention is made of the The Pa­raphrast means Damnati­on, as ap­pears, c. 65. v. 6. second Death.

Neither is it only the Transmigration of the Soul into other Human Bodies that is own'd and receiv'd among the Jews. There are some amongst 'em, that, like thorough-pac'd Pythagoreans, make it pass into the Bodies of Brutes. Not. in [...] Vitam Py­thagorae, p. 81. Hol­stenius assures us that he himself had con­vers'd with some in Italy, that asserted it very zealously, and prov'd it from the Story of K. Nebuchadnezar, whose Soul they affirm'd to have really past into the Body of a Beast. They prov'd it like­wise from those Words of the Psalmist Ps. 21. v. 21. Deliver my Soul from the Sword, my Darling from the Power of the Dog. Where the Prophet (say they) begs of God, that his Soul being loos'd from its Body, might not pass into a Dog, or any other Brute.

[Page 81] It appears from the Testimony of Jo­sephus, that the Opinion of the Trans­migration of the Soul into another Hu­mane Body by a [...], was re­ceiv'd among the Jews even in his time, and that too by many of the Pharisees themselves. In his Second Book concern­ing the Jewish War, where he gives us a particular account of the Dogma's of the several Sects among the Jews, he af­firms of the Pharisees (in general) that they held C. 7. p. 783. [...]. That all Souls are immortal, That those only of good Men pass into another Body, but those of bad Men are eternally punished. And agree­ably to this, in the Eighteenth Book of his Antiquities, where he like­wise gives an account of the Opinions of the several Sects, C. 2. p. 617. [...]. The Pharisees (says he) believe that the Souls of Men, both Good and Bad, are immortal, That they have judgment pass'd upon 'em under the ground, accord­ing to their behaviour in this Life, and that those of bad Men are retain'd in perpetual impri­sonment; but to those of the good there is given the power of returning to Life. From the words of Philo Judaeus, which [Page 82] I but now produced, it appears that he likewise acknowledg'd it.

'Tis believ'd by some learned Men, that this Opinion of the Transanimation was commonly receiv'd, even in the time of our Saviour, among the Jews. But I am rather of Opinion, That this part of the Platonical Philosophy began to be receiv'd just after our Saviour's time, and that Philo, and those Phari­sees with whom Josephus had convers'd, were the first that taught it. That it was not known to the Jews in the time of our Saviour, I gather from the An­swer which Nicodemus, the Pharisee, made him, when he had told him that no Man can see the Kingdom of God, except he be born again. A Man be born again! It seem'd to the Pharisee a very strange Saying. John 3. 4. How (says he) can a Man be born again? Can he enter the Se­cond time into his Mother's Womb, and be born? Had the [...], whereof we discourse, been at that time known and acknowledged among the Jews, how could he who was a Master in Israel express so much wonder at the hearing of a [...] mentioned? To this we may add, that there is not any Argument produced to shew, that this Pythagorean [...] was receiv'd [Page 83] among the Jews in the time of our Sa­viour, but what is ineffectual, and grounded on a Mistake.

In the Gospel of C. 16. v. 14. St. Matthew, it is said, that our Lord asking his Disciples, Whom do Men say, that I the Son of Man am? They told him, that some said he was John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the Prophets. In the Gospel of C. 8. v. 27. St. Mark it is plain­ly intimated, that the most common O­pinion concerning him was, That he was John the Baptist. He askt his Disciples, Whom do Men say that I am? And they answer'd, John the Baptist. But some say Elias, and others, one of the Prophets. This Opinion of the People concerning our Saviour, some learned Commenta­tors, as Munster, Maldonatus, and Dru­si [...]s, take to be grounded on the Py­thagorean [...], as if they ima­gin'd, that the Soul of John the Bap­tist, or of Elias, or some other of the Prophets, had entred into his Body in his Conception. But how could they imagine it of the Soul of John the Bap­tist, whom they knew to be just then put to Death? 'Tis very certain, that they who took him to be John the Bap­tist, believ'd that John, who was be­headed a little before, had risen again [Page 84] out of his Grave. And that this was their Opinion, appears moreover from what C. 14. v. 2. St. Matth. says of King Herod, that hearing of the fame of Jesus, he said unto his Servants, This is John the Baptist; He is risen from the Dead, and therefore mighty Works do shew forth them­selves in him. St. Luke expresly asserts, that the People who took him to be John the Baptist, believ'd that the Bap­tist had risen from the Dead C. 9. v. 7, 8.: Now He­rod the Tetrarch heard of all that was done by him: and he was perplext, because it was said of some, that John was risen from the Dead: And of some that Elias had ap­peared: And of others that one of the old Prophets was risen again. As for those that thought him to be Elias, their Fancy was grounded on the expectati­on the Jews had of the coming of that Prophet again upon Earth, according to that of the Prophet Malachi C. 4. v. 5.: Be­hold I will send you Elias the Prophet. They believ'd he would come again, not by a [...], but in the same Body in which he was translated. When St. Luke says, that they thought Elias had appear'd, he plainly intimates, that they thought he had descended in his Body, not been born again.

[Page 85] It is said in C. 1. v. 21. St. John, that the Jews sent Priests and Levites from Jerusalem to John the Baptist, to know who he was, whether Christ, or Elias, or that Prophet? Grotius in his Comment on this place, believes, that when they askt him, whe­ther he was Elias? they imagin'd he might be Elias sent down from Hea­ven, but they (says he) that askt him that Question, shew'd plainly that they did not [...]ow, of what Father and Mother he was born, or at least doubted of it. But in a­nother place of his St. Mat. 14. 2. Comments his Opi­nion is otherwise. He proves from this place that the Jews before Christ, ac­knowledged a [...]; and from them he thinks that Pythagoras borrow'd his Opinion. That they could not think John to be Elias any otherwise than by a [...], or [...], he proves from this Consideration, that, he being of the Sacerdotal Order, they could not but know him very well. But to this I answer, that tho' he was of the Sacerdotal Order, yet he might very well be unknown to the Jews that then dwelt at Jerusalem. How could that be? C. 1. 80. St. Luke will answer for me: From his Youth he was in the Deserts, 'till the day of his shewing unto Israel.

[Page 86] Another place from whence Drusius, Beza, Pi­scator, &c. in Com­ment. some inferr, that the Transmigration of Souls was receiv'd among the Jews in those times, is St. John ix. 2. where we read that Jesus passing by, and seeing a Man who was blind from his birth, his Disci­ples askt him saying; Master, who did sin, this Man or his Parents, that he was born blind? But it is not necessary, that, because the Disciples believ'd that he sinned before he was born, they should therefore believe, that his Soul had been before that united to a Body. It is much more probable, that they thought his Soul might have sinned in its solitary state of Pre-existence, and was therefore sent down into such a Bo­dy. That this was their fancy, is a­greed by most Commentators, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and Grotius himself; and it cannot be denied but that the Doctrine of the Pre-existence of the Soul was in those times receiv'd among the Jews. Sure I am, it is at this time their com­mon and established Doctrine.

I mention'd but now certain Natural Philosophers among the Jews, who were call'd Sapientes Mecar, and that there seem to have been some so call'd in the time of the Apostles. It is probable there were such even before those times. [Page 87] It may seem from what I said 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 [Page 88] 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.

[Page 89] 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, IV. 1. 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.

[Page 90] 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 Antiq. XX. 8. [...]. 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 (b) Antiq. XIII. 18. a Sadduce.

[Page 91] Fourthly, Josephus tells us, that though the Sadduces were but few in Number, yet generally the Ant. XVIII. 2. [...]. 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.

[Page 92] 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 Ant. XVIII. 2. [...]. 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 [...]t was not a matter of Conscience, yet the People who had firmly embrac'd the Doctrine of the Resurrection and a fu­ture [Page 93] Life, so much hated the Opposers of it, as not to endure to be under their Government. That it was not through a Principle of Conscience (as if it had been unlawful and a Sin to be go­vern'd by 'em) that the People were so averse to 'em, but only because the Peo­ple were acted and govern'd by their Passions, may from hence appear, that they could not endure to be under 'em in matters purely Civil, such as did not relate to any of their Religious Ri [...]ts. Josephus speaks of Government in gene­ral. To this we may add, that it plain­ly appears that even the Common Peo­ple themselves were sometimes conten­ted to be under their Government, and to obey 'em as High-Priests and Mem­bers of their Sanhedrin. Josephus speak­ing of the High-Priest Hyrcanus his turn­ing Sadduce, observes, that on that ac­count the Ant. XIII. 18. [...]. Common-People hated both him and his Sons. He does not say, that they thought it unlawful to be sub­ject to such a High-Priest: But that they hated him. It should seem by what he says of their hating his Sons, as well as himself, on the account of his turning Sadduce, and abolishing the Institution of the Pharisees, that his Sons themselves as well as their Father, adher'd to that, [Page 94] Sect: Yet at least two of 'em were after their Father successively High-Priests.

Sixthly, Josephus, though himself a Pha­risee, is so far from thinking Hyrcanus a Heretick and uncapable of the High-Priesthood, because he was a Sadduce, that just after the account which he gives of his Conversion to that Sect, he has these Words concerning him. Having appeas'd the Sedition, (which was rais'd for the sake of the Pharisees) and living afterwards happily and governing excellent­ly well, he died after he had been High-Priest One and Thirty Years, leaving behind him Five Sons, being judg'd by God wor­thy of the Three greatest Honours, the Go­vernment of the Nation, the Dignity of the High-Priesthood, and the gift of Prophety. For he had Communication with the Dei­ty, and had given him the Power of fore­knowing Things to come. In somuch that he fore-told that his Two eldest Sons should not long enjoy the Principality after him. The same Author speaking of the Three several Sects of the Jews, the Pharisees, Sadduces and Essens, calls 'em the three several Sects of the Jewish Philosophy. [...]. Ant. XVIII. 2. There were three Sorts of Philosophy that obtain'd long since among the Jews, [Page 95] that of the Essens, that of the Sadduces, and a third of the Pharisees. Again in a­nother place [...]. Bel. l. 2. c. 12., There was one Simon, a Galilean, that in­stituted a particular Sect, not at all agreeing with the rest. For there were Three sorts of Philosophy profess'd among the Jews, one by the Pharisees, a­nother by the Sadduces, and a third by the Essens. 'Tis plain that he look'd upon these Three Sects to be no other among the Jews than those several Sects of Philosophers were a­mongst the Greeks; and that the Sad­duces were no more accounted Hereticks among the Former, than the Epecureans or Stoicks were among the Latter. I must here add what I have already ob­serv'd to you, that Josephus tells us, in his Life, [...]. that he had applied himself in his Youth to these Three several Sects, that having fully inform'd himself of their several Placits and Institutions, he might adhere to that which should please him best. So indifferent a thing was it to the learned Jews, whether they were of this, or that, or the o­ther. He might have profess'd either of 'em, and been still a true Jew, but the Tenets of the Pharisees best pleas'd him.

[Page 96] I have already told you what time it was that the Sadduces first began to be condemn'd and rejected as Hereticks by the rest of the Jews, that it was about the end of the first Age after Christ, just after Josephus's Death: I shall now only remark, that the day on which they were ejected out of the Sanhedrin, which was the Seventh of the Month Sebat, or January, is remembred in the Jewish Kalendar as a Holy-day.

The Fourth and last thing I propos'd to do, relating to the Opinions of the Jews, was to shew, that the Doctrine of the Resurrection, and that too of the same Humane Body, was not only the common and receiv'd Doctrine of the Jews in the time of our Saviour, and as well before as ever since, but is like­wise alluded to by the Prophets them­selves.

Eusebius in his Comment on the Fifth Verse of the First Psalm, where there is mention made of the Resur­rection and Judgment; [...]. Ob­serve (says he) that David first clearly taught a Resurrection and Judgment, and a promise of a future Life, Moses having deliver'd no such matter. Another of the Ancients will not own that David him­self [Page 97] speaks any where of the Resurrecti­on. 'Tis the Greek Scholiast on the Six­ty. Fifth Psalm, which has this Inscription [...],, The Song of the Psalm of the Resurrection. On this Inscription, or Title, he has these Words: [...]. The Re­surrection of the Dead is not here meant (For David does not seem to have taught it any where) but they that made this Title, by the Word Resurrecti­on seem to have meant the Return of the Jews out of the Babylonish Captivity. The Author of the L. 1. c. 33. Clementine Recogni tions makes Abraham the first that taught it. What my Opinion is, that it was re­vealed and known to the Prophets before the Flood, and by Noah trans­mitted down to his Posterity, I have already told you: I doubt not but that it was known by that means to Abraham, and from him convey'd down to the Jews, who were his Posterity. But as this Tradition was clearly worn out, and utterly lost in some Nations, and in almost all others much alter'd and corrupted, so even among the Jews, tho' it was always (so I think) the com­mon and receiv'd Doctrine, yet the cer­tainty of it, and the necessity of be­lieving [Page 98] it, was doubted of by many.

That Abraham believ'd, that God was able to raise the Dead, and that his Son Isaac should have been rais'd up again, if he had been sacrificed, the Author to the C. 11. v. 19. Hebrews assures us. By faith A­braham when he was tried offer'd up I­saac: And he that had receiv'd the pro­mises, offer'd up his only begotten Son, of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy Seed be called. Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the Dead.

I shall not trouble you with those se­veral places which the Vide Menasseh Ben-Israel de Resur. l. 1. c. 1, 2, 3. & Talmudi­stas in S [...]n­hedrin, c. 11. § 2. & p. 314, 315. Ed. Cocceii. Jewish Doctors are wont to produce out of the Books of Moses, to demonstrate the Resurrecti­on. They are generally very Idle and Impertinent Observations. And so (to speak the truth) are many of those which are wont to be produc'd by some of our own Vide Epiphani­u [...], Vol. 1. p 25. & Vol. 2. p. [...]8, 99, 100, 10 [...], Eulogium ap. Phot.] p. [...]86. Writers. I shall lay before you only some few places out of the Old Testament, which seem to me to contain very manifest Allusions to, and Proofs of, this Doctrine.

1. See now, that I, even I, am he, and there is no God with me; I kill, and I make alive; I wound and I heal. Thus God, by the Mouth of Moses in his Song. Deut. 32. 39.

[Page 99] 2. The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to the Grave, and bring­eth up. Hannah, the Mother of Samuel, in her Song, 1 Sam. 11. 6.

3. Thy dead shall live, together with my dead Body shall they arise: Awake and sing, ye that dwell in Dust: For thy Dew is as the Dew of Herbs, and the Earth shall cast out the Dead, Isaish 26. 19.

4. The Fourth place is that of Ezech. † C. 37. where he speaks of the Valley full of dry Bones, that at the Word of the Lord, the Bones came together, Bone to his Bone, the Sinews and the Flesh came up upon 'em, and the Skin cover'd 'em above, and the Breath came into the Bodies, and they liv'd, and stood up upon their Feet. 'Tis agreed among the Rabbins, that in all these four places of Scripture, the Resurrection is foretold: And the first, and this last are cited for it by Josephus himself. The Rabbins have amongst 'em an Opinion, That the Bones, of which Ezechiel here speaks, were really rais'd up, and re­stor'd to life, and they mention the Names of some, who (they say) were descended from those that were then rais'd to Life.

Menasseh Ben-Israel tells us, that the Sadduces were wont to interpret these places of Isaish and Ezechiel, of the [Page 100] temporal redemption of the People of Is­rael. And so this Prophecy of Ezechiel is expounded by Origen, against whose Opi­nion concerning an Ethereal Body, it would make directly, if understood of the Resurrection. The same dry Bones are said to come together Bone to its Bone, and to be cover'd with Flesh, &c. I am not unwillingly to grant, that both those Prophecies are primarily intended of a temporal redemption of the People of Israel: I freely own that they are. But at the same time, I dare appeal to any unprejudiced Person, whether they do contain a clear and evident Allusi­on to the Doctrine of the Resurrection, and are secondarily intended of it.

5. Another place is that of the Pro­phet Daniel: C. 12. v. 2. And many of them that sleep in the Dust of the Earth, shall a­wake, some to everlasting Life, and some to Shame and everlasting Contempt: Which is generally understood of the Resur­rection, not only by our own Writers, but likewise by all the Rabbins.

I must freely acknowledge, that the Word many makes this Text very dif­ficult. I know what the Expositors say, but I am not satisfied with any thing that I have hitherto met with. Some tell us, that many is sometimes used in [Page 101] the Scripture to signify all, as in the Fifty Third of Isaiah, where Christ is said to bear the Sins of many, and after­wards it is said that he bare the Sins of us all: So, say they, in the Ninety Se­venth Psalm, Verse 1. the many Isles (as it is in the Original) signifies all the Isles. But this does not clear the Difficulty. For there is a great deal of difference between many and many of. All they that sleep in the Dust are many: but many of them that sleep in the Dust, cannot be said to be all they that sleep in the Dust. So, the many Isles, and, many of the Isles, are two quite different Expressions. Many of, does plainly ex­cept some. I was once enclin'd to be­lieve, and the Fancy was grounded on this Text, That there may be some who shall not be rais'd up at all at the last day: And who were they (think you) who I fansied were not to rise? Such Heathens as live Morally well, and ac­cording to the Light that is given 'em. I was loath to rank 'em among the mi­serable, and I could not see how they could be sav'd. I was willing there­fore to believe that there might be some middle way contriv'd by Providence, and that was Annihilation. I was wil­ling to believe, that as all wicked Men, [Page 102] of whatsoever Sect or Denomination, are to rise to Damnation, and all good Men that are within the Covenant of Grace, are to rise to Salvation; so those good Men, who are not within the Co­venant, shall not rise at all, but be ut­terly annihilated. But this was a Fan­cy of but one Moment only. It was presently dash'd and confuted by our Saviour's express Assertion, that all they that are in the Grave shall rise, some to Salvation, and others to Damnation. On these Accounts I should willingly close with those Expositors who under­stand this Text, not primarily of the Resurrection, but of the deliverance of the Jews from those Burdens and Pres­sures they were under in the Reign of King Antiochus; and so by the Word everlasting, understand only long, as (you know) it is often used. But on this side too there occurs a very great diffi­culty. For if it were spoken of the Deliverance of the Jews from their Suf­ferings and Persecu [...]ions, how could it be said, that some shall awake to shame and contempt. I must own my Ignorance, how confident soever some others may be; and shall only make this Remark, That if it were meant of the temporal Restitution of the Jews, yet in the Ex­pression [Page 103] there seems to be a plain Allu­sion to the Doctrine of the Resurrecti­on. 'Tis at least a Metaphor taken from that Doctrine, which was then enter­tain'd among the Jews. And Grotius himself acknowledges, that though not Primarily, yet Secondarily it is a Prophecy concerning it.

I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter Day up­on the Earth. And though after my Skin, Worms destroy this Body, yet in my Flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for my­self and my Eyes shall behold and not ano­ther, though my Reins be consum'd with­in me. Job XIX. 25, &c. This place I have already mention'd, to shew that the Resurrection was known to the ancient Arabians, supposing that it is rightly translated (which I am not very con­fident of) and that they were really the Words of Job. I now produce it, (on the same supposition) as the Testi­mony of an inspired Writer. It is ge­nerally understood by our Writers of the Resurrection, so it is by our Church in the Office of Burial; so it was by [...] Ep. I. ad Cor. p. 36. ed. Jun. St. Clement Bishop of Rome, and by Com. in Mat. p. [...]87. Origen himself: But so it is not by [Page 104] any of the Jewish Doctors, though to prove the Resurrection they are wont to catch at very small things. They all un­derstand it of the happiness of the next Life without any respect to the Resur­rection of the Body. If we follow the Vulgar Latin, we cannot understand it any otherwise than of the Resurrection. For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that at the last Day I am to rise from the Earth. And I shall be again cover'd with my Skin; and in my Flesh I shall see my God. Whom I my-self shall see, and my Eyes, and not another, shall behold him. This Hope is fixt in my Bosom. The Greek Translation is thus: For I know that he is everlasting, who shall deliver me on Earth, and raise up my Skin that suf­fered these things. For all these things have been done upon me by the Lord. Of all which I am conscious; my Eye has seen 'em, and not another: and they have been all done unto me in my Bosom. For, raise up my Skin, the Alexandrian Copy has, And he shall raise up my Body. But Origen's Copies agreed with that which is published. St. Clement of Rome reads it thus: Thou shalt raise up my flesh, which has suffered all these things. The Chaldee Paraphrase has it thus: And I know that my Redeemer lives, and hereafter [Page 105] his Redemption will arise upon the Dust. And after my Skin shall be puft up, this shall be. And in my Flesh I shall see God again. Whom I am to see for my-self, and my Eyes shall see him and not another. My Reins are consum'd within me. The Syriack thus: I know indeed that my Sa­viour lives, and that in the End he will appear upon Earth. And these things straiten'd (or encompass'd) my Skin and my Flesh. If my Eyes shall see God, they will see light. My Reins are quite perish'd within me. This has nothing at all rela­ting to the Resurrection. And the learned Grotius, and others, are very positive, that this place cannot be understood of the Resurrection without wresting the He­brew very much. The Chri­stiani non pauci hoc textu usi sunt ad proban­dam Re­surrectio­nis fidem, sed ut id facerent, coacti sunt in versionibus suis multùm ab He­braeo discedere, ut notatum Mercero aliisque. Hebraea sic sonant: Scio ego Redemptorem meum vivere, & illum postremo staturum in Campo, (i. e. victorem suturum.) E [...]iamsi non pellem tantùm meam sed & hoc (nempe arvinam quae sub pelle est) consumerent, (morbi sc.) in carne tamen meâ Deum videbo (1. propitium experiar:) Ego, inquam, hisce meis oculis; ego, non autem alius pro me. Defecer [...]nt renes mei in sinu meo, (1. intima mea vorantur ex indignatione ob maledicta vestra.) Translation, which he gives us of it, is different from all others: And he expounds it of Job's sudden restitution to his former Health and temporal Prosperity. You may read this Exposition oppos'd in our learned Bi­shop [Page 106] Pearson's Comment on the Creed. He calls it a very new one: But in that he's mistaken: For 'tis no more than what Cate­nâ in Job, p. 340. 1. St. Chrysostom long ago thought on, and did not dislike. Having laid these several Translations and Exposi­tions before you, I shall leave this Text to your Judgment, without pretending to decide the Controversy. If you will not understand it of the Resurrection, yet what I undertook to make out, seems from other places sufficiently clear.

I shall close this part of my Dis­course, which is concerning the Tradi­tions of the Jews, and the Testimonies of the Old Testament, with an observati­on concerning that Argument, which our Saviour makes use of out of the Books of Moses, to prove the Resurrection a­gainst the Sadduces. As touching the Re­surrection (says he) of the Dead, have you not heard that which was spoken unto you by God, saying; I am the God of Abra­ham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the Dead, but of the Living. The most that this Argument proves, is the Immorta­lity of the Soul, that the Souls of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not die with their Bodies, as the Sadduces be­liev'd: From whence I observe, that [Page 107] it was not so much the Resurrection of the Body, as the Immortality of the Soul, that the Sadduces stuck at, and that if it could be once prov'd out of the Books of Moses that the Soul was Immortal and did not die with the Body, they were ready and willing to grant that there would be a Resurrection of the Body. Our Saviour thought it would be e­nough to convince 'em of the Resurre­ction of the Body, if they could but be convinc'd of the Immortality of the Soul.

If the Doctrine of the Resurrection were not so clearly reveal'd to the Jews as to be always own'd as a necessary Arti­cle of Faith, if they saw it through a Glass but darkly and obscurely; yet it is not so with Christians. If they knew but in part, and prophesy'd but in part, yet he being come, which is perfect, that which was only in part, is to us done away. I shall now in the next place demonstrate the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the same Humane Body to be the Doctrine of the Gospel. And this I shall do by shewing,

First, That it is the Doctrine of the New Testament.

Secondly, That it is the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers.

The Arguments which I shall draw from the New Testament, are these:

[Page 108] First, Our Saviour's own Testimony concerning the place from whence the Resurrection is to be. St. John, v. 28. Marvel not at this: For the Hour is coming, in the which all that are in the Graves, shall hear his Voice, and shall come forth, they that have done Good, unto the Resurrection of Life, and they that have done Evil, un­to the Resurrection of Damnation. This is a plain and express Declaration that the Body that lies in the Grave is to rise again. To the same purpose St. John in the Revelations XX. 13., And the Sea gave up the Dead which were in it, and Death and Hell (i. e. the Grave) deliver'd up the Dead which were in them: And they were judg'd every Man according to their Works.

'Tis confess'd by Origen himself, that the Bodies, to which our Souls are to be united in the Resurrection, will be rais'd up out of the Graves where the Dead are reposited: Yet he advances an Hy­pothesis, which supposes a diversity of Par­ticles. He tells us, as Ap. Epiphan. Haer. 64. §. 16. [...], &c. Sed dicet aliquis: Quomodo resurg [...]nt mortui, aut quali cum corpore venient? palam illud ostendit; primam subjectam materiam nullo modo resurgere. Nam si rectè propositum ab Apostolo exemplum accipimus, dicendum est, Seminis naturam, quae frumenti grano insita est, vicinâ correptâ materiâ, totam il­lam pervadere atque illius pariter correptâ specie, vires suas in id, quod antè Terra, Aqua, Aer, Ignisque fuerat, transundere, earum (que) superatis qualitatibus, in illam ipsam cujus est artifex, convertere: Atque hoc modo perfici spicam, quae à priore grano mirum in mo­dum, & magnitudine & figurâ & varietate dissideat. St. Methodius and [Page 109] Adv. Jo. Hiero. sol. p. 117. Est, inquit, singulis se­minibus ratio quae­dam à Deo arti­fice insita, quae futu­ras mate­rias in me­dullae principiis tenet. Et quomodo tanta ar­boris mag­nitudo, truncus, rami, po­ma, folia, non viden­ [...]ur in se­mine, sunt tamen in ratione se­minis, quam Graeci [...] vocant: Et in grano frumenti est in­trinsecus, vel medulla, vel venula; quae cum in terrâ fuerit dissoluta, trahit ad se vicinas materias, & in stipulam, folia, aristasque con­surgit, aliudque moritur, aliud resurgit; neque enim in grano triti­ci, radices, culmus, folia, aristae, paleae sunt dissolutae. Sic & rati­one Humanorum Corporum manent quaedam surgendi antiqua prin­cipia, & quasi [...], id est, seminarium mortuorum, sinu terrae confovetur. Cum autem judicii dies advenerit, & in voce archangeli, & in noviss [...]mâ tubâ tremuerit terra, movebuntur statim semina, & in puncto horae mortuos germinabunt: Non tamen easdem carnes, nec in his formis restituent, quae fuerunt. St. Jerom represent his Opinon, that as a Grain of Corn, that is sown, has a a Natural Principle or Faculty, by which it attracts the Particles of Matter that lie near it, and so grows up, and pro­duces new Corn: So in the Substance of our Bodies, that lies dissolv'd in the Grave, there remain certain semina resurrectionis; a certain Power and Fa­culty, by which, in the Day of Judg­ment, at the sound of the Trump, the Dead shall in a moment grow up. There shall spring up, he says, from those Seeds not the same Flesh, but another, and with a form different from what we now have. The same Hypothesis he main­tains in his Work against Celsus L. 5. p. 246. [...].: We say that as the Blade springs up from a grain of Wheat, so in the Body there is a cer­tain [Page 110] natural Principle or Faculty, which as it is never corrupted it-self, so there springs up from it an incorruptible Body. And the same we find again in a Nos ve­ro post corruptio­nem mun­di eosdem ipsos futu­ros esse homines dicimus, [...]cet non eodem statu, neque in iisdem passionibus. Non e­nim iterum ex conventione viri & mulieris erunt, sed verbi gratiâ: ea ratio quae continet Pauli substantiam, Pauli autem nunc dico cor­poralis quae salva per [...]inet: Et cum voluerit Deus secundùm ea quae dicta sunt, per Sacramentum tubarum in novissimâ túbâ facere ut Mortui resurgant, per illam ipsam substantiae rationem quae salva per­manet, ut de terrae pulvere rescuscitentur à mortuis ex omnibus lo­cis, in quibus ratio illa substantiae corporalis in ipsis corporibus per­manebat, quae in terram prolapsa Dei voluntate iterum rescuscitan­tur. Et hoc arbitror asserere volentem dixisse Aposto [...]um in 1 Ep. ad Cor. Post assertionem enim resurrectionis mortuorum, cum pro­posuisset sibi ea quae possent ab aliis objici; de resurrectione m [...]r­tuorum sic ait: Sed dicit aliquis, Quomodo resurgunt mo [...]tui? Quo autem corpore venient? Stulte, tu quod seminas non vivificatur, nisi prius moriatur; & quid seminas; non quod futurum est corpus seminas, sed nu­dum granum ut puta tritici, aut alicujus caeterorum, Deus autem dat illi corpus prout vult. Cùm enim manifestissimè ostendisser quia mortui resurgunt, & certum esset quia Salvator noster cum ipso corpore re­surrexisset, quod susceperat ex Mariâ, non autem satis clarum esset quo­modo resurrecturi essent caeteri, vel quale corpus habituri: Comparat resurrectionem seminibus quae seminantur in terrâ, ut puta grano fru­menti, quod quum ceciderit in terram corrumpitur: Sed rationis illius virtus est insita in interioribus ejus medull [...]s: Ipsa rationis virtus as­sumpra adjacentem sibi terram, vel aquae humorem, seu aeris cir­cumstantem temperiem, caloris quoque sufficientem recipiens fomi­tem per divinam potentiam co-operantem culmi vel spicae consur­gunt: Et hoc est quod dicit: Tu quod seminas, non vivificatur nisi priùs moriatur: Et quid seminas, non corpus quod futurum est seminas. Ergo hoc quod cadit in terram corpus nostrum, comparatum est gra­no frumenti. Frag­ment produced by Pamphilus, out of his Second Book concerning the Resurrection. Yet there he says, that after the Resur­rection we shall be the very same Men.

[Page 111] The Foundation of this Hypothesis of Origen, is St. Paul's comparing our Re­surrection to the growing of Corn; of which I shall speak by and by, and shew how unreasonable it is to argue against the Identity of the Body from that Com­parison. To shew the Absurdity of this Hypothesis, let us suppose that the Body was never buried, but expos'd in the Air, or perfectly burnt to Ashes, or drown'd and dissolv'd in the Sea, and let this be done some Thousands of years ago: I would ask an Origenist, Where are then his principia resurrectionis? 'Tis impossible to conceive any such semina resurgendi, unless we will suppose that there always remains some little part of the Body undissolv'd. And therefore some of the Jews, who will have the Body to be made up in the Resurrection by growing as out of a Seed (and from whom Origen seems to have borrow'd his Notion) tell us, that there is a cer­tain little Bone in the Body of a Man (they call it Vide Po­co [...]k. in Portam Mosis, p. 118, 119. Luz) which can never be dissolv'd. But in such cases as we suppose, it is highly probable, that there may not be remaining, after so many Motions and Transmutations, any two Particles or Atoms united together, which were united in the Body when [Page 112] alive. At least it cannot be imagin'd, that there can remain so many Particles united together as are necessary to the making up of such a Semen. To this you may add, that the Earth is the pro­per and natural Matrix of the Seeds of Corn, and the like, in which it is de­sign'd by Nature that they should ger­minate, and produce their kind: But the Body of a Man is naturally begot­ten and form'd after a quite different manner. It is therefore very absurd to imagine, that because the Grains of Corn contain such semina within 'em as may germinate and bring forth in the Earth, therefore likewise in the Particles of a Man's Body there may be such natural Semina from whence a new Body may rise. I need not observe, that if our Bodies had any such natural Semina, it must thence follow, that the Body which rises or springs up, would be, not of a different kind from that which was buried, as Origen would have the rising Body to be, but altogether of the same, since the Seeds of all things do naturally produce their own Kind. From a Humane Body there would spring up a Humane Body, not a Subtle and Ethe­real one.

[Page 113] The Socinians (who deny the Resur­rection of the same Body) to avoid the force of this Argument which has been urg'd for it, are forc'd to deny that our Saviour there speaks of the real Resur­rection. They affirm, that he only spake of a spiritual Resurrection, and that on­ly the Graves of Ignorance and Impie­ty are there intended. But this Evasi­on is very well confuted by a Bishop Pearson on the Cr [...]ed, p. 382. very great Man, who observes, that this Ex­position cannot possibly agree with what Christ says. ‘He speaks expresly of bringing Men to Judgment, and divides those which are to come out of their Graves into two Ranks, neither of which can be so understood. The first are those which have done good, before they come out of the Graves; these therefore could not be the Graves of Ignorance and Impiety, from which no good can come. The Second are those which have done evil, and so re­main as evil Doers, and therefore can­not be said to have come sorth out of the Graves of Ignorance and Im­piety, or to rise by the preaching of the Gospel, to newness of Life, be­cause they are expresly said to come forth unto the Resurrection of Dam­nation. And that those Words ought [Page 114] to be understood not of a spiritual Re­surrection, but of that which shall be at the last Day, is confess'd and proved by Vide Slichtingii Com. in locu [...]. some of the Socinians themselves. I need not add, that the Words of St. John, which I have cited out of the Re­velations, are beyond all dispute con­cerning the real Resurrection in the Day of Judgment. Neither shall I observe, that if both these places were to be un­derstood in a Metaphorical sense, yet e­ven the Allusion or Metaphor would af­ford a sufficient Argument: For our Sa­viour, or St. John, would not have al­luded to this Doctrine after such a man­ner, if it had not been true.

II. My Second Argument shall be ta­ken from those Words of our Saviour in St. Mat. 10. 28. And fear not them which kill the Body, but are not able to kill the Soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both Body and Soul in Hell. Here he plainly declares that the Body which will be in Hell is the same with that which might have been kill'd.

III. My Third Argument is those Words of our Saviour in the same E­vangelist v. 29, 30., And if thy right Eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: Fot it is profitable for thee that one of thy Members should perish, and not that thy [Page 115] whole Body should be cast into Hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: For it is profita­ble, &c. He tells us here, not only that the Body, which will be cast into Hell, is numerically the same, but also that it will have all the same Limbs and Parts.

To these express Testimonies of our Lord, we may add these two following Observations concerning Him:

IV. First, that when he had told Martha that her Brother Lazarus should be rais'd up out of his Grave to Life, and she replied, That she knew that he would rise again in the Resurrection at the last Day, speaking plainly of the very same Body that then lay dead; He seems by his silence, to assent to what she said.

V. Secondly, That when the Sadduces propos'd him the Question concerning the Seven Brethren who had married the same Woman, Whose Wife she should be in the Resurrection? He does not take no­tice of any Error the Jews were guil­ty of in supposing the Body would be a Humane Body; but only corrects 'em as to their Fancy concerning Marriages in the next Life: For in the Resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in mar­riage, but are as the Angels of God in [Page 116] Heaven.—As the Angels of God in Hea­ven? Yes: But he does not mean, as Com. in Mat. p. 488. Origen understands it, in respect to the nature and substance of their Bodies, but in reference to St. Hie­ron. J. 1. adv. Jovin. In Resur­rectione mortuo­rum, non [...]bent, neque nu­bentur, sed similes e­runt An­gelis. Quod alii postea in Coelis fu­turi sunt, hoc virgines in terrâ esse coeperunt. Si Angelorum no­bis similitudo promittitur: inter Angelos autem non est sexûs di­versitas; aut sine sexu erimus, quod Angeli sunt; aut certè quod liquido comprobatur, resurgentes in proprio sexu, sexûs non funge­mur officio. Idem adv. Joan. Hierosol. Angelorum nobis simili [...]udo promittitur; id est, Beatitudo illa, in quâ sine carne & sexu sunt Ang [...]li, nobis in carne & sexu nostro donabitur. Mea rusticitas sic credit, & sic intelligit, sexum confiteri sine sexuum operibus; homi­nes resurgere, & sic eos Angelis adaequari.—Similitudo autem ad Angelos, non hominum in Angelos demutatio, sed pro [...]ectus im­mortalitatis & Gloriae est. Vide St. Methodium ap. Epiphan. Haer. 64. §. 33. marriage, which was the Subject of the Question. Had he intended the nature and substance of their Bodies, or if he had dislik'd the com­mon and receiv'd Opinion concerning the Humanness (if I may use that Word) of the rising Body, he would not have used those Words, but such as these: For in the Resurrection they neither mar­ry, nor have humane Bodies, as your Que­stion supposes, but are, &c.

VI. My Sixth Argument shall be the express Testimony of St. Paul, 1 Cor. 15. 53. This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on Immortality. That Body which in this Life is Mortal and [Page 117] Corruptible, St. Hie­ron. adv. Joan [...]. Quod verò dicit Apostolus Corruptibi­le hoc & mortale, hoc ipsum corpus, id est, carnem, quae tunc videbatur, ostendit. Quod autem copulat, induere incorruptionem & i [...]mortalitatem: Illud indumentum, id est, vestimentum, non dicit corpus abolere quod or­nat in gloriâ; sed quod antè inglorium fuit, efficere gloriosum: Ut mortalitatis & infirmitatis viliore veste depositâ, immortalitatis auro, & ut ita dicam, firmitatis atque virtutis beatitudine, induamur, volen­tes non spoliari carne, sed supervestiri in gloriâ, & domicilium no­strum, quod de coelo est, sup [...]rindui desiderantes, ut devoretur mor­tale a vitâ. Certè nemo superinduitur, nisi qui antè vestitus est. Epi­phanius H [...]r. 64. c. 68. [...], &c. Non dixit M [...]rtale solum, neque corruptibile solum, nec immortalem denique animam. Sed cor­ruptibile hoc & mortale, addito utrobique pronomine hoc. the same in the next Life shall devest it-self of those qualities, and put on others, those of Immortality and Incorruptibility. To the same purpose are several other places of the same Apostle.

VII. The Seventh shall be taken from the Testimony of the same Apostle con­cerning those that shall be living at the Day of Judgment. He tells us that they who are then living shall not die, but only be chang'd or alter'd. It is there­fore certain that the Bodies of those that shall be then living, will continue the very same as to substance, tho' chan­ged or alter'd as to Qualities. It cannot be imagin'd that the change will be of all the Substance; that the whole Bo­dy will be in a Moment destroy'd, and the Soul be invested with new Matter. For the Soul to be separated from all [Page 118] the Substance of its Body together, what is that else but to die? But the Apostle expresly assures us, 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 [...]. IV. 16, 17.? The Dead in Christ shall rise first, then we (i. e. they) which are alive and remain, shall Epiphanius Hae [...]. 64. §. 70. [...], &c. Apostolus ai [...], Nos rapiemur nu [...]ibus in oc­cursum illius: Ut hoc ip­sum corpus verè esse, non praeter ipsum aliud, o [...]ten­deret. Nam qui rapi­tur, nondum est mor­tuus, &c. 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? 1. Cor. XV. 52. 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.

[Page 119] 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, [Page 120] 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 [...], ap. Eucholog. p. 658. Memory of the Dead. The Arch-Bishop [Page 121] 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, 'tis certain, that they who now continue it, referr it to the Re­surrection. The Muscovites are wont to use Eggs as Symbols of the Resurre­ction. De­scription of Russia ap. Hackluyt to. 1. p. 318. 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 St. Macarius Hom. 5. St. Cyril­lus Hiero­sol. Cate­chesi 18. Trees and Plants putting forth Leaves and Flowers in the Spring-Time, and bearing Fruits, are Types and [Page 122] Emblems of it. Some compare it to the healing of Wounds: Others, and St. Clemens Rom. Ep. ad Cor. p. 34. St. Theophilus Antioch. ad Autol. I. 1. p. 77. Ter­tullian. A­polog. c. ult. & De Re­sur. c. 12. St. Ambros. De Resur. Orentius in Commonito­rio. Chry­sologus Serm. 57, 59, 118. 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 [Page 123] 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 Passio­nem quo­que ejus in cruce & mortem ac sepultu­ram, quae universa servavlt, ac resur­rectionem veritate & non puta­tive confi­temur: Qui & pri­mo geni­tus ex mortuis, primitias massae corporum nostrorum, quas in sepulchro positas suscitavit, pervexit ad coelum, spem nobis resurrectionis in resurrectione proprii corporis tribuens, unde & omnes sic speramus refurgere ex mortuis, sicut ille resurrexit. Non in aliis quibus­dam peregrinis & in alienis corporibus quae assumuntur in phantas­mate: Sed sicut ipse in illo corpore, quod apud nos in sancto sepul­chro conditum resurrexit: Ita & nos in ipsis corporibus, quibus nunc circundamur, & in quibus nunc sepelimur, eâdem ratione & vi­sione speramus resurgere. Joannes Episc. Hierosol. ap. S. Hieron. in l. adv eum. Eodem argumento, viz. Exemplo resurrectionis Christi primogeniti mortuorum ac primitiarum dermientium utitur St. Methodius ap. Epiphan. Haer. 64. §. 39. & ipse Epiphanius in Ancor. c. 94. 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 [Page 124] he vanish'd away out of the Sight of those that convers'd with him? This was done St. Hie­ron. [...]. [...]. adv. Jovin. Certe in resurrecti­one [...]adem erit cor­porum substantia, qu [...] nunc utimur, li­cet auctior gloriâ. Nam & Salvator in tantum ipsum cor­pus habuit post infe­ros, inquo & cruci­fixus est, ut manus perforatas clavis & lateris vulnus o­stender [...]t. P [...]rro si clausis in­gressus est oftiis, quod humanorum corporum natura non patitur, ergo & Petrum & Dominum negabimus vera habuisse corpora, quia ambulaverunt super aquas, quod contra naturam est. Idem adv. Joan. Hicros [...]l. Dic mihi, acutissime disputator, quid est majus, [...]antam Terrae magnitudinem appendere super nihilum, & super aquarum incerta librare: An Deum transire per clausam porta [...], & creaturam cedere creatori? Quod majus est tribuis: quod minus est calumniaris. Petrus super aqúas ambulat gravi & solido corpore, Mollis unda non cedit: paululum fides dubitar, & statim naturam suam corpus intelligit: ut sciamus super aquas non corpus ambulâsle, sed fi [...]em. to demonstrate his Power. I shall not alledge with a late learned and ingenious Dr. Wallis of the Sabbath. I. Part, p. 25. Author, that by [...] is not meant that the Doors of the Room, into which our Saviour en­tred, were then actually shut, but only that it was then Night. Though indeed it was in the Night that He appear'd, yet because it cannot be prov'd (as I think it cannot) that that Phrase is any where else us'd to signifie the Night-time, and 'tis likely that the Doors of their Houses were wont to be shut (tho' per­haps not bolted) as well in the Day-time as at Night, and therefore it could not be well us'd to signify the Night-time: I am content to understand the Words in the common acceptation. Yet (I say) it cannot be thence prov'd that our Sa­viour's Body was not then a true humane Body. But if the Doors were then really [Page 125] shut, and his Body were truly of the Nature of Man's, how was it possible for him to enter into the Room? In answer to this I ask another Question, How was it possible for our Saviour to walk on the Water as he did, and to make St. Peter do the like? Was not that contrary to the Nature of a Humane Body? I shall not pretend to prescribe a way to the Almighty. But this I am sure of, it was easie for Omnipotence to effect that Mi­racle several ways. He might either o­pen a passage into the Room which the Disciples did not see, or rarefy his Body for that present Moment. So likewise he might vanish away, either by an ex­ceeding swift Motion, or by altering the Medium, or the Sight of the Spectators. And thus St. Luke tells us, that when he appear'd to some of his Disciples in the way, and convers'd with 'em, they did not know him. What was the Reason of that? St. Mark says that he appear'd in another form: But was it really so? No, the difference was in St. Hie­ron. adv. Joan. Hie­rosol. Noli potentiam Domini magorum praestigiis adaequare, ut videa­tur suisse quod non fuit, & putetur comedisse sine dentibus, ambula [...]e sine pedibus, fregisse panem sine manibus, loquutus esse sine linguâ, & latus monstrasse si­ne costis. Et quomodo, inquies, non cognoscebanteum in itinere, si ipsum habeba [...] corpus quod ante habuit? Audi scripturam dicen­tem: Oculi eorum renebantur, neeum cognoscerent. Et rur [...]um, Aperti sunt oculi eorum, & cognoverunt eum. Nunquid alius fuit quando non agnoscebatnr, & alius quando agnitus est? Certe unus at­queidem [...]rat. Cognosce [...]e ergo & non cognoscer [...], oculorum fuit, non ejus qui videbatur, licet & ipsius fuerit, &c.— their Sight, not in his [Page 126] Conntenance. St Luke expresly affirms, that their eyes were held that they should not know him: And as soon (says he) as their Eyes were open'd, they knew him. Whatsoever means his Almighty Power was pleas'd to make use of, we have his own express Testimony for it, that his Body was the very same with that which was crucified, and that it was still truly Humane, consisting of Flesh and Bones. He ate with his Disciples as a Man, and had the Holes, which the Nails had made, in his Hands and his Feet, and his Wound still remaining in his Side. Which he therefore was pleas'd to preserve, that St. Thomas, and all Unbelievers, might be fully convinc'd of the reality of his Resurrection. When he enter'd into the Room amongst his Disciples, and they thought he had been a Spi­rit, because they did not see the Door open'd. St. Luke XXIV. 39. Why, says he, are you troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I my-self: Handle me, and see, for a Spirit hath not flesh and Bones as ye see me have. And according to this we de­clare in the Fourth Article of our Church, that Christ being dead and buried, took again his Body, with Flesh, Bones, and all things appertaining to Man's Nature. Cle­mens [Page 127] Alex. in a Fragment of his Com­ments on the 1 Ep. of St. John, which is extant in Cassiodorus, tells us of an odd sort of Fertur in Traditio­bus, quoniam Joannes ip­sum corpus quod erat ex­trinsecus tangens, manum suam in profunda misisse, & ei duritiem carnis nul­lo modo relu [...]tatam esse, sed locum manui prebu­isse discipuli. Propter quod & insert: Et ma­nus nostrae contrectaverunt de verbo vite; contrecta­hilis utique factus est qui venit in carne. Tradition, that St. John once touching Christ's Body, thrust his Hand into the inward parts of his Body, the hardness of the Flesh not at all resisting it, but giving way to it. But this Tradition was not con­cerning his Body after his Resurrection, but even before he was crucified; and to this they imagin'd that St. John had respect in these Words: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have look'd upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of Life. To prove the Hu­manness of Christ's Body after his Re­surrection, I might add, if need were, the Testimony of Ep. ad Smyrnae­os, ap. Eus. Hist. III. 36. [...]. St. Jerom in Catalogo Script. Eccles. un­derstands his Words so as if he had meant that he himself saw Christ after his Resurrection. Super person [...] Christi ponit Testimonium, dicens: Ego verò & post resurrectionem in carne eum vidi, & credo quia sir, &c. St. Ignatius. I know (says he) and believe that even after his [Page 128] Resurrection he appear'd in the Flesh. And when he came to Peter and the rest, he said unto them, Take hold of me, handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal Spirit. And immediately they touch'd him, and believ'd. Instead of those Words in our Creed, And ascended into Heaven, the Primitive Church asserted expresly in their Creed, that he ascended into Hea­ven in the flesh. The Church (says St. Adv. Haer. L. 2. Ec­clesia per universum or­hem usque ad fines terrae seminata, & ab Apostolis & à Discipulis eorum ac­cepit eam fidem quae est in unum Deum—Et in unum Iesum Christum Dei F. incarnatum pro nostrâ salute.—Et in CARNE in coelos as­sumptionem dilecti Iesu Christi Domini nostri, &c. Irenaeus) spread throughout the whole World, to the ends of the Earth, hath re­ceiv'd this Faith from the A­postles and their Disciples, that there is one God,—That Jesus Christ the Son of God was incarnate for our Salvati­on—and that he was taken up in the flesh into Heaven. &c. Ephremius Lib. de Sacris Antio­chae Legibus ap. Phot. Bibl. p. 794., Patriarch of Antioch, affirms that Christ is now known in the flesh. St. Athanasius affirms that he carried up in­to Heaven the very same † Flesh that he had when living. And (to mention * Orat. 4. c. Ari­anos. [...]. no more) in the Synodical Epistle of the Church of Rome, under Pope Da­masus, there's an Anathema denounced [Page 129] against any one that shall not confess, That Ap. Theodoreti Hist. v. 2. [...]. He sits on the right Hand of the Fa­ther in the Flesh, which he had when li­ving, and that he shall come in the same to judge the quick and the dead. The same Anathema you may read in L. 6. De Trinitate inter opera St. Athanasii, p. 571. Si quis confitetur Filium Dei quasi phantasma, sic in homine visum fuisse, anathema illi. Si quis confitetur, verum hominem, quem assumpsit, non verè manducâsse, aut bibisse, aur lacrymatum fuisse, sanguinem su­dâsse, & passum fuisse, & resurrexisse, & in coelis ad dextram Patris consedisse, anathema illi. Vigilius Tapsensis.

IX. That our Resurrection will be of the same nature with our Saviour's, and our Bodies the same as his was, that is, numerically the same with those that di­ed, consisting of the same Particles, and still truly Humane, I shall farther prove from the Example of those who rose out of their Graves at the time of his Resurrection. And the Graves were o­pened (says St. Matthew) and many Bo­dies of Saints which slept, arose, and came out of the Graves after his Resurrection, and went into the Holy City, and appear'd unto many. This was to shew, that Christ by his Resurrection had conquer'd Death, and the Dead were then rais'd as an Earnest of our future Resurrecti­on. [Page 130] We may here observe, First, That the Bodies of those that appear'd were not form'd of other Matter, but the same that lay buried in the Graves, a­rose. Secondly, That the Graves were open'd that the Bodies might arise, and come forth; which demonstrates that those Bodies were not Subtle and E­thereal, but of a Gross Humane Substance. And this is likewise evident from those Words, and appear'd unto many. For what else can be understood by those Words, but that they so appear'd as to be known.

X. To these Examples we will here add those Types of our Resurrection which are mention'd in the Old Te­stament; I mean the Translations of E­noch and Elias. The Author to the He­brews, tells us that Enoch was translated Heb. 11. 5. that he should not see Death: And the same is true of Elias. 'Tis the Opinion, I know, of some of the Rabbi's, that the Bodies, in which Enoch and Elias were translated, were immediately dis­solv'd, and that new ones were created for 'em after the same likeness. But this is a Conjecture altogether groundless and precarious. And it is not, I think, to be doubted, but that as they were translated in their Bodies, so they still retain the very same, and will always [Page 131] retain 'em. And this to me is another very clear The same Argument is produced by St. Je­rom, adv. Joan. Hie­rosol. Enoch translatus est in carne. Elias carneus raptus est in coe­ium: ne [...]dum mortui & [...] jam coloni, habent membra cum quibus rapti sunt, a [...]que translati. Quo [...] nos imitamur je­junio, illi possident Dei consortio, vescuntur coelesti pane, & satu­raneur om [...] verbo Dei: [...]undem habentes dominum quem & cibum. P [...]ulo p [...]st: En [...]ch & Elias tanto tempore in eadem permanent aetate, quâ rapti sunt. Habent dentes, ventrem, genitalia; & tamen nec ci­bis nec uxoribus indigent. And by Epiphanius in Ancorato, c. 100. & Pa [...]rio Haer. 64. c. 64. 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 St. Me­thodius, ap. Epiphan. Haer. 64. §. 35. [...], &c. Voca [...]ulum ipsum (Resurrectio) haec resurrectura esse corpora ostendit. Nam resurre­ctio non de co, quod nunquam ce [...]dit, sed de eo quod cecidit, at­que iterum assurgit, usurpatur. Non enim quod non moritur, sed quod moritur, inclinare dicitur. At moritur caro. Anima quippe immortalis est. Quaprop [...]er si immortalls est anima, corpus verò cadaver est: Qui ita resurrectionem fore confi [...]entur, ut cam nihil ad carnem pertinere putent, resurrectionem funditus ne­gant. Quandoquidem non illud quod- [...]at, sed quod cecidit, & in­clin [...]t, exurgere dicitur: pro [...]o ac scriptum est. Num qui cecidit, non resurgit? Jer. 8. 4. Eodem modo argumentatur Photius Epist. 1. ad [...]inem. Resurrection, a rising a­gain? [Page 132] 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, [Page 133] 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 [Page 134] 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, [...], &c. since by a Bird he manifests to us the magni [...]cence of his Promise. And tho' he makes use of several o­ther Comparisons, yet he ehie [...]y in [...]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 [...]it to change, to express the thing more fully; and 'tis 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 [Page 135] 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 'tis only suspected, not See Co­telerius in Scriptores Apostol. p. 103, &c. 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. Adv. Haer. l. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus, Strom. l. 5. p. 586. Clemens Alexandrinus, Hist [...] l. 3. c. 16. Eusebius, and others. Clemens Alexandrinus quotes it in one place, by the Title of The Epistle of the Romans to the Corinthians.

[Page 136] 2. That Euseb. l. c. 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 Haer. 30. Num. 15. 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. [Page 137] Why are you so hard of believe? Has not St. Paul already told you, that the Body in the Resurrection shall not be the same Humane Body, as you imagine, but a new one and of a quite different kind?

4. It manifestly appears from this ob­stinate unbelief of some in that Church, that they did not understand St. Paul of a new Ethereal Body. That the Soul after Death is invested with an See Cudworth's Intellec. System. p. 785, &c. Ethe­real Body, was the common and receiv'd Opinion of the Greeks themselves, the Pythagoreans and the St. Aug. de Civ. XX. 27. Plato Dixit [...]ine corpori­bus animas in aeter­num [...]sse non posse. Platonists. And though they commonly believ'd, that the Soul has an Ethereal Body or Vehicle, in its state of Prae-existence, and that it retains the same even whilst it is united to the Humane Body, and also after Death; yet they did not think it necessary that it should always be invested with the same which it had before its separation from the Humane Body. Plato asserts; that The Soul will always have a Body, but sometimes of one Kind, and sometimes of another. And Porphyry Sent. c. 32. affirms, that according as the Soul is affected, so it as­sumes a Body suitable to its present Conditi­on; that being thoroughly purged, it as­sumes a Body of the purest Sort, the next in degree to Immateriality. And with [Page 138] that, according to his Philosophy, it lives for ever in Heaven. The Conclusion is, that if the Apostles had intended not the same Body that died, but another Ethereal One, 'tis impossible that their Doctrine should meet with so great Op­position as it did. Was this the Do­ctrine that the Corinthians could not be­lieve? Could that which their own Philosophers had taught 'em, seem so strange and incredible a Thing, when preach'd by the Apostles? It is plain from St. Paul, that the Corinthians to whom he wrote, thought the Resurre­ction a strange and incredible Thing; and after they had receiv'd St. Paul's Epistle, they still continued to think it so. They still thought it, as is evident from what St. Clement answers, [...]. [...] strange and wonderful Thing: Was the Union of the Soul to an Ethereal Body af­ter Death, so strange and wonderful a Thing to the Corinthians, that they could not believe St. Paul, but forced St. Cle­ment to write again (and again) to 'em to convince 'em? Was it for this that St. Cle­ment to convince 'em was forc'd to insist so much on the Almighty Power of God?

If the Epistle ad Tarsen [...]es were ge­nuine, to St. Clement we might add St. Ig­natius, who was constituted Bishop of An­tioch [Page 139] by the Apostles themselves. In that Epistle they who assert that [...]. 2. [...]. this flesh is not to rise, are reckon'd amongst the Mi­nisters of Satan. But since that Epistle is spurio [...]s we must pass by Him, unless you will grant that those Words of his concern­ing his being condemn'd to be devour'd by wild Beasts, had some respect to the Resurrection of the Body. [...]. St. Iren [...]us adv. H [...]r. l. 5. c. 28. & ap. Eu [...]eb. Hi [...]. l. 3. [...]. 36. I am the Wheat, says he, of God, and am ground small by the teeth of Beasts, that I may be [...]ound pure Bread.

II. At the same time flourish'd St. Po­ly [...], who was Disciple to St. John the Ev [...]ngelist. When he was bound to the S [...]ake to be burn'd, he thanked God, that he was now to suffer Martyrdom, and to partake of the Cap of Christ Ap. Euseb. Hist. l. 14. c. 15. [...]. in order to the Resurrection of everlasting Life, both of Soul and Body. You may read his Pray­er in the Epistle of the Church of [...], which is Extant in Eusebius.

III. At the same time also lived Papi­a [...] Bishop of [...]rapolis. L. 5. [...]. 35. St. Iren [...]s tells us that he was Disciple to St. John (the Evangelist) and a familiar Acquain­tance of St. Poly [...]p's. This is certain [Page 140] See Euseb. III. 39. that he liv'd in the time of those who had been conversant with the Apostles, and had made it his Business to collect the Doctrines of the several Apo­stles, from the Mouths of such as had convers'd with 'em. Now that He as­serted the Resurrection of the same Hu­mane Body Eusebius plainly intimates, when he tells us, that accord­ing to his Opinion [...]. l. 3. c. 39. Christ is to reign here corporally upon Earth, after the Resurrection from the Dead, a Thousand Years. St. Maximus Schol, in Eccles. Hi [...]r. c. 7. [...]. Vide St. I­renaeum [...]. 5. c. 33. af­firms that he held, that after the Resurrection we shall eat and drink as before. Such an Opinion as this could never be built on meer Air. Whe­ther true, or false, it plainly shews that the Apostles did not preach the Resur­rection of an Airy or Ethereal Body.

IV. The Sibylline Oracles publish'd by some Christian not long after these times, within about Thirty Years after St. John the Apostle's Death, say, That God after he has destroy'd the World and all mankind by Fire, will restore their Ashes and Bones, and form 'em again as they were before. And the [...], &c. l. 4. ad fine [...]. Verses, which tell us thus [Page 141] much, are extant not only in the Vo­lume which now we have, but also in the ancient L. 5. c. 7. Apostolical Constitutions, where they are cited.

V. St. Justin Martyr, who flourish'd in the Year 140, and was first instructed in the Christian Faith by one that was not only of Man's Estate, but of a consi­derable Age, when St. John was yet living, not only speaks in Ad Grae­cos Cohor. p. 26. Apolog. 2. p. 57. several pla­ces of his Works of the Rising Body, as of the very same, and truly Humane, but in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, he gives him this Caution, that if he met with any that had the Name of Christians, but denied the Resurrection of the Dead, he should not esteem them Christians. For I (says he) and all those Christians, who in all respects hold the true Opinions, do know that there will be a Resur­rection of the [...]. flesh. He says expres­ly The Resurrection of the flesh. And the same Word he used in the Title of a Book, which he wrote professedly on this Subject: Concerning the Resurrection of the flesh. They did not call it in those Days The Resurrection of the Body, because some of the Hereticks who de­nied the Resurrection of the Flesh, pre­tended however to believe the Resurre­ction of the Body; but that all might [Page 142] know that they intended the Ver [...] same Humane Body, they call'd it in down­right Terms The Resurrection of the flesh.

VI. Tatianus Syrus, who was Disci­ple to Justin M. in his Oration against the Gentiles P. 146.: We shall be restored (says he) to what we are, and be judg'd by God the Creator. This we believe tho' you look upon us as silly triflers and bablers for it. For as once I had no being, and then was begotten, so being born, and a­gain reduced by Death to what I was, I I shall be restored to my being again. Tho' all my Flesh shall be consum'd by Fire, yet the World contains the evaporated Matter. Though I should be drown'd and dissolv'd in a River or the Sea, or be devoun'd by wild Beasts, yet I am laid [...]p in the Repositories of God. The Ignoran [...] indeed and the Atheist know not where my Sub­stance is reposited; but God who reigns, and who alone sees it, will restore it in his due Time to its former State.

VII. St. Iren [...]us, who was born be­fore the Death of St. John, and was Scholar to St. Polyc [...]rp, one of his Disci­ples, affrms that this was one of the Ar­ticles of the Creed receiv'd L. 1. c. 2. Ec­clesia per universum [...] [...] a [...] [...] [...] seminata, & ab Apostolis & Discipulis [...]orum accepit eam fidem quae est in—adventum Christi ad recapitulanda universa, & resusci [...] [...] Carnem humani gen [...]ris. by the [Page 143] Church throughout the whole World to the ends of the Earth, from the Apostles and their Disciples That Christ shall come and raise up all flesh. And he spends a great part of his C. 1. ad 16. &c. 31. &c. Fifth Book in proving, against the Hereticks, that we shall rise perfect Men with the same Bo­dy of Flesh.

VIII. And to prove the same against the Heathens, is the whole endeavour of that excellent Treatise Concerning the Resurrection of the Dead; written by A­thenagoras, the Christian Philosopher, who was Professor in the Divinity School of Alexandria in St. Irenaeus's Time.

IX. Athenagoras tells us there were P. 65. c. many that had written before him on this Subject; and that they were all asserters of the Doctrine of the Identity he plainly intimates. He takes no No­tice of any thing in which they differ'd from him, but the Reason which they assign'd for the Resurrection. The same Author observes, that the Objection con­cerning one Man's feeding on another, was in those days a [...]. p. 43. D. common Objecti­on against the Doctrine of the Resur­rection. From thence it appears that the Doctrine of the Identity was the Common and receiv'd Doctrine. He adds, that that Objection perplex'd even [Page 144] Ib [...]d. [...] some of those that were admired for their Wisdom. This Doctrine therefore was the common and receiv'd Doctrine, not only of the Vulgar, but also of the m [...]st Wise and Learned.

X. Theophilus Bishop of Antioch, who flourish'd at the same time with St. Ire­naeus and Athenagoras, in his first Book to Autolycus (a Heathen) maintains the same Doctrine. P. 77. But you deny (says he) the Resurrection of the Dead, and say, Shew me but one, that has risen from the Dead, and when I see him, I will believe. But what great Matter is it, if you believe when you see a thing done? Do you be­lieve that Hercules, though he burnt him­self, is yet living, and that Aesculapius re­vived after he was struck with the Thun­der-Bolt, and yet disbelieve those things which are revealed to you by God? &c.

XI. In the same Age, viz. in the Year 177, the Churches of Vienna and Lions wrote that Epistle to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia, which is extant in Eusebius Hi [...]. V. [...]., concerning their Persecutions. In that Epistle they complain, that their Persecutors would not suffer the Bodies of the Martyrs to be buried, but threw 'em to Dogs to be devour'd, and burn'd that, which remain'd undevour'd, to A­shes, and threw the Ashes into the River. [Page 145] And [...], &c. this (say they) they did, as if they could master God, and hinder their Resurrection, that (as they said) the Chri­stians might not have any hopes of a Resurrection, through the belief of which they despised the greatest Torments, and came willingly and with joy to their Deaths. Let us now see (say they) whe­ther they will rise again, and whether their God can deliver 'em out of our Hands. The holy Pothinus, Bishop of the Church of Lions, who was martyr'd at that time, was not only born, but was almost of Man's estate, before St. John the Apostle's death.

XII. Clemens Alexandrinus, who flou­rish'd at the same time, tho' in those Works which are now extant he speaks but very little of the Resurrection, no where professedly, yet that he held the same Doctrine, may be gather'd from his Conjecture, Strom. I. 5. p. 599. that Plato when he tells the Story of Eris's reviving after he had been dead Twelve Days, had respect to the Resurrection.

XIII. Tertullian, who flourish'd to­wards the latter end of this Second Cen­tury, has left us a whole Book concern­ing, and in defence of, this Doctrine, [Page 146] entituled, De Resurrectione CARNIS. In another Book he affirms that this was one of those De Vir­gin. Velan­dis, c. I. Regula qui [...]em fi­dci una omnino est, sola immohil [...]s & irr [...]formabilis, credendi sc. in Christum venturum judicare vivos & mortuos per carnis etiam resurrectionem. Hac lege fidei manen­te, caeterajam disciplinae & conversationis, admittunt novitatem cor­rectionis. De Pr [...]script. Haret. c. 13. Regula est autem fidei, ut jam hinc quid desendamus proficeamur, illa sc, quâ creditur—Christh [...] venturum cum claritate, ad sumendos sanctos in vitae aeternae, & promissorum coelestium fructum, & ad profanos adjudicandos igni perpetuo, fa­ctá utrisque partis resuscitatione cum carnis restitutione. Articles of Faith which were receiv'd by the whole Church with one accord, and which were im­moveable and unalterable, That Christ shall come to judge the quick and the dead, and that by the Resurrection of the flesh.

XIV. The Compiler of the Apostolical Constitutions, who lived about the end of this Century, has a large L. 5. c. 7. Chapter in defence of our Doctrine against the Hea­thens. God Almighty (says he) will raise us up through our Lord Jesus Christ, ac­cording to his Promise that cannot fail. And he will raise us up, together with all those that have died from the beginning of the World, [...]. in the same form which now we have, without any mutilation or corruption. For we shall rise uncorrupted. For whether we die in the Sea, or have our Particles dispers'd in the Earth, or are devour'd by Beasts or Birds, He will [Page 147] raise us up by his Power, by which he holds the whole World in his Hand. Not a Hair, says he, of your Heads shall pe­rish.—Through this certain P. 246. [...], &c. perswa­sion we endure Stripes, Persecutions, and Deaths. And in vain have we endured these things, if we have not full assurance of those things which we preach.—As God created the World, in the same man­ner he will raise us up by his good plea­sure, not standing in need of any assistance. For 'tis an effect of the same Power, to make the World, and to raise up the Dead. When Man had no Being, He made him of different Parts, giving him a Soul created out of nothing. And in the Resurrection he will restore to our Souls that do not die, their Bodies which are dissolv'd, &c.

XV. The Author of the Recognitions of St. Clement, who lived in the same Age, and is thought by Dr. Cave Hist. Lit. a very learned Man to be Bardesanes of Syria, affirms, that the Souls in the Resurrection of the dead will receive L. 1. c. 52. Ut in resur. morruorum cum corpora sua receperint, [...]psa jam resolutione purgata; pro his quae bene gesserant, aerernâ haeredi [...]ate potiantur. their Bodies that were dis­solv'd.

XVI. About the middle of the same Age, Celsus, the great Adversary of the Christians, publish'd that Book, which [Page 148] Origen in the following Age answer'd. He disputes against this, as the receiv'd and avow'd Doctrine of the Christians, That Ap. Orig. l. 5. p. 240. [...]. the dead shall rise again out of the Earth with the very same Flesh. 'Tis true he adds, that [...]. there were some even among the Chri­stians that did not embrace this Doctrine, but shew'd it to be horridly impure, abominable, and impossible. But what sort of Christians those were whom he speaks of; that they were only such as were condemn'd as Hereticks, there is no one can doubt. We know that many of the Hereticks denied it, and wrote professedly against it; and it's usual with Celsus, to mention those as Christians without any note of distin­ction, who were even the vilest of Hereticks, and own'd by none of the Orthodox. He says, for example, in one place, that L. 2. p. 70. the Christians affirm that Christ did not really suffer, but only in appearance: Which was only the O­pinion of some of the Hereticks. In a­nother place L. 6. p. 294. he lays to the charge of the Christians a certain Opinion, which was only receiv'd by the Ophiani, a sort of Hereticks that were so far from be­ing [Page 149] Christians, that they hated Christ as much as Celsus himself, and never admit­ted any one into their Society but such as first curs'd him. Such as these per­haps, 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 De morte Peregrini, p. 277. [...]., 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 Octavio, p. 326. he) is so foolish and brutish as to deny, that God who first made Man, can form him again as he was before? 'Tis harder to make that which before had no Being, than to restore that which once had a Being. All Bodies when dissolv'd, whe­ther [Page 150] 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 P. 97. Renasci se terunt post mor­tem & cineres & favillas: Et nescio quâ fiduciâ mendaciis suis invi­cem credunt, putes eos jam revixisse. 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 [Page 151] 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 C. Cels. l. 5. c. 242. 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 mo [...] 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 [Page 152] we (says he, P. 243. [...]. 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 [Page 153] 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 [Page 154] 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 Words produced by St. Jerom: Ad Pam­machium adv. Joan. Hierosol. We confess the Resurrection of Bodies, and of those too which were laid in the Graves, [Page 155] or burnt to Ashes, that the Body of Paul shall rise, and be united to the Soul of Paul, and that the Body of Peter shall rise, and be his Body again, and so for all others. For it is not equitable that the Soul, which sinn'd in one Body, should be punish'd in another: Neither does it become a just Judge to re­ward a Body, when it was not that, but another which suffer'd for Christ. In his Second Book Concerning the Resurrection, he had these Words: Ap. Pam­phil. Apol. That the promise of the Resurrection of the Dead, is con­cerning this Body that [...]en, appears from many places of the Holy Scriptures, and particularly from the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is styl'd the First­born from the Dead. In the same Book he adds, that it is certain that our Saviour arose with that very Body which he receiv'd from Mary. Again in the same. If the Bodies of Man­kind be corrupted, they are able to ex­ist again, being kept and preserv'd by the Power of God to the time of their Resur­rection. Now that they are to be restor'd wheresoever they are, in whatsoever place they be, John thus declares in his Reve­lation: And the Sea gave up the Dead which were in it, and Death and Hell gave up the Dead which were in them. For by Sea there seems to be meant all Waters in [Page 156] general; by Hell the Air seems to be un­derstood; by Death the Earth. Innume­rable other places (says Pamphilus) He has to this purpose in his Work Concern­ing the Resurrection. To these I shall add another out of the 28th Book of his Comments on Esaiah, on those words, The Dead shall be rais'd up and they that are in the Graves, shall rise. It is better Apud Pamphi­lum. (says he) to say, that we shall all rise, that the Wicked may go into that place where is weeping and gnashing of Teeth, and the Just may receive, every one in his Order, according to the Merits of their good Deeds, when their mortal Bodies shall be fashion'd like to his Glorious Body.—By the Graves of the Dead here in this Place, and in many others, are to be un­derstood, not only those which are made on purpose for the reception of the dead Bodies, either cut out in Rocks, or dug in the Earth, but all Places whatsoever, in which either the whole Body of a Man, or any part of it lies. And though it may happen that the several Parts of one and the same Body, may lie dispers'd in many Places, yet it is not absurd to call all those places in which any part of the Body lies, the Graves of that Body. For if we do not so understand it, they that are not bury'd in a Grave, but are drown'd in the [Page 157] Sea, or lie expos'd in some desart Place, could not be reckon'd amongst those of whom it is said, That they shall be rais'd up out of their Graves. Which would be very absurd.

As he asserts in these Places the Re­surrection of the Same numerical Sub­stance, so in many other Places of his Works he plainly asserts, that the Body, when it rises, will be truly flesh, and retain its old Form and Shape. His Apo­logist in Cod. 117. p. 295. Photius, reckons this as one of those Tenets, which were falsly charg'd upon him, That he denied the Resurrection of the flesh. So also his Apologist Pamphilus, who produces the following places to prove that he assert­ed it, in his Comment on the First Psalm: The same place is pro­duced by St. Metho­dius. ap. Epiphan. Haer. 64. c. 14. As we retain (says he) the same species (of Body) from our Infancy to our old Age, though the Characters may seem to be much alter'd; so we ought to understand, that the very same Species which now we have, will remain in the Life to come, but chang'd very much for the better. For 'tis necessary that the Soul, which in­habits in Corporeal Places, should have such Bodies as are suited to those Places in which it lives. And as if we were to live in the Sea, our Bodies would be doubt­less so order'd and constituted as is proper for such an Habitation, as the [Page 158] Bodies of those Creatures are, which do there inhabit; so now, since we are design'd for the Celestial Habitations, it follows that the qualities of our Bodies should be suited to the Glory of those Places. Notwithstand­ing this the former Species will not be de­stroy'd, though it be made more Glorious. For as the Species of the Lord Jesus, or of Moses, or of Elias, was the same in their Transfiguration with what it was be­fore, so the Species of the Saints will re­main the same though made more Glori­ous. In his Comment on the XVth Psalm, on those Words My Flesh shall rest in Hope: The Lord Jesus Christ, says he, speaks this, whose Flesh first rested in Hope. For being crucified and become the First-born of the Dead, and ascending up after his Resurrection into Heaven he car­ried up with him his [...]arthly Body, so that the Heavenly Powers were amaz'd and astonish'd seeing flesh ascend up into Heaven. For of Elias it is written, that he was taken up as it were into Hea­ven; and of Enoch, that he was transla­ted, yet it is not said that he ascended up into Heaven. Let who ever will be offend­ed with what I say: I confidently affirm, that as Christ was the First Born from the Dead, so he First carried up flesh into Heaven. Hence they say, Who is this that [Page 159] cometh from Edom, i. e. from among those that are born on the Earth,) with Garments died Red from Bozrah? For they saw the Marks of the Wounds which were made in his Body: From Bozrah i. e. in the Flesh which he took upon him.—Alittle after. Because my Flesh shall rest in Hope. In what Hope? not barely that it shall rise from the Dead, but that it will also be taken up into Heaven. Here Pamphilus deservedly cries out; What can be said by any one more evi­dently and clearly concerning the Resur­rection of the flesh? which he says will not only rise from the Dead, but will al­so be taken up into Heaven (if it were the Body of a good Man) following him who being the First Begotten from the Dead, first carried up the Nature of flesh into Heaven. There were some that fansied that our Saviour ascended up in his Body no farther than to the Sun, and that there he left his Body. Which ridicu­lous Fancy they grounded on those Words of the Psalmist (according to the Greek) In the Sun He placed his Taber­nacle. This Opinion was ascribed by some to Origen, but Pamp [...]ilus shews that he was so far from maintaining that Opi­nion, that he expresly opp [...]s it, and confutes it. Pa [...]lus concludes his [Page 160] defence of Origen concerning the Re­surrection, with these Words: Let them now cease to be Impudent, who say that Origen confesses indeed the Resurrection of the Body, but denies the Resurrection of the Flesh. Let them now leave off re­proaching him when they see that he places the Flesh of God the Word in Heaven to­gether with God the Word. I shall not here take Notice of the Dialogue against the Marcionites, which is extant under Origen's Name, in which the Catholick Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Same Humane Body, is zealously asserted and maintain'd against those Hereticks. I do not take it to be Origen's. Yet tis certain that it is very ancient. There are some that reckon Origen a­mong the Asserters of the Millennarian Doctrine, which Doctrine supposes a Resurrection of a true Humane Body: But I think it is a Mistake.

Quis haec audiens, resurrectionem car­nis eum negare putet? So St. Jerom, af­ter those Words of Origen, which I but now transcrib'd from him. Who would be­lieve, that Origen, who in so many Places of his Works acknowledges the Resurre­ction of the Same Humane Body, should in others advance quite contrary Noti­ons and Opinions? Whatever Pamphilus [Page 161] alledges in his behalf, it is too too True that he did so. You desire me to give you a particular account of his Opinions relating to the Resurrection: Huetius, I remember, in his Origeniana treats large­ly of 'em: But I have not that Work at present by me. You must therefore be contented with what I have to pre­sent you of my own. In short they are These.

1. That in some places of his Works he advances this Opinion, That the Bo­dy in the Resurrection is made up of new Particles, by growing, as Corn does, out of a Seed, I have already shewn.

In the First Canon of the Council of Trulla, it is said that He, and his Fol­lowers, Evagrius and Didymus, spoke wickedly and contumeliously of the Resur­rection of the Dead. Aristinus tells us more particularly, that they foolishly said, that these very Bodies that we now have are not to rise. They denied, says the Anonymous Author De Synodis, the Re­surrection of that Body which now we have. They taught, says another Ap. Lambecii. Notas in Codinum, p. 182. Anonymous Writer De Synodis, That our Bodies are not to rise.

Epiphanius Anco­rat. c. 89. tells us that the Fol­lowers of Origen acknowledg'd the Resur­rection of the Dead, and of our flesh, [Page 162] and of the Body of our Lord, the same that was conceiv'd of the Virgin Mary; yet they did not own that the same flesh shall rise, but that another will be substituted by God in its Place. And the same Ibid. c. 83. he says was the Opinion of the Here­ticks call'd Hieracites, that there will be a Resurrection of the flesh, but not of this which now we have, but another which will be substituted in its Place.

2. St. Jerom De er­roribus O­rigenis. says, that the Followers of Origen, when urg'd by the Catholicks, would acknowledge the Re­surrection, not only of the Body, but also of the flesh, and if they were press'd very hard and were ask'd whether they own'd the Resurrection of this same Flesh which we now have, which is seen, and touch'd, and walks and speaks, they would assent even to that too: But if they were ask'd whether they own'd that the Body in the Resurrection will have Hands and Feet, a Belly, Breast, Teeth, and the other Parts which make up a Humane Body; that they denied.

3. The same Ad Pam­mach. adv. Joan. Hi­erosol. Author tells us that Origen in many places of his Works, especially in his IV. Book Concerning the Resurrection, and in his Exposition of the First Psalm, and in his Stromata, deni­ed that the Body will rise with Bones, [Page 163] Blood, and flesh, and such Parts and Members as now we have, or with dif­ference of Sexes; and affirm'd that it will be Aereal, Ethereal, intangible, and invisible, and that whereas we now see with our Eyes, hear with our Ears, work with our Hands, and walk with our Feet; we shall then be all Sight, all Hear­ing, &c. That the Body will be Subtle and Ethereal, he asserts in his Comment on St. Matthew: And in his Second Book against p. 28. Celsus, we are told that the Body of Christ after his Resurrection, was so constituted as to be of a middle Temper between the fineness of the Soul, and the grossness it had before his Death. St. Maximus likewise observes that in some of his Books ( [...], so I read it, as a Manuscript has it, not [...], in one of his Books) he made the rising Body to be Ethereal.

4. The Account which St. Methodius gives of his Opinion, is this: He tells us in one Ap. Epi­phan. Her. 64. c. 14. place, that Origen taught, That in the Resurrection we shall have the same species of Body, the same Form or Appearance, yet it will not consist of the same Matter; as our Bodies in old Age retain the same Species, yet have not any the same Particles which we had in our Youth. In another Ibid. c. 38. place he says, that [Page 164] Origen in his Comment on the LXV. Psalm, compared our Bodies to a Blad­der full of Water; if you let the Wa­ter run, and keep pouring in new, the Bladder retains the same form, though the Water be all chang'd; so (says he) it is with the Body in the Resurrection, it is not numerically the same Body, yet the Form and Figure is the same, tho' made more Glorious.

5. The same Author Ibid. c 15. & Ap. Phot. p. 923. adds, that ac­cording to Origen, tho' the Body in the Re­surrection retains the same intire Species (or form) yet it throws off its earthly Qua­lities; and tho' it has the Shape and Fi­gure of a Body of Flesh, yet it is not flesh. And this (says he) he proves from that Assertion of St. Paul, that Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the King­dom of Heaven (which is spoken only of the Infirmities and Corruptions of Flesh and Blood) and from other Texts of that kind.

6. The same Author tells us, in P. 923. Pho­tius, that Origen made the Body in the Resurrection, to consist of Air and Fire.

7. From the Ap. Photium, p. 907. same and Anastasius Sinaita in Hexaem. 1. II. p. 339. Theophilus Alex. Epist. Pasch. 3. p. 532. other Authors, it appears, that he asserted with [Page 165] the Platonists, that the Body is no part of the Man, but the Soul alone is the whole Man; and that the Body is the P [...]ison St. Me­thodius & Theophilus Alex. locis cit. Epiphanius Epist, ad Joan, Hierof. Vol. 2. p. 31 [...]. of the Soul, into which it is sent by way of punishment for some Sin it had com­mitted in a state of Pre-existence.

8. Agreeable to this is that Fansie of his concerning the Creation of our first Parents, Adam and Eve, That they were created nudae mentes, and had not any Methodi­us ap. Pho­tium, p. 910. & ap. Epi­phan. Haer. 64. c. 17. ad 25. &c. 42. Epiphanius ibid. c. 63, 65, 66, & in Ancorato, c. 62. Anastasius Sinaita in Hexaem. I. 11. p. 338. Anonymus de Synodis. Alii. Bodies 'till after their Fall; that then God cloath'd 'em with Bodies by way of Punishment. And this he says is meant by that place in Genesis, where 'tis said, that unto Adam and to his Wife did the Lord God make Coats of Skins, and cloath'd them. By Coats of Skins he understands Bodies.

9. In his Books L. 5. p. 244. against Celsus, he tells us that the reason why the Body is to rise, and be united to the Soul, is because the Soul cannot move without a Material Vehicle.

10. In other places he tells us that the Soul is Me­thodius ap. Phot. See Cudworth's Intellect. System, p. 818, &c. never without a Mate­rial [Page 166] Vehicle, and that it is not capable of being rewarded or punish'd but in a Body, and that before the Resurrecti­on it is rewarded or punish'd 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 Epist. 1. 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 De Sectis. Constan­tinus Harmenopulus. And In Hexaem. p. 339. Anastasi­ [...]s Sinaita intimates the same. We are told by De Sectis. 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 Epist. Pas [...]h. 2. 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 [Page 167] his Epistle to Avitus. So St. Maximus In. Ec­cles. Hie­rarch. c. 7. 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 [Page 168] 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. 'Tis 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 Bre [...]i­ario c. 23. Origenes damnatus, est mor­tuus, quivi­vens olim fuit an [...]e damnatus. 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 Et qu [...]niam inter cateras criminationes quas eiinferunt, est et [...]m, quam maxim [...]m ponunt, quod resurrectionem, scilicet mor [...]uorum, deneget. was [Page 169] his Opinion concerning the Resurrection. The same Author tells us that Eos, qui e [...]iam scripta de hoc edere adversus eum non peperce­runt. 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 Her. 64. Epiphanius and Cod. 234. 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 Cited by S. Max­imus in coelest. Hi­erarch. By the same Au­thor in Eccl Hie­rarch. c. 7. p. 421. he is cited by the Name of Olympius Hadr. Ammon Hadrianopolites, whose Age I know not. To these I might add Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, who writes against him in his Paschal Epistles; Vide Her. 64. & Epist. ad Joan. Hierosol. Epiphanius, Vide librum ejus ad Pammachium adv. errores Joannis Hieros. & librum de erroribus Origenis. St. Jerom, the Em­peror Vide Tracta [...]um ejus Contra Origenem ad Mennam Patr. ap. Concil. to. 5. p. 675. & Epistolam ad Concilium v. Gen. ibid. p. 679. Justinian, and others.

[Page 170] In the Year 399, He, and his Opini­ons, were condemn'd and anathematiz'd by Vide Theophili Alex. Epi­stolas ad Hierony­mum & Epiphan nium. 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 Cyril­lus Scy­thop. Vita Sabae p. 364. 5. Synod of Antioch under the Patriarch E­phraemius; a little after, by a Ibid. 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.

[Page 171] 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 L. 7. c. 42. 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 Ex­pos. in Symb. 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 'twas read, as Cum omnes Ec­cleliae ita sacramen­tum Sym­boli tra­dan [...], ut postquam dixerant Peccato­rum remissionem, addant, Carnis Resurrectionem. Apol. adv. H [...]eron. See Pearson on the Creed p. 371. Russi­nus affirms, in all Churches. That the Latin Churches read Carnis Resurrectio, appears not only from Rufsinus, but likewise from He intimates that it was so in the Creed of the whole Catho­lick Church: In Symbolo fidei & spei nostrae, quod ab Apostolis traditum, non scribitur in chartâ & atramento, sed in tabulis cordis carnalibus, post confessionem Trinitatis, & unitatem. Ecclesiae omne Christianae dogmatis sacramentum, carnis resurrectione includitur. Adv. Joan. Hierosol. St. Jerom, St. Austin, Chrysologus, and Maximus Taurinensis, [Page 172] 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 Cate­ches [...] 18. St. Cyril Bishop of that Church. It is so in the Greek Creed, which is ex­tant at the end of K. Ethelstan's Psal­ter in Sir John Cotton's Library; and in that of the Bodleian Library which is writ­ten in Saxon Characters, at the end of the Acts of the Apostles; a Manuscript of above a Thousand Years old. In the Church of Aquileia they had one Word peculiar to themselves. For instead of the Resurrection of the Flesh, they read, to make it more express, (because some of the Origenists would talk of a new Flesh) Ruf­finus. See Pearson p. 371. 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 [Page 173] 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 Socr. 1. 26. Sozom. 11. 27. Confession it is [...]. So also in the Confession Socr. 11, 10. of the Synod of An­tioch, and in that of Epi­phan. Har. 52. c. 3. Marcellus Bi­shop of Ancyra. And in that of the Eighty Ap. S. Hilarii Fragmen­ta, p. 440. 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 Ancorato, c. 121. 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: Ap. Op. B. Hie­ron. to. 4. p. 66. In hujus morte & sanguine credimus emundatos nos & ab eo resuscitandos die novissi­mo in hac carne quâ nunc vivimus. We believe that we shall be rais'd up in the same Flesh in which we now live. I need not mention Ibid. p. 67. Resurrectionem etiam carnis consitemur, & credi­mus, ut dicamus nos in eâdem in quâ nunc sumus veritate membro­rum esse reparandos, qualesque semel post resurrectionem fuerimus effecti, in perpetuum permansuros. that of St. Jerom. What his Belief was, appears sufficiently from the seve­ral [Page 174] 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 Adv. Joan. Hie­rosol. Ego liberè di­cam, & quanquam torqueatis labia, [...]hatis capillum, applaudatis pe­de, Judaeorum lapides inquiratis, [...]idem Ecclesi [...] apertissimè consite­bor. Resurrectionis veritas catholicae, sine carne & ossibus, sine san­guine & membris intelligi non potest. 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. Nos autem, s [...] ­cut traditum est nobis à sanctis patribus, retinemus quod fillus Dei in eâ ipsâ carne in quâ passus est, resurrexit à mortuis, propter quod & resurrectionis spem humano generi tribuit. Carnis verò resurrectio­nem non per aliquas praestigias, sicut nonnulli calumniantur, dicimus: Sed hanc ipsam carnem in quâ nunc vivimus resurrecturam credimus, non aliam pro aliâ, [...]ec corpus aliud quàm hujus carnis dicimus. Si­ve ergo corpus resurrecturum dieimus, secundum Apostolum dicimus, hoc enim nomine usus est ille: Sive carnem dicimus secundùm tradi­tionem Symboli confitemur. Stulta enim adinventio calum [...]iae est, corpus humanum aliud putare esse quàm carnem. Sive ergo caro se­cundum communem sidem, sive corpus secundum Apostolum dicitur quod resurget, ita credendum est sicut Apostolus definivit, quia quod resurget in virtute, resurget & in gloriâ, & incorruptibile refurget, & spiritale corpus, quia corruptio incorruptionem non possidebit. Sal­vis ergo his prerogativis futuri corporis ve [...] caruis, resurrectio car­nis credenda est integre atque perfectè, ut & natura carnis [...] ser­vetur, & incorrupti ac spiritalis corporis status & gloria non in [...]ringa­tur. Sic enim scriptum est. Haec in Hierosolymis in Ecclesiâ Dei à sancto Sacerdote ejus Joanne praedicantur, haec nos cum ipso & dici­mus & tenemus. Si quis praeter haec vel credit, vel docet, vel a nobis aliter credi quam exposuimus putat, anathema sit. We be­lieve, [Page 175] 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. 'Tis 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 [Page 176] 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 Resurrectionem ve­rò fu [...]uram humanae cre­dimus carnis. The same Council: Si quis dixerit vel credide­rit corpora humana non resurgere post mortem, anathem [...] [...]it. 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. Resuscitandi ab [...]o in quâ nunc vivimus car­ne; & in eâ quâ resur­rexit idem Dominus for­m [...]. 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. Hoc ergo exem­plo capitis nostri confite­mur veram fieri resur. carnis omnium mortuo­rum. Nec in aerea, vel, quâlibet aliâ carne surre­cturos nos credimus (ut quidam delirant) sed in istâ quâ vivimus, consi­stimus, & movemur. 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 [Page 177] have delirously fansied) but in that in which we live, have our being, and move. Boetius in his Confession of Faith: Et hoc est principale religionis nostrae, ut credamus, non solum animas non peri­re, sed ipsa quoque corpora, quae mortis adventus resolverat, in sta­tum pristinum futurâ beatitudine reparari. 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: L. 6. De Trin. ter op. S. Athanasii. Si quis confitetur quod Deus animam hominis tantum fecerit, & Satanas ei corpus plas­maverit, quod ab [...]it, anathema illi. Si quis confitetur animas homi­num in revolutionem [...]rsus in mundo, aut in hominibus, aut in pe­cudibus, aut in serpentibus reverti, anathema illi. Si quis consitetur hominem in animâ tantum in diem judicii, resurg [...]re, & non cum corpo­ [...]e, quemadmodum Deus illum fecit, anathema illi. 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 [Page 178] 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 U [...] car­nis resur­rection ne­getur de un [...] om­nium Phi­losophor [...]m Scholâ sumitur. Tertullian) among all the Philoso­phers, but what denied it. They did [...], with all imagina­ble opposition, contend against it, says the [Page 179] Author of the Questions and Answers ad Graecos. Thus St. In nullà re tam vehementer, tam perti­naciter, tam obnixe, & con [...]entiosè contradici­tur fidei Christianae, sicut de carnis Resurrectione. Nam & de animi im­mortalitate multi etiam Philosophi Gentium mul­ta disputaverunt, & im­mortalem esse animum humanum, pluribus & multiplicibus libris con­scriptum reliquerunt. Quum ventum fuerit ad resur. carnis, non titu­bant, sed apertissimè con­tradicunt & contradictio eorum talis est, ut di­cant fieri non posse, ut c [...]ro ista terrena possit in coelum ascendere. Ex­pos. Psal. 88. 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 'tis im­possible that this earthly Flesh should ascend up into Heaven. Hist. Nat. l. 2. c. 7. Im­perfectae vero in homine naturae praecipua solatia, ne D [...]um quidem posse om [...]ia. Namque nec sibi potest mortem con­sciscere, si velit, quod homini dedit optimum in tantis vi [...] poenis: Nēc mortales aeternitate donare, aut revocare defunct [...]s; n [...]c facere, [...]t qui vixit, non vixerit, &c. Pliny affirms that 'tis beyond the Power even of God himself to raise up a Body to life when once it is dead. And 'tis Vide supra ubi de Democriti dogmate. Madness to him to believe there will be any such thing. To Celsus this Doctrine seem'd abomina­ble, [Page 180] or [...] ap. Orig. 1. 5. p 240. worthy to be spit at, as extrem­ly impure. Cont. Jul. 1. 7. ad finem. St. Cyril of Alexandria tells us, that the Emperor Julian [...]. de­rided this above all the Tenets of the Christians. They [...], 1. 5. c. 7. mock'd at it, says the author of the Apostolical Constituti­ons. And Origen C. Cels. [...]. says it was a com­mon subject of Laughter. Cecilius in Mi­nucius Felix calls it Fabu­ [...]as aniles an old Wife's Tale. And Tatian assures us, that the Heathens were wont to look upon the Christians as [...], p. 146. 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 [Page 181] 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.

[Page 182] 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., Iren [...]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 [Page 183] Beings (or Angels) are not at all dam­nified by it, [...], &c. p. 204. Ed. Oxon. 1682. 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 [...] p. [...]. 8. Ed. Oxon. 1683. 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? [Page 184] 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 [...] Marii. 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 [Page 185] rich and plentiful Crop. Others tell us of a certain Roman who fed his Fishes with the Bodies of his Slaves, whom he threw into his Ponds, that he might feed at second Hand on Man's Flesh. Now since the substance of one Man's Body, becomes the substance of another Man's Body, how (you will say) can the Bodies of both be rais'd again?

This Objection is a very considera­ble one, and has been all along urg'd a­gainst the Doctrine of the Resurrection, not only by our later Scepticks but anciently (as I but now observ'd) by the Heathen Philosophers. I shall not deny, as Athe­nagoras seems to do, that the substance of one Man's Body, when eaten by a­nother, turns to nourishment and be­comes the Flesh of that other that eats it. It sufficiently appears that they that eat Humane Flesh to satisfie their Hun­ger, are reliev'd and cherish'd, and, of consequence, nourish'd by it. But my Answer is this:

That God Almighty who has engag'd his Promise that the Bodies of all Men shall rise again, will take care so to or­der all things relating to our Nourish­ment, as that that may not hinder his Promise from being fullfill'd. He will take care that the Particles of One Man's [Page 186] Body shall never so become the Parti­cles of another Man's Body, as that the Resurrection of either should be there­by render'd impossible. 'Tis an Obser­vation of the most accurate Sanctorius, grounded on infallible Statick Experi­ments, that not above the Fiftieth Part of what a Man takes into his Body turns to Nourishment. From hence I make this following Inference:

Should an Ox, for Example, feed on­ly on such Grass as grew in that Field which was impregnated by the Dead Bodies of the Cimbrians (but now menti­on'd) as the Grass would not consist wholly of those Particles which belong'd to the dead Bodies, but would chiefly consist of other more common Particles, those of Rain and the like, so not a­bove the 50th Part (perhaps a much less proportion) of the Grass which is eaten, would become the Flesh of the Ox, and not above the 50th Part of that Flesh of the Ox which is eaten by a Man, would be turn'd into the Substance of the Man. Should a Man feed on Corn that grew in such a Field, as the Corn would consist not wholly of the Humane Particles, but chiefly of others; so not above the 50th Part of the Corn so eaten would become the Flesh of him that ate it. The [Page 187] same may be said of him who [...]ed his Fish­es with the Bodies of his Slaves: As the Fish must be suppos'd to receive their Nourishment from those Bodies, not wholly, but only in part, so not above the 50th part of the Substance of the Fish (you may say much less, consider­ing the unfitness of Fish for Nourish­ment) would become the Flesh of the Eater. It is plain, that even according to the common course and nature of Nutrition, were there no particular Pro­vidence concern'd in the matter, there would be in such Cases but very few Particles in any Man's Body which be­long'd before to another. Should one Man devour another wholly (in this the great Strength of the Objection lies) it appears from Sanctorius's Observation that not above the 50th part of the Flesh of the Person devour'd would be­come the Flesh of him that ate it. And besides the other 49 parts of the Flesh, there would remain all the Bones untouch­ed, which make up a great (the most sub­stantial) part of the Body.

It is further to be consider'd, that though the same Body that died is to rise again, yet it is not necessary that all the Particles of it should be rais'd up. 'Tis enough that such Particles are rais'd [Page 188] as made up the integrant and necessary Parts of the Body. By necessary Parts, I mean those which remain after the ut­most degree of Maceration, without which the Body would not be Integral, but Im­perfect. And these are chiefly the Bones, the Skin, the Nerves, the Tendons, the Ligaments, and the Substance of the se­veral Vessels. As long as these, and all that are necessary to Life, remain, the Bo­dy is truly Whole, though never so much macerated. All the Flesh that is added makes nothing at all to the Wholeness or Integrality of the Body, tho' it con­duce to Strength and Ornament. And this is that Flesh which would chiefly turn to Nourishment if the Body were devour'd. The Substance of the Vessels, Tendons, &c. are not so apt for Nou­rishment. If the dying Body be extreme­ly macerated, I do not doubt but that in the Resurrection it will be restor'd by foreign and adventitious Matter to its due and just Proportion. So in Bo­dies that are full and fleshy, there's a great deal of substance that is not necessary, which if it become the Flesh of another Man, the Body may be rais'd up without it, and yet be still Physically Whole and truly the same. In Bodies that are Fat and Grass, there is doubtless a great [Page 189] deal superfluons, which will never be rais'd up, though it were never made the Ingredient of another Man's Body. To sum up all in a word: I say that God Almighty, who has promis'd that the Bo­dies of all Men shall be rais'd up again to Life, will so order all things relating to our Nourishment, as that those Parti­cles, of which the necessary Parts of one Man's Body were compounded, shall ne­ver become the Particles of the necessary Parts of another Man's Body: At least he will take care that they may not continue to be so at the time of his Death.

If Providence has decreed that not on­ly the necessary Particles, but that all the Particles of the dying Body shall be rais'd up again, it will take such care of our Nourishment, as that the Particles of one Man's Body shall never continue to be part of another Man's Body at the time of his Death. God will take care that no one shall die whilst his Body contains any Particles that belong to a­nother. But (as I said) it is not at all necessary that we should believe thus much.

Mr. Boyle in his Treatise concerning the Possibility of the Resurrection, in answer to this Objection, which we have now ex­amin'd, alledges, that it is not necessary [Page 190] that any of the same Flesh should be rais'd up: 'Tis enough, he says, if the Bones are rais'd up and cloth'd with new Flesh. And this he proves from the Prophet Eccechiel's Description of the Mystical Resurrection, where (says he) only the same Bones were rais'd up, and the Flesh, &c. was made up of new Matter. But how does it appear that in that Resurrection the Flesh is to be understood to be made up not of the former, but of new Particles?

He alledges moreover that the Body, which rises, may be said to be the same with that which was buried, though it contain in it but a very small part of the same Substance. He observes that St. Paul's comparing the Resurrection to the growing of Corn, seems to justifie the supposition of a Plastick Power in some part of the matter of a deceased Body, whereby, being Divinely excited, it may be enabled to take to it self fresh Mat­ter, and so subdue and fashion it, as thence sufficiently to repair or augment it-self. This is wholly the Hypothesis of Origen. He adds, that the Alcalisate Ashes of a certain Plant like our En­glish red Poppy, being sown in a Gar­den, has been known to produce cer­tain Plants larger and fairer than any of that Kind that had been seen in those [Page 191] Parts. Which seems, says he, to argue, that in the saline and earthy, i. e. the fixt Particles of a Vegetable, that has been dissipated and destroy'd by the Violence of the Fire, there may remain a Pla­stick Power enabling them to contrive dispos'd Matter, so as to re-produce such a Body as was formerly destroy'd. How­ever to this Plastick Power, residing in any Portion of the destroy'd Body it­self, he is not willing to have recourse. He rather believes, that God by his Om­nipoten [...]e will perform the thing, and work up some of the Particles of the deceas'd Body, together with the adja­cent Matter, into a Humane Body. And the Body which is so work'd up may be call'd (as he tells us) the same Body.

This is not to de [...]end the Doctrine of the Resurrection, but to give it up to it's Adversaries, and to advance another Do­ctrine instead of it. For it is not true that a Body so made up, may be call'd the same with that which died. How can a Grain of Corn, that is grown up, be said to be the same with that which was sown? I have own'd already that the Identity of our Bo­dies in this Life, does not consist in the Identity of Particles: I have granted that our Bodies in our old age are the same with those which we had when Infants, or in [Page 192] our Mothers Womb, tho they have not in 'em any one Particle the same. But I said withall, and the same I say here a­gain, that it does not therefore follow that the rising Body may be the same with that which was buried, tho it have not any, or but few, of the same Particles. The Identity of the Body here in this Life consists in a sit Construction and Organi­zation of successively fleeting Particles of matter. The Identity of the Rising Body, or it's sameness with that which died, can consist in nothing else but in the Restau­ration of the same Particles of Matter, which made up the necessary Parts of the dying Body, to their former Con­struction.

Another Objection concerning the Difficulty of the Resurrection, is this: We are told by some, that allowing Five or Six Foot deep in Church-yards and Burying-places, and One Foot deep in other parts of the Earth where the Particles of Humane Bodies may be sup­sos'd to have been drop'd and scatter'd by the Wind, there will hardly be fit Matter enough in the whole Surface of the Earth to make up so many Humane Bodies as there have been, and will be, in the World.

[Page 193] Should I shew that here in England alone, which is but a very small Part of the Globe of the Earth, if you go but One single Foot deep, there is as much Substance as would make up all the Bo­dies of Mankind that ever were, or ever will be, tho' the World should last in all 10000 Years; should I shew thus much, I suppose it would be grant­ed that the weakness of this Objection would be sufficiently expos'd. I shall not only undertake to prove that, but I shall undertake to demonstrate that in less than the 17th Part of the Kingdom (which is much less than the biggest of our Counties) there is more than enough to do it. I demonstrate it thus:

1. It appears by the best Calcula­tions, that there are in England about Forty Millions of Acres: In every Acre there are 43560 square Feet. There are therefore in the whole Kingdom a­bout 1742400000000 Square Feet.

2. Its suppos'd by the most Judicious, that in all the World there may be li­ving at one time, old and young, about Three Hundred Millions of People. It appears by the Weekly Bills, that there are born and die every Year about the Thirtieth Part of Mankind. Therefore Thirty Years must be allow'd for one [Page 194] Age. Now if we multiply Three Hun­dred Millions by as many Thirties as are contain'd in 10000 Years, the whole Number of Mankind in 10000 Years will amount to but little more than 99999000000, which is not the Seven­teenth Part of the Number of square Feet contain'd in England. By allowing three hundred millions one Age with another, I have allow'd much more than three hun­dred Millions to be at this time living in the World. For in the first Ages of the World, and after the Floud, there were but very few.

3. A solid Foot of common Earth con­tains in it Substance more than enough to make up a Humane Body, Men, Wo­men, and Children consider'd one with another. For it weighs about Five­score and Thirteen Pound; whereas the weight of an ordinary Man is no more than Ten Stone, or Sevenscore Pound. If therefore allowance be made for the Bodies of Women, who generally weigh much less than Men, and for those of Children under Sixteen Years of Age, who are half the Number of Mankind (Infants under Five Years of Age, who weigh but very little, are reckon'd one Quarter of Mankind) I say, if we make this allowance, it will plainly appear [Page 195] that the weight of a Humane Body, ta­king one with another, is not so great as the weight of a Solid Foot of com­mon Earth. It is manifest therefore, that in less than the Seventeenth Part of England, if you go but One Foot deep, there is as much Substance as would make up all the Humane Bodies that e­ver were, are, and will be, tho' the World should last in all 10000 Years.

We will give the Objector leave to suppose that the World will last in all 20000 Years, and that there are in the World, one Age with another, Six Hundred Millions of Humane Bodies, yet in less than one Quarter of the King­dom of England, there would be with­in a Foot of the Surface, more Earth than would weigh down all. I need not here put him in mind that the Sea has devour'd many Millions of Bodies.

It appears from what has been said, that the Resurrection of all the Bodies of Mankind is not impossible. And since it is not impossible, there is not any dif­ficulty in it. For all things that are pos­sible, are equally easie to an Omnipotent Agent. 'Tis an Assertion of Hist. Nat. 1. 7. c. 7. Pliny's (as has been already observ'd) That God himself is not able to raise up a dead Man to Life. But whatever he thought of his Gods, and whatever were his [Page 196] Notions concerning the Power of the Deity, there is no one now can doubt of God's Power and Sufficiency.

I need not endeavour to demonstrate that he is able to distinguish and to ga­ther together the confus'd and scatter'd Particles of our several Bodies, howso­ever blended, and workt in with other Matter, and to range and mould 'em as they were before. I need not en­deavour to demonstrate that he is able to provide that the Particles which com­pounded the necessary Parts of one Man's Body, shall never belong to the neces­sary Parts of another, or that they shall not be the Particles of another at the time of his Death. He that created all the Particles that are in the Universe, He that made all the Bodies, that ever were, out of 'em, He in whose Book are all our Members, and our Particles, written, how can he be ignorant to what uses each Particle has been put, and where they are all reposited? He who first created our Bodies, and form'd 'em of the Dust of the Earth, how can it be difficult for him to raise up the Dust of the Grave, and make it declare his Truth? He that first commanded Man to come as it were out of Nothing, what can hinder but that he should be obey'd when he shall be pleas'd to command [Page 197] the Children of Men to come again? If so mean a Thing as a Loadstone can distin­guish and gather together the little Par­ticles of Iron that lie confus'd and un­distinguish'd in the Dust; how much more shall the Almighty Magnetism of Him that made the Loadstone, be able to distinguish and raise up together the confused and lost Particles of our Bo­dies? If Mercury, when dead and dis­solv'd, can, even by the Power of Na­ture, be reduced and restor'd to its Life and Being, how much more shall the great God of Nature be able to re­duce and restore our dead and dissol­ved Bodies to their former State? I shall not any longer insist on these things. There is no one can doubt of the Resur­rection on the account of the difficulty of it, but such as with the Athenians worship an Unknown God.

The Third Objection is taken from the unworthiness of these our Bodies, and from their unfitness to be made the Habitation of the Soul in the next Life, which is to be in Heaven, and Everla­sting. The Consideration of the Im­pureness of these our Bodies made the Heathen Philosophers deride and abomi­nate the Doctrine of the Resurrection. To hope for the Resurrection of the [Page 198] Body, says Ap. Orig. [...]. 5. p 240. Celsus, becomes rather the Worms, than Men: And what Man's Soul, says he, would ever desire to be re-united to a Body that is already rotten? Thus a Naked Gospel. late Author, to disgrace this Do­ctrine, is pleas'd to call the Body a Load of Carrion, and to compare it to course nasty Rags.

I shall not say, in answer to Celsus, that the Soul will ever desire to return to the Body purely for the Body's sake, Neither are we to regard what the Soul might perhaps desire, but what God has order'd to be done. Were the Soul to wish without any regard to the Will and Good-pleasure of God, I am apt indeed to believe she would hardly de­sire to be re-conjoined to her Body. But neither would she wish to be in a­ny Body whatever: She would not be what she is, not a Soul, but a Seraphim. But is the Clay to say to the Potter, Why dost thou make me thus? The Ambition of the Soul must stoop to the Pleasure of God. Her Wishes and Desires must all con-center in the Will of her Al­mighty Maker and Preserver. As she must be contented with that middle degree of Glory in which God has pla­ced her, so likewise she must be con­tented with that Collegue and Compani­on [Page 199] which he shall think fit to assign her. When he shall be pleas'd to command her to return to her old Habitation, tho' it were as to a Prison, she must humbly and resignedly submit to his good Pleasure: Behold the Handmaid of the Lord, be it unto me according to thy Word.

But why should we imagine that the Soul, when she shall be remanded to her Body, will look upon herself as sent to a Prison? That House, which was once a Prison, may be turned to a Pa­lace, and such a one too as the Owner of it would be glad to live in forever. Were the wretched and disorderly House, in which my Soul now lives, to con­tinue always just such as it is, she would doubtless think herself happy in being sent for abroad, and, with reason, be glad to continue always from home. This Flesh, in which we now live, may at present be deservedly styl'd a Prison, or a Burden, or an Enemy, or whatso­ever else is not Declamation and Irre­verence. 'Tis our Church in her Of­fice of Burial that calls it the Burden of the Flesh: And 'tis the Author of Ec­clesiasticus, that tells us, that the corrup­tible Flesh presseth down the Soul. Such indeed is our Earthly House of this Ta­bernacle, [Page 200] so foul, so inconvenient and rui­nous, that I know not who would be very fond of it. Who is there that can say, It is good for us to be here? Rom. VII. 18. I know that in my Flesh, as at present it is, there dwelleth no good thing. We are now in a Body of Death, as the Apo­stle himself calls it, and well may we desire with the Apostle (and with much more reason than he) to be deliver'd from it. But is this Body to be always thus constitution'd? Is it always to re­main this Needy and Impure, this Passio­nate, Lustful, Restive Body? We have hitherto look'd but on one Side of it; let us now look upon it in the Re­verse. Immortal, Incorruptible, Power­full, Spiritual, Celestial, Glorious! These are the Attributes of the Body that shall be rais'd. And where is now the unworthiness of it? Where is the un­fitness to be made the Habitation of the Soul? Was there heretofore a Law in our Members warring against the Law of our Minds? Were there heretofore con­tinual Feuas between the Flesh and the Spirit? There is now a perpetual Peace: Their Quarrels and Bickerings are all at an end: They are now no longer Ene­mies, but loving and faithful Friends. It is not properly in the Nature of Flesh [Page 201] to oppose it self to the Soul, and to re­volt from its Duty and Subjection. It is naturally Quiet and Passive, and though in this Life the Wheels and Movements of the Noble Machine are sometimes disorder'd, yet in the next they will all move regularly and in obedience to the Intelligence that governs it. When God shall be pleas'd to raise it up out of the Grave, it will drop all its Passions and Restiveness, together with its Impurities, and carry up nothing with it but its Na­tural Gentleness, and a Will to be go­vern'd. Those Traces, which sensible Pleasures had imprinted on it, will be all perfectly Obliterated, and the new Impressions which it will receive will be truly worthy of Heaven and Eternity. Had our Bodies heretofore many Infir­mities? Were they sickly, or maim'd, or crooked, or old, or otherwise deform'd? These Infirmities and all Imperfections are now done away. The Body is new­cast, the Mold work'd better, and the Mettal refin'd: The whole Figure comes out with Vast Improvements; though the same as to all the Ideal Rudiments, yet a much more curious and delicate Piece of Workmanship. Whatever it was heretofore, it has now no real Deformity, no Wrincle, or Blemish, but [Page 202] all is turn'd to Comeliness and Beauty. At least we shall then have a truer No­tion of Beauty and Deformity, and that which now passes for Ugliness will then appear to be no such thing.

Hoec est vera resurrectionis Confessio, quoe sic gloriam carni tribuit, ut non aufe­rat veritatem. So † St. Jerom. And that Confession we must stand to. Now, how far these Bodies of ours are capa­ble of being exalted and glorified, so as still to continue truly Humane, I shall not presume to determine. I am not fond of walking in the Dark, especially when it is to little or no purpose: But be­cause you desire to know what my Sen­timents are concerning our future State, and are pleas'd to ask me that Question, How are the Dead rais'd up? And with what Body do they come? I must own my-self inclin'd to believe that our Bo­dies in the Resurrection will be, as to their Purity, Constitution, and Liveliness, the same with that of Adam when first it came from the Hands of its Maker with the Stamps and Characters of the Divine Goodness and Wisdom fresh up­on it. That was the true Exemplar and Original and Perfection of Humane Nature. All the Difference, I think, will be this, That Adam's Body after [Page 203] some little Time stood in need of Meat and Drink to supply its Evacuations, and was fitted to make him the Father of Mankind; Ours in the Resurrection will continue always the same, without Per­spiration, or any other Evacuation. The Springs will always have the same Bent, the Motions will all be equally Regu­lar, the same continual Round of the same pure vigorous Spirits, and the same Blood moving forever in a brisk but even Circulation. The Apostles Epithets' of Powerful, and Spiritual, and Celestial, and Glorious, and all that the Scripture says of our Transformation into the Di­vine likeness, I take to signifie no more, than this even, and pure, and dispassionate, and incorruptible State of the Body, with a perfect Refinement of all our Faculties. This perhaps is much less than what some others are willing to allow to a glorified Body: But I see no Reason why we should expect any higher Ex­altation. And if such be the State and Condition of it, I know no Reason why we should desire any higher. This Hea­venly Frame is enough to make us truly Happy and Blessed, no less than if our Bodies were Ethereal, and our Souls were carried in those fine Celestial Chariots which the Heathen Philosophers talk of. [Page 204] If Adam had not sinn'd, these very same Bodies had then been Immortal and wholly exempted from Death: Why then should we think it strange that the Immortal Bodies which God will bestow on us in the Resurrection, should be truly Hu­mane? The Immortality of these Bodies was then intended as a Blessing; and shall we not think it a Blessing worthy of the Donor, to have the same Body restored to a better State than that from which it was fallen? Yes! This is enough, and This is all I desire, and This I hope to obtain. Let this my Body, this ve­ry same Body, be made pure, my Pollu­tions wash'd away, my Passions subdu'd my Wants remov'd, my Understanding clear'd, my sense of true Pleasure enli­ven'd, let this be but done, and my Soul will desire no more. Her old Ac­quaintance, when blessed with these hap­py Transmutations will be truely wel­come to her. Neither She nor the Angels will ever be asham'd of his Com­pany. Let this be but done, and I shall not think the grossness of it to be any Diminution of my Happiness. I shall not envy the Glory of Incorporeal Be­ings, but shall heartily thank God, that I am what I am.

[Page 205] A Fourth Objection is concerning the unfitness of a Humane Body to be plac'd in Heaven on account of its Gravity. How can a Humane Body, that is natu­rally heavy, be sustain'd in a pure Ethereal Heaven? I answer,

1. If those Regions of Heaven, where the Saints are hereafter to have their Habitation, be all fluid and Ethereal, or even void Space, yet our Bodies may without the least difficulty, and without any Miracle, or particular Care of Om­nipotence be there supported and su­stain'd. There is no such thing as Gra­vity in Regions purely Ethereal which are above the Reach and Activity of par­ticular Orbs. There is no High and Low in such Places. Our Bodies will be there sustain'd, as the Globe of the Earth, and the several celestial Orbs, are now sustain'd in the Air and Ether. Which is not done by a Miracle: for they are Naturally su­stain'd there, and there is not any Low to which they may encline. There is nothing indeed (properly speaking) Hea­vy in its own Nature, as there is not any thing Light in its own Nature. And our Bodies even here in this World do not of their own Natures tend towards the Center of the Earth; but they are violently haled of push'd down. Had [Page 206] there been no external Causes of what we call Gravity contriv'd by the Crea­tor, there would have been no such Thing, no High and Low, in the Uni­verse. This no one can deny that con­siders the System of the World.

2. That the place in which we are to have our Abode in the next Life, is all pure Ether, or Immaterial, is perhaps not so true as generally suppos'd. Per­haps after all, our Heaven will be no­thing but a Heaven upon Earth, or some glorious solid Orb created on purpose for us in those immense Regions which we call Heaven. It seems more natural to suppose that since we have solid and material Bodies, we shall be placed, as we are in this Life, on some solid and material Orb. Neither is this a new Opi­nion, but embrac'd by many of the An­cients. That after the Resurrection we are to live for ever on a new Earth, was, as Maximus tells Tomo 2. p. 244. 6, 7. us, the Opinion of many in his time. And the same was asserted in the Third Century by St. Ap. Epiphan. Haer. 64. c. 32. [...], &c. Et verò pertur­bandam esse crea­turam, ve­lut in illâ con [...]agra­tione pe­rituram, ut iterùm creetur non ta­men ex­tinguen­dam esse, putandum est: Ut in instaurato mundo ip­simet in­staurati ac doloris ex­pertes ha­bitemus; quemadmodum in 103. Psalmo proditum est. Emittes spiritum tuum, & creabuntur, & renovabis faciem terrae. Quod nimirum ambien­tem a [...]rem temperatissimum deinceps facturus sit Deus. Cum enim post saeculi praesentis exitum adhuc terra perseveratura sit, habi­tatores in eâ quosdam inesse necesse est; qui nec morituri sunt am­plius, neque copulandi nuptiis aut procreandae foboli operam da­turi, sed Angelorum more fine ullâ mutatione immortalitatis statu optima sint quaeque facturi. Proindeque stultum est quanam vitae ra­tione usura sint corpora quaerere, si nec aer, neque terra, neque quicquam caeterorum sit amplius futurum. [Page 207] Methodius, Bishop of Tyre, in his Trea­tise Concerning the Resurrection. Epist. 2. c. 3. v. 15. St. Peter himself tells us that after this World is dissolv'd there will be new Heavens, and a new Earth wherein dwell­eth Righteousness. He adds, that this the Saints look for; with a plain Intimati­on, that there they are hereafter to In­habit. St. John also in his Revelations C. 21. v. 1. makes mention of a new Earth, where the Blessed are to have their happy abode after this World is destroy'd. These places the Chiliasts produce to confirm their Opinion; but they ought to be understood of the everlasting Habitati­on of the Blessed. Our Saviour tells his Disciples: S. Joh [...] XIV. 23. In my Fathers House are ma­ny Mansions: I go to prepare a place for you. And If I go to prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto my-self, that where I am, there ye may be also. In the Regions of Heaven, tho' before our Saviour's Ascension there were many Mansions of Angels or Immateri­al Beings, yet those (it seems) were not thought fit for the Habitation of Men. There was no Mansion proper for Men, none sufficiently suited to their Nature, till Christ ascended up thither in his Bo­dy. He then created one proper for the reception of his own Humane Nature, [Page 208] and for the Habitation of our Bodies. This I take to be that New Earth, or Habitable Orb, which is spoken of by St. Peter and St. John. There Christ at present remains; from thence (as he says) he will come to judge this World, and the Good he will carry up with him, to live there for ever in unspeak­able Happiness. I know that St. John seems to intimate that that new Earth, which he speaks of, is not in Heaven: For he says that the New Jerusalem came down on that Earth from Heaven. But we ought not to understand the De­scriptions contain'd in the Revelations too strictly. By the New Jerusalem co­ming down from Heaven on that new Earth, he seems to mean only this, that in that new Earth the Throne of God, or his most especial Presence, will be among Men. I leave these things to your Consideration, and proceed to

The Fifth and last Objection, which is concerning the uselessness of a Humane Body in the next Life, and the unneces­sariness of raising up the same that di­ed. Our Adversaries perhaps are wil­ling to grant that there is no impossibi­lity in the Resurrection, and that the Body being purified and exalted to the highest degree of Humane Perfection, [Page 209] may be worthy of the Heavenly Man­sions: But however, say they, it is not agreeable to the Divine Wisdom to raise up the same Humane Body. Why not? Why, he acts, says the Etherealist, in all things wisely, and for some end: But to what purpose should he raise up the same Body, when a new one will serve as well? and to what purpose should he again invest the Soul with a Humane Body, when the several Parts of it are useless?

In answer to this, its commonly al­ledged, that the same Humane Body must rise again, and be united to the Soul, that together with the Soul, it may be either rewarded or punish'd for the Good or Evil we did in this Life. It would be Injustice (they say) for God to punish or reward the Soul alone for what it did not alone, but together with the Body. This Argument is commonly made use of not only by the School-men, and other Modern Divines, but by al­most all the Ancients, De Re­sur. p. 261. &c. & in Legat. p. 39. Athenagoras, De Re­sur. c. 14, 15. & al [...] ­bi. Tertullian, Orat. in Caesarium. Greg. Nazianzen, Serm. 7. in Gene­sin. St. Chrysostom, the Author of the C. 7. § 2. Ec­clesiastical Hierarchy, Har. 64. c. 72. & in Anco­rato, c. 89. Epiphanius, De Re­sur. St. Ambrose, De pro­vid. Orat. 9. p. 432. 3. tomi 4ti. Theodoret, Theo­phrasto, p. 66. Ae­neas Gazaeus, De Or­thod. Fide, c. ult. Johannes Damascenus, Hemil. 1. in Pas­cha ap. Photii Bibl. Nilus, Epist. de Synodis, p. 12. Photius, and several o­thers [Page 210] of the ancient Greeks and Latins. They all agree, that God is obliged in Justice to reward or punish the Body to­gether with the Soul. The same is as­serted in one place (which I have pro­duced) by Origen himself. And this is the reason assigned for the Resurrecti­on by the Talmudists in the Tract P. 311, 312. Edit. Coc. Sanhedrin.

I desire as much as any Man to pay a just Deference and Regard to the Judgments of the ancient Fathers: But it must be confes'd, that tho' their Au­thority be great in Matters of Traditi­on, yet the Reasons and Arguments which they produce to confirm their Doctrines, are not always convincing. If we se­riously and impartially consider this As­sertion, we shall find it not to be true. My reasons, in short, are these. First, To speak properly, the Body is not ca­pable either of sinning, or doing well. It is only the Instrument of the Soul. And the Arm that stabs, sins no more than the Sword. 'Tis the Soul only that is the Murderer. Neither, Secondly, is the Body capable of any Reward or Punishment. 'Tis the Soul only that is sensible, and nothing but what is sensible can be capable of Rewards and Punish­ments. Thirdly, If it be Injustice in God [Page 211] to punish the Soul alone without the Body in conjunction with which she committed the Sin, then all the Matter which constituted the Body when the several Sins were committed, must be rais'd again, and be re-united to the Soul. For if some, why not all? But what Monsters of Men should we be in the Resurrection, if all the Substance of which our Bodies consisted from our Childhood to our Deaths, should be ga­ther'd together and form'd into a Body.

'Twas the Opinion of some of the ancient Hereticks, That the Souls of Men Die, and are dissolv'd together with the Body, and revive and rise again with it in the Resurrection. Which Opinion sup­poses the Soul to be material as well as the Body, which many of the ancient Christians, who were not look'd upon as Heretical, believ'd. Eusebius Hist. VI. 37. tells us of certain Christians of Arabia, in the Third Century, who advanc'd and taught this Opinion concerning the Soul's Dissolution and Resurrection, and that it was condemn'd by a Synod there call'd on purpose, in which Eusebius intimates that it was the famous Origen, and so it is commonly taken for granted. But the Author of the Synodicon, c. 18. Seems to intimate that he was one of the Arabian Bishops; [...]. Origen was pre­sent, [Page 212] by whom, he says, they that main­tain'd it were re-converted. Gilbertus Gaulminus L. [...]. c. 12., in his Notes on the Book De vitâ & morte Mosis, says, that the Arabick Historians ascribe this Opinion, that the Soul dies together with the Bo­dy, to Origen himself. But that Origen did not hold that Opinion appears very evidently from a Hundred places in his Works. Tatianus, who was Scholar to Justin M. and lived before these times, tho' he held that the Souls of the Good do not die together with the Body, yet he Orat. c. Grac. p. 152. asserts that those of the Wicked do, and that being dissolv'd, they are rais'd up again, together with the Bo­dy, in the Day of Judgment.

There were others who maintain'd, that the Soul, tho' it does not properly die together with the Body, yet after its sepa­ration from the Body it sleeps as it were, and remains altogether insensible: That it is not capable of any perception with­out the concurrence of an Organical Bo­dy. These are call'd Psychopannychites. St. Maximus Vide ejus Opera, to. 2. p. 243, &c. speaks of this as a pre­vailing Opinion in his time, which was about the middle of the Seventh Cen­tury. We are told by some (but I think He only held that the Soul does not at all enjoy tl. e Beatifick Vision before the Resurrection: which was indeed the general Opinion of the Primitive Fathers. [Page 213] untruly) that P. John XXII. maintain'd it. Stephanus Gobarus Ap. Pho­tii Bibl. p. 898. speaks of some who maintain'd, that the Soul never leaves the Body, but remains always in it, and is buried together with it, and is rai­sed up with it in the Resurrection. Whe­ther these maintain'd that it properly dies, and is dissolv'd, or that it only remains insensible, he does not say. Tertullian himself, tho' in De Ani­mâ, c. 58. Omnes er­go animae penes inse­ros? in­quis. Velis ac nolis, & suppliciajam illic, & refrigeria.—Cur enim non putes, animam & pu­niri & foveri in inferis interim sub expectatione utriusque judicii, in quadam usurpatione & candida ejus? Quia salvum debet esse, in­quis, in judicio divino negotium suum, sine ullâ praelibatione senten­tiae, tum quia & carnis operienda est restitutio, ut consortis opera­rum atque mercedum. Quid ergo fiet in tempore isto? dormiemus? At enim animae nec in viventibus dormiunt. Corporum enim est som­nus, quorum & ipsa mors cum speculo suo somno.—Semper autem expectat anima corpus, ut doleat, aut gaudeat? nonne & de suo sufficit sibi ad utrumque titulum passionis?—Novit & a­pud inferos anima & dolere & gaudere sine carne; quia & in carne illaesi, fi velit, dolet, & laesa, si velit, gaudet. Hoc si ex arbitrio suo in vitâ, quanto magis ex judicio Dei post mortem, &c. De Resur. Carnis, c. 17. Simplicior quisque fautor sententiae no­strae, putabit, carnem etiam idcirco repraesentandam esse judicio, quia aliter anima non capiat passionem tormenti seu refrigerii, utpo­te incorporalis: Hoc enim vulgus existimat. Nos autem animam cor­poralem & hic profitemur, & in suo volumine probamus, habentem proprium genus substantiae, soliditatis, per quam quid & sentite & pati poss [...]. Nam & nunc animas torqueri, foverique penes inferos, licet nudas, licet adhuc exules carnis, probavit Lazari exemplum, &c. other places he asserts the sensibility of separated Souls, and that of it-self it is capable of Rewards and Punishments, and is actually in some measure rewarded or tormented before the Resurrection; yet in his Apology a­gainst [Page 214] the Heathens, he expresly affirms that Certé quia ratio restitutio­nis desti­natio judi­cii est, n [...] ­cessario idem ipse qui fu [...]rat exhibe­bitur, ut boni seu contrarii meriti ju­dicium à Deo referat. Ideo (que) repraesentabuntur & corpora. Quia n [...] (que) pari quicquam potest a [...]ima sola sine materi [...] [...]tabili, id est, car­ne, c. 48. the Soul is not capable of suffering at all, but in union with the Flesh, and that that is one Reason why the Flesh is to rise. Again in his Book C. 4. Affirmamus te manere post vi [...]ae dispunctionens, & expectare diem judicii, pró (que) meritis au [...] cruciatui destinari, aut refrigerio, utro (que) sempiterno. Quibus sustinendis necessariò [...]ibi suostantiam pristinam, ejusdém (que) hominis materiam & memoriam revers [...]ram, quod & nihil mali ac boni sentire possis sine carnis passio­nalis facultate. de Testimonio Animae: To enjoy everlasting Happiness, or to sustain everlasting Torments, it is necessa­ry that thou shouldest be restored to thy former Substance, because thou art not capable of feeling either Pleasure or Pain without Flesh.

If this Opinion were true, That the Soul is not capable in its own nature, without an organiz'd Body, of any Per­ception, (I take no notice here of that o­ther Opinion concerning the death and dissolution of the Soul) we should not need to look any further for a reason why God has ordained that the Soul should be again united to a Humane Body; since it would not otherwise be capable after death of being either Rewarded or Punish­ed. And it must be confess'd that this Notion is very consistent with the Do­ctrine [Page 215] of the Resurrection, and the general Judgment, which is to follow the Resur­rection. But here lies the difficulty: I know not how to make it consistent with some other Places of the Scripture. The Scripture is plainly against it. When our Saviour tells the penitent Thief upon the Cross, This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise, He seems to intimate that he should be sensible of that happiness. That Wish of St. Paul in the 1 st of the Philip. That he might depart and be with Christ, seems yet more clear and convincing. The Apostle seems plainly to intimate, that being with Christ, he should be sensi­ble of it. That St. Paul believed that the Soul after its Separation from the Bo­dy remains sensible, and is capable of perceiving without any Organs of Sense, I inferr moreover from that Place where he speaks of his being rapt up into Heaven, which others (I think) do not usually take notice of. He says that he could not tell, whether he was rapt up into Heaven, and saw there those unspeak­able Sights in the Body or out of the Body. Now he could not have doubted of that, if he had not believed that the Soul is sen­sible when out of the Body. To this we may add that Place of St. John in the Revelati­ons, where he says c. 6. p. 10. that he saw in Hea­ven [Page 216] The Souls of them that were slain for the Word of God, and they cried with a loud Voice, saying, How long, O Lord, &c. There are other places in that Book which confirm the same thing.

Tertullian in his Book De Resurrectio­ne Carnis, where he owns that separated Souls do not Sleep, but are sensible, and are actually punish'd or rewarded before the Resurrection, says C. 17. they are punish'd or rewarded before the Resurrection for those good or bad things which they did without the concurrence of the Body, as for good or bad Thoughts, Desires, and Contrivances; and he seems to intimate that tho' the Soul is in its own nature ca­pable of Rewards and Punishments, yet it is not in its own nature Porro [...] haec (co­gitatus, concupi­scentia, voluntas) satis essent ad pleni­tudia [...]m merito­rum, ut non requirerentur & facta, sufficeret in totum anima ad perfectio­nem judi [...], de his judicanda, in quae agenda sola suffecerat. Quum verò etiam facta devin [...] [...]at meritis; facta autem per carnem ad­ministrentur; jam non sufficit animam sine carne soveri; five crucia­ri, pro operibus etiam car [...]is, etsi habet corpus, etsi habet membra; qu proinde illi [...]n sufficiunt ad sentiendum plene, quemadmodum nec ad ag [...]ndum perfecte. Denique, haec erit ratio in ultimum finem destina­ [...] judicii, ur exhibi [...]ione carnis omnis divina censura perfici possit. so capable as when it is united to the Body. It is ca­pable, he says, of greater Pleasure or Torment when united to the Body, than when in a State of Separation, and there­fore for those things which the actually did in concurrence with the Body, the [Page 217] must be punished or rewarded in the Bo­dy, that the Pleasure or Torment may be perfect. But this is very precarious; and if once it be granted that the Soul is in its own nature, without an organiz'd Body, capable of Rewards and Punish­ments, it cannot be denied but that it is of its self capable of being fully rewarded or punished.

We have not yet found out a Reason for this Decree of God Almighty con­cerning the Resurrection: If we would give a true account of it, it is necessary we should mount a little higher, and look a little farther. I shall pass by ma­ny Conjectures which we find in the Schools, and in some of our ancient Wri­ters, and among the Jewish Vide Menasseh Ben Israel de Resur. [...]. 2. c. 19, 20, 21, 22. Quare futura est sexus differentia in altera vitâ, rationem vide as­signatam ap. Quaest. a d Orthod. inter Opera S. Justini M. p. 4. B. 3. Masters, and shall lay before you my own Thoughts.

If it be not Presumption to take up­on one to search into God's Counsels, and the Reasons of his Decrees, I should think that one Reason why he has been pleas'd to decree that the Soul in the Day of Judgment shall be again uni­ted to a Humane Body, may be this; That as we are Men when we sin or do well, so we may be Men when by [Page 218] a judicial Sentence we are punish'd or rewarded for it. But we cannot be Men unless we have Humane Bodies. St. Paul Cor. c. 5. v. 10. tells us, that we must all appear be­fore the Judgment-Seat of Christ, that every Man may receive the Things done in the Body, according to that he hath done whether it be good or bad. And as we are to give an account for what we did in the Body, so in the Body we shall give an account. If it be reasona­ble that we should be Men when we are punish'd or rewarded for what we did when Men; it seems much more reasonable that we should be then the same Men: But we cannot be the same Men unless we have the same Bo­dies. 'Tis a great Mistake to imagine that the Identity or Sameness of a Man consists wholly in the sameness of the Soul. If Euphorbus, and Homer, and En­nius, had had one and the same Soul, yet they would not have been one and the same, but Three distinct Men. In what the Identity or sameness of the Bo­dy consists, that That of the Rising Bo­dy can consist in nothing else but in the Restauration of the same Numeri­cal Particles, which made up the dis­solved Body, to their former Constru­ction, I have already told you.

[Page 219] Another Reason why God has been pleas'd to ordain that the same Humane Body that died shall rise again and be reconjoin'd to the Soul, I take to be this: (and this indeed I take to be the First and the Chief Reason of that De­cree.) We had all been Immortal Men, if Adam had not sinn'd; 'twas God's design that we should never die, but that our Souls should remain for ever united to their Bodies. This gracious Design being frustrated by Adam's Trans­gression, he was graciously pleas'd to ordain, that as in Adam all die, so by the Merits of Christ, the second Adam, we should all at last triumph over Death, and be restored to those Bodies, and that Humane Nature which he first design'd should be Immortal. By the Death and Resurrection of Christ our Losses are to be repair'd which Adam's sinning occasion'd; but our Losses cannot be repair'd unless we are restor'd to those Bodies which by his sinning we lost.

Will neither of these Reasons satisfie the Etherealist? Well, then I will give him another. I will give him a most certain Reason why God will re­store us to our Humane Natures, and [Page 220] why he will raise up the very same Bo­dy. he will because he will. A very bad Reason to be given for the Acti­ons of Man, but a very good one for God's! He will because he hath pro­mis'd. I am the Lord, and I have said it (says he) and who can say, What doest thou? There is nothing, that God does, but He does for a very good Reason: But who are We, that we should call him to an Account for what he does? His ways and his Counsels are many of 'em unsearchable to us, and as 33. 13. Job tells us, he giveth not account of any of his Matters. 'Tis 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 [Page 221] 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, [Page 222] 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. [...]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 [Page 223] 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. 'Tis indeed so clearly deliver'd down to us and so uni­versally [Page 224] 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.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.