world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead, Acts xvii. 31. And elsewhere it is said, that he was ordained of God to be the fudge of quick and dead, chap. x. 42. Therefore we read, that he shall sit upon the throne of his glory, and before him shall be gathered all nations, Matt. xxv. 31, 32. and of his determining the final estate, both of the righteous and the wicked, as it is expressed in the following verses; and this is described more particularly as being immediately after the universal resurrection; as it is said, 'saw the dead, small and great, stand before God, and the 'books were opened,' Rev. xx. 12, 13. which, as will be observed under our next answer, respects his judging the world; and in order hereto it is farther said, that the sea gave up the 'dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the 'dead which were in them; and they were judged every man according to their works.' And since Christ is represented as a judge, it is necessary that he should execute his vindictive justice against his enemies, and punish them as their sins deserve; but this respects not only the soul but the body; and therefore Christ that he may secure the glory of his justice, shall raise the bodies of sinners, that he may punish them according to their works; and therefore he is said to be the object of fear, in that he is able to destroy both soul and body in hell, Matt. x. 28.

Thus we have endeavoured to prove the doctrine of the resurrection by arguments taken from the Old and New Testament, and those scripture-consequences from which it may be plainly deduced: so that how much soever it may be thought a strange and incredible doctrine, by those who have no other light to guide them but that of nature; it will be generally believed by all whose faith is founded upon divine revelation, and who adore the infinite power and impartial justice of God, the Governor of the world: and, indeed, it is not attended with such difficulties arising from the nature of the thing, as many pretend, since we have several emblems in nature which seem to illustrate it; which are very elegantly represented by some of the Fathers, and especially by Tertullian; whom the learn ed and excellent bishop Pearson refers to and imitates in his style and mode of expression; † his words are these; "As the

* Vid. Minut. Fel. in Octav. § 33. Vide adeo quam in solatium nostri resurrec tionem futuram omnis natura meditatur Sol demergit, & nascitur; astra labuntur, redeunt; flores occidunt, & reviviscunt; post senium arbusta frondescunt seming non nisi corrupta revirescunt; ita corpus in sepulchro ut arbores in hyberno occultant virorem ariditate mentita. Expectandum nobis etiam corporis ver est, &c.

t See his Exposition on the Creed, Artic. xi. and Tertull. de resur. Carn. cap. xii. Aspice nunc ad ipsa quoq; exempla divinæ potestatis: dies moritur in noctem, E tenebris usquequaq; scpelitur. Funestatur mundi honor, omnis substantia deni

"day dies into night, so doth the summer into winter: the sap " is said to descend into the root, and there it lies buried in "the ground. The earth is covered with snow, or crusted with "frost, and becomes a general sepulchre. When the spring ap"peareth all begin to rise; the plants and flowers peep out of "their graves, revive, and grow, and flourish; this is the an"nual resurrection. The corn by which we live, and for want "of which we perish with famine, is notwithstanding cast upon "the earth, and buried in the ground, with a design that it may "corrupt, and being corrupted, may revive and multiply; our "bodies are fed with this constant experiment, and we conti"nue this present life by succession of resurrections. Thus all things are repaired by corrupting, are preserved by perish"ing, and revive by dying; and can we think that man, the "lord of all those things, which thus die and revive for him, "should be detained in death, as never to live again? Is it "imaginable that God should thus restore all things to man, " and not restore man to himself? If there were no other con "sideration but of the principles of human nature, of the liber"ty, and remunerability of human actions, and of the natural 66 revolutions and resurrections of other creatures, it were gratur. Sordent, silent, stupent cuncta; ubiq; justitium est, quies rerum. Ita lux amissa lugetur; & tamen rursus cum suo cultu, cum dote, cum sole, eadem & integra & tota universo orbi reviviscit, interficiens mortem suam noctem, rescindens sepulturam suam tenebras, hæres sibimet existens, donec & nox reviviscat, cum suo & illa suggestu. Redaccenduntur enim & stellarum radii, quos matutina successio extinxerat. Reducuntur & siderum absentiæ, quas temporalis distinctio exemerat. Redornantur & specula lunæ quæ menstruus numerus adtriverat. Revolvuntur hyemes & æstates, & verna, & autumna, cum suis viribus, moribus, fructibus. Quippe etiam terræ de cœlo disciplina est, arbores vestire post spolia, flores denuo colorare, herbas rursus imponere, exhibere eadem quæ absumptu sunt semina; nec prius exhibere quam absumpta: mira ratio: de fraudatrice servatrix: ut reddat, intercipit: ut custodiat, perdit: ut integret, vitiat: ut etiam ampliet, prius decoquit. Siquidem uberiora & cultiora restituit quam exterminavit. Revera foenore interitu, & injuria usura, & lucro damno: semel dixerim universa conditio recidiva est. Quodcunq; conveneris, fuit : quodcunq; amiseris, nihil non iterum est. Omnia in statum redeunt, quum abscesserint. Omnia incipiunt, quum desierint. Ideo finiuntur, ut fiant. Nihil deperit, nisi in salutum. Totus igitur hic ordo revolubilis rerum, testatio est resurrectionis mortuorum. Operibus eam præscripsit Deus ante, quum literis : viribua predicavit ante, quam vocibus. Præmissit tibi naturam magistram, submissurus & prophetiam, quo facilius credas prophetiæ, discipulus natura: quo statim admittas, quum audieris, quod ubiq; jam videris: nec dubites Deum carnis etiam resuscitatorem, quem omnium noris restituorem. Et utiq; si omnia homini resurgunt, cui procurata sunt porro non homini, nisi & carni, quale est ut ipsa depereat ut totum, propter quam & cui nihil deperit? Et Vid. ejud. apologet cap. xlviii. in which he proves the resurrection of the body from the possibility of that being restored to a former being, with the same ease that it was made out of nothing; and shews how God has impressed upon this world many testimonies of the resurrection; and then he adds, Lux quotidie intersecta resplendet, & tenebræ, pari vice decedendo succedunt, sidera defuncta vivescunt, tempora, ubi finiuntur, incipiunt, fructus consummantur, et redeunt. Certe semina non nisi corrupta et dissoluta foecundius surgunt, omnia pereundo servantur, omnia de interitu reformantur. Tu homo tantum nomen, si intelligas te, vel de titulo Pythic discens, dominus omium mo lentumetresurgentium, ad hoc morierio ut pereas 2

"abundantly sufficient to render the resurrection of our bodies "highly probable." We shall now consider,

V. Some objections that are generally brought against the doctrine of the resurrection. Some things, indeed, are objected against it, that are so vain and trifling, that they do not deserve an answer: as when the followers of Aristotle assert that it is impossible for a thing which is totally destroyed, to be restored to that condition in which it was before*: And some have been so foolish as to think that those nations, who burnt their dead bodies, put an eternal bar in the way of their resurrection; since the particles being so changed and separated by fire as they are, can never return again to their former bodies; or they who have been swallowed up by the ocean, and the particles of which they consisted, dissolved by water; and every one of them separated from the other, can never be again restored to their former situation. Such-like objections as these, I say, do not deserve an answer; because they consider the resurrection as though it were to be brought about in such a way, as effects are produced by second causes, according to the common course of nature; without any regard to the almighty power of God, that can easily surmount all the difficulties which, they pretend, lie in the way of the resurrection.

And there are other objections, taken from a perverse sense, which they give of some texts of scripture, without considering the drift and design thereof, or what is added in some following words, which sufficiently overthrows the objection. Thus some produce that scripture in Eccles. iii. 19, 20, 21. where it is said, That which befalleth the sons of men, befalleth beasts. So that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast, all go unto one place, and all are of the dust, and all turn to the dust again; which we before mentioned as brought against the immortality of the soul; and it is also alleged against the resurrection of the body, by those who conclude that it shall be no more raised from the dead than the bodies of brute creatures. But this is rather a cavil or a sophism, than a just way of reasoning: inasmuch as the following words plainly intimate, that men and beasts are compared together only as to their mortality, not as to what respects their condition after death; and therefore it is no sufficient argument to overthrow the doctrine of the resurrection. These and such-like objections are so trifling, that we shall not insist on them: However, there are three or four that we shall lay down, and consider what answers may be given to them.

Obj. 1. It is objected against the doctrine of the resurrec tion, that though the power of God can do all things possible This is what they generally intend by that aphorism, a privatione ad habitum non datur regressus.

to be done; yet the raising the dead, at least, in some particular instances thereof, is impossible from the nature of the thing; and therefore we may say, without any reflection cast on the divine Omnipotency, that God cannot raise them, at least, not so as that every one shall have his own body restored to him; since there are some instances of Cannibals, or meneaters, who devour one another, by which means the flesh of one man is turned into the flesh of the other. And in those instances which are more common, the bodies of men being turned into dust, produce food, like other parts of the earth, for brute creatures; and accordingly some of those particles of which they consisted, are changed into the flesh of these creatures; and these again are eaten by men; so that the particles of one human body, after having undergone several changes, become a part of another; therefore there cannot be a distinct resurrection of every one of those bodies that have lived in all the ages of the world.

Answ. To this it may be replied, that it cannot be proved, that in those instances mentioned in the objection, that when one man preys upon another, or when brute creatures live upon that grass which was produced by the ground, which was made fertile by the bodies of men turned to corruption, and it may be, may have some of the particles thereof contained in them: It cannot, I say, be proved, that these particles of the bodies of men are turned into nourishment, and so become a part of human flesh; since providence did not design this to be for food. If so, then it is not true in fact, that the particles of one human body become a part of another. But, suppose it were otherwise (to give the objection as much weight as possible) we may farther observe, that it is but a very small part of what is eaten, that is turned into flesh; and therefore those particles of one human body, that by this means are supposed to pass into another, make up but a very inconsiderable part thereof. Therefore, if some few particles of one human body in the resurrection are restored again to that body to which they at first belonged, this will not overthrow the doctrine of the resurrection of the same body. If the body of man loses a few ounces of its weight, no one will suppose that it is not the same body. So when the bodies of men are raised from the dead, if the far greater part of the particles thereof are recollected and united together, they may truly be said to constitute the same body; this therefore does not overthrow the resurrection of the same body from the nature of the thing.

Object. 2. It is farther objected, especially against the possibility of the resurrection of the same body that was once alive in this world; that the bodies of men, while they live, are subject to such alterations, that it can hardly be said that we are

the same when we are men as when we are children. The expence of those particles which were insensibly lost by perspiration, and others being daily gained by nutrition, make such an alteration in the contexture of the body, that, as some suppose, in the space of about seven years, almost all the particles of the body are changed, some lost and others regained. Now if it be supposed that the same body we once had shall be raised, it is hard to determine; whether those particles of which it consisted when we were young, shall be gathered together in the resurrection, or the particles of the emaciated or enfeebled body, which was laid down in the grave.

Answ. We are obliged to take notice of such-like objections as these, because they are often alleged in a cavilling way, against the doctrine of the resurrection. The answer therefore that I would give to this, is, that the more solid and substantial parts of the body, such as the skin, bones, cartilages, veins, arteries, nerves, fibres, that compose the muscles, with the higaments and tendons, are not subject to this change that is mentioned in the objection, by evaporation or perspiration ; which more especially respects the fluids, and not the solids of the body. These remain the same in men as they were in children, excepting what respects their strength and size: And if the body, as consisting of these and some other of the particles that it has lost, which the wisdom of God thinks fit to recollect, be gathered together in the resurrection; we may truly say, that the same body that once lived, notwithstanding the change made in the fluids thereof, is raised from the dead.

Obj. 3. There is another objection which is sometimes brought against the doctrine of the resurrection of the just, especially against their being raised with the same body they once had, taken from the inconsistency hereof, with their living in the other world, called heaven; which is generally distinguished from the earth, as being a more pure subtil and etherial region, therefore not fit to be an habitation for bodies compounded of such gross matter as ours are, which are adapted to the state and world in which they now live: Whereas, to suppose them placed in heaven, is inconsistent with the nature of gravity; so that we may as well conclude a body, which naturally tends to the earth its centre, to be capable of living in the air, at a distance from the surface of the earth, as we can, that it is possible for such a body to live in heaven: Therefore they argue, that the bodies of men, at the resurrection must be changed, so as to become etherial, which does, in effect, overthrow the doctrine of the resurrection, as respecting, at least, the restoring the bodies of men to the same form which once they

had.

Moreover, this objection is farther improved by another sup