Chapter XX: Part 20

The doctrines of the immortality of the soul, and of the resurrection
of the body equally rest upon the will and word of God. But when
viewed with the eye of natural reason, they have been deemed to
possess very unequal grounds of probability. The properties of matter
and of mind are so very different, they have been distinguished by
almost all. If the mind be not matter, no argument for its
extermination can be drawn from the dissolution of the body; and as
its materiality has never been shown, no premises have been found from
which its death can be inferred. Some wise men who had not the
scriptures, have indeed withholden their belief; but the reason is
discernible, they have demanded proofs which the God of nature has not
vouchsafed; and their rejection of the preponderating evidence of
probability, argues weakness and fastidiousness.

The resurrection of the body has been held to be impossible. If so,
the impossibility should either consist in the absolute incapacity in
the dead body to be raised; but this it does not, for death can only
reduce the body to its first element, and the dust which has been a
body is not any more unfit to be reanimated, than it was to receive
life in the first instance; or it must be owing to some detect of
wisdom or power, or of both in him, who should raise the body; but God
is unchangeable, and in all respects as able to raise him from the
dead, as to create man at the first; and there is no contradiction
implied in the thing, which should prevent the exertion of his power;
a resurrection is therefore possible.

The usual arguments for its probability drawn from analogy to the
return of day, of spring, of vegetation, &c. are not conclusive. But
those drawn from the resurrection of Christ, from the identity of man
considered as a compound from the removal of moral evil, from which
natural evils arise, from the earnest expectation of animal nature for
a better condition, and from the perfection of the future state, seem
to raise a presumption which is probable; yet these are not
appreciated by the natural man; hence the world has so generally
denied a resurrection of the body.

The testimony of the Holy Spirit on both points has been always the
same, but not with equal lustre.

Jesus Christ explicitly affirmed both, and brought his proofs from the
old testament, pressed them as motives of comfort or terror to saints
and sinners, and so connected their truth with that of his own
character, that every thing which proves the latter, is a proof of the
former. Not only did his actually raising the dead, and arising
himself, prove that the dead shall rise, but every prophecy
accomplished in him, and every miracle wrought by him and his
apostles, the continuance of his church, the purity of his system of
doctrines, the doctrines of election, redemption, justification,
regeneration and perseverance, as well as the express declarations on
this subject, both in the old and new testament, all form a solid mass
of evidence upon which the hopes of the Christian may firmly rest.

Footnote 144:

_See Quest._ xc.

Footnote 145:

_See Dr. Edward’s exercit. Part II. on 1 Cor._ iii. _15. who, to give
countenance to this opinion, produces two scriptures, viz. Mark_ xiv.
_54. and Luke_ xxii. _56. where the word_ φως, _is put for fire; from
whence he supposes, that_ φως _and_ πυρ, _are used promiscuously_.

Footnote 146:

Κολπος. Sinus, _a bosom, coast, or haven_.

Footnote 147:

_Vid. Tertull. Apologet. Cap._ xlvii. _Et si paradisum nominemus,
locum divinæ amænitatis recipiendis sanctorum spiritibus destinatum,
materia quadem igneæ illius Zonæ segregatum._

Footnote 148:

_See Whitby in loc._

Footnote 149:

_See also his notes on Luke_ xxiii. 43.

Footnote 150:

_Vid. Hoornbeck Socin. Confut. Tom. III. Lib._ v. _Cap. 1. who quotes
some passages out of several Socinian writers, among whom I shall only
mention what is said by two of them, with whom several others of their
brethren agree herein. Vid. Socin. in Epist._ v. _ad Volkel. Tantum id
mihi videtur statui posse, post hanc vitam, animam, sive animum
hominis non ita per se subsistere ut præmia ulla pænasve sentiat; vel
etiam ista sentiendi sit capax, quæ mea firma opinio facile potest
colligi ex multis quæ a me dicuntur_, &c. _Et Smalc. in Exam. Error.
Pag. 33. Animam vel spiritum hominis post mortum aliquid sentire, vel
aliqua re perfrui, nec ratio permittit nec scriptura testatur: ut enim
corpus sine anima, sic etiam anima sine corpore, nullus operationes
exercere potest; & perinde sic ac si anima illorum nulla esset, etiamæ
suo modo sit, quia scilicet nullius rei sensum habeat, aut per se
voluptate aliqua fræ possit. And elsewhere the same author is so hardy
as to term the contrary doctrine no other than a fable, in Lib. de Dei
filio, Cap._ vi. _Pag. 43. Quod vern de vita animarum disserit, hoc
instar fabulæ est_, &c. _Spiritum hominis ad Deum redire testatur
sacra scriptura, at eum vivera vita, ut ait Smiglecius, spirituum, &
vel aliquid intelligere, vel voluptate frui hoc extra, & contra
scripturam dicitur._

Footnote 151:

_See Locke’s Essay concerning human understanding, Lib._ ii. _Chap.
1._ § ix. _to the_ xix.

Footnote 152:

_Quest._ lxxxix.

Quest. LXXXVII.

QUEST. LXXXVII. _What are we to believe concerning the
resurrection?_

ANSW. We are to believe, that at the last day there shall be a
general resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust; when
they that are then found alive, shall, in a moment, be changed; and
the self-same bodies of the dead which were laid in the grave, being
then again united to their souls for ever, shall be raised up by the
power of Christ; the bodies of the just, by the Spirit of Christ,
and by virtue of his resurrection, as their head, shall be raised in
power, spiritual, incorruptible, and made like to his glorious body;
and the bodies of the wicked shall be raised up in dishonour, by
him, as an offended Judge.

In the foregoing answers, we have considered the soul and body as separated by death, the body turned to corruption, and the soul immediately entering into a state of happiness or misery; and are now led to insist on the doctrine of the resurrection, when these two constituent parts of man shall be reunited. And accordingly we shall endeavour,

I. To explain what we are to understand by the resurrection of the dead.

II. We shall prove that there is nothing in this doctrine contrary to reason, at least, if we consider it as a supernatural and divine work.

III. We shall farther observe, that this doctrine could not be known by the light of nature; and therefore we believe it as founded in divine revelation.

IV. What arguments are contained in scripture for the proof thereof; some of which might be taken from the Old Testament, and others from the New, in which it is more clearly revealed.

V. We shall answer some of the most material objections brought against it.

VI. We shall consider it as universal, as it is here styled a general resurrection of the dead, from the beginning of time to Christ’s second coming; yet with this exception, that they who are found alive shall be changed. And,

VII. The condition in which the body shall be raised; and those circumstances of honour and glory, which respect, more especially, the resurrection of the just. And, on the other hand, we shall consider the resurrection of the wicked, as being in dishonour, by Christ, as an offended Judge.

I. What are we to understand by the resurrection of the dead. We sometimes find the word taken, in scripture, in a metaphorical sense, for God’s doing those things for his church, which could not be brought about any otherwise than by his extraordinary and supernatural power. Sometimes the work of regeneration is set forth by this figurative way of speaking; whereby they who are dead in trespasses and sins, are said to be quickened; and our Saviour speaks of this when he says, _The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live_, John v. 25. But we are to understand it in a proper sense, as denoting that change which shall pass upon the body, when it shall be delivered from the state of corruption, into which it was brought at death, and reunited to the soul; which is distinguished in a following verse, from this metaphorical sense of it, when he says, _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_, ver. 28. This includes in it not barely the repairing, but the rebuilding the frame of nature; which was not only decayed, but dissolved in death; or the gathering together those particles of matter, of which the body was before constituted; which was not only turned into corruption, but common dust; whereby a new body, as to the form and qualities thereof, is erected out of its old materials; otherwise it could not be called a resurrection. It is said, indeed, that the body shall not, in all respects, be the same that it was when separated from the soul; as the apostle compares to a _grain of wheat_ sown in the ground, which, when it springs up, is not altogether the same as it was before; for _God giveth it a body,[153] as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body_, 1 Cor. xv. 37, 38. It is the same for substance, as it consists of the same materials, but very different as to its qualities; as will be farther considered, when we speak concerning the condition of the body when raised from the dead; and as it is raised with a design that it should be re-united to the soul, which will immediately follow upon it; and this union shall be indissoluble and eternal.

II. We shall now consider that there is nothing contrary to reason, or impossible, from the nature of the thing, which might have a tendency to overthrow this doctrine; especially if we consider it as a supernatural and divine work, brought about by the almighty power of God.

If we look no farther than the power of natural causes, we may conclude it to be impossible for a creature to effect, as much as it was at first to produce the body of man out of the dust of the ground; but this is not impossible with God: He that gave life and being to all things; and, by his sovereign will, puts a period to that life, which had been, for some time continued by his power and providence, can give a new life to it; especially if there be nothing in this work that renders it unmeet for it to be performed by him.

That there is nothing in the nature of the thing that renders a resurrection impossible, appears, in that death, though it be a dissolution of the frame of nature, does not annihilate the body. If the body, indeed, were annihilated at death, then it would be impossible, or contrary to the nature of things, that there should be a resurrection thereof; since the bringing it again into a state of existence would be a new creation; which, though it would not be too great a work for omnipotency, yet it could not be styled a resurrection, or restoring the same body to life that was separated from the soul, to which it was once united. But when we suppose that the matter of which the body consisted is still in being, and nothing is necessary to the raising it from the dead but the recollecting the various particles thereof, and forming it again into a body, fitted to receive the soul: this is not in its own nature impossible; nor does it infer a contradiction, so as that we should argue from thence, that it cannot be brought about by divine power.

That this may more fully appear, let it be considered, that nothing which God has brought into being, can be annihilated, but by an act of his will; since nothing can defeat or disannul his providence, which upholdeth all things that were brought into being by the word of his power. It is also certain, that God has given us no ground to conclude that any part of his material creation has been, or shall be turned into nothing; from whence it follows, that the particles of all the bodies of men, that once lived in this world, though turned to corruption or dust, are as much in being as ever they were, though not in the same form.

Again, it is certain that God, who made and upholdeth all things, has a perfect knowledge of that which is the object of his power, since his understanding is infinite: therefore he knows where the scattered dust, or the smallest particles of matter that once constituted the bodies of men, are reserved: and when we speak of a resurrection from the dead, we understand hereby the gathering them together, and disposing them in such a way as that new bodies shall be framed out of them: therefore, though this could not be done by any but God, it is not impossible, from the nature of the thing, for him to do it; and that he will do it will be considered, when we come more directly to the proof of this doctrine. We shall therefore proceed,

III. To consider it as a matter of pure revelation, such as we could not have known by the light of nature, without the assistance of scripture-light. Something, indeed, might be known by reason concerning the immortality of the soul, and its being not only capable of happiness or misery in a future state, but dealt with therein according to its behaviour in this world: nevertheless, when we enquire into that part, which the body shall bear therein; whether it shall be raised and reunited to the soul, to be for ever a partner with it in what respects its state in another world, or shall remain for ever in a state of corruption; this cannot be known by the light of nature.

There are, indeed, many things which we find in the writings of the Heathen, that discover them to have had some notion of what bears a resemblance to a resurrection: as when they speak concerning the transmigration of souls, or their living in other bodies, when separated from those which they formerly were united to. And others of them speak concerning the general conflagration, and the restoration of all things, immediately after, to their former state, as well as give some hints which are contained in their writings, concerning particular persons that have been raised from the dead, at least, pretended to have been so. What we find of this nature therein, very much resembles the fabulous account we have in the Popish legends of miracles, said to have been wrought, though without proof: thus we are told of one Aristeas, the Proconnesian, who had a power of expiring and returning to life at pleasure, and relating what he had seen in a separate state.[154] The same is reported of one Hermotimus of Clazomena.[155] But the most famous story of this kind, is what is related by Plato,[156] and transcribed from him by Eusebius,[157] concerning one Er, the son of Armenius; who, after he was slain in battle, and had continued ten days among other dead bodies, was brought home to his house; and two days after, being laid on his funeral pile, came to life again: this Plato, while he is relating it, calls little better than a fable.[158] And it was treated by others with ridicule, how much soever believed by some who regarded reports more than solid evidence of the truth thereof.

I might also mention others, who are said, by Heathen writers to have been translated into heaven in their bodies and souls[159]: Which might take its first rise from what they had received by tradition, concerning the translation of Enoch and Elijah; as the stories of those that were raised from the dead might be first invented by them with this view, that their religion might have as great reputation as that of the Jews.

But notwithstanding these particular instances related by them, of some translated, or others raised from the dead; there were very few of them that believed the doctrine of the resurrection; and some treated it with as much contempt as we do the before-mentioned account which they give of particular persons raised from the dead[160]. This agrees very well with what we read in scripture, concerning the treatment the apostle Paul met with, when he encountered the Epicureans and Stoicks at Athens, _preaching to them Jesus and the resurrection_, Acts xvii. 18. upon which occasion they call him _babbler_; and insinuated that he seemed to be _a setter forth of strange gods_. Oecumenius and Chrysostom think, that they supposed he reckoned the _resurrection_ among the gods[161], as well as _Jesus_, whose divinity he doubtless maintained; but whether they were so stupid as thus to wrest his words, is not material. It is no wonder to find the Epicureans treating this doctrine with ridicule; for they, denying the immortality of the soul, could not entertain the least idea of the resurrection of the body in any sense: Whereas the Stoicks, though they did not own the doctrine of the resurrection, yet they could not think it so strange a doctrine as some others might do; since they held that the soul, after death, continued at least, as long as the body; and they knew very well, that many of the philosophers strenuously maintained the transmigration of souls; and, indeed, this was held by many of them, as well as the Platonists and Pythagoreans; and therefore the resurrection, though it differed from it, could not seem so strange and unheard of a notion, as that they should reckon it among the gods: However, it plainly appears from hence that this doctrine could not be learned by the light of nature; whatever confused ideas the Heathen might have entertained by tradition, concerning it.

Therefore it follows from hence, that we must look for a satisfactory account hereof from scripture: Thus when the Sadducees put a stupid question to our Saviour concerning the _woman_ that had _seven husbands_, which successively _died_; and they would know whose _wife she should be in the resurrection_; by which they designed to express their opposition to this doctrine, rather than a desire of information as to the question proposed: Our Saviour in his reply to them refers them to the _scriptures_, Matt. xxii 29. as the fountain from whence a clear and satisfactory knowledge of this doctrine is to be derived as well as from the _power of God_. This divine perfection argues the possibility thereof, the justice and goodness of God, its expediency; but the scriptures, which contain a revelation of his will, represent it as certain; and this leads us to consider some arguments that are contained in, or deduced from scripture for the proof thereof; and here we shall consider,

1. Those proofs which we have for it, taken from the Old Testament. These I chuse first to insist on, because I am sensible there are many who think, that the church knew nothing of it, till it was revealed, by our Saviour, in the New Testament: This very much detracts from the importance of the doctrine, as well as renders the state of those who lived before Christ’s incarnation, very uncomfortable, since the saints, according to this opinion, must have had no hope of a glorious resurrection to eternal life. This notion is defended by many who extend the darkness of the dispensation farther than what is convenient; and among others, it is generally maintained by the Socinians, probably with this design, that since according to them, our Saviour had little else in view, in coming into the world, but to lead men into the knowledge of some things which they were ignorant of before; this might be reckoned one of those doctrines that he came to communicate. Thus Volkelius denies that there were any promises of eternal life made to the church under the Old Testament; and concludes that there was no one who had the least surmise that any such doctrine was contained in those scriptures which we commonly bring from thence to prove it[162]. And to give countenance to this opinion, several quotations are often taken from Jewish writers, since our Saviour’s time, who either speak doubtfully of this matter, or give occasion to think that they did not understand those scriptures which establish the doctrine of the resurrection in the Old Testament, as having any reference to it.

Therefore it may not be amiss for us to enquire; what were the sentiments of some of the Jews about this matter? Every one knows that there was one _sect_ amongst them, namely, the Sadducees, who distinguished themselves from others by denying it: And Josephus gives the largest account of any one, concerning another _sect_, to wit, the Essens, who affected to lead a recluse life, in their respective colleges, and were governed by laws peculiar to themselves: Among other things which he relates concerning their conduct and sentiments, he says, that it was an opinion established among them, that the bodies of men were corruptible, and the matter of which they were compounded, not perpetual; though the soul remained for ever: And then he represents them as speaking, according to the Pythagorean and Platonick way, concerning the body’s being the prison of the soul, and its remaining when released from it, and of the soul’s dwelling in a pleasant place, and enjoying many things that tend to make it happy, &c.[163]. Nevertheless, his account of them is so short, and the expression on which the whole stress of this supposition is founded, a little ambiguous, namely, that the bodies of men are corruptible, and their matter not perpetual, which may be understood as agreeing with the common faith concerning man’s mortality, and the body’s turning to corruption, and not remaining in the same state in which it was; that it seems to leave the matter doubtful, whether they asserted or denied the resurrection. It is also supposed, that Philo denied this doctrine from several passages observed in his writings, which a late learned writer takes notice of[164]; but this is only the opinion of a single person, who, according to his general character, seems to be halting between two opinions, to wit, the doctrine of Moses, and the philosophy of Plato; and therefore I take his sentiments, about this, to be nothing else but an affection of thinking or speaking agreeably to the Platonic philosophy, which had probably given such a tincture to his notions, that he might deny the resurrection. And if the Essens, before-mentioned, should be allowed to have denied it, they received it from their attachment to the same, or, at least, the Pythagorean philosophy: But we cannot from hence conclude that the doctrine of the resurrection was denied by the main body of the Jews, or the greatest part of them; or by any, excepting those who were led out of the way, by the writings of the philosophers: Which gave occasion to the apostle Paul to warn the church to _beware of philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ_, Col. ii. 8. as foreseeing that some of them, in after-ages, would, in many respects, corrupt the doctrines of the gospel, by accommodating them to, or explaining them by what they found in the writings of the Heathen philosophers, as Origen, Justin Martyr, and some others did; and he seems to take the hint from what had been before observed relating to the corruption of the Jewish _faith_, by those who were attached to them. Thus concerning the opinion of those Jews, who are supposed to deny the doctrine of the resurrection.

On the other hand, there are several Rabbinical writers, who sufficiently intimate their belief of this doctrine; though it is true, some of them infer it from such premises, as discover great weakness in their method of reasoning. Thus the learned bishop Pearson observes, that they produce several places out of Moses’s writings, which when the resurrection is believed, may, in some kind, serve to illustrate it, but can, in no degree, be thought to reveal so great a mystery[165]. And Dr. Lightfoot produces other proofs, which they bring for this doctrine, as little to the purpose[166], of which all the use that can be made is, that we may from hence observe, that they believed the doctrine we are maintaining, to be contained in scripture. Whether they were able to defend it by shewing the force of those arguments on which it is founded therein or no, is not much to our present purpose, my design in referring to their writings being to prove that this doctrine was embraced by the Jews, in the ages before, as well as since our Saviour’s time. It is true, the Talmud, and other writings, which are generally quoted for the proof of it, are of later date, and the most ancient of the Chaldee paraphrases now extant, is supposed to have been written about that time, or, at least, but little before it: And there are no uninspired writings, relating to the Jewish affairs, more ancient, except those which we generally call Apocryphal; which most suppose to have been written about 150 years before the Christian Æra. And it is very evident, that about that time the doctrine of the resurrection was believed by the Jewish church; as the author of the book of Maccabees, in the history of the martyrdom of the seven brethren in the reign of Antiochus[167], represents some of them in the agonies of death, as expressing the firm belief they had of a resurrection to eternal life; their mother, in the mean while, encouraging them from the same consideration. These, as it is more than probable, the apostle includes in the number of those noble Old Testament worthies who were _tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection_, Heb. xi. 35. which is an undeniable evidence that the church at that time believed the doctrine of the resurrection.

All that I shall add under this head is, that how weak soever the reasoning of some Jewish writers, concerning this subject, has been, there are others who give substantial proofs from the Old Testament; which not only argues that they believed it, but that their belief proceeded from a just conviction of the truth thereof. And they give the same sense of some of those scriptures which are generally produced for the proof hereof, as we do[168].

The first scripture that we shall take notice of, is what contains the _vision_ mentioned in Ezek. xxxvii. 1, _& seq._ concerning the _valley which was full of bones_, which were _very dry_: Upon which occasion God says, _Son of man, Can these bones live?_ to which he replies, _O Lord God, thou knowest._ And afterwards we read of God’s _laying sinews, and bringing up flesh upon them, covering them with skin, and putting breath into them_; and their being hereupon restored to life. I am sensible that they who are on the other side of the question, pretend that this is no proof of a resurrection; because the design thereof was to illustrate and make way for the prediction mentioned in the following verses, concerning the deliverance of God’s people from the Babylonish captivity: But that which seems to have its weight with me is, that God would never have made use of a similitude to lead them into this doctrine, taken from a thing which they had no manner of idea of: But if we suppose that they believed that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, agreeable to the literal sense of the words here made use of to illustrate it, then the argument taken from thence is plain and easy, _q. d._ as certainly as you have ground to believe that the dead shall be raised at the last day (which though it could not be brought about by any natural means, yet it shall be effected by the power of God;) so your deliverance, how unlikely soever it may appear to those who look no farther than second causes, shall come to pass by God’s extraordinary power and providence, which will be as life from the dead.

And whereas it is farther objected, that when God asked the prophet, whether _these dry bones could live_? He seems to be in doubt about it; which argues that he had no idea of the resurrection of the dead. To this it may be replied, that his doubt respected an event that should immediately ensue; he knew that God could put life into these bones; but whether he would do it now or no, he could not tell: Therefore it does not contain any disbelief of the doctrine of the resurrection at the last day; and, indeed, this scripture, how little soever it may seem to some to make for the doctrine we are maintaining, is alleged by others, as an undeniable proof of it. Tertullian expressly says, that this would have been a very insignificant vision, if this doctrine were not true[169]. And Jerome speaks to the same purpose, supposing that God would never illustrate any truth which they were in doubt of, by a similitude taken from an incredible fiction[170]. And Menasseh Ben Israel, a learned Jew, supposes this text to be an express and infallible proof of the resurrection; which plainly argues that he thought the Jews, in former ages, were convinced of this doctrine thereby[171].

But supposing this scripture be not reckoned sufficient to evince the truth of this doctrine, there is another which has more weight in it, _viz._ that in Job xix. 25-27. _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 mine eyes shall behold, and not another, though my reins be consumed within me._ Job, as is generally supposed, lived in Moses’ time; therefore, if it can be made appear that he professes his faith in the doctrine of the resurrection, we may conclude that the church was acquainted with it in the early ages thereof; and nothing seems more evident, from the plain sense of the words, than that he here professes his faith in, and encourages himself from the hope of future blessedness, both in soul and body, at Christ’s second coming in the last day.

It is with a great deal of difficulty that they who deny this doctrine, are obliged to account for the sense of this text, so as to evade the force of the argument taken from thence to prove it. These suppose that Job intends nothing hereby but a firm persuasion which he had, that he should be recovered from that state of misery in which he then was, which not only affected his mind, but his body, as it was _smitten with sore boils, from the sole of his foot unto his crown_, Job ii. 7. _his flesh_ being _clothed with worms_, and his _skin broken and become loathsome_, chap. vii. 5. and accordingly he says, I shall be redeemed from this affliction, and brought into a happy state before I die; and so they suppose that the words are to be taken in a metaphorical sense; and therefore do not prove the doctrine of the resurrection. But this will appear to be a very great perversion of the sense of this text, if we consider,

1. In how solemn a manner he brings it in, in the verses immediately foregoing. _Oh that my words were now written! Oh that they were printed in a book! that they were graven with an iron pen and lead, in the rock for ever!_ Which seems to import that he had something to communicate, that was of far greater moment than the account of his deliverance from the afflictions he was under in this world. Therefore it seems more agreeable to understand the sense of the words, as denoting that great and important truth, in which all believers are concerned, relating to Christ’s second coming, and the happiness that his saints shall then enjoy in soul and body; this deserves to be writ with a pen of iron, that it may be transmitted to all generations. But,

2. It is evident that he is here speaking of something that should be done, not whilst he lived, but in the end of time; for he considers his Redeemer, as _standing in the latter day upon the earth_. The person whom he here speaks of as his Redeemer, is, doubtless, our Saviour, who is frequently described, both in the Old and New-Testament, under that character: And, if at any time God the Father is called the Redeemer of his people, it may farther be observed that he is never said in redeeming them to make himself visible to their bodily eyes, or to stand upon the earth, much less to do this in the latter or last day, in which Christ is said to come again in a visible manner, to raise the dead and judge the world: And this Job intends when he says, _In my flesh shall I see God, whom I shall see for myself and mine eyes shall behold, and not another_.

3. It is evident also that he intends hereby something that should befal him after his death, and not barely a deliverance from his present misery in this world; for he speaks of his _skin_ or body as devoured by _worms_, and _his reins consumed within him_; which can intend no other than a state of corruption in death.

4. It does not appear that Job had any intimation concerning the change of his condition in this world, before God turned his captivity, having first made him sensible of his error, in _uttering that which he understood not_, when he testified his reconciliation to his friends, notwithstanding the injuries he had received from them, by _praying for them_, chap. xlii. 3, 10. And, indeed, he was so far from expecting happiness in this life, that he says, _Mine eye shall no more see good_, viz. in this world, chap. vii. 7. and hereupon he takes occasion to meditate on his own mortality in the following words; _The eye of him that hath seen me shall see me no more; thine eyes are upon me, and I am not_: And after this he prays, _O that thou wouldst hide me in the grave_, chap. xiv. 13. &c. And immediately before he speaks of his Redeemer as living, and the deliverance which he should obtain in the latter day, in the text under our present consideration, he earnestly desires the compassion of his friends: _Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, O ye my friends; for the hand of God hath touched me_; which does not well agree with the least expectation of a state of happiness in this world; in which case he would not need their pity; he might only have convinced them of the truth thereof, and it would have given a turn to their behaviour towards him; for we find, that, when God blessed his latter end more than his beginning, every one was as ready to comfort him concerning the evil that the Lord had brought upon him, and shew their very great respect to him, by offering him presents, as any were before to reproach him. Therefore upon the whole, it is very evident that Job is not speaking concerning his deliverance from his present evils in this world, but of a perfect deliverance from all evil in the great day of the resurrection: Accordingly we must conclude, that the doctrine of the resurrection is plainly asserted in this scripture; and indeed, Jerome says, that no one who wrote after Christ has more plainly maintained the doctrine of the resurrection than Job does in this scripture, who lived before him[172].

There is another scripture, by which, if I do not mistake the sense thereof, Job appears to have had a steady faith in the doctrine of the resurrection, and was firmly persuaded concerning his happiness, when raised from the dead, namely, in chap. xiv. 13, 14, 15. in which he says, _O! that thou wouldst hide me in the grave, that thou wouldst keep me secret until thy wrath be past_; that is, till a full end is put to all the afflictive providences which men are liable to in this present world, namely, till the day of Christ’s second coming; or, _that thou wouldst appoint me a set time, and remember me_; namely, that thou wouldst deliver me from the evils which I now endure. As to the former of these expedients, to wit, his deliverance by death, that he counts a blessing, because he takes it for granted that _if a man die he shall live again_, ver. 14.[173] and therefore says, _all the days of my appointed time_, that is, not of the appointed time of life, but the time appointed that he should lie in the grave, in which he desired that God would hide him; there, says he, I shall wait, or remain, _till my change come_, that is, till I am changed from a state of mortality to that of life. And he goes on in the following words, _Thou shalt call_, that is, by thy power thou shalt raise me, _and I will answer thee_, or come forth out of my grave; and hereby thou wilt make it known that thou _hast a desire to the work of thine hands_.

If it be objected to this sense of the words, that Job says, ver. 12. that _man lieth down, and riseth not till the heavens be no more; they shall not awake nor be raised out of their sleep_; therefore he is so far from expecting relief from his misery in the resurrection, that he seems plainly to deny it. To this I answer, that he doth not deny the doctrine of the resurrection in those words wherein he says that they _shall not be raised from the dead, till the heavens be no more_; which seems to intimate that he concluded that the dead should rise when the frame of nature was changed, as it will be, at the last day, in which the heavens shall be no more. I confess this sense is not commonly given of these verses, nor any argument drawn from, them to prove a resurrection from the dead; therefore I would not be too tenacious of mine own sense thereof; but I cannot but think it more probable than the common sense that is given of the words, and if so, it may be considered as a proof of the doctrine that we are maintaining.

There is another scripture which plainly proves the doctrine of the resurrection, namely, Dan. xii. 2. _Many of them that sleep in the dust shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt._ This scripture is brought by several Rabbinical writers, as a proof of this doctrine; and the words are so express, that it will be very difficult to evade the force of them; though, it is true, some modern writers, who are ready to conclude that the Old Testament is silent as to the doctrine of the resurrection, take the words in a metaphorical sense, for the deliverance of the church from those grievous persecutions which they were under in the reign of Antiochus; and so _sleeping in the dust_ is taken, by them, for lying in the holes and caves of the earth, the Jews being forced to seek protection there from the fury of the tyrant: But this cannot be properly called _sleeping in the dust of the earth_; and their deliverance from this persecution is not consistent with the contempt that should be cast on some that were raised out of the dust; nor could the happiness that others enjoyed in this deliverance, be called _everlasting life_, it being only a temporal salvation, that according to them, is here spoken of; and it must be a straining the metaphor to a great degree, to apply the following words to their wise men and teachers, after this deliverance, that they should _shine as the brightness of the firmament_; therefore this sense has such difficulties attending it, that every person who is not prepossessed with prejudice must give into the literal sense of the text; and confess that it is an argument to prove the doctrine of the resurrection.

The only difficulty that is pretended to be involved in this sense of the text is its being said, _Many of them that sleep in the dust shall awake_; whereas the doctrine that we are defending, is that of an universal resurrection. But since we shall have occasion to speak to that under a following head, we shall rather choose to refer it to its proper place, in which, according to our designed method, we are to consider that all who have lived from the beginning to the end of time, shall be raised.

There are other scriptures in the Old Testament that might be brought to prove this doctrine, such as that in Deut. xxxii. 39. in which God says, _I kill, and I make alive_; and that parallel text, in which the same thing is confessed, and farther explained, by Hannah, in her song, in 1 Sam. ii. 6. _The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up._ I know that death and life are sometimes taken for good and evil; but why should deliverance from the miseries of this present life be represented by the metaphor of a resurrection, and this attributed to the almighty power of God, if the doctrine of the resurrection was reckoned by the church at that time, no other than a fiction or chimera, as it must be supposed to be if they had no idea of it, as not having received it by divine revelation?

We might, as a farther proof of this doctrine, consider those three instances that we have in the Old Testament of persons raised from the dead, namely, the Shunamite’s child, by the prophet Elisha, 2 Kings iv. 35. and the man who was cast into his sepulchre, that _revived and stood on his feet_, when he touched his _bones_, chap. xiii. 21. and the widow of Zarephath’s son, by the prophet Elijah, on which occasion it is said, _He cried to the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, I pray thee let this child’s soul come into him again_; and accordingly the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived, 1 Kings xvii. 21, 22. From hence we must conclude, that this doctrine was not unknown to the prophet; for if it had, he could not have directed his prayer to God in faith. And these instances of a resurrection of particular persons could not but give occasion to the church at that time, to believe the possibility of a resurrection at the last day; so that it might as reasonably be expected that God will exert his power by raising the dead then, as that he would do it at this time, unless there was something in this possible event contrary to his moral perfections; but the resurrection appeared to them as it doth to all who consider him as the governor of the world, and as distributing rewards and punishments to every one according to their works, as not only agreeable to these perfections, but, in some respects, necessary for the illustration thereof. Therefore we must conclude, that as they had particular instances of a resurrection, which argued the general resurrection possible, they might easily believe that it should be future; which is the doctrine that we are maintaining.

To this we may add, that the patriarch Abraham believed the doctrine of the resurrection; therefore he had it some way or other revealed to him, before the word of God was committed to writing. This appears from what the apostle says when speaking concerning his offering Isaac, that _he accounted that God was able to raise him up even from the dead_, Heb. xi. 19. From hence it is evident that he was verily persuaded when he bound him to the altar, and lifted up his hand to slay him, that God would suffer him to do it, otherwise it had been no trial of his faith, so that his being prevented from laying his hand on him was an unexpected providence. Now how could he solve the difficulty that would necessarily ensue hereupon; had he expected that God would give him another seed instead of Isaac, that would not have been an accomplishment of the promise which was given to him, namely, that in Isaac his seed should be called; therefore the only thing that he depended on, was, that when he had offered him, God would raise him from the dead, and by this means fulfil the promise that was made to him concerning the numerous seed that should descend from him; therefore it cannot be supposed that Abraham was a stranger to the doctrine of the resurrection.

There are other scriptures by which it appears that the doctrine of the resurrection was revealed to the church under the Old Testament dispensation, either from the sense of the words themselves, or the explication thereof in the New, which refers to them: thus it is said in Psal. xvi. 10. _Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption_; which the apostle Peter quotes to prove the resurrection of Christ, in Acts ii. 24-27. If David therefore knew that the Messiah should be raised from the dead (which, as will be considered under a following head, is a glorious proof of the doctrine of the resurrection of the saints) we cannot suppose that he was a stranger to this doctrine himself.

Again, it is said in Isa. xxv. 8. _He will swallow up death in victory_; and this is mentioned immediately after a prediction of the glorious provision, which God would make for his people under the gospel-dispensation, which is called, by a metaphorical way of speaking, ver. 6. _A feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined_; and of the gospel’s being preached to the Gentiles, ver. 7. which is expressed by his _destroying the face of covering, and the veil that was spread over all nations_: therefore it may well be supposed to contain a prediction of something consequent thereupon, namely, the general resurrection: and there is another scripture to the same purpose, viz. Hos. xiii. 14. _I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plague; O grave, I will be thy destruction_; and both these scriptures are referred to by the apostle, as what shall be fulfilled in the resurrection of the dead; when he says, _Then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory: O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?_ 1 Cor. xv. 54, 55. Therefore we cannot but think that the prophets, and the church in their day, understood the words in the same sense.

There is another scripture in the Old Testament, in which the premises are laid down, from whence the conclusion is drawn in the New for the proof of this doctrine, namely, when God revealed himself to Moses, Exod. iii. 6. which our Saviour refers to, and proves the doctrine of the resurrection from, against the Sadducees. _Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: for he is not the God of the dead, but of the living_, Luke xx. 37, 38. which argument was so convincing, that _certain of the Scribes_, said, in the following words, _Master, thou hast well said; and after that, they_, that is, the Sadducees, _durst not ask him any question at all_; so that it silenced, if it did not convince them. There are some, indeed, who, though they conclude that it is a very strong proof of the immortality of the soul, which the Sadducees denied, since that which does not exist cannot be the subject of a promise; yet, they cannot see how the resurrection can be proved from it; whereas it is brought, by our Saviour, for that purpose: therefore, that the force of this argument may appear, we must consider what is the import of the promise contained in this covenant, that God would be the _God of Abraham_; which is explained elsewhere, when he told him, _I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward_, Gen. xv. 1. He was therefore given hereby to expect, at the hand of God, all the spiritual and saving blessings of the covenant of grace; but these blessings respect not only the soul, but the body; and as they are extended to both worlds, it is an evident proof of the happiness of the saints in their bodies in a future state, and consequently that they shall be raised from the dead. This leads us,

2. To consider those arguments to prove the doctrine of the resurrection which are contained in the New Testament, in which it is more fully and expressly revealed than in any part of scripture. Here we may first take notice of those particular instances in which our Saviour raised persons from the dead in a miraculous way, as the prophets Elijah and Elisha did under the Old Testament dispensation, as was before observed. Thus he raised Jairus’s _daughter_, whom he found dead in the house, Matt. ix. 25. and another, to wit, the _widow’s son at Nain_, when they were carrying him to the grave; which was done in the presence of a great multitude, Luke vii. 11, 14, 15. and there was another instance hereof in his raising Lazarus from the dead, John xi. 43, 44. which he did in a very solemn and public manner, after he had been dead four days, his body being then corrupted and laid in the grave, from whence Christ calls him, and he immediately revived and came forth. These instances of the resurrection of particular persons tended to put the doctrine of the general resurrection out of all manner of doubt; and, indeed, it was, at this time, hardly questioned by any, excepting the Sadducees: therefore before Christ raised Lazarus, when he only told his sister Martha that he _should rise again_, she, not then understanding that he designed immediately to raise him from the dead, expresses her faith in the doctrine of the general resurrection; _I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day_, John xi. 24. upon which occasion our Saviour replies, _I am the resurrection and the life_, ver. 25. denoting that this work was to be performed by him.

Moreover, this doctrine was asserted and maintained by the apostles, after Christ had given the greatest proof hereof in his own resurrection from the dead: thus it is said, that _they preached through Jesus, the resurrection from the dead_, Acts iv. 2. And the apostle Paul standing before Felix, and confessing his belief of all things which are written in the law and the prophets, immediately adds, that he had _hope towards God, which they themselves also allow_; that is, the main body of the Jewish nation; _that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust_.