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.
And he not only asserts but proves it with very great strength of reasoning, in 1 Cor. xv. and the argument he therein insists on, is taken from Christ’s resurrection, ver. 13. If there be no resurrection, then is Christ not risen; which is a doctrine that could not be denied by any that embraced the Christian religion, as being the very foundation thereof; but if any one should entertain the least doubt about it, he adds, ver. 17. If Christ be not raised from the dead, your faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins; that is, your hope of justification hereby is ungrounded, and they also which are fallen asleep in Christ, are perished; but this none of you will affirm; therefore you must conclude that he is risen from the dead: and if it be enquired, how does this argument prove the general resurrection, that he farther insists on from ver. 20. Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept? Christ’s resurrection removes all the difficulties that might afford the least matter of doubt concerning the possibility of the resurrection of the dead; and his being raised as the first-fruits of them that slept, or, as the head of all the elect, who are said to have communion with him in his resurrection, or to be risen with him, Col. iii. 1. renders the doctrine of the resurrection of all his saints, undeniably certain. As the first-fruits are a part and pledge of the harvest, so Christ’s resurrection is a pledge and earnest of the resurrection of his people. Thus the apostle says elsewhere, If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies, Rom. viii. 11. And our Saviour, when he was discoursing with his disciples concerning his death, and resurrection that would ensue thereupon, tells them, that though after this he should be separated for a time from them, and the world should see him no more, yet that they should see him again; and assigns this as a reason, because I live ye shall live also, John xiv. 19. q. d. because I shall be raised from the dead, and live for ever in heaven; you, who are my favourites, friends, and followers, shall be also raised and live with me there; so that the resurrection of believers is plainly evinced from Christ’s resurrection.
I might produce many other scriptures out of the New Testament, in which this doctrine is maintained; but we shall proceed to consider what proofs may be deduced from scripture-consequences. And it may here be observed, that our Lord Jesus Christ, has by his death and resurrection, as the consequence thereof, purchased an universal dominion over, or a right to dispose of his subjects in such a way as will be most conducive to his own glory and their advantage. Thus the apostle speaks of him as dying, rising, and reviving, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living; and infers from thence, that whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s, Rom. xiv. 8, 9. And his being Lord over the dead is expressed in other terms, by his having the keys of hell and death; and this is assigned as the consequence of his being alive after his death, or of his resurrection from the dead, Rev. i. 18. Therefore he has a power, as Mediator, to raise the dead. And to this we may also add, that this is what he has engaged to do, as much as he did to redeem the souls of his people. When believers are said to be given to him, or purchased by him, it is the whole man that is included therein; and accordingly he purchased the bodies as well as the souls of his people, as may be argued from our obligation hereupon, to glorify him in our bodies as well as in our spirits which are God’s, 1 Cor. vi. 20. And they are both under his care; he has undertaken that their bodies shall not be lost in the grave; which is very emphatically expressed, when he is represented as saying, this is the will of the Father which hath sent me, John vi. 39, 40. or, contained in the commission that I received from him, when he invested me with the office of Mediator; that of all which he had given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. What should be the reason that he here speaks of things rather than persons, if he had not a peculiar regard to the bodies of believers? which, as they are the subjects of his power when raised from the dead; so they are the objects of his care, and therefore he will raise them up at the last day.
We might farther consider Christ’s dominion as extended to the wicked as well as the righteous. He is not, indeed, their federal head; but he is appointed to be their Judge; and therefore has a right to demand them to come forth out of their graves, to appear before his tribunal; though they are neither the objects of his special love, nor redeemed by his blood, nor the dutiful and obedient subjects of his kingdom; inasmuch as it is said, God has appointed a day in which he will judge the 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 Judge 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, ‘I 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;[[174]] whom the learned and excellent bishop Pearson refers to and imitates in his style and mode of expression;[[175]] his words are these; “As the 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 appeareth all begin to rise; the plants and flowers peep out of their graves, revive, and grow, and flourish; this is the annual 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 continue this present life by succession of resurrections. Thus all things are repaired by corrupting, are preserved by perishing, 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 consideration but of the principles of human nature, of the liberty, and remunerability of human actions, and of the natural revolutions and resurrections of other creatures, it were 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[[176]]: 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.