Obj. 1. It is objected against the doctrine of the resurrection, that though the power of God can do all things possible 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 men-eaters, 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 ligaments 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 supposition: which gave the Socinians occasion to assert, that the same body shall not be raised; namely, that if the bodies of men should be the same as they are now, they would be rendered incapable of that state of immortality which is in heaven. For by the same method of reasoning, by which, as has been before observed, they argue that man would have been liable to mortality, though he had not sinned, viz. that death was then the consequence of nature, inasmuch as the body was to be supported by food, breathe in proper air, and be fenced against those things that might tend to destroy the temperament thereof, or a dissolution would ensue, they conclude that we must not have such bodies as we now have, but etherial. And to give countenance to this, they refer to the apostle’s words in 1 Cor. xv. 50. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God: And ver. 40. where he speaks of celestial bodies as distinguished from terrestrial, and of the body’s being raised a spiritual body, ver. 44. And there is another scripture generally referred to, wherein our Saviour speaks of believers, in the resurrection, being as the angels of God, Matt. xxii. 30. which is to be understood, at least, as signifying that their motion will be no more hindered by the weight of the body, than the motion of an angel is; therefore their bodies must be of another kind than what we suppose they shall be in the resurrection.
Answ. 1. As to what respects the inconsistency of bodies like ours, living in the upper world, as being contrary to the nature of gravitation: It may be answered, that according to the generally received opinion of modern philosophers, gravity arises from an external pressure made upon bodies which are said to be heavy or light, according to the force thereof; and therefore those bodies that are in the upper regions, above the atmosphere, are equally adapted to ascend or descend; which sufficiently answers that part of the objection. This a learned writer takes notice of[[177]]: And if this be not acquiesced in, he advances another hypothesis; which, because it has something of wit and spirit in it, I shall take leave to mention, though I must suspend my judgment concerning it, whether it be true or false. He says, perhaps, our heaven will be nothing else but an heaven upon earth; and that it seems more natural to suppose that, since we have solid and material bodies, we shall be placed as we are in this life, in some solid and material orb; and this he supposes agreeable to the apostle Peter’s words, when he speaks of a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness, 2 Pet. iii. 13. From whence he concludes, that either this world shall be fitted to be the seat of the blessed, or some other that has a solid basis like unto it. And to give countenance to this opinion, he refers to some ancient writers; and particularly tells us, that Maximus speaks of it as the opinion of many in his time; and Epiphanius brings in Methodius in the third century, as asserting the same thing.
2. As to what concerns that part of the objection, that bodies, like those we have now, are unmeet for the heavenly state, inasmuch as they cannot be supported without food and other conveniences of nature, which tend to the preservation of life in this world. To this it may be answered, that it is not necessary to suppose that the body shall be raised with such qualities as that it will stand in need of food, rest, or other conveniences of nature; which, at present, tend to the support of life: The apostle seems to assert the contrary, when he says, Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats; but God shall destroy both it and them, 1 Cor. vi. 13. There is certainly a medium between asserting, with some, that we shall be raised with an etherial body, in all respects unlike to that which we have at present; and maintaining, that we shall have such as are liable to the imperfections of this present state, and supported in the same way in which they now are.
As to what the apostle says concerning flesh and blood not inheriting the kingdom of heaven, he does not mean thereby that our bodies shall be so changed, that they shall in no respect consist of flesh and blood: And when he speaks of celestial and spiritual bodies, it is not necessary for us to suppose, that hereby he intends ærial or etherial bodies. But this will be more particularly considered under a following head, when we speak of the circumstances in which the bodies of believers shall be raised from the dead. As for that other scripture, in which they are said to be as the angels of God in heaven, that respects their being immortal and incorruptible; or as the context seems to intimate, that they need not marriage, to perpetuate their generations, in that world: Therefore we have no occasion to strain the sense of the words, so as to suppose that our Saviour intends in his saying they shall be as the angels, that they shall cease to be like what they were when men on earth.
Objec. 4. The last objection which we shall mention, is taken from its not being agreeable to the goodness of God, extended to those who are made partakers of the resurrection to eternal life; inasmuch as it is a bringing them into a worse condition than the soul was in, when separate from the body. This objection is generally brought by those who give into that mode of speaking often used by Plato[[178]] and his followers, that the body in this world, is the prison of the soul, which at death, is set at liberty: therefore they suppose, that its being united to the body again, is no other than its being condemned to a second imprisonment, which is so far from being a favour conferred, that it rather seems to be a punishment inflicted. Others, with Celsus, reckon it a dishonour for the soul to be reunited to a body that is corrupted.[[179]] And others speak of the body as being a great hindrance to the soul in its actings; and frequently inclining it to the exercise of some of those passions that tend to make men uneasy, and thereby unhappy; and that this may, some way or other, take place in a future state.