The belief of a general resurrection of the dead, which
will come to pass at the end of the world, and will be followed with an
immortality either of happiness or misery, is an article of religion in
common to Jews and Christians. It is very expressly taught both in the
Old and New Testaments, Psalm xvi, 10; Job xix, 25, &c; Ezek. xxxvii, 1,
&c; Isaiah xxvi, 19; John v, 28, 29; and to these may be added, Wisdom
iii, 1, &c; iv, 15; 2 Macc. vii, 14, 23, 29, &c. At the time when our
Saviour appeared in Judea, the resurrection from the dead was received
as one of the principal articles of the Jewish religion by the whole
body of the nation, the Sadducees excepted, Matt. xxii, 23; Luke xx, 28;
Mark xii, 18; John xi, 23, 24; Acts xxiii, 6, 8. Our Saviour arose
himself from the dead, to give us, in his own person, a proof, a pledge,
and a pattern of our future resurrection. St. Paul, in almost all his
epistles, speaks of a general resurrection, refutes those who denied or
opposed it, and proves and explains it by several circumstances, Rom.
vi, 5; 1 Cor. xv, 12–15; Phil. iii, 10, 11; Heb. xi, 35; 1 Thess. iv,
13–17, &c.
On this subject no point of discussion, of any importance, arises
among those who admit the truth of Scripture, except as to the way in
which the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is to be
understood;--whether a resurrection of the substance of the body be
meant, or some minute and indestructible part of it. The latter theory
has been adopted for the sake of avoiding certain supposed
difficulties. It cannot however fail to strike every impartial reader
of the New Testament, that the doctrine of the resurrection is there
taught without any nice distinctions. It is always exhibited as a
miraculous work; and represents the same body which is laid in the
grave as the subject of this change from death to life, by the power
of Christ. Thus our Lord was raised in the same body in which he died,
and his resurrection is constantly held forth as the model of ours;
and the Apostle Paul expressly says, “Who shall change _our vile
body_, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.” The only
passage of Scripture which appears to favour the notion of the rising
of the immortal body from some indestructible germ, is 1 Cor. xv, 35,
&c: “But some men will say, How are the dead raised up, and with what
body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened
except it die; and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body
that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some
other grain,” &c. If, however, it had been the intention of the
Apostle, holding this view of the case, to meet objections to the
doctrine of the resurrection, grounded upon the difficulties of
conceiving how the same body, in the popular sense, could be raised up
in substance, we might have expected him to correct this
misapprehension by declaring, that this was not the Christian
doctrine; but that some small parts of the body only, bearing as
little proportion to the whole as the germ of a seed to the plant,
would be preserved, and be unfolded into the perfected body at the
resurrection. Instead of this, he goes on immediately to remind the
objector of the differences which exist between material bodies as
they now exist; between the plant and the bare or naked grain; between
one plant and another; between the flesh of men, of beasts, of fishes,
and of birds; between celestial and terrestrial bodies; and between
the lesser and greater celestial luminaries themselves. Still farther
he proceeds to state the difference, not between the germ of the body
to be raised, and the _body_ given at the resurrection; but between
_the body itself_, understood popularly, which dies, and the body
which shall be raised. “It is sown in corruption, it is raised in
incorruption,” which would not be true of the supposed _incorruptible_
and imperishable germ of this hypothesis; and can only be affirmed of
the body itself, considered in substance, and, in its present state,
corruptible. Farther: the question put by the objector,--“How are the
dead raised up?” does not refer to the _modus agendi_ of the
resurrection, or the process or manner in which the thing is to be
effected, as the advocates of the germ hypothesis appear to assume.
This is manifest from the answer of the Apostle, who goes on
immediately to state, not in what _manner_ the resurrection is to be
effected, but what shall be the _state_ or _condition_ of the
resurrection body; which is no answer at all to the question, if it be
taken in that sense.
Thus, in the argument, the Apostle confines himself wholly to the
possibility of the resurrection of the body in a refined and glorified
state; but omits all reference to the mode in which the thing will be
effected, as being out of the line of the objector’s questions, and in
itself above human thought, and wholly miraculous. It is, however,
clear, that when he speaks of the body, as the subject of this
wondrous “change,” he speaks of it popularly, as the same body in
substance, whatever changes in its qualities or figure may be
impressed upon it. Great _general_ changes it will experience, as from
corruption to incorruption, from mortality to immortality; great
changes of a _particular_ kind will also take place, as its being
freed from deformities and defects, and the accidental varieties
produced by climate, aliments, labour, and hereditary diseases. It is
also laid down by our Lord, that “in the resurrection they shall
neither marry nor be given in marriage, but be like to the angels of
God;” and this also implies a certain change of structure; and we may
gather from the declaration of the Apostle, that though “the stomach”
is now adapted “to meats, and meats to the stomach,” yet God will
“destroy both it and them;” that the animal appetite for food will be
removed, and the organ now adapted to that appetite will have no place
in the renewed frame. But great as these changes are, the human form
will be retained in its perfection, after the model of our Lord’s
“glorious body,” and the substance of the matter of which it is
composed will not thereby be affected. That the same body which was
laid in the grave shall arise out of it, is the manifest doctrine of
the Scriptures. The notion of an incorruptible germ, or that of an
original and unchangeable _stamen_, out of which a new and glorious
body, at the resurrection, is to spring, appears to have been borrowed
from the speculations of some of the Jewish rabbins. But if by this
hypothesis it was designed to remove the difficulty of conceiving how
the scattered parts of one body could be preserved from becoming
integral parts of other bodies, it supposes that the constant care of
Providence is exerted to maintain the incorruptibility of those
individual germs, or stamina, so as to prevent their assimilation with
each other. Now, if they have this by original quality, then the same
quality may just as easily be supposed to appertain to every particle
which composes a human body; so that, though it be used for food, it
shall not be capable of assimilation, in any circumstances, with
another human body. But if these germs, or stamina, have not this
quality by their original nature, they can only be prevented from
assimilating with each other by that operation of God which is present
to all his works, and which must always be directed to secure the
execution of his own ultimate designs. If this view be adopted, then,
if the resort must at last be to the superintendence of a Being of
infinite power and wisdom, there is no greater difficulty in supposing
that his care to secure this object may extend to a million as easily
as to a hundred particles of matter. This is, in fact, the true and
rational answer to the objection that the same piece of matter may
happen to be a part of two or more bodies, as in the instances of men
feeding upon animals which have fed upon men, and of men feeding upon
one another. The question here is one which simply respects the
frustrating a final purpose of the Almighty by an operation of nature.
To suppose that he cannot prevent this, is to deny his power; to
suppose him inattentive to it, is to suppose him indifferent to his
own designs; and to assume that he employs care to prevent it, is to
assume nothing greater, nothing in fact so great, as many instances of
control, which are always occurring; as, for instance, the regulation
of the proportion of the sexes in human births, which cannot be
attributed to chance, but must either be referred to superintendence,
or to some original law. Another objection to the resurrection of the
body has been drawn from the changes of its substance during life; the
answer to which is, that, allowing a frequent and total change of the
substance of the body (which, however, is but an hypothesis) to take
place, it affects not the doctrine of Scripture, which is, that the
body which is laid in the grave shall be raised up. But then, we are
told, that if our bodies have in fact undergone successive changes
during life, the bodies in which we have sinned or performed
rewardable actions may not be, in many instances, the same bodies as
those which will be actually rewarded or punished. We answer, that
rewards and punishments have their relation to the body, not so much
as it is the _subject_ but as it is the _instrument_ of reward and
punishment. It is the soul only which perceives pain or pleasure,
which suffers or enjoys, and is, therefore, the only rewardable
_subject_. Were we, therefore, to admit such corporeal mutations as
are assumed in this objection, they affect not the case of our
accountability. The personal identity or sameness of a rational being,
as Mr. Locke has observed, consists in self-consciousness: “By this
every one is to himself what he calls _self_, without considering
whether that self be continued in the same or divers substances. It
was by the same _self_ which reflects on an action done many years
ago, that the action was performed.” If there were indeed any weight
in this objection, it would affect the proceedings of human criminal
courts in all cases of offences committed at some distance of time;
but it contradicts the common sense, because it contradicts the common
consciousness and experience, of mankind.
Our Lord has assured us, that “the hour is coming in which all that are
in their graves shall hear his voice, and come forth; they that have
done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil,
unto the resurrection of damnation.” Then we shall “all be changed, in a
moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump,” and “the dead
shall be raised incorruptible.” It is probable that the bodies of the
righteous and the wicked, though each shall in some respects be the same
as before, will each be in other respects not the same, but undergo some
change conformable to the character of the individual, and suited to his
future state of existence; yet both, as the passage just quoted clearly
teaches, are then rendered indestructible. Respecting the good it is
said, “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, we shall appear with
him in glory,” “we shall be like him; our body shall be fashioned like
his glorious body;” yet, notwithstanding this, “it doth not yet fully
appear what we shall be,” Col. iii, 4; 1 John iii, 2; Phil. iii, 21.
This has a very obvious reason. Our present manner of knowing depends
upon our present constitution, and we know not the exact relation which
subsists between this constitution and the manner of being in a future
world; we derive our ideas through the medium of the senses; the senses
are necessarily conversant with terrestrial objects only; our language
is suited to the communication of present ideas; and thus it follows
that the objects of the future world may in some respects (whether few
or many we cannot say) differ so extremely from terrestrial objects,
that language cannot communicate to us any such ideas as would render
those matters comprehensible. But language may suggest striking and
pleasing analogies; and with such we are presented by the holy Apostle:
“All flesh,” says he, “is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of
men, another of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds;” and
yet all these are fashioned out of the same kind of substance, mere
inert matter, till God gives it life and activity. It is sown an animal
body; a body which previously existed with all the organs, faculties,
and propensities, requisite to procure, receive, and appropriate
nutriment, as well as to perpetuate the species; but it shall be raised
a spiritual body, refined from the dregs of matter, freed from the
organs and senses required only in its former state, and probably
possessing the remaining senses in greater perfection, together with new
and more exquisite faculties, fitted for the exalted state of existence
and enjoyment to which it is now rising. In the present state the organs
and senses appointed to transmit the impressions of objects to the mind,
have a manifest relation to the respective objects: the eye and seeing,
for example, to light; the ear and hearing, to sound. In the refined and
glorious state of existence to which good men are tending, where the
objects which solicit attention will be infinitely more numerous,
interesting, and delightful, may not the new organs, faculties, and
senses, be proportionally refined, acute, susceptible, or penetrating?
Human industry and invention have placed us, in a manner, in new worlds;
what, then, may not a spiritual body, with sharpened faculties, and the
grandest possible objects of contemplation, effect in the celestial
regions to which Christians are invited? There the senses will no longer
degrade the affections, the imagination no longer corrupt the heart; the
magnificent scenery thrown open to view will animate the attention, give
a glow and vigour to the sentiments; that roused attention will never
tire; those glowing sentiments will never cloy; but the man, now
constituted of an indestructible body, as well as of an immortal soul,
may visit in eternal succession the streets of the celestial city, may
“drink of the pure river of the water of life, clear as crystal,
proceeding out of the throne of God, and of the Lamb;” and dwell for
ever in those abodes of harmony and peace, which, though “eye hath not
seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the imagination of man to
conceive,” we are assured “God hath prepared for them that love him,” 1
Cor. ii, 9.
will come to pass at the end of the world, and will be followed with an
immortality either of happiness or misery, is an article of religion in
common to Jews and Christians. It is very expressly taught both in the
Old and New Testaments, Psalm xvi, 10; Job xix, 25, &c; Ezek. xxxvii, 1,
&c; Isaiah xxvi, 19; John v, 28, 29; and to these may be added, Wisdom
iii, 1, &c; iv, 15; 2 Macc. vii, 14, 23, 29, &c. At the time when our
Saviour appeared in Judea, the resurrection from the dead was received
as one of the principal articles of the Jewish religion by the whole
body of the nation, the Sadducees excepted, Matt. xxii, 23; Luke xx, 28;
Mark xii, 18; John xi, 23, 24; Acts xxiii, 6, 8. Our Saviour arose
himself from the dead, to give us, in his own person, a proof, a pledge,
and a pattern of our future resurrection. St. Paul, in almost all his
epistles, speaks of a general resurrection, refutes those who denied or
opposed it, and proves and explains it by several circumstances, Rom.
vi, 5; 1 Cor. xv, 12–15; Phil. iii, 10, 11; Heb. xi, 35; 1 Thess. iv,
13–17, &c.
On this subject no point of discussion, of any importance, arises
among those who admit the truth of Scripture, except as to the way in
which the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is to be
understood;--whether a resurrection of the substance of the body be
meant, or some minute and indestructible part of it. The latter theory
has been adopted for the sake of avoiding certain supposed
difficulties. It cannot however fail to strike every impartial reader
of the New Testament, that the doctrine of the resurrection is there
taught without any nice distinctions. It is always exhibited as a
miraculous work; and represents the same body which is laid in the
grave as the subject of this change from death to life, by the power
of Christ. Thus our Lord was raised in the same body in which he died,
and his resurrection is constantly held forth as the model of ours;
and the Apostle Paul expressly says, “Who shall change _our vile
body_, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.” The only
passage of Scripture which appears to favour the notion of the rising
of the immortal body from some indestructible germ, is 1 Cor. xv, 35,
&c: “But some men will say, How are the dead raised up, and with what
body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened
except it die; and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body
that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some
other grain,” &c. If, however, it had been the intention of the
Apostle, holding this view of the case, to meet objections to the
doctrine of the resurrection, grounded upon the difficulties of
conceiving how the same body, in the popular sense, could be raised up
in substance, we might have expected him to correct this
misapprehension by declaring, that this was not the Christian
doctrine; but that some small parts of the body only, bearing as
little proportion to the whole as the germ of a seed to the plant,
would be preserved, and be unfolded into the perfected body at the
resurrection. Instead of this, he goes on immediately to remind the
objector of the differences which exist between material bodies as
they now exist; between the plant and the bare or naked grain; between
one plant and another; between the flesh of men, of beasts, of fishes,
and of birds; between celestial and terrestrial bodies; and between
the lesser and greater celestial luminaries themselves. Still farther
he proceeds to state the difference, not between the germ of the body
to be raised, and the _body_ given at the resurrection; but between
_the body itself_, understood popularly, which dies, and the body
which shall be raised. “It is sown in corruption, it is raised in
incorruption,” which would not be true of the supposed _incorruptible_
and imperishable germ of this hypothesis; and can only be affirmed of
the body itself, considered in substance, and, in its present state,
corruptible. Farther: the question put by the objector,--“How are the
dead raised up?” does not refer to the _modus agendi_ of the
resurrection, or the process or manner in which the thing is to be
effected, as the advocates of the germ hypothesis appear to assume.
This is manifest from the answer of the Apostle, who goes on
immediately to state, not in what _manner_ the resurrection is to be
effected, but what shall be the _state_ or _condition_ of the
resurrection body; which is no answer at all to the question, if it be
taken in that sense.
Thus, in the argument, the Apostle confines himself wholly to the
possibility of the resurrection of the body in a refined and glorified
state; but omits all reference to the mode in which the thing will be
effected, as being out of the line of the objector’s questions, and in
itself above human thought, and wholly miraculous. It is, however,
clear, that when he speaks of the body, as the subject of this
wondrous “change,” he speaks of it popularly, as the same body in
substance, whatever changes in its qualities or figure may be
impressed upon it. Great _general_ changes it will experience, as from
corruption to incorruption, from mortality to immortality; great
changes of a _particular_ kind will also take place, as its being
freed from deformities and defects, and the accidental varieties
produced by climate, aliments, labour, and hereditary diseases. It is
also laid down by our Lord, that “in the resurrection they shall
neither marry nor be given in marriage, but be like to the angels of
God;” and this also implies a certain change of structure; and we may
gather from the declaration of the Apostle, that though “the stomach”
is now adapted “to meats, and meats to the stomach,” yet God will
“destroy both it and them;” that the animal appetite for food will be
removed, and the organ now adapted to that appetite will have no place
in the renewed frame. But great as these changes are, the human form
will be retained in its perfection, after the model of our Lord’s
“glorious body,” and the substance of the matter of which it is
composed will not thereby be affected. That the same body which was
laid in the grave shall arise out of it, is the manifest doctrine of
the Scriptures. The notion of an incorruptible germ, or that of an
original and unchangeable _stamen_, out of which a new and glorious
body, at the resurrection, is to spring, appears to have been borrowed
from the speculations of some of the Jewish rabbins. But if by this
hypothesis it was designed to remove the difficulty of conceiving how
the scattered parts of one body could be preserved from becoming
integral parts of other bodies, it supposes that the constant care of
Providence is exerted to maintain the incorruptibility of those
individual germs, or stamina, so as to prevent their assimilation with
each other. Now, if they have this by original quality, then the same
quality may just as easily be supposed to appertain to every particle
which composes a human body; so that, though it be used for food, it
shall not be capable of assimilation, in any circumstances, with
another human body. But if these germs, or stamina, have not this
quality by their original nature, they can only be prevented from
assimilating with each other by that operation of God which is present
to all his works, and which must always be directed to secure the
execution of his own ultimate designs. If this view be adopted, then,
if the resort must at last be to the superintendence of a Being of
infinite power and wisdom, there is no greater difficulty in supposing
that his care to secure this object may extend to a million as easily
as to a hundred particles of matter. This is, in fact, the true and
rational answer to the objection that the same piece of matter may
happen to be a part of two or more bodies, as in the instances of men
feeding upon animals which have fed upon men, and of men feeding upon
one another. The question here is one which simply respects the
frustrating a final purpose of the Almighty by an operation of nature.
To suppose that he cannot prevent this, is to deny his power; to
suppose him inattentive to it, is to suppose him indifferent to his
own designs; and to assume that he employs care to prevent it, is to
assume nothing greater, nothing in fact so great, as many instances of
control, which are always occurring; as, for instance, the regulation
of the proportion of the sexes in human births, which cannot be
attributed to chance, but must either be referred to superintendence,
or to some original law. Another objection to the resurrection of the
body has been drawn from the changes of its substance during life; the
answer to which is, that, allowing a frequent and total change of the
substance of the body (which, however, is but an hypothesis) to take
place, it affects not the doctrine of Scripture, which is, that the
body which is laid in the grave shall be raised up. But then, we are
told, that if our bodies have in fact undergone successive changes
during life, the bodies in which we have sinned or performed
rewardable actions may not be, in many instances, the same bodies as
those which will be actually rewarded or punished. We answer, that
rewards and punishments have their relation to the body, not so much
as it is the _subject_ but as it is the _instrument_ of reward and
punishment. It is the soul only which perceives pain or pleasure,
which suffers or enjoys, and is, therefore, the only rewardable
_subject_. Were we, therefore, to admit such corporeal mutations as
are assumed in this objection, they affect not the case of our
accountability. The personal identity or sameness of a rational being,
as Mr. Locke has observed, consists in self-consciousness: “By this
every one is to himself what he calls _self_, without considering
whether that self be continued in the same or divers substances. It
was by the same _self_ which reflects on an action done many years
ago, that the action was performed.” If there were indeed any weight
in this objection, it would affect the proceedings of human criminal
courts in all cases of offences committed at some distance of time;
but it contradicts the common sense, because it contradicts the common
consciousness and experience, of mankind.
Our Lord has assured us, that “the hour is coming in which all that are
in their graves shall hear his voice, and come forth; they that have
done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil,
unto the resurrection of damnation.” Then we shall “all be changed, in a
moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump,” and “the dead
shall be raised incorruptible.” It is probable that the bodies of the
righteous and the wicked, though each shall in some respects be the same
as before, will each be in other respects not the same, but undergo some
change conformable to the character of the individual, and suited to his
future state of existence; yet both, as the passage just quoted clearly
teaches, are then rendered indestructible. Respecting the good it is
said, “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, we shall appear with
him in glory,” “we shall be like him; our body shall be fashioned like
his glorious body;” yet, notwithstanding this, “it doth not yet fully
appear what we shall be,” Col. iii, 4; 1 John iii, 2; Phil. iii, 21.
This has a very obvious reason. Our present manner of knowing depends
upon our present constitution, and we know not the exact relation which
subsists between this constitution and the manner of being in a future
world; we derive our ideas through the medium of the senses; the senses
are necessarily conversant with terrestrial objects only; our language
is suited to the communication of present ideas; and thus it follows
that the objects of the future world may in some respects (whether few
or many we cannot say) differ so extremely from terrestrial objects,
that language cannot communicate to us any such ideas as would render
those matters comprehensible. But language may suggest striking and
pleasing analogies; and with such we are presented by the holy Apostle:
“All flesh,” says he, “is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of
men, another of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds;” and
yet all these are fashioned out of the same kind of substance, mere
inert matter, till God gives it life and activity. It is sown an animal
body; a body which previously existed with all the organs, faculties,
and propensities, requisite to procure, receive, and appropriate
nutriment, as well as to perpetuate the species; but it shall be raised
a spiritual body, refined from the dregs of matter, freed from the
organs and senses required only in its former state, and probably
possessing the remaining senses in greater perfection, together with new
and more exquisite faculties, fitted for the exalted state of existence
and enjoyment to which it is now rising. In the present state the organs
and senses appointed to transmit the impressions of objects to the mind,
have a manifest relation to the respective objects: the eye and seeing,
for example, to light; the ear and hearing, to sound. In the refined and
glorious state of existence to which good men are tending, where the
objects which solicit attention will be infinitely more numerous,
interesting, and delightful, may not the new organs, faculties, and
senses, be proportionally refined, acute, susceptible, or penetrating?
Human industry and invention have placed us, in a manner, in new worlds;
what, then, may not a spiritual body, with sharpened faculties, and the
grandest possible objects of contemplation, effect in the celestial
regions to which Christians are invited? There the senses will no longer
degrade the affections, the imagination no longer corrupt the heart; the
magnificent scenery thrown open to view will animate the attention, give
a glow and vigour to the sentiments; that roused attention will never
tire; those glowing sentiments will never cloy; but the man, now
constituted of an indestructible body, as well as of an immortal soul,
may visit in eternal succession the streets of the celestial city, may
“drink of the pure river of the water of life, clear as crystal,
proceeding out of the throne of God, and of the Lamb;” and dwell for
ever in those abodes of harmony and peace, which, though “eye hath not
seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the imagination of man to
conceive,” we are assured “God hath prepared for them that love him,” 1
Cor. ii, 9.