« AnteriorContinuar »
wxfwv, does not in any place bf Holy Scripture peculiarly denote the Immortality of the Soul, but plainly signifies the Resurrection of the Body in all thofe Texts, where the sense of it is Determinate; and therefore there is no reason to doubt, that the same expressions do Imply the ResurreBton of the Body, in all other Texts.
However, since Recourse hath been had to this last cautious Reserve, after some others, that a Future or another state is the true Importance of dvurtxffig, unless in such Texts, where the Context restrains it to the Raising again of the Body; let it be the Decisive enquiry, whether in this passage the Context does so restrain that word. And we are told, that the Context here does not so restrain it, because the Sadducees did not deny the ResurreBton of the Body; and therefore the only thing to be proved against them by our Saviour, was the Existence of the Soul in a Future state. But this opinion concerning the Sadducees may be refuted, even from the Concession of thofe who contend for it. For thofe Testimonies, timonies, from which 'tis on all hands agreed, that the Sadducees denied a Future State, are at the fame time a full evidence, that they denied the ResurreBion os the Body. For to believe, that there is no Future state at all, does unquestionably suppose a Disbelief of the Soul's Future subsistence in the Body; and yet to believe that there is another life after this, does not Necessarily imply a Belief of the Resurrect on of the Body. For though the Body be an Essential part of man, and therefore from the supposition of the Soul's existence in a Future state may be deduced Arguments concluding with great Probability, that the Body shall Rise again; yet 'tis plain, that this consequence is not Necesiary. And, to say nothing of the Heathens in this particular, it is very well known, that several Hereticks, mentioned by Epiphanius and others did deny, that the Body shall be Raised, though they acknowledged the Immortality of the Soul. So that our Saviour had not sufficiently opposed the Infidelity of the Sadducees, is 3 he he had not urged them with a* Direct proof of the ResurreBion of the Body.
And that this was the Drift of his Argument, may appear by the Account which St. Luke gives of it, ch. xx. v. 3 j, 36. where our Saviour telkthe Sadducee^ that they which shall he accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the ResurreBion from the dead, cannot die any more. In which words a plain Difference is assigned between the state of man in the ResurreBion, and that state into which he is reduced by Death; whereas there would not be any such Difference, is the Resurrection here spoken of did signify only the existence of the Soul in a Future state. And therefore, since in these words, neither can they die any more, our Saviour manifestly fupposeth, that those Beings, which are in the ResurreBion to be made Immortal, have before been subject to Death, and since the Soul does not die; nothing can be understood by them but this, that when the Body and Soul, which have been separated by Death, shall in the Resurrection be Re-united, they shall never again be separated, but subsist in that Union ioi ever.
Several other reasons might be alledged, if this one did not make it abundantly clear, that the Resurrection, which our Saviour here treats of and proves, is the KesnrreBion of the Body.
The only thing then, which remains to be Illustrated, is, That supposing our Blessed Saviour's Argument to be a proof of the Rejurrection of the Body, it will not from this supposition follow, that the Bodies of the Persons here spoken o'f were Raised to life again, at or before the time, when God declared himself to be their God. For the Confirmation of which it is observable, that the * Expression, from which our Lord argues, is not restrain'd to any thing Actually accomplished by Almighty God, at the time when he spake unto Moses. For the reading of the Hebrew text is not, as in our English version, I am the God of Abraham, but / the God of Abraham; And in the fame manner is the Greek text read in f St. Mark. And granting
* Exod. iii. 6. \ ch. xii. f, z6.
that the word so omitted is to be Understood, as it is usually, in the like case, in other Hebrew texts; yet this is no reason of restraining God Almighty's Declaration to any thing that he had vouchsafed to the Patriarchs at the time, when he declared himself Their God: Which appears from the use of the same Expression in Parallel texts, as, Isa. xli. 10. where God thus speaks unto Israel, Be not dismayed, for I thy God, or I am thy God: And that he1 declares himself to be so, not in relation to Past, but Future savours, is evident from the Importance of this Declaration, by himself Immediately subjoyned; / willflrengthen thee, yea I will help thee, yea I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness. And so our Blessed Saviour interprets these words of God Almighty, concerning the three Persons in the Text, as an Assurance given by him, that he will Raise them from the dead.
Since then Chris did intend by this Argument directly to prove the ResurreBion os the Body, and since the expression, upon which this Proof depends, is not re