vxgv, does not in any place of Holy Scripture peculiarly denote the Immortality of the Soul, but plainly fignifies the Refurrection of the Body in all thofe Texts, where the fenfe of it is Determinate; and therefore there is no reason to doubt, that the fame expreffions do Imply the Refurrection of the Body, in all other Texts.

However, fince Recourfe hath been had to this last cautious Reserve, after fome others, that a Future or another ftate is the true Importance of ἀνάςασις, unless in fuch Texts, where the Context reftrains it to the Raifing again of the Body; let it be the Decifive enquiry, whether in this paffage the Context does fo reftrain that word. And we are told, that the Context here does not fo reftrain it, because the Sadducees did not deny the Refurrection 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 ftate. But this

opinion concerning the Sadducees may be refuted, even from the Conceffion of those who contend for it. For those Teftimonies,

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 Resurrection of the Body. For to believe, that there is no Future ftate at all, does unqueftionably fuppofe a Disbelief of the Soul's Future fubfiftence in the Body; and yet to believe that there is another life after this, does not Neceffarily imply a Belief of the Resurrecton of the Body. For though the Body be an Effential part of man, and therefore from the fuppofition of the Soul's existence in a Future ftate may be deduced Arguments concluding with great Probability, that the Body fhall Rife again; yet 'tis plain, that this confequence is not Neceffary. And, to fay nothing of the Heathens in this particular, it is very well known, that feveral Hereticks, mention'd by Epiphanius and others did deny, that the Body fhall be Raised, though they acknowledged the Immortality of the Soul. So that our Saviour had not fufficiently opposed the Infidelity of the Sadducees, if

he had not urged them with a Direct proof of the Resurrection 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. 35, 36. where our Saviour tells the Sadducees, that they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the Refurrecti on from the dead, cannot die any more. In which words a plain Difference is affigned between the state of man in the Refurrection, and that state into which he is reduced by Death; whereas there would not be any fuch Difference, if the Refurrection here spoken of did fignify only the existence of the Soul in a Future ftate. And therefore, fince in these words, neither can they die any more, our Saviour manifeftly fuppofeth, that those Beings, which are in the Refurrection to be made Immortal, have before been subject to Death, and fince 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 Refurrection be Re-united, they shall

never

never again be feparated, but fubfist in that Union for ever.

Several other reafons might be alledged, if this one did not make it abundantly clear, that the Refurrection, which our Saviour here treats of and proves, is the Refurrection of the Body.

The only thing then, which remains to be Illuftrated, is, That fuppofing our Bleffed Saviour's Argument to be a prcof of the Refurrection of the Body, it will not from this fuppofition follow, that the Bodies of the Perfons here spoken of were Raised to life again, at or before the time, when God declared himfelf to be their God. For the Confirmation of which it is obfervable, that the * Expreflion, from which our Lord argues, is not reftrain'd to any thing Actually accomplished by Almighty God, at the time when he fpake unto Mofes. For the reading of the Hebrew text is not, as in our English verfion, I am the God of Abraham, but I the God of Abraham; And in the fame manner is the Greek text read in + St. Mark. And granting

Exod. iii. 6. † ch. xii. y. 26.

that the word fo omitted is to be Underftood, as it is ufually, in the like cafe, in other Hebrew texts; yet this is no reason of restraining God Almighty's Declaration to any thing that he had vouchfafed to the Patriarchs at the time, when he declared himself Their God: Which appears from the use of the fame Expreffion in Parallel texts, as, Ifa. xli. 10. where God thus fpeaks unto Ifrael, Be not difmayed, for I thy God, or I am thy God: And that he declares himself to be fo, not in relation to Paft, but Future favours, is evident from the Importance of this Declaration, by himself Immediately fubjoyned; I will ftrengthen thee, yea I will help thee, yea I will upbold thee with the right hand of my righteousness. And fo our Bleffed Saviour interprets these words of God Almighty, concerning the three Persons in the Text, as an Affurance given by him, that he will Raise them from the dead.

Since then Chrift did intend by this Argument directly to prove the Refurrection of the Body, and fince the expreffion, upon which this Proof depends, is not reF ftrain'd