Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

on of the Body, it would prove, that the Bodies of Abraham, Ifaac and Jacob were raised to life again, at or before the time, when God fpake unto Mofes, and called himself their God; but this we do not believe: And therefore 'tis added, that we ought not to suppose, that it was the Intention of our Saviour Directly and Immediately to prove the Refurrection of the Body, but only a future ftate.

But there will be no occafion thus to give up our Saviour's Argument, if these two Obfervations concerning it be True,

First, That he did intend thereby to prove the Refurrection of the Body, and

Secondly, That fuppofing it to be fuch a Proof, it will not from this fuppofition follow, that the Bodies of these Holy men were raised to life again, at or before the time, when God declared himself to be their God.

The first Obfervation to be made good is, That our Blessed Saviour intended by this Argument to prove the Refurrection of the Body. And in oppofition to this 'tis afferted, that avasaris, concerning which the Sadducees propose the questi

on,

on, v. 28. and ávásαois tŵy vengŵv, which Chrift undertakes to demonftrate, v. 31. do not peculiarly fignify the Refurrection of the Body, but another life, befides and after this, a continuing or being kept alive by God, after departure out of this life: In vindication of which 'tis further alledged, that avasaris, according to the literal notion of the word, is the Re-fubfiftence of men, denoting as well the Immortality and continuance of the Soul in a ftate of separation, as the Re-union of the Body

to it.

But this very Interpretation it fself does Overthrow that Opinion, which 'tis brought to Defend. For Re-fubfiftence cannot fignify the Continuance of a Being, though in a Different ftate from that, in which it did fubfift before; but does properly denote that Subfiftence, which is Reftored after fome Interruption or Intermiffion of it; and is therefore no way applicable to the separate state of the Soul, whofe Subfiftence hath never been Discontinued at all. To this it may be added, that avasaris, whether Absolutely taken, or in conjunction with

νεκρῶν

vexgŵy, 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 sense 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 laft 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 so restrain 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 Refurrection 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 Refurrecton of the Body. For though the Body be an Effential part of man, and therefore from the fuppofition of the Soul's exiftence 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

3

he

[ocr errors]

he had not urged them with a Direct proof of the Refurrection 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 signify 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 Resurrection 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

« AnteriorContinuar »