Imágenes de página

on of the Body, it would prove, that the

Bodies of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were raised to life again, at or before the time, when God spake unto Moses, 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 Diressly and Immedately to prove the Resurreàion of the Body, but only a future state. But there will be no occasion thus to give up our Saviour's Argument, if these two Observations concerning it be True, Fos', That he did intend thereby to prove the Resurrettion of the Body, and Secondly, That supposing it to be such a Proof, it will not from this supposition 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 Observation to be made good is, That our Blessed Saviour intended b this Argument to prove the Resurrečtion of the Body. And in opposition to this 'tis asserted, that dvdzaatc, concerning which the Sadducees propose the quest

[ocr errors]

on, v. 28. and 3,3-adic tày vexedy, which Christ undertakes to demonsorate, v. 3 1. do not peculiarly signify the Resurreàion of the Body, but another life, besides and after this, a conti suing or being kept asive by God, after departure out of this life: In vindication of which 'tis further alledged, that 3v3racic, according to the literal notion of the word, is the Re-sh/iffence of men, denoting as well the Immortality and continuance of the Soul in a state of separation, as the Re-union of the Body

to 11t. But this very Interpretation it self does Overthrow that Opinion, which 'tis brought to Defend. For Re-subsflence cannot signify the Continuance of a Being, though in a Different state from that, in which it did subsist before; but does properly denote that Subsistence, which is Restored after some Interruption or Intermission of it; and is therefore no way applicable to the separate state of the Soul, whose Subsistence hath never been Discontinued at all. To this it may be added, that dyāragic, whether Absolutely taken, or in conjunétion with - Väx609

yezoy, does not in any place of Holy Scripture peculiarly denote the Immortality of the Soul, but plainly signifies the Resurrection of the Body in all those 7exts, where the sense of it is Determinate; and therefore there is no reason to doubt, that the same expressions do Imply the Resurrection 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 dvd-acic, unless in such 7exts, where the Context restrains it to the Raising again of the Body; let it be the Decifive 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 Resurreofion 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 those who contend for it. For those Testimonies, timonies, from which 'tis on all hands agreed, that the Sadducees denied a Future State, are at the same time a full evidence, that they denied the Resurrešion of 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 Resurrettom 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 Necessary. And, to say nothing of the Heathens in this particular, it is very well known, that several Hereticks, mention'd by Epiphamius 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, if he had not urged them with a Direct proof of the Resurrešion 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 worth to obtain that world, and the Resurrečon from the dead, cannot die any more. In which words a plain Difference is assigned between the state of man in the Resurre&ion, and that state into which he is reduced by Death; whereas there would not be any such Difference, if the Resurrečtion here spoken of did signify only the existence of the Soul in a Future state. And therefore, since in these words, meither can they die any more, our Saviour manifestly supposeth, that those Beings, which are in the Resurreč/ion to be made Immortal, have before been subjećt 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 Resurrettion be Re-united, they shall


« AnteriorContinuar »