souls: Which might take its first rise from what they had received by tradition, concerning the translation of Enoch and Elijah; as the stories of those that were raised from the dead might be first invented by them with this view, that their religion might have as great reputation as that of the Jews.

But notwithstanding these particular instances related by them, of some translated, or others raised from the dead; there were very few of them that believed the doctrine of the resurrection; and some treated it with as much contempt as we do the before-mentioned account which they give of particular persons raised from the dead t. This agrees very well with, what we read in scripture, concerning the treatment the apostle Paul met with, when he encountered the Epicureans and Stoicks at Athens, preaching to them Jesus and the resurrection, Acts xvii. 18. upon which occasion they call him babbler; and insinuated that he seemed to be a setter forth of strange gods. Oecumenius and Chrysostom think, that they supposed he reckoned the resurrection among the gods, as well as Fesus, whose divinity he doubtless maintained; but whether they were so stupid as thus to wrest his words, is not material. It is no wonder to find the Epicureans treating this doctrine with ridicule; for they, denying the immortality of the soul, could not entertain the least idea of the resurrection of the body in any sense: Whereas the Stoicks, though they did not own the doctrine of the resurrection, yet they could not think it so strange a doctrine as some others might do; since they held that the soul, after death, continued at least, as long as the body; and they knew very well, that many of the philosophers strenuously maintained the transmigration of souls; and, indeed, this was held by many of them, as well as the Platonists and Pythagoreans; and therefore the resurrection, though it differed from it, could not seem so strange and unheard of a

See a late learned writer, Hody on the resurrection of the same body; who refers to several places in Heathen writers, of whom some believed it; others exposed it as fabulous, Pag. 13-16.

Thus Pliny, who a little before related several stories of persons raised from the dead, notwithstanding calls the doctrine of the resurrection, puerile deliramentum. Vid. Ejusd. Nat. Hist. Lib. vii. Cap. lv. and elsewhere he speaks of it as a thing in its own nature impossible; and therefore concludes it to be one of those things which God cannot do. Lib. ii. Cap. vii. Ne Deum quidem posse omnia, nec mortales æternitate donare, aut revocare defunctos. And Minutius Felix. Vid. Ejusd. Octav. Cap. xi. brings in an Heathen, who was his friend, railing at it, without any decency, as though it was no better than an old wives fable; and the principal argument he produces, is, because he supposes it impossible for a body that was burnt to ashes, to spring up into life again. And Celsus, speaking concerning the impossibility of God's doing any thing contrary to nature, reckons this among those things. Vid. Orig. Contr. Cels. Lab. v. Page 240. and says, the hope hereof is more worthy of worms than mer and styles it an abominable, as well as an impossible thing, which God neither cam

nor will do.

† Αναςασις.

notion, as that they should reckon it among the gods: However, it plainly appears from hence that this doctrine could not be learned by the light of nature; whatever confused ideas the Heathen might have entertained by tradition, concerning it.

Therefore it follows from hence, that we must look for a satisfactory account hereof from scripture: Thus when the Sadducees put a stupid question to our Saviour concerning the woman that had seven husbands, which successively died; and they would know whose wife she should be in the resurrection; by which they designed to express their opposition to this doctrine, rather than a desire of information as to the question proposed: Our Saviour in his reply to them refers them to the scriptures, Matt. xxii 29. as the fountain from whence a clear and satisfactory knowledge of this doctrine is to be derived as well as from the power of God. This divine perfection argues the possibility thereof, the justice and goodness of God, its expediency; but the scriptures, which contain a revelation of his will, represent it as certain; and this leads us to consider some arguments that are contained in, or deduced from scripture for the proof thereof; and here we shall consider,

1. Those proofs which we have for it, taken from the Old Testament. These I chuse first to insist on, because I am sensible there are many who think, that the church knew nothing of it, till it was revealed, by our Saviour, in the New Testament: This very much detracts from the importance of the doctrine, as well as renders the state of those who lived before Christ's incarnation, very uncomfortable, since the saints, according to this opinion, must have had no hope of a glorious resurrection to eternal life. This notion is defended by many who extend the darkness of the dispensation farther than what is convenient; and among others, it is generally maintained by the Socinians, probably with this design, that since according to them, our Saviour had little else in view, in coming into the world, but to lead men into the knowledge of some things which they were ignorant of before; this might be reckoned one of those doctrines that he came to communicate. Volkelius denies that there were any promises of eternal life made to the church under the Old Testament; and concludes that there was no one who had the least surmise that any such doctrine was contained in those scriptures which we commonly bring from thence to prove it *. And to give countenance

Thus

* Vid. Volkel, de vera relig. Lib. iii. Cap. xi. Apparet promissionem vitæ sempiternæ in prisco illo foedere factam minime fuisse. “And in a following part of this chapter, wherein he professedly treats on this subject, he adds; Quæ apertis luculentissimisq; verbis ut in nova scriptura fieri videamus, hoc Dei beneficium nobis polliceantur. Ex quorum munere, hoc de quo agimus, nequaquam esse hinc patet, quod antequam Christus illud explicaret, nemo unquam extitit, qui vel suspicari auderet, tale quid illo comprehendi.

to this opinion, several quotations are often taken from Jewish writers, since our Saviour's time, who either speak doubtfully of this matter, or give occasion to think that they did not understand those scriptures which establish the doctrine of the resurrection in the Old Testament, as having any reference to it.

Therefore it may not be amiss for us to enquire; what were the sentiments of some of the Jews about this matter? Every one knows that there was one sect amongst them, namely, the Sadducees, who distinguished themselves from others by deny. ing it: And Josephus gives the largest account of any one, concerning another sect, to wit, the Essens, who affected to lead a recluse life, in their respective colleges, and were governed by laws peculiar to themselves: Among other things which he relates concerning their conduct and sentiments, he says, that it was an opinion established among them, that the bodies of men were corruptible, and the matter of which they were compounded, not perpetual; though the soul remained for ever: And then he represents them as speaking, according to the Pythagorean and Platonick way, concerning the body's being the prison of the soul, and its remaining when released from it, and of the soul's dwelling in a pleasant place, and enjoying many things that tend to make it happy, &c. *. Nevertheless, his account of them is so short, and the expression on which the whole stress of this supposition is founded, a little ambiguous, namely, that the bodies of men are corruptible, and their matter not perpetual, which may be understood as agreeing with the common faith concerning man's mortality, and the body's turning to corruption, and not remaining in the same state in which it was; that it seems to leave the matter doubtful, whether they asserted or denied the resurrection. It is also supposed, that Philo denied this doctrine from several pas sages observed in his writings, which a late learned writer takes notice of; but this is only the opinion of a single person, who, according to his general character, seems to be halting between two opinions, to wit, the doctrine of Moses, and the philosophy of Plato; and therefore I take his sentiments, about this, to be nothing else but an affection of thinking or speaking agreeably to the Platonic philosophy, which had probably given such a tincture to his notions, that he might deny the resurrection. And if the Essens, before-mentioned, should be allowed to have denied it, they received it from their attachment to the same, or, at least, the Pythagorean philosophy: But we cannot from hence conclude that the doctrine of the resurrection was denied by the main body of the Jews, or the greatest part

* Vid. Joseph. de Bell. Jud. Iäb. ii. Cap. vii. Kas yap eppalas wap auless nde n Seža φθαρία μεν είναι τα σωματα, και την υλὴν ου μόνιμον αύτοις, δε

See Dr. Hody on the resurrection, &c. Page 56–59.

of them; or by any, excepting those who were led out of the way, by the writings of the philosophers: Which gave occasion to the apostle Paul to warn the church to beware of philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ, Col. ii. 8. as foresee ing that some of them, in after-ages, would, in many respects, corrupt the doctrines of the gospel, by accommodating them to, or explaining them by what they found in the writings of the Heathen philosophers, as Origen, Justin Martyr, and some others did; and he seems to take the hint from what had been before observed relating to the corruption of the Jewish faith, by those who were attached to them. Thus concerning the opinion of those Jews, who are supposed to deny the doctrine of the resurrection.

On the other hand, there are several Rabbinical writers, who sufficiently intimate their belief of this doctrine; though it is true, some of them infer it from such premises, as discov er great weakness in their method of reasoning. Thus the learned bishop Pearson observes, that they produce several places out of Moses's writings, which when the resurrection is believed, may, in some kind, serve to illustrate it, but can, in no degree, be thought to reveal so great a mystery, And Dr. Lightfoot produces other proofs, which they bring for this doctrine, as little to the purpose †, of which all the use that can be made is, that we may from hence observe, that they believ ed the doctrine we are maintaining, to be contained in scripture. Whether they were able to defend it by shewing the force of those arguments on which it is founded therein or no,

See Bishop Pearson on the Creed, Artic. 11. who observes, from their writings, that because, in the formation of man, mentioned in Gen. ii. 7. Moses uses the word ", and in the formation of beasts, verse 19. the word 8, the former having two jods, the latter but one: Therefore the beasts are made but once, but man twice, to wit, once in his generation, and the second time in his resurrection. And they strangely apprehend a proof of the resurrection to be contained in the malediction, Gen. iii. 19. Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return, q. d. thou art now dust while thou livest; and, after death, thou shalt return unto this dust, that is, thou shalt live again, as thou, dost now: And those words in Exod. xv. 1. then sang Moses and the children of Israel; they render he shall sing, viz. after the resurrection in the life to come, and from thence infer this doctrine, which could afford but very small satisfaction to the Sadducees, while they omitted to insist on other preg nant proofs thereof.

See Vol. II. Heb. and Talmud. Exercit. on John iv. 25. wherein he says, that they pretend to prove it from Deut. xxxi. 16. where God says to Moses, Thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, and rise again; which is an addition to, as well as a perversion of the text; which says, the people shall rise up and go a whoring, &c. and Page 541, and 787. he represents them as proving it from Josh. viii 30. where it is said, that Joshua built an altar unto the Lord; which they translate, he shall build an altar; supposing this to be after the resurrection: And from Psal. lxxxiv. 4. Blessed are they that dwell in thy house, they will be still praising thee, they suppose is meant of their praising God after the resurrection. See many other absurd methods of reasoning to the same purpose, referred to by him in the same place.

is not much to our present purpose, my design in referring to their writings being to prove that this doctrine was embraced by the Jews, in the ages before, as well as since our Saviour's time. It is true, the Talmud, and other writings, which are generally quoted for the proof of it, are of later date, and the most ancient of the Chaldee paraphrases now extant, is supposed to have been written about that time, or, at least, but little before it: And there are no uninspired writings, relating to the Jewish affairs, more ancient, except those which we generally call Apocryphal; which most suppose to have been written a bout 150 years before the Christian Era. And it is very evident, that about that time the doctrine of the resurrection was believed by the Jewish church; as the author of the book of Maccabees, in the history of the martyrdom of the seven brethren in the reign of Antiochus *, represents some of them in the agonies of death, as expressing the firm belief they had of a resurrection to eternal life; their mother, in the mean while, encouraging them from the same consideration. These, as it is more than probable, the apostle includes in the number of those noble Old Testament worthies who were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection, Heb. xi. 35. which is an undeniable evidence that the church at that time believed the doctrine of the resurrection.

All that I shall add under this head is, that how weak soever the reasoning of some Jewish writers, concerning this subject, has been, there are others who give substantial proofs from the Old Testament; which not only argues that they believed it, but that their belief proceeded from a just conviction of the truth thereof. And they give the same sense of some of those scriptures which are generally produced for the proof hereof, as we do t

The first scripture that we shall take notice of, is what contains the vision mentioned in Ezek. xxxvii. 1, & seq. concerning the valley which was full of bones, which were very dry: Upon which occasion God says, Son of man, Can these bones

• Macab. vii. 9, 11, 14, 23, 29.

Thus Josephus Jacchiades, referred to by Witsius in Symb. Exercit. xxvi. § 41. in explaining that famous text in Daniel xii. 2. says, Et tunc fiet miraculum resurrectionis mortuorum: Nam multi dormientium in terra pulverulenta expergiscentur, hi ad vitam æternam, qui sunt sancti; illi vero ad opprobria & detestationem æternam; qui sunt impii. Quorum resurrectionis causa est, ut impii fateantur palam, suam fidem esse falsam, & eos qui ipsis fidem habuerint, prosecutos fuisse vanitatem atque evanuisse, ipsique agnoscant suos majores falsitatem possedisse. And Menasseh Ben Israel, de Resurr. mort. Lib. ii. Cap. viii. proves it from the same scripture. More to the same purpose may be seen in Dr. Hody on the resurrection, Page 72. & seq. who quotes several of the Talmudical writers, as signifying their belief of this doctrine; and especially Pocock in Maimon. Port. Mof. Cap. vi. who produces a multitude of quotations to the same purpose; in which some assert this doctrine without proof, others establish it by solid arguments, and some mix a great many absurd notions with it, which we shall, at present, pass over.