and which can only be made to bear upon it by a violence amounting to torture. Such an one will be struck, too, by the endless contrariety of opinion that appears in their speculations on the theme. One Rabbi' of blessed memory' says this, another Rabbi' of blessed memory' says that, while the citer knows not which to believe, and the reader sees no sufficient ground for believing either—" each claiming truth, and truth disclaiming both." It would be an easy matter to fill a volume with the conflicting sentiments of the Jewish schools on this subject, but happily we are precluded the necessity of encumbering our pages with the detail of their dogmas and dotings. The question is one to be decided by a direct appeal to the oracles of inspiration. To this we are competent ourselves, and upon it we now enter; although it will be inevitable, in the course of our remarks, to make frequent reference to Jewish interpretations.

CHAPTER III.

Onomatology; Definition of Terms.

As the drift of our expositions will go to show that the intimations in the Old Testament of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body are at best extremely dubious, so the occurrence of corresponding terms by which to express it is in proportion but little to be looked for. As the idea, however, of such a resurrection is not unknown to the Jewish writers, there are one or two phrases which are by them somewhat familiarly and technically applied to it. The principal of these are p and , the former derived from to stand up, and the latter from to live. Το the former the Greek word στάσις or ἀνάστασις, standing or standing again, corresponds; to the latter, avaßimois or

p

wonoinois, revivification or reviviscence. The use of in this sense is probably to be traced in the main to Ps. 1.5, where it is said, "the ungodly shall not stand (2) in judgment," which many of the Rabbins understand as equivalent to a denial that the wicked shall rise at the last day. Thus, R. D. Kimchi on the place: nnn nnn að brsuną harp as it concerns the wicked, there shall not be to them a resurrection. The same sentiment is asserted again and again by other Rabbinical writers, as we shall have occasion in the sequel to evince. The current Hebrew term for resuscitate or vivify is in the Piel or causative form, a pertinent instance of which occurs, Hos. 6. 2, where, in fact, both terms are met with. "After two days will he revive us (); in the third day he will raise us up (2), and we shall live () in his sight." Hence the phrase

quickening of the dead, is of familiar use in the Rabbinical writings, and traceable to a variety of passages, which, though conveying the sense of a spiritual or allegorical revival only, they have generally interpreted according to the strictness of the letter, and built upon them the tenet of a corporeal resurrection. The evidence of this we shall adduce as we proceed.

The Syriac, while it sometimes employs a phrase literally equivalent to resurrection of the dead, makes use, in other instances, of the term nuhama, consolation, for expressing this idea. Thus John 11. 24, 25, "Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the consolation, at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the consolation and the life." Hence, in the Talmud, the day of the resurrection is frequently termed a day of consolation,

and the Targum upon Hos. 6. 2, has the same diction. The grounds of this usage will be at once perceived. The anticipation of a day when the dead should be raised and enter upon their reward, is the great source of consolation to the pious in all ages, whatever modifications the ascer

tainment of the exact truth on the subject may bring over the character of the hope. The Arabic has an equivalent phraseology, though it frequently employs a term signifying the return, i. e. of the soul to the body.

The prevailing Greek word used to denote the resurrection, as is well known, is avάoraσis, anastasis, derived from the verb avionu, to rise, to rise again, to stand up. But upon the true sense of this term, in this connexion, we shall enlarge at greater length when we come to consider the New Testament evidence of the doctrine. In 2 Mac. 7. 9, we find the term ἀναβίωσις : "And when he was at the last gasp, he said thus; Thou indeed, O most wicked man, destroyest us out of this present life; but the King of the world will raise us up, (avaßiwois) who die for his laws, in the resurrection of eternal life."

There can be no doubt that in all these cases the usage is founded upon ideas drawn from visible objects and phenomena, and such as were appropriate to a general belief of the resurrection, the standing up again, of the defunct body. Yet our concern, in the present discussion, is rather with the grounds and reasons of the belief, than with the belief itself. The truth of the doctrine is one thing, and the Jewish construction of it another. The sense, therefore, in which they used these various terms, though important to be known, affords us but little aid in coming at the grand verity itself. This can be compassed only by a direct appeal to the Scriptures themselves, and for this we are now prepared.

CHAPTER IV.

Examination of Particular Passages.

We may properly open our array of Old Testament citations with a passage which, but for the use that has been

made of it, we should never have suspected of bearing at all on the point in debate. This is the promise made to Abraham,

66

And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Upon this Menasseh Ben Israel (De Resurrec. Mort. L. i, c. 1, $ 4,) remarks, “ It is plain that Abraham and the rest of the Patriarchs did not possess that land; it follows, therefore, that they must be raised in order to enjoy the promised good, as otherwise the promises of God would be vain and false, IIence, therefore, is proved not only the immortality of the soul, but also the essential foundation of the law, to wit: the resurrection of the dead." Mede also puts the same construction upon the words, and it is generally adopted by the Millenarian writers, who very unanimously regard Mede as their great oracle. In reply, we observe, (1.) If our previous train of reasoning be sound, the drift of which is to evince that the future resurrection of the same body is intrinsically inconceivable and incredible, it follows that the bodies of Abraham and the patriarchs are no more to be raised than any other bodies, whatever may be the language of the letter. What is denied of the race in toto, must be denied of the individuals in parte. (2.) The admitted principles of philology are directly against the pro

posed rendering. By both the Greek and Hebrew usage the particle' and' is very often synonymous with 'even,' and should so be rendered, i. e. as exegetical of what goes before. Thus, 1 Chron. 21. 12, "The Lord's sword and the pestilence,” i. e. even the pestilence. Num. 31. 6, "The holy instruments and the trumpets," i. e. even the trumpets. Eph. 4. 11, "And some pastors and teachers," i. e. even teachers. Mat. 21. 5, "Behold, thy king cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass," i. e. even a colt. And so in numerous other instances. Here, therefore, the meaning undoubtedly is, "Unto thee, even to thy seed after thee, will I give it." This is all that is fairly included in the promise, the immediate object of which is not a heavenly but an earthly Canaan. In fact, in the 18th v. of ch. 15, as if to preclude the possibility of any mistake respecting the mode of the accomplishment of the promise, it is more explicitly defined as follows:-" In that same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land." "But had the historian," says Warburton, "omitted so minute an explanation of the promise, yet common sense would instruct us how to under stand it. A whole country is given to Abraham and his seed. His posterity was his representative; and therefore the putting them into possession was the putting him into it. Not to say, that when a grant is made to a body of men collectively, as to a people or family, no laws of contract ever understood the performance to consist in every individual's being a personal partaker." (Div. Leg. B. ii. § 3.) Indeed, if the Millenarian hypothesis be correct, the inheritance of the land of Canaan by the seed of Abraham in the flesh was never a matter of promise. As far as the east is from the west, therefore, is this passage from teaching any thing at all concerning the resurrection.

We may next cite the well-known passage from Job, ch. 19. 25-27, which is not only regarded, in popular estimation, as perhaps the most explicit announcement to be found