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. Thus 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[[162]]. And to give countenance 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 denying 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.[[163]]. 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 passages observed in his writings, which a late learned writer takes notice of[[164]]; 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 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 foreseeing 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 discover 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[[165]]. And Dr. Lightfoot produces other proofs, which they bring for this doctrine, as little to the purpose[[166]], of which all the use that can be made is, that we may from hence observe, that they believed 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, 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 about 150 years before the Christian Æra. 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[[167]], 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[[168]].
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 live? to which he replies, O Lord God, thou knowest. And afterwards we read of God’s laying sinews, and bringing up flesh upon them, covering them with skin, and putting breath into them; and their being hereupon restored to life. I am sensible that they who are on the other side of the question, pretend that this is no proof of a resurrection; because the design thereof was to illustrate and make way for the prediction mentioned in the following verses, concerning the deliverance of God’s people from the Babylonish captivity: But that which seems to have its weight with me is, that God would never have made use of a similitude to lead them into this doctrine, taken from a thing which they had no manner of idea of: But if we suppose that they believed that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, agreeable to the literal sense of the words here made use of to illustrate it, then the argument taken from thence is plain and easy, q. d. as certainly as you have ground to believe that the dead shall be raised at the last day (which though it could not be brought about by any natural means, yet it shall be effected by the power of God;) so your deliverance, how unlikely soever it may appear to those who look no farther than second causes, shall come to pass by God’s extraordinary power and providence, which will be as life from the dead.
And whereas it is farther objected, that when God asked the prophet, whether these dry bones could live? He seems to be in doubt about it; which argues that he had no idea of the resurrection of the dead. To this it may be replied, that his doubt respected an event that should immediately ensue; he knew that God could put life into these bones; but whether he would do it now or no, he could not tell: Therefore it does not contain any disbelief of the doctrine of the resurrection at the last day; and, indeed, this scripture, how little soever it may seem to some to make for the doctrine we are maintaining, is alleged by others, as an undeniable proof of it. Tertullian expressly says, that this would have been a very insignificant vision, if this doctrine were not true[[169]]. And Jerome speaks to the same purpose, supposing that God would never illustrate any truth which they were in doubt of, by a similitude taken from an incredible fiction[[170]]. And Menasseh Ben Israel, a learned Jew, supposes this text to be an express and infallible proof of the resurrection; which plainly argues that he thought the Jews, in former ages, were convinced of this doctrine thereby[[171]].
But supposing this scripture be not reckoned sufficient to evince the truth of this doctrine, there is another which has more weight in it, viz. that in Job xix. 25-27. I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though, after my skin, worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another, though my reins be consumed within me. Job, as is generally supposed, lived in Moses’ time; therefore, if it can be made appear that he professes his faith in the doctrine of the resurrection, we may conclude that the church was acquainted with it in the early ages thereof; and nothing seems more evident, from the plain sense of the words, than that he here professes his faith in, and encourages himself from the hope of future blessedness, both in soul and body, at Christ’s second coming in the last day.
It is with a great deal of difficulty that they who deny this doctrine, are obliged to account for the sense of this text, so as to evade the force of the argument taken from thence to prove it. These suppose that Job intends nothing hereby but a firm persuasion which he had, that he should be recovered from that state of misery in which he then was, which not only affected his mind, but his body, as it was smitten with sore boils, from the sole of his foot unto his crown, Job ii. 7. his flesh being clothed with worms, and his skin broken and become loathsome, chap. vii. 5. and accordingly he says, I shall be redeemed from this affliction, and brought into a happy state before I die; and so they suppose that the words are to be taken in a metaphorical sense; and therefore do not prove the doctrine of the resurrection. But this will appear to be a very great perversion of the sense of this text, if we consider,
1. In how solemn a manner he brings it in, in the verses immediately foregoing. Oh that my words were now written! Oh that they were printed in a book! that they were graven with an iron pen and lead, in the rock for ever! Which seems to import that he had something to communicate, that was of far greater moment than the account of his deliverance from the afflictions he was under in this world. Therefore it seems more agreeable to understand the sense of the words, as denoting that great and important truth, in which all believers are concerned, relating to Christ’s second coming, and the happiness that his saints shall then enjoy in soul and body; this deserves to be writ with a pen of iron, that it may be transmitted to all generations. But,
2. It is evident that he is here speaking of something that should be done, not whilst he lived, but in the end of time; for he considers his Redeemer, as standing in the latter day upon the earth. The person whom he here speaks of as his Redeemer, is, doubtless, our Saviour, who is frequently described, both in the Old and New-Testament, under that character: And, if at any time God the Father is called the Redeemer of his people, it may farther be observed that he is never said in redeeming them to make himself visible to their bodily eyes, or to stand upon the earth, much less to do this in the latter or last day, in which Christ is said to come again in a visible manner, to raise the dead and judge the world: And this Job intends when he says, In my flesh shall I see God, whom I shall see for myself and mine eyes shall behold, and not another.