those for whom they were originally designed? And did the Jews and the early Christians know what we know in relation to our physical organization? Was the science of animal chemistry developed in those early ages? Were they skilled in anthropology? Did they know any more of the settled truths embraced in this sphere of knowledge than of those which fall into the department of astronomy or geology? It avails nothing to say that the Spirit which indited the Scriptures knew these truths, if the writers did not. The Spirit knew too, equally well, the true structure of the solar system and the age of the globe upon which we dwell. Yet he has not seen fit to speak according to his knowledge on those points, and why should he any more on this? If there are actually stages in the progress of human intelligence; if the collective mind of the race, like that of an individual, passes through the grades of infancy, childhood, youth, and maturity; must not a revelation from God, vouchsafed to the earlier generations of men, adapt itself to their existing intellectual state? Can a child comprehend the deep things of a man? Who then will suppose that the obvious sense of the letter, on subjects that admit of continually growing light from subsequent discoveries, was intended as a fixed standard of import from which no departure was to be allowed? Would not this be like requiring the man to continue to wear the garments of the boy?

And yet it is unquestionable, that in nothing is the divine wisdom more conspicuous than in what we may term the elasticity of import in the language of the sacred volume. Emanating from that infinite intelligence which "understands the end from the beginning," which embraces all truth, and foresees the developments of all created intellect, the inspired word is so constructed that its language frequently adapts itself, in a remarkable manner, to the growing light of successive ages, and falls more or less into harmony with the ascertained verities of things. We do

not say, indeed, that this is universally and in every respect the case; for we have seen that in the departments of astronomy and geology the simple import of the letter does not accord with the reality of the facts which we are compelled to regard as conclusively established. Nevertheless, the remark will be found to hold good to a far greater extent than we should à priori imagine; and as to the particular subject of the present discussion, no devout reader of the Book of books can be insensible to the pleasure of finding, that the confident assertion of the results of his rational inquiries brings him so little into conflict with the plain averments of Scripture; that a fair and faithful exegesis of the sacred text discloses so striking an accordance between its true sense and his previous conclusions. Upon this department of our investigation we now enter.

CHAPTER II.

The Old Testament Doctrine of the Resurrection.

THE emphatic declaration of the Apostle, that Christ, through the Gospel, "hath brought life and immortality to light," is evidently not to be understood as carrying with it the implication, that the doctrine of a future life, and of a resurrection of some kind, is not contained in the Old Testament Scriptures. The genuine import of the original term parise, conveys the idea rather of shedding additional light upon an obscure subject, than that of announcing, declaring, or disclosing it de novo; and this is confirmed by the words of the Saviour himself, Mat. 22, 29: "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God;" from which it is evident, that had they rightly scanned the purport of their own Scriptures, they would have recognized the indubitable traces of this grand doctrine. Still it cannot

be denied that the informations couched in the Old Testament on this theme are comparatively dark and shadowy, more like the dim and feeble glimmerings of the morning twilight than the unclouded blaze of the noonday sun. Nor can we deny that its intimations do not distinguish very precisely between the doctrine of the resurrection, technically so termed, and that of a future existence or immortality. So far at least as the tenet of the resurrection is supposed necessarily to include the idea of the living again of the physical body, we shall probably look in vain for a single passage which unequivocally asserts it; and for the same reason we shall probably find ample grounds for doubting whether that view of it is sustained any more by a sound interpretation of the New Testament. At any rate it may be pronounced a question of very difficult solution, why, if it be taught in the New Testament, it is not taught in the Old, and vice versa.

It is indeed true, that the doctrine of the resurrection enters into the articles of the Jewish creed, and as their creed professedly rests upon the Old Testament alone, it would seem a problem difficult to be solved, whence their faith on this subject was derived, if not from the writings of Moses and the prophets. Moses and the prophets do unquestionably contain explicit intimations of a future life, even when we can detect no traces of an allusion to the revival of the defunct body; and these scattered notices the Jews have wrought together into the semblance of a theory of a corporeal resurrection. They have, doubtless, been the rather led to this conclusion by understanding, in a literal sense, a number of passages which, rightly interpreted, speak only of a mystical or allegorical resurrection-a class of scriptures which we shall shortly bring under review.

To one who has made the Rabbinical writers on this head a study, the force of their testimony will be vastly weakened by their pressing into their service a multitude of texts which obviously have not the slightest relation to it,

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 oι ἀνάστασις, standing or standing again, corresponds; to the latter, avaßiwors or

Swoдoinois, revivification or reviviscence. The use of

p

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: n 2 x3 bywcą hp 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 Da 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 namn 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