doctrine of the resurrection is taught in the Old Testament, (see Acts xxiv. 14, 15,) and also that the faithful servants of God mentioned in Hebrews xi., would not receive the offered deliverance from the sufferings which they endured for the sake of the truth, that they might obtain the better resurrection.*

I. The first passage which he enters upon the discussion of, is Gen. xvii. 7, 8.

"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant; to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

"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."

His observations on this passage are brief, and begin thus: "Upon this Menasseh Ben Israel 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, or otherwise the promises of God would be vain and false. Hence, 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." He also remarks that Mede, and the generality of Millenarian writers give it the same construction.

I have not been accustomed to rely upon this passage as a proof of the doctrine under consideration, though I think the Jewish exposition of it, backed as it is, by high Christian authority, deserving of some attention. But how does Professor Bush attempt to set aside the argument which has been deduced from it? Why as follows: "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 first resurrection," as it is termed in the New Testament, and which appears to be the subject of 1 Cor. xv. See also Rev. xx.; Daniel xii. 2; Phil. iii. 11; and Luke xx. 36. Nor is it any valid objection to the criticism that κρειττονος ἀναστάσεως is destitute of the article. See Winer's Idioms of the New Testament. Part III. §§ 18 and 19; and Biblic. Repos. IV. p. 296 seq.

the language of the letter. What is denied of the race in toto, must be denied of the individuals in parte." p. 97.

Here, then, we have an illustration of the manner in which Professor Bush applies his "argument from reason." Reason first tells what the Bible ought to reveal! and if God declares any thing which is not in strict accordance with the Professor's philosophy, his declaration must be rejected, or at least modified until it does harmonize therewith. But we have shown that Professor Bush's previous train of reasoning is not sound, and hence this application of it is of no weight whatever.

His other "reply," is not more successful. It is as follows. (2.) The admitted principles of philology are directly against the proposed (the universally acknowledged, he should have said,) 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 Chronicles xxi. 12, The Lord's sword and the pestilence,' i. e., even the pestilence." And after also quoting Numbers xxxi. 6, Ephesians iv. 11, and Matthew xxi. 5, he adds, "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." pp. 97, 98..

1

This is a specimen of strange exegesis. How does the fact, that is explanatory in the instances produced, prove that it is to be so taken in the instance under consideration? It is neither a case of explanatory apposition, nor of èv dià Suôîv, in which such a construction is admissible. And what "admitted principles of philology are against the rendering" given to it in our common version? Does the fact that is sometimes so translated, prove it? If so where is the connexion between the premises and conclusion? How would the argument apply to other cases. Take, e. g. Genesis i. 1, "In the beginning God created the heavens even the earth." Isaiah vi. 9, "By hearing you shall hear even not understand." What would Professor Bush's argument be worth, if applied to prove that even is the proper rendering here? And yet it is just as good in the one case as in the other.

The Professor, to sustain this rendering, goes back to Genesis xv. 18, "Unto thy seed will I give this land." But why did he not quote also verse 7, "I brought thee out of Ur, to give thee this land to inherit it." Professor Bush could not but know that as both Abraham and his seed are distinctly and separately thus specified in chapter xv., so in chapter xvii. they are specifically enumerated in the verses under discussion; as without such a distinct specification, the promise, as here repeated, would not have been strictly the same as that previously given.

But instead of reverting to chapter xv., why did not Professor Bush go for illustration to the parallel phrases in the very chapter from which he makes his quotation ;—or in attempting to explain "and" by "even," in verse 8, why did he not cast his eye on verse 7, which he has also quoted? If, means "even" in one of these phrases, "the admitted principles of philology" require that it should mean the same thing in every parallel phrase in the connexion. How would verse 7 read, then? "I will establish my covenant between me even thee, even thy seed after thee-to be a God unto thee, even to thy seed after thee." Was God therefore the God only of Abraham's seed, and not of Abraham himself, as this construction would require? If not, how does the same declaration respecting Canaan, prove it to be the possession only of Abraham's seed, and not of Abraham himself? So too, in verses 9 and 10. "Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, even thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me even you, even thy seed after thee." Was the covenant, then, only between God and Abraham's seed? And did not Abraham keep it? (v. 11 -14, and 22-27.) Was he not included therein? If these passages prove that he was, then verse 8 proves that he was also included with his seed in the promise of the land of Canaan.

But Professor Bush not only forgot to look at the parallel passages in the same chapter, but he omitted also to consult the inspired explanation of this text, as given by Stephen, in Acts vii. 4, 5. "Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charran; and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell. And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on; (¡udè Bùμa modó) yet he

promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, (καὶ τῶ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ μετ' αὐτὸν,) when as yet he had no child." Comment here would be useless. II. The next passage adduced, is Job xix. 25-27. "For I know that my Redeemer liveth," &c. p. 99. Of this he presents the Hebrew text, and the versions of the LXX. and Vulgate, and takes occasion to remark that "it would, perhaps, be impossible to cite any paragraph in the whole compass of revelation marked by greater variety of construction than the present." pp. 99, 100. This may be so; but it no more proves the import of the passage to be uncertain, than the myriads of diverse readings (in the MSS. of the New Testament,) presented by Mill, Bengel, Griesbach, &c. would prove, as sceptics assert, the meaning of the New Testament to be uncertain. For in both cases, many of the distinctions referred to, are without a difference.

But in considering this celebrated passage there are two points which must not be lost sight of, and to which we shall briefly advert. And first, mere authority cannot be appealed to, even in the present advanced state of Hebrew literature, for settling the question as to the true import of the passage; and secondly, the objections to the reception of the common rendering, resolve themselves substantially into this, to wit: the passage is susceptible of a different exposition, without violence to the original. Let us consider each of these separately.

1. As to the question of authority, Professor Bush pleads it strongly; and appeals to the late work of Mr. Barnes on Job, to sustain him in rejecting the common interpretation. But the point cannot be determined in this way. I was in hopes that the Professor would have furnished us with his own version of the passage, but he has not done so. We shall therefore look at the passage itself with reference to this question of authority.

He has not noticed that there are the two following distinct points of inquiry as to its import. 1. Does Job here confess his faith in the Redeemer? and 2. Does he announce his belief in the doctrine of the resurrection? Professor Bush and Mr. Barnes deny that he does either; while others maintain the first point, and not the last. The following is the passage with the rendering of the venerable and learned Dr. Hales.

ואני ידעתי גאלי יזי ואחרון על עפר יקום:

נקפו זאת עורי

ומבשרי אחזה אלוה:

אשר אני אחזה לי ועיני ראו

: Yet even from my flesh shall I see God ולא זר כלו כליתי בהקי:

And after my skin be mangled thus,

Whom I shall see for me (on my side,)

And my eyes shall behold him not estranged; (Though) my reins be (now) consumed within me."*

With the single exception to the paraphrastic rendering of the third clause, and the fanciful construction of y this translation in substance receives the sanction of many of the most learned critics. There may be shades of difference in their rendering of a word; but they understand Job here to declare his faith in the Redeemer, and his expectation of a resurrection. Witsius (Econ. Fœd. Lib. III. c. II.) has ably discussed it and maintains the common construction. So Calvin also, whose merits as an interpreter few will venture to question. (See Instit. lib. II. cap. 10, § 19. and lib. III. cap. 25, § 4.) Lightfoot also is very positive as to its import. (Works, Vol. II. 791. Folio.) Pareus (a learned. commentator appealed to sometimes by Professor Bush,) after remarking that interpreters vary in their version of some of the words of the passage, observes, that "nevertheless in this sentiment they all agree, that here is a very clear confession of a sure and firm expectation of future deliverance from all sorrow in another life after the resurrection of the dead: and concerning Christ, by whose power the dead should arise." (Comment. in loco.) So also Piscator in loco; and Junius and Tremellius in their excellent notes in loco. The same view is taken also by the celebrated Pfeiffer (Opp. Tom. I. p. 169-) and by the elder Schultens, and by the older critics without number; so much so that Poole (Annot. in loco) who had closely examined the subject, remarks, that most of the interpreters, "both ancient and modern understand it of Christ and of his resurrection, and of Job's resurrection to life by his power and favour." Since the time of Poole also, the argument from authority is equally strong. Michaelis and Rambach with Velthusen, advocate it strenuously. And Dr. Priestly, notwithstanding the criticism of Grotius (who is the father of the new inter

* Hales' Analysis, Vol. II. pp. 83-86.