"fect Affurance, or full Perfuafion of a future Life." (p. 264. &c.) We muft, in order «to "clude the Argument of the D. L., this Writer "tells us, fuppofe that the Jewish Revelation af"forded a clear and perfect Affurance of the Certainty and Reality of another Life." But neither the "Doctrine of his Lordship's Sermon will permit us " to make fuch a Suppofition," nor" the Conceffi"ons of most other Writers, who affign the Jewish "Revelations only such faint and obfcure Notices "of a future State, as would not be fufficient to

fupport Religion, without the Administration of "an extraordinary Providence:" of which more by and by. (p. 267.)-Now, I apprehend, as many, and as real as the Inconfiftencies may be, which the Examiner charges his Lordship's Syftem with; or to whatever actual or fuppofed Difficulty he may have reduced the peculiar Tenet of any other Writer, as, for Inftance, Dr. Law's Notion concerning the Sleep of the Soul, &c. (p. 270.) yet nothing of this Nature can invalidate the Truth of a general Hypothefis, which holds that the Doctrine of a future State was a popular one among the Jews. This Notion of Dr. Law's, the Examiner obferves, "will oblige him to fuppose, that no "Doctrine of a future State, but that of the Refurrection, could poffibly be revealed to the an"tient Jews." And what if we so far affent to this Notion, as to prove it clear of the objected Difficulty

Difficulty, by fhewing that the Doctrine of a Re furrection was common among the Jews, though it is not revealed plainly and explicitly in the Books of Mofes, as it is in the Writings of the New Testament?—Now though the Law of Mofes fays nothing either of a future State, or a Refurrection, yet one of the earliest Events in the Mofaic Hiftory could not but afford fufficient Ground for the Opinion of both: I mean the Tranflation of Enoch. This Event must have convinced the antient Jews both of the Actuality (if I may so say) of another State, and of the united Existence of Soul and Body therein. And what Inferences and Conclufions does the Examiner imagine the religious Jews would be led to by this Confideration?—He will tell us perhaps that they looked upon the Tranflation of Enoch as a Matter of fingular Favour indeed, of which however neither Mofes himself, nor his People, could make the least Application to their own Comfort and Encouragement.

This is strange indeed! especially as the Jews wanted not a parallel Inftance to this in the History of the poft-diluvian Ages.-Witness the wonderful Conveyance of Elijah into Heaven. If these two

fignal Events were loft upon them, it would be ridiculous to fuppose that the Case of the dead Man who revived upon his touching the Bones of Elisha, (2 Kings xiii, 21.) could give them the leaft Notion of Immortality, or of the Re-union of the

Soul

Soul to the Body!—But let us just see what Light the New Teftament itself will throw upon this Matter, the Authority of which will be allowed to be decifive in the present Debate.--The Apostle to the Hebrews enumerates the happy Effects of Faith in various Inftances under the Old Teftament; in confequence of it, he tells us, Women received their Dead raised to Life again: and others were tortured, not accepting Deliverance; that they might obtain a better Refurrection. (Chap. xi. 35.) Now what fays the Examiner to this? Why, it seems, "this Paffage no way interferes with the Argument of "the D. L., because it speaks of the Belief of the

Jews in the Time of the Maccabees, which is "pofterior to the Time in queftion." (p. 316.)I do not pretend to know at what Period the Jewish Æra commences or expires according to the Principles of the D. L.; but it seems somewhat strange that these more modern Jews, (the Authenticity of whose History is, by the way, here acknowledged) should have clearer Notions of divine Truths than their Fore-fathers, who were so far from forming any Ideas of a Refurrection, that they were not favoured even with the least Intimations of a future State! And yet these had frequently as much Occafion for the Support of this comfortable Doctrine as the Maccabees themselves could have; for the Apostle exprefly refers to the Sufferings of many other Jewish Worthies in the enfuing Verfes;

(fee

(fee Ver. 36. 37. &c.)-But farther, neither the Examiner, nor the Author of the D. L. can avail himself of the fuppofed late Date of this Notion, or Belief of the Jews. For the Women who received their Dead raised to Life again could fearce be the Woman in the Book of the Maccabees, who faw her feven Sons flain within the Space of one Day, and bare it with a good Courage, because of the HOPE She had in the Lord. (2 Maccab. xx.) We must therefore go back from apocryphal to canonical Scripture for the Hiftory of the Women who actu`ally received their Dead raised to Life again, and thefe we shall find to have been the Shunammite, and the Widow of Zarephath; (1 Kings xvii. 17. &c. 2 Kings iv. 27. &c.) What then was the Belief of the Jews with regard to a future State, or a Refurrection at this Time? It is undeniable that fuch Facts as these must afford a good Foundation for both thefe Doctrines. Again, the whole Scope and Import of the Apostle's Doctrine in this Place is fo plain and vifible, that it extorts an Acknowledgment from the Examiner, which, I apprehend, must ruin his System. Thus he "rea

dily allows, that the Doctrine of a future State "was communicated to Abraham, and TO SOME

OTHERS mentioned in this Chapter." (p. 317. Notes.) And fure the Belief of a future State was the leaft he could afcribe to the Father of the Faithful, after he had indulged his Descendents

many

many

Generations after with the Belief of the Refurrection. The Case in short appears to be this, as our Author has most judiciously stated it. The Jews, in the Time of the Maccabees, believed a Refurrection; Abraham, and SOME OTHERS, had the Knowledge of a future State; and the Remnant, mentioned in this Chapter, were in utter Darknefs, without the least Notion or Expectation of either. Upon which State of the Cafe I will only beg leave to wish my Lord of London, and Dr. Law, Joy of half a score Leaves in the third Chapter of the Examiner, wherein he very facetiously treats of a Chain of Sand, the υςερον πρότερον, (fee Ch. iii. p. 198. 200. &c.) and the progreffive Motion that advances backwards.-But again, the Examiner would, I fear, be much at a loss exactly to distinguish those mentioned in this Chapter, who believed a future State, or a Refurrection, from those who did not; and to give us his Reasons accordingly. And yet this will be demanded of him by

those who maintain that all were inftructed in this Doctrine. Indeed, as this Author supposes, with his Leader, the Author of the D. L., that this Doctrine "was imparted as a fingular Favour, which

they, to whom it was communicated, were re"ftrained from making popular and common," he might fafely enough have affigned it to them all. And probably he would but for one, who is unfortunately numbered among the Apostles Worthies,

VOL. I.

Cc

to

1