to whom he had previously denied it in a former Chapter: and this one is no less a Person than the Prophet David. (Chap. i. p. 59.) We fee then there is an Artifice in the Words, fome others; for had David only been excepted by Name, we should naturally have inquired how it came to pafs that Gideon, and Sampson, and Barak, and fepthah, &c. &c. had a clear Infight into a Doctrine of which he had no fort of Conception ?-But as the Examiner has happily circumstanced Things, the Prophet David was in no worse Condition than Multitudes of others before the Time of the Maccabees!

To proceed; "if any one should imagine, fays "our Author, that the feveral Acts of Faith, mag"nified and extolled in this Chapter, mean Faith "in Jefus Chrift, confidered as the Author of eter"nal Life; I fhall refer him to the D. L. for a full "Confutation of this despicable and idle Whim.” (p. 316. Notes.) Now if no Body does imagine this, is not the D. L. confuting nothing, and is not this a defpicable and idle Suppofition? This is indeed recurring to an Argument that (to borrow a Term from the D.L. fee p. 309.) has been hacknied over and over again, in the Course of this FREE and CANDID EXAMINATION. How often must this Writer be told that a Hope, or a Doctrine, is one Thing, and the Knowledge of the Author of Salvation or eternal Life, another; that it is one Thing, to believe a future State, and to trust, as the Mother

of

of the Martyrs in the Book of the Maccabees did, that God will of his own Mercy give Men Breath and Life again, (2 Maccab. vii. 23.) and another, to know that Jefus Chrift is the Refurrection, and that this Life is in him; (1 John v. 11.) and that consequently it is with respect to this Certainty, and the Knowledge of this Mystery, that the Apostle to the Hebrews tells us, Salvation BEGAN FIRST to be Spoken by Jefus Chrift, that the Jews were all their Life-time SUBJECT to Bondage through Fear of Death, that the Way to Heaven was not made MANIFEST under the Law, that the BETTER Hope was introduced AFTERWARDS, &c. &c.?-The Faith then, fo much magnified and extolled in this Chapter, has confeffedly, in fome Inftances, Respect unto the Recompence of a Reward, or to a future Life, as well as to this; and if the Prospect of this Recompence, and the acknowledged Hope of a Refurrection in the later Ages of the Jewish Church, does not imply a Faith in Jefus Christ as the Author of Salvation, nor confequently anticipate the great Mystery and Defign of the Gofpel, what Colour of Reason is there to suppose the Doctrine of a future State, or of a Refurrection was fecreted from the Body of the antient Jews?

Let us next fairly and impartially inquire into the Sentiments of the Jews upon thefe great Articles, at the Time of our bleffed Saviour's Ministry Cc 2 among

among them.-Now at this Time, the two principal Sects among the Jews were the Pharifees and the Sadducees; the latter of which maintained that there is no Refurrection, neither Angel nor Spirit; but the former confeft both. That the Pharifees however were infinitely the most confiderable Sect, both in point of Numbers, and Credit with the People, upon account of their Learning, apparent Sanctity, and Knowledge and Obfervance of the Law, is evident from the Accounts we have of them in the New Testament. It is with these that our Saviour chiefly reasons and discourses; these (with the Scribes, who are frequently joined with them) he takes all Occafions of confuting; while the Sadducees are fcarce ever introduced in the facred History, except upon the Occasion of the Doctrine of the Resurrection under our present Confideration. And upon this Occafion they are always introduced with Circumftances of particular Difcredit to themselves. A Confideration this, which might supply us with a prefumptive Proof that the Jews in general believed the Doctrine of the Refurrection at the Period in Question.—But to be a little more particular in this Inquiry.

"The Point in Dispute is, says the Examiner, "whether the Law afforded fuch a Proof of a fu"ture Life, as would be fufficiently obvious and "intelligible to the antient Jews. "Words (I am the God of Abraham,

Now thefe

Isaac, and "Jacob)

Jacob) feem not to have conveyed any fuch No"tice; feeing our Saviour's Interpretation has (these are the Words of the D. L.) all the "Marks of a new Argument unknown to the Pharifees; and indeed both the Dignity of our "Lord's Character, and the Impreffion he would "make on his Oppofers, feemed to require it. """ Accordingly we find them ftruck dumb, and "the Multitude that heard this, aftonished at his cccc Doctrine. But would either have been fo af""fected with an old Argument long hacknied in "the Schools or Synagogues of the Pharifees ?"""" "-Now if the more learned Pharifees, who lived

just before, or in the Age of the Gospel, zealous "in the Propagation of the Doctrine of a future "State, and eager and inquifitive to find it in the "Law, had not, with all their Refinements,

joined to their Acuteness, been able to make this "Text fay any thing for their Purpose; we may

fafely conclude the Doctrine was not so plainly "revealed here, as to have been obvious and visible "to the grofs Body of the Jews in the Time of

Mofes." (p. 309.)-Now unless the Name of Dr. W. be a Protection for whatever he pleases to advance, I should venture to fay, there is nothing in this Extract from him that in the least incommodes the common System. -For whether our Saviour's Interpretation of the Words, I am the

God of Abraham, &c. conveyed a new or an old Argument, our Saviour evidently urges it as an obvious Application of the Paffage, which confequently the more learned Pharifees might, without any extraordinary Share of Acuteness, have made. As touching the Refurrection of the Dead, have you not read that which was spoken unto you by God, I am the God of ABRAHAM, &c.? (Matt. xxii. 31.) As touching the Dead that they rife, have you not read, &c.? (Mark xii. 26.) Now that the Dead are raised, even MOSES fhewed at the Bufb, when he called the Lord the God of ABRAHAM &c. (Luke xx. 37.) As if he had faid, You Sadducees, who fay there is no Refurrection, are so far from being deftitute of fufficient Proofs of it, that you cannot but obferve it implied even in that Declaration of God to Mofes, I am the God, &c. which was not made originally with a View to the Establishment of this Doctrine. Accordingly, the Force of our Saviour's Reafoning from this Declaration put the Sadducees to Silence; (Matt. xxii. 34.) and extorted from the Scribes an Approbation, who acknowledged that he had well faid: (Luke xx. 39. Mark xii. 28.) an Approbation which we cannot fuppose they would have given him, had the Doctrine he advanced, and illuftrated from this Paffage in the Old Teftament, been new, or ftrange to them. "Tis true,

one