acknowledged alfo, that the Jews believed the Doctrine of the Resurrection in the Time of the Maccabees; and, I truft, it is now fufficiently proved that this Doctrine was a popular one in the Days of our Saviour; and therefore, I think, we may fafely conclude, that the Doctrine of a Refurrection was upon the whole fo plainly re"vealed" by certain Facts, and contained in certain Traditions, &c. " as to have been fufficiently “obvious and visible to the grofs Body of the Jews", at all Times and Periods whatsoever.

What we have been urging upon this occafion will, by the way, enable us to clear the Bishop of London's "Account of the Jewish and Patriarchal Revelations" from the inconsistency with which it is charged by the Examiner. His Lordship had affirmed, "That the Law afforded a good Proof of a future Life, when it declared that God was the God of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob." But, it seems, he has hereby identified the Abrahamic, and the Mofaic Covenant, and refined the Law, which had confeffedly no Sanctions but what were purely Temporal, into a Spiritual Difpenfation. Will it then follow that the Promife of Eternal Life, or the Covenant of Immortality, is conveyed in a Declaration from which we may, as our Saviour, we have seen, did, occafionally draw a good Proof of a future State? Now, I have ever apprehended

that

that the Spiritual Promife &c. was conveyed in the Divine Affurance to Abraham, &c. that in him all the Families of the Earth should be blessed; and that the Jews, in their private and perfonal capacity, confidered themselves in confequence thereof as interested in a Covenant of a distinct Nature from that which God entered into with them as a Nation: and that therefore tho' the Doctrine of a future State &c. might be rationally inferred from certain Paffages and Expreffions of the temporal Lawgiver, yet that these did neither difannul nor fuperfede the Sanctions of the legal Covenant, but were perfectly consistent with them. Admitting then the" Law to have had the Credit of this Doc"trine (viz. of a future State) in common with the "Abrahamic Covenant," it will not surely follow that this Doctrine is a Part of the Law, has any nection with it as fuch, or interferes with its Sanctions; or admitting that "God engaged by the Law "to be the God of the Ifraelites, in the very fame "Sense in which he had engaged by the Abraha"hamic Covenant, to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, "and Jacob," (p. 294.) what will this prove but that God entered into two Covenants with the Jews and the Patriarchs, a Temporal, and a Spiritual one likewife? But till it is also proved that thefe Two are One and the Same, there feems to be no " Force or Pertinence" in about a Score of the Examiners Pages.-Nor, again, do we " mag

Con

nify the Law above the Gofpel, if we allow it to afford a good Proof of a future Life; For tho', (according to the Examiner's Notion) it would, "in this Cafe have the Sanction both of the Life "which now is, and of that which is to come, (1. «Tim. iv. viii.) while the Gospel would have

only the laft;" (p. 308.) yet (according to the Principles of the System I am defending) the Gospel would have the last in an eminent Manner, and the first likewise in the very fame Sense, and to the very fame Effect, in which the Jews had it in their private Capacity: as is demonftrable from the very Text juft quoted, which the Examiner has produced in order to evince the contrary.

In a word, it is one Thing, to maintain that the Doctrine of a future State, and even of a Refurrection, was generally received by the antient Jews, and that the former of these must be the great and ultimate Sanction of all Religion; and another, to affert, that either of them was the public and declared Sanction of the national Religion of the Jews. And this Distinction, 'tis prefumed, will afford a fufficient Answer to the many Queries and Objections of the Examiner upon the Occafion."The learned Writer (viz. Dr. Lowth) maintains, " fays the Examiner, that not only a future State, "but the Doctrine of the Refurrection, had been "revealed to the Jews."-The Words of the

learned

leerned Writer are, Perfuafiffimum erat animos non interire, & corpora etiam in vitam effe reditura. This latter Clause imports, no doubt, the Notion of a Refurrection; and therefore let us fee how far it will justify our Author's following Interrogatories. "To what Purpose was it (the Doctrine "of the Refurrection) revealed, but to be taught and "inculcated by the public Ministers of Religion? Why therefore do they not invite Men to Obe"dience by the Promise of an Inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, referved in the Heaven; and

by the Prospect of a Crown of Glory, &c.? And "why alfo did they not inform them that the Body was fown in Weakness, and raised in Power; “was fown in Corruption, and raised in Glory; was

c

fown a natural Body, and raised a spiritual Body?

"It is as natural to look for fuch Declarations in "the old as in the new Teftament, on the Suppo"fition that the Doctrine of the Refurrection and "a future State was revealed to the antient Jews." (p. 282. Notes.)-Now the above Distinction will tell him for Answer, (as indeed he has been told before) that the Doctrine of a future State was no Sanction of the old Testament, as fuch; i. e. of the Covenant which God made with the Jews, as a People. It was abundantly fufficient for all imaginable Purposes, that this Doctrine was grounded on Promifes, &c. of a fpiritual Nature, and fupported by Facts, &c. with which the Law of Mofes,

or

or the temporal Covenant had no manner of Connection. And it is indeed obfervable, that as filent as the Law is, and could not but be, with respect to Futurity, there are not wanting Multitudes of Paffages in the Pfalms and the Prophets, &c. which have an unquestionable Reference to a future State; as we have seen, and shall see farther by and by. But why then, the Examiner still asks, do not thefe Writers under the old Teftament particularize the Felicity of the Blessed hereafter? Why do they not illustrate, and descant upon the Doctrine of the Refurrection? And why are not " future Pu"nishments exhibited under the same fenfible and “material Images (those of Fire, &c.) in the old Teftament," by which they are represented to us in the new?-Efpecially, if it be confidered, that Account of future Punishments, which did "not grow particular and defcriptive, would have "had very little (in effect no) Influence on the

tr

any

grofs Imaginations, and carnal Appetites of the Jews." (p.281.Notes.)-In Answer to which,'tis farther to be obferv'd, that though the Examiner may take Advantage of the Bishop of London's Hypothefis, which denies the Jews the Knowledge or Belief of a Refurrection, and maintains also, "that "the Notion of Immortality and a future Judg"ment, which supposes only the Existence of the "Soul, "could never ferve the Ends and Pur

pofes of Religion, because it is a Notion which

...the