very well understood the difference of the fects among the Jews, and gives a particular account of them, makes not the leaft mention of any controverfy between the Pharifees and the Sadducees about the refurrection of the body. All that he fays is this, That the Pharifees hold the immortality of the foul, and that there are rewards and punishments in another world: but the Sadducees denied all this; and that there was any other state after this life. And this is the very fame account with that which is given of them in the New Testament, y 27. of this chapter, the Sadducees who deny that there is any refurrection: the meaning of which is more fully declared, Acts xxiii. 8. The Sadducees fay, that there is no refurrection, neither angel nor fpirit; but the Pharifees confefs both that is, the Sadducces denied that there was any other state of men after this life; and that there was any fuch thing as an immortal spirit, either angels, or the fouls of men furviving their bodies. And, as Dr Hammond hath judiciously obferved, this is the true importance of the word 'vasaris, viz. a future, or another ftate; unlefs in fuch texts where the context does restrain it to the raising again of the body, or where fome word that denotes the body, as wμal, or capnis, is

added to it.

2. The force of this argument against those with whom our Saviour disputed, will farther appear, if we confider the great veneration which the Jews in general had for the writings of Mofes above any other books of the Old Teftament; which they, especially the Sadducees, looked upon only as explications and comments upon the law of Mofes but they esteemed nothing as a neceffary article of faith which had not fome foundation in the writings of Mofes. And this feems to me to be the true reafon why our Saviour chofe to confute them out of Mofes, rather than any other part of the Old Teftament; and not, as many learned men have imagined, becaufe the Sadducees did not receive any part of the Old Testament, but only the five books of Mofes; fo that it was in vain to argue against them out of any other. This I know hath been a general opinion, grounded I think on the mistake of a paffage in Jofephus, who says, "The Sadducees only receive the written law." But, if we

up

carefully

carefully confider that paffage, we fhall find that Jofephus doth not there oppofe the law to the other books of the Old Teftament, which were alfo written, but to oral tradition: for he fays exprefsly, that "the Sadducees "only received the written law; but the Pharifees, over "and befides what was written, received the oral, which 66 they call tradition."

I deny not, but that in the later prophets there are more exprefs texts for the proof of a future ftate, than any are to be found in the books of Mofes; as Daniel, xii. 2. And many of them that fleep in the duft of the earth fball awake, fome to everlasting life, and fome to fhame and everlasting contempt. And indeed it feems very plain, that holy men among the Jews, towards the expiration of the legal difpenfation, had ftill clearer and more express apprehenfions concerning a future ftate, than are to be met with in the writings of Mofes, or of any of the prophets.

The law given by Mofes did fuppofe the immortality of the fouls of men, and the expectation of another life after this, as principles of religion in fome degree naturally known; but made no new and exprefs revelation of these things. Nor was there any occafion for it; the law of Mofes being a political law, not intended for the government of mankind, but of one particular nation; and therefore was eftablished, as political laws are, upon temporal promises and threatenings; promifing temporal profperity to the obfervation of its precepts, and threatening the breach of them with temporal judgments and calamities.

And this I take to be the true reafon why arguments fetched from another world, are fo obfcurely infifted upon under that difpenfation: not but that another life after this was always fuppofed, and was undoubtedly the hope and expectation of good men under the law; but the clear difcovery of it was referved for the times of the Meffias. And therefore, as thofe times drew on, and the fun of righteoufnefs was near his rifing, the fhadows of the night began to be chafed away, and mens apprehenfions of a future ftate to clear up; fo that in the time of the Maccabees good men fpake with more confidence and affurance of these things.

It is likewife to be confidered, that the temporal calamities and fufferings with which the Jews were almost continually harraffed from the time of their captivity, had very much weaned good men from the confideration of temporal promifes, and awakened their minds to the more ferious thoughts of another world: it being natural to men, when they are deftitute of prefent comfort, to fupport themselves with the expectation of better things for the future; and, as the Apostle to the Hebrews expreffeth it, chap.vi. y 18. to fly for refuge to lay hold upon the hope that is before them, and to employ their reafon to fortify themselves as well as they can in that perfuafion.

And this I doubt not was the true occafion of thofe clearer and riper apprehenfions of good men concerning a future ftate in thofe times of diftrefs and perfecution: it being very agreeable to the wisdom and goodness of the divine providence, not to leave his people deftitute of fufficient fupport under great trials and fufferings; and nothing but the hopes of a better life could have borne up the fpirits of men under fuch cruel tortures. And of this we have a moft remarkable inftance in the hiftory of the feven brethren in the Maccabees; who, being cruelly tortured and put to death by Antiochus, do moft exprefsly declare their confident expectation of a refurrection to a better life. To which history the Apostle certainly refers, Heb. xi. 35. when he fays, Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better refurrection. Where the word which we render were tortured, is, TuμTavionoar, which is the very word used in the Maccabees to exprefs the particular kind of torture used upon them; befides that, being offered deliverance, they moft refolutely refufed to accept of it; with this express declaration, that they hoped for a refurrection to a better life.

But to return to my purpose: Notwithstanding there might be more clear and express texts to this purpose in the ancient prophets; yet our Saviour knowing how great a regard, not only the Sadducees, but all the Jews had to the authority of Mofes, he thought fit to bring his proof of the refurrection out of his writings, as that which was the moft likely to convince them.

3. If we confider farther the peculiar notion which the Jews had concerning the use of this phrafe or expreffion of God's being any one's God; and that was this: That God is no where in fcripture faid to be any one's God while he was alive: and therefore they tell us, that while Ifaac lived, God is not called the God of Ifaac, but the fear of Ifaac; as Gen. xxxi. 42. Except the God of Abraham, and the fear of Ifaac, had been with me; and,

53. when Laban made a covenant with Jacob, it is faid, that Laban did fwear by the God of Abraham, and the God of Nabor, and the God of their father; but Jacob fwore by the fear of his father Ifaac. I will not warrant this obfervation to be good, because I certainly know it is not true: for God doth exprefsly call himself the God of Ifaac, while Ifaac was yet alive, Gen. xxviii. 13. I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Ifaac. It is fufficient to my purpose, that this was a notion anciently current among the Jews. And therefore our Saviour's argument from this expreffion must be fo much the stronger against them: for, if the fouls of men be extinguifhed by death, as the Sadducces believed, what did it fignify to Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, to have God called their God, after they were dead? But furely, for God to be any one's God, doth fignify fome great benefit and advantage; which yet, according to the notion which the Jews had of this phrafe, could not respect this life; because, according to them, God is not faid to be any one's God till after he is dead. But it is thus faid of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, after their death; and therefore our Saviour infers very strongly against them, that Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, were not extinguished by death, but do ftill live fome where; for God is not the God of the dead, but of the living; and then he adds, by way of further explication, For all live to him; that is, though thofe good inen who are departed this life, do not still live to us here in this world, yet they live to God, and are with him.

4. If we confider the great refpect which the Jews had for those three fathers of their nation, Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob. They had an extraordinary opinion of them, and efteemed nothing too great to be thought or faid of them. And therefore we find that they looked upon it

as a great arrogance for any man to affume any thing to himself, that might feem to fet him above Abraham, Ifaac, or Jacob. With what indignation did they fly upon our Saviour on this account? John iv. 12. Art thou greater than our father Jacob? and chap. viii. y 53. Art thou greater than our father Abraham? whom makest thou thyfelf? Now, they who had fo fuperftitious a veneration for them, would eafily believe any thing of privilege to belong to them: fo that our Saviour doth, with great advantage, inftance in them, in favour of whom they would be inclined to extend the meaning of any promife to the utmoft, and allow it to fignify as much as the words could poffibly bear. So that it is no wonder that the text tells us, that this argument put the Sadducees to filence. They durft not attempt a thing fo odious, as to go about to take away any thing of privilege from Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob.

And thus I have, as briefly as the matter would bear, endeavoured to fhew the fitnefs and force of this argument to convince those with whom our Saviour difputed. I come now, in the

II. Second place, to inquire, Whether this be any more than an argument ad hominem? and if it be, wherein the real and abfolute force of it doth consist?

I do not think it neceffary to believe, that every argument ufed by our Saviour, or his Apoftles, is abfolutely and in itself conclufive of the matter in debate. For an argument which doth not really prove the thing in queftion, may yet be a very good argument ad hominem; and in fome cafes more convincing to him with whom we difpute, than that which is a better argument in itfelf. Now, it is poffible, that our Saviour's intention might not be to bring a conclufive proof of the refurrection, but only to confute thofe who would needs be difputing with him: and, to that purpofe, an argument ad hominem, which proceeded upon grounds which they themfelves could not deny, might be very proper and effectual. But although it be not neceffary to believe, that this was more than an argument ad hominem; yet it is the better to us, if it be abfolutely and in itself conclufive of the thing in queftion. And this I hope will fufficiently appear, if we confider thefe four things.

I. That