thrown, they had nothing left to oppose to the writings of the Prophets, or the preaching of JESUS. Against this principle therefore our blessed Lord thus divinely argues But as concerning the Resurrection of the dead, You ground your denial of it on this supposition, that the soul dies with the body; but you err as much in not knowing the Scriptures, as in not rightly conceiving of the power of God. For the words of the Law, which you allow to be a good authority, directly prove that the soul doth not die with the body, but hath a separate existence. Now Moses tells us, that God, long after the death of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, called himself their God: But God is not the God of the dead, but of the living; therefore the souls of those Patriarchs are yet existing in a separate state." This is the force of the argument *.

2. The second mistake is, that JESUS, by these words, insinuates that Moses CULTIVATED the Doctrine of a Resurrection, or a Future state. But here again the Objectors seem to forget, against whom the argument is addressed, the SADDUCEES. Now these not only held that Moses did not teach, but that he did NOT BELIEVE that Doctrine. This was the error JESUS aimed to confute; and only this; because the opinion that Moses did not teach or cultivate it, was no crror at all, as appears, amongst many other reasons, even from hence: that the Jews might reasonably understand the title of the God of Abraham, &c. to mean the peculiar tutelary God of Abraham's Family; for the terms Jacob and Israel are frequently used in Scripture for the whole nation of the Jews; Aaron for the whole order of the priesthood; Dan, Judah, &c. for the whole body of each Tribe: And, as in reason they might, so by the History of the early See note [H] at the end of this volume.

Jews,

Jews, we find in fact, they did understand it in this

sense.

The real force therefore of the text, here urged, amounts to this, from JESUS's argument it appears, that the separate existence of the soul might be fairly inferred from the writings of Moses: Which inference I not only grant some early Jews did make, but have proved likewise; though not indeed from these words, for the reason given above. And so much my Answerers might have understood, had they only observed that this has all the marks of a new Argument unknown to the Pharisees; as indeed both the dignity of our Lord's character, and the impression he would make on his Opposers, seemed to require it should be. Accordingly we find they are struck dumb; and the multitude that heard this, astonished at his doctrinet. But would Either of them have been so affected with an old foundered argument, long hacknied in the Schools and Synagogues of the Pharisees? Nay, how should it be otherwise than NEW? for the words, I am the God of Abraham, &c. as delivered by Moses, were supposed, both by Pharisees and Sadducees, to be spoken of a NATIONAL GOD; as in Gen. xvii. 8, 9. xxvi. 3. xxviii. 13. They therefore could not see how it implied the continued existence of the Patriarch Abraham, &c. But Jesus, in using the word GoD, to signify the Maker and Lord of all things, rightly inferred that the Patriarchs still continued to exist. I am not ignorant, that the modern Rabbins employed this argument very familiarly for a Resurrection; but

See note [II] at the end of this volume. + Matt. xxii. 33. The learned Pocock, speaking of this Argument, says, His e Lege depromptis cum Sadducæos ad silentium adegisset Christus, dicitur perculsam fuisse turbam doctrinâ ejus. Unde patet luculentiori ipsum contra eos argumento usuni, quam ullo adhuc usi fuerant Pharisæi. Nota miscell. ad Portam Mosis, cap. vi.

they borrowed it from the GOSPEL, as they have done many other things; the reason of which, our rabbinical Commentators, such as Lightfoot, not apprehending, have supposed the borrowing to be all on the side of the lenders but more of this matter in its place.

Thus much for this celebrated Text. In which, however, the learned Dr. Sherlock, the late Bishop of London, finds enough to support himself in his own opinion, That the Law of Moses afforded a good proof of a future state to the ancient Jews *. But to whom did it afford this proof? To the ancient Jews, who understood the words in the text, in question, to relate to a national God; or to us Christians, who understand them of the Creator of the Universe? Now though I cannot agree with his Lordship in this conclusion, yet I agree with him in a better thing, which is, That the Law of Moses affords a good proof of its own divinity; indeed, by a medium his Lordship never thought of, namely, That it afforded no proof of a future state at all. But what if his Lordship mcant no more than what his respectable Father endeavoured to prove †, viz. that the EXTRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE (which I hold to be the very circumstance which kept the Jews from the knowledge of a future state) indeed shews that they had the knowledge of it? If this be the case, all I have to say is, that Their proof of a future state from the LAW, begins just where my proof of its divinity ends.

II. We come next to the Parable of the rich Man and Lazarus; where the former, being in Hell, desires Abraham, whom he saw afar off in Paradise, to send Lazarus to his father's house, to testify to his Brethren,

Sermons by the Bishop of London.

+ Sermons by the Dean of St. Paul's, on the Immortality of the Soul and a Future State, p. 141.

and

and to lead them to repentance, lest they too should come into that place of torment: To which Abraham replies: If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead*. Hence it is inferred, that both Moses and the Prophets taught a future state of Rewards and Punishments. But, here again, the Objectors are quite beside the matter. As, in the former case, they would not see, the argument was directed against the SADDUCEES; So here, by as perverse a connivance, they will not reflect, that this Parable is addressed to the PHARISEES. It is certain we must judge of the drift and design of every rational discourse from the Character of those to whom it is addressed. Now had this Parable been told to the Sadducees, whose grand error it was, to deny a future state of rewards and punishments; and had the rich man been represented as a Sadducce, who was too late convinced of his mistake, and wanted to undeceive his father's house, which his evil DOCTRINES had perverted; had this, I say, been the case, there might have been some ground for the Objector's inference, which I suppose to be this, That "it appears as plainly from Moses " and the Prophets, that there is a future state of "rewards and punishments, as if one came back from "that state to tell us so.' On the contrary, the Parable was particularly addressed to the Pharisees, the great patrons of a future state, and who sedulously taught it in opposition to the Sadducees. It is introduced in this manner: And the PHARISEES also, who were COVETOUS [pagyugo], heard all these things: and they derided him†. For which they are thus reproved: Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts. And then

Luke xvi. 31.

presently follows the parable. Their capital errors therefore were errors of PRACTICE, Avarice and Luxury. And it was to reform these, that a rich Pharisee is represented as without any compassion for the poor, living in all kind of delicacy, and dying im penitent. This man, when he comes in the other world, finds so il à reception there, wants one to be sent to his brethren (who believed, doubtless, as he did, the Doctrine of a future state) to warn them of their evil ways, and to assure them, that luxury and inhumanity, unrepented of, would assuredly damn them. Which information, he thought, would be best inforced by a Miracle: If one went unto them from the dead, they will REPENT*. (Where observe, it is not-they will BELIEVE.) To this common mistake, Abraham's reply is extremely pertinent: If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead: i.e." If they will not hear Moses, and the Prophets, whose authority they acknowledge †, and whose missions were confirmed by so many and well-attested Miracles, neither will they regard a new one, of the resurrection of a dead man. (Nor, in fact, were the Pharisees at all softened into repentance by the return of that Lazarus, the namesake of this in the parable, whom Jesus raised from the dead.) Now Moses and the Prophets have denounced the most severe threatenings, on the part of God, against vice and impenitence." This is the force of the argument; in which we see the question of a future state is no more concerned, than thus far only, that God will punish, either here or hereafter. Moses and the Prophets threatened the punishment here; and, while here it was executed, the Jews looked no farther: But when the extraor+ See note [KK] at the end of this volume.

* Ver. 30.