custom of burying the dead with their faces. upwards, and looking toward the rifing Sun, which is exactly the Chriftian mode, has a very strong smatch of this fentiment. (aa) 'Tis obfervable, Mahomet speaks in his Koran of the refurrection as of a doctrine known and received in the world from the beginning, and far antecedently to the Mofaic difpenfation. This appears from the following paf

fage. That this, i. e. the doctrine of the re"furrection, is no other than fables of the "ANTIENTS is, fays he, the pretence of "unbelievers." And indeed his learned tranflator remarks in his Preliminary Difcourse, that fome of the Pagan Arabs believed neither a creation, nor refurrection; but that others believed both. We are given to understand by a fenfible writer, that the first Europeans who vifited China found many Christian truths intermingled with the trash of fable, and tradition; that the Gentiles of Indoftan have confufed notions of the Trinity; and in particular that the people of Ceylon believe the Refurrection of the Body. *

Jenkins's Reasonab. &c. V. 1. p. 103. P. on the Cr. P. 379.

In

In his note at the 19th verfe of the 26th. chapter of Isaiah,-Thy dead men fhall live, together with my dead body shall they arife, &c. the learned Bp. Lowth obferves, that the doctrine of the refurrection of the dead muft have been "a popular and common doctrine”. among the Jews, at the time of the delivery of this prophecy; and we may reasonably make the fame inference from a parallel. paffage in Daniel ;-many of them that fleep in the dust of the earth shall awake; &c. many, as I find it noted by the judicious commentator, being here and elsewhere manifeftly equivalent to all.

That the notion of a Refurrection, according to the common acceptation of the term, prevailed among the Jews in our Saviour's time, will be soon manifeft from certain occurrences and paffages in the evangelical writings. St. Paul, in his apology before King Agrippa, affirms it to have its foundation in the hope of the promise made unto the Fathers: tho' when, where, or in what manAnd certain it is ner, he mentions not.

that the Pharifees, the ftraiteft and most

confiderable

confiderable Sect among them, not only entertained this notion with ferioufnefs, but contended for it with vehemency; as appears from the violence of oppofition between them and the Sadducees, who as ftrenuously denied it. What then did both parties understand by it? Let us, for a refolution of this question, turn first to the account which the evangelifts give us of a difcourfe held by the Sadducees with our Saviour, on the fubject of the Refurrection. The fame day, fays St. Matthew, and much in the fame words, St. Mark, and St. Luke after him, came to him the Sadducees, who fay that there is no Refurrection, and asked him, faying, Mafter, Mofes faid, if a man die having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raife up feed unto his brother: now there were with us feven brethren; and the firft when he had married a wife, deceased; and having no iffue left his wife to his brother ; likewife the fecond alfo, and the third, to the feventh. And last of all, the woman died alfo. Therefore in the Refurrection whofe wife fhall she be of the feven, for they all

bad ber. * The argument herein implied is indeed perfectly ridiculous, and groffly carnal; and is exposed accordingly by our blessed Lord in his reply to it: but it undeniably fuppofes the refurrection of the bodies of these fame brethren and their wife, agreably to the Pharifaical hypothefis. Indeed that very reply plainly fuppofes the fame thing. Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the refurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. All this is abundantly confirmed by our Saviour's own argument immediately following. As touching the refurrection of the dead, bave you not read that which was spoken to you by God, faying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Ifaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. There is neither connection, nor indeed sense in this portion of scripturehistory, unless we fuppofe the re-union of the fouls and bodies of Abraham and Ifaac, &c. in the refurrection; and that our Sa

* Matt. 22. 23. &c.

viour meant by implication to affert it. For his argument directly proves nothing more than the immortality of the foul, and its confequential exiftence in a future state. But had this proof been the fole object of his difcourfe, he would moft affuredly have expreffed himself in a very different manner upon the occafion. Our Lord's meaning is yet more fully difcovered by St. Luke's account of this matter. Now that the dead are raifed, fays he, according to that Evangelist, EVEN Mofes fhewed at the bush, saying, &c.

Again: When our Lord told Martha, that her brother, newly deceased, should rise again, fhe faid unto him, fays the facred text, I know that he shall rise again in the refurrection at the last day. * Now that Martha believed her brother should rife again at the laft day with that body which was laid in the grave, and had been dead four days, is evident enough from this confideration; that, though the appears to have been doubtful of the poffibility of his refurrection at that time,