It was not till a very long time after Plato, that the Pharisees among the Jews adopted the tenet of the resurrection.

The Acts of the Apostles mention a very singular transaction, and well worthy of notice. St. James and several of his companions advised St. Paul, though so thorough a Christian, to go into the temple of Jerusalem, and observe all the ceremonies of the ancient law, to the end all may know, say they, that every thing which is said of you is false, and that you still continue to observe Moses's law.

St. Paul accordingly went into the temple for seven days; but being known on the seventh, he was accused of having brought strangers into it, with a view of prophaning it.

Now Paul perceiving that some of the crowd were Sadducees and others Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Brethren I am a Pharisee, "the son of a Pharisee; it is for the hope of ano"ther life, and the resurrection of the dead, "that I am in danger of being condemned," Acts xxiii. ver. 6. In all this affair not a word had been said about the resurrection of the dead; but Paul's drift in mentioning it was to raise a quarrel between the Pharisees and Sadducees. Ver. 7. "And Paul having said, there arose a dissention between the Pharisees and Sad"ducees, and the multitude was divided." Ver. 8. "For the Sadducees say, there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit; but the "Pharisees confess both, &c."

It has been affirmed that Job, who doubtless is of great antiquity, was acquainted with the doctrine of the resurrection; and, in proof of it, the following words are quoted: "I know

X 2

"that

"that my redeemer liveth, and that one day his "redemption will rise on me, or that I shall "rise again from the dust; that my skin will "return; and that I shall again see God in my "flesh."

But several commentators understand no more by these words, than that Job hopes he shall soon get over his distemper, and shall not always be lying in the ground as he then was: the sequel sufficiently proves the truth of this explanation; for the moment he cries out to his false and harsh friends. 66 Why then say you, Let us "persecute him, or because you shall say, Because we have persecuted him" ('). Does not this evidently mean, you will repent of having insulted me, when you shall see me again in my former state of health and opulence? A sick person says, I shall recover, not I shall rise from the dead: to give forced meanings to clear passages, is the sure way never to understand one another.

66

According to St. Jerome, the sect of the Pharisees began but a very little time before Jesus Christ. Rabbi Hillel is accounted its founder, and he was cotemporary with Gamaliel, St. Paul's

master.

Many of these Pharisees believed that it was only the Jews who were to rise again; and that as to the rest of mankind, they were not worth while. Others affirmed that the resurrection would be only in Palestine, and that bodies buried in other parts would be secretly conveyed to the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, there to be unite d

(1) See our translation, chap. xix. ver. 25 and 28.

united to their soul. St. Paul tells the inhabitants of Thessalonica, "That the second coming of Jesus Christ is for them and for him " and that they shall be witnesses of it."

66

;

Ver. 16. "For on the signal being given by "the archangel and the trumpet of God, the "Lord himself shall descend from heaven, and "they who shall have died in Jesus Christ shall "rise first."

-66

Ver. 17. "Then we who are alive, and who "shall have remained till then, shall be caught up with them in the clouds, to go and meet "the Lord in the air; and thus we shall live "for ever with the Lord." 1 Thessalonians, chap. iv.

Does not this important passage evidently prove, that the first Christians made themselves sure that they should see the end of the world; and St. Luke actually foretels it, as what should happen in his life-time?

St. Austin thinks that children, and even stillborn infants, shall rise at the age of maturity. Origen, Jerome, Athanasius, Basil, did not believe that women were to rise again with the distinctions of sex,

In a word, there have ever been disputes about what we were, what we are, and what we shall be.

SOLOMON (').

SURELY Solomon could not be so rich as

he is said?

The book of Chronicles tells us that Melk David his father left him one hundred thousand talents of gold (2) and one thousand talents of silver;

(1) This whole article is liable to great exceptions, and betrays a spirit of licentiousness in the author. He takes upon himself to strike what books he pleases out of the canon of the scriptures, because they do not suit his fancy, or because he meets with a few difficulties, which are easily solved. We are sorry to own that he shews himself in this article to have joined that class of Deists, whom Dr. Clarke mentions as not capable of being argued with. These are they who endeavour to turn the most sacred things into ridicule; and shew as great a disregard to common decency as to religion. They pretend to expose their abuses and corruption of religion: but the profane and lewd images with which they affect to dress up their discourse, demonstrate that they do not intend to deride any vice or folly, but rather to foment the vicious inclinations of others. By turning every thing alike into ridicule, they plainly declare that they have no regard for virtue or religion. Such men are not to be argued with, till they learn to use arguments instead of drollery. For banter is not capable of being answered by reason, not because it has any strength in it; but because it runs out of all the bounds of reason and good sense, by extravagantly joining together such images as have not in themselves any man

ner

(2) A talent of gold is generally estimated about 50751. sterling.

silver; so enormous a sum, that it is quite incredible. There is not so much cash in all the

nations

ner of similitude or connection; thus all things are alike to be rendered ridiculous, by being repreeasy sented only in an absurd dress.

This is what our author has unhappily done in regard to the Song of Solomon. Whether this book, as well as those of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, were written by that prince, is not at all material to our religion; but it is certain that they belong to the canonical books, and their authority is the same as that of the other parts of the scripture, of which there never was any doubt in the church.

The Song of Songs is generally believed to have been written by king Solomon. It contains an epithalamium, in which the lover and his spouse are represented speaking their parts. King Solomon is named several times in the body of the work; so that there can be no doubt of its being written in his time. In regard to the impropriety which some imagine of inserting a book of this kind among those of holy writ, it must be observed, that there is a double meaning to be understood; the historical and the mystical. In the historical sense, it is a song for the nuptials of Solomon, and the daughter of the king of Egypt, who is called Shulamite. According to the mystical sense, of which the historical is only the foundation, it denotes the union between Christ and his church, which in the scripture is compared to that between man and wife. Such is the mystery represented by the nuptials of Solomon. But we are afraid our author is too carnally minded, to attend to the mystical sense of this or any other part of scripture.

Our author's objections against the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are puerile, and scarce deserving of notice. But it is very droll to see him display

X 4

ing