established as works of supererogation. Of this sort were their frequent washings and fastings, their nice avoidance of reputed sinners, their rigorous observance of the sabbath, and the long prayers which they ostentatiously "made in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets." 'Trusting in themselves that they were righteous," they not only despised the rest of mankind, but were entirely destitute of humility towards God, which is inseparable from true piety; yet the specious sanctity of their manners, and their hypocritical display of zeal for religion, gave them a yast influence over the common people, and consequently great power and authority in the Jewish state. Dr. Lardner, in speaking of the Jewish sects, after quoting a passage from Josephus, in which he says, that "the multitude was with the Pharisees," very justly observes, that "there is in this respect a complete agreement between the Evangelists and Josephus. The people, as clearly appears from the Gospels, very generally held the tenets and observed the traditions of the Pharisees, yet they are never dignified so far as to be called Pharisees; they were rather an appendage than a part of the sect, and always called very plainly, the people, the multitude, and the like. The title of Pharisee seems to have been almost almost entirely appropriated to men of leisure and substance." The Pharisees believed in the immortality of the soul, in the resurrection of the dead, and in the existence of angels and spirits; and it is supposed by many of the learned, that they believed also in the pre-existence of souls, a doctrine which seems to have been commonly held in the time of our Saviour. The question of the disciples of Christ, relative to the man that was born blind, "Who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind (w)?" and the doubts expressed by the people, whether Christ was John the Baptist, or Elias, or one of the antient prophets (a), are thought to have arisen from some opinion of this sort; but I confess I see no ground for the supposition, which some commentators have formed, that the Pharisees believed in the Pythagorean doctrine of the transmigration of souls. Indeed, I think this supposition is clearly contradicted both by Josephus and the sacred writers. his second book against Apion, Josephus, in says, with an allusion to the rewards given by the heathen nations for meritorious conduct; "However, the reward for such as live exactly according to the laws is not silver or gold; it is not a garland (w) John, c. 9. v. 2. garland of olive branches or of smallage, nor any such public sign of commendation; but every good man has his own conscience bearing witness to himself; and by virtue of our legislator's prophetic spirit, and of the firm security God himself affords to such an one, he believes that God hath made this grant to those that observe these laws, even though they be obliged readily to die for them, that they shall come into being again, and at a certain revolution of things, shall receive a better life than they had enjoyed before;" and in his Antiquities (y) he says, "They believe that it hath pleased God to make a temperament, whereby what he wills is done, but so that the will of man can act virtuously or viciously. They also believe that souls have an immortal vigour in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but the former shall have power to revive and live again." St. Luke expressly says, that the Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead; and we cannot suppose that he would call the metempsychosis by that name. And when St. Paul professed himself a Pharisee, and declared, that of the "hope and resurrection of the (y) Lib. 18. cap. 1. dead dead he was called in question (z)," the Pharisees vindicated and supported him, acknowledging that he was preaching a doctrine conformable to the principles of their own sect. We must, therefore, I think, conclude that the Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead, in its proper sense, though their notions upon this important point were not correct and accurate. III. It is said, that the principles of the Sadducees were derived from Antigonus Sochæus, president of the Sanhedrin about 250 years before Christ, who, rejecting the traditionary doctrines of the Scribes, taught that man ought to serve God out of pure love, and not from hope of reward, or fear of punishment: and that they derived their name from Sadoc, one of his followers, who, mistaking or perverting this doctrine, maintained that there was no future state of rewards and punishments. dation there may be for this origin of the sect, it is certain, Whatever founaccount of the that in the time of our Saviour the Sadducees denied the resurrection of the dead (a), and the existence of angels and spirits, or souls of departed men; though, as Mr. Home observes, it is not easy (z) Acts, c.23. v. 6. (a) Acts, c. 23. v. 8. to to comprehend how they could at the same time admit the authority of the law of Moses. They carried their ideas of human freedom so far as to assert, that men were absolutely masters of their own actions, and at full liberty to do either good or evil. Josephus even says, that they denied the essential difference between good and evil; and though they believed that God created and preserved the world, they seem to have denied his particular providence. These tenets, which resemble the Epicurean philosophy, led, as might be expected, to great profligacy of life; and we find the licentious wickedness of the Sadducees frequently condemned in the New Testament; yet they professed themselves obliged to observe the Mosaic law, because of the temporal rewards and punishments annexed to such observance; and hence they were always severe in their punishment of any crimes, which tended to disturb the public tranquility. The Sadducees rejected all tradition, and some authors have contended, that they admitted only the books of Moses; but there seems no ground for that opinion, either in the Scriptures or in any antient writer. Even Josephus, who was himself. a Pharisee, and took every opportunity of reproaching the Sadducees, does not mention that they rejected any part of the Scriptures; he only says |