From this view you may judge how the cause of immortality stood, and what difficulties attended it, on the foot of natural religion. All men had a natural sense and expectation of a future life. The difficulty was to account how the same individuals, which lived and died in this world, and one part of which evidently went to decay, should live again in another world. The vulgar, who had no other notion of a man but what came in by their eyes, supposed that just such men as lived in this world should live in the next; overlooking the difficulties which lay in their way, whilst they ran hastily to embrace the sentiments of nature. This advantage they had however, that their opinion preserved the identity of individuals, and they conceived themselves to be the very same with respect to the life to come, as they found themselves to be in regard to the life present. But then, had they been pressed, they could not have stood the difficulties arising from the dissolution of the body, the loss of which, in their way of thinking, was the loss of the individual.

The learned, who could not but see and feel this difficulty, to avoid it, shut out the body from being any part of the man, and made the soul alone to be the perfect individuum. This engaged them in endless disputes on the nature of the soul; and this grand article of natural religion by this means was made to hang by the slender threads of philosophy; and the whole was intirely lost, if their first position proved false, that the soul is the whole man: and it is an assertion which will not perhaps stand the examination. The maintainers of this opinion, though they supposed a sensitive as well as a rational soul in man, which was the seat of the passions, and, consequently, the spring of all human actions; yet this sensitive soul they gave up to death as well as the body, and preserved nothing but the pure intellectual mind. And yet it is something surprising to think that a mere rational mind should be the same individual with a man, who consists of a rational mind, a sensitive soul, and a body. This carries no probability with it at first sight, and reason cannot undertake much in its behalf.

But whatever becomes of these speculations, there is a farther difficulty, which can hardly be got over; which is, that this notion of immortality and future judgment can never serve

the ends and purposes of religion, because it is a notion which the generality of mankind can never arrive at. Go to the villages, and tell the ploughmen, that if they sin, yet their bodies shall sleep in peace; no material, no sensible fire shall ever reach them, but there is something within them purely intellectual, which shall suffer to eternity; you will hardly find that they have enough of the intellectual to comprehend your meaning. Now natural religion is founded on the sense of nature, that is, on the common apprehensions of mankind; and therefore abstracted metaphysical notions, beat out on the anvil of the schools, can never support natural religion, or make any part of it.

In this point then nature seems to be lame, and not able to support the hopes of immortality which she gives to all her children. The expectation of the vulgar, that they shall live again, and be just the same flesh and blood which now they are, is justifiable on no principles of reason or nature. What is there in the whole compass of beings which yields a similitude of dust and ashes rising up again into regular bodies, and to perpetual immortality? On the other side, that the intellectual soul should be the whole man, how justifiable soever it may be in other respects, yet it is not the common sense of nature, and therefore most certainly no part of natural religion. But it may be worth inquiring how nature comes to be thus defective in this material point. Did not God intend men originally for religious creatures? and if he did, is it not reasonable to expect an original and consistent scheme of religion? which yet in the point now before us seems to be wanting. The account of this we cannot learn from reason or nature; but in the sacred history the fact is cleared beyond dispute. The absurdity on the common notion of immortality arises from the dissolution of the body at death; and the great difficulty on the foot of nature is how to preserve the individuals for judgment; which are evidently destroyed by death. Now, if this death was really a breach on the state of nature, it is no wonder it should be a difficulty in the religion of nature; for the religion of nature was most certainly adapted to the state of nature. And the wise man tells us, that God made not death: for he created all things that they might have their being; and the

6

generations of the world were healthful; and there is no poison of destruction in them; nor the kingdom of death on earth; for righteousness is immortal. But ungodly men with their works and words called it to them.' If immortality was the condition of the creation, if death came in as a surprise on nature, no wonder if she stands mute and astonished at the fatal change, and seems neither willing to part with her hopes of immortality, nor yet able to maintain them. On the plan of nature the common notion of immortality was the true one: for take death out of the question, which is the only separation of soul and body that we know any thing of, and there is no pretence for distinguishing between the man and the intellectual mind. The vulgar certainly retained the true original notion of nature; but when the original state of nature was lost, the notion grew absurd; and it could not be otherwise. God made man immortal, and gave him consistent hopes and fears: man made himself mortal by sin: must not then those hopes, which were consistent hopes on the foot of immortality, become very absurd when joined to a state of mortality? And thus the coming in of death obscured the hopes of immortality.

Lastly, If we consider how our Saviour has enlightened this doctrine, it will appear that he has removed the difficulty at which nature stumbled. As death was no part of the state of nature, so the difficulties arising from it were not provided for in the religion of nature. To remove these was the proper work of revelation: these our Lord has effectually cleared by his gospel, and shown us that the body may and shall be united to the spirit in the day of the Lord, so that the complete man shall stand before the great tribunal to receive a just recompence of reward for the things done in the body. This account is given in the words preceding those of the text: 'who hath abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.' Now, if the abolishing of death was the bringing to light life and immortality, it is plain that the coming in of death was that which darkened nature in this great point of religion.

There are two things, as we learn from our Saviour's answer to the Sadducees, necessary to confirm us in the belief of a resurrection to come; namely, the knowlege of the power of God,

6

and of the will of God: Do ye not therefore err,' says our Lord, because ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God?' The Scriptures contain the revelation of the will of God; and therefore the words, I reckon, are to be understood as if he had said, Ye err, not knowing the will of God and the power of God. If we are satisfied in these two points, that God both can and will raise the dead, we shall want nothing to assure us of the certainty of a resurrection. The power of God we may learn from reason and nature; for what should make us doubt but that he, who at the first formed man out of dust and ashes into a living soul, should be able to call him into life again out of the same state? But the gospel has declared both his will and his power, which he confirmed in the raising his own Son from the grave; and better evidence we could not have for the possibility and certainty of a resurrection. This evidence of the gospel has reinstated nature in all her hopes, confirmed her right to immortality, and taught her to triumph over death and the grave, which seemed before to be immoveable bars to all her expectations. This has restored religion, which had hardly one sound foot to stand on, and made our faith and our reason consistent, which were before at too great distance. Nature indeed taught us to hope for immortality; but it was in spite of sense and experience, till the great Prince of our peace appeared, who brought life and immortality to light through his gospel.'

SUMMARY OF DISCOURSE VII.

ROMANS, CHAP. IV.-VERSE 25.

THE manner of expression used in the text is different from what is generally met with in the New Testament on the like occasion. It is the constant tenor of Scripture that the death of Christ was our redemption, and his blood the price paid for us; so that, when we consider redemption (which includes justification) with respect to Christ, it must be ascribed to his death and passion; but as to ourselves, our justification, though purchased by the blood of Christ, must be appropriated to ourselves through faith in his blood: for the same Apostle who says that we are justified freely through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, says also, that God hath set him forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood. Hence we are said to be justified by faith; not that our faith is the purchase of justification, but because through faith we obtain the benefit of the redemption wrought by Christ. Now, though the death of Christ was the reconciling of the world to God, yet this resurrection is the great foundation of our hope and faith in him : hence it is very properly said that he rose again for our justification for his resurrection it is which has wiped away the scandal of the cross, and made it a rational act of faith to hope for life and immortality from him who died on the tree. For truth of this exposition appeal made to 1 Cor. xv. 17., which teaches that faith in the death of Christ, not grounded on the assurance of his resurrection, is a vain faith. The power of the resurrection, with the atonement for sin made by the death of Christ, very beautifully expressed in Rom. viii. 34.