E

This was, this is the ground of our natural expectation of a life after this. But upon this ground of truth many fables and ftories were raised, by fear and fuperftition, and by the power of imagination: fo that the general belief, though right in its foundation, yet in almost all the particulars of it was rendered ridiculous and abfurd. Hence it is, that among the writers of antiquity, we fometimes find wife men ridiculing the follies and fuperftitions of the people, and bad men always arguing from these follies against the very notion itself, and calling in queftion the reality of any future ftate.

.

Under thefe circumftances of the world, our bleffed Lord appeared to bring to light life and immortality through the Gofpel. Let us then confider how this fundamental article of religion now ftands upon the foot of the Gospel revelation.

As to the principal point, there is no difference between the hopes conveyed to us in the Gospel, and the expectation built upon natural reafon : for, as the wifeft men thought there must be, fo the Gospel affures us there will be, a day in which God will judge the world in righteousness, and render to every man according to his works. Thus far then the doctrine of the Gofpel and the dictates of natural reafon must ftand or fall together. If this doctrine has had a larger and more extenfive influence through the authority of the Gospel, than it could have had by the mere force of speculative reafoning, the world has received an advantage by the encouragement given to virtue, and the restraint laid upon vice by these means, which ought ever to be acknowledged with thankfulness. D d

VOL. II.

But the Gospel has added to this doctrine, and communicated to us the knowledge of fome circumstances, which were not discoverable but by the means of revelation; and they are principally these : that there shall be a refurrection of the body; that Chrift fhall be judge of the world; that the rewards and punishments in another life fhall be in proportion to our behaviour in this.

I shall speak briefly to these particulars, and fhew for what purpose they were revealed.

Firft, the refurrection of the body was revealed to give all men a plain and a fenfible notion of their being fubject to a future judgment. Death is the deftruction of the man; and fure we are that the lifeless body is no man; and whatever notions fome may have of the foul in its ftate of separate existence, yet a mere fpirit is not a man; for man is made of foul and body: and therefore to bring the man into judgment to answer for his deeds, the foul and the body must be brought together again. This doctrine, established upon the authority of the Gospel, does not remove all prejudices of the case, when examined by the fhort and fcanty notions we have of the powers of nature; but it effectually removes all difficulties that affect this belief, confidered with respect to religion and morality. For the fingle point in which religion is concerned, is to know whether men fhall be accountable hereafter for their actions here. Reafon tells us they ought to be fo but a great difficulty arifes from the diffolution of the man by death; a difficulty followed by endless speculations upon the nature of the foul, of its separate existence, of its guilt in this separate

ftate with respect to crimes committed in another, and in conjunction with the body, and by other difficulties of the like kind. But take in the declaration of the Gospel, that foul and body fhallbe as certainly united at the refurrection as they were divided by death, and every man be himself again; and there is no more difficulty in conceiving that men may be judged for their iniquities hereafter, than there is in conceiving that they may be judged here, when they offend against the laws of the country.

But ftill there are prejudices remaining: to fome it is incredible that the dead fhould be raised. To these we answer, upon the foot of the Gospel evidence, that the dead have been raised; upon the foot of reason, that it is altogether as credible, that God fhould be able to raise the dead to life a fecond time, as that he was able to give them life at firft. There is no difference in the cases; they are acts of one and the very fame power.

But we are farther asked, What body fhall be raised, since no man has exactly the fame body two days together? New parts are perpetually added by nutrition, old ones carried off by perspiration: so that in the compass of a few years an human body may be almost totally altered, and be no more the fame. than a ship which has been so often repaired, that no part of the original materials is left. But this objection, as plaufible as it may feem, has nothing to do in the present case; for religion is concerned, only to preferve the identity or fameness of the fon, as the object of future judgment; and has no

per

thing to do with that kind of identity against which the objection can be supposed to have any force. Were the cafe otherwife, the difficulty would be really as great in human judgments in this life, as in the divine judgment hereafter. Suppofe a man Thould commit murder when he was twenty, and not be discovered till he was fixty, and then brought to trial; would common fenfe admit him to plead that he was not the fame perfon who committed the fact; and to allege, in proof of it, the alterations in his body for the last forty years? Suppose then that, inftead of being discovered at fixty, he should die at fixty; and should rise either with the body he had at fixty, or twenty, or in any intermediate time, would not the cafe be juft the fame with refpect to the future judgment? Evidently it would be the fame which fhews that the article of the refurrection, as far as it is a fupport of religion, and of a fu ture judgment, ftands quite clear of this difficulty.

But the prejudices which affect men moft, when they confider this article of the refurrection, arise from the weakeft of all imaginations, that they can judge from the settled laws and course of nature, what is or is not poffible to the power of God. It is very true, that all our powers are bounded by the laws of nature: but does it follow that his power must be fo bounded, who appointed these laws of nature, and could have appointed others, if he had. thought proper? We cannot raife a dead body; our hands are tied up by the laws of nature, which we cannot furpafs. Neither can we make or create a new man; but we certainly know, from reafon and experience, that there is one who can: and

what can induce us to fuppofe that he cannot give life to a body a fecond time, who we certainly know gave life to it at firft? These prejudices therefore we may fafely refer to the power of the Almighty, to which all nature is obedient, and upon which we may fecurely depend for the performance of divine. promises, how unpromifing foever the circumstances may seem to be which attend them. When the Sadducees denied the refurrection, our Saviour told them, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God; intimating plainly, that for the fecurity and certainty of our refurrection we must truft to Scripture, and the declaration of God's purpose contained therein; and for the method and means of bringing this great work to pass, we muft rely on the power of God.

But whatever difficulties of this kind may remain, yet this article has removed all which lie in the way of our confidering ourselves as accountable creatures, and subject to the future judgment of God. Whatever you may imagine to be the state of feparate fouls; whatever difficulties may arife in confidering a mere fpirit as accountable for the actions of this compound being man, they are all out of the queftion. It is not a mere spirit, but the man himself, who is to be brought to judgment; and plain fense must fee and acknowledge the reasonableness of judging a man hereafter for the crimes committed in this life; as evidently as it fees the reasonableness of judging him here, when his crimes happen to be detected. So that the revelation in this particular has brought faith and common fenfe to a perfect agree

ment.