beings in man, and if I may express myself so, two different men, the material man, and the immaterial man. The scriptures speak on these principles, thus: The dust shall return to the earth as it was, this is the material man: The spirit shall return to God who gave it, Eccl. xii. 7. this is the immaterial man. Fear not them which kill the body, that is to say, the material man: fear him which is able to destroy the soul, Matt. x. 28. that is, the immaterial man. We are willing to be absent from the body, that is, from the material man: and to be present with the Lord, 2 Cor. v. 8. that is to say, to have the immaterial man disembodied. They stoned Stephen, that is the material man: calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit, Acts vii. 59. that is to say, receive the immaterial man.

2. The disciple of natural religion can obtain only an imperfect knowledge of the obligations or duties of man. Natural religion may indeed conduct him to a certain point, and tell him, that he ought to love his benefactor, and various similar maxims. But is natural religion, think you, sufficient to account for that contrariety, of which every man is conscious, that opposition between inclination and obligation? A very solid argument, I grant, in favor of moral rectitude ariseth from observing, that to whatever degree a man may carry his sin, whatever efforts he may make to eradicate those seeds of virtue from his heart, which nature hath sown there, he cannot forbear venerating virtue, and recoiling at vice. This is certainly a proof, that the Author of our being meant to forbid vice, and to enjoin virtue. But is there no room for complaint? Is there nothing specious in the following objection ?-As in spite of all my endeavors to destroy virtuous dispositions, I cannot

help respecting virtue, you infer, that the Author of my being intended I should be virtuous: So, as in spite of all my endeavors to eradicate vice, I cannot help loving vice, have I not reason for inferring, in my turn, that the Author of my being designed I should be vicious; or at least that he cannot justly impute guilt to me for performing those actions which proceed from some principles, that were born with me? Is there no shew of reason in this famous sophism? Reconcile the God of nature with the God of religion. Explain how the God of religion can forbid what the God of nature inspires; and how he who follows those dictates, which the God of nature inspires, can be punished for so doing by the God of religion.

The gospel untolds this mystery. It attributes this seed of corruption to the depravity of nature, It attributeth the respect we feel for virtue to the remains of the image of God, in which we were formed, and which can never be entirely effaced. Because we were born in sin, the gospel concludes that we ought to apply all our attentive endeavors to eradicate the seeds of corruption. And because the image of the Creator is partly erased from our hearts, the gospel concludes, that we ought to give ourselves wholly to the retracing of it, and so to answer the excellence of our extraction..

3. A disciple of natural religion can obtain only an imperfect knowledge of the duration of man, whether his soul be immortal, or whether it be involved in the ruin of matter. Reason, I allow, advanceth some solid arguments in proof of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. For what necessity is there for supposing, that the soul, which is a spiritual, invisible, and immaterial being, that constitutes a whole, and is a distinct being, although united to a portion of matter, should cease to ex

ist, when its union with the body is dissolved? A positive act of the Creator is necessary to the annihilation of a substance. The annihilating of a being that subsists, requireth an act of power similar to that which gave it existence at first. Now, far from having any ground to believe, that God will、 cause his power to intervene to annihilate our souls, every thing that we know, persuadeth us that he himself hath engraven characters of immortality on them, and that he will preserve them for ever. Enter into thy heart, frail creature! see, feel, consider those grand ideas, those immortal designs, that thirst for existing, which a thousand ages cannot quench, and in these lines and points behold the finger of thy Creator writing a promise of immortality to thee. But how solid soever these arguments may be, however evident in themselves, and striking to a philosopher, they are objectionable, because they are not popular, but above vulgar minds, to whom the bare terms, spirituality and existence, an entirely barbarous, and convey no meaning at all.

Moreover, the union between the operations of the soul, and those of the body, is so close, that all the philosophers in the world cannot certainly determine, whether the operations of the body ceasing, the operations of the soul do not cease with them. I see a body in perfect health, the mind, therefore, is sound. The same body is disordered, and the mind is disconcerted with it. The brain is filled, and the soul is instantly confused. The brisker the circulation of the blood is, the quicker the ideas of the mind are, and the more extensive its knowledge. At length death comes, and dissolves all the parts of the body; and how difficult is it to persuade one's-self, that the soul, which was affect

ed with every former motion of the body, will not be dissipated by its entire dissolution!

Are they the vulgar only, to whom philosophical arguments for the immortality of the soul appear deficient in evidence? Do not superior geniusses require, at least, an explanation of what rank you assign to beasts, on the principle, that nothing capable of ideas and conceptions can be involved in a dissolution of matter? Nobody would venture to affirm now, in an assembly of philosophers, what was some time ago maintained with great warmth, that beasts are mere self-moving machines. Expe. rience seems to demonstrate the falsity of the metaphysical reasonings, which have been proposed in favor of this opinion; and we cannot observe the actions of beasts without being inclined to infer one of these two consequences: either the spirit of man is mortal, like his body or the souls of beasts are immortal, like those of mankind.

Revelation dissipates all our obscurities, and teacheth us, clearly, and without a may-be, that God willeth our immortality. It carries our thoughts forward to a future state, as to a fixed period, whither the greatest part of the promises of God tend. It commandeth us, indeed, to consider all the blessings of this life, the aliments that nourish us, the rays which enlighten us, the air we breathe, sceptres, crowns, and kingdoms, as effects of the liberality of God, and as grounds of our gratitude. But at the same time, it requireth us to surmount the most magnificent earthly objects. It commandeth us to consider light, air, and aliments, crowns, sceptres, and kingdoms, as unfit to constitute the felicity of a soul created in the image of the blessed God, 1 Tim. i. 11. and with whom the blessed God hath formed a close and intimate union. It assureth us, that an age of life can

not fill the wish of duration, which it is the noble prerogative of an immortal soul to form. It doth not ground the doctrine of immortality on metaphysical speculations, nor on the complex arguments uninvestigable by the greatest part of mankind, and which always leave some doubts in the minds of the ablest philosophers. The gospel grounds the doctrine on the only principle that can support the weight, with which it is encumbered. The principle, which I mean, is the will of the Creator, who having created our souls at first by an act of his will, can either eternally preserve them, or absolutely annihilate them, whether they be material, or spiritual, mortal or immortal, by nature. Thus the disciple of revealed religion doth not float between doubt and assurance, hope and fear, as the disciple of nature doth. He is not obliged to leave the most interesting question that poor mortals can agitate, undecided; whether their souls perish with their bodies, or survive their ruins. He does not say, as Cyrus said to his children: "I know not how to persuade myself, that the soul lives in this mortal body, and ceaseth to be, when the body expires. I am more inclined to think, that it acquires after death more penetration and purity." He doth not say, as Socrates said to his judges; "And now we are going, I to suffer death, and you to enjoy life. God only knows which is best." He doth not say as Cicero said, speaking on this important article; "I do not pretend to say, that what I affirm is as infallible as the Pythian oracle, I speak only by conjecture." The disciple of revelation, authorized by the testimony of Jesus Christ, who hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 2 Tim. i. 10. boldly affirms, Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. We, that are