principal of the species is the MIRACLE of Chrift's RESURRECTION from the Dead.— If Christ be not RAISED (faith St. Paul) your faith is vain; you are yet in your fins * And St. Peter ufes the fame argument to shew the NECESSITY of his Master's refurrection. God (fays he) raised him up, having loofed the pains of death; BECAUSE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE THAT HE SHOULD BE HOL. DEN OF IT. Now from whence does the impoffibility arife, if not from the force of St. Paul's argument concerning the nature of Chrift's Refurrection? So important a circumstance, therefore, required that the highest evidence should be given of its truth. CHRISTIANITY reveals the restoration of lapfed and forfeited Man to life and immortality from the power and dominion of the Grave. But the course of human nature continuing the fame after this restoration which it held before, and the GRAVE still boasting * 1 Cor. xv. 17.. R 3 + Acts ii. 24. its its power, though foolishly, indeed, and in vain, fince Death had left its fting*; there feemed to be need of fome extraordinary evidence of the reality of this change in the order of things, which being procured at the price of Chrift's death on the Crofs, and then vifibly paid, the nature of the compact required that the benefit obtained fhould be as vifibly put into our poffeffion; and both one and the other openly exemplified in the fame Perfon, the Author of onr Salvation. For, if he himself was not feen to enjoy the fruits of that Redemption, which was of his own procuring, what hopes could be entertained for the rest of mankind? Would it not have been too plaufibly concluded, that this expedient of Redemption had proved ineffectual by CHRIST's not rifing? So neceffarily connected (in the Apoftle's opinion) was the MIRACLE of our Saviour's vifible refurrection with the very effence of the Christian Faith. And this Refurrection being the firft fruits of them that flept, was the very thing * 1 Cor. xv. 55. which both affured and fantified all the benefits that were to follow. For the Jewifb first fruits (to which the expression alludes) were of the nature, and a fecurity to the plenty of the approaching Harvest. Thus, we fee, the MIRACLE of the Refurrection made a neceffary part of the integrity of the Gospel. But it had other ufes and expediencies befides; which (in concluding this head) I fhall, in as few words as poffible, endeavour to point out. The heathen World had, in general, fome notion of another life. But a refurrection of this material body, after death, to accompany the foul in its future existence, never once entered into their imaginations; though fome modern Writers have been mifled to think otherwise, partly by what they had learnt of the fables of the vulgar, full of shadows of a bodily shape, Inhabitants of the Tombs, or Attendants on the Soul, in the fequeftered abode of Spirits; and partly of the more folemn dreams of the Philofophers, particularly the famous STOICAL RENOVATION, which, however, is fo far from R 4 bearing bearing any resemblance, or yielding any credit to the CHRISTIAN refurrection, though mistaken for it, that it is abfolutely inconfiftent with it. The Sages of Antiquity had difcovered many qualities in the human Soul, which disposed them to think that it might furvive the Body. But every property they knew of Matter led them to conclude, that, at the feparation and diffolution of the union between these two conftituent parts of Man, the Body would be refolved into the Elements from whence it arofe. And that fect of Philofophy which moft favoured, and beft cultivated the Doctrine of the Soul's immortality, confidered the Body only as its prifon, into which it was thruft, by way of penance, for its pre-exiftent crimes; and from which, when it had un dergone its deftined purgation, it was to be totally fet free. Nay, fo little did the RESURRECTION OF THE BODY enter into their more studied conceptions, that when St. Paul, at Athens (the capital Seat of Science), preached JESUS AND THE RESURRECTION* * Acts xvii. 31. his Auditors miftook the second term to be like the firft, a revelation of fome new Deity, a certain Goddess, called ANASTASIS *. With ; *In this fenfe St. CHRYSOSTOM understood the thoughts of the Athenians to be concerning St. Paul's mention of the Anaftafis. Dr. BENTLEY thinks otherwise. But which of these two Doctors was likely to be best acquainted with the genius and state of Paganism, when St. Paul preached at Athens,' must be left to the judgment of the Reader. This, at leaft, is certain, that the reason the modern Doctor gives, why the Athenians could not miftake ANASTASIS for a Goddess, because they too well underflood the notion of a refurrection, is a very weak one, fince they had no notion of a resurrection at all unless they mistook (which is very unlikely) the STOICAL RENOVATION for that which the Apostle preached. Dr. Bentley, indeed, feems to have fallen into that error, or he could scarce have faid-the Athenians well underfood the notion of a Refurrection. However, let the Athenians understand this Stoical renovation as they would, they were certainly liable to a folly as grofs, and at that time much more general, which was, the turning a moral entity into an object of worship: most of which abstract notions, fuperftition had thus metamorphofed. Amongst the Jews. indeed, the RESURRECTION was become a national Doctrine fome time before the advent of the MESSIAH; not collected (we may be fure) from natural reason, nor taught |