Things themfelves. Were this duly confidered, it would fet the great Controversy of Religion upon the right Foot, which ought to turn on this fingle Point, Whether there be fufficient Evidence of a future State, or no? For, if fuch a State there be, let our Conceptions concerning it be clear, or hot clear, most certainly we shall be brought to account for all we do; which is enough, I think, to make us careful what we do. And this is the main Concern of Religion, and that which will fecure whatever is neceffary to it.

Since then Religion evidently depends. upon the Certainty and Reality of a future State of Rewards and Punishments, and other the like Articles, and not in the leaft upon the Knowledge of the Nature, or the philofophical Account of thefe Things; it had been abfurd in our Saviour, who was a Preacher of Religion only, a Teacher sent from God, to have entered into thofe Difficulties, which did not at all belong to his Province. And, fince neither the Practice of Religion would have received any Advantage by the Difcuffion of thefe Doubts, for, if we had the Knowledge of Angels, and faw the Heavens as plainly as they do, yet

the

7

the fame Virtue and Holinefs, without any Change, would be neceffary to carry us thither; nor the Motives of Religion would have gained any new Strength, fince the Evidence for the Reality of a future State is not affected by these Doubts; it is ridiculous 'to expect the Solution of them in the Gospel, when, if folved, they would not serve any one Point in which the Gospel is concerned, but would end in mere Philofophy and Speculation.

But perhaps it may be faid, That all this is true indeed, where the Existence of Things is out of doubt: In that Cafe no Difficulties can destroy the Evidence of their Existence. But, where the Existence of Things is doubtful, there the feeming Contradictions which arise in confidering the Nature of the Things, do mightily shake the Presumption of their Existence. This is a fair State of the Cafe, and we ought to join Iffue on it.

Let us then proceed, in the third Place, to fhew, That the Gospel has given us the greatest Evidence of our own Immortality, and of a future State, that can be thought on or defired. There are two Things upon which our Refurrection to Life depends, as we learn from our Saviour's Answer to the Sadducees:

Sadducees: Ye do err, says he, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the Power of God: Which Answer is a very clear one; for we can defire no more than to know that God certainly can raise us, and that he certainly will. The firft is to be learnt from our natural Notions of God; the fecond from the Scripture, which is the Declaration of his Will to Mankind. As to the Power of God, it cannot be brought into question, without throwing off all Pretence even to Natural Religion: For, if you allow God, that he made the World, and formed Man into a living Soul in the Beginning; you cannot deny but that He, who made Man out of nothing at firft, can as easily make him again, after Death has diffolved the vital Union. It remains then to inquire after the Will of God, Whether He, who certainly can, certainly will raise us at the last Day? The Time will not permit me to enter largely into the Argument; and therefore I shall reft it upon one, but that a very clear Point. It will not be denied but that 'we have our Saviour's Promise and Word for our Refurrection often repeated in the Gospel And confider, pray, did not he raise many dead to Life again?

Did he not at last raise himself from the Grave, after he had been three Days buried? Is it not plain then, upon the Gospel Account, that he had the Power of raising the Dead? and is it not as plain, that he has promised to raise us? Take both Propofitions together then, and they will amount to this; That He, who has the Power of railing the Dead, has promised and declared that he will raise us from the Dead. God, we know, cannot lye, and therefore must ratify every Word, which he spoke by his holy

Child Jefus: And hence arifes a Security which no Doubts can shake. Befides, as to Difficulties in Nature and Philosophy, he has not indeed taught us to answer them; but he fully answered them himself, when he came from the Grave; as he who got and walked, baffled all the Philofopher's Arguments against Motion.

'Tis true, you will fay, this is yery good Evidence, but you find it hard to believe: And perhaps you might have been as hard of Belief, if our Saviour had reafoned never fo philofophically. The Question is, Whether any Objection lies against the Gospel for overlooking the Difficulties which learned Men raife? I have fhewed that none can

lie, and that the Gospel has given a much better Evidence than that which is defired: And this is fufficient to remove the Offence

taken upon the Account of this supposed Defect in the Gofpel. If you believe not the Gospel, that alters not the Cafe: The Evidence is not the worse for that; for neither would you believe perhaps, though one rofe from the Dead,

DISCOURSE