For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners: so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. It seems impossible to doubt, that by the death of our Saviour, we are placed in precisely the same situation, in which we should have been, had Adam not offended. If then, it be admitted, that the punishment pronounced against him and his posterity, was death without resurrection, it follows, that Moses, if he were an inspired, or divinely commissioned legislator, or even a faithful historian of the fall by tradition, could not have made the doctrine of a future state, any part of his system. Though it might be obscurely included in the promise made to our first parents; though its probability might be inferred from the translation of Enoch; though it might be virtually contained in the covenant with Abraham; though natural reason might strongly suggest it, and though it might be darkly intimated in some of those prophecies, which were to be fulfilled by him, by whom it was to be brought to light-still, notwithstanding all this, Moses was entirely precluded from making it the sanction of his religion. If he had taught it, one part of the Pentateuch would have con

tradicted the rest. As a doctrine of Revelation, it was not in existence, at the time when he lived, nor for many ages afterwards. It was in fact (if I may so express it) in abeyance from the fall of Adam, until the coming of Jesus Christ. And this is the reason, which Bishop Warburton assigns for its omission, and which appears to me to be perfectly clear and satisfactory. And I am not aware of any other explanation that either has or can be given of it. Those who are not satisfied with this account of it, contending up to the present moment, not indeed that it is to be found in the law of Moses, but that the Jews nevertheless had it in some other way. Were this opinion well founded, which I am persuaded it is not, it would only increase the difficulty of understanding, why Moses should not, over and over again, and in the most explicit terms, have pressed upon them, this, by far the most powerful motive, which he could urge, to induce their obedience, to the laws which he promulgated. His silence upon the subject, and still more than his silence, the temporal rewards and punishments, which he held out to them, which amount almost to a denial of it, is the point which requires explanation.

That explanation I have endeavoured to give, in a way which is perfectly convincing to my own mind. But it will perhaps admit of confirmation, by examining some of the principal objections, that have been or may be made to it, which I

tunity.

propose to do upon a future oppor

In the mean time, let us reflect, that in proportion as our light is clear and steady, upon the great doctrine of a future state, so should its influence upon our lives be vivid and salutary. In particular upon this day, when we commemorate the great sacrifice, by means of which, we may become heirs of a glorious immortality; let us resolve to be careful, lest by any misconduct on our parts, that sacrifice for us, shall have been made in vain. And whilst we offer up to our Redeemer our solemn thanks for the inestimable benefit which he has conferred upon us, let us implore the aid of the Holy Spirit, to guide us in our researches after Divine truth; and to dispose our hearts to love and fear God, and to obey those commandments, the observance of which he has made the condition, through the merits of his Son, of our attainment of eternal life.

SERMON XII.

1 CORINTHIANS XV. 22.

As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

IN a former discourse from these words, I endeavoured to shew, that the reason why Moses did not and could not teach the doctrine of a future state of retribution to the Israelites was this, that he had no Divine authority for it, but, on the contrary, had to disclose a dispensation of the Almighty, which was in direct opposition to it, declaring that Adam and his posterity were under a sentence of death, or final separation of the soul from the body; combined, it is true, with some obscure intimation of a future undefined, but beneficial change in their condition. This interpretation of the sentence denounced against Adam, though not indeed new, is yet

sufficiently uncommon to make me feel some degree of diffidence in proposing it.—Nevertheless, after much reflection, I am satisfied that it is and must be true--and if so, that it furnishes, and can alone furnish, a complete answer to the difficulty, arising from the omission of a future state, in express terms, by Moses in the Pentateuch-whether this difficulty be urged in the manner of infidels, or silently felt in the embarrassment of believers. I have no hesitation in saying, that I have met with no other solution of it that is at all satisfactory to my own mind. I have adverted to the opinion of Dr. Sherlock, which seems to embrace all that has been said on that side of the question; and I must beg leave to repeat it, that "though there are very strong presumptions in the Jewish law, of another and a better life after this, and such as gave good men a very firm belief of it, yet it is certain there are no express promises of life. and immortality, in the Old Testament: for they might easily be shewn if there were any there.

دو

Now if this were affirmed of almost any other doctrine of religion, it might perhaps be admitted to have some weight. But as ap