acts in a separate State. And this is the utmoft that the Heathen Philofophers ever pretended to; and the utmost that our modern Deifts, who reject all Revelation, will own: And indeed, when they have laid afide all Revelation, they have no Reason to own any more. But this is not to believe Immortal Life, but only that the Soul does not lofe all Knowledge, or confcious Senfation, in a State of Separation from the Body. But this is a State of Death ftill, not Immortal Life, which is the peculiar Reward our Saviour alone exprefly promised to his Difciples.

I must confefs (tho' I hope a prevailing Cuftom will excufe it) I think we take a wrong Courfe, when we begin the Proof of Immortal Life with proving the natural Immortality of the Soul: Which, how well foever we can prove it, fignifies nothing to a Chriftian Immortality. For tho' the Soul cannot die with the Body, and lofe all Knowledge and Senfe in a State of Separation from the Body, yet this does not prove that the Dead shall rise again into Immortal Life, which alone is the Gofpel Immortality. And yet this is the Subject of the warmest Disputes and the fiercest Zeal, which neither our Saviour nor his Apoftles ever concern'd themselves with.

The not diftinguishing between what we commonly call the Immortality of the Soul, and that, Life and Immortality which Chrift hath brought to Light by the Gospel, very often occafions dangerous Mistakes, to the great Prejudice of the Chriftian Faith. This makes fome Men think, that, to prove that Immortal Life which Chrift has promifed, it is abfolutely neceffary to prove, that the Soul is by Nature Immortal; and that,

if they can prove the Natural Immortality of the Soul, this proves that Immortal Life which Chrift hath promifed; and that, as much as they fail in these Proofs, fo much lefs Evidence they have of the Gospel Immortality. But these are two very different Things, and must be prov'd by very different Arguments; and indeed in a different Order and Method. The Immortality of the Soul does not prove the Gospel Immortality 3 but the Gospel Immortality is the best Proof of the Natural Immortality of the Soul, which ultimately refolves our Faith into the fole Authority of a Divine Revelation, and a Divine Promife; as the other Way does into the mere Evidence of Natural Reafon; which may greatly endanger our Faith. As to explain this briefly

to you.

First, The Immortality of the Soul fignifies no more than that it does not die with the Body, does not fall into nothing, or into a State of Infenfibility. But that Life and Immortality, which the Gospel promises, is the Refurrection of the Dead. Now thefe two different Kinds of Immortality must be proved by very different Arguments. The Natural Immortality of the Soul, without a Revelation, can be prov'd only by Natural Arguments, taken from the Nature and Operations of the Soul, &c. But the Refurrection of the Dead can be proved by no Natural Arguments: For it is not in the Power of Nature to raise the Dead. That depends wholly on the good Will and Pleasure of God, which can be known only by Revelation. So that the Proofs of these two do not depend on each other.. We may have a certain Revelation of Immortal Life, whether we can prove the Natural Immortality of the Soul or not. And tho' we could

P 3

prove

prove the Immortality of the Soul by plain and felf evident Reafons, this does not, and cannot, prove the Gospel Immortality: That is, tho' we could prove that the Soul does not die with the Body, this cannot prove, that the Body fhall rife again, and Soul and Body be re-united in Eternal Life. And therefore the Chriftian Faith of the Resurrection of the Body, and Eternal Life, is not directly and immediately concern'd in this whole Difpute of the Immortality of the Soul. For as the Proofs of Immortal Life are good without it, fo the Natural Proofs of the Immortality of the Soul cannot prove the Refurrection of the Body and Immortal Life.

But, 2. Tho the Natural Immortality of the Soul does not prove the Gospel Immortality, yet the Gospel Promises of Immortal Life are the beft Proof of the Natural Immortality of the Soul. Chriftians are no farther concern'd in the Belief of the Natural Immortality of the Soul, than to prove that the Soul lives and fubfifts after Death, that it does not fleep nor fall into a ftate of Infenfibility between Death and the Refurrection. We have indeed very good Proofs of this in Scripture, without concerning ourfelves in this Difpute, of the Natural Immortality of the Soul; as I fhall have occafion to fhew hereafter. But yet, if we can prove that the Soul is by Nature Immortal, this is a Demonstration against that abfurd Opinion of the Sleep or Death of the Soul until the Refurrection.

Now what better Confirmation can there be of all the Natural Arguments for the Immortality of the Soul, than the Gofpel Promifes of Life and Immortality? For there is Reason to think

that

that the Soul is by Nature Immorrtal, when God has promised to cloath it with an Immortal Body. If the Soul were by Nature mortal, why fhould it ever rise again, when it once dies? For Death is the Natural End of a Mortal Creature; and when it dies, it has had all that Being, which it was made for. But if the Soul be by Nature Immortal, and Death fignifies only its Separation from the Body, there may be very wife Reasons, why a good God, fhould cloath the Immortal Souls of good Men with Immortal Bodies again and raise them into Immortal Life. And it will

add fome force to this Argument, if we confider that bad Men fhall rise again into endless Punishments, which is a good Argument, that their Souls are by nature immortal. For, whatever other Difficulties there may be in Eternal Punishments, this will be an unanfwerable one, that a Mortal Creature fhould be made Immortal to be punished for ever. For Eternal Punishments can never be juft, if the Perfon who is to fuffer them, be by Nature mortal. For fuch Punishments, as exceed the Proportion of Nature, muft exceed the Natural Measures of Juftice too. So that the Refurrection of the Body, which is the Gospel Immortality, does by plain and neceffary Confequence prove the Immortality of the Soul alfo and then we fhall more clearly fee the Natural Symptoms and Evidences of Immortality, and feel the Force of those Arguments, which, when we begin with them, when they stand alone, how probable foever they may appear, do not carry an abfolute Certainty with them.

3. The Evidence of thefe divine Promifes of Life and Immortality, exceeds the Evidence that the World ever had before. What I have already faid, fufficiently proves this. For if all

1

the natural Arguments for the Immortality of the Soul, were they never fo good, cannot prove the Gospel Life and Immortality, that is, cannot prove, that the Dead fhall rife with immortal and incorruptible Bodies; and if the Gospel Promifes of Life and Immortality do more certainly prove the Immortality of the Soul, than any natural Arguments can prove it without fuch a Promife, there is no doubt but these Gospel Promises are a greater and better Evidence of immortal Life, than the World ever had before.

But that which I at prefent defign, is to confider the difference between a divine Promise and natural Reason, as to the Evidence and Certainty of Faith, that is, between a divine and natural Faith. For even in the natural Knowledge, whatever is not Sense and Demonftration, is no more than natural Faith, or a Belief and Perfuafion of the Truth of fomething, which we neither fee nor can demonstrate by neceffary, immediate, felf-evident Principles. And fuch is the Immortality of the Soul and a future State, which we neither fee, nor can demonftrate; that is, cannot prove by fuch neceffary Principles. as it is impoffible we should be deceived in, if our Faculties are true. I know not what fome of our modern Deifts, who are generally very bold Undertakers, may think of this. But most of the wifeft Philofophers, who did themselves believe the Immortality of the Soul and a future State, never pretended to abfolute Certainty and Demonftration, but only to fuch great Probabilities, which did ftrongly perfuade, and make it very reasonable for a wife Man to believe it. And then I think, without faying one word more, I may very fairly leave it to every Man of common Senfe, to judge whether the express

Promife