whether the toil which he had gone through to fave him was derived from his own fpontaneous benevolence, or from an inftrumentality to which he had fubmitted, in order to convey the benevolence of another? Though fuch inquiries might engage his cu riofity, would he reckon them of great im-portance to his intereft? Would he not, whatever the true answer to them was, have equal reafon to rejoice in the fervice done him, and to be thankful for it? Another fubject of difpute among Christians has been the origin of that ftate of fin and mortality in which we find ourselves, and which gave occafion to the coming of the Meffiah. All agree in deriving it from an event called the FALL of man, which happened at the commencement of this world. But very oppofite accounts are given by divines of the nature and confequences of this FALL; fome taking the history of it in Genesis in the strictly literal sense, and maintaining the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's fin to all his pofterity; and oth-ers denying this doctrine, and believing the account of the fall to be in a great measure allegorical. But, in reality, it does not much fignify whether we are able or not to fatisfy ourselves on thefe points. This is of no more importance in this cafe, than it would be in the case just mentioned, that a perfon perfon dying of a diftemper fhould be able to account for it, and to trace the events which brought it upon him. We find ourselves frail, degenerate, guilty, and mortal beings. The caufes under the Divine government which brought us into this state lie far out of our fight; and, perhaps, were a naked reprefentation of them made to us we should be only perplexed and confounded. It is enough to know that a Deliverer has been provided for us, who has fhed his blood for the remiflion of fins, and conquered death for every man, by fubmitting to it himself. Inftead of quarrelling about Adam's fall, and lofing our time and our tempers in litigations about original fin, imputed and inherent, we should learn to take our state as we find it, and to employ ourselves earnestly about nothing but fecuring that better state, that glorious immortality, to the affured' hope of which we have been raised by the redemption that is in Christ. I will further inftance in the difputes about juftification. There are no difputes" which have difturbed the Chriftian church much more; nor are there any which can appear, to a confiderate man, more unmeaning and trifling. The principal subject of thefe difputes has been the question, whether we are juftified by faith alone, or by faith in conjunction with good works. You fhould confider confider, with refpect to this question, that thofe who hold notions the most rigid, make justifying faith to be the feed and principle of perfonal holinefs; and that there is not fect of Chriftians (however extravagant their doctrines may be) which has not fome expedient or falvo for maintaining the neceffity. of good works. If they fay that perfonal holinefs is not a condition of justification, they fay what amounts to the fame, that it is a qualification which must be found in all juftified perfons, and that without it we cannot be accepted. If they fay that we are: juftified by faith alone, they add, that we cannot be justified by that faith which is alone (that is, by a faith not accompanied with good works) and that it is only on the virtuous believer, or the man who proves the truth of his faith by his works, that the grace of God in Chrift will confer future happiness. How trifling then have been the controverfies on this fubject? As long as all acknowledge that it is only that faith which works by love, which purifies the heart, and reforms the conduct, that can justify us; of what confequence is it to determine the particular manner in which it justifies us? As long as all hold that the practice of righteousness is neceffary to bring us to heaven, what does it fignify whether it is neceffaryas the condition of heaven, or as an indifpenfa ble qualification for it? Farther. Farther. There have been violent dif putes about the future refurrection of mankind; fome maintaining that the very body which had been laid in the grave (and afterwards made a part, perhaps, of a million of other bodies) is to be raised up; and others denying this, and afferting more rationally, that the doctrine of the refurrection relates more to the man than to the body, and means only our revivifcence after the incapacitation of death, or our becoming again embodied and living spirits in a new state of existence, it being, in their opinion, a circumstance of no confequence (provided the living agent is the fame) whether the body is the fame or not. In truth, it seems very plain, that our present and our future bodies must be effentially different. The one is flesh and blood. The other is not to be flesh and blood; for St. Paul tells us exprefsly, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.. But be this as it will; the difpute on this fubject is of no particular confequence. Provided we know that we are to be raised up, we need not be very anxious to know with what bodies we are to be raised up. There is no more reafon for disturbing ourfelves about this, than there would be (were we going to take poffeffion of an inheritance) to disturb ourselves about the materials of the drefs in which we fhall enter upon it. Akin Akin to this fubject of difpute is another which has much perplexed the minds of many good Chriftians, and about which they have given way to many very unreafonable prejudices. I fhall hope that those who now hear me are fuperior to those prejudices; and, therefore, I will be explicit on this fubject. The fubject I mean, is "the "intermediate ftate between death and the "refurrection." The common perfuafion is, that this intermediate ftate is to be a ftate of rewards and punishments. But many think the fcripture account to be, that rewards and punishments are not to begin till the general judgment; and, confequently, that a fufpenfion of all our powers takes. place at death, which will continue till the. morning of the refurrection, when the wick. ed fhall awake to everlasting fhame and contempt, but the righteous to life eternal. The obfervation I have made on the other fubjects of difpute which I have mentioned, is particularly applicable to this. It is a dispute about the manner and circumstances of a fcripture doctrine, and not about the doctrine itself. Let the fact be acknowledged (as it is by every Christian) that we are to be raised up from death; and, if virtuous, to live forever in a better state through the grace of God in Chrift: Let, I fay, this fact be acknowledged, and we need not care, fhould |