doctrine of a human immaterial soul, existing distinct from, and independent of, the body, is its utter incompatibility with the scheme of Providence, as laid down in the Scriptures; namely, that the future life of man is a consequence of the atonement made for the sin of Adam by the death of Christ, whose resurrection is the evidence of the certainty of the restoration to life from death, to consciousness from unconsciousness, of the rest of mankind, in consequence of that atonement. Now, if there be such an immaterial soul belonging to every man, as is contended for, the souls of those who died before Christ's crucifixion were alive at that time, and their life was totally independent of, and unconnected with, that event; so that neither "life nor immortality was brought to light by the gospel," (2 Tim. i. 10) since they had both been inherent qualities in the souls of men from the very beginning; neither was "Christ the firstfruits of them that slept," (1 Cor. xv. 20); nor was eternal life obtained for man through the medium of his death, if the souls of men were previously alive and immortal by their nature. In truth, the doctrine of an immaterial and immortal soul involves so many difficulties, and presents such numerous views entirely incompatible with those laid down in the Scriptures, that it seems to me quite wonderful, how so strange, and, as I think, untenable an opinion, could ever have been entertained by men who had access to the Word of God.

CHAPTER X.

Summary of the Doctrine-Arguments to shew its coincidence with Scripture; with the Belief of the First Ages of the Church; with Reason-Absurdity of Metaphysical Error embraced and held fast- Objections stated and answered-Conclusion.

HAVING now, as I hope, satisfactorily shewn what the nature of man is, and what it is notand gone through the whole, and cited the most prominent parts, of the evidence on the subject, (for surely the only thing that can possibly be worthy the name of evidence, as to the nature of man, is the revelations which it has pleased the Author of it himself to make concerning it*)—it remains only to give a summary of the doctrine

*This is not the place to enter on a discussion of the existence of what is termed "natural religion :" to me the term appears a petitio principii; and that it would not be difficult to prove, that in every age, and under every form which religion has assumed, from the simplest rites of the most untutored savage, to the reveries of the subtlest metaphysical enthusiast, its derivation is to be distinctly traced through all its corruptions to the observances instituted by the Deity himself. In truth, an unbeliever in revelation must be a believer in such a tissue of moral impossibilities, that he may well be taken for the prototype of credulity.

L

intended to be established'; to offer a few arguments in support of the reasonableness of that doctrine, and to answer some objections which may possibly be made to it.

God having through six successive periods (rendered days in our translation) created the earth, and caused it to produce an abundance of creatures, each with organs precisely adapted to its condition, and those of each succeeding period with more varied and higher qualities than those of the preceding, finishes by the creation of Man, whom he destined to have the dominion over all the others. So excellent was the organization of this most perfect work of God on earth, he was endowed with powers of combining, reflecting, and reasoning, on all the ideas derived from his senses, in a degree so far transcending those of all other animals, and was, moreover, capable of retaining them unimpaired so long as the world which he inhabited should endure, that he is said to have been made in the likeness of God. As he was thus a being of reason and choice, his Maker thought fit, as a test of his obedience, to infuse into the fruit of one tree qualities of the most fatal nature. Of these qualities man was informed, and expressly enjoined, under the penalty of the extinction of all those active powers which he felt himself to possess-the penalty of death, to avoid eating it. Man, however, did transgress the command-did eat the forbidden fruit, and

thereby introduced into his system the seeds of that decay which sooner or later must inevitably annihilate vitality, and again reduce him and his posterity to the inert matter which had furnished the materials for his noble frame. As the Divine perfections are immutable, God's justice could have been in no way satisfied but by the exaction of the penalty; and since no created being, however excellent, could, any more than the meanest, have had an existence which was not entirely dependent on the will of his Creator, and could, therefore, have no power to offer itself as a substitute for man, total annihilation must have been the fate of the whole human race. But that Divine Being, who, in the New Testament, is designated as the Son of God, voluntarily undertook himself to be man; in that state to lead a life of perfect obedience to God's commands, in which Adam had failed, and ultimately to suffer death, in his stead, the just for the unjust; thus satisfying the demands of justice, and leaving the Divine mercy to bestow, at the great catastrophe which shall change the condition of this planet, on that portion of mankind which, by patient continuance in well-doing, shall have rendered themselves meet therefore, the glorious body and everlasting life which Adam and all his posterity, had he and they continued in innocence, would have received on the same occasion.

Now I will appeal to any one who, divesting

himself of prejudice, will read the foregoing summary, if it be not a plain, simple, and intel-" ligible statement of the whole scheme of Divine providence as relates to man, from the day of his creation to the day of judgment? If it do not harmonize in every part, and altogether, with the Scriptures? If it be not in itself rational and easy to be understood; not requiring a belief in that to which reason refuses assent? Whereas the heathen notion (for it deserves no better name) of a material body, and immaterial and immortal soul, when applied to the scheme of religion laid down in the Bible, is full of inconsistencies, requires the most unwarrantable assumptions, and cannot, without such a force being put on the words of Scripture as ought never to be allowed, (and which its advocates themselves would allow in no other case), be made to agree with it at all.

That the doctrine here maintained is that of the Apostles, I have before (I hope) shewn; and' that it was that of the first ages of the Christian church appears to me indubitable. For though the Gnostic and Manichæan tenets were attempted early to be foisted into the Christian creed, they were strenuously resisted: nor was it until in the third century-when Origen and others mixed up their philosophy with the .pure and simple truths of the Gospel, Platonizing Christianity, (an innovation more injurious to