* For they only can have this eternal life given to them of God, who have the Son: therefore it has no relation to the natural immortality of souls, and they can only have the Son, of whom it can be truly said, “that Christ is of God become wisdom and righteousness, and sanctification to them.”
* As another full proof of all that has been said, it may be added, that the life and immortality brought to light by the gospel, is purely conditional and only offered to mankind, as a gift of God, upon certain terms. And therefore does not, cannot mean the immortality of the soul, or its perpetual natural duration in a future state.
Thus, “God gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believed on him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. Ye will not come to me, that ye may have life.” Therefore the immortality of life revealed by the gospel, is purely conditional, and adventitious to the soul, such as may be received, or not received, and consequently cannot possibly be, or mean a natural immortality, for such immortality, it has no power of freely receiving, or not receiving upon terms.
That blessing of a heavenly immortality, freely given by God, is nothing else but a celestial holiness, purity and perfection brought forth in the soul, by its having the eternal WORD and SPIRIT of God again restored to, and united with it: called immortality, not because of its eternal duration, but because eternally free from all that, which is death, or the deadly evil of sin in the soul; called also so, in opposition to that natural immortality of devils, and damned souls, which tho’ never ceasing, is only an eternal death. So that no argument, from what is said of the life and immortality made known by the gospel, can be drawn into a proof, that the belief of a future state, was not the general belief of the world before. Because the immortality preached by the gospel, is a thing quite different from the natural, perpetual duration of the soul, and means neither more, nor less, than the _glory and perfection of a divine life_, to which _Adam_ died the very day that he did eat of the forbidden tree, and which is quickened again, in and by the whole process of Christ in our nature.
I come now, to my second proposition, namely, to shew, that the doctrine of a future state, or the immortality of the soul, was not designedly secreted, or industriously hidden from the eyes of the people of God by the types and figures of the Mosaic dispensation.――My reasons for it are as follow. _First_, because it is highly unworthy of God, to suppose, that it was, the end of those types and figures, designedly to _secrete_, or _hide_ from the people of God, the knowledge _of any truth_, much less the knowledge of a truth, absolutely _necessary_, to the very possibility of any spiritual relation, or religious communication between God and man, as that of the immortality of the soul, must be.――For though the Mosaic state, may be justly called a _region of darkness_, when compared to that _light_ which has arisen from the process of Christ; yet so far as it went, and with regard to the people under it, it was a degree of _light_, and a degree of _life_: it was _some progress_ in victory over death, it was _some opening_ of divine light, an help to such kind of knowledge, as could be had in such a state, as was only formed to support, and keep up a faith, and hope, and expectation of such a redemption to come, as had been promised from the beginning of the world, but could have no open manifestation, till its _own existence_ manifested itself.――It is therefore a gross mistaking the _whole nature_ of the law, to consider its types and figures as _designedly_ hiding any thing from man.――Their design was quite the contrary, namely, to convey _new_ light and _farther_ information. And though they may be said to be a _shadowy_, and imperfect representation, yet its whole intent is, to give some knowledge of the substance; and by its signs to make the things to come more expected, than they would have been without such types and figures.
Bishop _Warburton_, speaking of typical representation, saith, _it necessarily implies the throwing a thing into shade_, or _secreting_ it from _vulgar knowledge_.
Typical representation, in the _law_, is not, cannot be the _throwing a thing into shade_, or _secreting_ it from _vulgar knowledge_. For this supposes the thing typified to have been already _in existence_, or it could not be _thrown_ into shade. But this hath no place in the Mosaic types and figures; they are not the putting any thing _already existent_, under a cover, but are a _degree_ of light cast upon such a matter, as had _never shewn_ itself, and which could therefore only be typically pointed at, till it came into actual existence.