SERMON CLXV.

THE REMOTER CONSEQUENCES OF DEATH.-THE RESURRECTION.

L 1 CORINTHIANS Xv. 16.-For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised.

IN the preceding discourse, I considered the immediate Consequences of Death; in this, I shall begin an inquiry concerning its remoter Consequences. The first of these is the Resurrection of the Body.

The subject of this chapter, is the Avadradis, or future Existence of man. This word is commonly, but often erroneously, rendered Resurrection. So far as I have observed, it usually denotes our existence beyond the grave. Its original and literal meaning is to stand up, or to stand again. As standing is the appropriate posture of life, consciousness, and activity; and lying down the appropriate posture of the dead, the unconscious, and the inactive; this word is not unnaturally employed to denote the future state of spirits, who are living, conscious, active beings. Many passages of Scripture would have been rendered more intelligible, and the thoughts contained in them more just, and impressive, had this word been translated agreeably to its real meaning. This observation will be sufficiently illustrated by a recurrence to that remarkable passage, which contains the dispute between our Saviour and the Sadducees. Matt. xxii. 23, Then came to him, says the Evangelist, the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection: un sivas avaσradi, that there is no future state, or no future existence of mankind. The objection which they bring to Christ against the doctrine of a future state, is founded upon the Jewish law of marriage, which required, that a surviving brother should marry the widow of a brother deceased. In conformity to this law, they declare seven brothers to have married, successively, one wife; who survived them all. They then ask, Whose wife shall she be in the resurrection? v n avarrass; in the future state? They could not suppose, that she would be any man's wife in the resurrection: a momentary event; and of such a nature as to forbid even the supposition, that the relations of the present life could be of the least possible importance, or be regarded with the least possible attention, during its transitory existence. Our Saviour answers them, In the Resurrection, or as it should be rendered, In the future state, they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are as the Angels of God in Heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that, which was spoken unto you by God; or, as it ought to be rendered,

Have ye not read that, which was spoken unto you by God, concerning the future existence of those who are dead, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. This passage, were we at any loss concerning the meaning of the word avasaris, determines it beyond a dispute. The proof, that there is an avasaris of the dead, alleged by our Saviour, is the declaration of God to Moses, I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob; and the irresistible truth, that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. The consequence, as every one who reads the Bible knows, is, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were living at the time when this declaration was made. Those who die, therefore, live after they are dead, and this future life is the avasaris, concerning which, there was so much debate between the Pharisees and Sadducees; which is proved by our Saviour in this passage; and which is universally denoted by this term throughout the New Testament. Nothing is more evident, than that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, had not risen from the dead; and that the declaration concerning them is, therefore, no proof of the resurrection. But it is certain, that they were living beings; and, therefore, this passage is a complete proof, that mankind live after Death.

The appropriate Greek word for Resurrection is Eyegdis, as in Matt. xxvii. 52, 53. Many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his Resurrection ; μετα την εγερσιν αυτό.

The avasaris is the thing, mentioned, as having been denied by some of the Corinthian Christians. See verse 12th of the context. How say some among you, that there is no resurrection, no future life, or existence, of the dead? A person, who reads the Epistles to the Corinthians with reference to the object, will easily perceive, that there was at least one heretical teacher, at the head of the faction in the Corinthian Church, who refused submission to the authority of the Apostle. This man seems evidently to have been a Jew; and was most probably a Sadducee; as he brought over several members of this Church to the great Sadducean error; the denial of a future state. To remove this error from that Church, and to prevent its existence ever afterwards, was obviously the design of St. Paul in writing this chapter. Accordingly, he shows its absurdity in the most triumphant manner, in the first thirty-four verses; and, with equal success elucidates, and proves, the contrary doctrine. In the remainder of the discourse, he dwells extensively on the nature of the body, with which those, who are dead, will be invested at the final day; declares the change, which those, who are living at that time, will experience; and concludes with a song of triumph over Death and Hades, and a solemn exhortation to Christians steadfastly to abound in the service of God.

I have remarked, that the doctrine, denied by some of the Corinthian Christians, was, strictly speaking, that of a future existence

in another world. As this existence will in fact be connected with the future existence of the body, and therefore with the Resurrection properly so called; St. Paul, in order to remove the objections of such as opposed it, and the difficulties, and doubts, of others, and to disclose the truth concerning this interesting subject, has entered into an extensive discussion concerning the Resurrection. The future existence of the soul will in fact be connected with the future existence of the body. To give a just and comprehensive view of the former of these subjects, it was necessary, therefore, to enter into a particular consideration of the latter. Accordingly, St. Paul commences his examination of it, in the thirty-fifth verse, by putting an objection against a future state into the mouth of an opponent, derived from apprehended difficulties concerning the future existence of the body. The objection is indeed without weight; as it is merely an expression of the objector's ignorance concerning the subject, and his inability to imagine what kind of body, or by what means, any body can be united to the soul in the future world. Still, it is the objection, which probably rises sooner, and in more minds, against the doctrine, than any other which can be alleged. It was, therefore, suggested by St. Paul with the utmost propriety.

In considering this objection, the Apostle not only removes it, but unfolds, also, many truths concerning it, of the most edifying and glorious nature. Indeed, this chapter is one of the first specimens of that expansion and sublimity of intellect, for which St. Paul is distinguished above every other writer. Nothing in heathen antiquity can be found among poets, orators, or philosophers, which in loftiness of conception, or extensiveness of views, deserves to be named in comparison with this discourse. From the very proposition of the subject, the writer begins to ascend; and with an eagle-wing rises higher and higher, throughout all his progress, until he lifts himself, and elevates the mind of his reader to the heavens.

In the Text, the Resurrection of the body is asserted, and proved. The proof, alleged, is the Resurrection of Christ and the argument may be advantageously exhibited in the following manner: Christ predicted his own resurrection, and actually rose in the manner predicted. He has thus proved both his power to do every thing, and his veracity in all his declarations. But he has declared, that he will raise up, at the last day, all that are in their graves. Thus his own Resurrection is a complete proof of the general Resurrection of mankind.

This doctrine has, in one manner and another, been opposed by various sorts of men, in most ages of the world. The Sadducees denied all future existence to man. The Athenian Philosophers, when Paul preached to them Jesus, and the avarratis, said, What will this babbler, this scatterer of words, say? In modern times, Infidels, extensively, have denied the future existence of both

soul, and body; and there have not been wanting those, who, professing themselves to be Christians, have entertained unwarrantable opinions, and found many difficulties, relative to this subject. This opposition, and these difficulties, seem, however, not to be suggested by the intellect, but to spring from the imagination. When we begin to think concerning the separate existence of the soul; we naturally follow our customary course of thought concerning intelligent beings. All these, with whom we directly correspónd, are embodied, and therefore obvious to our senses. We are taught, that souls in a separate state of existence are unembodied, and therefore unsusceptible of form, and visible appearance. Of their places of residence, modes of existence, modes of communication, pursuits, enjoyments, and sufferings, we know almost nothing. This chasm in our knowledge we endeavour to fill up by the aid of imagination; and proceed, almost of course, to form images of such spirits, of the world in which they dwell, and of the manner in which they exist, communicate, are busied, enjoy, and suffer. With respect to all these things, however, we find our imagination, after its utmost efforts, unable to satisfy even itself, and much more unable to satisfy the understanding. The world, which we thus form, its inhabitants, and their circumstances, are never such, as that we can realize their actual existence. Hence we give them up as unreal and visionary; and by a transition exceedingly common, although usually unobserved, we consider the decision, made merely by our fancy, as made in fact by our understanding. Against this decision, arguments are often urged in vain. We may be, we usually are, unable to refute such, as are advanced in opposition to it; but, finding ourselves unable to conceive in our imagination the state of things, urged upon our belief, we hesitate concerning it, and then doubt, and perhaps ultimately deny, its existence.

That this is a just account of the real state of many minds, with respect to this subject, I fully believe, from observations, which have been actually made to myself; and beg leave to add, that this is far from being the only case, in which the imagination is suffered to control the dictates of the understanding. Not only in those familiar instances, where the mind receives strong impres sions from the operations of this faculty, is the intellect induced to admit that, which is unsupported by evidence; but in numerous others, also, it is equally influenced, and inclined to refuse its faith to positions abundantly evinced, merely because it cannot imagine the manner, in which objects, involved in those truths, can exist. In this way, its views concerning subjects, pertaining to the future world, often receive a very unhappy bias.

Another source of perplexity, with regard to the doctrine of the Resurrection, has been the question, whether the same body will be raised: a question, extensively agitated with no small ardour, and anxiety. All the difficulties, which attend this subject, are VOL. IV

55

derived, as it appears to me, either from extending our philosophical inquiries beyond the power of the understanding to answer them, as is sometimes done; or from neglecting to settle what we intend by sameness. If the question intends, whether the same atoms, which have composed our bodies in the present world, will constitute the body, raised at the final day; both reason and Revelation answer it in the negative. The whole number of particles, which have, at different times, constituted the body of a man, during his progress through life, will undoubtedly be sufficient to constitute many such bodies. St. Paul also observes to the objector, in answer to this very question, Thou fool; that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die : and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body, which shall be, but bare grain; it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: but God giveth it a body, as it hath pleased him. So also is the resurrection of the dead. And again, Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. This scheme of thought he pursues, from the thirty-fourth verse, throughout most of the chapter.

If the same constitution, arrangement, and qualities, of the body be intended, by the question; it is equally evident, that the same body will not be raised. This is decisively taught us in the last quoted declaration, and in the passage immediately following: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. It is also clearly shown by the general tenour of the reasoning, contained in the whole passage. Reason, too, decides with absolute certainty, that a constitution, which involves in its nature decay, and termination, cannot belong to a body, destined for the residence of an immortal and ever vigorous mind.

Should it be asked, Whether some of the same particles, which are found in our earthly bodies, will not be transferred to those which will be formed at the Resurrection; I answer, that this point has not been determined in the Scriptures, and that the determination of it lies beyond the reach of philosophy. Let me add, that the question itself is perfectly nugatory.

That the body will be the same, in such a sense as to be known, appears sufficiently evident from the Scriptures. Even departed spirits in their intermediate state, appear plainly to be exhibited in the Gospel as known to each other. Our Saviour informs us, that many shall come from the East, and from the West, and shall sit down in the Kingdom of God, with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. In order to a complete fulfilment of the-intention of this promise, it seems necessary, that the persons, here spoken of, should know these Patriarchs. Lazarus, Abraham, and the rich man, are all exhibited in the parable as known to each other. Moses and Elias, also, were known by the Disciples, on the mount of Transfiguration, to be Moses and Elias; one of them an embodied, the other an unembodied, spirit. From these facts, it is, I think,