صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

Whatever reasoning is inconsistent with fact, must, of course be inconclusive. Whenever an objection is urged against a doctrine, and it can be shown, that the objection lies with equal force against acknowledged truth, such objection is thereby sufficiently removed. Now it is a fact of every day's observation, that immoral men do not abandon their vices: nor does Deity see fit to operate so effectually on their hearts, as to secure their reformation. Yet his language is: Break off your sins by righteousness, and your iniquities by turning unto the Lord. You may as well ask, why, if there be sincerity in this declaration, God does not interpose, effectually to reclaim every dishonest, indolent, disorderly, or impious person, as why he does not effect the conversion of all, whom he urges to repentance.

3. The view which we have taken of the doctrine of election shows how destitute of solidity is a very popular remark, which is often made on this subject. It is this: If we are ordained to be saved, we can never be lost: and, on the contrary, if we are ordained to be lost, we can never be saved. Therefore all attention to the subject will be unavailing. In other words, if God is determined to afford me such degrees of spiritual influence, as will produce conversion, I am secure; if not, anxiety will be fruitless.

The thief and the liar may, with as much propriety, adopt this language, in relation to their particular vices, as any sinner could speak thus in regard to a more general change of character. They might say, If it is the purpose of God to reclaim us from our habits, we are secure: if not, vain will be our efforts either to avoid theft, or to speak the truth. And if the observation would, in the latter case, appear both impertinent and absurd, why should it in the former, be viewed more favorably? A few remarks will close the lecture.

1. It does by no means follow, from the doctrine which has been stated, that God has rendered necessary, the sin and consequent perdition of men. The angels who retain their primitive state are called elect angels: but does this imply that the others were under the necessity of apostatizing? The latter are

now reprobates without hope; and God, before they were created knew that they would become such. Yet their defection originated with themselves, and resulted not from the agency of that immaculate Being to whom moral evil is supremely odious. Neither the subject under consideration, nor any passages of Scripture when rightly understood, justify men, in imputing to their Creator, either their impenitence or their final ruin? Men do not sin because they are impelled to it; but are reprobated because they sin and refuse the remedy, which Christianity

offers.

2. Though many of the decrees of God are concealed from human research, there is one, of which no person even slightly versed in Scripture, can remain ignorant. It is this: Without holiness no man can see the Lord. If you have the Christian character, you have the mark of election: For whom he foreknew, them he predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son. And whoever is thus predestinated to piety, the apostle assures us, will eventually enjoy everlasting life. On the contrary, while destitute of piety, you have the present marks of reprobation. The evidence of being chosen of God, is just in proportion to those moral qualities, which distinguish his servants. It is only by a life of circumspection and active virtue that Christians can perceive and enjoy the evidence of their belonging to that number for whom a kingdom was prepared before the foundation of the world. It is by diligence that their calling and election is made sure: If ye do these things, saith the apostle, ye shall never fall; but an abundant entrance shall be ministered to you into the everlasting kingdom and joy of your Lord.

LECTURE XLVI.

RESURRECTION.

THOUGH in contemplating human mortality our first anxiety is naturally, and with good reason, directed to the intellectual part of our natures, it is impossible to avoid all anticipation of that change, which death produces in the human body. As the body has been our constant companion from the first moment of our being until the present time; as it has been the medium, through which many pains and many pleasures have been communicated; as its preservation has engrossed so considerable a portion of our thoughts; it is by no means surprising, that a kind of dread is excited, at looking forward to the time, when all its functions shall cease, when its parts shall be separated, and when it shall be concealed in the earth, to prevent it from being either injurious or offensive to the living.

Though, without revelation, it would not occur to man, that his body would be re-organized and revived, the thought, whenever suggested, could scarcely fail of meeting the most cordial welcome. The desire of existence is universal. And though this desire is peculiarly strong in relation to the soul, it extends with no inconsiderable power to the body.

Our present attention will be directed to that doctrine which teaches the resurrection of the dead.

Though the Stoics believed, that certain revolving periods would produce successive renovations in the system of the universe, it does not appear, that any tenet, similar to the Christian doctrine of a resurrection was believed, or even known, among the pagan philosophers. However congenial this doctrine is to the native feelings of man, the opinion, which some

of these philosophers entertained as to the inherent malignity of matter, and its influence in contaminating the soul, would have led them to view an eternal separation from it, as a thing more desirable than a permanent reunion. When certain Epicureans and Stoics at Athens heard St. Paul discourse of Jesus and the resurrection, they treated him contemptuously; observing that he seemed to be a proclaimer of foreign deities; not understanding, as it is believed by very learned commentators, the term which is translated resurrection; but conceiving that άvάoTaois, as well as 'Inoous, was represented by St. Paul, as an object of worship.

The doctrine of a resurrection was not expressly taught to the Jews by their inspired lawgiver.

There is but one passage of Scripture, I suppose, which will be thought to militate with this remark. It is found in the 22d chapter of Matthew. On a certain occasion, the Sadducees, who denied not only the resurrection, but the existence of angels and spirits, came to our Saviour with design to perplex him, by asking, to whom would belong, in the resurrection, the woman, who had been wife to seven brethren. Jesus, having first answered, that in the resurrection there is neither marrying, nor giving in marriage, adds: But, as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

As our Saviour's interpretations of Scripture are infallible, and as he here refers to a passage in the writings of Moses, in proof of the resurrection, it may be objected, that one passage, at least, in these writings, teaches this doctrine.

The assertion which we have made, you will observe, is only, that this doctrine was not by Moses expressly taught. That it was taught by implication, I neither affirm nor deny. Let any one revolve in his mind these words: I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and he will, I apprehend, hardly profess himself able to discern, how

they directly prove, that the dead will be raised. At the time, when the words were uttered, the bodies of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were dead; no language, therefore, could be designed to prove them alive.

The Sadducees, it has been observed, denied the future existence of the soul; and this was probably their principal reason for denying the resurrection. Our Lord, it seems, aimed to prove the former of these, in order that he might remove their objections against the latter. God called himself, says he, in the time of Moses, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. But he would not call himself the God of any not living. Therefore, these patriarchs were then living. Now, though this conclusion could be applied only to the soul; yet as the Sadducees denied the future existence of the soul, to prove such existence was much to his purpose. If there had been any other passage in the books of Moses, more directly proving the resurrection of the body, this it may fairly be presumed, would not have been cited: and, if there be none, it will hardly be pretended, I think, that the doctrine is expressly taught in these books. In our Saviour's time, however, the resurrection of the body was believed by many among the Jews. This opinion was held, it appears, by the sect of the Pharisees. For, when it is said of the Sadducees, that they deny the resurrection, and the existence of angels and spirits, it is added: But the Pharisees confess both. And when Jesus said to Martha: Thy brother shall rise again, she replied: I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

This opinion was probably collected from a number of passages in the prophetical writings: Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye, that dwell in the dust; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs; and the earth shall cast out the dead. If this passage is designed to be taken literally, it distinctly proves a resurrection of the body. But if it is figurative, intended to foreshow the restoration of the Jews, still without supposing some knowledge of the doctrine, we should hardly expect, that such a figure would

« السابقةمتابعة »