Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

but upon the most Important occafions too. For 'tis notorious, that fome men, who have embraced Errours inconfiftent with Happiness it self, have Immoveably adhered to them; though they did not want fufficient means of Conviction. And this is partly owing to Obftinacy in fome, and to Arrogancy in others; but in all Chiefly to a Difingenuous fear of being exposed to Shame for Retracting those Principles, which 'tis their utmoft Difhonour to Retain.

Though the Refurrection be a most Glorious priviledge, and the Expectation of it the greatest Comfort in this life, because 'tis the foundation of our Complete felicity in that which is to come, and though Humane nature Abhorreth a Final diffolution, and every reflection upon it is beyond expreffion Difagreeable and Frightful; yet when the Sadducées have once taken upon them to Determine and Declare, that there is no Refurrection, they refolve to perfift in their In-fidelity, and Reject all evidence of that. doctrine, which a due fenfe of their own Interest should have engaged them to Re

ceive with Approbation and Joy. And fince they were fo Wedded to this mistake that they could not bear the thoughts of Difcarding it, 'twas natural for them to contrive the beft means they could of Depreciating the contrary Truth, which deferved their highest Efteem. They therefore proposed a Cafe to our Saviour, which, they thought, could never be refolved to their Difadvantage. But Vain were their hopes of producing a Good reafon in defence of fo Bad a caufe. Their objection did only expose their own Ignorance, and give our Blessed Lord an occafion of displaying his Divine Knowledge. He taught them, from the Dif ferent circumftances of men in This and a Future State, that the Inftance, which they urged, did neither Interfere with the Refurrection, nor any way Relate to it. And having fo removed what they thought a great Difficulty, he preffed them, in the words of the Text, with an Argument in vindication of the Article, which they Denied, taken from the writings of Mofes, which they Believed.

In treating of this Subject, I fhall endeavour to evince the Certainty of the Refurrection of the Body, and that

I. FIRST, By a Direct proof of it, from
Holy Scripture, and

II. SECONDLY, by the solution of fome
objections, that have been advan-
ced against it.

I. UNDER the firft head of difcourfe, wherein the Resurrection of the Body is to be proved from Holy Scripture, it will be Neceffary in the first place fully to examine the Importance of the words in my Text, before they will pass for a satisfactory evidence of this Article; because they are attended with a Difficulty, which hath been thought Infuperable, and they have therefore been accounted for by fuch an Interpretation as does Invalidate our Saviour's Argument, and reprefent it as Infufficient to prove the Refurrection of the Body. "Tis urged, that if this Reafon of our Saviour, that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, did Directly prove the Resurrecti

on

on of the Body, it would prove, that the Bodies of Abraham, Ifaac and Jacob were raifed to life again, at or before the time, when God spake unto Mofes, and called himself their God; but this we do not believe: And therefore 'tis added, that we ought not to suppose, that it was the Intention of our Saviour Directly and Immediately to prove the Refurrection of the Body, but only a future state.

But there will be no occafion thus to give up our Saviour's Argument, if these two Obfervations concerning it be True,

First, That he did intend thereby to prove the Refurrection of the Body, and Secondly, That fuppofing it to be fuch a Proof, it will not from this fuppofition follow, that the Bodies of thefe Holy men were raised to life again, at or before the time, when God declared himself to be their God.

The firft Obfervation to be made good is, That our Blessed Saviour intended by this Argument to prove the Refurrection of the Body. And in oppofition to this 'tis afferted, that άvásaois, concerning which the Sadducees propofe the questi

on,

on, v. 28. and áráçaoıç tŵy vengŵy, which Chrift undertakes to demonftrate, v. 31. do not peculiarly fignify the Refurrection of the Body, but another life, befides and after this, a continuing or being kept alive by God, after departure out of this life: In vindication of which 'tis further alledged, that avasaris, according to the literal notion of the word, is the Re-fubfiftence of men, denoting as well the Immortality and continuance of the Soul in a state of feparation, as the Re-union of the Body

to it.

But this very Interpretation it felf does Overthrow that Opinion, which 'tis brought to Defend. For Re-fubfiftence cannot fignify the Continuance of a Being, though in a Different ftate from that, in which it did fubfift before; but does properly denote that Subfiftence, which is Reftored after fome Interruption or Intermiffion of it; and is therefore no way applicable to the feparate ftate of the Soul, whofe Subfiftence hath never been Discontinued at all. To this it may be added, that drásaris, whether Abfolutely taken, or in conjunction with

νεκρῶν

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »