SERMON LXXXVI.

BY REV. THOMAS ARMITAGE,

ALBANY, NEW YORK.

THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.

For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ; who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. Philippians iii. 20, 21.

"MEN, brethren, and fathers," you will perceive, that the doctrine set forth in the text relates to our present and future condition; and, as it contrasts the one with the other, it necessarily lays claim to deep and universal attention. Our theme is the doctrine of the RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD; in which resurrection the Saviour is to demonstrate his omnipotent energy. Certain classes of men, in almost every age, having imbibed erroneous views respecting this doctrine, have arrayed themselves against it; while others, inspired with strong faith in its reality, have given it their prompt and zealous support. We need not be surprised, then, if even at this time, a vast multitude, some actuated by good, and some by evil motives, should revive the antiquated question, "How are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come? But, my brethren, should this inquiry be urged a thousand times, our sufficient and uniform answer is found in this sublime passage, "We look for the Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ; who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself."

You will observe, that our text speaks especially and emphatically of a glorious "change" to be wrought upon "this vile body;" and, it would appear, that the interest of the whole subject hangs upon this emphatic word "change." We will, therefore, proceed at once to illustrate this idea, by considering,

I. THE REAL IDENTITY OF THIS VILE BODY," WITH OUR FUTURE CHANGED, OR RESURRECTION BODY.

II. THE PECULIAR MANNER IN WHICH THE ANTICIPATED ፡፡ CHANGE" IN

THIS VILE BODY IS TO BE EFFECTED.

III. THE FUTURE GLORY OF

IS ACCOMPLISHED.

And,

"" THIS VILE BODY,' WHEN THAT "CHANGE"

I. THE REAL IDENTITY OF "THIS VILE BODY," WITH OUR FUTURE

CHANGED, OR RESURRECTION BODY.

The doctrine of the resurrection is nowhere presented in the Scriptures as a speculative truth, which must be believed because exhibited there; but, it is always represented, as so interwoven with the plan of salvation, that, to prove it false, were to leave man unredeemed.

"If there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen : and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and our faith is also vain. Yea, and we (apostles) are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ, whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not."

Now, St. Paul explicitly declares in this passage, that, if there be no resurrection of the dead, the whole gospel system is a falshood. The question with us, then, is not, whether the resurrection is taught in God's word, but whether the objections against its possibility render it so incredible, that reason demands the utter rejection of the whole Christian religion. Bear in mind, friends, that nothing less than direct and palpable impossibility would justify such a course. We speak not now, either of the mysteriousness of the resurrection, or its wonderfulness, or of the fact that no comprehensible power is adequate to effect it; the only point is, do the oracles of God declare, and can it be demonstrated, that the resurrection ranges within the pale of possibility?

This being, in fact, the real point at issue, the controversy is one between Infidelity on one hand, and Christianity on the other. A satisfactory solution of this great question is a matter of great importance; and it becomes us to consider it gravely and candidly. The two leading objections urged by Infidelity, against the resurrection, are professedly based upon philosophical principles; the first of which, may be stated as follows:

Objection first. All the particles of this "vile body" cannot possibly be collected together from all parts of the earth, especially, as the bodies of some men, and professedly good men, too, have either

naturally or by violence gone to make up the bodies of other men ; and the same particles cannot at last be gathered into two separate and distinct bodies.

Hundreds and thousands of Infidels make this the keystone of their whole superstructure; and it is astonishing that men of science should do so, in the face of facts which countenance such reasoning, no, not for a moment. Does not that scientific mind conceive, that the body it now occupies has been gathered from every corner of the wide world? The bread which we eat, was raised, perchance, thousands of miles hence; we partake of the flesh of fowls, produced at the very antipodes. Those saccharine juices, so pleasant to the palate, were brought to maturity in tropical latitudes; that savory fish which graces your board, once played in the billows of the Atlantic. Those vegetables which you eat daily, may, it is true, have grown in your own or your neighbor's garden, but how were they nourished and sustained there? Why, by the constantly changing currents of air that whirl from one end of the earth to the other. This restless motion of the air is requisite to its purity, and, consequently, its nutriment. This fugitive air, enters through the pores of these plants, they drink it up, and it becomes a part of their substance. Vegetation feeds also upon the showers of heaven, but how are the showers of heaven formed? Simply, by the process of evaporation, which is constantly proceeding upon the surface of distant lands, and distant oceans; the clouds of heaven receive this ascending vapor, then it falls again in teeming showers, vegetation solicits its share, and you partake of its substance and live thereby. You never partook of food, then, which had not been collected from distant lands, and seas, and clouds. And can you be so inconsistent as to say, that when your body shall resolve back into these particles and re-scatter, the same Invisible who has collected it now, cannot collect it again?

I apprehend, however, that the whole force of the objection lays in this, viz:-That we frequently eat the flesh of beasts, which have devoured the bodies of men, so that a part of one man's body becomes a part of another man's body; and how can both these men rise with the same bodies which they laid down? The objection, in this shape, is very plausible, and our answer to it shall be brief and plain. It is this. Every one knows that, comparatively, a very small portion of human flesh is eaten at all; and it neither conflicts with any theory or fact in philosophy, to affirm

that a very small portion of what is eaten is converted into nourishment; or that an Omnipotent God can positively prevent its giving nourishment under any circumstances whatever. And, provided God does permit human flesh to afford nourishment in any case, to any body, it neither conflicts with any philosophical fact or theory, to affirm that an Omnipotent God can separate it from that body for ever, before death, and supply its place with matter that never was human; and further, no man living can prove that God does not so separate it.

It is true, the doctrine of the resurrection is no child of philosophy, and our object is not to show that it is. This doctrine is exclusively a doctrine of Revelation; the heathen might have formed some crude and distant idea of the immortality of the soul, yet, the idea of the raising of the dust of the body, had apparently no place in their creed. In fact, this doctrine lays entirely beyond the search of their philosophy; hence, when Paul exhibited this doctrine in the most refined city of his times, the most learned of its citizens met him with the most obstinate and sarcastic contempt, saying, "what will this babbler say?"

Our object, therefore, is merely to show that this doctrine does not conflict with philosophy, truly so called. Indeed, so far from this, that the Diety has given us numerous emblems of the resurrection, even in the works of nature. They are all around us. The verdure, the blossoms, and the fruits, which deck our fields, our flowers, and our trees, after the desolation of winter, these have experienced their resurrection, and give a pledge of ours. See that worm, which, a year ago, manufactured its own shroud chose its own sepulchre, and laid down in torpor,-at the appointed time, it burst its tiny bands, came forth adorned in beauty, and now skins the air, disdaining its former grovellings. It has received its resurrection body, and it is pointing me to mine.

The second objection of the Infidel, to the resurrection of the body, is, that a certain natural wasting and restorative process is constantly going on in the body, in consequence of which, the same rewardable body cannot be restored.

Philosophers tell us, that, in consequence of this process, we have a totally new body about every seven years; and the objector desires to know which of these bodies will be raised. A few words in answer will suffice. It is by no means certain, that such a process is constantly going on in the body; it is a mere theory, not

capable of demonstration. But, even admitting it as true, yet, inasmuch as the body, in this life, never loses its identity, the case is not altered. Every man of you is conscious that he is the same person now that he ever was. "The farmer, who looks abroad upon his fields, knows that he is the same person that he was twenty years ago, when he took his axe upon his shoulder, and felled the first tree. It was a saying of Seneca, that no man bathes twice in the same river; and still we call it the same, although the water within its banks is constantly passing away. And, in like manner, we ascribe identity to the human body, although it be subject to constant changes; meaning, by the expression, (identity,) the same in shape and organization." The truth is, if the objection had any weight at all, it would have too much. weight. It would divest man of his responsibility, to divest him of his identity, and then, anarchy and desolation would be introduced into all the relations of individual and social life. Even in your courts of equity, no action could be had which was morally right, in any case of crime committed at any distant time. But, as Mr. Watson says, the objection "contradicts common sense, because it contradicts the common consciousness and experience of mankind."

Certain good men, in treating on the subject of the resurrection, fearing, lest the enemies of the cross should exult in these assumed discrepancies, and doubting in their own minds, also, have endeavored to harmonize this doctrine with philosophy, by substituting certain theories to meet them.

One of these theories, is, that an immaterial or ethereal body will be provided immediately after death, or at the last day, which will render the resurrection of "this vile body " unnecessary. Another is, that there is a certain subtle, minute, and indestructible substance, forming a part of the human body, which is analogous to the germ in a grain of wheat, or any other seed, out of which our immortal body will spring, and which will render the resurrection of "this vile body " unnecessary also.

We will call your attention to these substitutes for a moment, and, as they are substantially the same in their rejection of the resurrection of this identical body, the same reasoning will answer both.

It appears, that this philosophizing divinity is not at all peculiar to modern times; for, even in the days of Paul, certain sects in