that account. CXCIV. upon For had he meant otherwise, SERM. that the thing was therefore credible, because it was really and in itself foolish and impoffible: this had been to recommend the chriftian religion, from the abfurdity of the things to be believed; which would be a strange commendation of any religion to the fober and reasonable part of mankind. I know not what fome men may find in themfelves; but I must freely acknowledge, that I could never yet attain to that bold and hardy degree of faith, as to believe any thing for this reafon, because it was impoffible for this would be to believe a thing to be, because I am fure it cannot be. So that I am very far from being of his mind, that wanted not only more difficulties, but even impoffibilities in the chriftian religion, to exercife his faith upon. 'Tis true indeed, Abraham, when he was offering up his fon Ifaac, is faid, "against hope to have be"lieved in hope:" but he did not believe against a plain impoffibility; for the apoftle to the Hebrews exprefly tells us, that "he reasoned that GoD was "able to raise him from the dead." But had he believed this impoffible, he could not have reconciled the command of GoD, with his promife; the com. mand "to facrifice Ifaac," with the promise which he had made before, that "in his feed (which was Ifaac) all the nations of the earth fhould be blef.. "fed." So that though GoD was pleased to try his faith with a great difficulty, yet with no impoffibility. 66 I premise all this, to fatisfy men how necessary it is to vindicate the chriftian religion from this objection, of the impoflibility of any of its articles. And whatever Tertullian might fay in a rhetorical rant, it is very plain that the ancient fathers did not think the refurrection SER M. refurrection to be a thing impoffible; for then they CXCIV. would never have attempted, as they very frequently do, to have answered the objections of the heathens against it, from the pretended impoffibility of it. To be fure St. Paul did not think the refurrection of the dead a thing impoffible, for then he would never have asked that question, "why fhould it be "thought a thing incredible with you, that GoD "fhould raife the dead?" nothing being fo likely to be thought incredible, and upon fo good reason, as that which is impoffible. Leaving therefore to the church of Rome that foolhardinefs of faith, to believe things to be true, which at the fame time their reafon plainly tells them are impoffible, I fhall at this time endeavour to affert and vindicate this article of the refurrection, from the pretended impoffibility of it. And I hope, by GOD's affiftance, to make the poffibility of the thing fo plain, as to leave no confiderable fcruple about it, in any free and unprejudiced mind. And this I fhall do from thefe words of St. Paul, which are part of the defence which he made for himself before Feftus and Agrippa; the fubftance whereof is this, that he had lived a blamelefs and inoffenfive life among the Jews, in whofe religion he had been bred up; that he was of the ftricteft fect of that religion, a Pharifee, which in oppofition to the Sadducees, maintained the refurrection of the dead, and a future state of rewards and punishments in another life; and that for the hope of this he was called in queftion, and accused by the Jews, ver. 6, 7. "And now I ftand "here, and am judged, for the hope of the promise "made unto the fathers; unto which promife, our "twelve tribes, inftantly ferving GOD day and "night, hope to come; for which hope fake, king SERM. "Agrippa, I am accufed of the Jews." That is, he cXCIV. was accused for preaching that JESUS was riten from the dead, which is a particular inftance of the general doctrine of the refurrection, which was entertained by the greateft part of the Jews, and which to the natural reafon of mankind, (however the heathen in oppofition to the chriftian religion were prejudiced against it) hath nothing in it that is incredible. And for this he appeals to his judges, Feftus and Agrippa, "why fhould it be thought a "thing incredible with you, that Gop fhould raise "the dead?" Which words being a queftion without an anfwer, imply in them these two propofitions. First, that it was thought by fome a thing incredible, that the dead fhould be raised. This is fuppofed in the queftion, as the foundation of it: for he who asks why a thing is fo, fuppofeth it to be fo. Secondly, that this apprehenfion, that it is a thing incredible, that GoD fhould raife the dead, is very unreasonable. For the queftion being left unanswered, implies its own anfwer, and is to be refolved into this affirmative, that there is no reason why they of any man else should think it a thing incredible that GOD fhould raise the dead. I fhall fpeak to these two propofitions, as briefly as I can, and then fhew, what influence this doctrine of the refurrection ought to have upon our lives. First, that it was thought by fome a thing incredible, that GOD fhould raife the dead. This St. Paul had reafon to fuppofe, having from his own experience found men fo averfe from the entertaining of this doctrine. When he preached to the philofo phers SERM. phers at Athens, and declared to them the refurrecCXCIV. tion of one JESUS from the dead, they were amazed at this new doctrine, and know not what he meant by it, Acts x. vii. 18. They faid, he feemeth to be a fetter forth of strange gods, because he preach"ed unto them JESUS and the refurrection." He had difcourfed to them of the refurrection of one JESUS from the dead; but this bufinefs of the refurrection, was a thing fo remote from their apprehenfions, that they had no manner of conception of it; but understood him quite in another sense, as if he had declared to them two new deities, JESUS and Anastasis; as if he had brought a new god and a new goddess among them, JESUS and the re"furrection." And when he difcourfed to them again more fully of this matter, it is said, ver. 32, that "when they heard of the refurrection of the "dead, they mocked." And at the 24th verse of this 26th chapter, when he spake of the resurrection, Feftus told him, he would hear him no farther, and that he looked upon him as a man" befide him“felf, whom much learning had made mad." Feftus looked upon this bufinefs of the refurrection, as the wild fpeculation of a crazy head. And indeed the heathens generally, even those who believed the immortality of the foul, and another state after this life, looked upon the refurrection of the body as a thing impoffible. Pliny, I remember, reckons it among those things which are impoffible, and which GOD himself cannot do; revocare defunctos, "to call back the dead to life;" and in the primitive times, the heathen philofophers very much derided the chriftians, upon account of this ftrange octrine of the refurrection, looking always upon this article of their faith, as a ridiculous and impoffi- SERM, ble affertion. So eafy is it for prejudice to blind the minds of men, and to reprefent every thing to them, which hath a great appearance of difficulty in it, as impoffible. But I fhall endeavour to fhew, that if the matter be thoroughly examined, there is no ground for any fuch apprehenfion, I proceed therefore to the Second propofition, namely, that this apprehenfion, that it is an incredible thing that God should raise the dead, is very unreasonable: why should "it be thought a thing incredible with you, that "GOD fhould raise the dead?" That is, there is no fufficient reason, why any man should look upon the refurrection of the dead, as a thing impoffible to the power of God; the only reason why they thought it incredible, being because they judged it impoffible: fo that nothing can be vainer, than for men to pretend to believe the refurrection; and yet at the fame time to grant it to be a thing in reafon impoffible, because no man can believe that which he thinks to be incredible; and the impoffibility of a thing is the best reafon any man can have to think a think incredible, So that the meaning of St. Paul's question is, "why should it be thought a thing im"poffible, that GOD fhould raise the dead?" To come then to the bufinefs: I fhall endeavour to fhew, that there is no fufficient reason, why men should look upon the refurrection of the dead, as a thing impoffible to GoD. "Why fhould it be ་ thought a thing incredible (that is impoffible) with "you, that GOD fhould raife the dead?" which question implies in it these three things: I. That CXCIV. |