Cornell Itotorntg Jibwg
BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME
FROM THE
SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND
THE GIFT OF
Hernrg iJO. Sage
1891
A, 8 £2./A. .......*Cornell University Library
BR45 .B21 1850
Doctrine of the resurrection of the body
olin
3 1924 029 181 092




31924029181092THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY.
AS TAUGHT IN HOLY SCRIPTURE.
EIGHT SERMONS
PREACHED BEFORE
THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD,
IN THE YEAR MDCCCL.
AT
THE LECTURE
FOUNDED BY
THE LATE CANON BAMPTON.
BY
EDWARD MEYRICK GOULBURN, D.C.L.
HEAD MASTER OF RUGBY SCHOOL ;
DOMESTIC CHAPLAIN TO THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD, AND LATE
FELLOW AND TUTOR OF MERTON COLLEGE, OXFORD.
OXFORD,
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY J. VINCENT ;
THOMAS HATCHARD, LONDON.
1850.EXTRACT
FROM
THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT
OF THE
REV. JOHN BAMPTON,
CANON OB' SALISBURY.
-----“ I give and bequeath my Lands and Estates to the
“ Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of
“ Oxford for ever, to have and to hold all and singular the
“ said Lands or Estates upon trust, and to the intents and
“ purposes hereinafter mentioned ; that is to say, I will and
“ appoint that the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford
“ for the time being shall take and receive all the rents, issues,
“ and profits thereof, and (after all taxes, reparations, and ne-
“ cessary deductions made) that he pay all the remainder to
“ the endowment of eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, to be
“ established for ever in the said University, and to be per-
“ formed in the manner following :—
“ I direct and appoint, that, upon the first Tuesday in
“ Easter Term, a Lecturer be yearly chosen by the Heads of
“ Colleges only, and by no others, in the room adjoining to
“ the Printing-House, between the hours of ten in the morning
“ and two in the afternoon, to preach eight Divinity Lecture
“ Sermons, the year following, at St. Mary’s in Oxford,
“ between the commencement of the last month in Lent Term,
“ and the end of the third week in Act Term.IV
EXTRACT FROM CANON BAMPTON's WILL.
“ Also I direct and appoint that the eight Divinity Lecture
“ Sermons shall be preached upon either of the following
“ Subjects—to confirm and establish the Christian Faith, and
“ to confute all heretics and schismatics—upon the divine
“ authority of the holy Scriptures—upon the authority of the
“ writings of the primitive Fathers, as to the faith and practice
“ of the primitive Church—upon the Divinity of our Lord and
“ Saviour Jesus Christ—upon the Divinity of the Holy Ghost—
“ upon the Articles of the Christian Faith, as comprehended in
“ the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds.
“ Also I direct, that thirty copies of the eight Divinity
“ Lecture Sermons shall be always printed, within two months
“ after they are preached, and one copy shall be given to the
“ Chancellor of the University, and one copy to the Head of
“ every College, and one copy to the Mayor of the city of
“ Oxford, and one copy to be put into the Bodleian Library;
“ and the expense of printing them shall be paid out of the
“ revenue of the Land or Estates given for establishing the
“ Divinity Lecture Sermons; and the Preacher shall not be
“ paid, nor be entitled to the revenue, before they are
“ printed.
“ Also I direct and appoint, that no person shall be qualified
“ to preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons, unless he hath
“ taken the degree of Master of Arts at least, in one of the
“ two Universities of Oxford or Cambridge ; and that the same
“ person shall never preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons
“ twice.”ANALYSIS OF THE LECTURES
LECTURE I.
THE NATURE OF THE RESURRECTION-PROCESS.
False spiritualism of much of our modern Theology, pp. 1, 2—
Its rise in the neglect of the Article which it is the province of
these Lectures to discuss, 3—Investigation of the nature of the
Process termed Resurrection proposed as a preliminary step,
3—The Lecture Sermons both speculative and practical, 4, 5.
I.	The Nature of the Process investigated from the words
EMPLOYED TO DENOTE IT.
(1.) ‘Piviffraais—its etymological meaning, 6—its appro-
priation to express the Verity of the Resurrection, 6, 7, 8—
(2.) ‘'Eyepo'is—its etymological meaning, 9—different notion
involved in it from that which is found in ‘Avda-raais, 9, 10—
(3.) The Syriac word nuhama—its etymological significance,
with reflections on it, 11,12, 13,14,15.
II.	The Nature of the Process investigated from the
analogies employed to denote it. The1 differential idea not to
be found in the words;—must be sought therefore in the Analogies,
15, 16.
(1.) Analogy between Resurrection and natural awakening,
16—pointed at in Scripture, 17—gives no differential idea,
ibid.
(2.) Analogy between Resurrection and the outward visible
sign in the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, when administered in
the correct form, 18, 19—a change of sphere pointed at by
this Analogy, 19, 20.
(3.) Analogy between Resurrection, and the Germination
of Seeds, proposed in Scripture and explained, 20, 21—
Analogy between Resurrection, and insect transmutation^IV
EXTRACT FROM CANON BAMPTOn’s WILE.
“ Also I direct and appoint that the eight Divinity Lecture
“ Sermons shall be preached upon either of the following
“ Subjects—to confirm and establish the Christian Faith, and
“ to confute all heretics and schismatics—upon the divine
“ authority of the holy Scriptures—upon the authority of the
“ writings of the primitive Fathers, as to the faith and practice
“ of the primitive Church—upon the Divinity of our Lord and
“ Saviour Jesus Christ—upon the Divinity of the Holy Ghost—
“ upon the Articles of the Christian Faith, as comprehended in
“ the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds.
“ Also I direct, that thirty copies of the eight Divinity
“ Lecture Sermons shall be always printed, within two months
“ after they are preached, and one copy shall be given to the
“ Chancellor of the University, and one copy to the Head of
“ every College, and one copy to the Mayor of the city of
“ Oxford, and one copy to be put into the Bodleian Library;
“and the expense of printing them shall be paid out of the
“ revenue of the Land or Estates given for establishing the
“ Divinity Lecture Sermons; and the Preacher shall not be
“ paid, nor be entitled to the revenue, before they are
“ printed.
“ Also I direct and appoint, that no person shall be qualified
“ to preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons, unless he hath
“ taken the degree of Master of Arts at least, in one of the
“ two Universities of Oxford or Cambridge ; and that the same
“ person shall never preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons
“ twice.”ANALYSIS OP THE LECTURES.
vii.
rected aright, by Religion, 54, 55. This only to be under-
stood of the original affections, not of the subordinate feel-
ings which are perversions of those affections 65, 66, 67.
(3.) It is not a return to the state of Paradisaical Inno-
cence, 67—but a triumph over evil by a creature endowed
with the knowledge of evil, 58—and therefore an elevation
to an higher moral state than was occupied by Man before
the Fall, 59.
II. What it is.
(1.) A change of sphere of the subject undergoing it,
whereby he is translated into the Family of God, 60, 61,
62, 63, 64, 65.
(2.) An adaptation of the soul to the higher sphere, 65,
in—
a. Its Perceptions. Opening of the eyes to moral truth
one of the first processes in conversion, 66, 67, 68.
£. Its Affections. Drawing of the soul towards God
in Christ by the revelation of his mercy in the Gospel, 69,
70—Expansion of the heart towards fellow Christians,
70, 71.
y. In the Development of its Faculties, 71. Religion
cultivates the faculties of the lower, 72, and of the higher
orders, 73, 74—practical application and conclusion, 74,
75, 76.
LECTURE III.
THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY.
We are now to define the subject of the proposition that the
Body shall rise again, 77, 78.
I. The Nature op the Body of which Resurrection is
predicated. What is it ?
(i.) It is the material Basis of our present Bodies, as dis-
tinct from their present organization, 79, 80, 81, 82.
(ii.) This established from the consideration of the text
which
(a.) Distinguishes between the Body and those organs
of it which serve the purpose of the animal oeconomyj
83, 84, and (6.) between the fate of the Body and that
of the animal oeconomy, 85, 86, (c.) Reasons for thinking
that the Basis (which is here called the Body) is material,
86, 87.Vlll.
ANALYSIS OF THE LECTURES.
(iii.) Such a Basis recognised in the analogy employed
by the Apostle of seed and flower, 87, 88, 89.
II. The Dignity of the Body.
Its bearing upon the general subject, 90.
(1.) “The Body is for the Lord,” because
(a.) The Body is for the Mind, 91, 92—and the Lord
governs the Christian’s mind, 93, 94.
(j9.) The personal exertion of Christians is the instru-
mentality used by the Lord in furthering the kingdom of
Grace, 94, 95,96, and this exertion is dependent upon the
Body, 97.
(7.) The truth that “ the Body is for the Lord” practi-
cally recognised by “presenting it as a living sacrifice,” 98,
99. How this presentation is to be carried out in the case of
the mouth, 99—the hands, the feet, the eyes, 100, 101—
the ear, 101—the presentation involves acts of bodily ho-
mage, 102, 103.
(2.) “The Lord is for the Body”—whence arises our
difficulty in understanding these words, and their explana-
tion, 104, 105, 106. Conclusion, containing reproof of our
general practice which so little corresponds with the Scrip-
tural Theory of the Body here propounded, 106, 107—spe-
cial reproof of the sins of uncleanness, 108—which are, in
their essence, sins of desecration, 109, 110, 111.
LECTURE IV.
THE GENERAL RESURRECTION AFFIRMED BY SCRIPTURE,
AND GROUNDED IN REASON.
Of all that God does there is a ground in reason, 113, 114, 115.
In this Lecture we shall investigate the ground of the General Re-
surrection, 116. But first let us ascertain that Scripture affirms
a general Resurrection of the Bodies of all mankind, 117. We
are not now looking for a technical dogmatic statement of the doc-
trine, but for the doctrine itself, 118, 119.
I. The General Resurrection is affirmed in Scripture.
(1.) In John, v. 28, 29.
(a.) The subject of our Lord’s assertion—“ they that are
in the graves”—not equivalent (according to our opponents)
to “the Bodies that are in the graves,’’ 120.ANALYSIS OP THE LECTURES.
IX.
Answer (a.) Men popularly speak of the Body as if it
were the personality, 121, 122—and (0.) Scripture sanc-
tions this popular language, 123.
Why our Lord is to be understood as meaning all the
dead by “ all that are in the graves," 124, 125.
(6.) The predicate of our Lord’s assertion—“ they shall
hear his voice and shall come forth.’’
How a Body can be said to hear a voice, 126—Why our
Lord thus expressed Himself, 127-
• (c.) The preface to our Lord’s assertion—“ Marvel not
at this ”—its connection with the foregoing context, 128.
How this preface bears upon and strengthens the conclusion
that our Lord speaks of a Bodily Resurrection, 129, .130,
131.
(2.) In 1 Cor. vi. 13, 14.
Resurrection predicted of the Body, as distinct from the
(Economy under which it now subsists, 131, 132. Illus-
trated from the (Economies under which the Church has
been placed and her continued existence under all, 133.
II. The General Resurrection is grounded in Reason.
It is based on the fact that Christ has repaired entirely the
wreck of Adam’s nature—distinction between the nature and
the persons who are partakers of it, 134, 135, 136.
The text examined—“ By man came death ”—“ in Adam
all die.’’ What is Death ? Death is the wreck of the Nature,
137—distinct from the ruin of the individuals, ibid. It is a
penalty exacted from men, not as individuals, but as partakers
of the nature, 138, 139.
This wreck of the nature our Lord has repaired—by as-
suming the human nature (not an human individuality) so
as to become a second Representative, 139, 140, 141—by sub-
mitting in our nature to Death, the nature’s Penalty. The
Penalty therefore must be cancelled in behalf of all who have
been implicated in it, 141—but this does not imply the eter-
nal happiness of all, 142. Why men have not ceased to die,
though Christ has borne the Penalty of Death for all, 143.
Dignity conferred upon Mankind by the Incarnation of
Christ, 144—and the practical influence which the thought
of this dignity should exercise upon us, 145, 146,, 147.X.
ANALYSIS OF THE LECTURES.
LECTURE V.
THE RESURRECTION OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Let us illustrate the views already arrived at by a reference to
the single Instance of Bodily Resurrection which has been presented
to the world—150. Evidence arising in favour of the claims of
Scripture from the harmony of the lessons derived from the study
of this Instance with those derived from other parts of the Bible—
150—152. The notices of Christ’s Resurrection (superficially) at
variance with the Pauline doctrine on the subject, but when pro-
foundly considered will be found to harmonize therewith—162,
153, 154. Truth expressed in the Bible in a manner adapted to
our present constitution and circumstances—154. The truth of
the Divine Nature expressed thus—155. Physical truths accom-
modated to the senses of those to whom they are first communi-
cated, 158—160. The Phsenomena of the Resurrection were
miraculous accommodations to the senses of the disciples, 160—
this indicated by the phraseology employed in describing them—
161, 162. The senses of the Disciples not made competent to
greater things, but the Phsenomena reduced to the level of the
senses, 164, and why this plan was adopted, 165.
The Phenomena classed and examined, with a view to
BRING OUT THE TEACHING OF EACH CLASS.
Class I. Seeming to prove resuscitation of an animal
BODY.
(1.) Subjection to touch. Teaches the materiality of
the risen Body, 166, 167-
(2.) Reception of food. Teaches Organisation of the
risen Body, 167—169.
(3.) The Stigmata. Teach Identity of the Risen with
the Natural Body, 169—172.
Class II. Indicating that Metamorphosis had passed upon
the Body in the process of Resurrection.
Necessity for this class of Phsenomena, 173, 174.
(1.) Non-recognition of the Saviour’s Person, 174—177.—
Recording this a mark of candour, 178—180. Teaches
that in Bodily Resurrection there is ueraaxn^aTLais
181,182.
(2.) Spiritualization of the Risen Body of the Saviour,
shown in (a.) its transit through material substances,
183, 184; (5.) its Bodily Ascension, which teaches
a greatly enlarged control of the mind over the spi-ANALYSIS OF THE LECTURES.
XI.
ritual Body, 185, 186. Inference unfavourable to the
recognition of Christians in Glory, obviated, 187, 188.
Christ not recognised in His Ordinances, 189, nor in His
providential dealings, 190. These are His disguises
which He will one day cast off.
LECTURE VI.
THE RESURRECTION OF THE RIGHTEOUS, AND OF THE
UNGODLY.
Resurrection most frequently spoken of as a distinguishing privi-
lege attaching to the righteous, 194—the reason of this to be sought
in the associations suggested by the word, 195—resurrection of the
righteous signalised by the prefix of the article or by some other
peculiarity in the phrase employed to denote it—196, 197.
I. The Resurrection of the Righteous.
(1.) Its phenomena. Minute investigation of scriptural
terms proposed in order to ascertain them, 198. The word
lieraaxv^iCu thus examined, 198,199—implies identity, with
a change of form, 199, 200—suggests to the mind (and pro-
bably was intended to suggest) our Lord’s neTa/i.op<pu<ris, 200,
210—which was an interpenetration of the body with a bril-
liant light, 202,203—probable similarity of resurrection glories
to transfiguration glories, 204.
(2.) Its specific grounds (for it has grounds in common with
the resurrection of the ungodly—204, 205,) are the personal
union of the righteous with a Representative who has sub-
mitted in his person to the penalty of sin, 205.
(a.) Christ is such a Representative.
Christ was visited, not only in his nature (by death)
but in his person also by suffering—and he suffered in
each part of his composite nature, body, soul, and spirit,
206, 207.
(6.) The nature of personal vmion with Christ.
(o.) The Holy Spirit its sole efficient cause, 208.
(0.) i. God’s word applied to the conscience is the
means, so far as the will of the subject is concerned, 209.
ii. Baptism the means, so far as the standing and
relation of the subject is concerned, 209, 210.
(c.) Only in virtue of such union can any soul he made
partaker of Resurrection unto Life.XII.
ANALYSIS OF THE LECTURES.
(o.) Proved generally from Rom. viii. 11—211, and
Phil. iii. 20—212.
(0.) Proved more specifically from the fact that the
ordinances, which are (commonly) the media of the Holy
Spirit’s operations, are associated by the Inspired Writers
with resurrection unto life, 213.
(i.) Baptism thus associated, 214.
(ii.) The Lord’s Supper thus associated, 215, 216,
217.
II. The Resurrection of the Ungodly.
(a.) The scriptural data for investigating its character
few, 217—texts bearing upon it stated, 218—its character-
istics as gathered from these texts are judicial condemnation,
219—ignominy and general loathing, 220—corporeal suffer-
ing, 220, 221—resulting both from internal derangement
and external application, 221, 222—a veil thrown in mercy
over the horrors of resurrection unto condemnation, 222—
225.
(b.) The awfulness of the resurrection unto condemnation
inferred from reason, 225—227—pictured to the mind’s eye,
227—229—concluding exhortation, 229, 230.
LECTURE VII.
AN OBJECTION, FOUNDED ON SCRIPTURE,
CONSIDERED AND REMOVED.
The terminology of Scripture precisely appropriate and signifi-
cant—231, 232. Hence the proof of a Corporeal Resurrection
might be rested upon the significance of the word ’Aviaracris, 232,
233. There are, however, passages of sacred Scripture in which
the term Resurrection seems equivalent simply to Future State,
233,234.
I.	The Passages Enumerated.
(1.) The conversation with the Sadducees, 234, 236. (2.)
The passages in 1. Cor. xv., 235, 236.	(3.) The passage in
the Epistle to the Hebrews, 237.
II.	Considerations which Remove the Objection Founded
UPON THE ABOVE PASSAGES.
(1.) The mind, in its processes of abstraction, separatesANALYSIS OF THE LECTURES.
xm.
things which (in the truth of nature) are only found in union,
238, 239. Death certainly does (as a fact) resolve Man into
two distinct elements, but this resolution is abhorrent to the
nature of things and is a counteraction of the original design,
240. The result of our viewing Man analytically is that we
soon come to separate the destinies of body and soul, 241. One
chief cause of this view is that our education has led us to im-
bibe the notions prevalent among heathen sages on the subject
of Man’s Futurity, 242. The immortality of the soul a doctrine
of which sacred Scripture makes no direct mention, 243. The
Scriptural form of expressing this truth very different from
the philosophical form, 244. The Inspired Writers view Man
in his totality as the draught of him exists in the divine mind,
245, 246; and therefore Resurrection is the only aspect under
which man’s future state presents itself to them, 247. These
remarks apply to the Old Testament as well as to the New
Testament, so far as the subject is at all treated of there, 247,
248, 249. The mind of the Jews was formed upon their
Scriptures, and did not come in contact with the Gentile
mind, 250; therefore they would view the Future State of
Man exclusively under the aspect of Corporeal Resurrection,
251, 252. The multitude would and did take a gross and
carnal view of the subject, 253, 254.
III. The Theory applied to the Removal op the Difficul-
ties.
(1.) Our Lord, seeing into the heart of the Sadducees^
answered their objection in its essence rather than in the ac-
cidental form which it assumed, 254—258.
(2.) and (3.) Resurrection contemplated under two differ-
ent aspects by the Scriptural writers, who at one time would
view it in its corporeal bearing, at another time as the only
recognised form of the doctrine of a Future State, 259. At
the root of the view taken of this subject by the Inspired
Writers lies a deep truth, 260 — for both Scripture, 260,
261, and reason 262, 263, represent Body as a constituent
element of the Human Nature. That it should be a body
would satisfy the requirements of reason: but revelation gives
no countenance to the notion that the Resurrection Body
will be an entirely new organization, 264, 265. Such aXIV.
ANALYSIS OF THE LECTURES.
notion would rob the doctrine of its practical value, and moral
significance, which are exhibited in conclusion, 266, 267.
LECTURE VIII.
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION OF THE CREATURE.
The body of man has already been regarded as a constituent
element of human nature. We are now to regard it in its con-
nexion with the realm of external nature, and to show that in this
view of it also it is destined to rise again, 269, 270. The Resur-
rection of the Body, if proved, affords a presumption that a similar
process will pass on the realm of nature, 271—for did not the realm
of nature participate in the effects of man’s fall, 272, 273—and
did not Christ wear the symbol of the earth’s curse ? 273, 274.
The views of Origen, Augustine, and Grotius, on the meaning
of the words naira h ktUt«, 275, 276, 277.
I.	The Present State of the Creature. “ In Bondage
to Corruption." This phrase illustrated and shown to be equiva-
lent to “ in subjection to vanity* 277—284.
II.	The Origin of this State, (“By reason of him who
hath subjected the same in hope,”) the will of God, who designs
to advance his creatures from a rudimentary to a more perfect
stage, 284. Dissolution bound up in the constitution of the
animal, 285, and in that of the vegetable oeconomy, 286, How
this assertion is reconcileable with the truth that death is an evil
superinduced upon our nature in consequence of sin, 287—290.
III.	The Creature’s Future Prospects. “It shall be
delivered from the Bondage of Corruption into the glorious
liberty of the children of God.” Equivalent to “ There shall be
a Resurrection of the Material Universe,1’ 291, 292. Borne out
by (1.) Isaiah’s prediction (quoted by St. Peter) of a new earthj
293—295. (2.) Our Lord’s terming the future state, the Re-
generation, 296—299. (3.) St. Peter’s mention of the Second
Advent as “ the time of restitution of all things,” 299—301.
The manifestation of the Sons of God at this period explained,
302, 303.
IY. The Creature’s Earnest Expectation. How irra-
tational and inanimate creatures may be said to nourish expecta-
tions, 303. (1.) The expression not to be too strictly construed,
304.	(2.) An instance in point from the Book of Haggai,
305,	306.ANALYSIS OP THE LECTURES.
XV.
V. The Participation op the Child op God in the Crea-
ture’s Present State and Future Prospects.
The Christian still waits for the work of redemption to take
effect upon his body, 307—309. This consummation made de-
pendent upon Christ’s second Advent, 309, 310. He who has
no spiritual instincts after a higher state is reproved by nature,
311,312,313.LECTURE I.
THE NATURE OF THE RESURRECTION PROCESS.
Luke xx. part of 36th verse.
They ... are the children of God, being the children of
the Resurrection.
A false and spurious spiritualism (insinuating
itself under the guise of spirituality) may be re-
garded as one of the errors attaching to the po-
pular Theology of the present day. The Religion
of Christ is practically viewed by many of its
professors as proposing a remedy only for the
moral consequences of the Fall,—not as con-
taining provisions to meet all the needs of a
nature which is essentially complex ; and the
scheme of Redemption (which embraces the en-
tire man within the scope of its copiprehensive
design) is too often thought of exclusively in its
relation to the soul. This view, or rather the
habit of mind which engenders it, unconsciously
A2
THE NATURE OF
expresses itself (as a living writer of eminence
has pointed out3) in our current religious phraseo-
logy, and thus shows how firm a hold it has
upon the mind of the age. Carried out to its le-
gitimate inferences, it inevitably leads to a de-
preciation of the Sacraments,—institutions, both
of which (involving as they do the employment
of an outward visible sign) are indications on the
part of Him who appointed them that a religion
adapted to man’s needs must appeal to the ma-
terial no less than to the spiritual element of his
being. But the same habit of mind developes
itself also in another pernicious form ; leading us
to think of our hereafter (if ever we make it a
definite subject of reflection) as a simple exist-
ence of the soul in a state of eternal reward or
punishment. Now of pure spirit, in isolation
from matter, we know nothing, and are unable
to form any conceptions of it except by abstrac-
tion. Conceptions thus formed are in fact blanks;
whence it comes to pass that our notions of
man’s eternal state (which should of all others
be the most vivid, because required to be the
most operative), are greatly diluted, and the
practical influence which they might be expected
to exercise, almost nullified. A thick haze
* Evans in his Minstry of the Body. See Appendix to Lec-
ture I. Note A.THE RESURRECTION PROCESS.
3
(through which not even the outline of any ob-
jects is discernible, and the contemplation of
which rather repels and chills than animates the
heart) is allowed to hang over the horizon of the
eternal future.
Now errors of the kind alluded to (leavening as
they do our entire train of thought on religious
subjects) will generally be found, if traced to their
origin, to take their rise in the practical forget-
fulness of some essential article of the faith—
which, it may be, controversies on other points
of a nature more congenial to the religious taste
of the times, have served to obscure and throw
into the shade. In the hope that, even if I cannot
succeed in my endeavour to illustrate it, I may
at least call attention to the Article, the neglect
of which (or its mere maintenance as a dead
letter) has been attended with the prejudicial
results above mentioned, I have selected, as the
subject of these Lectures, the Resurrection of
the Body, and in discussing this important doc-
trine, and endeavouring to establish it against
opponents, shall attempt, as the first step, to
seize the true notion of the Process denomi-
nated Resurrection. A correct view of the na-
ture of the process will be seen to fence off
error at several points, while at the same time it
holds in harmonious adjustment the various no-4
THE NATURE OF
tices of Scripture on the subject under discus-
sion, some of which, although being indeed only
different aspects of one and the same truth,
present to a superficial observer the semblance
of contradiction. All these notices are held to-
gether, each in its place, by the true theory of
the process, even as by the key-stone of an arch
the other stones which form the arch consist,,
and are compacted.
Our present discourse, then, putting out of
sight for the present the subjects destined to
undergo the process of resurrection, shall be de-.
voted to the investigation of the nature of the
process itself. And the nature of the process
we may hope to gather, first, from the sig-.
nificance of the words,—secondly, from the sig-
nificance of the analogies employed to denote it.
The characteristic name which the Founder
of these Lectures assigns to. them in his will,
is that of Divinity Lecture-Sermons — a title
which we conceive to intimate a complex cha-
racter attaching in his intention to the Dis-.
courses which he institutes. While on the one
hand they are to handle the questions of Di-
vinity, which they profess to discuss, in a more
speculative and scientific manner than it would
be advisable to adopt in addresses to an ordi-
nary congregation ;—on the other hand it is notTHE RESURRECTION PROCESS.
5
to be forgotten that, the appointed scene of their
delivery being the Church rather than the Di-
vinity School, the solemn truths which they
investigate, after being first argumentatively es-
tablished, are subsequently to be developed in
their bearing on the edification of the heart.
We shall miss of the true design of the institu-
tion, if the element of the sermon be altogether
merged in that of the Lecture, if speculations on
Christian doctrine, to the exclusion of its appli-
cation, be allowed to engross our entire atten-
tion. Let us enter upon and prosecute our
subject with a constant reference of mind to
that great purpose of edification whereto all
knowledge of religious truth should be made
subservient, and that this end may be not aimed
at simply, but effectually secured, let us implore
the co-operation of that Divine Spirit who alone
can crown with success the ministrations of His
Word.
I. We propose to investigate the nature of
the Process of Resurrection from the words em-
ployed to denote it. The words thus employed
by the writers of the New Testament (and it is
mainly in this portion of the Scripture that
explicit statements must be sought of the doc-^
trine we are discussing) are two : Avdaraa-^ and
J'Eyepai?—the former of frequent occurrence, the6
THE NATURE OF
latter found only in one passage where it is
applied to our Lord’s resurrection, although the
verb with which it is connected is of common
and even continual usage.
(1.) The word 'Avdo-Ta<ri<;,b gives simply (if
its etymology be consulted) the notion of rising
up, after a previous period of recumbency—it
expresses the change of posture from lying
or sitting to standing. Thus its cognate verb
is applied to Levi’s rising up from the re-
eeipt of custom at which he was sitting when
Christ called him ; to our Lord’s rising up a
great while before day for the purpose of soli-
tary prayer ; and to the rising of blind Barti-
meus, who had been previously sitting by the
highway side, a petitioner for the alms of pas-
sengers. It is, however, worthy of notice that
notwithstanding the frequent usage of the cog-
nate verb to express an ordinary change of
posture incidental to the course of every day
life, the derivative noun 'Avaa-rao-is seems set
apart and consecrated to express the high
Verity of the Resurrection. This noun is never
applied to the rising up out of a recum-
bent position—nay, it is never even used to
denote the miraculous reanimation of the old
b Its Hebrew equivalent rraipn (Tecoomah) from op, to stand
up, is found in the Rabbinical writers.THE RESURRECTION PROCESS.
7
natural body, except in one solitary instance,
where the distinction between this mere reani-
mation and resurrection is carefully pointed out—
“Women received their dead raised to life again”
(e\a/3ov avaaravea^ tou? ve/cpou? avr&v) “ and
“ others were tortured not accepting deliverance
“that they might obtain a better resurrection”
(Jva KpebTTOvok avaardcrea><; tv%(octiv). And another
remark may be made confirmatory of the ob-
servation that this word 'Avdaraai? is appro-
priated to the expression of that Verity which
is the theme of our present discussion. Often as
the moral nature of man is spoken of as the sub-
ject of quickening spiritual influences—obvious
as is the transition of thought from the awaken-
ing of the naturally dead to that of those who
are dead in trespasses and sins—and much there-
fore as we might expect to find the same word
interchangeably used of either process, the word
,,Avd<rracn<} is never applied to the Spiritual Re-
surrection. The single exceptionc (if exception
c For I can hardly think the passage in Luke ii. 34, to be an
exception;—in which Simeon says, “ This child is set for the fall
“ and rising again (eis irTaatv ncil bydirrcuTiv) of many in Israel.’’
The fall here is (to use the words of the Apostle Paul—Rom. ix.
32, 33) “a stumbling at that stumbling stone” which was laid in'
Zion. The rising is that recovery from the prostration of sinking
hope—that erection and animation of the heart,—which they who,
like Simeon and Anna, waited for the consolation of Israel, ex-
perienced at the appearance of Christ and on hearing the sound of
his Gospel. Or if the tttuius and avda-raa-is be understood of the8
THE NATURE OF
it, be) to this remark, is of such a nature as
rather to confirm the rule. It is to be found in
that celebrated chapter of the Book of Revela-
tions where mention is made of the first (which
according to the Augustiniand interpretation is
the Spiritual) Resurrection. The other and
more literal interpretation of that passage being
adopted, we have not a single instance in the
whole compass of the New Testament in which
the word 'Avaaracns denotes the quickening of
man’s moral nature. May we conjecture that
the vivid bodily reference inherent in the ety-
mology of the term precluded a spiritual appli-
cation of it ? To speak of an arousing (eyepcris)
of the soul, of an awakening of its dormant
energies from the deadly trance of sin—this
(although still a metaphor) were haply a more
natural and easy metaphor than to speak of its
upstanding after a period of recumbency.
(2.) We now turn to the word '’Eyep<n<;} once
used (as we have said) to denote the Resur-
rection of our Lord. The etymological sense of
this term, as of 'Avdaraanf may be seen by con-
same persons, they will then mean the depression of mind, conse-
quent on convictions of sin, and the joy at finding the remedy
proposed by the Gospel. Our translation (“ rising again’) seems
to favour this view. Certainly we have here a figurative applica-
tion of the term avda-rams (as in the English expression raising of
the spirits) but not the figurative application alluded to above.
d See Appendix to Lecture I. note B.THE RESURRECTION PROCESS.
9
suiting passages in which its cognate iyelpa,
occurs. That verb is applied to the awakening
of the sleeping Saviour by the alarmed disciples—
to St. Peter’s taking up from a kneeling posture
the prostrate Cornelius—to the sheep-owner lift-
ing up out of the pit the sheep which had fallen
into it. It is also applied indifferently to the
Resurrection, both of Christ and of mankind in
general—to the reanimation of the natural body
by miraculous power—and, in its compound
form, o-vveyelpco, to the moral Resurrection from
the death of trespasses and sins. The term
under consideration, though nearly allied in sig-
nificance to the former, will be seen to involve,
much more than ’Avao-rao-t*? does, the notion of
the putting forth of a power ab extra for the
purpose of effecting the result.	’Avao-rao-v;t
(standing up or uprising/) gives the idea of an
operation which might be effected in conformity
with some natural law — it might be (and
possibly it will be found to be) the physical de-
velopment of a creature undergoing it into a
higher and more exalted condition of existence;
» The active signification of making to stand or rise up is more
frequent in the Classical writers than the passive of upstanding.
But they too use the word occasionally in its passive signification,
which is the only one known to the writers of the New Testa-
ment. See Plat. Rep. 4, 4. And in the root 2TA inheres the
notion of standing.10
THE NATURE OF
whereas iyepo-is (lifting up or upraising) implies
rather the application of external force than any
unfolding from within of the resuscitated being.
Haply each of these terms supplies a necessary
element of the perfect idea of Resurrection.
Resurrection is a process effected in conformity
with the law of our being, and yet not without
the putting forth upon us from without of an
extraordinary energy of Divine power. And if
the meaning .of avaaraais, as distinct from that
of	be such as we have assigned to it, we
have here another satisfactory reason why the
former word should not be employed to de-
note the quickening of the soul from moral
death. Whatever be the case with the Re-
surrection of the body, that of the soul is not
in conformity with, but in contravention of,
all natural law. Inherent corruption bends
downward all its faculties, and propels it with a
continual impulse along that broad road which
leadeth to destruction. Sin is its congenial ele-
ment, and hell the direction in which it travels
in pursuance of its corrupt propensities. In-
trinsically it hath no power of recovery. There
must be an arrest put from without upon its na-
tural career—a counter bias given to its native
impulses—if it is to be raised effectually from
the death of trespasses and sins.THE RESURRECTION PROCESS.
11
(3.) I am unwilling to close this branch of
our investigation, in which we are seeking to
evolve the significance of Scriptural terms, with-
out noticing the Syriac word employed to denote
the Resurrection. It is a term which (if it were
rendered according to its etymology) would be
represented by the English word Consolation/
Assigning to this term the meaning of its root,—
the passage of the Syriac Gospels which records
the affecting interview of our Lord with a sor-
rowing sister might be thus translated: “Martha
“ saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in
“ the Consolation at the last day. Jesus saith unto
“her, I am the Consolation.” How delightful is the
fresh element thus introduced into the idea of the
Resurrection! how beautiful this new aspect under
< I am informed that the word itself is never actually used in
the sense of Consolation. My affirmation only is that in the root
inheres the meaning to console. The word Altar is never used in
the sense of a high platform; yet being connected with the Latin
altus, it might be so represented if rendered according to its ety-
mology. I am indebted for the information to Dr. Bush,—Anas-
tasis. 2d Ed. p. 95. “ The Syriac while it sometimes employs
“ a phrase literally equivalent to resurrection of the dead, makes
“ use, in other instances, of the term nuhama, consolation, for ex-
“ pressing this idea. Hence in the Talmud the day of the Resur-
rection is frequently termed nnron ra> day of consolation and the
“ Targum upon Hosea vi. 2, has the same diction................The
“ Arabic has an equivalent phraseology, though it frequently em-
“ ploys a term signifying the return, i.e. of the soul to the body."
I am glad that my first reference to a work, whose general tone is
so miserably shallow and rationalising, should be of so agreeable a
character.
B 2’12
THE NATURE OF
which the high Verity is presented to us! The
Resurrection, what is it ? It is the consolation of
those who mourn for the dead. Death being the
woe of woes, the consummation of all those physi-
cal evils which one act of transgression entailed
upon our race, its counterpart and correlative—
the antidote which meets the bane at every
point—is justly termed the Consolation. This
Consolation, dimly and indistinctly foreseen, or
rather augured from the elementary prophecy
vouchsafed to them contemporaneously with
their sentence, was the one sweet drop infused
into the bitter cup which our first parents were
called upon to drink. Sharp must have been
the pang which pierced their hearts when first
death made his entrance into this world of
sorrow, and tore away from them that son in
whom, amid their toils and trials, they had
garnered up their hopes. Where shall we sup-
pose that they sought and found comfort under
a visitation so severe ? Assuredly in the expec-
tation of that promised Seed, the prediction con-
cerning whom as One who should bruise the
serpent’s head must surely have involved, even
to their dim apprehension, a triumph over the
worst physical evil in which the serpent’s malice
had implicated themselves and their posterity.
Jesus, foreseen by faith, He was their consolation.THE RESURRECTION PROCESS.
13
A presage of Resurrection in and through Jesus—
of a perfect repairing by the great Deliverer of
the breaches which sin had_ opened in man’s
estate—this was the healing balm which mol-
lified the wound, the sunbright gleam of hope
which dried the mourners’ tears. And along
the very same track of thought which this word
Consolation, as applied to the Resurrection, in-
dicates, the mind of the apostle Paul seems to
have travelled when he would comfort his Thes-
salonian converts concerning those which were
asleep. His topic of Consolation is the Resur-
rection ; and in pursuing the topic he gives ut-
terance to one of the most remarkable of all the
oracles of God which have this Verity for their
subject: “ If we believe that Jesus died and
“ rose again ; even so them also which sleep in
“Jesus shall God bring with him. For this we
“ say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we
“ which are alive and remain unto the coming of
“ the Lord shall not prevent them which are
“asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend
“ from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the
“ archangel, and with the trump of God: and the
“ dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which
“are alive and remain shall be caught up to-
“gether with them in the clouds, to meet the
“ Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with14
THE NATURE OF
“ the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with
" these words.” From this passage of mingled
pathos and sublimity, it is abundantly clear that
the Resurrection is the quarter of hope to which
the Apostle directs the eye of the bereaved
mourner, and that he regards that bright con-
summation of the hopes of humanity as all
centering and wrapped up in Christ. Let us
cherish the same anticipations, referring them to
and resting them upon the same ground. God
graciously crowns the cup of all of us, even in
our present condition of existence, with many a
consolation, many a delightful alleviation of the
toils and trials of our pilgrimage. The life of
his servants is not an unvaried brake of thorns,
whose desolateness and unprofitableness is un-
relieved by fruit and flower. Lest our souls
should be discouraged because of the way, He
surrounds us with the exquisite forms of natural
beauty, makes the dawning in of knowledge
upon the mind a source of ceaseless interest,
and lightens our burden by the encouragement
of sympathy and the smile of affection. But let
us not rest in these blessings. Let us regard
them as fragmentary foretastes of the bliss which
is to be. From heaven let us “ look for the
“ Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change
“ our vile body that it may be fashioned likeTHE RESURRECTION PROCESS.
15
“ unto his glorious body.” The Consolation—the
great antidote which enfolds within itself all lesser
solaces—is yet to come. The great refreshing
cannot find place while the Bridegroom tarries.
It must flow from the personal advent and
bodily presence of Him, through whom alone de-
scends to man whatever of hope has brightened
his lot since the Fall, whatever of good is to be
realised by him “ in the Consolation at the last
“ day.”
II. We now turn to the second branch of our
subject, the consideration of the analogies under
which the Resurrection is proposed to us in
Scripture. The study of the words employed
to denote the process has at most only given
us some hints as to its nature: it has not
yet put us in possession of that characteristic and
differential idea of which we are in search. For
although the word dvdcnacns is (as we have seen)
appropriated to the Verity of the Resurrection,
this appropriation is of an arbitrary and conven-
tional character, not founded in the inherent
meaning of the term : so far as its etymological
significance goes, it might be applied to the
miraculous reanimation of the natural body with
as much propriety as to its Resurrection ; it
might denote the raising of Lazarus as appro-
priately as that of Christ. We have yet to seek,16
THE NATURE OF
then, some idea of Resurrection which shall
difference it wholly from mere animal resusci-
tation. And this we shall find in the analogous
processes which the sacred writers propose, and
particularly in that which is pointed at in our
text.
(I.) The first of these which shall be noticed
is one which, when examined, introduces no new
element into the idea which the words have led
us to form. The perception of a resemblance
between sleep and death is so natural and
familiar among men as to have expressed itself
in the phraseology of almost every nation under
heaven, whatever be the stage of civilisation at
which they have arrived. The inspired writers
often adopt this phraseology, speaking of death
in its every form as a falling asleep, whether it
be death judicially inflicted by God, like that of
the irreverent Corinthians who profaned the
Eucharistic Festival,—or the death of martyr-
dom, attended with every circumstance of cruelty
and horror, like that of St. Stephen,—or the
ordinary death of the true believer, which is
termed a sleep in Jesus. Awakening being the
correlative of sleep, the phraseology in question
implies and involves a further analogy between
awakening and Resurrection. But we are not
left to discover this analogy by implication;—it isTHE RESURRECTION PROCESS.
17
expressed in sundry passages of Holy Writ, of
which the following are specimens: “ Many of
“ them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall
“ awake;”—“ Man lieth down, and riseth not: till
“ the heavens be no more, they shall not awake,
“nor be raised out of their sleep.”«
The change from a state of unconsciousness
and inactivity, during which, however, the ener-
gies although undeveloped are not extinct, and
the faculties are wrapt in a temporary trance, to
one of life and movement and exertion, calling
faculties and energies into play,—supplies a daily
and a beautiful parable of that awakening out of
the death trance which shall find place when the
voice of the Archangel and the trump of God
thrill through the vaults of every sepulchre.
And well may we be thankful that God’s provi-
dence has so constituted man’s daily life and
common intercourse with nature as to furnish to
the understanding heart continually recurring
emblems of those spiritual truths which most
concern us. But the analogy in question throws
no light upon the difference between Resurrec-
e I might add, perhaps,—if this application of it were sufficiently
certain—“ Then all the virgins arose and trimmed their lamps.”
Matt. 25, 7. The slumbering or sleeping of all the virgins is by
many ancient expositors (see Trench on the Parables in loco) taken
to denote death, which is the uniform lot of all. If so, their
arising or awakening will denote the Resurrection.18
THE NATURE OF
tion and animal resuscitation. Indeed it is
applied indiscriminately to both—if to Resurrec-
tion in the passages quoted from Job and Isaiah,
so also no less certainly to resuscitation in those
words of our Lord—“ Our friend Lazarus sleepeth,
“ but I go that I may awake him out of sleep.”
(2.) Let us next examine a figure of Resurrec-
tion, supplied not indeed by the constitution of
Nature, but by that which proceeds from the same
Author, the constitution of Grace. It is a figure
pointed at in those words addressed to the Colos-
sians—“Buried with him in Baptism, wherein also
ye are risen.” There can be no doubt that Bap-
tism as it is a means, when duly received, of
spiritual Resurrection, so, when it is adminis-
tered in the primitive and most correct form, is a
divinely constituted emblem of bodily Resurrec-
tion. And it is to be regretted that the form
of administration unavoidably (if it be unavoid-
ably) adopted in cold climates, should utterly
obscure the emblematic significance of the rite,
and render unintelligible to all but the educated
the Apostle’s association of Burial and Resur-
rection with the Ordinance. Were immersion
(which is the rule of our Church, in cases
where it may be had without hazard to the
health) universally practised, this association
of two at present heterogeneous ideas wouldTHE RESURRECTION PROCESS.
19
become intelligible to the humblest. The water
closing over the entire person would then
preach of the grave which yawns for every child
of Adam, and which one day will engulf all of us
in its drear abyss. But that abyss will be the
womb and seed-plot of a new life. Animation
having been for one instant suspended beneath
the water (a type this of the interruption of man’s
energies by death) the body is lifted up again
into the air by way of expressing emblematically
the new birth of Resurrection.
The new idea which we gather in from the
examination of this type is that a change of
sphere is involved in the process of Resurrection.
The upraising of the person from the element
of water into the element of air points at such
a change of sphere. And the indication is
one which we shall do well to bear in mind.
The sphere in which the natural body lives and
moves and has its being is that of the earth.
Earth is the element in which it exists, and
to which its present constitution is adapted.
But not so the spiritual or risen body. It moves
in a sphere which transcends the limited range of
our present faculties, and of which human senses
can take no cognizance, except by miracle. It
has moreover a constitution conformable to the
high and supersensual sphere which it occupies.20
THE NATURE OF
But the present figure gives us no intimation of
any such difference of constitution. It speaks of
a change of element from a lower to a higher, but
is silent on the change of faculties which must
qualify for the higher. The body which is
uplifted into the air has undergone no alteration
of structure in leaving the water. But this
further intimation we shall obtain as we prose-
cute our researches.
(3.) The next analogy which shall be noticed
is that adduced by St. Paul in the 15th chapter
of his First Epistle to the Corinthians—the
analogy of the seed and the flower. The ques-
tion discussed in that wonderful chapter is the
Resurrection of the dead,—a doctrine which it
appears had been called in question by some
members of the Corinthian Church. In answer
to a cavil brought by a supposed objector against
this doctrine, the Apostle observes that the disso-
lution of an organised structure is no argument
against—yea, rather is a necessary condition of,
its reappearance in another form and under a
higher law of existence. We have but to cast our
eyes round upon the objects of nature to behold
an illustration of this truth. The appropriate
sphere of the seed, which in itself has neither
form nor comeliness, is the dank dark soil, after
reposing in which for a season, out of the reachTHE RESURRECTION PROCESS.
21
of the genial sunshine and the wandering breeze,
it dies or is dissolved. This dissolution, how-
ever, is in order to the developement of the
seed, according to the law of its being, into a
higher condition of existence. Certain of its
accretions mouldering away, the germ is un-
folded, gradually springs up, and appears above
the soil, and ultimately presents itself in the
new form of an ear or a blossom. The ele-
ment of the developed seed (or flower) is the
air, as that of the undeveloped was the earth.
Though it still hold of earth,—imbibing through
its stalk the juices of the soil,—it lives and moves
and has its being in an higher sphere. It is fed
with the gentle dews and fanned by the gentler
gales of heaven ;—it opens its bosom to the light,
and expands its perfumed petals under the genial
influences of the bright and warm sun. Such is
the substance of the argument contained in those
weighty and conclusive words—"Thou fool, that
“ which thou sowest is not quickened, except it
" die : and that which thou sowest, thou sowest
“ not that body that 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,
" and to every seed his own body.” It will be
conceded that the Apostle in these words proposes
to us the development of the seed into the22
THE NATURE OF
flower, as an analogy supplied by Nature to the
Resurrection process.
And this analogy drawn from the vegetable
economy has led men to seek for others in the
animal kingdom. The transmutation of the in-
sect into the moth, after it has lain dormant for a
long period in its chrysalis state, has often11 been
adduced in illustration of the Resurrection pro-
cess, as an instance of analogy parallel to that
which the Apostle proposes. And, the parallel
being a very exact one, this new analogy may
be adopted and relied upon, although it have not
the sanction of an inspired pen. Here too we
have the development in a new form of a sub-
stance which had previously lain in a state of
torpor and dormant vitality—here too we have
the adaptation of that living substance to the
conditions of a new sphere—its endowment with
the painted wings which qualify it for moving in
another element. Here too we have the throw-
ing off of a certain shell or husk which is no
longer serviceable in the new form; for the husk
is deposited by the insect in the course of trans-
mutation just as the accessary particles fall off
from the living germ of the grain.
By the consideration of these analogies we gain
a new idea, over and above that supplied by our
h See Appendix to Lecture I. Note C.THE RESURRECTION PROCESS.
23
examination of terms—an idea which sufficiently
differences Resurrection from mere reanimation
of the mortal and corruptible frame. According
to this new idea, Resurrection is a process of
development, a process of transition through
death into a higher state of existence,—in the
course of which the person or thing which
undergoes the process drops it may be certain
properties not essential to its personality, and
acquires others which qualify it for a higher
sphere. The reanimation of the natural body is
evidently quite a distinct process from this. It
is simply a restoration of animal functions which
had been suspended,—a reinstatement in the
same condition — a renew’al of the same cir-
cumstances, in which the risen person was
placed previously to death. It is as if the once
developed germ, immediately after dropping its
accessary particles, should again agglomerate
them to its own substance, and fold itself up
once more into the seed; as if the torpid insect
should clothe itself again in its cast off shell,
and creep along the earth as heretofore, instead
of soaring in the air.
(4.) But an analogy, yet more definite and pre-
cise, remains to be considered. And it is well to
observe that this is not adduced by the writers
of Scripture as an illustration—it is inwoven into24
THE NATURE OF
the very texture of the expressions which they
employ on the subject. Our mode of pointing
out a close and complete analogy naturally differs
from that in which we indicate a rough and
general illustration which does not hold good in
every point. Our cast of language indicates that
the latter is only an analogy—the former we
rather inweave into the subject illustrated than
place in parallel columns with it. And this last
is the case with the analogy we are now about
to examine.
Resurrection is a process which has as yet
only passed upon one member of the human
species, even upon the Man Christ Jesus. Now,
when the Apostles designate the Lord according to
his risen humanity, what language do they em-
ploy? By both St. Paul and St. John he is desig-
nated under this aspect as <5 7r/3&)roTo«o? e/cr&vveKp&v
a phrase which our translators have rendered
differently in the two passages in which it occurs,
giving us as its equivalent in the Epistle to the
Colossians the words “ first born from the dead,”
—in the Book of Revelation the less accurate
“ first begotten from the dead.” The idea con-
veyed by this designation is expressed more at
large in St. Paul’s address to the members of the
synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia. “We declare
unto you,” says the Apostle in the course of thatTHE RESURRECTION PROCESS.
25
address, “glad tidings, how that the promise
“ which was made unto the fathers, God hath ful-
“ filled the same unto us their children, in that he
“ hath raised up Jesus again ; as it is also written
“ in the second Psalm” (observe the peculiar term
here applied to the Resurrection) “Thou art my
“ Son, this day have I begotten Thee.” These
passages lead us to conceive of the Resurrection
of Christ as a Birth-Process. And what is Birth ?
It is simply the bringing into light of the embryo,
the development of a substance previously
formed, and previously endowed with a principle
of life, into a new element. The substance in this
process preserves, not only its identity, (as is the
case in vegetable and insect transmutation,) but
also the very form which it assumed in its pre-
existent state. In all other respects this analogy
resembles closely those before considered. All
of them when examined give uf the notion of the
unfolding of a living substance according to the law
of its being—such as ushers it into and qualifies
it for a higher condition of existence.
The view thus arrived at may borrow some
confirmation from another statement made by the
Apostle Paul in reference to the Resurrection of
our Blessed Lord. He parallels that Resurrection,
not only with the Birth-Process of the human
species, but also with the first formation of man.
c26
THE NATURE OF
“ The first man Adam was made” (literally became
into, iyevero et?) “ a living soul—the last Adam
" was made a quickening spirit.” Now, what does
this parallel teach us ? In the formation of the
first founder of the human race there was a de-
velopment out of a rudimentary stage of existence
into a higher condition. The first step was from
unorganised to organised matter. “The Lord
“ God,” we are told, “ formed man of the dust of
“ the ground.” The curiously constructed system
of the human body, with all the mechanism of
the animal oeconomy, was in the first instance
fashioned by Divine energy,—dust being made
the basis of the fabric. But this organised mass
of matter lacked an informing principle of
vitality, such as might give it a distinct and
separate existence. The human body was then
part and parcel of what we call inanimate nature,
if indeed that can be called inanimate, in which
the movement of decomposition and the forma-
tion of new combinations is continually proceed-
ing. But it was not always to be so. Man was
to be endowed with a separate principle of vitality.
“ The Lord God breathed into his nostrils the
“ breath of life, and man became a living soul.”
Henceforth man’s condition of existence,, denoted
according to its highest principle, was one of
animal vitality rather than of material organiza-THE RESURRECTION PROCESS.
27
tion. And the parallel here drawn leads us to
believe that the Resurrection of man is a process
something analogous to his original formation.
Resurrection is the rising out of a rudimentary
into a more advanced condition of existence—a
transition process from a state of animal to a
state of spiritual vitality — as it is said, “ The
last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” It is
obvious to remark that this development into
spirit must not be supposed to involve a, destruc-
tion or annihilation of the_ material element of
which our nature is composed. When it is said
that the first man Adam was made a living soul,
we are not to understand that the organized
bodily structure which had been fashioned out of
the dust of the earth was abolished, but simply
that it was informed by a principle of animal
vitality ; and so by parity of reasoning, when it is
said that the second Adam was made a quicken-
ing spirit, we are not to infer that the body was
abolished, but simply that it was informed by a
higher principle than heretofore.
The animated man and the risen man are both
defined according to the higher element of their
condition, leaving out of sight the lower element.
The three component elements of human nature,
as specified by the Apostle to the Thessalonians,
are Body, Soul, and Spirit, (<rw/j,a, ^Jrvxv, wpev/^a.)
c 228
THE NATURE OF
Each of these words may be made to denote a
distinct stage of human existence. In the first
stage—that of organised matter—man was merely
body ; in the second, that of animal vitality, man
is living soul; in that third stage, which we by
faith anticipate, he will be (though without loss of
any essential element of his nature) more justly
characterised as spirit.
Hitherto our attention has been occupied with
terms or passages descriptive of the Resurrection
of the Lord Jesus. In the light which those
terms and passages afford we now proceed to
examine the somewhat peculiar language of our
text, and find it conveying the very same notion
of the future Resurrection of the righteous
which we have been led to form of Christ’s Resur-
rection. The Sadducees, unbelievers in the Resur-
rection state, and doubtless confirmed in their un-
belief by the carnal and earthly associations with
which the Pharisees were wont to invest it, had
demanded of our Lord the solution of a difficulty,
the very statement ofwhich, asitappeared to them,
reduced the doctrine of the Resurrection to an
absurdity. Jesus, in his reply, begins by divest-
ing the Resurrection state of those attributes of
an animal condition of existence which in
the notions of many attached to it. Generation
and dissolution, the all pervading law of theTHE RESURRECTION PROCESS.
29
present oeconomy, is not to be looked for in that
higher state. “ They who shall be accounted
"worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection
“from the dead, neither marry nor are given in
“ marriage; neither can they die any more: for they
“ are equal unto the angels, and are the children of
“God; being the children of the Resurrection.” In
the figurative expression “children of the Resur-
rection”—we recognise at once a confirmation
of that view of the process which we have
arrived at by the study of other Scriptures.
If Resurrection be a process closely analogous to
that of natural birth, this of itself will sufficiently
warrant and account for the denomination of the
risen dead who are the issue of the process as
children of the Resurrection. But how does
their relationship to the Resurrection involve a
relationship to God himself? How is their son-
ship to the Resurrection a ground and reason of
their Divine Sonship, as those words certainly
intimate : “ They are the children of God, being
the children of the Resurrection ?” Because that
bringing out of his rational creatures into a higher
state of existence, which is termed Resurrection,
is by far the most stupendous of all the acts of
divine power, and is therefore more than other
such acts attributable to the operation and energy
of the Divine Being. The implied figure holds30
THE NATURE OF
good in whatever part it is examined. God is
represented as the Father whose energy quickens
the dead; the grave as the Mother who teems
with this second birth ; the Resurrection as the
Birth-Process, ushering into a new condition of
existence. But here it may be asked : Are not
those who have found grace to believe on the Lord
Jesus, who have been born of water and of the
Spirit, already the sons of God, even previously to
their undergoing the process of Resurrection ?
Undoubtedly, as regards the spiritual element of
their being : for so it is written : “ Beloved, noiv
“ are we the sons of God.” A divine operation
has passed upon the soul of the Christian, which
has brought him out of darkness into God’s
marvellous light — an operation which is de-
signated as “ a death unto sin, and a new birth
“ unto righteousness.” This operation constitutes
the power, or, as our Church expresses it, “ the
“inward spiritual grace” of the Sacrament of
Baptism. And in strictness this Sacrament should
be so administered as outwardly to emblematize
that spiritual resurrection of which, when duly
received, it is a means, and that bodily Resurrec-
tion, of which it is always a pledge. But for
this final consummation of his being the Chris-
tian must yet wait a while. The work of Christ,
which has taken effect upon his spirit, has as yetTHE RESURRECTION PROCESS.
31
done nothing for his body. It is still in the
bondage of corruption—subject to vanity—liable
to the inroads of infirmity and decay. But he
anticipates by faith a taking effect of the Re-
deemer’s work, even upon the matter of which
his nature is compounded—an anticipation this
which the Apostle expresses in words exactly
to our present purpose—words which speak of
a Sonship still in reserve for the believer’s body,
over and above that already conferred upon his
soul. “Ourselves, which have the first fruits
“ of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within
“ ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the
“ redemption of our Body!'
We trust that in the foregoing remarks the
nature of the process of Resurrection, as set forth
in Scripture, has been sufficiently explained.
If we would be led by the hand of the Inspired
Writers, we are to conceive of Resurrection as a
Birth-Process, —a process which ushers into, and
qualifies for a new state of existence, the person
undergoing it. Let us consider now some of the
misconceptions on the subject, which this true
notion, gained by a careful examination of Scrip-
tural terms and Scriptural analogies, fences off.
(a.) We have already intimated that every
conception of the subject must be erroneous
which tends to confound Resurrection with the32
THE NATURE OF
miraculous reanimation of the old natural body.
It is rather a development into a superior life
than a resuscitation—rather the adaptation to
a higher than the restoration of a former state.
Without diving into unwarrantable speculations,
or raising questions on subjects not revealed, we
may safely assert that the general idea of Re-
surrection, as sketched in the book of God, for-
bids us to imagine too close an assimilation of
our future to our present circumstances and
constitution. We may not cumber the Resurrec-
tion, in our notions of it, with associations
drawn from the carnal, animal, shifting scene
which surrounds us. Misconceptions of this
kind found place very early in the Church,
and gave rise, in all probability, to errors
in a contrary direction. It was probably a
too earthly and animal view of the circum-
stances and constitution of the risen dead
which stirred up Origen to spiritualize the doc-
trine, and set it, as he conceived, on a more
Scriptural footing. And although certain of his
assertions may too far trespass on the identity of
the risen with the natural body; yet who can help
yielding assent to his words as beautiful and
true, when he points out' the necessity for an
adaptation of every body to the surrounding ,
1 See Appendix to Lecture I. Note D.THE RESURRECTION PROCESS.
33
element in which it exists, and thence infers that
the heavenly state will demand glorified bodies
such as those in which Moses and Elias appeared
at the Transfiguration ? Who does not feel
almost instinctively that this remark gives a
juster representation of Scriptural truth than
Jerome’sk particularising commentary on the
much-disputed text of Job, in which he repre-
sents the identity of the hairs and teeth as in-
volved in the doctrine of the Resurrection—and
then, in order to rid himself of the difficulty
thrown in his path by the inspired statement that
flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of
God, draws a distinction between the Resur-
rection and the inheritance of the kingdom ?
(6.) Resurrection is not to be conceived of as
a loss of some constituent element of our nature.
In the passage of the nature from a lower stage
of existence to a higher, and in the adaptation
of its faculties to that higher stage, there is no
loss of any essential element. I say of any
essential element; for is it not clear that the
transition process may involve the falling-off of
certain properties which are serviceable only in
the rudimentary state, and which in the higher
state would have no scope for exercise ? The
lower sphere having been for ever quitted, it is
k See Appendix to Lecture I. Note E.34
THE NATURE OF
but natural to suppose that such faculties as were
exclusively adapted to that sphere will be
dropped. When we read, therefore, of the
Resurrection of Man, we must suppose, on the
one hand, that Man, in becoming the subject
of the process, will maintain the integrity of his
nature—will undergo no essential forfeiture. Is
matter no less than spirit an essential constituent
of that nature, so that the primitive constitution
of the creature would be altered, and Man would
cease to be Man if the material element no
longer attached to him ? Then, undoubtedly,
inasmuch as Resurrection is no radical alteration
of the constitution, but only such a modification
of formerly existing rudiments as adapts them to
a higher condition, the process is not to be con-
ceived of as a laying down of the Body and an
emancipation of the Soul from its fetters. Yet,
on the other hand, this preservation of the inte-
grity of the Nature does not exclude the possi-
bility of a loss of such faculties as were adapted
exclusively to the lower state. Man may still
carry about a body, and yet it may be a body
whose animal functions have been dropped in the
transit of Resurrection. And such seems to be
the significance of those words;—“ It is sown
“ an animal body (i'rv^ucov a&fia,'), it is raised a
“ spiritual body” (awfxa TrvevfAaTtKov'). And it isTHE RESURRECTION PROCESS.
35
observable that some of the analogies, from the
consideration of which we have derived our idea
of the transit, allow the notion of loss, although
they forbid that of essential loss. In the seed
there are particles which fall off when the germ
is developed. In the insect there is a husk shed
in the process of transmutation.
We see, then, how the true notion of the
Resurrection process meets the error of those
who imagine in man’s future condition nothing
save a spiritual subsistence, and, in short, con-
ceive of Resurrection as if it were identical with
Death. We might naturally expect to find that
such would be the views of those who recognised
in matter an inherent evil, and therefore regarded
the soul’s disenthralment from the bonds of
matter as the great consummation which awaits
Humanity. Accordingly, the Gnostics,1 in the
early period of Church history, and the Cathari
of a later date, rejected altogether the doctrine
of the Resurrection of the Body. Apelles, the
Gnostic teacher, in direct opposition to that
passage of Holy Writ which speaks of the adop-
tion, to wit, the redemption of the Body, main-
tained that the work of Christ had reference only
to the Soul of man. It does not appear, how-
ever, that the charge brought against these
1 See Appendix to Lecture I. Note F.36
THE NATURE OF
heretics, of altogether denying the Resurrection,
is just. They probably admitted the term,m and
explained it as the disenthralment of the soul (in
whose immortality they believed) from its bodily
fetters.
(c.) And lastly. According to the view of the
process which we have endeavoured to establish,
Resurrection, even as Birth, must be entirely
differenced from Creation. It is an operation
upon the previously subsisting rudiments of an
old nature—not, in strictness of speech, the
formation of a new. And yet the change in-
volved in this operation may be so total and
entire—it may embrace such a complete revolu-
tion of our circumstances, and such an exalta-
tion and enhancement of our faculties—and may
be effected by a species of spiritual energy so
foreign to anything we have hitherto experienced,
that in ordinary and popular parlance, with the
tenour of which the Scripture uniformly complies,
it need surprise us nothing to hear that which is
strictly a Resurrection process described as a
Creation process. “ Behold, I create new heavens
“ and a new earth,” is only another mode of
expressing the sentiment, “ Behold, I make all
“things new.” It will be well to bear this remark
in mind when studying, in connection with our
m See Appendix to Lecture I. Note G.THE RESURRECTION PROCESS.
37
present subject, the earlier verses of the 5th
chapter of St. Paul’s second Epistle to the
Corinthians. The Resurrection Body is there
spoken of in a manner which, if the passage stood
alone, might induce us to conceive of it as a
wholly new creature, having no connection what-
ever with the present bodily structure—a notion
which many other sentences from the pen of the
same Apostle would assuredly serve to correct.
Nor is it hard to account for the peculiar tone
of language in which this passage is couched.
An examination of the context shows us that the
Apostle is groaning under a sense of the infir-
mities attaching to the present earthen vessel.
What wonder if, in anticipating his exchange of
the natural for the spiritual body, he should
dwell exclusively upon the glorious peculiarities
by which the latter is differenced from the former,
and omit to glance at the relation subsisting
between them ? The uppermost thought in his
mind being the diverse constitution of the two,
rather than the development of one from
the other, what wonder if he speak of the
house which is from heaven as something essen-
tially distinct from the earthly house of this
tabernacle—distinct in its sphere, in its properties,
and in the period of its duration ? It may be
added, that the imagery which in this passage he
adopts did not, consistently with its being main-38
the nature of
tained, allow a reference to the identity of the
Risen with the Natural Body. So far as we can
gather from the history, the frames and curtains
of the tabernacle of witness, which had accom-
panied the journeyings of Israel, had waxed old
and vanished away previously to the construction
of the Temple, so that none of the old moveable
materials could be applied again in the erection
of the new and stationary structure. An allusion
therefore to the Tabernacle" and Temple, as
emblematical, respectively, of the Natural and
Risen Body, would only bring out the difference
between the two, dropping the point of connec-
tion and relationship. To render full and com-
plete the idea of Resurrection, we need the
analogy (already considered) of the seed and the
flower, which brings out no less the latter aspect
of identity than the former of difference and dis-
tinctness—and which, therefore, in his more
formal discussion of the subject, the Apostle
himself employs.
We have now, I trust, formed as definite a
notion of the Process of Resurrection, as the
Scriptures will permit us to gain from a close
examination of the terms which they employ
and the analogies which they propose. What
subjects shall undergo this Process will be mat-
ter for future consideration. Our aim in this
° See Appendix to Lecture I. Note H.THE RESURRECTION PROCESS.
39
discourse, technically speaking, has been to de-
fine the Predicate of the Proposition that the
body shall rise again, leaving to a future Lecture
the definition of its subject. Let us close these
remarks by reflecting practically on the dormant
and undeveloped faculties probably possessed by
man, for the exercise of which his present con-
dition of existence affords no scope. Man resem-
bles an actor who plays his part on a stage too
cramped to exhibit his powers in their full di-
mensions. This low, shifting, transitory scene
is evidently inadequate to evoke the full strength
of human affections, and presents to those sub-
lime emotions which sweep across the heart no
objects of corresponding dignity. And as there
are certainly faculties which are only half deve-
loped in our present state, may there not be
others, both moral and physical, which are
wholly undeveloped—destined to remain entirely
dormant (even our own consciousness not recog-
nising their existence) until a new oeconomy—an
oeconomy of things unseen and eternal, calls them
forth into exercise ? The child that to-day crawls
across the nursery, and can utter only inarticu-
late sounds, may in process of time become the
traveller who makes the circuit of the globe,
acquires the knowledge of many tongues, and
returns home laden with the fruits of a large
experience and an extensive observation. And40
THE NATURE OF
the capabilities of the human race in the Resur-
rection state will as greatly transcend the facul-
ties attaching to us in this rudimentary stage
of our existence, as the powers of the adult
transcend those of the infant. Man shall be a
giant in those days, when his every emotion shall
have its unconstrained play, when his every power
shall be fully matured, and every latent energy
bound up in his present constitution shall be
elicited in its full compass.
But vast capabilities (awful thought!) may
receive their direction from a will which has
assumed an attitude of hostility to the will of
God. And the will receives its determination
for good or for evil on this side the grave, during
the period of our education for immortality.—
Great God, what destinies hast Thou made de-
pendent on our passage across this shifting and
limited stage! The power and knowledge of
supernatural beings is in store for us all; but it
may be the power and knowledge of demons
exerted in opposition to Thyself,—in counterac-
tion therefore of our own truest bliss. Forbid it,
Lord, and by the impulses of Thy Spirit deter-
mine our unruly wills to choose for Thee, to
enlist under Thy banner, to cling to Thee with
stedfast allegiance throughout the long life-strug-
gle, until the good fight be fought out, the course
finished, the crown won.LECTURE II.
THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN, THE SUBJECT OF
A RESURRECTION PROCESS.
Ephesians ii. part of verses 4, 5, and 6.
God .... even when we were dead in sins, hath
quickened us together with Christ.... and hath raised us
up together\
Our First Lecture was devoted to an investiga-
tion of the nature of the Process designated in
Scripture by the term Resurrection. The sub-
jects of this process next claim our consideration.
The first of these subjects with which we
propose to deal is the Moral Nature of Man.
This moral nature it is, which is spoken of in the
text, and in other passages of God’s word, as
undergoing a Resurrection process. For to what
other species of Resurrection can the Apostle be
supposed to allude, when he asserts of his
Ephesian converts as a fact already accomplished
—a fact which had passed into the province of
D42
THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN,
history—that God hath quickened and raised them
Up together with Christ (avve^caoTrol-qae rat Xpiarat
nal o-w'nyeipe') ? The body or physical organiza-
tion of the persons thus addressed having as yet
undergone no change of any sort, (however much
such change might be in contemplation hereafter)
we are shut up to the conclusion—(a conclusion
which no one will call in question) that their
moral nature is the subject spoken of, and ac-
cordingly that the Resurrection referred to is of
a moral and spiritual character.
In a series of Discourses, whose professed
subject is the Resurrection of the Body (or
material element of which man is compounded),
it may seem at first sight irrelevant to introduce
a discussion of that purely moral and spiritual
process to which the text adverts. But the
doing so is fully justified (or may we not rather
say necessitated) by the following considera-
tions :—
(1.) An analogy subsists between the natural
and spiritual Resurrections, which carries on the
thoughts instinctively from one to the other.
This analogy is recognised by St. Paul in several
passages of his Epistles, in all of which, as in our
text, his mind seems to trace a close connection
between the renewal of the moral nature by
divine grace, and the Resurrection of the Body,'THE SUBJECT OF A RESURRECTION PROCESS. 43
whether Christ Himself or the people of Christ be
represented as subjects of the latter process.
Nay, does not a greater than Paul point out to
us the same connection in that sublime discourse,
to which the miracle of the pool of Bethesda
gave rise■?—does He not pass onward, as by an
easy and natural association of ideas, from the
mention of quickening power exercised by His
voice over the spiritually dead, to a natural
Resurrection hereafter to be effected by the same
power ?	“ Verily verily, I say unto you, the
“ hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall
" hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that
** hear shall live. . . . Marvel not at this, for the
“ hour is coming in which all that are in the
“ graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth.”4
An analogy being thus established between the
two processes, we may surely hope to derive
light upon that which is the least known from
the consideration of that which is the best known
of the two. The moral Resurrection is, with
many professing Christians, ought to be with
all, a matter of experience, for the ascertainment
of whose phenomena we should have nothing
else to do than to study the workings of our
own minds. Of corporeal Resurrection, on the
other hand, only one Example is at present
“ John v, 25, 28.
D 244
THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN,
afforded us; and that must be studied through
the medium of the Gospel records. A careful
examination of the analogous procedure may
secure us from error and put us into possession
of truth upon this latter (more scantily illus-
trated) subject which is our theme.
(2.) It is sufficiently intimated by the sacred
writers that this analogy is not fanciful—that it
is on the contrary deeply seated in the nature
of things—that, in short, both Resurrections
are to be regarded as one and the same Process,
taking effect upon different subject matters.
Thus («.) St. Paul attributes both to the opera-
tion of the same Spirit, where he speaks of “ the
“ exceeding greatness of God’s power to us ward
“ who believe, according to the working of his
“ mighty power which he wrought in Christ, when
“ He raised him from the dead.” b And the same
identity of agency in the two cases is again
glanced at in that passage of the Epistle to the
Colossians, “ Buried with him in baptism, wherein
“ also ye are risen with him through the faith of
“ the operation of God, who hath raised him from
“ the dead.”c
(/3-) Again, the indwelling of the Spirit, which
is the efficient cause of the transformation of man’s
moral nature, is spoken of as the earnest of
i* Eph, i. 19, 20.	c Col. ii. 12.THE SUBJECT OF A RESURRECTION PROCESS. 45
another Resurrection which is to pass upon the
body of the believer. When contemplating with
joy his exchange of an earthly house of this
tabernacle for a house not made with hands—in
other words of an animal for a spiritual body,
St. Paul informs us that this consummation of
man’s entire nature is in the design of God, nay
and that God hath even taken some steps to-
wards the fulfilment of it. “ Now he that hath
“ wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who
“ also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.”d
If an earnest be a payment (in part) of that
sum whereof it is an earnest (as distinguished
from a pledge, which may be something alien
in kind from the debt which is owed) we must
infer from this text that the Resurrection of the
Christian’s Body will be merely the extension
into the domain of the Body of an operation
which has already passed upon his soul, and
to whose results therefore he is no stranger.
The same doctrine is contained by implication in
that well known passage of the Epistle to the
Philippians: “ Our conversation is in heaven” (this
is the realised result of the spiritual Resurrec-
tion ; but the believer by faith anticipates, as the
consummation of his happiness, an analogous
change of the gross material element whereof
d 2 Cor. v. 5.46
THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN,
his nature is compounded) —" 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 bbdy, ac-
“ cording to the working whereby he is able even,
" to subdue all things unto himself.”6
The above considerations seem to necessitate a
careful investigation into the phenomena of that
moral and spiritual change, between which and
the Resurrection of the Body the inspired writers
recognise a profound connexion. Another strong
motive inducing to such an investigation is the
occasion which in all probability it will afford
for reflections of a practical and edifying cha-
racter., May we be led by the Holy Spirit into,
the recesses of our own hearts, while we exa-
mine into the nature of that process whereof
our hearts ought to have been made the subject,,
and to be even now giving no uncertain evidences!
And in order to avoid all such controversial
questions as do not rightfully belong to the sub-
ject which these Lectures profess to treat, let it
be stated at the outset that the only case con-
templated in this present Discourse is that of one
who has received Christian Baptism as an adult,,
after realising in his personal experience the
conditions of repentance and faith on which,
* Phil. iii. 20, 21.,THE SUBJECT OF A RESURRECTION PROCESS. 47
Baptism is granted—one, who has not only sub-
mitted to the outward form of the Sacrament,
but upon whom also a great moral change may
be clearly discerned to have passed.
With regard to the first point, the outward
form of Baptism, so much has been said in the
preceding Lecture, as to make it now only ne-
cessary for us to glance cursorily at the subject.
We saw that the most primitive and significant
form of administration, and that of which, while
allowing another, the Church of England most
approves, is that of immersion. In this form, as
has been said, there is a beautiful symbol, which
is entirely forfeited by adopting the practice
which now usually obtains, of affusion. The
closing of the water over the entire person—
during which period of submersion animation
is momentarily suspended—presents to the eye
of sense an image both of that death unto sin
which constitutes the grace of the Sacrament,
and of that final committal to the earth whereby
the dead are buried out of the sight of the living.
The bringing up of the body again, in a pu-
rified state, after its momentary disappearance,
supplies a no less striking emblem of that spi-
ritual renovation which involves both a change
of relation towards God, and a change of heart—
as also of the issuing forth of the Christian’s,48'	THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN,
Body from the sepulchre at the summons of the
Son of Man. It is evident, then, that the out-
ward visible sign in baptism is significant of
Resurrection, both spiritual and physical.
We now turn to consider the Resurrection
of man’s Moral Nature, and to inquire how far
its phenomena coincide with those notions of
a Resurrection process which we have already
formed.
Resurrection, then,, we have been led by
sundry intimations of Scripture, to conceive of
as a process analogous to natural birth. And,
conceiving of it under this aspect, we had oc-
casion to remark that Resurrection is not, strictly
speaking, a creation—nor yet is it a destruction,
of any essential element: rather it is the passage
from darkness to light of a substance previously
formed, its introduction into a new sphere to
which its faculties are gradually adapted, and
where it subsists after other laws.
Now in examining the phenomena of the
Moral Resurrection, we shall discover a wonder-
ful correspondence with the views thus arrived
at.
Let us speak, first, of what the Moral Re-
surrection is not; secondly, of what it is.
I. (1.) The Resurrection of the spirit of man
from that death of trespasses and sins, which.THE SUBJECT OF A RESURRECTION PROCESS. 49
is the condition by nature of the entire human
race, is not in the strict sense of the word an
act of creation, although in that general par-
lance, one principle of which is that language
shall not be pressed too closely, it might with-
out offence be so termed. The Moral Reno-
vation of man’s nature does not involve the
implantation in his heart of a new principle
which did not previously exist. It is not the
endowment of man with any new faculty, so
much as the rendering competent of existing
faculties to the achievement of greater things.
Let me take, as exemplifications of my mean-
ing, the three cardinal Christian graces of faith,
hope, and love. The assertion is that neither of
the three is in strictness a new principle, to
whose energizings within him man is a stranger,
before his heart is brought under the influence of
divine grace. In the case of hope and love this
is too evident to need proof. These affections
are as inseparable from the nature of the heathen
and the worldling as from that of the sincere
Christian—the difference being that in the one
they fasten exclusively on the various objects of
this present life, in the other on those unseen
realities whereof God’s testimony and not sense
gives us assurance. But what shall we say of faith,
that seminal grace of the Christian character out50
THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN,
of which are developed all its other lovely dis-
positions ? Is not this a new principle where-
with for the first time man is endowed in and
through the Gospel ? We may admit that in
heathen systems of moral philosophy it is impos-
sible to trace any recognition of faith as a virtue
of the human character : (for faith it is which
brings us into relations with God and an unseen
world, and of these relations uninspired philoso-
phy could take but little if any cognizance) ; but
a study of the apostolic definition of this grace—
a definition directed to the elucidation of its
nature independently of any object upon which
it operates,—will make it evident that man, in
his unrenewed state, is always more or less
under the influence of this principle. “Faith is the
“ substance” (or confident assurance—vTroaracn^
“ of things hoped for, the evidence” (eXey^o?) “ of
“ things not seen.”f Can we not discern in man’s
natural life the operation of such a principle ? Is
the sight of men labouring in anticipation of
some foreseen emergency, which yet is not cer-
tain of arriving, a very unusual phenomenon ?
Assuredly not. The industrious artisan is sup-
ported in his toils by the prospect of earning for
himself and those dependent upon him such a
competency as may maintain him during the fore-
f Heb. ii. 1.THE SUBJECT OF A RESURRECTION PROCESS. 51
seen period of age and natural infirmity. The
sower casts abroad his seed in the assurance—
an assurance drawn from past experience rather
than divine testimony—that nature’s processes will
hereafter recur in the regular rotation which they
have hitherto uniformly observed,—that “ while
“ the earth remaineth, seed time and harvest, and
“ cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day
“ and night, shall not cease.”6 The history both
of heathen and Christian states supplies frequent
instances of men sacrificing even life in their
country’s cause, from considerations of the glory
which would accrue to their names among pos-
terity. If all these be cases, not of faith only but
of an operative faith, of a principle which appre-
hends the future and by such apprehension
governs its conduct, then truth forbids us to
say that faith is a new principle introduced into
our nature for the first time in the course of
that moral transformation which it is the great
design of the Gospel to effect. The corruption
of human nature lies, not in its altogether lacking
the faculty whereby things unseen and future are
apprehended in an influential manner,—but in
the total incompetency of this faculty to grasp
the solid realities of eternity and of a world
beyond the grave. Our horizon is limited by
6 Gen. viii. 22.52
THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN,
death, so that while we live and labour for that
portion of futurity which lies on this side the
great crisis (the futurity of time), we are utterly
unable except through divine grace to live and
labour for the future of eternity. This inability the
Spirit of God, in that moral Resurrection where-
of we are speaking, remedies. He enlarges the
grasp of the faculty, so that it embraces loftier
objects—objects more substantial than those of
time and sense. He causes man to walk as
seeing Him who is invisible, and with respect
unto the recompense of an eternal reward,—man
who had before walked under the apprehension of
a narrow portion of time, bounded in by the grave,
and brooded over by the thick fog of sense and
sensible things. He conducts him out of the
fog, and points him upward to the bright firma-
ment where the Eternal sits enthroned. He
brings near to his eye, by an act of supernatural
power, the realities of the unseen and eternal
world. And it surely need not surprise us if
this process, wonderful as are its results, and
wholly beyond the power of a created arm,
should be occasionally conceived and spoken of
as if it were the implantation of a new faculty.
The discoveries of modern science, which en-
able us to apprehend realms of nature never
previously explored, might be popularly saidTHE SUBJECT OF A RESURRECTION PROCESS. 53
to communicate to man new senses, whereas
in truth they only enlarge the scope of senses
which previously existed. He whose eye is ena-
bled by the telescope to examine the rocky strata
which diversify the moon’s surface, would very
naturally represent himself as having gained a
new faculty. Strictly speaking, it is the same eye-
sight, which once wandered abroad upon the
landscapes of earth, now made competent to the
more arduous task of scrutinizing the orbs of
heaven.
(2.) Again: the moral renovation of human
nature does not consist in, or involve, the de-
struction of any essential constituent element of
that nature. For the proof of this assertion, we
may refer to a work familiarly known in this
place, and appreciated amongst us at its due
worth, the Sermons of Bishop Butler. In pro-
secuting their main design, which is to prove
that the moral constitution of man indicates the
path of virtue which his Creator intended him to
tread, those Discourses incidentally unfold this
valuable and important truth, that none of the
grand original affections of our nature {apart from
the objects on which they fasten) are intrinsically
evil. Hence we are of course left to infer that
the operations of Divine grace, instead of eradi-
cating any of those affections, will communicate54	THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN,
to them a right direction, and turn them into a
channel where they will subserve the interests of
virtue. Love and fear, excited at present, the
one by the transitory objects, the other by the
equally transitory judgments of a world that
passeth away, will, in the process of moral
renewal, be brought to centre their supreme
regards upon God. Hope will raise its aspirations
above the good things of the present life, to the
crown of righteousness laid up for those who love
the Lord’s appearing. And it is doubtless in the
memories of all here present, how the great
Christian philosopher deals with that affection of
our nature, which of all others seems to present
the greatest difficulty to his theory, the affection
of anger. He points out that even this principle
would be conducive to the great end of virtue,
if, instead of fastening, as in our corrupt state it
does, upon personal affronts, it were to assume
the form of righteous indignation against sin.h
He fortifies this position by reminding us that on
one occasion even the Holy and Harmless One,
in whom was no sin, is said to have “looked
" round upon” certain cavillers “ with anger, being
“ grieved for the hardness of their hearts/’’ And
from that very Book which forms our rule of
h See some quotations from liis Sermon on Anger, Appendix to
■Lecture I. Note A.
1 Mark iii. 5.THE SUBJECT OF A RESURRECTION PROCESS. 55
faith as Christians, he shows that it is not the
operation of this principle, but its undue and
excessive operation, which is forbidden, founding
his discourse upon that text of Scripture—“ Be
“ ye angry and sin not; let not the sun go down
“upon your wrath.” Now, if even anger be an
affection which Divine grace, in its renewal of
human nature, rather directs aright than eradi-
cates, we may safely say that all the other ele-
mentary affections are retained in that renewal,
the Holy Spirit not dispensing with them, but
rather using them as impulsive powers in subser-
viency to his promptings.
It is, however, important to observe that this
proposition applies (there can be little doubt that
Butler intended it to apply) only to the original
affections, as distinct from the subordinate feel-
ings of human nature. Many are the native
growths of the corrupt heart which must be
regarded, whether we view them in the light of
reason or Scripture, as purely and intrinsically
evil, fit only to be cast out and trodden under
foot of the enlightened conscience. Who that
has studied himself is not conscious of the frequent
germination within his bosom of proud, revenge-
ful, covetous, or unnaturally foul desires, which,
if allowed unrestrained scope, must lead to the
commission of enormous crimes, and which are56
THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN,
symptomatic indications of a heart fruitful in
every species of depravity ? Whatever moral
theories we may form on this or kindred topics,
we must be careful to let none of them blind our
eyes to the truth, so solemnly propounded by
Him who knew what was in man, that “ from
“ within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil
"thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
" thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, las-
“ civiousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride,
“ foolishness.” k
Nor does the theory of Butler’s propounding,
rightly understood, conflict in the least degree
with this emphatic declaration of human depra-
vity. Every intrinsically evil feeling to which
the heart gives birth is philosophically resolvable
into some one elementary affection, of which it is
a distorted and depraved form. Thus a sentiment
of malice or revenge may be regarded as a per-
version of anger, and a covetous desire as an
exaggeration of self-love. And it is clear that
the renewal of our nature, although it does not
involve the extinction of the original affections,
yet does involve that of these subordinate and
kindred feelings. No constituent essential ele-
ment of humanity may be eradicated in the pro-
cess, and yet a thousand propensities of the cor-
k Mark vii. 21, 22.THE SUBJECT OF A RESURRECTION PROCESS. 57
rupt heart may be extinguished, or virtually
extinguished, by being for ever renounced.
Will it be deemed fanciful to recur, in illustra-
tion of this truth, to the notion of a Resurrection
Process which we have been already led to form ?
The seed and the insect, while they retain their
identity, yet deposit certain particles in the course
of their development. May we not say, that simi-
larly Human Nature, in the course of its moral
transformation, deposits, not indeed any consti-
tuent element which enters into its composition,
but certain grosser inclinations and propensities
attaching incidentally to its corrupt state ?
(3.) But, thirdly, Resurrection was shown to
be a process of an entirely different character
from Resuscitation, or the revival of the old
animal body. And the Moral Resurrection, in
like manner, is not, for obvious reasons, a mere
restoration of man’s moral nature to the state of
primal and Paradisaical innocence. The right-
eousness of the Christian is not to be confounded
with the righteousness of Adam as he came out
of the hands of his Creator. Although consis-
tent, in our present state, with the workings of
inbred depravity, the Christian’s righteousness is
of a higher and more exalted character than that
of our first parents could by possibility have been.
In proof of this assertion, we need only adduce
E58
THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN,
the fact, that moral sense, or a power of discri-
minating between good and evil, came in with
the Fall. The moral state of man previously to
that fatal act of disobedience, was that of beings,
endowed indeed with reason and intelligence,
but having no power in themselves of determin-
ing right from wrong, and so being wholly de-
pendent upon the revealed will of God for infor-
mation on this particular. They were innocents
in the strictest sense of the word, having no
faculties for the cognizance of moral evil, and pos-
sessed of no rule of life beyond the arbitrary precept
enjoining abstinence from a certain fruit,—a pre-
cept in which they acquiesced as issued by One
of whose goodness they had abundant proofs,
but the grounds of which they could not under-
stand. Their descendants are in a wholly differ-
ent condition. Contemporaneously with the in-
telligence, dawns the moral sense in the child’s
bosom, an instinct which initiates him speedily
into the knowledge and understanding of moral
evil. Now, to triumph over evil with a know-
ledge and apprehension of its nature, this is a
righteousness of a higher stamp than simply to
ignore evil. And this is the glorious result which
the Spirit of God achieves in the renewal of the
heart. He fastens upon a subject—full, and fully
conscious, of evil propensities, and arms him againstTHE SUBJECT OF A RESURRECTION PROCESS. 59
himself. He stirs up his will vigorously to re-
sist evil, to strive daily after a closer conformity
to that Law, conformity to which is, in the nature
of things, essential to the happiness of rational
beings. Influenced in the earlier stages of this
course of obedience by motives of a lower and
more selfish cast, the man is gradually led on to
love his Creator from an apprehension of the in-
trinsic beauty of the divine character as exhi-
bited in Christ,—the crowning attainment this
of Christian holiness. It is evident that obe-
dience of this exalted description, obedience
springing from an intelligent apprehension of
God’s moral attributes, could only be yielded by
a creature possessed of moral sense. An adoring
contemplation of Divine holiness could not
find place except in a heart endowed with the
faculty -of discriminating and approving what is
intrinsically good. These remarks, if duly
weighed, lead inevitably to the conclusion that
the Resurrection of man from the death of
trespasses and sins involves his elevation to
a higher moral state than that which he occupied
before the Fall, and so is not to be conceived of
as a mere restoration to the Paradisaical condi-
tion of innocence. God designs in the Gospel
not merely to repair the wreck of the Fall, but
even through that most perilous knowledge which
e 260
THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN,
the Fall entailed to bring the vessels of his mercy
to a more exalted position.
II. Having thus guarded against misconcep-
tions of its nature which might arise, we shall in
the next place endeavour to obtain some definite
notions of the process which the inspired writers
describe as the Resurrection of the Soul from
the death of trespasses and sins. In our last
Lecture we were led to conceive of Resurrec-
tion as a process analogous to that of Natural
Birth. And viewed under this aspect, Resurrec-
tion may be said to involve, first, a change of
sphere of the subject undergoing it; secondly, an
adaptation of the subject to the new sphere. We
will consider the spiritual or moral Resurrection
under these two heads.
(1.) In the process of Spiritual Resurrection,
then, the soul is born into a new world, placed in
a scene where new objects surround it, and where
agencies different from those with which it has
hitherto been conversant are carried on.
This change of sphere, undergone by the re-
generated man, is repeatedly alluded to by St.
Paul in terms, the strength of which is apt to
startle the reader at first, and for the explana-
tion of which we too often have recourse to the
hyperbolical figures characteristic of oriental
style, forgetful that the language expressesTHE SUBJECT OF A BESURRECTION PROCESS. 61
true and deep realities, although (as all language
must) it borrows terms from things sensible for
the conveyance of spiritual notions. Thus, for
instance, it is said of the Christian’s present
spiritual state, “ our conversation is in heaven.”1
The word rendered conversation, is literally citi-
zenship (vroXlreviia), and carries our thoughts to
that freedom of the great Imperial City which in
the time of the Empire consisted chiefly in the
right of commerce (jus commercii), and which
(though at that period its substantial va’ue had
greatly diminished), the chief captain in the Acts
of the Apostles esteemed so highly, on account of
the dignity which it conferred, that he purchased
it “ with a great sum.”m The soul of the Christian o
passes in the ordinance of Baptism out of the -
sphere of earth into that of heaven : it is brought
into relation with the authorities and subjects of
the heavenly kingdom, enfranchised with the free-
dom of Jerusalem which is above, and licensed
to hold high communion with her inhabitants.
A corresponding change of affection, (such
is the implication of the Apostle in the passage
before us,) should pass over the soul: now a
denizen of the heavenly City, it should no longer
identify itself with those who mind earthly things
(ja iiriyeia $povovvres)—it should forsake the sordid
1 Phil. iii. 20.	m Acts xxii, 28.62
THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN,
interests, base affections and grovelling thoughts
of the lower, and attach itself with all its energies
to the higher sphere. Let us review some other
passages in which this great revolution of the man’s
spiritual standing is asseverated with equal force
of language. The immediate context of the
passage on which this discourse is founded
furnishes one—“ God hath quickened us together
“ with Christ; and hath raised us up together, and
“ made us to sit together in heavenly places in
“ Christ.”0 This, as it is cannot be interpreted of
a bodily, must of course be understood of a
spiritual ascension, which, through the operation
of divine grace, the Ephesians had undergone, a
transition into the heavenly kingdom effected by
ordinance,-—and which is described in another
form in the subsequent verses as a bringing nigh
of aliens to the commonwealth of Israel, and an
entitling of strangers to the covenants of promise.0
Yet, emphatically as this change of relationship
is asserted to have passed upon them, it would
not in the case of the Ephesians (any more than
in that of the Colossians) have precluded the ne-
cessity of an exhortation, based upon the ground
of the change, “ to set their affections on things
“ above, not on things on the earth.” p
But perhaps this translation of the soul into, a
” Eph. ii 4, 5,.6.	0 Eph. ii. 12,13. p Col. iii.2.THE SUBJECT OF A RESURRECTION PROCESS. 63
higher sphere is most emphatically described in
that passage of the Epistle to the Hebrews, “Ye
“are come” (not ye are destined to come) “unto
“ Mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God,
“the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable
“ company of angels, to the general assembly and
“ church of the first born, which are written in hea-
“ ven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits
“of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the
“mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood
“ of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than
“that of Abel.” These passages, and others to the
same purpose, which I forbear to quote, all indi-
cate that the spiritual Resurrection which consti-
tutes the grace of Baptism involves a bringing
nigh to the spiritual world of the soul undergoing
it. A bringing nigh in respect of outward re-
lationship,—the soul being now adopted into
God’s family, placed in a state of Christian
privilege, and surrounded with the circum-
stantials of true religion. And well may this
process of transition, in virtue of which the re-
generated soul breathes a new element and is
placed in a sphere of new agencies, be termed,
(as it is termed by our Lord when commissioning
the Apostle to the Gentiles,) a conversion or “turn-
ing from darkness to light.” q Man, considered
» Acts xxvi. 18.64
THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN,
as in a state of nature, as a stem out of the
root of the first Adam, lies in darkness, whether
by that term be understood ignorance or misery. A
state of heathenism (and in that state the entire
offspring of Adam is engendered) is a state in
which the materials of knowledge and the ma-
terials of happiness are wanting. But let us be
grafted into the mystical Vine, let us be enfran-
chised with the freedom of the heavenly City,
let us be enrolled in the general assembly and
church of the first born whose names are written
in heaven, and that knowledge of God and of his
Son Jesus Christ, which is life eternal, at once
streams around us in copious floods. We have
access (as a matter of right) to the sacred Scrip-
tures, are entitled to receive pastoral instruction,
and may claim by the prayer of faith that
unction from the Holy One which guideth into
all truth. But more than this. We are made
free to approach the throne of grace and to hold
the communion of children with Him who
sitteth thereupon; an intercourse this which to
those who have made trial of it is the secret
source of happiness and strength-—an happiness
which as much transcends the fleeting joys which
the world has to offer as the genial and trans-
parent sunlight exceeds the sparks of man’s
kindling. And so far as this change of sphereTHE SUBJECT OF A RESURRECTION PROCESS. 65
is concerned, may we not safely and scripturally
assert that it is universally effected through the
sacrament of our regeneration ? Baptism “ turns
“ from darkness to light.”1 Baptism “ translates
“into the kingdom of God’s dear Son.”8 But there
are other and more subjective changes (popularly
though perhaps erroneously included in the term
regeneration*) which common experience forbids
us to attach universally to the Sacrament. It
does not in all cases “ open the blind eyes.” u It
does not in all cases make its subjects “meet to
“be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in
“light.”*
(2.) The spiritual Resurrection, however, must
be considered as comprising not only the tran-
sition of the soul out of the darkness of nature
into the sunlight of grace, but also its adaptation
to that higher sphere. And we shall notice three
points of this adaptation.
(a.) The perceptions of the soul are adapted
to the new sphere.
r Acts xxvi. 18.	1 Col. i. 13.
t It is of course not denied that there is a most important sense
of the word regeneration in which “ whosoever is horn of God doth
not commit sin.” But it may he greatly doubted whether the
Church in attributing (as she undoubtedly does) Regeneration to
Baptism, employs the word in this sense. The strictly moral Re-
generation, in the case of a convert from heathenism, must pre-
cede and therefore cannot he effected by Baptism. See some
fuller remarks on the subject in Appendix to Lecture II. Note B.
" Acts xxvi. 18.	* Col. i. 12.66
THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN,
The first step in the strictly moral process is the
opening of the eye of the heretofore benighted un-
derstanding. The light which then breaks in upon
the apprehension, discloses first those truths
which touch the sinner most nearly and affect
most closely his personal wellbeing. He discerns
the evil and danger of sin. He is brought (per-
haps after many a painful struggle) to acknow-
ledge the impossibility of extricating himself by
his own efforts from its guilt and power. At
length he discovers the remedy proposed in the
gospel,—the cleansing efficacy which resides in
the blood of Christ, and in that river of the water
of life which is proffered freely to every one that
thirsteth. His perception of divine truth is a
shining light which shineth more and more unto
the perfect day : his eye which first turns inward
to the malady is afterwards directed externally to
the antidote.
The understanding having been once opened
by divine grace, all spiritual truth,—even that
which is not connected with our personal well-
being and selfish interests,—begins to dawn upon
it. New perceptions crowd in upon the eye of
the soul from every quarter. The wisdom of the
scheme of Redemption is instinctively appre-
hended. The beauty of the divine character, as
manifested in that scheme, is intuitively discerned.THE SUBJECT OE A RESURRECTION PROCESS. 6T
The mist which had enveloped certain of the
dealings of God>. as represented in Scripture or
coming home to us in our personal experience,
although it be not wholly removed, yet becomes
partially transparent. However little education
the mind may have previously received, the
rudimentary religious ideas, which require some-
thing more than mere outward statement or
explanation for their conveyance, are at once ap-
prehended by a spiritual intuition. Hence it
comes to pass that the spiritual man—he whose
mental eye has been thus opened—can be ap-
pealed to on grounds which others cannot even
comprehend. He has an insight into the verities
of the gospel, which is the result of an inward
revelation, not of any cumbrous process of study
or any laborious system of religious training.
“ He that is spiritual discerneth (dva/cpivei) all
“■ things. But the natural man receiveth not the
" things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolish-
“ ness unto him : neither can he know them, be-
“ cause they are spiritually discerned.”y
To this opening of the understanding we are
inclined to assign the first place among the
strictly moral processes which constitute the
spiritual Resurrection. Scripture leads us to
such an arrangement of those processes. The
J 1 Cor. ii. 14,15.68
THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN,
successive stages of the work of grace, as it takes
effect upon man, are thus enumerated by the
apostle. “ Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of
“ God is made unto us wisdom, and righteous-
“ ness, and sanctification, and redemption.”15 Wis-
dom stands first: the soul’s endowment with wis-
dom is only another term for that opening of the
understanding whereby it is enabled to discern
the evil and danger of sin, and its own deep in-
fection with the plague-spot of guilt. The need
of an external imputed righteousness being felt,
that righteousness, provided in and through
Christ, is next embraced. Thenceforth progres-
sive sanctification begins to operate, and gradually
moulds the soul into conformity with the Saviour’s
image. The consummation of the entire work is
redemption—not in the sense of forgiveness of
sins, a blessing applied at present to the Chris-
tian’s soul, and of which he is or ought to be
even now in full enjoyment,—but that redemp-
tion, in anticipation of whose arrival he is looking
up and lifting up his head—“ the adoption, to wit
the redemption of his body.”3
(13.) We have noticed an adaptation of the
Christian’s mind to the new sphere,—an opening
of the eye to discern the light of the kingdom
into which the soul has been translated. We
z 1 Cor. i. 30.
* Rom. viii. 23.THE SUBJECT OF A RESURRECTION PROCESS. 69
are now to notice an adaptation in point of
affection. Having by a lively faith embraced that
all-sufficient Atonement whose efficacy is set forth
in the gospel, the soul consciously passes out
from under the chill thundercloud of divine dis-
pleasure which overhung and enwrapt it in gloom
into the sunshine of the divine favour, wherein,
according to the Psalmist’s testimony, is life.
Under the genial influence of this sunshine, the
heart opens towards a God in Christ, now for the
first time manifested to its apprehensions, and
goes forth to Him in the aspirations of gratitude
and love. The maintenance and prosecution of
this intercourse it discovers to be its true and
satisfying good, the happiness appropriate to the
nature of a rational and intelligent being. Thence-
forth the Christian yearns for this intercourse with
an instinct analogous in the spiritual world to the
craving of the infant in the natural world after
its appropriate nourishment. He diligently ap-
plies to all those channels through which com-
munion between God and the soul is maintained.
As a new-born babe, he desires the sincere milk of
the Word, that he may grow thereby—that Word
out of whose pages God communes with him, and
issues to him living oracles for his guidance, warn-
ing, consolation, and encouragement. He loves to
pour out his heart in the prayer of faith and de-'70
THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN,
pendence before Him who seeth in secret; for
he has found relief from the burden of all anxie-
ties in complying with that inspired counsel—
“ Be careful for nothing ; but in everything by
“prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let
“your requests be made known unto God.”b He
sorrows, as one who endures grievous forfeiture,
should any dispensation of Divine Providence
exclude him from those solemn Assemblies in
which the Lord has covenanted to meet the two
or three who are gathered together in His name/
And, finally, his spirit hungers for that sacred
Banquet, whose special characteristic, as distinct
from the lower means of grace, is that of mutual
intercommunion, and in which, when duly and
faithfully partaken of, is to be found the richest
foretaste of heavenly joys with which man, in
his present condition of existence, can be fa-
voured.
But just as the rays of a luminous body, in
approaching the centre whence they emanate,
converge also towards each other, so communion
of the saints with God necessarily involves their
communion with one another. Between those
who are under the influence of the Spirit of adop-
tion, who call one God Father, who acknowledge
one Lord as the author of their salvation, the
b -Phil. iv. 6.	c Matt, xviii. 20.THE SUBJECT OF A RESURRECTION PROCESS. 71
ruler of their lives, and the arbiter of their destiny,
there cannot but be outgoings of sympathy and
mutual returns of affection manifesting itself in
the word of encouragement, in the charity of
intercession, or in the more direct aids of bene-
volence. The soul is brought nigh in affection,
as well as in outward relationship, to the deni-
zens of heaven. It is knit together with them in
bonds that transcend and shall outlive the ties of
nature and of blood. For it has realised its
membership in that family whereof the Lord
Jesus Christ is the Head, and an innumerable
company of angels, and the spirits of just men
made perfect, no less than the general assembly
and church of the first-born, are constituent
members. And the realisation of this member-
ship involves a recognition of others as joint mem-
bers with ourselves, a community of hopes and
interests, a sympathy with them in joy and
trouble.
(y-) The last point in the adaptation of the soul
to its new sphere, upon which I shall observe,
is the development of several of its faculties,
which if not entirely dormant before, yet mani-
fested but few and feeble actings.
This development is best seen in those whose
intellectual powers, previously to their reception
of religion, have not been sharpened by educa-72
THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN,
tion or exercised by any mental discipline. The
observation has been often made by those con-
versant with the lower classes, that a general
elevation of intellect, extending to subjects not
connected with religion, is uniformly consequent
on a sincere turning of the heart to God. In
grappling with the high verities of the Gospel
the mind seems to have acquired a strength and
vigour which has rendered it more competent
to its ordinary exercises. Nor does this remark
apply only to the intellectual faculties. A power
of sympathy oftentimes insinuates itself into the
heart together with the Gospel. The churl be-
comes bountiful; he who was wrapped up in
selfish interests, or whose care for his fellow men
was at best bounded by the very narrowest ho-
rizon, now is drawn by a marvellous attraction
to look on the things of others no less than on
his own, and goes forth in the yearnings of com-
passion and benevolence even towards those whose
face in the flesh he has never seen. And so in
regard of will. The man whose life was charac-
terised previously by inconsistency with itself,
instability of purpose, and vacillation of effort,
seems to acquire, together with repentance and
faith, an unity of aim, and a definite central
object which harmonises his exertions. He may
now be said to live, whereas before he floatedTHE SUBJECT OF A RESURRECTION FROCESS. 73
like a waif whithersoever the current of life
carried him.
These various developments of the moral and
intellectual faculties are not less real, although
less perceptible, in the higher classes of society.
With them an artificial gloss, the result of re-
finement and education, screens from our eyes
the true nature, and hides those workings of the
heart which come out in rude and sharp forms
where life is more real. Mental discipline has
given a certain appearance of culture to the
mind. Selfishness is varnished over by courtesy,
or does not find so many occasions which call it
forth in its grosser forms. The evil of instability
of purpose is less remarked upon, and seems less
open to animadversion, when the energies are
dissipated not upon pursuits directly vicious, but
upon a round of easy accomplishments or fri-
volous diversions. Yet is there no less in the
rich than in the poor, while unvisited with
the influences of religion, much of undeveloped
power of mind, much narrowness of sympathy,
much lack of serious purpose and definite aim.
And when visited by those influences the rich
no less than the poor undergo in all these re-
spects an elevation of nature. Nor is this a
phenomenon difficult to account for. Religion
presents to our intellect the highest objects of
F74
THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN,
contemplation, to our affections the highest
objects of sympathy, to our will the highest
objects of choice. To these, and not to any
lower objects, the faculties of man were ori-
ginally designed to correspond. They are ob-
jects which call out all the powers of heart,
mind, and will, into healthy exercise. What
wonder if such exercise improves their vigour,
even as by attempting the higher feats of gym-
nastic skill the sinews of the expert athlete are
strung up to a hardihood and made competent
to an exertion which, had he confined himself to
low and easy manoeuvres, he would never have
attained ?
Having thus derived from the consideration of
the analogous process several hints which may
stand us in good stead in the prosecution of our
more immediate topic, we shall hope to enter at
our next Lecture on the subject of the Body,
with the view of defining the term, when Resur-
rection is predicated of it, and clearing it from
such misapprehensions as in the minds of many
attach to it.
And now, what remains but that we should
ask ourselves what evidences our hearts present
of having undergone the more strictly moral
part of the process which has been discussed in
this Lecture? That we have, in an importantTHE SUBJECT OF A RESURRECTION PROCESS. ^5
sense, been brought out of darkness into God’s
marvellous light, there can be no question.
The sacrament of baptism has effected thus
much for us. But personal adaptation of the
intellectual and moral faculties to the new sphere
of God’s kingdom in which baptism has placed
us, the opening of the eyes of the understanding
to discern the evil of sin and its remedy, the
dawning within us of new sympathies, and the
opening of the affections towards high and holy
objects, these are processes of which it is but
too possible that no traces may at present be
found in our religious experience. And be it
remembered that the adaptations of the moral
nature to the Kingdom of Grace constitute a
meetness for the Kingdom of Glory. This latter
kingdom is to be conceived of not so much as a
distinct oeconomy, but rather as a development
and consummation of the former. Grace and
glory are the same element—differenced only
by the hanging of mists and fogs about the
former, which the latter shall dissipate. There
cannot be the slightest ground of hope that the
moral constitution which is uncongenial to the
one will be adapted to the other, or that the
soul from which the harmonies of God’s king-
dom upon earth have not wakened up the chord
of sympathy, will respond to the harmonies of
£ 276
THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN, &c.
his heavenly kingdom, although those harmonies
are marred by no discord, and echoed from the
golden harps of adoring Seraphim.LECTURE III.
THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY.
1 Cor. vi. 13,14.
Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall
destroy both it and them. Now the body is...for
the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God hath
both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by
his own power.
The first step towards the understanding of any
proposition is a correct apprehension of the terms
in which it is couched.
In order to yield an intelligent assent to the
proposition which it is the business of these Lec-
tures to establish and vindicate (namely, that
the Body shall be raised) ; it is necessary in the
first instance to define what is meant by the Body,
and what by the term Resurrection. Our first
Lecture was devoted to the elucidation of the last
mentioned point. In it we attempted to evolve,
from various expressions employed by the In-7 8 THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY.
spired Writers, the true nature of the process de-
nominated Resurrection. We saw that it is every-
where spoken of as a birth process, as the develop-
ment into a new element, the bringing out into
a new condition of existence, of a substance al-
ready formed. We then spoke of the moral na-
ture of man as being the subject of a spiritual
Resurrection—an internal process, which is or
ought to be matter of experiment with all of us,
and from the study of which therefore we might
reasonably hope to gain some useful hints as to
that material and bodily Resurrection, of which
only one instance has been as yet presented to.
the world.
We now turn to consider the Body of man as
destined to be the subject of Resurrection. And
here again the first task which devolves upon us
is the explanation of terms. When it is affirmed
on the authority of Scripture as an article of Faith
that the Body shall be raised, what is meant by
the term Body ? May the Lord the Spirit, in the
prosecution of this and every other inquiry into
his Holy Word, guide our hearts into all truth.
I. (i.) Before we consider what fight our text
may throw upon the subject of whose solution we
are in search, let us revert to the Mosaic account
of the constitution of Human Nature, as given us
in the Book of Genesis : “ The Lord God formedTHE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY 79
" man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into
" his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a
" living soul.’,a Such were the successive stages of
the constitution of that complex creature, man—
inorganic matter,—an organized body,—an ani-
mated body. Inorganic matter, the dust or (as
it might be rather rendered) the clay of the
ground, supplied the basis, the elementary ground-
work or substratum of the entire fabric. This
rudimentary matter was in the first instance or-
ganised by an act of creative energy. The taber-
nacle being thus prepared for their reception, the
spiritual and sentient principles next took posses-
sion of it. f‘ The Lord God breathed into the
"nostrils” of the organised structure "the breath of
“ life (or lives).” The breath of fives includes both
the soul and spirit, which St. Paul reckons in the
Thessaloniansb as constituent elements of human
nature, the soul comprising both the affections
and also the principle of animal fife,—the spirit
being the reason, or faculty which differences
man from the inferior creation.0 The addition of
this latter principle was probably the crowning
act of the Creator,—the fabric proceeding ever
from the ruder and less perfect, to the loftier and
more perfect—from inorganic to organic, from
a Gen. ii. 7.	b 1 Thes. v. 23.
c See Appendix to Lecture III. Note A.80 THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY.
organic to animated, from animated to rational;
The fact that dust (or clay) supplied the rudi-
mentary basis of the entire constitution, is express-
ed with an almost philosophical accuracy in the
Book of Job, where men are termed "they that
"dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation.is in
“ the dustd and again alluded to in figurative lan-
guage by Isaiah: "O Lord, thou art our Father;
“we are the clay, and thou art the potter.”8
The particular organization developed out of
the dust was one adapted to the purposes of the
animal oeconomy. The natural life of our first
parents was apparently supported in the same,
manner as that of their descendants,—by suste-
nance and respiration. Their appointed food was
the fruit of the trees of the garden,—with one
only restriction, enjoined upon them for the pur-
pose of their probation ; and it is clearly intimated,
in the account of Adam’s creation, that he (like,
ourselves) drew the breath of life.
Now, unquestionably God might have developed
the same material basis, had it so pleased Him,
into another species of oeconomy. The clay was
in his hand to mould it into whatsoever vessel,
seemed good to him. Out of the same rudimen-
tary substance he might have constituted a crea-
ture subsisting after other laws, and adapted to
d Job iv. 19.	e Isaiah Ixiv. 8.THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY.
812
another condition of existence. The particular
organization was accidental,—the organised sub- ^
stance was the essential groundwork of the struc-
ture.
Now, it is the essential basis, not the present
organization of the human Body, of which the
Scriptures affirm that it shall be raised again
in incorruption. That we cannot with our present
limited powers seize this essential basis, that its:
constituent particles escape the apprehension of
our most subtle senses when the Body is resolved
into its component elements,—and that we are
unable, even while the Body is alive, to penetrate
beneath its superficial phsenomena to these con-
stituent particles,—is no argument whatever
against their existence. In truth we know
nothing of the real essence of any substance with
which we come in contact. Classification being1
the work of the human mind, we can specify
the essentials and accidentals of a class,—this
being in short only a statement of what is neces-
sary to justify us in assigning to certain individuals
a generic name. But the individual things which
we classify are God’s creation, and He only wha
formed them knows what is their true constitu-
tive essence. His eye and His alone can pene-
trate beneath the phaenomena of continual flux,,
which all matter exhibits on its surface, to the82 THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY.
real basis of the various substances of the material
world. When to the eyes of man every component
particle which once entered into the constitution
of a substance is dissipated far and wide, there
may still remain of it in His eyes something which
was the very germ of its existence, and which in-
volves its future organization.
Now, if the essential basis of a substance be pre-
served when it is brought out under a new form,
that is sufficient to warrant us in calling it the
same, however great the change which its form
may have undergone. The organised structure
of Adam’s body was in a true and proper sense
the same with the inorganic dust out of which
by creative energy it was formed. The inorganic
was the rudiment or germ from which the organic
was developed. And if the curiously wrought
vessel constructed of potter’s clay were marred
after its formation and shivered to a thousand
atoms,—and if its fragments (involving the rudi-
mentary matter) were a second time employed
in the construction of a larger and more beautiful
vessel as it seemed good to the potter to make it,
—this new structure might be indeed in one
sense another vessel—a variation upon the old
in the circumstantials of size and form—while
yet as regarded its essential basis it would be
strictly one and the same.THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY. 83
If it be asked, then, how we define the term
Body, when we predicate of it Resurrection, the
answer is that the Body which shall be raised is
some elementary material basis, not apprehensible
by our present faculties, which lies at the root of
those superficial phenomena exhibited by all
matter, and by the human Body, which is matter
organized in a particular form.
(ii.) Let us proceed now to the establishment
of this view from a careful consideration of the
passage selected as our text, which, although
it has been often overlooked by the assailants of
the Doctrine, has the closest hearing on the Resur-
rection of the Body.
(«.) Our first observation on the passage is
that it implies, on the surface, a clear distinction
between the Body itself and such organs of the
Body as subserve the purpose of the animal
ceconomy. This implication is connected with
the main stream of the argument in the following
manner. Scruples had arisen in the minds of
many Christians which restrained them from par-
taking of meats offered in sacrifice to idols. In
a subsequent chapter of this, as also in the Epistle
to the Romans, the Apostle developes the duty
of charitable forbearance towards weak brethren
entertaining such scruples. The scruples them-
selves, however, he admits to have no foundation84 THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY'.
whatever in reason : the partaking of the meats
in question he acknowledges to be a matter of
entire indifference—for “ an idol is nothing in
“ the world/’f and Paul “ knew and was persuaded
“that there is nothing unclean of itself.”8 Now, in
making these broad and plain statements respect-
ing the indifference of participation in certain
meats, it was but too likely that those whom he
was addressing might argue from the indulgence
of bodily appetite in one form to its indulgence
in another. From an allowance of meats (as in
themselves good and pure,—the creatures of
God, and nothing to be refused if received with
thanksgiving,) they might erroneously infer an
allowance of sinful practices which resembled
participation of meats, in having the common
feature of sensual indulgence. In the passage
before us the Apostle points out the wide
difference existing between the two cases.
“ Meats for the belly and the belly for meats:
“ but God shall destroy both it and them.” Food,
and the organ adapted to its reception and diges-
tion, will pass away. These arrangements of the
animal (economy are only for a temporary end>
and will endure no longer than that condition of
existence to which they are adapted. But the
Body which, by the practices in question, is
s Rom. xiv. 14*
1 Cor. viii. 4.THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY. 85
alienated from its true purpose and brought into
relation with another than its proper Lord,
will endure for ever under a new and imperish-
able form. It is destined to be raised in incor-
ruption, and is to be regarded therefore with the
honour due to an essential constituent of our
nature, of which we cannot by any change of
condition rid ourselves.
(5.) We have thought it necessary to exhibit
thus much Of the argument, by way of showing
how essential it is to its cogency to draw a dis-
tinction between the Body, and the animal cecono-
my to whose purposes the Body’s present or-
ganization is adapted. The Apostle indeed only
specifies one organ of that oeconomy. But surely
it is no unwarrantable inference to suppose that
his words extend to the whole system of which
that one organ forms a part,—to gather from
them, that the entire mechanism whereby ani-
mal fife is maintained and continued, subserves
only a temporary purpose, and will one day be
swept away as a mere accident only attaching to
humanity under its present circumstances. God
shall destroy {narap^aei) the animal oeconomy,—
shall abrogate it, as a thing of no avail under that
higher condition to which we are hastening. It
will be laid aside, as the attire of childhood is laid
aside when a state is reached to which it is no86 THE NATURE'AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY.
longer accommodated. But the Body in its
essential rudiment, will survive the wreck of its
accidental organization. Divested of its present
ceconomy it will live for ever under other laws.
Here then is implied (and what power is there in
the argument if the implication be denied ?) the
doctrine contended for of an essential rudimentary
basis underlying the superficial phenomena of
the human Body.
(c.) If it be asked whether this basis is ma-
terial, we answer unhesitatingly that unless it
were so it could not be with the slightest propri-
ety termed “ the Body.” Define as you will the
conditions of corporeity,11 we are not at liberty, if
language is to retain any meaning, to understand
by the term an immaterial principle of life,
having no relation to time or space. The basis
in question may be one of the subtler forms of
matter; one so subtle as to elude the apprehen-
sion of our present senses : and yet may be as
far removed as possible from sheer spirit or an
immaterial existence. We find from the inspired
narrative that matter was a primary ingredient in
the original constitution of man, the very base-
work of the entire structure. To disengage him
altogether from matter (a consummation regarded
as so desirable by many heathen philosophers
h See Appendix to Lecture III. Note B.THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY. 87
and by certain Christian sects1 who imbibed the
principles of heathen philosophy) would be to
constitute a new creature instead of redeeming
from the ruin of the fall a creature already
formed. Such a disenthralment, if it could be
effected, would rather be an evasion of death than
a triumph over it. It would be an abandonment
in despair of the once beautiful vessel, as irre-
mediably marred and shivered by the power
of the Enemy. Whereas God designs to build
up again its fragments in a new and more beauti-
ful form—a form more meet for the sacred
deposit of the spirit which is enshrined therein.
(iii.) We must now fortify our conclusion on
the nature of the Body by a reference to that
noble chapter of the Epistle before us, which
more fully than any other part of sacred Scrip-
ture developes the doctrine which is the subject of
these Discourses. We are there taught to con-
ceive of the connexion between the risen and
the natural body,j as analogous to that which
subsists between the flower and the seed out of
which it is developed. If then we would under-
stand the natural body, let us study that which
is proposed to us as the image of it,—the seed
which is committed to the bosom of the earth, as
i See Appendix to Lecture III. Note C.
i 1 Cor. xv. 37, 38.88 THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY.
the appointed sphere of its residence, until it
undergoes the process of germination. It is not
every part of a seed which is essential to its vi-
tality. Every seed contains a germ, involving
the organization of the future plant. But this
germ is not bare. It is for the present enwrapped
in an accretion of certain particles, which at the
period of development will fall off and disengage
the germ. These particles constitute the present
organization of the seed. The mechanism of
the flower constitutes its future organization. The
seed which is to be raised is the germ, seated
within, and indicating its presence only through
a plain and humble crust of outward accretions.
These accretions God will destroy. They will
fall away in the subterraneous process of de-
composition, which represents the death of the
seed, and which is essential to its germination in a
higher form.
Now, to apply this to the elucidation of the
subject before us. “ Flesh and blood,” says the
Apostle, in language too explicit to be evaded,
“cannot inherit the kingdom of God.”k And no
less explicitly speaks he in our text of natural
sustenance, and the organ adapted to its recep-
tion—“ God shall destroy both it and them.”
But flesh and blood is not the Body: it is only
k 1 Cor. xv. 60.THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY, 89
the present constitution of the Body, the organiza-
tion attaching to it under existing circumstances.
And so while the gross accretions of flesh and
blood must fall away at our entrance into the
kingdom of life and light, the Body shall endure
under another ceconomy, of which all that we
know is summed up in that one short word
“ spiritual.”
II. We have thus found the solution to the
question raised at the outset of the Discourse,
“ What is the Body of which Resurrection is pre-
dicated in the Article of Faith now under discus-
sion?” Both terms therefore of the Proposition
that the body shall be raised have now been ex-
plained, and (it is hoped) vindicated from misap-
prehension. It remains to shew that the Word
of God, our only guide in a matter so infinitely
transcending human reason, does connect these
two terms, does predicate Resurrection of the
Body, if not in so many words, yet by the
clearest and most explicit intimations.
The adduction of evidence on this subject will
be the business of another Lecture. Let us for
the present follow the train of thought suggested
by the text, and briefly consider the honour and
dignity assigned to the Body in the Scrip-
tures of the New Testament. If we should find
that when the Sacred Writers make mention dis-
G90 THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY.
tinctively of the Body (as independent of its
present animal organization), they speak in terms
of almost awful respect; this, although it will
not conclusively establish the Body’s Resurrection,
yet will establish no slight presumption in favour
of the doctrine, and induce us the more readily
to acquiesce in it, should it be found explicitly
stated in other parts of Scripture.
The dignity of the human Body, then, consists
in the functions which it is destined to fulfil in
the ceconomy of grace, and in the relation in
which it stands to the Lord Jesus Christ.
In the former part of the passage selected as
our text the apostle had been speaking of the
adaptation which subsists between the nourish-
ment suitable for man, and the organ appro-
priated for the reception and digestion of that
nourishment. In what follows he points out an-
other and a higher adaptation, which may well
elevate our conceptions of the Body, and give us
sublime notions of its dignity and importance.
(1.) “Now the Body is for the Lord.” Let us
seek to develop the full significance of these
words. They set the Christian’s Body before us
as an instrument or organ adapted to act out the
will, to carry into execution the designs, of his
Divine Master.
(®.) Man’s Body is evidently the instrument ofTHE NATURE AND DIGNITY OP THE BODY. 91
his spirit. A corporeal structure is the means
whereby mind acts upon matter., and originates
motion. And there is every reason to suppose
that the Body is essential to the influence of
mind over matter, that independently of the Body
no such influence could be exerted. Our notion
of the disembodied state is that while the spirit
retains its powers of consciousness and reflection,
and is accordingly susceptible of the pleasure or
pain derivable from these sources, it is in a state
of isolation as regards the world of matter, and
has lost the power both of receiving impressions
from, and of communicating them to that world.1
But let the spirit of man be embodied, and it
then gains a medium by which it is enabled to
effectuate its desires, and to express to others the
volitions or acts of moral choice which it has
formed. This is the doctrine no less of Scrip-
ture than of philosophy, which describes the
awful corruption of human nature, the depraved
volition of the natural man, as exhibiting itself
and finding a vent for its expression through
the various organs of the Body. “ Their throat
“is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they
“ have used deceit; the poison of asps is under
“ their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and
“bitterness : their feet are swift to shed blood:
1 See Appendix to Lecture IIL Note D.
Cr 292 the nature and dignity of the body.
“ destruction and misery are in their ways : and
“the way of peace have they not known: there is
" no fear of God before their eye9.” m It is worthy
of remark that in this picture, drawn originally
by the Psalmist, and presented to us a second
time by the Apostle, the evil of our nature is
regarded not in its essence, as it is concentrated
in the secret chambers of the heart, but in its
development and practical workings. Our moral
faculties being poisoned at the spring, the
venom is represented as transpiring through
all those avenues of communication with the
material world which are opened by the Body.
Thus, then, the Body is the implement which the
mind employs for its operations upon matter.
And it is an implement most appropriate to the
particular services which it is called upon to
fulfil. The exquisite mechanism of the eye, the
ear, the hand, and the foot, has often been made
a subject of study, and the study has opened up
at every step a fresh view of the adaptations sub-
sisting between the instrument and the end in
man’s life which it subserves. It appears that
the instrument was constructed in the foresight
of numberless contrivances which the ingenuity
of the human mind would suggest, and that pro-
visions were made in the structure for the
'» Rom. iii. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY. 93
facilitating of those contrivances. Thus, for
example, there are muscles in the palm of the
hand by which it is enabled to perform its finer
and more delicate motions, muscles which the
acts of writing, spinning, weaving, engraving,
specially call into play, and to which, as being
essential to the rapid motion of the musician’s
fingers over the chords, the name of fidicinales
has been given by the anatomists." We give
this as one out of many instances which might be
adduced of adaptation in the bodily organs to
the foreseen contrivances of the mind, and as
one therefore out of many proofs of our position
that the human body is the appropriately con-
structed instrument of the human spirit, whereby
the latter carries out its volitions and effectuates
its devices in the material world.
The truth then being easily recognised that the
Body is for the Mind, there is but one step from
hence to the statement of our text, that it is for
the Lord. The will of the true disciple moves in
accordance with the will of his divine Master. Its
determinations are decided not by considerations
of temporal convenience, but by desire to benefit
others, to save souls, to advance Christ’s king-
dom, to finish the work which God has given
n Bell’s Bridgewater Treatise on the Hand, p. 132, 3rd Ed.
See some extracts from it in Appendix to Lecture III. Note E.94 THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY.
Mm to do. And how is this conformity of the
disciple’s will to that of the Master effected and
maintained ? By the indwelling of that Spirit,
who is Christ’s Representative and Vicegerent on
earth, and who has been well termed the soul
of the believer’s soul, because He animates, in-
fluences, moves, and quickens the soul, even as
the soul itself animates, influences, moves, and
quickens the body. The motive powers of
action then, having, in the case of the true
Christian, been seized by Christ’s Spirit, the man
chooses and acts in pursuance not of his own
ends but the ends of his Lord. It is his Lord
(in so far forth as he is a disciple indeed) who
acts in him and through him,—his Lord who, by
secret instigations in the inner chamber of the
heart, originates the volitions which he carries
out, and the movements which he impresses
upon the world around him.
(/3.) Let us consider the matter from another
point of view. Christ has a great work ever
proceeding in the world. A mighty Drama is
evolving, whose closing scene shall bring the
Redeemer on the stage again in the new and
awful character of man’s Judge,—a drama to
give scope for whose evolutions Time exists, and
for which the Earth supplies a theatre. This
Drama is tending towards and destined to issueTHE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY. 95
in the subjugation of all things beneath the feet
of the Mediator; or, in other words, the pre-
valence, by moral force, of good over evil, and
the establishment of a system of things in which
righteousness shall be predominant, and un-
righteousness in its every form shall hide its head.
For the furtherance of this happy consumma-
tion, Christ employs a twofold agency. All holy
desires, all good counsels, and all just works,
originate with the Spirit of God. His, therefore,
is the first and most essential agency employed.
His operations are conducted in secrecy and
silence; their scene is the abysmal depth of the
human will and consciousness ; and so far there-
fore as the Kingdom of Christ is dependent
upon Divine Grace for its advancement, that
Kingdom is said to come **not with observation.”0
Its growth and increase is a matter of personal
experience which does not reveal itself to the
eye of sense.
This agency, as it is the motive-cause of all
good, so it must be acknowledged to be the only
agency which is intrinsically and in the nature
of things essential to the production of the
effect. Christ might dispense, if it so pleased
him, with every other agency. He might, if
such were his will, bless each individual soul in
0 Luke xvli. 20.96 THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY.
isolation from other souls, and independently of
exertions made by others in its behalf. But
such is not his will. It is a great principle of
God’s dealing with his creatures that he employs
man’s instrumentality in blessing man. The re-
lief of the necessities of the poor is not admi-
nistered to them directly from heaven, but
reaches them through the hands of the rich.
Instruction is not supplied to the ignorant by
divine illumination, independently of the com-
munication of knowledge from those who are
wise. The Gospel is announced to each in-
dividual, not by a voice from heaven, but by the
lips of a human ambassador, such a communi-
cation of the good tidings from man to man
coming so directly within the scope of God’s
design that it is said, “ How shall they hear
“ without a preacher ?” p It is, then, by the per-
sonal exertion of Christians that the outward
development of the kingdom of Christ is carried
on,—that the Church lengthens her cords and
strengthens her stakes in the Earth,—even as by
the Spirit’s power it is that men are instigated to.
act in pursuance of these ends.
And on what is personal exertion dependent ?
Clearly upon the Body. The attempt to in-
fluence others, to communicate to others what
? Rom. x. 14..THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY. 97
we ourselves possess, involves the employment
of some bodily organ. To convey impressions
from man to man, without calling the body into
play at some period of the process, were a mani-
fest impossibility. Perhaps the most spiritual
method of conveying such impressions, the me-
thod most removed from matter in its grosser
forms, is by language. But even languageq in-
volves the use of the tongue, and is addressed
to the ear of man; so that unless we will waive
all intercourse with the external world, and
seclude ourselves in the recesses of our own
consciousness, a method of proceeding altogether
contrary to God’s design respecting us, we must
be content to hold communion with the things
and persons around us, through the medium of
those bodily organs which God has expressly
provided for such communion, and has adapted
with an exquisite skill to the purpose.
The Bodies of Christians then are to be re-
garded as implements adapted to the furtherance
of Christ’s work in the world. The implement
is solemnly dedicated to Christ, by the washing
of water; it is made over to his use in the act
of Baptism. The Body which is so dedicated
becomes thenceforth part of a constituted instru-
q See a thought founded upon this fact in Evans’s Ministry of
the Body. Appendix to Lecture III. Note F.98 the nature and dignity of the body.
mentality, which is placed at the disposal of the
great Head of the Church for the effectuating of
his purposes, and the gradual establishment of
his kingdom. Such is the view in which the
Scriptures lead us to regard that corporeal struc-
ture which bears upon it evident marks of adap-
tation to the various uses of human life.
(7.) The carrying out in practice of this view
involves the presentation of the body as a living
sacrifice/ In the passage exhorting us to this
great duty, a comparison is tacitly instituted be-
tween the oblations required under the Gospel,
and those prescribed by the Law. The latter, if
living creatures, were slain previously to their
being laid upon the altar, and the presentation
of them constituted an unreasonable service, un-
reasonable, not intrinsically or in the nature of
things/ but in reference to the manhood which
the world had attained when the fulness of the
time was come for Christ’s appearing. The one
great feature which the legal and evangelical ob-
lations have in common is the devotion of the
sacrifice to God, the making it over to Him as
his exclusive right and property. Whatever was
r Rom. xii. 1.
8 The ceremonial law would he an unreasonable service for
Christians, even as toys would be an unreasonable diversion for
men. But for children, toys are a rational means of entertain-
ment.THE NATURE A4TD DIGNITY OF THE BODY. 99
laid upon the Jewish altar was regarded as as-
signed to Jehovah, and in token of such assign-
ment was consumed by the heaven-born flame.
The Christian’s Body has been in like manner
formally dedicated to the Lord, and is rightfully
his. But it is not to be a dead, mute, motion-
less sacrifice, like those of the old Geconomy.
Its every energy is to be called forth in the
Lord’s serviee> and employed in the great work
of helping forward his kingdom. Its every
organ is to be used as an implement for carrying
out the will of Him who is the Church’s Head,
and so made to contribute to the realisation of
the truth, that Christ liveth in the man, rather
than that the man lives an independent life
of his own. Need we particularise as to the
form of service which each organ is destined to
fulfil?
Out of the abundance of a heart, filled with his
love and fear, the mouth must speak the high
praises of God ;* no more corrupt communication
proceeding out of it but that which is good to
the use of edifying, that it may minister grace to
the hearers.11 The little member which boasteth
great things must be controlled and regulated
by Divine Grace, and be held in readiness to
give an answer to every man, that asketh us a
1 Eph. iv. 29.	« James iii. 5.100 THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY.
“ reason of the hope that is in us, with meekness
“and fear.”v
For the sanctification of the hands the great
canon is this : “ Let him that stole steal no
“ more, but rather let him labour, working with
"his hands the thing which is good, that he
“may have to give to him that needeth.”w
The consecration of the feet to Christ’s service
involves their setting forth on the errands of love
and mercy,—their visiting the fatherless and
widows in their affliction,31 their seeking out the
bedside of the sick and the prison chamber of the
captive.3.
The duty of sanctifying the eyes is implied
in that beautiful petition of the Psalmist, “O
“ turn away mine eyes lest they behold vanity,”z
and more explicitly set forth in that warning of
the wise man, “ Look not thou upon the wine
“ when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the
“ cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it
“ biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.”a
The evil, so congenial to our corrupt nature,
being often suggested to us (as to our first mother)b
through the eyesight, it is part of a holy policy
to close the avenues of this sense against scenes,
v 1 Peter iii. 15.	w Eph. iv. 28.	* James i. 27.
y Mat. xxv. 36.	' Ps. cxix. 37.	a Prov. xxiii. 31, 32.
b Gen. iii. 6.THE NATURE AND DIGNITY 0E THE BODY. ' 101
however fascinating, which have a tendency to
insinuate evil. The positive ends which this
sense of eyesight may be made to subserve, are
the study of God’s written Word, and (that
which is too little thought of as a branch of re-
ligious duty) the adoring contemplation of his
works in nature—ends pointed out to us in that
direction of the Prophet, “ Seek ye out of the Book
“ of the Lord and read<= in that sentiment of the
Psalmist, “ The works of the Lord are great,
" sought out of all them that have pleasure there-
in.”d
Again: the sanctification of the ear is an
element in the oblation of the entire Body. The
positive side of this duty is prescribed in those
words : “ Let every man be swift to hear”e—its
negative side is involved in the teaching of that
passage which records how Herod, when the
shout was in his ear, was smitten by the Angel*
of the Lord/ It consists in the opening of the
ear to salutary counsel, faithful rebuke, and whole-
some instruction, especially when administered
in the name of Christ and by His ambassadors ;
in the shutting it against the dangerous insinua-
tions of flattery, and the seductive voice of those
who would entice to sin.
c Isaiah xxxiv. 16.
* James i. 19.
d Psalm cxi. 2.
‘ Acts xx. 22, 23.102 THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY.
Finally, it should be observed that the pre-
sentation of the body as a living sacrifice embraces,
among other more particular duties, its general
participation with the soul in acts of homage done
to God. It is ever to be remembered that Christ’s
Gospel, although “ a religion to serve God, not
in bondage of the letter or shadow, but in the
freedom of the spirit,” imposes upon its professors
two ceremonies of universal obligation, in both
of which material substances are employed as em-
blems of divine realities, the bodily organs are
necessarily called into action, and the worshipper
is lifted up through the senses to the apprehension
of spiritual truth. What clearer proof can be de-
sired, than that which is afforded by the institu-
tion of the Sacraments, that the perfection of
man’s service to God embraces the homage of
his material as well as of his immaterial part,—that
the body as well, as the soul is interested in re-
demption, and must join therefore in the soul’s
recognition of the blessings which flow from re-
deeming Love ? He who carries out to its legiti-
mate inferences the thought thus arrived at, will
be led to the conclusion that the forms of Chris-
tian worship, though the number and character
of them be left at the discretion of each particu-
lar Church, involve a very profound principle ;
and that the bending of the knee and the bowingTHE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY. 103
of the head, although utterly barren and empty
if not the true expression of the heart’s sentiments,
could not be dispensed with without deviation
from the model of worship proposed to us in the
Gospel, and a mutilation of the perfect ideal of
that service which man is required to render unto
God.
Such, then, we believe to be the view of the
human Body presented to us by the Apostle in
those words of our text, “ The body is for the
Lord.” The animal ceconomy, in order that it
may duly fulfil its functions, demands a continu-
ally recurring supply of nourishment whereby the
energies of the frame may be recruited, and its
power of activity maintained. The ceconomy of
grace in like manner employs, as a subordinate
if not as an essential agency, the instrumentality
of Man’s Body: and the advance of the Redeemer’s
kingdomis made so dependentupon this instrumen-
tality, that where man withholds his exertions God
withholds his blessing ; and as a necessary con-
sequence, the vital energies of the Church lan-
guish. But we have yet to explain the concluding
words of our text.
(2.) As the Body is for the Lord, adapted to
his service and consecrated to his use, so we are
told is “ The Lord for the Body.” The signifi-
cance of this clause is not so apparent on the sur-104 THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY.
face, as that of the preceding. But in what sense,
it may be asked, can such words be understood
which will not assign the highest possible dignity
to that material part of man, which some hold in
such light esteem ? Perhaps it is this very light
esteem—insensibly influencing as it does our en-
tire tone of thought—which prevents our arriving
at the true interpretation of the words with ease
and instinctively. Had the sentiment of the
Apostle been, “ The Lord is for the soul,” we
should readily have apprehended its meaning, and
found its interpretation in the elementary doc-
trines of our Creed. We should have understood
him to say that the Saviour is exactly adapted to
the case of perishing sinners, and that in the
glorious scheme of Redemption abundant pro-
vision is made for the supply of every need which
a lost and ruined soul can discover in itself. And
what hinders then our understanding, from the
words as they actually exist, that the same scheme
of Redemption (carried out by Christ personally
and administered by him representatively) should
also contain a provision for the restoration of the
Body, that in him resides by divine appointment
an healing virtue adapted to remedy the evils
under which the material element of our nature
groans, to counteract those tendencies to decay
and dissolution which were the seeds sown by sinTHE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY. 105
in the physical structure of the first Adam,—to
endow that structure with a higher life and bring
it out under a new form? We believe that the
reason why the mind recurs not at once to this
simple and natural interpretation of the passage,
is that we habitually regard the Body of man as
scarcely at all participating in the blessings of Re-
demption. Putting out of sight that passage
which speaks of the Redemption of the Body, and
that other which makes mention of the day of
Redemption as a period yet to come, we throw the
matter of which our nature is compounded out
of all account when we contemplate the work of
Christ in its bearings upon ourselves. We assign
to the Body of man no position in the ceconomy
of grace, and therefore no destination in the
ceconomy of glory. This view of the subject
is, however, most unscriptural, and our text is
one of the passages which proves it to be so. If
the words before us have any meaning, if it were
derogatory to the perfection of Scripture to
suppose them introduced by way of supplying
a mere verbal equilibrium with a foregoing clause,
—they must be understood to intimate a power
and willingness residing in Christ to subserve the
needs of man’s Body, even as it has subserved his
purposes; to minister unto it health and life eter-
nal, even as it has ministered unto Him subor-
H106 THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY.
dinate instrumentality. The animal oeconomy
whereof the Apostle had been speaking, is adapted
to the reception and assimilation of the nourish-
ment which supports and sustains it. And He
who employs the human body as a subordinate
agency in the extension of his kingdom, will
not in the end throw aside that which has done
Him service, or leave uncared for its manifold
wants and infirmities. Christ is no Amalekite
Master, who leaves his servants when they fall
sick and are incapacitated for further ministra
tions. “He will change our vile bodies, that they
“ may be fashioned like unto his glorious body,
“according to the working whereby he is able even
“to subdue all things unto himself.”e
The latter portion of this discourse has been
occupied in setting forth the dignity of the
Christian’s Body according to the view which is
taken of it by the Inspired Writers. We have
seen the position of the Body in the oeconomy
of grace,—we have traced the theory of the re-
lation which it bears to Christ, and Christ to it.
But our practice in reference to this important
subject, how infinitely far short does it fall of
our theory ! How little do we act in con-
formity with the high views of the Body, pro-
pounded in Scripture, so that when our modes
s Phil. iii. 21.TflE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY. lO’Z
of thought and conduct are set side by side with
Scriptural representations, it seems, through our
miserable shortcomings, as though the latter
spoke unreally, using exaggerated metaphors and
strained expressions. Christ living in the man,
and making the bodily organs so many instru-
ments of effectuating his designs ; Christ speaking
through the mouth, working through the hands,
controlling eye and ear, lifting up the feet on
their mission of love,—in which of us, my
brethren, is this lofty ideal realised ? The body of
each one amongst us forms part of that instru-
mentality whereby the subordination of all things
unto Christ is to be gradually wrought out; in
each one of us are latent powers and energies
adapted to the effectuation of God’s purposes and
the furtherance of the ceconomy of grace,—but
how partially and with what restrictions (even in
the best of us) is the Body lent to Him whose
organ and implement it is,—-how feebly are the
faculties called forth when called forth in his
service! The members of Christ are in many
cases mere withered hands, hands which execute
no work for him, which will not stretch them-
selves forth at his bidding. The body, if in any
sense presented as a sacrifice, is a dead sacrifice,
or at best only half alive,—separated, it may be,
from the grosser forms of defilement, and morti-
h 2108 THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY.
fied by some trivial acts of self-denial, while at
the same time it declines the toil of active and
vigorous exertion which Christ’s working in it
and through it would impose.
And is it not well if it be even thus with many
amongst us ? Are there not those among you,
my younger brethren, who employ this con-
secrated instrumentality to work a will directly
antagonistic to that of Christ—even the will of
the flesh ? those at whose foul deeds of darkness
the Apostle is pointing with the finger of awful
warning, when he vindicates for the Body its right
use, deprecates its alienation from its lawful
Owner, and asserts that it “ is for the Lord ?” Let
me ask such persons, in conclusion, whether they
have ever seriously regarded in its true light
their particular form of sin,—as an offence not
against the second but against the first and more
weighty table of the law.” The essential charac-
ter of the second table lies in its dealing with our
relations to our neighbour. It prescribes that
we shall not injure our neighbour in respect of
his station, his person, his affections, his property,
and his reputation ; and finally that we shall in-
dulge no desire which might lead to his being in-
jured in any of these respects. The point of each
command lies in some particular social relation
11 See Appendix to Lecture III. Noet G.THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY. 109
which is maintained by obedience, violated or
disregarded by transgression: all besides this
which may be discovered in the precepts of this
table is only accidentally involved in them. Now,
the form of evil to which I am alluding is often
mentally associated with one of these social pre-
cepts—it is regarded and referred to as a breach
of the seventh commandment. Such a view, how-
ever, does not in the least exhibit the essential
point of the offence, or embrace its higher and
more serious bearings. Though the duties flow-
ing out of our relation to our fellow-creatures be
indeed obligatory upon all, and we shall have to
account to God for their due discharge, still in
the estimation both of reason and revelation,
their weight and importance is not so great as
those which are based upon our common relation
to God. “ If one man sin against another, the
"judge shall judge him, but if a man sin against
"the Lord, who shall intreat for him ?”' Now, the
form of sin alluded to, if viewed under its true
aspect, is sin against the Lord. It is a breach of
that commandment which prescribes that we
shall hallow God’s Name, that is, thatwe shall treat
with awful reverence all that is associated with
the Supreme Being. And the human Body stands,
as we have seen, in the nearest and most intimate
‘ I Sam. ii. 15.110 THE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE, BODY-
relation to God and Christ. To them it is
solemnly dedicated in the laver of regeneration.
It is part of the consecrated instrumentality which
they condescend, in furtherance of their purposes,
to employ. It is rightfully the member of Christ
which should be swayed as He lists and moved
at his bidding. It is the temple of the Holy
Ghost whereon Go,d has set the mark of his
consecration, separating it from all profane uses,
and claiming it for his own especial service. Be
warned, then, ye unclean livers, of the awful cha-
racter which, when viewed in the light of truth,
your sin assumes. In its essence it is the sin of
desecration. It is an alienation of sacred instru-
ments from the service of God, and an employ-
ment of them for profane and degrading uses in
the service of the Flesh., It is the sin of that
impious monarch who converted the golden and
silver vessels of the sanctuary into wine-cups for
his unhallowed revelry, the sin of those mis-
creants who plied their merchandise and pursued
their unlawful gains in the very temple precinct.
And ye know how such a sin moved the holy in-
dignation even of Him who was Love; how with
severe animadversion, aye and with severer stripes,
H e vindicated the honour of God’s house of prayer.
And ye know, too, that the sacred fabric which
ye desecrate is not dopmed to destruction orTHE NATURE AND DIGNITY OF THE BODY. Ill
annihilation, (in which case the memory of your
offence might be swept away in the crumbling
wreck of a perishable mass of matter)—that it is
destined to be raised in incorruption, and to
abide for ever,—a standing monument through-
out the ages of eternity of its use in the ministry
of God or of its degradation in the ministry of
sensuality. We entreat you, on your knees, in
your closet,—the prospect before you of death
and judgment, to ponder these things. Weigh
ye your sin in the Balances of the Sanctuary,
tremble, and repent!LECTURE IV.
THE GENERAL RESURRECTION AFFIRMED.
BY SCRIPTURE, AND GROUNDED IN REASON.
1 Cor. xv. 21, 22.
Since by man came death, by man came also the resur-
rection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in
Christ shall all be made alive.
In describing that proceeding of Divine grace
which, more than any other part of God’s deal-
ings with his creatures, might seem to partake
of the nature of an arbitrary arrangement, St.
Paul expressly states that God worketh “ all
things after the counsel of his own will3 ” [Kara
rrjv /3ovXrjv tov 0e\rjfj,aros avrov.) Hooker6 has well
remarked the peculiarity of the expression. A
wide distinction is to be drawn between working
“ according to the will,” and working “according
to the counsel of the will.” Were we informed:
a Eph. i. 11.	11 See Appendix to Lecture IV. Note A.114
THE GENERAL RESURRECTION
that the procedures of Divine Grace were con-
ducted simply after God’s will, there might be
room to imagine in them something of caprice.
But the inspired statement that God “ worketh
all things after the counsel of his own will ” pre-
cludes any such notion, if indeed, consistently
with reason and reverence, such a notion could
be formed. In all that God does there is a coun-
sel. The movements of His will are regulated,
not by caprice, but by some intrinsic reason
deeply seated in the nature of things. It is one
thing to assert, that at the root of all which God
does there lies such a reason—quite another
thing to maintain that the reason is always dis-
cernible by ourselves. In many cases the coun-
sel upon which a particular arrangement is based
may be totally unfathomable by the utmost reach
of our created understandings. In other cases it
may be in some measure discovered to us (but
only partially and obscurely) by the help of ana-
logies drawn from our own ways and our own
thoughts. Of the latter kind is the counsel on
which is based the arrangement of vicarious
expiatory sacrifice. Something of the deep rea-
sonableness of this arrangement we may discern
by considering the requirements of justice among
ourselves, and the compromise which, on any
other plan, must have been made of certainAFFIRMED BY SCRIPTURE.
115
Divine perfections. The analogy just lends us
light enough to perceive that here also there is
a counsel which regulates God’s will, but not
light enough to scan the arrangement fully in its
details. When we attempt to do so, we pre-
sumptuously stretch ourselves beyond our mea-
sure. The way of God is in the sea, and his
path in the great waters. His footsteps, therefore,
cannot be tracked beyond the shallows into that
Abyss of deepest wisdom whither they march on-
ward, disregarding our feeble powers of pursuit.
Occasionally, however, it is permitted us to dis-
cern, as it is always enjoined upon us to believe,
the full reasonableness of the Divine proceedings.
We can understand, e. g., the principle upon
which that sentence of judgment is based—
“ There shall in nowise enter into the heavenly
city anything that defileth.” We can understand
that a character and tastes congenial to the
element of heavenly blessedness are essential, in
the nature of things, to the participation of that
blessedness—that the renewed and sanctified
sinner, therefore, in whom Divine grace has
formed such a character and such tastes, travels
by a natural necessity (and not by a mere arbi-
trary arrangement) to the mansions of eternal
glory. And the perception of the principles on
which God deals with his creatures, whenever116
THE GENERAL RESURRECTION
such perception is permitted to us, is eminently
satisfactory to our minds and confirmatory of
our faith. Thus are we materially aided in the
belief which it is so essential for us to cherish, that
there is a wisdom at work even in those proceed-
ings in which we are utterly incapable of per-
ceiving it, and that all the Divine arrangements,
whether in the department of Nature, Providence,
or Grace, have their foundations planted deep in
the impregnable rock of Counsel.
In pursuance of these remarks, we shall attempt
in the present Lecture to investigate the grounds
on which the General Resurrection rests. If we
can point out its intrinsic reasonableness and
necessity—the consistency and harmony of the
doctrine with other well - ascertained and un-
doubted testimonies of God’s Holy Word—if we
can show that such a Resurrection is necessarily
involved in the Mediator’s work, and forms one
part of a great development to which God pur-
poses to submit the entire universe of matter—
such an argument will greatly confirm in many
minds the direct testimony of Scripture, and serve
to remove the objections which have been studi-
ously raised against accepting that testimony in
its plain and literal import.
But, in the first place, the explicit affirmations
of Scripture on the subject must be produced andAfPlRMED BY SCRIPTURE.
117
examined, this being an essential link in the
chain of our entire argument. In our previous
Lectures we have busied ourselves in defining
and clearing from misapprehension the predicate
and the subject of the proposition which forms
our theme of discourse. We have shown from
Scripture what is the nature of the Resurrection
Process, and what is to be understood by the
Body when it is spoken of as destined to be the
subject of that Process. It remains to show that
the inspired writers do affirm the predicate of
the subject. Having ascertained the Divine
Testimony on this important point, and our
minds being thus set at rest as to the Article of
Faith, we shall then proceed to exhibit the
grounds or principles upon which such an
arrangement is based, and by a consideration of
which the Article of Faith approves itself to our
reason. And let it be understood that in the
present Lecture we are contemplating exclusively
the General Resurrection, as it will embrace the
entire family of Adam, leaving for further discus-
sion the differencing peculiarities which may be
expected to subsist between the resurrection of
the righteous and that of the wicked.
Is it, then, affirmed in the Word of God that the
bodies of the entire human family shall be raised
again in incorruption ?118
THE GENERAL RESURRECTION
It is often triumphantly alleged by the antago-
nists of the doctrine under discussion that this
particular statement is never made in so many
words. And the allegation may be admitted.
But then this allegation by no means proves the
doctrine of a Corporeal Resurrection to be un-
scriptural, or even goes the smallest way towards
proving it. The formal and technical statement
of a Christian doctrine is not the doctrine itself,
but only a correct method of expressing it adopted
for the sake of brevity and precision. The several
dogmatic statements which express the orthodox
doctrine respecting the Blessed Trinity—where
are they to be found in Scripture in their tech-
nical form ? And yet which of us on that ac-
count questions that each of these statements
is there substantially if not formally asserted ?
The Divinity of the Holy Spirit is so far from
being distinctly asserted in the Bible that we can
prove it to be a scriptural doctrine no otherwise
than by a collation of two or more texts, and an
inference (a certain inference no doubt, but still
an inference) drawn from the collation. In short,
formal statements of doctrine are not to be sought
in the Scriptures, just as the regularities and
technicalities of human art are not to be sought
in nature. Nature contains the rough-hewn ele-
mentary material which must form the substratumAFFIRMED BY SCRIPTURE.
119
of all the devices of art. From her quarries must
be dug the stone, from her forests must be hewn
the timber, whereupon in the erection of the
sightly edifice the carpenter stretcheth out his
rule, and marketh it with a line, and fitteth it with
planes, and marketh it out with a compass. From
her waters must be filled the stately aqueduct and
the humble cistern, which minister so essentially
to the convenience of man. But to assert of a
work of human ingenuity, that it is created out of
nature, does not imply that it is to be found ready
made and as to its present form in nature. Even
so Scripture presents in beautiful but irregular
profusion the material out of which every true
dogmatic statement must be drawn. The tech-
nical shape which the statement assumes is given
to it by the Church of God, in the exercise of
her office as expositor of the Divine Word, and
for the purpose of convenience in detecting error
and defending truth. She it is who draws up and
presents for our acceptance the form of sound
words, which is the vehicle of doctrine. What
matter if the vehicle be of human construction,
so long as the doctrine conveyed in it be clearly
hewn from the mine and drawn from the well of
Divine Truth ?
This, then, is what we propose to shew respect-
ing the doctrine under discussion—not that its120
THE GENERAL RESURRECTION
technical form is to be found in Scripture, bat
that its essential substance exists there.
I. (1.) Does it not exist, for example, in these
well known words which fell from the lips of our
Divine Redeemer, “ Marvel not at this : for the
“ hour is coming, in the which all that are in the
“ graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth;
“ they that have done good, unto the resurrection
“ of life; and they that have done evil, unto the
“resurrection of damnation ?”c
(a.) Let us remark first the subject of this as-
sertion, “ They that are in the graves.” It is al-
leged by the opponents of the doctrine that these
words are not equivalent to, “ the bodies which
“are in the graves.” Neither here, it is said,
nor any where else in Scripture, is Resurrec-
tion predicated of dead bodies, but only of dead
persons. And it is added that the triumph over
death of that which constitutes the proper per-
sonality does not necessarily involve a revivifica-
tion of the material frame.
a- In answering this objection we may admit that
although the nature of man is compounded both
of a material and spiritual element, and to the
existence of the nature the one is as essential as
the other, the true personality of an individual
c See in the Appendix to Lecture IV., Note B., Dr. Bush’s
method of escape from this text.AFFIRMED BY SCRIPTURE.
121
resides exclusively in the spiritual element The
soul, not the body, is, in a strict philosophical
point of view, the man. The body, though a
constituent element of the nature, is not the per-
sonality, but the symbol and organ of the per-
sonality, closely and intimately adhering to it
during life.
But while all this is readily conceded, it must
be observed that it utterly fails of proving the
point contended for, which is, that our Lord’s
words in this passage do not apply to the bodies
of the dead. One great principle ever to be borne
in mind in the interpretation of sacred Scriptures
is, that the Inspired Writers uniformly adopt a
popular, never a scientific, phraseology. They
employ unhesitatingly the ordinary parlance of
mankind, even where that parlance rather repre-
sents Truth as it appears than Truth as it really
is. Now, apply this well-known principle to the
case before us. Although the Body be not strictly
the Personality, yet it is the symbol of the Per-
sonality, men speak of it as such. The phrases
“ he arose,” “ he sat down,” “ he went forth,” “ he
“ adopted divers postures,” are among the staple
of our ordinary diction. Nay, even of the Body,
in its state of separation from the soul, we scruple
not to say, " he was buried,” “ we laid him in the
“ grave.” To every Minister of the Church is dic-
i122
THE GENERAL RESURRECTION
tated a compliance with this ordinary phraseology,
when,' the corpse of a departed Christian lying
before him, he is directed to say—“We give
“ Thee hearty thanks that it hath pleased Thee
“ to deliver this our brother out of the miseries
“ of this sinful world.” “ Grant that when we
“ shall depart this life we may rest in Christ, as
“ our hope is this our brother doth.” The word
“ this ” clearly indicates that we are referring to
something present, to the corpse which lies before
our eyes; and this corpse we call without hesita-
tion our Brother, and invest it with the attributes
of Personality. And he would be surely an over-
scrupulous critic who should cavil at so natural
and ordinary an expression, because it will not
bear the being philosophically canvassed, or even
go the length of asserting that the Body is not
intended, because it is our Brother who is spoken
of, and a dead Body is not our Brother.
Nor is that criticism a whit more rational which
perversely insists that by the words “ they that
are in the graves,” our Lord does not intend the
bodies of the deceased, because he does not say
“ the bodies that are in the grave.” If there could
have been any doubt as to his meaning, had he
used the more general expression, the dead, there
can be none surely in the present case, where the
subject of the assertion is, “ they that are in theAFFIRMEt) BY SCRIPTURE.
123
"graves.” We are shut up by this peculiar and
definite phraseology to understand that part of
man which alone is committed to the tomb—or
in other words the Body. We scruple not to as-
sert that to every plain and unsophisticated reader
of Scripture the expression would immediately con-
vey this and no other meaning.
/3. In corroboration of the above argument it
may be further remarked, that whenever any ob-
ject is complex, consisting of an outward and an
inward element, which under certain circum-
stances are separable, the outward element by
itself is frequently designated by the name which
in strictness represents the entire object. Thus
although we hold that to the integrity of a Sacra-
ment two things are essential, the outward visible
sign and the inward spiritual grace—we constantly
speak of the Bread and Wine in the Lord’s Supper
as in themselves the Sacrament, although in truth
they constitute only the external part of it.
And this popular mode of speech has the sanc-
tion of Scripture. “ My covenant,” says God to
Abraham, “ shall be in your flesh for an eVerlast-
“ ing covenant.” In strictness of speech circum-
cision was not itself the covenant, but only, as it
is called in another part of the same chapter, “a
token of the covenant.” Still, when it is said, “my
“ covenant shall be in your flesh,” we understand
i 21 $4	THE GENERAL RESURRECTION
without hesitation the external symbol. And
therefore when it is said, “ they that are in the
“ graves,” we understand by the expression dead
bodies, although (strictly speaking) the Body is
not the Personality.
In fine, we doubt not that the reason why in
their fore-announcement of man’s future destiny,
the Inspired Writers predicate Resurrection of
the Person rather than of the Body, is that this
mode of speech is more in accordance with popu-
lar usage and more generally intelligible. It is
more simple and natural to speak of the dead
Body as the dead Person, than to draw a nice
philosophical distinction between the two. But
the Church, when constructing an article of Faith,
which requires greater precision and a more
scientific accuracy of statement, finds in such pas-
sages what is clearly implied in them to every
unsophisticated mind, the Resurrection of the
Body.
But let us observe somewhat more closely the
phrase, “ all that are in the graves,” as employed
to signify the dead. That an universal Resurrec-
tion comprising all mankind is here intended, may
be gathered from comparing our Lord’s words
with a parallel passage of the Acts,—a passage
expressing the anticipations of one whose every
hope was grounded on the testimonies madeAFFIRMED BY SCRIPTURE.
125
to the world by his Divine Master. “ I have
“ hope toward God/’ exclaims Paul in his apology
before Felix, “which they themselves also allow,
“ that there shall be a Resurrection of the dead,
“both of the just and unjust.” True it is,
that many—perhaps the majority—of the dead—
were never literally committed to the grave. It
is well known that among the heathen the bodies
of the deceased were disposed of by cremation,
after which their ashes were collected and deposi-
ted in cinerary urns.
Our Lord, however, is addressing Jews in the
passage under consideration ; and accordingly,
without at all intending to exclude from his as-
sertion those bodies which had undergone a dif-
ferent mode of sepulture, he recognises only that
form of disposing of the corpse with which the
Church of God had been familiar from the begin-
ning. St. Paul, on the other hand, in pleading
before a Roman Governor, in whose mind
funeral rites were associated with notions distinct
from that of the grave, employs the more com-
prehensive term, “the dead.” To a Jewish ear,
“all that are in the graves” would have been the
equivalent of this more comprehensive term.
([b.) But observe now what is here predicated
of “ all who are in the graves,” or in other words
of all dead bodies;—“ they shall hear his voice
1126
THE GENERAL RESURRECTION
“and shall come forth.” The account of the
miraculous resuscitation of Lazarus furnishes the
best commentary on this prediction. “Jesus cried
“ with a loud voice, Lazarus come forth : and he
“ that was dead came forth.” The similarity of ex-
pression in the two passages leads us to con-
clude that a great crisis, in many respects resem-
bling that which befel Lazarus, awaits all the
dead ; at the Saviour’s summons their bodies,
shall come forth animated, as his did, from the
various recesses to which they may have been
consigned. Nor let it be thought strange, or ac-
counted as an objection to our foregoing argument,
that the Body should be spoken of as hearing the
voice of the Son of Man. Inanimate nature (if
indeed nature in any of her departments can be
correctly called inanimate) is invested in Scrip-
ture with the attributes of Personality. Christ
lays an injunction of silence upon the winds and
the waves, and “ they,” it is said, “ obey him.”
He addresses to the fig tree a sentence of male-
diction, and it withers away. And shall the Body
of Man, which is the symbol and organ of a Per-
sonality, be with less justice and propriety repre-
sented as receiving and obeying a command, than
those objects which never have a distinct life of
their own, but are merely part and parcel of Na-
ture’s wide domain ?AFFIRMED BY SCRIPTURE.
127
Such is a fair answer to any cavil founded upon
the alleged incapacity of dead bodies to hear a
voice. But it is very conceivable that our Lord
may have purposely attributed to the slumbering
dead this capacity, because he would not have it
inferred from His words that the true personality
will be absent and unconcerned in the Resurrec-
tion. Resurrection will be a restitution, in each
individual who undergoes it, of the perfect human
nature which has been fractured by death. Its
result will be to present once more the man in
his integrity. It will involve, therefore, a re-
entrance of the Spirit into the Body, and thus
will affect both parts of our complex nature.
Accordingly, our Lord, in describing it, employs
two expressions which are most appropriately
applied to different subjects. There will be a
hearing on the part of the soul or spirit. But if
a doubt could be raised as to whether the Body
will be at all involved in the process, it would be
dissipated by the words which follow, “ and shall
“ come forth.” If it be alleged that hearing can-
not be predicated with strict propriety of aught
but the sentient and personal existence, it must
also be conceded that coming forth cannot be
predicated with strict propriety except of that
material part of man which is deposited in the
grave.128
THE GENERAL RESURRECTION
(c.) We must call attention, in the last place,
to the preface which introduces and connects
with the foregoing discourse this remarkable
oracle—“ Marvel not at this.” The discourse
had taken its occasion from the healing of the
impotent man at the Pool of Bethesda—a mi-
racle which in all probability had excited great
astonishment and made much noise. In the
twentieth verse,, however, our Lord assures his
hearers that a miracle of this kind by no means
reached the limits of that power wherewith he
had been invested. “The Father loveth the
“ Son, and sheweth him all things that himself
“ doeth : and he will shew him greater works
“ than these, that ye may marvel.” Raising the
dead is a greater wonder-work than healing the
impotent. And this should be accomplished
(nay, was in course of accomplishment) by
Christ’s agency. The resurrection of the spi-
ritually dead (which was even then commencing)
should be effected by the voice of the Son of
Man, by the preaching, i. e., of his Gospel, se-
conded by his Spirit. “Verily, verily, I say
“ unto you, the hour is coming, and now is,
“ when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son
“ of God: and they that hear shall live. For as
“ the Father hath life in himself; so hath he
“ given to the Son to have life in himself: andAFFIRMED BY SCRIPTURE.
129
“ hath given him authority to execute judgment
“ also, because he is the Son of man.” But a
greater miracle still remained to be effected by
the power of Him who addressed them. A re-
surrection from natural death of all mankind
would hereafter be effected by the agency of
that same voice which was now beginning to
quicken the dead in trespasses and sins. “ Marvel
“ not at this: for the hour is coming, in the
“ which all that are in the graves shall hear his
" voice.” Observe here the implication respect-
ing the transcendantly-marvellous character of the
predicted Resurrection, and the way in which it
strengthens our conclusion. Even among won-
ders the general Resurrection will be extraor-
dinary. To quicken the dead soul is a work
far beyond creature capacity: it requires an es-
pecial and very signal exertion of Divine power.
Still we are to a certain extent familiarised with
the supernatural working of God’s grace; we have
witnessed in others the result of that working—
we ought to have experienced its power in our-
selves. But to quicken the dead body, to collect
and revivify those material particles which con-
stitute its hidden basis, and to bring it forth into
existence under a new and spiritual ceconomy,
oh, this is a task which, if not intrinsically more
arduous, yet in the eyes of man, in the estimate130
THE GENERAL RESURRECTION
of the human understanding, seems encumbered
with far more appalling and insuperable diffi-
culties. Now, this alleged marvellousness of the
Natural Resurrection harmonises very well with
the notions of its nature which we have been led
to form. It is to the power of Omnipotence that
the advocates of the doctrine make their appeal,
when pressed by the objection that the particles
of bodies which shall be raised again in incor-
ruption are dispersed far and wide in the secret
recesses of the universe (some, it may be, in the
top of the Carmel and some in the bottom of
the sea), and that these particles have in many
instances entered into other organisms. We as-
sert that in the collection of these essential par-
ticles, in their endowment with life, and their
development into a new organisation, there is
no intrinsic and absolute impossibility. “No,” it is
replied; “ but the work requires an exertion of Di-
“vine power surpassing everything which we are in
“ the habit of witnessing; nay, surpassing even our
“powers of thought and conception.” We concede
it willingly. Our Lord admonishes us of the
stupendous character of this final miracle. He
prepares our minds step by step for the revela-
tion of it by referring to lesser wonder-works, ac-
complished, or in course of accomplishment, and
bidding us not marvel at these, for the time isAFFIRMED BY SCRIPTURE.
131
coming when He with whom nothing is impos-
■m
sible will outdo Himself. The world has seen
miracles hitherto on a comparatively small scale.
The day is yet in store which shall display to it
the mightiest effort of supernatural power—a
marvel which shall outshine all other marvels as
the sun outshines the stars—the trooping forth
to judgment of the tenants of the sepulchre at
the voice of the archangel and the summons of
the trump of God.
(2.) Were the passage, whose import we
have now considered, the only oracle of Revela-
tion bearing on the subject, it might be sup-
posed that Resurrection would be simply a re-
suscitation of the animal body, such as Lazarus
and others are said to have experienced. But
this supposition is entirely precluded by that
passage of St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Co-
rinthians which formed the text of our last Lec-
ture, and which, as it also predicates resurrection
of the body, I must again briefly notice in this
connexion. The passage runs thus—“ Meats
“ for the belly and the belly for meats, but God
“ shall destroy both it and them.” Our atten-
tion has been already called to the distinction
subsisting between the Body and the animal or-
ganization. The Body is the essential basis of
the material fabric, the animal organization is132
THE GENERAL RESURRECTION
that particular constitution of flesh and blood
under which the Body is at present manifested.
Of this constitution, with all its functions, it is
here asserted that it shall be destroyed or swept
away. It shall be annulled as void and useless
(such is the force of the word Karapyea) in that
higher condition of existence whereunto man is
tending. “Now,” continues the Apostle, “ the
“ body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the
“ body. And God hath both raised up the Lord,
“ and will also raise us up by his own power.”
Raising up is evidently the converse of de-
stroying ; and we challenge any one to as-
sign to the passage as a connected whole any
sense which does not imply a distinction, as be-
tween the Body and the animal organization, so
also between the respective doom and destina-
tion of the two. The last shall be abrogated
and abolished. The first shall be snatched from
the apparent wreck which death had made of it,
and set up again under a new form to endure
throughout eternity.
An illustration may be borrowed from a sub-
ject remote from our present purpose, which will
serve to place the truth more vividly before us.
The Church of God has existed since the fall
of man. Its rudiments were laid in the primitive
promise of a Deliverer, a promise grasped, asAFFIRMED BY SCRIPTURE.
133
soon as it was issued, by the faith of our first
parents. * But ever since the entrance of Christ-
ianity into the world the Church has been placed
under a different ceconomy from any which she
had experienced hitherto. She has exchanged
the ceconomy of Law for the ceconomy of Grace.
And accordingly she has undergone a change of
constitution corresponding to the change of (eco-
nomy. The rites of the Ceremonial Law are
abrogated and annulled, and the Church serves
God no longer in the bondage of the letter, but
in the freedom of the spirit. As regards the pre-
ceptive aspect of religion, a dispensation of rules
has been exchanged for the dispensation of prin-
ciples. And involved in this change of constitu-
tion is an enlargement of faculties. The Church
under the new ceconomy has lengthened her
cords, and now with more comprehensive grasp
embraces the Gentiles. The ceremonies, the
rules, the limitation to a single people, these
were not the Church, but the Church’s acci-
dental and temporary organization. And these
have been swept away utterly and irretrievably.
But the Church hath God raised up by his own
power. Not only hath he continued it in exist-
ence, but he hath brought it out into a new
ceconomy, and hath constituted it afresh under
different laws, and with enlarged faculties.134
the general resurrection
(II.) Having seen that an universal Resurrec-
tion is affirmed by the testimony of God’s Word, we
now proceed to exhibit the grounds on which this
doctrine rests. A corporeal Resurrection, then,
comprising among its subjects every heir of flesh
and blood, the wicked no less than the righteous,
is based upon the fact—(admitted by all, but
whose significance and bearings are not so readily
apprehended,)—that Christ has repaired entirely
the wreck of that nature which in Adam was
ruined.
It is of great importance to the right under-
standing of all that shall be advanced on this
point, to perceive clearly the distinction between
the nature of man and the individual persons who
are partakers of this nature. By the nature of
man is meant the aggregate of his faculties,
bodily and spiritual, quite apart from any wrong
bias which may be inherited with those faculties,
or which an individual will may give to them.
The same nature attaches both to good and bad,
while the good are remarkably distinguished from
the bad in every thing which constitutes or
betokens personality. Both have the same facul-
ties, wrought out of the same basis of humanity ;
but the faculties are in each differently directed.
Both are born with a will and with affections, but
in each the will chooses a different path, the affec-AFFIRMED BY SCRIPTURE.
135
tions pursue different objects. Both are swayed
by rational motives; but those which influence
the one are drawn chiefly from the future, those
which influence the other chiefly from the present
life. Both, moreover, have the same bodily
organs : but while in the one these organs are
made the ministers of sin and sensuality, the
media through which they corrupt their fellow
men, and exert an influence for evil over those
who come in contact with them, in the other
the very same instrumentality is employed to
work out the will of Christ and to effectuate his
purposes.
Human nature is a compound of certain im-
material faculties, with certain bodily organs.
The bodily organs are held together by some ce-
menting vital power, whose results are manifest
enough, while its essence eludes our most sifting
investigation. Held in some mysterious union
with the animated body is the soul or affections
and the spirit or understanding of man. Now, it
is in the peculiar combination of these several
faculties that the distinctive nature of man con-
sists. There, are it may be, pure spirits in God’s
universe, whose nature consists of one simple ele-
ment. We are taught to conceive of the angels
as such. There are also spirits and souls held in
union, in whom both the understanding and affec-136
THE GENERAL RESURRECTION
tions can operate, but who are isolated from
the world of matter. Such we commonly suppose
to be the state of the departed. Finally, there
are souls and bodies held in union, creatures
which, without any power of apprehending law,
manifest by means of material organs the affec-
tions of fear, anger, desire, and even love. This
is the case with that most mysterious department
of Nature, the brute creation.
The faculties, then, which man discovers in
himself are to be found separately in different
orders of the creation. Separately, however,
they do not constitute human nature. It is in
their combination that the differentia of humanity
consists.
So much having been premised, let us now ad-
dress ourselves to an examination of the words
of our text, “ By man came death,”—“ In Adam
all die.” These statements refer us to the Book
of Genesis, where we read that it was said to
Adam respecting the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil—and said to him, not as an indi-
vidual, but as the covenant head and representa-
tive of the human Nature—“ In the day that thou
“ eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” Death
was the penalty annexed to moral evil—i. e. to
the violation by a representative person of a
known precept resting upon God’s authority.AFFIRMED BY SCRIPTURE.
137
Now, what is death ? It is simply the analy-
sis of a compound—the resolution (or reduction)
into its distinct elements of a Nature formed by
amalgamation. Death consists in the separation
of the immaterial principles from the material
organization which they have hitherto inhabited
and actuated.
Now, this is a penalty (be it observed) which
fastens upon the Nature of Man. Death is the
wreck or destruction of humanity in every per-
son who undergoes it. The peculiar compound
Human Nature exists no more in that subject,
although its constituent elements may be as far
as possible from annihilation.	'
But the penalty in question does not necessarily
involve the ruin or misery of the individual who
submits to it. On the one hand, a man may drag
out a wretched existence—may undergo disease
of body and anguish of spirit, while his nature
retains its perfect integrity, that is, — while in
him are combined all the faculties spiritual and
corporeal which go to constitute humanity. On
the other hand, a person may exist in a state of
conscious blessedness (we know not how or where)
whose human nature has been destroyed or an-
nihilated by death. Such is the condition of the
spirits and souls of the righteous who have de-
parted this life.
K138
THE GENERAL RESURRECTION
And as death is a penalty which visits man in
his nature, so is it a penalty exacted from him not
as an individual, but as an inheritor of the nature.
Thus much may be conclusively inferred from
the Apostle’s assertion, an assertion warranted by
universal experience, that “ all die.” Or as it is
said in another place : “ Death reigned even over
“ those who had not sinned after the similitude of
“ Adam’s transgression.” Infants and idiots, who
are not accountable beings, submit to the univer-
sal law no less than rational adults. Now on
what principle can the penalty be exacted from
infants and idiots ? Is it as the penalty of their
own acts df sin ? Clearly not. They are inca-
pable of moral action, and therefore incapable of
actual sin. " They have not sinned,” says the
Apostle, “ after the similitude of Adam’s trans-
“ gression.” Is it, then, as the penalty of original
sin—or in other words of the inbred depravation
of their moral faculties, the inclination of their
yet undeveloped will and affections to that which
is evil? Undoubtedly there is in the embryo facul-
ties of all infants such an inclination to evil. Death,
however, is not represented as the penalty of a
moral inclination ; it was the penalty annexed to
a moral action. “ In the day that thou eatest
“ thereof, thou shalt surely die.” And in further
proof of the assertion that death is not the penaltyAFFIRMED BY SCRIPTURE.
139
of sinful inclination in the person who submits to
it (however such inclination may accidentally
exist) we may observe that were it so Christ could
not consistently with divine justice have become
obnoxious to death. The holy, harmless, and un-
defiled One, in whom was no sin (either in ten-
dency or act) could not have been called upon to
undergo a penalty which is to be regarded as the
punishment of the sufferer’s own sinfulness.
Death, then, is the penalty imposed upon the
nature of man, in consequence of an act of sin
committed by one who was the Nature’s repre-
sentative. Human Nature sinned in Adam, and
therefore in Adam Human Nature dies. In dying,
men pay (as we say) the debt of the nature which
they inherit; not the debt incurred by them-
selves personally and individually.
Now, our Lord Jesus Christ has perfectly re-
paired the wreck of the nature in behalf of all its
inheritors, without distinction. This he has done
in the following manner.
First, he assumed the nature,—an assumption
expressed by the Apostle in a phrase whose sig-
nificance is very remarkable—<nrepiMTo<s ’Afipadp.
emXa^dverai—“he took on him” (so our trans-
lators have rendered it) " the seed of Abraham.”
This statement (as Hooker has well observed)d
d See Appendix to Lecture IV. Note C.
K 2140
THE GENERAL RESURRECTION
meets and repels the heretical notion broached
by Nestorius, that there are two Persons in
Christ, the Son of God having made himself
over to a human person, called Jesus, with whom
he has been ever since intimately and indissolubly
conjoined. Very different is the notion which
the Apostle’s words convey. His assertion is that
the Son of God, in becoming incarnate, assumed,
not a human personality,—but crn-epparo^ Aftpadp,
—our nature in its seminal principle, before yet
any separate individuality had been developed out
of the rudimental substance.
He assumed it; and in the assumption must
have purified it from all the defilement which it
had contracted in consequence of Adam’s Fall, so
as to take upon him the simple and elementary
nature of man, free from all depraved tendency
and corrupt bias whatsoever. He assumed a will,
but not a will prone to choose evil and reject
good—affections, but not such as are apt to fas-
ten on things below—an understanding, but not
an understanding darkened by corrupt moral pre-
possessions. He became partaker of our perfect
humanity exempt from its acquired moral bias.
Assuming human nature thus—without any
separate human individuality—Christ became
naturally, and not by mere arbitrary appoint-
ment, a second Covenant Head or Representa-AFFIRMED BY SCRIPTURE.
141
tive. Taking the nature in its stock, before yet
it had received any particular personal develop-
ment and configuration, he stands as a matter of
right, not for a single individual, but for the entire
race. Moreover, as he assumed a purified nature,
all the faculties of man, corporeal and spiritual,
exempt from the tendency which they acquired
in Adam’s Fall, he thus joined himself (as it
were) to the stock of humanity, before its trunk
was bent awry,—to its original rudiment, before
the depravation of that rudiment by sin.
Thus naturally constituted, then, the second
Representative of mankind, Christ submitted in
our nature to death. He voluntarily underwent
that separation of the spiritual from the material
element, which constitutes the wreck of the na-
ture. And the penalty having been paid in full
by a representative Person, even as it was en-
tailed by the sin of a representative Person, Di-
vine justice requires that it should be cancelled
and reversed, as regards all those who have been
implicated in it. As partakers of the first Adam’s
nature, we all die. As partakers of the second
Adam’s nature, the wreck of humanity must be
repaired in each one of us who has sustained it.
And the only mode of reparation is by the re-
union of the material and spiritual element, whose
unnatural divulsion constituted the wreck. Death142
THE GENERAL RESURRECTION
must be repaired in all who have submitted to it
by Resurrection. This Resurrection, be it ob-
served, rests upon grounds totally different from,
and therefore does not at all involve either the
future happiness or misery of those submitting to
it. Some, who are not even moral agents, die in
Adam, simply as inheritors of his Nature. Many
millions die in him, whose portion will be eternal
felicity in the life to come. And our text assures
us that “ as in Adam all die, even so in Christ
“ shall all be made alive.” If the wreck of hu-
manity, caused by Adam, extends to righteous
moral agents, and even to those who have never
sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression,
why should not the restoration brought in by
Christ equally involve every heir of flesh and
blood, the wicked no less than the righteous?
The sinner, however hardened in his evil ways,
is connected with Christ by his nature. This,
though by no means sufficient to ensure his per-
sonal well-being, (even as Adam’s Fall does not
necessarily entail personal misery upon his de-
scendants) yet warrants us in expecting a repair
of the nature by resurrection. Nothing, how-
ever, save a personal holding by Christ—such
an holding as involves in the case of moral agents
a personal faith, a personal in-dwelling of the
Spirit, and a personal conformity to the Lord’sAFFIRMED BY SCRIPTURE.
143
image, will avail for peace here or glory here-
after.
It may, perhaps, be asked, as an objection to
what has been advanced, why Human Nature has
not yet ceased to die, since its second great Repre-
sentative has endured for it, and so has abolished,
the penalty of death. In answer to this question
it is sufficient to observe that each individual holds
by his nature of the first no less than of the second
Adam. We are all connected by our common
humanity with two representatives, Adam and
Christ. Accordingly, in each one of us our nature
must undergo a wreck in Adam, before it can ex-
perience a repair in Christ.
In the foregoing remarks the human Body has
been regarded as one constituent element of man’s
nature. It may be regarded also in another and
lower point of view, as forming a portion of the
material universe. And if it should appear that
in reference to that entire universe, or at least to
that portion of it which, as being connected with
man, has been implicated in the effects of the
Fall, God has formed a great design of redeem-
ing it from those effects, and developing it through
dissolution into a new form,—we must suppose
that the human Body will submit to the laws,
and pass through the processes, destined to take
effect upon the entire realm of Visible Nature.144
THE GENERAL RESURRECTION
This subject, however, presents a field of medi-
tation far too vast to enter upon at the conclusion
of a Discourse. We shall reserve it for our last
Lecture, in which we may conveniently consider
the Resurrection of the Human Body as a process
in pursuance of the law, which is stamped upon
the whole visible creation.
Our discussion of to-day has led us along a
train of thought which is calculated to exercise
upon our hearts a peculiarly elevating and purify-
ing influence. It has placed before the eyes of
our mind the Eternal Son of God investing him-
self with our composite nature in all its constituent
elements, in order that he might repair the wreck
which it underwent in the Fall, and build it up
again into a vessel of honour, “sanctified, and
“made meet for the Master’s use.” Now, this
doctrine, developed in its practical bearing and
carried out to its legitimate consequences, cannot
fail to influence greatly our mode of regarding
our fellow-creatures. The assumption of hu-
manity by Christ will dignify, in our eyes every
inheritor of humanity. That assumption is a
fact which places mankind on a level of dignity
higher than the angels (however much their facul-
ties may at present exceed ours) “ for verily he
“ took not on him the nature of angels ; but he
“ took on him the seed of Abraham.” It is thisAFFIRMED BY SCRIPTURE.
145
elevation of humanity, by the fact of God’s partici-
pation in it, which lies at the root of Christian
courtesy, and forms the ground of that inspired
precept which enjoins upon us the fundamental
principle of courtesy, “Honour all men.” In
his utmost state of degradation and destitution,
there is a reverence due to man, not only (or
chiefly) as created originally in the Divine Image,
but also as inheriting that nature which a Person
in the Deity condescended to assume. Honour
him, therefore, wheresoever and in whatsoever
circumstances thou findest him. Respect his
rights. Do justice to his claims. Cultivate his
immortal faculties. Elevate him, if thou canst, to
a just apprehension of the relation in which he
stands to Christ, and of the exceeding dignity
which that relation confers upon him.
But the thought of this dignity—should it not
exert also a reflex influence, and operate to make
us (in a true sense of the words) respect ourselves ?
Should it not stir us, as with the liveliest incen-
tive, to purify ourselves even as He who took on
Him the seed of Abraham is pure ? Shall the
affections in which He participated be allowed in
us to grovel among things on the earth instead
of aspiring to things above ? Shall the soul, whose
mysterious sympathies He condescended to ex-
perience, be desecrated in us by being made146
THE GENERAL RESURRECTION
a cage of unclean birds — the haunt of every
low and base desire, even as the palaces of fallen
Babylon became the haunt of the owl and the
satyr ? Shall that precious vineyard of the heart,
which spiritual diligence might reclaim for God,
and cause to bring forth abundantly the fruits of
the Spirit to his honour and glory, be suffered
to lie in neglect and desolation, the cares, and
riches, and pleasures of this life overgrowing it
like thorns, and the stone wall of watchfulness
and prayer being broken down ? Shall the un-
derstanding, that Divine faculty, which in Him
was gradually informed, as from his earliest
years He grew in wisdom, — be in us impo-
verished by neglect, and sloth, and want of cul-
tivation, or dissipated upon trifles ? Shall the
Body, that curiously and wonderfully fashioned
structure—the Body, whose glorified nature is
the sacerdotal robe vested in which our Mel-
chisedech now fulfils his high priestly functions
—be degraded in us to the service of impure
lusts, or impaired by premature excesses ? For-
bid it, Lord! and as thou hast consecrated our
nature to Thyself by condescending to taber-
nacle therein, grant us to take the scourge of
small cords in our hand, and vindicate the
honour of Thy House of Prayer — cleansing
ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh andAFFIRMED BY SCRIPTURE.
147
spirit, and perfecting holiness in the fear of
Thee. Nay, Lord, be Thou thyself the Agent
in this work of sanctification. Kindle Thy light
in our understandings! Kindle Thy love in our
hearts! Make our Bodies Temples of the Holy
Ghost, not only in virtue of their dedication to
Thee in the laver of Regeneration, but by an actual
and personal indwelling! Thus sanctify us wholly,
and preserve our whole spirit, and soul, and body,
blameless unto Thy coming, and finally receive
us unto Thyself, that where Thou art we may
be also.LECTURE V.
THE RESURRECTION OF OUR LORD
JESUS CHRIST.
Acts 1. part of verse 3.
. ... He shewed himself alive after his passion by
many infallible proofs.............
Before entering upon the consideration of our
Lord’s Resurrection, it will be well to review
summarily the progress of our argument hitherto,
and note the point at which we have now arrived.
Our first step was directed to the investigation of
definitions. We sought to ascertain the exact
meaning of the terms Resurrection and Body,
when the first is predicated of the second,—as-
serted as an event which shall hereafter find
place in the material element of which Human
Nature is composed.
The terms having been cleared from misap-
prehension, — Resurrection, on the one hand,
having been shewn to be not a simple process of
restitution, but a birth into a new state of exist-150
THE RESURRECTION OF
ence ; and the body which shall be the subject
of Resurrection having been distinguished from
that animal oeconomy under which it is at present
manifested :—we then proceeded to adduce and
comment upon certain passages of Holy Scrip-
ture which couple the terms together, and in
which the doctrine of a corporeal Resurrection,
if not explicitly affirmed, is most unequivocally
implied.
If the view of this great doctrine, already ar-
rived at upon independent grounds, be just and
Scriptural, (and He who searches the hearts
knows that in the development of this view I
have aimed at no other object than that of eli-
citing the significance of the various testimonies
contained in His Word,) it will receive confir-
mation from a study of the single Instance of
bodily Resurrection which has yet been presented
to the world. If, while we examine this Instance,
we find the principles already derived from other
sources remarkably illustrated and fortified ;
if we find the phaenomena of the Lord’s Resur-
rection indicating to the devout and reflective
mind those very lessons which we have already
gathered from the previous study of Scriptural
terms and Scriptural analogies, we shall thus
have the best proof afforded us that these prin-
ciples and lessons are based in truth; and shallOUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
151
moreover collaterally assign an evidence in favour
of the high claims of Scripture as proceeding in
every part from the inspiration of one Spirit.
For what more satisfactory evidence can be ad-
duced in favour of those claims than the har-
mony with each other of diverse notices, coming
from the pen of diverse human authors, and
more especially if such notices should be discre-
pant on the surface, and manifest their harmony
only after a strict and close examination ? The
undesigned coincidences of an historical kind
between the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles
of St. Paul (coincidences to which attention was
called by the acute reasonings of Paley in the
“ Horse Paulinae”) attest in a manner most
satisfactory to the mind the truth of the narra-
tive and the reality of the incidents contained in
it, while the superficial discrepancies between the
two documents compel the belief that they were
written independently of one another. And un-
designed doctrinal coincidences carry with them
a similar power of conviction. They prove that
the human writers of Holy Scripture did not con-
spire to palm off on the world a religious system
of their own devising, but were each and all
organs of a Divine Voice which speaks in and
through them. When the notices of different
inspired authors on a doctrinal subject (notices152
THE RESURRECTION OF
which, if not palpably contrary to one another,
yet lead the mind in different directions), are
found upon examination to converge towards a
common centre, and adjust themselves into one
harmonious truth, we are then convinced that
there is a consistency in these notices which is
beyond the reach of human contrivance, and
which cannot be satisfactorily accounted for by
any other hypothesis than that of their emanation
from one common Source. If, on a careful con-
sideration of the narrative of Christ’s Resurrection,
as given by the Evangelists, it should be found
to harmonise with views of Bodily Resurrection
formed from other notices of Scripture, and spe-
cially from St. Paul’s writings, the perception of
this harmony may serve to convince us that, even
where they seem most opposed to one another,
the testimonies of Inspiration have a common
point, if we could but discern it, of adjustment
and consistency.
I have spoken of testimonies which superficially,
and on a cursory glance, are at variance with one
another. And I think it will not be denied that
this is the case with the notices of Christ’s Re-
surrection on the one hand and the views of
Resurrection which other Scriptures, and espe-
cially St. Paul’s writings, lead us to form. Let
any candid person read, without entering intoOUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
153
minute details, the narrative of the various ap-
pearances of the risen Saviour, side by side with
that scientific development of the doctrine of
the Resurrection contained in the 15th chapter
of the 1st Corinthians, and compare the general
impressions derived from the two. It will, I
think, be generally conceded that Animal Resus-
citation would be more or less the impression
derived from the narrative, while the discourse
rather leads the mind into notions of a develop-
ment of old rudiments under a new form of exist-
ence,— the entire abolition of the animal, and
the substitution of a spiritual ceconomy. There
is at least enough of difference in the respective
impressions derived from one and the other to
make us certain that St. Paul’s treatment and
illustration of the general subject was not drawn
from the study of the phenomena, and that, on
the other hand, the account of the phaenomena was
not drawn up to accord with the theory, as laid
down by St. Paul. If any considerations can be
advanced whereby this superficial discrepancy
may be made to vanish, and a natural consis-
tency established between the theory and the
only existing Instance of a Resurrection Pro-
cess,—nay, if the Instance appears, on a minute
examination, to illustrate and throw light upon
a theory gained from independent sources,—-this,154
THE RESURRECTION OF
we again say, will not only sanction the prin-
ciples already arrived at, but, by establishing a
doctrinal coincidence between passages whose
first complexion and general tone is widely dif-
ferent, will add something to the general evi-
dence in favour of the Scriptures.
Proceed we, then, with an earnest prayer for
the Divine guidance, to examine those phenomena
addressed to the senses of the Apostles and their
associates, on which the outward evidence of the
Resurrection of Christ rests.
We remark, then, first, that each of these
phenomena expresses a deep truth in the only
method by which, according to our present con-
stitution, such a truth could be conveyed to our
minds.
The two branches of this assertion we now
proceed to exhibit somewhat more fully.
The instruction which God gives to man—
whether conveyed by language or by phenomena,
—whether reaching us through the eye or
through the ear,—must necessarily be adapted
to our present faculties both of mind and body—
to our present circumstances as being children
educating for eternity.
As regards the language employed by the in-
spired writers, this is universally admitted. The
Bible freely and unhesitatingly attributes to GodOUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
155
the various affections of our nature, love, com-
passion, anger, jealousy, and even regret of past
conduct. Now, as on the one hand it were a
great error (and well nigh a blasphemy) to sup-
pose that such language is empty and void of
meaning,—a mere flourish of rhetoric adopted
by way of working upon men’s feelings and
having nothing corresponding to it in reality—
so on the other, it is not to be supposed that the
Infinite and all Perfect One is subject exactly to
the same affections as his creatures. But never-
theless, the ascription of human passions and emo-
tions to God conveys to us truth, if not in the
very purest conceivable form, yet in the only
form in which we are capable of receiving it.
Even as the noontide splendour of the sun pre-
cludes our feeble eye from the contemplation of
light in its fountain (whereas we may gaze upon
the refraction of light in the rainbow and thus gain
a knowledge of its nature which would not be
attainable in any other way), so there are in God
certain high and inscrutable perfections, in-
comprehensible by the puny grasp of human
reason, and which can only be represented to us
through the medium of terms borrowed from the
affections of our own nature. Compassion and
anger in the Divine Being are not precisely the
same thing as the emotions to which we give156
THE RESURRECTION OF
these names in ourselves—and yet human sym-
pathy and human anger are correct representa-
tives and exponents of some analogous perfec-
tions of the Divine Nature. There is in God
something (we know not what) which when
viewed through the medium of humanity is sym-
pathy and anger—and therefore which is justly
conveyed to our limited understandings by the
terms expressive of these feelings. We must be
content to take up with those notions of the
Deity which these terms convey, or to be alto-
gether destitute of notions on the subject. We
must either think of God as invested with the
feelings of our own nature, picturing him to our-
selves as angered by our sins, sympathising with
our griefs, and rejoicing over our penitence—or
else reduce the idea, which of all others should
be most vivid and forcible, to a dead and dry
abstraction, utterly powerless to conciliate or to
restrain.
Nor let it be thought that in making these
remarks we derogate in the least degree from the
perfect truthfulness of the Inspired Volume.
Every word of God expresses truth,—but truth
in the form adapted to our understanding—the
only form in which we are capable of receiving
it. Our present condition is one of childhood,—
and until our faculties are developed and ma-OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
157
tured in the future state, there is much of truth
which we are incapable of otherwise apprehend-
ing than by an adaptation of it to those faculties
in their present humble range. But that we may
more clearly understand the conditions under
which God is laid in dealing with His children,
let us consider the method by which we instil
truth into the minds of our own. Let an effort be
made to convey to the understanding of a young
child a notion of some truth which is evidently
above the reach of its capacity—say for example,
the government of the realm by three estates, and
the principle on which such government is
grounded—it will be found impossible to ac-
complish the task in any other method than that
of condescending to the child’s sphere, and fram-
ing some humble parable, the objects and actors
in which shall be those with which the child is
familiar. Such an illustration when framed will
convey the truth, not in that perfect manner in
which we ourselves apprehend it, but in the only
form in which the youthful mind is capable of
receiving it. It will be seen through a glass
in an enigma (St eaoirrpov ev alvLypari)—through
the glass of puerile faculties, in an enigma drawn
from a small circle but significant of things trans-
acted in a great one.
We have seen that, in communicating to man158
THE RESURRECTION OF
the metaphysical truth of His own Divine Nature,
God condescends to accommodate the truth to the
capacity of the human reason,—to throw it into
a form in which man’s mental faculties can grasp it.
In like manner and for a similar cause, these phy-
sical truths which it pleases Him to reveal, and
which (for any reason) may surpass our present
capacity, are accommodated to the senses of
those to whom they are in the first instance,
communicated. In neither case is it God’s wont
to alter the present constitution of His creature.
He does not enlarge the limited range either
of our mental or bodily faculties, and make
them competent to a further intuition, but He
reduces the truth to an aspect under which man
can apprehend it, and presents it under that as-
pect. He accommodates the object to the subject,
not the subject to the object. Let us consider,
as an instance remarkably in point, the method
in which a certain marvellous physical phe-
nomenon was conveyed to the senses of the
Israelites soon after their entrance under Joshua,
into the land of promise. That on that occa-
sion it pleased God to reverse the laws of nature
in a manner so extraordinary that nothing
similar ever occurred before or after—cannot,
consistently with due deference to the authority
ot Inspiration, be for an instant questioned,.OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
159
What the particular reversal of those laws was
in a scientific point of view—whether it consisted
in the suspension of the earth’s diurnal rotation,
or in the greatly increased refrangibility of the
rays of light, it has not pleased God to reveal to
us, doubtless for this reason, that the scientific
fact, even if it be not absolutely beyond the reach
of the human intellect, would certainly have been
unintelligible to all who lived before the Ptolemaic
system was exploded,—and to the vast mass of
simple and humble people since that time.
But whatever the phenomenon may have
been in a scientific point of view, there was
only one form in which, according to the laws
of sense, it could reach the human eye. And
what the eye saw on this occasion, was the sun
“ standing still in the midst of heaven, and hasting
"not to go down about a whole day.” This
phenomenon conveyed a real truth—not in its
scientific aspect,—but in a form accommodated
to the senses. Just as, when seen and interpreted
through the medium of human reason, the consti-
tuent elements of God’s moral nature are sym-
pathy, and anger, and compassion, and regret,
and love, and hatred, and even desire of
vengeance, so, when seen and interpreted
through the medium of human senses, the
miracle wrought at the prayer of Joshua wa.s160
THE RESURRECTION OF
indeed a standing still of the sun. To represent
it as such to the eye was a necessary compliance
with the corporeal constitution of man ; and to
describe it as such to the ear was to give the
only notion of it which the mind of the age could
have entertained ; for men were not at that time
aware that what has to us the appearance of
motion and rest is not always in reality motion
and rest. Thus as on the one hand, it were a
palpable impeachment of divine truth to deny
that a stupendous miracle was wrought on the
occasion in question, so on the other we may
safely suppose that the Book of God gives us an
account of the miracle—not in its scientific form,
in which other orders of intelligent beings may
have contemplated it, but in the form which it
presented to the human senses.
I should not have dwelt so long upon these
preliminary remarks, had I not thought them
essential to a right understanding of the phae-
nomena of our Lord’s Resurrection. I believe
that those phenomena were accommodations by
miracle of deep and important truths to the senses
of the Disciples. There is no reason to imagine
that a glorified Body, such as that in which our
Lord must have risen from the dead, could have
been recognised by human senses in their present
limited range, without a miracle rendering itOUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
161
thus cognisable. And in the phraseology which
is employed in describing the phenomena of the
Resurrection there is, we think, a sufficient in-
dication that the appearances of the risen Saviour
were of a miraculous character. It is said that
He appeared to the Disciples,	tyavepcbOr)
avTol<;')) the former being the very same term
which is applied to the apparition of angels,* to
the vision of Moses and Elias b on the Mount of
Transfiguration,—and to the miraculous mani-
festation of the Divine Presencec under the elder
covenant. The word itself is one appropriated
to miraculous visions, and the predominating use
of its passive form, in describing the Resurrection,
probably imports that it lay not so much in the
power of the subject to see, as in that of the
object to be seen—that the eyes would have
beheld nothing in the ordinary course of nature,4
had not the spiritual or heavenly Being made him-
a Luke i. 11, xxii. 43.
* Markix. 4, and Luke ix. 31.
c Acts vii. 2, 30, 35. The word is applied also to Paul’s vision of
the man of Macedonia (Acts xvi. 9) and to the apparition of the
cloven fiery tongues (Acts ii. 3). It is employed ten times in des-
cribing the appearances of the risen Saviour. Luke xxiv. 34. Acts
ix. 17, xiii. 31, xxvi. 16, bis. 1 Cor. xv. 5, 6, 7, 8. Also it is
applied to the manifestation of Christ at the Second Advent. Heb.
ix. 28. 'Ecpai/epcoO-n is employed of the manifestations of the risen
Saviour, Mark xvi. 12, 14, John xxi. 14, itpavepaaev iavrbv, John
xxi. 1.
a See French on the Miracles, as quoted in Appendix to
Lecture V. Note A.162
THE RESURRECTION OF
self manifest to them at his discretion. And the
narrators have faithfully put upon record what
they saw—they have represented to us the very
image of Christ,—not as it appears in glory to
the inhabitants of heaven—(for as the words of
another sphere are unutterable here,—apprjra
prfp,ara, a, ovk e’^ov avOpwircp \a\7jcrcu,—so probably
are its scenes incapable of an exact expression
upon the earth)—but as it was presented to their
senses, as it was brought miraculously within the
cognisance of their bodily faculties.
Most certain it is at least (by whatever theory
we may choose to account for it) that the Body
which they saw and handled must have been
endowed with properties different from those
which Scripture leads us to attribute to a glorified
structure. The former (to specify one instance
of the difference) must have partaken in some
measure of the animal ceconomy, must have pos-
sessed organs for the reception and digestion of
food; for it is written that when “ they gave him
“ a piece of a broiled fish and of an honey-comb,
“ he took it and did eat before them.” In another
passage of the New Testament we find it intimated
that flesh and blood,—that is to say, the animal
oeconomy under which the Body is at present
manifested,—cannot without a change inherit
the kingdom of God: and one text of St. Paul,OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
163
which has already received full consideration,
expressly states that God shall destroy both
human sustenance as the means of maintaining
life, and the entire system which has reference
to food. " Meats for the belly, and the belly
“ for meats: but God shall destroy both it and
“ them.”
We are thrown back then for a reconciliation
of these apparent discrepancies on the simple and
satisfactory hypothesis, that for the purpose of
certifying to his Disciples the fact of his Resur-
rection, Christ miraculously reassumed the old
natural Body, as the only mode by which he
could reach their present senses,—reconstructed,
if I may so say, the flower into the seed6 for a
time, in order that the seed might be shewn to
live after the power of an endless life.
As the ascription of human affections to God
is expressive of some inconceivable truth in the
Divine Nature which we cannot otherwise appre-
hend; as there was a real miracle wrought in
the days of Joshua which left upon the human
eye an impression that the sun and moon were
stationary; so the phenomena of the Resur-
rection (although accommodated to the human
senses) are not mere phaenomena having no
basis in reality. They are revelations of certain
* See Lecture I., p. 20, for the explanation of this analogy.164
THE RESURRECTION OF
verities respecting the spiritual body, which to
man remaining in his present state could not
have been otherwise sensibly communicated. I
say to man remaining in his present state: for
it is of course conceivable that God might have
taken (if it had so pleased Him) another way
of revealing supersensuous truth. He might
have enlarged the human faculties for the time
being, and have made them competent to an in-
tuition into the spiritual world. Such an enlarge-
ment of the faculties seems to have actually taken
place in the case of Elisha’s servant, whose eyes
were opened at the Prophet’s prayer, “and he
“ saw; and, behold, the mountain was full of
“ horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.”
It is clearly intimated in this narrative that nothing
was visible to the unassisted eye of sense, that
the young man himself would have seen nothing,
had not a miracle been wrought upon his visual
organ. But in the narrative of Christ’s appear-
ances subsequently to his Resurrection, there is
not the slightest indication that the senses of the
Disciples were endued with a wider power of in-
sight than attached to them under ordinary cir-
cumstances. It is indeed on one occasion said
that “ their eyes were opened,” not however to
see—but “to know” (or recognise) Jesus: and
it is intimated that this recognition might haveOUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
165
taken place earlier had not a restraint of some
mysterious kind been laid upon the ordinary
exercise of their faculties : for we are told that
in the former part of the interview “their eyes
were holden that they should not know him.”
But, indeed, the result of communicating to
the Disciples a power of insight into the spiritual
world, instead of bringing the risen Saviour
within the apprehension of their unassisted senses,
would have been greatly to weaken in the minds
of men the evidence of that high verity, upon
which, as on a sure foundation, the religion of
Christ is built. If hut a suspicion were allowed
to enter that the senses of the Apostles were
wrought upon, or brought into an unnatural
state on the occasions of their beholding their
risen Master,—that other persons, had they been
present, would have seen nothing on those oc-
casions,—it would be open to scepticism to assert
with some measure of plausibility that these
apparitions were the offspring of an heated
imagination and an excited state of feeling in
the bereaved followers of Jesus. But there is
everything in the narrative to counteract such
an impression. Our Lord himself in some of his
interviews with them, calls attention to the fact
that he is cognisable not by the sight only, but
by that sense of touch also which is more material166
THE RESURRECTION OF
and grosser than the rest, and whose operations
are thrown into abeyance by a state of trance;
and it is recorded that on certain occasions several
of them (at one time more than five hundred breth-
ren) saw him at once, of whom it is inconceivable
that all should be in the same instant wrapt into an
ecstasy. Most plain it is, then, that the senses of
the subject remained what they were, while the
heavenly Object which had to be manifested was
miraculously accommodated to them. And we
now proceed under the Divine blessing to examine
the phenomena which, as the result of this pro-
cess of accommodation, were presented to the
senses, and to consider what each class of them
may teach.
1.(1.) We find, then, in the first place, that the
risen Body of the Saviour was subjected to the
touch, as well as presented to the eye of the
Disciples. He himself challenged them to put its
palpability to the proof, in those words : " Handle
" me, and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and
“ bones, as ye see me have.”
The plain lesson derivable from this subjection
to the touch is, that a risen and glorified Body
retains its materiality,—that, however subtilized
and etherialized in the process of Resurrection,
bo that mortal eye can no longer take cognizance
of it, it has still a corporeal subsistence,—posses-OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
167
ses still relations to time and space, and all other
conditions which difference matter from pure
spirit. In order to establish this truth to the
entire satisfaction of simple persons, it was neces-
sary that the risen Body of the Saviour should be
handled as well as seen. For touch gives us an
assurance of material existence such as we can
gather from no other sense. The eye may, as
is commonly supposed, take cognizance of phan-
toms, unreal and spectral shapes which are either
conjured up by a heated imagination or in some
few cases perhaps have a real and mysterious
connexion with the spiritual world. But that
which is palpable we conceive perforce to have
something more than a subjective or a spiritual
existence,—we assign to it a place among the
objects of the material universe, and the many
substances which surround us in the realm of
nature,
(2.) A kindred lesson, one which goes some-
what beyond, while it involves, the former, may be
derived from the phenomenon of Christ’s receiv-
ing food after his Resurrection. On one occasion
we are told that He asked for meat, and on their
giving him “ a piece of a broiled fish and of
“ an honeycomb, he took it and did eat before
“them.” We have already intimated that it were
an erroneous conclusion, and one which would168
THE RESURRECTION OF
conflict with other statements of Holy Scripture,
to infer from hence that the glorified and spiritual
body is maintained, like the animal structure, by
continual supplies of nourishment. But as in
the animal, so no doubt in the spiritual body,
there will be an ceconomy, an organisation : the
latter, no less than the former, will be a system
in itself, with mechanismf adapted to the services
which it has to fulfil and to its continuance in
existence.
Seeing, however, that a spiritual organism is
not apprehensible by our present faculties,—this
truth could in no other manner be conveyed to
man’s senses than by the compliance on the part
of the risen Saviour with the conditions of that
animal organization under which the Body is at
present manifested. He ate and drank with His
disciples after He rose from the dead (having
first miraculously brought himselfinto a condition
so to do) ; because this was the only practicable
method of throwing into their minds the impor-
tant lesson that corporeity (including under that
term not materiality only, but a distinct organiza-
tion also) is maintained and not abolished in that
process of development, which is called Resur-
rection.
Such are the obvious lessons to be derived
f See Appendix to Lecture 5. Note B.OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.	169
from this first class of phenomena,—the subjec-
tion of Christ’s person to the touch and his par-
ticipation of food subsequently to his Resurrection,
And it is well to remind you that they are lessons
which we have already gathered from another
source. While investigating from the analogies
supplied to us by the Inspired Writers the nature
of the Resurrection Process, we saw that those
analogies forbade us to imagine in the Process any
loss of an essential constituent, such as the Body
is in the system of human nature.
Thus far, then, the teaching of other scriptural
notices and the lessons derived from the study of
the example are in harmony with one another.
Both sources of information, when examined, lead
us to think that materiality and corporeity will
characterise the Resurrection state of man no less
than his present condition. And the example,
when rightly explained, allows of our supposing,
as the analogies compel us to suppose, that ma-
teriality and corporeity, although maintained) will
be there developed under a new oeconomy, which
on account of its spirituality our present faculties
are unable to apprehend.
(3.) Another class of phenomena now chal-
lenges our attention. Some if not all of the ap-
pearances of our risen Saviour were characterised
by the stigmata, or marks of his sacred Passion. To
M170
THE RESURRECTION OF
these he called the attention of all his disciples
in general. “Behold my hands and my feet
“ that it is I myself”—and of St. Thomas in par-
ticular—“ Reach hither thy finger and behold
“ my hands, and reach hither thy hand and
“ thrust it into my side and be not faithless, but
“ believing.” These phenomena clearly indicate
identity of the risen with the natural Body.
They constitute an irrefragable evidence of the
fact that the Body exhibited to the disciples was
the very structure which had hung in protracted
agony upon the sharp cross. Nor this alone; by
the abiding impress of the wound in the side, in
addition to those upon the hands and feet,
the body was evidenced to be that of Christ
Himself, and an allegation which might have
insinuated itself into the minds of the Jews,
that the Body produced was that of some other
crucified person, taken down before death, was
effectually disproved and precluded.
Now, here again it is not necessary to suppose
(though indeed it is open and allowable, and we
cling somewhat fondly to the notion) that the
stigmata are still visible upon the glorified form
of our Redeemer, that though seated upon the
throne of the Majesty in the heavens, He still
bears them about in his risen Body, an eternal
monument of his sorrows. The purpose of ex-OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
171
hibiting them to the disciples was to impress
upon them the identity of the glorified Body
(notwithstanding the change which had passed
upon it in glorification) with that which had been
wounded for their transgressions and bruised
for their iniquities.
The manifestation of this truth to the eye of
sense could in no other manner be contrived than
by such an exhibition; which was rendered, we
may observe, the more necessary by the fact
that the countenance and form of the risen
Saviour had (on some occasions of his appear-
ance) undergone a great change. On such oc-
casions there would be no personal token, save
these sacred marks, whereby the disciples could
have identified him. And these, be it observed,
were at once the most satisfactory of all tokens,
and sufficient, in the absence of any other, for
the proof of identity. Visible resemblance could
not by itself so conclusively have established
identity, as the abiding impress of the scars
in question; for a resemblance might exist be-
tween two persons so strong as to ensure their
being usually confounded, whereas it is in the
highest degree improbable that two persons
should both receive an exactly similar wound,
given not in but out of the regular course of
punishment. And, in the absence of visible re-
m 2172
THE RESURRECTION OF
semblance, a bodily mark is sufficient for identi-
fication. In respect of stature, outward linea-
ment, and feature, the body undergoes several
changes even in this life; changes so great as to
put it out of our power to recognise the infant
in the boy, or the boy in the full-grown man.
But the scars impressed upon the person by
a blow or wound, not to speak of natural
blemishes, outlive the shifting of form and fea-
ture, incidental to the body’s development. On
which account it is that our Lord appeals not,
when he would show the identity of the risen
with the natural body, to his countenance (which,
for reasons presently to be subjoined, had under-
gone a change), but to those marks impressed
by cruel violence upon his person, which were a
surer and a safer token of identity than resem-
blance, and one which, even in the absence of
resemblance, was satisfactory.
Need we remind you that this lesson also we
have gathered already from our examination of
the Resurrection process ? Resurrection we have
been led to conceive of as a birth process; and
in birth is involved the identity of the substance
conceived and fashioned secretly in all its members
with that which is brought forth into the light of
day.
II. Now we are willing to admit that, wereOUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
173
there no other phenomena upon record save those
which have been already examined, the impres-
sion left upon our minds by the entire narrative
would be that Resurrection, in our Lord’s case,
was nothing more than a return to the con-
ditions of animal life, and is in no way to be dis-
tinguished from those miracles of resuscitation
which He himself wrought. This impression
would indeed be at variance with the statement
that Christ was the first to rise from the dead,
and with the title of “ first-born from the dead”
founded upon that statement; nor would it be
more reconcileable with the Apostle’s emphatic
assertion that Christ being raised from the dead
dieth no more, inasmuch as all animal life hath
mortality inwoven into its very texture. And
for the solution of the difficulty thus raised we
should have been thrown back upon the view
already suggested, viz., that the phenomena of
the Resurrection are exhibitions of truth, not in
its abstract objective form, but in a form adapted
to our capacities—that Christ does not indeed
five an animal fife in heaven ; but that when his
Resurrection was to be certified to man, He
must perforce be exhibited as living such a life,
since the human senses can take cognisance of
no other. We should have concluded still that
the Body of the risen Saviour had been brought174
THE RESURRECTION OF
out under a spiritual, although necessarily pre-
sented to the disciples under the aspect of an
animal oeconomy.
But it so happens, as if for the very corrobo-
ration of this view, that other phenomena are
upon record, which indicate in a very significant
manner what would else have rested upon argu-
mentative inference from other passages. These
phsenomena we believe to have been purposely
arranged and adjusted with the view of counter-
acting the error that no metamorphosis had
passed upon the Body of Christ in the process of
Resurrection.
(1.) Consider, then, the singular fact so often
emphatically attested by the Evangelists, that in
many cases the person of the risen Saviour was
not recognised by those with whom he had held
during life the most familiar intercourse. On
his first appearance to St. Mary Magdalen we
are told that “ she saw Jesus standing, and knew
“ not that it was Jesus.” He addressed her, and
in doing so must have arrested her attention,
and drawn her notice to the form which stood
before her. That form could not have been a
very close resemblance to the Saviour as she
had known him previously to his death, for from
the first hasty glance which she cast upon it she
derived the impression that He was the gardener..OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
175
It was the manner and tone which our Lord em-
ployed in pronouncing her name which first
awakened former associations within her, and
convinced her that she stood in the presence of
her Master. Still more striking is the utter failure
of recognition on the part of the two disciples
going to Emmaus. They walked side by side
with Christ, conversed with Him as heretofore,
and even sat at meat with Him, without seeing
anything in form, or feature, or manner, or
hearing anything in tone and voice which led
them to conclude that He was their mysterious
associate. St. Mark accounts for this in a
manner very observable, and upon which I shall
presently comment. He informs us that Jesus
on this occasion “ appeared in another form”
(J$avepw6r) ev erepa p.opcprj'). St. Luke represents
the change as only a change of appearance, not
inherent in the object, but determined by the fa-
culties of the subject. Jesus was the same ; but
there was that in the disciples which made them
see him differently ; for “their eyes were holden
“that they should not know him,” until his
manner of breaking bread, an action which it
may be He had been wont to perform in their
presence with a peculiar and characteristic so-
lemnity, struck a chord in their remembrance,
and through the inlet thus made in their percep-i7a
THE RESURRECTION OK
tions, the truth rushed in and flooded their
minds. A due reverence to the first as well as
to the last of these inspired representations will
lead us to the conclusion that on the occasion in
question not only was a miraculous restraint laid
upon the percipient organ, but that also an
actual change had taken place in the object
perceived. Again, we find our Lord appealing to
the stigmata as if without these marks the form
and lineament in which he appeared were not of
themselves sufficient to identify Him as the same
person. “ Behold my hands and my feet, that
“it is I myself.” “When he had so said, he
“ shewed unto them his hands and his side.’*
And we are informed that even in his final inter-
view with the eleven on the mountain, “ some
“ doubted”—a doubt which it is difficult to ac-
count for on any other supposition than that of
his appearance in a form different from that
which He had worn during life, and which was
capable of being recognised only by the observa-
tions of certain tokens attaching to it. Again,
in St. John’s account of that remarkable inter-
view between the disciples and the ris.en Saviour
on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias, it is suffh-
ciently intimated that our Lord was not re-
cognised by his form and features—it was rather
felt instinctively than perceived directly by theOUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
177
disciples that it was He. They knew not that it
was Jesus, until the miraculous draught of fishes,
reminding St. John of what he had before wit-
nessed, revealed the fact to him. Afterwards it
is added, “ The disciples durst not ask him, who
“ art thou, knowing it was the Lord”—an asser-
tion which surely implies that their conviction of
the truth was derived from what transpired at
that solemn and mysterious interview rather than
from the eyesight.
Now, here is a feature in the phaenomena of
resurrection quite different from any which we
find in those of resuscitation. There was no room
whatever to doubt that Lazarus, awakened from
his four days’ sleep, was indeed the very Lazarus
who had been bound with grave clothes and de-
posited in the grave. The form was the same in
all respects as it had been previously to death ;
the features wore still the very expression with
which the sorrowing sisters were so familiar, and
which had been enshrined in their hearts. The
enemies of Jesus, we may be sure, would gladly
have availed themselves of any pretext which
might have offered, to call the miracle in ques-
tion. And such a pretext might have been
found in the allegation that a living man, some-
thing resembling Lazarus, had been produced
from the tomb instead of he. But such an alle-178
THE RESURRECTION OF
gation was never made, no doubt because it
could not be made with the slightest show of
reason. Every one who had known Lazarus
previously at once identified him by eyesight
as the man who had died, but was now alive
again. It was far otherwise, as we have seen,
with the risen Saviour.
Now, the first thing which strikes us in this
phenomenon of a different form, (and though
the remark is not immediately to my present
purpose, I cannot avoid making it,) is that the
candidly putting on record such difference is a
wonderful specimen of the truthful simplicity
which characterises the writings of the Evan-
gelists. Be it remembered that the entire struc-
ture of Christianity is built upon the Resurrection
of Christ as its foundation, and that to prove this
fundamental article satisfactorily, to establish it
in such a manner as shall leave no doubt upon
any rational mind, must be the foremost object of
any advocate of the Christian system. Now, one
of the main proofs of Resurrection would be the
person’s having been seen alive after the ascer-
tained fact of death, and recognised by form,
feature, and voice, as the very person who died.
But this last evidence of Resurrection was very
rarely, if at all, afforded to the disciples in our
Lord’s case. We are not told that He was everOUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
179
recognised by form and feature. We are dis-
tinctly told that on certain occasions He could
not be so recognised. Now, this point it would
be just the province of a person advocating
Christ’s Resurrection, to keep back and conceal.
It is just the weak point in the argument over
which the skilful pleader would desire to throw
a veil. He would select for comment the phe-
nomenon of the stigmata, as conclusively shewing
that the Body had undergone crucifixion, and
that of the wound in the side as decisively ne-
gativing the idea that the body might have been
that of one of the malefactors; but the circum-
stance of non-recognition, although by no means
decisive against the verity of our Lord’s Resur-
rection, we believe he would have blinked. But
it was not the part of the holy and inspired
Evangelists to sustain the character of advo-
cates. They are simple bearers of testimony,
recording what passed before their eyes, or
what was transmitted to them on the authority
of unimpeachable eye-witnesses, and they pro-
claim themselves such when they faithfully and
simply set down the points against, no less than
the points in favour of, Christianity and Christians.
But then, what their narrative might be supposed
to lose by candid admissions against themselves
or their religion, it more than gains by the cha-180
THE RESURRECTION OF
racter of truthfulness and simplicity which is
thus indelibly impressed upon it. These writers
are evidently actuated by the simple desire to
put upon record facts exactly as they occurred,
without the slightest perversion of them to the
support of any system, without even a comment
upon the significance of what they narrate. They
are witnesses to testify what they have seen and
heard, not advocates to found a plea, or com-
mentators to expatiate upon it. And deeply im-
plicated as they themselves were in the cause of
Christ, embarked as all their hopes were in the
truth of that cause, we feel that it would have
been an utter impossibility for them to have
maintained throughout their entire narratives
this tone of even and dispassionate candour, had
they not been under the controul of a Spirit
greater than their own, who drew their minds
up as they wrote far above the narrow prepos-
sessions of partisans, and the bias discernible
in all profane historians, into a bright and trans-
parent atmosphere of purest truth, reflecting ac-
curately every incident and person introduced in
their narratives.
But, returning from this digression, let us now
consider what may have been the significance
of the phsenomenon in question. What lesson
respecting Resurrection shall we suppose toour lord Jesus christ.
181
be conveyed to us by that change of form and
appearance in the risen Saviour which the Evan-
gelists have so candidly and so pointedly put
upon record ? Let us gather the answer to this
question from a comparison of two scriptural
passages, to which we have already referred.
St. Mark informs us that the Saviour, on the 0c-1
casion of joining company with two of his dis-
ciples as they went to Emmaus, appeared in
another form (eV erepa p-op<pr}'). He was meta-
morphosed to the eyes of his disciples so that
they could not recognise him. Now compare
with this the language of St. Paul when de-
scribing the great consummation which the
Christian is anticipating by faith and hope.
"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.” (0? fieTaa^p^aTirrei to a<bp,a
rtji ra7reiyc6crea><! r/pL&v, et? to yevecrdcu avro crvp.p.op4>ov
t<3 orcbfiari rrj<i Sof??? avrov.') A change must pass
upon the vile body, whether found in life, or
slumbering in death, at the Lord’s second Ad-
vent,—a change which shall liberate it from the
humiliating conditions of the animal, and qualify
it for the spiritual oeconomy, under which it is
then to be brought out.
When we consider that the term by which182
THE RESURRECTION OF
St. Paul designates this change is
(change of form or fashion), we cannot but con-
clude that our Lord’s appearance in another
form, subsequently to his Resurrection, is signi-
ficant of this very change, and is recorded for
the sake of notifying to us that in the Resurrec-
tion Process such a change is involved. Christ’s
Resurrection Body was proved to be identical
with his natural body, by the abiding upon it of
certain marks which had been impressed upon
it in its natural state. But his faithful followers
were not therefore to conclude that it had un-
dergone no alteration. Resurrection is not a
restitution of former circumstances, but a de-
velopment into a new condition. In such a de-
velopment there is always a change, though not
a destruction of any essential element. And it
was for the purpose of indicating that his sacred
body had undergone such a change that our
Lord appeared in another form. Had He not
done so there would have been nothing in the
phenomena of his Resurrection, from which we
could have gathered the diversity in point of en-
dowments and ceconomy between the natural and
spiritual bodies.
(2.) There remain to be noticed those phae-
nomena which indicate that this change subsisted
mainly in the endowment of the body withOUE LORD JESUS CHRIST.
183
spiritual properties. As in the Resurrection of
Christ, one class of phasnomena instructs us in the
truth of the risen Body’s materiality, so it was
fitting that, by way of correcting any erroneous in-
ference which might thence be drawn, other phae-
nomena should be exhibited which should instruct
us in the spiritualisation of matter under the
ceconomy of glory—its fuller interpenetration
than at present with the subtle and energetic
force of the mind. The phaenomena conveying
these lessons are principally two. The Resurrec-
tion-body passed through closed doors (for it
was when the doors were shut for fear of the
Jews that Jesus came and stood in the midst of
his disciples); and it ascended up, by some in-
herent energy, into the very presence chamber
of the Divine Majesty. Let us say a word on
each of these points.
(a.) We instinctively attribute to mind or
spirit a subtlety or power of eluding the senses.
True it is that, in a scientific point of view,
this subtlety equally attaches to certain forms
of matter;—but popularly, that which affects
none of the senses, that which we can perceive
neither by sight nor hearing, touch, or taste,
is regarded as spiritual. Now, if its subjection to
the touch of the disciples proves the risen Body
of Christ to have been material, its transit through184	THE RESURRECTION OF
opaque substances indicates a wide difference
between it and matter in its grosser forms.
I say matter in its grosser forms: because it is
well known that the impalpability, tenuity, arid
invisibility of certain objects does not at all prove
them immaterial. The atmosphere is well ascer-
tained to be a material substance: yet is it so
subtle that we can neither see it nor comprehend
how it insinuates itself into and diffuses itself
through the apparently compacted pores of solid
bodies. Here, then, in nature is a specimen of a
substance reaching us through avenues which
we cannot discern, present to us without our
perceiving it by the senses, and yet undoubtedly
material. And by what we read respecting the
occasional invisibility of the Lord’s body, and its
passage through obstacles which would have
resisted the transit of dense substances, we are
instructed that matter will assume in the Resur-
rection one of its more subtle forms—such a
form probably as could not without miracle be
recognised by our present senses. There is,
then, according to the popular notions of spirit,
an indication that our Lord’s Body was spiritu-
alised in Resurrection.
(b.) But the philosopher, no less than the
simple person, attributes to mind, as a charac-
teristic which differences it from matter, a powerOUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
185
of originating motion. All matter, whether in its
most gross or most subtle forms, is inert, and,
so far as the investigations of Science have as yet
proceeded, there is no reason to suppose that
this inertia can be overcome except by an im-
pulse originating (however it may be transmitted)
in volition. An able and learned writer, who has
discussed with much ingenuity and acuteness the
physical theory of another life, has pointed out
that the mechanical power of the mind is, under
our present constitution, limited in amount by
the strength of its organic materials (which
might undergo some rupture were the mind to
put forth to the utmost its inherent mechanical
force) and in direction by the system of articula-
tion and the arrangement of the limbs, which
preclude all movement except within certain
bounds. But conceive of the organic frame as
strong and indestructible under the spiritual
ceconomy—able to bear the brunt of the most
powerful impulses communicated to it by the
mindconceive of it as greatly increased in
flexibility and endowed with a faculty of moving
in other directions,—the mind then emancipated
from its restraints, and employing its whole
energies, might overcome in moving upwards the
force of gravitation, even as now in moving for-
wards it overcomes the resistance of the atmos-
N186
THE RESURRECTION OF
phere. In a word, the control of mind over its
corporeal instrument might be much enlarged,
and the subjection of the body to the will much
extended, although mind and will might still be
under certain limitations, imposed upon them as
a necessary condition of their amalgamation with
matter. Such an enlarged control of the mind,
such an interpenetration of the body in every
part with the influences of the will, might be
justly termed a spiritualisation of the material
element whereof man is compounded. The
energic power resides in the mind, and therefore
the manifestation in the body of an energic
power to which it was once incompetent, is a
larger endowment of it than heretofore with
mind or spirit. And, as an intimation that the
Body in its Resurrection state shall be thus en-
dowed, our Lord at the close of his personal
ministry ascended up by miracle into the fields
of air, thus demonstrating that the body which
he had before shown by many and infallible
proofs to be material, was no longer coerced in
its action by those restrictions to which, under
the animal oeconomy, it had been subjected.
The sole example of Resurrection, then, which
is proposed to us in the sacred Scriptures,
teaches us the same lesson which we have
already gathered from the Pauline discussion
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.	187
of the great Verity,—that Resurrection involves,
without any forfeiture of identity, a mighty
change of faculties in the person undergoing
it. Resurrection is like the germination of the
flower from the seed. It is the bringing out of
a substance into a new element, and its adapta-
tion thereto, by the dropping of an old and the
investment with a new organism.
Before I conclude this discourse with some
remarks of a practical character, I desire to
obviate any inference which may be drawn from
the foregoing argument, unfavourable to the
mutual recognition of Christ’s people, in the
realms of glory. In the course of that argument
it may perhaps have occurred to some that if our
Lord could not be recognised subsequently to
his Resurrection by those who had lived in
familiar intercourse with Him, and if the inference
drawn from this fact, of a great change which shall
pass upon the Body in Resurrection, be correct
and well founded,—those who have been most
near and dear to us in the flesh may not perhaps
be recognised by us in that heavenly ceconomy
under which we are fondly looking forward to a
renewal of our intimacy with them. But this is
by no means a necessary inference from what
has been advanced. Because the risen Body*
when miraculously manifested to man’s present
n 2188
THE RESURRECTION OF
senses, cannot be recognised by the eye of flesh
and blood, it does not follow that it could not be
recognised by the eye of the spiritual body. Be
it remembered that our own position and rela-
tions will have undergone a change in the higher
state parallel to that which has passed upon our
friends. And change of position opens the eyes
to many truths, which they were previously in-
capable of discerning. One who is himself borne
along in rapid movement sees the objects of
nature as if they were whirling past him in quick
succession. But place him in rest, and those
objects are at once recognised as stationary like
himself.
Such is a sufficient answer to the difficulty, on
the hypothesis that a real difficulty exists. But
in the failure of the disciples to recognise their
risen Lord, is there any real ground for imagining
the same failure of recognition between friends in
glory ? We must not press this, or any phasno-
menon of the Resurrection, too far. All that it
can be taken to import is that the risen Body will
undergo a great change. But in what that change
will consist;—whether it will involve precisely an
alteration of feature, we cannot without extreme
presumption pretend to define. Because in our
Lord’s case it was expressed to the senses of the
disciples by such an alteration (the only way inOUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
189
which it could be indicated to the eye of sense)
we are not therefore warranted in asserting that
it consists objectively in this.
The course of our discussion has led us to speak
of a metamorphosis which, in the process of Re-
surrection, passed upon the Body of the Lord
Jesus Christ. Hence we may take occasion to
reflect in a practical manner on those disguises
which in his dealings with his people it pleases the
Lord occasionally to assume. In that oeconomy
of grace under which it is our privilege to live, he
is intimately near to every one of us, although
we see him not by the bodily eye, and too often
fail to recognise him by the quick and instinctive
intuition of the faithful and loving heart. He is
near to us in liis ordinances—the consecrated
pathway these along which He walks, dispensing
blessings in his course. Prayer derives its happy
and tranquillizing influences from His breathing
upon the soul which sincerely engages in it. In
the read and preached Word the faithful disciple
hears the well known accents of His voice, and
his heart burns within him. In breaking of bread
He is evidently set forth to the eye of faith as
wounded for our transgressions and bruised for
our iniquities.
But He is also encountered by His true dis-
ciples in pathways where they little expect to190
THE RESURRECTION OF
meet Him—in His providential dispensations—
in those more especially whose outward semblance
is dark and frowning, and betokens to the super-
ficial observer Divine severity rather than Divine
Love. Yes ! not unfrequently does the mystical
Joseph, now exalted to the throne of supremacy
over the affairs of this lower world, make himself
strange unto his brethren, and speak roughly
unto them, and deal with them perplexingly.
Yet behind a frowning providence he hides a
smiling face! He yearns upon his brethren in
the privacy of his chamber, while He reproves
and chastises them in the public audiences of his
court. But this mysterious deportment He as-
sumes in order that they may plead with Him
more urgently, may despair more entirely of their
own resources, and abandon themselves more
unreservedly to his infinite compassions. No
sooner have they done so than, unable longer
to refrain, He makes Himself known unto them.
They recognise His hand in the rod of chastise-
ment, His Wisdom and Love in the appointment
of it,—and discover the fruits of this severe dis-
pensation in a sensible confirmation of their faith
and a revival of the dying embers of their love.
O for the day when He shall cast off all dis-
guises, and employ no more for the purpose of
His communications with us the medium of ordi-OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
191
nances and dispensations, (which for the present
are his interpreters,) but speak with us face to
face, so that our joy may be full. Then in the
retrospect of our past lives shall we be made to
know that He has understood our ways, when
we thought them unmarked and unheeded, and
has regulated all his dealings with us by a pro-
found insight into our heart’s secret;—then too
shall we be enabled fully to track his ways through
the deep waters of his providential counsel,—to
perceive that, whatever aspect his dispensations
may have borne on the surface, his thoughts have
been ever thoughts of peace towards us and not
of evil, to give us an expected end,—and that
even while He has smitten, He has been yearn-
ing over us in love, and laying designs whereby
He might more effectually secure our gathering
unto Him in glory.LECTURE VI.
THE RESURRECTION OF THE RIGHTEOUS AND OF
THE UNGODLY, AND THE DISTINCT GROUNDS
ON WHICH THEY REST.
John v. part of verse 28, 29.
“ All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and
shall come forth, they that have done good, unto the Resur-
rection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the
Resurrection of damnation''
In a previous Lecture we have proved from
this text the doctrine of an universal Resurrec-
tion, and have pointed out the grounds upon
which the wreck of Human Nature, brought
about by death, must be repaired in each in-
dividual inheritor of it.
But though it is here and elsewhere asserted,
in terms so distinct and unequivocal as to admit
of no evasion, that the sinner no less than the
saint shall rise again with his body,—yet it must
be conceded that the inspired writers much194 THE RESURRECTION OF THE RIGHTEOUS
more frequently speak of the Resurrection as
a distinguishing privilege attaching exclusively
to the righteous. We cannot say that the re-
demption of the evil-doer from the grave is more
than once or twice explicitly asserted in the
Holy Scriptures; and, even where Resurrection
is announced as the future lot of the human
family, the writer’s mind glances off (as if in
search of relief) from the dismal to the bright
side of the subject,—possibly because the term
Resurrection associated itself more readily in
his mind with the notion of eternal life and
blessedness, than with that of the bare reunion
of soul and body. Thus, although (as we have
seen) St. Paul recognises Resurrection as the
universal lot, when he announces that “as in
“Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be
“ made alive,” yet in what follows he seems to
entertain little thought of anything but Resur-
rection-glories. “It is sown,” says he, of the
human body, “ in dishonour; it is raised in
glory:” thus instinctively viewing the process
solely as it takes effect upon the righteous,
and dismissing without notice those awful cases
in which the sleepers of the death-sleep shall
awake from the dust of the earth, not “ to ever-
“ lasting life,” but “ to shame and everlasting con-
“ tempt.” Possibly one clue to this partial treat-AND OF THE UNGODLY.
195
ment of the subject may be found, as I have
hinted, in the associations suggested by the word.
Although “ blessed are the dead who die in the
“ Lord,” and to all such the termination of this
life, so far from being a calamity, is a positive
exemption from evil, yet we cannot but con-
nect death mentally with all that is gloomy,
disastrous, and ungenial. Resurrection is the
converse of death, or rather the antidote of the
great evil, and as such it is instinctively as-
sociated with glory and blessedness, although
involving to numbers who undergo it a degra-
dation and misery greater by far than any they
have hitherto experienced. The word ’Avd<r-
Taai9, denoting primarily as it does the act of
rising or standing up, would faY more readily
convey to an oriental mind, (which recognised
in the postures of the body a type of the soul’s
emotions,) the idea of joy and triumph, than that
of humiliation and despair. We may conceive,
then, that the associations inherent in the term
may have drawn the mind of the Apostle in one
direction rather than another, and led him to
expatiate upon that Resurrection which alone
is worthy of the name, passing over in silence
that which is but the preface and introduction to
the second death.
While upon the subject of terminology, we196 THE RESURRECTION OF THE RIGHTEOUS
may remark that the Resurrection of the righte-
ous is signalised by the very form of speech
which the inspired writers employ, as being alone
the true Resurrection, as alone realising the full
idea which attaches itself to the term. The
word “ Resurrection,” when simply denoting the
general lot of humanity, has no article prefixed.
St. Paul, in his apology before Felix, professes
“ hope toward God, which” (says he) “ the Jews
“ themselves also allow, that there shall be a Re-
“ surrection of the dead, (dvdaraaiv p-eWeiv eaeaOai
“vetcpwv,) both of the just and unjust.” Again
we read: “ The Sadducees say that there is
“ no Resurrection ” (SaSSoutcaioi Xeyovci fir] elvcu
avdcnaaiv.) These sectarians denied the existence
of any future state of retribution, in which every
one shall receive the things done in his body, ac-
. cording to that he hath done, whether it be good
or bad. But the existence of such a state is a
rudimentary article of Christian faith, avdaraatf
veKpcov (not v dvdo-racK') appearing in the Epistle
to the Hebrews among the principles of the doc-
trine of Christ. On the other hand, the Resur-
rection of the righteous is always distinguished
either by the prefix of the article, or by some
adjunct which limits to them the application of
the word, or in both these ways. Thus it is
termed in our text, Resurrection of life,—AND OF THE UNGODLY.
197
(dvda-rao-is far)s) ; elsewhere, the Resurrection
(V arao-rao-t?) ;s the Resurrection of the dead
(v dvdaracns tojv ve/cpcav) ;b the Resurrection of
the just (j) avdaracri'} w Sucalcov') ;c the Resur-
rection out of (or from amongst) the dead
(97 dvaaTaais 97 e’/e vexpcov and V i^avacrTacn<; tojv
ve/cp£>v.')i The two last phrases, when studied
in the original, intimate plainly that the sub-
jects of the Resurrection alluded to are not
all the dead—but a selection from among them.
Should it be required to convey this shade of
meaning in our own language, we might render
the expression, as in one case our translators
have rendered it, “ Resurrection from the dead,”
—taking care, however, to draw a distinction
between this, and “ Resurrection of the dead.”
I. The Resurrection of the righteous will
not only present a spectacle totally different
from that of the rest of mankind, but also will
rest upon certain specific grounds of its own, over
and above those grounds which we have already
assigned for an universal Resurrection.
First let us say a word of its phenomena so far
as they may be gathered from Scripture, and then
specify its characteristic grounds.
(1.) As to its phenomena, we must beware of
3 Matt. xxii. 30. b 1 Cor. xv. 42.
* Luke xiv. 14. d Luke xx. 36, and Phil. iii. 11.198 THE RESURRECTION OF THE RIGHTEOUS
indulging in any vain speculations, or flights of
fancy, which in the case before us would be as
profitless and unfruitful, as they are at all times
presumptuous.
But though we would desire not to be wise
above that which is written, nor to intrude into
those things which we have not seen,—it is not
only allowable but enjoined upon us to ex-
amine closely the notices of Scripture on this
and kindred points, and to extract from those
notices their full significance, which not un-
frequently lies hid below the surface. The
gleanings of the wide harvest-field of inspiration,
which are dropped and neglected in a cursory
passage over it, yield oftentimes to him who sub-
mits them to the process of prayerful study,
much of the food of wholesome instruction.
.In describing that redemption of the body,
which is the consummation anticipated by the
faith and hope of the Christian, St. Paul speaks
thus :e “ Christ” (at his Advent from heaven)
“ shall change our vile body that it may be
“ fashioned like unto his glorious body.” The
word here used to express the change which
shall pass upon the body of humiliation,—and
which we cannot doubt is so applied with
singular propriety,—is ^eraa-xvpaTufa, to change
e Phil. iii. 21.AND OF THE UNGODLY.
199
the form or fashion of anything. That it is as
nearly as possible synonymous with p.erap.opcjHHo,
(the English equivalent of which is to transform
as that of peraa^v^1^ is to transfigure,) may
be gathered from the following passage, in which
o-t/o-^TJ/JMTI& is opposed to peTapop&ow, and both
are applied to a moral process which takes effect
upon the Christian’s heart and mind : “ Be not
“conformed (jrvcrxnp,aTi£ev9e) to this world, but be
“ ye transformed (perapoptyovade) by the renew-
“ ing of your mind.” And, again, p°p4>v (form)
and o'xwa (figure) appear to be employed as
synonymes in that celebrated passage of the
Philippians which is descriptive of our Lord’s
humiliation, where the phrase “ he took upon
“ him the form of a servant” (popcprjv SovXov Xaficbv)
is equivalent to being “ found in fashion as a
“ man” (ayfl/MTi evpeOels cos avOpwiros').
When it is said, then, that Christ “ shall trans-
form (or transfigure) our vile body,” observe
the implication inherent in the word that sub-
stantially the body shall remain the same, how-
ever entirely its structure and configuration may
be altered. A transformation or metamorphosis
does not imply any change in the person under-
going it,—any substitution of one person for
another;—it is simply the assumption of a dis-
guise, the presentation of some person or sub-200 THE RESURRECTION OF THE RIGHTEOUS
stance under a new form. Satan, when trans-
formed into an angel of light, is Satan still.
Grammatical metaphor (to which f St. Paul once
applies the word peTaaxvnaTifa) is not a change
of the sense or thing intended, but merely the
investment of it in a figurative garb. To speak
of Resurrection, then, as a transformation of the
Body, implies that in Resurrection the essential
identity of the Body will be preserved.
But the word /»eTao-^/*ort?ft> (equivalent as we
have shewn it to be to	refers our
thoughts immediately to that single passage of
glory in our Lord’s career of humiliation which
is called his Transfiguration. We cannot think
that the apostle employed the word without in-
tending such a reference. He is describing the
change which shall pass upon the believer’s
body—a change analogous to that which has
already taken effect upon his soul—and he gives
it a name which, according to the most literal
possible rendering, is exactly equivalent to our
word transfiguration. Is it conceivable that the
one incident of our Lord’s life, which more than
any other brought heaven near to earth, and
which furnished even to the eye of sense the
most convincing credentials of his high mission,
should not have been present to St. Paul’s mind
' See 1 Cor. iv. 6.AND OF THE UNGODLY.
201
when he wrote these words 2 Such an incident
would no doubt rank among the most familiarly
known passages of our Lord’s history, whether
transmitted orally or in writing, and would form
the subject of conversation and meditation among
all who named the name of Christ. But even if
it be conceivable that Paul, when employing
this language, intended no allusion to the scene
in question, we cannot persuade ourselves that
the Spirit who spake by Paul did not design
such a reference, and purpose to lead our
minds in pursuit of the associations which the
language instinctively suggests. For the word
neTa<rxiVJ'aT<‘& is peculiar and of rare occurrence,
and it is difficult to see why it should have been
employed (had the design been merely to ex-
press change in a general manner without any
specific allusion) in preference to the more or-
dinary term aWarrm, which is actually applied,
in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, to the
change destined to pass upon the bodies of living
saints at the Lord’s second advent:	ndvreg pev
ov koLfiTjdriaofjbeOa, irdvTeg Be aX\a<yr]cr6fieda.
Pursuing, then, the reference which we believe
the word, to suggest, let us seek to gather from
contemplating the Transfiguration-glories of the
Saviour some idea of those Resurrection-glories
which are laid up for his people. The accounts
o202 THE RESURRECTION OF THE RIGHTEOUS
given by the Evangelists, do not lead us to
suppose that the Transfiguration involved any
change of shape or feature, however much the
term, if it stood alone, might seem to imply
such a change. “ The fashion” (i. e., the ap-
pearance, eZSo?,) “of his countenance was altered.”
Its alteration seems to have consisted in the
irradiation of the lineaments with a powerful
light. Such is St. Matthew’s representation of
the effect upon the features — “his face did
“shine as the sun.” “And his raiment,” says
St. Mark, “ became shining, exceeding white as
“ snow, so as no fuller on earth can white them.”
One of the eyewitnesses of this wonderful scene
was forcibly reminded of it at a subsequent
period. Wrapt into the Spirit on the Lord’s day,
he was privileged again to behold the Saviour’s
glorified form, its glories having now become
permanent. “ I saw,” he tells us, “ one like unto
“the Son of man,”—(the form was recognisable
by the beloved disciple with the greater ease
inasmuch as the change which it had undergone
in the process of glorification had been once
before submitted to his eyes,)—“ I saw one like
“ unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment
“ down to the foot, and girt about the paps with
“a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were
“ white like wool, as white as snow ; and hisAND OF THE UNGODLY.
203
“ eyes were as a flame of fire ; and his feet like
“ unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace ;
" and his voice as the sound of many waters.
“ And his countenance was as the sun shineth in
“ his strength.”g Light of an intensely bright de-
scription accompanied the vision of the risen
Saviour, as seen by St. Paul also. “ At midday,
“ O King,” such is his own account of the appear-
ance,11 “ I saw in the way a light from heaven,
“ above the brightness of the sun, shining round
“ about me and them which journeyed with me.”
The substance of these accounts seems to be
that the form of the glorified Saviour, when
human eyes have been privileged to behold it,
has resembled that which He bore upon earth,
that which was seen with the eyes and handled
with the hands of his disciples;—with this most
important variation, that a strong and glorious
light struggled forth into manifestation at every
part of the Person, penetrating through the
transparent features, and dissipating from them
the earthly appearance of flesh and blood.
The notion which we gain both of Trans-
figuration-glories and of those also with which
the Person of our Lord is at present invested, is
that of the same body rendered luminous by
divine power.
e Rev, i,, 13, 14, 15, 16.	* Acts xxiii. 13.
o 2204 THE RESURRECTION OF THE RIGHTEOUS
“And we know,” says St. John,’1 “that when
he shall appear, we shall be like him ; for
we shall see Him as He is.” The resurrec-
tion bodies of the saints will resemble that of
their Lord. They too shall shine forth as the
sun in the kingdom of their Father, when
that which is sown in corruption shall be raised
in incorruption, and that which is sown in the
dishonour of animal decay shall be raised in the
glory of celestial light. We seek to know no
more. We have followed so far as Scripture has
led us by the hand, and a step in advance of
that guidance would not only plunge us into
endless perplexity, but lay us justly open to the
charge of irreverent and presumptuous specu-
lation.
(2.) Having ascertained all that it is permitted
us to know respecting the phenomena of Resur-
tion unto life, we now turn to examine the
specific grounds on which the process rests.
General grounds it has, simply as a Resurrection,
which have been sufficiently exhibited in a pre-
vious Lecture. But it is much more frequently
placed in Scripture on peculiar grounds of its
own—grounds which it has in its distinguishing
character of a resurrection unto glory.
In the Lecture just referred to, we saw that
1 John iii. 2,AND OF THE UNGODLY.
205
all men without exception hold by their nature
of two representatives, Adam and Christ. In
virtue of their connexion with the first repre-
sentative, who sinned, all without exception un-
dergo that wreck of the nature which is called
death, and which was the appointed penalty of
Adam’s disobedience. And, in virtue of a similar
connexion (by nature) with the second repre-
sentative, who underwent and exhausted sin’s
penalty, all without exception will experience a
repair of the wreck, and, as they have died in
Adam, will be made alive again in Christ. The
grounds, then, of a universal resurrection, sum-
marily stated, are—the union of all mankind (in
point of nature) with a representative Person,
who has submitted to the penalty imposed upon
the nature, and thus has satisfied Divine Justice
in behalf of our common humanity.
The specific grounds, on the other hand, of
the resurrection of the righteous may be thus
briefly summed up :—Their personal union with
a representative who has submitted in his person
to the penalty of sin,—a union effected causa-
tively by the Holy Spirit and instrumentally by
Faith, as the subjective, and by the ordinances,
as the objective means.
(a.) It must be shewn first that Christ is such
a representative.206 THE resurrection of the righteous
(b.) Secondly, we must explain the nature of
personal union with Him.
(c.) Thirdly, it must be shewn that such union
is the ground assigned by the Inspired Writers
for the Resurrection of the righteous unto life.
(a.) We have seen that Christ, in dying, sub-
mitted to the curse of God, as it visits the nature of
the transgressor. But death was by no means all
that he endured. He suffered also : and in suf-
fering he submitted to the curse as it visits the
person of the transgressor. The Nature of man
is reached and visited by simple dissolution into
its constituent elements, by separation of its ma-
terial from its spiritual part. The Person, on
the other hand, can be reached and visited only
through the constituent parts of the nature,
through the body, through the soul, and through
the spirit. Now, in each of these three depart-
ments of our composite humanity, Christ en-
dured the extremity of woe. By his meek sub-
mission to the tortures of the thorny crown, the
furrowing scourge, the piercing nails, the in-
tolerable thirst, did he pay the penalty of our
sins in his own immaculate body. The life-long
sorrows of his soul were consummated in the
Garden of Gethsemane, when the affections of
fear and grief operated so powerfully within
him, as to wring out from his sacred frame grea^AND OF THE UNGODLY.
207
drops of blood, and to extort from his lips that
piteous demand for sympathy and support, to
which no mere mortal could respond: “ My
“ soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death ;
“ tarry ye here and watch with me.” As re-
gards the highest element of his composite na-
ture, we read that on more than one occasion
“ he sighed deeply in his spirit,” that “ he
“ groaned in the spirit and was troubled.” The
spirit, be it remembered, is the faculty by which
man apprehends and holds communion with
God. In the last moments of our Saviour’s
earthly existence, as a crowning drop in his cup
of anguish, this faculty was darkened with a
gloom that might be felt. The light of God’s
countenance was hidden, and the support of the
everlasting arms sensibly withdrawn from be-
neath Messiah, when those mysterious words
of woe burst from his lips—“ My God, My God,
“ why hast thou forsaken me ?” Thus did the
second representative of the human race ade-
quately endure in his person, no less than in his
nature, the full penalty of sin; and so exhaust
the penalty in behalf of all mankind, that all, by
laying hold of his Atonement, may escape that
eternal woe to which, in the righteous judgment
of God, they are liable.
(b.) But in order to this personal exemption208 THE RESURRECTION OF THE RIGHTEOUS
from the penal consequences of sin, there needs to>
be something more than a connexion in point of
nature between mankind and Christ. If this great
end is to be secured, the wild olive branch must
be severed from the parent stem and grafted con-
trary to nature into the good olive tree, so as to
become partaker of its root and fatness, and to
be held ever afterwards in vital union therewith-
In other words—in order to the Resurrection of
Life, there must be a personal union with the
person of Christ—a union effected causatively
by the Spirit^ instrumentally by faith and the
ordinances.
(a.) The Holy Spirit is the sole efficient cause
of this union. Neither the First nor Second
Persons of the Blessed Trinity communicate with
the human soul directly—they employ always
for this purpose the intermediation of the Third.
But then through the intimate and mysterious
union subsisting between the Persons of the
Deity, the indwelling of the Spirit in any heart
of man is virtually the indwelling of Christ.
“ Know ye not your own selves,” says the Apos-
tle, “how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye
“be reprobates.” And in that passage of the
Epistle to the Romans which will come under
fuller review presently, he speaks of “Christ
“being in them” as the exact equivalent of “theAND OF THE UNGODLY.
209
“Spirit’s dwelling in them.” Thus, then, the union
between Christ and the soul of the believer is
personal on Christ’s part.
/3. i. In heathen countries, where the Gospel is
for the first time preached, the Holy Spirit com-
mences the work of uniting men to Christ, by
applying God’s Word with divine power to the
consciences of those who hear it. He gives effi-
cacy to its warnings respecting the evil and dan-
ger of sin, and to its exceeding precious promises
of grace and mercy in and through Christ,—thus
awakening spiritual instincts in the heart of the
hearer, and moving him to fly for a refuge to
the hope set before him in the Gospel. Under
the powerful drawings of fear, hope, and love*
the man lays hold of Christ by faith, chooses
Christ, declares for Christ: and thus the union
becomes (so far as his will is concerned) personal
on his part also.
ii. It must also become personal as regards his
standing and relation. The wild olive branch
having been, by a divine attraction, diverted from
its parent stem and made to twine itself around
the stock of the good olive tree, there must fol-
low next the actual engrafting, which is effected
by the Sacrament of Baptism. In that ordinance
is bestowed the distinguishing name which denotes
separate individuality—a token this that the re-210 THE RESURRECTION OF THE RIGHTEOUS
cipient of baptism now holds of Christ personally
as well as by community of nature. But that
hold must continue stedfast unto the end, if the
member is ultimately to rise with the Head unto
life eternal. In order to this glorious consum-
mation, the branch must abide in the vine, and
continually derive into itself from the vine-stock
quickening and vitalising influences. While faith
is still the living principle which fetches in such
influences from the root, the ordinances are the
channels along which they flow to reach the
branches,—and first in rank among these ordi-
nances stands that Holy Banquet whose dis-
tinguishing characteristic is mutual intercom-
munion, and which conveys, while it symbolises,
the strengthening and refreshing of the soul.
Such is an outline of the method in which per-
sonal union with Christ is commenced, consum-
mated, maintained, and continued.
(c.) Now, it is only in virtue of a personal
union with Christ, effected by the process we
have explained, that any child of man can
be made partaker of the Resurrection unto
glory.
a. Connexion with the mystical vine is re-
presented as the ground of that Resurrection.
The great Head of the Church has undergone
“Resurrection of Life and therefore everyAND OF THE UNGODLY.
211
member which holds vitally of the Head must
one day experience, in the matter of which he is
compounded, an attraction which shall assimilate
his body to the Lord’s Body, shall qualify it for,
and draw it up into, the same sphere. Such is
the ground of hope, which the Apostle implicitly
professes in those words: “ Knowing that he
“which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up
“ us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.”
Again, the corporeal Resurrection of the righteous
is ascribed to, and rested upon, the fact of the
Spirit’s indwelling. “ If the Spirit of him that
“raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he
“that raised up Christ from the dead shall also
“ quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that
“dwelleth in you.”
Observe the implications of this passage.
The future operation upon the Christian’s body
is to be effected by precisely the same power as
that which has already passed upon his spiritual
condition and his moral nature. He is even now
experiencing in the inner man the actings of a
divine Person, whose power when it is exerted
upon the outward man will quicken the body of
humiliation into a body of glory. What he an-
ticipates by faith and hope is an extension into
the department of matter, of that Almighty
energy, which has been hitherto limited to the212 the resurrection of the righteous
department of mind. Hence follows as a conse-
quence another truth implied in this passage, viz.,
that the Spiritual Resurrection stands in the re-
lation of an earnest to the physical. The same
relationship is implied in that passage of the Epis-
tle to the Philippians, upon which we have re-
cently commented : “Our conversation is in
“ heaven ” (in virtue i. e. of the Spirit’s operation
upon our moral nature, and of our translation by
baptism into the Kingdom of God,—our affec-
tions are even now set upon things above, and
we breathe, even while on earth, the element of
heaven. Not as though we had already attained
unto the Resurrection of the Dead, neither were
already perfect, for from heaven) “ 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.” A change has already
passed upon our soul. The Lord Jesus has
already transformed us (as to our moral facul-
ties) by the renewing of our mind. We look to
be transformed by Him in body also—conformed
to his image in the material department of our
nature, which is at present subjected to con-
ditions so humbling.
It will be at once seen that the ground thusAND OF THE UNGODLY.
213
assigned for the Resurrection of the righteous is
entirely distinctive and specific, inapplicable to
that of the wicked. Without denying that even
nominal Christians are ever and anon the sub-
ject of spiritual influences, we may safely assert
that the indwelling of the Spirit consists not
either with a sinful habit of mind, or with the
allowed practice of any known sin : for what
communion hath light with darkness ? and what
agreement hath the temple of God with idols ?
There shall no evil dwell with God. None can
inherit the promise—“ I will dwell in them and
“ walk in them,” but those who prepare the tem-
ple for the entertainment of the heavenly guest,
-cleansing themselves from all filthiness of flesh and
spirit—purifying themselves even as Christ is pure,
(A) But as the Holy Spirit does not commonly
operate, except through the medium of ordi-
nances, and as two great ordinances representing
and embracing all the rest, have been instituted
by Christ in his Church, we should expect to
find this divine instrumentality occasionally asso-
ciated with the Resurrection unto life, while at
the same time the supposition would be carefully
guarded against that the mere exterior rite, with-
out a corresponding work in the inner man, can
secure such a Resurrection. And this is actually
the case.2 I 4 THE RESURRECTION OF THE RIGHTEOUS
i. Thus we read in the Epistle to the Ro-
mans, “We are buried with him by baptism
“ into death: that like as Christ was raised up
“from the dead by the glory of the Father, even
“so we also should walk in newness of life. For
“ if wre have been planted together in the like-
“ ness of his death, we shall be also in the like-
“ ness of his Resurrection.” In the expression
“ planted together in the likeness of his death,”
as in the preceding verse, there is no doubt a
reference to the Sacrament of Baptism, which
supplies a figure (when administered by immer-
sion) of death and burial, and whose inward spi-
ritual grace grafts into Christ.
And where opportunity is not allowed for any
further and more subjective operation, the Church
hath constantly decreed that the sacramental en-
grafting in the likeness of Christ’s death will in
and by itself secure an engrafting in the likeness
of his Resurrection, it being certain from God’s
Word, as our Prayer Book authoritatively pro-
nounces, that “ children (which are baptised, dying
“ before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly
“ saved.” But should life be prolonged until the
dawning of the moral faculties, the altered stand-
ing and relation conveyed by baptism must be
(as it were) realised in a corresponding change
of heart and affections,—if Resurrection unto lifeAND OF THE UNGODLY.
215
is to be the result. Therefore in the expression
“ likeness of his death” there is a second refer-
ence to that mortification of corrupt propensities,
and that walk in newness of life, which morally
qualify for glory. And such a reference is pointed
at in the preceding verse—“ We are buried with
" him by baptism into death: that like as Christ
" was raised up from the dead by the glory of
" the Father, even so we also should walk in
"newness of life.”
ii. But is the other sacrament ever found in
Scripture associated with the mention of Re-
surrection unto fife ? We believe it is virtually
so found : although here too is displayed a
wonderful caution lest the glorious things as-
serted of the power of the sacrament should be
fatally and erroneously applied to its mere form.
In that memorable conversation with the Jews
at Capernaum, which took its occasion from the
miracle of feeding the five thousand, our Lord
represents the eating of his flesh and the drink-
ing of his blood as the condition of being raised
by Him in the last day. “ Verily, verily, I say
" unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of
" man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in
"you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh
"my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise
"him up at the last day.” The miracle had216 THE RESURRECTION OF THE RIGHTEOUS
suggested the thought that continual nourish-
ment is essential to the maintenance of life. Our
Lord, as was his wont, gives to this thought a
spiritual application. He is the Bread of life,
whereupon every soul must feed in order to its
maintenance in life spiritual; but which,—the
converse in this respect of earthly nourishment
—assimilates the recipient to Itself and draws
him up into a participation of the Divine Na-
ture. Faith is the indispensable mean through
which Christ is thus received and eaten ; and
it is maintained by our Church,k that, where
the external instrumentality may not be had,
there faith is in itself sufficient for that spiritual
manducation whereby the soul hath nourishment
ministered to it, and increaseth with the increase of
God. But in all cases where it may be had, the out-
ward mean, as enjoined by the authority of Christ,
is indispensable to a real participation of his flesh
and blood. As baptism is the sacrament of our
engrafting into the mystical vine, so is the Lord’s
Supper the sacrament of our abiding therein. The
faithful communicant experiences in this ordinance
the inflowing of vital influences, which cement the
union already subsisting between Christ and his
soul, and in the strength of which he prosecutes
k See the Third Rubric after the Service for Communion of the
Sick.AND OF THE UNGODLY.
217
his pilgrimage with renewed vigour, and grapples
more energetically with the toils and difficulties
of the Christian warfare.
And it is difficult to understand how our Lord
could have employed the words on which we are
commenting, without intending in them a subor-
dinate (and yet a very pointed) allusion to the
ordinance which he was about to institute, and
in which he designed to make bread and wine
the representatives of his body and blood. It is
at least very observable that when he would
represent to us the necessity—in order to a joy-
ful Resurrection—of maintaining and consolida-
ting our union with Him, He makes use of such
figurative language as at once leads our thoughts
to the subsequent institution, and its consecrated
emblems.
II. We now unwillingly turn our eyes (whither
the latter clause of the text invites them) from a
spectacle of glory and triumph to one of deepest
humiliation and despair.
(o.) The Resurrection of the unjust (although
involved by implication in several notices of Scrip-
ture) is very rarely indeed made the subject of dis-
tinct and specific mention by the Inspired Writers.
Two passages of the New Testament, (and haply
one also of the Old,) furnish to us all the know-
ledge we possess of this awful and alarming pro-
p218 THE RESURRECTION OF THE RIGHTEOUS
cess. St. Paul professes his belief before Felix
(a belief in accordance with the notions then
popularly received among the Jews) “that there
“shall be a Resurrection of the dead, both of
“ the just and unjust.” Our Lord in the text
distinctly asserts that persons of the latter, no
less than those of the former class, shall be raised
again—raised for the endurance of that righteous
judgment, whose severities cannot be consum-
mated until the nature of man is restored to its
integrity. “They that are in the graves shall
“ hear his voice, and shall come forth ; they that
“ have done good, unto the Resurrection of life ;
“ and they that have done evil, unto the Resur-
“ rection of damnation.”
This unequivocal statement helps us to the in-
terpretation of the more difficult and more easily
evaded prediction of Daniel—“ Many of them
“ that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
“ some to everlasting life, and some to shame
“ and everlasting contempt.” These, we believe,
are the only passages in which direct mention is
made of the Resurrection-process as it takes
effect upon the impenitent and unbelieving. Its
end and issue is in other places of Holy Writ re-
presented to us as “a going away into ever-
“ lasting punishment,” “ a destruction both of
“ body and soul in hell,” “ a casting into theAND OF THE UNGODLY.
219
“ lake which burneth with fire and brimstone,”
“where their worm dieth not and the fire is
“ not quenched.”
What we gather from these and similar no-
tices may be thus summarily stated :
Condemnation (as opposed to acquittal through
the blood and righteousness of the Saviour) will
be one great characteristic feature of the Resur-
rection of the unjust. The great assize, which
the Resurrection shall usher in, is shadowed forth
to us in Scripture by images drawn from the pro-
ceedings of human judicature. The heavy fetters,
the gloomy prison-cell into which scarcely a ray
of light struggles, the grim phantom of death
continually haunting the mind, these and other
mournful accompaniments of a human death-
sentence figure out to us the intermediate por-
tion of the ungodly in the interval between their
departure from the world and their appearance
at the judgment-seat of Christ. The trump of
the archangel which wakes the sleepers of the
dust will be to them as the death-bell sum-
moning to the ignominy of a public execution.
The same idea of ignominy is conveyed by
the words of Daniel, “ shame and everlasting
“ contempt,” and by those of Isaiah, “ they shall
“be an abhorring unto all flesh.” The latter
passage, however, taken in connection with its
p 2220 THE RESURRECTION OF THE RIGHTEOUS
context, adds a new shade of significance to the
thought, suggesting (as it does) that particular
species of shame or dishonour which attaches to
corruption. The decomposed condition of vege-
table matter makes it fit for nothing but to be
cast out and trodden under foot of men; that of
animal matter we cannot contemplate without
loathing and disgust, and the expression of a
desire that the dead may be buried out of our
sight. And this loathing it is which the Holy
Spirit employs to picture to us, as through a
glass darkly, the detestation, and abhorrence,
and scorn, which the portion of the condemned
shall excite in all who contemplate it.
We are aware that these are but figurative re-
presentations of the tremendous doom which
shall overtake the ungodly; but let us be as-
sured that, although figures, they have realities
corresponding to them in the higher ceconomy.
And that the sufferings represented by these ana-
logies affect the material, no less than the spi-
ritual element of human nature, is implied in the
most unequivocal manner by the solemn warning
of our Lord that “ God is able to destroy both
“ body and soul in hell.” The destruction of
the soul consists in its separation from the foun-
tain of bliss, and its consequent final abandon-
ment to the sway of its own evil lusts, theAND OF THE UNGODLY.
221
conflict of which rocks it into a sea of perpetual
troubles. And the destruction of the body,
therefore, (if, as we may suppose, it runs pa-
rallel with, and presents analogies to that of the
soul,) will consist in the cutting off of its com-
munication with the fountain of health—a se-
verance this which shall ensure perpetual dis-
cord among its functions, perpetual derangement
of its oeconomy—and so its eternal assignment
as a prey to disease—disease aggravated and
enhanced (it may be) by the subtler and more
sensitive texture which in the future world
matter shall assume.
And not this only. If we follow the guidance
of Scripture, there is reason to suppose that the
miseries of the condemned will result not only
from internal derangement, but from external
application also. The worm which preyed upon,
and the fire which reduced to ashes the putre-
fying carcases in the vale of Hinnom, are em-
ployed as emblems of the processes of torment
to which they shall be subjected. The worm
is inbred in the carcase, the fire applied to it
from without; a figurative intimation this that
the miseries which shall visit the impenitent
shall take their rise from different sources. Re-
morse is a worm engendered in the mental, as
disease is in the physical constitution of man,222 THE RESURRECTION OF THE RIGHTEOUS
and both these principles shall be called into
lively operation, the one in the soul, the other
in the body of the condemned. But with these
shall conspire, to crown their cup of woe, suf-
fering of some mysterious nature inflicted from
without by the external agency of those apos-
tate spirits who find in the marring and de-
struction of God’s handiwork the sole relief of
their own misery; as was sufficiently betokened
by the supplication which they preferred of old
to the great Healer of man’s bodily and spiritual
estate:	“ All the devils,” we are told, “ be-
“ sought him much that he would not send
“ them away out of the country. Send us into
“ the swine,” said they, “ that we may enter into
“ them.”
These notices and such as these are all which it
is permitted us to gather from the inspired writings
respecting the Resurrection of the unjust. And
these, it will be observed, relate not so much to
the Resurrection of the unjust as to its issue and
ultimate result. The event itself, although dis-
tinctly asserted in unequivocal terms, is not more
than barely mentioned. We may perhaps dis-
cover a reason of this ominous silence on a topic
so fearfully interesting, in the intense and almost
insupportable awfulness which the spectacle of
Resurrection unto damnation will exhibit. TheAND OF THE UNGODLY.
223
Apostle St. Paul, when about to explain the
grounds of his anticipating trouble in the flesh to
persons in a certain condition of life, suddenly
checks his pen out of compassion to the infirmity
of those whom he is addressing, and suppresses
the foreboding sorrow which was haunting his
mind. “ But I spare you,” cries he, and with
nothing more than an hint of what awaited them
in future, he passes on to another reflection. And
it is perhaps in the exercise of a somewhat simi-
lar compassion that God draws a veil over the
horrors of a scene, which it would shock and
overwhelm the mind of his human creatures to
contemplate too closely. He sets before us in-
deed faithfully and forcibly that eternal misery
of the impenitent which their Resurrection shall
usher in : but their first awaking to this portion
of misery, their first consciousness of being in-
vested with faculties, which shall only serve as
inlets whereby new sufferings shall reach them,
—and of being laid open to a new series of im-
pressions which in their case shall be only
impressions of pain,—the instinctively felt im-
possibility of evading a personal scrutiny and a
personal exposure in the face of the assembled
universe,—the dread of confronting Him upon
the judgment seat, whose warnings they have set
at nought, whose proffers of mercy they have224 THE RESURRECTION OF THE RIGHTEOUS
virtually slighted, and whose long suffering they
have provoked until it could forbear no longer,
—O! it were too harrowing to paint the deep
despair, the poignant remorse, the agony of
terror, it may be the blasphemous execration
excited by these sensations, as fast and thick
they pour in upon the mind ! And there is, we
think, something within the human breast which
echoes back the deep propriety of reserve on a
topic like this. Reserve upon all but the bare
statement is in such a case the most emphatic
and impressive comment. To expatiate on cir-
cumstantials,—would run the risk either of over-
whelming the mind with an insupportable awe
or of profaning and lowering the subject by con-
veying the impression that language could
adequately describe it. May we not say that
this reserve, maintained by Holy Scripture on a
subject which infinitely concerns mankind, is
more expressive, more terrible, more voiceful with
warning, better calculated to impress the sinner
with the awfulness of his impending doom, than
the most elaborate and harrowing description ?
God himself recognises the awfulness of that
doom by making no further allusion to it than is
absolutely necessary. The compassionate Father,
who wills not that any should perish, the merci-
ful High Priest, who can be touched with theAND OF THE UNGODLY.
225
feeling of our infirmities—when speaking to us
by the Spirit of the things which concern our
peace, put away this doom into the back-
ground as a thing insupportable, fearful in the
extreme, not to be steadily contemplated. There
it stands in ominous retirement, — an object
whose bare existence at the end of the avenue
of futurity may be clearly discerned in Scripture,
but whose circumstantials we are left to gather
from reason, and to image forth to ourselves, as
best we may, in colours which, however vivid,
will fall far short of the truth. Ponder it well.
Muffled as its features are, it beckons fearfully to
the impenitent and unbelieving, and waves them
back from their career of sin or worldliness
towards the extended arms of Him who is the
merciful Receiver of all true penitent sinners.
(5.) Hitherto we have been occupied in inferring
partly from the notices, partly from the silence
of Scripture, the exceeding awfulness of Resur-
rection unto condemnation. The same inference
may be drawn from premises supplied by reason.
A wonderful additional scope must, in the nature
of things, be afforded either for pleasure or
pain by the restoration to man of a corporeal
organization. In order to the exercise of the
senses and the receiving of impressions from
the material world, it would appear that bodily226 THE RESURRECTION OF THE RIGHTEOUS
organs are indispensable. We know, indeed,
that the organic structure is altogether dis-
tinct from the percipient principle, and cannot
more rationally be identified with it than the
chords or mechanism of a musical instrument
can be confounded with the skill of the musician
who from those chords elicits harmony. But
even as the instrument, though not itself the
efficient cause, is yet essential to the production
of the effect, so is man’s material organization,
not indeed the principle—but the essential con-
dition of sensible perceptions. It is our physical
structure which brings us into relation with
matter, and lays us open to a thousand impres-
sions pleasurable or painful which are dependent
on that relation.
When, therefore, after having been for a time
interrupted by death, our relation to matter is
again re-established by Resurrection, what an
host of sensations (vivid, perhaps, in proportion
to the subtlety which matter will then have ac-
quired) may be expected to crowd in upon us
through the opened avenues of sense. Scenes
analogous, under the spiritual oeconomy, to
Nature’s most enchanting landscapes under this,
will haply burst in upon the eye of the risen
Saint, as he walks abroad under the canopy of
the new heavens, and on the regenerated soil ofAND OF THE UNGODLY.
227
the new earth; while ravishing sounds of har-
mony, wafted, it may be, from the harps of the
heavenly choir, will break upon his ear. And
what of the condemned? Alas, the material
fabric recovered from the wreck of death will
but lay them open to the inroads of a torment
which, in their unembodied state, could never
have reached them. The reunion of the Soul
with the Body will but give scope for the de-
struction of the latter,—a destruction which will
mainly consist in the inflowing of pain through
every avenue of sensibility, and in comparison
of which annihilation would be esteemed the
greatest boon that Heaven could bestow. “ In
“the morning they shall say, Would God it were
“ even ! and at even they shall say, Would God it
“ were morning ! for the fear of their heart where-
" with they shall fear, and for the sight of their
“ eyes which they shall see.” Gladly would the
evil-doer shield himself from that huge access of
misery for which the Resurrection of his Body
will furnish the occasion and the scope. When
the shout of the Archangel and the trump of God
thrill through the vaults of the sepulchre, fain
would he implore the gloomy recess to seal its
jaws for ever upon those members which were
once yielded, as instruments of unrighteousness,
unto sin, and which, now raised in incorruption,228 THE RESURRECTION OF THE RIGHTEOUS
will supply an instrumentality for his punish-
ment, and an eternal monument of his shame.
Fain would he implore the winds to dissipate,
the flames of the great conflagration to consume
and annihilate, the seminal dust. Fain would he
hide himself when the awful summons reaches
him, in the top of Carmel, or in the bottom of
the sea. Fain would he cry to the mountains,
Fall on me, and to the monumental rocks, Cover
me, “ and hide me from the face of him that
“ sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the
“ Lamb.” But it may not be. The sea, the earth,
the mountains, the rocks, the winds, the sepul-
chre, are laid each and all under the stern com-
mand—“ Give back thy dead.” That Voice ad-
dresses the elements, which (as of yore) hath a
constraining influence over them, and which they
dare not, cannot disobey. It is the same Voice
which said to the waves, " Peace, be still,”—
which cried aloud to slumbering Lazarus, “ Come
“ forth,”—whose efficacy, when it was poured out
amid the agonies of death, caused the earth to
quake, and rent the rocks, and opened the se-
pulchres. Yea, is it not the same Voice which,
along all the stages of his devious path, has ad-
dressed the sinner in accents of tender expostu-
lation,—reasoning with him in the written or
spoken Word, startling him by the ProvidentialAND OF THE UNGODLY.
229
warning, and whispering still (though stifled and
suppressed) in the secret cabinet of the con-
science ? Its tones are no more those of persua-
sion, but those of command,—its influence is no
more resistible, but compulsory. And now its
bidding drags the sinner forth, in all the indi-
viduality of a personal existence, in all the in-
tegrity of that human nature in which and
through which he hath sinned, to confront him
with the accomplices and victims of his guilt,
with that Word which is the standard of appeal
regulating the sentences of Eternal Judgment,
and, above all, with the Judge himself, surround-
ed now with the circumstantials of Divinity, and
seated on the right hand of Power.
My Brethren, in that hour, so appalling to
flesh and blood, what sweet encouragement and
relief will the Christian derive from the witness of
that indwelling Spirit who will sustain unto the
end, and in the end, his character of Comforter !
How, amid those awful solemnities, will his
heart be supported by the consciousness of his
union with Christ, a union formed and main-
tained amid far other circumstances, but which
the Judge (as he is well assured) so far from dis-
claiming it, will recognise now before the eternal
Father and the Holy Angels. Ye who live not
already in the enjoyment of such union, labour230 THE RESURRECTION OF THE RIGHTEOUS
for it, pray for it, that ye also may be partakers
of consolation in the most tremendous crisis
through which humanity can be called upon to
pass. Realise in your personal experience the
relation into which baptism has brought you.
Join thyself to the Lord in an everlasting cove-
nant. Lay hold by faith on the horns of the
Altar of Atonement, and see that thou relax not
thy grasp. Rest not until thou findest within
thyself the comfortable witness of this union.
Let thy life,—the Divine principle which sways
thy will, and moves thy affections, and controls
thy conduct,—be hid with Christ in God. So in
the manifestation of the sons of God shalt thou
be acknowledged as a living and fruit-bearing
branch of the true Vine,—so, when Christ who
is our life shall appear, shalt thou also appear
with Him in glory.LECTURE VII.
AN OBJECTION, FOUNDED ON SCRIPTURE,
CONSIDERED AND REMOVED.
Luke xx. 37, 38.
Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at
the lush, when he calleth the Lord, the God of Abraham,
and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is
not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto
him.
A due regard to the Inspiration of God, by
which all Scripture is given, compels us to ac-
knowledge that the terms employed by the
sacred writers for the expression of the high
verities, which they communicate, are the most
appropriate and significant which can be found
within the compass of human language. Hence
it follows that a departure from the mere ter-
minology of Scripture, even where there is an
honest intention of adhering strictly to its spirit
and exhibiting faithfully its meaning, is always232
AN OBJECTION
attended with risk, issues not unfrequently in a
distorted or partial view of truth, and has some-
times been the means even of insinuating error.
For the counteracting of this error it is only ne-
cessary that the mind drop for a time all terms of
human invention (however occasionally service-
able—and even essential for the purposes of dog-
matic theology—such terms may be), and should
recur once again not merely to the testimony of
Scripture, but to the very language in which
that testimony is couched. That language (and
that alone) may be safely put into the crucible
of a sifting examination without any risk of
eliciting in the process an erroneous result.
Every word of God is as silver tried in a fur-
nace of earth, to which no dross cleaves, and
from which, therefore, none can be extracted.
Hence we might almost be content to rest the
doctrine of a Corporeal Resurrection, even sup-
posing it to be never explicitly affirmed in Holy
Writ, upon the significance of the term ’Avda-
racns, which has been already examined. It
might be alleged (and we think with much jus-
tice) that if a Resurrection be predicted (as who
will deny to be the case ?) the very term em-
ployed to denote the process, signifying as it
does an up-rising or up-standing, points im-
mediately to that material part of man whichCONSIDERED AND REMOVED.
233
alone lies down in the slumber of death. It
might reasonably be argued that there were an
evident inappropriateness in applying such a
term to man’s continued existence after death,
to the duration throughout eternity of the spi-
ritual element of his being. How can that be
said to stand or rise up which has in no sense
fallen down, which (so far as we know) endures
in death no suspension whatever of its conscious,
active, and sentient existence ? If the disen-
thralment of the soul from its material shackles
be all that is intended by the term Resurrection,
must it not be confessed that the Inspired Writers
have employed language (a conclusion this which
cannot for a moment be entertained) calculated
to convey an erroneous impression, and to lead
the mind in a wrong direction on a subject of
the last importance 2
And yet it must be candidly admitted that in
certain passages of Scripture which make men-
tion of the Resurrection, the context would in-
cline us to think that the term indicates nothing
more definite and precise than a continued exist-
ence after death, and is simply equivalent to the
more modern phraseology “ future state,” or
“future life.” As these passages, in which the
word Resurrection apparently bears another than
its strict etymological significance, seem to throw
Q234
AN OBJECTION
a real doubt on the doctrine which it is the pro-
vince of these Lectures to expound and vindi-
cate, and as the chief of them is the only positive
support which Dr. Bush3 finds in Scripture for his
resolution of the doctrine into a mere immor-
tality of the human soul, it is necessary to pass
them in review, and to point out some theory
which may remove the difficulties presented by
them. In doing this, we shall be engaged again
with the term Resurrection, vindicating it from
any foreign significance alien to its etymology,
which its introduction in particular connexions
has been the means of attaching to it. May the
Holy Spirit assist our inquiries into the truth of
His Word, and make them conducive to our spi-
ritual welfare.
I. (1.) The first and most important of the pas-
sages in question is that which I have read as
my text: the Sadducees having put a case to our
blessed Lord which, as they conceived, reduced
the doctrine of the Resurrection to an absurdity,
He, after first reproving their carnal and earthly
notions of the glorified state, then proceeds to
allege in proof of the doctrine a passage of Old
Testament Scripture: “Now that the dead are
“ raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when
“ he calleth the Lord, the God of Abraham, and
» See Appendix to Lecture VII. Note A.CONSIDERED AND REMOVED.
235
“ the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For
“ he is not a God of the dead, but of the living:
“ for all live unto him.”
This argument proves decisively the continued
existence of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, notwith-
standing the subjection of their bodies to the law
of mortality, but does not seem, except by re-
mote inference and implication, to warrant any
ulterior conclusion. And yet it is advanced by
way of proving the resurrection of the dead,
“ Now that the dead are raised, even Moses
“ shewed at the bush.” May we then affix to
the term Resurrection of the dead, the significa-
tion of life after death, or life in a future state ?
May we assume that when speaking of the Re-
surrection our Lord meant no more than the
continued duration of the soul after its disen-
thralment from the fetters of the body ?
There are other passages which seem to bear
out such a conclusion.
(2.) The great theme of St. Paul in the 15th
chapter of 1st Corinthians is the Resurrection.
But it cannot be denied that portions of that
sublime chapter lead us to infer that, whatever
be the terms he uses, the doctrine which the
apostle is implicitly defending is that of a future
life. “ What profiteth it me,” says he, “ if the
“ dead rise not ? Let us eat and drink, for to-
Q 2236
AN OBJECTION
“ morrow we die.” The argument of this pas-
sage seems conclusive only by representing it
thus: “ If there be no retributive hereafter for
“ man, our sacrifices and self-denials are thrown
" away ; it were wiser far, in this case, to live li-
“ centiously, and take our fill of those pleasures
“for whose enjoyment only a brief span is al-
" lowed us.” But then this representation regards
the term “ rising of the dead” as merely equiva-
lent to life beyond the grave. So again, earlier
in the chapter, the apostle adduces in support of
the doctrine which he is establishing a reflection
precisely similar in character to the foregoing:
“ If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we
" are of all men most miserable.” Certainly, if
there were no future life in store for man, the lot
of a primitive believer who had endured the loss
of all things in the confidence of an eternal re-
compense, and whose present life was one con-
tinued series of toils and hardships, would have
been of all lots most unenviable. But a simple
state of retribution, even if in no sense it were a
corporeal state, would be amply sufficient to
justify the wisdom of such a believer’s conduct.
We need not suppose anything more than the
eternal duration of the soul, to rescue him from
the charge of folly in preferring the interests of
eternity to those of time.CONSIDERED AND REMOVED.
237
(3.) One more passage shall be specified, the
general import of which seems equally to rob
the word Resurrection of any corporeal reference,
such as its etymology would lead us to conceive
as inherent in it. It is the passage in which the
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews enumerates
among the first principles of the doctrine of
Christ, “ Resurrection of the dead, and eternal
“ judgment.” It is easy to understand how a
future condition of existence, a condition of
eternal retribution flowing from the awards of
judgment, is a principle of the doctrine of Christ,
or, in other words, a rudiment of the Christian
religion. Convictions of such a state are the
elements which every Christian teacher seeks to
inculcate, the basework on which he builds the
entire structure of personal and practical religion.
But Resurrection of the material body, the in-
vestment of the corruptible with incorruption,
scarcely presents itself to our minds as a rudi-
mentary doctrine of faith. So long as it is con-
ceded that the imperishable personality of man
survives the grave, it would almost seem (so
reasons the shallow thinker) as if we might
afford to spare the doctrine which asserts the
bringing out under a new form of the corporeal
structure.
Such are the passages. It cannot be denied238
AN OBJECTION
that they afford some ground for an hypothesis,
very acceptable to those who impugn the doc-
trine under discussion, that by the raising of the
dead, so often asserted in Holy Scripture, is
meant nothing more than their continued exist-
ence in a future state.
But have we no choice between an hypothesis
which does violence to language on the one
hand, and an apparent inconclusiveness in the
passages above quoted on the other? We think
that a third and completely satisfactory alternative
may be found in a theory which, while it main-
tains a distinction of the ideas conveyed by the
terms Resurrection and Future State respectively,
insists at the same time that in the apprehen-
sions of those who wrote the Scripture, and those
to whom it was addressed, a bodily Resurrection
was involved and implied in a future state of
existence. This theory we now proceed to set
forth and discuss.
II. There can be no doubt that our mis-
apprehension of spiritual subjects is frequently
attributable to a want of simplicity in our habits
of thinking,—a want which is partly generated
by the highly-wrought civilisation of our age and
the consequent refinement of the education which
we have received. It is the province of the
human mind to abstract and classify ; and it notCONSIDERED AND REMOVED.
239
unfrequently happens that in pursuing its own
creations it is led away from realities. After
long contemplation and laborious dissection of
an object proposed to it, the freshness and truth
of the mind’s first impressions wear off, we lose
sight of the object in its totality, and conceive of
it as split up into various independent elements,
which elements (it maybe) exist only ideally,
and are never manifested except in the concrete.
Thus we sunder by subtle distinctions things
which God hath joined together, and isolate
subjects between which (although capable of
being distinctly conceived of) an indissoluble
connection must ever exist. Thus, for example,
has the human mind dealt with the process of
justification and sanctification. Ideally these
are separate processes; actually they are never
found except in combination. The vital fibres
of the one process are always in fact twisted
into the fibres of the other: but we in our
conceptions separate the two ; and this separa-
tion (which is perfectly just so long as its ideality
is recognised) may lead us to put out of sight,
and habitually to omit in our calculations, the
actual connection subsisting between the ex-
ternal and internal. In a similar manner the
human mind has operated upon that complex
object, Man. Here too the truth of nature has240
AN OBJECTION
been lost sight of in the process of analysis.
In this case, however, the distinctions of the in-
tellect have a better ground in the fact that
man is not only ideally separable, but actually
separated into two distinct elements. The Body
and Soul are not only capable of being contem-
plated distinctly, but they are also actually iso-
lated and exist in a state of isolation. Death
rends them asunder and holds them for a while
in severance. But then it should be remembered
that this severance is abhorrent to the nature of
things, and formed no part of the original design.
Man, as the draught of him may be supposed to
have existed in the divine mind, was a creature
of twofold nature—it was the counsel of the
Creator that in man the material and spiritual
should meet, should hold communion, should
interpenetrate one another. But the vessel was
marred in the hands of the Potter;—the adverse
agency of moral evil burst it into fragments.
To contemplate it, however, as in fragments,
putting out of sight the living whole, is to con-
template it in an anomalous, unnatural, and
therefore in a certain sense untrue state. It is
no longer Man whom we are contemplating, but
the effects of a solvent applied (in counteraction
of the primitive design) to Man’s nature. If ex-
perience justifies us (as unquestionably it does)CONSIDERED AND REMOVED.
241
in conceiving of body and soul as separable in
fact, we should not allow that fact, irregular as
it is, and wholly without the scope of the origi-
nal draught, to interfere with our primitive no-
tions of Man, drawn from a review of the object
in its integrity.
(2.) The result of our viewing man thus
analytically, is, that we soon come to separate the
destiny of his component elements. We hold
the tenets of the soul’s immortality and the Body’s
Resurrection completely apart in our minds ; we
contemplate them in entire independence of one
another. The existence of one of these truths
does not appear to us inwoven with that of the
other ; so that a blow aimed at the vitality of the
one does not in our notions necessarily destroy
the vitality of the other. We can easily picture to
ourselves the soul’s existing throughout eternity
in separation from the body,—so familiarised are
we with the thought of that separation, and so
much (partly from experience, partly from habits
of abstraction) have we come to regard it as
originally inherent in nature—-as a thing accom-
plished in accordance with and not in contraven-
tion of her regular oeconomy.
But another reason of this mental separation
of the destinies of body and soul is to be sought
in our early education, which has brought us into242
AN OBJECTION
contact with and caused us insensibly to imbibe
the notions in vogue among heathen sages on
the subject of man’s futurity. We have read and
heard of the wise men of olden time auguring the
soul’s immortality from certain high and noble
instincts which they were conscious of possess-
ing, and yearning for its disenthralment from
the trammels of the flesh, under the impression
that this was the consummation in earnest ex-
pectation of which Humanity was groaning. The
phraseology which has sounded in our ears from
childhood (and how strong is the reflex influence
of phraseology on the minds of those who create
or habitually employ it) has accustomed us to
contemplate as utterly distinct and independent
the portions of body and soul,—to exalt the
latter at the expense of the former,—to conceive
of the soul as necessarily and inherently eternal
in duration, of the body as a clog and cumbrance
upon noble aspirations, and as the originating
fountain of all the evil which besets us. Our
habits of thought have been insensibly formed on
a certain mould of language; and this mould of
language (if not anti-Scriptural and therefore not
necessarily erroneous) is at least not Scriptural,
is not the mould upon which Jewish habits of
thinking were formed. It may be asked, for ex-
ample, (without denying the truth of the tenet,CONSIDERED AND REMOVED.
243
or demurring to the validity of the arguments
from which heathen sages inferred it,)—where is
the doctrine of the soul’s immortality to be found
in Scripture ? Doubtless assertions are made
which imply it, or from which it may be deduced
with tolerable certainty; but in its naked, abstract,
heathen form, in that form of it wherewith our
minds have been from infancy imbued, it is a
doctrine of which God’s Word knows nothing.
The very term in which it is couched—the word
immortality, adavaaia, only occurs thrice in the
Old Testament—once where it is predicated of
God, who it is said “ alone hath immortality”b—
and in two other passages" where it is predicated
of the mortal part of man as that which shall
ultimately put on immortality.
The immortality of the soul then is a tenet not
gathered from the oracles of God, but arrived at
by philosophical speculation. So far as in the
tenet is implied an inherent immortality of man’s
spiritual part, an immortality not momentarily
dependent on the Author of our existence, we
reject it as false and unreasonable. So far as it
implies the simple fact that the soul of man is
destined to endure perpetually, without an in-
termission of consciousness or sensation, we ad-
mit the doctrine as true, albeit expressed by the
» 1 Tim. vi. 16.	' 1 Cor. xv. 63, 64.244
AN OBJECTION
writers of Scripture in other, and, doubtless, in
preferable forms. That the scriptural form of
conveying the doctrine is totally different, may
be inferred from the fact that in the Bible the
soul, no less than the body, is spoken of as sus-
ceptible of destruction. “ Rather fear him,” says
our Blessed Lord, “ who is able to destroy both
“ body and soul in hell.” While fully conceding
that in passages of this kind the destruction spoken
of is something wholly different from annihilation,
we contend that the mere phrase immortality of
the soul intimates in the person coining or employ-
ing it a totally different aspect of the subject from
that which is presented by the expression “possible
“ destruction of the soul.” The destruction may of
course be explained so as to become perfectly re-
concileable with the immortality—but the two ex-
pressions indicate a distinct mould of thought. Ac-
cording as we adopt one or other expression, we
are viewing truth from a different standing point.
In the course of the foregoing remarks I have
pointed out two sources of misapprehension, to
which we of the present age are exposed in
our study of Scripture. The first is the want
of simplicity in our notions, resulting from the
habit of refining into their ideal elements the
objects presented to our minds. The second is
a want of conformity in our phraseology, andCONSIDERED AND REMOVED.
245
consequently in our habits of thought, to the
phraseology employed by Scripture, and the
habits of thought imbibed from its almost ex-
clusive study.
The Inspired Writers regard the subjects of
which they treat with a freshness of view, which,
when set side by side with our dead and dry ab-
stractions, resembles the early impressions of
childhood as contrasted with the speculations of
the adult. They describe things as they are in
truth, as they are in nature, as they are in God’s
creation. They do not draw subtle distinctions;
they view the object whatever it be in its totality,
as it presents itself to the eye on the first super-
ficial gaze. Man is everywhere contemplated by
them according to the original draught of him in
the divine mind, according to the original execu-
tion by the divine hand—not in that fragmentary
anomalous state violently superinduced by sin in
counteraction both of the primitive design and
the primitive work. Accordingly, the restoration
of man as man involves in their apprehensions
the material as well as the spiritual element of
our nature. It is Man in his integrity whom
God counsels to restore- Never does the thought
appear to cross them that the imperfect unnatural
state of severance brought about by death is the
consummation which the creature is earnestly ex-246
AN OBJECTION
pecting and tending towards. '‘Not for that we
“would be unclothed,” cries the Apostle, when
this separate state forces itself upon his thoughts
—so uncongenial to him, so abhorrent to his
nature, was that prospect of disinvestment which
the wiser heathens of antiquity regarded as
man’s supreme good. The mind of the reader of
Scripture is never permitted to pause on death,
much less to acquiesce in it as final; his thoughts
are made to overleap the temporary suspension of
man’s active faculties which commences in the
hour of dissolution, and carried onward into that
grand crisis when our nature, broken up for a
short period into its constituent elements, shall
be restored again to its primitive integrity under
an organization more glorious than it has hitherto
possessed. Death, it is true, makes a chasm in
man’s existence as man; but it is a chasm across
which, often without even recognising it, the eye
is pointed on to a land very far away, and to a
city which hath foundations,—even as the bodily
eye when situated in a low position and carried
along a flat will often overlook the trenches by
which the plain is intersected.
Thus in a scriptural view of the subject, the
Resurrection of the body is essentially connected
with the future and eternal state of man. As the
outward features are the visible expression of theCONSIDERED AND REMOVED.
247
inward character, so that with our thought of the
man we cannot but connect the image of his per-
son, so is the Resurrection the only aspect under
which a future state presents itself to the mind
of the Inspired Writers,—the only notion under
which they can conceive of it.
These remarks, it will be said, apply almost
exclusively to the Christian Scriptures ; and it
is true that in making them we have the New
Testament chiefly in view. But, so far as the
subject of man’s hereafter is at all treated in the
Jewish Scriptures, the same remarks will hold
good of these also. We readily concede that
the intimations of a future state which occur in
the Old Testament are at best—as they stand
there in the letter, without any illustration from
concurrent traditions, — not only few and far
between, but faint also. In the earlier Books
these faint intimations are wanting, and even in
the prophetical writings the glimpses opened up
of a land beyond the grave are not so bright and
so unintercepted as we might have expected to
find them. But all that we are now concerned
to remark, all that has to do with our present
purpose—is, that wherever such intimations do
occur, the exclusive aspect under which they
present the future state is that of a bodily Re-
surrection. And this is undoubted. Assuming248
AN OBJECTION
that the following passages have a reference to the
everlasting destiny of the Human Race (an as-
sumption which has been and may be questioned,
although it cannot be disproved)—what doubt can
rest on any mind that a risen Body is the chief
element of that destiny which the writer contem-
plates ? “ Thy dead men shall live; together with
“my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing
“ ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew
“ of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.”
“ I will ransom them from the power of the grave ;
“ I will redeem them from death : O death, I will
“ be thy plagues ; O grave, I will be thy destruc-
tion.” “And many of them that sleep in the
“ dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlast-
“ ing life, and some to shame and everlasting con-
“ tempt.” “ I know that my Redeemer liveth,
“ and that he shall stand at the latter day upon
“ the earth : and though after my skin worms
“ destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see
“ God.” The applicability of all these passages
(especially the last of them) to the Resurrection
is not insisted upon—and yet we think that, sup-
posing the sense of the original adequately con-
veyed by the authorised translation, such will ever
be the popular application of them. And if in
any of them the future state of man as man be
at all referred to (an hypothesis which would notCONSIDERED AND REMOVED.
249
exclude the primary application of one or more
of them to a restoration of the Jewish Church
and polity), most undoubted it is that the state
in question is contemplated by the writer, not
as one of spiritual immortality, but of corpo-
real Resurrection. And another scriptural re-
ference may be made confirmatory of this
observation. Under the patriarchal and prophe-
tical dispensations, by way of keeping alive the
faith and hope of a glorious immortality, instances
were given of exemption from the law of death
and miraculous assumption to heaven. These
assumptions were, no doubt, extraordinary privi-
leges reserved for extraordinary Saints—but they
may be regarded as having been vouchsafed with
the additional view of holding out to the world in
visible patterns the high destiny to which man
may aspire, and which he may obtain. Enoch
and Elijah preached from their chariots of fire
that the sinful inheritors of flesh and blood may
become partakers of God’s glory. But did any
change pass over these patriarchs, qualifying
them for the inheritance of immortality ? Cer-
tainly none which affected the integrity of their
nature. They were carried up to heaven in the
Body, the corruptible putting on incorruption
and the mortal immortality in the process of
translation. But the Scriptures, in narrating the
R250
AN OBJECTION
event, give not the slightest intimation of any
inconsistency or natural repugnance between cor-
poreity and the heavenly state. Forming our
judgments from these recorded specimens we
should conclude that the heavenly state was
corporeal.
Now, we know that the mind of the Jews was
formed upon their own Scriptures. Doubtless
where those Scriptures only sketched a rough
outline, the Hebrew Doctors were in the habit
of filling in the details, and of eliciting dogmatic
inferences from obscure intimations ; but Jewish
reverence for the sacred volume forbids us to
suppose that any thing notoriously at variance
with the Scriptural outline would find admittance
to the popular belief. The Jews, be it remembered,
had no educational prepossessions on the subject
of a future state, such as our own minds have im-
bibed from an acquaintance with heathen philoso-
phy. They were fenced off from all contact with
the heathen mind by that hedge of ceremonial
ordinances and civil institutions which God threw
around his Vineyard, for the very purpose of its
separation from other people of the earth. No
philosophical speculations respecting the exist-
ence of the human spirit in a pure state, ab-
stracted from all materialism, had given a tone
and colouring to their views of man’s futurity.CONSIDERED AND REMOVED.
251
Whatever those views were, they must have been
based upon, even if in point of precision and
definiteness they went beyond, the Oracles of
God. We should then expect to find among the
Jews of the time of Christ a general persuasion
that the Body of man would be raised again. In
that advanced stage of society it was utterly im-
possible that people in general should not have
•reflected upon the destiny of Man when time
should be at an end, that they should have
formed no definite theories as to what that des-
tiny would be. The Jewish mind must have
been working on these subjects for ages, and
gathering up into one consistent view all the
apposite gleanings which had been left scattered
about the harvest-field of Revelation. It is not
in nature to suppose that there was no popular
belief respecting the nature of Man’s futurity.
Investigations of this kind are highly interesting
and attractive to curiosity, so that the mind
manifests at all times a natural tendency to dive
into them. There is an innate instinct in all of
us which, whatever be the peculiar sentiments of
peculiar sects, moves the multitude not only to
believe in an hereafter, but also to augur its cha-
racter from any and every indication which either
in the province of philosophy or Revelation lies
within their reach. Now the intimations of Reve-
b. 2252
AN OBJECTION
lation were within the reach of that nation
to whom were committed the oracles of God;
and we may feel sure that every such intima-
tion would be minutely examined by them,
and treasured up as a fresh element of their
Creed.
Whether or not the passages recently quoted,
and others of a similar description, really refer
to the Resurrection, we feel sure that the inter-
pretation which gives them this reference would
be generally accepted among the people. There
might indeed be, as we know there were, and as
there will be in every highly developed social
state, persons who by rationalising speculations
had been led into scepticism on the fundamental
points of religion. This was the case with the
Sadducees. They denied the future state of exist-
ence altogether; and therefore said that there
was no Resurrection, Resurrection being the as-
pect under which a future state presented itself
to the minds of all. It was not against the Re-
surrection of the Body, except as implied in the
tenet of a retributive futurity, that they alleged
their cavils. That their radical objection lay
essentially against eternal retribution, and only
accidentally against any form which this truth
assumed, is proved by their rejecting from their
moral philosophy the idea of recompense as anCONSIDERED AND REMOVED.
253
unworthy motive to the prosecution of virtue/ a
motive by which only persons of a slavish mind
would be actuated. They grounded this objection
on the silence of the Pentateuch respecting any
such eternal retribution; and as far as the explicit
statements of the volume go there is some scope
for the objection. We must look to implications, to
the spirit and tone of certain passages, if we would
find in the Books of Moses the doctrine of a future
state of retribution. It lies below, not upon the
surface.
In all probability, too, the grosser and more
animal view of the Resurrection, which repre-
sents it as a mere restoration of present circum-
stances, would find favour in the eyes of the
multitude. Man is always prone to place his
future blessedness rather in those joys of sense
which all can appreciate than in the high and
refined satisfaction of communion with God,
which none but the spiritual mind can under-
stand. Accordingly we know that the Jews
popularly conceived of Messiah’s kingdom of
glory, with the establishment of which they
always connected the Resurrection of the dead,
as to be ushered in by a grand festival or banquet
at which the righteous should be called upon to
sit down. In conformity with this current notion
4 See Appendix to Lecture VII. Note B.254
AN OBJECTION
upon the subject, we find one of the guests who;
sat in our Lord’s company in the house of a chief
Pharisee, giving utterance to this pious exclama-
tion : “ Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the
“ kingdom of God.” And in the language of pro-
mise which our Lord himself employs to his dis-
ciples, there is much that favours this view : “ I
“ will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the
“ vine, until that day when I drink it new with
“ you in my Father's kingdom.” And again : “ I
“appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath
“appointed me, that ye may eat and drink at
“my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones
“ judging the twelve tribes of Israeli'
Let us now proceed to apply the theory, which:
has been discussed, and it is hoped satisfactorily
established, to the removal of the difficulties raised
in the earlier part of the Discourse,
(1.) “There came to Jesus certain of the Sad-
ducees which deny that there is any Resurrection.”
They denied that there was any Resurrection
because they denied that there was any future
state, and Resurrection was the only form of the
future state recognised by the Scriptures, or
among the Jews. It has been shown that their
objection really lay against a retributive here-
after, and only accidentally against the conditions
generally understood to attach to that hereafter.CONSIDERED AND REMOVED.
255
They frame their objection with great skill and
artfulness, fastening upon the carnal and earthly
views of the Resurrection state current among
their opponents, and thus seeking to bring the
truth into contempt by implicating it with the
popular misapprehensions, which had grown up
as parasitical plants around its stem and beneath
its shadow. This crafty method of procedure at
once gave a tone of reasonableness to their en-
quiries, and veiled the real point of their heresy,
which lay in the denial of the state of eternal
retribution. “ Master, Moses wrote unto us,”
said they, “ If any man’s brother die, having a
“ wife, and he die without children, that his bro-
ther should take his wife, and raise up seed
“unto his brother. There were therefore seven
“ brethren : and the first took a wife, and died
“ without children. And the second took her to
“wife, and he died childless. And the third took
“ her; and in like manner the seven also; and
“ they left no children, and died. Last of all the
“ woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection
“ whose wife of them is she ? for seven had her
“ to wife.”
Our Lord, of whom it has been well remarked
that “not being like man, which knows man’s
“ thoughts by his words, but knowing man’s
“thoughts immediately, He never answered their256
AN OBJECTION
“ words* but their thoughts/’6 replies with pro-
foundest wisdom. He first extricates the truth
from the adscititious growths by which the
Sadducees would bring it into disrepute, and
shows that when rightly understood it involves
no absurdities. Resurrection was to be, not a repe-
tition of natural and animal life, but the bringing
out of the creature into an angelic state,—a state
beset with no infirmity and liable to no decay.
“ Jesus answering said unto them, The children
“ of this world marry, and are given in marriage :
“but they which shall be accounted worthy to
“ obtain that world, and the resurrection from
“ the dead, neither marry, nor are given in mar-
“ riage : neither can they die any more : for they
“ are equal unto the angels ; and are the children
“of God, being $ie children of the resurrection.”
But He who saw through all disguises knew
that the particular objection was rather raised
by way of cavil at the popular belief, and did; not
exhibit the real essence of the Sadducaic opinions.
He would not suffer them to call off attention
from the real point at issue to certain assailable
outworks erected by their opponents around the
tower of Eternal Truth. In what follows, he
may be regarded as virtually saying, “ I have
* Bacon’s Advancement of Learning. De gradibus mutatis in
civitate Dei.CONSIDERED AND REMOVED.
257
“ already replied to you on the hypothesis that
“the words justly express the spirit of your objec-
tion. Were that objection really founded, as it
“ pretends to be, upon the carnal and earthly as-
“ sociations connected in the mind of your coun-
“ trymen with the verity which you dispute, the
“ answer would be that persons conceiving of it
“ thus, misconceive the Resurrection state ; they
“ regard it through the distorting medium of an
“ earthly and a natural mind. But you well know
“that your objection lies far deeper. Were I to
“ say no more than what I have said, I should only
“sweep away the rubbish which has gathered
“ round the truth, without really meeting and re-
belling your assault upon it. You have pitched
“ upon a point in the exterior surface of popular
“belief, which furnishes you with a pretext of
“ cavil. It is, however, the heart and core of popu-
“lar belief, with which you really quarrel. You
“hold that death terminates man’s existence. And
“most erroneously do you assert, in defence of
“ this heresy, that the doctrine of a future life is
“ not contained in the Scriptures. But is it so ?
“ Is not this doctrine involved in the letter of the
“very Books which you profess most to venerate?
“ If Moses, living years after the remains of Abra-
“ ham, Isaac, and Jacob had been consigned to the
“dust, still calls God the God of these patriarchs—258
AN OBJECTION
“ does not that appellation prove their continued
“ existence ? Would God condescend to take his
“ designation from nonentities, from persons or
“ things annihilated and extinct ? He is not a God
“ of the dead but of the living, for all live unto
“ Him.” It need not present any difficulty to us,
that our Lord employs this as an argument to
prove that the dead are raised, if we bear in mind
what has been already proved, that a state of Re-
surrection was the only recognised form in which
the doctrine of man’s hereafter presented itself to
the minds of his hearers. Had He expressed
Himself otherwise, and in a manner which to
our own minds would have been more conclu-
sive, He would have employed terms not recog-
nised at all by the Holy Scripture and probably
unintelligible to his auditors. Accustomed as
they were to view a corporeal Resurrection and
a future state as mutually interdependent doc-
trines, whose life was bound up with one an-
other, and which must either stand or fall to-
gether,—they would no doubt recognise the ar-
gument as impregnable, as silencing all cavils,
and setting at rest the question in dispute.
(2.) and (3.) The difficulties founded upon
the other passages may be easily solved by a
similar observation.
Resurrection was a complex subject of thoughtCONSIDERED AND REMOVED.
259
to a Jewish mind, a mind formed upon the model
of Scriptures. Sometimes the mind would be
concentrated on its corporeal bearing: it would
be viewed in reference to the outward man.
Sometimes, and I think oftener, it would be
viewed in connection with its root and substance,
as the only recognised form of the doctrine of a
future state. Contemplating it on the first of
these sides, Paul would speak of the “ mortal
“ putting on immortality.” Regarding it on the
second, he would consider it as a rudimentary and
fundamental article of Christian faith, and say—
“ What profiteth it me”—i. e., of what avail are
sacrifices and self-denials, “ if the dead rise not.”
Even so in making any distinct individual a
subject of thought, our mind may turn either to
his inward character or to the outward linea-
ments expressive of and ideally associated with
that character. In the first case our remarks
would have reference exclusively to his moral or
mental endowments—we might say, for example,
that such an enterprise would be sure to prosper if
he were one of the parties engaged in it. In the
second, our observation on his personality would
be limited to his features, gait, and manner ; we
might speak of him as conciliating favour at first
sight, or as adapted by his constitution to under-
go hardships.260
AN OBJECTION"
We have thus seen that to the apprehensions
of the Scriptural writers, and of those for whom
they wrote, the future state presented itself under
no other form than that of Corporeal Resurrec-
tion. And it should be observed, that however
much such a view may in our modern notions
seem confused and liable to give rise to equivocal
expressions, yet there is a deep philosophical
truth lying at the root of it, which we have but
to point out in order to vindicate its reasonable-
ness.
The future state of Man as Man implies a
corporeal structure,—for in the utter absence of
such a structure Man is Man no longer. A
material element, be it remembered, entered into
the original constitution of humanity,—and ac-
cording to our ordinary apprehensions (which we
cannot doubt to be founded in truth) it is in the
combination of the material with the spiritual
that the characteristic of Humanity consists, the
material element differencing man from the
other rational orders of creation, even as the spi-
ritual faculties define him by a sharp boundary
from the beasts that perish. There is not in the
inspired account of man’s creation a single word
which would lead us to suppose that the dust of
the earth was a less essential constituent of his
nature than the breath of life—nay, rather, theCONSIDERED AND REMOVED.
261
dust is represented as the substratum of the
fabric, and the higher faculties as afterwards
superinduced. Nor does any Gnostic notion of
the inherent impurity of matter—which (if it
were admitted) might lead us to suppose that
liberation from matter would be a characteristic
of the state of perfection, find the slightest
countenance in the Scripture. Man was formed
of matter, before yet sin had soiled and sullied
with its defiling touch the fair objects of the
lower Creation. As those objects sprung into
existence at the fiat of the Almighty Will, they
approved themselves successively as very good
in the eyes of Him that judgeth right. Pure they
were, if not perfected,—that is to say, if not yet
developed into that higher condition of existence,
of which we believe outward Nature no less than
the Human Body to be susceptible, and into
which it was ordained that she should be brought
through the mysterious process of dissolution.
What ground, therefore, can be made out in
the Word of God for the notion that man is
destined, as the consummation and jT^£acfion
of his beings to be disenthralled from/
to lose an element of his nature w/
beginning was both essential and /
not far more conformable to Seri}'
elude that, in the perfect state, /262
AN OBJECTION
that element, defaecated however of the cor-
ruptible dregs which sin has introduced into
it, and adapted, by a purification and enlarge-
ment of its faculties, to the higher sphere which
he shall then occupy ?
But reason, no less than Scripture, teaches
that Body is an essential element of the human
nature, an element without which Man ceases to
be Man. To divest man entirely of matter would
be to break off his relationship to time and space,
—to shut him up within a comparatively limited
range of impressions, to pinion down many of
his faculties and powers, and so to confine him
within a narrow compass of action. Moreover,
since that whole range of emotions called imagina-
tive, which is a disputable border land between
the animal or organic, and the intellectual or moral
faculties, is dependent entirely upon the embodi-
ment of mind (or in other words upon its con-
nection with matter), to break off' this connec-
tion were to cut away the scope and occasion
for many lofty and noble impressions which are
grounded in the complex constitution of our na-
ture. And such a disruption of our relations to
matter would hardly consist with the defined and
recognised individuality of man in the future
state, which demands the seclusion of the spirit
in a separate tenement of its own, and the sym-CONSIDERED AND REMOVED.
263
bolising of the personality by corporeal conforma-
tion/ Such a change as this were to construct a
new creature, not to build up the wreck of an old.
It were radically to alter the constitution of man
—to assimilate him perhaps to some orders of
creation with whom he has as at present consti-
tuted no affinity. The notion that such is indeed
the consummation in reserve for our nature re-
ceives, it may be observed, no real countenance
from the admitted fact that our Lord represents
the Resurrection state of the saints as a state in
which they shall be like the angels. The word
is not to be pressed beyond what the context
will warrant. The similitude of risen saints to
the angels will not consist in the simple spi-
rituality of their nature, but rather in their
exemption from corporeal infirmity, and from
those humilating conditions to which all animal
life is subjected. Other passages of Scriptures8
give us every reason -to believe, that in the future
world mankind will hold a position far more
dignified and exalted than that of the angels,
God in the Person of the Son having united
' These thoughts are well developed in the Physical Theory
of another Life, to which Work the Author is under great obli-
gations.
* As for example—“ Know ye not that we shall judge angels 1"
1 Cor. vi. 3. “ For verily He took not on Him the nature of
“angels; but he took on Him the seed of Abraham.” Heb. ii. 16.264
AN OBJECTION
Himself to our nature, and so having elevated it
to the very highest rank which created intelli-
gences are capable of occupying.
The foregoing remarks lead us inevitably to
the conclusion that Man cannot exist as Man in
any state without a corporeal organization. Re-
move the material element, and you at once
destroy, not indeed the personality, but the hu-
manity. Take the case of any given individual.
If in the future state he is destined to exist as
man, without any radical change of his entire
constitution, he must at some period after death
assume a body. It is theoretically quite con-
ceivable that he might do so, and yet at the
same time that the body so assumed should be
an entirely new organization, standing in no re-
lation whatever to that which he had deposited
in the hour of dissolution. A body simply would,
we think, satisfy all the requirements of reason
on the subject—it is not necessary that it should
be the body which during life was the organ of
the personality. But when we have advanced
thus far by the aid of reason, Revelation meets
us and conducts us one step further. Scripture
gives not the slightest countenance to the sup-
position that the Resurrection Body will be a
new organization. On the contrary, all that the
Inspired Writers say, or are supposed to say,CONSIDERED AND REMOVED.
265
upon the subject, points to the resumption of
the old, not to the assumption of a new body,
with the exception of one only passage1’ in which
the writer is employing a figure which does not
allow him, consistently with its being main-
tained, to point out the relation between the
animal and spiritual bodies. The very term Re-
surrection of or from the dead, could not be ap-
plied, without a somewhat violent straining of
language, to the investment of the soul with
an entirely new organization. And when we
recall the Scriptural representations of this verity
as an awaking of the sleepers of the dust, a
coming forth of all who are in the graves, a sur-
rendering of her dead on the part of the sea,
there can be no question that the impression
conveyed by Holy Writ is that the identical
body deposited at death shall be resumed again
by its depositor, not indeed in all the infirmities
of an animal organization (which were only tem-
porary accidents attaching to it), but after the
power of an endless life.
But over and above all more speculative ob-
jections to it, we feel that to represent the Re-
surrection as being merely an investiture of
man’s spirit with a new organism—a theory
which indeed makes it no Resurrection except
* 2 Cor. y. 1.
s266
AN OBJECTION
phenomenally—robs this precious doctrine of all
its practical value, and of all its moral signi-
ficance. Little in comparison would the sen-
sualist reck of appearing before the judgment-
seat of Christ in corporeal form, so long as the
body were not that which he has enfeebled by
excess, desecrated by impurity, and converted
from a temple of the Holy Spirit into an instru-
ment of foul desire and a monument of eternal
shame. Gladly would he embrace the convic-
tion that the identity of the body which he at
present carries about with him will be lost in the
process of decomposition, that its constituent
and essential particles will be scattered to the
winds of heaven, and dissipated among the ele-
ments beyond all possibility of recovery. That
which we regard as transitory in its nature, and
attaching to us only for a brief period of our exist-
ence, we scruple not to dishonour, to degrade,
to abuse. If the wreck made of the body by
death is to be swept away utterly and for ever,
then surely the body need not be had in much
regard, and the manner in which we deal with it
is of comparatively small importance. But make
the supposition that this body, this mysterious
symbol of our personality, is to cling to us for
ever in its essential identity ! that it is to un-
dergo a change which shall qualify it for per-CONSIDERED AND REMOVED.
267
lUanent endurance under another ceconomy!
that thus it will be to us an eternal memento
of all the evil which we have wrought through
the instrumentality of its organs! that present
sensuality and subjection to the animal appetite
may possibly, in preportion to the influence
which they have gained over us, disqualify from
that beatific vision of the Saviour which is the
main source of celestial happiness! Make the
supposition, and how then ? The Body is re-
garded in a new light, it is invested with a new
sanctity—its defilement assumes, when viewed in
this aspect, the awful colour of desecration.
But the supposition is no mere fantasy. It is
based and built upon eternal truth. The Holy
Scripture itself draws a distinction between the
Body and the animal organization, predicting
abolition of the one, assigning to the other a per-
petual duration. If God’s covenant be con-
tracted with the inner man, the mark of the co-
venant is impressed upon the outer. Honour,
then, the Body and hold it in reverence meet.
So deal with it that the images, which it is a
medium of conveying to the mind, the impres-
sions derived through the avenue of the senses,
may exercise upon the spirit a sanctifying and
elevating influence. Regard it, while it sojourns
below, as the Tabernacle of the Wilderness, an
s 2268
AN OBJECTION CONSIDERED, &c.
hallowed sanctuary accompanying thee in the
pilgrimage of life, in whose recesses is enshrined
the light of the Spirit, and which must be
cleansed and maintained in purity for the enter-
tainment of the Divine Guest. Its present
framework must indeed one day be dislocated—
its external curtains eaten by the moth of cor-
ruption and decay—but it shall be set up again in
glorious majesty on God’s holy hill of Zion—a
Temple exceeding magnifical, whose foundation
is like unto the ground, which God hath made
continually.LECTURE VIII.
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION OF THE CREATURE.
Romans viii. 19—23.
“ For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for
the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature
was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of
him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the crectr
ture itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of cor-
ruption into the glorious liberty oj the children of God.
For we Jcnow that the whole creation groaneth and tra-
vaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but
ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even
we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adop-
tion, to wit, the redemption of our body
The Human Body, whose destiny is the subject
of discussion in the present course of Lectures,
may be regarded under two different aspects,—
as a constituent element of Human Nature, and
as a portion of matter akin to the various objects
of the external world.270
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION
We have already regarded it under the former
aspect, and have pointed out the grounds upon
which,, in this view of it, it is destined to rise
again.. We saw that, the second Representative
of Humanity having undergone the penalty of
dissolution which the sin of its first representa-
tive drew down upon Man’s composite nature,,
justice requires that the penalty should be re-
versed and cancelled in the case of every par-
taker of the nature who has submitted to it. In
virtue of their connection with the second Adam
all will rise again, even as in virtue of their con-
nection with the first all die.
We now proceed, in the concluding Lecture of
the series, to regard the Body of Man in its con-
nection with the realm of external Nature, and
to point out that, under this aspect also, it is des-
tined to rise again in incorruption. The Resur-
rection of the Human Body will be seen, accord-
ing to this view of it, to form part and parcel of
a grand design, which God designs to accomplish*
perhaps upon the entire material universe, but
certainly upon that department of it which is im-
mediately connected with this planet,—-a design,
which will embrace the scene of Man’s abode no
less than his corporeal structure.
Before considering the intimations of this de-
sign, which are opened up to us in the text, letOF THE CREATURE.
271
me make the preliminary remark that, the Re-
surrection of the Human Body being conceded,
we should naturally anticipate on a priori grounds
an extension of the same process to the surround-
ing realm of outward Nature. Let it be ad-
mitted that the material element of Humanity is
destined to survive the wreck of the animal
(Economy, and to be brought out in another form,
—and we can then hardly resist the inference
that glorified matter, external to man, will exist
in the Resurrection state, wherewith the Resur-
rection Body will be conversant. We can hardly
persuade ourselves that Man, in his risen Cor-
poreity, will inhabit an element where every
thing save himself is incorporeal. And if the
element into which Resurrection shall usher
him be one in which he shall still move, as
now, among the forms of matter, what forms
shall we suppose those to be ? The analogy of
the Body leads us to expect that these forms will
be only new and higher developments of pre-
viously existing substrata;—and when, in addition
to this analogy, it is borne in mind that, so far as
we can gather from the intimations of the pre-
sent system, renewal rather than annihilation and
substitution is the rule of the divine (Economy,—
a presumption then arises that the vast and goodly
framework of external nature will survive the272
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION
flames of the last conflagration, even as it sur-
vived the waters of the Deluge, and that from
the ashes of the old and time-worn structure will
spring a renovated world, purified by its baptism
of fire from the traces of sin’s occupancy, and
fitted by a mysterious change (partaking of the
nature of Resurrection) to be the abode of re-
generated Man.
This presumption derives no little confirma-
tion from observing that the realm of Nature
participated to a certain extent in the effects of
man’s fall. The earth, we are told, was cursed
for Adam’s sake, and instead of (as before) spon-
taneously engendering nothing but beautiful and
wholesome produce, brought forth by its own
unaided energies thorns and thistles. Now, the
perfection of Christ’s work demands that we
should attribute to it a cancelling of all those
evils to which man’s estate is liable. We should
naturally suppose the restoration to be coexten-
sive in its effects with the fall, the blessing to
reach as far as the curse, the remedy to meet
the superinduced evil at every point of its mani-
festation. But this cannot be the case, unless
the curse pronounced upon the soil for the sake
of the first Adam be abrogated for the sake of
the second, and its consequences of deterioration
be reversed. Nor is the long postponement ofOF THE CREATURE.
273
this consummation an argument that it shall
never take effect. The Human Body is not yet
redeemed. Matter (that of which man is com-
pounded as well as that with which he is sur-
rounded) has as yet reaped no benefit from the
work of Christ. Its restoration (or rather its re-
generation) is yet to come. “ In this" (tabernacle)
“ we groan/’ says St. Paul, “ earnestly desiring to
“ be clothed upon with our house which is from
“ heaven.” “ We, according to his promise,” says
St. Peter, “look for new heavens and a new
“ earth wherein dwelleth righteousness.”
And we cannot but regard one of the circum-
stances of our Blessed Lord’s Passion, as a signifi-
cant token that a redemption from the Power of
the Curse is in store for the earth. We are told
that previously to His crucifixion the Roman
soldiers, “when they had platted a crown of
“ thorns, put it,” in mockery, “ around His head.”
The perpetrators of this action designed by it no-
thing beyond the mere gratification of their
wanton cruelty. But when we call to mind that
the second Adam was at this very time submit-
ing Himself to the curse of God,—and couple
with this the recorded fact that the thorn and
thistle were the fruits of that curse, as it took
effect upon the ground, we cannot resist the in-
ference that the cruel device was over-ruled by274
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION
God to the expression of a truth which He would
have us discern and ponder. Being the im-
mediate produce of the curse, the thorn was an
appropriate decoration for the Man of the curse.
But more than this. The endurance of the
thorn was the endurance of sin’s penalty as it
visited, not the transgressor, but the place of his
residence. And the endurance of a penalty by
Christ in His vicarious character, involves and
must ultimately issue in the cancelling of the
penalty. And accordingly the circumstance of
our Lord’s having worn and suffered from a
crown of thorns would seem to intimate that a
revocation of the sentence which was passed
upon the soil is in God’s design,—a revocation
which may possibly involve the fulfilment in a
literal sense of that prediction, that “ instead of
“ the thorn shall come up the fir-tree, and instead
“ of the brier shall come up the myrtle-tree.”
To many minds doubtless these reflections
will approve themselves as no better than mere
fancies, nor are they proposed except as sugges-
tions of what may possibly be true, and is certainly
deserving of consideration. Nothing depends upon
our concurring with the hints here thrown out.
All that our argument requires for its support is a
concession of the undoubted fact that external
nature (so far as the soil was concerned) sharedOF THE CREATURE.
275
in the effects of man’s fall. Let this be con-
ceded (as it must be by all who accept simply
tl\e dictates of Inspiration) and a presumption
immediately arises (whose strength will no
doubt be estimated differently by different minds)
that Nature may share also in that restoration
of man which shall be finally consummated at
the Resurrection of the Body. At all events, if
we admit the material universe to have been, in-
volved in the ruin of mankind, we cannot con-
sistently deny the possibility of its being involved
also in his redemption.
Having thus endeavoured to conciliate favour
(or at least indulgence) for an exposition of the
text, whose misfortune it is not to be of an early
date, I now proceed to the development and
illustration of the various points which, according
to this view of its meaning, the passage brings
before us.
The interpretation of the whole will of course
depend upon the signification which we assign to
the words iraaa f) ktictis. Some very ancient ex-
positors, Origen3 for example, and Gregoryb of
Nazianzum, have imagined that by the term
creature is denoted the angels, who, inasmuch as
they are ministering spirits, sent forth to minister
for them who shall be heirs of salvation, may
be represented as subject to vanity and in bond-
a See Appendix to Lecture VIII. Note A. b Ibid, Note B.276
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION
age to corruption, that is, as doing service to
vain and corruptible man. Others with more
probability (as Augustine' and Anselm) suppose
that reference is made to the human creature ex-
clusively : but against this interpretation it may
be observed that it fails to draw that definite dis-
tinction between the creature and the sons of
God which the passage requires.
And if, in order to make out such a distinction,
the term creature be limited to man in a state
of heathenism, a presumption still arises un-
favourable to this view, from the fact that in this
very chapter the word ktUtk is used in a much
more extensive sense, where the Apostle enume-
rates among the creatures height and depth, life
and death ; as also in the first chapter, where he
speaks of worshipping the creature more than the
Creator. On the other hand, however, it must be
confessed that this interpretation derives great
probability from a comparison with that passage
in the Gospels in which the Apostles were directed
by their divine Master to go into all the world and
preach the Gospel to every creature (iraa-g rfj
KTLaei),—a phrase which in this connection must
perforce mean that portion of the human species
which does not enjoy the light of evangelical re-
velation. Amidst such a variety of interpreta-
tions, in favour of all of which something may be
c See Appendix to Lecture VIII. Note C.OF THE CREATURE.
277
said, and none of which perhaps are perfectly
unexceptionable,—all that can be done is to
adopt that which seems least open to objections,
and that which is favoured by the first impres-
sions of plain persons on reading the passage.
With Grotius,d then, we understand by the term
KTto-t? the world of visible and corporeal creatures
which we see around us, and which stands in
relation to our earth; and we find five points
respecting this creature touched upon in the
passage before us, the first of which is its present
condition; the second, the origin of that con-
dition ; the third, the future prospects of the
creature; the fourth, the creature’s earnest ex-
pectation of those prospects being realised ; the
fifth, the participation and sympathy of the child
of God in the creature’s present state and future
existence.
I. The present state of the creature,-—that is
of so much of the material system, as comes
within the reach of man’s knowledge from its im-
mediate connection with the planet which he in-
habits. This material system is said in verse 20
to be “ subject to vanity,” an expression which is
slightly varied in the 21st verse, where it is im-
plied that the creature is at present “ in the bond-
“ age of corruption.” We may safely regard the
latter expression as exegetical of the former.—
See Appendix to Lecture VIII. Note D.278
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION
Corruption—this is the keyword which opens to
us the Apostle’s meaning in these two phrases.
Every object which meets the eye on the surface
of our globe (the fairest and most beautiful not
excepted), is subject to corruption. The well
proportioned frame of the human body, instinct,
during the period of youth, with grace and ani-
mation, loses, as time advances, its freshness and
vigour, and at length is laid in the silent grave,
there to moulder (a loathsome process) and to
mingle with its parent dust. The same is the end
of every living—yea, and of every inanimate crea-
ture. The flower, so delicate in its tints, so sweet
in its odour, fades and droops upon its stem—the
leaf through whose slender arteries the circulating
sap once ran, shrivels up beneath the touch of
autumn, and by the rude breath of winter is swept
away. What object can we point to below (how-
ever long it may hold out against corruption)
which falls not at length beneath the operation
of this universal law ? The oak endures in the
forest the brunt of a century’s storms, yet a
period comes at last when “ the tender branch
“ thereof ceaseth, when the root thereof waxes
“ old in the earth, and the stock thereof dies in
“the ground.” The bed of many an ancient
river, celebrated in the annals of the world, has
now become a mere rocky channel, the floodOF THE CREATURE.
279
■which once rolled through it having by conti-
nual evaporations dwindled away, and the springs
which fed the stream having been exhausted. In
a word, all matter has in it a natural tendency—
(not indeed to annihilation—for there is every
reason to believe that no single particle of it ever,
in the strict sense of that term, perishes)—but to
dissolution, and decomposition. The elements
which compose material objects are sooner or
later broken up by the operation of an infallible
law, to reappear again in new combinations as
temporary as the old, and under an altered form
itself as fleeting as that in which we formerly
recognised them. An interesting statement of
the law whose operation we have been describing
is given by a philosophical writer, to whose work
I am much indebted, in the following terms :—
“The all pervading principle, which is the cha-
racteristic of the present material system is this,
“ That the constitution of nature includes the
“ collision of unlike and unequal forces, so acting
“ upon one another, as that the whole can sub-
“ sist and preserve its form only by running
“round a perpetual circle of combination and
“ decomposition, of organization and dissolution.
“ In no department of nature, within our observa-
“ tion, is there, or indeed can there be, a state
“of absolute rest; for those elements which have"280
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION
“reached a condition of repose, by perfect com-
“ bination, and which, left to themselves, might
“enjoy that repose, are incessantly acted upon
“by other elements, which, though they by them-
“ selves might also rest, cannot rest in juxta-posi-
“ tion with any compound, but must decompose
“ it. Thus it is that the most solid masses are
“ giving way, slowly perhaps, to decomposition,
“ or to a change of chemical form ; while the less
“ solid, or the more exposed masses, are rapidly
“running the round of their solid, fluid, and
“ gaseous states;—yielding up their constituents,
“to be consorted anew in some totally different
“manner. And thus too, the powers of life,
“vegetable and animal, which, within so many
“ thousand fixed types, are perpetually gathering
“to themselves the crude elements, are also,
“without a moment’s pause, passing on toward
“their stage of decay and dissolution. The
“balance of forces, in the material world, is of
“ such a kind as that it can be perpetuated only
“by incessant revolutions and transitions; so we
“ keep a pole perpendicularly on the finger, by
“ giving it a gyration.”3
Every material object, then, which meets the
eye is in a state of flux and unrest: its consti-
tuent elements are quitting it and hastening to
* Taylor’s Physical Theory of a Future Life. Chap. xviiLOF THE CREATURE.
281
manifest themselves in other forms. And with
great propriety is such a state characterised in
our text as a state of subjection to vanity. Every
thing transitory, unsubstantial, and evanescent
is so far forth vain—more especially if during
its brief term of existence it hath put on a seemly
form, or arrayed itself in the glory of high pre-
tensions, or manifested the endowments of a
lofty spirit and an enterprising purpose. This
vanity is the one great theme of inspiration in
the Book of Ecclesiastes. The preacher, from a
general survey of man, and of what is done by
man under the sun, conclusively gathers and em-
phatically reiterates the very sentiment of the
Apostle, that the creature in its present state is
subject to vanity. That man—the wise man and
the righteous man no less than the fool—should
die : that the high imaginings of the poet and
the philosopher, the spirit of patriotic enterprise
which animates the avenger of his country’s
wrongs, and even the far higher aspirations of
the child of God after joys which eye hath not
seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into
the heart of man to conceive,—should arrive at
last at a conclusion so lame, so paltry, so impo-
tent as the grave : that all the toilings and
schemings which are proceeding around us in
this busy restless world, all the faculties which
T282
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION
are called into active exercise in quest of the
various objects of human pursuit, should at
length collapse into the decrepitude and infir-
mity of physical decay;—surely such a termina-
tion as this, winding up and crowning so grand
and magnificent an overture, is the very essence
and realised idea of vanity, and so is most appro-
priately and deservedly termed “vanity of vani-
“ ties.” But it is not only so far forth as it ope-
rates upon man that the law of dissolution is a
law of vanity. The perpetual instability and
unrest which characterises the material system,
justifies us in passing even upon the various
forms of vegetable life, nay and upon inert
bodies also, a sentence of vanity. When about
to descant upon this, his great topic, the continual
gyrations of matter and the ceaseless revolutions
of nature seem to have been the first instances
of the great law which attracted the preacher’s
attention. “The sun ariseth,” he exclaims at
the opening of his discourse, “ and the sun
“goeth down, and hasteth to his place where
“he arose. The wind goeth toward the south,
“ and turneth about unto the north ; it whirleth
“ about continually, and the wind returneth again
“according to his circuits. All the rivers run
“into the sea ; yet the sea is not full; unto the
“place from whence the rivers come, thitherOF THE CREATURE.
283
"they return again. All things are full of la-
“ hour.” Nor is it merely the instability of their
elements which constitutes the vanity of a large
class of natural objects. The exceeding comeli-
ness and grace of some of them, the exquisite
structure, delicate contrivance, and nicely ad-
justed mechanism of others, may be justly said to
enhance the vanity of their decay and transitori-
ness. What an exquisite structure is discovera-
ble by the microscope in a leaf! What beauti-
ful tints are discerned by the eye in a rainbow!
But lo ! while we gaze, the leaf withers and the
grace of the fashion of it perishes ; the rainbow
tints fade away, and dissolve into the haze. And
why is this but because vanity hath set her mark
upon these objects ? they appertain to a world
whose “ fashion passeth away.”
As regards the relation in which the creature
is here said to stand to corruption, a relation of
bondage and subjection, a very few words will
suffice for its explanation. Corruption is here re-
presented as a despot or slaveholder, ruling over
all with iron sway. To this despot we are univer-
sally in subjection, nor may any one claim ex-
emption from his power. It is part of our lot,
as inhabitants of this planet, that his yoke should
be laid upon us, nor may any efforts or devices
of ours avail to shake it off. We ourselves em-
t 2284
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION
ploy a similar, though not so vivid an image,
when we speak of corruption as an universal
law, imposed upon all, and to whose operation
sooner or later all things yield.
II. I now pass on to a distinct consideration
brought before us in the text, viz., the origin of
the condition in which the creature is now found.
Its origin is to be sought (so the Apostle informs
us), not in the will of the creature itself, but in
that of the Creator, who, designing to consum-
mate his works, and bring them to their perfec-
tion, not on a sudden but gradually, placed all
things at first in an initiatory and rudimentary
stage, whence they anticipate, by an instinct
inherent in their constitution, a further advance-
ment. Such appears to be the meaning of those
words in our text, which by an alteration of the
punctuation found in the Authorised Version,
and the substitution of “that” instead of “be-
“cause” as the rendering of oti, run thus : “The
“ creature was made subject to vanity, (not wil-
lingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected
“the same,) in hope that the creature itself also
“shall be delivered from the bondage of corrup-
“ tion into the glorious liberty of the children of
“God. For we know that the whole creation
“ groaneth and travaileth in pain together until
“now. And not only they, but ourselves also,OF THE CREATURE.
285
“ which have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we
“ ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the
“ adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.”
In order to discern the full significance of these
words, it will be necessary to regard the law of
dissolution as bound up in the constitution of the
present material oeconomy. How this law per-
vades by an inherent necessity the human system
is thus pointed out by the author above quoted,
in words which apply equally to the other ani-
mal species which are found on the surface of
the planet:—“ The relative forces of mind and
“body, or what may be called the corporeal
“ equipoise, is such, as that the voluntary animal
“functions are never found to be commensurate
“with the mental activity ; and the disparity
“ between the two is made up by imposing upon
“the mind a long, and a frequently recurring
“ season of inaction in sleep, during which, being
“ restrained from making any demand upon the
“ corporeal mechanism, the latter replenishes its
“stock of excitability, which again, and very soon,
“is to be spent. There is therefore at present, a
“want of balance between the two combined
“powers—a want supplied by means of the col-
“ lapse or confinement of the power which would
“ outrun its colleague. But an essential inequality
“ of this sort can never be so exactly adjusted as2S6
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION
“ that the one force will not, by a little, surpass
“ the other; and this daily increment, small as it
“ may be in each instance, must at length over-
“ throw the equipoise entirely ;—so that the de-
fective power will at last give way, and be
“broken up. We consider it as certain that
“ death must ensue, sooner or later, in the case
“ of any being whose constitution combines two
“ unequal forces, the inequality of which has to
“ be adjusted by imposing. frequent cessations
“ upon the stronger of the two. The life there-
“ fore of all planetary species, that is to say, of
“ all species exposed to the alternations of light
“and darkness, and which, in conformity with
“this alternation, live by turns, waking and
“sleeping, is a life necessarily tending to dis-
“ solution.”b
But into the constitution of the vegetable
(Economy, (no less than into that of the animal),
is inwoven decay and death. “All planetary
“ species, vegetable or animal, are liable to alter-
“ nations of heat and cold, of light and darkness,
“ and therefore live through returning periods of
“ excitement and repose both diurnal and annual,
“ passing at regular intervals from stimulus to ex-
haustion, from activity to rest. But stimulus
“ and excitement are conditions which imply
b Physical Theory, chapter xvi.OF THE CREATURE.
287
“ inertia and decomposition, since if there were
“ no languor and no exhaustion of forces, there
“would be no demand for them.”0 The collapse
of all species during the hours of darkness and
the season of cold, is of itself the manifestation
of a tendency to decay inherent in their consti-
tution.
But it will be asked, no doubt, how this asser-
tion respecting the inherence of dissolution in
the material system is reconcileable with the un-
doubted truth of Scripture that death, at least as
regards man, was a superinduced evil not con-
templated in the original construction of the
nature, but brought in by sin. And the diffi-
culty thus raised is susceptible of a very easy
and satisfactory solution. The Scriptures do
not give us the slightest ground to suppose that
in human nature, as originally constituted, there
was an inherent principle of continuance or im-
mortality; nay they lead us to infer that even
before the fall man was essentially mortal, and
held in life only by a physical instrumentality
which sin caused to be put out of his reach, and
whose removal was the only thing necessary in
order to the taking effect upon him of the law of
dissolution. We read that in the midst of the
Garden of Eden, the Lord God made to grow
c Physical Theory, chapter xvi.288
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION
the tree of life ; and though we are not directly
informed that their continual partaking of the
fruit of this tree was the condition of their im-
mortality, yet surely thus much is implied by
the fact that it became necessary in order to
ensure the operation of God’s sentence of death
upon them, to cut them off from access to the
tree. This necessity is expressed in these words:
“And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is
“become as one of us, to know good and evil:
“ and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take
“ also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for
“ ever : therefore the Lord God sent him forth
“ from the garden of Eden, to till the ground
“ from whence he was taken. So he drove
“ out the man ; and he placed at the east of the
“garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming
“ sword which turned every way, to keep the
“ way of the tree of life.” It may possibly be
by a reference to this removal of the tree of life
that we are to interpret the terms of the warning
which threatens Adam with death, not at some
distant time but on the very day of disobe-
dience : “ In the day that thou eatest thereof
“ thou shalt surely die.” I am far from denying
that it satisfies all the requirements of this pas-
sage to suppose that the sentence which should
ultimately consign them to death was passedOF THE CREATURE.
289
upon the day of transgression; but perhaps the
idea here suggested that the death menaced in
the warning was the exclusion of our first
parents from the means of life may seem to
some minds preferable. Shut out from that on
which they had hitherto been dependent for the
recruiting of their vital powers, the mortality in-
herent in their physical system was thenceforth
left free to operate.
Nor let it be imagined that in developing this
view of the subject, we derogate from the awful-
ness of sin’s consequences. Death never could
have found an entrance to man’s estate except
by sin. But the assertion of the Apostle to this
effect leaves us quite free to form any suppo-
sition as to the manner in which death was in-
flicted, which may consist best with the other
notices of Scripture, and with the known (Eco-
nomy of life among the planetary species.
Every signal event in the history of man—
and, amongst the rest, the entrance of death
among the human species—may be regarded
under two aspects, which, so far from interfering
with or excluding one another, are perfectly com-
patible. Nay, is it not the grand distinguishing
feature of the Divine dealings that, like the cube,
they have more than one side, and fulfil by
the same stroke manifold ends, which we, from290
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION
the incapacity of our minds, are obliged to con-
template separately ? There were no doubt (so
called) natural agencies at work in the caverns
of the earth and the vault of the sky, which pre-
pared the way for and ultimately issued in the
Universal Deluge, and the destruction of the
cities of the plain. The fact of our supposing
such agencies as an instrumentality in the hand
of the Most High does not in the least shut out
the tremendous moral significance of these
events, or interfere with the undoubted truth of
Inspiration, that they were visitations of extraor-
dinary sins. Viewed in their highest aspect they
unquestionably were so. And yet, like the erup-
tions of the volcano or the devastations of the
earthquake, they may have had a place in the
CEconomy of nature, and, however unusual or
seemingly anomalous, may be reducible within
her laws. The same may be said of death as
befalling the human species. We do not at all
deprive it of the penal character which the
Scriptures assign to it, because we point out
how it may have been brought about in com-
pliance with, and not in contravention of, the
laws originally impressed upon man’s physical
constitution.
III. The third point brought before us in the
text is the future prospects of the creature.OF THE CREATURE.
291
And here it behoves us cautiously to be on our
guard against allowing ourselves to indulge in
fanciful speculations, and seeking to be wise
above that which is written. We will endeavour
by God’s assistance to keep closely within the
limits of the inspired record, under the deep
conviction that revealed things only belong to
us and to our children, and that it is highly
dangerous as well as presumptuous to pry with
an unhallowed curiosity into those secret things
which belong unto the Lord our God. At the
same time it should be recognised not as per-
missible simply, but as most desirable also, to be
wise up to that which is written ; nor should we
allow ourselves to shrink from the simple ac-
ceptance of any scriptural statement merely
on the ground of its being unfamiliar to our
minds, and harmonising ill with our precon-
ceived opinions.
We are here told, then, that the creature or
creation shall one day be delivered from its
present bondage of corruption into the glorious
liberty (the liberty of the glory) of the children
of God.
We are further told that this emancipation of
the creature will be contemporaneous and closely
connected with the manifestation of the sons of
God.292
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION
In the first of these statements there is an
exact balancing of contrasted terms one against
another. Bondage is contrasted with its natural
opposite, liberty; corruption, which is intrinsi-
cally dishonourable and degrading, is set against
glory, as in that other assertion of the same
apostle : “ It is sown in corruption, it is raised in
“ incorruption: it is sown in dishonour, it is
“ raised in glory.” And the assertion is sub-
stantially this—that the objects of the material
universe shall be one day delivered from the
operation of that law which now works in them
decay and dissolution, and renovated (just as our
natural bodies will be renovated) by the agency
of Divine power, shall become sharers of the
Resurrection glory of God’s redeemed people.
But it casts a very reasonable doubt on any
interpretation of Holy Scripture, if it can be
shewn that the doctrine which by such interpre-
tation is drawn out of the words rests on that
passage alone, and finds no other support in the
Inspired Volume. So that we should hardly
venture on assigning this meaning to the apostle’s
words (even though we conceive it to be the
only meaning which they can satisfactorily bear)
did not other passages of Holy Writ (to which
we now proceed to advert) seem to bear out the
conclusion which we have gathered from this.OF THE CREATURE.
293
(1.) St. Peter, in his Second Epistle, after des-
cribing the terrors of that day of God “ in the
“ which the heavens shall pass away with a great
“ noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent
“ heat, the earth also and the works that are
“ therein shall be burned up,” refers to a prophecy
of Isaiah, the literal interpretation of which
would certainly imply the subsistence in the
future state of some such globe as we occupy at
present: “ Nevertheless we, according to his pro-
“ mise, look for new heavens and a new earth,
“ wherein dwelleth righteousness.” The terms
new heavens and a new earth may no doubt be
taken collectively and vaguely, as signifying no-
thing more than a new constitution of things.
But the sense which the passage is thus made to
yield, is tame and frigid; and we are the less
disposed to accept it when we remember that in
speaking of the heaven and the earth which are
now, the Apostle had clearly distinguished be-
tween them, assigning to each its respective lot.
“The heavens shall pass away with a great
“ noise, and the elements shall melt with fer-
“ vent heat, the earth also and the works that
“ are therein shall be burned up.” But it may
be said that even admitting this reasoning, the
phrase “ a new earth” does not indicate any rela-
tion as subsisting between the present and the294
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION
future spheres of man’s residence, does not
imply such a remodelling of old materials in the
structure of the new universe as we seem to
have discovered in the text of St. Paul;—nay
rather implies the contrary. And so far as the
isolated expression “ a new earth” is concerned, we
allow to this observation its full force. But the
phrase must be interpreted in connexion with
its entire context, in part of which the apostle
institutes a parallel between the perishing of the
earth by the waters of the flood and that destruc-
tion which is yet to come by the fires of the
great conflagration : “ The world that then was,
“ being overflowed with water, perished: but
“ the heavens and the earth, which are now,
“ by the same word are kept in store, reserved
" unto fire against the day of judgment and per-
“ dition of ungodly men.” Now, if we are to
suppose a strict analogy to subsist between these
two tremendous visitations (and surely such an
analogy is intimated), we shall hardly conclude
that the latter will be more than a reconstruction
by the Divine energy of the old rudiments of
matter after their submission to the purifying
process of combustion—such a reconstruction as
we all admit will find place in the resurrection
of the human Body. In undergoing its former
ordeal of water, the globe was not actually anni-OF THE CREATURE.
29 5
hilated—as soon as the waters subsided, it sub-
merged from beneath the flood, a regenerated
earth, decked in fresh bloom and verdure, and
with every trace of its former landmarks swept
away. And similar in kind possibly (though we
doubt not far more elevated and refined in de-
gree) will be the effect of its purification by the
ordeal of fire. To adopt the eloquent language
of Chalmers :d "By the convulsions of the last
" day, the universe may be shaken and broken
" down from its present arrangements, and
“ thrown into such fitful agitations as that the
"whole of its existing framework shall fall to
" pieces ; and with a heat so fervent as to melt
" its most solid elements, may it be utterly dis-
" solved. And thus may the earth again become
" without form and void, but without one particle
" of its substance going into annihilation. Then
"out of the ruins of this second chaos, may
" another heaven and another earth be made to
" arise; and a new materialism, with other as-
" pects of magnificence and beauty, emerge from
" the wreck of this mighty transformation ; and
" the world be peopled as before with the varie-
" ties of material loveliness, and space be again
" lighted up into a firmament of material splen-
" dour.”
d Astronomical Discourses.296
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION
(2.) The next passage which I shall quote as
at least susceptible of such an interpretation as
favours the view taken in this Lecture, is that
which describes the recompense in store for the
Apostles : “ Verily I say unto you, that ye which
“ have followed me, in the Regeneration when
“ the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his
“ glory, ye also shall shall sit upon twelve
“ thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
If these words be understood to refer to a
state of things still future, I would call attention
to the name by which that state is denoted;
“ The Regeneration,” or second Birth. In the
First Lecture of the series we saw reason to con-
ceive of Resurrection as a Birth-Process, usher-
ing its subjects into a new condition of existence.
In the Second we pointed out that the spiritual
change connected with the Sacrament of Baptism,
and commonly termed regeneration, is spoken
of in Scripture as a Resurrection of man’s
moral nature from the death of trespasses and
sins. Resurrection in short is Regeneration ex-
tended to the Body of man, even as Regenera-
tion (in the moral sense of the term) is the Re-
surrection of the Soul. And it was shown also
that neither Resurrection nor Regeneration are
(strictly speaking) creations of a new thing;—
that they are operations upon a previously exist-OF THE CREATURE.
297
ing subject, which, great as may be the changes
they involve, do not affect that subject’s identity.
What now, viewing the passage in the light of
those truths at which we have already arrived,
shall we suppose to be the condition referred to
in it as “ The Regeneration, when the Son of
“ Man shall sit on the throne of His glory ?” The
only view which seems to satisfy the terms em-
ployed, is that the period alluded to will be cha-
racterised by a renewal of the entire material
system, comprising the human Body,—by the
birth into a new (Economy, not of man alone but
of that department of nature with which man is
surrounded,—or, (to employ the words of our
text,) by the deliverance of the creature from
the bondage of corruption into the glorious
liberty of the children of God. This interpreta-
tion derives great additional weight from the fact
that the deliverance referred to in our text is
represented under the image of a Birth-Process,
and therefore might be aptly termed “the Re-
" generation.”	The creature is described as
travailing in the pangs of labour (a-varevd^ei /cal
o-wwSim) until the deliverance be effected—as if
there were in the present material system an un-
developed embryo struggling towards the Birth.
And if such be the teaching of the text, what is
this but reaffirming, respecting the realm of
u298
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION
Nature, that which we have already established
respecting the Human Body, that beneath its
superficial phasnomena of flux and decomposi-
tion, lies an essential germ which will one day
be extricated from its accidental accretions, and
unfolded under a new law of existence to which
its future organization shall correspond.
Nor is it necessary, while adopting this inter-
pretation of our Lord’s prediction, to exclude the
application which has been often made of it to
the present state of things, according to which
the Regeneration is interpreted as being simply
that dispensation of grace under which we live ;
and the enthronement and judicature of the
Apostles are regarded as importing the high
places to which they are now exalted in the es-
teem of universal Christendom (the spiritual
Israel), and the reference made to their inspired
writings for the settlement of all controversies
touching faith and practice.
Such is no doubt an incipient and subordinate
fulfilment of this sublime prophecy : and to some
minds probably this fulfilment will seem so to
meet and satisfy every requirement of the words
that they will demand nothing beyond it. To us,
while cordially allowing it as a partial, it seems
unsatisfactory as a final accomplishment. How,
it may be asked, can the words be strictly justi-Of THE CREATURE.
299
fied if the spiritual and figurative fulfilment of
them be regarded as the ultimate ? For all the
apostles, and none but the apostles, are repre^
sented as occupying thrones and exercising judg-
ment. Now, if by the judgment which they ex-
ercise, be understood exclusively the determina-
tion of faith and practice according to their In-
spired Writings, this is a prerogative which will
not attach to all the persons addressed, (only four
of them having bequeathed inspired documents
to the Church,) and which is not specially cha-
racteristic of apostles, inasmuch as it attaches
equally to the evangelists Mark and Luke.
(3.) Having had occasion in this discourse to
allude to the physical deterioration of the soil
consequent upon the fall of man, I shall mention
another passage, which, although it is not so
immediately to the point, yet looks in the same
direction as those already quoted. Our subject,
indeed, is the mortality inherent in the constitu-
tion of the entire material system. Hence the
mind passes onward naturally to that depravation
of the system which was superinduced upon its
original constitution, and. which, for aught we
know, may have extended further than the earth
itself. In the discourse which took its occasion
from the miracle of the Beautiful Gate of the
Temple, St. Peter speaks of the second Advent
u 2300
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION
as a mission of Jesus Christ, “ which before was
“ preached unto you, Whom the heaven must
"receive until the time of restitution of all
“ things,” (&XPL XP°vmv airo/caTaaTacrecos 7rdvrav')
“ which God hath spoken by the mouth of all
“ his holy prophets before the world began.”—
The significance of the word®™* arao-rao-t?, may
be best seen by consulting passages in which its
cognate verb (aTroKaOiarritu) occurs. That verb
is applied to the miraculous restoration by Christ
of a withered hand, and so gives the notion of
recovering from a state of inactivity and useless-
ness an organ which was originally designed for
active service, but has been subsequently inca-
pacitated. Now, to a state of partial if not total
unprofitableness the earth was reduced in conse-
quence of the sin of man. A blight fell upon it
when it was cursed for Adam’s sake—whereby
the energies which once put themselves forth in
the exclusive and spontaneous production only
of the richest fruits and most fragrant flowers
were materially debilitated, and spent themselves
thenceforth in the production of mere weeds,
useless to man in all cases and noxious in many.
From this state of comparative unprofitable-
ness,—which it now demands strenuous exertion
and painful toil to remedy,—the earth, it may be,
shall be one day reclaimed to its original vigourOF THE CREATURE.
301
and fruitfulness. But this recovery may not be
merely a restoration of previously existing cir-
cumstances. It may be involved in that de-
velopment of the material universe into a higher
condition of existence, which we have seen
reason, from other scriptures, to anticipate. It
may be one of the results of that process of
new birth, in expectation of which the crea-
ture groaneth and travaileth together in pain
until now.
The whole doctrine which we have gathered
from the notices of Scripture which have passed
under review, may be summed up by saying that
a Resurrection Glory awaits the material universe
corresponding to that which awaits the children
of God. The long spell of tyranny which cor-
ruption has exercised not only over the human
family but over man’s abode also, and the furni-
ture thereof, shall then be finally broken. Man
shall walk abroad in a regenerated earth, puri-
fied from all the disastrous effects and conse-
quences of sin. Incorruption and immortality
shall then be the great law of the creature’s ex-
istence, and the forms and tints of natural beauty,
heightened to a degree of which we can form no
conception, shall then no longer fade beneath
our admiring gaze. There shall be no more
death, neither sorrow nor crying, neither shall302
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION
there be any more pain, for the former things^
will then have passed away.
But it is implied in the text that the period of
the creature’s deliverance from the bondage of
corruption shall be also the time of the mani-
festation of the Sons of God. In our present
condition of existence the sons of God are not
manifested—or at least not so fully manifested
as that all can recognise and discern them with-
out possibility of mistake. They are indeed,
manifest (even at present) to the eye of God.
The Lord knoweth them that are his. He dis-.
cerns in them those heavenly tempers and dis-
positions which constitute a spiritual meetness
for glory. And seeing that the light of grace
within them struggles forth into outward develop-
ment and shines before men, they are in this
way manifested even to the eyes of their fellow-
creatures. Still there is no outward note or
signature upon them proclaiming them to be
God’s people. Their bodies are bodies of hu-
miliation like those of others, not exempted from
the operation of disease and decay. By and bye,
however, in the day of the separation of the
sheep from the goats, of the good fish from the
bad—such a mark of difference shall be put upon
God’s children as shall entirely preclude the
possibility of confounding them with others.OF THE CREATURE.
303
They shall be invested with a glorious Body and
made to shine forth as the Sun in the kingdom
of their Father. The harvest field of the Visible
Church shall then be finally cleared of the tares
which have sprung up everywhere among the
wheat—and the line which separates the real
from the merely nominal Christian shall be as
visible to every eye as it now is to that of Him
who searcheth the hearts and trieth the reins.
IV. We now come to another distinct point
brought before us in the text, and that is, the
creature's earnest expectation of these glorious
prospects being realized. “ The earnest expecta-
“ tion of the creature waiteth for the manifesta-
“ tion of the sons of God.” And again : “ The
“ creature was made subject to vanity.........
"in hope that the creature itself also shall be
“ delivered from the bondage of corruption into
“the glorious liberty of the children of God.”
And again : “We know that the whole creation
“ groaneth and travaileth in pain together until
“ now.”
In this point is generally supposed to lie the
main difficulty of the passage. For it is asked—
and not without some show of plausibility—how
can irrational—much more how can inanimate
creatures—be said with any propriety to antici-
pate a change of their condition, even granting304
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION
such a change to be in store for them ? how can
they be said to nourish hopes of a deliverance*
even assuming that such a deliverance will one
day be effected ? In solution of this difficulty
we may remark—
1. The words used by the Apostle need not
be so construed as to intimate a conscious or in-
telligent expectation—or anything more than a
dumb mysterious yearning—in the irrational and
inanimate creation. The fact is that we daily
use expressions of the same character—expres-
sions which involve exactly the same difficulty
—without recognising in them the slightest im-
propriety. For example, after experience of a long
drought we might speak of the parched and thirsty
earth as anxiously waiting for the rain and opening
her pores to receive it—not thereby necessarily
attributing to the earth sense or feeling or con-
sciousness, but simply as implying a want on its
part—an apparent though unconscious yearn-
ing—which could only be satisfied by the rain.
Nor should we be charged with impropriety of
diction, or even with a flourish of rhetoric, if in
alluding to that supernatural darkness which
overspread the land during the latter hours of
the Crucifixion, we should speak of it as being the
expression of Nature’s sympathy with her Lord
in the hours of His deep distress. “ Nature’sOF THE CREATURE.
305
“ sympathy with the Lord”—assuredly we should
not quarrel with such an expression as being
otherwise than just and appropriate — albeit,
when strictly canvassed, it attributes to Nature
a feeling and a consciousness which we may not
believe that she possesses.
2. Again, the word desire is in one passage of
Holy Scripture used for unconscious desire and
dumb yearning ; and if the term desire be thus
applied, why not, on the same principle, the
kindred term of hope—why not expectation ?
In the Book of the Prophet Haggai the first
Advent of Christ is thus predicted: “The de-
“sire of all nations shall come.” But in what
sense was Christ, before his appearance upon
earth, the desire of all nations ? In what sense
was he the desire of those heathen nations, who
never having come into contact with the Jews,
had never even heard so much as that there
should be any Messiah ? The answer is plain.
All men, whether the light of revelation have or
have not shined in upon their minds, are pos-
sessed of certain moral and spiritual instincts,
the adequate satisfaction of which is to be found
only in Christ. They feel, for example, that
they are guilty creatures, and that they need a
propitiation ; and to this feeling, as existing in
their hearts, their idolatrous rites and sacrifices306
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION
testify. In the performance of those rites they
are blindly groping after something which is not
elsewhere to be found than in Christ’s Atone-
ment, and accordingly Him they may be said to
desire with a dumb unconscious yearning.
And it is, I apprehend, precisely with such a
yearning that the irrational and inanimate por-
tion of God’s creation is here said to anticipate a
deliverance from the bondage of corruption.
This deliverance is precisely what they need—
what, if rightly understood and interpreted, they
crave after. Outward Nature is not what she
looks to be ; nay she is not even what she once
was. Her system has not attained the perfec-
tion of which she is susceptible, and moreover it
has been in some respects deteriorated and de-
praved. For her consummation and restoration
she now yearns, groaning and travailing in pain
together until it be accomplished. Would you
hear her groans ? They are to be heard by the
ear of reason in the perpetual decay which is
continually proceeding in her every department
—in the fading of the flower, the falling of the
leaf, the dwindling of the stream, the dissolution
of the Body. And the renovation of the face of
Nature at the advent of every spring is a kind of
foretaste and earnest of that mightier and nobler
renewal which is yet in store for her, when theOF THE CREATURE.
307
yoke of corruption under which she hath so
long laboured shall be for ever lifted from her
neck, and she shall be developed into a new
form, brought out into a new state of being
under a law of permanence.
Such we believe to be an adequate solution of
any difficulty which arises from the ascribing to
inanimate objects emotions which properly be-
long only to sentient and rational beings, a mode
of speech not unfrequent among the inspired
writers.
V. But I must hasten on to the last point
brought under our notice by this remarkable pas-
sage, and that is, the 'participation and sympathy
of the child of God in the creature's present state
and future prospects. “And not only they, but
“ ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the
“ Spirit, even we ourselves groan within our-
“ selves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the re-.
“ demption of our body.”
Whatever may have been the difficulties of
the immediately preceding context, this passage
at least is exceedingly plain and easy to be un-
derstood. We have seen that the nature of the
Christian is like that of other men, composite,,
consisting of a material and a spiritual element.
Upon his soul, the nobler of these two elements,
redemption and sanctification have already taken.308
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION
effect. His conscience is sprinkled by faith with
the blood of Christ, his affections have received
a new direction, and his will a new bias from
the Spirit of Christ. In respect of spiritual
standing he has been made by baptism a citizen
of heaven, and adopted into the family of which
Christ is the Head. But no change has as yet
passed on the material element of his nature.
The body still retains its former constitution, in
which mortality is inherent, and is subject, as
heretofore, to all the operations of disease and
decay. The work of the Redeemer, through
which alone man hath deliverance whether from
moral or physical evil, has not as yet been ap-
plied to the clay tenement which the soul in-
habits. But a day shall come ere long, when
the entire nature of the children of God shall be
regenerated, and when the work wrought upon
the Cross shall extend in its effects and conse-
quences to the matter as well as to the spirit of
which man is compounded. We have already
had occasion to remark that this process is
ascribed in Scripture to the same agency which
has already been employed in the spiritual Re-
surrection. The same Almighty arm will recon-
struct the human Body, and bring it out under a
new (Economy, which has already put forth its
divine energy upon the heart of man, and quick-OF THE CREATURE.
309
ening it to the exercise of true faith and true re-
pentance has new created the soul in the image
of Deity. The operations of the Spirit upon
man’s moral nature are but an earnest, but a
firstfruits of that plenary and consummating in-
fluence which shall be exerted by Him in the
day when the Christian’s Body of humiliation is
fashioned like unto Christ’s Body of glory, and
death is swallowed up in victory.
There is much of deep interest in the thought
that this inconceivably glorious consummation
is represented in Scripture as immediately de-
pendent upon and intimately connected with
the Saviour’s Second Advent. In the quarter of
hope whither the eyes of suffering Humanity are
directed—the prominent Form around which all
the bright auguries of the eternal future gather
themselves up is that of the returning Redeemer.
The central object which rivets our attention,
as we gaze through the lattice opened by God’s
Word into the prospects of the creation, is the
advancing chariot of Messiah, coming according
to his promise to receive His followers unto Him-
self, and to minister true judgment unto the peo-
ple. It is as if God would instruct us that the
hopes and instincts of the creature are all bound
up in Christ,—that in his train must descend, if
they descend at all, the glories and felicities of that310
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION
golden aera which men of yore (as it were in some
dim traditional reminiscences of Paradise) imaged
forth to themselves as the pure and happy infancy
of the human race.
To this important doctrine the heart of the
Christian responds with an intelligent echo from
its inmost recesses. In the Sun are inherent all
those bright and delicate hues., the suffusion of
which over the face of nature makes her so
comely, and the withdrawal of which at nightfall
leaves the fair landscape a dreary and colourless
blank. And Christ is to the Christian the sun
of his system, in whose radiance all the grace
and attractiveness of subordinate objects is so
involved, that in His absence none of them would
wear the tints of joy and hope; and even were
the whole creation to array itself in those regene-
rate glories, of which it gives so many auguries,
the whole (without Christ) were to him as a sun-
less landscape, waiting still the rosy touch of the
morning to waken it into life and gladness. But,
alas, that in setting forth the features of such a
of state mind, we should be delineating rather
the ideal than the actual Christian ! For who is
there among us, whose instinctive aspirations after
good so gather round the Redeemer as their
natural centre, that they can imagine no blessed-
ness, no rest, independently of His presence ? IfOF THE CREATURE.
311
examples of such lofty attainment in Divine
grace still survive among us, we must number
them by units. Others there are doubtless,—we
would fain hope many others,—who are in pro-
gress towards a state of mind so elevated;—to
whom Christ, if not “ all their desire,” is at least
the rock on which all their hopes are grounded,
—and who, in pursuance of the spiritual instincts
stirred within them by Divine grace, are un-
feignedly struggling to lift themselves up out of
their natural slough of earthliness and carnality
into the pure and bright element of communion
with God. While the greater number, it is to
be feared, nourish no desire save such as has
reference to the transitory objects of a world
which passeth away, betray no instinctive yearn-
ing for an higher and purer element than they
at present breathe, and would be well content
to acquiesce in the portion of goods which has
fallen to their lot, could it be secured to them
for perpetuity and exempted from a more than
ordinary share of this world’s trials. Let nature
with her thousand voices in the floods and in
the woods rise up in judgment against such men
and condemn them! Let the cycle in which the
creation is painfully and rapidly revolving, ever
seeking, with restless movement to attain unto
an higher state of perfectness, reprove them of312
THE EARNEST EXPECTATION
their degrading acquiescence in the good which
is seen and temporal, and fire them with a spark
of holy ambition ! Let the withering flower, the
shrivelling leaf, the dissolving rainbow — preach
to them the transitoriness of this present ceco-
nomy, and the law of progress towards a higher
stage which God hath impressed upon all things!
Does the creature groan under its subjection
to vanity, and even from its birth hasten to
develope itself in new and more perfect forms ?
And shalt thou alone, O Man, of all God’s uni-
verse—endowed as thou art with immortal in-
stincts which no created good can satisfy—settle
down upon the lees of carnal satisfaction, and
having made strong thy dwelling place, and en-
larged thy garners and set thy nest in a rock,
shalt thou say unto thy soul—that soul which is
susceptible of renewal in God’s moral image :
“ Soul take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry ?”
Stir thyself for very shame from this depth of
degradation. Awake, and live in harmony with
the system whereof thou art the centre, looking
forward, tending forward, reaching forward. For
yet a little while and the Desire of every creature,
He on whom entire Nature fixes her eyes of
earnest expectation, shall come and shall not
tarry. The creatures shall greet Him with an-
thems of praise, uniting all in the mighty ChorusOF THE CREATURE.
313
which celebrates His appearing and their deliver-
ance—all, save those among the children of men
who have sought and loved the shelter of the
darkness,—and whose hearts (never having been
stirred or cleansed by the fresh current of a spi-
ritual influence,) resemble the waters of a stag-
nant pool, from which the Sun himself, in
whose light the living brook sparkles and
dances, engenders only noxious vapours and
deadly exhalations.
xAPPENDIX.
LECTURE I.
NOTE A.
“ This view, or rather the habit of mind which engenders it,
unconsciously expresses itself (as a living writer of eminence
has pointed out) in our current religious phraseology, and thus
shows how firm a hold it has upon the mind of the age."
“ Let us examine our common language* even when it is
uttered from the pulpit, whence it should come forth in its
greatest accuracy. How seldom does the mention of the body
occur in the announcements of the life to come. They may,
indeed, so far be accurate enough, inasmuch as they follow
scriptural example, in declaring the salvation of the soul. But
is this the whole, and therefore undefiled, truth of that example ?
Does not Scripture speak also of the salvation of the body ?
Does not St. Paul mention the redemption of the body in
Company with the adoption through the Spirit, and exhort to
heavenly conversation through the prospect of the future con-
formity of the body to Idle glorious body of Christ? Yet our
popular language is utterly Unqualified by any expressions like
these. It is even inconsistent with them. For who could
possibly infer from its cast that there was to be anything o^
man in the world to come besides his soul ? Mortal body and
immortal soul are so pointedly and continually set in mutual
contrast, assigned to different lots, that all view of the future
life of the former seems to be absorbed in the exclusive notion
of the eternal state of the latter. How strange does such
x 2316
APPENDIX.--LECTURE I.
omission appear, when we turn round from such preaching,
and hear our Lord warning us, that not only our soul, but our
body also, may be destroyed in hell; and his Apostle ordering
an offender to be delivered unto Satan for the destruction of
the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord
Jesus. Here are other elements besides the soul to be taken
into account.”
“ Our popular language does not indeed pretend to the ac-
curate expression of that system, which so distinctly sets apart
the lots of the body and soul; for in the same breath that
it speaks of the soul, it will speak of crowns and thrones and
other bodily preparations receiving it from earth. But when
searchingly canvassed, it is found to involve the notion, that
the resurrection is already past, and shows the real tendency
to the doctrine, though one would be sorry to lay on any the
charge of the conscious maintenance of it. Can there be any
doubt that many, on hearing the ‘ Resurrection of the dead’
pronounced in the Creed, understand by it, with any distinct-
ness at least, little more than the doctrine of a future state ?
And that not a few of those who are not in the way of hearing
the Creed would be not a little scandalized, were the article
presented to them, without the usual title, and peculiar phrases,
in some of its immediate, though generally neglected conse-
quences ? In short, the tenet of the soul entering heaven be-
fore the day of the general resurrection of the dead, was im-
puted to the Gnostics among the rest of their errors, by the
Fathers of the Primitive Church. So that it was contrary to
the universal belief of the Church of those days, that is, to the
sense in which the generation succeeding, after the death of
the last Apostle, received the word of Scripture as to this point,
in every quarter of the globe. And it was the Alexandrine
school which, from its large admission of Greek philosophy
into its system, came to an unscriptural undervaluing of the
body, that modified both the language and doctrine of the
Primitive Church on this article and others connected with it.
The modern school of Rome is also for obvious reasons deeply
interested in maintaining it, as far as saints are concerned.”—
Evans’s Ministry of the Body.—Pp. 6, 7 and 41, 42.APPENDIX.--LECTURE I.
317
NOTE B.
“ The first (which, according to the Augustinian interpre-
tation, is the Spiritual) Resurrection.”
“ A second theory of interpretation,—one suggested in the
Christian Church about the fourth century, (very much in
consequence of the abuse and misapprehension of the literal
view just detailed, as if of carnal tendency,11) and which is best
known from its full development by Augustine,—supposed the
resurrection meant to be spiritual, viz., that of dead souls
from the death of sin to the life of righteousness ;—that the
time of its commencement was to be dated from Christ’s first
coming and ministry, (for it explained the Apocalyptic mille-
nary vision as altogether retrospective;) at which time, the
Devil, the strong man armed, was according to Christ’s own
saying bound and expelled from the hearts of his disciples, and
so their reign over him, though indeed but a regnum militia,b
made to begin ;—that it was a resurrection, moreover, not then
completed, but one which would still go on wherever the Gos-
pel was preached; its subjects being the election of God (so
the nations, or edvg of Rev. xx. 3, whom Satan might not
deceive, were explained,0) and its term of continuance all that
remained of what Augustine regarded as the world’s sixth
chiliad of existence/ even until Antichrist’s coming at the end
a Augustine himself tells us that he was induced by reasons of this kind
to abandon the old chiliastic theory, and embrace this other. “ Quae
opinio,” (viz., that of the literal and corporeal primary resurrection of the
saints at Christ’s coming to the enjoyment of a millennial sabbath,)
“ esset utcumque tolerabilis, si aliquse dilicise spirituales in illo sabbato
adfuturae sanctis per Domini praesentiam crederentur. Nam etiam nos
hoc opinati fuimus aliquando. Sed cum eos qui tunc resurrexerint di-
cant immoderatissimis carnalibus epulis vocaturos, &c.	. . . nullo
modo ista possunt nisi a carnalibus credi." C. D. xx. 7. 1.
b C. D. xx. 9. 2.
c Those “ex quibuspraedestinata constat ecclesia.” C. D. xx. 7. 4.—
The abyss into which Satan was east, Augustine viewed as the hearts of
the “ innumerabilis multitudo impiorum —Primasius, as God’s judg-
ments, which are a great depth.
d I have before mentioned that Augustine followed the Septuagint
chronology ; according to which Christ’s first coming had taken place at,
or about, the middle of the w-orld’s sixth chiliad. See Vol. I. p. 373.318
APPENDIX.--LECTURE I,
of time ;—which last evening’s manifestation and persecution
of the saints, (including the Jews then at length converted, as
well as the Gentile Church,) was supposed to- be prefigured
under the emblematic appellation of Gog and Magog ;—the
destruction of whom by fire from heaven would introduce the
literal and universal resurrection of the dead, (a resurrection
both of good and bad,) and, consequently thereon, the final
judgment: after which that eternal blessedness of the saints
would begin in heaven, which alike the Old Testament prophe-
cies, and the Apocalyptic prophecy in its two last chapters, (so.
they explained the matter,) prefigured under the symbol of the
glorified Jerusalem.—Elliott’s Horae Apocalypticce, 3rd Ed.,
Vol. 4. p. 179.
NOTE C.
“ The transmutation of the insect into■ the moth, after it has
lain dormant for a long period in the chrysalis state, has often
been adduced in illustration of the Resurrection process, as an
instance of analogy parallel to that which the apostle proposes.”
The first instance which I have been able to find of this
analogy is from the Hexaemeron of St. Basil, Horn. viii.
“ rC cf>a.T€ ol dmorowres t<3 IlaiiAa) wept Trjs Kara, rrjv dva<r-
Tounv aXXoiwaetos, opabres TroXXa tw aepuov ras poprfras perOL-
fldXXovTa.; onoia «at wept tov IvSikoS OKoiXyKOS icrTopeirai tov
Kepaurcfaopov' os cts Kapmjv ra irpona p.erafiaXibv, etra Trpo'iiiv
ftopfSvXibs yiVerai, xal o£Se irrl Tavrrjs «rTarat Trjs popijrrjs aAAa
Xavvots kou rrXaTOTL ttctuXols momepovTai. otolv ovv KaOt'CryrOt
fijv tovtw ipyaolav o.va-n-rjVi'(16p,evo.i! at yvvaines, Ta vr/para Xtyot
a iriprrovcnv vpiv ol Sfipes rrpbs ttjv tusv paXanivv iv&vp&TWV
KararTKeogv, pepvrjpivai Trjs Kara to £toov tovto peTa/3oXrjs, ivapyrj
Xapfidvcre Trjs avaardo’ears evvoiav, ko.1 py dmaretre rrj dXXayfj rjv
IlaCAos o-Traui KareTrayyeAAercH.’’
“ Ye who disbelieve Paul respecting the change [which
shall take place] in the Resurrection, what have ye to say,
when ye behold many creatures of the air changing their forms,
in such manner as is related of the horned worm of India ?
Which, having first changed into a caterpillar, afterwards
progresses and becomes a moth, and even in this [latter] form
is not stationary, but becomes winged with loose and wide leaf-APPENDIX.---LECTURE I.
319
like wings. When therefore ye sit, ye women, winding off
upon your reels the product of these little creatures’ industry
(I mean the silk which the Seres send you for the construction
of soft raiment), remembering the change [which takes place]
in this insect, form ye thence a clear conception of the Resur-
rection, and disbelieve not the change which Paul predicts as
sure to befall all of us.”
NOTE D.
“ He (Origen) points out the necessity for an adaptation of
every body to the surrounding element in which it exists, and
thence infers that the heavenly state will demand glorified bodies
such as those in which Moses and Elias appeared at the Trans-
figuration."
“ wa-irep Sc to ciSos iam pi)(pi T0^ rrepaTOs, Kav ol \apaKrgpes
Sokwcti TroXXyv e^cii/ irapaXXayyv, ovtcos voyreov /cat iiri rov
TrapovTos, etSos ravrov etvai ra peXXovn, irXelcrrys ocnjs iaopevgs
Tys €7rt kiIXXlov perafloXrjs. dvayKaZov yap ryv ifv)(gv iv tottois
<TU>p,o.TiKOi<z viuipypvaav, Ke^pytrOai crcu/tacrt KaTaXXgXois rots
T07rois. /cat Sxnrep iv OaXdairg Ifrjv gpds ivvSpovs yivopevovs ei
ixprjv, iravros dv e8ei ’irapo.TrXycrlav Kai ryv aXXgv lx&vo>v
KaradTacnv, ootids peXXovras fiXypovopeiv f3o.aiXf.lav ovpavuiv, Kat
iv tottok 8iaff>ipovcnv ecrecrfiai, avayKalov xprjabai adpacn Trvfv-
parLKols, obfi tov eiSovi rov Trporepov atfavilfogevov, Kav iirl to
iv&o^OTfpov yevgjai ai/Too g tpong' wirirep gv to Igcrov el80s,
Kat Moktcojs, Kat ’HAtou, erepov iv rrj peTapopfdiijei, irap’ o
gv."—Origen. Selecta in Psalmos. Opp. Tom II. p. 534, 535.
[Ed. Ben.]
“ But as the Form [of the Body] abides even to the end,
although the marks [impressed upon it] seem to undergo
much change, so it is to be conceived in the present case also,
that [our Bodily] Form is the same with that which we shall
have hereafter, while at the same time the change [of the
Body] for the better will be as great as possible. For the
soul, while existing in corporeal localities, must of necessity
have a body corresponding [to the localities in which it moves.]
And as, if we were to become aquatic animals and live in the
sea, it would by all means be necessary for us to have a consti-320
APPENDIX.--LECTURE I.
tution similar [thereto] and in other respects that of fish ; so
is it necessary that those who are to inherit the kingdom of
heaven, and exist in transcendental localities, should have
spiritual Bodies, their previous Form, however, not vanishing,
even though in its change it should become more glorious.
Even as the Form of Jesus, and Moses, and Elias, was not
different, when they were transfigured, from what it had for-
merly been.”
Origen’s view seems to have been that the subjecta materia
(to 7rpurrov viroKeipxvov) of the body will be wholly different in
the Resurrection state, but that its characteristic type or form
(to elSos to xapaKnjpiCov) will be preserved in the change. This
characteristic Type is (according to him) the Basis underlying
the material of which the body is constructed, and not sharing
with that material in its attribute of continual flux.
NOTE E.
“ Post resurrectionem eadem habebimus membra, quibus
nunc utimur, easdem carnes et sanguinem et ossa : quorum in
Scripturis sanctis opera, non natura damnantur.”—Jerome.
Tom. IV. p. 323. \Ed. Ben.]
“ Resurrectionis veritas, sine carne et ossibus, sine sanguine
et membris, intelligi non potest. Ubi caro et ossa et sanguis
et membra sunt, ibi necesse est ut sexus diversitas sit.”—
P. 325.
“ Habent dentes, ventrem, genitalia: et tamen nec cibis,
nec uxoribus indigent.”—Ibid.
“ Qui vestem non habet nuptialem, nec servavit illud man-
datum, Candida sint vestimenta tua semper, manibus pedibus-
que constringitur, ne recumbat in convivio, sedeat in solio, stet
ad dextram Dei ; mittitur in gehennam, ubi fletus oculorum et
stridor dentium est. Capilli capitis vestri numerati sunt. Si
capilli, puto facilius dentes. Frustra autem numerati, si ali-
quando perituri.”—P. 326.
“ Caro et sanguis regnum Dei non possidebunt. AttendeAPPENDIX.---LECTURE I.
321
obsecro te, quod dicitur: Caro et sanguis regmm Dei non pos-
sidebunt. Quare non possidebunt ? Quia sequitur, neque
corruptio incorruptionem possidebit. Tamdiu caro regnumDei
non possidebunt, quamdiu caro tantum sanguisque perman-
serint. Quum autem corruptivum induerit incorruptionem, et
mortale induerit immortalitatem, et lutum carnis in testam
fuerit excoctum ;—quae prius gravi pondere premebatur in ter-
ram, acceptis spiritus pennis, et immutationis non abolitionis
nova gloria volabit ad eoelum, et tunc implebitur illud quod
scriptum est: Absorpta est mors in victoria. Ubi est, mors,
contentio tua ? Ubi est, mors, aculeus tuus ?
“ After the resurrection we shall have the same limbs, which
we now employ,—the same flesh, and blood, and bones. It
is the works of these things, not their nature, which Holy
Scripture condemns.
“ Without flesh and bones, without blood and limbs, it is im-
possible to understand how there can be a true resurrection.
And where flesh and bones and blood and limbs are, there of
necessity also is difference of sex.
“ He who hath not a wedding garment, and has not kept that
commandment, Let thy garments be always white,—is bound
hand and foot, that he may not recline at the marriage supper,
nor sit upon the throne, nor stand at the right hand of God ;
he is sent into hell, where is weeping of the eyes and gnashing
of the teeth. The very hairs of your head are numbered. If
the hairs [be numbered], more easily, I should think, would
the teeth be. In vain, however, are they numbered if they
are ever to perish.
“ Flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God. At-
tend, I pray thee, to what is here said, Flesh and Blood shall
not possess the kingdom of God, Wherefore shall they not
possess it ? Because of what follows—neither shall corruption
possess incorruption As long as [the risen saints] remain only
flesh and blood, so long, being flesh, they shall not possess the
kingdom of God. But when the corruptible shall have put on322
APPENDIX.--LECTURE I.
incorruption, and the mortal shall have put on immortality, and
the clay of the flesh shall have been baked into an earthen
vessel;—then [that flesh] which before was pressed with
heavy weight towards earth, shall receive the wings of a spirit,
and a new glory (of transformation, not of annihilation), and,
thus invested, shall fly away to heaven ; and then shall be ful-
filled that which is written, Death is swallowed up in victory
Jerome seems to think that the Resurrection Body will be
identical in its every organ with that which was laid down at
death—that the Resurrection will fix it in that form and in
the possession of those particles of matter which it had when it
passed out of this life. In the glorified state there will be no
longer, he says, growth or flux.
So much does he enter into particulars in the statement
of this doctrine, that he intimates that there will be no use of
Barbers in the Resurrection state, the hair and nails having
ceased to grow as did those of the Israelites during their
sojourn in the wilderness.
NOTE F.
“ Accordingly, the Gnostics, in the early period of Church
history, and the Cathari of a later date, rejected altogether the
doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body."
“ The Gnostics were naturally led to deny the Resurrection,
when they persuaded themselves that Christ had not a real
substantial body. If Christ did not die, he could not rise
again : and when St. Paul said to the Corinthians, “ If there
be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen,”
(xv. 13), the argument which he really wished to urge was
this—Christ is risen ; therefore there is a resurrection of the
dead. This was the most convincing proof which the Apostle
could possibly advance. Here was no abstract argument, no
metaphysical deduction. Jesus Christ said, Believe in me,
and like me ye shall rise again : he did rise: they saw and
believed. The strongest of all arguments, the evidence of
their senses, was lost upon the Gnostics. Besides which,
there were other principles in their irrational philosophy which
led them not only to reject, but to despise, this consoling doc-
trine. They held that the body was formed, not by the supremeAPPENDIX.— LECTURE I.
323
God, but by an inferior being. Some of them referred it at
once to the evil Principle ; but all of them believed it to be a
•portion of Matter, which was moulded into form by a being at
enmity with God. To emancipate the soul from this material
thraldom ; to free it from the fetters which bound it to earth and
impeded its flight to the Pleroma, this was the great boast of the
Gnostic philosophy. The separation of soul and body was the
point to which they most ardently looked: and to unite them
again, by a final resurrection, would be to bring matter and
spirit once more into contact, and again to amalgamate the ele-
ments of good and evil.
“ This leads me to consider, in the second place, what were
the opinions of the Gnostics themselves concerning the Resur-
rection ; for pretending, as they did, to receive the preaching
of the Apostles, they could not deny that in some sense or
other, the doctrine of a Resurrection was contained in the
Gospel. Their explanation of the doctrine was this :	Before
the coming of Christ, the world was in ignorance of the true
God. Christ revealed this God to the world; and they who
received the revelation rose again from the death of ignorance
to perfect knowledge. So far did they carry their eclectic
principle, that they baptised their converts, and even bor-
rowed something like the Christian form. The favourite
metaphor of St. Paul would not escape them ; and skilled as
they were in allegory and figure, they taught that the Gnostic
baptism was a real resurrection, and the only resurrection
which was ever intended. It will be asked, perhaps, what
was their opinion concerning the state of the soul after death ?
Upon this point we have abundant evidence. They taught
that the soul of the perfect Gnostic, having risen again at bap-
tism, and being enabled by perfection of knowledge to con-
quer the Demiurgus, or Principle of evil, would ascend, as
soon as it was freed from the body, to the heavenly Pleroma,
and dwell there for ever in the presence of the Father ; while
the soul of him who had not been allowed while on earth to
arrive at such a plenitude of knowledge, would pass through
several transmigrations, till it was sufficiently purified to wing
its flight to the Pleroma.”—Dr. Burton's Bampton Lectures,,
p. 130, 131.324
APPENDIX.--LECTURE I.
On the transmigration of souls as held by the Gnostics, see
more in the Appendix to Dr. Burton’s Bampton Lectures,
Note 58.
For the sentiments of the Cathari on the subject of the Re-
surrection, see the work of Moneta of Cremona “ adversus
Catharos et Valdenses,” Lib. iv. ch. 8 :—
“ Cathari horum corporum resurrectionem negant et hoc
ideo, quia ea a Diabolo creata, vel facta credunt esse.
• • • > • •
Aliam causam ponunt, quia credunt, quod corpora ista non
sunt nisi organa, id est instrumenta auimarum, qute per cor-
pora tanquam per instrumenta, operantur bona, vel mala, ut
dicunt: unde sicut artifex tantum remuneratur, non instru-
mentum, quo utitur, ita sola anima remunerabitur, non corpus.
Isti peccatum tantum anima; adscribunt, et similiter opus
bonum, nullo modo corpori.
Dixit etiam Desiderius haereticus, quod corpus nullam remu-
nerationem haberet, quia nihil voluntarie fecit, sed coacte. Ad
hoc autem induxit illud Rom. 7, v. 18 et 19. Scio enim,
quia non habitat in me, hoc est in came mea, bonum. Nam
velle adjacet mihi, perficere autem bonum non invenio : non
enim, quod volo bonum hoc facio : sed quod nolo malum, hoc ago ;
et addidit, * qualiter autem hoc intelligatur, in fine ostendit
dicens, v. 22 et 23. Condelector enim lege Dei secundum
interiorem hominem : video autem aliam legem in membris meis
repugnantem legi mentis mece, et captivantem me in lege pec-
cati, quce est in membris meis. Item, v. 25, Ego ipse mente
servio legi Dei: came autem legi peccati.’
Tertiam causam ponunt, per quam credunt, quod ista cor-
pora non sunt resurreetura, scilicet quia vident ea vel in pul-
verem redigi, vel a vermibus, aut bestiis consumi; quandoque
etiam videmus ea diversis terrarum spatiis esse conspersa, ita
quod una pars corporis sit in una parte mundi, et alia in alia
parte. .......APPENDIX.--LECTURE I.
325
Quart am inducunt causam, propter quarn corporum resur-
rectionem negant. Corporum enim humanorum quaedam de-
formia sunt: nascitur enim homo casciis, mancus, gibbus,
claudus, nanus, aut alia deformitate pressus, multi enim foetus
informes prius quam animati sunt nascuntur. Hanc autem
multiplicem deformitatem corporum humanorum considerantes
irridendo dicunt: ‘ hi malam partem habebunt in resurrectione,
si resurgent sicut nati sunt.’
Quinta causa erroris eorum est prava intelligentia quarundam
Scripturarum, quas inducunt ad probandum corpora non esse
resurrectura. Imprimis inducunt illud Matth. 22, v. 30. In
resurrectione enim neque nubent, neque nubentur, sed erunt
sicut Angeli Dei in Ccelo. Si sunt in Coelo sicut Angeli, sicut
Angeli non habent corpora, ita nec animae tunc corpus habe-
bunt in Coelo ; ergo non resurgent corpora,” &c. &c.
The other passages referred to as adduced by the Cathari
in defence of their doctrine are—1 Cor. vi. 13; 1 Cor. xv.
37 ; ibid, v. 50 ; Ps. i. 5 ; Job, vii. 9, 10; Rev. xxi. 5.
NOTE G.
“ They probably admitted the term, and explained it as the
disenthralment of the soul (in whose immortality they believed)
from its bodily fetters.”
We find every branch of the Gnostics accused of denying
the resurrection; but we must remember, that the resurrec-
tion of the body was always intended in this expression, and
perhaps the ardour of controversy led the Fathers to charge
some of their opponents with an incredulity or an impiety of
which they were not really guilty. That the Gnostics believed
in the immortality of the soul, is certain beyond dispute.
Neither does it appear that they supposed each soul, after its
separation from the body, to be absorbed in the Pleroma or in
the Deity : they therefore conceived each soul to exist in a
distinct state of individuality ; and such an existence implies a
state of consciousness. The difference therefore between the
doctrine of the Gnostics and that preached by the Apostles,
was not so much concerning the nature of spiritual existence,
and the consciousness of the soul after its separation from the326
APPENDIX.--LECTURE I.
body ; but the difference consisted in what I have already en-
deavoured to explain, that the Gnostic believed the soul to
enter upon its purified and celestial existence immediately
after death, without being exposed to any final judgment, or
any further change.—Burton's B amp ton Lectures, Appendix,
Note 59, p. 428.
NOTE H.
“ An allusion therefore to the Tabernacle and Temple, as
emblematical, respectively, of the Natural and Risen Bodyt
would only bring out the difference between the two, dropping
the point of connection and relationship,”
The allusion made by the Apostle to the Jewish Taberna-
cle in 2 Corinthians v. 1, is somewhat obscured by our
authorised translation, in which y Irrlyuos ypwv oIklcl tov
a-Krjvovs is rendered “ our earthly house of this ” instead of
“ our earthly house of the Tabernacle.’’ The word Taber-
nacle is no doubt to be understood as qualifying and limiting
the word House in its application to the Natural Body. The
first thought is that the Body of Man stands to the Soul in the
same relation as a House stands to the Tenant who occupies it.
But our Bodies, though susceptible of comparison to a House
in this respect, have not the stability or durability of Houses.
By way of intimating, therefore, that the Body is a temporary
structure, easily taken down, and liable to removal at very
short notice, the Apostle calls it not simply our House, but
our Tent-house, or Tabernacle-residence, if] ot/aa tov aKyvovs
ypfiiv,)
The order of removing the Tabernacle of the Wilderness
from place to place “ when the camp set forward ” (as pre-
scribed in Numbers iv.) supplies a striking emblem of the
awful process of dissolution as it takes effect upon the natural
Body of Man.
First came the Kohathites and carried away from the in-
terior the Ark of Testimony, Table of Shewbread, Candle-
stick, Altar, and other sacred vessels, having been previously
covered up by the Priests, (verse 5 to 20.) The first step
in the execution of that sentence of death, which was pro-
nounced upon our first parents, is the going abroad of the soulAPPENDIX.--LECTURE I.
327
beyond the precinct of the body,—that soul which is indeed a
sacred deposit, if it have been sprinkled (like the Ark) with
the blood of atonement, if (like the Ark) it contain within it
the law of God,—(“not,” however, “graven on stones, but on
fleshy tables of the heart.”)
The sacred vessels having been carried forth, the next pro-
cess was the removal of the coverings and hangings. This
was the charge of the Gershonites ; and the execution of their
charge left the tabernacle a mere framework of boards. (24—
27). The first part of the body which is assaulted by death,
after the departure of the immortal spirit, is that fair flesh
which forms its curtain and covering, and through which the
warm life-blood once circulated. Shortly after the flight of
the immaterial principle, this curtain begins to show symp-
toms of decomposition and to yield to corruption.
The service of the families of the sons of Merari was to
unpin and carry off the wooden framework of the tabernacle,
“ the boards and the bars thereof, and the pillars thereof, and
the sockets thereof.” (29—33.) The skeleton, which is the
basis of our bodily configuration, resists longest the assaults of
death. But even the bones at length yield to the action of
those natural forces to which they are exposed ; until at length
the sentence upon sin is fully realised—“ Dust thou art, and
unto dust thou shalt return.”
The whole type seems to me so interesting that I have not
been able to suppress this cursory notice of it in an Appendix.328
APPENDIX.
LECTURE II.
NOTE A.
“ He points out that even this principle would be conducive
to the great end of virtue, if, instead of fastening, as in our
corrupt state it does, upon personal affronts, it were to assume
the form of righteous indignation against sin.”
“ That the natural passion (of anger) itself is indifferent, St.
Paul has asserted in that precept, Be ye angry, and sin not.
Which though it is by no means to be understood as an en-
couragement to indulge ourselves in anger, the sense being
certainly this, Though ye he angry, sin not; yet here is evidently
a distinction made between anger and sin ; between the na- .
tural passion, and sinful anger.
“ Now, in order to see, as exactly as we can, what is the
natural object and occasion of such resentment; let us reflect
upon the manner in which we are touched with reading, sup-
pose, a feigned story of baseness and villany, properly worked
up to move our passions. This immediately raises indignation,
somewhat of a desire that it should be punished. And though
the designed injury be prevented, yet that it was designed is
sufficient to raise this inward feeling. Suppose the story true,
this inward feeling would be as natural and as just: and one
may venture to affirm, that there is scarce a man in the world,
but would have it upon some occasions. It seems in us plainly
connected with a sense of virtue and vice, of moral good and
evil. Suppose further, we knew both the person who did and
who suffered the injury : neither would this make any altera-
tion, only that it would probably affect us more. The indig-
nation raised by cruelty and injustice, and the desire of having
it punished, which persons unconcerned would feel, is by no
means malice. No, it is resentment against vice and wicked-
ness : it is one of the common bonds, by which society is held
together; a fellow feeling, which each individual has in behalfAPPENDIX.--LECTURE II.
329
of the whole species, as well as of himself. And it does not
appear that this, generally speaking, is at all too high amongst
mankind. Suppose now the injury I have been speaking of to
be done against ourselves ; or those whom we consider as our-
selves. It is plain, the way in which we should be affected
would be exactly the same in kind ; but it would certainly be
in a higher degree, and less transient; because a sense of our
own happiness and misery is most intimately and always pre-
sent to us ; and from the very constitution of our nature, we
cannot but have a greater sensibility to, and be more deeply
interested in, what concerns ourselves. And this seems to be
the whole of this passion, which is, properly speaking, natural
to mankind : namely, a resentment against injury and wicked-
ness in general; and in a higher degree when towards our-
selves, in proportion to the greater regard which men naturally
have for themselves, than for others. From hence it appears,
that it is not natural, but moral evil; it is not suffering, but
injury, which raises that anger or resentment, which is of any
continuance. The natural object of it is not one, who appears
to the suffering person to have been only the innocent occasion
of his pain or loss; but one, who has been in a moral sense
injurious either to ourselves or others.
“ With respect to deliberate resentment, the chief instances
of abuse are : when, from partiality to ourselves, we imagine
an injury done us, when there is none : when this partiality
represents it to us greater than it really is : when we fall into
that extravagant and monstrous kind of resentment, towards
one who has innocently been the occasion of evil to us ; that is,
resentment upon account of pain or inconvenience, without in-
jury ; which is the same absurdity, as settled anger at a thing
that is inanimate : when the indignation against injury and in-
justice rises too high, and is beyond proportion to the particu-
lar ill action it is exercised upon : or, lastly, when pain or
harm of any kind is inflicted merely in consequence of, and to
gratify, that resentment, though naturally raised.”—Butler's
Sermon on Resentment.
I regret that in referring to Bishop Butler’s Sermon on Re-
sentment I trusted to my memory for certain points in the
v330
APPENDIX.--LECTURE II.
argument. It has strangely deceived me, and made me attri-
bute to Bishop Butler a reference to St. Mark which he never
makes. The sermon never refers to the passage which asserts
that “ Jesus looked round upon ” (certain cavillers) “ with anger,
being grieved for the hardness of their hearts.” The refer-
ence was I suppose suggested to me, when reflecting on the
sermon some years ago ; and so became inadvertently entangled
in my mind with the author’s own remarks.
NOTE B.
“ But there are other and more subjective changes (popularly
though perhaps erroneously included in the term regeneration)
which common experience forbids us to attach universally to the
Sacrament."
It will conduce to the clearness of this Lecture to state the
views which the Author has been led to form on the difficult
and much-controverted question of the efficacy of Christian
Baptism.
The Sacrament of Baptism, then, is regarded by him as
universally effecting a change in the condition of the recipient
which is properly and scripturally termed Regeneration. The
question then arises as to what Regeneration (when spoken of
as the effect of Baptism) is ?
And here it appears to me that great confusion of thought
has arisen from confounding that Regeneration which is the
effect of Baptism with conversion of the heart to God. The
two things are totally distinct in idea. Baptismal Regenera-
tion is Second Birth, Birth into the Church of God,—a real
bringing out of the Person (whether Infant or Adult) to whom
Baptism is administered, into the sunlight of Christian privi-
lege, and into the (Economy of grace. But just as a child
may be still-born, or a dead branch joined to a living tree by
external grafting, so this Second Birth infers nothing as to
those inward principles of vital godliness which constitute true
spiritual life. The removal of a plant or an animal from its
native element into another does not imply that its faculties
are adapted to that other. The baptised are placed in the
family and kingdom of God,—they are admitted to member-
ship with Christ,—but they too often prove prodigal sons, re-APPENDIX.---LECTURE II.
331
bellious subjects, dead branches. When such is the case, they
live and move and have their being in an element uncongenial
to them. The light shines around them, but their eyes are not
openedjio discern it.
The great difficulty which many will feel in accepting this
theory of the effects of Baptism, arises from the fact that the
Regeneration spoken of in our Service is spiritual, and said to
be effected by the Holy Spirit : e. g. “ We yield Thee hearty
thanks that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate this infant with
Thy Holy Spirit.” Spiritual Regeneration, it is popularly
conceived, can signify nothing else than a moral change, a
change wrought upon the heart and will of the recipient. But
is there any ground for this notion ? Is not the real trans-
ference of the Baptised Person into a new (Economy (involving,
as it of course dees, the remission of the guilt of original sin and
an entirely new relationship to God and Christ), a spiritual tran-
saction ? Certainly it is a transaction which passes in the realm
of spirit,—a transaction of which the senses can take no cogni-
zance, and which can be apprehended only by faith. And is it
conceivable that such a transaction should pass upon any soul
without the operation of the Spirit of God ? Can a man be
brought forth under the beams of the Spirit except by and
through the Spirit ? Can he be registered in Heaven as an
heir of life by a mere voluntary dedication of him on man’s
part, without the mysterious concurrence of Him who Him-
self “ writeth up the people ?”
That the Regeneration of Baptism is a process quite distinct
in kind from conversion to God, and independent of it, is clear
to my mind from the case of an Adult who receives Baptism
after the exercise of true repentance and true faith. Such an
one, it will be agreed on all hands, is regenerated in and by
Baptism no less certainly (many people would say, far more
certainly) than an Infant. Receiving the outward sign with
the right disposition of heart, he receives with it (beyond all
question) the “inward spiritual grace.” But what inward
spiritual grace ? Conversion ? Nay, he is already converted :
he has already (on the hypothesis) turned to God in penitence
and faith. What then? Is “faith confirmed and grace in-
creased in him by virtue of prayer unto God ?” Undoubtedly.
t 2332
APPENDIX.--LECTURE II.
But observe that this, although a grace bestowed in Baptism (as
in every other ordinance) on adult participants who are fit for
its reception, is not the grace of Baptism. The grace of Bap-
tism is initiatory of a state, not confirmatory of a principle. It
is “a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness : for
being by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are
hereby made the children of grace.” A death—a birth.
What is natural death ? The passage out of an old state of
existence. What is natural birth ? The passage into a new.
Then this is the thought. The Baptised (whether Infant or
Adult) pass out of the element of sin and wrath into the element
of righteousness and acceptance. But this does not necessarily
infer their endowment with principles congenial to the new
element. They are grafted into the good olive tree. But this
does not necessarily infer that they will give admission to that
sap which rises upwards through its stem, and the circulation of
which through the branches can alone ensure their vitality.
The interpretation of the Church Formularies on this Theory
presents difficulties to many minds, from the fact of their having
taken up with a certain technical notion of the term “ Grace.”
Grace, they imagine, must be something internal and subjective.
It would be an interesting task to examine all the passages of
Holy Scripture in which the word occurs, and ascertain how
often it bears that subjective sense which is popularly attached
to it. I suspect that it does so comparatively seldom. Xapts,
generally speaking, means a free favour—and children of grace
are children of free favour—that is, accepted by God in the
Beloved, and admitted into his Family. Of course this involves
a free proffer of the Holy Spirit to them, which nothing but
the perversity of their own wills can prevent their closing with.
JBut it does not involve their closing with it.
Such is the view which the Author of these Lectures has
been led to form—and which he now puts forth at large, as-
suredly from no wish to dogmatize upon a point so difficult,
but because it is necessarily assumed in the Second Lecture of
this Series in a manner which challenges a candid statement of it.
He is fully aware that the theory has its serious difficulties. But
what theory on this abstruse subject, if fairly carried out to its
legitimate consequences, has not? What theory has yet been pro-APPENDIX.---LECTURE II.
333
pounded in full on the subject of Baptismal Regeneration which
satisfactorily reconciles Scripture, experience, and the Prayer -A
Book—and adjusts together in one harmonious system the no-
tices gained from all these sources ? And if there be no view
of the subject, which has not its weak and assailable points, is
this not a question which (so long as all hold the form of sound
words) demands the utmost forbearance and moderation to
those who differ from us, whether on the High Church or Low
Church side ?
In connexion with this difficult subject there is an interest-
ing thought (though perhaps it may be too subtle to find favour
with many) in a work which I have often referred to ; “ Evans's
Ministry of the Body.”
Mr. Evans remarks that the same Greek word is employed
in the New Testament to signify both birth and begetting,—
the maternal and paternal functions, between which our trans-
lators ought to have made a difference, according to the na-
ture of the context. By those who are begotten of God he
understands those who have been quickened to the exercise of
true repentance and faith by the operation of the Holy Spirit.
These “ sin not ” (habitually and wilfully)—“ they overcome the
world ”—“ they keep themselves, so that the Wicked One
toucheth them not.” (1 John, v. 4, 18). But “to be born of
water and the Spirit” is a distinct thing. The Church (“ Je-
rusalem the mother of us all,” Gal. iv. 26,) performs this part
for thousands who are never begotten of God, and who will be
disowned by the Church (as never of her, though they were in
her) in the day when the tares are separated from the wheat.
Such, as I understand it, is Mr. Evans’ meaning, though the
form of expression (as I have not his book by me while I write)
is mine, not his. This view represents Conversion and Bap-
tismal Regeneration as things totally distinct in idea, which I
take to be the truth.334
APPENDIX.
LECTURE III.
NOTE A.
“ The breath of lives includes both the soul and spirit, which-
St. Paul reckons in the Thessalonians as constituent elements of
human nature, the soul comprising both the affections and also
the principle of animal life,—the spirit being the reason, or
faculty which differences man from the inferior creation.”
“ Man is spoken of in Scripture under three component
parts ; namely, the body, the soul, and the spirit. 1 hat this
compound is not indissoluble, but that the two latter are ele-
ments independent of the former, we are equally assured by
God’s word, and our own daily experience. The question,
however, which we are concerned in solving is, not the condi-
tion of their separate state, of which we can know or learn next
to nothing, but the nature of the compound to which Scripture
confines our views, both as to this world, and as to the world
to come. Of these, the first in order of time is the body, being
that arrangement which at present is manifested through the
flesh which has been taken from the dust of the earth, but
shall hereafter, in the persons of the sons of God, be developed
in a spiritual and much more glorified fashion. This having
been first created, was then informed with an indestructible
principle of life, to which we give the name of soul. And to
this again was superadded the principle of the understanding
termed spirit, the soul appearing to be the connecting link be-
tween the two. According to a common figure, man is often
denoted by sacred writers under the title of one only of these
parts, according as their subject may prompt them. Thus he
is called flesh where his sensual part is mostly concerned, or
mortality is intimated : soul, where his feelings and affections
and desires are chiefly in question, or life is implied or predi-
cated of him. And thus far he seems to be but at the head of
animal life, with the exclusive privilege of having in his soul
an inexhaustible fountain of life. For in Scripture, even the
principle of mere animal life is designated by the term
soul. And man is spoken of in the way of disparagement,APPENDIX.---LECTURE III.
335
not only as being of the flesh, but also as being of the soul,
in comparison with being of the spirit. But he is called
spirit never thus generally, but only particularly, where his
connexion with the invisible world is concerned, and he stands
in the rank, though it be the lowest, of the spirits that are able
to discern the things of God. This title no earthly creature
shares with him, and it testifies to his being formed in the
image of God, like the rest of the sons of God. The perfec-
tion of his service to God requires of course the combination of
all three ; therefore St Paul prays that the Thessalonians may
be preserved blameless in soul, spirit, and body ; and the de-
votion of the inward man requires the unity both of spirit and
of soul, that he might give both his understanding and his
affections.
“ The inaccuracy of the popular language is nowhere more
strongly exemplified than on this point. It confounds under
the term soul both these latter elements, which Scripture has
so plainly distinguished. Nor is it justified by Scripture oc-
casionally speaking of the spirit, where the affections of the
soul are concerned ; for the soul is subordinate to the spirit,
and the spirit is affected through the soul, as the understand-
ing is through the affections, and it may be, and is continually
in our fallen state, subdued by the soul, as a king by his rebel
subjects. But Scripture never reverses the order, never makes
the spirit subordinate to the soul. It is essentially the monarch,
the nearest in rank to the beings above, the immediate chan-
nel of communication with higher powers. Through this, man
has communication with the Holy Spirit, yea, and with the
evil spirit. And the soul is affected by it as to the inner
world, even as the same is by the flesh as to the outer world.
And as they who suffer the affections of the soul to be led by
the appetites of the flesh are in Scripture denominated carnal,
so they who suffer the motions of the spirit to be subject to the
affections of the soul are denominated by the term * of the soul.’
Such, to take the best, are they who submit their reason to
their imagination, their understanding to their feelings. At
all times they are the great promoters of error, and may be
inclined to either extreme of austerity or of laxity. The latter
seems to have been the case in the days of Jude. Once, in-336
APPENDIX.--LECTUEE III.
deed, the flesh, though never the soul, is apparently mentioned
as the immediate subject of the Holy Spirit, where Joel pro-
phesies the outpouring of the spirit upon all flesh. But man
is here called flesh to display the mercy of God upon so vile a
creature, and the precious gift of spiritual life to a mortal
being, not to denote the part cf him through which he should
receive the spirit. The spirit being thus the link in the chain
of man’s relation to the blessed spirits that live and move and
have their being in the dependence of faith in God, we should
naturally expect that he would be denoted according to this in
his pure disembodied state. And such is the case, with the
exception of two passages in the Revelation, where the saints,
being spoken of in especial reference to their earthly sufferings,
and loss of life, are appropriately denominated after their souls,
whose affections were thereby so tried, and relations altered.
Compare with all this our popular language, in which all de-
ceased persons are spoken of indiscriminately as mere souls.”
—Evans's Ministry of the Body, p. 22—26.
When I say that the spirit is the reason, I include under the
term reason all those powers and principles by which man is
differenced from the beasts that perish, the moral sense or con-
science no less than the power of apprehending law. Thus de-
fined, the reason or spirit of man seems to have affections of
its own, or rather perhaps to form such affections when held in
union with the appetitive soul. Shame is an affection of which
none but a moral being could be the subject: for it involves a
perception of right and wrong; and such a perception implies
a moral sense. But fear in animals is analogous to the affec-
tion of shame in man—and, in outward appearance, apes that
affection. May we not say that shame is one form in which
the affection of fear developes itself when held in combination
with a moral sense ?
Similarly, love in the inferior creation is a mere animal
tendency. Its higher actings of patriotism, devotion to a cause,
&c., are only seen when it is held in union with a rational soul,
and becomes an affection of the Trvevpa. Joy and grief as
experienced by the brute creation are only the elevation and
depression of the animal spirits : in a rational creature there is
a joy of the spirit which has the element of reason mingledAPPENDIX.--LECTURE III.
337
with it. “ Joy is then a masculine and a severe thing : the
recreation of the judgment, the jubilee of reason. It is the
result of a real good suitably applied. It commences upon the
solidities of truth and the substance of fruition. It does not
run out in voice or undecent eruptions, but fills the soul, as
God does the universe, silently and without noise.”
These remarks may help to throw light upon those expres-
sions of Holy Scripture in which emotions of what is generally
regarded as the soul are attributed to the spirit of man ; for
example—“ Jesus rejoiced in spirit”—“ He groaned in spirit
and was troubled."
NOTE B.
“ Define as you will the conditions of corporeity, we are not
at liberty, if language is to retain any meaning, to understand
by the term an immaterial principle of life, having no relation
to time or space.''
The essential conditions of corporeity (whether animal or
spiritual)—or in other words the properties or attributes which,
in our ideas, constitute a Body and in the absence of which we
are not justified in bestowing that name upon any subsistence—
are thus enumerated by Taylor in the second chapter of his
“ Physical Theory of another Life.” According to him, the
embodiment of mind involves—
1.	A certain relationship to space and extension. A Body
must be somewhere; whereas unembodied spirit, or sheer mind,
is NOWHERE.
2.	A relationship to Time.
3.	An exposure to the properties of the material universe—
the power of receiving impressions from matter.
4.	A power of communicating impressions to matter.
5.	A laying open of the mind to mixed emotions “ of the
class called imaginative, neither merely animal or organic,
nor purely intellectual or moral.”
6.	“ A defining of our individuality in reference to others,
so as to bring minds under the condition of a social economy.”
These properties, as attaching to corporeity in the abstract,
he holds that the spiritual Body must possess no less than the
animal.338
APPENDIX.--LECTURE III.
Dr. Burton, however, in the following passage seems to
think that the phrase, spiritual Body, is simply equivalent to
spiritual subsistence, and does not imply the materiality of the
glorified structure :—“ In common language the terms Body
and Spirit are accustomed to be opposed, and are used to re-
present two things which are totally distinct. But St. Paul
here brings the two expressions together, and speaks of a spiri-
tual Body. St. Paul therefore did not oppose Body to Spirit:
and though the looseness of modern language may allow us to
do so, and yet to be correct in our ideas, it may save some
confusion if we consider Spirit as opposed to Matter, and if we
take Body to be a generic term which comprises both. A
Body, therefore, in the language of St. Paul is something
which has a distinct individual existence. If we were to call
it a substance, the expression might again be liable to indis-
tinctness ; because Substance in modern language conveys the
idea of materiality, or at least of tangibility. But the language
of Metaphysics might allow us to call Spirit a substance. St.
Paul, as we have seen, would have called it a Body : and Ter-
tullian in the same manner says that the Soul may be called a
Body, though he adds that it is a body ‘ propriae qualitatis et
sui generis.’ His expressions seem still more extraordinary
in another place, where he asserts that God is a body : * Quis
enim negabit Deum corpus esse, etsi Deus Spiritus est ?
Spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie.' One of his
commentators observes that this expression is not to be en-
dured, and that it savours of anthropomorphism. But we
must not judge of Tertullian’s phraseology according to the
modern acceptation of words. If he chose to say with St. Paul,
that a Spirit is in one sense a Body ; and if it be true, as it
undoubtedly is in some sense, that God is a Spirit, it seems to
follow logically, that God is a Body in Tertullian’s and St.
Paul’s sense of the term. It is true, that we must consider
whether the word Spirit is not here used equivocally. Every
person perhaps would admit, that a Spirit, i.e. a spiritual or
angelical being, is a Body in St. Paul's sense of the term, i.e.
it is a Being or Substance : but whether God is a Spirit in this
signification of the word, involves one of the deepest of all
metaphysical questions, and would lead us to enquire whetherAPPENDIX.--LECTURE III.
339
the Deity possesses personal individuality, or whether he is to
be abstracted from all ideas of lineaments, and space. There
is no need to examine this abstruse subject, nor to seek to
penetrate that light, which no man can approach unto, 1 Tim.
vi. 16 : but I would observe, that our ideas are liable to great
indistinctness upon this point. All persons are not disposed at
first to admit, what is nevertheless undoubtedly true, that a
Spirit is bounded by space. Every Spirit is not every where :
there must be portions of space, where any given Spirit is not;
it is therefore bounded by space, and as Tertullian says of the
Soul, ‘ Solemniora queeque et omnimodo debita corpulentiae
adesse animae quoque, ut habitum, ut terminum, ut illud tri-
farium distantivum, longitudinem dico, et latitudinem, et sub-
limitatem, quibus metantur corpora philosophi.’ It is very un-
fair therefore to say that Tertullian was an anthropomorphite
in his notions of the Deity : he believed that God had a dis-
tinct being, and that he was, in the language of St. Paul, a
spiritual Body.”—Bampton Lectures, Appendix, Note 59.
NOTE C.
“ To disengage him altogether from matter (a consummation
regarded as so desirable by many heathen philosophers and by
certain Christian sects who imbibed the principles of heathen
philosophy) would be to constitute a new creature instead of re-
deeming from the ruin of the fall a creature already formed.”
The Bogomili, a (a sect which arose in the Oriental Church
about 1179), maintained several tenets allied to Gnosticism:
among others, “ that the world and human bodies were not
created by God, but by an evil demon whom God cast out of
heaven ; and of course that our Bodies are the prisons of God-
like spirits ; and must therefore be subdued by fasting, con-
templation, &c., in order that the soul may regain its lost
liberty. They denied that Christ the Son of God had a real
a The name is derived from the divine mercy, which this sect is said
continually to have implored,—Bog signifying God in the Sclavonic lan-
guage, and milvi beiDg equivalent to the Greek tx^ntrov, show mercy.
The Cathari among the Latins held very similar views on the subject
of matter and of the Body. Their sentiments on the Resurrection have
been already fully given in App. to Lecture I. Note F.340
APPENDIX.--LECTURE III.
Body, and maintained that the human Body at death reverts
back to the mass of depraved matter, and has no prospect of a
resuscitation.”—Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist.
That the Beguinesb maintained similar views may be in-
ferred from a summary of their errors contained in a Pastoral
Letter addressed by John of Ochsenstain, Bishop of Strasbourg,
to the Clergy of his Diocese. The Letter is given at length
in the Treatise of Mosheim “ de Beghardis et Begvinabus ”
(Lipsiae 1790): and the following is a translation of one arti-
cle of the Episcopal indictment:
“ Their fifth error contradicts Hell and the Kingdom of
Heaven : inasmuch as they profess to believe that there is no
last judgment to come hereafter, but that the only judgment
which a man undergoes takes place at the instant of his death.
Also, that there is no Hell nor Purgatory. Also, that, after
death has passed upon a man’s Body, the spirit alone or soul
of the man will return unto Him from whom it came forth and
will be reunited to Him in such a manner, that nothing will
remain save what was God from all eternity. Also, that no
one will be condemned, neither Jew nor Saracen, because,
when the Body is dead the spirit will return to the Lord.”
P. 257, 258.
NOTE D.
“ Our notion of the disembodied, state is that while the spirit
retains its powers of consciousness and reflection, and is accord-
ingly susceptible of the pleasure or pain derivable from these
sources, it is in a state of isolation as regards the world of mat-
ter, and has lost the power both of receiving impressions from,
and of communicating them to that world.”
Such is the view taken by Taylor in that chapter of “ The
Physical Theory” which has been in a previous note sum-
marily referred to :
“ In the third place, as the corporeal alliance of the mind
b The lay Brethren of the sect of the Fratricelli in France were called
Beguini. The Fratricelli were originally a set of Franciscan Monks,
but detached from the great family of the Franciscans, who wished to
onserve more perfectly than the others the regulations prescribed by St.
Francis. Their sect originated at the close of the 13th century.—
Mosheim Ecol. Hist, Land. 1845, vol. 2, p. 542, ss.APPENDIX.---LECTURE III.
341
with matter is seen to be in fact the means of exposing it pas-
sively to be acted upon by the properties of the material world,
and thus of making it liable to pleasures and pains not proper
to itself, and to some of the most intense kind ; so may this
connexion be universally necessary for the same end. In truth,
the pleasures and the pains to which the mind is laid open by
its amalgamation with matter in the body, are so intense as to
take the lead, for the most part, in determining its active and
moral destiny. If indeed the mind were not inherently sus-
ceptible of impressions from the properties of matter, it is not
any animal organization that could have rendered it so. Never-
theless it is probable that sensation is the result of corporeity!
or an effect not taking place apart from that intimate blending
of the two alien substances of which the body is the medium ;
or it may be only as embodied that the perceptions of the
mind become definite and distinct. In illustration of this al-
leged consequence of corporeity, as the necessary means of
rendering the mind conscious of the properties of matter, we
might refer to the instances, so frequent in chemical science,
in which two substances remain in juxta-position, without in
any manner affecting each other, or combining, until the pre-
sence of a third substance puts their affinities into action. It
is thus that the presence of heat, or of electricity, or of oxygen,
or of water, is the means of forming innumerable compounds,
or of dissolving them. And so, as there is room to conjecture,
the unknown principle of life may be the third power, or ele-
ment, the agency of which brings mind into conscious con-
nexion with matter, rendering it sensible of light, and colours,
of heat, solidity, sound, tastes, smells, motion, and all their
variations of intensity. Embodied, the mind, by a process of
natural and involuntary education, becomes familiar with a
certain set or circle of the properties of the material world;
and though still unconscious, probably, of many other of its
properties, yet gains an acquaintance with it in all the points
that are important to its present welfare ; and thus, as in a
foreign school, brings its otherwise latent faculties into exer-
cise. Moreover it is as embodied that the mind comes under
the potent discipline of organic pleasures and pains—and how
large a portion of its history hinges upon this susceptibility !342
APPENDIX.--LECTURE III.
There is no reason (at least we have no reason) to believe that,
apart from body, or in a purely incorporeal state, the mind
could either enjoy or suffer in' any other manner than intel-
lectually. Probably the whole of that peremptory and effi-
cacious impulse which is necessary for putting the intellectual
and moral faculties in activity, and for maintaining their ac-
tivity, springs from this exposure of the mind to the stimula-
ting properties of matter ;—that is to say, from its corporeal
constitution.
“But then, and in the fourth place, this same intimate con-
nexion between mind and matter, while it exposes the mind,
passively, to the influence of the inferior element, becomes, in
return, the means of its exerting a power, and how extensive
and mysterious a power is it, over the solid masses around it.
Mind, embodied, by a simple act or volition, originates motion.
That is to say, its will or desire, through the instrumentality
of muscular contractions, as applied to the body itself, or to
other bodies, puts it or them in movement. This power of
the mind in overcoming the vis inertice of matter, and the
force of gravitation, is the only active influence in relation to
the material world, which we have a certain knowledge of its
possessing ; for, as is obvious, the various combinations of sub-
stances that are brought about by the skill of man, are all in-
directly effected through the instrumentality of the muscular
system ; nor can it be ascertained whether the chemical changes
and assimilations that are carried on in the secreting glands,
and the viscera, are effected by an unconscious involuntary
mental operation. This organic influence excepted, supposing
it to exist, the mechanical power of the mind is the only one it
enjoys ; but this it enjoys, as we shall again have occasion to
observe, in no mean degree. It may, without much hazard,
be assumed that motion, in all instances, originates in an im-
mediate volition, either of the supreme, or of some created
mind, and that this power is exerted by the latter through the
means of a corporeal structure. In what way this same power
may in future be extended or enhanced, we shall soon have to
enquire.”—Physical Theory of Another Life. Ch. 2.APPENDIX.---LECTURE III.
343
NOTE E.
“ Thus, for example, there are muscles in the palm of the
hand by which it is enabled to perform its finer and more deli-
cate motions, muscles which the acts of writing, spinning, weav-
ing, engraving, specially call into play, and to which, as being
essential to the rapid motion of the musician's fingers over the
chords, the name of fidicinales has been given by the anato-
mists
“ The motions of the fingers do not result merely from the
action of the large muscles which lie on the fore-arm : these
are for the more powerful efforts ; but in the palm of the hand,
and between the metacarpal bones, there are small muscles,
(lucubricales and interossei,) which perform the finer motions,
expanding the fingers, and moving them in every direction
with quickness and delicacy. These small muscles, attached
to the near extremities of the bones of the fingers where they
form the first joint, being inserted near the centre of motion,
move the ends of the fingers with very great velocity. They
are the organs which give the hand the power of spinning,
weaving, engraving; and as they produce the quick motions
of the musician’s fingers they are called by the anatomists fidi-
cinales.”—Bell's Bridgewater Treatise, p. 132.
“ Seeing the perfection of the hand, we can hardly be sur-
prised that some philosophers should have entertained the
opinion with Anaxagoras, that the superiority of man is owing
to the hand. We have seen that the system of bones, muscles,
and nerves of this extremity is suited to every form and con-
dition of vertebrated animals ; and we must confess that it is
in the human hand that we have the consummation of all per-
fection as an instrument. This, we perceive, consists in its
power, which is a combination of strength with variety and ex-
tent of motion ; we see it in the forms, relations, and sensi-
bility of the fingers and thumb ; in the provisions for holding,
pulling, spinning, weaving, and constructing ; properties which
may be found in other animals, but which are combined to form
this more perfect instrument.
“ In these provisions, the instrument corresponds with the344
APPENDIX.--LECTURE III.
superior mental capacities, the hand being capable of executing
whatever man’s ingenuity suggests. Nevertheless, the posses-
sion of the ready instrument is not the cause of the superiority
of man, nor is its aptness the measure of his attainments. So,
we rather say with Galen—that man had hands given to him
because he was the wisest creature, than ascribe his superiority
and knowledge to the use of his hands.”—Pp. 230, 231.
“ Our argument in the early part of the volume has shewn
man by the power of the hand (as the ready instrument of the
mind) accommodated to every condition through which his
destinies promise to be accomplished. We first see the hand
ministering to its necessities, and sustaining the life of the in-
dividual. In the second stage of his progress we see it adapted
to the wants of society, when a man becomes a labourer, and
an artificer. In a state still more advanced, science is brought
in aid of mechanical ingenuity, and the elements which seemed
adverse to the progress of society, become the means conducing
to it. The seas which at first set limits to nations, and grouped
mankind into families, are now the means by which they are
associated. Philosophical chemistry has subjected the elements
to man’s use ; and all tend to the final accomplishment of the
great objects to which every thing, from the beginning, has
pointed—the multiplication and distribution of mankind, and
the enlargement of the sources of man’s comfort and enjoyment
—the relief from too incessant toil, and the consequent improve-
ment of the higher faculties of his nature. Instinct has di-
rected animals, until they spread to the utmost verge of their
destined places of abode. Man too is borne onwards ; and al-
though on consulting his reason, much is dark and doubtful,
yet does his genius operate to fulfil the same design, enlarging
the sphere of life and enjoyment.
“ Whilst we have before us the course of human advancement
as in a map we are recalled to a nearer and more important
consideration : for what to us avail all these proofs of divine
power, of harmony in nature, of design,—the predestined ac-
commodation of the earth, and the creation of man’s frame
and faculties, if we are stopped here ? If we perceive no more
direct relation between the individual and the Creator ? ButAPPENDIX.---LECTURE III.
345
■we are not so precluded from advancement. On the contrary,
reasons accumulate at every step, for a higher estimate of the
living soul, and give us assurance that its condition is the final
object and end of all this machinery, and of those successive
revolutions.
“To this must be referred the weakness of the frame, and its
liability to injury, the helplessness of infancy, the infirmities of
age, the pains, diseases, and afflictions of life—for by such
means is man to be disciplined—his faculties and virtues un-
folded, and his affections drawn to a spiritual Protector.”—
P. 255, 257.
NOTE F.
“ But even language involves the use of the tongue, and is ad-
dressed to the ear of man; so that unless we will waive all
intercourse with the external world, and seclude ourselves in the
recesses of our own consciousness, a method of proceeding alto-
gether contrary to God’s design respecting us, we must he con-
tent to hold communion with the things and persons around us,
through the medium of those bodily organs which God has ex-
pressly provided for such communion, and has adapted with an
exquisite shill to the purpose.”
“ It is not to the purpose of this work to go into the agitated
question of what is called baptismal regeneration in infants ;
it is sufficient to infer from our Lord’s words the necessity of
baptism, which is to birth what faith is to conception. And if
any should object to the employment of an insensible earthly
element like water in so spiritual and heavenly a business, then
if our Lord’s injunction is not enough, and he cries out in the
same spirit with Naaman, who complained of the very sim-
plicity of the means of so mighty a cure, let him consider how
spirit has, in our flesh, been tied to an element as insensible
and earthly as the dust of the earth can be, and this even in
Adam’s state of undimmed reflection of the image of God.
What inconsistency, then, is there in supposing it to have any
concern with water ? Could there possibly be devised a vehicle
of more lively significance than an element which stands op-
posed in our notions to earth, denoting thus the foreign and
contrary character which the pure remedy has to our corrupt
z346
APPENDIX.--LECTURE III.
nature, and which we employ as the common and effectual
purifier of the stains of earth ? Cannot he, then, that has been
born of earth condescend to be born of water ? If the only-
begotten Son of God could endure, in his essential Deity, to
pass through the Virgin’s womb, may not the ordinary sons of
God, at the very height of such spiritual nature as they have,
endure to pass through water ? And if the other element, air,
be essential to the preaching of the Gospel and a vehicle to the
spirit of man, why should the use of water, and this too or-
dained by Christ Himself, be thought so inadequate to the
dignity of a share of the ministry of God’s communications to
man ? Let us remember that we are of the dust of the earth,
and through it must meet all our social relations, even those of
the Church of God.”—Evans’s Ministry of the Body,—c. IV,
p. 65, 66.
NOTE G.
Let me ash such persons, in conclusion, whether they have
ever seriously regarded in its true light their particular form of
sin,—as an offence not against the second but against the first
and more weighty table of the law."
It is very interesting to consider under which of the Ten
Commandments particular duties fall, a point which is not al-
ways apparent on the surface. Of this we may be sure, that
the Decalogue, if regarded not in its literal aspect but accord-
ing to its spirit and principle, comprises a perfect moral code,
under some one branch of which every duty must naturally
range itself. While, however, we feel absolutely certain that
there is no requirement of God which is not referable to some
precept of the moral law, it is often difficult to assign satis-
factorily particular requirements to particular heads. In at-
tempting to do this, many adopt an erroneous arrangement,
from not discerning and holding fast to the principle involved
in each commandment. The great matter is to perceive the
point of each precept as distinct from its form, method «f
expression, and other accidents involved in it. It has been
often made a question, for example ; “ Which of the com-
mandments forbids falsehood ?” and the answer hastily and
thoughtlessly given has been, “ The ninth, because that forbidsAPPENDIX.— LECTURE I.
347
us to bear false witness against our neighbour.” But this
answer (like the reference of sins of uncleanness to the seventh
commandment) shows a misapprehension of the principle
which runs through all the laws of the second table. That
table contains our duty towards our neighbour—precepts go-
verning man’s conduct, in his relations, not to God, but to
his fellow-creatures. Now, though it is true that falsehood may
in many cases injure our neighbour, yet we feel that the injury
so done is only an incidental aggravation of the sin, and does
not constitute the true pith and point of the moral offence. In
its essence, falsehood is an offence against the God of Truth,
and therefore must be ranked amongst sins against the first
table. The duty of truthfulness seems to fall with most pro-
priety under the second Commandment, which, if the principle
of it be disentangled from its accidental form, will be seen to
prescribe the nature of the worship which God requires at the
hands of his creatures. We are forbidden by the Letter of that
Commandment to employ images in the worship of God, and
why ? what is the principle upon which such a prohibition is
grounded ? The principle is, that such employment of Images
would unspiritualise our worship of Jehovah, which should be
conformable to the nature of Him to whom it is offered : “ God
is a spirit,” and therefore “they that worship Him must wor-
ship Him in spirit and in truth.” That which is antagonistic
to the nature of the God (whether in conduct or character) vio-
lates therefore one of the first principles of worship. And
Falsehood is of course palpably antagonistic to that nature.
For the purpose of assisting in enquiries of this kind, the
following outline of the leading principle involved in each com-
mandment is subjoined ; in the hope that it may at least give
some hints which may be improved upon.
The first Table prescribes the perfect Love of God, which
involves four things :—
(1.) Exclusive worship of God. The first Commandment
prescribes the limit of our devotion.
(2.) Spiritual worship of God. The second Commandment
prescribes the nature of our devotion.
(3.) Continual worship—in the sense of habitual reverence
z 2348
APPENDIX.--LECTURE III.
under a consciousness of the Divine Presence. The third
Commandment prescribes the duration of our devotion.
(4.) A certain portion of time employed in direct acts of
worship. The fourth Commandment prescribes the expression
of our devotion at stated and continually-recurring periods.
Under this head will fall the duty of daily private prayer, &c.
The second Table prescribes the Love of our neighbour as of
ourself, which involves six things.
(1.) A due regard to his rank—to the position which he ocu-
pies with regard to us in society.
(2.) A due regard to his person and life.
(3.) To his affections.
(4.) To his property.
(5.) To his reputation.
(6.) A restraint upon all thoughts which would lead us to
injure him in these respects.
Under the second Commandment of the last table will fall
temperance and chastity, considered as duties to self, preserva-
tive of our own health, &c.—the crox^povcos £>?v in St. Paul’s
tripartite division of Christian duty (Tit. ii. 12) Iva awrfipuvia<s
Kai Sucatcos Kal £u<xe/3ais ^r/o-wfiev iv to vvv aiuivi. “ that we should
live soberly” (in relation to ourselves), “ righteously’’ (in rela-
tion to our neighbour), “ and godly” (in relation to God), “ in
this present world.”
These and similar reflections may serve to show us what a
depth of meaning there is in those rudiments of religion with
which we have been acquainted from infancy, and on which
the author of the “ Saint’s Rest” describes himself as falling back
with fresh interest and zest at the close of life, as containing
far more food for the soul than the controverted questions
which so much engaged him in his youth.APPENDIX.
349
LECTURE IV.
NOTE A.
“ In describing that proceeding of Divine grace which, more
than any other part of God’s dealings with his creatures, might
seem to partake of the nature of an arbitrary arrangement, St.
Paul expressly states that God worketh ‘ all things after the
counsel of his own will.’ Hooker has well remarked the pecu-
liarity of the expression.”
“ The particular drift of every act proceeding eternally from
God, we are not able to discern ; and therefore cannot always
give the proper and certain reason of his works. Howbeit, un-
doubtedly, a proper and certain reason there is of every finite
work of God, inasmuch as there is a law imposed upon it;
which if there were not, it should be infinite even as the worker
himself is. They err, therefore, who think that of the will of
God to do this or that, there is no reason besides his will.
Many times no reason known to us ; but that there is no reason
thereof, I judge it most unreasonable to imagine, inasmuch as
he worketh all things Kara rrjv fiovXyv tov 6eX.gg.aTOi airrov, not
only according to his own will, but the counsel of his own will.
And whatsoever is done with counsel or wise resolution, hath
of necessity some reason why it should be done, albeit that rea-
son be to us in some things so secret, that it forceth the wit of
man to stand, as the blessed Apostle himself doth, amazed
thereat, ‘ O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and
knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments,
&c.’ ”—Hooker’s Ecclesiastica IPolity, B. I., c. 2.
NOTE B.
“ Marvel not at this : for the hour is coming, in the which
all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come
forth ; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life ;
and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”
Dr Bush’s method of escape from this text is to explain it350
APPENDIX.--LECTURE IV.
away as best he can. It is worthy of notice that in the Plan
of his Treatise, the rational argument precedes and prepares
the way for the scriptural. Nor is this an accident. His
method throughout is to consider first what human science
(“ falsely so called ”) teaches on the subject, and then to bend
the Divine oracles to the dictates of science, with more or less
of violence, according to the degree of stubbornness with which
they resist his Theory.
But let him speak for himself:
“John v. 28, 29.
“ Marvel not at this : for the hour is coming, in the which
all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come
forth ; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life ;
and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damna-
tion.”
“ This is undoubtedly the strongest passage in the New
Testament in favour of the common view of the resurrection,
and one in respect to which it becomes us seriously to guard
against any undue bias, from theoretical promptings, to wrest
it from its true-meant design. If we know ourselves, we
would deal with the profoundest deference and with the utmost
fairness with every declaration of holy writ; and, in regard to
the present passage, we cannot fail to perceive that it is marked
by a certain directness of enunciation, in respect to the general
subject, which must be considered as strongly countenancing
the construction which the Christian world has ever, for the
most part, been led to put upon it. Still it can, as we con-
ceive, be no impeachment of a becoming reverence for the
words of him ‘ who spake as never man spake ’ to institute
the inquiry, how far and on what principles his language on
this occasion can be reconciled with the views thus far main-
tained in our preceding pages. Let us trust, then, that the
truth will not be offended by the following suggestions.
“(1.) It is unquestionable that our Lord speaks in this
passage in stronger terms than he usually adopts in regard to
the resurrection of the dead. However it may be accounted
for, the fact is nevertheless certain, that he for the most part
speaks of it as the distinguishing privilege and prerogative of
the righteous. Thus, Luke 20. 35, 36 : 1 But they whichAPPENDIX.--LECTURE IV.
351
shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resur-
rection from ike dead, neither marry, nor are given in mar-
riage ; neither can they die any more; for they are equal unto
the angels, and are the children (sons) of God, being the
children (sons') of the resurrection.’ Here it is clear that the
1 children of God ’ are identified as the same with the ‘children
of the resurrection.’ Again, Luke 14. 12-14, when command-
ing his disciples to call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the
blind to their feasts, he adds, ‘ And thou shalt be blessed;
for they cannot recompense thee; for thou shalt be recom-
pensed at the resurrection of the justas if the resurrection
belonged emphatically to the just. In strict accordance with
this the apostle expresses himself, Phil. 3. 11, ‘ If by any
means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.’ We
have no doubt that this aspect of the subject could be abund-
antly explained by reference to the prevailing sentiments of
the Jews at and before the time of Christ, but we here advert
to it simply as a fact well entitled to attention in this con-
nexion—a fact undoubtedly forcing upon us the inference,
that some special reason existed for adopting on this occasion
a style of announcement diverse from that which generally
obtains in the New Testament teachings on this subject.
“ (2.) The passage, as understood in its literal import, does
certainly encounter the force of that cumulative mass of evi-
dence, built upon rational and philosophical grounds, which
we have arrayed against any statement of the doctrine that
would imply the participation of the body in that rising again
which is predicted of the dead. We do not by any means
affirm that the conclusions from that source, to which we have *
come, are sufficient of themselves to countervail the rebutting
conclusion which may be formed from the present passage.
All we would say is, that they have weight, and consequently
we are not required, or rather are not at liberty, at once to
dismiss them, as a kind of profane intruders into holy ground,
where even the ‘daughter of a voice’ from Reason is not to
insinuate itself into the ears of Faith. We confidently re-afflrm
our position, that the human mind cannot be insensible to the
claims of the arguments which we have presented in the form
of rational objections to the views of the resurrection that352
APPENDIX.--LECTURE IV.
would naturally be suggested by literal reading of the present
text. We assert it to be impossible that the mind should not
feel itself pressed with a difficulty of vast weight, when, on
the one hand, it reads a declaration implying that the dead
universally shall, at a given time, ages after the words were
uttered, issue forth from their graves ; and when, on the other,
the clearest induction of reason assures it, that at that period
millions of bodies which were once deposited in those graves
are no longer there. The truth is, this voluntary ignoring a
difficulty urged against the inspired record is not so much a
decorous subjection of reason to revelation, as it is a downright
crucifixion of reason, which assuredly cannot be a sacrifice well
pleasing to the God of reason.
“ So far as we are competent to form a judgment, the evi-
dence from reason preponderates in favour of an idea of the
immediate entrance at death upon the resurrection-state. This
evidence we have seen to be confirmed by the testimony of a
multitude of passages which yield this more easily and natu-
rally than any other sense. But in the text under consider-
ation, and perhaps a few others, the doctrine of a future
simultaneous bodily resurrection seems to be explicitly taught.
Here then we are reduced to a new dilemma. The character
of the difficulty is changed. It is not so much now a conflict
between Revelation and Reason, as it is an apparent conflict
between one part of Revelation and another. This conse-
quently changes at once the whole complexion of the contro-
versy, if such it may be called. The harmonizing of the
Scripture statements is of course the common concern of all
Christians. The exhibition of such seeming discrepancies in
the sacred writers imposes no special responsibilities, on the
score of reconciling them, on him who makes it. Why should
it ? He did not write the Bible, nor can he have any peculiar
personal interest in bringing its dicta to a tally which does not
pertain equally to all his brethren. Here then is an emer-
gency where our argument necessarily ceases to present any
thing of an antagonistic attitude to the previous impressions
of the reader, and we are respectively called upon to unite our
efforts to clear up the difficulty. There must doubtless be
some way of harmonizing texts apparently in conflict, and toAPPENDIX.--LECTURE IV.
353
the discovery of this our readers are as much called as we are.
If the conclusions and deductions on the present subject be
true, that truth is as much their truth as it is ours, and they
are equally chargeable with all the consequences that legiti-
mately flow from it. In attempting then to reconcile the ap-
parently variant testimony of those Scriptures which are
affected by them, we are to make common cause, to bring our
resources to bear unitedly on the solution of the problems, and
to come if possible to such a result as shall leave both revela-
tion and reason unscathed by the ordeal. As a farther con-
tribution of our own to this end we observe,
“ (3.) That without acceding, to the full extent, to the
canons of interpretation adopted in the accommodation school
of Semler and others in Germany, we may still admit that the
principle is to be in some degree recognized in the didactic
procedures of Christ and the apostles. Certain it is, that no
one who attentively scans the distinguishing features of the
Gospel can affirm that it is constructed on the principle of an
open, absolute, and unequivocal expose of the great moral
truths which take hold of man’s future destiny. We perceive
all along a constant running reference to the doctrines and
sentiments imbibed by the Jews from their Scriptures, which
were undoubtedly an imperfect revelation of the entire body of
truth that God designed should eventually find its lodgment
in the human mind. The interior sense of many shaded pro-
phecies relating to the person, work, and kingdom of the
Messiah, was unquestionably very fully laid open ; but many
others, and more especially those relating to the ulterior des-
tinies of man and of the globe which he inhabits, were left
enveloped in the symbolical mantle which was only to be re-
moved by the onward progress of time and providence. Thus
it is indisputable that, in regard to the precise details of the
future allotment of the two great classes of the righteous and
the wicked, neither Christ nor his apostles were in the habit
of uttering themselves in the language of such ample verity
as entirely to dispel the clouds which hung over it. So
also of the great events of the resurrection, the judgment,
and the second advent. The announcements made were
sufficient to exert all requisite moral influence, while they354
APPENDIX.—LECTURE IV.
still came short of affording that satisfaction to the under-
standing which it so earnestly craves. As the New Tes-
tament is built upon the Old, of which it is rather the fulfil-
ment than the abrogation, nothing was more natural than
that it should abound from beginning to end with allusions,
sometimes plain, sometimes latent, to the writings of Moses
and the prophets. These allusions will be found to be con-
tinually multiplying upon one who enters upon the careful
study of the two Testaments in the original languages. A
thousand hidden links of connexion, which escape the eye of
the reader of any of the versions, disclose themselves as he pro-
ceeds. The present we cannot but regard as an instance in
point. It is to us unquestionable that the Saviour had in his
eye the oft-quoted passage of Daniel, 12. 2 : ‘And many of
them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake ; some to
everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.’
The phraseology is indeed somewhat varied, but the general
identity of import is obvious. This, as uttered by Daniel,
was a prophecy which was certainly to be fulfilled. Whatever
were its true meaning, it could not fail of accomplishment.
Why then may we not suppose that our Saviour’s words were
a mere re-affirmation, in somewhat varied terms, of this great
truth of their own Scriptures ? If so, was it necessary that he
should at the same time act the expositor and lay open in all
its details the exact mode of the accomplishment ? It evidently
in its connexions in Daniel forms a part of a very obscure pre-
diction respecting a future period, when Michael, the great
Prince, should stand up for the children of the prophet’s peo-
ple. It was one of those predictions which it would seem was
only to be developed by the actual fulfilment. May not our
Saviour then be considered as having simply re-echoed the an-
nouncement, without professing to give any other additional
light respecting it than what concerned the divine Agent hy
whom it was to be effected, with perhaps the latent intimation
that the time was even then impending, to which the spirit of
prophecy had at least a partial reference in inditing it ? Some
countenance we think is given to this idea by the form of the
expression which he employs—‘ The hour is coming (epxerai)
when all they,’ &c. It cannot be questioned that this isAPPENDIX.--LECTURE IV.
355
usually the phrase to denote an event, or order of events, just
on the eve of occurring ; whereas, if he had intended to point
forward to a very distant future, it is not easy to perceive why
he should not have said, ‘ the hour will come (eAevcrcrai),’ not
to mention that the word ‘ hour ’ seems to imply a season con-
tracted within narrower limits than those which we should as-
sign to such an event as is usually understood by the general
resurrection. Still we do not insist upon an explanation
giving this shade of meaning. It may he well founded, and it
may not. But the main idea we deem entitled to attention.
That the words contain an allusion of some sort to the kindred
passage of Daniel, we think cannot be questioned. And yet,
as it is clear upon reference to Daniel that he does not speak
of a general resurrection at the end of the world, it seems to
be forcing our Saviour’s language to assign to it that as its
true scope. Why is it not sufficient to understand him as say-
ing in effect, * Marvel not at what I have just said, for the
time is coming when the event predicted by the prophet
Daniel, whatever or whenever it shall be, shall be accom-
plished, and that too through my agency, to whom the Father
hath given a quickening power, however lightly my claims
may now be regarded ?’
“ This strikes us as a view accordant with the general ana-
logy of the Saviour’s teachings, and in no way derogatory to
his character as a truthful messenger from heaven. It can-
not, we think, be shown that any moral obligation rested upon
him to delare all the truth respecting the meaning of the an-
cient prophecies, nor at once to correct or prevent all the errors
of his people on that score. As prophecy was designed to be
of progressive development, the time would eventually come
when every prediction would receive a perfect explanation
from a perfect fulfilment. Even framed as it is, the declara-
tion may be understood to yield an important truth in accord-
ance with the view we have presented. For true it unques-
tionably is, that all those whose bodies are consigned to the
sepulchre emerge from their defunct state, in obedience to the
voice of him who has the keys of death and hell, into a sphere
of existence where, according to their works, they are either
crowned with life everlasting, or doomed to a judgment of356
APPENDIX.--LECTURE IV.
wrath without end. If this be intrinsically true, it is certain
that our Saviour’s words cannot teach the contrary ; and if they
do not mean this, they must mean something consistent with
it. If the truth is not to be harmonized with itself in this way,
let him who can, suggest another and a better.”—Bush’s
Anastasis, pp. 234—241.
NOTE C.
“ First, he assumed the nature,—an assumption expressed by
the Apostle in a phrase whose significance is very remarkable
—cnrepparos ‘Afipaap itriAaplidverai—‘ he took on him’ (so our
translators have rendered it) 1 the seed of Abraham.’ This state~
ment (as Hooker has well observed) meets and repels the
heretical notion broached by Nestorius, that there are two Per -
sons in Christ, the Son of God having made himself over to a
human person, called Jesus, with whom he has been ever since
intimately and indissolubly conjoined.”
“ Thus in Christ the verity of God, and the complete sub-
stance of man, were with full agreement established throughout
the world, till such time as the heresy of Nestorius broached
itself, * dividing Christ into two persons, the Son of God and
the Son of man; the one a person begotten of God before all
worlds, the other also a person born of the Virgin Mary, and
in special favour chosen to be made entire to the Son of God
above all men, so that whosoever will honour God, must to-
gether honour Christ, with whose person God hath vouchsafed
to join himself in so high a degree of gracious respect and fa-
vour.’ But that the self-same person which verily is man,
should properly be God also, and that by reason not of two
persons linked in amity, but of two natures, human and divine,
conjoined in one and the same person, the God of glory may
be said as well to have suffered death, as to have raised the
dead from their graves,—the Son of man as well to have made
as redeemed the world,—Nestorius in no case would admit.
“ That which deceived him was want of heed to the first be-
ginning of that admirable combination of God with man.
‘ The Word (saith St. John) was made flesh, and dwelt in us.'
The Evangelist useth the plural number, men for manhood, us
for the nature whereof we consist, even as the Apostle, deny-APPENDIX.---LECTURE IV.
357
mg the assumption of angelical nature, saith likewise in the
plural number, ‘ He took not angels, but the seed of Abraham.’
It pleased not the Word, or Wisdom of God, to take to itself
some one person amongst men, for then should that one have
been advanced, which was assumed, and no more ; but Wisdom,
to the end she might save many, built her house of that nature
which is common unto all, she made not this or that man her
habitation, but dwelt in us. The seeds of herbs and plants at
the first, are not in act, but in possibility, that which they after-
wards grow to be. If the Son of God had taken to himself a
man now made and already perfected, it would of necessity
follow, that there are in Christ two persons, the one assuming,
and the other assumed ; whereas the Son of God did not as-
sume a man’s person into his own, but a man’s nature to his
own person ; and therefore took semen, the seed of Abraham,
the very first original element of our nature, before it was come
to have any personal human subsistence. The flesh and the
conjunction of the flesh with God began both at one instant;
his making and taking to himself our flesh was but one act, so
that in Christ there is no personal subsistence but one, and
that from everlasting. By taking only the nature of man, he
still continueth one person, and changeth but the manner of
his subsisting, which was before in the mere glory of the Son
of God, and is nowin the habit of our flesh. Forasmuch there-
fore as Christ hath no personal subsistence but one, whereby
we acknowledge him to have been eternally the Son of God,
we must of necessity apply to the person of the Son of God,
even that which is spoken of Christ according to his human na-
ture. For example, according to the flesh he was born of the
Virgin Mary, baptized of John in the river Jordan, by Pilate
adjudged to die, and executed by the Jews. We cannot say
properly, that the Virgin bore, or John did baptize, or Pilate
condemn, or the Jews crucify, the nature of man, because these
all are personal attributes; his person is the subject which
receiveth them, his nature that which maketh his person ca-
pable or apt to receive. If we should say, that the person of a
man in our Saviour Christ was the subject of these things, this
were plainly to entrap ourselves in the very snare of the Nes-
torians’ heresy, between whom and the Church of God there358
APPENDIX.--LECTURE IV.
was no difference, saving only that Nestorius imagined in
Christ as well a personal human subsistence, as a divine ; the
Church acknowledging a substance both divine and human,
but no other personal subsistence than divine, because the Son
of God took not to himself a man’s person, but the nature only
of a man. Christ is a person both divine and human, howbeit
not therefore two persons in one ; neither both these in one
sense, but a person divine, because he is personally the Son of
God ; human, because he hath really the nature of the chil-
dren of men. In Christ, therefore, God and man, ‘ There is
(saith Paschasius) a twofold substance, not a twofold person,
because one person extinguisheth another, whereas one nature
cannot in another become extinct.’ For the personal being
which the Son of God already had, suffered not the substance
to be personal which he took, although, together with the na-
ture which he had, the nature also which he took continueth.
Whereupon it followeth against Nestorius, that no person was
born of the Virgin but the Son of God, no person but the Son
of God baptized, the Son of God condemned, the Son of God
and no other person crucified ; which one only point of Chris-
tian belief, ‘ The infinite worth of the Son of God,’ is the very
ground of all things believed concerning life and salvation, by
that which Christ either did or suffered as man in our behalf.”
—Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity, Book V., ch. 52.
I have reasoned in this Lecture (as Hooker has done in the
passage above quoted) upon the authorised Translation of the
Text in Heb. ii. 16. It may, however, be greatly doubted
whether this Translation is correct. The present tense
(«riA<qa/3di'£Tai) is rendered as if it were the aorist (“he took
on him”) ; and to the word £7riAap,/Jdi/op,ai is given a meaning
which it nowhere else bears either in Classical or Hellenistic
Greek. Its uniform meaning, wherever it is met with, is “ to
lay hold of;” and this laying hold may be either for the pur-
pose of assisting or of impeding another. Here the context
requires that we should render it—“ to lay hold of for the pur-
pose of assisting”—a signification of which several instances
might be adduced. When translated in accordance with
these remarks, the passage will be seen—not to state the as-
sumption of Humanity by Christ—but to assign a reason whyAPPENDIX.--LECTURE IV.
S59
he assumed humanity, rather than the nature of angels. “ For
verily it is not angels whom (in the Work of Redemption) He
is assisting : but it is the seed of Abraham whom He is assist-
ing (therein)." The statement of the Assumption has preceded
in V. 14, €7T£t ovv Ta iratSia KeKOivwvrjKe trapKos ko.1 cu/xaros xat
avros irapa7rXij<r«os pETecrx« tcov avrZv.360
APPENDIX.
LECTURE V.
NOTE A.
“ The word itself is one appropriated to miraculous visions,
and the predominating use of its passive form, in describing the
Resurrection, probably imports that it lay not so much in the
power of the subject to see, as in that of the object to be seen—
that the eyes would have beheld nothing in the ordinary course
of nature, had not the spiritual or heavenly Being made himself
manifest to them at his discretion.’’
" It was upon the sea of Galilee that this appearance of Christ
to His disciples, with the miracle which accompanied it, took
place. Doubtless there is a stress to be laid upon the words
* Jesus shewed,’ or manifested ‘ himself,’ as Chrysostom long
ago observed—no other than this, that His body after the Re-
surrection was only visible by a distinct act of His will. From
that time the disciples did not, as before, see Jesus, but Jesus
appeared unto or was seen by them. It is not for nothing that
the language is changed, or that in language of this kind all
His appearances after the Resurrection are related (Luke xxiv.
34; Acts xiii. 31 ; 1 Cor. xv. 5, 6, 7, 8.“) It is the same
with angels and all the heavenly manifestations ; men do not
see them, as though it lay in their will to do so or not; such
language would be inappropriate : but they appear to men,
(Matt. xvii. 3; Luke i. 11 ; xxii. 34; Acts ii. 3; vii. 2;
xvi. 9; xxvi. 16,) are only visible to those for whose sakes
they are vouchsafed, and to whom they are willing to shew
themselves.”b—Trench on the Miracles, p. 448.
a’EQavipairev tavrbv (see John ii. 11) is here equal to HtpOp in the
passages quoted above, which might easily he multiplied.
b Thus Ambrose on the appearing of the Angel to Zacharias (Exp.
in Luc, b. 1, u. 24): “ Bene apparuisse dicitur ei, qui eum repente con-
spexit. Et hoc specialiter aut de Angelis aut de Deo Scriptura Divina
tenere consuevit; ut quod non potest prcevideri, apparere dicatur . . .
Non enim similiter sensibilia videntur, et is in cujus voluntate situm est
videri, et cujus naturae est non videri, voluntatis videri. Nam si nonAPPENDIX.--LECTURE V.
361
NOTE B.
“ But as in the animal, so no doubt in the spiritual body, there
will be an ceconomy, an organisation: the latter, no less than
the former, will be a system in itself, with mechanism adapted to
the services which it has to fulfil and to its continuance in exist-
ence."
See Taylor’s chapter in “ The Physical Theory ” on the pro-
bable point of contrast between the animal and spiritual body,
in the principle of their construction respectively.
“ We assume then, in the first place, that the apparent im-
port of some passages and phrases of scripture tends to suggest
the belief that the die of human nature, as to its form and
figure, is to be used again in a new world. Partly on the
ground of inferences from general principles, and partly on the
strength of particular assertions, we suppose that the fair and
faultless paradisaical model of human beauty and majesty,
which stood forward as the most illustrious instance of creative
wisdom—the bright gem of the visible world—this form too,
which has been borne and consecrated by incarnate deity—that
it shall at length regain its forfeited honours, and once more be
pronounced, * very good so good as to forbid its being super-
seded ; on the contrary, that it shall be reinstated and allowed,
after its long degradation, to enjoy its birthright of immortality.
“So plastiG are all materials under the hand of infinite in-
telligence, and so susceptible are natural forms of accommoda-
tion to two or more purposes, and so much does the unex-
hausted skill of the Creator delight to show its resources, that
we may readily believe the human body to have been so
planned, from the first, as that its form might adapt itself to
another, and a different internal economy. That is to say-
while the uses of internal parts, and their functions may be
changed, yet it will be so as that the new functions and uses
of parts shall, without damage, work in with the original con-
vult, non videtur: si vult, videtur. ” These are Chrysostom’s words:—
’Ey t£ eiVeiy etpavepaaev tambv, tooto SjjAoi, 8ti « P-Tj jjSeAe, /col airbs
iavrbv Sect <TvyKa.Tdf3aoJiv tyavepcoirev, oi>x uparo, rov (Twparos tivrosS62
APPENDIX.--LECTURE V.
tour and symmetry of the form. In this manner, not only
shall the first design of the Creator be honoured, but the mo-
mentous early history of man upon earth shall be visibly kept
in mind, by the perpetuity of the form under which its events
were transacted ; and so too, shall there be secured a vivid re-
collection of personal identity, and individual character. On
this supposition, the human form, whatever splendours may
invest it, or whatever energies it may exercise, will carry for-
ward, through ages, a memento of that first stage of life,
whence fortunes so high have sprung ; in like manner (to com-
pare great things with small) as ancient houses preserve, in
their armorial bearings, the symbols of the feats by which the
founder of the family won his honours and lands.
“ But let all this be as it may, meantime there is little
hazard in stating the probability that, whatever is to be the
type of the future corporeity, it shall not exhibit less of divine
skill and benignity than does our present animal organization ;
rather, as it may well be supposed, this advance in the scale of
being shall be marked by a corresponding higher excellence of
the mechanism that sustains it; and we may believe that the
frame which is to exult over death, shall be even more won-
derfully constructed than the one over which death had
triumphed. Shall not the very elements of that immortal
body be more plastic, more refined, and more readily assimi-
lated to mind ; so that no contrarieties will have 'to be recon-
ciled, no repugnancies to be overcome, and no compromises to
be made ?
“ There is, however, a probable point of contrast in the con-
struction of the present and the future body, which deserves to
be noticed; and it may be thus explained. The admirable
contrivances involved in animal and vegetable organization
may properly be considered under two aspects, that is to say,
first, as consisting in. the adaptation of the general properties
and affinities of the material world, to the purposes of life ; and
secondly, in the adaptation, one to another, of the several mem-
bers, organs, and viscera of the plant or animal, so as to educe
from those elementary principles the intended result. For ex-
ample, in the economy of a plant, there is first to be noticed,
the chemical and invisible process, through the course ofAPPENDIX.---LECTURE V.
363
which light, heat, moisture, electricity, oxygen, azote, carbon,
and the various metallic and saline substances furnished by the
soil, are compounded, in modes inimitable by human art, for
the production of the several specific vegetable substances—the
wood, the resins, the sap, the sugar, and the rest. But then,
in the next place, there is the mechanical adjustment of
parts, as seen in the root, and stem, and leaves; in the vessels,
the absorbents, the expirents, the flower, the fruit, the seed.
And the same distinction is observable in the animal system ;
that is to say, there is the secret process with its elementary
principles ; and there is the visible mechanical apparatus.
“ Now in some beings the principles may be few and the
process simple, while the mechanism is complex and the parts
intricate and many. Or in other beings, on the contrary, the
principles may be various, and their interaction highly refined,
while the mechanism is of the simplest kind ; and then it is
easy to conceive of great diversities in the relative complexity
of these two classes of contrivances;—as for example, in one
instance there may be an elaborate structure, and few element-
ary principles; in another, a harmony of a thousand elements,
effected upon an organization that might be understood at a
glance. If an illustration of this distinction were needed, we
might refer to certain products of human ingenuity, and per-
haps should not find a better than that furnished by the chro-
nometer, or by a musical automaton, in both which a very few
of the principles or properties of matter are wrought upon ;
namely, gravitation, elasticity, momentum, friction, vibration ;
and these few are all of one class, and might perhaps be re-
duced to two ; while the parts of the mechanism, and the ad-
justments which are to produce the required regularity of move-
ment, are so numerous, so refined, and so complicated, as to
render either of those pieces of workmanship a wonder of skill,
science, and practical ingenuity, as well as of manipulative exe-
cution. On the other hand, an achromatic lens presents an in-
stance of almost the simplest possible structure, and of the
absence of any thing that can be called mechanism, or compli-
cation of parts; and yet this mere adaptation of two crystal
discs, the one to the other, which may be understood at a glance
(while the chronometer, or the automaton, might long perplex
2 a 2364
APPENDIX.--LECTURE V.
even an intelligent eye) involves, and brings into combined
operation, not merely certain abstruse mathematical principles,
but several of the mechanical properties of matter, together
with the laws of light, and the specific qualities of particular
substances : in fact, almost the round of our modern sciences is
implicated, directly or remotely, in the construction and use of
an achromatic lens.
“ Now to apply the distinction, as above explained, to our
immediate purpose, we assume the probability that the con-
trast between the present animal body, and the future spiritual
body, or between terrestrial and celestial orders, will be found
to bear an analogy to the difference, thus exemplified; so that
while the animal organization of the present human body, al-
though in fact it combines many principles, and brings into
concert many powers, yet excites our admiration mainly on ac-
count of the complexity of its parts, the delicacy of its con-
struction, and the elaborate adaptation of function to function;
on the contrary, the spiritual body shall, perhaps, be absolutely
homogeneous in its elements, perfectly simple in its construc-
tion, and uniform in its structure ;—a pure corporeity. Never-
theless, by a wonderful adaptation of its principles, it shall
stand actively related to all, or almost all the powers and pro-
perties, as well of the material as of the immaterial universe ;
and shall offer an epitome of all being—passively sensible of all
qualities, potent toward all—the mirror of whatever exists, and
an apt agent in every sort of movement.
“ In a structure, such as we here imagine, it would be the
harmony of principles, instead of the complexity of parts, that
would display the infinite resources of the Creative Intelli-
gence ; and moreover, a structure of this sort would leave hu-
man ingenuity in the rear, even at a greater distance than do
the terrestrial organizations at present known to us ; for while
the skill of man goes far in effecting delicate and complicated
pieces of mechanism, it soon reaches its ultimate point in at-
tempting to harmonize various principles, within the limits of
a simple structure; nor in fact is it easy to name more than
two or three signal examples of this kind in the whole range of
the arts.
“ The above-mentioned hypothesis of a simple constructionAPPENDIX.--LECTURE V.
365
of multifarious principles, plainly implies, if not a higher ex-
ertion, yet a fuller display of intelligence than is afforded by
an elaborate construction of few principles. Or perhaps the
difference in this respect should be thus stated, that, in the
former case, the Contriving Mind starts from a higher point,
inasmuch as there is presumed a preparatory adaptation of the
first elements of the material and spiritual systems ; and this
species of skill supposes an absolute knowledge of, and com-
mand over, not only all things actual, but all things possible.
Man fails in his attempts of this sort, because he has no com-
mand whatever over things that might be, but are not; and
only a very limited and glimmering knowledge of unreal, ab-
stract, or possible existence. What he finds ready to his hand,
he can recombine ; and there he stops; but the Creator has
devised all elements, material and immaterial, so as at once to
admit of certain combinations of them, and to provide for every
possible combination which the ultimate, and far remote pur-
poses of his universal government may at any time require.
Our hypothesis is then, that the spiritual body, and the future
mode of human existence, shall give evidence (not so clearly
given in the present world) of an absolute supremacy in rela-
tion to the primary laws of the creation, such as affords room
for highly complex adaptations of elements and principles,
within the simplest structures.”—Physical Theory, c. 11.
Mr. Taylor’s book, from which I have extracted so largely,
and to which I am so much indebted, is written on a principle
diametrically contrary to that which Dr. Bush adopts in reason-
ing on a kindred subject. The latter starts from Philosophy
and makes it the basis of his interpretation of Scripture. The
former, reverently assuming as infallible that “ which is written,”
calls in Philosophy to illustrate and fortify the Divine oracles.
It has seemed to some, for whose opinion I have the highest
respect, that in this my anxiety to reconcile the Phenomena of
our Lord’s Resurrection with the Pauline doctrine on the sub-
ject, I have trespassed upon the article “ that Christ did truly
rise again from death and take again his Body with flesh and
bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man’s
nature.” I can only say that I am not myself conscious of the366
APPENDIX.--LECTURE V.
slightest contradiction between the Article and the Theory
which I have suggested in solution of a scriptural difficulty;
but as the awkwardness with which I have expressed myself
may have given rise to some misapprehension of my meaning,
I here add a few words of explanation. I desire to maintain
most firmly the truth of the Article above quoted that Christ
resumed after death his old natural Body, with all things ap-
pertaining to it, flesh, bones, scars, and the animal organization.
But I hold that this resumption was effected by miracle for
the express purpose of assuring the Disciples of the truth of
that Resurrection, whereof they could in no other manner have
had evidence. There is no reason to think that a spiritual
Body could be seen, in its spiritual condition, by eyes of flesh
and blood. It must be made manifest to such eyes by miracle.
And the miracle was in this case a reconversion of the glorified
Body (which is the developed flower) into the natural Body
(which is the undeveloped seed) for the purpose of manifesting
to eyes of sense that the Body still lived. Let me take an
illustration. A portion of animal matter is resolved in the
process of decomposition into certain gases. The matter exists
still, but it exists in a different form, a form which our present
senses are not subtle enough to apprehend. Suppose it were
absolutely necessary to convince an uneducated person (who
could not follow the arguments of Physical Science), of the
existence of that piece of matter. It seems to him to have
vanished : he cannot be brought to believe in its existence un-
less you place it before his eyes. Let its component elements
then be recombined and reconstructed by Divine power. Let
it become as it was before its decomposition,—let the same
substance appear again under the old form,—and thus the truth
will be conveyed to his mind so far as he is able to receive it.
Now apply this to the matter in hand. The Body of Christ
was glorified in his resurrection. But of this glorified Body
mortal senses could not take any cognizance. It must be
brought somehow within the level of man’s apprehensions.
The Body, therefore, appeared to His Disciples under its natu-
ral, and not under its glorified form, this being the only form
in which its Resurrection could be apprehended by their senses.
It received sustenance, submitted itself to the touch, by way ofAPPENDIX.--LECTURE V.
367
proving its reality and continued materiality. But at the same
time it presented a somewhat different appearance than it had
done during life, to intimate the greatness of the change which
had passed over it.
It would be highly presumptuous to say that this is cer-
tainly the true account of the Phaenomena of the Resurrection
—but surely it is a view of the subject which may be held
without the smallest inconsistency with an Article of Faith.
To many minds, no doubt, it would appear preferable to
regard our Lord’s Resurrection as wholly differenced in kind
from that of his people ; and, therefore, to abandon all attempts
to reconcile St. Paul’s doctrine of the General Resurrection
with the Phaenomena of His. And there is much to be said in
favour of this view from the fact that the Lord’s Body was
never subjected, as ours are, to the law of corruption. (Acts 2,
31.) This is a clear point of difference between the two cases.
But to me it appears more satisfactory to represent Resur-
rection as in general (omitting minor details) one and the same
process, whether it pass upon the Head (as it has already done)
or upon the members (as it is to do hereafter).368
APPENDIX.
LECTURE VII.
NOTE A.
“ As these passages, in which the word Resurrection appa-
rently hears another than its strict etymological significance,
seem to throw a real doubt on the doctrine which it is the pro-
vince of these Lectures to expound and vindicate, and as the
chief of them is the only positive support which Dr. Bush finds
in Scripture for his resolution of the doctrine into a mere im-
mortality of the human soul, it is necessary to pass them in re-
view, and to point out some theory which may remove the diffi-
culties presented by them."
Aa the text in Matthew xxii. 31, 32, and its parallel pas-
sages, constitute the strong point of the Scriptural Argument,
I will, for the sake of fairness, give Dr. Bush’s comment upon
it entire:—
“ We have already given, in a previous extract from Dr.
Dwight,* to which we beg the readers renewed reference, an
* “This word Anastasis, 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
stand again. As standing is the appropriate posture of life, conscious-
ness, 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, and active
beings. Many passages of Scripture would have been rendered more in-
telligible, and the thoughts contained in them more just and impressive,
had this word been translated agreeably to its real meaning. This ob-
servation will be sufficiently illustrated by a recurrence to that remark-
able passage which contains the dispute between our Saviour and the
Sadducees. ‘ Then came unto him,’ says the evangelist, ‘ the Sadducees,
who say there is no resurrection (ph tivai avaoraoiv)' that there is no
future state, or no future existence of mankind.—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 (tv rfi
avAoraaei),' in the future state? Our Saviour answers, ‘ In the resur-
rection,' 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.APPENDIX.--LECTURE VII.
369
exposition of this passage so clear and self-evidencing, that we
might perhaps properly spare ourselves any farther attempts
at its elucidation. But a few remarks may be added. And
we would especially desire attention to the fact, that the true
question in debate is the resurrection of the dead—‘ but as
touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read,’ &c.,
{Luke, ‘ But that the dead are raised, Moses showeth,’ &c.)
This the Sadducees denied, and this the Saviour intended to
affirm. Now it is obvious that if the term ‘ resurrection,’ in
its correct usage in the Gospels and the New Testament
generally, denotes the resurrection of the body, we cannot
deem ourselves at liberty to depart from that sense in the pre-
sent instance. Not the slightest evidence appears that our
Lord intended to use the term in any other than its common
and well-known acceptation. If its ordinary use implies the
resurrection of the body, it doubtless implies it here. But if
that be the true sense, it is equally obvious that our Lord’s
argument is not an explicit, pointed, and direct refutation of
the Sadducees’ error; for how does the fact that the spirits
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are now living, prove the re-
surrection of their bodies ? In fact, this concession is made
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 [continues Dr. Dwight], were we
at any loss concerning the meaning of the word anastasis, determines it
beyond dispute. The proof that there is an anastasis 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
anastasis ; 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 [as to their material bodies], and that the declaration
concerning them is no proof of the resurrection [of the body]. But it is
certain they are living beings; and therefore this passage is a complete
proof that mankind live after death.”370
APPENDIX.--LECTURE VII.
by multitudes of commentators who adopt the common view
of the meaning of the word dmo-ratris, resurrection. Thus
the learned Dr. Hody (Resur. of Same Body Asserted) re-
marks : ‘ The most that this argument proves is the immor-
tality of the soul—that the souls of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, did not die with their bodies, as the Sadducees be-
lieved.’ So Mr. Barnes (in loc.): ‘It more distinctly re-
fers to the separate existence of the soul, and to a future
state of rewards and punishments, than to the resurrection of
the body.’ Writers of this class consider the passage as
simply teaching by inference the resurrection of the body;
i. e. if the spirits of the patriarchs are alive now, their bodies
will be hereafter. But we not only dissent from this inter-
pretation ; we remonstrate against it. We contend that it
is a violent wresting of a word from its plain, natural, ob-
vious sense, in order to make it subserve the purposes of a
different and preconceived theory. If there is a palpable,
we had almost said an unmistakeable, averment in the com-
pass of holy writ, it is, that the true doctrine of the resur-
rection is proved from the fact, that Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, were living when Christ spake these words, and conse-
quently must have been raised, and must be living in resurrec-
tion-bodies. Otherwise, as Dr. Dwight remarks, * the decla-
ration concerning them is no proof of the resurrection.’ What
kind of resurrection is that in which nothing is raised ? But
their bodies certainly had not been raised ; and can the sun in
the heavens be more obvious to the senses than the conclusion
to the mind, that the ‘resurrection of the dead,’ as here af-
firmed by the Saviour, has no reference whatever to the re-
suscitation of dead bodies ? And are we not justified in main-
taining, that the only resurrection of the dead ever to be ex-
perienced by man, is that of which these patriarchs have long
since been the subjects ? Is there more than one kind of re-
surrection? Does not our Lord’s language establish this as
the genuine and legitimate sense of the term ? Is it not exactly
tantamount to future state ? By what authority then is the
term appropriated, contrary to this high sanctioned usage, to
express entirely another idea ? The effect of this argument,
we are told, was completely to quash the sceptical cavils of theAPPENDIX.--LECTURE VII.
371
Sadducees, and the Pharisees exulted to see them * put to
silence.’ The ‘ astonishment,’ moreover, of the bystanders, at
the wisdom, at the divine sagacity, displayed in the reply,
shows that they regarded it as a signal logical triumph : and on
the view now suggested we are conscious of sharing in their
emotions. We see that it perfectly met the point. Fortified,
as they supposed, by the silence of Moses on the subject, they
denied a future state. By a single appeal to that very portion
of the Scriptures which alone they regarded as authoritative,
our Lord at once demonstrated the falsity of their position, and
sealed their lips in ignominious silence. Would this have
been the effect had they understood him as asserting the resur-
rection of the body ? Would they not at once have replied,
1 This is a shifting of the question ; this is not the point in de-
bate. Our creed is, that the doctrine of a future state is not
taught in the five books of the Law. Why not then answer
us directly on that head ?’ And who can gainsay the reason-
ableness of the demand ? On the ground of our interpretation
the dialectics of the Saviour are utterly unimpeachable. He
says precisely what the occasion required him to say, and
nothing else. His triumph therefore was complete.”—Bush’s
Anastasis, pp. 206—209.
NOTE B.
11 That their radical objection lay essentially against eternal
retribution, and only accidentally against any form which this
truth assumed, is proved by their rejecting from their moral
philosophy the idea of recompense as an unworthy motive to the
prosecution of virtue, a motive by which only persons of a slavish
mind would be actuated.”
“ Antigonus Socchseus, Master of Sadoc, who was head of
the Sadducees, taught, that a pure and disinterested wor-
ship should be paid to God. Be not like slaves, said he to
his disciples, let not the review of rewards only be the motive
of your obedience; obey without interest, without the hope of
receiving any fruit from your labours. Let the fear of the
Lord be upon you. Sadoc, his disciple, not being able to re-
concile himself to such a disinterested spirituality interpreted
his Master’s maxim in a quite opposite meaning. He con-372
APPENDIX.--LECTURE VII.
eluded from it, that there were no rewards or punishments to
be expected in another life ; and that it was necessary to do
good and to avoid evil in this without any motives of hope or
fear. This, say the Jews, was the original of the sect of the
Sadducees. Antigonus was a great Master and Teacher of the
Jewish Law, and succeeded Simon the Just in the employment,
who was High Priest from the year of the world 1702 to 3711,
before Jesus Christ 209, before the vulgar sera 213.”—Calmet’s
Dictionary of the Bible, in Art. Antigonus.
The above notice of Antigonus’ sentiments is taken from
Rabbinical Authors (PirJce Aboth, I. 3).
The gross perversion of the doctrine of Antigonus Socchseus
by his followers is a very solemn warning of the danger of be-
ing wise above what is written. The Scriptures everywhere
warn man back from sin by the fear of God’s judgments, and
hold out eternal glory as a motive to diligence and patience in
running the race that is set before us. Even the Holy and
Harmless One, in whom was no sin, was animated (we are
told) in the endurance of the Cross by “ the joy that was set
before Him.” We may be sure, therefore, that the prospect
of recompence is a stimulant which our nature needs ; and that
the being actuated by such a prospect is not at all inconsistent
with the highest standard of holiness. Yet the doctrine of
Antigonus (the spirit of which has been infused into the
theology of many excellent Christians, Fenelon for example,
and Jonathan Edwards) cannot but strike us as a lofty and
noble principle, worthy of guiding the human mind. And
were it not that Antigonus seems to have claimed for this
principle the exclusive right of guiding the mind, and refused
to admit any other motive as really consistent with piety, we
might have safely accepted his doctrine. As it was, the dis-
interested love of God was probably represented by him as the
sole motive of true virtue. This is a too aspiring flight—it out-
runs Scripture—and the consequence was that round the doc-
trine of Antigonus as its nucleus formed itself one of the most
deadly heresies to which the exercise of human reason has ever
given birth.APPENDIX.
373
LECTURE VIII.
NOTE A.
“ Some very ancient expositors, Origen for example, and
Gregory of Nazianzum, have imagined that by the term creature
is denoted the angels, who, inasmuch as they are ministering
spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of sal-
vation, may be represented as subject to vanity and in bondage
to corruption, that is, as doing service to vain and corruptible
man."
Ipsos quoque Angelos, si ad sententiam Pauli respicias quae
dicit, quia omnes ministeriales sunt spiritus ad ministerium missi
propter eos qui hcereditatem capiunt salutis intelliges tale ali-
quid gerere, et huic corruptioni esse subjectos : credo etiam
ipsos non volentes, sed propter eum qui subjecit eos in spe:
Voluntati enim illius quis resistit f Ego etiam de Arcbangelis
tale aliquid intelligere Propheticis invitor eloquiis. Quid enim
tantse vanitatis et tantss corruptionis invenias quam bella gerere
in hoc mundo, pugnas adversum se Regum et Gentium com-
movere ? Vide ergo quod et in his praecipuum Archangelici
operis habetur officium, Bicut Daniel Propheta testatur cum di-
cit, quia Archangelus loqueretur ad eum, qui diceret ei quod
pugnaverit adversum principem Persarum, et nemo inquit,
fuit mihi adjutorio, nisi Michael princeps vester. Per haec
ergo singula deprehenditur rationabilis creatura vanitati esse
subjecta non volens, sed propter eum qui subjecit in spe. Spes
namque est ab his rebus corporeis et corruptibilibus aliquando
cessandum. Hanc enim habet expectationem creatura ista
rationabilis, ut revelatio fiat filiorum Dei propter quos Angeli
mittuntur in ministerium, ut et ipsi cum his quibus ministra-
verunt hsereditatem capiant salutis, ut terrestrium et caelestium
fiat unus grex et unus pastor, et sit Deus omnia in omnibus.—
Origen Comment, in Epist. ad Rom.
“ If you consider the sentence of Paul, which asserts that they
are all ministering spirits sent forth on their account who receive374
APPENDIX.--LECTURE VIII.
the inheritance of salvation, you will see reason to think that
the angels themselves also perform functions of much the same
kind, and are in bondage to this corruption. I suppose they
too are made subjects not willingly, but by reason of Him
who hath subjected them in hope ; for who hath resisted His
will ? Nay 1 am induced by the utterances of the Prophets
to understand something of the same kind even of the arch-
angels. For what can you find, which so much partakes of
vanity and corruption as the waging of wars in this world ? as
the exciting of kings and nations to battle against oneself ?
Observe then what even in matters of this sort is accounted
a principal part of the Archangelic function, according to the
testimony of the Prophet Daniel, who says that an archangel
spake to him and told him that he fought with the Prince of
Persia ; and there was no one, said he, who stood with me hut
Michael your Prince. By each of these passages then the
rational creature is indicated as in a state of subjection to vanity,
not willingly but by reason of him who hath subjected the
same in hope. For there is hope that they are one day to
cease from these corporeal and corruptible things. For that
rational creature hath this expectation, that a manifestation
should be made of those sons of God for whose sake the angels
are sent forth to minister, so that they themselves, together
with those to whom they have ministered, may receive the in-
heritance of salvation, and that both of things in earth and
things in heaven there may be one flock and one shepherd, and
God may he all in all."
Origen’s view seems to have been that (mens primarily re-
ferred to the soul of man, which being, by divine appointment,
subjected to the humiliating condition of an union with cor-
ruptible matter, may be said to be in bondage to corruption.
In the above passage he proposes to extend the term to the
principalities and powers in heavenly places.
NOTE B.
“ Some very ancient expositors, Origen for example, and
Gregory of Nazianzum, have imagined that hy the term creature
is denoted the angels, who, inasmuch as they are ministering
spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall he heirs of sal-APPENDIX.--LECTURE VIII.
375
ration, may be represented as subject to vanity and in bondage
to corruption, that is, as doing service to vain and corruptible
man."
Mlav evptcrKU) (fxovrjv, eu piXos, t£>v irapovriov rruis a^iov, fjv
’Hcratas itpo fjpu>v dve<t>6ey£aTO, mfibbpa rc3 vuv /caipai vplirovo-av,
koI rip peyiOei rrjs tvepyeaias dpiXXwpcvgV evcj>paivecr6ic o ovpavos
avioOev, (cat at ve<f>£\at pavarmaav SiKaioavvyW pg^ario ra opt7
eb(f>pocrvvr]v, /cai ot fiovvol ayaXXlao-iv' C7ret /cat /ctktis naira, Kal
Swapeis ovpaviot., Kal ruv toioi/to/j', ws ye Sr/ 0 epos hoy os, owe-
iraiaOdvovraC ov yap crvirTevd^ei povov Kal avvwSlvei SovXevovcra
Ty <b0opa, rots Kara Xeyio yivopevois re /cat arroyivoplvois, arro-
KapaSoKOvaa to teXos tovtidv /cat t^v aTrOKaXyij/iv, iva Kal avrrj
Tore Tvyr/ rrjs eXm^opevgs iXevOeplas, <Ls vvv aKOvera tovtois
TrpoaSeSepevrj Sta Tyv rov Sypiocpyr/cravTOS Bvvapiv, aXXa /cat
OT/vSofa^Ei /cat o-vvaydXXerai rots roC ®tov renvois ebeppaivopevois.
—Greg. Naz. Orat. 4, ch. 15.
“ I find but one language, but one strain, at all worthy of our
present [circumstances];—that [namely] which Esaias before
our days lifted up his voice to utter,—a strain very suitable to
the present season, and which vies [in its tone of exultation]
with the magnitude of the benefit [whereof we are now dis-
coursing]. Let the heavens above rejoice, and let the clouds rain
down righteousness : let the mountains break forth into joy, and
the hills into exultation. For the whole creation also, yea, and
the powers which are in heaven, have & common feeling of
such [crises,] (at least so I reckon,) with ourselves. For not only
does [the creation] groan and travail together [with us,] being
in bondage unto corruption, (unto those, I mean, who are bom
and die here below,) earnestly expecting their consummation
and manifestation, that itself also, which is now bound against
its will to these, through the power of Him who created it,
may obtain a share of the expected liberty,—but also glories
together and exults with the sons of God in all their joy.”
NOTE C.
“ Others with more probability (as Augustine and Anselm)
suppose that reference is made to the human creature exclusively."
Porro de sole et luna caeterisque sideribus, quod caslestia376
APPENDIX.--LECTURE VIII.
sunt corpora videmus ; quod animata sunt non videmus. De
divinis hoc libris legatur, et credimus. Nam testimonium ex
Apostoli epistola quod ab eis dici solere posuisti, etiam de solis
hominibus intelligi potest; quoniam in uno quoque .homine est
omnis creatura, non universaliter sicut est caelum, et terra, et
omnia quae in eis sunt; sed generatim quodam modo, quia et
rationalis in illo est, quam vel probantur habere Angeli vel
creduntur ; et (ut ita dicam) sensualis, qua et bestiae non
carent; utuntur enim et sensibus et sensualibus motibus ad
appetenda utilia et vitanda contraria ; et vitalis privata sensu
qualis adverti in arboribus potest; nam et in nobis sine sensu
nostro hunt corporis incrementa, et capilli nec cum praeciduntur
sentiunt et tamen crescunt.
Ita nullum est creaturae genus quod non in homine possit
agnosci ac sic omnis creatura in eo congemiscit et dolet, re-
velationem filiorum Dei exspectans.
“ Moreover as regards the sun, moon, and other stars, we see
[certainly] that they are heavenly bodies ;—[but] that they
are endowed with life we do not see. Let thus much be read
out of the sacred writings, and we refuse not credence to it.
For the testimony from the Apostle’s epistle which you stated
to be commonly quoted by them, is capable of being understood
even of men alone, since in each individual man there is every
creature, not [indeed] universally (in the same manner that
heaven and earth comprise all things that are therein) but,
after a certain manner, in kind. For in man there is the ra-
tional nature, which angels are either proved or believed to
have, and (so to say) the sensual which even the beasts do not
lack (for they too employ sense and the motions of sense to set
them on the pursuit of that which is wholesome and on the
avoidance of the contrary) ; and the vegetative without sense,
such as may be remarked in trees. For in us also the growth
of the stature takes place without our consciousness of it, and
our hairs do not feel even when they are cut, and yet they
grow.
Thus there is no kind of creature which may not be re-
cognised in man, and in this way the whole creation groans andAPPENDIX.— LECTURE VIII.
377
travails together (in him) waiting for the manifestation of the
sons of God.—St. Augustine : Ad Orosium contra Priscil. e.
1 1 . t. viii. ,&
NOTE D.
“ With Grotius, then, we understand hy the term kt'utis the
world of visible and corporeal creatures which we see around
us, and which stands in relation to our earth."
Verius est ktIctcv (creaturam) hie dici, ut Hebrseis rw'-a, hoe
universum quod conspicimus ; quo sensu kti<ti<s dieitur Judith
ix. 12 ; xvi. 11.—Sap. xi. 6 ; v. 18 ; xvi. 24; xix. 6. Et
respiei hie loeum Ecclesiastas dicentis totum hoc esse vanitatem,
id est, vanitati subjectum, ut Paulus jam loquetur : quia scilicet
perpetuo orbe alia gignuntur, alia intereunt, animalia scilicet
et plantae et metalla et partes terras, maris, aeris, etiam cseli
ac sideruni, secundum Veterum sententiam. Philo de Caino :
yXiov yap Kal aeXyvyv koi ra avp.Travra ovpapop re Kal Koapov,
are Kal ovk ovra avreiovaia, Kal Kivovptva Kal </>ep6pcva avvc^Zs,
8tp.i<s threiv KaKoiradetv Kal tod Kaparov pap-rvptov evapyeararov
ai irpaLOL upai. Ta re yap oweKTiKUTara ra iv oopapu ras
Kmjcras ivaXXaTTci, Tore pev fioprlovs, Tore 8e potiods, Tore
8’ aXXoLas trouyvpeva Tas ircpifopas, 6 re arjp avalvopevos Kal
\pvyopcv os Kal Trdaa s Tporras aXeaij/opei/os Ik tup iSiup
iradypaTwv iXiyycraL KapvaiW iirei to o-DpeKTiKUTarop pera-
/3oXrjs aiTtop, Kaparos. 'EvrjOes Se can Trepl tup ^epadiup fj
Kaff vSaros po.Kpyyopciv ras KadoXov Kal per a pipy rpoiras avTuv
€7t1 pyKiaTov 8tefiopTa' ravra yap ttoXv ttXAu) tup pcrapalav
Kara to cikos aaOivciav epSe^erat, are TrXiiaTov piere^opra rys
WTarijs Kal -yeuSovsoocrias.—Grotius Annot. in Rom. 8, 19.
VINCENT, PRINTER, OXFORD.