z6o The Poigibilaly of the ?Zefurre7ion Vol. IL meant by it, Atli 1ß.1a. They faid, he feemetli to he a Setter forth offirange Gods, becaufe he preached unto them, yefto and the Ref:irreElion. - He had difcourfed to themof the Refurre&ion of one jefus from the Dead ; but this Buflfiefs of the Refurre&ion, was a Thing fo remote from their Apprehenfions, that they had no Manner of Conception of it ; but undernood him quite in another Senfe, as if he had declared to them two new Deities, lefus and Anaffaf :.r; as if he had brought a new God and a new Goddefs among them, 7efur and theReferreí ion. And when he difcourfed to them again more fully of-this Matter, it is raid, Yee.; 32.. that when they heard of the RefurreElion of the Dead, they mocked. And at the 14thVerfe of this 16th Chapter, when he fpake of the Refurre&ion, Fefiur told him, he would hear him no farther, and that he looked upon him as a Man befider himfelf, whom much Learning had made mad. Feflur looked upon this Bufi- nefs of the Refurre&ion, as the wildSpeculation of a crazyHead. And indeed the Heathens generally, even thofe who believed the Immortalityof theSoul, and another State after this Life, looked upon the Refurreaion of theBody, asa Thing impoftible. Pliny, I remember, reckons it among thofe Things which are impof- fible, and which God himfelf cannot do ; Revocare defunElos, " To call back the " Dead to Life : " And in the Primitive Times, the Heathen Philofophers very much derided the Chriftians, upon account of this ftrangeDo&nine of theRefur- re&ion, looking always upon this Article of their Faith, as a ridiculous and im- poffible Affertion. So eafy is it for Prejudice to blind the Minds of Men, and to reprefent every Thing to them, which bath a great Appearance of Difficulty in it, as impoffible. But I thall endeavour to thew, that if the Matter be throughly examined, there is no Ground for any fuch Apprehenfion. I proceed therefore to the Second Propofition, namely, that this Apprehenfion, that it is an incredible Thing that God fhould raife the Dead, is very unreafonable r Why fhould it be thought a Thing incredible with you, that Godfhould raifi the Dead? That is, there is no fufficient Reafon, why any Man fhould look upon the Refurre&ion of the Dead, as aThing impoffible to the Power of God ; the only Reafon why they thought it incredible, being becaufe they judged it impoffible : So that nothing can be vainer, than for Men to pretend to believe the Refurreetion; and yet at the fame Time to grant it tobe a Thing in Reafon impoffible, becaufe no Man can believe that which he thinks to be incredible ; and the Impotfibility of a Thing is, the belt Reafon anyMan can have to thinkaThing incredible. So that the Meaning of St. Paul's Queftion is, Why fhould it be thought a Thing impoffible, that Godfhould raife the Dead? To come then to the Bufinefs : I (hall endeavour to {hew, That there is no fufftcient Reafon, why Men fhould look upon the Refurre&ion of the Dead, as a Thing impoffible toGod : Why fhouldit bethought a Thing incredible (that is, im- poffible) withyou, that Godfhould raife the Dead? Which Queftion implies in it theft three Things : I. That it is above the Powerof Nature, to raife the Dead. II. But it is not above the Power of God, to raife the Dead. And, Ill.. That God fhould be able to do this, is by no Means incredible to natural Reafon. I. This Queftion implies, that it is above the Power of Nature, to raife the Dead and therefore the Apoftle put the Queftion very cautioufly, Whyfhould it be thought incredible, that God fhould raife theDead? By which he teems to grant, that it is impoffible to any Natural Power to raife the Dead ; which is granted on all Hands. If. But this Queftion does plainly imply, that it is not above the Power of God to-do this. Tho' the raining of the Dead to Life, be a Thing above the Power of Nature; yet why fhould it be thought incredible, that God, who is the Author of Nature, fhould be able to do this? And indeed the Apoftle's put- ting the Queftion in thisManner, takes away the main Groundof this Obje&ion againft the Refurreftion, from the Impoffibilityof the Thing. For the mawRea- fon, why it was looked upon as impoffb{e, was, becaufe it was contrary to the Courfe
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=