existence than that of self-indulgence. He will answer you, "Yes, but my appetites are strong, and it will cost me much to master them. The struggle will be with pain; and at last, only a few years will be left. The victory is uncertain, and the present enjoyment is sure, and there is the banquet of life before me, and the wine sparkling in the cup, and passion rising in its might; why should I refrain ?”

Do you think you can arrest that with some fine sentiment about nobler and baser being? Why, you have made him out base already. He dies, you tell him, like a dog; why should he live like an angel? You have the angelic tendency, and prefer the higher life. Well, live according to your nature; but he has the baser craving, and prefers the brute life. Why should he not live it? Ye, who deny the resurrection to immortality, answer me that!

No, my brethren; the instincts of the animal will be more than a match for all the transcendental reasonings of the philosopher. If there be in us only that which is born of the flesh, only the mortal Adam, and not the immortal Christ, if to-morrow we die, then the conclusion cannot be put aside-"Let us eat and drink, for the Present is our All."

LECTURE XXXI.

I CORINTHIANS, xv. 35-45-- -June 13, 1852.

VE have already divided this chapter into three sections. In the first and second sections we spoke of the proofs of the Resurrection; and these we found to be twofold—the reductio ad absurdum, which demonstrated it by showing the monstrous admissions a denier of the Resurrection was compelled to make; and the historical fact of Christ's resurrection.

In the third we arrived at the truth that His resurrection involved in it ours, and we replied to the questions Why and When. We asked, Why does it imply our resurrection? and the answer given was, that in us there exists a twofold nature -the animal or Adamic, containing in it no germ of immortality; and the Divine or Christlike, the spirit which we receive from the Eternal Word, and by right of which we are heirs of the Immortal Life. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." We asked, When shall this resurrection finally take place? and the reply given was, Not till the period which is called the Second Advent. St. Paul, leaving the question of Immortality untouched, pronounces that Resurrection cannot be till the end of all things. For all is moving on to a mighty consummation, and the blessing of an individual part can only be with the blessing of the whole.

To-day we shall be engaged on the fourth section-the credibility of a resurrection. St. Paul, in this portion of the chapter, replies to the question of possibility, "How are the dead raised ?" And this he answers by arguments from

analogy. As the seed dies before it can be quickened, as there is one glory of the sun and another glory of the moon, as the imperfect precedes the perfect, as our natural life is earlier than our spiritual—so is the resurrection of the dead.

First, then, as to the nature of the argument from analogy. Analogy is probability from a parallel case. We assume that the same law which operates in the one case will operate in another, if there be a resemblance between the relations of the two things compared. Thus, when in reply to the disciples, who did not comprehend the necessity of His death, Christ said, "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit," He was reasoning from analogy. For as in nature life comes through death, so also is it in the world of spirit. The Law of Sacrifice, which accounts for the one fact, will also explain the other. Thus, when St. Paul shows that the life of the seed is continued after apparent death in a higher form, and argues, that in like manner the human spirit may be reunited to form, he reasons from analogy. He assumes that there is a probability of the same law operating in one case as operated in the other.

But we must remember how far this argument is valid, and what is its legitimate force. It does not amount to proof; it only shows that the thing in question is credible. It does not demonstrate that a resurrection must be; it only shows that it may be. For it does not follow that because the Law of Sacrifice is found in the harvest, therefore it shall be found in the redemption of the world, and that Christ's death must redeem; but it does follow that this doctrine of Atonement is not incredible, for it is found to be in harmony with the analogies of nature. The conceivableness of the Atonement follows from the analogies drawn from nature's laws working in the wheat; but the proof of the Atonement is the word of Christ Himself.

It does not follow that, because after death the life in a corn of wheat appears again, therefore the life in the human soul will be continued; but it does follow that the resurrection is quite intelligible and conceivable, and the objector who says it is impossible is silenced.

Now, it is in this way that St. Paul concludes his masterly argument. He proves the resurrection from the historical fact, and by the absurdity which follows from denial of it; and then he shows that so proved, it is only parallel to a thousand daily facts by the analogies which he draws from the dying and upspringing corn, and from the diverse glories of the sun, and moon, and stars. Let us distinguish, therefore, between the relative value of these arguments. We live, it is true, in a world filled with wondrous transformations, which suggest to us the likelihood of our immortality. The caterpillar passes into the butterfly, the snowdrop dies to rise again, Spring leaps to life from the arms of Winter, and the world rejoices in its resurrection. God gives us all this merciful assistance to our faith. But it is not on these grounds that our belief rests. These are not our proofs: they are only corroborations and illustrations; for it does not follow with certainty that the body of man shall be restored, because the chrysalis, an apparent corpse, still lives. No: we fetch our proofs from the Word of God, and the nature of the human soul; and we fetch our probabilities and illustrations from the suggestive world of types which lies all around us.

We pass on now, in the second place, to consider the credibility of the Resurrection; that is how, according to right reason, we can believe it possible, and that it is not irrational to believe it. Now there are two difficulties advanced : Firstly, in the question, "How are the dead raised ?" and in that which is a mere sneer, "With what body do they come ?"

The question, How are the dead raised, may be a philo

sophical one.

Let us understand it plainly. We are told that the entire human body undergoes a process of change every certain number of years, so that at the end of that time there is not a single particle which is the same as at first; and then there comes this question, How shall the dead be raised? with which of these bodies do they come? And again, we know that the human body is dissolved in various ways— sometimes in fire; and then comes the question, How are all these scattered portions to reunite? do we really mean that the sound of the Archangel's trumpet shall bring them all together again? And then those who are wise in such matters tell us, that there is not a single portion of the globe which has not, some time or other, been organic form. The other question is not a philosophical one, but merely a sneer, With what body do they come? It is as if the objector had said, "Let there be nothing vague: tell us all about it, you who assert you are inspired."

Now, to these objections the Apostle Paul replies by analogy, and so far shows the credibility of the Resurrection. He discerns in this world three principles: First, that life, even in its lowest form, has the power of assimilating to itself atoms;—he takes the corn of wheat, which, after being apparently destroyed, rises again, appropriating, as it grows, all that has affinity with itself, such as air and moisture: that body with which it is raised may be called its own body, and yet it is a new body. It is raised anew, with stem, and leaves, and fruit, and yet all the while we know that it is no new corn: it is the old life in the seed reappearing, developed in a higher form. It is a marvellous thing to see the power whereby that which we call the germ grows; how nothing can withstand it: how it creeps, climbs, and pierces even through walls, making for itself a way everywhere. Observe the force of the argument that arises from this fact-the argument of analogy. It does not prove the Resurrection, but it shows its probability.