a belief, that what was once deposited in the earth and consigned over to corruption, would ever spring forth anew; whereas the fact is annually exhibited before us; and we are taught to believe that what has been thus accomplished in the case of grain will be accomplished also in the case of our bodies at the resurrection; and by the same power which hourly bids all nature vegetate, and planetary worlds revolve.

To such comparisons and sentiments it may perhaps be objected, "That the vegetation returns at regular and stated periods; and that those periodical returns of seasons furnish the mind with evidence, on which to rest its expectations and belief.” How plausible soever this objection may appear, it is evidently founded upon a local and contracted survey. Encircled with appearances, we may permit it to operate upon our minds; but when placed upon its proper foundation, it will be found fallacious, inapplicable, and absurd.

Had man been in existence when vegetation first began, he could have had no knowledge from fact, of those regular returns of seasons which we experience; and consequently the argument now before us, could not then have applied, because it could not have had any existence. It was only a lapse of stated periods that could have suggested to them those ideas, on which the objection is founded; but which could then have had no influence whatever upon their minds. And, so repugnant must this fact then have been to all human modes of abstract

A a

reasoning, that nothing but ocular demonstration could have determined in favour of these certainties which now appear.

And indeed, if we only alter the æra and bring home the case to the present day, it will appear precisely the same. If God were to create a man at this moment in a state of perfect maturity, with all his faculties and intellectual powers in perfect bloom, but at the same time totally ignorant of the productions of nature; would this man, I would ask, have any idea of the powers of vegetation? Could he conceive the thing possible, that one grain should be capable of producing another, and that through the very medium which proved its destruction? It is a self-evident case, that under these circumstances, nothing but time or information could. have communicated to him this knowledge.

In relation to the resurrection alone, we are now precisely in the same situation. The first man indeed that was actually created, must have been, in darkness with respect to the production of grain, until the first harvest had made its appearance. But we, having had experience of the fact, pursue a train of analogical reasoning, which we transfer to the resurrection of the body; and obtain through this medium a species of evidence which impresses conviction on our reasoning powers.

We are now in the infancy of our being; and we look forward to a future harvest, with a pleasing commixture of certainty and hope. We walk, with respect to rational evidence, in the twilight of our future day, upon those margins which divide dark

ness from light, while they apparently connect them together. In this region we stumble perhaps over a thousand errors, which might have been easily avoided, if our organs had been more acute, our. understandings more penetrating; or, if God had thought proper to give us light, where, for wise ends, he has permitted us to walk in shade. But, when these shadows shall be dispersed, and the great harvest of human nature shall arrive; when "beauty immortal shall awake from the tomb," and the great enemy of man shall be destoyed; then shall we behold the various movements of Almighty power and goodness towards us, which we cannot now fully comprehend; and, probably, trace through all its parts, that perfect analogy which subsists between the happy subject of illustration which St. Paul has chosen, and the resurrection of the body from the sleep of death.

SECTION. II.

That all objections usually advanced against the Doctrine of the Resurrection, may be advanced against the doctrine of Vegetation.

THERE is perhaps, in the vast empire of created nature, scarcely any subject to be found more appropriate in all its parts, to illustrate the important doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, than the production of a plant from grain, which St. Paul has

rea:

COL ties

hc

ci

For a sections may be in urmet, Fl v equal force, agus ir piece, and the resurrec QUEJ DE ALM Int that they must be Čas: me unsound. The actual existence of segitual prisal objections against it, however spenous, mus neressarily be fallacious; and this circumstance fishes us with a strong presumptive evidence, that the application of these objections to the resurrection must assuredly be unjust. For, certain it is, that in proportion as the analogy between the resurrection of the body, and the production of grain can be established; every argument of a partial nature must be abolished; and while the actual existence of vegetation demonstrates its certainty, those arguments which are of a general nature can no longer apply. And, if neither general nor particular arguments will apply; if those which are general, are refuted by the exist ence of vegetation, and those which are particular by the analogy which subsists between the resurrection and the production of grain; all our objec tions immediately vanish, and the presumptive evidence which we draw from the certainty of vegeta. tion, will establish the doctrine of the resurrection upon a basis not easily to be destroyed.

It is, probably, on these considerations that arguments of a general nature are rarely brought against

the resurrection of the dead. In the visible productions of nature they would meet a decided answer, and be immediately defeated in their primary de. sign. But, where an objection can be started on the ground of incongruity between the process of vegetation and the resurrection; it affords the most favourable opportunity for attacking the doctrine; and it is from this quarter that the most plausible objections, and the most specious arguments are advanced. If, therefore, the resemblance between the production of grain and the doctrine in question; between the doctrine of St. Paul, and the examples which he has chosen to illustrate it, can be established; every objection which can be raised must be resolved into a declaration, that it surpasses our comprehension; while the fact itself, in the productions of nature, will afford us perpetual evidence of certainty, till seed time and harvest, till cold and heat, till day and night shall be no more.

It is, perhaps, from a persuasion of incongruity between vegetation and the resurrection, that it has been asserted, that "the time while the seed is deposited in the earth, can bear no proportion to the length of that period, during which the body is deposited in the grave." In point of duration, I grant that there is no proportion; but I cannot conceive that this circumstance will add any weight to the objection before us. Even different species of the vegetable tribes vary in the periods of their continuance in the earth before they vegetate; the example' of no one species can determine the necessary