dead but of the living." Luke in his account adds"for all live unto him." The Sadducees admitted Moses' writings as authority, from whence this passage is quoted. As their question had no reference to the existence of the soul in a disembodied state, neither had our Lord's answer to it. He does not say, "Now that ye have immortal souls which live in a disembodied state, even Moses showed at the bush." No; he says, "Now that the dead are raised up even Moses showed at the bush." Is the soul dead in a future state and must it be raised up? This very saying of God to Moses at the bush, showed, that these patriarchs were to be raised up, for, in view of the resurrection, they were God's, the same as the living, for all live unto him respecting it. But if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were never to be raised, God could not be called their God; and this very saying of Gods', showed they were to be raised up from the dead, hence our Lord blamed the Sadducees for not learning the doctrine of the resurrection from it. But let us suppose it here, what many people believe, that God is called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because their souls were alive in a disembodied state. I ask, how could this be any proof of their resurrection from the dead? Or, how was it calculated to convince the Sadducees that the doctrine of the resurrection was true? Besides, how could our Lord blame the Sadducees, for not learning the doctrine of the resurrection from this portion of Scripture, if it referred to the existence of their souls in a disembodied state? And I ask further, if it referred to this, was not God in this sense the God of these persons, if they never were raised from the dead? The quotation, Christ's words, and his argument on this occasion, all imply, that God would not be their God if there was no resurrection of the dead. If their souls were alive in a disembodied state, God was their God, allowing their bodies had slept an endless sleep in the grave. 2d. But our Lord not only accused the Sadducees with ignorance of the Scriptures, but also of the power of God. Had they understood the Scriptures, they would have seen the doctrine of the resurrection was taught in them; and had they considered the power of God, they could not have ques tioned its certainty. But being ignorant of both these, they adopted the principle of analogy, and proposed the question, "whose wife shall this woman be of the seven husbands," as an argument against the resurrection. But this was a difficulty of their own creating, and arose from their very adoption of this principle. It led them astray, and we think it must lead all astray, who reason on it from the present state of things to what shall be in the resurrection state. That our Lord condemned both this principle and their reasonings from it we shall now attempt to show. : Matthew's account runs thus-" For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." The same is repeated by Mark. Luke's account is thus stated; "And 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 marriage: Neither can they die any more: And are the children of God being the children of the resurrection." Now, let the reader notice, that the words "for in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven," are stated as a reason, showing that the principle of analogy the Sadducees adopted was inadmissible. There was no such analogy between the two states as they supposed. Here people married and were given in marriage, but no such thing takes place in the resurrection state, which at once set aside both their principle of analogy, and reasonings from it; and their argument falls at once to the ground. On the contrary, in the resurrection state persons shall "be as the angels of God," or are equal unto the angels, in at least two respects. There shall be no marriage relations in that state; neither can they die any more. By reason of death here the race of men would soon become extinct, hence marriage is necessary. In the resurrection state there are no deaths, and it is unnecessary. And why cannot men die there as well as here? Answer; because there, this mortal hath put on immortality, and death is swallowed up of life. But it is added, "and are the children of God being children of the resurrection." In Scripture men are called children of God in various senses. But many good people affirm with great confidence, that unless men are sons of God in this world by faith in Christ Jesus, they must be miserable forever. Observe here, that our Lord says nothing like this, but affirms "they are the children of God-being the children of the resurrection." If they are raised from the dead by him, they are his children. They are then begotten from the dead, to an immortal, incorruptible life, which their believing here could neither procure nor prevent. They are his children then, in an entire new state and constitution of things, and were given to Christ to be thus raised up by him in the last day. All reasoning from analogy is out of the question in either establishing a claim to it, or excluding from its enjoyment. It will be objected, does not the words-" They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead,” imply, that some shall not be accounted worthy? Answer; if such an inference is drawn, it rests with those who draw it, to show from the passage who the unworthy are with whom the worthy are contrasted. There is in this passage a contrast of persons. Let us see who they are? Notice then, that this aionos, or world, in verse 34, is set in contrast to that aionos, or world, verse 36. Again uio, sons of this world, are set in contrast, with the uio, sons of that world, as is evident from comparing verses 34, 35, 36 together. The sons of this world, is the one side of the contrast, and they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection of the dead, form the other side of the contrast. Those then contrasted with the worthy, are all the sons of this world who married and were given in marriage. But I ask, does marriage in this world exclude persons as unworthy of the resurrection state? This is indeed a new rule of judging people's fitness for heaven, and we may well say how hardly shall a clergyman enter the heavenly world. Few men enter more freely into the marriage relation, or beget more beings exposed to the endless hell torments they preach so much about to others. Allowing all to obtain the resurrection from the dead, what would people have our Lord to have said on this occasion? Must he say they were unworthy of it? In concluding my remarks on these passages, I would merely notice, that if the resurrection takes place at every man's death, both our Lord and the Sadducees speak, as if they had been of a different opinion. The Sadducees speak of it as a future event; thus ; "In the resurrection therefore when they shall rise." So did our Lord, for he says, "for when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage." But would çither of them have spoken in this manner, had they believed that every man is raised at his death? It is easily perceived that this would have entirely altered the shape of the Sadducees' question. Phil. 3: 20, 21, "For our conversation is in heaven; 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, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." Let us here notice, 1st, the change mentioned. It is in "the vile body;" Well, what change is it to undergo? It is to be "fashioned like unto his glorious body;" the body of Christ, as is obvious from the context. "As we have borne the image of the earthy Adam, which is vile, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Adam, which is glorious," 1 Cor. 15: 49. 2d. The power by which this change is to be effected. Christ is to accomplish this, "according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things (tu panta) or the universe to himself." See Mr. Stuart's Letters to Dr. Channing. " All power is given to him in heaven and in earth," Matt. 28: 18. And he "must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet, and the last enemy death is destroyed." 3d. The time when this change is to take place. It is at the time, Paul and others, "looked for the Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven." Well, when was this? In Acts 1: 11, it is said, "this same Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." The first Christians, are represented as looking for Christ's coming at the destruction of Jerusalem. But no mention is made that this was a personal appearance from heaven, that then the dead should be raised, or a change take place in the vile body. It cannot be questioned, that the coming of |