wmmmwm 
 
 sWCwv 
 
 Pllil 
 
 WW"" 
 
 ■ 
 
GIFT OF 
 
HOW ARE THE DEAD RAISED? 
 
 WITH WHAT BODY DO THEY COME? 
 
 An Inquiry into thk Doctrine of thk Kkmureotion op the Dead, 
 as taught in the new testament ; with particular ref- 
 erence to the question op a future exis- 
 TENCE op the Human Body. 
 
 BY JOHN HALL, 
 
 Late Principal of the Ellington School. 
 
 HARTFORD: 
 
 IBIROWILSr & GEOSS. 
 HALL BROTHERS, ELMIRA, N. Y. 
 
 1875. 
 
rr 3 
 
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1875, by 
 
 THE CASE, LOCKWOOD & BRAINARD CO., 
 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The treatise on the " Resurrection of the Dead " in the 
 following pages, was written by the Hon. John Hall, of 
 Islington, Conn., several years before his death, which 
 occurred Oct. 2d, 1847. 
 
 It is published by the surviving children of the author, 
 partly to gratify the numerous requests of scholars and 
 friends who were familiar with the views of the author and 
 his peculiar treatment of the subject, many of whom also 
 had read the original manuscript, but more especially to 
 preserve in more permanent form a memorial of one whom 
 they had great reason to love and revere. 
 
 Ellington, Conn., June, 1875. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Vague conceptions of the heathen about a Resurrection. — The Corinthian 
 objector. — General belief of christians on this subject. — Whence it 
 originated. — Difficulties attending this belief. — The original Greek of 
 the New Testament alone consulted by the author 7 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Meaning of the phrase, Resurrection from the Dead. — Resuscitation of 
 dead bodies. — Resurrection of dead bodies at the time of the crucifix- 
 ion. — Resurrection of Christ's body. — Ascension of Christ. — His trans- 
 figuration 24 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Scriptural doctrine of a Resurrection re-stated. — Our Saviour's conversa- 
 tion with the Sadducees. — Restoration of Lazarus to life. — The penitent 
 Thief.— Translation of Enoch and Elijah — Parable of the Rich Man 
 and Lazarus. — Nature of Parables. — Souls seen by John in his Apoca- 
 lypse. — Symbolical language 49 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 Passages considered in which the word body is expressly named. — Matt. 
 x. 28; Rom. viii. 11 ; Phil. iii. 21. — General views of them all. . 83 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Passages considered in which no express mention is made of the body, but 
 which are generally claimed as proving its resurrection. — John vi. 39, 
 40 ; John v. 28, 29 — Rule for understanding figurative language. — 
 Acts xxiv. 14, 15; I. Thess. iv. 13-18; Rev. xx. 12-15 94 
 
6 C0NTENT8. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Translation of I. Cor. xv. 1 2-57. — Remarks on the first ten of t 
 
 — (>! on. — Sin rendry of Christ's Kingdom to the 
 Father. — Tims tar no mention of bodies. — Notions of Greek philoso- 
 phers about the soul, alluded to by Paul. — Import of the word body, 
 as here used. — The analysis introduced by Paul considered. — Germ 
 in human bod: red. — Variety of organic substances. — Pal- 
 pable mistranslation. — Examination of verses 42-44; of 45-50; of 
 51-57. . . 127 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 talation of results arrived at. — 1 xamination of dob xix. 25, 26, 
 27. — Concluding remarks. 196 
 
 CORRECTIONS. 
 
 Page 107, line 3, for produced, read practiced. 
 M 165, "11. read aadeveia. 
 
 " 169, " 20, " animaleis, read animahs. 
 " 178, note, , read en Aaaev. 
 
 ' 178, " " yo'w, read x°vv- 
 
 u 178, " >(7<pv(T7/(jEv, read heo<pvo?/atv. 
 
RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Vague conceptions of the heathen about a Resurrection. — The Corinthian 
 objector. — General belief of Christians on this subject. — Whence it 
 originated. — Difficulties attending this belief. — The original Greek of 
 the New Testament alone consulted by the author. 
 
 TFHE resurrection of the dead is a subject of the 
 A deepest interest to every individual of the human 
 family. No man, whose mind has not become obtuse 
 through misfortune, or the criminal conceits of an -infi- 
 del philosophy, can be indifferent to the question, 
 whether at death he ceases to be, or continues to live in 
 a new state of existence. In point of fact, most men, 
 in all ages of the world, and in all states of society, 
 whether rude or polished, ignorant or enlightened, have 
 inclined to the belief, that their existence does not 
 terminate with the present life. So faint, however, and 
 bewildered, has that belief been in nations not favored 
 with a divine revelation, that the full announcement of 
 2 
 
fiLIEF. 
 
 the truth on this subject lias ever been received with 
 great astonishment. The heathen believer in the notion 
 that %ometh&*g of man survives him at death, and has 
 a sort of shadoivy existence, not in another, but in some 
 obscure and uncertain region of t lie present world, has 
 
 ived the intelligence, presented by revelation, that 
 the human soul on its leaving the body continues to 
 exist an artive, »ujb$tantud being, endowed with higher 
 and nobler attributes than ever pertained to it in the 
 present life, with a surprise scarcely inferior to that of 
 the skeptic who laughed at every idea of man's immor- 
 tality. 
 
 The question so triumphantly put to Paul by the 
 
 ical philosopher of Corinth,* and designed, perhaps, 
 
 RSa poser to this great preacher of the resurrection, 
 
 " Mow are the dead raised, and with what body do they 
 
 come," was undoubtedly heard with alarm by many a 
 
 • minded disciple, whose hope in the doctrine may 
 
 as yet have exceeded his belief; and who may have 
 
 i that thi which would be returned would 
 
 6 the Apostle's discomfiture, and the unbeliever's 
 triumph. The answer, however, clearly showed to 
 whom the imputation of folly rightly belonged. Many 
 
 •As Corinth was a celebrated Grecian city whew the 4Jieak literature 
 and philosophy universally prevailed, it can learoely be doubted that the 
 I of that plaee are here aimed at 
 
CORINTHIAN OBJECTOR !> 
 
 analogies from nature were adduced by the Apostle which 
 made it evident that his doctrine of the resurrection 
 was neither at war with our knowledge of facts, nor 
 worthy of being treated as an improbable fiction. He 
 seized the opportunity, thus presented, to explain more 
 fully than is elsewhere taught in the Sacred Scriptures, 
 that the soul of man, after the death of the body, is 
 really and properly a substantial being, in opposition to 
 the idle notion so prevalent among the heathen, that it 
 is only a shadow, destitute of any real substantiality.* 
 
 * Those among the ancient Greeks and lioinans who believed that the 
 SOnl survives after death, did not consider it a substantial thing, but 
 something shadowy — the image, as it were, of the man to whom it apper- 
 tained, reflected into another world, or, rather, into some interior recess 
 of the present. Hence the former gave to departed souls the name of 
 tnucu, and the latter that of umbra* — shades. These ancients do not ap- 
 pear to have had any conception — ecrtainly no adequate conception — of 
 substantiality independent of matter. Even their Gods were mere intel- 
 lectual animals, (and wine ol ' th< m hardly that,) possessed of superhuman 
 power, and endowed with ability to Bake themselves visible, or invisible 
 to nun, at their pleasure; in other respects they differed little from men 
 except, as a general thing, in the greater obliquity of their moral charac- 
 ter-. Of pure, mfefftiwfiil/ spirits they seem to have been profoundly 
 ignorant, as are all the heathen at the present day. It is a remarkable 
 fact that nations, at this very time, whom the light of revelation has never 
 reached, believe the departed soul to be only a shadow, and actually give 
 it that name. Such, I was once assured by a native Sandwich Islander, 
 was the universal opinion of his countrymen before they received the 
 gospel ; and such, I have been informed by an intelligent missionary in 
 Asia, is the universal opinion, so far as he could learn, among all the 
 grades of heathen in that quarter of the world. Our ancestors, too, were 
 heathen ; and, like all others, they probably believed the departed soul to 
 
10 <"i;iVNii.\\ OBJXCTOB. 
 
 At tin 4 same time, he guards his Corinthian converts 
 
 list considering the soul as either being, or inhabit- 
 
 //' rurfj organic substance ; or as retaining 
 
 anything in common with the animal body from which 
 
 it has once been separated. "A spiritual body is 
 
 1." That is, a spiritual substance is raised; in 
 
 ! how v.i riant from BUCh a notion is the current belief of 
 multitudes in tin's country at this hour, in specters and Apparitions I How 
 variant from all this, let me further ask, is the general belief of enlight- 
 
 D the United States, with regard to the human soul from 
 the time of ita tearing the body, to the general judgment? Unless I 
 
 r\ few, indeed, consider a human soul, during that 
 nv real substantiality belonging to it, more than a 
 shadow has. It il p] 'i a notion, I apprehend, that Paul at- 
 
 temptl cr and overthrow, when he introduces the Corinthian 
 
 caviller inquiring "how are the dead raised, and with what body do they 
 come 1 " 
 
 Should it be said that the term shadow, as used in relation to this sub- 
 n of ancient and modern times, is used only in a metar 
 phorical sense, joil /"/. amma and oatnuu hav< 
 
 employed, let it be so conceded. It must, however, be remembered, that 
 when men. in oi.ler to express spiritual things, borrow words which were 
 illy appropriated to other objects, they seek from among the latter 
 such as. in their own view at least, have the strongest analogy to the 
 former. When, t tie heathen select the name of a thing so im- 
 
 palpable and unsubstantial as a shadoiv,for the purpose of denoting that 
 which survives a man after death, we are bound to believe that their 
 doing ia to expreaa their ideas of the analogy which ezitti 
 D the two, in regard to their respective impalpablt and umtubttan- 
 tin! natures. It is altogether incredible that they would give the name of 
 dow, to what they consider a substantial organism. Though 
 they have felt themselves constrained to admit the immortality of man in 
 some uncertain sense, they seem to have formed no conception of any 
 • and substantial structure which survives the dissolution of his 
 body. 
 
CORINTHIAN OBJECTOR. 11 
 
 other words, it is raised in spirit, which is as truly a 
 substance, as a human, or any other material body, is a 
 substance. It is raised, too, an organized spirit, with 
 organs adapted to its wants, and the higher and nobler 
 ends for which it is thenceforth to live and act.* 
 
 Attenuated and subtil as air, or Wind, <>r breath, may be, it is never- 
 theless something which is palpable, and substantial; whereas, a shadow 
 is neither one nor the other. The term spirit, therefore, ( 
 conveys to our minds something very different from that which Is con- 
 veyed to them l»y the term shadow, (<ntta, umbra) ; and when the heathen 
 use the latter term in preference to the former, there tan be little question 
 that they fully intend to recognize this peculiar distinction in the mean- 
 in- of tin' two terms. 
 
 *The opinions of mankind at lar«je with regard to spirits, and especially 
 with regard to the human soul after its detachment from its materia] 
 body, are so loose and indefinite, it - tarj to make a few re- 
 
 marks in relation to them, in order to goard that new of the resurrection 
 which is contained in the following pages from misconception. This is 
 not the place to enter on a full investigation of the nature and constitution 
 of spirits ; such an investigation belongs to a science which is yet in its in- 
 fancy, in .spite of all that has been Slid or written in regard to it for four 
 thousand vears. What will now follow will, it is hoped, prove .sufficient 
 to secure a more impartial attention to such an examination of the Scrip- 
 tures as is contemplated in the present work, and help to tix the charge 
 of being visionary on those to whom it most properly appertains. 
 
 I remark, then, that a spirit, as represented to us in the Bible, i- a 
 living, thinking, intelligent being; but one which is not directly per- 
 ceptible by any of our bodily senses. The Bible, surely, does not intro- 
 duce to our notice spirits of any grade or character which are not !>■ 
 and which do not Live, and think, and possess intelligence. Is this true, 
 or is it not? I pause for an answer ; — and having paused, I shall take it 
 for granted that none but an affirmative one can be given. Nor does the 
 Bible teach us that spirit- are perceptible by any one of our bodily organs 
 of sensation, but it more than intimates the contrary ; and such, t< o, is 
 our own experience ; for who has ever seen, or heard, or touc/ud, or 
 
 2* 
 
12 i BELIEF 01 rilKlSTI.WS. WD its ORIGIN, 
 
 What effect the Apostle's account of the resurrection 
 had upon the faith of those early converts to whom he 
 \vr<»te, and on Christians generally in the primitive 
 churches, we cannot now tell. What construction they 
 put upon his language — whether they took the " spirit- 
 ual body," of which he speaks, to be the old material 
 
 '/, or tasted a spirit? Spirits have, indeed, been manifested to men ; 
 but tlii- manifestation has been effected by a superhuman agency, and by 
 an illusion practised on some of the senses, and not by any direct powers 
 of those organs on which the agency was exerted. This is another truth 
 which I must tai eded. 
 
 But ipiritf are also substantial beings, <>r they are nothing but mere 
 chimeras. Life, the power of thinking, intelligei activity, and 
 
 many other things, are so many attributes, or properties, which they pos- 
 sess. Bat attributes and properties do not exist without something to 
 which they belong, and on which they depend for their existence and de- 
 velopment Whenever lift ia correctly predicated of aught, there is 
 something which lives ; when the power of thinking is bo predicated, there 
 is something which thinks, or is capable of thinking; when intelligence 
 :!i3re is some'hing which is intelligent ; and when action 
 of any kind is so predicated, there is something which acts. Now, what is 
 that something which in all these cases is implied ! I reply, it is a something 
 to which mankind, by common consent, give the nameof substance; nor can 
 a definition Q e be given which will not embrace in it that thing 
 
 which the Bible calls a Spirit ; and no definition of a mere property can be 
 jjfiven without excluding it. Evervse&stoJicepoisesses properties of some 
 kind or other; and every property is entirely dependent on something 
 to which it belongs. But we have seen that spirits possess properties of 
 no small magnitude and extent; and that these properties depend on 
 them for their existence, is certain. What, then, forbids our calling spirits 
 substances, or substantial beings? But this is not all. These spirits are 
 organic substances; for a substance cannot live without organs of life; 
 nor think, without organs by which thinking is performed; nor be intel- 
 ligent, without organs of perceiving; nor be active, without organs for 
 acting. 
 
GENERAL BKLIKF OF CHRISTIANS, AND ITS ORIGIN. 13 
 
 and animal body, or some part of it, revived and con- 
 verted into a spirit ; — whether they considered it the old 
 body re-snscitated and new modeled, so as to make it a 
 fit habitation for the soul ; — or what sort of a tiling they 
 believed it to be, and what sort of thing they continued 
 to consider the soul itself — whether a shadow, or a 
 substance — we do not know. We better know how this, 
 
 If a person, therefore, should deny that the Scriptures teach the resur- 
 rection of that organic material nasi 1 Inch we denominate I human body, 
 it would not follow, of course, tliat he denies the resurrection of an 
 organic structure, which may be not only equal, hut immensely superior, 
 to the former. So far, indeed, are the Scriptures from denying the 
 resurrection of an organic and substantial structure, this, I conceive, is 
 
 the very thing which they do teach. Paul, as I conceive, uses the phrase 
 "spiritual body," in the sense of an organic substance or structure ; and 
 he affirms that such a kind of " bo lv " i< raised, although he denies the 
 re s u r rec t ion of the one that dies, or, as he terms it, that " is sown." As 
 there is such a thing as an organised WUUerial mass which constitutes a 
 human hody, and dies, SO, according to him, there i< such a thing as an 
 organised spiritual mass, which he denominates a "spiritual body," and 
 which, he says, " is raised up," and lives for ever. This will more fully 
 appear when I come to consider the fifteenth chapter of his tirst Epistle to 
 the Corinthians. — It must now be obvious that if any one, from analogy, 
 or from the example of Paul, chooses to call that organic structure 
 or substance which a man possesses in the resurrecti »n a spiritual body, 
 or, simply, a body, with him I have no controversy. But if any 
 one asserts that the same material body which undergoes death and 
 dissolution will be raised to life again, and be re-modeled in any manner 
 whatever, such an assertion will be freely examined in the following pages. 
 I do not consider the soul of man, when separated from its material body, 
 an empty shadow — the reflected image of organized matter — a thing ex- 
 isting in name more than in reality — but a truly substantial and organic 
 being, relieved from a cumbrous load of impediments, rather than stripped 
 of all that gave it value and dignity. 
 
I I DIFFIi i i.i n> a 1 hi- iu.i Q 
 
 and other scriptural accounts of the resurrection, have 
 - n>t iucmI in modern tine 
 It seems to have been the universal opinion of the e 
 fin and western churches of the Roman Empire that, in 
 the resurrection, the very same body which dies and re- 
 tains to dust is restored to life, re-modeled, and converted 
 into a new habitation for the soul. No matter how com- 
 pletely disintegrated the body may have been; no matter 
 how widely its parts may have been separated; no mi 
 into what lew combinations its particles may have 
 passed, been again decomposed, and re-combined, from 
 the death of Abel until now: all these particles will he 
 
 •lied out, dtangled from all their perplexing 
 
 . be reunited and re-formed into the identi- 
 
 eal body from which the soul was separated at death, 
 
 and will then be re-Organized, and i v-lashioned into a 
 
 new body which will not, perhaps, be exactly a spirit, but 
 
 rthing so very like one that it will answer very well 
 to call it I! If it was objected that some diffi- 
 
 culties seemed to attend the doctrine in this shape — 
 that the re-gathering ami re-uniting of all the particles 
 of matter in all the human bodies which will have ex- 
 isted from the beginning to the end of the world, into 
 the several identical bodies which they once constituted, 
 involved apparent impossibilities, on account of the end- 
 
DIFFICULTIES ATTENDING THIS BELIKF. 15 
 
 less complexity of new combinations into which these 
 particles must have entered, the objection was at once 
 overruled by the intimation that we must not presume 
 to set limits to the power of God. 
 
 It seemed never to occur to the believers in a resurrec- 
 tion of the same body, that two difficulties attended their 
 argument drawn from the divine omnipotence. One was, 
 they had not first proved that God always does what he has 
 power to do. We have no evidence, for example, that 
 God ever raised up children to Abraham "from the 
 stones of the street," though we have it from the highest 
 authority that he could do it. Barely his possession of 
 power, therefore, to restore to life all the bodies which 
 will ever have died, is no evidence that he will actually 
 raise them. The other difficulty was, the objectors failed 
 to show that omnipotence involves the power of doing 
 things which are incompatible with each other, are con- 
 tradictory, or absurd ; and to make out that such a resur- 
 rection as they contended for is not, in reality, one or 
 all of these. Who will affirm it to be within the power 
 of omnipotence itself to make a square circle, to make 
 two and two equal to five, or to make good evil, and evil 
 good ? Who will affirm it to be within the achievment 
 of omnipotence itself to construct, out of any given 
 quantity of materials, ten bodies ; then to take these 
 
1 8 bitnoi ii ns \ti l'AMv, i ins belh 
 
 ten bbdle cs, and with fheee pieces to const met 
 
 ten other bodies either similar to the first ten, or differ- 
 ent from them; and then to take these latter to pieces, 
 and with these pieces to lv-cnnM rud the whole twenty, 
 BO that each body, when re-constructed, shall he pre- 
 cisely what it was at first? Such a process as this, 
 however, is involved in the doctrine of a resurrection o£ 
 th« same body ; and he who denied it was accounted a 
 heretic by the doctors of the ancient church, and worthy 
 of her tnafhemafl for refusing to assent to a doctrine so 
 clearly rctfeofat, and so worthy of Ins faith! 
 
 Among the early reformers it was not deemed neces- 
 sary, or expedien all the tenets of the 
 mother church ; the most glaring errors, and those 
 
 which led, by their in tendency, to a life of un- 
 
 godlin 1 for exposure, and for reprobation. 
 
 It was even the wish of those fathers of the Protestant 
 Church to avoid, as much as possible, all dissent from 
 I >mi>h Church, and to retain without hesitation 08 
 many of her dogmas as did not appear incompatible 
 with a holy life ; and every attempt to go beyond the 
 points of cont which severed the early reformers 
 
 from her eonimunion was frowned upon as over daring. 
 Most points of speculative theology remained, therefore, 
 untouched ; and having once thrown off the supremacy 
 
DIFFICULTIES ATTENDING THIS BELIEF. 17 
 
 of the Pope, men continued to believe in those exposi- 
 tions of divine truth which the scholastic fathers had 
 given in accordance with those rules of interpretation 
 which tradition sanctioned or their philosophy suggest- 
 ed. Among other opinions which our protestant fathers 
 derived from their predecessors in the church, and re- 
 tained, apparently, without subjecting them to a thorough 
 revision, is that relating to the resurrection. The 
 Romish Church taught the resurrection of the same 
 material body which dies. To this hour, the same doc- 
 trine is taught and believed by nearly the whole mass of 
 Protestant Christians, of every denomination, through 
 the world. We discover it in their customary language 
 on the subject, whether found in their conversation, or 
 in their books. The minister of the gospel publishes it 
 from the pulpit, and from the grave-yard. As he stands 
 by the open grave which is soon to close over the life- 
 less remains of some fellow mortal, he assures the by- 
 standers that the body which they are now committing 
 to the earth will be awaked from its long sleep, in the 
 morning of the resurrection, and will come forth from 
 its gloomy abode. If the deceased had led a chris- 
 tian life, the surrounding friends are consoled with the 
 assurance that this same body which they now deposit 
 in the grave, will, at the last day, be raised up a glori- 
 
18 DIFFICl'l : His HKI.IEF. 
 
 ous body, remodeled, and fitted for the residence of the 
 
 ted spirit, and for a life of happiness in the world 
 to come. In the condoling sympathy of friends, how 
 often are mourners reminded that the dust on which 
 they once doted with so much affection will rise again 
 to Life, and to beauty. In short, the resurrection of the 
 same body is so interwoven with all the reflections of 
 men on this subject, from childhood to old age, that it 
 is almost impossible to Beyer the connection, even if they 
 convinced by arguments drawn from Scripture that 
 their belief has been rrroneous. Taught from their 
 childhood to believe that the very bodies which they now 
 Cherish with so much fondness will rise and live again 
 in spite of the destroyer death, and the dissolution of 
 all their elementary particles, the greal majority of men 
 
 the teacher of any other doctrine as scarcely better 
 than a Saddueee, or a presumptuous innovator in matters 
 of religion. They cling to the gross conceptions which 
 they have formed of the human soul in another state, 
 as though the relinquishment of them would be destruc- 
 
 of all their hopes of a life to come. There are 
 some, indeed, who are convinced that the resurrection 
 of a body, i ntirely the same as the one that dies, is not 
 
 ht in the Bible, and is opposed to the common dic- 
 tates of the human understanding. They will not hesi- 
 
DIFFICULTIES ATTENDING TUTS BELIEF. 19 
 
 tates to believe, and to say, that the same body is raised, 
 but will not venture to say that it is the same entirely ! 
 When carefully questioned, they shrink from such an 
 affirmance as the latter, but still maintain that the body 
 which dies is to be raised so as to be somehow, though 
 not exactly, the same as before. It is, at all events,' to 
 be the same, though peradventure not quite the same ! 
 Some relax still farther and admit that the same body 
 which dies will not be raised ; but they hold that the 
 human body contains within itself a certain something 
 which is not destroyed at death, and which becomes the 
 germ or nucleus of that body which is to be hereafter. 
 Therefore they say, it is proper to affirm the resurrec- 
 tion of the body, though not of the same body ? Pro- 
 fessing to follow the example of Paul, they take a kernel 
 of grain as illustrative of their views on this point. 
 As the germ which such a kernel contains, does not 
 perish in the ground with the general mass, but sprouts 
 and produces a stalk, so there is a latent germ in the 
 human body which after death springs up into a spir- 
 itual body. What that material germ is which neither 
 death, nor putrefaction, nor combustion, nor the diges- 
 tive powers of other animals and of vegetables, nor all 
 of these combined, and repeated for thousands of years, 
 can destroy, or even deprive of vitality, we may well 
 2 
 
20 DIFFICULTIES ATTENDING Tills BKI.li 
 
 feel ourselves unable to conjecture. In vain do we re- 
 BOll to the vital principle contained in the seeds of 
 vegetables for analogies to help us. for all analogies here 
 fail. No seed could be thus disintegrated in the ten 
 thousandth degree, not only without losing its vitality, 
 hut without destruction. No Buch analogy as is here 
 claimed does in fact exist; because no vegetable seed 
 whatever, after undergoing such a destructive process, 
 
 did, or could, spring up and vegetate. What 
 should we think of a man who would affirm that the 
 kernels of wheat which have been triturated in a mill, 
 formed into dough, fermented, baked in an oven, and 
 then eaten, do nevertheless retain their vital power, and 
 are still capable of vegetating in the soil, and producing 
 future plants? But all this ought to be a matter of 
 fact in order to make out the analogy which is claimed 
 between a kernel of wheat sown in the ground, and the 
 resurrection of the same h<>dy. [n these remarks, how- 
 ever, I am anticipating what belongs more properly to 
 an examination of the passage itself, in which the 
 Apostle is supposed to adduce the analogy here in 
 
 ion. and which will he particularly noticed in a 
 succeeding part of this work. It is sufficient merely to 
 add, thai the conceptions of mankind at large on this 
 interesting topic are extremely vague, dark, and un- 
 
OBIOINAX GREEK CONSULTED. 21 
 
 satisfactory. They are such as are ill adapted to admin- 
 ister consolation to a reflecting mind; and instead of 
 helping to bring " life and immortality to light." they 
 serve only to darken a theme which the gospel has aimed 
 to irradiate. 
 
 Human philosophy, we should all remember, has taught 
 us nothing on the subject of a resurrection. All that 
 we know in relation to it we have learned from divine 
 revelation alone. Hence it becomes highly important 
 that we receive this revelation just as it is, and endeavor 
 to ascertain with precision what is there taught us. 
 Whatever we find to be there clearly taught, we ought 
 to believe, and accept with thankfulness ; what is not 
 taught we are bound to reject. We should remember, 
 too, that we cannot obliterate or vary any fact in relation 
 to it, by speculations of our own. Here is no place for 
 conceits, nor for pre-conceptions. It is the truth which 
 will benefit ourselves, and confer honor on Him, so far 
 as men can do it, who has condescended to raise a por- 
 tion of that veil which separates the present from the 
 future world, that we may catch some glimpses of the 
 latter, and better understand the destiny that awaits us. 
 All who may read the following pages are desired to 
 examine the different passages of Scripture which will 
 be considered, as though they were now presented for 
 
Kl>. 
 
 the first time; as though themselves had never before 
 heard of a resurrection of tlie dead, and were now for 
 the first time called upon to interpret what is there 
 
 <»n tlii- In no other way ran they so 
 
 effectually guard themselves against prejudice, and mis- 
 conception : and in no other way can they so well learn 
 how much, in relation to this sul.ject. they have taken 
 upon trust, and how much they have derived from the 
 proper source ; in other words, how much of their faith 
 has rested on human tradition, and how much on divine 
 
 authority. 
 
 My own views of the resurrection I have derived, or 
 have endeavored to derive, from the New Testament 3 
 
 and it is that pari of the inspired volume which I shall 
 now particularly examine. These views have, further- 
 more, been formed from a careful attention to the origi- 
 nal Greek, rather than from our common English 
 on. Nothing is more evident to my own mind 
 than that the translators have often mistaken the true 
 meaning of the Greek, and rendered passages as they 
 would not have done, had they been free from all bias 
 towards pre-conceived opinions. ( )f the various passages 
 quoted in this work a new translation will be given, so as 
 to convey with more exactness, the meaning of the 
 original language. For the fidelity of this new render- 
 
ORIGINAL GREEK CONSULTED. 23 
 
 ing I must, of course, appeal to those who are acquainted 
 with Greek ; and I am confident that they will agree 
 unanimously that the new rendering is, at least, more 
 literal, more idiomatical, and more exact than the com- 
 mon version. — If this be conceded, it will follow that 
 those who are unacquainted with the Greek language, 
 can better learn the true doctrine of the resurrection 
 from the versions given in the following pages, than 
 from the one in general use. It may be further remark- 
 ed, that no alteration lias been made in any instance, 
 for the mere sake of altering, but for the simple purpose 
 of more truly expressing the sense of the original.* 
 
 * In the translations which follow, it will be seen that I have cited no 
 authorities for departing, in particular instances, from the common reran n. 
 and entered into no specious criticisms on the original text in order to 
 make out the meaning, which ie giren. I have wished to give no mean- 
 ing to a single word which, taken in its connection, any reader, tolerably 
 Acquainted with the Greek of the New Testament, would not easily see to 
 be correct. An occasional note is subjoined as explanatory of a word or 
 phrase, or as a hint to be pursued, or not, as the inclination of the reader 
 may lead him. To have taken any other course, would have incumbered 
 the subject with a great deal of dry, and perplexing matter, without vary- 
 ing in the least, the doctrine in question, or any man's belief of it. I have 
 given what has seemed to me the true sense of the passages translated ; 
 hut if "any man shall seem to be contentious," I shall not question his 
 right to dissent, provided he will do it righteously. Let him "prove all 
 things, and hold fast that which is true." 
 
C II A I'T K R II. 
 
 ..in the Dead — BatmefUtioa of 
 dead bodies.— Resurrection of dead bodies at the time of the Crucifix- 
 loll of Christ's body.— Ascension of Christ.— His 
 figure 
 
 THK phrase, '-resurrection of the dead, or from the 
 dead.'' us used in the New Testament, has evidently 
 two meanings, or a reference to two separate facts : and 
 distinction Bhonld be always kept in mind in mir 
 interpretation of those passages which allude to that 
 event. First, and as it more generally occurs, the phrase 
 is used to denote the fact that men, after t he death of 
 their bodies, continue still to live in anothi >fex- 
 
 istenoe 9 in full possession of their intellectual and moral 
 powers. — Secondly. The phrase is sometimes used to 
 be the general fact, that all who die will at some 
 future period reap be congregated together, for 
 
 a public and final adjudication according to their respec- 
 tive characters, and for the consummation of such other 
 purposes and plans as God, their Ruler, Redeemer, and 
 .hidge may have to accomplish. 
 
 In the original Oreek, two different words are em- 
 
MKAMN". 01 RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD. 25 
 
 ployed by the sacred writers to denote a resurrection of 
 the dead. One of these is 'tyepmc^ the other, uraaramr. 
 The first is derived from its cognate verb 'tyeipio which 
 signifies, to awaken, arouse, stir up, lift up, raise up ; — 
 the other is derived from its cognate verbaW<m//«, which 
 signifies, in an active sense, to raise up from a sitting or 
 fallen posture ; to raise up from the ground ; to rouse 
 up; or, in a neuter sense, to rise up, rise again, to stand 
 up. When the resurrection of the dead is spoken of in 
 the sense of a continued existence after death, we are 
 taught, that although nun may sleep in death, they are 
 again awakened in another world ; though they may 
 fall in death, they are made to rise again in another 
 state ; that they neither continue to sleep, nor continue 
 to be fallen, nor cease to e&Ut, but continue to l>e living, 
 wakeful, active beings, in the abode of departed spirits. 
 When the resurrection refers to a reappearing of those 
 who die, for a public and final adjudication, the mean- 
 ing is, that those who sleep, or fall in death, will again 
 appear, again stand up, for that particular purpose. 
 Whether the resurrection spoken of in a particular pass- 
 age refers to one or the other of these two senses, must 
 be determined by its connection with the context. 
 
 The resuscitation of the dead bodies of particular indi- 
 viduals is also termed, in the sacred Scriptures, a resur- 
 
26 RESl DEAD BOIHI> 
 
 rection of them. Tims Elijah is said to have raised, 
 or restored to life, the son of the widow of Zarephath ; 
 Klisha. t lie Shunammite's son; Christ, t lie widow's BOO 
 at Nain. Lazarus, and others. So Peter restored Dorcas 
 to life; and Paul, Tyohichus. These various resurrec- 
 difler, in one important particular, from those re- 
 coveries from suspended animation which sometimes 
 come to our knowledge. In the former, death was real; 
 the vital principle, so far as the bodies were concerned, 
 had l actually extinct ; — in the .latter, there is 
 
 only apparent death : — vitality is not destroyed, but sus- 
 led. In other respects, except the peculiar means 
 employed to effect the object, the two classes of restora- 
 tion to life seem to be coincident. — In all these instances, 
 the individuals restored to life died again, returned to 
 corruption, and were made partakers in the general 
 resurrection which awaits the rest of mankind. 
 
 The resurrection of dead bodies is mentioned in one 
 passage which, for its peculiarity, merits an examination. 
 The passage alluded to is in the -7th chapter of Matthew, 
 and is as follows : — " And, behold, the veil of the temple 
 was rent in two, from top to bottom : and the earth was 
 shaken, and the rocks were rent, and the tombs were 
 opened : and many bodies of saints who slept were 
 raised, and, having come out of their tombs, after his 
 
AT THE TIME OF THE CRUCIFIXION. 27 
 
 resurrection, entered into the holy city, and were ex- 
 hibited to many." In the Greek there is an ambiguity 
 with respect to one point, which the literal and exact 
 translation here given preserves, but which does not ap- 
 pear in our common version. It is expressly affirmed 
 that the tombs were opened, and that certain bodies 
 which they contained were raised. Now if we connect 
 the words " alter his resurrection," with the preceding 
 ones, " having come out of their tombs," the meaning 
 is, that the tombs were opened, and the bodies were 
 raised, at the time of our Saviour's expiring on the 
 cross ; but that these bodies, though raised, continued 
 still in their tombs till after his resurrection, when they 
 came forth, and were exhibited to the view of many. 
 If we connect, " after his resurrection," with the sue 
 ceeding words, u entered into the holy city," the mean- 
 ing is, that the tombs were opened, the bodies were 
 raised, and came out ; and that after our Saviour's 
 resurrection, they entered into Jerusalem, and were 
 made known to sundry of its inhabitants. Which of 
 these two meanings is most probable, I submit to the 
 judgment of others. Our common version, however, 
 has no such ambiguity, but gives us to understand that 
 these bodies, after having been raised at the time men- 
 tioned, continued still in their graves, (not tombs, as it 
 
I ii<>\ Of DEAD r.nniES 
 
 should be,) until Christ arose more than two days after- 
 ward, when they entered into the holy city, and appeared 
 to many. To me it seems probable that these risen 
 "saints" passed the time which intervened between 
 their own resurrection, ami that of their Lord's, in some 
 <»ther place rather than in those sepulchral abodes of 
 the dead. Where that place was, or in how many differ- 
 ent places they were, and whether they made themselves 
 known to any before the resurrection of Christ, we are 
 not told, and it is useless to conjecture. And here I 
 Cannot forbear mentioning a surmise which has risen in 
 my own mind, (although I do it with diffidence,) that 
 an error of two letters only may have crept into the origi- 
 nal text If this should prove to be the Tact, not only 
 would the ambiguity alluded to be removed, but the 
 passage would then refer exclusively to the resurrection 
 of these $aifU$ f as, I apprehend, ninety-nine persons out 
 of a hand a now actually suppose it to do; because 
 
 there is nothing in the passage itself, or connected with 
 it, which leads them to expect any allusion to the resur- 
 rection of our Saviour: while their attention, once 
 fastened on the resurrection of these " saints," naturally 
 continues so to the close. Now if in the phrase, pera rt)v 
 'iytpoiy aura, we read uvtwv instead of avrQ, the passage 
 under consideration would stand thus : — "And having 
 
AT THE TIME OF THE CRUCIFIXION. 29 
 
 come out of their tombs after their resurrection, they 
 entered into the holy city, and were exhibited to many." 
 Inasmuch as the inspired writer was speaking of certain 
 saints, and had already mentioned the fact that they had 
 risen, it would be natural to suppose, without strong 
 reasons to the contrary, that when he used the noun 
 resurrection a few words afterwards in the same sen- 
 tence, he would refer to the fact already expressed by 
 the preceding verb, and not to another of which no notice 
 had been given. Furthermore the word translated his y 
 in the Greek, is a relative pronoun, and so is the one 
 translated their. If we retain the former, we must 
 look back, for its antecedent, to the beginning of the 
 51st verse, with a series of new and striking subjects 
 intervening ; bat if we adopt the latter, the antecedent, 
 to wit, the individuals raised from the dead, will be the 
 last subject of discourse ; the several parts of the sen- 
 tence will succeed each other naturally ; and the proper 
 unity will be maintained. — I do not pretend that the in- 
 ternal evidence here presented is sufficient to set aside 
 the common reading; but it certainly affords no small 
 argument for examining authoritative copies of the New 
 Testament in relation to the point here presented. 
 
 Whatever may be the result of the suggestion which 
 has now been made, it seems to myself quite apparent 
 
\ OF DEAD BODIES 
 
 that there is no occasion for mistaking the kind of res- 
 urrection of which the Evangelist makes mention in the 
 passage before us. He speaks only of the resuscitation 
 of certain persons who had died, and been deposited in 
 tombs* near Jerusalem. Their dead bodies were raised 
 to life; and these same bodies reanimated, (not the 
 <ms of men, nor their old bodies re-modeled 
 into new ones,) went into the holy city, and were recog- 
 nized by sundry of their former acquaintances. I say 
 former acquaintances, for such would be the best 
 vouchers for the reality of the miracle, inasmuch as they 
 knew the individuals when living, knew the fact of their 
 death and burial, and, when they afterwards saw them 
 alive, could not be mistaken with regard to their actual 
 itation. Here was no room for imposition. Had 
 they appeared to strangers only, i\ might have been said 
 by cavilers that the whole affair was an imposture; 
 that there was no evidence that those who exhibited 
 themselves as persons raised from the dead had ever 
 
 : and as to the opening of the tombs, that had been 
 done by the earthquake; and if certain bodies disap- 
 
 ed, that was the work of the officious disciples who 
 were concerned in contriving this miracle of a resurrec- 
 tion. How ready the Jews would have been to cavil in 
 
 ♦Not in graves, as in our common version. The word in Greek is 
 ftvtffietov J ami I cannot find that it ever means what we call a grave. 
 
AT THE TIME OF THE CRUCIFIXION. 31 
 
 this manner, had there been an opportunity, we learn 
 from the story of those who solicited Pilate to fix a seal 
 on the tomb which contained the body of Jesus, and to 
 guard it with a band of soldiers, lest these same disciples 
 of his should clandestinely carry off the body, and then 
 affirm that he had risen from the dead. I admit, how- 
 ever, that we are not expressly told that the bodies 
 raised on this occasion had recently died, nor that they 
 appeared to persons by whom they were known before 
 their death. I have stated what seems most probable. 
 On the other hand, it should be remembered that we are 
 not told the contrary ; — we are, therefore, Warranted to 
 adopt such a conclusion as seems most consonant to the 
 nature of things. There is no reason, so far as I can 
 discover, why we should suppose these bodies to have 
 been long dead ; and there is much to induce us to be- 
 lieve that they had died recently, and were well known 
 to many survivors. There is no evidence that any of 
 these bodies had even " seen corruption ; " and, in the 
 absence of all such evidence, it is not presuming very 
 much if we suppose (hat they had not. — Thus far, then, 
 we have nothing to require our considering the resurrec- 
 tion here treated of, as anything more than a simple 
 restoration to life, like that of Lazarus, of the widow's 
 son at Nain, of Dorcas, or of others ; all of whom died 
 
 3 
 
TI0N OF DEAD BO] 
 
 :i. whose bodies returned to corruption, and whose 
 spirits were m »ject to the same resurrection as 
 
 those of <»ther men. 
 But whether the* -aims had been dead a long, 
 
 short time; were known, or unknown, to any then 
 living in Jerusalem, there is our argument which con- 
 dusively shows thai their restoration to life was not 
 permanent, and. of course, was not the same with that 
 which, according to the Sacred Scriptures, await- all the 
 dead. Chri8t, when risen from the dead and ascended 
 into l we are assured, became the " fust fruits of 
 
 those who have been pul to Bleep, ,H " the beginning, and 
 t lie first begotten from the dead ;"f and wa> " first from 
 the re ion of the dead. "J It will not be denied 
 
 that all these expressions relate to a resurrection which 
 is permanent, and complete in every sense of the term. 
 a a> t he first who arose from the dead in 
 that sense, then none so rose beforr him. The saints, 
 however, mentioned in Matthew 27, were raised, whether 
 they left their tombs or not, before h arose from the 
 Their resurrection, therefore, must have been 
 different in kind from lus, which was the beginning, 
 the prefiguration, and the pledge, of that which is final 
 and complete in him. He would not be the " first fruits," 
 
 * I. Cor . Greek. tColoss. i: 18, and Bev. i: 5. Gr. 
 
 } Acts xxvi: 23. Gr. 
 
UKSl'RRECTION OF CHRIST'S BODY. 33 
 
 " the first begotten from the dead," were his resurrec- 
 tion and theirs the same in kind. The question, then, 
 on this point seems to be completely settled ; and those 
 who are accustomed to refer to this passage in Matthew, 
 for proof that the bodies of men will be raised up at the 
 last <lay, must support their views by other evidence 
 than is here furnished. The -truth is, this passege has 
 no reference whatever to the doctrine of the general 
 resurrection. It is introduced for a totally different 
 purpose ; and had the doctrine of resurrection been 
 mentioned no where else in the Bible, we might have 
 been to this very hour, in all the darkness of paganism 
 on this momentous subject.* 
 
 As the body of our Saviour was raised to life after his 
 crucifixion, this is considered by very many persons as 
 conclusive evidence that the bodies of men are to be 
 raised again in the general resurrection. As the raising 
 of the body of Christ is so interwoven with all the ideas 
 which most men have formed of the general resurrec- 
 tion, I have considered it advisable to take up this par- 
 ticular subject before I proceed further. 
 
 The resurrection of Christ is repeatedly referred to, 
 
 * I have been more particular in remaking on this passage than I should 
 have been, were it not so often, and with apparent triumph, quoted for 
 proof that the same body which dies is to be raised again. A careful re- 
 view of the passage, in all its bearings, may be useful to those who have 
 been accustomed to view and quote it in that manner. 
 
in the New Testament, as a type and a pledge of the 
 resurrection of men ; bu1 in no instance, so far as I ran 
 >ver, is the resurrection of his body, merely, made 
 such a type, or pledge; much less is the resurrection 
 of his body ever mentioned as a proof, pledge, pr indi- 
 
 n in any way. thai the bodiei of men will ever be 
 
 I. We are taught in various passages, and in 
 
 somewhat various lorn a, that as Christ 
 
 died and rose again, so also will all who believe in him 
 he raised from the dead ;' and that as all men, by the 
 instrumentality of Adam, die, so all men, by the instru- 
 mentality of Christ, will he made alive. f Hut no where 
 do I find that mention is made of any connection be- 
 tween the resurrection of Christ's body,&m\ the bodies 
 lievers, or of men at large. It is not the body 
 which constitutes the man} it is that Living, thinking, 
 intelligent thing within him, which we call the soul; 
 and the immortality which the gospel brings to light, 
 is the fact 1 1 lilt this thinking, intelligent part, does not 
 die when the turns to its dust, but continues to 
 
 live, and to exercise the powers of an intellectual being. 
 
 resurrection of a man, the is not, necessarily, 
 
 the resurrection of his body; the latter may, indeed, he 
 
 •Boa. yi. 5; ELOor.ir.14j Rom.xir.9; L The*. ▼. 10; Colour Hi. 
 I : John iii 14, 15, 10— xi. 15, 16 ; I. Cor. xv. 45-50. 
 tl. Cor. xv. 20, 21, 22; 45. 
 
RESURRECTION OF CHRIST'S BODY. 35 
 
 resuscitated after its real, or apparent death, as we 
 know that, in some few cases, it has been ; but when- 
 ever the Scriptures advert to such a fact, and intend 
 that we shall so understand them, they always, I ap- 
 prehend, either mention the body in express terms, or 
 their meaning is sufficiently clear without such a speci- 
 fication. When a person was restored to life in the 
 in i< 1st of his acquaintances, and appeared afterward as 
 he always had before, as was the case with Lazarus, 
 Dorcas, and others, this particularity of speecli was un- 
 necessary ; but when the resurrection of men after the 
 final death of their bodies is treated of, it does become 
 necessary to mention particularly that their bodies will 
 be raised, if it is intended to assert such a fact. To 
 say that men die, and live again, or will live again, is 
 not to say that their bodies so live, or will live ; and 
 unless the latter is taught expressly, or by fair implica- 
 tion, we have no right to assume it as a fact. That the 
 body of Christ was restored to life after he had expired 
 on the cross, is, I think, clearly taught. He had said, 
 beforehand, " Destroy this temple, and in three days I 
 will raise it up;" and we are told directly after, that 
 "He spoke of the temple of his body."* His disciples 
 actually saw his body repossessed of life; and to make 
 
 ♦John ii. 19, 21. 
 
 3* 
 
the matter sure, he said to bis Apostles, " Handle me, 
 and Bee : for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as 
 ye see me hare." f Does not this prove then, it will be 
 asked, thai the hodie* of the dead will be raised, inas- 
 mach as the body of Ohrisi was raised : is not his 
 resurrection made a type and pledge of t be resurrec- 
 tion of others ? I answer, no. His resnrrert ion was 
 not consummated until bis ascension into heaven. Had 
 he Btopped Bhori of t his. there irould hare been no such 
 resurrection as is made the surety of the resurrection of 
 . or of others besides them. Had be never 
 "ascended on high/ 1 he never irould have " led captiv- 
 ity captive, and given gifts to men." It was this which 
 confirmed him to be the M Son of God with power." It 
 irafl this which completed his conquest over death, and 
 demonstrated his ability to " put down all rule, author- 
 ity, and power/' and proved him to be M Eing of kings, 
 and Lord of lords." Hence it is, that every true dis- 
 eiple is emboldened to say with exultation, "0 death, 
 where is thy Btingf Abode of the dead, where is thy 
 victory?" for he knows in whom he has believed, even 
 in Him vrho " having stripped principalities and powers, 
 made them a public example, leading them in triumph." 
 Bui when Christ ascended into heaven, did not his 
 body ascend with him also? — It is not so recorded. — The 
 
 t Luke xxiv. 39. 
 
L& ENSIOH 01 BRIST 'M 
 
 Scriptures teach us that "flesh and blood cannot inherit 
 the Kingdom of God." That the body of Christ, 
 after his resurrection, consisted of * k flesh and hones," 
 a thing entirely tantamount, we have his own assurance. 
 It did not, therefore, ascend with him into the kingdom 
 of God. But this body, it will be replied, was changed 
 into a spiritual one, and so might have ascended into 
 heaven. I answer, that a body of JU$h and /><>m>8 is not 
 the same thing as a body of spirit — or, if you please, a 
 spiritual body; and to say that the former was changed 
 into the latter must mean, either that the body of flesh 
 and hones was laid aside, ami a spiritual one taken in its 
 Stead, or that the one of flesh and hones was converted 
 into one of spirit, and was still the same body as he fore ! 
 The latter supposition is a manifest absurdity, unless it 
 mtended that matter (for flesh and bones are mat- 
 ter,) is the same thing as spirit, only- with a different 
 form and structure, and that matter and spirit are con- 
 vertible into each other. This, however, none, not even 
 materialists, will assert. — It follows, then, that when 
 Christ ascended into heaven, he laid aside his body of 
 flesh and bones, and took in its stead a body of spirit. 
 Even allowing that matter and spirit are alike in sub- 
 stance, it would be absurd to say that the ascended body 
 of Christ is the same as that which he had here on 
 earth ; for it is absurd to say that any two structures 
 
38 ASCENSION OF CHRIST. 
 
 whatever, with different properties throughout, and in- 
 compatible with each other, are at the same time one 
 an 1 the same structure. — They who consider the original 
 body of Christ, while here below, to be the same with 
 
 that which he now possesses in his glory, seem not to 
 bave duly reflected on this subject. They admit that 
 while he was on earth he had a human body. But what 
 is a human body, hut that material, organic, structure 
 which is fitted up to be both the instrument and the 
 habitation of the human soul? Whenever we speak 
 of those organic structures which are the instruments 
 and habitations of other than human spirits, we ought 
 to dissociate from them, in our minds, that material gross- 
 ness which belongs to the bodies of men. That celestial 
 spirits possess organic structures, I think that the Bible, 
 and reason itself, warrants us to believe ; and that they 
 sometimes call these structures, in accommodation to 
 human language, bodies, is to my own mind quite certain. 
 On this point I shall have occasion to remark more fully 
 hereafter. For my present purpose it is sufficient to say, 
 that an organized structure for the use and residence 
 of a spirit — one which is itself strictly spiritual — must 
 be something entirely diverse from a material human 
 body ; must possess different properties, and be adapted 
 to different, and more exalted uses. 
 
>\ OF eilMST. 39 
 
 There is but one of the inspired writers who describes 
 the manner of Christ's disappearing when he ascended 
 into heaven. This writer is Luke. Mark, after mention- 
 ing a eonversation which our Lord had held with his dis- 
 ciples, simply adds, "So then, after the Lord had spoken 
 to them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on 
 the right hand of God." In his Gospel, Luke only says, 
 kW And he led them" (his disciples,) u <mt as far as to 
 P>efhany ; and he lifted up his hands and blessed them. 
 And it came to pass while he was blessing them, 
 he stood aside from them, and was carried up into 
 heaven."* The word translated, in our common version, 
 " was parted," (<Vr»/) is more properly rendered stood 
 aside, or apart. The difference in the meaning is, that 
 according to the common version, his separation from 
 the diseiples, and his ascension, were united in one 
 transaction; while, according to the latter rendering, 
 he seems to have first withdrawn himself, or stepped 
 aside, a little distance from them, as preparatory to 
 .what followed. This difference may be of sonic use in 
 helping us to understand the more extended account of 
 this memorable event, which is given by the same writer 
 in his " Acts of the Apostles. "f He there informs us 
 that the Apostles came together ; but tvhere the place 
 
 *Luke xxiv. 50, 51, Greek. t Acts i. 6, and onward, Greek. 
 
40 ASCENSION OF CHKIST. 
 
 of their assembling was, we are not here told, although 
 we learn from his Gospel it was Bethany. They in- 
 quired of him whether lie would at that time re-establish 
 the kingdom to Israel. Having answered this inquiry, 
 or, in the language of the narrator, u Having said these 
 things, while they were looking on he was taken up, and 
 a cloud intercepted him from their eyes. And while 
 they were looking intently towards heaven, as he went, 
 even behold two men stood beside them in white attire; 
 and they said, men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing 
 towards heaven ? This same Jesus, who has been taken 
 from you up to heaven, will come [again] in the same 
 manner as you have seen him go to heaven." — In neither 
 of the passages here quoted, let it be well considered, 
 is any mention whatever made of the body of Jesus. 
 We are not told that it was transformed into a spiritual 
 body before, or while, or after, he ascended ; nor are we 
 told that his body ascended at all. The whole amount 
 of our information on the subject is, that Jesus, appa- 
 rently in the midst of a conversation with his Apostles, 
 stepped aside, and was taken up to heaven, they looking 
 on, and that a cloud intercepted him from their eyes. 
 Thus simple, and artless, is the whole story of an event 
 which completed the redemption of our race. A few 
 particulars only are given, just enough to place the scene 
 
ASCENSION OF CHRIST. 41 
 
 before us, and help our faith to apprehend it. There were, 
 indeed, but few particulars which actually occurred in 
 Bight of the Apostles, and these are narrated just as 
 they took place, without one co njectural remark, or one 
 attempt to amplify the tale with philosophical conceits. 
 In fine congruity with all that the Scriptures ever teach 
 us in relation either to the form or substance of spiritual 
 beings, a cloud enwraps the ascending Redeemer, ami 
 lmlrs from the view of the Apostles whatever is done 
 within its inclosure. In that cloud he ascended to 
 heaven, to resume the glory which he had with the 
 Father before the world was. So much we know, be- 
 cause so much is established by indubitable evidence. 
 That the body which he assumed for our sakes, in which 
 lie possessed like passions with ourselves, which was 
 broken on the cross, was laid in a tomb, and w r as raised 
 from death to life, went up in that cloud to heaven, no 
 witness has declared — no man, speaking as he was moved 
 by the Holy Spirit, has ever said. 
 
 To what I have just advanced it will be replied — 
 although we are not told in express words that the body 
 of Christ ascended to heaven, yet the fact of its ascen- 
 sion is fairly inferred. Furthermore, it is not supposed 
 that this body was received to heaven without undergo- 
 ing a very great, and a very mysterious change ; — it was 
 probably converted into such a glorious body as he as- 
 
42 KNSION OF CHRIST. 
 
 sinned and exhibited on Mount Tabor, at his memorable 
 interview with Moses and Elias. Both of these supposi- 
 tious I will attempt to consider. 
 
 There are, so far as I am informed, but two grounds 
 of inferring that the body of our Saviour ascended into 
 heaven. One is this: when it is said that Christ arose 
 from the dead, we know that his body arose: when, 
 therefore, it is said that he ascended into heaven, we 
 are, in like manner, to believe that his body also as- 
 cended. His body was a part of himself, and if he 
 ascended, it must have done the same. But when he 
 expired on the cross, what was it, let me ask, that died? 
 Not, surely, that spirit which appropriately constituted, 
 and still constitutes, himself; for he assures the peni- 
 tent thief who suffered by his Bide, w this day shall thou 
 be with me in paradise." Both he, therefore, and the 
 thief, were that day in paradise, though the bodies of 
 both were lifeless on the earth. This, then, conclusively 
 proves that we cannot infer, from the simple declaration 
 that Christ ascended into heaven, that his body ascended 
 with him ; nor, from the ascension of others thither, that 
 their bodies must accompany them. When he arose 
 from the dead, that alone which had previously died 
 could be restored to life; yet, in accordance with the 
 customary language of men, it was proper to say thin 4 
 
ASCENSION OF CHRIST. 43 
 
 he arose from the dead ; because, while absent from the 
 body, he had disappeared from among the living ; and 
 when his body was reanimated, he again appeared in 
 full life to the witnesses of his resurrection. In all this 
 there was no room, nor occasion, for mistake. Far 
 different was the case in regard to his ascension. 
 Nothing but his body could, in reality, die ; but he 
 could ascend to heaven without his body to attend him ; 
 and to say that he so ascended, is not to say, as a matter 
 of course, that his body ascended also. To prove such 
 a fact as the latter, much stronger, and much more ex- 
 plicit language is requisite than is employed by Mark or 
 Luke, or any other inspired writer. The other ground 
 of inference, alluded to above, is the fact that when our 
 Saviour ascended to heaven, his body disappeared from 
 view, and was never discovered afterwards. Now the 
 disappearance of his body was a matter of course ; as 
 much so, if it did not ascend to heaven, as if it did. 
 Prom that circumstance, therefore, nothing can be in- 
 ferred in support of its ascension. As it came mysteri- 
 ously into existence at first, so now it mysteriously 
 disappeared from human view. The same power which 
 caused it to exist, could as easily dissolve it into its 
 original elements, or reconstruct it after another 
 fashion, or transmute it into some other body, with new 
 4 
 
44 HIS TRANSFIGURATION. 
 
 aio properties. With the final disposition of it, 
 however, we have nothing to do; and while we have 
 much evidence that it did not ascend with himself to 
 heaven, we have thus far found nothing from which we 
 are authorized to affirm that it did so ascend. 
 
 (lre.ii Btreafl lias been laid by many on the transfigu- 
 ration of Christ on the mount, as affording strong, if not 
 Complete, evidence that liis body shared in his ascension 
 
 to heaven. Hi- body, when thus transfigured, has been 
 considered as emblematical of the one which he now 
 has in glory : nay. as actually the same with the latter. 
 This vvewi lias been often cited, with an air of triumph, 
 as entirely conclusive on the point, and as though 
 further evidence was needless. Let us then examine it 
 with some care. This event is recorded by Matthew, 
 Mark, and Luke. The language of Matthew, in imme- 
 diate relation to it, is as follows: u And after six days 
 Jesus taketh Peter, and James, and John, his brother; 
 and he bringeth them up into a high mountain, in pri- 
 vate. And lie was metamorphosed before them, and his 
 face shone as the sun ; and his garments became white 
 as the light/'* Mark says: "And he was metamorph- 
 osed before them, and his garments became glittering, 
 exceeding white, as snow, such as no fuller on earth can 
 
 *Mat. xvii. 1, 2, Gr. 
 
ills TRANSFIGURATION. 45 
 
 whiten."* The language of Luke is: "And it came to 
 pass, while lie was praying, the look of his face was 
 altered, [different,] and his clothing was white and 
 radiant."! Such, and such only, is the whole account 
 of this metamorphosis which was witnessed by the three 
 disciples. There is not even an intimation that any 
 change whatever was produced in the organic structure 
 of our Saviour's body ; much less that it was trans- 
 muted into such a spiritual one as he now has in heaven, 
 or into a spiritual substance of any kind, form, or 
 organization, at all. A supernatural effulgence was 
 given to his face and garments, and there was nothing 
 more. So, too, " the skin of Moses' face shone when 
 he came down from the presence of the Lord on Mount 
 Sinai ;$ and there is reason to think that it even shone 
 with a greater, or, at least, a fiercer, splendor, than did 
 that of Jesus on this occasion, inasmuch as the Israelites 
 could not " endure" to look on the face of the prophet ; 
 whereas, the disciples, for aught that appears, felt no 
 such determent. We are not told that the garments of 
 Moses exhibited any unusual luster; but, with this ex- 
 ception, we might as well suppose that his body was 
 transformed into a spiritual one, as to believe that the 
 body of Christ had such a change. But the raiment of 
 either, whether it shone or not, or was changed or not, 
 
 * Mark ix. 2, 3, Gr. t Luke ix. 29. I Exod. xxxiv. 30, and onward. 
 
L6 
 
 tjonst itnted, surely, no part of their bodies, and furnishes 
 no evidence of their transformation into new organic 
 structures. No one believes, indeed, that the body of 
 Moses did undergo such a change ; and I do not be- 
 lieve that any person would ever have attributed such a 
 change to that of our Saviour, had it not been for its 
 subsequent resurrection from death, and his ascension 
 to the throne of his Father. To this may be added, a 
 strong desire to support a theory ; and where this desire 
 exists, the fancy can find evidence which the under* 
 standing would never discover. Although what lias 
 been already said is enough to show that the belief of 
 men, in relation to this subject, is mere assumption, I 
 will, nevertheless, add one consideration more. The 
 disciples, Peter, James, and John, saw the body of 
 Christ, while he presented this new appearance before 
 them. What they saw could not have been a spiritual 
 substance, for a spirit cannot be seen by human eyes. 
 They have given us no intimation that they so con- 
 sidered it. Their master conversed with them as lie had 
 ever been accustomed to do, and they with him. He 
 laid aside nothing, so far as we learn, after he ascended 
 the mount, and he resumed nothing when he came 
 down. Should it be replied, that they also saw Moses 
 and Elias, and heard them in conversation with their 
 
HIS TRANSFIGURATION. 47 
 
 Lord, and were not Moses and Elias, at this time, de- 
 parted spirits ? My answer is, the disciples saw those 
 two prophets, just as men have had other visions of mes- 
 sengers sent from the world of spirits. Such messengers 
 are opticians enough, we may suppose, to cause the optical 
 illusions which are taken for material forms; and they 
 are not so unskilled in acoustics, that they cannot con- 
 vey oral sounds to human ears. From the nature 
 of the case, Moses and Elias must have resorted to some 
 such skill on the present occasion ; while our Saviour, 
 being already in the body, needed no such resort. — 
 Those who consider the transfiguration of Christ, on 
 this occasion, as merely emblematical of his glorified 
 body in heaven, err less than do those who believe that 
 his body was then identically the one which he assumed 
 after his ascension. But even both seem to have mis- 
 conceived the real object of this display. This object 
 was no other, than to give to the three disciples, and, 
 through them, to all who would receive their testimony, 
 some proper conception of the intrinsic glory and mag- 
 nificence of him, whose ordinary exterior was so entirely 
 different ; to show them that even Moses and Elias were 
 but his ministering servants; and, above all, to teach 
 them, by a direct voice from the " magnificent glory," 
 that he was the Father's " well beloved Son." All this 
 4* 
 
48 HIS TKANSKK.r RATION 
 
 was well suited to give them, by anticipation, a faint, 
 bat appropriate assurance, that he in whom they now so 
 imperfectly believed, though for the present " a man of 
 sorrows, and acquainted with grief," was, indeed, " the 
 radiance of his Father's glory, and the impress of his 
 substance."* Peter, who was an " eye witness of his 
 majesty" on this occasion, has left us no room for 
 doubting as to the true purpose of this display on the 
 mount. We shall do well to abide by the account which 
 he has given us, and not to " follow skillfully devised 
 fables."! 
 
 * Heb. i. 3, Gr. til. Pet. i. 16-18, Gr. 
 
ell A I" T EB 111. 
 
 Scriptural doctrine of a Resurrection re-stated. — Our Saviour's conver>a- 
 tion with t lie Saddncees. — Restoration of Lazarus to life. — The penitent 
 Thief. — Translation of Enoch and Elijah — Parable of the Rich Man 
 and Lazarus. — Nature of Parables. — Souls seen by John in his Apoca- 
 lypse. — Symbolical language. 
 
 INSTEAD of further examining, at this time, the 
 arguments which are relied on to prove the resur- 
 rection of the same body, I now proceed to consider 
 the true doctrine of a resurrection, as given us in 
 the sacred Scriptures. I have already intimated that 
 this is spoken of by them, in two senses : — a continued 
 existence after death ; and a re-appearing after that 
 event, for the purpose of receiving a public sentence of 
 acquittal, or condemnation. The former of these will 
 now receive attention. 
 
 We find, in the twenty- second chapter of Matthew, 
 the following passage : "On that day there came to him 
 Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection, and 
 asked him, saying: Teacher, Moses said, if a man die, 
 having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, 
 and raise up offspring to his brother. Now there were 
 
50 OONVEBSATION WITH THE BADDUOl 
 
 with us seven brothers ; and the first, having married, 
 died ; and having no offspring, he left his wife to his 
 brother. In like manner both the second and third 
 married, on to the seven. Last of all the woman also 
 died. In the resurrection, therefore, of which of the 
 seven will she be the wife ? — for all had her. But Jesus 
 answering said to them, You do err, not knowing the 
 Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrec- 
 tion they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but 
 are as angels of God in heaven. Now, in relation to 
 the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what 
 was spoken to you by God, saying, I am the God of 
 Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob \ 
 God is not God of the dead, but of the living."* The 
 same narrative is given by Mark and Luke, and sub- 
 stantially in the same manner. The case propounded 
 by the Sadducees is stated by them all in nearly the 
 same words ; and so is the reply of our Saviour, by 
 Matthew and Mark ; while Luke is somewhat more par- 
 ticular. The latter says,f after stating the question of 
 the Sadducees, " And Jesus answering said to them, The 
 children of this world marry, and are given in marriage ; 
 but those who are deemed worthy to obtain that world, 
 and the resurrection, which is from the dead, neither 
 
 *Matt. xxii. 23-32, Gr. t Luke xx. 34-38, Gr. 
 
C0NVKB8ATI0M with tiik SADDUCEKS. ."> 1 
 
 marry, nor are given in marriage ; for surely they can- 
 not die any more, for they are like angels, and are 
 children of God, being children of the resurrection. 
 But that the dead are raised, even Moses made known 
 at the bush, when he calls the Lord, the God of 
 Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 
 Now he is not God of dead men* but of living 
 ; for all" (that is, whether in this world or els- 
 wliere,) " live by him." Here we learn from our 
 Saviour himself that men continue to live after the 
 death of their bodies. He even adduces an argument, 
 to prove to the Sadducees themselves, that such is the 
 fact. Jehovah, as related by Moses, calls himself God 
 of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. As he is not God 
 of nonentities, or, as he could not be God of those patri- 
 archs, had they ceased to be, the inference is irresistible, 
 that when Moses wrote, they were still living ; and, if 
 living then, they so continued ever afterwards. We 
 further learn that, in the state after death, men do not 
 enter into the marriage relation, nor do they die any 
 more — nay, they cannot die any more, for they are like 
 angels in these respects, and are children of God, hav- 
 ing once become children of the resurrection ; that is, 
 
 * The words venptiv, and C&vtuv, having no article before them, require 
 some noun to be understood, like the one here inserted. The language, 
 so translated, conforms better with the original, and is more expressive. 
 
52 CONVERSATION WITH THE 8ADDUCEES. 
 
 having once passed into that state, which is here denom- 
 inated a resurrection. Prom the language of Luke, it 
 is apparent that our Saviour is here speaking particularly 
 of those " who are deemed worthy to obtain that world," 
 though Matthew and Mark are more indiscriminate. 
 "That world" must, it would seem, denote either the 
 place of abode after death, at large, or some portion of 
 it which is occupied by those who obtain special favor 
 from God. The phrase " those who are deemed worthy," 
 pretty clearly implies that some are not deemed worthy 
 to obtain the world in question. The word Kara£cu0c>rec, 
 in the original, does not necessarily allude to moral 
 worth, but may refer to mere dignity of rank, or to 
 value in the scale of existence. It may mean, that liv- 
 ing creatures, of every class, are not promiscuously, and 
 indiscriminately, admitted to the resurrection of the 
 dead, or the world here mentioned, but such only as 
 merit a place there by their intellectual and moral eleva- 
 tion ; in plainer language, that the resurrection is 
 appointed to the members of the human family, as those 
 who were originally made in the image of God, though 
 now greatly debased by sin, and not to the inferior 
 orders of the animal creation, that never received that 
 impress from their Maker, and were never destined to 
 live beyond the present world. This interpretation re- 
 
CONVERSATION WITH THE SADDUCEES. 53 
 
 ceives some countenance from the words, " for they are 
 like angels, and are children of God, being children 
 of the resurrection;" — and this is the reason assigned 
 why the dead " cannot die any more.' 7 Now God often 
 speaks to men at large, as to his children, and r< 
 nixes this relationship between himself and them; but 
 he never recognizes it between himself and those living 
 creatures which arc inferior to man. If, too, the 
 passage is not understood in this sense, the Saviour 
 docs not here teach that all men are raised again, bat 
 only a particular class of them, who are deemed worthy 
 of it ; and we are left to infer that some, being deemed 
 unworthy, do not awake to life in that world, but sleep 
 forever in death. The fact, however, that Matthew and 
 Mark express no such limitation, and that sundry other 
 places in Scripture teach a general resurrection, must 
 lead us to the conclusion that Luke did not intend to 
 represent him as speaking in this sense. The true 
 meaning of the passage may, I apprehend, be thus ex- 
 pressed : — In their present state of existence men do, 
 indeed, marry, and they are given in marriage ; but 
 after they have arrived at the dignity of that state of 
 existence which is obtained by their resurrection from 
 the dead, they no more enter into the marriage relation ; 
 nor, indeed, can they die any more ; for they are then 
 
54 CONVERSATION WITH THE SADDUCEES. 
 
 like angels, and, [like them,] are sons of God, inasmuch 
 as they are sons of the resurrection.* 
 
 Aside from all collateral and subordinate views on 
 the subject before us, our Saviour, in this discourse of 
 his with the Sadducees, has very clearly taught us two 
 things. The first is, that men do not cease to exist 
 when their bodies die, but continue still to live in 
 another state of existence, where they cannot die again ; 
 where the relationships which marriage constitutes are 
 not known ; where in consequence of their resurrection, 
 they are spiritual beings like angels ; and where, in a more 
 peculiar sense than ever before, they are sons of God. 
 This state of existence, too, commences directly after 
 death, and is not deferred till the final consummation of 
 things at the end of the world. The second thing 
 
 *In translating the passage from Luke (p. 33,) I chose to depart as lit- 
 tle as might be from the common version. The following, however, 
 would, in my opinion, be a correct rendering into English. " The sons of 
 this world marry, and give in marriage ; but after they have been advanced 
 to the dignity of attaining to that state of existence, even the resurrec- 
 tion that is from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage. 
 Nor can they die any more ; for, being sons of the resurrection, they are 
 like angels, and are sons of God." This translation is, I think, in strict 
 accordance with the Greek idiom, and it gives us a perspicuous meaning, 
 without any of the embarrassments which attend the common version, 
 and which have occasioned the foregoing discussion. Observe that 
 hur(i^(.)8h'7eg is in the past time of the 1st aorist; and that a participle of 
 any tense, with the article before it, may be rendered in English by the 
 same tense of the verb, and a double relative ; or the participial sense may 
 be retained with a single relative, according as the sense requires, and 
 the idioms of the two languages vary. 
 
BBSUBBBOTION OF LAZARUS TO LIKK. 55 
 
 taught is this ; the new state of existence here spoken 
 of, as termed by him who knows and calls things by 
 their right names, is a resurrection ; and a transition 
 from the present to that other state of existence he calls 
 a rising from the dead. A necessary inference from the 
 whole is, that this resurrection will continue forever ; 
 for we are expressly told that those who attain to it, will 
 not, and cannot, die any more ; while the patriarchs 
 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are adduced as living ex- 
 emplifications of the truth and reality, both of a resur- 
 rection, and of its continuance. But another important 
 item of information, and one which should be particu- 
 larly kept in mind, is here given — there can he a res- 
 urrection of men from the dead, without a resurrec- 
 tion OF THEIR BODIES, OR ANY PART OF THEM ; AND SUCH 
 A RESURRECTION IS NOT ONLY POSSIBLE, BUT REAL. This 
 
 information is absolutely conclusive against those who 
 maintain that a resurrection of men from the dead, 
 necessarily implies a resurrection of their bodies, or, at 
 least, of some latent germ which they are supposed to 
 contain. Such a conceit is entirely at variance with 
 what our Saviour has here taught. 
 
 In a conversation which Jesus held with Martha, oc- 
 casioned by the death of her brother Lazarus, he is in- 
 troduced as saying to her ; " Thy brother will rise again." 
 
 5 
 
56 1|m\ 01 LAZARUS TO LIFK. 
 
 Martha replies: "I know that he will rise again in the 
 resurrection at the last day." Jesus then says to her: 
 •* I am the resurrection and the life. He that believes in 
 m< , even though he will die, shall live ; and every one 
 who lives and believes in me, shall never die."* — Here 
 Jesus declares himself to be the resurrection and the 
 life : that is, by him, and through him the resurrection 
 is obtained, together with the life which is thus perpet- 
 uated ; — he is the author and dispenser of both.f As 
 if in right of this authority over the resurrection and 
 life, he then affirms that every believer in himself, though 
 dead, will not cease to live ; that death will not prove 
 even an interruption to his living; and that the life, 
 thus continued, will last forever. That this was his real 
 meaning, a few considerations will, I think, make evi- 
 dent. — Martha had already expressed her belief that her 
 brother would rise again on the last day, without any 
 intimation that she expected him to rise sooner. It is, 
 indeed, perfectly evident that she did not expect him to 
 rise, in any sense, before that time. Had this amount 
 of faith in a resurrection been sufficient — had it been 
 correct — there would have been no occasion for further 
 instructing her on that head. But perceiving that her 
 views of the resurrection were vague and imperfect, her 
 
 * John ii. 23-26, Gr. t See I. Cor. xv. 21, 22, Gr. 
 
KKSl KKKCTloN OF LAZARUS TO LIFE. 57 
 
 Lord quits the case of Lazarus altogether, and proceeds 
 to give her a better knowledge of the subject at large. 
 If, now, by the expression, " even though he will die, 
 lie shall live," he simply meant that believers, though 
 they must die, will live again at the last day, he would 
 have added nothing to what Martha had already said 
 that she believed. This, therefore, could not have been 
 his meaning ; and unless we take his language in the 
 sense which I have given it above, it will be difficult to 
 find any interpretation which is consistent. But we 
 shall make him entirely consistent, both with himself, 
 Miid with the occasion, if his object was to show her 
 that the believer will rise again not only on the last day, 
 but on the very day when his body dies, and will con- 
 tinue to live without being subject to die again. Though 
 his body may, and must, die, his soul will live — will 
 ttari up to new life and vigor, — will spring up to new 
 and higher enjoyments — will rise up with a sublimer 
 attitude, and a loftier dignity — and, will fall no more. 
 — I remark again, that Martha's faith in & future resur- 
 rection was full, and explicit ; nay, more, her language 
 is, " I know that he will rise again in the resurrection 
 at the last day." Her faith, in her own apprehension, 
 amounted to knowledge on that subject. To suppose, 
 then, that her Lord, on this occasion, undertook to teach 
 
58 i'TION OF LAZARUS TO LI 11 
 
 her what she had that moment told him she knew to be 
 true, is to impute to him a disposition to trifle with her 
 reelings, rather than to instruct, and comfort her. His 
 object must have been to bring to her view something 
 which her declaration did not embrace. He had not 
 yet given her to understand that he designed to restore 
 her brother to life. She considered the latter as gone 
 from this world forever, to return to life no more till the 
 last day. How adapted, then, to the occasion was an 
 assurance from himself, that there is no such long sleep 
 of death to the believer; but that, on leaving this world 
 he at once commences a new life, such as that which 
 angels have, and that this life will continue forever. 
 And when he afterward proceeded to the tomb where 
 Lazarus was laid, to summon him back to life, how well 
 had he, by this discourse, prepared Martha, and others 
 who heard it, to see that he did not perform this mira- 
 cle for the real benefit of him who was the subject of it, 
 and who would, in reality, be a loser by the change, but 
 to evince his own compassion for the sorrowing sisters, 
 and, more especially, to give this public and convincing 
 evidence of his divine mission. How well, too, did the 
 miracle, then performed, support his declaration, that 
 he is " the resurrection, and the life." — In fine, how 
 well did his discourse with Martha prepare her, and all 
 
KKSIKKKCTION 01 LAZARUS TO LIFE. 59 
 
 who heard it, for the succeeding miracle, and how well 
 did the miracle fit her and them to profit by the discourse. 
 But there is a circumstance attending this story of 
 our Saviour's restoring Lazarus to life, which is very re- 
 markable, and yet it seems not to have attracted the 
 attention of readers in general. I refer to the extraor- 
 dinary emotion which he manifested just before his 
 approach to the tomb where his departed friend was 
 laid. The common translation in our Bibles imperfectly 
 expresses the sense which the original Greek conveys ; 
 and yet even the former intimates much more than is 
 generally supposed. It is impossible to give the true 
 sense of the original by a translation exactly literal, but 
 we can arrive at something which will very nearly con- 
 vey it. — u When Mary, therefore, had come where Jesus 
 was, on seeing him she fell at his feet, saying to him, 
 Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother would not 
 have died. Jesus thereupon, when he saw her weeping, 
 and the Jews who came with her weeping, groaned 
 aloud in spirit, and shook with emotion.* And he said, 
 where have ye laid him ? They say to him, Lord, come 
 and see. Jesus wept. Hence said the Jews, behold 
 
 *Gr. EvcCpLfif/caro tu) nji'^l'/juTf , k(u trdfja^ev eavrov. Whoever will 
 attentively examine these forms of expression, will see that I have not 
 exceeded the forcihle expression of the original, but have rather come 
 short of it. 
 
 5* 
 
<'»<> RESl \ OF LAZAHl S TO I 
 
 hoi he loved him. But some of them said, could not this 
 man who has opened the eyes of the blind, have caused 
 that even this man should not die? Jesus therefore, 
 again groaning in himself aloud, cometh to the tomb." 
 After relating further circumstances, the historian pro- 
 ceeds ; " And having said these things, he cried out 
 with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth."* — I would now 
 inquire, what could have occasioned such deep emotion, 
 such agitated feelings, sucli loud groaning in spirit, as 
 arc here ascribed to Jesus? In no other instance is 
 such agitation, such deep emotion, ascrihed to him, ex- 
 cept in the garden of Gethsemane. So deeply seated, 
 so strongly felt, was this peculiar emotion, that even in 
 the act of hidding Lazarus come forth from his dreary 
 abode, he cried out with a voice to which he had never 
 been accustomed. How different was this from the 
 quiet, placid manner in which he restored to life the BOD 
 of the widow at Nain, and in which he was wont to per 
 form his mightiest works. There must have been some 
 cause for this change of manner and feeling, on the 
 present occasion. I am not ignorant that most readerg 
 and commentators ascribe all this emotion, as did the 
 Jews who witnessed it, to his love for Lazarus, and 
 strong sympathy with Martha and Mary in their greal 
 
 ♦Johnii. 32-43, Gr. 
 
&E8UBBE0TI0N OF LAZARUS 10 LITE. 61 
 
 a miction. Those Jews were excusable for their miscon- 
 ceptions, for they knew no other cause for this agitation 
 than the one assigned. It is not so with us, who have 
 the whole case before us. Jesus did, indeed, " love 
 Martha, and Mary, and Lazarus ;" and he could give no 
 stronger proof of his love to the two sisters than lie 
 did by his raising Lazarus from the dead, and restoring 
 him to their embrace. But this act was no evidence, 
 in itself alone, of peculiar love to him. By recalling 
 Lazarus to this world, he took him away from the bliss 
 of Paradise, and from the exalted society of his fellow- 
 heirs of glory, to share again in the troubles of earth. 
 and pass anew his sojourning here in tears. From his 
 abode among the spirits of just men made perfect in 
 heaven, the general assembly and church of the first born 
 there, and from all the joys of that " holy, happy, place," 
 he remands him back to a world of sin, temptation, and 
 suffering, to dwell again in a body of flesh and corrup- 
 tion, from which he had just now happily escaped ; 
 subjects him to new conflicts with spiritual foes ; and 
 exposes him to encounter, for the second time, the king 
 of terrors. All this, certainly, was no favor conferred 
 on his departed friend ; well might it have been for the 
 latter, had his sleep of death been undisturbed. — Now, 
 let me ask, what great cause for mental and bodily agi- 
 
LAZABUfi I- I ii- i 
 
 tation, sucli as he exhibited, had Jesus on account of 
 Martha and Mary? They, truly, were suffering under 
 deep affliction, and none was more ready to condole 
 with sorrowing friends and to attempt their consolation, 
 than was the Saviour. But, on this occasion, did he 
 not know that, in one short hour, all the sorrows of 
 these beloved [females would, fay his own act, be turned 
 to joy?. — that Lazarus would be restored to their 
 caresses, when all their tears would be wiped away, or 
 
 ICCeeded only by those of happiness, such as they 
 bad never felt before 1 Whence, then, that inward feel- 
 ing vented aloud in groans; that bodily agitation, that 
 Strong emotion within, which hurst forth in so loud a 
 cry in his command to Lazarus to come from the tomb? 
 With the full knowledge which he had of the speedy 
 termination of their sorrows, would the Saviour have 
 felt so Strongly in view, simply, of their present alllic- 
 tionsf Would a retrospection on past evils, so greatly 
 
 id, in effect, a prospect of their speedy termination, 
 and of the inexpressible happiness so soon to ensue ? It 
 is unnatural to believe it. It is unnatural to believe, that 
 the sympathy with which he regarded them in their 
 bereavement of a brother, would be so much greater 
 than that with which he regarded them in view of the 
 happiness which they were about to receive in the resto- 
 
RESURRECTION OP LAZARUS TO LIFE. 63 
 
 ration of that brother to life. Had nothing more than 
 the death and resurrection of Lazarus been concerned 
 in this whole affair, Jesus at seeing those whom he so 
 tenderly loved weeping before him, might very naturally 
 have had a transient emotion of sympathy rise within 
 himself, although he knew that every cause of sorrow 
 would be so soon removed ; but such an emotion could 
 not in the nature of things, have been of that peculiar 
 depth and strength, which are ascribed to it by the 
 sacred historian. If he had felt thus strongly on the 
 sisters 1 account, and that alone, why did he not, in his 
 conversation with Martha when she first met him, dispel 
 at once her sorrows and his own, by informing her what 
 lie was about to do? And when he afterwards met 
 with Mary, why did lie keep her too in this painful sus- 
 pense, and keep alive his own inward anguish, from 
 pure sympathy of feeling, when a single declaration 
 would have ended all their sorrows ? But not a single 
 intimation of his design does he appear to have given, 
 until he issued the mandate for Lazarus to come forth. 
 In considering this account of our Saviour's strong 
 emotions preceding the resurrection of Lazarus, I have 
 assumed it as a fact that the pious dead, immediately on 
 leaving this world, enter into a state of happiness in the 
 Paradise of God. That this, however, is not mere as- 
 
'■! IKK. 
 
 sumption, but a matter of fact, I think has been made 
 evident from the discourse of Christ with the Sadducees, 
 and his conversation with Martlia on the subject of the 
 resurrection. Other passages of scripture, which are 
 yet to be considered, give us the like doctrine. Now this 
 fact of the continued existence and immediate happiness 
 of the pious dead after leaving this world, will enable 
 us. [ apprehend, to discover the reasons why our Saviour 
 endured such a conflict of emotions as we have 
 considering. His love to the two sisters and their de- 
 
 d brother had long existed, and had been distin- 
 guished for its intenseness. When Lazarus was removed 
 by death, his strong attachment to the former would he 
 with him a most cogent motive to restore him to life, 
 and their new embraces. "Flic sight of their deep dis- 
 
 . on his meeting with them, would, by rousing all 
 lii> sympathies anew, and all his compassion, add greatly 
 to motives previously existing. An opportunity of doing 
 signal honor to his Father, by giving another convinc- 
 ing proof of his own divine mission, and of his power 
 over death and the world of spirits, would furnish still 
 further motives for performing the miracle. All these 
 motives, united, must have operated with great force to 
 induce him to put forth his power, and call Lazarus 
 from his rest; and, thus far, would they all conspire to 
 
RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS TO LIFE. 65 
 
 give him pleasure in the contemplation of what he was 
 about to perform. But there is another side to this 
 view of things. He had a perfect knowledge, and clear 
 apprehension, of all "the happiness which his friend 
 Lazarus was at that moment enjoying in the Paradise 
 of God. To recall him to this world would be to inter- 
 rupt all that happiness, and to subject him anew to all 
 those ills of the present world from which he had now 
 joyfully escaped. His friendship for Lazarus, and lull 
 knowledge of the loss which he must sustain by return- 
 ing to the earth, must have been powerful motives with 
 one who loved without partiality, and loved sincerely, 
 to suffer him to continue among the blessed. With such 
 conflicting motives struggling in his mind, there can be 
 no wonder that Jesus was distressed ; — that he groaned 
 aloud in spirit — that he trembled with agitation — and 
 that his emotions continued till his arrival at the tomb, 
 where they again found vent in the very act of his sum- 
 moning its tenant from its dark abode. Hence we can 
 account for the cautious and half mysterious instruction 
 which he gave to Martha on the subject of the resurrec 
 tion — his unwonted reserve towards her, and her sister 
 — and his backwardness to disclose the thoughts which 
 he was revolving in his mind. His whole conduct, on 
 this occasion, indicated that his mind was intent on 
 
THK I'KMTKNI THIEF. 
 
 something beyond the present -grief of his two friends, 
 and that he did not choose to disclose the real cause of 
 so much inward trouble. His love for the surviving 
 sisters, his zeal for his Father's glory, and his desire to 
 give new and striking proof of his divine mission and 
 authority, could not prevail over his reluctance to inter- 
 fere with the present blissful repose of Lazarus, without 
 a struggle. But Lazarus was called back to toil a while 
 longer here helow ; and, without a doubt, lie received a 
 full recompense for what it cost him, when he finally 
 entered into the joy of his Lord. 
 
 In concluding my remarks on this portion of Scrip- 
 ture, it may be observed, that the view here given of 
 our Saviour's strong emotions on the occasion of raising 
 Lazarus to life, and the one which was previously given 
 in relation to the drift of his discourse with Martha, 
 mutually corroborate each other. This alone is some- 
 thing of an argument in favor of both views. Con- 
 sistency always exists between different truths; but is 
 never a badge of error. 
 
 The next passage which I shall introduce is the 
 account given of the penitent thief on the cross, by the 
 evangelist Luke. I shall quote only so much of it as 
 relates immediately to the subject under consideration. 
 " And be [the thief] said to Jesus, remember me, Lord, 
 
THE PENITENT THIEF. 67 
 
 when thou shalt come in thy kingdom. And Jesus re- 
 plied to him, verily I say to thee, this day thou shalt be 
 with me in Paradise. *'• Here we have the most au- 
 thentic testimony, that penitent believers in Christ enter 
 Paradise immediately after death. It was about noon 
 when this promise was made to the suffering penitent. 
 Jesus expired about the middle of the afternoon ; at 
 which time, and indeed for some time after, as is evident 
 from the account which John gives, the two thieves 
 were not dead. They must, therefore, have died late 
 in the afternoon ; yet the repentant one was that very 
 day, according to the promise, in Paradise ; so that a 
 very short time must have elapsed between his decease 
 and his entering into the promised rest. In the lan- 
 guage of Christ in his discourse with the Sadducees, 
 this passing from the present world into Paradise was a 
 resurrection. In the original Greek there is a beautiful 
 expressiveness in the promise made by the Saviour on 
 this occasion, which our common translation does not 
 preserve. The petition of the thief was, that he might 
 be remembered by Christ when he should come in his 
 kingdom. f The promise was, that he should not only 
 be remembered then, but he should on that very day be 
 
 * Luke xxiii. 42, 43, Gr. 
 
 t Gr. ev tij fiamteia, not 'e/'c T$v fiaoifoiav, as our common translation 
 would imply. 
 
 6 
 
Tin 
 
 ill Paradise. The whole might be thus paraphrased. 
 Bomember me, Lord, when thoushalt hereafter come in 
 thy kingdom with power and glory. And Jesus replied 
 to him, I will not only remember thee then, hut this very 
 ill ii thou shalt be with me in Paradise. It is evident 
 from the Greek, that the petitioner had reference to a 
 future time when Jesus would come to establish his 
 kingdom here <>u earth, of which he had probably some 
 vague ami imperfect conception, in die manner of the 
 disciples of our Lord, previous to the day of pentecost. 
 With thai request I'm- a future remembrance, the 
 pression thU day stands finely contrasted. 
 
 Some may ohject. that the case of the penitent thief 
 was a special one, and does not warrant the conclusion 
 that </// penitent believers have the promise of an 
 
 immediate resurrection. But what reason can be as- 
 signed for making this an exempted case? None can 
 be found in the nature of things, and no limitation or 
 restriction is intimated in the narrative itself. On the 
 
 contrary, other p m (lie New Testament, which 
 
 teach the doctrine of an immediate resurrection, clearly 
 show that there is no n for taking this as a special 
 
 case; they rather authorize us to consider it indicative 
 of what awaits believers at large, and in every age, when 
 they depart from this world. 
 
TRANSLATION OF KNOCB AND ELIJAH. 89 
 
 Enoch, Moses, and Elijah, are three other instances 
 of departure from this world into a new and happy state 
 of existence. Of these, Enoch and Elijah were trans- 
 lated to that happy state without dying as others die. 
 Moses died like other men, though under peculiar 
 circumstances ; but that he continued still to exist, we 
 know from his appearance in company with Klijah, at 
 the time of our Saviour's transfiguration. These three, 
 then, attained to a happy resurrection without delay, and 
 are presented to us in the light of examples to teach us 
 what others may expect who walk in their steps. 
 
 It may be objected that as Enoch and Elijah never 
 died, it cannot be said that they were raised again ; and 
 of course, that their existence in another state cannot 
 be called a resurrection. There is not, 1 answer, a 
 particle of evidence in the Bible* that their mode of new 
 existence differed in the least from that of Moses, or of 
 others who die and live again. Moses and Elijah are 
 represented alike when they had their interview with 
 the Saviour, and no intimation is given that they were 
 not alike in all respects, so far as their organic struc- 
 tures are concerned. Paul tells us that all believers 
 who will be alive on earth at the final coming of Christ, 
 will be changed without dying;* but he does not tell us 
 
 *I. Cor. xv. 51, 52, Gr. 
 
/O KM'II MAN AM. I.A/AKUS. 
 
 that they will, on that account, be differently organized 
 from others. On the contrary, it is quite evident from 
 what he says, that they and their predecessors will be 
 alike in all the essentials of the resurrection. So, too, 
 Enoch and Elijah, it is fairly presumed, are now like 
 Moses in respect to the same essentials, and ever have 
 been ; and are also like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
 and the penitent thief whose respective cases have been 
 considered. 
 
 The passages which have thus far been considered 
 have a direct bearing on the question of an immediate 
 resurrection. I will now examine some that bear in- 
 directly, but not less conclusively on the Bame point. 
 
 We have in Luke the following allegory, or parable,* 
 of a rich and a poor man : — " Now there was a certain 
 rich man, and he was clothed with purple and with fine 
 linen, enjoying himself merrily every day in splendor. 
 And there was a certain poor man. Lazarus by name, 
 who was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and desir- 
 ing to be Fed with the crumbs which fell from the table 
 of the rich man. Furthermore, the dogs came and 
 licked his sores. Now it fell out that the poor man died, 
 and was conveyed by angels to the bosom of Abraham. 
 The rich man also died, and was buried. And in the 
 
 *Lukexvi: 19-31, Gr. 
 
LBUt OF MOB MAN AND LAZARUS. 71 
 
 abode of departed spirits [hades], having raised his 
 eyes, being in torments, lie sees Abraham afar off, and 
 Lazarus in his bosom. And calling out, he said, father 
 Abraham, have pity on me, and send Lazarus that he 
 may dip the end of his finger in water, and cool my 
 tongue, for 1 am tormented in this flame. But Abraham 
 said, son, remember that thou receivedst good things in 
 thy life time, and Lazarus in like manner evil things ; 
 but now he is comforted and thou art tormented. And 
 in addition to all these tilings, a great gulf is firmly 
 placed between us and you, that those who wish to pass 
 over hence to you may not have the power, and that 
 none may cross over thence to us. But he replied, I 
 therefore entreat thee, father, that thou wilt send him 
 to the house of my father, for I have five brothers, that 
 he may testify to them, that they, too, do not come to 
 this place of torment. Abraham says to him, they 
 have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. 
 But he replied, no, father Abraham ; but if some one 
 from the dead would go to them, they will repent. Bui 
 he replied to him, if they will not hear Moses and the 
 prophets, they will not be persuaded although some 
 one from the dead should rise up." I have quoted the 
 parable at full length, that we may take a clear view of 
 the whole ground which it presents. 
 6* 
 
I Of MOB MAN AND LAZARUS. 
 
 Prom this parable we learn, so far as our preseni 
 subject is concerned, the following things: Good men, 
 as soon as they die, go to a place where they receive 
 consolation ; — bad men, as soon as they die, go to a 
 place where they are in great misery ; — the inhabit- 
 ants of both places mutually recognize each other, if 
 they were previously acquainted in this life ; — and a 
 return from that world of living, departed spirits back 
 to this would, in the language of our Saviour himself, 
 return from the dead, and a rising up or a resurrec- 
 tion here on earth. These several tilings appear from 
 the following particulars. — Lazarus died, and was con- 
 veyed at once to the bosom of Abraham by the minis- 
 tration of angels, and was there comforted. The rich 
 man died, and found himself at once in a place of tor- 
 ment ; he there recognized Lazarus afar off, and knew 
 in whose bosom he reposed ; and Abraham, too, recog- 
 nized him as one of his descendants, and called him son. 
 Prom the language of Abraham it is manifest that 
 there were many individuals in the abode where he was, 
 and in that where the rich man was placed, for he 
 speaks of an intervening gulf, the object of which was 
 to render a communication, by passing over, impossible 
 to the inhabitants on either side. Lazarus and the rich 
 man, therefore, were not solitary instances of the trans- 
 
PARABLE OF RICH MAN AND LAZARUS. 73 
 
 migration from this to another world, but were indi- 
 vidual examples of common occurrence. The solici- 
 tude of the rich man to prevent his five brothers from 
 joining him, also shows that the place assigned to him- 
 self was the common receptacle of the wicked, and not 
 one of solitary confinement. It shows, too, that lie 
 expected his brothers to come to that place directly 
 after death, as he had done, unless their timely repent- 
 ance should prevent it. — The rich man expresses the 
 opinion, that if some one from the dead were to go back 
 and testify to his brothers about the realities of his con- 
 dition, they would repent; while Abraham affirms that 
 men, who will not hearken to Moses and the prophets, 
 would not be persuaded though some one from among 
 the dead should rise again, and add their testimony to 
 the truths taught by the former. The words in italics 
 satisfactorily show how we are to understand similar 
 expressions in other parts of the New Testament in 
 relation to the dead, and to their resurrection. The 
 inhabitants of the world, or worlds, where Lazarus and 
 the rich man were, that is, the souls of men after death, 
 are here called the dead; evidently in allusion to the 
 death of their bodies, and to nothing else, for they 
 themselves were still living, and rational beings, and 
 nothing but their bodies ever died, or will die. The 
 
NATUB1 
 
 simple returning of one of those inhabitants, or souls, 
 to pyc testimony on earth, is here called a rising up, 
 m a /■< >•///•/•< tion y or a rising again; and there is no 
 allusion to any re-assumption of the body, — the resur- 
 n is complete without it. Let these two things be 
 borne in mind by all who will have it that a resurrec 
 tion from the dead means a resurrection of dead 6o< 
 and that the dead who are hereafter to be raised accord- 
 ing to the Sacred Scriptures, are the dead bodies 01 
 those who die. But I shall have occasion to remark 
 more at large on this phraseology, in another place. 
 
 To this view of the parable which we have had under 
 examination, there will be an objection. It will be said 
 that a parable is an assemblage of fictitious facts and 
 circumstances for the purpose of teaching some import- 
 ant moral truth; and that, aside from this particular 
 truth, none other is pretended to he taught; — everything 
 else may be a downright fabrication. The one great 
 truth taught in this parable, it will be said, is the utter 
 hopelessness of bringing t<> repentance, by a special 
 enger sent from another world, those men whom 
 the Sacred Scriptures now fail to persuade ; — the various 
 actors, incidents, and circumstances mentioned in the 
 parables may have been real and may not have been; 
 and as this is left uncertain, at best, we can derive from 
 
NATDKE OF PARABLES. 75 
 
 them no other truth than the great leading one which 
 they were intended to establish. — Now let all this be 
 true, for I shall not stop to affirm or contradict it; 
 still, I maintain that the parable teaches each of the 
 particulars which I have derived from it. It is a fact 
 which holds true of all parables, fables, and allegories 
 whatever, that have the inculcation of some truth for 
 their object, that such agents, substances, properties, 
 and places as they mention, and introduce, are bona fide 
 realities ; though the connections, combinations, and 
 relations, and the particular agencies and incidents 
 which are ascribed to them, may be wholly artificial 
 and imaginary. The individual actors and objects, too, 
 which are introduced, may be fictitious ; but, generically 
 speaking, they are things which really exist, only, it 
 may be, under other circumstances, and with different 
 relations. Take, for example, the well known fable of 
 the dog in the manger, the object of which is to show 
 that envy is its own punisher. A dog, it will be recol- 
 lected, took possession of a manger filled with hay, 
 which he could not himself eat, and which, in his surli- 
 ness, he would not allow a certain ox to eat, but drove 
 him off as often as he came. Now, there may never 
 have been this precise case ; that individual dog, ox, 
 manger, or parcel of hay may never have existed ; and, 
 
RE 01 I 
 
 as wc suppose) never did exist; and the various circum- 
 stances related in the fable may all have been fictitious. 
 Dogs, oxen, mangers, and hay are, nevertheless, reali- 
 ties. That dogs do not eat hay, and that oxen do; 
 thai dogs are often surly and ill-natured ; and that oxen 
 often give way to them peaceably; are all so many 
 truths. Were it not for these realities and truths, the 
 fable would lose all its force. Were there no such 
 realities known as dogs, oxen, mangers, and hay, and 
 were there no such characteristic truths in relation to 
 tliiin, the fable would be absurd and ridiculous. No- 
 ixxlv oonld understand, or profit by it. Even in parables, 
 
 which are the most artificial in the circumstances which 
 they relate, realities are not abandoned. Though t 
 and plants, and stones are made to tofife, they are all 
 real existences ; and talking itself, or the gift of speech, 
 is a reality, though the exercise of it by any but human 
 beings is fabulous. The parable which Joth&m spoke 
 to the men of Shechem* is a beautiful and striking 
 specimen of the kind. The trees srent forth on a time 
 to anoint a king over them. The olive tree, the fig I ree, 
 the vine, and the bramble, were respectively invited to 
 assume the regal dignity, and their several speeches in 
 reply arc narrated. Now we do not suppose that these, 
 
 ♦Judges be: 7-20. 
 
NATURE OF PAKAB1.KS. 77 
 
 or any other trees, ever spoke; but we do suppose, and 
 know, that trees, and olive trees, and fig trees, and 
 vines, and brambles, with the attributes here ascribed 
 to them, together with other actors, as well as places, 
 here introduced, are realities. These realities are so 
 essential to the due construction of the parable, that 
 there would be neither sense nor beauty without them. 
 Just bo it is with the parable of the rich man and 
 Lazarus. Abraham, we know, is not a fictitious being, 
 nor are angels fictions; and unless there is a place of 
 happiness to which some men go after death, and a 
 place to which others go and are miserable, that is, 
 are there " tormented ; " and unless men go to one or 
 the other of those places directly on their leaving this 
 world ;— unless, I repeat, all these, and other objects 
 facts, and characteristics, here alluded to, are realities, 
 the parable teaches nothing whatever, but is a medley 
 of ridiculous conceits grouped together without any 
 consistency. To represent a departed soul as occupy- 
 ing a place where he is tormented in another world, 
 and there entreating Abraham in a different quarter 
 afar off, to send another departed soul, who is happy 
 with him there, back to this world on an errand of 
 mercy, if there are no departed souls, no appropriate 
 places for their abode, no mutual recognition of each 
 
78 OF PARABLES. 
 
 other, no enjoyment, and no Buffering there, would di- 
 vest the parable of all meaning, and be an egregious 
 trifling with the understandings and feelings of men. 
 To disbelieve the reality of these things, is just as 
 absurd as to disbelieve the reality of rich men, and poor 
 men ; of the meagre fare of the one, and the sumptuous 
 living of the other ; of such animals as dogs ; or of 
 such things as tables, crumbs, sores, and other objects 
 and circumstances to which the parable alludes, as mat- 
 ters and things pertaining to the present life. The 
 truth is, the parable refers to certain matters and things 
 as unquestioned realities, as much in the one world as 
 in the other. The precise order of incidents which are 
 narrated may never have taken place in either; but the 
 materials for such incidents must be furnished in both 
 worlds, and both worlds themselves must have a real 
 existence, or there is no truth, meaning, or instruction 
 whatever in the whole parable. If Jesus Christ did not 
 intend that the parable should be understood in the man- 
 ner of all other parables and allegories ; if the materials 
 with which he constructed it are partly real and partly 
 fictitious, partly true and partly false, then he bewildered 
 and misled his hearers, instead of enlightening them, 
 in relation to matters of the highest interest. Instead 
 of a parable, he has presented us with a mere monster 
 
JOHN IN HIS APOCALYPSE. 79 
 
 of the brain, without a moral and without a parallel in 
 this mode of instruction. But I cannot charge this 
 folly or this duplicity on him who " spoke as no other 
 man ever spoke," and whose skill in framing parables 
 for the instruction of mankind was so pre-eminent and 
 so justly admired. No one ever departed less from 
 the simplicity of facts in their construction ; or in the 
 selection of incidents, was more careful to introduce 
 such only as are accordant with nature. I must, there- 
 fore, believe that only the bodies of men really die; 
 that after death, their souls go directly to a place of 
 happiness or misery ; and that, in accordance with the 
 language employed by our Saviour in His interview 
 with the Sadducees, this surviving of the soul after the 
 death of the body is a resurrection. Other truths are 
 referred to in the parable, but as they are foreign to 
 my immediate purpose, they are not subjects for present 
 consideration. 
 
 In his Apocalypse, the apostle John makes frequent 
 mention of seeing innumerable souls in another world, 
 not asleep or in a state of torpid inaction, but full 
 of life and activity. I cannot stop to refer, — nor is it 
 necessary, — to the particular passages where such men- 
 tion is made; they are numerous, and every person 
 acquainted with that book will call them to mind. All 
 7 
 
80 JOHN TN HIS APOCALYPSE. 
 
 these passages conclusively show that an immediate 
 resurrection takes place after death, and, of course, 
 that men can live, be activo and happy, or miserable, 
 without the aid of their bodies and without connection 
 witli them. Some will object to this conclusion be- 
 cause, as they will say, the language is all symbolic 
 and not literal. I do not admit that all this is sym- 
 bolic language, for I consider such an assertion wholly 
 gratuitous; but even if it were, the conclusion would 
 not be overthrown. A symbol is some real substance, 
 property, or attribute which is made to denote some 
 truth or fact. It may be a single substance, property, 
 or attribute, or it may be several combined ; and the 
 component parts in the combination may have a natural 
 union or they may be united artificially, the better to 
 answer the purpose in view. But the component parts, 
 however put together, must have, severally, a real exist- 
 ence, or the symbol would fail of its object. But after 
 what has been said on the construction of parables, it 
 cannot be necessary to enlarge on this point for the 
 sake of illustration. If a soul, then, is used by the 
 apostle for a symbol, it is a reality; if its surviving the 
 "death of the body is made a symbol, such survival is a 
 reality ; if certain employments and certain states or 
 conditions of being are used as symbols, such employ- 
 
SYMBOLICAL LANGUAGE. 81 
 
 ments, states, or conditions are respectively realities. 
 We have, therefore, all that we need to prove that the 
 souls of men survive the death of their bodies ; that 
 there is a place for their abode and employments suited 
 to their condition. If the Apocalypse does not contain 
 these doctrines, it is indeed a book of enigmas and a 
 labyrinth of perplexities, as too many consider it, and 
 should be accounted unworthy a place in the sacred 
 canon. The true difficulty is, our own theories and 
 dogmas, formed independently of divine revelation, have 
 produced the labyrinths in which we have been bewil- 
 dered, and in which most men would rather continue 
 than be extricated from them at the expense of demol- 
 ishing their own visionary fabrics. 
 
 I have now finished my examination of those pass- 
 ages which refer to an immediate resurrection (with 
 the exception of the fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, 
 which will be hereafter considered). There may be 
 others which are not here noticed ; but if there are, 
 a consideration of them would not probably vary any 
 one's belief. If the passages commented on are suffi- 
 cient to produce conviction, every legitimate purpose 
 is answered ; if they are insufficient, the same causes 
 which hinder conviction now would probably hinder it 
 were texts still further multiplied. Be this, however, 
 
82 SYMBOLICAL LANGUAGE. 
 
 as may, the way is now prepared for examining such 
 passages as treat of that future re-appearing of men, 
 whatever it may be, which is also termed a resurrection, 
 and which is most generally had in view when men 
 speak of a resurrection from the dead. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Passages considered in which the word body is expressly named. — Matt. 
 x. 28; Rom. viii. 11 ; Philip, iii. 21. — General view of them all. 
 
 A RESURRECTION, or re-appearing, of all the dead 
 at some future day is spoken of directly, or alluded 
 to indirectly, in so many places in the New Testament, 
 that even a very brief reference to each one would lead 
 to great prolixity. It is not, however, necessary to 
 consider them all in order to ascertain in what that 
 resurrection will principally consist; or, more particu- 
 larly, whether the same body that dies will be raised 
 again to life, or whether the soul will return without 
 it to the world which it left, or re-appear elsewhere in 
 the universe of God. Most of the passages which allude 
 to a resurrection are wholly silent on these points, and 
 can, therefore, give us no instruction upon them, even 
 if quoted. I shall, under these circumstances, intro- 
 duce all the passages, so far as I can discover them, 
 which relate, however remotely, to the main object of 
 inquiry. They will sufficiently establish the fact of a 
 future resurrection , together with all that can be learned 
 7* 
 
84 MATTHEW X. 28. 
 
 of the manner of it, without reference to those passages 
 which are entirely silent on the last particular. — These 
 passages I shall take up in that order and connection 
 which seem most favorable for a proper understanding 
 of them. 
 
 I shall first consider those passages which are thought 
 by many to teach expressly the resurrection of the same 
 body, or of some part of it, because the word body is 
 particularly named. Of these there are three in all ; 
 if there are more I have not been able to discover 
 them. 
 
 Our Saviour says to his disciples,* as recorded by 
 Matthew, " Be not put in fear by those who kill the 
 body, but cannot kill the soul ; but rather be put in 
 fear of him who can destroy both soul and body in 
 hell." Some consider this passage as teaching, that the 
 bodies of bad men will be raised, and, along with their 
 souls, suffer punishment in another world. Yet no 
 resurrection of the body is here asserted, or implied. 
 The disciples are admonished not to fear those whose 
 utmost power extends to the killing of the body, but to 
 stand in fear of him who has power to reach the soul, 
 and who could, if he chose, destroy them both, even to 
 
 • Matt. x. 28, Gr. 
 
MATTHEW X. 28. 85 
 
 annihilation, in hell, — a name* the very mention of 
 which would naturally remind a Jew of a place of 
 torture for the bodies, as well as the souls of men. The 
 soul and body are here joined together in phraseology 
 only in accommodation, as it would seem, to the lan- 
 guage in the preceding part of the verse, where mention 
 is made of killing the body without the power of doing 
 more: — as both were mentioned in connection at first, 
 the connection is kept up to the end. That this is the 
 proper view of the text, appears from Luke, who relates 
 this admonition in somewhat different language. His 
 words are,f "But I say to you, my friends, be not 
 put in fear by those who kill the body, and afterwards 
 have nothing further to do. But I will show you of 
 whom you should be put in fear ; be put in fear of him 
 who, after killing, has power to cast into hell ; yes, I 
 say to you, be put in fear of him." The latter passage 
 explains, as I conceive, the true intent and meaning 
 of the former. The disciples are forcibly cautioned to 
 stand in fear of that Being whose power extends beyond 
 the present life, rather than of them whose power is 
 limited to the mere killing of the body in this world, 
 
 ♦Gehenna is the word translated hell; and this, originally, denoted 
 the valley of Hinnom, where human victims were made to pass through 
 the fire as propitiatory sacrifices to Moloch. 
 
 tLuke xii. 4, 5, Gr. 
 
86 ROMANS VIII. 11. 
 
 but who cannot deprive the soul of its existence either 
 here or hereafter. That this is the real purport of both 
 passages, and nothing more, seems to me too evident to 
 need an extended illustration. In the one from Matthew 
 it is, indeed, said that God has the power to destroy 
 the body in hell ; but this is not a declaration that he 
 will do it. It is said, too, as was remarked in another 
 place, that he has power to raise up children to Abra- 
 ham ; but no one ever imagined that this was a declara- 
 tion, either express or implied, that he will actually do 
 it. Such expressions point us to the greatness of his 
 power, but do not inform us that, though great, it will 
 of course be exerted. 
 
 Romans viii. 11. " But if the spirit of him who 
 raised Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he who 
 raised Christ from the dead will vivify even your mortal 
 bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you." This pass- 
 age has been thought by some to teach a resurrection 
 of the same body. The fact, however, is, it has no 
 reference to any resurrection at all, and alludes entirely 
 to the body of a believer in the present life, (to his 
 "mortal " not immortal body,) as sanctified by the Spirit 
 of God — even of that God who raised Jesus from the 
 dead. In the preceding verse the Apostle had said, "If 
 Christ is in you, the body indeed is dead through sin ; 
 
I. THES8AL0NIAN8 V. 23. 87 
 
 but the spirit is life through righteousness." But he 
 then proceeds to tell his Roman believers, that the Spirit 
 of him who raised Jesus from the dead would vivify 
 even such dead bodies as their's ; that is, would cause 
 them to live in subservience to a life of holiness, they 
 having become dead in respect to a life of sin. The sense 
 coincides with that which is contained in the second 
 chapter of Colossians, thirteenth verse : u And you, 
 being dead in the offences and the uncircumcision of 
 your flesh, he has vivified together with him, having 
 forgiven us all offences." Another similar passage is 
 found in 1 Thess. v. 23 : " Now may the God of peace 
 himself sanctify you wholly and completely ; and may 
 your entire spirit, and soul, and body, be kept without 
 fault against the arrival of our Lord Jesus Christ." 
 But the passage in question receives an ample illustra- 
 tion in the first five verses of the second chapter of 
 Ephesians : " And you being dead in offences and sins, 
 in which you once walked according to the course of 
 this world, according to the prince of the power of the 
 air, the spirit that now operates in the sons of disobedi- 
 ence, (among whom even we all were once busied in 
 the lusts of our flesh, performing the desires of the 
 flesh, and of the thoughts, and were by nature children 
 of wrath even as the rest,) and us also being dead in 
 
88 PHILIPPIANS III. 21. 
 
 offences, hath God, who is rich in mercy, vivified to- 
 gether with Christ, through the abundant love with 
 which he loved us." 
 
 The only remaining passage which speaks of any 
 such change in the human body as can in any way be 
 associated with its future resurrection, is the twenty- 
 first verse of the third chapter of Philippians. If there 
 is any other, it has entirely escaped my researches. 
 The passage is as follows: " Who" (that is, our Lord 
 Jesus Christ,) " will transform the body of our humilia- 
 tion, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, 
 according to the efficacy of his power even to subject 
 all things to himself." — It is admitted that, in this pass- 
 age, the Apostle has allusion both to the bodies of 
 believers in the present life, and such as they will have 
 in another ; but that he here teaches the resurrection of 
 the same body as now exists, cither in whole, or in part, 
 is not conceded. The language is strongly figurative, 
 and peculiar. Instead of saying that Christ will trans- 
 form our bodies, the Apostle says that he will transform 
 our body ; using the singular instead of the plural num- 
 ber, and thus making the word abstract in its meaning 
 as far as possible. " The body of our humiliation" is, 
 to say the least, unusual phraseology. It is said, I 
 know by some, that this is a hebraism, and equivalent, 
 
PHILIPPIANS III. 21. 89 
 
 in meaning to, " our humble body," or, as our transla- 
 tors have it, " our vile body." But this criticism does 
 not put the word body in the plural number, nor remove 
 all the peculiarity of expression ; nor does the phrase, 
 when so rendered, convey the energetic meaning of the 
 original. The body of our humiliation, or the body of 
 •our debasement, or abjection, (jo aw^a ttjq rcnreivwaeioc 
 >/^wi',) seems rather to mean that corporeal organism 
 which, as the great inciter to sinful indulgences and the 
 seat of all the baser appetites, is the cause of our pres- 
 ent deep degradation. So, too, the " body of the glory 
 of Christ," must mean, as I apprehend, that organic 
 structure which he now possesses in his glory, and which 
 is suited to its display.* The Apostle informs believers, 
 that this corrupt and debasing organism of theirs, Christ 
 will " transform," (/ierao-x^arurei,) — W *U d° away and 
 make over, again, so that they may have one conformed 
 to his own, and which will subserve the same glorious 
 purposes. But I shall neither dwell, nor insist, on this 
 particular interpretation ; and am content to take the 
 passage as it stands in the common version, or any 
 translation which will not depart more widely from the 
 literal sense of the original text than that does. I re- 
 
 * The meaning of oufia, when the term is applied to those in another 
 world, or in connection with the resurrection, will be hereafter considered 
 in treating of the xvth chap. I. Cor. 
 
90 PHILIPPIAN8 HI. 21. 
 
 mark, then, that the language in question needed not to 
 be varied whether the Apostle believed that the same 
 body, or some part of the same body, will be raised to 
 life again, or that one entirely new and different through- 
 out, will be given at the resurrection. Let it be borne 
 in mind that his object in the present instance, was not 
 to show in what the change consists — not to show 
 whether believers have entirely new bodies given them, 
 or only their old ones new modeled — but to assure 
 them that their present debased and debasing bodies 
 will no more molest them after they shall leave this 
 world, and that, in the world to come, they will have 
 bodies organized after the manner of Christ's in his 
 glory, and suited to their then happy condition. As, in 
 order to all this, there must of necessity be a great 
 change, a great transformation, such a fact is incidentally 
 alluded to as introductory to the mention of those 
 bodies which believers will have in their glory ; and the 
 same language might be employed whether their old 
 ones are to be repaired, and refitted, or are to give place 
 to organizations entirely new. We all talk in the same 
 manner, at the present day, whatever may be our opin- 
 ions on this particular topic. Were one person to hear 
 another say, that he believed that his body would, at the 
 resurrection, be changed, or be transformed, so as to be 
 
QKNEBAL VIKWS OF ALL TBI PASSAGES. 91 
 
 made like, or to be conformed, to Christ's glorious body, 
 the former would not understand, from this mode of ex- 
 pression, the real opinion of the latter in respect to the 
 question in hand. He would know, indeed, that the 
 latter believed in a resurrection, and in his future pos- 
 session of a body adapted to his new condition ; but 
 whether he believed that'this body would be constructed 
 of new materials^ or re-constructed out of old ones, the 
 former could not tell. With what propriety, then, can 
 it be said that the passage under consideration teaches 
 the resurrection of our present bodies, and why should 
 it be quoted for that purpose ? The Apostle does not 
 pretend to give instruction on the point in dispute, and 
 alludes to it, even incidentally, no farther than was 
 necessary for the introduction of his main object. It is 
 a point, however, which he does not evade when the 
 proper occasion offers, as we shall have full opportunity 
 to see in some of the following pages. — With these re- 
 marks I dismiss the further consideration of this partic- 
 ular passage. 
 
 I have now considered all the passages in the New 
 Testament which, so far as I know, are or can be quoted, 
 as alluding directly, and by name, to the resurrection of 
 the body. These are but three in all, and two of them, 
 as we have seen, have no manner of reference to this 
 8 
 
IWS OF ALL THE PASSAGES. 
 
 subject : while one of them refers to it incidentally, but 
 without any attempt to give instruction relative to the 
 main point at issue. Now it is not a little remarkable, 
 that a doctrine, so firmly believed by almost the whole 
 christian world as that of the resurrection of the same 
 body, and for which the highest scripture authority is 
 claimed, and for disbelieving which a man incurs the risk 
 of being set down as little better than a heretic, if not 
 altogether such a distinguished personage, should be so 
 destitute of direct support . It is possible, I am aware, to 
 teach a doctrine by inference, and incidentally; and when 
 one is fairly made out to be taught in this manner, it is 
 entitled to our full belief. But the scriptures do not 
 doctrines of the first importance to be learned in 
 this manner; and, especially, when occasion continually 
 offers for a distinct enunciation of them. How often is 
 the doctrine of a resurrection taught us, and in how 
 many different ways. How often is it alluded to inci- 
 dentally, and how often made the theme of extended 
 irks. If, then, the resurrection of the same body 
 is a matter of fact, is it not remarkable that it should, 
 in no instance, be distinctly, and directly, announced ? 
 This silence is certainly a presumptive argument against 
 tb' doctrine, though not, I admit, a conclusive one. 
 It is, however, enough to put us on our guard against 
 
&KNERAX vikws OF ALL TIIK PASSAGES. 
 
 rash opinions, and to induce us to examine carefully 
 the grounds of our belief. Let us then examine sundry 
 other passages which have been relied on as teaching 
 the resurrection of the same body, or at least, of some 
 portion of the same. 
 
OHAP T E R V. 
 
 Passage considered in which no express mention is made of the body, hut 
 which are generally claimed as proving its resurrection. — John 
 40; John v. 28, 29. — Rule for understanding figurative langu 
 Acts xxiv. 14, 15; I. Then. It, KJ-18; Rev. xx. 12-1 :>. 
 
 IN the Gospel of John, the sixth chapter, 39th and l ( >th 
 verses, the Saviour is represented as saying, " And 
 this is the will of the Father who sent me, that 1 shall 
 lose nothing of every thing that he has given me, but 
 raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will 
 of him who sent me, that every one who sees the Son, 
 and believes on him, should have eternal life; audi 
 will raise him up again at the last day." 
 
 1 refer to the above passage, not because I deem it 
 relevant to the main object of inquiry, hut because I 
 would not willingly pass over any form of expression 
 which, by possibility, might be thought to hear upon it. 
 The words translated, " I shall lose nothing of every 
 thing that he has given me," and " but raise it up again 
 at the last day," some may consider as comprehending 
 the body, because the expression (s so generic, and. in 
 the original Greek, all the appropriate words are in the 
 
PASSAGES CONSIDERED AS REFERRING TO THE BODY. 95 
 
 neuter gender. This use of the neuter gender is, in- 
 deed, remarkable, but is not a solitary one. In the 
 present case, however, we need not resort to parallel 
 forms of speech in other places of Scripture for the 
 illustration of this fact. The succeeding verse will fur- 
 nish all the explanation which is wanted ; and according 
 to that, the " every thing" which Christ will raise up at 
 the last day, is " every who sees the Son and believes 
 on him." In other words, the thing that constitutes the 
 gift of the Father to the Son, which is spoken of in the 
 39th verse, is found, by reference to the 40th, to be the 
 believer on the Son ; and every such gift, or believer, the 
 Son will raise up at the last day. But unless the body 
 is that which " believes, ,, and is that which constitutes 
 the gift in question, or, in other words, constitutes the 
 reward which the Saviour receives for all that he has 
 done and suffered for men, it cannot be that which he 
 will raise up, according to his Father's good pleasure, at 
 the last day. But who will affirm that such is the 
 Father's gift to the Son ; or that the body believes ? And 
 who will, therefore, affirm that this passage of Scripture 
 teaches the resurrection of the body ? — The 44th verse 
 still farther settles the point in question. " No one can 
 come to me unless the Father who sent me shall draw 
 him ; and I will raise him up at the last day." It can- 
 8* 
 
not We necessary to inquire further, who, or what, is to 
 be the subject of this resurrection. 
 
 " Be not amazed at this, that the hour approaches in 
 which all who are in the tombs will hear Wis voice; 
 and those who have done good things will go forth to the 
 resurrection of life, and those who have practiced evil 
 things, to the resurrection of condemnation."* This 
 passage is greatly relied on for proof that the bodies of 
 men will hereafter he raised ; and yet it says no such 
 thing. Who are they, who, according to this declara- 
 tion of the Saviour, will hear his voice, and go forth to 
 the resurrection of life, or to that of condemnation? 
 The dead bodies of men ? Will they ever hear the voice 
 of the Saviour summoning them to go forth to judg- 
 ment ? What power have those particles of dead mat- 
 ter which once composed the living bodies of the ante- 
 diluvians, to hear a voice, more than any other particles 
 of matter? What better power of hearing have those 
 particles of matter which once constituted an organized 
 living mass, which has afterwards died, been dissolved. 
 had its constituent particles separated from eacli other 
 and formed into new combinations, than other material 
 particles which never happened to be component parts 
 of a human body? Or what better power of hearing 
 
 •John v. 28, 89 
 
.joiin v. 28, 29, -'7 
 
 have those material particles winch happen to compose 
 a human body at the time of its death, than those other 
 particles which were once constituent parts of it, but 
 have long since been thrown off and dissipated by its 
 excretory organs ? Or what better claims to be re-col- 
 lected, and to be re-modeled into a new organic, living, 
 body, have those material particles which once con- 
 tributed to form one, than any other like particles 
 which never received such an organization ? And how 
 could one class of such particles better subserve the 
 purpose of a new body, be it what it may, than the 
 other? How could one, better than the other, subserve 
 the object of a resurrection, or any conceivable pur- 
 pose for which a new body is wanted? And how is 
 the power of God, so often appealed to for the sake of 
 silencing objections to the popular theory, more com- 
 petent to form a new body out of the once constituent 
 particles of an old one, than out of precisely similar 
 particles that had never before been put to that use? 
 — I put these questions for the express purpose of being 
 answered, and not of being evaded. I put them to the 
 sober understanding of every man of common sense, in 
 the hope that they may induce him to think again, before 
 he resolves to charge his neighbor with heresy, or to 
 fasten on him injurious suspicions, because he chooses 
 
.i.»n- 29. 
 
 iko the Scriptures and common sense, conjointly, for 
 -uides, rather than the dogmas, traditions, and 
 superstitions of men. But I shall now be met with a 
 cautionary rebuke of this kind ; — What if nothing does 
 appear to be gained by the resurrect ion of the same 
 particles of matter that constituted a human body when 
 it dies, still, if such be the good pleasure of God, and 
 (he Scriptures declare it to be so, we are bound to make 
 it a matter of our faith. Very good; and the way is 
 now open to consider this very point. 
 
 I take it tor -ranted that, if the Script ures are en- 
 tirely rileni about the resurrection of the same body, 
 then they do not teach it ; and that if they say nothing 
 whatever about the resurrection of the old body, taken 
 as a whole, they say nothing about the resurrection of 
 irts. These premises, surely, arc not chargeable 
 with herufi or with any rashness of conclusion. Let it. 
 then, be remembered thai our Saviour, in the passage 
 under consideration, says not one word about the resur- 
 rection of the body, and gives not the least intimation 
 of any such fact. His language is: "All who are in 
 the tombfl will hear his voice." The Greek has it: 
 i m it- rote ftnifiHoir. Again, " and those who have 
 done good things will go forth to the resurrection of 
 and those who have practiced evil things to the 
 
john v. 28, 29. 99 
 
 resurrection of condemnation." The Greek is: oira 
 
 aya-rrt Trouimurtr. and, Ot ti ra <ixiv\<( -nt'i^urfc, etc. ISlOW, 
 
 tlie merest tyro in Greek cannot but know that nothing, 
 absolutely nothing, is here said, or alluded to. about 
 bodies, either dead, or alive. The Greek word for body 
 is tr6fM\ plural, tr&para, in the neuter gender; but all the 
 words which are employed to denote the individuals 
 spoken of as concerned in the resurrection, are in the 
 masculine gender, and cannot, therefore, be referred, by 
 any tortuosity whatever, to the bodies of men. Every 
 tyro in Greek must know that r£rrtf <>'>. means all those 
 men tvho; — to wit, — are in the tombs ; that oi noii^n i rcj 
 means those men who have done ; and that oi vpa£am\ 
 means those men who have practiced. These Greek 
 words all refer to living agents, or beings ; and, what is 
 more, refer to agents or beings who were living while 
 our Saviour spoke in the manner here related, as well 
 as to such as should afterwards have their bodies laid in 
 tombs. But nobody, 1 apprehend, would ever have 
 supposed that the Saviour had any reference to the 
 dead bodies of men, had he not used the expression, 
 " all who are in the tombs." Now it should be con- 
 sidered that he spoke just as other men speak. When 
 we say, in Scriptural language, " Blessed are the dead 
 who die in the Lord, for they rest from their labors, 
 and their works do follow them," we do not dream that 
 
l"" john \. 28, 29, 
 
 any person can believe us to teach, blessed are the dead 
 % who die in the Lord. We should expect that the 
 accompanying adjuncts, and the sense of men, 
 
 would sufficiently guard us from being so misconstrued* 
 Were a man to say, that all who pest in their graves 
 have thenceforth done with worldly cares and troubles, 
 and are reaping the reward of their actions in this 
 world, as the latter were good or evil, he would little 
 think of being understood assaying, that all the dead 
 I which are in their graves are reaping such a 
 id. Because our Saviour said that the rich man 
 died and was buried^ and afterwards added, " in hell he 
 lifted up his eyes, being in torment." nobody ever 
 supposed this equivalent to saying, that the hody of 
 the rich man "lifted tip its eyes, being in torment." 
 When, therefore, our Saviour says, "all who are in the 
 tombs" (or. who will be, in tombs, or be buried; for the 
 original allow- both the present and future tenses to be 
 implied). *• will hear his voice," why should we under- 
 stand him as meaning that all dead bodies which are 
 (or will hereafter be) in tombs, will hear his voice? 
 What need is there of making him utter the absurdity, 
 that dead bodies will hear his voice ? and — that dead 
 l will go forth • and be adjudged to a resurrection 
 
 * In my translation of this passage, I bare strictly observed the order 
 and connection of the irordi in the original. In the Greek, the verb, 
 
:\- \.- 28; fe9. 101 
 
 of life, or of condemnation, according to the good or 
 evil things which they have practiced? Who does not 
 know that men, in common language, are said to die, 
 when only their bodies die ; to be laid in tombs, sep- 
 ulchers, and graves, when only their bodies are laid 
 in them; and to be dead, when only their bodies are 
 dead ? When we use this kind of language, nothing is 
 further from us than the apprehension that any will 
 understand us as asserting the death of the soul. When 
 \w day that men die ; that men are laid in graves; that 
 many lie in yonder graveyard, we deem ourselves suf- 
 ficiently understood, and do not stop to eke out our 
 meaning by warning our hearers in due form that we 
 refer only to the bodies of men. If a person, who had 
 been long absent, should return and inquire of me 
 about a mutual friend, and I should inform him that he 
 is dead, and buried ; and should I furthermore express 
 a belief that this friend is now happy in Paradise, I 
 should not deem it necessary to take the precaution of 
 adding, that I did not intend by this, that his body is 
 happy in Paradise. — We do not say of a dead body that 
 he will rise again, or that he is in the grave; — nor do 
 we in any case apply the masculine pronoun to the 
 
 "go forth," has "those who have done good things," for its nominative, 
 or subject ; and " those who have practiced evil things/' stands in the 
 same connection. 
 
102 JOfi 
 
 human body, as such, whether dead, or living. Nor 
 was the pronoun so applied in Greek ; and it should be 
 remembered, that while in English the distinction of 
 genders is confined to pronouns, and to them in the 
 singular number only, the Greek language gave distinc- 
 tion of gender alike to nouns, pronouns, and adjectives, 
 and to both numbers. A man who spoke Greek, there- 
 fore, would no sooner use the masculine gender of 
 nouns, pronouns, or adjectives, either in the singular or 
 plural number, when referring to the human body 
 only, than we should think of using the masculine he 
 in reference to the same thing. Suppose, now, that our 
 Saviour had spoken in English in such language as the 
 following: u Se that is in the tomb, will hear my voice," — 
 or * * — •• Every man that is in a tomb, grave, or sepul- 
 chre, will hear my voice; ami he who has done good things 
 will go forth to the resurrection of life, and he who has 
 practiced evil things, to the resurrection of condemna- 
 tion/' Who. in that case, would quote the passage as 
 proof that the bodies of men will be raised ? Or who 
 would believe that such language had the least allusion 
 t<» an event of that kind? Yet the language of the 
 original Greek, in the passage now before us, is jusi as 
 far from teaching, or implying such an event as this 
 specimen in English. The two forms of expression are 
 
john v. 28, 29. 103 
 
 perfectly analagous, and teach precisely the same gen- 
 eral fact. This view of the case is absolutely decisive 
 on the point before us, and relieves us from the ab- 
 surdity of making dead bodies — bodies dead for thous- 
 ands of years, and having their particles scattered 
 throughout this lower creation and incorporated with 
 the whole mass of the earth's surface — endowed with 
 ability to hear. 
 
 It cannot now avail the believers in a resurrection 
 of the body to say that the phrase, " hear his voice," is 
 figurative ; meaning that the bodies which are entombed 
 will be made to experience the power of that voice which 
 will summon them to go forth ; or to pretend that the 
 bodies will first be raised, and that so they will actually 
 be able to hear. I have proved, if there can be any 
 proof in such a case, that nothing, absolutely nothing, 
 is said about bodies, or in allusion to them, in the whole 
 passage. Of course, there is nothing out of which to 
 make a figure. But, to show more completely still how 
 entirely incongruous the faith of such men is with the 
 doctrine which Christ delivered, I will briefly remark, 
 that dead bodies can hear, neither figuratively nor liter- 
 ally, so long as they remain dead; before they can hear, 
 they must be made alive. Now, if bodies were, in the 
 present case, the subjects of remark at all, then they 
 9 
 
104 RULES AS TO FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 
 
 were to hear the voice of the Son of man, while they 
 were yet dead and in the tombs ; for they were not to go 
 forth until that voice should be heard. They were 
 not, therefore, to be raised preparatory to hearing, but 
 rather, it should seem, were to hear preparatory to being 
 raised ! The very absurdity of the case betrays the origin 
 of the doctrine which it involves. Absurdities are not 
 taught us from heaven, however current they may be on 
 earth ; nor do they become truths by being, for a long 
 while, believed. 
 
 There is one general rule for determining whether 
 language is literal, or figurative ; and it applies as 
 strictly to the language of the Bible as of any other 
 book. The rule is this: If there is nothing in the 
 language itself, or in connection with it, which requires 
 it to be taken figuratively in order to make good sense, 
 then it should be understood as literal ; but if the lan- 
 guage, taken literally makes bad sense, then it must be 
 understood figuratively, but no further so, than to make 
 the sense consistent. Let the accuracy of this rule be 
 fully tested by applying it to any kind of figurative 
 language, wherever met with, and I believe that the 
 rule will be found universally correct. Indeed, unless 
 it is so found, all figurative language is grossly decep- 
 tive, and improper. Apply, now, this rule to the passage 
 
RULES AS TO FK. I L'ATIVE LANGUAGE. 1<>0 
 
 under consideration, and what is the result ? u All who 
 are in their tombs will hear his voice." It is obvious 
 that the whole of what constitutes men is not laid in 
 tombs, and does not die. The whole of men, therefore, 
 is not here meant, and the language is in some measure 
 figurative — is of that kind which puts for a part the 
 whole. In order to make good sense, therefore, we 
 must determine what part of men is laid in tombs. 
 If we put their dead bodies there, and nothing more, 
 we make good sense ; if we put their souls there, we 
 make nonsense, besides contradicting the plain declara- 
 tions of Scripture. We are, then, obliged to construe 
 the words, " all who are in their tombs," as meaning, 
 all whose dead bodies are laid in tombs. This makes 
 out good, intelligible, sense. Again, "will hear his 
 voice :" What, or who, will " hear his voice"? This 
 point is already settled ; — they will hear it whose dead 
 bodies are in the tombs. But we will try the rule once 
 more. Bodies that have been dead a thousand years 
 have ceased to be bodies, and have no organs of hearing. 
 To say, then, that such nonentities " hear" is nonsensi- 
 cal, if anything is nonsensical. This, therefore, can 
 not have been the Saviour's meaning. What substitute, 
 then, will make good sense ? That part of men, surely, 
 that does not die along with the body, but continues to 
 
106 RULE8 AS TO FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 
 
 be a living, percipient, being— that is, the soul. Hearing, 
 even when applied to the latter, is somewhat figurative 
 language, but much less so than when applied to inor- 
 ganic matter. If a soul is a percipient being, it must 
 have organs of perception ; and if it can hold communi- 
 cation with other souls, it must have organs of commu- 
 nication which are analagous to those of hearing; that 
 is, must have organs' which answer a similar purpose. 
 Thus, God himself is said to hear; and angels are said 
 to hear his voice. Analogy is one of the most common 
 figures of speech, and one of those best understood. 
 Now according to the rule, we are not to make language 
 more figurative than is necessary in order to make good 
 sense. Putting, therefore, all these considerations to- 
 gether, the following would seem to be the true literal 
 meaning of the text: " All those, or all those souls, 
 whose dead bodies are in the tombs, will, in some man- 
 ner analogous to that of hearing, perceive the voice of 
 the Son of man." This makes out good, plain, sense, 
 which every man can understand, and which is consis- 
 tent both with other known truths of revelation, and 
 those which we discover from natural sources. Can we 
 doubt, therefore, that we have arrived at the true mean- 
 ing of the words in question ? Now take the latter part 
 of the text under consideration, and unite it with the 
 
RULES AS TO FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 107 
 
 former ; — " Those who have done good things will go 
 forth to the resurrection of life ; and those who have 
 produced evil things, to the resurrection of condemna- 
 tion. " That the same individuals are referred to in 
 both parts, will not be disputed. Those who will hear 
 the voice of the Son of man, are those who will go forth 
 to the resurrection of life, or of condemnation. By 
 adopting the meaning that the former are those souls 
 whose bodies die and are laid in tombs, we avoid the 
 absurdity of making the bodies of men, whether dead or 
 alive, accountable moral agents, besides the other ab- 
 surdities which have been pointed out. 
 
 But, says an objector, does not the verb " go forth*' 
 imply that something, at least, will go forth from the 
 tombs ? Not at all. It has already been shown that 
 what " goes forth," was never dead, and never placed in 
 tombs. That which goes forth, therefore, must go from 
 some other quarter ; those who go forth, must go from 
 a place where they are, not from a place where they 
 are not. The verb ktatopevtrovTai has no allusion, I appre- 
 hend, to tombs, but to the abode of departed souls ; if, 
 indeed, it alludes to any one place in particular. It is 
 not necessary, however, to consider it as referring par- 
 ticularly to either place, but as simply declaring, in a 
 general manner, that those souls will, at the command 
 
 9* 
 
108 RULES AS TO FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 
 
 of the Son of God, proceed to the resurrection of life, or 
 of condemnation. 
 
 Does not, however, the word u resurrection," itself, 
 denote that something which is dead is to be raised up 
 again ; or, raised from death to life ? By no means. It 
 has been shown, in another place, that the Greek words 
 which are translated, to rise again, to raise up, and 
 resurrection, do never, in themselves, denote a restora- 
 tion from death to life, but merely a getting up from a 
 prostrate, to an erect position, from a fallen, to a risen 
 state ; or, simply, from a lower, to a higher place. These 
 words, with other adjuncts, may, it is true, be made to 
 denote a restoration to life. These adjuncts, therefore, 
 must determine whether the latter is intended, or is not. 
 It has also been fully shown that there is a resurrection 
 without a resuscitation of the body. Put all these things 
 together, and where is the least evidence that the word 
 " resurrection " in the text has any reference whatever 
 to the bodies of men ? In addition to this, we have just 
 seen that the subjects of this resurrection are not those 
 bodies of men which the tomb has enveloped, but the 
 souls to which they were once united. 
 
 I have devoted a much larger share of attention to 
 this passage from John, than was necessary to show its 
 proper meaning. But the passage has been so much 
 
ACTS XXIV. 14, 15. 109 
 
 relied on to prove a resurrection of the same body, in 
 whole, or in part, it seemed important to view it in all 
 its possible bearings. Another inducement to dwell 
 more at large upon it, was to save, in this way, the ne- 
 cessity of an extended examination of some other pas- 
 sages, to which a similar train of remarks would be 
 equally applicable. 
 
 u I acknowledge this to thee, however, that after the 
 way which they call sectarianism, so I worship the God 
 of my fathers, believing all those things which are 
 written in the law, and in the Prophets ; having a hope 
 towards God, which even they themselves admit, that 
 there will be a resurrection of the dead, both just and 
 unjust."* If dead bodies are here intended, the sense 
 then is, that Paul had a hope, in common with his 
 countrymen, that there will hereafter be a resurrection 
 both of the just and unjust dead bodies of men ! — for such 
 is the absurdity which the supposition involves. But what 
 is it in man which can have justice, or injustice, predi- 
 cated of it ? If we can discover this, then we shall 
 know what that was, in the resurrection of which Paul 
 believed. What but the soul, or intellectual part of man, 
 ever acts justly, or unjustly ; or performs any moral 
 action at all ? Nothing else, must be the answer. The 
 
 * Acts xxiv. 14, 15. 
 
110 ACT8 XXIV. 14, 15. 
 
 Apostle, then, believed, or hoped, in the resurrection of 
 the souls of men ; both of those that had done justly and 
 unjustly here on earth, without distinction. — If dead 
 bodies have no moral character, and no moral value 
 of any kind, as we know that they have not, it is impos- 
 sible to conceive what useful purpose their resurrection 
 could accomplish. Will it be said that they must be 
 raised, as necessary appendages of the souls by whom 
 they were once inhabited ? We might as well say that, 
 for a similar reason, the houses in which they once 
 dwelt, or the clothes which they once wore, will be 
 raised again. Departed souls now live — and some of 
 them have lived these six thousand years — without their 
 former bodies ; and for aught that appears, they may so 
 continue to live for any length of time to come. We do 
 not learn from revelation, or from reason, that a re- 
 union with their former bodies would add to their moral 
 accountability, or better qualify them for their eternal 
 retributions. For aught that appears, the righteous 
 may be as happy without their material bodies as with 
 them, and the wicked be as susceptible of punishment 
 in a disembodied state, as though clothed anew with 
 tabernacles of flesh. Furthermore, we do never hope for 
 anything from which we do not anticipate pleasure ; and 
 it is, therefore, difficult to conceive why Paul should 
 particularly 'hope' for the resurrection of the bodies of 
 
I. THES8AL0NIANS IV. 13-18. Ill 
 
 men. He sometimes strongly desired to be disburdened 
 of his body of sin and death, and to put off the earthly 
 house of his tabernacle in which he then groaned ; but 
 we never read of his hoping to put it on again. In every 
 point of view, there is absolutely nothing to induce a 
 belief that, in the passage before us, he had the least 
 allusion to the resurrection of the bodies of men, but 
 had exclusive reference to their souls. I shall not, 
 therefore, dwell longer on a text which is so utterly 
 destitute of anything to support the common theory in 
 regard to the resurrection. 
 
 " I wish not, brethren, that you should be ignorant 
 concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you should 
 be disturbed even as others who have no hope. For if 
 we believe that Jesus died and arose, so also will God, 
 through the agency of Jesus, conduct along with him 
 those who have fallen asleep. For this we say to you 
 by the word of the Lord, that we who shall be living, 
 who shall be left behind, on the coming of the Lord, 
 shall not precede those who will have fallen asleep ; be- 
 cause the Lord himself will descend from heaven with 
 a word of command, with a voice of an arch-angel, 
 and with a trump of God, and the dead in Christ will 
 rise first. Thereupon we who shall be living, who shall 
 be left behind, shall, together with them, be carried off 
 
L12 I THE8SAL0NIANS IV. 13-18. 
 
 in clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall 
 always be with the Lord. Wherefore encourage one 
 another with these words."* 
 
 That by those who " have fallen asleep," the Apostle 
 intends those who have died, none will dispute. He 
 declares, " by the word of the Lord," that, at some future 
 time, Christ himself will descend from heaven with the 
 signals of a commander of an army ; that the dead in 
 Christ will first rise ; that thereupon, those who will 
 be left alive at the time of his coming, together with 
 these risen dead, will be carried off in clouds, to meet 
 himself in the air; and that thenceforth they will always 
 be with the Lord. The main questions to be here settled 
 are these ; — who, and what, are meant by those who 
 are said to be "fallen asleep," or to be the "dead in 
 Christ" ? Are they dead bodies; or are they the souls 
 of those who have fallen asleep in death ; or are they 
 both united ? 
 
 With regard to the first point of inquiry, let it be 
 noted, that dead bodies are not so much as mentioned ; 
 nor are they, in any way, brought into view. Instead 
 of making any allusion to such bodies, the Greek most 
 clearly implies the direct contrary. Those whom God 
 will "conduct along with Christ;" those whom sur- 
 
 *I. Thess. iv. 13-18. 
 
I. THE8SALONIAN8 IV. 13-18. 113 
 
 vivors, at the time of his coming, " will not precede;" 
 and those who will " rise first," are roue koi^evtec, and 
 o't vEk-poi iv Xpt-G~>. The masculine gender alone being 
 used, bodies cannot be understood, nor referred to. In 
 speaking of mankind at large, and of intelligent beings 
 generally, wherever and whatever they are, the articles, 
 together with the adjectives and participles agreeing with 
 them, when used without nouns, are always, so far as I 
 can learn, put in the masculine gender. Qi koi/iti^eptec, 
 are living, intelligent, beings asleep, whether their bodies 
 are dead, or alive. Now our ideas of sleep are wholly 
 derived from the condition and appearance of the human 
 body, and of other animals, when in that state of repose. 
 When a person is dead, we very naturally say, that he 
 is asleep, because of many points of resemblance be- 
 tween a dead and a sleeping body ; and we often speak 
 in this figurative way in order to avoid the more direct, 
 and harsher mode of speaking on the subject. But 
 there is a stronger reason still for our substituting the 
 word sleep for death. When we say of a man that he 
 sleeps, in the common meaning of that word, it is well 
 understood that he nevertheless lives. So when we say 
 of one who is dead, that he sleeps, we strongly imply 
 that he yet lives, though his body is now going, or has 
 gone to decay. When we refer to persons as sleeping in 
 
114 I. THE8SAL0NIAN8 IV. 13-18. 
 
 their graves, we more than intimate our belief, that all 
 which once constituted them living beings here on earth, 
 is not actually dead. When Paul, therefore, speaks of 
 those who have "fallen asleep," as he does in the pas- 
 sage before us, he just as strongly intimates that those 
 to whom he refers are riot dead in reality. But it very 
 opportunely turns out, that he has himself put this mat- 
 ter at rest. He says, in the fourteenth verse, u For if 
 we believe that Jesus died and arose, so also will God, 
 through the agency of Jesus, conduct along with him 
 those who have fallen asleep. ,, From this we learn 
 most clearly, that when Christ will descend from heaven, 
 n the manner and for the purpose here spoken of, God 
 will send along with him, or put under his conduct, 
 " those who shall have fallen asleep." Christ, surely, 
 will not be the conductor of dead bodies from another 
 world to this ! The sleepers whom he is to conduct, 
 will not be in this "world at the time of his setting out 
 on this triumphant errand. Nothing which ever per- 
 tained to men will be in that world, at the time alluded 
 to, but their souls. It must be their souls, therefore, 
 whom he will have for his attendants on his way to this 
 lower world. What is said in the fourteenth verse, pre- 
 pares us to comprehend fully what is said of the resur- 
 rection in the sixteenth. "A word of command," like 
 
I. THESSALONIANS IV. 13-18. 115 
 
 that of a general at the head of his army, will be given ; 
 a voice of an arch-angel will be heard ; a trumpet will 
 be sounded ; and at these signals, the dead in Christ, 
 (ot vEKpol') will rise." That the sleepers, before men- 
 tioned, and " the dead," here spoken of, refer identically 
 to the same class of individuals, cannot, I should sup- 
 pose, be questioned. The rising of the latter, therefore, 
 must be equivalent to the conducting of the former ; and 
 the general resurrection of the dead in Christ, according 
 to this passage of Scripture, is the same thing as the 
 general assembling of the souls of men from the place, 
 or places, of their abode in another world, at the com- 
 mand of Christ, and their attending him to the world 
 which we inhabit. Independently of any connection, how- 
 ever, between the fourteenth and sixteenth verses, "the 
 dead in Christ," mentioned in the latter, cannot, with 
 the least propriety, be made to refer to the dead bodies 
 of believers. Of all language, the dead bodies in Christ, 
 is some of the strangest ; and any theory which implies 
 it, should be exploded as something worse than a merely 
 innocent absurdity. 
 
 The second point of inquiry, namely, are those who 
 
 are said " to be fallen asleep," and " the dead in Christ," 
 
 the souls of men who are dead? has been sufficiently 
 
 answered already under the first point ; but a few addi- 
 
 10 
 
lit 1. THKSSAL0NIAN8 IV. 13-18. 
 
 tional remarks will not be out of place. All that con- 
 stitutes a man, even in this life, a rational and account- 
 able being, or'causes him to possess any moral worth 
 or dignity, is found in the soul. His body is only an 
 assemblage of organs nicely and wonderfully combined 
 for the use of the soul, but having in itself no moral 
 character, nor value. When it dies, it is of no more 
 use than any equal amount of very inferior matter. At 
 death, the soul carries with itself to another world, all 
 its peculiar worth, dignity, and excellence. It never 
 dies ; and we have no decisive evidence that it ever, in 
 the proper sense of the word, even sleeps. When, there- 
 fore, we speak of those who are in their graves, of those 
 who sleep in death, of the dead, or of those who have 
 expired, as perceiving, knowing, or doing anything, or 
 as being the subjects of present happiness or misery, 
 we must mean, in order to speak sense, those whose 
 bodies are in their graves, whose bodies sleep in death, 
 whose bodies are dead, whose bodies have expired. We 
 certainly do not mean that the souls of men are in 
 graves, arc dead, sleep in death, or have expired. Nor 
 do the writers of the New Testament differ from our- 
 selves in the use of such phraseology, but use the lan- 
 guage of all mankind when talking of such matters. 
 Now when these same writers come to say that the dead 
 
I. THESSALONIANS IV. 13-18. 117 
 
 shall rise, that the dead shall hear the voice of the Son 
 of God, that the dead shall be judged, that there shall 
 be a resurrection of the dead, and that those who are in 
 their tombs, or in their graves, or in the earth, or in the 
 sea, shall come forth, and be judged, what reason have 
 we to believe that they now depart from the natural 
 meaning of such language, and speak only of the dead 
 bodies of men ? It cannot be pretended that there is 
 any necessity for so understanding them, in order to 
 make out good sense ; it would rather seem, that the 
 best sense is made out from a different construction. 
 What is gained by so much solicitude to make out a 
 resurrection of the worthless body, when the language 
 of the text does not demand this interpretation ? In 
 what respect will the soul be a gainer by this reunion 
 with its miserable body of sin and death ? This body, 
 you will say, is to be changed, and made over, so as to 
 be like that which Christ now has in his glory. . Prove 
 this, I reply, before you assert it. Prove, if you can, that 
 the mean, miserable, putrid, loathsome, degraded, mate- 
 rial carcases of men will be converted into spiritual 
 bodies, such as that which Christ now has at the right 
 hand of his Father in glory. Remember that no evi- 
 dence of such a change has yet been found ; and re- 
 member, too, that very strong proof is needed to establish 
 
118 !. THE8SAL0NIANS IV. 13-18. 
 
 a point which puts, alike, our reason and our feelings 
 to so severe a test. — In this connection I will make but 
 one other remark. If Paul, in this passage, teaches 
 the resurrection of the soul, then he does not teach the 
 resurrection of the body ; and if he teaches the resur- 
 rection of the body, then he does not teacli the resurrec- 
 tion of the soul. The soul and body both do not " sleep" 
 at death ; they both are not " dead." The most explicit 
 declaration, therefore, that one will be raised, is no 
 proof that the other will be raised also, provided that 
 no mention is made of such a fact. — But is there, in the 
 text, any mention made of the resurrection of both soul 
 and body in conjunction ? This was the third point to 
 be considered. 
 
 It has, I think, been sufficiently shown that there is, 
 in the text, no allusion at all to dead bodies, and that 
 they have no concern with the resurrection here named. 
 If such is the case, then dead bodies are, every way, out 
 of the question, and the resurrection here spoken of 
 pertains exclusively to the souls of men. In exact ac- 
 cordance with this passage, the New Testament is every- 
 where else as silent as it is here about the resurrection 
 of the body, either conjointly with the soul, or by itself 
 alone. All that sort of language which gives us to un- 
 derstand that there is to be, hereafter, a re-union of the 
 
I. THESSALONIANS IV. 13-1 8. 119 
 
 soul and body, — a future ascension of the body into the 
 air, where it will meet its quondam acquaintance, the 
 soul, and be amalgamated with it so as to produce a 
 new spiritual compound, or something very like it — 
 that the flesh which now slumbers in the ground, is to 
 burst its chains, break forth from its confinement, and 
 rise in the image of its Saviour — is not the language of 
 the Bible, but of men whose claims to divine inspiration 
 rest on poor authority. 
 
 But does not the passage under consideration, it will 
 be said, very clearly teach us, that those christians who 
 will be living at this advent of the Saviour, will be 
 transformed and taken up, soul, body, and all, to meet 
 the Lord in the air ? And since we are not warranted 
 to believe that there will be any difference, after the 
 resurrection, between those who will be alive at the 
 coming of the Lord, and those who will have died pre- 
 viously, must we not, therefore, conclude that the latter 
 will have their bodies raised, and changed, and united 
 to their souls, in order to make out this quality of con- 
 dition ? I answer both questions in the negative. In 
 the passage before us, Paul says not a word about any 
 bodily transformation, or any bodily ascension into the 
 air. All that he says is simply tins : " Thereupon we 
 who shall be living, who shall be left behind, shall, to- 
 
 10* 
 
I*-' 11 I. THKSSALONIANS IV. 13-18, 
 
 gether with them, be carried off in clouds to meet the 
 Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the 
 Lord."* Whether the individuals concerned will be 
 carried off bodily, or without their bodies, is not asserted. 
 All that is said about it is " we shall be carried ;" and 
 this language is just as applicable to their ascension if 
 they leave their bodies behind, as if they take them 
 along with them. The Apostle had no need to use any 
 different phraseology in either case; and we can, there- 
 fore, determine from it nothing, in regard to this point, 
 either way. i.ut must resort to other sources of informa- 
 tion. Some of these sources have already been examined ; 
 and from them we have not, as yet, learned that there 
 is to be any future resurrection of the bodies of men. 
 So far is it from being true, that this passage teaches 
 very clearly, or teaches at all, the transformation and 
 ascension of the bodies of those christians who will be 
 living on earth when the Lord will come as here de- 
 scribed. The first question being thus shown to be 
 founded on a mere assumption, the second needs no 
 further consideration. This particular topic will, haw- 
 ever, be resumed, when I come to the examination of a 
 parallel passage in the fifteenth chapter of the first 
 Epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 *I. Thess. iv. 18. 
 
REVELATION XX. 12-15. 121 
 
 Revelation xx. 12-15. — " And I saw the dead, small 
 and great, standing before God, and books were opened. 
 And another book was opened, which is- the booh of life. 
 And the dead were judged, from the things written in 
 the books, according to their works. And the sea gave 
 up the dead who were in it, and death and hades gave 
 up the dead who were in them, and they were, every 
 one, judged according to their works. And death and 
 hades were thrown into the lake of fire ; — this is the 
 second death. And if any one was not found written 
 in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." 
 
 It has been claimed that this passage alone establishes, 
 incontestably, the doctrine of a future resurrection of 
 the dead bodies of all men who have died, or will have 
 died, from the time of Adam, down to the day of judg- 
 ment. The thirteenth verse, in particular, is relied on 
 as proving this doctrine. Let us, then, examine care- 
 fully the whole passage, so far as it bears on the 
 subject. 
 
 Nothing is more obvious than that the language here 
 employed is in the highest degree metaphorical. It 
 should, therefore, be construed according to those rules 
 of interpretation which have been already mentioned.* 
 The term dead, or the dead, occurs four times in the 
 
 ♦Seepage 104. 
 
122 REVKI,AT!()N XX. 12-15. 
 
 text. In every instance the original Greek lias rove 
 vtKpovQ, or oj KUjpoi, according to the case required by 
 the construction of the sentence; and in every allusion, 
 throughout the passage, to those who u stood before 
 God" on this momentous occasion, the articles, adjec- 
 tives, and participles, are in the masculine gender. This 
 fact proves conclusively that bodies, as such, whether 
 dead or alive, are not the subjects of discourse; — 
 the subjects of discourse are living, rational, and account- 
 is; and must be men in possession of all those 
 attributes, for no other beings than men are here brought 
 into view. But the souls of men will never cease to retain 
 all these attributes, while their bodies never had, nor will 
 have them. We can, then, with entire consistency, and 
 propriety, refer all that is here said of those " who are 
 judged," to the souls of men, and have no occasion to 
 look for further subjects of discourse. The souls of men 
 can as well stand, or appear, before God for the purpose 
 of being judged, and receiving their final award, without 
 their bodies as with them. The addition of the latter can 
 in no way affect the merits or demerits of their souls, nor 
 vary the sentence which they are to receive. — When it is 
 said that " the sea gave up the dead who were in it, and 
 death and hades gave up the dead who were in them," 
 we know, at once that the language is in a very high 
 
REVELATION XX. 12-15. 123 
 
 degree figurative, and that it should be interpreted ac- 
 cordingly. Of that immense multitude of bodies which 
 were overwhelmed by the deluge, and which have since 
 perished in the sea, few can be said, with truth, to be 
 there at the present time. Most of them can no more 
 be said to be in the sea at this moment, than can those 
 masses of ice which, ages ago, were melted away and 
 re-mingled with the waters around them, be now said to 
 float in the ocean. Between this time, and the one 
 spoken of in the text, a great multitude of additional 
 bodies will have perished in the sea, and, in like man- 
 ner, have been dissolved, and lost. The sea, therefore, 
 can never, in a literal sense, " give up" those bodies, 
 unless it can give up what it will not have. To limit 
 the signification of the text, however, to those bodies 
 only which the sea will, at that time, actually contain, 
 would be too puerile for any man's belief. We are, 
 therefore, constrained to seek some other meaning 
 which will better accord with a known state of facts. 
 Will the sea, then, give up the sotds who will be in it? 
 But the souls of men have not the sea for their dwelling 
 place. The souls of men, therefore, are not the things 
 which the sea will surrender. 
 
 "And death and hades gave up the dead who were in 
 them." This language is still more figurative than that 
 
121 REVELATION XX. 12-15. 
 
 which preceded it. Now as " deatli and hades" are 
 represented as giving up something which they contain, 
 it is evident that each of them is intended to denote 
 some place or receptacle of the dead. If we consider 
 " death " as denoting the common receptacle to which 
 those who die are consigned — that is, the earth — we 
 shall make the nearest approach to a literal meaning, 
 and shall, at the same time, obtain one which is con- 
 sistent with good sense. "Hades," in its primary 
 meaning, denotes the abode where the shades, or souls, 
 of men reside in another world. Sometimes it has a 
 more general signification, and denotes the place where 
 the dead are, he it what it may, and whatever may he 
 intended by the phrase, the dead ; and then again, by 
 an easy transition, it sometimes denotes the grave, or 
 the place where the dead bodies of men are put out of 
 sight. Let us, then, give to " hades" the most general, 
 and, of course, the most unobjectionable, meaning which 
 it will bear, and let it denote the hidden place, or places, 
 of the dead. If now we put all these less figurative ex- 
 pressions together, we shall make out the following 
 sense ; — The sea and earth, and every place where the 
 dead are hidden, will give up the dead, (roue v&cpovQ,') 
 which they respectively contain. As the language is 
 still figurative, it is necessary that we make it approxi- 
 
KKVELATION XX. 12-15. 125 
 
 mate yet more to a literal sense. We have already seen 
 that the sea will not actually contain, at the time alluded 
 to, but a very few dead bodies, if any ; and that, as to 
 souls, it will contain none. The same is equally true 
 of the earth, so far as souls are concerned ; and of dead 
 bodies it will then contain but few in comparison with 
 all which will have been committed to its bosom. Let 
 us, finally, suppose the literal meaning of the whole to be 
 this : — All who will have died on sea or land, or have had 
 their bodies consigned to either ; and all who will have 
 died in any way, wherever they may be, or however dis- 
 posed of till then, will be brought to judgment — will be 
 "judged from the things written in the books." This 
 seems to be the most literal meaning that can be given 
 to the text, consistently with good sense ; and for this 
 reason, it seems entitled to our assent. But whether 
 we take the meaning to be as now given, or confine our- 
 selves to the figurative language of the text, two things 
 are certain : The Greek gives but one name to those 
 things, whatever they may be, which the sea, and death, 
 and hades, will give up ; and which, therefore, we are 
 to consider as being all alike, or the same in kind ; — 
 and these things, having been thus surrendered, " will 
 be judged." But will the bodies of men, I ask again 
 and again, " be judged from the things written in the 
 
126 REVELATION XX. 12-15. 
 
 books"? We know the contrary. It remains, then, 
 that the things to be " given up," and to " be judged," — 
 the ol veKpol of the Greek — are the souls of dead men, 
 and not dead men without souls. 
 
 The result of the whole examination of the passage 
 now before us is this; — We find in it no mention, what- 
 ever, of dead bodies; the use of genders in the original 
 Greek forbids such an interpretation; and the fact that 
 those whom the sea, death, and lrades, are to surrender, 
 will be judged, shows that they are living, account- 
 able, beings ; and as nothing pertaining to man, except 
 his soul, is an accountable agent, it follows that the souls 
 of men, alone, are referred to in the text. The language 
 in the fifteenth verse is equally conclusive. "And if any 
 one was not found written in the book of life, he was 
 thrown into the lake of fire." Here we are met, again, 
 by a gender in the original Greek, which shows that the 
 " any one" spoken of, (Vt nc,) cannot be applied to a 
 body, but must relate to a living, accountable being. 
 It would, furthermore, be preposterous to suppose that 
 dead bodies are written in the u book of life;" and if 
 they are not, then the text in no way refers to them. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Translation of I. Cor. xv. 12-57. — Remarks on the first ten of these verses. 
 — Order of the Resurrection. — Surrendry of Christ's Kingdom to the 
 Father. — Thus far no mention of bodies. — Notions of Greek philoso- 
 phers about the soul, alluded to by Paul. — Import of the word body, as 
 here used. — The analogies introduced by Paul considered. — Germs in 
 human bodies considered. — Variety of organic substances. — Palpablo 
 mistranslation. — Examination of verses 42-44 ; of 45-50; of 51-57. 
 
 THE most extensive and satisfactory account of the 
 resurrection which is any where to be found in the 
 Holy Scriptures, is the one given us by Paul in the fif- 
 teenth chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians. 
 This chapter contains not only all that is elsewhere in 
 the New Testament taught on this subject, but adds im- 
 portant particulars which arc omitted by other inspired 
 writers. In order, therefore, to obtain a comprehensive 
 view of the whole scriptural doctrine on this interesting 
 theme, I shall examine all the chapter so far as it treats 
 of anything in relation to it. The version of this 
 chapter, as given us by King James' translators, is so 
 peculiarly incorrect as to require, in a special manner, 
 
 a new one. I have endeavored to give a translation 
 11 
 
128 I. CORINTHIANS XV. 12-57. 
 
 punctiliously exact, so that the inspired author may 
 speak for himself, without having his meaning perverted, 
 or distorted, by a substitution of other men's ideas for 
 his own. The royal translators have done the Apostle 
 such palpable injustice that, in some places, his real 
 meaning cannot even be conjectured. I commence with 
 the twelfth verse, and proceed with the whole remainder 
 of the chapter, placing the numbers of the verses against 
 them severally in the margin. 
 
 12 Now if Christ is preached that he was raised 
 from the dead, how do some among you say that 
 
 13 there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there 
 is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ 
 
 14 been raised. But if Christ has not been raised, 
 then our preaching is useless, and your faith is use- 
 
 15 less. Nay, we arc found even false witnesses of 
 God, because we have testified, concerning God, 
 that lie has raised up Christ, whom he has not 
 raised up, if so it is that the dead are not raised. 
 
 16 For if the dead arc not raised, neither has Christ 
 
 17 been raised ; but if Christ has not been raised, 
 your faith is useless — you are still in your sins. 
 
 18 Furthermore, even they who have fallen asleep in 
 
 19 Christ have perished. If in this life only we have 
 hope in Christ, we are of all men, most to be pitied. 
 
I. CORINTHIANS XV. 12-57. 129 
 
 20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead ; — lie 
 became the first fruits of those who have fallen 
 
 21 asleep. For since through man came death, through 
 
 22 man, too, is the resurrection of the dead. For as 
 by Adam all die, even so by Christ will all be made 
 
 23 to live. But every one in his own order ; — Christ, 
 the first fruits, — then, those who belong to Christ, 
 
 24 at his coining, — then, the conclusion, when he 
 will deliver over the kingdom to God, even the 
 Father : when he will do away every supremacy, 
 
 25 authority, and power. For he must act as king 
 until he shall put ail his enemies under his feet. 
 
 26 Death, the last enemy, will be done away ; for he 
 
 27 has subjected all things under his feet. But when 
 he says, that all things have been subjected, it is 
 manifestly with the exception of him who has sub- 
 
 28 jected all tilings to him. But when all things 
 shall be subjected to him, then even the son himself 
 will be subjected to him who has subjected all 
 
 29 things to him, that God may be all in all. Indeed, 
 what will they effect who are baptized in place of 
 the dead, if the dead are in no wise raised? And 
 
 30 why are they baptized in place of the dead ? Why, 
 too, do we expose ourselves to danger every hour ? 
 
 31 I die daily, I protest by our boasting which I have 
 
130 I. CORINTHIANS XV. 12-57. 
 
 32 in Christ Jesus our Lord. If like a man I fought 
 wild beasts at Ephesus, what is the profit to me if 
 the dead are not raised ? Let us eat and drink, 
 
 33 for to-morrow we die. Be not led astray ; — bad 
 
 34 familiarities corrupt good morals. Wake up, in a 
 befitting manner, to your sober senses, and do not 
 err ; for some have an ignorance of God ; — I say it 
 
 35 to your shame. — But, some will ask, how are the 
 dead raised, and with what body do they move ? 
 
 36 Fool, that which thou sowest is not made to live, 
 
 37 unless it dies ; and whatever thou sowest, thou 
 sowest not the body which is to be, but a naked 
 kernel, perchance, of wheat, or of some one of the 
 
 38 other kinds of grain. But God gives it a body as 
 he has pleased, and to every one of the seeds the 
 
 39 appropriate body. All flesh is not the same flesh, 
 but there is in truth, one flesh of men, and another 
 of beasts, and another of fishes, and another of fowls. 
 
 40 And there are bodies celestial, and bodies terrestrial ; 
 but the glory of the celestial is one, and that of the 
 
 41 terrestrial another. There is one glory of the sun, 
 and another glory of the moon, and another glory 
 of the stars ; for star differs from star in glory. 
 
 42 Even so is the resurrection of the dead. There is 
 a sowing in corruption, there is a raising in incor- 
 
1 CORINTHIANS XV. 12-57. 131 
 
 43 ruptibility ; there is a sowing in disgrace, there is 
 a raising in glory ; there is a sowing in weakness, 
 
 44 there is a raising in power ; a soul body is sown, a 
 spiritual body is raised. There is a soul body. Bird 
 
 45 there is a spiritual body. Even so it is written, 
 The first man Adam was formed into a living soul ; 
 
 46 the last Adam into a life-giving spirit. But that 
 which is spiritual was not first, but that which is 
 
 47 soul ; then that which is spiritual. The first man 
 was of the earth, earthy ; the second man is t lie 
 
 48 Lord from heaven. As the earthy was, such also 
 are the earthy ; and as the heavenly is, such also 
 
 49 are the heavenly. And as we have borne the image 
 of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the 
 
 50 heavenly. But this I declare to you, brethren, 
 that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of 
 God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 
 
 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery ; we all, surely, shall 
 
 52 not sleep, but we all shall be changed, in an in- 
 stant, in a twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet ; 
 for it will sound, and the dead will be raised incor- 
 
 3 ruptible, and we shall be changed. For this cor- 
 ruptible must put on incorruptibility, and this 
 54 mortal put on immortality. But when this corrupti- 
 ble shall have put on incorruptibility, and this 
 11* 
 
132 I; KM arks <>\ FIRST TEH 7BB8B8. 
 
 mortal shall have put on immortality, then will 
 come to pass the word that is written, death is 
 
 55 swallowed up in victory. Where, death, is thy 
 
 56 sting; ahode of the dead, where is thy victory ? Now 
 sin is the sting of death ; and the law is the strength 
 
 57 of sin. But thanks to God who gives us the 
 victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore, 
 my beloved brethren, be firm, immovable, abound- 
 ing always in the work of the Lord, knowing that 
 your toil, by help of the Lord, is not in vain. 
 
 In the first ten verses here quoted, Paul asserts and 
 reiterates, with great positiveness, the fact of a resur- 
 rection. He makes the preaching of the resurrection of 
 Christ, equivalent to preaching the resurrection of the 
 dead at large ; and declares that the latter resurrection 
 is a necessary consequence of the former. He even de- 
 clares that, if the dead are not raised, Christ himself 
 was never raised — so intimate is the connection between 
 both events. He asserts, too, that if Christ lias not 
 been raised, his own preaching, and that of the other 
 apostles, was to no manner of purpose ; and that they 
 were false witnesses in opposition to God, by declaring 
 that he had raised up Christ, when he had not done it; 
 — provided there is, in reality, no such thing as the res- 
 urrection of the dead. In case of there being no 
 
ORDER OF RESURRECTION. 133 
 
 resurrection, either of Christ, or of the dead at large, 
 the Apostle reminds his Corinthian brethren that their 
 faith in the gospel was good for nothing, as it had re- 
 spect to a mere nullity, and that they were still in their 
 sins, inasmuch as Christ, had failed to procure eternal 
 life either for himself or others ; and, furthermore, 
 those who had gone out of the world trusting and hoping 
 in Christ for salvation, had, instead of realizing their 
 hopes, sunk into non-existence. He next remarks that 
 if christians, (for the we in the text has exclusive 
 reference to such,) place their hopes in Christ for the 
 present life only, they are, of all men, the most to be 
 pitied. But why, in such case, were the christians of 
 whom he speaks more to be pitied than all men besides ? 
 Because they were continually Buffering the loss of all 
 things, treated as the oflfscouring of the world, enduring 
 every kind of hardship, and kept in continual dread of 
 new calamities, in the hope of a new existence in another 
 world where their happiness would immensely overbal- 
 ance their present evils, when there is, in fact, no such 
 thing as a future existence to man, and all after death 
 is blank annihilation.* 
 
 Paul, in the next place, informs the Corinthians that 
 Christ is both the means, and the cause, of the resur- 
 
 * See also the 29th to the 32d verse inclusive. 
 
1H4 ORDER OF RESURRECTION. 
 
 rection, just as Adam was the means, and the cause of 
 death ; the resurrection being co-extensive with death, 
 and equally embracing all mankind.* Immediately 
 after this, he shows the order of the resurrection ; that 
 is, he shows the Corinthians that all the dead are not to 
 be raised at one time, but in a certain successive order. 
 Christ is the first one raised — being what the Apostle 
 denominates the " first fruits " — the pledge, and fore- 
 runner of all who rise from the dead. The second ill 
 order are those who are Christ's, or who belong to him, 
 " at his coming." What u coming " of Christ is here 
 referred to, I shall not now' attempt to inquire. Be that 
 as it may, those then raised will, in point of order, pre- 
 cede another portion of the dead. We learn the same 
 thing from that passage which has been already consid- 
 ered, from the first Epistle to the Thessalonians ; " the 
 dead in Christ will rise first " — first, not only in respect 
 to the pious living who are to be changed without under- 
 going death, but also in respect to others whose resur- 
 rection is to come afterwards. The third in order, are 
 those who are comprehended in what is here called the 
 11 conclusion ; " or those who are to be raised last of all. 
 That there really is such an u order " as I have stated, 
 is evident from the language of the Greek. " Every one 
 
 * 21st and 22d verses. 
 
ORDER OP RESURRECTION. 135 
 
 in his own order;" iv tu> ifiito ray/tan ; which word, 
 (rdyyuon,) denotes a body of men marshalled in regular 
 military order, constituting, however, only a portion of 
 a larger division, or of a whole army. The adverbs 
 tiretra, and Fira, relate to order of time, or of procession ; 
 and inasmuch as the latter is connected with ™ reXog, " the 
 conclusion," end, or consummation, it evidently consti- 
 tutes a part of the " order " spoken of, and so must 
 refer to those last remaining ; or, simply, the residue. 
 There is, plainly, a figurative allusion to the successive 
 divisions of an army appearing, one after the other, in 
 review. The whole may be thus expressed, paraph ras- 
 tically. Christ, as leader and precursor,/™*, — thcn,nezt, 
 his own people, who are, or will be raised at the time 
 of his coining ; then, finally, all who are not included 
 among the preceding ones. Such, as it seems to me, is 
 the fair interpretation of the passage ; but I do not 
 propose to dwell on it more at length. 
 
 We next learn that when the resurrection of all shall 
 be completed, then Christ will deliver over to the Father 
 the kingdom, or the regal authority, which he had pos- 
 sessed. In the mean time, he will have put down, or 
 rather have abrogated, and rendered impotent, all power 
 and authority which is opposed to his own. He must 
 
136 SURRENDRY OP CHRIST'S KINGDOM. 
 
 continue to exercise regal authority,* wo are told, until 
 he shall put all his enemies under his feet, and shall 
 abolish the last enemy, even death. Having subjected, 
 in this manner, all things to himself, the Son himself 
 will thenceforth become subject to his Father, in order 
 that God may be all in all. What may be the precise 
 meaning of this subjection of the Son to the Father, in 
 order that God may be all in all, I must not stop to in- 
 quire, as it would lead me away from the main object in 
 view. For the like reason, I shall pass over the inter- 
 mediate verses of this chapter until we come to the 
 thirty-fifth, where this subject assumes a new attitude, 
 and importance. 
 
 In our examination of this chapter, thus far, we have 
 not found the least mention of the resurrection of the 
 bodies of men, nor any allusion to them whatever. The 
 partakers of the resurrection here mentioned are ol veKpo\ 
 — ol KoifiriSh'Tec — ttclvteq; none of which epithets can be 
 made to apply to the bodies of men. So far, then, we 
 have negative evidence at least, that something differ- 
 ent from bodies was intended. It should be remarked 
 further, that the greater part which is here said in rela- 
 tion to the subject, is just as applicable to the resurrec- 
 
 * Verse 25. BaaikEvu properly means to act the king, or exercise regal 
 authority. 
 
NO MENTION OP BODIES. 137 
 
 tion, in the sense of a continued existence immediately 
 after death, as of a future re-appearing of men at the 
 end of the world ; and it seems to be the object of the 
 Apostle to teach the one as much as the other. In a 
 number of the verses cited, the language is wholly in 
 the present tense. "Now if Christ is preached that he 
 was raised from the dead, how do some among you say 
 that there is no resurrection of the dead ? " — " For if 
 the dead arc not raised, neither has Christ been raised. " 
 — " If like a man I fought wild beasts at Ephcsus, what 
 profit is it to me, if the dead arc not raised ? "* From 
 such language it is natural to infer, that the writer 
 intends to have his hearers understand him as teaching 
 that there is a resurrection, which takes place after 
 death, and not merely that there will be one. But let 
 it be remembered, that those who arc raised, or continue 
 to live, immediately after death, continue to live without 
 their former bodies ; and there is no intimation that 
 their existence at any future time will differ in manner 
 from that which characterizes it soon after death. In 
 short, the resurrection, as such, and existing when it 
 may, is represented as the same thing in kind ; at least, 
 there is nothing said to the contrary, cither in the 
 chapter now under consideration, or elsewhere in the 
 New Testament. 
 
 * Verses 12, 16, 32. See also verses 13, 15, 29, 42, 43, 44. 
 
138 INCOMPATIBILITY OF RESURRECTION OF BODIE8. 
 
 Hitherto wo have had our attention turned only to a 
 want of evidence to show that the bodies which men 
 possess in this life will be raised again. That is, in all 
 the passages which we have examined, no such thing is 
 taught either expressly, or by inference. On the other 
 hand, we have found much, that is said on this subject, 
 entirely incompatible with a resurrection of those bodies. 
 Those, therefore, who teach such a resurrection, do so 
 without scriptural authority, and contrary to what is 
 plainly to be inferred from it. Had we no further 
 authority from Scripture in reference to this subject, we 
 ought, by every rule of argumentation, to reject the 
 doctrine in question ; and unless we do so, we must 
 consent to be classed among those who are " wise above 
 what is written." But, in the remaining part of the 
 chapter now under consideration, we are taught express- 
 ly, and forcibly, that the body which dies, is not again 
 raised ; that when it returns to corruption it continues 
 in that state ; that it not only does not, but cannot, in- 
 herit the kingdom of God. But let the Apostle speak 
 for himself. 
 
 " But some one will ask, how are the dead raised, and 
 with what body do they move ? "* In this question 
 sundry tilings which merit particular attention are 
 
 * Verse 35. 
 
NOTIONS OF GREEK PHILOSOPHERS. 139 
 
 brought into view. In the first place, it is apparent on 
 the face of the question, that the querist himself, who 
 ever he might be, had never considered Paul as teach- 
 ing the resurrection of the same body that dies; for, if 
 he had so understood him, he would have had no occasion 
 to put the question, for he must have known already, 
 from Paul himself, " what body " those who are raised 
 will have. Again, had Paul been a teacher of the doctrine 
 that the body which dies will be raised again, he had 
 only to say so anew, and the querist would have been 
 answered. But the Apostle did not take this course ; 
 and from this alone it is evident, had we not the direct 
 evidence which follows, that he did not teach that 
 doctrine, and that the querist had not misunderstood 
 him. — In the next place, the querist was a Corinthian, 
 and, of course, a Greek. The educated Corinthians 
 were all instructed in the philosophy of the Greeks, and 
 were imbued with those notions of a future state which 
 were common among their countrymen. One of these 
 notions was, that the souls of men after death, (if they 
 do survive, and which, by the way, many of them totally 
 disbelieved, and others held as extremely doubtful,) are 
 not substantial, organized, beings, but mere shadows. 
 That such a notion was common, and indeed universal, 
 among both Greeks and Romans, every body knows 
 12 
 
140 NOTIONS OF GREEK PHILOSOPHERS. 
 
 who has any acquaintance with their authors. Among 
 the former, these departed souls are expressly called 
 tnual; and with the latter umbrae.* I have already 
 alluded to this fact in a different place ; and to the further 
 fact that pagans, in modern times, entertain the same 
 idea; and I need not, therefore, pursue it further.! 
 We are bound to suppose that our querist, even if he 
 believed in a future state, had the same general notions 
 about it as the rest of his countrymen ; and that when 
 he heard Paul proclaiming that the dead live again in 
 another world, as immortal beings, full of life and energy, 
 and that they will all appear at the judgment seat of 
 Christ to receive their final sentence ; and when he heard 
 him saying much more concerning them so incompatible 
 with his prepossessions on the subject, he felt himself 
 confounded, and probably expected that he should con- 
 found the Apostle. The life, energy, occupations, and 
 especially the substantiality of the dead, as set forth in 
 the Scriptures, are wholly inconsistent with that more 
 shadowy existence which the heathen attribute to them. 
 Convinced, therefore, that such a resurrection as Paul 
 preached implied a possession of substantial organs on 
 the part of the dead, analagous to those substantial 
 bodies which they had when living on earth, and know- 
 
 * Shadows, t See page 9. 
 
NOTIONS OF GREEK PHILOSOPHERS. 141 
 
 ing that these bodies had no longer any existence, the 
 querist boldly asks, u how is it that those who have died 
 live again in another state ; what substantial, organic 
 structure do they possess., in which they there move 
 about, and witli which they make their appearance at 
 the day of judgment ? " Such, I conceive, is the true im- 
 port of the question here put. Some of the reasons for 
 this conception are learned from what I have already 
 said, others will now be offered. — Neither the Greek, 
 nor our own language, has any single word to denote an 
 organic structure, or organic substance, for the use and 
 residence of the soul, spirit, or mind, but that material 
 one which, in the former, the word arti^a expresses, and, 
 in the latter, the word body. Paul, therefore, had no other 
 way to express himself on this subject than to coin a new 
 word, or take one already in use. Had he coined a 
 new word, he could not have been understood ; he, 
 therefore, employed one in common use, and analogous, 
 in its meaning, to the thing which he wished to bring 
 into notice. That the word o-w/m, in its common accep- 
 tation, denotes an organized, material structure, such 
 as the human soul possesses in this world, is well known. 
 That it sometimes denotes a substance, or something 
 substantial, in opposition to a shadow, or something 
 shadowy, we learn unequivocally from Paul himself. In 
 
1 i 2 IMPORT OF THE WORD RODY. 
 
 his Epistle to the Colossians, second chapter, sixteenth 
 and seventeenth verses, he says : " Let no one, therefore, 
 pass judgment on you in respect to food, or in respect 
 to drink, or to sharing in a feast, or in a new moon, or 
 in a sabbath, which are a shadow of things to come ; 
 but the body is Christ's." The Greek word, here trans- 
 lated shadow, is <rKia ;* and the one translated body, is 
 <rw/ia. Body, then, stands here contrasted with shadow. 
 In English, however, we always contrast substance with 
 the latter. Putting all these considerations together, 
 we can hardly doubt as to the true import of the word 
 body, (<rd)/ia,) in the text. I admit that Paul could have 
 expressed the thing which is contended for by a circum- 
 locution ; but this was unnecessary, and was not his 
 usual practice. It was unnecessary, because there was 
 so little liability to mistake. What Corinthian, having 
 the common understanding of a man, could have sup- 
 posed that, by the word body in the text, was meant an 
 organized, material one, such as men have in this world ? 
 Would notevery Corinthian whoreadthis Epistle, brought 
 up, as he was, in the peculiar notions of his countrymen 
 in relation to a future state, understand, by body here, 
 an organic, substantial structure, in opposition to a sim- 
 ple shadow, or some shadowy existence ? Would he not 
 
 * The very word by which the Greeks represent a departed soul. 
 
IMPORT OF THE WORD BODY. 143 
 
 be constrained to take the word in the general sense of an 
 organized substance, and not merely an organized 
 humanbody? To me it seems impossible that he would 
 do otherwise. But let us remember, that just as a 
 Corinthian would have construed the language in ques- 
 tion, it is our duty to construe it, and that we have no 
 right to depart, in the least, from the natural and obvious 
 meaning of the text. 
 
 If any person will examine attentively, and without 
 prejudice, every place in which the word body occurs 
 throughout this chapter, he cannot fail, as it seems to 
 me, of becoming convinced that it every where denotes 
 an organized substance, be the nature of that substance 
 what it may, and let it consist of what it will.* The 
 whole course of analogies exhibited, and of argumenta- 
 tion pursued, seems absolutely to demand this meaning 
 of the word ; and in some places there would be a mani- 
 fest absurdity if the common meaning were given it. 
 
 ♦ Many persons seem to suppose that nothing except matter can be a 
 substance, and that nothing else can be organic. Hence their slowness 
 to apprehend the real import of the question put by the Corinthian 
 objector, and to understand the force of what Paul says, in this chapter, 
 in regard to various bodies. But is there, indeed, but one substance in the 
 universe, and that one matter ! Are angels unsubstantial beings ? Are 
 all spirits unsubstantial, or else material? Is all heaven a world of 
 shadows, or else formed of material constituents ? Is God himself, 
 material, or else unsubstantial ? Let these questions be soberly examined 
 by every man before he definitively concludes that the universe contains 
 12* y^ 
 
 3 
 
I t J ANALYSIS INTRODUCED BY PAUL. 
 
 sample : " A spiritual body is raised." — u There is 
 a spiritual body." Unless we give the word body the 
 sense of *uhxtance, in these two places, we shall make the 
 Apostle guilty of asserting the absurdity that there is 
 such a thing as spiritual matter! — 1 have carried my 
 examination of this word to some length, because it 
 frequently occurs in the remaining portion of the chapter; 
 use it is important to ascertain its true purport in 
 relation to what follows ; and because an examination of 
 it, now, will save the necessity of reverting to its proper 
 signification every time when it shall occur in future. 
 
 14 Fool, that which thou sowest is not made to live, un- 
 less it dies ; and whatever thou sowest, thou sowest not 
 the body which is to be, but a naked kernel, perchance, 
 of wheat, or of some one of the other kinds of grain. 
 But God gives it a body as he has pleased, and to every 
 one of the seeds the appropriate body."* — The Apostle, 
 
 hut one substance, and that this is matter. »>r it anyone believes that 
 the living spirits of heaven are not material beings, let him well consider 
 how these can live, move, and act at all, without appropriate organisms — 
 how they can live without organs to perform the functions of life, or how 
 act without organs of action. When he has well reflected on these things, 
 he will probably find little trouble in understanding what Paul means by 
 the term body when applied to living agents in another world, whether 
 those agents arc angels, or men who have passed from this world to that 
 divested of those material organisms which they here possessed. He may 
 become at last convinced that men can have bodies in both worlds, and yet 
 not have the same. 
 
 crscs 36, 37, 38. 
 
ANALYSIS INTRODUCED BY PAUL 145 
 
 rather unceremoniously, addresses the querist with the 
 epithet of " fool," for asking such a question as that 
 which we have just been considering. From the familiar 
 fact that a seed when sown must die, or pass through a 
 putrefactive state, before it can vegetate into life, the 
 objector ought to have known that the death of a man, 
 and the putrefaction of his body, afford no conclusive 
 evidence against his re-existence in some other form, or 
 state. He ought to have known that a process of disso- 
 lution is, in the former, case, even necessary to future 
 life ; and that, therefore, it may be necessary in the 
 latter. As it respects the body which a man may have 
 in a different state of existence, the objector needed not 
 to have any trouble on that score, had he only called to 
 mind the fact which was perfectly well known to him, 
 that, in sowing a kernel of wheat, he did not sow the future 
 body which it is to have, but the naked seed alone. This 
 future body is a thing altogether different from that 
 naked kernel which was sown, and destroyed.' Nothing, 
 indeed, can differ more from another than such a kernel, 
 and the living, vigorous, luxuriant stalk which springs 
 from its ruins. This stalk has nothing in common with 
 the original seed, and contains not even a particle of its 
 materials. Not only so, but God gives to the kernels 
 of different sorts of grain, and other vegetables, such 
 
! !♦'. ANALYSIS INTIMIHi'KI) BY }'\\ ].. 
 
 bodies as are peculiar to each, all being constructed 
 according to his good pleasure. " Why, then," the 
 Apostle reasons and inquires, " may not man, after 
 death and the dissolution of his original body, be pro- 
 vided with a new organic structure, or, if you please, 
 with a new body, every way as different from the first, as 
 a stalk of wheat is different from the original kernel from 
 which it sprung? That which we call icheat does not 
 A\ because its kernel dies; neither does that which 
 we Gall /;/</// perish because his body dies. The first rc- 
 exists with a new and more glorious organic structure 
 than before; and so does the latter re-exist with a new 
 organic structure which is more glorious than that of 
 his vile body which he has laid aside. Now, when you 
 know how much God does for vegetables, why should 
 you foolishly doubt his ability to give new organic 
 structures to men, or the certainty that he will? And 
 when you see, in the case of sowing wheat, that you do 
 not sow the body which is to be afterward, so, in the 
 of a man. why do you not infer that the body sown is 
 not the body which lie will afterwards have ? Analogy 
 itself ought to teach you thus much. It is contrary to 
 all analogy, that the future body should be the 
 with that which dies, and is dissolved; and it agrees 
 with all analogy that the two bodies should be different. 
 
ANALYSIS INTRODUCED BY PAUL. 147 
 
 Nor ought this difference between the present and future 
 body to stagger your belief, when such a multitude of 
 analogies are continually before you. " All flesh," you 
 know, u is not the same flesh ; but there is, in truth, one 
 flesh of men, and another of beasts, and another of 
 fishes, and another of fowls." This should teach you 
 that all which may be called body is not the same body ; 
 and that there may be one body for men in this state 
 of existence, and another for them in a different state 
 of existence. You know, too, that " there are bodies 
 celestial, and bodies terrestrial ; but the glory of the 
 celestial is one, and that of the terrestrial another. There 
 is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, 
 and another glory of the stars ; for star differs from star 
 in glory. Even so is the resurrection of the dead." 
 From the fact, that the glory of terrestrial bodies is so 
 very inferior to that of celestial ones, and from the 
 further fact, that celestial bodies themselves vary from 
 each other so much in glory, you ought to infer that the 
 future bodies of men may excel their present ones in 
 glory, as well as differ from them in substance and in 
 organization ; — and you would infer rightly, for so is the 
 resurrection of the dead in point of fact." 
 
 Let us now lay aside this paraphrastic method of elu- 
 cidation, and let us examine the objection of the querist, 
 
I I s ANALYSIS INTRODUCED BY PAUL. 
 
 together with the Apostle's reply, in a more critical 
 manner. The first question which here arises is, 
 what does the peculiar force of the objection, which the 
 Apostle undertakes to obviate, consist ? The language 
 is, "But some one will ask, how are the dead raised, 
 and with what body do they move?" The whole force 
 and pith of the inquiry may, as I conceive, be thus 
 stated: "We know from the evidence of our senses, 
 that the human body perishes at death in a manner in- 
 consistent with its re-existence ; and we further know, 
 from the same source, thai it does not re-exist. If there 
 -tence of man after death, I can conceive 
 of no other than that shadowy one which has been the 
 object of vulgar belief, and which really amounts to 
 little or nothing. But you are the teacher of a re- 
 existence which involves higher attributes, and a more 
 active state of being, than belong to man in the life which 
 now is. You tell us, too, that a man no sooner dies, 
 than this re-existence commences ; and that men will 
 continue to exist even when the world itself will be 
 destroyed. These things appear to me impossible, and 
 I, therefore, inquire how, in what manner, do men re- 
 exist after death ? And also what sort of bodies do they 
 have, and move about in?" I deem it quite certain 
 that the objector had in mind, or rather that Paul repre- 
 
ANALYSIS INTRODUCED BY PAUL. 149 
 
 sents him as having in mind, the existence of men 
 immediately after death, rather than at some future 
 period. The verbs are put in the present tense, and in 
 such a manner, too, as seem to admit of no reference to a 
 future time. " How are the dead raised, and with what 
 body do they come," or move about? This gives us quite 
 a different idea from what would be expressed by the 
 future tense of the verbs, thus : " How will the dead 
 be raised, and with what body will they come," or 
 move about ? In reply to these questions, the Apostle 
 uses the present tense throughout, and treats the resur- 
 rection as a present, and not a future, reality — as some- 
 thing that already is, as well as something that is to be — 
 in which those who are already dead have already par- 
 taken, and in which those, who will die hereafter, will 
 hereafter partake. Without a previous theory to support, 
 no person, I am sure, would ever think of giving this pas- 
 sage a different construction. In conformity with these 
 views, I have translated epxovrai,\n the thirty-fifth verse, 
 move. It is well known that this verb has not the specific 
 meaning of our English come, and that it should be 
 translated according to its connection with circum- 
 stances. Sometimes it signifies to come, but quite as 
 often, to go; and sometimes it signifies what is denoted 
 by the neuter verb to move, or to move about. From its 
 
150 ANAI BODDOBD BY I'AUL. 
 
 connection in the text, it evidently appears to have a 
 more general signification than the English verb come, 
 which denotes an approach, or moving, towards the place 
 wlure the speaker is, or a person's return to the place 
 which he had left. Now there is no evidence that 
 epxoyrat, here, has either of these meanings; and I have, 
 therefore, translated it by a word which is as general in 
 its application as the original verb, and which, at the 
 same time, makes good sense, and agrees with the main 
 scope of the question. It has been common, I know, to 
 suppose that the objector had reference to a resurrec- 
 tion of the bodies of the dead at the last day ; and that 
 his difficulty consisted in conceiving how these bodies 
 can be raised after having returned to corruption, and 
 what new modeling they will receive, provided they are 
 really raised. Now if there ever was a gratuitous sup- 
 position, this is one. There is not a word said, from 
 beginning to end, about the resurrection of bodies; no, 
 not a hint, nor allusion, nor a surmise, in relation to 
 such a thing. It is not the Apostle Paul who calls men 
 " fools," or heretics, or daring presumers, for having 
 difficulties about the resurrection of the old body ; nor 
 is it he who undertakes to make a difficulty of this kind 
 a very feasible thing ; or who, when hard pressed by 
 the intrinsic impossibility of such an event, hurls back 
 
ANALYSIS INTRODUDED BY PAUL. 151 
 
 upon his antagonist the Omnipotence op God, and then 
 thinks himself, and creed, and argument safe!* The 
 single fact that Paul is here treating of the resurrection 
 at large — as it exists immediately after death, as well as 
 at the end of the world — when the bodies of men are 
 known to remain behind on earth, unchanged in any- 
 thing but what is produced by their putrefaction and 
 re-combination with other bodies, as well as when the 
 voice of the Arch-angel shall sound his trumpet — proves 
 incontestably that the supposition alluded to is wholly 
 gratuitous. The supposition, therefore, is not only 
 without foundation — it is contrary to the text. The 
 
 * Some may think that the author has, in several instances, employed 
 language too strong, and in others, too satirical or severe. The objec- 
 tion, however, will come mainly from those to whom this language best 
 applies, and who are most forward to cast censure on such of their fellow- 
 men as agree with the author in his views of the resurrection. Had he 
 never heard of denunciatory remarks from any quarter, nor of various 
 innuendoes which savored as little of ingenuous or of charitable feelings, 
 he would have had no occasion to use some modes of expression which he 
 has introduced. It is sometimes allowable to turn the tables against an 
 opponent, and to show an adversary who deals much in thrusts at others, 
 that he himself is not invulnerable. The author has aimed to keep strictly 
 within the rules of self-defense ; and if, in parrying the weapons of others, 
 he has caused their points unexpectedly to recoil and wound the owners, 
 he has the benevolence to hope that, in the result, their future benefit 
 will greatly over-balance the inconvenience of any present suffering. If, 
 after all, the truth is on the side of the author, as he believes it to be, he 
 has no occasion to make apologies — they ought rather to come from a 
 different quarter. 
 
 13 
 
152 ANALYMH INTRODUCED BY PAUL. 
 
 <>rs difficulty, we are authorized to say, was not 
 his inability to conceive how dead bodies can be raised, 
 and how they can be converted into new ones; and if it 
 was not this, what could it have been different from 
 what I have already stated ? I can conceive it to be in 
 nothing different. and must, therefore, take the view 
 now given to be correct until it is shown to be other- 
 wise. Let us now examine the argument from analogy, 
 with Vhich Paul answers the querist, and see to what 
 conclusion that will bring us. 
 
 The first ground of analogy is the fact, that what is 
 sown in the earth is not made to live unless it previously 
 dies or perishes. "Fool, that which thou sowest is not 
 made to live unless it dies." The second ground is the 
 fact, that whatever seed is put in the earth, the body which 
 will afterward spring up is not the one that was sown; 
 the latter being only a naked kernel of wheat, or of some 
 other grain. But God gives it such a body as he has 
 thought best, and. to each individual seed, such a body 
 as is appropriate, or peculiar, to its own kind; "And 
 whatever thou sowest, thou sowest not the body which 
 is to be, but a naked kernel, perchance of wheat, or of 
 some one of the other grains. But God gives it a body 
 as he has pleased, and to every one of the seeds the 
 appropriate body/' Now what two particulars are there, 
 
ANALYSIS INTRODUCED BY PAUL. 153 
 
 in the death and resurrection of men, which correspond 
 with the two particulars here given respecting the sow 
 ingand future re-vegetation of grain, and without which, 
 no analogy would exist between the two former and the 
 two latter ? In the first place, a man must die in order 
 to live in a new and different state. In the next place, 
 the body which dies is not the one which is to be after 
 death. In other words, just as a kernel of wheat, or 
 other grain, must die in order to receive new life, so 
 must a man die in order to receive new life ; and as, in 
 the sowing of wheat, or other grain, we do not sow the 
 body which it will afterward have, but only the naked 
 kernel, which it first possessed, just so, when man is 
 sown in death, the body which he will afterward have 
 is not sown, but only the one which he now possesses. 
 Analogies never aim at minutiae, but always allude to 
 prominent and striking points of resemblance. They 
 point to agreements which are plain and obvious, and 
 not to such as require nice and subtle distinctions. The 
 analogy which has just been made out is of the former 
 kind, — plain, prominent, and obvious ; it suits the nature 
 of the case, and is, in every respect, consistent. And 
 what does this analogy teach us ? It teaches us, first, 
 that death is not annihilation, but a necessary step pre- 
 paratory to life eternal ; and secondly, that we shall not 
 
1.V1 ANALYSIS INTRODUCED BY PA l L 
 
 carry with us, into another world, those bodies of ours 
 which die, but shall leave them behind, and have in 
 their stead others of a higher and nobler structure. It 
 further teaches us that, instead of being captious and 
 unbelieving in regard to the true doctrine of a resurrec- 
 tion, as though it were some impossible and incredible 
 thing, we ought to consider it, from analogies within our 
 reach, as a matter highly probable. 
 
 But most persons give a very different meaning to the 
 particular passage now under consideration. They will 
 have it teach the resurrection of the same body that 
 dies ; or, at least, of some mysterious portion of it. To 
 this end they quote, and requote the passage, without 
 stopping to investigate its real import, or endeavoring 
 to make the Apostle consistent with himself. Having 
 discovered, without his help, that the seeds of plants 
 contain within themselves a certain something called a 
 germ, which is the embryo of the future plant, they con- 
 clude that human bodies contain within them a similar 
 germ* from which future bodies will vegetate and grow. 
 Hence they make out the following analogy : As seeds, 
 when sown in the ground, die, and then vegetate into 
 life by means of the germs which they contain, so human 
 bodies, by help of similar germs, sprout into life after 
 
 ♦With plumules and radicles, I suppose, complete! 
 
ANALYSIS INTRODUCED Bi PAUL. 155 
 
 they die. Against this construction, however, there are 
 some very weighty objections. The first is. Paul has 
 not uttered a single word about germs, either directly or 
 indirectly ; and, from ought that appears, he never knew 
 that such tilings exist. The second difficulty is, that, 
 from the death of Abel to this hour, there has been a 
 continual process of dying and rising again, without the 
 resurrection of a single body. A third difficulty is, the 
 Apostle says, expressly, that the body which appears 
 after the sowing is not the body which is sow r n. Admit- 
 ting, however, that the Apostle did, in fact, allude to 
 some germ in man which is developed after death, that 
 germ must be the human sovl, for nothing else survives 
 his general dissolution ; and this constitutes a fourth 
 objection to the common theory. A fifth objection is, 
 that there can be no analogy between the germ of a seed 
 and anything which belongs to a dead body, unless a seed 
 may be ground in a mill, or triturated in a mortar, and 
 then be made to undergo every kind of decomposition, 
 without losing its vegetative properties. Inasmuch as 
 human bodies undergo a similar destruction, and even 
 greater, there can be no analogy between their resurrec- 
 tion and the vegetation of seeds, unless the latter can 
 vegetate after undergoing every conceivable degree of 
 trituration, diffusion, and re-composition with other sub- 
 13* 
 
156 ANAI KODUCED BY PAUL. 
 
 stances. Nay, in order to make out a full analogy, we 
 must suppose that a kernel of wheat, which was masti- 
 cated by some animal in the days of Adam, and decom- 
 posed, and separated into a thousand minute atoms, or 
 which was burnt to a cinder, and dissipated to the four 
 winds, can now vegetate and bloom afresh, [f it is a 
 well-known fact that seeds may, and do, vegetate 
 having undergone such a process of destruction as 
 human bodies undergo, then the analogy contended for 
 holds good; but if it is a well-known fact that seeds 
 never do, nor can, vegetate under such circumstances, 
 thf analog| ifl falsely assumed. That the Apostle should 
 have appealed to what the objector knew to be false, in 
 order to make out some analogy between the vegetation 
 of seeds and the resurrection of bodies, and so to con- 
 vince him that the latter is quite a possible affair, is, 
 certainly, one of the strangest conceits that ever found 
 its way into the head of a sensible man. Strange, how- 
 ever, as it is, it is one which has been cherished with 
 strong affection, and regarded with extraordinary com- 
 placency. 
 
 As a seed dies, and lives again, so a man dies, and 
 lives again ; as a seed contains within itself something 
 that is capable of vegetating when that which envelopes 
 it perishes, so man contains within himself something 
 
GERMS IN HUMAN BODIES CONSIDERED. 157 
 
 that is capable of existing and living when that which 
 envelopes it, (that is, the body,) perishes ; as the life of 
 this something which the seed contains cannot be fully 
 developed until the surrounding mass dies, so the life of 
 that something in man cannot be fully developed until 
 its surrounding mass in like manner dies; and as the 
 body which contains the living principle of the seed, 
 previous to its dissolution, is not the body which will 
 afterwards appear, so the body which contains the living 
 principle of man, previous to his death, is not the body 
 which will afterwards invest it. Here is exhibited a 
 plain, palpable, and instructive, analogy between the 
 dying and resurrection of a seed, and the dying and 
 resurrection of a man, — such an analogy as it became 
 the Apostle to use, and as was adapted to the under- 
 standing of the objector. Now, if modern objectors 
 please, we are ready to talk about germs in a manner 
 quite intelligible. It is the soul of man that corres- 
 ponds with the germ in a seed ; something which never 
 dies, while the mass*which envelopes it perishes forever. 
 Let me repeat it; it is the soul of man which corres- 
 ponds with the germinating principle of a seed, and 
 which survives the dissolution of the original body. 
 That which germinates, in either case, is not that which 
 dies, but is that which lives in spite of the mortality of 
 
158 GERMS IN HUMAN BOI IDKIMD. 
 
 that corruptible mass with which it is enclosed. Wen 
 the germ itself to die, no reviviscence would ensue. 
 The mistake of those who believe in the resurrection of 
 the body seems to originate, apart from a theory to sup- 
 port, in Bapposing this germ to lie in a dead^ instead of 
 a living, body;' and, what is incalculably worse, in sup- 
 posing that it renntiiis in a body not only dead, but 
 ground to powder, and even destroyed, so far as matter 
 can be. They mud even suppose that the germ itself 
 dies, as well as the organic miss which encloses it. 
 
 It seems as if men had been resolved to overlook 
 entirely, if not absolutely to reject, that part of the 
 Apostle's analogy in which he brings to view the fact 
 that when we sow a seed of any kind, we do not so//' the 
 body which is to be. Now if this analogy teaches 
 any thing at all ; if it is not an idle use of words with- 
 out any application whatever, it teaches us that the 
 human body which dies is not the body which a in 
 afterwards to have. Why, then, I ask, do we presume 
 to assert, in opposition to the truth* of God's word, and 
 the clearest dictates of common sense, that the bodies 
 of men will be again raised to life? It is in vain that 
 individuals attempt to conceal the deformity and the 
 absurdity of their belief by subterfuges and evasions — 
 by saying, " we do not suppose that all the numerical 
 
VARIETY OF ORGANIC 8UBSTANCE8. 159 
 
 particles which constitute a body at the time of its death 
 are raised again to life, but that a portion of them, only, 
 will come to this honor ; we cannot tell what particular 
 part of the body will be raised, only some part of it will 
 be ; this is all a mystery, to be sure, but we are to expect 
 mysteries in a matter of this sort ; " or by saying, final- 
 ly, u that the power of God is adequate to raise deadbodies 
 to life, no matter how long they have been dead, or how 
 completely they have been destroyed. " But to all who 
 resort to such subterfuges, or to evasions of any kind, 1 
 would say — they avail you nothing. It is enough that 
 you assert the resurrection of the body ; affirm that the 
 "sleeping dust will rise;" that the graves will open, 
 and give up their contents ; and that all men will, " in 
 the flesh, see God." Vary, and modify in this manner 
 the expression of your faith as you please, you never- 
 theless assert the resurrection of the body, and Paul 
 asserts the contrary. Revelation has no where taught 
 us such a resurrection as you contend for, but has told 
 us in express terms, that the bodies which we shall re- 
 ceive after death are not the bodies which we now possess. 
 — But let us proceed to a further examination . of what 
 Paul says on this subject. 
 
 " All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is, in truth, 
 one flesh of men, and another of beasts, and another of 
 
160 TAB OKGANIC 8UBSTANCES. 
 
 fishes, and another of fowls. And there are bodies 
 celestial, and bodies terrestriaL ,, The Apostle here refers 
 to a fact with which every one is familiar, namely, that 
 so far as flesh alone is concerned, there is a striking 
 dissimilarity in it. Men, beasts, fishes, and fowls, have 
 a kind of flesh peculiar to themselves respectively. 
 Furthermore, every one knows that there are such things 
 as terrestrial and celestial bodies, which differ extremely 
 from each other in their visible properties. Now what 
 is the particular analogy to which our attention is here 
 invited *: 1 ean make out only the following one J — there 
 is as striking a difference between the bodies which men 
 now have, and those which will hereafter be given them, 
 as there i en different kinds of flesh, or between 
 
 terrestrial bodies, and celestial ones. Such seems to be 
 the analogy ; while the argument is, — if there is sucli a 
 known difference in ilesh, and between terrestrial and 
 celestial bodies, there may be as great a differ* nee 
 between the present and future bodies of men. This 
 part of the analogy does not, indeed, teach us that our 
 present bodies will wot he raised again ; nor does it teach 
 us that they will ; — it barely instructs us, that they are 
 very different from those which we shall have hereafter. 
 Having adverted to this difference between terrestrial 
 and celestial bodies, the Apostle proceeds : — * w But the 
 
VARIETY OF ORGASTIC SUBSTANCES. 161 
 
 glory of the celestial is one, and that of the terrestrial 
 another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory 
 of the moon, and another glory of the stars ; for star 
 differs from star in glory. Even so is the resurrection 
 of the dead." Here the writer confines himself to the 
 different glories, merely, of celestial and terrestrial bodies. 
 The analogy clearly is, that the celestial bodies which 
 men will have hereafter will differ as much, in point of 
 glory, from their present terrestrial, or earthly ones, as 
 the sun, moon, and stars differ in glory from bodies here 
 on earth. Nor, as it seems to me, is this all. The new 
 celestial bodies of men will differ from each other in 
 glory as much as the sun, moon, and stars, differ from 
 each other in that respect. That the Apostle intended to 
 be so understood, may be well inferred from his mode 
 of expression ; for, after mentioning that the stellary 
 bodies differ from each other in glory, he immediately 
 subjoins, u Even so is the resurrection of the dead." 
 The particular first suggested by him, is the difference 
 between celestial and terrestrial bodies; and, then, the 
 difference between celestial bodies themselves is brought 
 into view ; — to make the analogy complete, therefore, 
 the future bodies of men must differ from each other, 
 as well as from those which were left behind on earth. 
 His main object, however, unquestionably was, to trace 
 
162 vaKIKTY OF ORGANIC 8UBSTANCE8. 
 
 out an analogy between the present bodies of men as con- 
 trasted with their future ones, and terrestrial bodies as 
 contrasted with bodies celestial. 
 
 Keeping up an allusion to the analogies which he had 
 just mentioned, the Apostle next proceeds to specify 
 sundry particulars in which that which is sown differs 
 from that which is raised ; or, without a figure, the differ- 
 ence between the body which dies, and the body which 
 succeeds it. " There is a sowing in corruption, there 
 isa raising in incorrupt ion : there is a sowing in disgrace, 
 there is a raising in glory ; there is a sowing in weakness, 
 there is a raising in power; a soul body is sown, a 
 spiritual body is raised. There is a soul body, and 
 there is a spiritual body." In the whole compass of 
 translations which have been made by intelligent men, 
 I question whether one can be found more variant from 
 the text, than the one which the translators of our com- 
 mon Bible have given of the passage now quoted. Had 
 their object been to make nonsense, or to cover up the 
 true meaning of the original text, they could not have 
 been more successful in either particular. I do not say 
 that they designed to do either ; but I cannot acquit 
 them of an unwarrantable prepossession which blinded 
 them in their work ; and we ought not to be deterred 
 from eliciting the truth, through a blind deference for 
 
MISTRANSLATION OF VERSES \'2- 1 1 . 163 
 
 persons who were neither inspired, nor superior to the 
 common prejudices, weaknesses, and fallibilities of men.* 
 To show that I do not speak without reason, let us first 
 examine the common version of this passage, and then 
 compare it with the original Greek. The common ver- 
 sion, beginning with the 42d verse, runs thus : " So 
 also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in cor- 
 ruption ; it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in 
 dishonor; it is raised in glory : it is sown in weakness ; 
 it is raised in power : "It is sown a natural body, it is 
 raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and 
 there is a spiritual body." — First, for the nonsense. 
 "It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption," 
 &c. What, let me ask, is here said to be " sown," and 
 to be "raised," with all the attendant circumstances? 
 What is the " ft," here mentioned ? The resurrection, 
 surely if we pay any regard to the grammatical construc- 
 
 * For one, I protest against that unholy homage which many pay to 
 these men, and which forbids us to understand the original Greek other- 
 wise than they have chosen to translate it. This homage is precisely the 
 same in kind, if not in degree, which Catholics pay to the Vulgate and its 
 expositors, and which the Jews pay to the glosses and traditions of the 
 Talmudists. We have as good a right to call the correctness of those 
 translators in question, as they had to question the correctness of the 
 Vulgate, or the version of Wickliffe, or of Tyndal ; or as themselves would 
 have, were they now living, to criticise any version of the Bible which might 
 be made at the present day. The word of God is not bound, but is free ; 
 and, as such, it is offered to the perusal and examination of all men who 
 love its truths, and make them the sole foundation of their religious faith. 
 14 
 
164 rRANSLATIOa Of HCBBSfi 11'- I I. 
 
 tion! if we look further back into the preceding verses, 
 we find nothing to which " &," by any legitimate con- 
 struction, can refer. It is, then, either the resurrection, 
 or nothing, which is " sown in corruption, and raised in 
 incorruption ; which is sown in dishonor, and raised in 
 glory ; " — and this I take to be nonsense ! Should it be 
 said that "i7" refers to the body, I reply, this is mere 
 guess-work, or else telling what ought to be the antece- 
 dent — not what it is ; for no antecedent, which can make 
 sense, is furnished by the const nut ion. Again " itis sown 
 (that is, the resurrection is sown ! ) a natural body ; it is 
 raised a spiritual body." But what sense is here conveyed 
 to our minds? The question still occurs, what is this " it " 
 which is sown a natural body, and which is raised a 
 spiritual body ? And again, what is the natural body 
 in contradistinction from a spiritual one? What con- 
 trast is there between nature and spirit, or between 
 what is natural, and what is spiritual ? Is a spirit some- 
 thing unnatural? Unless these questions receive a more 
 satisfactory answer than they seem capable of receiving, 
 the passage is destitute of any rational meaning. If it 
 is said that a natural body means a physical one, and 
 that what is physical stands opposed to what is spiritual, 
 I reply, that Paul is not the author of such an artificial, 
 and scholastic, distinction. But I need not dwell on 
 
MISTRANSLATION OF VERSES 42-44. 165 
 
 this point, since the word in the original Greek means 
 neither the one, nor the other, as I shall presently show. 
 The common translation is in fact, both incorrect and 
 absurd. 
 
 Let us now examine the passage under consideration 
 as it stands in the Greek, and thence learn whether the 
 preceding allegations are gratuitous, or not ; and whether 
 or not, the Apostle Paul is chargeable with the absurdi- 
 ties which the Translators have made him utter. — Sveiperai 
 
 kv (pOopiji, eyeiperai ev atyQapoiq: Hanlperat tv ari/xia, eyeiperai 
 ev Soty: aireiperai kv a$evia, eyeiperai kv dvvafiet' Hireiperai 
 (T&na \pu"^iKov, eyeiperai awfia TrvevfiariKov That (nreiperai, in 
 
 the first three examples, is here used impersonally , a 
 usage quite frequent both in the Greek and Latin 
 languages, seems to me very evident. It stands without 
 any thing, either expressed or implied, for its subject 
 nominative ; and, after the manner of other impersonals 
 in the passive voice, it expresses a general fact applica- 
 ble to as many individuals as it may concern. Inasmuch 
 as it has the usual characteristics of an impersonal 
 passive verb, and as such makes good sense, it is surely 
 correct to consider it one. In this way the absurdity of 
 the common version is avoided, and the Apostle is made 
 to use consistent language throughout. — The same is also 
 true of eyeiperai — There is, furthermore, no necessity 
 
166 MISTRANSLATION OF VERSES 42-44. 
 
 for giving personality to the verbs in order to make out 
 a good grammatical construction, or a due connection 
 with what precedes, and follows. The first object of the 
 writer seems to have been to set in contrast the sowing 
 and the rising, with the attendant circumstances of each 
 — corruption and incorruption, disgrace and glory, 
 weakness and power. He then contrasts the thing sown 
 with the tiling raised — a soul body with a spiritual body. 
 The impersonal form of the verbs is well suited to the 
 former purpose, and after that they are used personally. 
 — But, if any prefer to consider these verbs as personal 
 from the beginning, be it so ; the general meaning will 
 be the same either way. If, however, we take them to 
 he person , we are bound to find for them the 
 
 proper subject nominatives; or what that is, of which 
 the action implied in each verb, is predicated. There 
 is something sown, and there is something raised ; what 
 is this something in each case? The Apostle speaks at 
 first, as it appears to me, abstractly; and what is 
 wanted to convey his meaning might be thus expressed : 
 — That ivhich is sown is sown in corruption ; that which is 
 raised is raised in incorruption ; that which is sown is 
 sown in disgrace, that ivhich is raised is raised in glory ; 
 that which is sown is sown in weakness, that which is raised 
 is raised in power. But when lie has proceeded thus 
 
MISTRANSLATION OF VERSES 42-44. 167 
 
 far in this abstract, and general manner, he tells us ex- 
 plicitly what he intends by the thing sown, and by the 
 thing raised. The thing sown is a soul body, the thing 
 raised is a spiritual body. As though he anticipated 
 some incredulity on this point, and to avoid all misap- 
 prehension of his meaning, he assures his hearers that 
 " There is a soul body, and there is a spiritual body." — 
 If any are yet dissatisfied with this mode of supplying 
 the nominatives to the verbs, is sown, and is raised, as 
 being too abstract, let us take something else which will 
 put all caviling out of the question. Every one must 
 admit that both that which is sown, and that which is 
 raised, is, in some sense or other, a body. Let body then 
 stand as the nominative to each of the verbs, and we 
 shall have the same meaning as before, though more 
 awkwardly expressed. "A body is sown in corruption, a 
 body is raised in incorruption ; a body is sown in dis- 
 grace, a body is raised in glory ; a body is sown in weak- 
 ness, a body is raised in power. A soul body is sown, a 
 spiritual body is raised. There is a soul body, and 
 there is a spiritual body." Although we all shall agree 
 that a body is both sown and raised, what that body, in 
 either case, is, remains still to be settled ; in other 
 words, is that which is sown, and that which is raised, 
 
 14* 
 
168 MISTRANSLATION OF VERSES 42-44. 
 
 one and the same thing ? To this point let our atten- 
 tion now be directed. 
 
 The word translated natural in our common version 
 of the Bible, and which I have translated sou?, is, in the 
 Greek, \pv X i K uy, an adjective derived from ^i>x'/> a soul, or 
 breath, just as nvevfiaTiicov, spiritual, is derived fron -rtfym, 
 a spirit, breath, breatlfing, wind, air. Now the former 
 might as well have been translated mountainous, or by 
 any other adjective in our language, as " natural; " and 
 what should have induced forty-seven men* to agree to 
 translate the word in this manner, I shall not attempt 
 to conjecture ; but I must be allowed to remark, that 
 teen who can thus translate have slender claims to in- 
 fallibility.-— We have in our language no adjective 
 derived from soul, as spiritual is derived from spirit. If 
 we had such an adjective, no one can deny that we ought 
 to employ it in the translation of ^vxuc6y 9 in this passage, 
 just as we employ spiritual in the translation of wvt vparudn 
 In order, therefore, to preserve the genuine meaning of 
 the original, and to exhibit the contrast which that gives 
 us, I use soul as an adjective. Such a use of nouns is 
 idiomatic in our language, and is very frequently resorted 
 to when a necessity exists for doing it, such as is found 
 in the present instance. " A soul body is sown, a spirit- 
 
 * The number actually employed by King James in this matter, as is said. 
 
MISTRANSLATION OP VERSES 42-44. 169 
 
 ual body is raised." This translation gives the precise 
 sense of the original text, preserves its continuity, and 
 the true contrast between the thing sown and the thing 
 raised.* Persons who have always been accustomed to 
 suppose that there can be no other body than a material 
 one ; that the soul of man is a mere shadowy thing, 
 destitute of any substantial organism ; that every spirit 
 is destitute of such substantiality ; and that a man can 
 have no body after death unless it be his old one done 
 over, may be slow to believe that Paul asserted what 
 this translation makes him assert. The Apostle fully 
 aware of these preconceptions, and the probable in- 
 
 *Many persons translate . in the text, by the English adjective 
 
 animal, thus ; "an animal body is sown,-a spiritual body is raised. There 
 is an animal body, and there is a spiritual body." Although this transla- 
 tion is incomparably better than natural, as in our common version, bc- 
 
 it makes good sense, and approaches nearer to the true meaning of 
 the Apostle, yet it tails t<> -ive his meaning exactly. Were a translation 
 to be made into the Latin tongue, animale would be the correct word to 
 join with corpus, or body ; because animahis is derived from anima, a soul, 
 just as ipvxtKog is derived from »/'w,r// ; and the true antithesis between 
 
 and Tcvevfia, anima and spiritus, would be supported. But animal, 
 the English adjective, does not stand related to soul as animalis does to an- 
 ima, and \pvxtnbc to V H Vt ; ) 5 ant ^ it does not > therefore, have precisely the 
 same meaning. Again, animal, as an adjective in English, corresponds 
 with animal, a noun, in the same language ; whereas animalis, the Latin 
 adjective, corresponds with anima from which it is derived, and not with 
 the Latin noun animal, which is itself derived from the adjective. It will 
 hence be seen that animal body is not a correct translation into English of 
 either animale corpus, or of ipvx tK0V ouua ; especially when ipvxiKbv has 
 immediate reference to ipvxv a soul. 
 
170 MISTRANSLATION OF VERSES 42-11. 
 
 credulity with which his assertions on this point would 
 be received, promptly affirms that " there is a soul body, 
 and there is a spiritual body." That is, I apprehend, he 
 affirms that there is an organized soul substance, and 
 there is an organized spiritual substance ; and he gives 
 us to understand further, that the organic substance of a 
 soul, that is, of such a spirit as inhabits, or has inhabited 
 a human body, is a different thing from the organized 
 substance of a spirit which never had such a residence ; 
 or, in other words, that the body of the former is a 
 different thing from the body of the latter. If he does 
 not affirm this, what, let me ask, does he affirm ? Does 
 he mean to be understood as saying that there is such 
 a tiling as a material, or earthy, soul body, and a materi- 
 al, or earthy, spiritual body ? He must mean this, if 
 he uses the term body in the common acceptation of it, 
 denoting that material organism which a man has in 
 this life in common with other animals. But as we 
 know that lie could not have been so absurd as to assert 
 the existence of spiritual matter, whether organized or 
 not, he could not have used the term body, in connec- 
 tion with spiritual, to denote the body which a man has 
 in the present life, or any other body constructed of 
 matter. He must, then, have used that term, in this 
 connection, in the sense of an organized substance, or 
 
MISTRANSLATION OF VERSES 42-44. 171 
 
 substance simply ; and if he used it in this sense in con- 
 nection with spiritual, (TrvevfiaTiKov,) he must have used it 
 in the same sense along with soul, (^x t '™ ,, >) m order to 
 make the two propositions correspond in their parts 
 which stand contrasted. Let it be once admitted that 
 there is such a thing as a soul substance, and a spiritual 
 substance, as well as a material one; or, in other words, 
 that there is a substance out of which a soul is made, 
 and one out of which a spirit is made, as well as one 
 out of which organized matter is made, no man could 
 for a moment doubt what is intended by the language, 
 " a soul body is sown, a spiritual body is raised." The 
 existence of such different substances would be abso- 
 lutely conclusive with regard to the Apostle's meaning. 
 But when he declares that there is a soul body, or sub- 
 stance, and a spiritual body, or substance, he has settled 
 the point in respect to these two ; and our own senses 
 have long ago decided it in respect to the body that 
 dies. What is there, in the nature of things, to forbid 
 our believing that matter is not the only substance in 
 the universe, and that there may be one substance, or 
 at least one organism, for a soul, and another for a 
 spirit ? Who can tell how many substances, or how few, 
 exist in the universe ; how they may be combined 
 together, and, in consequence of various combinations, 
 
L72 MISTRANSLATION OF VWBBEB 42-44. 
 
 what different properties may be exhibited, and what 
 different results be obtained ? Who is prepared, a priori, 
 to say, that matter is the only substance which is capa- 
 ble of being organized, or that souls and angels are not 
 organic beings ? Who can believe that plants and 
 animals are organic beings, while souls, and angels, and 
 all rational, moral, and accountable beings are /norgan- 
 ic ? That a mushroom, or an oyster, could not exist, as 
 living things, without an organic structure, but that 
 souls and archangels can ? These questions are not 
 put for the purpose of showing what Paul has, in fact, 
 taught us in the passage under consideration, but of 
 showing that we have no cause for disbelieving him 
 when he teaches us that souls and spirits are separate 
 organized beings. It is time that men should begin 
 to believe that there may be, in another state of existence, 
 something even of a bodily kind, worth having, besides 
 these corruptible, sin-producing bodies of theirs, though 
 they should be re-modeled so as to suit their grossest 
 and fondest conceptions. 
 
 It has been commonly said that " a spiritual body," 
 in this passage, means the old body so re-modeled, and 
 re-constructed, as to become fit for the residence of a 
 spirit, spiritual having here the sense of, suited to a 
 spirit, or after the manner of a spirit, or resembling a 
 
MISTRANSLATION OF VERSES 42-44. 173 
 
 spirit. But who says all this ? Paul says no such thing. 
 He says nothing about an old body re-constructed, and 
 re-modeled. He does not tell us that the same body 
 which is sown is afterwards raised, and converted into a 
 body suitable for a spirit to have, or into one resembling 
 a spirit ; — he says no such thing whatever. All this is 
 asserted without evidence, without probability, and, so 
 far as I know, without even an attempt to assign reasons 
 for the assertion, unless the general theory of a resur- 
 rection of the body, which requires some such interpre- 
 tation to be made out, should be considered a reason. 
 This would be, indeed, a convenient method of making 
 a theory prove itself, though at the expense of divine 
 revelation. — We have before seen that none of the pas- 
 sages which we have examined teach the doctrine of a 
 resurrection of the same body that dies, but that the 
 contrary is every where more than implied. We have 
 seen that Paul has taught, in this very chapter, that the 
 future body is not the one which dies, or is sown. The 
 theory, then, is not only without support from Scripture, 
 but is contrary to it ; it cannot, therefore, be adduced 
 as evidence in support of the interpretation contended 
 for. The body which is raised is too different, accord- 
 ing to Paul's account of it, from the one which was sown, 
 to be the same. The distinction which he makes between 
 
174 MISTRANSLATION OF VERSES 42-44. 
 
 them, and his formal assurance that there are two kinds 
 of bodies, — " a soul body and a spiritual one," — prove 
 that the* one raised is not the same as its predecessor. — 
 That the body raised will be " suited to a spirit," that 
 it will be " after the manner of a spirit," and that it 
 will " resemble a spirit " — (even as a thing resembles 
 itself—) is quite obvious ; — but that " spiritual" means 
 either of these tilings here, I deny; but I must be ex- 
 cused from being at any farther pains to make the denial 
 good, until something is offered by way of proof which 
 shall be entitled to consideration. 
 
 1 have had occasion, already, to speak of the great 
 impropriety of making the pronoun U U " the nominative 
 to the verbs "is sown" and "is raised," where they are 
 used impersonally in the Greek; or, if we take them as 
 personal verbs, I have shown that very different nomina- 
 tives must be supplied. But when we come to the place 
 where we read in our common version, "It is sown a 
 natural body, it is raised a spiritual body," there is 
 something peculiarly deceptive in making u it" the nomi- 
 native to those two verbs, ami in placing the real subject 
 nominatives after them. By continuing to use this pro- 
 noun as the nominative throughout, and by not printing 
 it in italics, as is usual where words are supplied which 
 are not found in the original, and by using it, especially 
 
MISTRANSLATION OF VEBSES I "J - 1 I . 175 
 
 when the passage is supplied with other words which 
 eould, by a different translation, have been the nomina- 
 tives to the two verbs, we are led to suppose that the 
 writer intended to have u ft" refer to something which 
 had been mentioned further back; and then, what should 
 that something be, forsooth, but the human body? Al- 
 though, on actually looking back, no such word as 
 is found, and the pronoun "//" st;mds divested of all 
 relationship with any thing expressed, or fairly implied, 
 yet few readers, in fact, ever undertake to examine the 
 •ding sentences ; and those who make the ineffectual 
 attempt are more ready to blame their own obtuseness 
 of apprehension, than to suspect an inconsistency in 
 the text. A person always hears with surprise, when it 
 is first suggested to him, that " ft" has been gratuitously 
 inserted by the translators, and ought to be left out, and 
 that the true reading is, u A soul body is sown, a spirit- 
 ual body is raised." In point of fact, we might jui 
 well insert the pronoun u &" in the next sentence, and 
 have it read, " It is a soul body, and it is a spiritual 
 body," as insert it where it stands : but this would have 
 been going farther than the theory demanded. Perhaps 
 I have dwelt longer than is necessary on errors which 
 are so palpable ; but it should be remembered that these 
 errors have long been overlooked, have long been taken 
 
I T * i l oob, iy, 15 
 
 for truths, and been deeply interwoven with all the 
 common apprehensions of men on the subject of the 
 resurrection. It is no easy matter to remove precon- 
 ceptions so firmly established, and so quietly rested in, 
 as are those of mankind at large in regard to this mat- 
 ter. Besides, to assert an error requires a much shorter 
 time than to refute it; and to fall in with the prejudices 
 of men is a much more expeditious process than it is 
 to remove them. These considerations must be my 
 apology, if I have carried my remarks to an undue 
 prolixness. 
 
 After saying that " there is a soul body, and there is 
 a spiritual body," the Apostle adds, " Even so it is 
 written, The first man Adam was formed into a living 
 soul ; the last Adam into a life-giving spirit. But that 
 which is spiritual was not first, but that which is soul ; 
 then, that which is spiritual. As the earthy was, such 
 also are the earthy ; and as the heavenly is, such also 
 are the heavenly. And as we have borne the image of 
 the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heaven- 
 ly." The passage in Greek, which our translators have 
 rendered, "was made a living soul," is, EycWo cfc ^x^ v 
 twtrar. The more exact, and, of course, the more cor- 
 rect, rendering is, was formed into a living soul. The 
 preposition etc seems manifestly to demand a translation, 
 
1 cor. xv. 45-50. 177 
 
 whereas our common version leaves it out entirely, and 
 thus does not express the peculiar force of the original. 
 This force is preserved in the translation which I have 
 given. Had Paul designed no more than is expressed 
 in our common version, he would naturally have written, 
 eyirero ^v\^ t&aa, using the nominative case without a 
 preposition. Now what was the actual process which 
 God was pleased to adopt in the formation of our first 
 progenitor, as recorded in the second chapter of Gene- 
 sis ? " And the Lord God formed man of the dust of 
 the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of 
 life, and man became a living soul." It seems evident, 
 from this short account, that the body of man was first 
 formed ; that after this, God breathed into it the breath 
 of life, and that then man became a living soul. It is 
 certain that the body was first formed, for until formed 
 it could not receive the "breath of life;" and man did 
 not become a living soul, or as Paul expresses it, was 
 not "formed into a living soul" until the breath of life 
 was infused into him. I am unacquainted with Hebrew ; 
 but the Septuagint version of the foregoing verse from 
 Genesis represents this formative process in a stronger 
 light than our common translation ; and as the Apostle 
 here quotes that version verbatim, we may feel sure that 
 the Septuagint is correct. According to this, the Lord 
 
ITS 1 sob. w. 15-60. 
 
 moulded, or fashioned, a Lump of earth, a man, and 
 infusedin to his visible form, ( lace, or image,) the breath 
 of life, and man was formed into a living soul.* It 
 appears, from the whole account, that the % * Living soul" 
 of man was not formed until the body had been previ- 
 ously fashioned; and whatever we may consider the 
 "soul body," of which the Apostle speaks, really to be, 
 it is manifest that the soul is formed of materials very 
 different from the earthy mass which constitutes its 
 present habitation. But we have every reason to be- 
 lieve, as before observed, thai the soul has an organic 
 structure of its own, and peculiar to itself; and reason 
 itself would teach us that this organic structure, a thing 
 so different from what we customarily call the body, 
 survive the dissolution of the latter. What reason 
 tells us / the Apostle tells us, actually is. It 
 
 should be borne in mind that he is addressing himself 
 to professed Christians, and that he treats and recog- 
 nizes them as such in reality. While "the first man 
 Adam," he says, " was formed into a living soul, the 
 last Adam was formed into a life-giving spirit. The 
 first man was of the earth, earthy ; the second man is 
 
 UJoav, 
 
I cok. xv. 45-50. 179 
 
 the Lord from heaven. As the earthy was, such also 
 are the earthy, and as the heavenly is, such also are the 
 heavenly ; and as we have borne the image of the earthy, 
 we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. " Paul 
 here mentions two classes of men, one of them being 
 " earthy," as Adam was, the other being " heavenly," 
 as Christ is. Even those who are now " heavenly " were 
 once " earthy," like the rest ; in the present world they 
 continue to bear the image of Adam as well as others — 
 have the same bodily form in common with him, and all 
 his posterity — but hereafter they will bear the "image" 
 of Christ ; — will have an organic structure in the very 
 likeness of his. That " earthy," in the 48th verse, 
 means earthy, or carnal, in mind and disposition, like 
 Adam, and that " heavenly," in the same verse, means 
 heavenly minded, like Christ, without reference to any 
 bodily structure, seems evident from the general form of 
 expression. These different characteristics of the two 
 classes of men are such as they can, and do, possess in 
 this world ; whereas the heavenly minded cannot be 
 invested with an organic structure, such as Christ now 
 has, until they lay aside the one which they derive from 
 Adam. " Let the same mind be in you which was in 
 Christ Jesus," is the exhortation given to Christians 
 while resident here in the flesh ; but to receive a body 
 15* 
 
ISO 1 cok. w. 4 ">— 50. 
 
 like his glorious one, is a privilege wliicli awaits them 
 in the world to come. But that image, in the 49th 
 verse, has respect to the body, or organic substance or 
 structure, of Adam and of Christ. 1 infer from several 
 particulars. In the first place, m\<;>> primarily means 
 image in the approprial of this word in English, — 
 
 a Bubstant'il material formed into the resemblance of a 
 living body ; or, it is one body formed into the likeness of 
 another: thus a statue, is an thcbv. This word denotes 
 neith* ; oiial representation of some object, nor 
 
 a moral Bimilitude, nor that resemblance which may 
 between properties and qualities of any kind. — it 
 is a t tsembling a substance.* Such is the 
 
 true fining of «*&*; though in a secondary, 
 
 derivative sense, it is sometin 1 to denote a por- 
 
 trait, or likeness at large. Hut the rule is to take a 
 word in its primary sense, unless some necessity exists 
 for a different interpretation. No such necessity here 
 8, and propriety itself seems to require that the 
 primary meaning should be regarded. In the next 
 place, the phrases, "we have borne the image,'' and 
 u we shall bear the image," (i^q^rafter n}? eiioVa, and 
 (popitroiuv ri)v tkam. ) arc not BO well suited to express the 
 
 * Heb. x. l, may serve, in some measure, to illustrate l>oth the meaning 
 of eUdVj and of gklcl. 
 
1 oob. xv. 45-50. 181 
 
 possession of a moral resemblance simply, or a resem- 
 blance in mere properties and qualities, as to denote a 
 bearing, or carrying about, something which is either 
 substantial in its nature, And formed into a likeness, or, 
 what is nearly tantamount, a likeness stamped, im- 
 pressed, or imprinted on a substance. In the third 
 place, the expression, u we shall bear the image of the 
 heavenly," relates to what will take place after Chris- 
 tians leave this world : and unless something is intended 
 by it other than a mere moral resemblance, this is no 
 more than what they possess even in the present life. 
 Paul had said in the preceding verse, that Christiana 
 morally resemble Christ ; and if he only repeats the 
 same thing here, he is needlessly tautological, unless 
 we suppose him to mean ibat they will resemble him in 
 a future state, as w< II as in the present; but in suj 
 ing this, we acquit him of tautology in order to convict 
 him of a truism. Lastly, the particular point on which 
 the Apostle is here discoursing in respect to the resur- 
 rection, is the kind of body which is raised, and not the 
 moral condition of men in another state of existence. 
 linage, therefore, as here used, must relate to body, or 
 the organic structure of men, in the present and future 
 worlds. 
 
 I have remarked that Paul, in this Epistle, ad- 
 
182 I cor. xv. 46-60. 
 
 dressed himself to Christians. In the 48th verse, those 
 whom he calls " heavenly " are also Christians. When, 
 therefore, in the 49th verse, he says, " As we have 
 borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the 
 image of the heavenly," that is, of Christ, "we" must 
 here refer exclusively to Christians ; — as we Chrut'nnts 
 have borne the earthy image of Adam in this world, we 
 shall also bear the heavenly image of Christ in the 
 world to come. This, again, is equivalent to saying, 
 that Christians, in another world, will possess such a 
 substantial organic structure as Christ himself there 
 possesses. Such, surely, must be the Apostle's mean- 
 ing, if image here denotes what our examination of its 
 meaning has led us to suppose. This interpretation of 
 the text has the advantage of keeping up a regular con- 
 nection and continuity of the discourse, and a steady ad- 
 herence to the main subject in view, instead of breaking 
 it up into detached and disjointed fragments, without 
 order, and without congruity. He had before unequivo- 
 cally taught, in this chapter,* the resurrection of all 
 men, and given us plainly to understand that none, 
 when raised, will have the bodies which they laid aside 
 at death ; but of none, except Christians, has he said, 
 that in the resurrection they will have bodies like the 
 
 * See verse 22. 
 
1 cor. xv. 45-50. 
 
 one which Christ now has in heaven. They alone who 
 resemble him in disposition, who are "like-minded" with 
 him, will resemble him in bodily structure after death. 
 The rest of the dead will, indeed, have bodiet, or be 
 organized substantial beings ; but what kind of bodies 
 they will have, — what these bodies will resemble, — 
 whether they will continue to be simply " soul bodies," 
 or will receive a new organization, we are not told. 
 We must wait, for aughi that appears, for clearer infor- 
 mation on this dread topic till the realities of another 
 world shall be unfolded to our view. The Christian 
 knows but little as to the character of that spiritual 
 body which awaits him hereafter. Had more been re- 
 vealed, be has now neither faculties nor faith to appre- 
 hend it : and the little which is revealed he scarcely 
 appropriates to his own comfort and edification, so gross 
 and obscure are his conceptions of spiritual things, and 
 so great is his complacency in the objects of sense. 
 The assurance, however, that he will be like Christ : — 
 that bis mind. will, disposition, and even his body — that 
 future organism which he is to have — will all resemble 
 what Christ has, is foundation enough on which to rest 
 his belief that all will be well ; nay, more than this, — 
 that all will be pure, glorious, and happy. The assurance 
 of being like Christ is enough to satisfy every desire, 
 
184 1 cor. xv. 45-50. 
 
 and imparts to the hope of an immortal existence its 
 priceless value. — If any, who resemble Christ in noth- 
 ing here, will resemble him in aught hereafter, I have 
 found no such intimation in the chapter before us, nor 
 in any other portion of revealed truth. 
 
 " But this I declare to you, brethren, that flesh and 
 blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does cor- 
 ruption inherit inoorruption." * These are the words 
 with which the Apostle concludes what he has to say to 
 the question, u how are the dead raised, and with what 
 body do they move ? " They are just as if he had said, 
 in conclusion of the whole, " But let the bodies which 
 men will hereafter have be what they may, I assure you 
 this one tiling, — that they will not consist of flesh and 
 blood, for these cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and 
 corruption does not inherit incorruption." Now, if the 
 present bodies of men are not, by this declaration, ex- 
 cluded from the inheritance of the kingdom of God, 1 
 do not understand the force of language. What identity, 
 I ask, has a body without flesh and blood, with a human 
 body ? And if flesh and blood are not to enter the 
 kingdom of God, will you say that bones and sinews will 
 enter there ? Christ himself has settled the question 
 with regard to the former, by declaring that a spirit has 
 
 * Verse 50. 
 
1 COB. xv. 45-50. 185 
 
 no bones.* If a spirit has not bones, then those bodies 
 which are spiritual do not have them ; and soul bodies 
 do not have them, unless they are very differently con- 
 structed in another world from what they are in this, 
 for wc have the evidence of our senses th&t bones do not 
 accompany the soul in its flight to another world. But 
 all this, you will say, is egregious trifling; — no one 
 believes that the bodies of men which they are to have 
 hereafter will be flesh, blood, and bones. The old bodies 
 are to be reconstructed, new modeled, and somehow done 
 . so that they will no longer be flesh, blood, and 
 bones but be converted into spiritual substances. But 
 where did you learn this alchemistic process, so worthy 
 to be ranked with that of converting stones and baser 
 metals into gold ? You did not learn it from the Bible, 
 for not a word, not a hint, of the kind is there to be found. 
 You have obtained all your alchemistic notions of this 
 sort from tradition, handed down from scholastic doctors 
 in the darkest portions of the dark ages, without an iota 
 from Scripture, or from reason, to support them. The 
 Bible is a perfect blank in regard to any such transmu- 
 tation of flesh, blood, and bones, into spirit, excepting 
 as it declares that there is no such thing. Paul declares 
 that flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of 
 God ; — you declare that they will — only transmuted into 
 
 * Luke xxiv. 39. 
 
186 1 cok. \ 
 
 something that is absolutely unlike them ! This, indeed, 
 
 is egregious trifling — it is something worse, bul I will 
 not name it. But let us come still more directly to the 
 point. That by flesh and blood, Paul here meant the 
 human body at large, no man can. nor will deny That 
 lie meant all which i- '/. in man is certain from 
 
 the concluding pari of the verse — " nor does corruption 
 inherit incorruption ; " and inasmuch as every pari of 
 t lie human body is corruptible, the whole human body 
 is here included. Now if the human body, be it ever so 
 much transmuted, re-oomposed, re-organized, and re- 
 modeled, is ever admitted into the kingdom of God, 
 Paul asserts what is not true. If the materials of which 
 any body what composed, are taken to pieces and 
 
 removed from one place to another, and are there put 
 together in a different manner, so as even to form a new 
 compound entirely differing from the original one, it 
 cannot be said with truth, that such a body has not 
 removed to that other place. If the materials of which 
 any given mass is composed arc translated to a new 
 place, the mass itself is translated, although its constit- 
 uent parts are now so differently arranged and combined 
 as to produce a compound altogether variant in proper- 
 ties and appearance. So if the component materials of 
 a human body are translated into the kingdom of God, 
 
1 cor. xv. 45-50. 187 
 
 although they may be so altered in arrangement and 
 combination as to exhibit a structure entirely new in 
 appearance and general characteristics, that human body 
 is, in truth, translated to the same place. To say that 
 it is not translated is, therefore, to utter an untruth ; 
 and this Paul has done, if flesh and blood, or the mate- 
 rials of a human body, will ever inherit the kingdom of 
 God. Which, then, shall we believe, the Apostle and 
 common sense, or the traditions handed down from the 
 dark ages of error, superstition, and false philosophy? — 
 I shall believe the former. But, some one will say, the 
 Apostle has no reference to the elementary constituents 
 of a human body ; he only says that flesh and blood, as 
 touch) will not inherit the kingdom of God ; or, in other 
 words, that there will be no flesh and blood in the future 
 bodies of men, but they will be so re-constructed as to 
 exhibit nothing of that kind. But, I reply, if the future 
 bodies of men are to have nothing in common with their 
 old ones, except the mere elementary particles of 
 matter of which the latter were composed, what advan- 
 tage is gained by using these particles in there-construc- 
 tion of those future bodies, rather than any other 
 particles of matter just like them ?* If the old particles 
 
 * On the supposition, of course, that the future bodies of men will be 
 material, or constructed of particles of matter. 
 
 16 
 
188 1 cor. xv. 45-50. 
 
 are not wanted for the purpose of producing a similitude 
 in properties, it is inconceivable' that other particles 
 would not answer every purpose as well as the old ones. 
 But still there is another difficulty* If <M the particles 
 of matter which once composed the body of a man who 
 dies at the age of eighty, are to be put into his resur- 
 rection-body, the latter must be enormously large, 
 inasmuch as constituent particles of the old one had 
 been continually, and rapidly, flying off from the time 
 of his birth, to that of his death, with a constant suc- 
 cession of new particles to supply their place. On the 
 other hand, a child that dies must have a very small 
 body indeed, compared with the others at tbe resurrec- 
 tion. Will you say that you do not suppose that all the 
 particles which ever entered into a human body will 
 enter into the construction of the future one ? But I 
 ask, why not? One set of these particles is just as 
 valuable to the possessor when he dies, as another; and 
 the first, or any intermediate set, as the last. Perhaps, 
 however, you prefer the last set, as all the preceding 
 had ceased to constitute a body at the time of death. 
 If, then, you shall happen to be extremely emaciated at 
 that period, to be a very small man besides, and, withal, 
 shall have lost some of your limbs, you will have but a 
 sorry body in another world compared with one who 
 
1 cor. xv. 45-50. 189 
 
 has a gigantic stature, and dies in full flesh, with no 
 mutilation of limbs. If you prefer any other set of 
 these constituent particles, or selected portions of them 
 all, I see not that you would be a gainer by the choice ; 
 and, besides, you have no warrant for supposing that your 
 choice in this matter will be taken into account. If any 
 object to this mode of argumentation on the subject, (a 
 mode which could be pursued much further, were one 
 inclined to do so,) as indirectly opposing human reason 
 to divine revelation and the omnipotence of God, 1 reply 
 at once, it is you who indirectly, and directly both, 
 contravene divine revelation, by affirming what it does 
 not teach and denying what it does. We have not 
 found a single passage in this whole investigation which 
 teaches the resurrection and re-construction of the 
 human body, unless the present one teaches it. This 
 passage not only does not teach it, but teaches the con- 
 trary, unless you can give it a constructive meaning, 
 fairly made out, in support of your views of a resurrec- 
 tion. It is this constructive meaning of yours, and not a 
 revealed truth of God, which I have endeavored to prove 
 absurd, both by an argumentum ad hominem, and a 
 reductio ad absurdum. It is you who dishonor the Bible, 
 unless I greatly mistake, by giving it the paternity of 
 your own conceits, and concealing their real character 
 
190 >. 51-57. 
 
 under the broad cover of its authority. Take can to 
 prove your doctrine divine, before you claim for it the 
 
 BH06 which is due to divine instruction. — But it is 
 time to bring the consideration of this particular pas- 
 sage to a close. If what was said before this digression 
 in order to answer objectors, needs further support, it 
 
 iikI in the last clause of the verse which we are 
 considering-- 44 nor does corruption inherit incorruption. ,, 
 Now it will not he denied that the human body is com- 
 posed of - uid thai matter is corruptible ; thai is, 
 any mass of it is susceptible of decomposition, or reso- 
 lution into its simpler elements. The human body, there- 
 fore, docs not inherit incorruption. From this decision 
 is no appeal, for it is the decision of an Apostle 
 of Christ, speaking as he was moved by the Holy Spirit. 
 No subterfuge is here left. Were even this one attempted 
 
 last resort, namely, that the substance of 
 
 the human body may be changed into spirit, this could 
 avail nothing, because it would then cease to he a 
 human body and matter both. 1 will only add, let God 
 be true, although millions of men should, in consequence, 
 be found to he in error. 
 
 u Behold, I tell you a mystery : we all, surely, shall 
 not sleep, but we all shall be changed, in a moment, in 
 the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for it will 
 
1 cor. xv. 51-57. 191 
 
 sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we 
 shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on in- 
 corruptibility, and this mortal put on immortality." — 
 The Apostle, having finished what he had to say on the 
 nature of the bodies which men will have in the resur- 
 rection, now carries his Corinthian brethren forward to 
 the time when the last trumpet will sound a summons 
 for the dead to appear. He first apprises them that he 
 is about to speak of something which had hitherto been 
 concealed from their knowledge ; for such is the proper 
 meaning of a mystery, and not something which can not 
 be known, as it is sometimes represented. If he had 
 previously written his first Epistle to the Thessalonians, 
 in which, as we have already seen, he mentions distinct- 
 ly the subject which he is now about to introduce, it 
 nevertheless had not been brought to the notice of his 
 disciples in Corinth ; for if it had, it would not now 
 have been " a mystery " to them. In his customary 
 manner, he speaks of the followers of Christ, or believers 
 at large, in the first person plural ; — " we all shall not 
 sleep " — " we all shall be changed " — " we shall be 
 changed." We have just now seen that he employed 
 the same style of speaking in preceding parts of this 
 chapter ; and we had occasion to notice it in our examin- 
 ation of a passage in his first Epistle to the Thessalo- 
 16* 
 
I oob. w. 51-57. 
 
 nians. It is also very common with this Apostle to 
 speak of dying under the euphemism of sleeping ; thus 
 when he says, " we all shall not sleep," his meaning is, 
 we shall not die. Furthermore, when he says that the 
 " dead will he raised incorruptible, " he means here by 
 " dead," as he does elswhere, those who have died. 1 
 have already commented sufficiently on the proper 
 mean ind need not, therefore, repeat what 
 
 has been said. As to what is here intended by the 
 "last trumpet," to which allusion is also made in his 
 Epistle to the Thessalonians, in a passage which 
 we have heretofore considered; or at what period of 
 future time it will be sounded, I choose to hazard no 
 opinion. These are points which have no immediate 
 connection with the main object in view, and more 
 
 erly belong to the consideration of another subject, 
 Again, the expression, " we shall be changed," decides 
 nothing as to the kind of change which will take place 
 in regard to bodily structure, but is equally applicable 
 to every view which has been taken of it. — Having made 
 these general remarks, I now observe, that the "mystery," 
 which is here particularly alluded to, seems to be the 
 
 that those believers in Christ, who will be alive on the 
 earth at the time when the last trumpet will sound, and 
 He will come attended by His risen saints, will instantly 
 
1 cor. xv. 51-57. 193 
 
 be changed.* That by this change the believers, 
 then living, will be made to receive the same bodily 
 " image " of Christ as those will possess who had pre- 
 viously died and risen again, will not, I suppose, be 
 disputed. The suddenness of this change is very forcibly 
 expressed in the original ; — h ar6f.no, in an indivisible 
 point of time — a point of time so small that there can 
 be none smaller ; iv fmrfj otpSaXpt, in the glance, or 
 twinkling, of an eye — a phrase denoting, in the ordinary 
 speech of men, the greatest quickness of execution. 
 Those believing, yet trembling, survivors on earth, who 
 will witness the assembling of the vast congregation of 
 risen saints in the atmospheric heavens above them, will 
 not be kept in long and fearful suspense ; but, in the 
 shortest conceivable portion of time, will drop their 
 earthy bodies, and, clad anew with celestial ones, will 
 ascend to meet their companions in glory. What a 
 spectacle is here presented ; how vast, and sublime — 
 how fearful— yet how glorious — how enrapturing ! A 
 multitude of risen saints which no man can number — 
 redeemed from among every people and nation, clad in 
 robes of light and majesty — shouting anthems of heaven- 
 ly music to the eternal praise of Him who loved them 
 
 *Some particulars in relation to this event are given in 1 Thess. iv. 
 13 — 18. and have been already considered. See Chap. 5, page 119. 
 
194 \. .")l-.",7. 
 
 an I gare himself a ransom for them, but now their 
 triumphant Prince leading them to victory and glory, 
 and acknowledging them in the face of the universe as 
 partners in His kingdom, — till the vast concave of the 
 sky, while ten thousand thousands of the redeemed on 
 earth, leaving behind their polluted bodies, mount up, 
 with new celestial forms and with glad hosannas, to 
 
 their brethren, M the general assembly and church 
 of the first born," in the heavens. This is, indeed, a 
 M mystery " worth revealing.* — When these things shall 
 
 taken place, then, indeed, will " death," in a two- 
 fold sense, " be swallowed up in victory." Believers 
 who have -cone death, will now, in all respects, 
 
 burst its cords asunder, and those who will then be still 
 living w in bondage through fear of death," will gain 
 aglorion- over its power. In view of these illus- 
 
 trious triumphs, wrll might Paul tauntingly exclaim, 
 ami well may every Christian exclaim with him, u Where, 
 thy sting ! abode of the dead, where is thy 
 victory?" Hut while the Christian thus exults in hope, 
 it will be well for him to remember, with Paul, that it 
 is u sin " alone which gives death its sting. Take this 
 away, and death would be a welcome messenger to all. 
 
 * It will be seen that the remaining verses of the chapter are explained 
 only by a general paraphrase, as nothing more seemed necessary. 
 
1 cor. xv. 51-57. 195 
 
 It is alone the consciousness of sin that makes death so 
 dreadful, and causes the retributions of eternity to be 
 foreboded with dismay. But though we feel the smart- 
 ings of this sting within us, we need not despair of relief. 
 If we exercise the faith of Paul, we may, like him, 
 anticipate a final triumph over this dreaded enemy, and 
 unite with him in giving " thanks to God who gives us 
 the victory, through our Lord Jesus Christ. " In the 
 exercise of such a cheering faith, and with such grate- 
 ful emotions of heart towards Him who is both the 
 "author and the finisher" of it, we may go forward 
 firm, and immoveable, through all the perils of life, 
 with a full confidence that we do not toil without " the 
 help of the Lord," and, therefore, that we do not toil 
 in vain. 
 
C II A I'TER V II. 
 
 Recapitulation of results arrived at. — Examination of Job xix. 25, 26, 
 i verses.— < 
 
 Ihave now completed an examination of every passage 
 which, so far as 1 can discover, lias any bearing <>n 
 the manner of the resurrection. It is not probable 
 that any passage has been overlooked which would vary 
 any man's belief on the subject. The following is a 
 brief recapitulation of the results to which we seem to 
 arrived. 
 I. The term resurrection, according to the words 
 in the original Greek which are so translated, denotes a 
 ri$ed up, from a sitting, recumbent, or 
 fallen posture. The verbs in Greek, which are trans- 
 lated to rise, rise up; to raise, and to be raised ; or to 
 / up, have reference to rising, rising 
 up — to raising and raising up — and to being raised or 
 raised up — from similar postures. None of these words, 
 or forms of expression, ever denote, or imply, a cessation 
 of existence, or a change of ttmctore. 
 
RECAPITULATION. 197 
 
 II. In all places where express mention is made of 
 the resurrection of dead bodies, there is no evidence 
 that these bodies had been long dead, or that they died 
 no more. In most cases, it is certain that they did die 
 again ; and, in the remaining ones, there is no evidence 
 that they did not. Individuals, so raised, died again 
 and were made partakers of that resurrection of which 
 others partake. 
 
 III. Nothing can he inferred, in regard to the resur- 
 rection of the bodies of men at large, from the resurrec- 
 tion of the body of Christ, and its subsequent appearance 
 while He continued on earth. Nor can anything be 
 learned on this subject from His transfiguration on the 
 mount. 
 
 IV. There are two resurrections spoken of in the 
 New Testament ; one is, the continued existence of men 
 immediately after the death of the body ; that is, when 
 a man falls in death, he immediately rises up, in another 
 world; or, in other words, when his body falls in death, 
 his soul rises up, and still exists, in a new and altogether 
 different state. The other resurrection, is the reappear- 
 ance, or standing up, of men, at a future day, in 
 assembled multitudes, with Christ for their Leader and 
 Head, in reference to His and their everlasting triumph. 
 
 V. It is no where said, in the New Testament, that 
 
1 OS APITULATION. 
 
 tlit- present bodies of men will ever be raised to life, 
 wlirn they once die. No such thing is there taught 
 either directly, or indirectly. Nor is it there taught 
 thai there is some germ iu the human body, which will 
 ised up to life, after death ; or that any part, what- 
 . of the human body will he so rai- 
 
 VI. It is taught in the New Testament, both directly 
 and indirectly, that the body which dies is not again 
 
 VII. All 1 l who die will have, or do have, in 
 another world, spirit mil bodies : that is, spiritual struc- 
 tures, or organizations, like that which Christ now has. 
 — There is nothing definite revealed as to the kind of 
 bodies which . or will have, in another 
 world. 
 
 VI II. All beliewrs. who will be living on earth at the 
 triumphant advent of Christ, will be changed, in an 
 
 it of time, into the likeness of those risen saints 
 who will be His attendants on that occasion. 
 
 Such is a general view of the doctrine of the resur- 
 
 >n as contained in the New Testament. I do not 
 
 that this embraces all that is there taught on the 
 
 subject, for there are some things there mentioned, con- 
 
 Og it with the future advent of Christ, and with 
 
 his final triumph over all his enemies, which I have 
 
EXAMINATION OF JOB XIX. 25, 26, 27. 199 
 
 not considered. What is meant by the first resurrection, 
 spoken of by John in the 20th chapter of the Apocalypse, 
 is left untouched. A particular notice of the resurrec- 
 tion in connection with these matters, would have 
 involved a discussion of topics quite foreign from the 
 general object in view, without throwing any new light 
 on what has already occupied our attention. 
 
 It is the New Testament which has emphatically 
 brought life and immortality to light. All that is said 
 in the Old Testament with regard to another world, and 
 man's future state, is comparatively obscure. The latter 
 seems to be entirely silent on the nature of man's 
 resurrection to immortal life, after he leaves his present 
 state of existence. It does, indeed, teach us that he 
 continues to exist; but so faintly, and darkly, as to 
 repress, rather than stimulate our endeavors to ascertain 
 the manner of that existence. I have, therefore, con- 
 fined my examination exclusively to the former, persuaded 
 that whatever is there taught will not be found to 
 controvert any thing contained in the latter. There is, 
 however, a single passage in the Old Testament, which, 
 as it has been so much relied on to prove the resurrec- 
 tion of the human body, and is so often quoted for that 
 purpose, it may be proper briefly to consider. This 
 passage is in the 19th chapter of Job, 25, 26, and 27th 
 
 17 
 
200 EXAMINATION OF JOB XIX. 25, 26, 27. 
 
 168. u For I know thai my Redeemer liveth, and 
 that lie shall stand at the latter day upon the earth ; 
 And th >ugh, after my skin, w >rm% destroy this body, yet 
 in my flesh shall I see God ; whom 1 shall see for myself, 
 and mine eyes shall behold, and not another, though my 
 nncd within me."* Now there are two 
 antial reasons why this passage should not be quoted 
 in proof of the resurrection of the body. The first is, 
 it does not in reality teach any such thing ; the other is, 
 if it does, it gives only the opinion of a man speaking, 
 at the time, without the authority of divine inspiration, 
 and of course, not entitled to implicit credence. 
 
 First; — Job here expresses his firm belief in the 
 continued existence of God, his Redeemer, and of His 
 standing, or coming, on the earth to his assistance at 
 last, or latter end of his [Job's] life : and, although his 
 skin, and afterwards other portions of his body, might 
 •cessively eonsiuncd, he had, nevertheless, full faith 
 that he should, while yet in the flesh, see God — see Him 
 as a Redeemer from all his troubles — that he should see 
 Him with his own eyes, without being dependent on 
 another to see for him. even though his reins might be 
 lined within him. The language, even as it stands 
 
 *It will be observed that all the words in Italics are supplied by the 
 translators. 
 
EXAMINATION OF JOB XIX. 25, 26, 27. 201 
 
 in our common version, certainly admits of this construc- 
 tion ; this interpretation corresponds with the general 
 tenor of the discourse ; and it is such as the circum- 
 stances of the case make natural : whereas the con- 
 struction usually adopted makes the speaker inattentive 
 to these circumstances, and to speak of a future 
 resurrection in a very abrupt, and unexpected manner. 
 But I have no confidence in the correctness of the 
 common translation of this passage. As I have before 
 remarked, I do not understand Hebrew; but when I 
 observe how many words in the text are supplied by the 
 translators ; when I call to mind their vehement propen- 
 sity to favor the idea of a resurrection of the body; 
 when I look at the marginal reading in our Bibles ; and, 
 finally, when I look at this passage as it stands in the 
 Septuagint version, I may well find my confidence in it 
 shaken. If the marginal readings are substituted for 
 their correspondent ones in the text, the passage will 
 stand thus: "For I know that my Redeemer liveth, 
 and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth. 
 After I shall awake, though this body be destroyed, yet 
 out of my flesh shall I see God : Whom I shall see for 
 myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not a stranger. 
 My reins within me are consumed with earnest desire 
 (/or that day)." According to this reading, Job was to 
 
\\ii\Aim\ or job \i\. 25, 26, 27, 
 
 t of his flesh when lie was to see God ; of course, 
 lie was not to be at that time M in the flesh." The 
 Septaagint version, translated into English, stands thus: 
 " For 1 knew that he is eternal who is to deliver me, 
 irth to restore my skin which suffers these ex- 
 haustions, for from the Lord have these things been 
 accomplished with me; of which I am conscious to 
 
 If, which my own eye has seen, and not another; 
 but all haw heen accomplished in my own bosom/'' 
 
 authors of this version, it is evident, did not suppose 
 that dob had any allusion here to the resurrection of his 
 "flesh M in another world, or any other re-existence after 
 
 i. I now submit it to every man of candor and 
 common understanding to say, if the future resurrection 
 of the " flesh," or human body, is here taught. 
 
 *0l<Ja yap 6ti aivvadg tortv 6 h'/ )cai ru 
 
 -(■>. — Glasgow edition of Septua. 1831. 
 writing the above, a friend I the author with a professedly 
 
 literal translation from the Hebrew, into Latin, and with the Vulgate trans- 
 lation of the text ; also with a Latin translation of the Septuagint, and a 
 Latin translation of th \rabic, and Chaldec versions. To these 
 
 he ha* added a translation into Latin from the Hebrew, made in 1543; 
 another taken from Honbiquit'sLat. version (1753), and a Latin version of 
 the text by Johannes Clerieus, ( 1731.) But non translations 
 
 throw any light on the subject in hand ; but they abundantly prove that 
 as it stands in the original Hebrew, is extremely obscure, and 
 is in no relied on as proving any thing in respect to the resurrec- 
 
 tion of the body, or as proving a resurrection at all. 
 
EXAMINATION OF JOB XIX. 25, 26, 27. 203 
 
 But, secondly : It does not appear that Job was at 
 the time speaking by divine inspiration. Although it is 
 true that the author of the Book which bears his name, 
 wrote it under the influence of a divine inspiration, it 
 does not follow that all which he there represents Job 
 and his companions as saying, or doing, proceeded from 
 the same source. In the part which Job acts through 
 the whole book, he is represented as a good man ; con- 
 ducting himself, in the midst of unexampled trials, with 
 consummate patience ; entertaining sublime views of 
 the character and providence of God ; yet sometimes 
 speaking amiss ; expressing wrong views of the divine 
 administration ; and, occasionally, showing that he felt 
 as though his chastisements were greater than his 
 deserts. There is no evidence that in his discussions 
 with his friends, or in the ventings of his distress, he 
 spoke by a special divine impulse any more than did 
 they. He both felt as a man, and spoke as a man ; and 
 no where in these discussions, does he claim to speak 
 by divine authority. Mordecai, Esther, Ruth, and Naomi, 
 in what they say and do, may as well be considered in- 
 spired, as Job in all that he utters.* In short, a man who 
 
 * It is altogether preposterous to consider Eliphaz, or Zophar, or Bildad, 
 as uttering inspired truths in their discussions with Job. I do not know 
 that this is claimed by any one, although, more than once I have known 
 some sentiment, uttered by these friends of Job, taken as a text to a sermon, 
 
 17* 
 
\ Ml NATION OF JOB MX. 25, 26, 27. 
 
 sometimes utters wrong opinions with regard to religious 
 truth, gives satisfactory evidence that lie is not for the 
 time, entitled to this character, whatever may be his 
 general piety, or correctness of sentiments. The history 
 which is here given of this man, and of his " miserable 
 comforters," is a most instructive portion of holy writ, 
 
 •ially when taken in connection with the issue of 
 the whole, and with the sublime display of the majesty 
 of God which is introduced at the close, and with the 
 overwhelming vindication of His absolute sovereignty, 
 justice, and providential goodness, in all His works. To 
 the truth of the narrative, with all the legitimate infer- 
 
 - which flow from it, and to the truth of His own 
 
 and treated as if it were, in reality, I truth dictated directly by the Holy 
 Spirit. Now, allowing Job to be the writer of the book which bears his 
 name, he narrates what he himself said in these discussions, just in the 
 same manner as he narrate! what his three friends, Of what Elihu said. 
 During re is no evi r as I know, that either 
 
 of the parties was divinely inspired. Each individual spoke what he eon- 
 to be the truth, and not what God had specially revealed to him. 
 Sometimes all were right, and >ometiines all were wrong, though Job's 
 opinions were generally more correct than were those of his friends, and 
 r of God. The whole Book I suppose to be a 
 faithful narrative of facts;the correctness of which is vouched for by divine 
 authority. The comments on the which God himself made, and 
 
 all which Hi there said and did, or authorized to be said and done, come 
 to us with His sanction ; and are entitled to our implicit credence. But 
 what Job, or Eliphaz, or Bildad, or Zophar, or Elihu said and did, is to 
 be received for what it appears to be worth after due examination, and 
 comparison with other portions of revealed truth. 
 
EXAMINATION OF JOB XIX. 25, 2<), 27. 205 
 
 declarations, God has set His seal ; but he has not thus 
 set his seal to the mere opinions and sentiments of men. 
 Should it, therefore, be admitted that Job did confident- 
 ly expect that his " flesh " would be raised again to life 
 at the last day, it does not follow of course that his ex- 
 pectations will be realized. His belief in this case, not 
 being prefaced with " Thus saith the Lord," must be 
 compared with the known revelation of God on this 
 subject, and be found to agree with it, before it can be 
 entitled to our confidence. As it now is, it affords no 
 evidence whatever in regard to a resurrection. How 
 preposterous, then, is it, to found our creed of a resurrec- 
 tion on such an uncertain basis ; to quote this passage, 
 on the most solemn occasions, in proof that our corrupti- 
 ble bodies will hereafter be raised to life ; and to demand 
 of our fellow men that they, too, shall give their assent 
 to our own creed on this subject, on pain of having the 
 soundness of their faith in divine revelation viewed with 
 suspicion ! 
 
 With what jealousy would Paul, were he now living, 
 be regarded by some defenders of the faith, were they 
 to hear him asserting anew, that " flesh and blood will 
 not inherit the kingdom of God," and that " corruption 
 will not inherit incorruption ! " Let us suppose the 
 great Apostle of the Gentiles to attend the funeral 
 
206 LAMINATION OF JOB OX. 25, 26, '2~i . 
 
 monies of a departed believer in modern times, and, 
 g permitted to act as officiating clergyman at the 
 B, thus to address the bystanders : " Dust to dust, 
 ashes to ashes : all which this departed brother had as 
 earthy, has now returned to earth from which it sprung. 
 It was meet that this body should die, both in fulfillment 
 of the universal doom pronounced on man, and as a 
 preparatory step to receive the blessings secured to the 
 believer by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. 
 flesh and blood which we now deposit in the grave 
 cannot, and will not, inherit the kingdom of God; this 
 corruptible will never inherit incorruptibility. But, what 
 is infinitely better, a spiritual body is provided for him, 
 the image of that which Christ himself has — celestial 
 and glorious." With what surprise would such an ad- 
 dress be heard ! How many would be ready to say "this 
 contradicts our standards of faith ; contradicts Job, as 
 our translators make him speak ; breaks up all our ex- 
 pectations about having our bodies, which we have so 
 i and cherished, restored to us; puts us to the 
 trouble of examining the Bible again on this subject ; 
 and compels us to abandon opinions which we choose 
 to retain. Pray, how shall we know each other in 
 another world, if our old bodies are not to be raised up, 
 and so refitted, as to preserve enough of their former 
 
EXAMINATION OF JOB XIX. 25, 26, 27. 207 
 
 appearance to make them capable of being recognized ?* 
 Paul must be mistaken ; though, perhaps, we are bound, 
 
 *It would seem scarcely credible that any intelligent man should make 
 the impossibility of our mutual recognition of each other in another world, 
 without the resurrection of our bodies, an argument that they will be raised. 
 But this lias been done by men of the highest repute for intellectual great- 
 ness, and theological attainments. Now, let me ask, how does any man 
 know that disembodied souls cannot recognize each other ? We are taught 
 no such thing from Scripture, nor by common sense. Have all the men who 
 have ever died, from Abel to this hour, lived in perfect ignorance of each 
 other ? Is it credible that Adam has been unable, for nearly six thousand 
 years, to recognize one of hisdescendents with whom he had been intimate 
 for centuries here on earth I For, it must be remembered, none of th»->e, 
 or any others, have as i/>t n-ceiwd their former bodies. Is it credible 
 that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are strangers to eaeh other in heaven? 
 Is it credible that no two of that world of ungodly men, whom the delude 
 overwhelmed, erer knew eaeh other afterward ? We may about as well 
 suppose that no man, after he dies, ever knows himself, until his body is 
 restored to him. — But we have positive testimony that departed souls, 
 without their l>odies, recognize each other after death. The parable of 
 the rich man and Lazarus shows us that such is the faet ; for these two 
 are there represented as mutually recognizing each other, though placed in 
 such different conditions. Abraham recognizes the rich man as his de- 
 seemlent, for he calls him " son " ;— could he not much more easily recog- 
 nize those who were his cotemporaries, and acquaintances, here .below? 
 Our Saviour says to the penitent thief, " this day shalt thou be with me in 
 Paradise." But, on that very day, they entered Paradise together, with- 
 out their bodies ; and if this penitent did not there recognize his illustrious 
 Benefactor, how was the promise completely fulfilled ! — But there is one 
 consideration, which those who use the argument in question should not 
 have forgotten, the ability of God to enable men to recognize each other 
 without their bodies, as well as with them. Surely, tho>e who are so ready 
 to adduce the power of God to silence objections against the resurrection 
 of the old material body, should not so easily forget its application to the 
 present ease. In every point of view, this argument about mutual recog- 
 nition is really too puerile for sober refutation. 
 
208 \ Of JOB \i.\. 25, 26, 27. 
 
 in charity, to think him honest, and to believe that by 
 long poring over such matters he may in some measure 
 have lost the balance of his mind!" — After all, some 
 may think it safer to believe with the Apostle of the 
 Gentiles, than with the self-styled successors of St. Peter, 
 or with others whose claims upon our respect may be 
 better founded than theirs, but whose title to infallibility 
 cannot be conceded.* 
 
 ♦There are two other passages in the OW Testament which are some- 
 noted as teaching tin* resurrection of our bodies. I refer to them 
 rather as spt eiincns of the sort of arguments which have been n 
 to in support of thifl doctrine, than as presenting any real difficulties 
 to one who will take the trouble to examine their connection with their 
 respective con t.'\ nfl it Eniah xwi. 19. "Thy dead men shall 
 
 live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and ling, yc 
 that dwell in dust ; for thy dew m <is the dew of herbs, and the earth lhaU 
 cast out the dead/ 1 i'»y comparing what Kl here said with what precedes 
 and follows it, it is manifest that the prophet is Bpeaking of what is to 
 take jdace in Judea, and not elsewhere ; of what pertains to this life and 
 ►rid, and not to some other. The lords who were to have dominion 
 over her, would all die, and parish, to rise no more, (see verses 13, 14); 
 but her d«ad men would live again. Wherefore they were exhorted to 
 ftnd line, though now lying in the dust: and even voluntarily to 
 retire, and shut themselves up, as it were for a little moment, until the 
 T/ord should have completed His indignation. This being completed, the 
 Lord would then punish those Inhabitant! of the earth who had been em- 
 10 bring thil desolation upon his chosen people; the latter would 
 then rise and " take root; " and "Israel would blossom and bud, and fill the 
 face of the world with fruit." (Sec chap, xxvii. 6.) Such appears to be 
 the general scope and meaning of the prediction. The future restoration 
 of the Jews is, indeed, likened to a resurrection from the dead, and with 
 great force and propriety ; but that the prophet designed any thing more, 
 does not appear. As to this particular expression, " Together with my dead 
 body shall they arise," I much query about its correctness. I do so, 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 209 
 
 I have now finished my examination of the Sacred 
 Scriptures, on the subject of the resurrection. If I 
 have been able to understand their import, they do not 
 teach the doctrine of a resurrection of that material 
 
 because of so sudden and abrupt a change of person in the speaker, with- 
 out any apparent necessity or propriety j because the Septuagint version 
 has nothing of the kind—not even the word " body " ; (' AvavTT/covrai ol 
 vrKpol, teal kyeptitjonvTai ol tv ro/'c /n7///f/'o/c, ko) e'voimvfUjaovrai ol ev rfiyri ;) 
 — because Bishop Lowth remarks on this passage, " The Hebrew runs thus : 
 My dead body shall arise ; the noun is singular, — the verb plural;" — 
 quite an unnatural conjunction ; — and because the believers in the resur- 
 rection of the human body are very prone to make strained translations 
 of every passage which alludes, in any way, to a resurrection of any kind. 
 Who is this that here speaks in the first person ? is certainly a very per- 
 tinent question. Bishop Lowth and Dr. Scott think it is Christ *and some 
 think it is Zion, or the Church ; — and some appear to supj>ose that it is 
 Isaiah himself. For my own part, I shall give no opinion, until I am better 
 satisfied that there is one to be given ;— that is, until it be satisfactorily 
 shown that any one really speaks in the first person at all. One thing, 
 however, is quite certain — if Christ is here the speaker, He speaks in a 
 manner totally different from what He uses in any other place, or on 
 any other occasion. — In whatever light we view this passage, it affords 
 meagre evidence, indeed, in proof of a resurrection of the bodies of men, 
 against the clear announcements on this subject contained in the New 
 Testament. 
 
 The other passage adverted to is the vision of dry bones in the 37th chap, 
 of Ezekiel. It is difficult to conceive how any person, who had ever taken 
 the trouble to read the first fourteen verses of this chapter in connection, 
 should suppose that this vision wa* emblematical of any thing else, than 
 the re-peopling of Judea with Jewish inhabitants, after a long period of 
 banishment from it. The account here given has not the least reference 
 to the future resurrection of the dead, nor the least resemblance to any 
 thing of that kind which the New Testament contains. Gross, indeed, 
 must be any man's conceptions of spiritual and heavenly things, who 
 forms his views of that resurrection which awaits him hereafter, on the 
 model of this allegorical resurrection of dry bones. 
 
210 RK8. 
 
 body Which a man possesses in this life ; but on the 
 Contrary, they DO teach that this body perishes forever 
 when it dies. If this is so, then the common belief OB 
 Qiia subject, in all its modifications, is erroneous. But 
 although the Bible does not teach the resurrection of 
 our present material bodies, it nevertheless discloses to 
 08 the fact, that when ire die, we immediately stand up 
 anew, and continue to exist, in another form in another 
 world, with bodies, or organized, substantial structures, 
 Suited to our new condition. We are taught, what 
 reason itself approves, that both souls and spirits have 
 their appropriate, and distinct organisms, in opposition 
 to the chimerical notions of the heathen, and of too 
 many who call themselves Christians. We are further 
 tanghl that, at a future day, Christ will appear, attended 
 with an immense multitude of saints who had previously 
 
 i, and that all Ills disciples, then living on earth, will 
 be instantly changed into the likeness of their risen 
 brethren, and will -ascend to meet them in the air. To 
 these last partieulari 1 have but barely alluded, because 
 
 fajed baa been to ascertain, after careful investiga- 
 tion. whether the common belief in regard to the future re- 
 nce of our bodies is founded on scriptural authority, 
 or is a mere assumption, without either probability or 
 proof; and, if it is the latter, what is the true scriptural 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 211 
 
 doctrine on this point. All who do not believe that 
 error conduces to their edification equally with truth, 
 must allow the importance of the subject, whatever 
 success may have attended the present investigation. 
 But I know too well the difficulty of removing opinions 
 long established, engrafted on all the creeds of the 
 Christian church, taught in the nursery, reiterated in 
 daily and familiar conversation, preached from the pul- 
 pit, solemnly pronounced in the grave-yard, and associ- 
 ated with every contemplation of eternity, to expect that 
 they will be given up on slight grounds, or even on 
 evidence which would fully satisfy minds not pre-oc- 
 cupied with a contrary belief. I frankly state, that I 
 have no expectation that what is coutained in these 
 pages will change the general belief of men whose minds, 
 in regard to this subject, have been formed for half a 
 century, and who have settled down in a quiet confi- 
 dence that their faith needs no correction. These pages 
 are designed rather for those who do not feel so fully 
 assured in relation to this matter that they cannot 
 examine further evidence, nor be convinced by adequate 
 arguments. With the hope that all of the latter descrip- 
 tion will examine the subject for themselves, I submit 
 what has here been offered to their candid considera- 
 tion. 
 
 18 
 
212 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 It will be observed, that 1 have not considered at 
 large the arguments which reason offers against the 
 doctrine of the future resurrection of the body, although 
 I have occasionally alluded to some of the apparent 
 absurdities which it involves. If, however, I have ab- 
 stained from considering them, it is not because no 
 weighty ones can be found, bat rather on account of 
 the general prejudice which seems to exist against argu- 
 ments of this kind, when brought to combat the popular 
 belief in regard to the doctrine in question. Besides 
 this consideration, the Scriptures, I apprehend, are 
 sufficiently explicit without the aid of any foreign auxil- 
 iary. Yet it may be inquired, why is there so much 
 opposition, in this case, to the employment of arguments 
 which reason furnishes': Are any fearful that their 
 opinions will not bear such a test? And, after all, 
 what is it that most awakens their fears — the safety of 
 their belief, or that of divine revelation ? It is, surely, 
 too late in the day to feel alarm for the safety of the 
 latter, from any array of arguments which it may have 
 to encounter from human reason. No fact, no truth, 
 which has ever been discovered, has yet proved hostile 
 to the truths disclosed in the Bible, but has served to 
 place them on higher ground. I have no fear that 
 human reason, or any truths which man may, of him- 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 213 
 
 self, discover, will ever endanger a single doctrine 
 which the Bible contains. Human opinions may some- 
 times be in jeopardy from this source, but the Word of 
 God —never. Our Protestant fathers were not afraid to 
 assault their popish adversaries with the weapons which 
 reason furnished ; nor do we, in modern times, hesitate 
 to employ rational arguments for the eradication of 
 vulgar superstitions, whether at home, or among heathen 
 nations. Our fathers opposed the evidence of their 
 senses to the doctrine of transubstantiation, and we 
 have supposed that evidence to be both legitimate and 
 satisfactory ; and why should precisely the same kind 
 of evidence be both iVlegitimate and tmsatisfactory, when 
 adduced in opposition to the vulgar doctrine of a mate- 
 rial resurrection ? Do circumstances so much alter 
 cases, or do arguments lose their legitimacy by age ? 
 
 I have always remarked the extreme reluctance, which 
 persons in general manifest, to abandon their belief in 
 the resurrection of their material bodies. There is a 
 sensitiveness on this point which is truly wonderful. It 
 seems as if men really supposed that, in losing their 
 bodies, they lost their all ; as though, till re-united 
 with them, they would be without any substantial enjoy- 
 ment, and would scarcely exist, in another world, if, 
 indeed, they could exist at all, except as non-sentient 
 
2 1 t C0NCLU I 
 
 come. 
 
 things, the dormant candidates for a happiness to 
 I appeal to mankind at large, whether they do not 
 habitually consider the soul, during its separation from 
 the body, in a sort of quiescent state, without much 
 positive enjoyment of good, or endurance of evil, — with- 
 out much of positive action, or positive pe*- 
 . of any kind? I say habitually* for I know 
 that men sometimes, in spite of themselves, think more 
 in consonance with Scripture, and with reason, on this 
 subject, and look upon the disembodied soul as possess- 
 ing attributes better suited to its new existence. But 
 these news are rather occasional and transitory, 
 than abiding, — elicited for the moment by the united 
 operation of feeling and reason, but soon giving way to 
 those grosser conceptions which seem so congenial to 
 man while he abides in the flesh. It cannot be denied 
 that even the Christian, in most cases, expects no com- 
 plete fruition in the heavenly world, until his body shall 
 lised, refitted, and re-united to his soul. He seems 
 to feel, and think, that no such fruition can ever be en- 
 joyed until this re-union shall take place. But whence 
 comes all this propensity to carnal mindedness on the 
 subject of the resurrection ? Proceeds it from the Spirit, 
 or from the flesh ? If angels can be so supremely 
 happy, active, holy, useful, without material bodies, why 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 215 
 
 are Christians so slow to believe that such, too, may be 
 be their own future condition, although their present 
 bodies, when once laid aside, will never be resumed ? 
 What is there in his present body, which makes the 
 Christian so unwilling to part with it forever ? What 
 can it be which makes a future re-union with it so desir- 
 able ? Are its provocatives to sin, and. its ministra- 
 tions to sensual pleasures, still so much cherished as 
 to induce you to wish for its restoration ? Perhaps 
 you sigh, and answer, no ; — " it will be purified, and 
 made over ; whatever in it now contributes to sin and 
 impurity will be removed." Ah ! then, I fear, but little 
 of it will remain. But what process so purifying will 
 worms and corruption effect ? Or what such purifying 
 process will even fire, and all material agents united, 
 accomplish ? Your body was earth at first, and earth it 
 will remain, whatever process of dissolution it may pass 
 through. — These questions have not been put by way 
 of proof that our bodies will not be raised, for I have 
 finished all that I have to say on that point, but for the 
 purpose of showing how unreasonable it is for a Chris- 
 tian to feel so unreconciled to the absolute spirituality 
 of his soul in another state, as to refuse the evidence 
 which the Bible and reason both may offer in its favor. 
 I can discover nothing in the doctrine so unworthy of 
 
2] 6 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 God ; so irrational ; so unsuited to the condition of 
 immortal, intelligent beings ; so unlovely ; or so ill 
 adapted to our everlasting and highest happiness, that 
 we should feel repugnant to its truth ; and, if true, 
 that we should be unwilling to receive it with gratitude. 
 On the other hand, there is much in it which seems 
 entirely worthy of God, and of Him who loved and 
 gave Himself for us ; much that is consonant with both 
 reason and Scripture ; much that is calculated to make 
 the Christian's hope of immortality glorious ; much 
 that is well fitted to displace his gross conceptions with 
 regard to his future condition and happiness ; and much 
 that may contribute to produce within him anticipations 
 of a blessedness to come, pure as that which holy spirits 
 enjoy, and such as that which the Father of spirits 
 imparts to those who bear His image. 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO SI.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 FEQ 16 1945 
 
 -30- — 
 
 REC'D L 
 
 I 
 
 •M A:< 19191 3 
 
295819 
 
 TTrii 
 
 \\3 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
ii 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 MwMi 
 
 IBS